Your thoughts on Satanism and the petition for a Satanic statue.

[Longhorn]

Uh yeah. Weren't we talking about xtian privilege though?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

You guys just don't get it, do you?

It's ok when xtians do it, because they're obviously right. All the other religions are just yknow, fucking around.


I'm deeply offended by religious statues of any kind, but I guess I'd have to be xtian for that to count.

Vic, neither me nor Chad is saying we're offended by statues of other religions. It's not like I get offended when I see something Jewish or Hindu or whatever. I honestly don't really care. This is a clear strawman.

Cath, he's being sarcastic. We understand that you're only offended by the (very narrow view, I think) that one statue's symbology is offensive because it "shows aggression toward" the other statue, somehow, or the adherents who placed it there... which is, of course, the whole reason it was placed there by the Satanists, in order to trigger a defensive reaction from the majority-group that normally feels so arrogant in its domination of this culture that few other methods would reach them.

What we're trying to get you to understand is the concept of Privilege. You have the luxury of choosing whether or not to be offended by other religious displays because yours is still the dominant element of the culture, and so other religious minorities may be effectively ignored.

When we try to explain it to you, you just shrug and say "well it doesn't bother me", thus missing our point completely, and marginalizing the perspective of the minority groups, including us. So listen well: it's not about whether it's equally okay for Hindus to get together and put up a statue.

Placing an icon of the dominant faith on a courthouse or other public property/building that all the people who live in this multi-faith (pluralistic), secular society must share, tells everyone not of that dominant faith that they are second-class citizens, that their oaths and testimonies in the courtroom mean just a little bit less, that they are under the overarching thumb of the dominant class. This is made even worse by the Christian history of doing just that in western culture, to the point that we refer to the breaking of that total dominance as "The Rebirth" (re-naissance) and "The Enlightenment".

Those monuments to the Ten Commandments, as I have shown with words in a previous post, show a defiance of the Bill of Rights and the entire Age of Reason that terrifies us, we who know history and have suffered the social barbs of rejecting the dominant faith of this nation. If you really thought it through, it would scare you, too, if you are a person of good conscience who truly cares about your fellow Americans, your fellow human beings.

[Catholic_Lady]

Vic, neither me nor Chad is saying we're offended by statues of other religions. It's not like I get offended when I see something Jewish or Hindu or whatever. I honestly don't really care. This is a clear strawman.

Cath, he's being sarcastic. We understand that you're only offended by the (very narrow view, I think) that one statue's symbology is offensive because it "shows aggression toward" the other statue, somehow, or the adherents who placed it there... which is, of course, the whole reason it was placed there by the Satanists, in order to trigger a defensive reaction from the majority-group that normally feels so arrogant in its domination of this culture that few other methods would reach them.

What we're trying to get you to understand is the concept of Privilege. You have the luxury of choosing whether or not to be offended by other religious displays because yours is still the dominant element of the culture, and so other religious minorities may be effectively ignored.

When we try to explain it to you, you just shrug and say "well it doesn't bother me", thus missing our point completely, and marginalizing the perspective of the minority groups, including us. So listen well: it's not about whether it's equally okay for Hindus to get together and put up a statue.

Placing an icon of the dominant faith on a courthouse or other public property/building that all the people who live in this multi-faith (pluralistic), secular society must share, tells everyone not of that dominant faith that they are second-class citizens, that their oaths and testimonies in the courtroom mean just a little bit less, that they are under the overarching thumb of the dominant class. This is made even worse by the Christian history of doing just that in western culture, to the point that we refer to the breaking of that total dominance as "The Rebirth" (re-naissance) and "The Enlightenment".

Those monuments to the Ten Commandments, as I have shown with words in a previous post, show a defiance of the Bill of Rights and the entire Age of Reason that terrifies us, we who know history and have suffered the social barbs of rejecting the dominant faith of this nation. If you really thought it through, it would scare you, too, if you are a person of good conscience who truly cares about your fellow Americans, your fellow human beings.

Ok. I agree that no particular group of people should get any privilege over another. It should be either any religious symbol allowed, or none. I guess I just can't relate to such a thing making me feel like a second class citizen, because as long as the laws were not affected, I personally wouldn't feel that way if there was another religious sign instead of the 10 commandments. I keep stressing about "as long as this doesn't affect the laws".... which would include regarding anyone else like second class citizen. If that happened, I would care. Otherwise, I don't really care what statue is on what building. If I moved to a different country where the vast majority of the population was Buddhist, for example, and they had a Buddha by the front door of a court house, I really just don't see myself caring so long as I am treated like everyone else and so long as the laws are fair and objective for everyone. So I'm sorry, but I just can't relate to the outrage about this because I don't see myself feeling the same way at all. I don't know what else to tell you.

[Alex K]

@CL,

The first time I took the bus from Brooklyn to Manhattan, I ended up being the only white person in the vehicle, and it suddenly dawned on me that until that day I had no idea how strange that feels.

But I digress.

[Catholic_Lady]

@CL,

The first time I took the bus from Brooklyn to Manhattan, I ended up being the only white person in the vehicle, and it suddenly dawned on me that until that day I had no idea how strange that feels.

But I digress.

