That is the role of Lucifer. The original role of a "satan" is to challenge the will of those who purport to be doing YHWH's will. And now that the followers of this challenger have proposed a new statue on the OK State lawn--I have to wonder what took them so long?
What took you so long?
These are some sticky theological issues here. In Protestant traditions, "Satan" has been transformed into the antithesis of their god. Almost exalted as an evil-counter-god himself.
But in the older works, the being we refer to as "Satan" in popular culture was a creation of the Almighty and like other angels, an extension of him or them if you read the Old Testament. In fact, in older works, satan wasn't a proper noun, it was a label that could be applied to any one or any thing that challenged a person claiming to be doing the work of YHWH.
I remember being in class in college and seeing this notion dawn on the faces of regular church goers. For years they had been taught the popular version, but here, was this idea that being challenged was not evil, but in fact necessary, for the true believer to get past their own ego at the notion of being or feeling "chosen" and actually doing good in the world, rather than just stroking their own ego.
I am not commenting on the moral proclivities of such an angel or messenger--I will let the Rabbis illuminate us on that, but simply that being challenged in and of itself is not evil, especially under certain circumstances, where the do-gooder may need to reflect on the subtle differences between achieving a goal of greater good, as opposed to simply achieving notoriety or a greater good that only profits the self.
An excellent pop-culture depiction of the Adversary can be seen in The Messenger. The scene is much longer, this is just a vignette, and to me it represents the sort of internal dialogue all would-be-warriors of a god should have before proclaiming themselves harbingers of justice or a new age, or what have you.
One of the issues that scare Atheists and others in the know out of their wits:
When someone claims to be doing a god's will or to be chosen by a god to achieve some goal, especially a someone with a lot of power or influence.
Because that sort of proclamation has been used as an excuse to commit all sorts of evil acts, like pogroms against other religions, torture, executions, land and wealth extraction, straight up genocide---acts of terrorism. History is full of innumerable examples. Even the movie clip referred to earlier--this is Joan of Arc, who, historically becomes a challenge to the Doctrinal Authority of the Church as well as a threat to the French Crown. Both claim to be doing the will of the same god in the same faith--but...?
It can be ever so difficult to distinguish between a person who claims to hear a god, and one who simply hears voices. Most people do not want to be lead or under the power of the latter. And many people simply do not distinguish between the two. It's fair. If only you can hear the voice and no one else can, you have the rest of us at a disadvantage. We can neither prove nor disprove your sanity, or your truthfulness.
This is one part of the reasoning behind the Wall of Separation. If we allow some guy that hears the voice of YHWH to take charge, then why deny another who hears the voice of Allah, or Kernunous, or The Great Mother, or (this list could go on for a very long time).
The reason we make standard laws that everyone can adhere to and benefit from outside of faith, is so that we can co-exist together in a very diverse world while still maintaining our unique identities associated with faith or with no faith at all.
It's a message that many fundamentalists do not seem to grasp. These laws of equality aren't about thwarting their personal faith. No one is stopping them from going to church, or being a true believer. But we are making room in the social and professional world for everyone else to have that opportunity to pursue happiness and to be free as well.
The rules for religions, the moral codes are so varied, that this is why we have no blasphemy laws. Because one person's moral code is another person's blasphemy. That's why our laws focus more on physical and financial harm and less on simply being outraged or offended.
This is why Human Rights are given more legal prominence than religious law. Because religions are not above labeling at any time, who is human and who is other. And what happens to those deemed Other? Those outside the protected fold? Pick up a history book and be horrified.
The symbolism of this act, of installing a representation of Satan is not lost on me. For the Oklahoma State Legislature to claim to be of their god, and to be doing his will, for all these years, while hurting others in the process, by the process itself, it seemed to me that the Adversary should have shown up a long time ago and motioned to his lap.
The state legislators have not been practicing kindness. They have not been good husbands or stewards to this land or to the nation. They have become legalists, their interpretation of their bible is for the sole purpose of grasping more and more power. There is no good news in that. There is no edification there.
Cherry picking does not a theology make.
They have ignored their own rules, old ones like, "Freedom of Conscience." Because they seek to force their beliefs on others through legislation and through collective public bullying.
You cannot force devotion. You cannot make people believe or love. Those are qualities that come from within, and these legislators know it. So their only excuse for this behavior-- to use Christianity as a tool of forced conformity, which means they are not doing their god's will, they are simply using their god as a carrot and a stick.
There is more to this symbolism, much more and I urge you to look it up.