Oklahoma Vs. Satan

[bubby]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/12/06/oklahoma-satanic-temple-piece/

I love this, personally. Just as a SUCK IT statement.

[kylie]

         Amusing little article.  A little curious about the thread title (though it's fun)...  Is anyone formally contesting this already, or saying they will?

         I searched around a little and stumbled across a quote from one of the satanic leaders from 2010, when his group rented a community center for an exorcism (open to public viewing).  Not sure if this is part of the same network of churches or not, but...  Well, I really love how he phrased this.  I have no idea if he was being dead serious, bitingly sarcastic, or carrying off both at once.  Or maybe, I can't decide if it's inevitable that it would just do both depending on the audience --- and I'm amused to death that people would just have to deal with it.  Because sometimes reality is just that ironic and shit just needs to be said.

"We just decided that being right here in the middle of the Bible Belt, it wasn't a good idea to keep the secrecy you see in the traditional Satanist churches," he said. "Because secrecy breeds fear. And we're not looking to scare anyone."

[Oniya]

I think it was less of a 'trial title' (e.g. Brown vs. Board of Education) and more of an 'event title' (e.g. Hulk Hogan vs. Andre the Giant).  Everyone get your popcorn!

It seems to me that there are at least two different types of Satanists, though - the ones who are all 'Let's see what we can do to piss off the Christians', and those who have put more consideration into what they believe than that.  Not entirely sure about this group.

[TheGlyphstone]

I think it was less of a 'trial title' (e.g. Brown vs. Board of Education) and more of an 'event title' (e.g. Hulk Hogan vs. Andre the Giant).  Everyone get your popcorn!

It seems to me that there are at least two different types of Satanists, though - the ones who are all 'Let's see what we can do to piss off the Christians', and those who have put more consideration into what they believe than that.  Not entirely sure about this group.
[/quote

Would you consider the 'Hail Satin' types who are just looking to be dark and rebellious and dark into the first category, or do they get their own subgroup?

[Oniya]

If the sum total of their theology is 'I'm doing it to be dark and rebellious', then it's pretty much first branch.  If they're going with the idea that the original Satan was essentially the one that questioned YHVH and blind obedience (such as with Job and the temptation of Christ in the desert), then they're more second branch.

(Frankly, I think chiffon is far more evil than satin.  I mean, have you ever worked with the stuff?)

[kylie]

       Chiffon?  I must be satanic.  That stuff is often very cozy to wear.   :-)

        I don't see that putting up a monument is being done simply (or even mainly, on the face of it?) to upset the Christian groups.  Again, why are they the first or only ones to be claiming that space?  It's public space.  If I say we need a much broader and more flexible curriculum for comparative historical religions in the schools (say in social studies), it doesn't have to mean I'm thinking at that moment, "Yes, that'll annoy them."  I do happen to think we really could use one.

        As for other aspects of what the groups do or don't do, that may be another story.  But the monument can still have a good point in and of itself.  Though I imagine there must be at least a few opposed people quietly scurrying around looking for some supposedly "purely administrative or technical" grounds to block it, about now.

         

       

[Oniya]

Like I said, I haven't made up my mind about this particular group.  They might very well be of the second variety.

[Blythe]

I live in Oklahoma, and there's always been an issue with religion making it's way into places like the State Capitol grounds or courthouses. This is an amusing and cheeky way of poking at the fact that Oklahoma has had a terrible track record at separating church and state. Good for them for bringing it up.

[ShadowFox89]

 Well, let's face it, Oklahoma needs something to put them into the news for the year.... Not much else goes on there.

[gaggedLouise]

I think it was less of a 'trial title' (e.g. Brown vs. Board of Education) and more of an 'event title' (e.g. Hulk Hogan vs. Andre the Giant).  Everyone get your popcorn!

It seems to me that there are at least two different types of Satanists, though - the ones who are all 'Let's see what we can do to piss off the Christians', and those who have put more consideration into what they believe than that.  Not entirely sure about this group.

I remember hearing an interview with a Norwegian Satanist cult leader - this religious current is really strong in Norway, it ties in both with the black metal scene and with attempts to revive the faith of the Vikings. The guy noted how "some people engage in burning down churches and so on, but that I regard as highly un-Satanistic behaviour."  ;)

[Oniya]

I remember hearing an interview with a Norwegian Satanist cult leader - this religious current is really strong in Norway, it ties in both with the black metal scene and with attempts to revive the faith of the Vikings. The guy noted how "some people engage in burning down churches and so on, but that I regard as highly un-Satanistic behaviour."  ;)

But... Satan wasn't Nordic...  *head explodes*

[gaggedLouise]

But... Satan wasn't Nordic...  *head explodes*

I think some of them perceive the Vikings as kind of supermen, men who walked (or sailed) with destiny itself. And that kind of belief in your own lust and power would be, well, Satan's morals.

[Oniya]

Ah.  Nietzsche, I suppose.  *proceeds to give spell-check a coronary.*  Could at least do enough poking around in the Viking religions to find an appropriate counterpart.  *grumps pseudo-historically and goes off to listen to Led Zeppelin*

[gaggedLouise]

These guys were sort of an ideal Viking brotherhood who were the stuff of legend back in the day, and whose fame has survived to modern stories and live reenactments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jomsvikings

The picture of them fighting in a hailstorm is very cool....The band and the fortress (at Wollin in modern Poland) seem to have existed allright, whether they really did fit this ultra-tough bill is a long-standing topic of historical debate.

[Tairis]

I don't see why not at this point. Seems like stunts like this are the only way the other side is ever going to understand that the rules apply to everyone equally or not at all.

Also the chick in the meme is cute.

[Neysha]

Not a big fan of trolling people in real life just to piss them off for pissing sake which seems like what is going on in the article IMHO.

[kylie]

Not a big fan of trolling people in real life just to piss them off for pissing sake which seems like what is going on in the article IMHO.

Personally, I think tossing the word "troll" with all its internet airs of self-righteous mockery usually aimed at distant parties posting online, at an in the flesh group talking about a physical monument on state grounds, is kind of empty name-calling.  If I say something is "just obnoxious," is that going to shut everyone up by itself, without a reasoned argument?  I could probably find a few things then...

