Satanic Sculpture at Illinois Statehouse.

[qayak]

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?

As much as you hold these Satanists to be dicks and their actions pointlessly snotty, yes, **** Tiny Tina if Tiny Tina be Christian.

 

[The Greater Fool]

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...

If my neighbor throws a big party that flows onto and through my property once a year that lasts a month, and I post a sign 'please think of the neighbors at night and be quiet', I am not being dickish, they are.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The government...is not in...this scenario...or in...the OP...story.

Okay I see we've reached the inevitable "Thermal starts writing fan fiction about stuff that the scenario is not about and getting huffy when people won't play in his made up fantasy world" part of the thread.

Okay so before you start making up hypothetical scenario about hypothetical scenario where one party is cartoonishly rude to an innocent second party let me stop you.

This is not being rude to another guest when invited to a party. The Statehouse was not doing the Satanist a favor by graciously letting them put their display next to the good wholesome Christian one. The Satanist haven't accrued a "niceness" debt to the government they have to pay back.

If whatever made up fan fiction hypothetical comes out of your brain next doesn't include a 3rd party who has the Constitutional Mandate to not favor Party 1 over Party 2 in the scenario... it's wrong and I will call you on it.

You keep wanting to make this about "niceness" because you think if you can force people to acknowledge a "They weren't being nice enough about it" hairsplit you win and now you're doing your "Okay but what everything about the situation was different would I be right then?" begging.

It's not about niceness. Nobody but you cares about niceness or pettiness or the validity of the holiday being celebrated as if that's even a thing. This is why nobody is falling into your "SOMEBODY JUST AGREE WITH ME THAT THEY ARE BEING PETTY! AGREE WITH ME ON THAT POINT DAMMIT!" trap, because we aren't going to let you turn this discussion into that.

 

[Thermal]

Fair enough, the party does spill over and get invasive. Do you mean my this analogy that Christmas and other celebrations should be kept private, and not be noticeable to you? Should retailers remove their displays, too, lest they offend thine eyes?

Tell me: how much of the celebrants' excersize of their religion would you like to see suppressed?

 

[Garrette]

This is why I said my disagreement ends at Thermal's conclusion:

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.

The government is definitely part of the OP and the scenario.


And this is as fine a response to it as there might be:

Okay I see we've reached the inevitable "Thermal starts writing fan fiction about stuff that the scenario is not about and getting huffy when people won't play in his made up fantasy world" part of the thread.

Okay so before you start making up hypothetical scenario about hypothetical scenario where one party is cartoonishly rude to an innocent second party let me stop you.

This is not being rude to another guest when invited to a party. The Statehouse was not doing the Satanist a favor by graciously letting them put their display next to the good wholesome Christian one. The Satanist haven't accrued a "niceness" debt to the government they have to pay back.

If whatever made up fan fiction hypothetical comes out of your brain next doesn't include a 3rd party who has the Constitutional Mandate to not favor Party 1 over Party 2 in the scenario... it's wrong and I will call you on it.

You keep wanting to make this about "niceness" because you think if you can force people to acknowledge a "They weren't being nice enough about it" hairsplit you win and now you're doing your "Okay but what everything about the situation was different would I be right then?" begging.

It's not about niceness. Nobody but you cares about niceness or pettiness or the validity of the holiday being celebrated as if that's even a thing. This is why nobody is falling into your "SOMEBODY JUST AGREE WITH ME THAT THEY ARE BEING PETTY! AGREE WITH ME ON THAT POINT DAMMIT!" trap, because we aren't going to let you turn this discussion into that.

The following is almost right, but the bit that isn't in the almost part is the key bit and egregious:

Fair enough, the party does spill over and get invasive. Do you mean my this analogy that Christmas and other celebrations should be kept private, and not be noticeable to you? Should retailers remove their displays, too, lest they offend thine eyes?

Tell me: how much of the celebrants' excersize of their religion would you like to see suppressed?

Yes, they should be private. No, "private" does not mean stores cannot make those displays.

Until these last few posts, and not having had prior experience with you, Thermal, I was a bit taken aback with the responses you were getting. Now I begin to understand.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Fair enough, the party does spill over and get invasive. Do you mean my this analogy that Christmas and other celebrations should be kept private, and not be noticeable to you? Should retailers remove their displays, too, lest they offend thine eyes?

Tell me: how much of the celebrants' excersize of their religion would you like to see suppressed?

You can be as dickish as your rights allow. [ETA: to be clear: within the limits of law]

 

[Senex]

If my neighbor throws a big party that flows onto and through my property once a year that lasts a month, and I post a sign 'please think of the neighbors at night and be quiet', I am not being dickish, they are.

