You are completely missing the tweet. It is not saying all commemoration equals endorsement. In the context of the current Church and what they choose to depict in their art, and their offense at Satanists putting up statues in public buildings (which is really what defines what a statue of satan means now culturally), if they started putting up statues of satan, there would be questions about their intent. Obviously, if the church always had statues of satan which historically have the intent of not endorsing him, this would not make sense, but that's not the thought experiment in the tweet.
yeah; it fails on that premise, because there
are depictions of satan in churches in statues, stained glass windows, in icons, and in paintings, and the most commonly depicted christian symbol represents a bad thing happening.
Talking about people not putting up statues of satan in new churches is kind of irrelevant - are people putting up confederate statues in new government buildings?
Of public statues depicting specific historical figures, how many of them were not implicit or explicit endorsements of those figures when they were built?
All statues are commemorative, I don't believe all statues are celebratory, given they tend to be of humans who are inherently multi dimensional and flawed, and a recognition of someones achievement might not coincide with a belief in that person as a person.
Most political statues are automatically going to have people of the opposed party thinking someone from their party deserved it more, at the very least.