        I also think you might have an easier time arguing this particular article goes to some length to be irksome, than arguing the church in question is actually doing that. 

        Or, at the least, they may be doing some serious activism and you don't seem to like that the message bothers a few people.  Well, there are some people that get bothered about issues with no activism in sight anyway.  And then there are some things that are just messy.  So, tough luck if people can't stop being bothered whenever someone points it out.  It's their state, too and this is about public space.

         But see the other linked articles for some perhaps more even discussion...

"Unmasking Lucien Graves."

VICE: Is the Satanic Temple a satanic, or a satirical group?
Doug: That is a common question. I say why can’t it be both? We are coming from a solid philosophy that we absolutely believe in and adhere to. This is Satanism, and to us it couldn’t be called anything other than Satanism. However, our metaphor of Satan is a literary construct inspired by authors such as Anatole France and Milton—a rebel angel defiant of autocratic structure and concerned with the material world. Satanism as a rejection of superstitious supernaturalism. This Satan, of course, bears no resemblance to the embodiment of all cruelty, suffering, and negativity believed in by some apocalyptic segments of Judeo-Christian culture. The word Satan has no inherent value. If one acts with compassion in the name of Satan, one has still acted with compassion. Our very presence as civic-minded socially responsible Satanists serves to satirize the ludicrous superstitious fears that the word Satan tends to evoke.

Reminds me of a darker version of the Yes Men.
Yes. Just as the Yes Men use very catching theatrical ploys to draw attention to a progressive agenda, we play upon people’s irrational fears in a way that hopefully causes them to reevaluate what they think they know, redefine arbitrary labels, and judge people for their concrete actions. I believe that where reason fails to persuade, satire and mockery prevail. Whereas many religious groups seem to eschew humor, we embrace it.

author=Downes, "... What Could Possibly Go Wrong?"]Mehta, "... What Could Possibly Go Wrong?"

We threaten to overturn a misguided sense of religious exceptionalism that has plagued the United States for a very long time. We promise to engage actively in political/cultural dialogues and re-assert religious pluralism. People who fear a challenge to the Judeo-Christian religiopolitical monopoly are correct to fear us. We assert that religion, at its best, is a narrative construct by which practitioners contextualize their lives. We believe that religious narrative should be malleable to conform to the best scientific evidence. We reject supernaturalism and strive to approach all things with reasonable agnosticism.

[Neysha]

I didn't realize I was telling you to shut up. :(

Fairly certain I was stating my opinion in the humblest manner possible.

I admit I was amused by your excessive verbiage but I apologize for inadvertantly trying to silence you and insulting you.

[kylie]

       Shrugs, I'm not a member of that church.  I didn't mean it was about me in particular. 

        It just struck me as kind of missing what they say they are about.  And I agree the article, in a sort of vaccuum as it were, is kind of working over hard to be provocative.  (Their choice of images is a little funny maybe, too.) 

       Just... "trolling" isn't a word I use about daily life very much.  I thought it was a word about internet culture, with a sort of connotation of 'nothing really matters anyway since we're just on the internet - but btw, I think you have no point except to bother someone.'  But if the question is what is the church or the issue at all, then you haven't said much to argue they don't, or can't, possibly have a good point in there.   
 
       All too often I think, when someone doesn't like the substance of something or can't be bothered to figure out what it has to do with them, it's common these days for people to resort to saying things along the lines of oh, they're just doing it to bother someone they don't like, or just doing it out of narcissism or to get attention.  It's too convenient because that can be thrown at just about anything that's released into the public somehow.  But the one doesn't preclude the other.  Even if it does happen to bother someone, it can still be useful or meaningful. 

     

[Valthazar]

All too often I think, when someone doesn't like the substance of something or can't be bothered to figure out what it has to do with them, it's common these days for people to resort to saying things along the lines of oh, they're just doing it to bother someone they don't like, or just doing it out of narcissism or to get attention.  It's too convenient because that can be thrown at just about anything that's released into the public somehow.  But the one doesn't preclude the other.  Even if it does happen to bother someone, it can still be useful or meaningful.

This is a matter of opinion though.  What someone else considers an act of narcissism, might be something you consider genuine.

[Lux12]

These satanist are lost children. They all ought to come into the sacred madness of lord Cthulhu! Who is willing to be baptized in waters of R'lyeh?! Have you heard the gospel of his son Lovecraft who came to earth, encouraged to sin and died for our curse of sanity?!

But all joking aside, this highlights something very important. I'm not too fond of satanists myself but if you want to have a society with true freedom of religion, you can't just shut down their institutions or ban it all together. It opens the doorway for more oppression and attempts to control thought via the government. Besides, we have all these monuments with Christian iconography as it is. Why not another religion?

[Neysha]

Reinforcing narcissism and antipathy can be very useful and meaningful to a great many people I'm sure.

I won't say that the act in itself bothers me, though I do find it disrespectful since it seems to be rooted in, according to your links, simple anti-religious behavior and mockery. I think it'd be intriguing if Muslims or Jews or others wanted to add to or create their own Holiday imagery and public displays like Christians are, much like how we celebrate our diversity in other ways besides religion. But I personally frown upon being provocative for the simple sake of being provocative against something someone personally is against. I don't sympathize with such behavior and feel it doesn't do much to add to any interfaith (or lack thereof) dialogue. It sounds like they want a confrontation, preferably loud and public, not a discussion. I'd hate to offend any genuine 'Satanists' who take their Satanic beliefs and traditions seriously with this post of course, but so far I'm seeing a lack of sincerity I typically see with adherents of other faiths IMHO so far.

But I'm happy, I suppose, that they are exercising their rights in a country which protects their rights to act provocative or trollish to people they disagree with.  ???

[Oniya]

As I mentioned before, there are genuine Satanists who have more thought invested in their belief system than 'trolling Christians'.  Usually, they come across as just a hair shy of agnostic/atheist/skeptic.  More often than not, Satan is more a symbol than an actual deity, referencing the Hebrew meaning of 'one who takes an adversarial role.'  (This is what I've gotten from actually talking to them, at any rate - and one can take an adversarial role without being trollish.)

