Why do Christians have a problem with Detroit's new Satan statue?

http://www.christiantoday.com/artic...goat.headed.satan.statue.in.detroit/60228.htm

What business is this of Christians? Why can't they tolerate the beliefs of others? After all, for those of us who don't follow any religion we have to put up with crosses and depictions of Jesus and God all over the place. What's the difference?

The difference is that Satan is the embodiment of evil, and makes Hitler look like Gandhi or Mother Theresa. I suppose you wouldn't raise an eyebrow at the Aryan Nations, New Nazi Party, ISIS, and the KKK holding mass rallies in your town. If you did, you'd of course be a narrow minded bigot.

Satan of the OT: Yo, that God dude's an ass.
God: I AM NOT! Die, you Gentiles!

Says who? Christians? Well, plenty of Christians say that same about gay people. Do you agree with them?

Save that Hitler was real. How is this anything more than an alternate belief system?

All those you cite are the same as Detroit's Satanic Temple are they? How many crimes against humanity does the Temple condone, promote or engage in?

I'm unaware of any Christians who say that gays are the embodiment of evil. Sinners, certainly, but not exactly demons who will swallow the world in fire. At most they'll add too many throw pillows.

And how are Nazism or White Supremacy not just alternate belief systems?

All of them. They're Satanists. All the crimes against humanity heretofore pale in comparison to what they serve. They not only want to kill all 7 billion people on the planet, they want to consume the souls of the dead to serve their master.

You didn't answer my question. Who says that Satan is the embodiment of evil?

Well, for s start they are a religion, they are a political movement. Secondly they are engaged in the promotion of racial hatred. Are you claiming that this Temple is doing that same?

All of them. They're Satanists. All the crimes against humanity heretofore pale in comparison to what they serve. They not only want to kill all 7 billion people on the planet, they want to consume the souls of the dead to serve their master.[/quote]
I trust you can produce evidence of this? Because my reading of their beliefs is as follows:-

http://thesatanictempledetroit.com/about-us-2/

Note in particular the part in bold. These are the people akin to white supremacists who want to kill 7 million people are they? Oh look, gturner lying again! What a surprise.

God did, as did every important Western theological and non-theological thinker for the last thousand sum years. It's kind of a reference point for Western civilization, along with being a reference point for Islam. Pretty much the entire world, aside from the Yazidis, know that Satan is evil, to the extent that evil is what Satan does. The words are basically synonymous: Rape, murder, fucking a three year old to death up her ass? That's Satan. It's what they do.

Oh, so killing billions of people and eating their souls is okay because it's not political? Well, Satan isn't political because he will feast on the souls of liberals and conservatives alike. He will bring about the new order, and the demons will rise from the Earth. But hey, the extermination of the human species and the subjugation of our souls can't possibly be as bad as not liking someone because they run rape gangs for underage white English girls, because raping underage white English girls is just a cultural thing that we shouldn't be judgmental about, because being judgmental is wrong.

All of them. They're Satanists.

Good to see you're immersing yourself in Satanic literature. I'm sure Detroit is just thriving under their enlightenment, despite its appearance as a great place to shoot a post-apocalyptic movie about the end times. Hey, perhaps those two things are related.

Note: The foundations of the Nazi Party were faith, hope, and charity. But they lost their moral compass, and things ended badly. The Satanists have no moral compass because they've chosen to discard it to be edgy. Almost everyone who gets involved with them is looking for something to fill the empty space where their morality should be. Thus they pick up a lot of charismatic psychopaths who are looking for justification in their rejections of normalcy and decency. These people end up with a lot of sway over the newcomers, themselves out of sync, and inevitably they push the boundaries of their upbringing and end up doing heinous things.

My liberal best friend once laughed at Kentucky because a high-school principal expelled a girl for wearing black lipstick, saying it was the mark of Satan. The principal pointed to it as evidence of how absolutely backwards we were. He was mocked by "enlightened liberals" in the media, and my friend. A year later she was in jail for a string of horrific Satanic ritual murders all the way down to Florida. They hear voices. They follow them.

Still missing that "stinking liar" rep icon.

Says who? God isn't real. Neither is Satan. They are fictional belief. So why does one have precedence over the other? Should people not be entitled to believe in what they want as long as they do not commit crimes in the name of such beliefs?