Fair enough, the party does spill over and get invasive. Do you mean my this analogy that Christmas and other celebrations should be kept private, and not be noticeable to you? Should retailers remove their displays, too, lest they offend thine eyes?

Tell me: how much of the celebrants' excersize of their religion would you like to see suppressed?

I, for one, refused to sign the petition to keep the local pagans from performing their neighborhood celebrations skyclad. In fact, unlike the stick in the mud The Greater Fool, I encouraged the naked Wiccan ladies to party late and flow through my yard any time they wanted to. I even kick in a few bottles of wine as long as it's consumed on my property (legal reasons).

 

[The Greater Fool]

I, for one, refused to sign the petition to keep the local pagans from performing their neighborhood celebrations skyclad. In fact, unlike the stick in the mud The Greater Fool, I encouraged the naked Wiccan ladies to party late and flow through my yard any time they wanted to. I even kick in a few bottles of wine as long as it's consumed on my property (legal reasons).

The sign said 'be quiet', not 'do not come naked.'

 

[Thermal]

Okay I see we've reached the inevitable "Thermal starts writing fan fiction...<typical get off my lawn rant snipped>...turn this discussion into that.

Oh, no you don't. Just because someone disagrees with you or views things differently, it does not mean they live in an alternative universe. There are no alternate hypotheticals being presented to reframe the OP story. Use that freaking straw you are piling up to feed your paper tigers.

This isn't about niceness, per se. It is about pointlessness. It's about mindless posturing and being contrary to no benefit. It is about shooting yourself in the foot and making an otherwise valid stance and mechanism look petty. The Satanic Temple drops themselves down a notch or two on the credibility ladder by engaging in such things; instead of being a voice where it is needed, they insert themselves where it serves no end other than to be dicks. I would rather they used their facade of being a religion to keep the Ten Commandments from being displayed on state grounds year round, than to portray themselves as mindless killjoys.

Now in between feeding your paper tigers and shining your white patent leather shoes, why don't you cite where I am presenting alternative universe fan fic hypotheticals? Pissant sidebar analogies don't count, as all are using them. Put up or shut up.

 

[Joe Random]

Let's just keep taking the analogy further and further afield till we eventually get to a framing that paints things the way we want.

"So if we all agree that the sentient velociraptor was only in the cave to escape the meteor impact, then obviously the time-traveling Weyland-Yutani android was the one being dickish when he shot the poor dino with his Goa'uld staff weapon. Just like in the OP.".

 

[JoeMorgue]

Oh, no you don't. Just because someone disagrees with you or views things differently, it does not mean they live in an alternative universe.

No you live in an alternative universe when you specifically make up scenarios that omit the key factor in what is being discussed.

Like you did.

This isn't about niceness, per se. It is about pointlessness. It's about mindless posturing and being contrary to no benefit. It is about shooting yourself in the foot and making an otherwise valid stance and mechanism look petty. The Satanic Temple drops themselves down a notch or two on the credibility ladder by engaging in such things; instead of being a voice where it is needed, they insert themselves where it serves no end other than to be dicks. I would rather they used their facade of being a religion to keep the Ten Commandments from being displayed on state grounds year round, than to portray themselves as mindless killjoys.

Man you really don't like it when minorities want equality do you? It just really sets you off.

Again nobody cares about politeness or niceness or whatever synonym you're gonna use next to say the exact same thing.

Now in between feeding your paper tigers and shining your white patent leather shoes, why don't you cite where I am presenting alternative universe fan fic hypotheticals? Pissant sidebar analogies don't count, as all are using them. Put up or shut up.

The internet tough guy routine you fall into when someone calls you on your argumentative theatrics will never cease to be adorable.

So far just in this thread you've created alternate universes where:

1. Nativity Scenes aren't religious.
2. The Constitution only protects religious freedom of expression when you are celebrating a major holiday.
3. The government is just someone who's invited us into a party at their house and we have to play nice with the other guest.

This is like four or five people now in this thread alone telling you that they see through your "Make up a scenario where I'm right" game. We're not all making stuff up and seeing stuff that isn't there.

 

[Thermal]

This is why I said my disagreement ends at Thermal's conclusion:
The government is definitely part of the OP and the scenario.

As I see it, the State did exactly what it was required to do, and without resistance. They did the right thing, and right away. They did nothing else. Relating to the OP, what role did they continue to play? Not the vague role of oppression throughout history, I mean as it is shown here.