[Neysha]

As I mentioned before, there are genuine Satanists who have more thought invested in their belief system than 'trolling Christians'.  Usually, they come across as just a hair shy of agnostic/atheist/skeptic.  More often than not, Satan is more a symbol than an actual deity, referencing the Hebrew meaning of 'one who takes an adversarial role.'  (This is what I've gotten from actually talking to them, at any rate - and one can take an adversarial role without being trollish.)

So is the main focus of genuinely religious Satanists of this vein to take an adversarial role against the established religion of their choosing while not actually engaging in any form of worship?

[Lux12]

So is the main focus of genuinely religious Satanists of this vein to take an adversarial role against the established religion of their choosing while not actually engaging in any form of worship?

Not necessarily. Luciferians and certain other theistic satanist sects tend to get a fair bit more philosophical than that. Trying to pin point central dogma beyond worshiping or revering satan in some fashion and challenging other more established groups is about the only thing they have in common.

[Valthazar]

I'm not a Christian, but pretty soon the U.S. will have no shared community culture, and we'll just be a collection of sub-cultures in our own sub-group.

Over here, they always put a tree in front of the courthouse, and decorate it with lights during the wintertime.  No religious tones at all, but just a symbolic tradition.  If I wanted to, I could go on a crusade like these satanists, and make an accurate claim that this is heavily influenced by Christianity, and it is in violation of the Constitution - and then campaign to put some obscure religious symbol alongside it.

But what is that accomplishing?  Culturally, my community here is like 85%+ Christian from a historical perspective.  Even among some of my Atheists friends, they like knowing that these cultural traditions still exist that bind a community together.

While the Ten Commandments is a more direct religious reference, I think it holds more of a symbolic meaning, rather than specifically a religious one, for their community's predominant historical past.  Whether or not this particular object exists there, unfortunately we will still have politicians bringing religion into public policy - which is quite a different matter.

[kylie]

While the Ten Commandments is a more direct religious reference, I think it holds more of a symbolic meaning, rather than specifically a religious one, for their community's predominant historical past.  Whether or not this particular object exists there, unfortunately we will still have politicians bringing religion into public policy - which is quite a different matter.

         There are lots of things that have been predominant for much of US history if you look closely: Institutional racism, women having lower wages -- little to no protection from violence by spouses -- fewer property rights outside of marriage, marriage only between different sexes...  Things being around a while in society are hardly accepted anymore as obviously good reasons to maintain them as they always have been. 

       Sure, you can say some people think that's more a general "feel good" statement like the more obviously secularized tree (very commercial, too really -- all those gifts and decorations).  But in a context where often the same people who want the Ten Commandments posted in the schools are dead set against teaching evolution, I don't believe it's just some vague feel good, 'yes obviously everyone agrees' community symbol.  It doesn't convince me.  Which brings things back to where this church started...  Some politicians (or churches, etc.) are putting a big, loud religious message into public space. 

          I think it has a lot of other ideological messages about work, sacrifice, die-hard loyalty even in the face of contradictory evidence and impossible conditions -- the whole Old Testament mythos really -- buried inside too, but enough said I suppose already.

[Valthazar]

Sure, you can say some people think that's more a general "feel good" statement like the more obviously secularized tree (very commercial, too really -- all those gifts and decorations).  But in a context where often the same people who want the Ten Commandments posted in the schools are dead set against teaching evolution, I don't believe it's just some vague feel good, 'yes obviously everyone agrees' community symbol.  It doesn't convince me.  Which brings things back to where this church started...  Some politicians (or churches, etc.) are putting a big, loud religious message into public space.

As I said in my post, it is unfortunate that politicians choose to galvanize their constituents by inserting religion into public policy.  However, nothing in this article discusses removing these symbols.  In fact, the satanists in this article support the existence of these symbols, and simply wants to add-on to this tradition, by having a symbol of their own religion and culture.

It is a shame that when many people think about Christianity now, they only see the overly politicized hot-button issues.  I am not Christian, but I still respect the Christian traditions for what they stand for.

If I wanted to, I could petition to have a Hindu symbol placed next to the Ten Commandments, and many people would respect the historical basis of my cultural traditions - even though just like Christianity, there is a long history of bias and discrimination such as modern day burning of wives, the modern day caste system, and justified indentured servitude.  Just like Christianity, it offers a great deal of cohesion for communities in the United States.  I have seen first hand the generosity of Christians in my community, and contrary to what you may think, the vast majority of them just want to live normal middle class lives, and don't give a darn about what is going on in politics.  If anything, criticize the politicians who are exploiting religion for their political motives.

[Oniya]

I'd kind of like to see a copy/replica of the Code of Hammurabi placed in courthouses.  What better symbol for the courts than the first written legal code?

[Neysha]

IIRC I saw both the ten commandments and Code of Hammurabi at the Supreme Court.

I've also seen the Magna Carta on display outside my local district courthouse where there are no places for monuments thankfully.

It'd be interesting to show, as long as the reason is not to engage in petty politics, provocation and me tooism.

[Oniya]

I was actually thinking of what would be a purely historical display - one that can't really be tied to any extant religion.

(Apologies to any Babylonian reconstructionists - I didn't see you there.)

[Lux12]

I'd kind of like to see a copy/replica of the Code of Hammurabi placed in courthouses.  What better symbol for the courts than the first written legal code?

That would be quite fitting. Though I think some people might get upset over the values dissonance given that the nature of some of Hammurabi's laws would seem needlessly harsh to modern people here in the states. Maybe not, but I can see it happening.

[Oniya]

Perhaps the very harshness of those laws might make them better appreciate the ones they have to live under.

Assuming, of course, that anyone bothers to read the translation.  ::)

[Lux12]

Perhaps the very harshness of those laws might make them better appreciate the ones they have to live under.

Assuming, of course, that anyone bothers to read the translation.  ::)

Fair point. I did not think of it that way.  Of course it assumes that a large amount of people know or remember what Hammurabi's code is. Many might see it as irrelevant because it doesn't have religious significance to them and it's ancient. Some people make the mistake of assuming that things that happened a long time ago have no baring on today. This is not to say that people are completely oblivious or that no one knows a single thing about it, but those are factors.

