Satanic Sculpture at Illinois Statehouse.

[pgwenthold]

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

You are the one who used the same language as harassers to defend them. That doesn't give you pause?

Again, the question is, who gets to decide it is harmless? The 9 men in the office decide that the sexual harassment of the only woman is harmless fun, right?

Very clearly, what the Satanists are saying in this case is that the christmas displays are not harmless TO THEM.

 

[The Greater Fool]

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

"Harmless fun" is a horrible rational for anything. The example could have easily been bullying.

ETA: Without looking, I think I might have started using 'harmless fun' first.

 

[pgwenthold]

"Harmless fun" is a horrible rational for anything. The example could have easily been bullying.

But this is why I chose the example I did. Yeah, harmless fun could be bullying. It could be teenagers riding in the back of a truck shooting mailboxes. But it could even be sexual harassment.

"Harmless fun" has been used as an attempt to excuse pretty much everything, from truly harmless fun to seriously bad behavior.

 

[Thermal]

You are the one who used the same language as harassers to defend them. That doesn't give you pause?

No more than describing my young nephew playing with my daughters dolls is also harmless fun. Or is that rapist apologetics too? I mean, please go on. Can't wait to hear about the symbolism of the phallic Christmas tree and a wreath. Duuuuuude, you ever think about what Santa coming down the chimney reeeeeaaaally means...

Again, the question is, who gets to decide it is harmless? The 9 men in the office decide that the sexual harassment of the only woman is harmless fun, right?

Very clearly, what the Satanists are saying in this case is that the christmas displays are not harmless TO THEM.

What is this harm done? Are you saying it is rapishly wrong to have Santa riding on the city fire engine? Decorating city hall with lights or a wreath is mind *******? Go on.

 

[JoeMorgue]

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

And see here it is.

The WBC protests funerals and chants hate speech.

The Satanist are literally doing the exact same thing as the Christians are doing and it is seen as equivalent to what the WBC is doing.

When someone does the exact same thing you're doing to them at you and you have a problem with it, there's a term for that.

 

[The Greater Fool]

But this is why I chose the example I did. Yeah, harmless fun could be bullying. It could be teenagers riding in the back of a truck shooting mailboxes. But it could even be sexual harassment.

"Harmless fun" has been used as an attempt to excuse pretty much everything, from truly harmless fun to seriously bad behavior.

Sorry I wasn't clear, I was in supporting your comment and was typing during your second, with the ETA that I think I started using the "just for fun" thing first.

 

[Thermal]

"Harmless fun" is a horrible rational for anything. The example could have easily been bullying.

ETA: Without looking, I think I might have started using 'harmless fun' first.

But this is why I chose the example I did. Yeah, harmless fun could be bullying. It could be teenagers riding in the back of a truck shooting mailboxes. But it could even be sexual harassment.

"Harmless fun" has been used as an attempt to excuse pretty much everything, from truly harmless fun to seriously bad behavior.

Right, but harmless fun can also mean...harmless fun. It does not automatically convey violation.

Again, my argument here is not that the Devil dudes are wrong, its that they're going WBC. Being a social douchebag is fair grounds for a call-out, even if their rationale is sound.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Right, but harmless fun can also mean...harmless fun. It does not automatically convey violation.

Again, my argument here is not that the Devil dudes are wrong, its that they're going WBC. Being a social douchebag is fair grounds for a call-out, even if their rationale is sound.

You may have missed my previous reply at the bottom of last page re: WBC.

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.

 

[Thermal]

And see here it is.

The WBC protests funerals and chants hate speech.

The Satanist are literally doing the exact same thing as the Christians are doing and it is seen as equivalent to what the WBC is doing.

When someone does the exact same thing you're doing to them at you and you have a problem with it, there's a term for that.

Not even close. If the Satanists were to put up Winter Solstice celebration decorations, and they genuinely celebrate this, then fine. Join the winter party. Let me buy you a drink. Hell, if they want to have their own MayDay and do a pagan dance in the rotunda, I'm down.

But they are not participating in celebrations. They are being wet blankets for the sake of being wet blankets.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Not even close. If the Satanists were to put up Winter Solstice celebration decorations, and they genuinely celebrate this, then fine. Join the winter party. Let me buy you a drink. Hell, if they want to have their own MayDay and do a pagan dance in the rotunda, I'm down.

But they are not participating in celebrations. They are being wet blankets for the sake of being wet blankets.

Perhaps the Satanists would have put up a Winter Solstice decorations if the Christians hadn't taken all the Winter Solstice trappings: Yule log, tree trimming, gift giving, December 25th, etc. Christians even moved Jesus' birth to take over Winter Solstice.

