Satanic Sculpture at Illinois Statehouse.

[Beelzebuddy]

I'm happy they're doing something nice like this. I was worried the War on Christmas would get postponed this year, what with all the horrible crap going on.

It's not that it is offensive, so much that it sure seems meant to be. Putting it next to a Christmas tree, as pictured in the OP, and right at eye level, is not something likely to be missed by those who are going to see the mild community spectacular that is the town's decorations. For a group who advocates knowledge and reason, would they know that such a display would reasonably be met with disdain? Picking a fight at an otherwise good-natured affair? i mean, black and crimson, with a snake wrapping around a female arm, a nice pentagram for good measure...this was meant to be a kick in the celebrants' teeth. Just like I have little sympathy for the Westboro Baptist Church's choice of venue for expressing their opinions, I think the Satanists could dial it down a little when both Christians and seculars are having some wholesome family time. there is a more considerate time and place to challenge religious thinking, if that is their intent.

I'm still just seeing a lot of "it's all in good fun when we do it, it's offensive when they do it."

 

[Thermal]

I'm happy they're doing something nice like this. I was worried the War on Christmas would get postponed this year, what with all the horrible crap going on.


I'm still just seeing a lot of "it's all in good fun when we do it, it's offensive when they do it."

Not at all. Being randomly disrespectful to strangers is never okay (being disrespectful to targeted people can be okay, sometimes). People sometimes have Solstice celebrations around here. Not sure if they are pagans, or new-agey people, or what, but same thing: I give them their space. Don't blow someone's high for your own self-righeousness, no matter your beliefs. If someone picks a fight, give it to them. Otherwise, live and let live.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

How respectful do you think it is to set up religious displays in government spaces?

The key to all of these Satanic Temple shenanigans is it's always in response to someone else's religious display. If one is appropriate and respectful, both are. If one is offensive or disrespectful, both are.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'd hit that.

OK that's creepy.

 

[mumblethrax]

Not at all. Being randomly disrespectful to strangers is never okay (being disrespectful to targeted people can be okay, sometimes).

They aren't being randomly disrespectful. They expressing sincere disagreement, in one of the contexts from which the disagreement stems. We can distinguish celebrations from insults, but we can also distinguish genuine opposition from nihilistic invective.

 

[Thermal]

How respectful do you think it is to set up religious displays in government spaces?

The key to all of these Satanic Temple shenanigans is it's always in response to someone else's religious display. If one is appropriate and respectful, both are. If one is offensive or disrespectful, both are.

They aren't being randomly disrespectful. They expressing sincere disagreement, in one of the contexts from which the disagreement stems. We can distinguish celebrations from insults, but we can also distinguish genuine opposition from nihilistic invective.

I get that they have the right to do what they are doing. My take is that they shouldn't do so if their intent is only to ridicule.

The Christmas jazz is intended as a positive thing. The Baphomets and whatnot are intended as negatives, just a spit in the face to prove a point. The point is valid, and worthy of discussion. But in the same way I wouldn't piss on a Mecca mat, I would expect the Satanists to ease up and let the harmless fun be had. Sharpen up the pitchforks for school prayer and all.

 

[mumblethrax]

I get that they have the right to do what they are doing. My take is that they shouldn't do so if their intent is only to ridicule.

I get what you're saying, and I think you're wrong that their only intent is to ridicule. This isn't what mere ridicule looks like. It's provocative, but not nihilistically provocative.

The Christmas jazz is intended as a positive thing. The Baphomets and whatnot are intended as negatives, just a spit in the face to prove a point. The point is valid, and worthy of discussion. But in the same way I wouldn't piss on a Mecca mat, I would expect the Satanists to ease up and let the harmless fun be had. Sharpen up the pitchforks for school prayer and all.

I don't agree that this constitutes a spit in the face. A manger scene with Satan killing the baby Jesus probably would. It simply expresses a disagreement ("How can you think Satan is the villain in these stories?")

