Satanic Sculpture at Illinois Statehouse.

[Senex]

I haven't seen a thread about the Satanic Sculpture (sorry if there was).

I think it is beautiful. Who can be against knowledge?

A couple of articles.

 

[baron]

"Lex Manticore". No way was he christened with that name.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Satanists are doing the lord's work.

I think a Festivus pole or some FSM nonsense would show the proper level of contempt for these displays, but Satanists are doing the work, so they get to pick the trophy.

 

[Jungle Jim]

Satanists are doing the lord's work.

I think a Festivus pole or some FSM nonsense would show the proper level of contempt for these displays, but Satanists are doing the work, so they get to pick the trophy.

From the first linked article above:

In 2008, a Springfield resident got permission to install an aluminum Festivus pole in the rotunda, referencing the Christmas alternative popularized in a 1997 episode of “Seinfeld.”

 

[TurkeysGhost]

From the first linked article above:

In 2008, a Springfield resident got permission to install an aluminum Festivus pole in the rotunda, referencing the Christmas alternative popularized in a 1997 episode of “Seinfeld.”

I didn't read the link before posting. Shame on me. Add that to the list for the "Airing of Grievances". It will be a glorious Festivus.

 

[Thermal]

I completely don't get this. Yes, there's some obnoxious Christians out there, and they are highly visible because of their noise. But why deliver a FU to all with a statuary like this? Do the sponsors think they will win converts? And by embracing the imagery of their adversaries' depiction (the apple and snake on Eve's arm) they can only expect a deepening of the divide. Good use of time and money, guys.

 

[The Greater Fool]

I completely don't get this. Yes, there's some obnoxious Christians out there, and they are highly visible because of their noise. But why deliver a FU to all with a statuary like this? Do the sponsors think they will win converts? And by embracing the imagery of their adversaries' depiction (the apple and snake on Eve's arm) they can only expect a deepening of the divide. Good use of time and money, guys.

Religious freedom is religious freedom. Allow religious sculpture in a state building where it doesn't belong, then allow religious sculpture in a state building where it doesn't belong.

 

[Jungle Jim]

I completely don't get this. Yes, there's some obnoxious Christians out there, and they are highly visible because of their noise. But why deliver a FU to all with a statuary like this? Do the sponsors think they will win converts? And by embracing the imagery of their adversaries' depiction (the apple and snake on Eve's arm) they can only expect a deepening of the divide. Good use of time and money, guys.

I think the term used is "taking the piss."

 

[Thermal]

Religious freedom is religious freedom. Allow religious sculpture in a state building where it doesn't belong, then allow religious sculpture in a state building where it doesn't belong.

Of course I get that, but I see Christmas as so secularized now that even the Nativity is losing it's original meaning, much as Santa Claus has. No one prostrates before a manger; most people look at it and maybe think a little about love and the spirit of giving. I don't think anyone has installed a Nativity, Ten Commandments, Menorah or whatever with ill intentions. The OP sculpture has.

Not sure why it's seen as wrong for a population to display it's iconic imagery in the spirit of festivity on their public grounds. Let them have their fun, and enjoy the season. The state is not trying to brainwash anyone. Keep the fighting in the trenches where it belongs.

 

[Hellbound]

I completely don't get this. Yes, there's some obnoxious Christians out there, and they are highly visible because of their noise. But why deliver a FU to all with a statuary like this? Do the sponsors think they will win converts? And by embracing the imagery of their adversaries' depiction (the apple and snake on Eve's arm) they can only expect a deepening of the divide. Good use of time and money, guys.

I think the term used is "taking the piss."

To be fair, I don't see any possibility of converting most of the fundamentalist Xians that push for this sort of thing anyway. I live in the South, so I'm familiar with the attitudes, and the idea of giving up religion (or even the lip service to religion that most seem to follow) would be socially unacceptable. Compare it to trying to convince someone to come out as a homosexual by using a bullhorn in the town square; just not really a goal that's worth pursuing. Most of the time, the ones you can convert are already headed in that direction on their own. More often, you simply try to get the next generation exposed to different ideas (in many cases, just to the idea that there are and can be different ideas), and that's where change happens.

