Random Thoughts Thread

[MrPopo]

When I scan a forum post and I see they put a "TL;DR" section, I just don't read any of the post at all. I figure that if their post can be fully explained in a sentence or two, despite supposedly being worth the time to type up several paragraphs directly above, then it's probably not worth reading at all.

This is very flawed thinking. A properly tl;dr is the thesis statement, while the rest of the post is the supporting evidence and arguments to defend the thesis statement. Newton's Three Laws of Motion are tl;dr's of long papers that showed how one could arrive at those three short equations.

[BurningDoom]

While LaVey may have claimed it as a philosophy and not a religion, there were centuries of people prior to him and many people in the years since who self-identify as Satanists and who do engage in practices considered "worship" of some "evil deity".

He's right, though. Being a metal-head, I've heard it first-hand from many people. Devil worshippers are the ones most people think of as Satanists; who worship supernatural evil beings. Satanists believe that one's self is the ultimate God and all should be done for yourself.

[oxymoron]

While LaVey may have claimed it as a philosophy and not a religion, there were centuries of people prior to him and many people in the years since who self-identify as Satanists and who do engage in practices considered "worship" of some "evil deity".

Those people wouldn't be accepted by the Church of Satan as satanists in modern day which is what were talking about.

The "Church of Satan" isn't inclusive of all people who identify as satanists.

Of course there's many smaller groups just like in Christianity but all of them are atheists. Why the quotations around Church of Satan?

[dsheinem]

While LaVey may have claimed it as a philosophy and not a religion, there were centuries of people prior to him and many people in the years since who self-identify as Satanists and who do engage in practices considered "worship" of some "evil deity".

He's right, though. Being a metal-head, I've heard it first-hand from many people. Devil worshippers are the ones most people think of as Satanists; who worship supernatural evil beings. Satanists believe that one's self is the ultimate God and all should be done for yourself.

I get the distinction and understand that it may be en vogue in certain circles, but I don't accept it as a satisfactory definition of what constitutes satanism.

Besides, if one fully accepts the idea of "one's self is the ultimate God" then satanism is not an atheism, it is a theism. Atheists think the very concept of a "god" in any context is inane.

[dsheinem]

Why the quotations around Church of Satan?

Because it is just one, for lack of a better term, "denomination" amongst many other historical and contemporary ways of approaching the religion/philosophy of Satanism, some of which also are structured in ways that might resemble what we think of as a "church". Just because the "Church of Satan" owns the brand doesn't mean they own the concept.

[oxymoron]

Just because the "Church of Satan" owns the brand doesn't mean they own the concept.

Agreed. Just like anyone can start their own little branch of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.

[Forlorn Drifter]

But that's always how it gets applied, whether we like it or not. The militaristic atheists would have you believe that religion will be forced on you, and the extremists of the various religions will have you believe that religion will be taken away from you or you will be forced to a different religion based on such silly things as whether or not a monument is allowed to stand on the grounds of a state capitol.

While there are certainly atheists who are as dogmatic and evangelical as one might find in most religions, I think "militaristic" is a bit far. I don't see terrorist cells, holy wars, or purges done in the name of atheism per se (though obviously some totalitarian states have squashed religion through force - but not out of a "militant atheism").

The existing monument on the statehouse lawn is a state endorsement of judeo-christian beliefs, one that a government that claims to value legal equality regardless of religious beliefs should not have. So it isn't a "silly thing." They need to either embrace pluralism (which is silly) or return to an absence of religious statements.

Some of the Ten Commandments, for example, are an affront to someone who

A) doesn't believe in a deity
B) doesn't believe parents should be honored without reason
C) doesn't believe Sunday is a special day where behavior should change
D) doesn't believe cursing is immoral
E) doesn't believe that open marriages are improper
F) doesn't believe that wanting something that another has is immoral

....and I am sure you can think of other problems.

BUT when a government institution whose job it is to make and enforce laws puts such a document on their property and enshrines it in stone, it makes one feel needlessly uncomfortable doing or believing these things while in that jurisdiction. Frankly, it puts the justice system in a bad position too - couldn't a defendant argue, for example, that the state was treating them more harshly than they should (e.g. a longer jail term) because they committed their crime on a Sunday while cursing "goddamn you!" at their parents?

I actually find the Ten Commandments monument, because it has specific language included on it that sets "commandments" for people to follow to be MUCH more problematic than the satanist statue, which doesn't proclaim to sanction any kind of behavior in any way.

