Satanic Sculpture at Illinois Statehouse.

[Thermal]

It was YOUR analogy, not mine:

I took your party to be a neighbor not government.



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.

Close. I opine that they are doing this for no other reason than to be dicks. That shade of difference is important.

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.

Again, no. Being a dick is being pissy for the sake of being pissy. Xmas celebrants are just celebrating. It is a big show, yes. But they are not doing it with the intent of being snotty to anyone else. Another important difference.

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.

Again, no. There are a ****ton of christians running around, and they like to celebrate xmas. What they did a couple generations ago was wrong. There are still a ****ton of them, and they still like to decorate. That is not oppression, that it just a lot of people who like the same thing. It is not designed to put or keep anyone else down.

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.

Ok. I thought you meant that the everywhereness of christmas stuff was the problem, so I asked if that was extended to retail places. I don't think you would be expected to participate, though, by anyone. Do you feel some kind of pressure?

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.

The snakey handy thingy is not a sign on the yard asking for respect of boundaries, though. It is walking into the middle of the party and ripping Garrette's fart while wearing a goat head. If TST put signs in their yards expressing a rejection of the season, that is perhaps more analogous to your sign.

 

[Garrette]

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

You mistakenly equate the specific with the general.
Even if true, the point is not a stand alone one.

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.

Not remotely done in the general, and it is arguable that your objections here are a demonstration that it is not done in the specific.

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?

You see it wrongly.

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.

You will be disappointed. My analogy has a governmental stand in.

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?

Metaphorically, you and the others in Illinois who recognize the legality of the display but disagree with its appropriateness (those who are not you tend to couch their objections in religious terms) are calling the police, though I grant that isn't technically true given that you recognize the legality. You and those others are the target audience (at least part of it).

The proof of it is that there is no objection either to the Christian display or the Jewish display for being inappropriate. "But they're not poking the eye of the other," right? They're just celebrating. That only works if your argument that the display is in effect secular is correct. If it isn't, and the displays are religious, then they are a poke in the eye of every one who doesn't believe in them (given they are on government property) regardless if those people bother to put up a display or not. If your secular argument is correct, then your objection to TST's display falls apart as it, too, is secular even if its message is aimed at another display.

 

[Garrette]

Close. I opine that they are doing this for no other reason than to be dicks. That shade of difference is important.



Again, no. Being a dick is being pissy for the sake of being pissy. Xmas celebrants are just celebrating. It is a big show, yes. But they are not doing it with the intent of being snotty to anyone else. Another important difference.


Again, no. There are a ****ton of christians running around, and they like to celebrate xmas. What they did a couple generations ago was wrong. There are still a ****ton of them, and they still like to decorate. That is not oppression, that it just a lot of people who like the same thing. It is not designed to put or keep anyone else down.



Ok. I thought you meant that the everywhereness of christmas stuff was the problem, so I asked if that was extended to retail places. I don't think you would be expected to participate, though, by anyone. Do you feel some kind of pressure?



The snakey handy thingy is not a sign on the yard asking for respect of boundaries, though. It is walking into the middle of the party and ripping Garrette's fart while wearing a goat head. If TST put signs in their yards expressing a rejection of the season, that is perhaps more analogous to your sign.

The bit I highlighted may be the crux of the issue. I agree but disagree. Setting aside that subset which really does mean to push their religion off on everyone else ("Jesus is the reason for the seasons!" and "It's Merry Christmas, not Happy Holidays!" and all that), the subset that sees it merely as them celebrating non-dickishly are comparable to the people who enjoyed the subservient black servants in Shirley Temple movies and pointed to the real life friendship of Bojangles and Shirley Temple as evidence they weren't racist. That's sort of true; most people enjoying those movies (and frankly I did as a child) just took it in stride as a happy depiction of happy people doing happy things; we weren't racist, even though we still used the term "ride ******" if we happened to be the lone person sitting in the back seat when we went on joyrides with our friends because hey I had a couple of actual black friends. Al Jolson in blackface singing Mammy wasn't racist; it was just a celebration of culture, and, hey, we don't mind if the blacks have fun with us when we do it so long as they don't point out anything untoward with it.

