Well, my paragraph after what you quoted addressed that.
But the stamp collectors are just there to be stamp collectors. The other group only exists to suppress the first because they are mad that it exists.
They both have “Stamp Collectors” in their name but they are not the same. If the idea is to allow groups to promote their hobbies in public then doll collectors or Magic: The Gathering players would fit the same type.
However, that second group deserves equal time as other defamation groups get, which is probably none.
I applaud this. I would prefer that no religious groups be allowed to put up displays on public property, but if any of them are to be allowed, then the logical corollary is that they should all be allowed. If this display helps more people to realize that, then that’s all for the good.
And I say this as a church-going Christian, who gets a warm spot in my heart whenever I see a non-public person or institution displaying a nativity scene this time of year.
Is “Lucien Greaves” his real name? It just sounds so pseudo-British-smarmy-bad-guy.
Or maybe they are just sick of having the Christian holiday rammed down their throats every year, of Christmas songs interspersed with shrieks about the “war on Christmas” 24/7 from the Monday before Thanksgiving on, of the constant condemnation of the mild and cheerful inclusivity of the phrase “Happy Holidays”.
In my opinion, the people who should be ashamed of themselves are those who insist their religious beliefs should be the basis of every public action or display by anyone.
…And that’s why the Satanic Temple does what it does - they are trying to show that it’s a whole lot less messy, confusing, and even constitutional, for governmental spaces to simply not have any religious displays. They’re not trolling Christmas and Hanukkah - they’re trolling people who think that 'Murica is a Chris-chun country, dammit. On their private property, individual Christians can erect a Nativity scene, Jews a menorah, Satanists a horned god. The gummint stays out of it.
Besides, you’re making an assumption that Satanists only profess their beliefs to get a rise out of Christians or Jews. Some really do practice a religion based on Satan, either as a symbol, or as an actual deity. If Muslims or Hindus asked to erect a holiday display, would you accuse them of “trolling Christmas and Hanukkah”?
Nah, his real name is Doug Mesner. I think he chose “Lucien Greaves” because it sounds so vampire-Satanic-fallen-angel-evil-British-guy. I’ve posted an interview with him that vice.com published last year, where he talks about deliberately using Satanic imagery to make a point.
If there is a Muslim population in a community that want’s to put up a sign that says “Happy Ramadam” or something I think it would be trolling for a Christian group to insist it be accompanied by a “Jesus loves you” sign when there is no reason for it.
It is incredible backwards to celebrate them dumping on a holiday just because it’s Christian. Or would you be just as supportive if they went after minority religions like Sihks or Hindus?
How are they “going after” Christians, or Sikhs, or Hindus or anybody else? How is asking that they be allowed to put up a holiday display just as the other faith communities have done “dumping on a holiday”? The Satanic Temple is just pointing out that the government cannot, by the highest law in the land, privilege one religion over another. It’s literally the first thing in the Bill of Rights.
Or alternatively, Christians and Jews should be ashamed of themselves for pushing their religious agenda on public property and in public buildings, spiting in the face of people who don’t share their beliefs.
But since they feel perfectly justified in doing so, and have no moral qualms whatsoever about it, the only alternative left is to give them a taste of their own medicine.
People like you absolutely don’t get that these religious displays are offensive themselves. You only notice the offense when it’s directed at the majority. There would be zero need to “troll Christmas” if Christians just abstained from granting special privileges to their own beliefs. For instance, I’d be curious to know how many displays are installed in this building for major non Christian (Hindu, Muslim, etc…) celebrations. I don’t know for sure, but my guess would be zero.
It’s just about treating everybody the same way, which both Christian supporters and the local authorities are unwilling to do. When you face this kind of completely unashamed behaviour, you use the peaceful and legal remedies at your disposal, like “trolling”.
Preach it, brother! But in fact, the local authorities have, now and in the past, okayed a Festivus pole, an atheist display, a menorah, and a Pastafarian display. I’m sure if a Muslim or Sikh group asked, they’d be allowed to put something up. Everyone’s okay with the Satanists - even the head of the Christian group that put up the Nativity scene. It’s only the usual group of butthurt War on Christmas whingers who are upset.
I’m not opposed to the equal access requirement, but does the government have to allow it at the same time? It is approaching December 25, so it’s not unreasonable to say that the Satan group can post their display at some other time of the year.
What if a third group disagrees with both the Christians AND the Satan group and wants it’s own display? Then a fourth group…and a fifth…and a fifty-fifth, etc.
If it was truly about inclusion, I would agree, but as posters in this thread freely admit, it is an attempting to abolish Christmas displays on public property. That I oppose.
