Satanists plan statue to stand alongside Ten Commandments in Oklahoma

[TheGoldcountry]

Yeah, it'll piss people off. They're making this gesture with what I assume is the best of intentions, never even considering someone might object, and it's getting flung back in their face. It'll turn the tide of public opinion against atheism, assuming that's what the local media decides to push. But it'll do so by making them aware atheism exists, and is a real thing, that their real neighbors subscribe to. That, believe it or not, is progress.

True. I suppose as long as believers ignore what atheists actually say in favor of their own vague prejudices, trying to work with them is an exercise in futility. I'm not a fan of beating my head against the wall. However, I don't get much enjoyment out of attacking people I see as delusional, either, and I sometimes get the feeling that some (some, not "all" or even "many") atheists do this simply for fun, and then hide behind self-serving notions of "progress" or "awareness".

 

[geni]

I'd say that for any display designed to highlight that if you allow one religious statement you have to allow them all to be successful it can't be benign in nature. An empty pedestal or copy of the Bill of Rights is going to get Christians thinking "so what?" A statue of Satan, however, is going to be something that many of them actively disapprove of. It's going to get them to want to have it removed. They're going to object to it being there.

Depends on the group of christians:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Statue_of_Lucifer,_Cathédrale_Saint-Paul,_Liège.jpg

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I sometimes get the feeling that some (some, not "all" or even "many") atheists do this simply for fun, and then hide behind self-serving notions of "progress" or "awareness".

That's another ancillary benefit of using a parody religion: it's very hard to be offensively self-righteous when espousing an idea you clearly don't believe in.

 

[tsig]

True. I suppose as long as believers ignore what atheists actually say in favor of their own vague prejudices, trying to work with them is an exercise in futility. I'm not a fan of beating my head against the wall. However, I don't get much enjoyment out of attacking people I see as delusional, either, and I sometimes get the feeling that some (some, not "all" or even "many") atheists do this simply for fun, and then hide behind self-serving notions of "progress" or "awareness".

Of course I do it for the fun, I've never tried to hide behind anything.

If you don't enjoy this sort of thing you should get another hobby.

Why would doing it for the fun be any less a motivation than any other?

 

[Checkmite]

Yeah, it'll piss people off. They're making this gesture with what I assume is the best of intentions, never even considering someone might object, and it's getting flung back in their face. It'll turn the tide of public opinion against atheism, assuming that's what the local media decides to push. But it'll do so by making them aware atheism exists, and is a real thing, that their real neighbors subscribe to. That, believe it or not, is progress.

Wrong. A group in New York suing for the right to place an anti-Christianity display in a park in Santa Monica or a courthouse in Tulsa is not going to make the people who live in those places aware that this is something their neighbors subscribe to. And even if it did, their own churches and religious figures already take steps to let them know the world is full of people who hate Christians; so in reality such hijinks as these actually inform nobody of anything they don't already know, or think they know.

 

[tsig]

Wrong. A group in New York suing for the right to place an anti-Christianity display in a park in Santa Monica or a courthouse in Tulsa is not going to make the people who live in those places aware that this is something their neighbors subscribe to. And even if it did, their own churches and religious figures already take steps to let them know the world is full of people who hate Christians; so in reality such hijinks as these actually inform nobody of anything they don't already know, or think they know.

Why would atheists hate Christians? Sounds like you're buying into Christian propaganda and assuming that all atheists are Christian haters.

 

[Checkmite]

Why would atheists hate Christians? Sounds like you're buying into Christian propaganda and assuming that all atheists are Christian haters.

The "why" behind it isn't half as important as whether it is true or not - or appears true.

