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

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Yeah... lack of introspective ability.

A monument dedicated to Christian Dominionism over nonbelievers, enshrining the "a nation of God" theocracy in front of courthouse, is a "legitimate religious symbol".

That's the lol part.

[MTL]

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.

So what you take issue with is the fact that you feel the statue is not sincere?

If Satanists were ACTUALLY worshipping Baphomet, you would respect it?

[Cyberman]

You really ought to care, C_L. Having any religious symbolism on public land, as I understand it, is a violation of the separation of church and state.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

She just doesn't like feeling like the Satanists were attacking Christianity, and refuses to acknowledge that they had a legitimate reason for doing so.

We can tapdance around about the Satanists' official statement all day, but it's pretty clear to me why they did it, and pretty clear to me that they were right to do it, since it's unlikely Christians would have cared about any other method, as Cath here has pointed out for us. When we allow theocratic intrusion into our democracy, they feel they win by default, since they're so overwhelmingly dominant, numerically and culturally.

What bothers me is the unwillingness or inability to acknowledge that it's not okay to insert theocracy into our democratic institutions. It's especially troubling to hear a Catholic saying this because it was the Catholics who are responsible for the change to the national motto printed on our money and the insertion of "under God" into the Pledge, ironically dividing the phrase "one nation indivisible" by placing "under God" in the middle of it. It's a form of Dominionism, the belief that this is a Christian nation and that people need to be shown that, as a form of social intimidation.

It's not just a religious statue. It's a symbol. And that symbol stands for "theocracy" in law... in another Abrahamic religion, that is called "Sharia law". Sharia and Christian Dominionism both should be attacked. They deserve to be attacked in a pluralistic, secular society.

[MTL]

[abaris]

Right lol. Regardless of why it was meant to offend, it still was lol.

The why makes a hell of a difference. It's on the same lines as offending any given law breaker to draw them out in the open. You wouldn't have a problem if it deliberately offended a pickpocket or a thief. But because breaking the law, in this case, involved christian symbolism, it's very offensive.

[rexbeccarox]

[Esquilax]

Right lol. Regardless of why it was meant to offend, it still was lol.

No, actually it's not. Your basis for finding it offensive is that the statue depicts Satan, who is a hateful figure in your religion. But the statue doesn't depict Satan, and so your basis is nonexistent. That you continue to insist that the statue is offensive shows that you either don't care about your own stated reason, or you refuse to consider the cultural significance of the Baphomet figure as anything other than a simplistic attack on christianity. Which I think is sort of the issue here: you're saying that offensive things shouldn't be erected, but your offense only exists because of your unwillingness to consider other religions on their own merits, rather than as some specific response to your own and nothing else. You're disregarding a century of history and culture because it doesn't fit the narrative you'd already constructed ahead of time.

You're not offended for any factual reason, just that you're a member of a dominant cultural in-group who's in so deep that you can't see the forest for the trees. You can only see the statue from the framework of your own religion, and are seemingly refusing to even consider the fact that an unconnected group of people might develop their iconography without thinking of your specific religion the whole way through.

[MTL]

Right lol. Regardless of why it was meant to offend, it still was lol.

No, actually it's not. Your basis for finding it offensive is that the statue depicts Satan, who is a hateful figure in your religion. But the statue doesn't depict Satan, and so your basis is nonexistent. That you continue to insist that the statue is offensive shows that you either don't care about your own stated reason, or you refuse to consider the cultural significance of the Baphomet figure as anything other than a simplistic attack on christianity. Which I think is sort of the issue here: you're saying that offensive things shouldn't be erected, but your offense only exists because of your unwillingness to consider other religions on their own merits, rather than as some specific response to your own and nothing else. You're disregarding a century of history and culture because it doesn't fit the narrative you'd already constructed ahead of time.

You're not offended for any factual reason, just that you're a member of a dominant cultural in-group who's in so deep that you can't see the forest for the trees. You can only see the statue from the framework of your own religion, and are seemingly refusing to even consider the fact that an unconnected group of people might develop their iconography without thinking of your specific religion the whole way through.

Moreover, even if the statue WAS of Satan, so what?

You can't very well say that a statue, even one specifically depicting Satan,
is nothing more than a gratuitous insult to Christianity,

Since Satanism, as an entire religion, itself,
took its rise out of Christianity.

Had there never been a Christian Church,
there never would have been a Satanic Church.

(much in the way that had there never been a God,
there never would have been a Devil).

Had there never been a statue of Jesus on the Cross,
there would never have been statues of Baphomet OR Lucifer.

And since Christianity, itself, arose out of Judaism,
it can't really complain.

[Catholic_Lady]