Festive Satanic statue added to Illinois statehouse

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Jul 21, 2018
62
40
18
#62
I don't know that the 1st amendment guarantees a place on a public platform. Sure it secures your and your group to practice unharrassed what ever you think appropriate. I think in order to have a place on a public platform you may should be required to have contributed in a significant way something to the well being of said public. For example a monument to Firefighters as opposed to me placing a monument to myself. Not that I don't contribute, but my contribution is not extraordinary.
It doesn't. There is a clear precedent of a separation of church and state that the founding fathers envisioned. Christians point to the fact that they use the word "God" and automatically assume they are only referring to the Christian God. Sadly, many founding fathers were deists (not Christian) and if one chose to worship a doorknob, then the doorknob could be inserted any place "God" is written.

As for prerequisites in order to be eligible to be put on display on public property, I think all religious related things should be banned. While I love Jesus Christ and His immaculate conception and birth, I don't need the state to display anything for me nor do I only honor Him on December 25th; He should be honored throughout the entire year and not just on many of the pagan gods birthday that predate Him.

By not allowing anything, we keep a clear separation of church and state and keep Christians from having to walk pass a statue of Satan, and non-Christians from walking pass a nativity scene. No one will whine or cry... actually, that isn't true. People will always find a reason to complain.
 

Dude653

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2011
8,164
178
63
#63
The Church of Satan is a misleading name because they are actually atheist.
 

Locoponydirtman

Well-known member
Oct 9, 2018
1,506
968
113
Texas
#64
It doesn't. There is a clear precedent of a separation of church and state that the founding fathers envisioned. Christians point to the fact that they use the word "God" and automatically assume they are only referring to the Christian God. Sadly, many founding fathers were deists (not Christian) and if one chose to worship a doorknob, then the doorknob could be inserted any place "God" is written.

As for prerequisites in order to be eligible to be put on display on public property, I think all religious related things should be banned. While I love Jesus Christ and His immaculate conception and birth, I don't need the state to display anything for me nor do I only honor Him on December 25th; He should be honored throughout the entire year and not just on many of the pagan gods birthday that predate Him.

By not allowing anything, we keep a clear separation of church and state and keep Christians from having to walk pass a statue of Satan, and non-Christians from walking pass a nativity scene. No one will whine or cry... actually, that isn't true. People will always find a reason to complain.
On what grounds should there be a place of honor in the public square?
To whom or what ideas should monuments be errected?
 

Locoponydirtman

Well-known member
Oct 9, 2018
1,506
968
113
Texas
#65
The Church of Satan is a misleading name because they are actually atheist.
No one cares about the technical aspects of their beliefs, whether it is worship of self or of a deity who lost a fiddle contest to a random hillbilly.
Do their works carry merit enough to warrant a plaform in the public square. The answer is no. In order to be honored by a place in the public square you must accomplish some extraordinary meritorious work. We can't nor should we give place to just any and everyone who wants a place of honor.
Example MLK, he did extraordinary meritorious works in the area of civil rights, thus we can and should afford him honor in the public square.
 

Locutus

Senior Member
Feb 10, 2017
5,928
675
113
#66
This is from the arr-tickle:

What is the Satanic Temple?

Founded in 2012 in Salem, Massachusetts, the Temple of Satan describes itself as a non-theistic group that aims to "encourage benevolence and empathy among all people".

It says its uses satanic imagery to promote the separation of church and state and to campaign for "practical common sense and justice".

It has 15 official chapte rhouses in the US, the biggest of which is based in Michigan.

The temple was started by Harvard graduate Doug Mesner, known as "Lucien Greaves", and an individual known as "Malcolm Jerry".

In a speech, Mr Greaves said the group had had "thousands" of membership applications since the election of US President Donald Trump in 2016.

Earlier this year, members of a Satanic Temple placed a statue of Baphomet - a goat-like deity associated with Satanism - outside Arkansas' statehouse during a First Amendment rally.

The group also settled a $50m copyright lawsuit against Netflix and Warner Bros last month over a statue of Baphomet used in the TV series The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina.
 