As others have said, Christianity is so ingrained that its superiority complex does not need to be waved blatantly to exist. It's simply there, and even the slightest push back gets characterized as dickish.

That's when push back is needed most.

 

[Thermal]

Garrette:

You make a very persuasive argument. I agree that the highlighted is the crux of the problem, but I would (of course) veer off a little:

Your Bojangles analogy carries the unspoken assumption that there is something tainted about the xmas festivities... that there is something dirty about them being swept under the rug under the guise of celebration. I don't quite agree. The celebration is just that. It does not seek to step on anyone's throats.

So ultimately: is it wrong for a majority of a population to celebrate in a very public way? Is the widespread nature celebration itself a de facto exclusion? And of course, do the majority enjoy the same freedoms as the minority?

eta: your thoughtful posts require much more comment, but trying to keep it short:

You say upthread that if I consider xmas secular, my criticism of TST falls apart. Close, but not quite. Xmas is unique in that it has (and retains) christian origins while solidly slid to the secular. The either/or treatment doesn't work well.

I see the celebration of the religious aspect as being fine, as long as state funds are not being used to promote it (increased electric bills being disputable). Santa on the fire trucks is finding firmer footing in the secular, so as long as the public lodges no objections, vaya con Dios.

Eta: I just reread one of your responses, where I asked if Xmas celebrations should be kept private, and you opined that they should. Considering the freedom of religious expression, are you sure about that?

 

[The Greater Fool]

The snakey handy thingy is not a sign on the yard asking for respect of boundaries, though. It is walking into the middle of the party and ripping Garrette's fart while wearing a goat head. If TST put signs in their yards expressing a rejection of the season, that is perhaps more analogous to your sign.

They Satanic display was exactly asking for respect of boundaries.

The sign / display is not farting. It is exactly analogous to a sign: It's silent. It doesn't DO anything like your examples of actual actions. You liken it to extreme groups like WBC when there is absolutely no similarity.

Again, the Menorah also has a message that is completely unrelated to Christmas. Hanukkah is a minor holiday and is now part of the celebration because of timing. There were no public displays, celebrating, partying for Hanukkah 50 years ago. The display of the Menorah started because of Christmas and inclusion, just like the Satanists display. Jesus, what a dick move.

Non-Christians and actual secular celebrants that honestly are not celebrating a religious event, those that honestly want to be inclusive, would not be upset in the least by this display. I can see why Christian zealots would see it as a dick move. I honestly can't see secular folks reacting that way.

 

[Garrette]

Garrette:

You make a very persuasive argument. I agree that the highlighted is the crux of the problem, but I would (of course) veer off a little:

Your Bojangles analogy carries the unspoken assumption that there is something tainted about the xmas festivities... that there is something dirty about them being swept under the rug under the guise of celebration. I don't quite agree. The celebration is just that. It does not seek to step on anyone's throats.

So ultimately: is it wrong for a majority of a population to celebrate in a very public way? Is the widespread nature celebration itself a de facto exclusion? And of course, do the majority enjoy the same freedoms as the minority?

eta: your thoughtful posts require much more comment, but trying to keep it short:

You say upthread that if I consider xmas secular, my criticism of TST falls apart. Close, but not quite. Xmas is unique in that it has (and retains) christian origins while solidly slid to the secular. The either/or treatment doesn't work well.

I see the celebration of the religious aspect as being fine, as long as state funds are not being used to promote it (increased electric bills being disputable). Santa on the fire trucks is finding firmer footing in the secular, so as long as the public lodges no objections, vaya con Dios.

Eta: I just reread one of your responses, where I asked if Xmas celebrations should be kept private, and you opined that they should. Considering the freedom of religious expression, are you sure about that?