A group of "satanists" putting up a monument isn't just circumstantially antagonistic. The unqualified opinion that your typical Christian simply will consider anything that's not a Christian monument an "attack" is prevarication; "Satanism" as it actually exists is an outlet with vaguely religious trappings whose rituals, "beliefs", and symbology as such were designed solely and expressly to troll and antagonize Christians; it's open hostility. Whether Christians think of them as actual evil-doers "worshipping Satan" or recognize them as simple trolls, the fact is they're there for the purpose of hating on Christians. Motivations aren't particularly relevant.

It's like the difference between actual internet racists using racist language because they know it antagonizes black people, and internet trolls who might not be otherwise racist using racist language because they know it antagonizes black people.

 

[tsig]

The "why" behind it isn't half as important as whether it is true or not - or appears true.

A group of "satanists" putting up a monument isn't just circumstantially antagonistic. The unqualified opinion that your typical Christian simply will consider anything that's not a Christian monument an "attack" is prevarication; "Satanism" as it actually exists is an outlet with vaguely religious trappings whose rituals, "beliefs", and symbology as such were designed solely and expressly to troll and antagonize Christians; it's open hostility. Whether Christians think of them as actual evil-doers "worshipping Satan" or recognize them as simple trolls, the fact is they're there for the purpose of hating on Christians. Motivations aren't particularly relevant.

It's like the difference between actual internet racists using racist language because they know it antagonizes black people, and internet trolls who might not be otherwise racist using racist language because they know it antagonizes black people.

How do you know what their motivations are?

You realize that your whole post is about others motivations?

Now atheism = racism?

 

[Checkmite]

How do you know what their motivations are?

You realize that your whole post is about others motivations?

Now atheism = racism?

You're still prevaricating; I'm not sure why, but you seem intent on trying to deflect the subject to absolutely anything but the point Dinwar et al were trying to make.

The point is the motivations don't matter - which I've now said twice. If a display is openly antagonistic to Christian symbols or beliefs or whatever, the fact of its antagonism is there. Whether it's motivated by hate, or is merely intended to troll, is completely beside any point that will actually be made to the public at large. It's absolute wishful thinking to believe that the New York group putting up this "satanism" monument at an Oklahoma courthouse is going to send any message to the populace about "equal access", the unfairness of allowing Christian symbology in public spaces, or anything else other than "out-of-towners coming to our town to disrespect local beliefs".

 

[Parsman]

It isn't about hating Christians, if I understand right. It is about trying to uphold the separation of church and state in the USA. They hope to do this by erecting a monument using the same legislation passed by the state legislature. If they refuse to erect the second monument the christian symbol should come down to, and if they refuse to do that I assume there are plans in place to move the matter up to a body such as the Supreme Court. Nowhere in there do I find anyone "hating" on Christians. Now if Christians are too wedded to their faith to see that, I believe that is their problem, and not ours

 

[Checkmite]

It isn't about hating Christians, if I understand right. It is about trying to uphold the separation of church and state in the USA. They hope to do this by erecting a monument using the same legislation passed by the state legislature. If they refuse to erect the second monument the christian symbol should come down to, and if they refuse to do that I assume there are plans in place to move the matter up to a body such as the Supreme Court. Nowhere in there do I find anyone "hating" on Christians. Now if Christians are too wedded to their faith to see that, I believe that is their problem, and not ours

First of all, who is "ours"? Are you part of this New York "satanists" group? If not, why do you identify with them, and how do you know that what you (and I, honestly) would rather this thing be about, is what they want it to be about?

The thing is, their statements to the press don't support your contention about what their point is. From the article:

"He's helping a satanic agenda grow more than any of us possibly could," Greaves said. "You don't walk around and see too many satanic temples around, but when you open the door to public spaces for us, that's when you're going to see us."

Other comments in the article, such as the one from the ACLU, seem to make it clear that the point is that the Satanic group actually wants to have a statue, not that they want the Christians to have to take theirs down.

 

[tsig]

You're still prevaricating; I'm not sure why, but you seem intent on trying to deflect the subject to absolutely anything but the point Dinwar et al were trying to make.

