statue of baphomet in detroit - discuss civily

[Scott DeWar]

I dunno. Is the statue a protest, or representative of a true belief? Also, many people would find the statue to be extremely offensive, the same as many other symbols are offensive.

That means a public display is a problem.

A private showing is another matter.

Thx!

TomB

To add to this, I know many main stream Christians who find this offensive due to the commandments found in Exodus 20: 3-5. I being one of them.

Refrence:
http://www.usccb.org/bible/exodus/20

 

[Umbran]

Is the statue a protest, or representative of a true belief?

False dichotomy - it can be both. As they say, ""We understand the Satanic figure as a symbol of man’s inherent nature, representative of the eternal rebel, enlightened inquiry and personal freedom..."

Given that mission statement, certain forms of protest will be statements of true belief. Thumbing their nose at "The Man" may well be the equivalent of a sacrament.

That means a public display is a problem.

Not if it is a privately owned site, it isn't.

 

[Jhaelen]

(Being an atheist myself) I don't get what this thread is about. What am I supposed to discuss? Whether I consider the statue pretty or not?!

All I can say is that considering the 'mission statement' (as quoted by Umbran) of the guys who revealed the statue, they're obviously not atheists.

 

[Umbran]

To add to this, I know many main stream Christians who find this offensive...

Part of the price of living in a free society, with a right of freedom of speech, is that we *DO NOT* have a right to not be offended.

People will say things, and express thoughts, that each of us find offensive. We must live with it, if we want our own right to speak preserved.

 

[Scott DeWar]

Part of the price of living in a free society, with a right of freedom of speech, is that we *DO NOT* have a right to not be offended.

I know I use this excuse alot, but even though its been almost 4 years, but I am having a bit of trouble reading and absorbing this statement. I had to read it 4 time to make sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying: We do have the right of being offended?

I would imagine the added statement of: We who do get offended do not have the right to brow beat those who do not get offended.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I know I use this excuse alot, but even though its been almost 4 years, but I am having a bit of trouble reading and absorbing this statement. I had to read it 4 time to make sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying: We do have the right of being offended?

I would imagine the added statement of: We who do get offended do not have the right to brow beat those who do not get offended.

It means no person has the right to make everyone else make sure they don't do anything to offend that one person. I.e., I don't have the right to make everyone else change their behavior so as to ensure I never get offended. It's impossible, for one, since we all are offended by different things. Secondly, it also is directly counter to the 1st amendment.

Basically, it means that just because you find something offensive, doesn't mean it must be removed.


That being said, just because someone might have the right to be offensive, doesn't mean they are any less of an by doing so. Luckily I have the same right to tell them that.

 

[Scott DeWar]

That being said, just because someone might have the right to be offensive, doesn't mean they are any less of an by doing so. Luckily I have the same right to tell them that.

Huh, you must love invoking the smilies!

 

[Sacrosanct]

Huh, you must love invoking the smilies!

[Edit - profanity removed - Morrus].

 

[Morrus]

I typed [edited], but the forum code automatically changed it to smiles for profanity. My bad.

There's a reason for that. Don't type it, please.

 

[Sacrosanct]

My apologies. Won't happen again. I didn't realize that variation of spelling was considered profanity. Now I know.