Yes, nativities and menorahs are religious, of course. What I am saying is that (especially the nativity) have become more party decorations which can be lightly seen independently of their origins
That's the whole point. In this season of joy, an inclusive set of religious displays seems a way of spreading joy, fairly. Christians wanted a display, which left out non-Christians. Jews wanted a display that left out non-Jews. Satanists wanted a display that left out the ignorant (those against knowledge). Seems everyone can be equally happy or unhappy, their choice.
I suspect her special creation, elements, and handling may contradict that observation. Then again, my family wasn't particularly religious either, but the nativity was also handed down and in a special place of respect (reverence?). It was not a party favor.
Plus, have you never watched a horror movie? Good/evil is attached to artifacts and don't require belief of the holder
BTW, regarding 'deeply entitled': you assert at least twice that I am a 'she'. Thermal is a 'he', right down to the Y chromosomes. What sense of obnoxious entitlement are you under to assert my gender, in contradiction to my identification? Satanist apologetics be rude, yo.
Like xterra said, you have a female avatar. It's as good a starting point as any. If you want to take offense at it, go ahead, it seems to be a theme for you.
Thermal said:
You got sooooo close, but dropped the ball. Thermal's argument has not been that the sculpture should be more discrete. Thermal's argument has been that it is not a display that is part of a celebration, as the others are. Thermal likes a party, and the sculpture, beautiful as it is in it's way, is not part of any festivity; it is a turd plopped in the punch bowl. If the Devil dudes even put up some weak pretense of a Solstice observance, different story then.
But Thermal is still not understanding the point the Satanic Temple is making with the display: that the Christian community (and by extension yourself) do not get a say in it. You can make whatever argument you like about how festive it isn't, it won't matter because it's their display, not yours. They don't need your approval or your permission. They have the same right to be there, and to determine what "being there" means, as anyone else.
If they have the right to do what they are doing, it shouldn't matter what your take is. If it matters what your take is, they don't actually have that right. If they theoretically have the right but come up with something so meek and inoffensive that absolutely no one has a problem with it, it's not much of an exercise, is it?
Of course, the real difficulty with that last sentence is that there will always be someone who has a problem with it, because what they really have a problem with is them being there at all.
Thermal said:
Can't view the video, my phone wants me to register something.
Like xterra said, you have a female avatar. It's as good a starting point as any. If you want to take offense at it, go ahead, it seems to be a theme for you.
My avatar, like most avatars, is not a self portrait. Back story: that's Gogo Yubari, a minor character from the movie Kill Bill. One of my kids had lamented the lack of strong women portrayed in movies. I actually had to remind them of Tarantino's strong (and very equal) female roles. She is a symbol of strength and embracing your fun side
And I'm not taking offense to anything, least of all this statuary, or your pronoun choice. I was pretty clearly kidding. That's your projection again.
But Thermal is still not understanding the point the Satanic Temple is making with the display: that the Christian community (and by extension yourself) do not get a say in it. You can make whatever argument you like about how festive it isn't, it won't matter because it's their display, not yours. They don't need your approval or your permission. They have the same right to be there, and to determine what "being there" means, as anyone else.
Yes. Yes they do. And I have asserted the same. Repeatedly.
I am not criticizing what they are doing. I am opining that they are accomplishing not a damn thing but making themselves look like killjoys. Why?
You even mention it earlier:
If they have the right to do what they are doing, it shouldn't matter what your take is. If it matters what your take is, they don't actually have that right. If they theoretically have the right but come up with something so meek and inoffensive that absolutely no one has a problem with it, it's not much of an exercise, is it?
Of course, the real difficulty with that last sentence is that there will always be someone who has a problem with it, because what they really have a problem with is them being there at all.
This is not at all what I have been repeatedly saying. Once more:
The Satanists are not celebrating, or decorating for festivities. They are not spreading their philosophy (or rather if they are trying to do so, they are not foisting knowledge. They are being stupid thinking this would to anything but widen the chasm).
Yes, they unequivocally have the right to do this. In the right setting, I would support their efforts. In this one, they are knocking themselves out to look like buzzkills. Pointless punch-bowl pooping. That is what I see their otherwise important message being distilled to.
But declare a pretend Solstice Celebration, and I'm in. Hell, I'll throw on a goatskin, don a Santa hat and spin a dredle while making black tears on the altar with a Pagan chick.