Fair enough, and I see your point. You're right, I guess technically it's impossible for me to say for sure whether or not I would care if I was put in a situation I had never experienced before. I can only say I don't see myself caring, but if I'm being 100% precise, I should say it's impossible to know for sure. I went to a public high school in a liberal city, where I was the only conservative minded/practicing Christian in my group of friends, and I learned to deal with that. But I know this is a much much smaller scale, so perhaps you're right... perhaps I would care.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Ok. I agree that no particular group of people should get any privilege over another. It should be either any religious symbol allowed, or none. I guess I just can't relate to such a thing making me feel like a second class citizen, because as long as the laws were not affected, I personally wouldn't feel that way if there was another religious sign instead of the 10 commandments. I keep stressing about "as long as this doesn't affect the laws".... which would include regarding anyone else like second class citizen. If that happened, I would care. Otherwise, I don't really care what statue is on what building. If I moved to a different country where the vast majority of the population was Buddhist, for example, and they had a Buddha by the front door of a court house, I really just don't see myself caring so long as I am treated like everyone else and so long as the laws are fair and objective for everyone. So I'm sorry, but I just can't relate to the outrage about this because I don't see myself feeling the same way at all. I don't know what else to tell you.

This is what the guy who put up the Ten Commandments monument had to say about being forced to take it down:

"You know, when I look back, I was proud to uphold the law, the Constitution of the United States and the First Amendment," Moore said, "which states basically we must acknowledge God to have a moral basis for our society and to retain that freedom of conscience which every person in this state and in this country recognizes is very important."   (Bold emphasis mine.)


He says a lot of stuff that should disturb you, and which shows the lie of the "well all religions are okay, we just want to show a symbol of our faith, by putting up the Ten Commandments monument, nothing more" which is how so many defend the action. Here's another of his quotes, an explanation for the reason he put it up:

"Since September 11, we have been at war. I submit to you there is another war raging — a war between good and evil, between right and wrong. For 40 years we have wandered like the children of Israel. In homes and schools across our land, it’s time for Christians to take a stand. This is not a nation established on the principles of Buddha or Hinduism. Our faith is not Islam. What we follow is not the Koran but the Bible. This is a Christian nation."   (Again, bold emphasis = mine.)

"We", you see. The definition of "we" is very important, here in the USA. You'll note he doesn't even bother to mention atheists in his analysis of who "we" are, here in the USA, so little regard does he hold for those who are irreligious, though he did sort of imply that we exist when he said:

"Many judges and government officials deny any higher law and forbid the teaching to our children that they are created in the image of an Almighty God, while they purport that it is government, and not God, who gave us our rights. ...in order to establish justice we must invoke the favor and guidance of Almighty God."

Oh, and you should be aware that he doesn't really think very highly of Catholics, either, since the version of the 10C he put up is the one that was used in the South to oppress Catholics (most of my family, being Cajun, are Catholic, so I'm aware of this history) by forcing the Protestant version upon them, and is the reason many Catholic schools in the South were chartered and funded by the Holy See.

So I'll leave you with some of his recent thoughts (video)

---

some of his recent thoughts

---

about God and the American system of law:

"Satan is out to destroy everything that God has created. This is not just about religion, this is about law; the organic law of our country."  [Satan is] "convincing many in our land that they can form a marriage between the same gender. My, how God must be sad about this. He has a controversy with the inhabitants of this land, and until we reject those evils, we shall suffer accordingly. We wonder why we’re suffering economically, why we’re suffering economically, why we’re suffering the moral decay, and now they want to take away that natural union between a man and woman that’s called family."

[Clueless Morgan]

To get back to the point of the whole thing, the 10 Commandments don't represent this nation's laws.  They're not the foundation of our laws or Constitution, and anyone who says otherwise failed US history in school.  Most Commandments aren't applicable to actual legislation or jurisprudence (idols, the sabbath, coveting (outside of actual theft), cheating, honoring one's parents, etc.), and the rest are not unique to the Commandments at all.  The proposed display - again, incorrectly - implies that the Commandments were the foundation upon which that state's laws were conceived.  And that is troublesome.  The message is "These laws are Christian laws.  Not Muslim laws, Hindu laws, Wiccan laws, Voodoo laws, Satanic laws, etc.  But Christian laws."

By approving the display of one particular brand of religion's symbolism, they've painted themselves into a corner.  Either the visual implication - that this is the Christian god's country - is true, which is incredibly exclusionary and unconstitutional to boot, or that all religions have value when it comes to creating, implementing, and judging based on laws, and we're not picky about where our inspiration comes from.

That's why the best, and only, solution is to not have any such display.

[My bolding throughout this post]

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

While the Ten Commandments monument is, in the words of Arkansas lawmakers, about honoring the Old Testament text as the "moral foundation of the law," 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."

According to the AK lawmakers, the 10 Commandments monument is meant to make a direct link between the Christianity and the secular laws of the United States, stating in no uncertain terms that US law is "Christian Law."

Further:

In July, Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson ® spoke out against the wave of monument petitions, saying he doesn't "want just every group putting a statue on the Capitol grounds." He suggested that the legislative debate over the Ten Commandments monument meant that it was a more serious undertaking.

"We want it to be exclusive; we want it to be reasoned," said Hutchinson. "We want it to be reflective."

Tough noogies, Hutchinson; you opened the door to "just everyone" erecting monuments when you allowed anyone to erect a monument.

ALL abortion? No matter the circumstances? CL, you know I love you, but you say some fucking worrying stuff sometimes...

Like I said in a different post, once you acknowledge/accept the fact that an unborn baby is no less human than any of us, there is no justifying killing him/her, just as there is no justifying killing any other innocent person.

Even if you acknowledge/accept that an unborn baby is no less human than any born person, that still does not give them the right to impose themselves on someone else's body without that person's consent.

http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil1...homson.htm

---

I propose, then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. How does the argument go from here? Something like this, I take it. Every person has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body; everyone would grant that. But surely a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be performed.

It sounds plausible. But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. "Tough luck. I agree. but now you've got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.

---

But, alas, let's not derail this thread into one about abortion...

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.

[Catholic_Lady]

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.

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.

[downbeatplumb]

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.

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.