Which do you find offensive to have in your city, a humungous statue depicting what a demon or Satan appears like, or a humungous statue of what Jesus Christ looks like?

Double standard. Technically both statues are legit. It would allow the pastafarians to make his noodley apendage in statue form.

Both are legal, and both are offensive.

No kind of religious statue needs to be in a public area. I wouldn’t support either one of them.

The most important parts of the question are missing for any meaningful answer: location and source of funding.

If privately funded and on private property, I find neither offensive.

If funded by the public of placed on public property about equally offensive.
Although I bet the Satan statue would have more artistic merit.

I think the demon one, Picturing an immense Cthulhu down on the square, would be way more creepy to me and thus would be more upsetting to me than a familiar Jesus. Especially if it was a smiling Jesus. I can’t imagine what a Smiling Cthulhu would look like.

@ibstubro The most important parts of the question are missing for any meaningful answer: location and source of funding.
My conventional wisdom would say ;private money on private land even if said land was highly visible. I do not believe the party of Twiddle Dee or Twiddle Dumb has the stomach to back either statue on public land much less with public money, though I suspect they’d back the demon but are afraid the evangelicals would not vote for them, the ballot whores they are.

I don’t find either one offensive. My preference would be to have neither in my city, but it’s not really up to me.

I would love to have a statue from the Satanic Temple as a way of countering said statue of Jesus for the simple reason that it is the best weapon we non-theists have to curb fundamentalist excesses. Given the choices of a. statue of Jesus, b. Satanic Temple statue, c. both statues and d. neither of them, my preferences would be d, c, b, a.

I don’t want humungous statues of any kind. There is currently a quiet uproar going on about this proposed monstrosity in one of Canada’s national parks. No. Please, no.

If it is a reasonably sized statue, artfully designed, and not installed to provoke hatred towards anyone, then I don’t particularly mind if it’s of a god or devil. Art can and often should be provocative, but it’s crass to adorn a city with objects whose sole purpose is to piss off specific groups of people.

I’m not Canadian, so I won’t comment on that particular statue, @dappled_leaves, but to say you have my unqualified understanding and support.

@ibstubro Much appreciated! We’re hoping that now we have a new, sane PM, reason will prevail. Can you imagine new immigrants being greeted by that?

Well it depends on how tasteful it is and where it is and whose resources are used and so on. Jesus has been done a lot already, so a demon might be likely to be more interesting. So much skilled artwork has been done that much Christian art seems to me more a demonstration of ignorance of art history, or worse, Biblical literalism, which doesn’t offend me per se, but does tend to bring my attention to the many extremely unfortunate directions in which people have misled Christianity, and which lead to so much suffering. If the art could portray Jesus’ actual messages of love and acceptance and real spirituality, that could be great. Or if either could belie the mistakes of Biblical literalism, that’d be nice too.

Or maybe, something more original and/or interesting. I’d like a giant Bastet statue, or Yggdrasil (though a giant actual tree is even better)...

@majorrich “I think the demon one, Picturing an immense Cthulhu…”
NOW YOU’VE DONE IT! You’ve offended Cthulu by writing as if it was a part of Christian lore.

I keep thinking buddy Christ

As others have said: Private land, private money, people can do what they please. On public land, I would prefer neither but if either is allowed both must be.

In all cases, I would roll my eyes, much as I do every day when passing the house on the corner with “IN 2012 MY DAUGHTER SURVIVED CANCER!!! THANK YOU GOD!!!” painted slapdash in 2-foot high letters on a giant privacy fence – so the only people who don’t have to see it are the ones who are supposedly thankful to the deity (and hopefully, also the doctors who actually did something).

I live in a democracy. I often don’t enjoy how this democracy uses its community spaces and sometimes I do. When I don’t, I simply ignore it. Soon, there will be something else to take its place. Maybe I will find the next thing interesting. In the meantime, rather than letting every little fucking thing bother me, I would rather enjoy life.

Yep, both are legal and both are potentially offensive. I’m with @Espiritus_Corvus.
Ignore what you don’t like and find your peace instead of duking it out over subjectoveibullshit.

As @Espiritus_Corvus has said so well, even if he used different words, “Life is too damn short to be looking for problems and taking offense all the time.”