That's the whole point. In this season of joy, an inclusive set of religious displays seems a way of spreading joy, fairly. Christians wanted a display, which left out non-Christians. Jews wanted a display that left out non-Jews. Satanists wanted a display that left out the ignorant (those against knowledge). Seems everyone can be equally happy or unhappy, their choice.
See, I see the state property as everyone's. The govt is not some separate entity; it is us. We decorate and party and stuff. The contrary types do have to be tolerated, but just like the WBC, these Satanists need a lesson in PR. They just look a little twattish, IMO.
I suspect her special creation, elements, and handling may contradict that observation. Then again, my family wasn't particularly religious either, but the nativity was also handed down and in a special place of respect (reverence?). It was not a party favor.
Plus, have you never watched a horror movie? Good/evil is attached to artifacts and don't require belief of the holder
I think she made it to be special, even spiritual, without being exactly religious. My pastor grandfather was also pretty progressive that way, and way before his time.
Anyway, I'm not arguing that the snakey handy thingy has no business on state grounds. I'm saying they are shooting themselves in the foot by exercising this right in the midst of festivities. That they are not partaking in.
Yes, but time and place. Christians, and the larger secular celebrants, are not tossing condemnation around at Christmas. Let them live it up in peace, as long as the spirit is positive.
Maybe not, but we do see the equivalent at Halloween, when so many Christian churches run their version of haunted houses, when the many tortures of Hell awaiting non-believers are put on display.
Maybe not, but we do see the equivalent at Halloween, when so many Christian churches run their version of haunted houses, when the many tortures of Hell awaiting non-believers are put on display.
That's true, but those are normally held at churches, I think? I wouldn't go to a church expecting anything but a sermon. And passing a collection plate
See, I see the state property as everyone's. The govt is not some separate entity; it is us. We decorate and party and stuff. The contrary types do have to be tolerated, but just like the WBC, these Satanists need a lesson in PR. They just look a little twattish, IMO.
As I've said before, if the State wants to play, it must be inclusive. If Christianity get's to play, Satanism get's to play. Obviously, they don't play the same way, have the same goals, nor the same participants.
Anyway, I'm not arguing that the snakey handy thingy has no business on state grounds. I'm saying they are shooting themselves in the foot by exercising this right in the midst of festivities. That they are not partaking in.
Anything anyone does some folks will like, some won't. The Satanists know this, and made their choice. Again, good on them for a positive message. Your major issue is they are not celebrating Christmas, so they should shut up 'cuz their hurting Christian feelings.
The same was said previously by others when Jews wanted to display a Menorah. What a dick move, why can't they just accept Christmas as secular like the rest of us.
As I've said before, if the State wants to play, it must be inclusive. If Christianity get's to play, Satanism get's to play. Obviously, they don't play the same way, have the same goals, nor the same participants.
All right out of the WBC script. Satanists aren't smarter than that?
Anything anyone does some folks will like, some won't. The Satanists know this, and made their choice. Again, good on them for a positive message. Your major issue is they are not celebrating Christmas, so they should shut up 'cuz their hurting Christian feelings.
Not even remotely close. They are not hurting anyone's feelings. They are hurting their otherwise laudible message by being dicks instead of showing their superior reasoning.
The same was said previously by others when Jews wanted to display a Menorah. What a dick move, why can't they just accept Christmas as secular like the rest of us.
No. Celebrants can put up their respective decorations. At whatever time of year are their important decorating times. Have at it. But if you are not cebrating anything.... Why? To be a dick. Which is fine, but makes little sense to yours truly.
Why? Flip your comparison around: if you're Christian, you have to literally be a hate group before you attract a similar level of outrage as putting up a nice heathen display next to a manger scene. We might agree they have a right to be there, but that is NOT the default by a long shot. It's a battle that has to be fought every single time, over and over. Too provocative and you get rejected for being "offensive," not provocative enough and you cement your place as a second-class citizen.
I love how we've created a society where sarcasm, snarkiness, and pettiness (pushing aside how loaded that term is being used) generates more pearl clutching than hatred.
It's how near every religious discussion has to have one person having a fit of the vapors over a minority religious belief committing the sin of being slightly snarky toward absolute hatred being spewed at them.
I generally eye roll of "Privilege" arguments but this really must be what it feels like to be so used to be on top that being treated 1/10th as bad as you treat other people feels like an attack.
If you really dig into the statements that are being thrown around, there is some serious baggage that is getting buried. For example, let's look at the question of why should Satanists be putting up displays because Christians are the ones celebrating.
