Satanists plan statue to stand alongside Ten Commandments in Oklahoma

[SpuriusMaximus]

I'm not an expert but I believe there are several types of Satanists. Perhaps there are some that acknowlege God as good and Satan as evil and worship him anyway but I'm not convinced this type exists outside of high school. My understanding is that most are either Pagans that rebranded Satan as a good guy and atheists that are simply out for a laugh. I think this group is the latter.

Actually, I'm not convinced that the boogeyman Satanism actually ever existed, except as a carricature created by Christians. Instead of actually dealing with what is it that those pagans ask of their gods, or what they believe, Christians essentially painted everyone else, from Jews to pagans, as someone who knows Christians are right but just wants to serve Satan and go to Hell anyway. I.e., pretty much the same "you know I'm right, you just don't want to admit it" idiocy used to this day by people who can't support their nonsense.

 

[realpaladin]

I am with the Hindu's... let's put up statues for each of the 1500+ deities they have.

As far as my Indian friends tell me, such a thing has never been done before and it would make it the holiest place of all.

 

[ddt]

Actually, if the Christians get to put their 10 commandments there, can we please also get the eight Pastafarian "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts" there too?

They did something like that a few years ago with a Tennessee courthouse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtIyYEPVgTk

 

[Dinwar]

I think that atheists' should be allowed to put a statue of their own. Just a pedestal with nothing on it.

They tried this in a park near where I used to live. A group of atheists decided to put up Christmas lights in a public park where Christians had long put up a light display. They became obnoxious, however, verbally attacking the Christians (no one, not even the atheists, denied that they started it in the interviews I saw). The Christians fought back. The whole situation got so out of hand that the park decided it was simpler to not allow ANY lights in the park. Something like 30 years of tradition vanished.

If atheists--or Satanists, or members of Islam, or Hindus, or whatever--want to put up signs, statues, or whatever on public property they have the right so long as they go through proper channels. However, they really should acknowledge that they thereby become the face of their group. The folks where I used to live now have a very dim view of atheists, because the atheists removed something enjoyable from the town due to the fact that they couldn't act like adults.

The other thing is, in order to gain traction you need to present some sort of coherent concept. Atheism that only exists in opposition to Christianity (and that's how it'll be viewed, like it or not) is going to fall flat. It will be seen as an attack on Christianity (which it would be, in all honesty), and therefore turn the public against you. What you need is to provide some positive secular view. It's a courthouse, so I'd suggest a copy of the Code of Hamurabi, or perhaps the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Or perhaps a tasteful statue with some of the more interesting laws of nature. An empty pedistool would present atheism as either nhilistic or nothing more than anti-Christianity, which is self-defeating.

 

[Aepervius]

If atheists--or Satanists, or members of Islam, or Hindus, or whatever--want to put up signs, statues, or whatever on public property they have the right so long as they go through proper channels.

Only if the proper channel state in advance what is allowed or not. Otherwise it is a more or less carte blanche to invent any excuse to not put the status of other group for any m ade up reason on the spot.

As for the rest of what you said, there are ******* everywhere. My feeeling is that they are not more numerous among christian than atheist and the other wy arround. But still funnily it is always the boogy man atheist which is spoken about in the news. jut saying.

 

[Dinwar]

Only if the proper channel state in advance what is allowed or not.

What I meant was, there's usually some sort of application process that needs to be followed. You can't just start building on the courthouse lawn.

As for the rest of what you said, there are ******* everywhere. My feeeling is that they are not more numerous among christian than atheist and the other wy arround. But still funnily it is always the boogy man atheist which is spoken about in the news. jut saying.

That's rather my point. Those atheists--who, remember, admitted to provoking the Christians--were dicks. Such people are no more common in atheist circles than anywhere else; however, since no one hears about the atheists that work hard, raise their families, and generally don't cause trouble, people in that area are only exposed to the dicks so that's what they interpret atheism as being full of. Remember, when making public displays you are advertising. That means you need to be concious of the image you are projecting.

 

[tsig]

I am with the Hindu's... let's put up statues for each of the 1500+ deities they have.

As far as my Indian friends tell me, such a thing has never been done before and it would make it the holiest place of all.

Also a computer program spitting out the nine billion names of god.


http://downlode.org/Etext/nine_billion_names_of_god.html

 

[Belz...]

Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature

So after the republican run legislature puts up a 10 commandments monument, a New York Satanic group wants to put up a Satanic monument there as well.