[Sethala]

I'm not a Christian, but pretty soon the U.S. will have no shared community culture, and we'll just be a collection of sub-cultures in our own sub-group.

Over here, they always put a tree in front of the courthouse, and decorate it with lights during the wintertime.  No religious tones at all, but just a symbolic tradition.  If I wanted to, I could go on a crusade like these satanists, and make an accurate claim that this is heavily influenced by Christianity, and it is in violation of the Constitution - and then campaign to put some obscure religious symbol alongside it.

But what is that accomplishing?  Culturally, my community here is like 85%+ Christian from a historical perspective.  Even among some of my Atheists friends, they like knowing that these cultural traditions still exist that bind a community together.

While the Ten Commandments is a more direct religious reference, I think it holds more of a symbolic meaning, rather than specifically a religious one, for their community's predominant historical past.  Whether or not this particular object exists there, unfortunately we will still have politicians bringing religion into public policy - which is quite a different matter.

My personal thought is that Christmas has become enough of a cultural holiday to be easy enough to celebrate it without having to embrace any of the Christian beliefs that come with it.  Decorating trees is actually a tradition that has a lot of pagan roots, for instance.  The nativity scene is pretty much the only common decoration that's actually from Christianity, and I really have no problem with treating it the same as Santa Claus, both mythical figures and children's stories.  This video might be worth checking out if you want to see a bit more about the real roots of Christmas, as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLjHAzqqOm0

As for the thread itself, I don't see anything wrong with them doing this, even if it's not a truly sincere belief.  The problem with ignoring separation of church and state is that a lot of Christians tend to think "I want to be free to express my religion", without realizing that they have to give that freedom to everyone, even those not of their own religion.  Something shocking like this is needed once in a while to make them stop and think "you know, maybe this whole separation thing might be a good idea after all".

[Valthazar]

My personal thought is that Christmas has become enough of a cultural holiday to be easy enough to celebrate it without having to embrace any of the Christian beliefs that come with it.  Decorating trees is actually a tradition that has a lot of pagan roots, for instance.  The nativity scene is pretty much the only common decoration that's actually from Christianity, and I really have no problem with treating it the same as Santa Claus, both mythical figures and children's stories.

I agree with what you are saying. 

But I know many people would be insulted by the idea that we are even celebrating the cultural aspects of Christmas on a community level.  For example, why is it the cultural aspects and traditions of a Christian holiday (debatable, like you said) that are being celebrated, and not those of another culture?  The answer, obviously, is that it represents the traditions of America's past, and most of its demographic.  At this point, a lot of people will make the argument that the local government is involving itself in the traditions/culture of one segment of its populous - and thus, alienating itself from citizens who may not subscribe to the same historically-religious traditions.

Like I said, I have the same view as you, but this seems to be the argument a lot of people are making - which I think is more destructive than productive for all of us.

[HannibalBarca]

I'd kind of like to see a copy/replica of the Code of Hammurabi placed in courthouses.  What better symbol for the courts than the first written legal code?

I'll support this wholeheartedly.  Hammurabi was pretty awesome as far as Bronze Age despots went, considering the era.  Though, for my two cents, I'd rather have the complete, rediscovered Epic of Gilgamesh posted as well, in cuneiform and on simulated stone tablets, with accompanying translations in several modern languages next to them.  Enkidu FTW!!!

[kylie]

As I said in my post, it is unfortunate that politicians choose to galvanize their constituents by inserting religion into public policy.  However, nothing in this article discusses removing these symbols.  In fact, the satanists in this article support the existence of these symbols, and simply wants to add-on to this tradition, by having a symbol of their own religion and culture.

I think if you look at it, what they have said is more, certain Christians have put forward one set of symbols and those particular symbols have been, or could be used, for some pretty problematic purposes.  Now that they have done that, we will put forward our own, partly with the express purpose of making the point that this is public space and therefore, you cannot limit it to expressing those ideals.  (Or perhaps more broadly:  You cannot limit it to only the symbols you choose, whatever the ideals.)  If it's really going to be open for debate and comparison, then so be it.   

---- Which is to say, I don't think that church would be upset if no one was allowed to represent religiously there.  I think they'd consider it as much of a victory as if they were allowed to put up the monument. 

         You're missing the point of how they say they think, if you imagine that all they ever wanted was to positively occupy that space themselves.  I suppose it's possible a few followers don't think like the leaders interviewed, or maybe the leaders have more than one possible agenda, but still.  I don't have a reason to believe they're being outright hypocritical.  And even if they were, they could serve the agenda they claim to be, by doing this.

[Oniya]

I'll support this wholeheartedly.  Hammurabi was pretty awesome as far as Bronze Age despots went, considering the era.  Though, for my two cents, I'd rather have the complete, rediscovered Epic of Gilgamesh posted as well, in cuneiform and on simulated stone tablets, with accompanying translations in several modern languages next to them.  Enkidu FTW!!!

I'd reserve that for my personal collection.  :-)  Set it right next to the line-by-line translation of Beowulf.

[HannibalBarca]

As long as they allow me to set up a meaningful shrine to the Flying Spaghetti Monster and his divine noodley appendages, I'm cool with it.

God, yes, snark!

I've gone from being raised staunch Catholic, to Baptist, Lutheran, United Church of Christ, Buddhist for a time, open-minded Deist, hesitant agnostic, then finally, sanefully, atheist.  Since there is no mention of Jesus or Christianity in the Constitution, and at the most a tepid Creator by the predominantly Deist framers of the Declaration of Independence, I'm assuming religion or any of its trappings has no place on government-managed public property.  I don't force anyone to believe there is no god or goddess or pantheon of such--to the contrary, I only want someone who came to that conclusion by dint of their own reason and choice--and I don't want to be harried by overt representations of other citizen's personal beliefs on land that is shared by all of us, majority or minority.  Leave the fucking public property for its intended usage--the coming together of the citizenry to find solutions to problems, not create them.

v

+1!  And don't forget The Three Kingdoms, the Chinese version of The Iliad, but with more excitement and better characters...did I say Enkidu?  Zhuge Liang FTWx10!!!  Seriously, look him up--he makes Sherlock Holmes, Gandalf, and Indiana Jones all look like Dumb and Dumber.