In other words, “There is too much beauty and wonder in the world that I haven’t seen to waste a lot of time looking for, or at, things that are going to offend and annoy me.”

I’m also perfectly happy to let others express themselves in ways that I disagree with, and to express opinions and beliefs that I do not share. I protest – and vigorously – when I am forced to fund others’ bad opinions and beliefs, and I even protest when others are forced to support beliefs of mine with which they disagree (seldom as that happens). But I also don’t spend a lot of time dreaming up hypothetical situations that might offend me.

To put it in slightly different terms I would prefer a statue of Nelson Mandela to one of Saddam Hussain.

Satan is more offensive. Is it on public property? Then you can argue it’s gotta come down. Same with Jesus.

I wouldn’t get too bent out of shape about either.

Personally I like demons and stuff like that, so I would not mind. I also recall the Cristo Redentor statue in Rio de Janeiro, which is something of a marvel.

I am (most certainly) not a Christian; but I can appreciate works of art for what they are.

I would admire their artistic value if there were anything worth admiring. Neither would offend me, I would be indifferent to what they would depict. Actions carried out in the name of Christ and Satan offend me more.

I’ll take this moment to point out that no one knows what Jesus (if he ever existed) looked like, but I can guarantee it was not the 20-year old long haired Renaissance pose model we are so familiar with.

@Seek To be honest, I find this guy more welcoming anyway.

well, he looks like one of those moo-slims

As someone who believes in Jesus Christ, I would obviously prefer the statue of Christ.

However, as a very strong proponent of the 1st amendment as well, if someone wants to put up a statue of Satan, fine. I will look the other way if it bothers me that much (which it wouldn’t). As long as it’s not obscene, I’m fine with it.

I’ve seen some people comment that they would be opposed if either statue was erected on public property with public money, and I frankly don’t see the problem with this.

If there is a city whose population has a majority of Satanists in it, and they want to erect a statue to honor their beliefs, so be it. They’re the majority. As long as they don’t force me to bow down at the knee of the Dark Master and worship him, I have no problem. Ditto for Ten Commandments in a public park, or a statue of Buddha at City Hall. Those are all expressions of speech and should be protected. It is NOT the government establishing or endorsing a religion, as some claim.

If I don’t like it, I can try and persuade a majority of my fellow citizens to renounce Satan and choose to worship Christ, OR I can simply move to another town.

It’s a free country. Isn’t it great?

Our country provides for the separation of church and state, @MikeA, so expressions of religious belief should be privately funded and displayed on private property. It’s the law

Majority rule is not without parameters. Witness the Jim Crow laws.

@ibstubro Expressions of religious belief were exactly what our founding fathers wanted to protect the most. If a majority of citizens want to open their city council meeting with a prayer that reflects their commonly held belief, this is NOT a violation of the separation of church and state. It is simply an expression of religious belief. Nothing more, nothing less. If someone is offended by this, too bad. In a free society, you sometimes have to endure speech you don’t agree with. Those are the rules of the game. The supreme law of the land—the constitution—states that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF”. So when you forbid someone from saying a public prayer in a public meeting, it is you that is violating the law, not the other way around. The minute the government forces you to say a Christian prayer or bow your head, then you will have a case.

The public meeting is there for the purposes of conducting public business. If you’re taking up public business time with your private religious business, that’s out of line.

If the public business meeting – that is, say ,the city council, is making everyone in the room regardless of their beliefs wait while they say a Christian prayer, that is government sponsored religion.

If the local council is paying a groundskeeper to scrape gum off of a statue of Jesus, Baphomet, or Buddha, that is a government-sponsored religious symbol, and unconstitutional.

@Seek. “Congress shall make no law”. If the duly elected leadership of a small town wants to put up a statue of Christ, or Karl Marx, or Mohammed—whatever—they should be free to do so. The government, on the other hand, cannot pass a law saying that Islam is the state religion and everyone must pray 5 times a day. By simply erecting a monument of Mohammed, no laws have been passed endorsing or sponsoring the religion. Nobody is required to bow before the statue. This is free speech. Ditto with the prayer at city council. If you don’t want to hear the prayer, get up and leave. You don’t have a constitutional right to be shielded from speech with which you disagree.

If you don’t like that your tax dollars are being spent on statues of Mohammed, voice your opposition and vote for a different candidate. Or run for office yourself. And if it really chaps your hide that tax dollars are being spent on a religious statue, move to a city that is run by Atheists who will spend your tax dollars on non-religious stuff.

