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

[TheRocketSurgeon]

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.