[Oniya]

+1!  And don't forget The Three Kingdoms, the Chinese version of The Iliad, but with more excitement and better characters...did I say Enkidu?  Zhuge Liang FTWx10!!!  Seriously, look him up--he makes Sherlock Holmes, Gandalf, and Indiana Jones all look like Dumb and Dumber.

I might do that.  Been looking for something new and exciting to read with the little Oni, and she enjoyed The Iliad.

[HannibalBarca]

I loved The Iliad as the progenitor of all Western novels, but... the whole 'Castor, the Many-Thewed One, Blessed Son of Ares, Hurler of One Thousand Spears, He who brought low the vain and orgy-compliant King of Syracuse, He of the Shining Mane of Purest Spun Gold, He who plowed ten thousand myriad furrows of grain, He who was the Shearer of countless sheep,' etc., etc., etc., got old after a very short time :D  But I did like how, even at that formative moment of literature, we still could see the progenitor of the prima-donna athlete in Achilles, and the tragic, noble Hector and family...

[HairyHeretic]

I might do that.  Been looking for something new and exciting to read with the little Oni, and she enjoyed The Iliad.

Journey to the West?

[MasterMischief]

In my opinion, appealing to tradition does not add any validity to showing preferential treatment to any one religion.  I also believe suggesting those 'uppity [insert minority group here]' shouldn't be so provocative is hiding behind privilege.  Injustice and unfairness should be exposed for what it is.  Politeness and civility all too often only make it easier to push aside and ignore.

[Neysha]

What privileged Elliquians were using that language? I'm curious.

[Iniquitous]

I do believe he is referring to the posts you have made discussing the comments like "I won't say that the act in itself bothers me, though I do find it disrespectful since it seems to be rooted in, according to your links, simple anti-religious behavior and mockery."

[Neysha]

I do believe he is referring to the posts you have made discussing the comments like "I won't say that the act in itself bothers me, though I do find it disrespectful since it seems to be rooted in, according to your links, simple anti-religious behavior and mockery."

*gasps in shock*

Nice to be part of the privileged classes then!  ;D

And that the use of civil and polite discourse is my 'classes' MO as opposed to mockery and disrespect.

[Iniquitous]

And yet he has a point. Polite and civil tend to get shoved aside, swept under the rug and ignored. I mean, do you think America would have won it's independence from Britain if we had just sent a painfully polite letter asking to be set free? Answer to that is no.

When something like religion is in place, the majority tends to ignore the minority. They even have a tendency to think that their religion is the only one that deserves to be acknowledged and followed. I know this because I listen to my parents rant and rave how every person who worships other than christianity should be shipped out of this country because 'by God America is a christian nation!'

It takes moves like this to smack people awake. To get them to sit up and make them realize that there are others with differing beliefs around and that this country was founded on religious freedom as well as has a separation of church and state. If they want to have their religious beliefs displayed in government/public places then every other religion should be granted the same privilege. If they do not want to grant that privilege, then they should lose it as well.

[Neysha]

And yet he has a point. Polite and civil tend to get shoved aside, swept under the rug and ignored. I mean, do you think America would have won it's independence from Britain if we had just sent a painfully polite letter asking to be set free? Answer to that is no.

What rights have these Satanists lost that's comparable to that of the American colonists that requires armed insurrection?

When something like religion is in place, the majority tends to ignore the minority. They even have a tendency to think that their religion is the only one that deserves to be acknowledged and followed.

So this isn't some sort of separation of church and state issue or pertaining to religious symbols in public areas but actually a case of Satanists not being allowed to worship or be recognized?

I know this because I listen to my parents rant and rave how every person who worships other than christianity should be shipped out of this country because 'by God America is a christian nation!'

Anecdotal.

It takes moves like this to smack people awake. To get them to sit up

So in order to get people to sit up, one would act more like your monstrous parents then a civil and respectful person and anyone who disagrees is well... privileged and trying to keep those uppity Satanists/Queers/Niggers/Injuns/Monarchists/Pinkos/Breeders down?

and make them realize that there are others with differing beliefs around

People in general don't realize that? (besides your parents)

and that this country was founded on religious freedom

That too is not realized in general? (besides your parents)

as well as has a separation of church and state. If they want to have their religious beliefs displayed in government/public places then every other religion should be granted the same privilege. If they do not want to grant that privilege, then they should lose it as well.[/size][/font][/center]

I agree, as long as it's practical to do so. I'd hate to see these public places being used to to foment divisive discourse and petty politics by turning into a cornucopia of iconography. I think it'd be great to see public displays of Hindu or Islamic or Jewish etc imagery if permitted and practical. If not at that courthouse, then maybe another one. Or perhaps a university would be appropriate, such as how the positive use of the zero IIRC is rooted in Jainism, one of the most ancient religions. Or maybe discourses in mathematics that were originally found in the Vedas or something. I'm sure something appropriate can be found for other public buildings to help celebrate diversity as well as long as it's done in an respectful manner. And in fact, I'm pretty positive such things have already been stated by other privileged posters in this thread.

It just seems too often that people see some symbol and get a kneejerk reaction to wish to counter it like in this case when (I'm assuming) they could just as easily apply for erecting their own monument or what have you in another location that might even be more appropriate or practical or popular or educational or celebratory of their own traditions and whatnot.

In my opinion, appealing to tradition does not add any validity to showing preferential treatment to any one religion.

So would you remove two of the five rays of the Seal of Oklahoma because they are showing religious preference to only two instead of all of the 'uppity' minorities in the State of Oklahoma? Or is there a caveat that only the privileged religious classes, whatever they maybe, should be affected by your appeals?