I see these type of displays differently. It's not about getting converts, it's about highlighting the consequences of one's actions. If you want to push for your religious displays in unsuitable areas, then all religions can take advantage of that. Most of these attempts for Christian displays miss that point, or take the "can't happen here" or "how would anyone disagree with me" viewpoints. These type of displays seem and attempt to put it in their face; force them to see the consequences they keep thinking won't happen.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Not sure why it's seen as wrong for a population to display it's iconic imagery in the spirit of festivity on their public grounds.

Quite.

Dave

 

[JoeMorgue]

Nothing feels better then being part of a minority group and being told that when you don't want to be passively oppressed you're "widening the divide."

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Of course I get that, but I see Christmas as so secularized now that even the Nativity is losing it's original meaning, much as Santa Claus has. No one prostrates before a manger; most people look at it and maybe think a little about love and the spirit of giving. I don't think anyone has installed a Nativity, Ten Commandments, Menorah or whatever with ill intentions. The OP sculpture has.

Not sure why it's seen as wrong for a population to display it's iconic imagery in the spirit of festivity on their public grounds. Let them have their fun, and enjoy the season. The state is not trying to brainwash anyone. Keep the fighting in the trenches where it belongs.

I could possibly agree with that sentiment in the absence of the context of these fights. Most of these squabbles can be traced back to explicit efforts by governments to endorse a single religion, Christianity. Christmas is only one part of the war on state sponsored religious displays.

This in one front of many in this cultural/legal battle. Satanists are most well known for their similar battle with a state court installing a ten commandments statue. These governments are relying on no one caring enough to challenge these displays.

While the individual battles seem petty, the broader philosophical point is important.

 

[casebro]

Nothing feels better then being part of a minority group and being told that when you don't want to be passively oppressed you're "widening the divide."

"SLM" Satanic Lives Matter?

 

[The Greater Fool]

Of course I get that, but I see Christmas as so secularized now that even the Nativity is losing it's original meaning, much as Santa Claus has. No one prostrates before a manger; most people look at it and maybe think a little about love and the spirit of giving. I don't think anyone has installed a Nativity, Ten Commandments, Menorah or whatever with ill intentions. The OP sculpture has.

Not sure why it's seen as wrong for a population to display it's iconic imagery in the spirit of festivity on their public grounds. Let them have their fun, and enjoy the season. The state is not trying to brainwash anyone. Keep the fighting in the trenches where it belongs.

So, (I know) you would allow the Christian based fun, but not the Satanic based fun?

I agree Santa Christmas is more secular, but only because the US is a "Christian Country" so it has been rampant for a 100 years. It has been secularized to an extent but is not secular. I am anti-religion and even I do Santa Christmas some years. I don't see why even Santa Christmas needs state support / displays.

Jesus Christmas, no, not at all secular. You may think so because, again, it's been ubiquitous for a 100 years, but definitely not secular. Nope, no way. Jesus Christmas, being solely Christian, definitely should not get state support / displays.

If you're gonna allow Santa Christmas, Jesus Christmas, then you must allow every other religion / sect equal access. Sorry, fair is fair.

"Happy Holidays" can convey feelings of love and joy without favoring any religion, if the state simply must say something.

And yes, the national tree is wrong (but currently unassailable), as is "in god we trust" and all other superstitious twaddle.

 

[Thermal]

So, (I know) you would allow the Christian based fun, but not the Satanic based fun?

If the Satanic based was in celebration and good will, sure. But it's not. It's a flip-off in spite, down to using the Christian symbolism.

I agree Santa Christmas is more secular, but only because the US is a "Christian Country" so it has been rampant for a 100 years. It has been secularized to an extent but is not secular. I am anti-religion and even I do Santa Christmas some years. I don't see why even Santa Christmas needs state support / displays.

Jesus Christmas, no, not at all secular. You may think so because, again, it's been ubiquitous for a 100 years, but definitely not secular. Nope, no way. Jesus Christmas, being solely Christian, definitely should not get state support / displays.

If you're gonna allow Santa Christmas, Jesus Christmas, then you must allow every other religion / sect equal access. Sorry, fair is fair.

