(September 10, 2015 at 1:13 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(September 10, 2015 at 1:05 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Yes, this. Exactly this. I don't care about other people's religious symbols and statues. I do care about deliberate hateful/bigoted behavior towards any particular group of people.

Its there to make a point and part of that point is that you find it offensive. But I risk repeating what has been said before.

Yes, but the difference is that it's offensive only because it is deliberately meant to be. Not because it's something different from what I believe.

(September 10, 2015 at 1:00 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: When I see picture of Ganesh a shrine to the Buddha, I could care less about their false pagan gods but I still understand that they may feel very deeply about their beliefs and I can respect their piety. If a local government wishes to honor the contributions of various religious traditions to our civil society then I’m fine with that too. I’m not even offended by other believers considering my religion heretical if the goal of their faith is knowledge of a loving God and seek good.

The whole point of a Satanic monument is to offend. The mock believers only want to instigate controversy and express their contempt for what sincere believers consider sacred. It’s a thinly disguised attempt to deface public space with an intentionally insulting message. They what to have a laugh but really they are just being cunts. And I have no respect for their apologists because they relish the idea of bigotry against people of faith.

The cunts, in my opinion, are the Christians who pretend they don't understand that the purpose behind the Satanic monument is to expose the double standard that prevails when it comes to using public space to erect religious monuments. I'd be happy to see all such monuments placed on private land where it belongs. But until then, turnabout is fair play.

Still, it's nice that you're so open-minded that you would suffer the existence of shrines or monuments to "false pagan gods", especially since the rest of us have been putting up with your crosses and the monuments honoring your false god a long time.

(September 10, 2015 at 1:15 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(September 10, 2015 at 1:13 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Its there to make a point and part of that point is that you find it offensive. But I risk repeating what has been said before.

Yes, but the difference is that it's offensive only because it is deliberately meant to be. Not because it's something different from what I believe.

Hmm let me see. The ten commandments plaque was in a place where it is not supposed to be because it should be a religious neutral area in order to not show bias. that it was there was a deliberate affront to every non-Christian and is part of a sustained attack on non-christians that happens in some of the more backwards parts of the US. The satanist statue was there to say "how do you like it". I'm not sure I can put it any clearer than this.

(September 10, 2015 at 1:23 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(September 10, 2015 at 1:15 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Yes, but the difference is that it's offensive only because it is deliberately meant to be. Not because it's something different from what I believe.

Hmm let me see. The ten commandments plaque was in a place where it is not supposed to be because it should be a religious neutral area in order to not show bias. that it was there was a deliberate affront to every non-Christian and is part of a sustained attack on non-christians that happens in some of the more backwards parts of the US. The satanist statue was there to say "how do you like it". I'm not sure I can put it any clearer than this.

And I don't know how to put what I said any more clearer, either. You're comparing apples to oranges. I wouldn't mind it if there was a Buddha there, instead of the 10 commandments. I do mind the Satanic statue because it is deliberately meant to offend.

(September 10, 2015 at 1:39 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I do mind the Satanic statue because it is deliberately meant to offend.

Yes, big fat YES. That's the intent. Call it offensive, I rather call it provocative. It's meant to draw attention to the discussion. And it succeeded where words alone wouldn't have been enough. It got media attention and started a discussion over what shouldn't be displayed on public ground. A discussion that ultimately led to a verdict to remove the ten commandments.

The 10 commandments is a deliberate effort to offend those who have the intellectual wherewithal to formulate their own morality no less than a statue of satan is meant to offend those misanthropic enough to think just because they need a lunatic fantasy to prevent themselves from becoming psychopaths, everyone else must bow down before their lunatic fantasy.

The Christian cross is a deliberate effort to offend those who have enough self respect to not believe every person inherited some original "sin" that needed "redeeming" by some Iron Age layabout lunatic who fancies himself to be savior, god, and fucker of his own mother, no less than the statue of satan is meant to offend those who would insult everyone better than themselves by insinuating their betters too need to be "saved" just like their own sorry ass.

(September 10, 2015 at 2:01 pm)abaris Wrote:

(September 10, 2015 at 1:39 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I do mind the Satanic statue because it is deliberately meant to offend.

Yes, big fat YES. That's the intent. Call it offensive, I rather call it provocative. It's meant to draw attention to the discussion. And it succeeded where words alone wouldn't have been enough. It got media attention and started a discussion over what shouldn't be displayed on public ground. A discussion that ultimately led to a verdict to remove the ten commandments.

This is the point.  Explaining that the Ten Commandments, which are mostly religious rather than secular moral ones is offensive to atheists and people of other religions falls on deaf ears.  Offending Christians in the very same way is effective.  Result, not religious  or anti religious monuments on government owned space.  Win, win.

(September 10, 2015 at 1:39 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(September 10, 2015 at 1:23 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Hmm let me see. The ten commandments plaque was in a place where it is not supposed to be because it should be a religious neutral area in order to not show bias. that it was there was a deliberate affront to every non-Christian and is part of a sustained attack on non-christians that happens in some of the more backwards parts of the US. The satanist statue was there to say "how do you like it". I'm not sure I can put it any clearer than this.

And I don't know how to put what I said any more clearer, either. You're comparing apples to oranges. I wouldn't mind it if there was a Buddha there, instead of the 10 commandments. I do mind the Satanic statue because it is deliberately meant to offend.

But this isn't about you; it's about the groups who actually erect the monuments in the first place, and about the people who decided it was OK to put up the Ten Commandments, but are having a problem with the Hindus and Satanists that who want the same treatment.

(September 10, 2015 at 1:39 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: And I don't know how to put what I said any more clearer, either. You're comparing apples to oranges. I wouldn't mind it if there was a Buddha there, instead of the 10 commandments. I do mind the Satanic statue because it is deliberately meant to offend.

Not according to the Satanists:
[reposting the quote I've already posted]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sata...84e2765fd5

Quote:The Satanic Temple said it wants to build a memorial to the "various historical witch hunts," the "persecuted free-thinkers" and the "'heretics' who helped inform American secular jurisprudence."

An inscription on the Baphomet statue would read, "Be it known to all that this statue commemorates the history of law in the United States of America. From the deplorable Satanic Witch Hunts, the cherished doctrines of due process, presumption of innocence and the protection of minorities from the tyranny of mob rule became part of the established foundation of American jurisprudence."

That you are interpreting their actions as deliberately meaning to offend is contrary to their stated reason. That is also has the effect of revealing the hypocrisy of the Arkansas state lawmakers is an extra added bonus.

And I disagree that comparing the two monuments is comparing apple to oranges. Despite whatever reasons anyone may have for erecting a monument on state grounds, if one religion is allowed to do so then every other religion is legally allowed to do so. Saying one groups shouldn't be allowed their monument because they're just being mean is completely beside the point - disallowing the "mean" monument would then be showing favoritism and that violates the establishment clause.

While I totally agree with the Satanist, is just me or are they doing this rather childishly?