 

[Thermal]

You may have missed my previous reply at the bottom of last page re: WBC.

I caught it. It's not a question of volume. It's a question of intent.

The intent of the statuary is not to celebrate. It is to be contrary, and IMO obnoxious. From the legal standpoint, they are right. But they are randomly putting up a gratuitous sculpture that looks like The Thing from the Aadams Family with a snake. They are not taking part in centuries old celebrations which have broadened to a secular celebration that our retail economy is actually dependent on. They are being twats because they can. Not a good look.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Not even close. If the Satanists were to put up Winter Solstice celebration decorations, and they genuinely celebrate this, then fine. Join the winter party. Let me buy you a drink. Hell, if they want to have their own MayDay and do a pagan dance in the rotunda, I'm down.

But they are not participating in celebrations. They are being wet blankets for the sake of being wet blankets.

Being a wet blanket for the sake of being a wet blanket would be trolling Christians outside of churches or at other such places. Having a religious display on government property is an inherently political act that ought to be countered with full stubbornness.

Satanists aren't out pissing on Christians parade all over the country. They only do these things in places where the government insists on violating the spirit of the law and backdoor endorse a state religion.

 

[Thermal]

Perhaps the Satanists would have put up a Winter Solstice decorations if the Christians hadn't taken all the Winter Solstice trappings: Yule log, tree trimming, gift giving, December 25th, etc. Christians even moved Jesus' birth to take over Winter Solstice.

Right? Sacrifice a goat or something and join the party!

 

[The Greater Fool]

Right? Sacrifice a goat or something and join the party!

Yeah, that wouldn't have been disruptive, but a statue is?

 

[Thermal]

Being a wet blanket for the sake of being a wet blanket would be trolling Christians outside of churches or at other such places. Having a religious display on government property is an inherently political act that ought to be countered with full stubbornness.

Satanists aren't out pissing on Christians parade all over the country. They only do these things in places where the government insists on violating the spirit of the law and backdoor endorse a state religion.

You mean like the White House Christmas tree? Are the Devil dudes hanging little skulls on that?

Hey, what is the rotunda at the Nation's Capitol looking like nowadays?

 

[Worm]

They are not taking part in centuries old celebrations...

Generally I don't care about this whole thing. But this phrase stuck out for me.

How long does a celebration have to have been going before it is acceptable?

How does a celebration get to be 'centuries old' if in the early days it is suppressed?

 

[Thermal]

Yeah, that wouldn't have been disruptive, but a statue is?

As goofy as it sounds, if they were sincere about it, I would support them. PETA would be all over their asses, tho

 

[xterra]

Thermal,


Your objections remind me of this:

You don't like the Satanists' message, and you see it as disruptive of a festive season.

You ask if it's wrong to have Santa riding on a fire truck in a parade.



Yes. it's wrong if the "Santanists" aren't paying for the gas the truck uses.

Lights in City Hall -- same thing. If government is paying the electric bill rather than a religious organization paying it, there is preferential treatment of one religion over another one.

Putting up a tree in a city park using city employees and equipment is preferential treatment (maybe of Christianity maybe of paganism -- depends on the decorations on the tree). My tax dollars should not be used to support ANY religion. Neither should yours.

Placing a religious statue in a public space at no cost to the government, and where other religious statues are placed -- that's not preferential treatment.


EDIT - replace any religious symbol and any label on the T-shirt and the message is the same.

 

[Thermal]

Generally I don't care about this whole thing. But this phrase stuck out for me.

How long does a celebration have to have been going before it is acceptable?

How does a celebration get to be 'centuries old' if in the early days it is suppressed?

It's an interesting argument. The US Govt, IIRC, had to deal with people gratuitously creating religions that employed drugs in their worship services. Had to effectively 'stop' the traditions from starting.

I look at it as more of a grandfather clause. It's been done for so long and by so many people that its existence can't be denied. A new tradition, if legal, would take time to take hold of the cultural consciousness. Significant time, to be comparable in tradition.

I think it could be argued that Christian celebrations were suppressed in their early days. Killing the participants and whatnot.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

You mean like the White House Christmas tree? Are the Devil dudes hanging little skulls on that?

Hey, what is the rotunda at the Nation's Capitol looking like nowadays?

All of this is neither here nor there. The state rotunda has a nativity scene, which is explicitly and unavoidably Christian. It's a literal depiction of the birth of the Christ figure, there's no secularizing that.

Maybe the Satanists would not bother if they only had a Christmas tree. I'm guessing not, since Christmas trees are literally everywhere and they aren't really complaining about those nearly as much.