Dude653

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2011
8,164
178
63
#67
No one cares about the technical aspects of their beliefs, whether it is worship of self or of a deity who lost a fiddle contest to a random hillbilly.
Do their works carry merit enough to warrant a plaform in the public square. The answer is no. In order to be honored by a place in the public square you must accomplish some extraordinary meritorious work. We can't nor should we give place to just any and everyone who wants a place of honor.
Example MLK, he did extraordinary meritorious works in the area of civil rights, thus we can and should afford him honor in the public square.
At the risk of being redundant that's why there shouldn't be any religious monuments on State Property
 
Jul 21, 2018
62
40
18
#68
On what grounds should there be a place of honor in the public square?
To whom or what ideas should monuments be errected?
On non-religious grounds. I don't have an answer for that other than what I don't want erected. Ultimately, I can stomach Christian displays but not anti-Christian/Islamic/any other religious display... For this reason, I can't be an entitled hypocritical American and say, "Only Jesus can be displayed!". If we do that, we have to allow all the fake gods to be put on display. If this was a Christian theocracy, THEN we could display Jesus Christ and deny all other religions the ability to put displays up on public property.
 
Jul 21, 2018
62
40
18
#69
No one cares about the technical aspects of their beliefs, whether it is worship of self or of a deity who lost a fiddle contest to a random hillbilly.
Do their works carry merit enough to warrant a plaform in the public square. The answer is no. In order to be honored by a place in the public square you must accomplish some extraordinary meritorious work. We can't nor should we give place to just any and everyone who wants a place of honor.
Example MLK, he did extraordinary meritorious works in the area of civil rights, thus we can and should afford him honor in the public square.
The trouble with making a precedent based on "merit" is that it is non-quantifiable, it's rather subjective. While you might think MLK is worthy of it, maybe someone thinks a more deserving person should be put up instead. Truthfully, this is probably an extremely unpopular opinion, but I'm not sure why we need to "honor" anyone on public property. If anyone actually goes to the statue of a person and honors them, it's closer to worshiping an idol than it is paying respect/honoring the person. We can honor someone without a physical structure built on public property at the expense of the tax payers.
 

Locoponydirtman

Well-known member
Oct 9, 2018
1,506
968
113
Texas
#70
The trouble with making a precedent based on "merit" is that it is non-quantifiable, it's rather subjective. While you might think MLK is worthy of it, maybe someone thinks a more deserving person should be put up instead. Truthfully, this is probably an extremely unpopular opinion, but I'm not sure why we need to "honor" anyone on public property. If anyone actually goes to the statue of a person and honors them, it's closer to worshiping an idol than it is paying respect/honoring the person. We can honor someone without a physical structure built on public property at the expense of the tax payers.
At least this is an honest stance. Basically no one or thing merits a statue or monument that would occupy a public space. Which may be the best policy.
 

Lillywolf

Well-known member
Aug 29, 2018
1,562
533
113
#71
At least this is an honest stance. Basically no one or thing merits a statue or monument that would occupy a public space. Which may be the best policy.
Honest? It's uneducated as to the history of monuments.
Snowflakes would love that to be policy though. Erase American history because those opposed to America may be offended by how we got here.
God willing they'll remain offended and very disappointed statuary and monuments continue to dot our landscape.
Historic figures and monuments are erected because the person or event depicted are meritorious.
The Statue of Liberty, for instance.
Mount Rushmore.
The list goes on.

No one worships these statues. And if that be the argument that it is wrong they are erected,then the first amendment will shortly be targeted by those averse to such replications because that inalienable right amended would gut every Roman Catholic church in the nation.
Statues galore. Saints on the walls. Mary in many forums throughout. And don't forget Jesus hanging crucified still on the crucifix.
The anti-Christian FFRF seeks to eradicate all Christian religious symbols from public property. They also join with the ACLU to threaten tax payer funded schools should their students dare to openly express their religious beliefs.
They even attack veteran memorials should there be a cross present.

Fear.
What an ugly incentive.
 