How about the seal of the Oklahoma City? There's a subtle cross (easily interpreted as Christian) over the shield which ostensibly refers to a shield of law and protection. Almost as disturbing (if your privileged like me) is that there is a pendant of eagle feathers which according to the city of Oklahoma City, is a symbol of the Great Eagle which is revered in many Native American cultures and religions. (which it is)

[Sabby]

Eh, this happens all the time. Someone puts up a Christian display in public, then a non-Christian group does the same. Then another one does. Then another. The first group gets more and more upset, and the people in charge finally say 'no more guys, seriously'.

If your going to allow one, you must allow all. The only alternative is to allow none. If your going to let the Ten Commandments be erected in front of a Government building, then you have to allow a 12 foot tall statue of Satan, Krishna, Muhammad, The Flying Speghetti Monster and a Hollow Earth as well. It's both unfeasible and unnecessary to do that.

And from my understanding, there's already talk of a Hindu statue being erected alongside the Satanic one, so the flood gates are already open. The only real choice here is how long they wanna let this go before they make the sensible decision.

[Valthazar]

When something like religion is in place, the majority tends to ignore the minority. They even have a tendency to think that their religion is the only one that deserves to be acknowledged and followed. I know this because I listen to my parents rant and rave how every person who worships other than christianity should be shipped out of this country because 'by God America is a christian nation!'

Try to understand the underlying message of what your parents are saying, instead of only hearing their extreme, knee-jerk sentiments.

The US ranks #1 when it comes to charitable donating, fund-raising, volunteerism, and importance given to civic duties.  Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, Christianity has played a large role in America's moral ethos and culture, and for much of the 20th century, it has served as a powerful means of subtly bridging a diverse immigrant population into a unified, distinctly non-religious American culture of civic participation and moral responsibility.  Even today, many Asian immigrants convert to Christianity to have a community for social, emotional, and financial support, while they are transitioning to American life.

However, I think it goes without saying that none of those traits are exclusive to Christianity - far from it.  I am a Hindu myself, and I am extremely involved in my community, and try to help others as much as possible.  However, I know I value these traits because I grew up in the United States.  I also know that if I go to other countries in the world - even among very educated demographics - that their cultures are completely devoid of this concept of fund-raising, and volunteerism.  Try going to India, and starting a 1-2 rupee donation campaign among the middle class there to reduce hunger in their country - you'll be laughed out before you start in most cases.  There certainly are campaigns there, but that culture of giving just isn't as entrenched as it is in the United States, and it is difficult to convey without you visiting those countries directly.

We take a lot of things for granted here in the US - values that are slowly eroding.  As someone who has lived in the US, Europe, and Asia, I can tell you for a fact that many of the tenets of our culture (such as the idea of viewing everyone as an individual - regardless of their class or status), originally find their roots in Christian ideals. 

I 100% agree with you that there should be a separation of Church and State, as well as religious freedom.  But denying ourselves that much of our culture can be rooted in Christianity, is only convincing ourselves of something that is untrue.

What your parents are expressing, is a very poorly-worded effort of conveying how many individuals have completely forgotten the values that America was built on.  Christianity has many, many flaws, just like other religions.

[Sabby]

Are those values really Christian values, or were they values held by Christians in early American history? That's a fairly important distinction to make. The fact that charity and giving and such are important to American culture and that America has been predominantly Christian doesn't necessarily demonstrate causation. I'd say it's more of a correlative thing.

[Valthazar]

Are those values really Christian values, or were they values held by Christians in early American history? That's a fairly important distinction to make. The fact that charity and giving and such are important to American culture and that America has been predominantly Christian doesn't necessarily demonstrate causation. I'd say it's more of a correlative thing.

They were values held by Christians in early American history - that were justified through their interpretation of Christianity - that have shaped our society today.  I was not trying to support the religion of Christianity in my post.  I was only responding to Iniquitous Opheliac's parents' statement that "America is a Christian nation."  It's a very overzealous statement, I think we can all agree, but culturally, there is a kernel of truth to it.

[Lux12]

Are those values really Christian values, or were they values held by Christians in early American history? That's a fairly important distinction to make. The fact that charity and giving and such are important to American culture and that America has been predominantly Christian doesn't necessarily demonstrate causation. I'd say it's more of a correlative thing.

It doesn't mean there isn't though or that there is no overlap. America has never been a Christian country in the sense many think of it, but it is a culture significantly influenced by Christianity.

[Sabby]

Agreed, I'm just pointing out that until the Separation of Church and State is removed, it's an entirely irrelevant kernel to the current discussion.

[Tairis]

I 100% agree with you that there should be a separation of Church and State, as well as religious freedom.  But denying ourselves that much of our culture can be rooted in Christianity, is only convincing ourselves of something that is untrue.

What your parents are expressing, is a very poorly-worded effort of conveying how many individuals have completely forgotten the values that America was built on.  Christianity has many, many flaws, just like other religions.

Sorry, but that argument doesn't hold water with me. This is the exact same argument that comes up every time a Christian advocate organization wants to get their way while trying to ignore separation of church and state. We do not owe Christianity some kind of cultural debt. As a religion it has influenced the modern world to a staggering degree, that doesn't mean it gets a free pass. It's a language of trying to make a 'compromise' when really one side only wants to get their way.

We are not 'losing our morals' or having them eroded by secularism. Statistically violent crime, property crime, all have been steadily decreasing for nearly 20 years now. US citizens can and still do give millions upon millions of dollars to charity. The idea that this generation just isn't as 'moral' as the previous is the same refrain that is heard by ever successive generation. The greatest generation said it about the kids and their rock and roll. The baby boomers said it about their kids and disco. Generation X is saying that Generation Y is self-entitled, lazy... etc etc.

It's an argument that is designed to make people afraid. "If we don't respect X then we'll just be barbarians again!"... "We owe Y for our history, we have to let it take precedence." It plays to every human beings fear of change.

The essence of the United States was not built on the Bible, it was built on individual freedom. That has been the most powerful single driving force in our evolution as a country. It's why we expanded (destructively so) as the years went by as each person tried to get their 'american dream'. It's why more than any other nation in the world the United States is obsessed with cars because they represent the freedom to go anywhere, anytime without restriction. It's why we created a Bill of Rights that enshrined free speech as its single most important tenant. It's why we, as a cultural, cannot stand to be told what to do.

