Obviously, the shock value is at a maximum. If they were “only” Scientologists, and achieved their nominal goal of equality, then all they’d get was a religious display next to the majoritarian christian one (a negligible achievement).
If they win their legal battles as “satanists”, it’s much more likely the Christians will cut their own noses off and get all religious displays banned rather than settle into a disgruntled coexistence.
The opposition, yes. The curious people, no.
I think the general public, who don’t seek out their website, picture actual satan worshiping shenanigans.
The members of the general public who see these displays and don’t investigate a little further can be reasonably assumed to be write-offs.
Like people who fear musicians backmasking their tracks or biting the heads off bats? Or like folks who fell for the Satanic Panic about D&D and other role-playing games? Or maybe folks who think the presidential election was stolen in 2020?
Perhaps they are the general public, but if they actually believe this, they are “low-information” folks also.
If you start the conversation saying “pardon me for existing” - you’re teaching people you may not deserve to exist.
I think a few Hindu statues with nudity and skulls would go well as part of this display. Apparently we need to get the indignation level to cartoonish levels before we can get the christian crap out of government spaces.
There are real people and other people. You must always bend the knee to real people & ask for their beneficent permission to exist.
Speaking of monuments, this statement should be engraved on a stone sitting outside every legislature in the world.
The acronyms “NRPI” or “NHI”, used by the worst sorts, come to mind.
I mean…hiding your true identity of white supremacy, genocide, and world domination (culturally and economically) behind a facade of benevolence and imagery of baby sheep does not instill me with confidence about a particular religion.
Daw. Yes, exactly like that.
I think it would still be provocative, while disarming the other sides argument that it is some how evil and dangerous. A third party might look at a traditional rendition and agree it is “scary” looking. While a cute wittle guy like the above example looks harmless enough.
I don’t think they could. The out of context shock value is the point.
When the Illinois State Capitol decided to allow a nativity scene, they tacitly endorsed Christianity. Oh, sure, other groups could put up a display as well, so maybe there is a menorah, a crescent moon, and a sitting Buddha, but there is no illusion about Christianity is being endorsed over other religions. It’s right there in the holiday name: Christ-Mass.
By putting up a shocking, out of context display, it is hoped the casual observer will ask “what the ****, why was that allowed to be put here?” And in the next breath ask “why is any of this allowed to be here?”
At the same time, it is hoped that the Christian dominionists who put up the display in the first place will be so incensed that they decide it is better to have no display than to allow the satanic temple make a mockery of their nativity scene.
Putting up a quiet little plaque about protesting religious displays in government spaces gets a “isn’t that nice” from the general public, or a disingenuous “we’re not endorsing another religion, see? We’re letting the Shintoists put up a display on our very important holiday”, and nothing really changes.
They are doing it exactly right, because you have engaged in the topic.
(I’m a proud member, too!)
Except baby Baphomet was conceived consensually.
During their fourth grade, my kid had to go visit a California mission, y’know, the ones from the Spanish era. There was a painting of a guy who had been lassoed around the neck, the rope squeezed so tight that it was drawing blood. My kid kinda freaked out, thinking the equivalent of WTF is that?
Watching those 90 seconds of the video, as it moved from the satanists to the xtians, it put the whole scene into stark relief. All of it was ridiculous. Especially those who were on their knees. WTF is that?
It helps them get their point across. The idea is that the conversation goes something like this:
“Thinkofthechildren” folks: Ugh, this is so upsetting, this display shouldn’t be here.
TST: Yes, we agree, none of this should be here.
The kneejerk reaction is to start religious discrimination, which, at least in theory, won’t do well in court. The other option is to get all religious displays off of government property. Making it cute doesn’t accomplish that goal. And you could argue that adding a plaque with their statement makes it a political display, not a religious display, which could provide an excuse to ban them but not others.
At least that’s what the farmhand said.
Paprocki did not attend.
Which was probably for the best, assuming there were children present.
(Yes, it’s insulting and probably a little bigoted on my part. No, I don’t actually care.)