Just saw the bit you added in an edit and which I have highlighted.

Yes, I am sure about it, but I suspect we are using definitions of private. I mean privately funded, executed, and attended. I do not mean kept quite or hidden or out of the sight and hearing of all others. Of course, that means I don't have an exact line on one side of which a display is acceptable and on the other side of which it is not.

It's like my neighbors across the large backyard, beyond the treeline and fenceline, and in their barn. Occasionally some of them get together and have what I suspect they think is a band. Frequently I hear it. Less frequently it is louder than I would like. Never has it actually been obtrusive. If they brought the band to the property line at 3 am, cranked up all the amps to max, shone spotlights on my bedroom window, and began to play Thunderstruck, they would be violating my personal definition of private. Whether it violates the legal definition, I do not know. So far, they have violated neither, I'm sure.

ETA: As to the secular bit, I think you misread me. I did not say (or at least did not mean to say) that if you consider Christmas secular your argument falls apart; I said (or meant) that if you consider the Christmas display that the TST display is next to secular then your argument falls apart. I stand by that.

 

[Thermal]

They Satanic display was exactly asking for respect of boundaries.

The sign / display is not farting. It is exactly analogous to a sign: It's silent. It doesn't DO anything like your examples of actual actions. You liken it to extreme groups like WBC when there is absolutely no similarity.

You have said that before: I am not equating the groups. I am equating their excuse to be 'offensive', citing religous freedom of expression.

Again, the Menorah also has a message that is completely unrelated to Christmas. Hanukkah is a minor holiday and is now part of the celebration because of timing. There were no public displays, celebrating, partying for Hanukkah 50 years ago. The display of the Menorah started because of Christmas and inclusion, just like the Satanists display. Jesus, what a dick move.

And again, that shows inclusiveness if anything. Not the trampling of minority religions being lamented here. Also, Judaism is a real religion. It is not the FSM or variants.

You keep walking my argument around, knowingly or not. TST is not a real religion, although their farce facade serves a great purpose. There was no purpose here, other than to be jerks. If you argue that the purpose was that although the inclusive thing was fought and won, but that we must remain ever vigilant, I would ask if we need to keep sending the National Guard in to escort black students to white schools. Hey, that was during the sixties too. Is that your position?

Non-Christians and actual secular celebrants that honestly are not celebrating a religious event, those that honestly want to be inclusive, would not be upset in the least by this display. I can see why Christian zealots would see it as a dick move. I honestly can't see secular folks reacting that way.

And I can.

Secular celebrants: Cool tree. Pretty lights. Hey, what's this snakey handy thingy? Are these guys celebrating something, too? Solstice or whatever? No, they're just here in the middle of festivities to poke other people in the eye? What dicks.

And before you start with oppressed religions, they are neither oppressed nor a religion.

 

[Thermal]

Just saw the bit you added in an edit and which I have highlighted.

Yes, I am sure about it, but I suspect we are using definitions of private. I mean privately funded, executed, and attended. I do not mean kept quite or hidden or out of the sight and hearing of all others. Of course, that means I don't have an exact line on one side of which a display is acceptable and on the other side of which it is not.

It's like my neighbors across the large backyard, beyond the treeline and fenceline, and in their barn. Occasionally some of them get together and have what I suspect they think is a band. Frequently I hear it. Less frequently it is louder than I would like. Never has it actually been obtrusive. If they brought the band to the property line at 3 am, cranked up all the amps to max, shone spotlights on my bedroom window, and began to play Thunderstruck, they would be violating my personal definition of private. Whether it violates the legal definition, I do not know. So far, they have violated neither, I'm sure.

ETA: As to the secular bit, I think you misread me. I did not say (or at least did not mean to say) that if you consider Christmas secular your argument falls apart; I said (or meant) that if you consider the Christmas display that the TST display is next to secular then your argument falls apart. I stand by that.