And this is as fine a response to it as there might be:



The following is almost right, but the bit that isn't in the almost part is the key bit and egregious:
Yes, they should be private. No, "private" does not mean stores cannot make those displays.

That is somewhat of a sidebar argument. The Greater Fool's analogy referred to a neighbor's party. If the intent was to analogize the government as the neighbor, that was lost on me. I assume for the analogy to make sense, that the neighbors would be christian/secular celebrants going overboard with their festivities to the point where they are overpowering, as evidenced by the inevitable presence everywhere, from grocery stores on down.

If TGF's analogy meant that the neighbor was the government keeping him up at night with their revelry, I concede that was lost on me.

Until these last few posts, and not having had prior experience with you, Thermal, I was a bit taken aback with the responses you were getting. Now I begin to understand.

Watch how some posters (not TGF) will walk my position around and subtly reframe it to make the argument about something else. In this case, it looks like State suppression of minority religions will be the paper tiger. The State did not suppress here. I applaud them for doing the right thing without ado.

 

[Thermal]

You can be as dickish as your rights allow. [ETA: to be clear: within the limits of law]

Agreed. And I have said so since page one. Have I not supported TST's right to do this? Who is throwing the obnoxious party that spills into your yard, in your analogy? For that matter, what is your yard and your neighbor's? Are they both State grounds, or what? If not, you would seem to be criticizing celebrants, no?

eta: and what would 'be quiet' mean?

 

[TragicMonkey]

It is about pointlessness. It's about mindless posturing and being contrary to no benefit. It is about shooting yourself in the foot and making an otherwise valid stance and mechanism look petty.

This is grand master level meta, right here.

 

[Thermal]

No you live in an alternative universe when you specifically make up scenarios that omit the key factor in what is being discussed.

Like you did.

No, the key factor you are claiming does not even exist in this OP. The government acted perfectly. They are not your boogeymen this time. I'll send down some white shoe polish to you for your stocking.

Man you really don't like it when minorities want equality do you? It just really sets you off.

Again with the random character assassinations.

There is no unequal treatment of minority anything in this story. Full stop.

Who is living in the alternative universe now?

Again nobody cares about politeness or niceness or whatever synonym you're gonna use next to say the exact same thing.



The internet tough guy routine you fall into when someone calls you on your argumentative theatrics will never cease to be adorable.

Not tough guy. It just gets tedious to read your endless complaints about things that are not happening.

So far just in this thread you've created alternate universes where:

1. Nativity Scenes aren't religious.

Bull. I have acknowledged, and repeatedly, that they are of course religious. I further opine that they are so trivial as to be viewed as just another plastic decoration by many. This sets you off in a pearl clutching frenzy. Your problem, not mine.

2. The Constitution only protects religious freedom of expression when you are celebrating a major holiday.
3. The government is just someone who's invited us into a party at their house and we have to play nice with the other guest.

Bull. The State did exactly what they were required to do, and I applaud them for it. All. Through. The. Thread. Take your paper tiger for a walk.

This is like four or five people now in this thread alone telling you that they see through your "Make up a scenario where I'm right" game. We're not all making stuff up and seeing stuff that isn't there.

Oh my god...you're actually taking the 'mob rules' argument again. This is beyond farcical.

Some posters agree with me. Some don't. Many agree with some parts and not others, so we all have a discussion.

Except JoeMorgue. He wants to bitch and moan about alternative universes and assert that the majority decides what is the right interpretation. Just priceless.

 

[JoeMorgue]

*Smiles* I think my point has been made.

 

[Thermal]

This is grand master level meta, right here.

That was a set-up. Party pooper.

 

[Garrette]

As I see it, the State did exactly what it was required to do, and without resistance. They did the right thing, and right away. They did nothing else. Relating to the OP, what role did they continue to play? Not the vague role of oppression throughout history, I mean as it is shown here.

That is somewhat of a sidebar argument. The Greater Fool's analogy referred to a neighbor's party. If the intent was to analogize the government as the neighbor, that was lost on me. I assume for the analogy to make sense, that the neighbors would be christian/secular celebrants going overboard with their festivities to the point where they are overpowering, as evidenced by the inevitable presence everywhere, from grocery stores on down.

If TGF's analogy meant that the neighbor was the government keeping him up at night with their revelry, I concede that was lost on me.



Watch how some posters (not TGF) will walk my position around and subtly reframe it to make the argument about something else. In this case, it looks like State suppression of minority religions will be the paper tiger. The State did not suppress here. I applaud them for doing the right thing without ado.