Jul 21, 2018
62
40
18
#72
Honest? It's uneducated as to the history of monuments.
Snowflakes would love that to be policy though. Erase American history because those opposed to America may be offended by how we got here.
God willing they'll remain offended and very disappointed statuary and monuments continue to dot our landscape.
Historic figures and monuments are erected because the person or event depicted are meritorious.
The Statue of Liberty, for instance.
Mount Rushmore.
The list goes on.

No one worships these statues. And if that be the argument that it is wrong they are erected,then the first amendment will shortly be targeted by those averse to such replications because that inalienable right amended would gut every Roman Catholic church in the nation.
Statues galore. Saints on the walls. Mary in many forums throughout. And don't forget Jesus hanging crucified still on the crucifix.
The anti-Christian FFRF seeks to eradicate all Christian religious symbols from public property. They also join with the ACLU to threaten tax payer funded schools should their students dare to openly express their religious beliefs.
They even attack veteran memorials should there be a cross present.

Fear.
What an ugly incentive.
Snowflakes are offended when another religious group or anti-religious group wants to put up displays on public property. They have an entitlement mentality that only THEIR [religious] beliefs must be displayed and refuse to acknowledge that there are other people in this country who have different spiritual views. Snowflakes want to be the "special" ones who have the right to do something while restricting other groups of people. Frankly, they are ignorant about how everyone has freedom of religion AND freedom from religion.
 

Locutus

Senior Member
Feb 10, 2017
5,928
675
113
#73
Snowflakes and Christmas - good theme.

Do those guys make snowdevils instead of snowmen?
 

Laish

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2016
1,575
371
83
53
#74
Except that it's not. if Christians have a right to put religious monuments on state property then other religions have the same right
The thing is the satanist are not a religious group . They are atheist. The use Satan to agitate Christians and Jews . It’s not about religion it’s about ridiculing others belief in God .
Blessings
Bill
 
Jul 21, 2018
62
40
18
#75
The thing is the satanist are not a religious group . They are atheist. The use Satan to agitate Christians and Jews . It’s not about religion it’s about ridiculing others belief in God .
Blessings
Bill
This is true and Dude has even said as much. Nevertheless, their motive for doing what they are doing is irrelevant to the point that other groups have the same right that Chrsitians do. This point is being absolutely missed by many people here and I'm not sure why they are incapable of seeing it.
 

Lillywolf

Well-known member
Aug 29, 2018
1,562
533
113
#76
Snowflakes are offended when another religious group or anti-religious group wants to put up displays on public property. They have an entitlement mentality that only THEIR [religious] beliefs must be displayed and refuse to acknowledge that there are other people in this country who have different spiritual views. Snowflakes want to be the "special" ones who have the right to do something while restricting other groups of people. Frankly, they are ignorant about how everyone has freedom of religion AND freedom from religion.
No, but thank you for posting.
 

lukeabers

Active member
Dec 6, 2018
223
33
28
33
#77
Ah yes, when I think 'festive', I think the occult...well, actually, I do.

Most Christians are under the impression that the USA is a Christian country. It is not. It is a country, of the people, by the people, and for the people. If the populace is majority Christian, the USA is a Christian country in a de facto sense. However, if satanism takes hold (or any other ideology, for that matter), the USA becomes a satanic country. satanism Is all around us. Remember reading a story of a converted satanist...he was drinking blood and doing rituals all while serving as a deacon in a local church. Christians are...not following Christ's advice concerning being as wise as snakes...

As for holidays, the history and purpose of the majority of them is awful. I don't even celebrate my birthday. Every day is a celebration and every Sabbath a holiday.
 
Jul 21, 2018
62
40
18
#78
No, but thank you for posting.
I mean, one word to describe snowflakes would be "entitled". Would you disagree with that?

There are sensitive Christians who are triggered and need a safe space from people with opposing beliefs that want to display something on public property next to the Christian displays. They think only their religious belief are unique and everyone else that has different beliefs don't matter (this comes from the fact that no two snowflakes will ever be identical).

It seems anything and everything I say you disagree with. lol
 

Dude653

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2011
8,164
178
63
#79
Those darn atheists putting their monuments next to our pagan sun god tree and graven images
 

Locutus

Senior Member
Feb 10, 2017
5,928
675
113
#80
Graven images - yum.