Militaristic may not have been the right word, I should have used extremist there, as I did in reference to the religious. I'm pointing to people like Richard Dawkins, who go as far as too mock the religious, or those who might promote a libertine ideology.

And although the separation of church and state has always been promoted in the US, I don't see it as something that has actually been put into effect. Despite the views of some of the founding fathers on religion, the US has always, up until more recently, been an overall Christian nation in ideology and view. The fact that it is currently changing is part of what causes this controversy, as something like this would have been pretty well accepted in earlier times. It has only become problematic in more recent times as the religious groupings in the US have changed, with Islam, Eastern religions, and Atheism rising in popularity. It essentially boils down to the US being hypocritical in its separation of church and state, and it just now being brought to light.

I'd argue that the Satanist statue does sanction a way of life- a non- Christian or, seeing as this is LaVeyen Satanism, non-religious view on life. In the same way that the Ten Commandments monument states that one should live a certain way, the Satanist monument would state that one should live the opposite of that monument, or even in opposition to it.

Overall though, the monument should be removed or moved off the property of the capitol in order to skirt the possible legal and social repercussions it may cause. The other option would be to allow for all religions or world views to erect monuments there, although the possibility of that happening is null. I, for obvious reasons, have no issues with the Ten Commandments monument, but many would and for the sake of equality and political correctness it should be either moved or removed.

On the discussion of Satanism, it is a very poorly defined and loose connecting ideology, with some groups under the banner being atheists, others believing themselves to be a god, some believing in a more meta-physical and spiritual form, and others even believing in the gods of various religions but choosing to worship Satan or his equivalent for various reasons.

[BurningDoom]

Just because the "Church of Satan" owns the brand doesn't mean they own the concept.

Agreed. Just like anyone can start their own little branch of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.

The Church of Satan isn't representative of all Satanists. Like has been said, there are different sects, like any religion in the world. But it is an official church. Like The Church of Latter-Day Saints.

[BoringSupreez]

And although the separation of church and state has always been promoted in the US, I don't see it as something that has actually been put into effect. Despite the views of some of the founding fathers on religion, the US has always, up until more recently, been an overall Christian nation in ideology and view. The fact that it is currently changing is part of what causes this controversy, as something like this would have been pretty well accepted in earlier times. It has only become problematic in more recent times as the religious groupings in the US have changed, with Islam, Eastern religions, and Atheism rising in popularity. It essentially boils down to the US being hypocritical in its separation of church and state, and it just now being brought to light.

That's a pretty good summation of the issue. This nation was founded by people with western Christian-influenced (even if some of the founding fathers didn't actually practise it themselves) morals and mindsets. What "separation of church and state" meant to them is that while the government would base it's rules off of what they considered universal standards of right and wrong, ie, God's laws, the government would not sanction any denomination or sect as the state religion. There would be no monopoly on religion like Britain had with the Church of England, or western European nations with Roman Catholicism.

However, many today interpret separation of church and state to basically mean that the government is to have no moral foundation or standards whatsoever beyond what the majority wants. When they see monuments like the ten commandments in front of a state building to them it seems like a violation of that principle, even though the government is not in any way rewarding or punishing people based on religion.

Regardless of your or my views on what separation of church and state should mean, I don't think this satanist statue has any business being a thing. It is blatantly obvious the group pushing for it is doing it to make a political point, not because it represents the moral foundation the government was founded on, or because it represents what a majority of the populace considers true, or even because it enhances the scenery or artistic value of the building.

[dsheinem]

And although the separation of church and state has always been promoted in the US, I don't see it as something that has actually been put into effect. Despite the views of some of the founding fathers on religion, the US has always, up until more recently, been an overall Christian nation in ideology and view. The fact that it is currently changing is part of what causes this controversy, as something like this would have been pretty well accepted in earlier times. It has only become problematic in more recent times as the religious groupings in the US have changed, with Islam, Eastern religions, and Atheism rising in popularity. It essentially boils down to the US being hypocritical in its separation of church and state, and it just now being brought to light.

I don't have the time and energy to pick this apart, but suffice to say the place of religion in American politics from the founding to today has historically been quite varied and, often, contextual (e.g. "God" gets invoked a lot more during the Cold War or in the years immediately after 9/11).

I'd argue that the Satanist statue does sanction a way of life- a non- Christian or, seeing as this is LaVeyen Satanism, non-religious view on life. In the same way that the Ten Commandments monument states that one should live a certain way, the Satanist monument would state that one should live the opposite of that monument, or even in opposition to it.

There's nothing in the monument itself that inherently or obviously does any of these things. The Ten Commandments literally spells out rules for one to follow.