That's irrelevant. The question at hand is, will they traumatize Tiny Tina by being insufficiently festive for the equinoctial portion of the late autumn and early winter, to a sufficient degree as to make the people responsible seem dickish to you?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Satanic Sculpture at Illinois Statehouse.
- Thread starter Senex
- Start date
That's irrelevant. The question at hand is, will they traumatize Tiny Tina by being insufficiently festive for the equinoctial portion of the late autumn and early winter, to a sufficient degree as to make the people responsible seem dickish to you?
Thermal
August Member
...I see what you politically correctly did, there...
If the climate advocates claimed religious expression freedom to gain use of the space, and they chose a public facade of the mortal and moral adversary of other religious displays featured, then yes, quite dickish. Flamingly so.
If their environmental plea was over on the community bulliten board, they could at least throw a Santa hat or a yarmeluke or something on the polar bear. If not, maybe a tad phallic, if caught in the right light.
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
I find the idea that any contrary viewpoint display is dickish as exactly why they are necessary.
This.
As a slightly related aside, it's Lucien GREAVES, not Graves, and, yes, it is a stage name. No idea if he had it legally changed to that or not. He's quite an intelligent and sensible speaker and writer.
For the record, while I think I disagree with Thermal's ultimate conclusion(s), I tend to agree with the thinking that got him there, i.e., I agree that while legally TST is a religion, rationally I don't think it is; and while TST had every right to insist on putting the display in Chicago, it isn't put there for the same reasons as the others and is a small poke-in-the-eye as opposed to a festival celebration or demonstration.
Where I differ is in concluding that either of those characterizations means either that the display is a tactical mistake or that its different purpose makes it inappropriate.
For the record, while I think I disagree with Thermal's ultimate conclusion(s), I tend to agree with the thinking that got him there, i.e., I agree that while legally TST is a religion, rationally I don't think it is; and while TST had every right to insist on putting the display in Chicago, it isn't put there for the same reasons as the others and is a small poke-in-the-eye as opposed to a festival celebration or demonstration.
Where I differ is in concluding that either of those characterizations means either that the display is a tactical mistake or that its different purpose makes it inappropriate.
Thermal
August Member
Then the contrary viewpoint is that of anti-celebration? Cuz the Satanists are clearly not celebrating anything.
That's the thing. Their point is valid. Their actual tactic was pointlessly snotty. There is a shade of difference being overlooked here.
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
Again, why MUST they celebrate just because the Christians are? Expecting them to seems dickish to me.
Thermal
August Member
Oh, I see now. It was all just a coincidence that the devil dudes wanted to display snakey handy thing in December. And that they call it' Snaketivity' is another one of those coincidences. You're right. It wasn't meant as a spit in the eye
Shadowdweller
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 1,509
No, they get a pass on the "not trying to deny people fundamental rights based on sexual orientation" and the "not harassing and bringing lawsuits against bereaved and traumatized families" grounds.
Watch the various videos where Greaves explains WHY he believes his philosophies/beliefs actually ARE a (nontheistic) religion.
Here's one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-x1N1j9dUM
Here's another: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbxxftLiKzY&t=655s
As with the FSM, you don't actually get to decide whether a religion is "serious" or not; nor what it means to an individual who promotes/believes in it.
Last edited:
Elagabalus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 7,051
That's pretty much the way I see it.* I think as a sculpture it's tastefully done. It doesn't really say Satanism to me, either. If anything, it looks like they bought it off the shelf and decided to call it a Satanist Sculpture.
*Until it poked me in the eye!
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
Glad you understand now.
ETA: A better, real response is appropriate. When you've been excluded for, well, ever, isn't a little bit of sour grapes understandable? Anyone non-Christian has been thoughtlessly tread upon at this time of year, which is dickish. Turn about is...
Last edited:
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
Cthuluhu seems to be next in line.
Thermal
August Member
Ok. When a nieghbor throws a party and your grandparents weren't invited to previous parties, do you piss on the decorations there, even though you are invited? I mean, turn about is...
Is my neighbor the government in this scenario?
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2006
- Messages
- 13,844
I see now. It was just coincidence that the bible beaters wanted to have a celebration in December in an attempt to usurp a pagan celebration and decided to claim it was the son of Skydaddy's birthday, even though it wasn't.
As someone so elegantly put it, "**** Christians."
Joe Random
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2005
- Messages
- 3,798
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 18,095
Well, I mean, the highlighted kind of is an example of the innocence of children.
I gave my step-nieces some toy swords and was showing them how they move when the younger one (six) said something about learning the pen is mightier than the sword but she still thinks sword is better sometimes.
Smart girl. She loved it when I taught her the phrase, 'pen and sword, in accord'. Her and her sister then started singing about swords before I could explain the twofold path. That's ok; they already know.
Thermal
August Member
The government...is not in...this scenario...or in...the OP...story.
Satanists requested to display their statuary. The Statehouse complied, as they were required to and should have. Govt's role then ends in this Holiday play. Exit, stage left.
Yes, it makes for a neatly canned argument to frame this as a rousing tale of the struggle between religious freedom, social norms, government resisting challenges, and the triumph of the oppressed minority. But Sweet Baby Jesus, that is not what is happening here. The govt is not oppressing anyone. The Christians have not launched the Battle of Armageddon. And no one is stifling the religious expression of pretend religions. Your paper tigers are all sleeping at your paper zoo.
Last edited:
Thermal
August Member
Are you holding contemporary secular celebrants responsible for Roman adoption and amalgamation of Christian/Pagan traditions spanning centuries? Its all Tiny Tina's fault, who came to see the pretty lights? **** her, you say?
Thermal
August Member
Still don't get where you are going with this.
An hour and a half of viewing? Yeah, no. Although I did catch at the beginning of the second where he says they do not hold the Satan stuff in reverence. Nothing says 'real religion' like irreverence everything from the name of your sect on down.
Actually, I do. Especially when it is blatant. After reading 'A Modest Proposal', i did not in fact eat anyone. That is because I recognized the blatant satire.