Ok, so we are back to your crux issue: is a majority celebration inherently exclusive? Wrong, in a word? In other words, are those who do not wish to participate actually being suppressed by the majority? That is what you seem to be suggesting. Jews, as The Greater Fool notes, dont care all that much. Kwanzaa is not exactly on fire with participants. Solstice revelers seem few and far between. So who's necks are the Xmas celebrants stepping on?

 

[Garrette]

Ok, so we are back to your crux issue: is a majority celebration inherently exclusive? Wrong, in a word? In other words, are those who do not wish to participate actually being suppressed by the majority? That is what you seem to be suggesting. Jews, as The Greater Fool notes, dont care all that much. Kwanzaa is not exactly on fire with participants. Solstice revelers seem few and far between. So who's necks are the Xmas celebrants stepping on?

It may not be intentional, or perhaps it is, but you keep leaving out the "government supported" (or similar wording) bit. Few people give a rat's ass or an elevator fart about the neighbor's ostentatious Christmas display; I know I don't. Heck, I enjoy them. I could argue that suppression is irrelevant and that in the US at least I need only argue constitutionality.

As to the suppression bit, as I have at least hinted at before, its government-form is not always the target. There are those who object to TST displays regardless if it they are formed as pokes-in-the-eye or as actual celebrations of knowledge. There are those who insist on putting up the Ten Commandments regardless of SCOTUS findings. Those people are as much a target as anyone else, and this is assuming that there is absolutely NO bit of celebration in TST's display, which I don't actually accept.

You are demanding a perfection of attitude from TST while ignoring the imperfect behavior and exclusive culture which led to the current protests; the fact that the dominant culture has become less imperfect and the government has begun to act as it always should have does not mean those annoying little protesters should now back off for the good of all and the dignity of the display.

 

[The Greater Fool]

I had a detailed response that I lost. Just as well.

The Satanists are a real religion. I'll grant that most religions are revelations granted via psychosis, dreams, ignorance, desires for power, grabs for control, lies, and I assume occasionally some good intentions. Whereas the Satanists are attempting a thoughtful, rational, and evidence based knowledge as the foundation of their organization. I understand how to the former the latter is not a religion. Regardless of how or why the Satanists have created their organization, they have as much a right to choose 'religion' as a description as the thousands of other religions out there.

Having equal access to State grounds has been a battle fought for years by other non-Christian groups. People have lost property, lives, civil and criminal trials to get here. Claiming this is an example of inclusiveness by the dominant Christian culture is delusional at best.

Comparing the Satanists in the OP to WBC is even more nonsensical. Any comparison of WBC to the Satanists is nonsense because they have nothing in common. Not belief, not purpose, not actions. In point of fact, WBC being Christian aligns them more closely to mainstream Christianity. WBC is louder and more aggressive than most Christian sects, but the doctrines are the same, and the beliefs are the same.

Christianity has dominated the public sphere so long they still believe they own it, and that any contrary action is being a dick. "Happy holidays" is an attack on Christmas. "Inclusive" is allowing other religions participation. "Inclusive" is allowing other religions participation, as long as the message doesn't offend. Of course, not toeing the Christian line is offensive.
As the saying goes, it's mighty white of Christians to allow the Satanist display. Sadly, this situation illustrates how skewed cultural Christian perspectives are, that a small statue inscribed "Knowledge is the Greatest Gift" can cause otherwise rational people to think this is a dick move.

This situation is a prime example of how a positive message is a dick move. Unreal. Ooooh, it has a snake. We know snakes are evil in our holy book, so it's a finger in the eye. Jesus.

 

[plague311]

I read the first page, I read the last page.

I liked it guys, I mean that. It was very consistent.

 

[Abooga]

Ok. They are sincerely pretending to be a religion.