This insistence that religion has no place in the public arena lest we violate the church/state separation is wrong. The founding fathers never intended that free expression of religion be removed from all government events and operations. The people are the government, and the people should be allowed to freely express themselves.

The people may express what they like.

The government as an entity may not.

The supreme court has ruled that money is speech, so the government spending money on religious symbols is the government making a religious statement.

I think you’re hung up on the word “sponsored”, and thinking that the only way a religion is government sponsored is if something is made an official religion. It’s not.

The founding fathers were specifically not creating a country that would put religious minorities on the run. Because that is what they were leaving.

Lern2history.

@MikeA welcome to Fluther. We debate here a lot, get on each others nerves, troll but we are all buddies. Anonymous, online anyway. Most here are atheists and I am agnostic. We have a few christians.

Thank you. I’m glad to be here. I enjoy spirited debates.

@seek I understand what you are saying, and I recognize that the Supreme Court has generally ruled that absolutely no religious expression may be made by government or the people working for it.

However, it is my opinion that they are wrong. :-)

Can you please explain to me how religious minorities are put “on the run” if the religious majority erects a monument of the 10 commandments in the city park? How are the minorities negatively affected by this?

Well, first of all, it’s tax money that should be going to things that are not religious symbols. Like, say, schools. Or hydrangeas. Things that all citizens benefit from, and not just the self-righteous Christians who can’t take a walk in the park without being reminded (by a graven image) that you shouldn’t make any graven images or else God will visit the sins of the father on the third and fourth generation of those who hate him.

Secondly, as far as religious symbols in City Hall or the county courthouse, imagine being reminded every time you go to court that the people responsible for deciding your fate are already biased against you, because you subscribe to a different faith than they do, or view you as a heathen because you have no faith at all.

It’s incredibly hard to describe this feeling to a white Christian male… your privilege is so obvious that I can’t even figure out an analogy you would understand.

You wouldn’t understand the feelings of a Jew who might have to walk past a swastika to get into the courthouse, for instance. Sure it’s an ancient symbol of peace in several different religions and no one really means any harm. Why should you take it so personally? There’s thousands of people in town for whom that symbol means nothing, so why shouldn’t the government pay for that symbol to decorate the courthouse lawn? There are only a few dozen Jews and they should just get over it.

@MikeA welcome to Fluther!

I’ll comment on why there should not be religious monuments on government property or government meetings started with a prayer. If you allow a prayer, you’re going to have to be ok with the prayer being in Hebrew or Arabic, or at minimum in English, but a Muslim or Jewish prayer. Are you ok with it? Isn’t it easier just not to have prayer and keep the praying to in your home and churches and your own personal praying wherever you might choose to do it?

Back to the monuments, the ones that already exist I’m not sure if I would tear them down, but now in 2015 every corner of US knows nothing new should be erected. Don’t they?

@Seek Thank you for the response. A couple of points:

“Tax money that should be going to things…that all citizens benefit from.” All citizens don’t benefit from every tax expenditure. I disagree that my tax dollars go to Planned Parenthood and the local sports arena, but we the people have elected representatives who feel that is a good way to spend money, so I deal with it.

Everything else you described has to do with someone’s feelings being hurt. Do I feel for the Jew (in your rather extreme example) who has to walk by a swastika? Yes, I do. But other than his feelings, how is this person harmed by actually looking at the swastika? How does this put him on the run? The Constitution of the United States specifically was written to protect the minority. If you feel your rights are being violated due to bias, or whatever, you may seek redress in a higher court—all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.

The actual expression of speech—a statue or a symbol—does not harm you in anyway.

@JLeslie Thanks for the welcome! If I was a Mormon living in a city that was predominantly Muslim, I would have absolutely no problem whatsoever if they wanted to open their council meeting with a Muslim prayer. None whatsoever. I would be grateful that they have the freedom to pray as they wish to start their meetings. The constitution of the United States will ensure that they are never able to force me to bow to Mecca against my wishes.