Lucien Greaves, seriously?



I want this to happen just to see exactly what a Satanic interactive display is.

Wait, there are actual satanists ?

 

[tsig]

They tried this in a park near where I used to live. A group of atheists decided to put up Christmas lights in a public park where Christians had long put up a light display. They became obnoxious, however, verbally attacking the Christians (no one, not even the atheists, denied that they started it in the interviews I saw). The Christians fought back. The whole situation got so out of hand that the park decided it was simpler to not allow ANY lights in the park. Something like 30 years of tradition vanished.

If atheists--or Satanists, or members of Islam, or Hindus, or whatever--want to put up signs, statues, or whatever on public property they have the right so long as they go through proper channels. However, they really should acknowledge that they thereby become the face of their group. The folks where I used to live now have a very dim view of atheists, because the atheists removed something enjoyable from the town due to the fact that they couldn't act like adults.

The other thing is, in order to gain traction you need to present some sort of coherent concept. Atheism that only exists in opposition to Christianity (and that's how it'll be viewed, like it or not) is going to fall flat. It will be seen as an attack on Christianity (which it would be, in all honesty), and therefore turn the public against you. What you need is to provide some positive secular view. It's a courthouse, so I'd suggest a copy of the Code of Hamurabi, or perhaps the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Or perhaps a tasteful statue with some of the more interesting laws of nature. An empty pedistool would present atheism as either nhilistic or nothing more than anti-Christianity, which is self-defeating.

Any links to those interviews?

 

[ddt]

Wait, there are actual satanists ?

Read the links posted by Prof. Yaffle and you'll revise the adjective "actual".

 

[Dinwar]

Any links to those interviews?

No. It was a small town, and only a local news report. Feel free to disbelieve me, but I've got nothing to gain from lying about it.

 

[Checkmite]

Who cares what a New York satanist group wants to put up in front of an Oklahoma courthouse hundreds of miles away? I would say the New York group lacks factual interest or even standing to complain.

 

[tsig]

No. It was a small town, and only a local news report. Feel free to disbelieve me, but I've got nothing to gain from lying about it.

Except that the atheists in your story act so perfectly like the stereotypical "angry atheist" and gave you a good excuse to bash tradition hating atheists.

 

[Dinwar]

Except that the atheists in your story act so perfectly like the stereotypical "angry atheist"...

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?

...and gave you a good excuse to bash tradition hating atheists.

You are attempting to perform psychology from behind a computer screen here, by attempting to ascribe to me motives beyond the glaringly obvious. I'm not "bashing" anyone. My motive for sharing the story is based purely on the discussion at hand; the story is relevant and presents some risks involved in these activities. I'm pointing to an example of how the sort of thing in the OP can backfire quite horribly, resulting in negative press and support for the theists, which defeats the purpose of such a demonstration. Even if my example was pure fiction, it still would serve to illustrate the point.

If you think that pointing to potential issues that could arise during an activity is "bashing" the folks involved, that speaks far more to your own prejudices and biases than anything I've stated. Ignoring the risks of generating negative press for fear of hurting the widdle feewings of those poor atheists is nothing but an invitation to allow such issues to happen. There ARE atheists who feel the need to attack theists. Acknowleding that and having a plan in place to deal with them will help ensure that the project is completed and generates the type of press the groups want. Part of my job is to figure out what problems might arise, and to develop protocols for addressing them before they actually occur. I'm willing to accept a bit more risk than some (I'm not a Health and Safety manager by any means), but it's still an important component of how I think about doing any project.

Oh, and here's a dirty little secret for you: I'm an atheist. You sort of forgot that bit when attempting to divine my motivation.

I don't expect you to actually acknowledge that I might just know more about my motives than you do, but hopefully anyone reading this thread will see the obvious biases in your interpretation.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

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.

Then the argument that if you allow one religion you have to allow them all has some meaning.

 

[catsmate]

Actually, if the Christians get to put their 10 commandments there, can we please also get the eight Pastafarian "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts" there too?

Absolutely. A nice octagonal plinth surmounted by His Noodliness.

I am with the Hindu's... let's put up statues for each of the 1500+ deities they have.

As far as my Indian friends tell me, such a thing has never been done before and it would make it the holiest place of all.

That would probably take up a lot of space, not leaving any for the legislators.

Oh wait, that's a reason in favour.

