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

[Esquilax]

Here's the thing: if you have to limit your statue-building to just "those statues that won't offend anybody," then you would never ever build a religious monument at all. Every religion has those members that find the existence and practices of other religions to be offensive in and of themselves, and American christianity in particular is so used to unchallenged cultural dominance that it's very oversensitive to any intimation that they might not be the norm in every single household in the country. I mean, it's baked into the religion at a foundational level anyway, with that "thou shall have no other gods before me," commandment, but even if it weren't that obvious, has anyone here not heard a sputtering, oblivious christian going all red faced about their "christian nation," being slowly filled by other people "shoving their religion down our throats."?

Hell, it's gotten to the point that people can't even erect little information stations celebrating reason beside a christian installation without the christians getting offended. If you're asking that we not build any monuments that might offend people then I need you to know that that is an impossible task, because conservative christians think that even the existence of non-christian viewpoints is a deliberate, personal attack against them. We couldn't build anything that challenges them, in that case.

But that's kinda the point too, that American christians never seem to grasp in the midst of their top to bottom special pleading. The offense that they get isn't unique to them, people of other religions get that too, but in their case it's also coupled with a pervasive sense of being the outsider, of being unwelcome here, because so much of the country is so willing to pretend that christianity is the ground state of being for Americans. When a christian looks upon a statue for another religion and feels alienated, they should start to understand that this is how every other person feels when they look at all the christian iconography all over the place, and there's so much more of that than the single Baphomet statue, and you goddamn christians can't even be bothered to name that thing right. You want to talk about disrespect and offense? What's really offensive is seeing this nationwide conversation about how christians should get special dispensation to just plaster the landscape with their religious iconography, while being happy to deny others that same right, because of malevolent motivations they've proscribed to practitioners of other religions without their consent, when they can't even be bothered to get the name of the religious figure they're objecting to right.

[Catholic_Lady]

Here's the thing: if you have to limit your statue-building to just "those statues that won't offend anybody," then you would never ever build a religious monument at all. 

The only thing about it that I find offensive is the fact that is was meant to offend, Esq. That's what I'm trying to say. And I know you don't believe that it was meant to offend, but I do. Otherwise, I think it's petty to be "offended" by other people's religious symbols. It's only when it's meant to be offensive and hateful that it's offensive and hateful lol. 

So how about just limiting them to the ones that aren't deliberately meant to be hateful towards a group of people? That's where I stand on this.

[abaris]

The only thing about it that I find offensive is the fact that is was meant to offend, Esq.

Are you deliberately missing the point?

Yes, it was meant to offend and to draw media attention. Because, and that's the point of the whole discussion, the ten commandments had no business being on public ground in the first place. They took the polar opposite of the christian monument on purpose, saying, if you are doing it on public ground, we have every right to do it too.

[Cato]

So how about just limiting them to the ones that aren't deliberately meant to be hateful towards a group of people? That's where I stand on this.

Let me guess, the offended get to make the distinction.

[Esquilax]

The only thing about it that I find offensive is the fact that is was meant to offend, Esq.

Sure, but my point is that you're hardly going to be the only person objecting; people outside of your culturally dominant religion deal with this stuff all the time. What's one more objecting voice, if we're never going to be free of them anyway?

That's what I'm trying to say. And I know you don't believe that it was meant to offend, but I do.

Then you're doing one of the things I objected to in my first post: you're ascribing nefarious motivation to people you don't know, directly contrary to their stated goals, based upon a misunderstanding of the history of Baphomet, the occult figure. You have no way at all of knowing that, secretly, the Satanists are just out to offend, but you continue to assert it anyway and are apparently refusing to see the difference between "Satan the devil," and Baphomet, which grew out of something completely different, means something else, and has different cultural and religious significance than what you're ascribing to him. Satan predates Baphomet by centuries, and even the (christian religious) people who coined the term didn't think it was Satan, so why this insistence that your (mistaken) interpretation of the character is the one that should stand? Seriously, the image of Baphomet as seen on the statue didn't exist until 1856, based on a drawing within an occult book, not a christian religious text.

If you're just going to persist in this assertion that it's actually Satan the devil, when the literal history of the character shows that it is not, then I don't know what else to say to you. Other people don't owe it to you to work around your mistaken views simply because you refuse to correct them.

Otherwise, I think it's petty to be "offended" by other people's religious symbols. It's only when it's meant to be offensive and hateful that it's offensive and hateful lol. 

So how about just limiting them to the ones that aren't deliberately meant to be hateful towards a group of people? That's where I stand on this.