But the whole point of the Satanic Temple is that there is no practical difference between a pretend religion and a non-pretend religion, or put another way, all religions are "pretend religions" (whether Theistic or not). And I´d say that the ultimate point is that the idea of tax-exempt status for religions is also nonsensical.

https://twitter.com/churchofsatan/status/905159942595690496?lang=es
TST: We qualify but reject tax exempt status, proudly pay our taxes and challenge other churches to do the same.

 

[Thermal]

But the whole point of the Satanic Temple is that there is no practical difference between a pretend religion and a non-pretend religion, or put another way, all religions are "pretend religions" (whether Theistic or not). And I´d say that the ultimate point is that the idea of tax-exempt status for religions is also nonsensical.

https://twitter.com/churchofsatan/status/905159942595690496?lang=es
TST: We qualify but reject tax exempt status, proudly pay our taxes and challenge other churches to do the same.

Yeah, you're quoting the twitter from the Church of Satan. Different bunch. That's Anton LaVeys thing, been around since I think the 1960's. They actually have physical real estate that they pay taxes on.

The Satanic Temple is a different group, and the one featured in the OP. They don't actually have physical properties. Mostly a website with edgy swag.

Regarding your point, that's a whole 'nuther discussion, including possibly rewriting the First Amendment. I get their point, and as I have said I applaud their goals. But the point I have been hammering is that this stunt didn't seem to serve their laudable ends. It was just a freestanding FU.

Painting all celebrants with the same broad brush and randomly flipping off anyone who celebrates Christmas seems pretty intolerant, no? And that was where I thought this discussion might be going. Flipping off nazis at any time and any where is fair game, IMO, because there are no good white supremacists. There are good Christmas celebrants and even Christians.

 

[Thermal]

I had a detailed response that I lost. Just as well.

The Satanists are a real religion. I'll grant that most religions are revelations granted via psychosis, dreams, ignorance, desires for power, grabs for control, lies, and I assume occasionally some good intentions. Whereas the Satanists are attempting a thoughtful, rational, and evidence based knowledge as the foundation of their organization. I understand how to the former the latter is not a religion. Regardless of how or why the Satanists have created their organization, they have as much a right to choose 'religion' as a description as the thousands of other religions out there.

Having equal access to State grounds has been a battle fought for years by other non-Christian groups. People have lost property, lives, civil and criminal trials to get here. Claiming this is an example of inclusiveness by the dominant Christian culture is delusional at best.

Comparing the Satanists in the OP to WBC is even more nonsensical. Any comparison of WBC to the Satanists is nonsense because they have nothing in common. Not belief, not purpose, not actions. In point of fact, WBC being Christian aligns them more closely to mainstream Christianity. WBC is louder and more aggressive than most Christian sects, but the doctrines are the same, and the beliefs are the same.

Christianity has dominated the public sphere so long they still believe they own it, and that any contrary action is being a dick. "Happy holidays" is an attack on Christmas. "Inclusive" is allowing other religions participation. "Inclusive" is allowing other religions participation, as long as the message doesn't offend. Of course, not toeing the Christian line is offensive.
As the saying goes, it's mighty white of Christians to allow the Satanist display. Sadly, this situation illustrates how skewed cultural Christian perspectives are, that a small statue inscribed "Knowledge is the Greatest Gift" can cause otherwise rational people to think this is a dick move.

This situation is a prime example of how a positive message is a dick move. Unreal. Ooooh, it has a snake. We know snakes are evil in our holy book, so it's a finger in the eye. Jesus.

TGF, I get your points, and I largely agree. They are just a little to the side of my arguments, and slowly slipping towards a position I do not hold. For instance, you assert that saying Happy Holidays is considered an attack on xmas. Maybe for like ten people, worldwide. The rest of us are happy to use that and have no problem at all with it, and like the inclusivity.

I have the feeling we could go round and round and not make headway, though. Hope we can agree to disagree.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Comparing the Satanists in the OP to WBC is even more nonsensical. Any comparison of WBC to the Satanists is nonsense because they have nothing in common. Not belief, not purpose, not actions.