The whole statement is predicated on the implicit acknowledgement that Christmastime is a time for celebration for Christians. Therefore, the state lets them put up their displays. But who decided it is a time for celebration? Why, the Christians did. So they get to define what is and isn't celebration time, and, accordingly, no one else can put up displays while the Christians decide to celebrate. Satanists? They can only put up displays when the Christians deem them to be properly celebrating.
Oh, and who says it has to be a celebration in the first place? Once again, Christians impose that, and decide that since THEY decide Christmas is a celebration, then others can only do it during celebration.
Ask Satanists - is Christmastime a celebration? Did slaves celebrate the success of the Revolution? Calling it a ""celebration" just begs the question of who is actually celebrating? The majority Christians just get to decree that for everyone? These are the types of implicit biases that are in the statements being made.
Why? Flip your comparison around: if you're Christian, you have to literally be a hate group before you attract a similar level of outrage as putting up a nice heathen display next to a manger scene.
And what level of outrage over this was that again? The OP article links a nasty twitter comment. Losing our sense of perspective, are we?
We might agree they have a right to be there, but that is NOT the default by a long shot. It's a battle that has to be fought every single time, over and over. Too provocative and you get rejected for being "offensive," not provocative enough and you cement your place as a second-class citizen.
Yeah, they had to fight through the wars on this one. A real Battle Royale. as I'm reading it, they asked to display snakey handy thing and they were summarily approved. Hope they've licked their wounds and are healing well. I'll send a gift basket.
I love how we've created a society where sarcasm, snarkiness, and pettiness (pushing aside how loaded that term is being used) generates more pearl clutching than hatred.
It's how near every religious discussion has to have one person having a fit of the vapors over a minority religious belief committing the sin of being slightly snarky toward absolute hatred being spewed at them.
I generally eye roll of "Privilege" arguments but this really must be what it feels like to be so used to be on top that being treated 1/10th as bad as you treat other people feels like an attack.
Yeah, you must really know what it's like. To be dismissed and condescended to by the majority, who insist that they know better and you should just get over whatever it is you are saying and do what the majority says. You know, like what y'all are doing in this thread. The lack of self-reflection on your part is truly astonishing. Exploding irony meter and all that.
If you really dig into the statements that are being thrown around, there is some serious baggage that is getting buried. For example, let's look at the question of why should Satanists be putting up displays because Christians are the ones celebrating.
The whole statement is predicated on the implicit acknowledgement that Christmastime is a time for celebration for Christians. Therefore, the state lets them put up their displays. But who decided it is a time for celebration? Why, the Christians did. So they get to define what is and isn't celebration time, and, accordingly, no one else can put up displays while the Christians decide to celebrate. Satanists? They can only put up displays when the Christians deem them to be properly celebrating.
At some level, you have to know you just made all that up. Right?
Oh, and who says it has to be a celebration in the first place? Once again, Christians impose that, and decide that since THEY decide Christmas is a celebration, then others can only do it during celebration.
Ask Satanists - is Christmastime a celebration? Did slaves celebrate the success of the Revolution? Calling it a ""celebration" just begs the question of who is actually celebrating? The majority Christians just get to decree that for everyone? These are the types of implicit biases that are in the statements being made.
The pearl clutchers ITT (yes, that's actually you guys) are offended at the suggestion that snakey handy thing is a flip-off, and not worthy of serious consideration as religious expression. Freedom of Religion for your poor downtrodden Satanic Brethren, you shriek.
You do get that the Satanists are not a religion, right? They are a parody and satirical send-up of Christianity. They are not the downtrodden religious sect suffering from discrimination through the ages. FFS, they modeled themselves using the imagery and names of the mortal enemy of the Christians. Then they want to whine about being fought with, tooth and nail? Give me a ******* break.
They are play acting. They are not an oppressed religious sect. They have a perfectly valid philosophical point, which I support. But please spare us the cheap theatrics regarding the stifling of their religious expression and how long they have suffered at the hands of the bad old Christians.
I think you've got nothing, but you still feel the need to reply, so you're backpedaling and feigning joking detachment to save face. Fine, whatever. I hope that it'll at least cause you to consider a new perspective, the next time you hear an attack on different beliefs couched as a matter of politeness.
No. The Satanic temple is not heckling people at their most vulnerable and most personal, funerals...and then litigating if they react negatively. There's nothing the Satanic temple does that comes marginally close to the WBC playbook.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