But how do we determine what's hateful? Apparently you're ready to discount the stated motivations of the people involved, and the actual history of the character depicted, and are prepared to just label it hateful anyway because your religion happens to contain a figure in it that you can mistakenly match up with Baphomet. That's ridiculous.

[Kingpin]

Here's the thing: if you have to limit your statue-building to just "those statues that won't offend anybody," then you would never ever build a religious monument at all. Every religion has those members that find the existence and practices of other religions to be offensive in and of themselves, and American christianity in particular is so used to unchallenged cultural dominance that it's very oversensitive to any intimation that they might not be the norm in every single household in the country. I mean, it's baked into the religion at a foundational level anyway, with that "thou shall have no other gods before me," commandment, but even if it weren't that obvious, has anyone here not heard a sputtering, oblivious christian going all red faced about their "christian nation," being slowly filled by other people "shoving their religion down our throats."?

Hell, it's gotten to the point that people can't even erect little information stations celebrating reason beside a christian installation without the christians getting offended. If you're asking that we not build any monuments that might offend people then I need you to know that that is an impossible task, because conservative christians think that even the existence of non-christian viewpoints is a deliberate, personal attack against them. We couldn't build anything that challenges them, in that case.

But that's kinda the point too, that American christians never seem to grasp in the midst of their top to bottom special pleading. The offense that they get isn't unique to them, people of other religions get that too, but in their case it's also coupled with a pervasive sense of being the outsider, of being unwelcome here, because so much of the country is so willing to pretend that christianity is the ground state of being for Americans. When a christian looks upon a statue for another religion and feels alienated, they should start to understand that this is how every other person feels when they look at all the christian iconography all over the place, and there's so much more of that than the single Baphomet statue, and you goddamn christians can't even be bothered to name that thing right. You want to talk about disrespect and offense? What's really offensive is seeing this nationwide conversation about how christians should get special dispensation to just plaster the landscape with their religious iconography, while being happy to deny others that same right, because of malevolent motivations they've proscribed to practitioners of other religions without their consent, when they can't even be bothered to get the name of the religious figure they're objecting to right.

Esq, I actually agree with everything you are saying here.  Christian groups in this country seem to forget that while the country was formed by a large number of Christians/Deists, it itself is NOT a Christian nation.  The Constitution is at best Deistic in nature with reference to "the Creator", but the First amendment and Article VI expressly prohibit establishing a state religion while allowing the free exercise thereof.  There is and should be a separation of church and state and when the government allow displays of any religious symbolism, they MUST open it to all.  This does get in to murky areas, because what signifies as a "religious symbol", etc.  Which of the 300+ million of the Hindu Gods do they allow?  

Christian groups can fight to have crosses, ten commandments, etc displayed on public grounds, but should not fight against other groups having what they want displayed.  I understand the point of this statue is not that this group wants the statue for their display of religion, but for the intent to show that all religions or practices should have that same right that Christians fight for as US CITIZENS!  Do I want to see a satanic statue?  No!  This is exactly why the government should not allow religious symbols of any kind on government property, since allowing it can be interpreted as an endorsement (violating first amendment) unless they allow ALL, which is the point this group is trying to make.

[Longhorn]

The only thing about it that I find offensive is the fact that is was meant to offend, Esq.

Are you deliberately missing the point?

Yes, it was meant to offend and to draw media attention. Because, and that's the point of the whole discussion, the ten commandments had no business being on public ground in the first place. They took the polar opposite of the christian monument on purpose, saying, if you are doing it on public ground, we have every right to do it too.

You get a fucking medal, sir. For persistency. It's like the millionth time you had to say that ._.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Cath - We get that you are personally unoffended by the religious displays of other faiths. And that's great. The reason I say you show a shocking lack of introspection is that you seem unable to look beyond the attack against your faith (as you perceive the Satanists' effort, and rightly so, I believe) and see what their reason for doing so is. Can you truly not grasp that putting your religion's symbols up, especially when the people doing so are saying out loud that their reason for doing so is "to show this is a Christian nation, Under God", is a slap in the face to everyone who believes in secular, pluralistic society? That it is Dominionism? You're okay with it because you're not personally threatened, since you belong (however loosely) to the dominant group that is doing the threatening. That's a shocking inability to really look inside and question the motives of your fellow faithful.

Here's how introspection might work for you: 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. If Catholics then got together to put up a religious statue, and the atheists got furious as a result, you would rightly point out that their own choice to put up an anti-religion monument opened the door for anyone's monument... and you would be bewildered by me if I could not understand that the issue is the monument itself, not whether or not I was okay with other groups putting up monuments of their own. The only offense occurring here is the attack on the secularism of the nation. And the fact that you can't see it is a baffling lack of introspection about your own religion's history and about the motives of the faithful, in this case.