On Christmas, from what I read (and obviously to preserve the possibility to display the nativity during this period). I was asking if they had religious displays for the major celebrations of other religions too, or if it was reserved, for some mysterious reason, to a Christian holiday.
So? If you allow it to one group, why not the 54 others?
And why do you oppose it? And if you were really about inclusion yourself, you certainly wouldn’t have an issue with having 55 displays, and there probably really are a lot of religious groups out there.
You oppose it, very probably because you feel that a nativity scene is no big deal, is part of the traditions, etc… But in fact, it is a purely religious display, it is promoting a specific belief on common property, it is a reminder to the outsiders that they’re outsiders, that their beliefs (or lack thereof) aren’t relevant and that Christianism is reigning supreme. It does send a message that doesn’t bother you but that bother others. But somehow you feel justified in letting this message be sent, whether or not a part of the population resent it.
The lack of respect isn’t on the side you think it is. You’re just unable to put yourself in their shoes.
I might be wondering the same thing. Could some other group have their religion recognized when it was relevant to them? Or does the town only do holiday displays during “the (Christian) holiday season”?
Oh, and the local authorities aren’t inclusive at all. They are only inclusive to the extent that allows them to keep their prefered religious display. And they went to court to limit the inclusion. And why? Because the satanist display was supposedly offensive. Because it was depicting pornography? Extreme violence? Smelling bad? Encouraging drug use? Anything offensive to the population at large, regardless of their religion?
No, because it was depicting something that is considered very bad from a Christian religious point of view. In other word, it was offensive to Christian religion and Christian believers. So they tried to forbid it. We’re in a situation extremely similar to that of people trying to forbid the publication of depictions of Mohamed, in fact.
That’s true, in a sense, but almost completely irrelevant to the case. The reason the Supreme Court did not consider the plaintiffs’ sincerity is that the original trial court found, as a matter of fact, that the plaintiffs were sincere. A factual finding at trial is binding on appellate courts, unless the factual finding has no support in the record.
And the reason the trial court found, as a matter of fact, that the plaintiffs were sincere is that they alleged their sincerity and the defendants conceded the point. In other words, the government conceded at the trial court that plaintiffs were sincere. If they had not, then the court would have resolved the conflict and made a ruling. With the stipulation, the trial court simply accepted it.
All of this is to say that the sincerity of the plaintiffs was not somehow manufactured by the five conservatives of the Supreme Court. Indeed, even the four liberals of the Supreme Court, in their dissent, don’t suggest that that plaintiffs are lacking sincerity.
Do you now understand the problems with your cite’s claim?
Correct. There’s no inherent right of the religious to not be offended. I certainly find that depiction disturbing and offensive to my Christian faith. But I recognize that the public forum is permitted to offend and disturb my faith, and my remedy is to look away if it bugs me.
What does that have to do with my comment? I am fairly certain the government is not mandating radio playlists the final six weeks of the year.
I am certain that a lot of private individuals get their panties in a very public twist if anyone wants to celebrate this powerful season of hope and renewal with any symbols other than Christian ones, or the very old pagan ones that have become associated with Christmas.
I do not want to live in a Christian nation, under a Christian government, and my constitution says I do not have to. And if it takes some pseudo vampire to bring that to people’s and local government’s attention, so be it.
I’d rather everyone just wished everyone else the joy of the season, without getting all pissy about exactly what season it is.
No, just at Christmas. I’ve never seen a holiday display for Eed al-Fitr or Diwali or Rosh Hashanah. But neither have I seen one for other Christian holidays such as Easter or Pentecost.
I have seen holiday decorations in governmental spaces for Thanksgiving and the Fourth of July; because those are civic holidays.
And I argue that that is what has happened to Christmas. At the end of November, when we celebrate Thanksgiving, we enter “the holidays”, when we have four major celebrations (Turkey Day, Christmas, New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day) that almost all Americans observe. True, Christmas is a religious holiday, and there are plenty of Americans who observe it as such; but it’s also become a secular holiday devoted to Americans’ true religion - consumerism.
Point is, almost all Americans are celebrating something at the end of December - Christmas, Kwanzaa, Hanukkah, Human Light, Get A New Xbox Day, whatever. Holiday displays in December are not so much a privileging of Christianity as an acknowledgement of that fact…
…which is why the government can’t just put off the Satanists’ display until some other time of the year. The display is specifically for “the holiday season” - which is end of November to January 1st. If fifty-five religious groups want displays, the government has to let all fifty-five display, or none. Sorry, but them’s the rules.