It shows in everything from our music, to our literature, to our television. The message is always the same: one individual matters. They can make a difference.

Giving credit to Christianity for so much of our morals and character is like giving all the credit for an exquisite meal to the tools it was cooked with and the cutlery it was served on instead of the actual chef who made it. Maybe that chef wouldn't have been able to make the exact meal with different tools but the food, the recipe, the technique belongs to them. Not to his frying pan.

Also even taking it at face value doesn't that actually mean we should be putting more cultural stock in Judasim that Christianity is built on top of as the middle abrahamic faith? Not to mention that Europe by far has a much longer and more entrenched history with organized Christianity than the United States, yet you seem to imply that the religion is the reason for the trait of American altruism?

[Valthazar]

Tairis, you have totally misunderstood my point.  I'll quote the lines in my post you probably missed:

Christianity has many, many flaws, just like other religions.

I was not trying to support the religion of Christianity in my post.

I never said anything about crime, so I am not sure how that came into the discussion.  The value differences I was referring to were not even regarding generational American differences.  I was speaking more with regard to demographic changes in the United States. 

Simply taking someone from another country, and putting them in the US, doesn't automatically make them an American.  Being an American - regardless of which country someone is from - is the result of sharing some common principles that unite all of us together.  For example, I think we would agree that one important value as an American, is to respect all individuals regardless of their ethnic background.  As self-evident and obvious as that seems, you would be surprised how devoid this value is in many other countries.

I am also not sure how what I am saying is supposed to make anyone afraid?  All I'm saying is that culture is driven heavily by religion.  I don't even think Christianity is the best solution, but historically, it has been the main method used to bind a very diverse group of immigrants - many of whom weren't Christian to begin with.  I explicitly stated that I support the separation of Church and State, as well as religious freedom. 

My main point in all of this, is we need certain basic principles that bind us as a society.  Christianity is probably not appropriate in today's age - you are right.  But having a Christian symbol, a Satanic symbol, a Hindu symbol, and a Muslim symbol in front of our government building is creating more isolation than unification. 

If not religion, then perhaps it is time to develop a new document, outlining a shared set of principles we can all agree on.

[Oniya]

If not religion, then perhaps it is time to develop a new document, outlining a shared set of principles we can all agree on.

We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, and ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our prosperity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[Valthazar]

We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, and ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our prosperity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Constitution represents the legal basis of the United States.  I was referring to a non-government cultural code of ethics/morals, that the vast majority of us can all agree on - a role that individual religion has traditionally fulfilled.

Basically, rather than religion, more of a "contemporary values" document - just something that can unify a very diverse country in the 21st century, along with individual religions.

Currently, we still have the president and other politicians take an oath on the Bible by default as our reassurance for them carrying out their job responsibilities.  I find this very out-of-touch given today's American demographic.  Our solution to this has been to have exceptions to the rule take an oath on their own religious text.  But the purpose of an oath itself is lost if most people can't even relate to it - which is why a more contemporary, culturally-based, non-religious document might be necessary.

[Tairis]

Tairis, you have totally misunderstood my point.  I'll quote the lines in my post you probably missed:

I never said anything about crime, so I am not sure how that came into the discussion.  The value differences I was referring to were not even regarding generational American differences.  I was speaking more with regard to demographic changes in the United States. 

You might not be trying to support Christianity yourself, but the argument that you're putting forward is one I've seen time and time again from those that do. It's the same one that's used to justify the unconstitutional religion bias that is rife in much of the southern US where I've spent my entire life.

I mention crime and the like because you are talking about eroding values. When someone is talking about values they generally mean the whole selection. Honesty, hardwork, respect, etc etc. And it's again the same language and the same argument used by the religious supporters to explain why we 'need' their religion in our lives.

Otherwise what 'values' are you talking about? If you mean the 'melting pot' effect... the truth is that's never been as true as we've made it seem. It's why we have Chinatown and the like. I've always liked the analogy that American isn't a melting pot, we're a salad. The pieces are all distinct, but combined right they work together well.

Simply taking someone from another country, and putting them in the US, doesn't automatically make them an American.  Being an American - regardless of which country someone is from - is the result of sharing some common principles that unite all of us together.  For example, I think we would agree that one important value as an American, is to respect all individuals regardless of their ethnic background.  As self-evident and obvious as that seems, you would be surprised how devoid this value is in many other countries.

I am also not sure how what I am saying is supposed to make anyone afraid?  All I'm saying is that culture is driven heavily by religion.  I don't even think Christianity is the best solution, but historically, it has been the main method used to bind a very diverse group of immigrants - many of whom weren't Christian to begin with.  I explicitly stated that I support the separation of Church and State, as well as religious freedom. 

My main point in all of this, is we need certain basic principles that bind us as a society.  Christianity is probably not appropriate in today's age - you are right.  But having a Christian symbol, a Satanic symbol, a Hindu symbol, and a Muslim symbol in front of our government building is creating more isolation than unification. 

If not religion, then perhaps it is time to develop a new document, outlining a shared set of principles we can all agree on.

Your personal view isn't really promoting fear, but the argument as a whole? It is. Because of this sentence:

But having a Christian symbol, a Satanic symbol, a Hindu symbol, and a Muslim symbol in front of our government building is creating more isolation than unification. 

That's where the fear comes in. Because we say 'well if we put up everyone's symbols we're dividing people and we're taking away from our 'culture' because we're a 'Christian nation'... and it goes down hill from there. I'm not saying that you are trying to stir up fear. I'm saying that the argument that you're presenting about historical cultural influence is the exact same argument used by the hardline christian lobby to try and justify their agenda. And that's why I can't agree with it.

In all honesty we probably could use a new guiding principal... but how are you going to get that in place when people won't even agree to the in between step? That's kind of the point of this thread. It's taken decades just to make most institutions stop assuming everyone is one of the flavors of christianity. But even now people balk at the thought that some other religion should get to put up a statue/display/whatever that doesn't agree with 'their' religion.

