Active RNS subscribers and members can view this content at the RNS Archives website.

OKLAHOMA CITY (RNS) A few days after a group of Satanists announced plans to donate a memorial on the grounds of the Oklahoma Capitol, a Hindu organization said it would apply for permission to erect a statue of Hanuman, the monkey god.


  1. I agree with Sears, I find the thought of a Satanist monument offensive as well. As offensive as any monument designed to glorify beliefs based on superstition.

    • The christian religion is based on superstition as much as any other religion. This is really great if they do the right thing and allow equal and proper access to other beliefs the christian right wing will freak out, if they don’t they will be involved in a law suit they can not win. Either way it will be fun to watch.

    • It may be offensive to some, but in all fairness it is just as much a legitimate expression of religious faith as the eyesore 10 commandments monument they already approved. If they aren’t going to have any monuments, that one has to go.

      What I love about this situation is it flushed out all of the theocracts into the open. We have idiots like Bryan Fischer saying that religious freedom only applies to Christians. It was clear that key members of the OK legislature thought the same way.

  2. The state should have a requirement of a minimum number of registered Oklahoma voters sponsoring each monument. As many First Nations and churches are in Oklahoma, I would expect local monuments crowd out the “foreign” monuments in short order. I would expect before it is done that monuments to the Beatitudes, Psalm 23, the Lord’s Prayer, the opening surah of the Qur’an, an eternal flame, and perhaps a manger scene and a crucifix would all be sponsored by different faith groups.

    • @huey bahr: Yeah, OR you could respect the First amendment and stop trying to force ANY religion (yours included) into the government. That is really the only reasonable course of action. These efforts to place alternative monuments would not be making a mockery of your backwards law if your state would just follow the Constitution of the United States.

      I guess that Oklahoma will fall into line when the Supreme Court strikes down this unconstitutional joke of a law.

      • I think the post was meant to be ironic. Huey’s point is that if they shouldn’t be having religious monuments at all. The silly legislators would get the point when the grounds are packed to the gills with Native American monuments.

        But if you are going to have them, the official SCOTUS endorsed fashion is to include many different faiths. Ecumenicism (embrace all faiths) can be religious neutrality in an Establishment Clause way.

  3. While I believe in the total separation of religion and politics I truly believe if one religion has a monument then all should have one based on religious freedom for which is the basis of our NATION’S CONSTITUTION and BILL OF RIGHTS. While yes it is ridiculous to have thousands of monuments erected it is equally as ridiculous to allow one and reject another.
    Good luck to my Hindu brothers and sisters… All Glories to Sri KRSNA and may the Lord bless you all.

  1. Comment marked as low quality by the editors. Show comment