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]

you know, I really think the Baphoment statue is saying something very important,

but the fuss that the Christians are making over it is funny, to me;

they should just be glad it wasn't the devil statue that popped up (so to speak, lol) overnight,
in Vancouver, Canada, awhile back:

warning, graphic adult content:

https://sinjones.files.wordpress.com/201...00x600.jpg

EDIT: I hope I didn't break any rules by posting that link. Someone please let me know if I did.

[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]

you know, I really think the Baphoment statue is saying something very important,

but the fuss that the Christians are making over it is funny, to me;

they should just be glad it wasn't the devil statue that popped up (so to speak, lol) overnight,
in Vancouver, Canada, awhile back:

warning, graphic adult content:

https://sinjones.files.wordpress.com/201...00x600.jpg

EDIT:  I hope I didn't break any rules by posting that link.  Someone please let me know if I did.

[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]

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.

---

Hi Surgeon, sorry I don't get to all the posts sometimes. It's a lot of them to respond to, and I feel like I'm just repeating myself, as I don't know what other way I can explain where I'm coming from. 

You said this: "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?" 

I have 2 things to say about this:

1. I'm having a hard time relating because I don't see myself feeling the same way if they had put a different religious symbol up. I wouldn't see myself feeling like it's a slap in the face if there was a Buddha up there, and to me, caring about that would just feel petty and butt hurt. So I can't relate to someone saying it's a slap in the face for the 10 commandments to be up there, because it wouldn't be to me if there was another religion's symbol up there. If the laws were not affected at all, I'd have no reason to think of it as anything more than a piece of concrete, or to care what a couple people who put Buddha up are saying. They can say whatever they want, for all I care. So long as the laws don't change and so long as I am not treated differently and so long as I'd be allowed to put a cross up there too if I wanted. Also, I feel like people are overeating a bit to my stance on this. My stance isn't that I support it/think it should be up there, and that I'd get mad if it came down. My stance is that I don't care either way lol. So no, I personally don't see it as a slap in the face. But if you see it as a slap in the face, and you want it to be taken down, ok. Lol, I have 0 objections to you feeling that way, and I have 0 objections to it coming down if that's what ends up happening.  

2. I agree, it's not a Christian nation. Yes, most people here are Christian, but as far as our laws are concerned, they are still based on separation of church and state. So that's why I said that to show that this is not just a Christian nation, other religions should be allowed to put their symbols up on public property too, if they want. And shoot, put the atheist "A" up too, lol. I don't care. I agree it should be allowed for any religious symbol to be on public property, or none. This would show that everyone has the same rights to represent their ideologies.        

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.