So if the only way to get them to finally acknowledge that no, they don't get to have a set of religious documents on display in a public place is forcing them to take someone else's religion documents as well... even if they are likely just a publicity stunt? Then I say more power to them.

Quick Summation before I crash:

I fully understand that you're not supporting fundamentalism or the like, so please don't think that I'm under the wrong impression. Historically, factually... I agree with you totally. As anyone that has studied history can tell you the power of religion shapes entire cultures. I simply find that the argument should not be given merit (in the context of this discussion) because it's like enabling an addict: you know it doesn't mean that their religion is 'right', and I know it doesn't mean their religion is 'right'... but it doesn't stop them from perverting said argument to their own ends.

[Valthazar]

Otherwise what 'values' are you talking about? If you mean the 'melting pot' effect... the truth is that's never been as true as we've made it seem. It's why we have Chinatown and the like. I've always liked the analogy that American isn't a melting pot, we're a salad. The pieces are all distinct, but combined right they work together well.

That's probably a good way of describing the US over the past 3-4 decades.  It is a matter of opinion as to whether this trend of isolating oneself with one's sub-culture alone is beneficial or detrimental for us as a whole as Americans.  I am not so sure we can automatically assume that this is a recipe for working well together.  I have family friends who have no desire to interact outside their ethnic community, and have no desire to learn English.  It's an unrelated topic perhaps suited for another thread - but I am of the opinion that not having some form of shared principles is a negative.

In all honesty we probably could use a new guiding principal... but how are you going to get that in place when people won't even agree to the in between step? That's kind of the point of this thread. It's taken decades just to make most institutions stop assuming everyone is one of the flavors of christianity.But even now people balk at the thought that some other religion should get to put up a statue/display/whatever that doesn't agree with 'their' religion.

I can definitely understand how the Christian lobby has distorted this to no end.  My guess is that a new set of guiding ethics will naturally evolve over time.  It's inevitable at some point, considering we have such a heterogeneous population, with nothing besides the legal code holding us together.

You know those professional ethics codes they talk about at work?  My guess is that over time, we'll have things like that prevalent in our society, even in the public.  Not at all legally binding, of course - but just a culturally-valued set of guidelines we strive to live by.

But I'm sure you'll find protesters then arguing about how many of these principles are too familiar to Christianity, or Judaism, or any other religion.  And we're back to square one, and more nonsense like these Satanists.

[Sabby]

And we're back to square one, and more nonsense like these Satanists.

How is these Satanists practicing the same rights as the Christians nonsense?

[Valthazar]

How is these Satanists practicing the same rights as the Christians nonsense?

Read the context it was written in. 

I was describing a non-religious shared principles document, similar to a professional code of ethics, that all of us as Americans would hopefully agree on - things like treating each other with respect, respecting people of different races, etc. 

My point was that there will always be some radical rogue groups - be it some Christians, Satanists - who will do whatever it takes to displace any concept of unity we try to cohesively develop as diverse Americans.

[Lux12]

Read the context it was written in. 

I was describing a non-religious shared principles document, similar to a professional code of ethics, that all of us as Americans would hopefully agree on - things like treating each other with respect, respecting people of different races, etc. 

My point was that there will always be some radical rogue groups - be it some Christians, Satanists - who will do whatever it takes to displace any concept of unity we try to cohesively develop as diverse Americans.

The problem is even if that's the goal, some of us feel ostracized anyway. There are some elements of American society that still make people who are not white or Christian feel unwelcome. This country is not as united as people would like to believe. I don't believe in nationalism myself, but it would be nicer to see America live up to these ideas more often. Some radical groups (if you define radical purely as philosophy rather than engaging in violent actions) are trying to mend this. They're an extreme philosophical reaction to the divides that still exist here. I don't however support those who advocate for hurting others. The divide has been there for some time. These groups are simultaneously the cause and the symptoms.

[Valthazar]

The problem is even if that's the goal, some of us feel ostracized anyway. There are some elements of American society that still make people who are not white or Christian feel unwelcome. This country is not as united as people would like to believe. I don't believe in nationalism myself, but it would be nicer to see America live up to these ideas more often. Some radical groups (if you define radical purely as philosophy rather than engaging in violent actions) are trying to mend this. They're an extreme philosophical reaction to the divides that still exist here. I don't however support those who advocate for hurting others. The divide has been there for some time. These groups are simultaneously the cause and the symptoms.

It goes both ways.  You're right, there are some elements that make people who are not white or Christian feel unwelcome, but at the same time, from their perspective, many Christians react with such nationalistic zeal because they also feel threatened by modern day mainstream American culture.

Recently, the VA hospital rejected Christmas cards for veterans that were written by 4th graders, because it has "Merry Christmas" written in them.
http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/24293539/students-parents-upset-that-religious-christmas-cards-wont-go-to-north-texas-veterans

Religious issues like this are the least of my concerns, but you can easily understand why Christians feel under attack - just like minorities do in other cases.

[Deamonbane]

I think some of them perceive the Vikings as kind of supermen, men who walked (or sailed) with destiny itself. And that kind of belief in your own lust and power would be, well, Satan's morals.

Just a quick note here, Vikings never quite saw themselves as anything other than normal. The Nordic cultures developed with a very distinct separation from the Southern and Eastern cultures, for very obvious geographical reasons, and thus had a different system of religious thinking than most people seem to think (That I saw from movies and TV series, anyways). They were very deeply religious, yes, but other than a deep fear of offending gods, as well as sacrifices and legends, they were very secular in their beliefs. I like to think of it as that, anyways, separating their religious life from the rest of it.

Such as how some vikings were hired to fight as some Muslim Caliph's bodyguards. They were told that they couldn't be hired unless they converted to Islam, and thus, they thought, it was more profitable to be a Muslim than to firmly adhere to Nordic religions. While many refused to accept what they saw as a 'weak' god, such as the Christian god, once they saw how powerful he was (or rather, how powerful the Catholic Church was, in a secular manner) They were a bit more eager to accept Christ as their savior, but again, it wasn't so much as a change in religion as, sort of absorbing Christ into their pantheon, as many Vikings were known to worship both Jesus and the old nordic gods...