I’m sure somewhere Ozzy Osbourne approves.
Probably because there isn’t room for 55 different displays.
Who truly “resents” Christmas? Maybe The Grinch or Ebenezer Scrooge, but if people are truly offended by public recognition of things that they personally don’t approve of or participate in, then they need thicker skin.
I see nothing wrong with a local government simply recognizing the fact that a large majority of their citizens are participating in the celebration of a major holiday and joining in that celebration. It is in no way a denigration of those who do not celebrate the holiday.
I am not Jewish and therefore don’t celebrate Hannukah, but it would seem absurd to me to see a menorah displayed in the town square and become indignant about it.
“Equal time” arguments, taken to their logical conclusion, simply eliminate everything. And that’s what you are trying to do with the recognition of religious beliefs, especially Christian beliefs. Should we do that with speech next?
For example, no anti-domestic violence pamphlets printed by the government unless the Wife Beaters of America get their pamphlets printed for free? No “Take Back the Night” literature unless the pro-raping group gets its own literature printed and has its own demonstration at public expense?
Wife beating and rape are both against the law. Upholding the law, and seeking to prevent violations of the law, is a primary function of government. But “worshipping false gods”, or following a different religion from your next door neighbor–or not having any religion at all–is not against the law, not in America. In America, people have a fundamental right to worship any god or gods they believe to be right, or not to believe in any gods at all. Protecting everyone’s right to freedom of religion is also a primary function of government, but trying to save people’s souls or bring them to the “True Faith”–promoting religion rather than simply protecting everyone in the peaceful practice of whatever religion or beliefs they have–is not the government’s job and the government has no business meddling in such things.
And no one is trying to “eliminate” Christianity. At most, we are simply asking that the government should not promote Christianity. Even if all the creches (and Ten Commandments monuments) are taken down from every courthouse, capitol building, city hall, and public school in America, there will still be millions of acres of people’s own front yards, and the lawns of churches, private businesses, and private schools, on which people can freely choose to display statues of the baby Jesus or statues of Baphomet.
And as a result, you want to get to pick those who deserve to be displayed?
It’s not about resenting Christmas. It’s about resenting nativity scenes (imagery of a specific religion) in public buildings.
I have no issue with that, either. I’ve an issue with specific groups using those circumstances to promote their religion. And other similar groups not being allowed to do the same, because for this celebration, according to you, there isn’t enough room for everybody, and other celebrations aren’t important enough to warrant displays in public buildings. Net result : Christians (and Jews) get to promote their religion for a couple months on public land, and the others can go suck eggs.
And what about a satanist display in the town hall for winter holidays? Would it bother you? Apparently it does.
Hmmm…No…taken to their logical conclusions they either result in every citizen being granted the same right to promote his beliefs on public land, rather than having some sub-groups of the citizenry monopolizing the common space for their own propaganda and acting all offended if someone has an issue with that, or in displacing this to your lawn, your church, etc…(not “eliminating” them)
Listen : everybody has the same right to the candies distributed at the town hall,or nobody has. That’s pretty simple. Either you let the satanists have candies too, or everybody buy his own candies.
I don’t think I need to answer that.
So you think this is an attempt to abolish Christmas displays…how? Do the Satanists really believe that this will spark many other religions to insist on displays of their own? Enough to force the state to do away with all displays? I suppose it’s possible they might believe that. But if they did, they’d be pretty stupid. Seriously, there’s no threat of 55 holiday displays popping up.
Yes, that’s the point exactly that the Satanists are trying to get across. I’m glad you understand now.
Or maybe you don’t, because your very next sentence seems to have a problem with this concept.
Just about the most succinct definition of “equal protection under the law” I think I’ve ever read. Nicely put, clairobscur.
Bolding mine.
One answer is that Christians are trolling non-believers when they claim that they are put up a 10 commandments monument solely to celebrate history and the rule of law. So maybe it is a counter-troll.
Another observation is that the Satanic Temple has a coherent philosophy, one which they actually believe. I agree with it in parts, disagree with others. Here’s the FAQ.
The Satanic Temple does not promote a belief in a personal Satan. I do not promote a belief in a personal Satan. The Satanic Temple believes that religion can and should be divorced from superstition. I believe in half of that. Can, yes, should, not necessarily. The Satanic Temple believes that suffering is bad and that which reduces suffering is good. I agree.
Oh and “Lucian” means “Light” in Latin. I understands Lucifer has a common root. “Greaves” is a homophone of grieves. So it’s a pun.