Agreed. Every sect can use public grounds to celebrate (plus or minus). I wouldn't be offended in the slightest to see Buddhist hootinannies or Hindu jazz out during their favorite times of celebration. Live it up. My objection is a pretend sect putting up sculpture to mock and insult others. And come on, that's what they are doing. Shouldn't a sect championing reason be above such pettiness? Why get sleazy to make your point?

"Happy Holidays" can convey feelings of love and joy without favoring any religion, if the state simply must say something.

And yes, the national tree is wrong (but currently unassailable), as is "in god we trust" and all other superstitious twaddle.

Yeah, the State needs to stay neutral, agreed. I don't think that the populace using the public grounds is an endorsement so much as a tolerance. As long as everyone gets their shot. Tolerating the FU's seems a tad unnecessary.

 

[Thermal]

I could possibly agree with that sentiment in the absence of the context of these fights. Most of these squabbles can be traced back to explicit efforts by governments to endorse a single religion, Christianity. Christmas is only one part of the war on state sponsored religious displays.

This in one front of many in this cultural/legal battle. Satanists are most well known for their similar battle with a state court installing a ten commandments statue. These governments are relying on no one caring enough to challenge these displays.

While the individual battles seem petty, the broader philosophical point is important.

Agreed, the broader point does matter. Actually, it mattered more in the past, but I think as a whole we are moving past the squabbling.

Is it not overcompensation to allow things like the sculpture, though? In the spirit of inclusiveness, we are now allowing insults to celebrants of other faiths? That's a step backwards, not forward.

 

[The Greater Fool]

If the Satanic based was in celebration and good will, sure. But it's not. It's a flip-off in spite, down to using the Christian symbolism.

Agree it may be a flip off. Agree it may be spite. Wouldn't that be their thing, though?

I don't know about you, but I've had Christians tell me I was going to Hell, and they think they are doing me a service. Turn about is fair play.

Agreed. Every sect can use public grounds to celebrate (plus or minus). I wouldn't be offended in the slightest to see Buddhist hootinannies or Hindu jazz out during their favorite times of celebration. Live it up. My objection is a pretend sect putting up sculpture to mock and insult others. And come on, that's what they are doing. Shouldn't a sect championing reason be above such pettiness? Why get sleazy to make your point?

Face it, Satanism is a FU to Abrahamic religions, since they take the side of Biblical Satan. This is their fun, heck, their purpose.

Yeah, the State needs to stay neutral, agreed. I don't think that the populace using the public grounds is an endorsement so much as a tolerance. As long as everyone gets their shot. Tolerating the FU's seems a tad unnecessary.

We seem to be largely in agreement: The State needs to stay neutral.

Where we don't agree is, when the State doesn't stay neutral, you would just accept it, and I like the Satanist FU. If the State wants to play when it shouldn't, it must play fair.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Agreed, the broader point does matter. Actually, it mattered more in the past, but I think as a whole we are moving past the squabbling.

Is it not overcompensation to allow things like the sculpture, though? In the spirit of inclusiveness, we are now allowing insults to celebrants of other faiths? That's a step backwards, not forward.

maybe. Anger should be placed on officials that turn neutral ground into a forum for public debate by insisting on their religious shrines. They could easily restore a sense of dignity by removing all religious references, but they don't.

I find the Satanists to be a little less "FU" than the Festivus or FSM ilk. They seem to actually have a core philosophy and code of ethics. Much of it is a repudiation of Christianity, but there is an actual serious philosophical core. At least, more serious than most joke displays. I don't really consider snark to be a bad response here though.

The one from the OP is saying that knowledge is a gift, not a curse. It's a serious repudiation of the morals of Genesis and not solely snark. That's more seriousness than it really deserves, so kudos to the Satanists for going the extra mile.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Agreed, the broader point does matter. Actually, it mattered more in the past, but I think as a whole we are moving past the squabbling.

Is it not overcompensation to allow things like the sculpture, though? In the spirit of inclusiveness, we are now allowing insults to celebrants of other faiths? That's a step backwards, not forward.

How is Satanism more insulting to Christianity than Christianity is insulting to Satanism?