---

Here's the thing: if you have to limit your statue-building to just "those statues that won't offend anybody," then you would never ever build a religious monument at all. 

The only thing about it that I find offensive is the fact that is was meant to offend, Esq. That's what I'm trying to say. And I know you don't believe that it was meant to offend, but I do. Otherwise, I think it's petty to be "offended" by other people's religious symbols. It's only when it's meant to be offensive and hateful that it's offensive and hateful lol. 

So how about just limiting them to the ones that aren't deliberately meant to be hateful towards a group of people? That's where I stand on this.

Since you reply quickly when someone quotes you, but haven't seen this one in half an hour, I'm suspecting that you're using the "Notifications" tab to do your navigation. Consequently, I'm "tagging" you through this quote of your previous statement.

[Salacious B. Crumb]

Aren’t you judging a little bit CL? Are you sure that it’s meant to offend? As others have said, I see it as people standing up to the religion of dominance in this country, and they’re saying, “If you guys are doing this, we’re going to do it too” with the hopes that christians will stop putting religious iconography on public land. Also, with the hope that christians will get why they’re doing it, but, I guess that’s not working out too well. They’re (and we’re) sick of the christian privilege in this country, and we’re sick of the christians getting away with things that are against the law.

I know you’re saying that you wouldn’t care about other statues, although, I think most of us know you would care. If there were 5 christian statues erected over a period of a decade or two in a public park, and it became a place where christians would visit in the park, and someone put up 7 Hindu statues, a pasta statue, a science statue, and an Adolph Hitler statue, I’m sure you, or at least most christians would be pissed off. If that place that christians visited for years, suddenly now became crowded with Hindus bowing to Hindu statues, so many of you loving, non-judgmental christians would not have a problem with it right? Give me a break.. Keep it in the house. Keep it in the church. Keep it the hell out of our schools, because it’s detrimental to a progressive society.

Again, I understand where you’re coming from, that you think it’s meant to offend, but if someone goes over someone else’s house and starts giving tips on what decorations they think would make the house look better, the owner might take offense to that. Or, the owner actually might say, “Hey, that’s a great idea.” Offense can be taken for anything.. how about we throw the, “I”m offended” card away for second, and focus on what really matters, the goofs who broke the law by placing their superstitious poison on buildings that are meant to serve justice. Your religion isn’t about justice, it’s about guilt, fear, and shame. It’s about vicarious redemption through human sacrifice. It’s about teaching people that no matter how horrible they act towards one another, that they can be forgiven by an invisible monster in the sky. Do you seriously want this on public buildings? How about we decorate the outside of certain court houses with all islam iconography, then others, we’ll put hindu iconography on those? Maybe, we’ll put the 11 satanic rules on another courthouse, without any other religion being allowed to do so? Can you possibly see how this is wrong??? This wouldn’t be happening in the first place if the christians hadn’t decided that their religion was more special than everyone else’s. The satanists did this in order to send christians a message, “Take this bullshit down already, there are other religions in the country.” Great, we get it, it offends you, but maybe take some advice from rocketsurgeon, and actually do a little introspection. It offends us that the 10 commandments are placed on a building saying that we should obey that religious dogma. Who cares if it’s meant to offend, what’s right is right. Religious material doesn’t belong in public land, can you understand the point that we’re making? Can you understand the examples that we have given why we don’t want it there? Will you actually take a stand and say, “Yes, take the 10 commandments off of the court houses, and get the religion out of schools. We can still believe what we want to believe and not shove it in everyone’s faces.” ?

How about a little less of this:

Ok. Holy effing shit. I just...

How can you not see how utterly disgusting it is what you're saying? Are you seriously able to compare these things so flippantly?  Again: the Swastika, not only represents a positive thing in Hinduism, but it also represents mass genocide of almost an entire culture... that actually happened. What has Satan ever actually, demonstrably done?

Ok, nevermind. I think I need to stop responding now.

And, a little more of actually listening, and not just automatically responding with the same repeating record that's in your head? Sit back for a few minutes, and actually think about what many people are telling you on here. Truly think about it.

[Catholic_Lady]

The only thing about it that I find offensive is the fact that is was meant to offend, Esq.

Are you deliberately missing the point?

Yes, it was meant to offend and to draw media attention. Because, and that's the point of the whole discussion, the ten commandments had no business being on public ground in the first place. They took the polar opposite of the christian monument on purpose, saying, if you are doing it on public ground, we have every right to do it too.

Right lol. Regardless of why it was meant to offend, it still was lol. That's why I keep saying, if it was another legitimate religious symbol up there, I wouldn't care.