The point is the motivations don't matter - which I've now said twice. If a display is openly antagonistic to Christian symbols or beliefs or whatever, the fact of its antagonism is there. Whether it's motivated by hate, or is merely intended to troll, is completely beside any point that will actually be made to the public at large. It's absolute wishful thinking to believe that the New York group putting up this "satanism" monument at an Oklahoma courthouse is going to send any message to the populace about "equal access", the unfairness of allowing Christian symbology in public spaces, or anything else other than "out-of-towners coming to our town to disrespect local beliefs".

So nothing antagonistic to Christians should be allowed in public places.

You don't think that some people might be wanting to establish equal access? Why would you think that? Seems like a more coherent reason than "they be hating on Christians".

 

[Brainache]

For most religious anything except "I believe" is considered an attack.

You and Dinwar seem quite content to science other atheists lest they seem too strident.

We will SCIENCE them into submission!

They will bow to the God of Physics or DIE!!!!!

On the other hand properly managed it could turn into quite a nice sculpture park.

A pleasant place to sit and contemplate the absurdity of thinking any one of these things has merit above the others.

I like it!

 

[tsig]

We will SCIENCE them into submission!

They will bow to the God of Physics or DIE!!!!!





A pleasant place to sit and contemplate the absurdity of thinking any one of these things has merit above the others.

I like it!

The Fickle Fat Finger of Fate strikes again.

 

[Checkmite]

So nothing antagonistic to Christians should be allowed in public places.

When you read a post, do you actually read every sentence or do you just go "eenie-meenie-mynie-moe" and pick a few?

No, pointing out that the antagonism is often the only thing that will get across to the public when a group chooses deliberate antagonism as a means of making some other point, is not saying "nothing antagonistic to Christians should be allowed in public spaces".

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The stereotype has some basis in fact. There are atheists who go out of their way to cause trouble with religious groups who are simply doing their thing and not causing trouble. Unless you are suggesting that atheists are pristine folks who never cause any trouble ever, ever ever?

You second sentence shows you don't have any evidence for your first sentence.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Of course I do it for the fun, I've never tried to hide behind anything.

If you don't enjoy this sort of thing you should get another hobby.

Why would doing it for the fun be any less a motivation than any other?

I understand you do it for fun, you've made that clear.

I said I don't generally enjoy attacking religious people for any reason. I enjoy being here. Even if I didn't, I neither require nor desire any advice from you about my personal pastimes.

I never said fun wasn't a motivation. In fact I said fun clearly was the motivation, I just didn't share it in this example. In any case, it was just a general observation that wasn't addressed to you specifically or meant to describe you.

 

[tsig]

I understand you do it for fun, you've made that clear.

I said I don't generally enjoy attacking religious people for any reason. I enjoy being here. Even if I didn't, I neither require nor desire any advice from you about my personal pastimes.

I never said fun wasn't a motivation. In fact I said fun clearly was the motivation, I just didn't share it in this example. In any case, it was just a general observation that wasn't addressed to you specifically or meant to describe you.

You are addressing your comments to those who do not post here? That seems counterproductive and rude to those who do post here and assume your posts have some relevance to the topic at hand.

Could you mark your posts so that we can know when you have decided to dialogue with some unknown person instead of members of this forum?

 

[I Ratant]

For most religious anything except "I believe" is considered an attack.

You and Dinwar seem quite content to sciencesilence other atheists lest they seem too strident.

.
ftfy.
Stridency in the pursuit of atheism accomplishes nothing, unless the atheist's dong the shouting are on the pile of flaming sticks the bleevers have placed them on.
Just quiet disagreement and pointing out all the flaws in belief without getting umbragey should suffice.
Just don't piss off the bleevers to the point they combust.... you.

 

[I Ratant]

That's another ancillary benefit of using a parody religion: it's very hard to be offensively self-righteous when espousing an idea you clearly don't believe in.

.
Peter Popoff is a role model for that.