Oh, so killing billions of people and eating their souls is okay because it's not political? Well, Satan isn't political because he will feast on the souls of liberals and conservatives alike. He will bring about the new order, and the demons will rise from the Earth. But hey, the extermination of the human species and the subjugation of our souls can't possibly be as bad as not liking someone because they run rape gangs for underage white English girls, because raping underage white English girls is just a cultural thing that we shouldn't be judgmental about, because being judgmental is wrong.[/quote] You utterly ridiculous person. Where is the evidence that anyone is "killing billions of people and eating their souls"? What utter lunacy. Where is the evidence that the members of this Temple are engaged in any criminal activities at all?

All of them. They're Satanists.[/quote]More lies. Please provide evidence of the crimes against humanity committed by the members of this congregation.

Nah, see I don't see this as any different than Christianity. Two fairytales. So to me they are on equal footing, I am wanting to see the logical argument that says that one is inherently evil and the other is not, as all Abrahamic religions are inherently evil to me, but not for the reasons you claim for Satanism.

So none of this applies to Christianity then? In Christianity there are no easily led people who are trying to fill a void in their lives?

Where is the evidence that this Temple engages in such rituals? Where is a link to the story in question?

Packard, that's the actual foundation of the Nazi Party.

Google books link to "The Third Reich: A New History, one of the most exhaustive books on the subject.

"If faith and hope were integral to National Socialism, so too, surprisingly enough, was charity. This ceased to be an uncomplicated reflection of human altruism, still less something individuals do discretely for their own souls, or to reap tax exemptions and titles. Instead it became a favor means of mobilizing communal sentimentality, that most underrated, but quintessential, characteristic of Nazi Germany."​

Who the hell cares? If they want to build a statue and worship it, why should it require my stamp of approval? I'm too occupied with my own problems to give a care in the world about this.

Because teh ebil! Think of the children! They might not find Jesus and then they won't be saved!

Bullshit. Your book might be good -- I haven't read it -- and your quote might, as is so often the case with you, be completely taken out of context. But I have read enough on National Socialism to know that your claim is utter nonsense.

Agreed. More of gturner's lying.

In regard to the OP --

The dirty truth behind secularism is that separating religion and state has always implicitly worked on the assumption that religion either makes no verifiable claims, or that those claims are not really real the way guns and taxes, and even money and passports, are. The practice of religion has never been quite free under our governments -- a religion that sacrifices its newborns to Baal, for instance, wouldn't stand, nor a sect that took its inspiration from the Old Testament and stoned members of its creed to death for having the wrong kind of sex or cuisine. Even Rastafarians can tell long tales about their trouble smoking pot.

Like @El Chup, I consider Christianity and Satanism both to be fairytales. And many religious people repeat the systemic, societal division between religion and power in their heads so well, they completely compartmentalize what they 'believe' and what they believe to be real. But now and again, you will find some very few people that actually have one model of the world in their minds, not several, and that one model contains their physical, political, and religious beliefs. So what is such a person supposed to do when their neighbours erect a statue to Satan? Suck it up is what. But expecting them to do so might be overly optimistic.

I have a soft spot in my heart for these "Satanists'" attempt to make themselves the Litmus test for egalitarian religious freedom. But in their understandable spite, they might be undoing a peace with religion that has actually been a victory over it.

Incidentally, I also have another soft spot in my heart, somewhat more acidic, for some Thelemists that might be either amused, or not, at the version of Satanism practiced by these do-gooders. Many of the latter would be quite surprised to learn what Satanism can be.

So you think the majority of the German people gave their all, and their undying devotion in support of - what, exactly? To be mocked on the History Channel 24/7? Why were they so fanatical? Why were so many working class people and ordinary folks so convinced that they were on the right side of history?

And ask yourself who wrote what you know of National Socialism, and why you don't think it has any remote connection to socialism despite the obvious party name and the written records of all the party leaders, and the party followers, and everyone who opposed them.

Undying support?

Another absurd remark.

Yeah, they just all threw their hands up in surrender as soon as we crossed the Siegfried line. Nothing fanatical about them at all. Nope. Nosiree Bob. They all thought "All the good people are coming to save us from our evil ways!"

You raise a very good point. Did you ever notice that children seem to be the #1 excuse for regulating, banning, or censoring things? You know what I say? Fuck the kids; they're getting entirely too much attention placed on them. Children will grow up just fine without all this PC bullshit being built up around them. And "they" know that. It's just an excuse to ban and censor things. It's FOR THE CHILDREN! Well, the world is cruel, and they have to grow up sometime.

