(September 9, 2015 at 5:33 pm)Yeauxleaux Wrote: Well, religion can't not be supernatural tbh, so I'd disagree with them. It's believing in something that science is having a really easy time proving false.

Atheism shouldn't have a negative connotation anyway. I think I speak for a lot of atheists when I say I have no interest in taking religion away from people, I just want it to be a private affair. I don't want it in my life.

A common "complaint", if you will, about atheists from religious people is that we seem to be a rowdy group who can't shut up... disingenuous really, considering there's a lot to discuss while it's religious people who just can't shut up about their religion.

Yeah, it goes both ways I think. There are some atheists who are loud about their atheism and wear it on their sleeve, using any chance they can to show people just how clever they are because they're atheist lol. Likewise, there are plenty of theists out there who are exactly the same about their theism. And there are the more reserved types in both camps as well.

(September 9, 2015 at 2:20 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(September 9, 2015 at 2:08 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Because either all religious symbols are banned from these buildings or all are allowed. By insisting that only christian symbols can be there you are oppressing people who are not christian. This was the intent of the statue, to rub peoples noses in religion.

Where did I say this?

"But putting a symbol that came from the Christian/Jewish religion to represent evil, right next to a Christian/Jewish symbol, is a clear and deliberate sign of hostility towards an entire group of people. And that's the part I don't agree with." The symbol means something to a religious group different from yours, that it stands for evil in other religions is not coincidental but does not mean that it is not the symbol for their group. Just because you don't agree with it does not give it less of a right to be there My point stands.

I personally think that Satanism is utterly retarded whether you actually worship Satan or if you are an Atheist playing games.

However, I totally understand why they want to put the statue there. I would prefer to see any religious symbol removed from public grounds but if you are going to have one you better be prepared to have them all.

(September 9, 2015 at 5:49 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(September 9, 2015 at 2:20 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Where did I say this?

"But putting a symbol that came from the Christian/Jewish religion to represent evil, right next to a Christian/Jewish symbol, is a clear and deliberate sign of hostility towards an entire group of people. And that's the part I don't agree with." The symbol means something to a religious group different from yours, that it stands for evil in other religions is not coincidental but does not mean that it is not the symbol for their group. Just because you don't agree with it does not give it less of a right to be there My point stands.

As isolated symbols in the same property, I don't take issue with. But when one is already there and you put the other one right next to it, just seems like a sign of hate to me.

(September 9, 2015 at 5:54 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: As isolated symbols in the same property, I don't take issue with. But when one is already there and you put the other one right next to it, just seems like a sign of hate to me.

No, it's making a point. That's what I'm trying to bring across for the longest time now. They didn't expect the state to cave and allow Satan to be put next to their display. But in refusing to do so, they got leverage. They got a discussion and public attention for the real problem. A religious statement on public ground.

(September 9, 2015 at 1:33 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: a symbol is not an offensive thing in and of itself if its meaning can be different for different people.

Then you should have no issue with the Satanists being allowed identical access to put up their symbols, yes?

(September 9, 2015 at 5:54 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(September 9, 2015 at 5:49 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: "But putting a symbol that came from the Christian/Jewish religion to represent evil, right next to a Christian/Jewish symbol, is a clear and deliberate sign of hostility towards an entire group of people. And that's the part I don't agree with." The symbol means something to a religious group different from yours, that it stands for evil in other religions is not coincidental but does not mean that it is not the symbol for their group. Just because you don't agree with it does not give it less of a right to be there My point stands.

As isolated symbols in the same property, I don't take issue with. But when one is already there and you put the other one right next to it, just seems like a sign of hate to me.

Why? What would the Abrahamic faiths be if not in reference to those other religions they hated in ancient times and literally demonized? Have you ever looked up the sources of some of the names of demons in the Bible?

(September 9, 2015 at 6:02 pm)abaris Wrote:

(September 9, 2015 at 5:54 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: As isolated symbols in the same property, I don't take issue with. But when one is already there and you put the other one right next to it, just seems like a sign of hate to me.

No, it's making a point. That's what I'm trying to bring across for the longest time now. They didn't expect the state to cave and allow Satan to be put next to their display. But in refusing to do so, they got leverage. They got a discussion and public attention for the real problem. A religious statement on public ground.

Do you know what reason the state is giving for saying no? I know you said you read up on it lol. I'm too lazy to do a search.

(September 9, 2015 at 2:45 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: My concern here is with putting it right next to the 10 commandments, because it wouldn't stand on its own, but rather, it would be deliberately done as a sign of hostility and hate for another group of people.

What you're missing here, is that the selfsame 10 commandments icon (dare I call it a graven image?) is a sign of hostility and hate to secularists. Allowing that statue in a public space and excluding others from that same space is an affront to secularism.

When you fully understand why you are uncomfortable with a Satanist display *and* have sufficient empathy for people who hold very different things "sacred" than you, you'll get it.

(September 9, 2015 at 6:06 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Do you know what reason the state is giving for saying no? I know you said you read up on it lol. I'm too lazy to do a search.

I don't quite remember the exact wording, but it was on the lines of denying Satan the same rights as god. Which is what they expected and which ultimately got them headlines, news coverage and leverage. Which was the whole intent. And Hindus, as far as I remember, wanted one of their gods to be displayed too.