The short answer is obvious: take the government out of the OP and there is no OP. Take the government out of the responses and there are no responses.

The longer answer follows.

The government did the right thing because after years of pushing for it they are in some cases but notably not all being forced to recognize the constitutional requirement to do so. There are therefore two points being addressed (note that my comments are directed specifically to TST and not others since TST has an explicit purpose that includes this activism):

First: ensure that government compliance becomes the norm and not the exception by continuing to exercise it.

Second: assist with the first by making it plain to the majority religion that non-majority-religion participation in such displays are legal, moral, and inevitable.

Allow me a crude analogy: It is legal but inappropriate for anyone to fart in an elevator, but if the police are called to eject only atheists who fart there while celebrating the Christians who continue to do it, and moreover the larger Christian community continues to applaud elevator-farting Christians while denouncing elevator-farting atheists, then it is not I who am being dickish when I go into a crowded elevator specifically with the intent to fart there.

 

[The Greater Fool]

That is somewhat of a sidebar argument. The Greater Fool's analogy referred to a neighbor's party. If the intent was to analogize the government as the neighbor, that was lost on me.

[edited]

If TGF's analogy meant that the neighbor was the government keeping him up at night with their revelry, I concede that was lost on me.

It was YOUR analogy, not mine:

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...

I took your party to be a neighbor not government.

Agreed. And I have said so since page one. Have I not supported TST's right to do this? Who is throwing the obnoxious party that spills into your yard, in your analogy? For that matter, what is your yard and your neighbor's? Are they both State grounds, or what? If not, you would seem to be criticizing celebrants, no?

eta: and what would 'be quiet' mean?

Your whole point is that it is a dick move on the Satanists part to do a quiet display. You have said they have every right to do what they did, but they are dicks for doing so at this time of year.

Your party example, as I said, was the neighbors being dicks. The party is Christians everywhere celebrating Christmas regardless how anyone else feels about it. When anyone says "Hey, let's be inclusive" it becomes a war on Christmas, and Christians push harder and further. That is being a dick.

You believe Christmas is not religious because many aspects have become secular. They have become secular because the Christians put it everywhere, and until relatively recently only allowed their own displays. That is being a dick.

Back to your party parable, when the neighbors party pounds into my life, they are being dicks. I don't care if the party is a 200 year old tradition, it's not MY tradition, so expecting my participation is being a dick.

What 'quiet' means is unimportant. What is important for your party parable is the sign was asking them to THINK about their impact on me and my family, and to take it into consideration. The party is yours, and you are looking at my sign and saying I am a dick for not celebrating with you.

 

[Thermal]

The short answer is obvious: take the government out of the OP and there is no OP. Take the government out of the responses and there are no responses.

The longer answer follows.

The government did the right thing because after years of pushing for it they are in some cases but notably not all being forced to recognize the constitutional requirement to do so. There are therefore two points being addressed (note that my comments are directed specifically to TST and not others since TST has an explicit purpose that includes this activism):

First: ensure that government compliance becomes the norm and not the exception by continuing to exercise it.

This was done, and without resistance, and we all applaud it.

Second: assist with the first by making it plain to the majority religion that non-majority-religion participation in such displays are legal, moral, and inevitable.

Also done, and done here with no resistance of any kind, even for a pretend religion. Three cheers for the State, doing the right thing, right away.

As I see it, exit stage left for the State WRT the OP. Great performance, well done. So, as I sharpen up my pitchfork in anticipation of protesting the govt stepping on rights...what are they doing wrong, again?

Allow me a crude analogy: It is legal but inappropriate for anyone to fart in an elevator, but if the police are called to eject only atheists who fart there while celebrating the Christians who continue to do it, and moreover the larger Christian community continues to applaud elevator-farting Christians while denouncing elevator-farting atheists, then it is not I who am being dickish when I go into a crowded elevator specifically with the intent to fart there.

Please be careful: there is a poster popping in and out that will flat out crucify your ass for such an alternative universe fan fic hypothetical. I expect his howling presently.

Ok: so using your analogy, and of course not over-analyzing it, who in this Op tale is having the police called on them? When the christians and seculars (we keep forgetting about the nonreligious celebrants, don't we?) fart, they are farting to fill the air during a major celebration. All are welcome to fart along, as I see it. Or not fart, if they choose. Or fart differently. Whatever.

Who has called police on the Satanic farters? Saying it happened before is not entirely relevant. That's more of a farting-reenactment. Or maybe like a World Fart II soldier staggering out of the woods thinking the fight is still on.

Who called the metaphorical farting police on the Satanic Temple?