They do have one thing in common: they're both pulling on the end of the Overton Window, forcing the arbiters of the law to spit through gritted teeth that what they are doing is not technically illegal. Of course, not the same end, and the two positions are in no way morally equivalent in deed or intent, and the Overton Window itself was conceived to make that point that someone will always have to be That Guy and make a show of standing up for important but unpopular principles lest they be ceded to the extremists... but none of that helps Thermal keep up his "let's agree that you're wrong" shtick.

 

[Thermal]

It may not be intentional, or perhaps it is, but you keep leaving out the "government supported" (or similar wording) bit. Few people give a rat's ass or an elevator fart about the neighbor's ostentatious Christmas display; I know I don't. Heck, I enjoy them. I could argue that suppression is irrelevant and that in the US at least I need only argue constitutionality.

Yes, I am leaving the state out of it, because as I have said, they acted perfectly appropriately here. No constitutional crises in evidence. The OP is more of a social issue for me, not a political one. A lot of posters seem unable to separate the two.

As to the suppression bit, as I have at least hinted at before, its government-form is not always the target. There are those who object to TST displays regardless if it they are formed as pokes-in-the-eye or as actual celebrations of knowledge. There are those who insist on putting up the Ten Commandments regardless of SCOTUS findings. Those people are as much a target as anyone else, and this is assuming that there is absolutely NO bit of celebration in TST's display, which I don't actually accept.

Right. The govt is not the target here (see above). So what is the target? The OP cites the usual suspects flipping out, who flip out at the very existence of TST. Are there demonstrations? Petitions to remove Snaketivity? I didn't see that. What I see is that instead of fighting the good fight, TST is picking a fight against noncombatants. Even from just the PR standpoint, why? To frame themselves as actual Devil worshippers instead of a progressive secular challenge to religious encroachment?

You are demanding a perfection of attitude from TST while ignoring the imperfect behavior and exclusive culture which led to the current protests; the fact that the dominant culture has become less imperfect and the government has begun to act as it always should have does not mean those annoying little protesters should now back off for the good of all and the dignity of the display.

I demand nothing from them. I expect them to generally take the high road, as their stated goals are socially lofty. This seems like a low-brow cheap shot for funsies.

I get that their fight is not over. Do you think this stunt is a continuation of that fight? I don't. I see it as a publicity stunt to boost sales on their website, and hustle up donations. Greaves said they were trying to buy their first brick-and-mortar. Need some cash to pull that off. Need publicity to hustle cash. Nothing wrong with self promotion and advertising, but I would think they could find a more productive use of their apparently limited funds.

 

[Thermal]

They do have one thing in common: they're both pulling on the end of the Overton Window, forcing the arbiters of the law to spit through gritted teeth that what they are doing is not technically illegal. Of course, not the same end, and the two positions are in no way morally equivalent in deed or intent, and the Overton Window itself was conceived to make that point that someone will always have to be That Guy and make a show of standing up for important but unpopular principles lest they be ceded to the extremists... but none of that helps Thermal keep up his "let's agree that you're wrong" shtick.

You are quick to criticize my position but painfully slow to actually read it and consider the meaning.

I agree with your point above, and that was as far as I took the comparison, that TST was using the same justification as WBC uses. That can obviously be used for productive ends, as TST has done before, or for twattish ends, as they are doing here. When they want to be dicks, I would opine that they should not cling to the First Amendent to do so.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

You are quick to criticize my position but painfully slow to actually read it and consider the meaning.

I agree with your point above, and that was as far as I took the comparison, that TST was using the same justification as WBC uses. That can obviously be used for productive ends, as TST has done before, or for twattish ends, as they are doing here. When they want to be dicks, I would opine that they should not cling to the First Amendent to do so.

No.

 

[Thermal]

No.

'k.

 

[xterra]

'k.

That certainly seems like the final letter on the subject.