The fact that some Christians brook no disagreement in these matters is the whole of the problem.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I get that they have the right to do what they are doing. My take is that they shouldn't do so if their intent is only to ridicule.

The Christmas jazz is intended as a positive thing. The Baphomets and whatnot are intended as negatives, just a spit in the face to prove a point. The point is valid, and worthy of discussion. But in the same way I wouldn't piss on a Mecca mat, I would expect the Satanists to ease up and let the harmless fun be had. Sharpen up the pitchforks for school prayer and all.

Again, how is it that a Christian religious display on government grounds counts as "just harmless fun" and "a positive thing," while a display having a bit of fun at their religion's expense is "spitting in their face?" If they don't like it, they can keep their manger scene in the church where it belongs, and I guarantee they won't hear a peep out of those mean ol' Satanists with their selfishly wanting a properly respected division between church and state.

And I'll disagree with your last sentiment. This is exactly where the pitchforks need to come out.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Never **** Satanic. Witches be crazy yo.

I know. I love me sum crazy witches.

 

[Joe Random]

I get that they have the right to do what they are doing. My take is that they shouldn't do so if their intent is only to ridicule.

The Christmas jazz is intended as a positive thing. The Baphomets and whatnot are intended as negatives, just a spit in the face to prove a point. The point is valid, and worthy of discussion. But in the same way I wouldn't piss on a Mecca mat, I would expect the Satanists to ease up and let the harmless fun be had. Sharpen up the pitchforks for school prayer and all.

The point is in this specific case, it's not harmless. These are openly, overtly religious display inside the state capitol building. Not in shared public spaces, not private property that's in view of the sidewalk, but the actual halls of government. Lawmakers allow displays of specific religious intent. That makes all the difference in the world when viewing the 'offensive' apple.

 

[Thermal]

I get what you're saying, and I think you're wrong that their only intent is to ridicule. This isn't what mere ridicule looks like. It's provocative, but not nihilistically provocative.


I don't agree that this constitutes a spit in the face. A manger scene with Satan killing the baby Jesus probably would. It simply expresses a disagreement ("How can you think Satan is the villain in these stories?")

The fact that some Christians brook no disagreement in these matters is the whole of the problem.

You're right, provocative is a better descriptor than ridicule. And they certainly are trying to provoke, here.

Do you think this will win any converts, or even cause someone to stop and think about the role of Satan in the quest for knowledge, or the Church's discouragement of scientific understanding over dogma? Imma go out on a limb and say no. It will likely only put the Satanists in a worse light to most viewers.

 

[The Greater Fool]

You're right, provocative is a better descriptor than ridicule. And they certainly are trying to provoke, here.

Do you think this will win any converts, or even cause someone to stop and think about the role of Satan in the quest for knowledge, or the Church's discouragement of scientific understanding over dogma? Imma go out on a limb and say no. It will likely only put the Satanists in a worse light to most viewers.

Isn't this the Satanists concern? Are they seeking converts? I don't think so.
I think they are trying to provoke a discussion, and look! It worked.

 

[Thermal]

Again, how is it that a Christian religious display on government grounds counts as "just harmless fun" and "a positive thing," while a display having a bit of fun at their religion's expense is "spitting in their face?" If they don't like it, they can keep their manger scene in the church where it belongs, and I guarantee they won't hear a peep out of those mean ol' Satanists with their selfishly wanting a properly respected division between church and state. And I'll disagree with your last sentiment. This is exactly where the pitchforks need to come out.

The point is in this specific case, it's not harmless. These are openly, overtly religious display inside the state capitol building. Not in shared public spaces, not private property that's in view of the sidewalk, but the actual halls of government. Lawmakers allow displays of specific religious intent. That makes all the difference in the world when viewing the 'offensive' apple.

The rotunda in the OP is a little tricky. It is treated like a public space, but is clearly adjacent to the halls of governing, more so than a public park.