@MikeA Every appropriations bill passed by Congress and signed by the President is technically a law. And since the 14th Amendment extends the prohibitions found in the First Amendment to the states (and since state courts have authority over the lower levels of government), those appropriations bills—which, again, are in fact laws—are equally restricted. This is why the courts (including the Supreme Court) have repeatedly ruled against anything that constitutes state-sponsorship of one religion over another (which means it’s all or nothing: represent everyone or no one).

Also, you are moving the goalposts on @Seek (which is a logical fallacy). You asked for any negative effect, so she gave you some easy and obvious examples. Now you’re changing the rules and asking for more (and vaguely, too, since you haven’t really explained what sort of harm you are interested in). And seeing as you are a member of a religious sect that has been systematically marginalized for ages, it’s surprising that you have no inkling of how a majority can impose harms upon a minority without even noticing.

@MikeA To the Jew the swastika does not hurt their feelings it terrifies them.

Are you Mormon? Most Mormons understand what it is like to be a religious minority.

What if the council committee is ⅓ Christians, ⅓ Jews, and ⅓ Muslims? Why are we bothering to pray before a business meeting? Praying on your own before, after, heck it can be ten times a day, isn’t enough? It has to be a public prayer, said aloud? Why? Why is that so terribly important in a country that is supposed to have a secular government?

Are we going to have prayer in school? Your children growing up in that Dearborn, MI neighborhood will have a Muslim teacher leading a Muslim prayer every morning and your 5 year old will learn to turn East when he prays, and to pray in Arabic, and he is allowed to abstain from praying, but all the other children are doing it? How’s your 5 year old feeling? On the outside? Is he being teased? Is be being questioned why he doesn’t do it?

Isn’t it just easier not to bring religion into the public arena?

I think this is highly pertinent to this discussion.

The same people who like a publicly displayed 10 Commandment sculpture will shut the system down over a bit of innocuous diversity.

I asked a Catholic friend (who was rationalizing the response in Tenn.) if it would be wrong for the teacher to have the kids copy something from the Liturgy in the original Latin during a discussion of Catholicism.
“That’s different.”

I appreciate all of your responses.

@SavoirFaire As a Mormon, I’m actually very aware of how the majority can systematically remove the right of the minority to express their religious beliefs in the public arena. That is why I am militantly in favor of the allowance of speech—even if I disagree with it and even if I’m insulted by it—which happens often. I will gladly tolerate looking at an anti-Mormon symbol (akin to the swastika for a Jew) if it means that I still retain my right to walk down your street and hand out Book of Mormons. Even though my feelings may be hurt by the insults and symbols, I personally am not harmed—meaning nobody is allowed to arrest me or forcibly silence me. That’s the harm I’m talking about.

@JLeslie My vote it to let the city council decide to do whatever they want to do, and not force them to remain silent lest someone in the audience gets his feelings hurt because he had to listen to someone pray to their God. If they want to pray to a different God every week, great! If nobody wants to pray, that’s fine too.

Regarding the school, if I really want to have my child attend that Muslim-populated school for whatever reason, then my child will learn to TOLERATE the beliefs and practices of Islam. I won’t angrily demand that everyone shut up to protect the sensitive ears of my special little child who is Mormon. If it proves to be too much, I put them in a different school, or home school them. Whatever. It’s a free country.

@ibstubro. I hope I’ve made my point that I am in favor of more speech, not less. If you’re in the majority and want to tear down the 10 commandments in the park and put up something else, have at it. Just don’t force me to bow down and honor whatever your creed is.

That would be a violation of the Consitution.

Thank you all for your awesome responses. Fluther is fun!

@MikeA I don’t “tolerate” other religions, I am fine with everyone believing whatever they want to. In Utah many public schools have a separate building next to school property that teaches religion and can count for school credit. I actually have no problem with that. It’s not mandatory for all children, but Mormon children can go to religious class in a convenient way and still use the public school system.

The big difference is subjecting other children to being a religious minority, in a situation that is more than just knowing they are different a religion, but actually practicing the religion.

Growing up I had friends from many religions, Muslim, Mormon, Catholic, and more, and it was a non-issue. We were all friends, never really talked about religion, except the different holidays, and I did know my Mormon friends had lived in another country, because her family went with the church for a couple of years to South America. I am so happy to have grown up in such a diverse environment, and so glad I grew up in a place that religion was not in school at all. Sure we had some holiday decorations, but religion was not discussed. I should mention I have no trouble with comparative religion class in high school as an elective.

