Esq, as others have said here, that statue was meant to be provocative/satirical. If they had chosen some other random creature to be their symbol, it wouldn't be offensive, which is why they chose what they did.

Whatever else, it was definitely satyrical.

(September 11, 2015 at 11:05 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Esq, as others have said here, that statue was meant to be provocative/satirical. If they had chosen some other random creature to be their symbol, it wouldn't be offensive, which is why they chose what they did.

So let's sum up, eh?

1) Baphomet is not Satan. You Christians stole the images of pagan gods to make them look bad. You don't get to be mad when the thing Christianity did is used to get Christians to take notice of an issue they'd be happier ignoring, but which we cannot have the luxury of ignoring.

2) It was a tactic, and one that worked. They're not really trying to offend you, only to get you to notice, as I wrote above. The shock of the image that Christianity stole from other faiths and made into a bad thing is what will get your attention. Read what they said about Baphomet in their statement: they're trying to restore Baphomet to his original place, before Christians attacked a rival faith and tore it down in order to raise up their own iconography.

3) Christianity is not under attack. So stop saying you feel slighted by people "offending" your faith. What is under attack here is the attempt by Christians to dominate the culture. Why won't you admit what it is? That's the blindness (lack of self-introspection) I spoke of, before. Christians are not under attack, Christian Dominionists made an attack on American secularism, and the Satanists responded by raising up a similar icon, which you seem to feel is not okay because it's an attack on what is sacred to you... but it's in response to an attack, by theocratic Christians, on the secular pluralism that keeps Americans free.

4) Baphomet harms no one, as it's just a few silly Satanists trying to make a point and get the majority to listen to the minority. What does harm people is putting theocratic rules, by what other religious posters here call " The Moral Lawgiver™ ", on courthouses where atheists and other faithful will have to go before juries (for civil suits to defend our rights, for criminal trials, and for tort lawsuits when we have been infringed upon by businesses) comprised of 80-85% Christians who make up that American majority, and when those Christians see that 10C and/or hear unceasing messages, they may believe that the Christian law matters more than the secular one. You think that affects no one? I'll tell you a little story:

When the police detective who seized my computer got on the stand to testify at my trial that they had found no drug-related evidence, no "known dealer" phone-numbers, and no financial records that indicated I was the major drug dealer/trafficker they were putting me on trial for allegedly being, he testified instead that my blog, "Atheist Rocketeer", contained several articles about legalization and medical marijuana (true). In one rant about the way religious leaders have hampered efforts to help the HIV/AIDS community (I have been an activist in that field most of my adult life), I criticized American conservatives for blocking medical MJ to AIDS patients, and went on to talk about Mother Teresa's charity blocking agencies which helped provide medicines to HIV+ prostitutes and those vulnerable to the virus because those groups also passed out condoms to the women. However, they skipped over the part about Mother Teresa, and made it sound like I was arguing in favor of international drug trafficking, and the only way to put it back into context would have been to "attack" M.Teresa by reading the whole thing, and clearly making a bad situation worse.

No big deal, minor mistakes, you say? (So said the state appeals court, too.) Except that not only did they read the title of my blog, containing the word atheist, they tried to make me swear on the Bible in front of the jury even when I had told the judge I was an atheist and asked for a secular "affirmation" rather than religious oath (I had to stand there in front of all, and refuse to swear to God, with a Bible in my face, and wait while the judge made a "big show" of trying to "find" the wording of the Affirmation despite having a laptop with all the laws right on his desk), and then on the stand they asked me if I "really felt" I could "defy the laws of God and man" in advocating for this medicine for the sick.

No big deal? Most people would ignore that? FALSE! Of the 12 members of my jury, one was a Catholic "eucharistic minister", two were protestant preacher's wives, and one was a youth pastor at a Southern Baptist church. Two more said they were or had been deacons in their church. So quite literally half my jury were outright Christian activists who ignored my testimony-- why? It turned out I was telling the truth all along, when I was allowed to present evidence other than my "nuh-uh" on the stand, almost nine years after the false conviction. A decade of my liberty, I lost. Gone. Poof!

So when I say you have "the luxury" of not knowing what it's like to be a minority group in a nation dominated by Christians who try to give the impression that this is a theocracy, please understand that you have THE LUXURY of not knowing what it's like. And do your best to stretch your mind to understand.

Surgeon, did you see my last post to you? I noticed you never addressed it so I don't know if you may have missed it.

(September 12, 2015 at 12:00 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Surgeon, did you see my last post to you? I noticed you never addressed it so I don't know if you may have missed it.

Yes, I saw it, but you seemed to have mistaken the meaning of the word "abolished", and that fact changed your whole point, so I was going to leave it alone out of kindness.

To "abolish" means to "outlaw", or prohibit by law, so it would make no sense for atheists to put up a monument saying that we "abolished disbelief".

Nothing in your response told me that you understood what I was telling you, I'm sorry.

(September 11, 2015 at 10:47 pm)Aroura Wrote:

(September 11, 2015 at 9:11 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Well then you're in luck, because Baphomet is not Satan. Baphomet, in the form the statue depicts, is the Sabbatic Goat, which is a figure that has no relation at all to any biblical figure.

Not all horned goat-men are Satan, CL:



Look out, it's the prince of lies!

I was wondering when someone was going to point this out.  I like CL, so I don't want to offend, but....this. ^^

Don't be afraid to say as you feel Aroura. If CL can't respect your honest views on how stupid religion is, then she shouldn't be on an atheist forum trying to make friends. That's her problem. She's not mad about the 10 commandments being up, but mad about something that she says mocks it. Tough shit, it shouldn't be on public land. She should be mad that the 10 commandments are up there, and she should want them down, so they're not forced on everyone else, if she was a good christian.

(September 12, 2015 at 12:11 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(September 12, 2015 at 12:00 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Surgeon, did you see my last post to you? I noticed you never addressed it so I don't know if you may have missed it.

Yes, I saw it, but you seemed to have mistaken the meaning of the word "abolished", and that fact changed your whole point, so I was going to leave it alone out of kindness.

To "abolish" means to "outlaw", or prohibit by law, so it would make no sense for atheists to put up a monument saying that we "abolished disbelief".

Nothing in your response told me that you understood what I was telling you, I'm sorry.

No, you misunderstood. I said theists didn't put that up.

(September 9, 2015 at 12:01 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: This stuff freaks me out like nothing else, but nonetheless it's kind of intriguing in a morbid sort of way. 

I saw this story on facebook this morning and was wondering what you guys thought:

http://www.thv11.com/media/cinematic/vid...t-capitol/

I was also wondering what you guys thought of the actual Satanic Temple religion. They're all Atheists who use the symbol of the Demon to represent personal freedoms and their opposition to the idea of God:

 http://thesatanictemple.com/faq

Honestly i am 100% for satanism i mean when is the last time they had a war, enslaved people, or you know were telling people to go to hell and burn. 
And besides that statue is Brutal and awesome. At most Satan said to think and use your brain were as god followers you know in the bible did as they were told
without questioning and harmed others.

(September 12, 2015 at 12:12 am)Salacious B. Crumb Wrote:

(September 11, 2015 at 10:47 pm)Aroura Wrote: I was wondering when someone was going to point this out.  I like CL, so I don't want to offend, but....this. ^^

Don't be afraid to say as you feel Aroura. If CL can't respect your honest views on how stupid religion is, then she shouldn't be on an atheist forum trying to make friends. That's her problem. She's not mad about the 10 commandments being up, but mad about something that she says mocks it. Tough shit, it shouldn't be on public land. She should be mad that the 10 commandments are up there, and she should want them down, so they're not forced on everyone else, if she was a good christian.

As I said, if they were being forced on anyone else, I would want them down. I'm sorry I'm not mad that they are up. I wouldn't be mad if it was the Jewish Star up there, either. Or Buddha. Or Mohammad. Or Zeus. Or some sort of atheist symbol. As long as there is mutual respect amongst the different beliefs/ideologies, as long as no one is being treated unfairly, and as long as the laws don't change, I don't really care whether all religions are allowed to be represented on public property, or whether none of them are. So, shoot me I guess.

And you're right, I would respect Aurora's views if she said she thinks religion is stupid. She's allowed to think what she wants. If I couldn't handle the thought of someone disagreeing with me on something, I would not be here.

(September 11, 2015 at 3:38 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: So to address this: "If the roles were reversed, and we lived in a philosophically atheistic society, and atheists put up a monument in front of a courthouse that symbolized the domination of atheism over religion, saying "And this nation has abolished belief in god!" when they did it, you would be screaming your head off as a member of the believing minority."

Now hold on a second here. If you want to compare apples to apples, you'd have to compare the above monument to one that said "And this nation has abolished disbelief in God." Which would be ridiculous since it's untrue. However, if someone wanted to put "The Atheist 10 Commandments" somewhere, I couldn't care less. So long as other religions were allowed to publicly display theirs as well, if they wanted to, I wouldn't care.

Okay, I see what you're saying here. You're saying that the only way my analogy works is if one says "abolished belief" and the other says "abolished disbelief".

Um. No. That's not valid at all. They don't have to have the same wording. They just have to represent the same idea: "ha ha, our belief runs this country, and yours is insignificant and wrong!!"

The fact that you can't grasp that is disturbing to me, so please, please hear me when I say this. Read slowly and carefully:

WE GET THAT YOU ARE NOT BOTHERED BY RELIGIOUS DISPLAYS ALONGSIDE YOURS.

WE GET IT. STOP SAYING IT.


Okay? The issue here is not whether it's okay to place multiple icons up. One issue is that it's either "all" or "none", yes, since the government is required to stay neutral with respect to religion. So of course there's no objection to many religions doing it. But there's a second point that you're skipping over to the point I'm getting really frustrated, and that is that your faith is dominant, so when Christians put up a symbol on the courthouse deliberately placed there to remind people of the domination of Christianity in this culture and meant to give the impression (not my words, the words of those putting it there!) that this is a "Christian nation" and that our laws are subject to the "Moral Lawgiver", then it is a problem.

I spent years writing articles and OpEds against my state politicians for that kind of thing, and they came after me with a vengeance in court, through their cronies (I have no proof or evidence that it was any of the politicians I attacked were involved, except for the fact that there was an extraordinary number of "observers" from the Capital in my courtrooms, just sitting there, and a lot of really shady legal shenanigans went down, and they were delayed as much as possible at every stage, when it came to getting things overturned on appeal). The point is, I have personally experienced why theocratic influence on the legal system is a problem.

The astounding irony of watching you sit here and complain because you feel your religion is "under attack", when in fact it is your faith-brethren using their effective hegemony over the culture who are actually attacking people.

You don't get to be the bully and the martyr at the same time!