So they can't use taxpayer funds to endorse a religiously themed exhibit. All well and good. These are privately provided exhibits. Still all well and good. What does their proximity to the lawmakers offices mean to you? Most lawmakers rather openly wear their religion on their sleeves and speak publicly about it. So I think this idea that the nativity was 'too close to the govt' falls a little flat. They already endorse their convictions publicly. The traditional decorations that others put up nearby don't change anything.

Is there something wrong with community members decorating their public space with traditional holiday decor? Only if you plan to storm the White House as well. While you're at it, every public street that sports lights or garland and wreaths on its streetlights and all.

But that's okay, as long as the Satan guys can put their Halloweeney-style thing up? Well, that is a fair argument. If they were putting up something that was part of one of their important festivals, say a Solstice celebration. And of course, if the Satanists were actual Satanists or pagans or witches or whatever.

The Devil dudes are not celebrating, as the other participants are. They are walking in giving everyone the finger because they don't like anything associated with Christianity. That's petty.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The more you can easily get bothered by the Satanist display but defend the Christian display, the point is made more.

 

[pgwenthold]

Am I the only one who bristles at the characterization of "harmless fun"? "Harmless fun" is the go-to defense of, inter alia, pretty much every sexual harasser. It begs the question of who decides it's harmless.

Those uppity women who complain about sexual harassment in the #metoo movement are just pissing everyone off, right? They need to shut up and accept abuse as the compliments in which it is intended. It's just all harmless fun....

For the one doing it....

 

[Thermal]

Isn't this the Satanists concern? Are they seeking converts? I don't think so.
I think they are trying to provoke a discussion, and look! It worked.

They did indeed. The discussion being about how much of a dick they are needlessly being.

I would welcome their input at a meeting to discuss inclusion of YEC or intelligent design in public schools. I would support their insistence on being displayed next to the Ten Commandments. And if they want to establish a church on main street and host civic events, I would be all for them.

Appropriate time and place is all I would ask. Not protesting the state recognition of marriage outside a church where a couple were getting married, for instance. These guys are taking the WBC approach to delivering their message. They have that right, but I don't think they are doing themselves any favors by exercising it.

 

[Joe Random]

The more you can easily get bothered by the Satanist display but defend the Christian display, the point is made more.

What's the quote from Southpark where Kyle tells the Rev. that he's Jewish? Rev. says something like "You're not too Jewish to love Jesus, are you?". Yeah.

 

[Thermal]

The more you can easily get bothered by the Satanist display but defend the Christian display, the point is made more.

Yup. The WBC really brings their point home too, amirite?

 

[Thermal]

Am I the only one who bristles at the characterization of "harmless fun"? "Harmless fun" is the go-to defense of, inter alia, pretty much every sexual harasser. It begs the question of who decides it's harmless.

Those uppity women who complain about sexual harassment in the #metoo movement are just pissing everyone off, right? They need to shut up and accept abuse as the compliments in which it is intended. It's just all harmless fun....

For the one doing it....

...public Christmas trees are analogous to raping, now?

 

[The Greater Fool]

They did indeed. The discussion being about how much of a dick they are needlessly being.

I would welcome their input at a meeting to discuss inclusion of YEC or intelligent design in public schools. I would support their insistence on being displayed next to the Ten Commandments. And if they want to establish a church on main street and host civic events, I would be all for them.

Appropriate time and place is all I would ask. Not protesting the state recognition of marriage outside a church where a couple were getting married, for instance. These guys are taking the WBC approach to delivering their message. They have that right, but I don't think they are doing themselves any favors by exercising it.

I welcome their input on equal footing with Christianity. Any time, any government space.

The Christian display was (presumably) as quiet as the was the Satanist display. No one was yelling at anyone. Comparing this silent display with WBC appears to reflect a bias in your thinking.

Obviously, the Satanists are dickeshly unconcerned with who they might offend. Just like the Christians.