The Muslim school I mention is a public school. Dearborn is 30% Muslim, and my guess is some schools there are over 50%. Much like Boca Raton, FL having similar percentages of Jews. Why should a Christian child have to be concerned about whose prayer will be said in the public school they are distracted for? Do the parents have to pay for private school if they are concerned their Christian children are being overly influenced?

I don’t want my children being “preached” to by other students. I want my kids when they are young to be in a sort of religious bubble. Not that I would keep them from being friends with anyone, because of their religion, but I would if religion is being brought up in a way to make them uncomfortable or try to solicit them.

A neighbor of my SIL used to try to woo her 6 year old. She was Jehovah and would invite my niece in and read her religious children’s books. My MIL asked her to stop. She continued. Finally, my MIL spoke to the neighbor’s husband and he stopped it. My niece! A little girl. Trying to take her away from her parents’ religious teachings. Unacceptable. This same niece used to get cards from evangelical friends when she was a teen inviting her to parties at the churches for teens. I just think it’s awful. People over 18 it’s fine, but people need to keep their “hands” off of minors in my opinion, and show more respect for the family they are raised in.

I will say my Mormon friends never did any such thing when we were young. They never tried to lead me away from my religion or talk about religion in a way that would try to solicit me. I find the Mormon religion appealing actually, because my experience is they are some of the nicest people I know, never made me uncomfortable, and they don’t drink or smoke and neither do I. It’s a nice environment for me.

I’ll also say that Mormons do tend to be a little clannish. Nothing wrong with it, but I think they do want their children to grow up surrounded primarily by like minded people and marry within the religion.

@ibstubro Figures. That’s disappointing. While I was living in Memphis the removed prayer from city council meetings. What’s interesting to me is how the south only now is starting to address these things.

@instubro @MikeA Just to confuse things, our President often starts speeches with a clergy person giving some sort of address to the crowd. The President is sworn in by clergy. I don’t know if there has been any accept ions to that? So, there are all sorts of inconsistencies in our country on the matter of church and state.

I’m not very bothered by some of the inconsistencies, but I do mind when it causes groups great discomfort or fear.

As a non religious person I am utterly horrified with the idea that the state can be influenced by religion in any way. There is no point in trying to argue against separation of church and state. That baby has been put to bed a long time ago. I have the opinion that the constitution got basically everything right and should be taken literally unlike the bible. Most people have one or more problems with it like the right to bear arms for example. As far as I’m concerned that’s just tough. Even if it’s not something you support you don’t have an intrinsic right to try and change or redefine the meaning.

@ARE_you_kidding_me I don’t think people believe they are redefining it. Their point-of-view is just very different, or they cannot put themselves in the minority’s place. They see their religious rights being taken away and grab at examples of religion in public places historically.

People try to make it fit into their agenda or ideology all the time.

Right. Sometimes they are doing it without really knowing that’s what they are doing.

The President is sworn in by a clergy member of their choosing because the President as an individual is taking an oath as an individual. I imagine if Bernie Sanders wins the election, he will be sworn in on the Constitution, possibly by a Rabbi, though I would not be surprised if he chooses a secular judge to take the oath.

@JLeslie I appreciate your insights and thoughts. I tend to agree with you about leaving minors alone when it comes to sharing your ideology. However, my young kids were invited to attend a Christian church once and I was more than happy to let them attend. Then we talked about their experience when they got home. It was good for them. They discovered they had a lot in common with their Christian friends, but they also gained a deeper appreciation for our Mormon beliefs.

To all of you, I understand why you prefer to keep religion out of things. I get it. There are times when I prefer it as well. However, it will always be my opinion that if we are to err, it should be on allowing free speech, not restricting it.

Of course, that’s just my opinion. :-)

@MikeA I just don’t see it as free speech. The founders of our country were quite explicit in not wanting our government to be interfering in or directing anyone, in regards to religion. If the government is using religious symbols and phrases and trying to insert a particular religion into our lives, then it’s against the constitution. When a person in power or a teacher is directing people regarding religion that crosses the line.

Free speech is about being able to speak out against the government. To reveal the truth about what is going on in our lives and country. To voice our opinions without fear of punishment. Saying a prayer at a 3:00 meeting and asking everyone to join in isn’t free speech, it’s imposing ones will. