(September 10, 2015 at 2:17 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote:

(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.

Morgan, even the other posters here agreed that these people specifically chose Satan to be their symbol purposely as a sort of "ef you" to the faith. Of anything these people could have chosen to represent their ideologies, why choose the entity from the bible that represents evil and hatred, if their intention is not to shock/offend/make a statement against the faith?

(September 10, 2015 at 2:23 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

---

(September 10, 2015 at 2:17 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote: Not according to the Satanists:
[reposting the quote I've already posted]

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

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.

---

Morgan, even the other posters here agreed that these people specifically chose Satan to be their symbol purposely as a sort of "ef you" to the faith. Of anything these people could have chosen to represent their ideologies, why choose the entity from the bible that represents evil and hatred, if their intention is not to shock/offend/make a statement against the faith?

The statue is chosen to demonstrate exactly how offensive Christian doctrine can be to others. "Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me," is exactly that offensive to any other religion. How could it not be?

(September 9, 2015 at 12:59 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I have a problem with them wanting to put that up right next to a Christian/Jewish symbol, though. Those Satanists did not invent the symbol of the Demon, the bible did. They took something that was made up to represent evil, and are trying to make it their own. Which is fine, I guess, but by putting it next to the 10 commandments statue, they are deliberately and knowingly trying to "defile" something that is very sacred for the majority of people in this country. Why not just choose a different spot to put their statue in? Its own spot?

The first thing this story makes me think of that every single group seems to be re branding and going for a more peaceful marketing strategy these days.

Satanism isn't about taking acid and stalking the night to stab someone to death anymore it's about reduced suffering, peace and harmony.

Islam isn't about beating inferior women, killing the disbelievers and apostates and crucifying the mischievous it's about peace and harmony.

Christianity isn't about throwing rocks at everyone until they're dead it's more peace and harmony.

Secondly I think the statue is by itself a bad idea but because of the situation it's justified.
It's sort of like if one group of people decided that taking a dump in a public place was no longer against the law for them, and then they get really offended when another group decides to do the exact same thing they're doing. I wouldn't just support someone taking a dump in a public place but if it was to highlight the valid point that other people are taking a dump in a public place then I would.


Thirdly Christians have been decorating their churches with demonic gargoyles for a long long time now, so a statue of a demon next to something supposedly holy is nothing new, I suppose the statue placement is different, but Christians were the first to go crazy decorating places with demon statues.

(September 10, 2015 at 2:23 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Morgan, even the other posters here agreed that these people specifically chose Satan to be their symbol purposely as a sort of "ef you" to the faith. Of anything these people could have chosen to represent their ideologies, why choose the entity from the bible that represents evil and hatred, if their intention is not to shock/offend/make a statement against the faith?

You're constantly missing the point by saying you take offense of it being put up next to christian/jewish symbol. But this christian/jewish symbol has no business being there in the first place.

So, yes, the Satan idea is meant as an eff you, but in a different way as you want to make it appear. It's an eff you to putting up a christian symbol on public ground. It's provocative actionism as in saying, allow one and you have to allow all. Right there in the same spot.

CL, When Christianity make it is doctrine that "only those who believe in The God of the bible needs to be saved, the moment one stops believing the God of the bible, they are as good as saved",  then Christianity would stop being offensive, and can plead to be spared of being offended in return without earning any additional scorn.

It's that simple.


If you need to feel special, and can only feel special enough by publically disparaging those who don't suffer from the same needs, and then can't stand comparable disparagement of your needs shown you in return, then indeed, Ef you.

(September 10, 2015 at 2:23 pm)BrokenQuill92 Wrote: While I totally agree with the Satanist, is just me or are they doing this rather childishly?

They have to do it childishly or most Christians will not understand what they are doing.

I don't think it's meant to attack Christians or Christianity at all, even in the most provocative sense imaginable.

None of us care about the religious who erect symbols of their faith. Granted, I'm creeped out by the giant crosses on the skyscrapers of Oklahoma City, but I don't object to them in the legal sense. (I do object to the city's population's clear choice to send the message, "this is God country, all you non-Christians", via such a display, but that's a different issue.) If you want to build Jesus-statues to your heart's content, go ahead! I think the Christ the Redeemer statue in Rio is one of the coolest things in the world!



Nor do I think it's childish, what those Satanists did, at least not any more childish than those who would put any religious monument on a public space... but it was clever, tactically.

It IS an attack against a particular type of Christian, the ones who believe in Theocracy, trying to instill their religious faith into the secular government, that is, those who see "secular" as an insulting term and want to remove it from government. If you say you want a government "based on" your religious views, you're a Theocrat, and you need to be mocked in every way imaginable, by everyone: atheists, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Satanists, AND OTHER CHRISTIANS WHO UNDERSTAND WHY A SECULAR DEMOCRACY IS A GOOD THING.

The purpose of those statues on public grounds is no less than an offense against every secularist, Christian and atheist alike, in the country, and the Satanists figured out a way to ridicule them for it in a way that got enough attention to put a stop to it. That's all.

(September 10, 2015 at 2:23 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: [...]Of anything these people could have chosen to represent their ideologies, why choose the entity from the bible that represents evil and hatred, if their intention is not to shock/offend/make a statement against the faith?

Of all the things christians could have chosen to represent their ideology - why choose a particularly sadistic and archaic torture device - the cross, if your intention is not to shock/offend?

If even children can be exposed to an often graphic depiction of a dead guy on sticks - christians can handle a statue of an imaginary monster creature.

(September 9, 2015 at 11:14 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: They picked Satan on purpose because it makes Christians uncomfortable. They could have just as easily picked Cthulu.

The franchise fees are soul-crushing, I assure you.

(September 10, 2015 at 3:18 pm)Homeless Nutter Wrote:

(September 10, 2015 at 2:23 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: [...]Of anything these people could have chosen to represent their ideologies, why choose the entity from the bible that represents evil and hatred, if their intention is not to shock/offend/make a statement against the faith?

Of all the things christians could have chosen to represent their ideology - why choose a particularly sadistic and archaic torture device - the cross, if your intention is not to shock/offend?

If even children can be exposed to an often graphic depiction of a dead guy on sticks - christians can handle a statue of an imaginary monster creature.

I like to tease my Christian friends (including fiancee) with the throwaway line, "Hey, if Jesus had come during the French Revolution, would all the Christians be wearing razor blades on a chain around their necks?"

The scowls I get are heartwarming.