That is fine. I have different preferences: I’d rather have religious advertisement off of public property. (Though I confess that I am not too fond of creches, as the sight of Mary, Joseph and 3 lambs worshiping a light bulb perturbs me. In other words, too many lack artistic merit IMnotsoHO. Nonetheless I once gave a tabletop version to my Mom which I liked.) Generally speaking I admire quieter piety, though of course plenty of terrific religious art is pretty bold.
We know. But the reason why you find it offensive is due to your own intolerance and hatred for beliefs other than your own. It’s not because the people in question are trying to offend you. That’s the difference between the other religious symbols and the Satanist one.
First off, their “beliefs” include “We embrace blasphemy as a legitimate expression of personal independence from counter-productive traditional norms.” Aka “we believe deliberately offending people is a good thing.” They’re trolls.
But they could put up a respectful display. That symbol at the top of the article would be good. I was actually going to praise them for not being trolls. But, no, they depict a Christian angel falling into the Christian concept of hell. Not something they actually believe in. No, it’s there to “embrace blasphemy.” It’s there to troll.
If I had any reason to believe these guys just wanted to send warm wishes around the holidays, I would support them 100%. But I don’t, and I think it’s a shame our government has to pretend like they do. I’m all for standards that you can’t mock any other religion in your religious display, and applying that rule equally.
And I’m also for jtgain’s solution of putting them up on the actual holidays in question. You could do eight days of Hanukkah, and we’d take only eight days of Christmas. Eight days per year could be from any other religion. I think that should still be equal access, the same way you can reserve the town hall for different religious meetings at different times.
I agree with religions being treated equally, instead of privileging atheistic ones above the rest by removing all displays. But part of my ideas of being equal is that you can’t put up your display in order to offend.
Those are the displays I object to. It’s not some hugely hypocritical idea that Christianity should be privileged. I would equally be against a Christian display that depicts Muhammad or shows obviously Jewish people crucifying Christ or Jesus killing the Flying Spaghetti Monster or whatever.
It’s not whether it’s offensive. It’s whether it is deliberately so. The same reason I’m okay with certain posters on the Dope who piss me off to no end, but hate the trolls at 4chan.
But…there’s no law against trolling.
Does not having a display the rest of the year privilege atheist religions or is it only at Christmas?
Up next, does removing “In God We Trust” from our money promote Atheism? But first a report on the hot new hobby sweeping America, not collecting stamps.
CMC fnord!
That involves gauging artistic intent. Do you object to a Flying Spaghetti Christmas display?
Lo res image here: Capitol holiday displays approved, state includes Satanic Temple
It has a quote of Jeremiah 10:2*. The Satanic Temple display quotes Isaiah 14:12.
Incidentally, Tallahassee had your view last year, but I’m guessing that they decided that they didn’t want to spend city funds on a lawsuit to defend it.
- “Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. Jeremiah 10:2.”
well, it is clearly anti-Jewish. If we had one display a year, it would be for the high holy days, or maybe Passover. It wouldn’t be for that diddle-squat holiday that happens to be celebrated around the same time as Christmas.
I guess this is what is meant by “privilege”. Christians don’t even see how incredibly pro-Christian it is to put up holiday displays around Christmastime. Personally, I don’t object to them. But yes, when they are on state property, it is state support of Christianity, too the exclusion of the rest of us.
Ah. Again we’re back to “Satanists only say they believe in Satan to piss off Christians. They don’t really believe in their religion.” So glad we got that cleared up.I suppose next you’ll tell us how atheists are really just mad at God?
But you are correct that the Satanic Temple is trolling. But what the’re trolling is violations of church-state separation - not other religions.
That whole free-speech bidness is messy, innit?
If atheism had an official ambassador, we could maybe come to some sort of agreement. Maybe take “god” off the money and we’ll stop protesting nativity scenes? And maybe orchestrate a POW exchange in the war on xmas.
Bolding mine. I have to admit that, when I read the bible, I think the same thing about most Christians.
And even if that’s true (which I happen to agree it is), what difference does it make? Even if they’re being dicks about it, they have a right to be dicks, and the point they’re making is still valid. We don’t want laws that state that religious displays are OK only if you’re sincere about your religion, because that means that some arm of the government is going to have to decide whose religion is sincere. And even if we could get past that, and decide that the Satanists aren’t sincere, there are still plenty enough genuinely sincere religions that there still wouldn’t be room for them all.
Oh, and puzzlegal, Christmas isn’t even the biggest Christian holiday, either: That would be Easter.
Well, the church might claim that, but the actions of dozens of Christians I know demonstrate that Christmas is a bigger deal. 
Whereas must Jews actually do more for Passover than for Hanukkah, even with all the commercial hype that’s sprung up around Hanukkah.
Just a note: Your ability to craft a compelling analogy has not improved since your “If we allow gays to marry, why can’t someone marry their washing machine?” days.