 

[tsig]

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 are attempting to perform psychology from behind a computer screen here, by attempting to ascribe to me motives beyond the glaringly obvious. I'm not "bashing" anyone. My motive for sharing the story is based purely on the discussion at hand; the story is relevant and presents some risks involved in these activities. I'm pointing to an example of how the sort of thing in the OP can backfire quite horribly, resulting in negative press and support for the theists, which defeats the purpose of such a demonstration. Even if my example was pure fiction, it still would serve to illustrate the point.

If you think that pointing to potential issues that could arise during an activity is "bashing" the folks involved, that speaks far more to your own prejudices and biases than anything I've stated. Ignoring the risks of generating negative press for fear of hurting the widdle feewings of those poor atheists is nothing but an invitation to allow such issues to happen. There ARE atheists who feel the need to attack theists. Acknowleding that and having a plan in place to deal with them will help ensure that the project is completed and generates the type of press the groups want. Part of my job is to figure out what problems might arise, and to develop protocols for addressing them before they actually occur. I'm willing to accept a bit more risk than some (I'm not a Health and Safety manager by any means), but it's still an important component of how I think about doing any project.

Oh, and here's a dirty little secret for you: I'm an atheist. You sort of forgot that bit when attempting to divine my motivation.

I don't expect you to actually acknowledge that I might just know more about my motives than you do, but hopefully anyone reading this thread will see the obvious biases in your interpretation.

It's obvious there's one thing they won't see and that's anything to back up your story.

This outpouring of emotion seems excessive for a simple request for a link.

 

[tsig]

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 are attempting to perform psychology from behind a computer screen here, by attempting to ascribe to me motives beyond the glaringly obvious. I'm not "bashing" anyone. My motive for sharing the story is based purely on the discussion at hand; the story is relevant and presents some risks involved in these activities. I'm pointing to an example of how the sort of thing in the OP can backfire quite horribly, resulting in negative press and support for the theists, which defeats the purpose of such a demonstration. Even if my example was pure fiction, it still would serve to illustrate the point.
If you think that pointing to potential issues that could arise during an activity is "bashing" the folks involved, that speaks far more to your own prejudices and biases than anything I've stated. Ignoring the risks of generating negative press for fear of hurting the widdle feewings of those poor atheists is nothing but an invitation to allow such issues to happen. There ARE atheists who feel the need to attack theists. Acknowleding that and having a plan in place to deal with them will help ensure that the project is completed and generates the type of press the groups want. Part of my job is to figure out what problems might arise, and to develop protocols for addressing them before they actually occur. I'm willing to accept a bit more risk than some (I'm not a Health and Safety manager by any means), but it's still an important component of how I think about doing any project.

Oh, and here's a dirty little secret for you: I'm an atheist. You sort of forgot that bit when attempting to divine my motivation.

I don't expect you to actually acknowledge that I might just know more about my motives than you do, but hopefully anyone reading this thread will see the obvious biases in your interpretation.

Yes, it would illustrate that you were lying when you told the story.

 

[Dinwar]

This outpouring of emotion seems excessive for a simple request for a link.

No such link exists. It was a local news story in a small town, that never hit the web. It's not a failure on my part to present the link; your request is impossible to comply with. I have made that perfectly clear, but for some reason you are unwilling to acknowledge that.

Your request is also irrelevant. You're focusing on the evidence supporting something illustrating the main point, at the cost of abandoning the main point. Even if you assume that my example is purely fiction it still serves to highlight problems that can arise when putting up these displays: your group can include people that behave in such a manner that they make your group look bad. If you can't wrap your head around the concept of using an anecdote to illustrate a concept, that's your problem. I won't engage in this nonsense any further. I've given no one any reason to assume I'd lie about something like this, and the truth of the matter doesn't impact my argument in any rational way (meaning, in the context of this discussion) anyway.

Also, please stop quoting things you refuse to read. It merely clutters the thread, and does not serve to demonstrate that you are taking the statements in context.

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.

I meant someone neutral. There's no reason to actively attack the theists, only to provoke them. Obviously the folks putting up the Ten Commandments will view any other display as an attack. But if all you do is put up a piller with some of Allah's less-obnoxious commandments, it'll get the point across without directly attacking the Christians.

 

[kerikiwi]

You're focusing on the evidence supporting something illustrating the main point, at the cost of abandoning the main point. Even if you assume that my example is purely fiction it still serves to highlight problems that can arise when putting up these displays.

Now there's an interesting concept: something which might happen is evidenced by stories of things which did not happen.
No, just no.