Hey, good news, @gturner! It's a new month! I promised you'd get one of these per month. Here it is.

(1) Strawman: I said non of that.
(2) Presupposed falsehood: The majority of Germans did not give their devotion to National Socialism.
(3) Presupposed fact not in evidence: It is questionable, and has not been mentioned in this debate, that most Germans of any class thought they were on the right side of history.
(4) Weasel words: 'giving their all'.
(5) Misleading phrasing: Hypotyposis introduces issues of class that are not part of the claim discussed.
(6) Extreme weasel words: 'ordinary folks', especially when set apart from 'working class'

(Apart from lies and bad logic, you also seem to presuppose that only hope, faith, and charity can motivate people. This is pretty clearly false, but at least it is not obviously deceitful or illogical to assume that at this point in an argument.)

(7) False rhetorical question, implying an answer not in evidence (and incidentally false; among many other sources, I also read a lot of the NS' own writings).

(8) Strawman: I said none of that,
(9) partially hidden by implicit sentence structure.
(10) Strong implication that you will now erect a false binary, by which not believing in a lack of even a remote connection implies believing in an identity.

(11) Lie: You have not read the written records of all the party leaders.
(12) Moved goalpost: By 8 and 9, you now suggest introducing evidence in which NS leaders refer to themselves as socialists, when the debate is on whether their movement was founded on faith, hope, and charity.
(13) Contradiction: If they were socialists, they were not motivated by faith, and by most socialists' ideas, neither by charity, since giving workers what they deserve and should rightly own is not charitable, but only fair.

(14-16) As 11-13, for followers.
(17-18) As 11-12, for opponents.

Charitably, I will exclude a third strike for opponents as per 13, since it is logically possible that all opponents of NS were wrong about socialism and its relation to faith and charity. This leads us to

(19) False implicature: That all opponents of NS were wrong about the relation of socialism to faith and charity.

That's it for this month.

You've done this before. Post a bunch of meaningless crap that looks like it's structured as an argument, even though it has absolutely no connection to what was said, even remotely. You just throw in random phrases from the dictionary of debate fallacies without connecting a single one of them to any particular thing, number them, and hope to impress your memories of your high-school debate teacher, who probably had big boobs and no brains.

It's like arguing with an autistic person.

What are the roots of National Socialism? Why did they call themselves the National Socialist Workers Party? Why did the workers vote for them? How did they convince an very socialist country (both before and after) to throw away their lives in droves for the glorious future of socialism? Why did they fight to the bitter end for this vision? Why did they think that they were moral and we were not? Why did they think our victory was the end of advanced Western civilization? Why did so many commit suicide rather than live in the hellish, brutish state that would surely follow if they were defeated?

They fought that fanatically for a reason, a vision, and that vision wasn't so they could be featured on The History Channel's Nazi Fashion Week.

Your lack of education is truly astonishing.

What was said:

What you posted:

Dude, if you're going to respond the reply needs to make some logical sense - to someone. Some kind of connection between statement and retort. This isn't a lot to ask, and it really helps the readers who are just following along in the thread to see what's going on. It's kind of like writing dialog for a movie. The audience has to be able to follow it or Rotten Tomatoes gives you a 2 on the Tomato Meter because the discourse looks like it was written by not just a drunk, but a dysfunctional committee of drunks who couldn't even agree on the point of the scene.

Actually I just think it's a great display of optimism! Someone is actually investing time and money in that shit hole. That said I can't believe it hasn't been stolen yet. Maybe Satan can turn that city around - if so we might have a viable third party for the upcoming election. Satan & his minions certainly can't make the place any worse!

Not so many decades ago Detroit was the most affluent city in North America. Then they went Democrat, the place became a burnt-out post-apocalyptic shell, and now they're thinking that ritual Satanism has got to be better than Democrat rule. I say it's better the devil you know, even if that means scraping buy in a burnt out liberal wasteland.

One big reason:

This has nothing to do with religious tolerance or freedom. It is basically about the so called "Satanists" wanting to troll Christians.

Says who? What prof do you have of that?

And if it were to troll Christians, don't they have that right?

In my opinion that is not in fact a right.

Look at the history of this group of "Satanists" in particular and the history of so called "Satanism" in general.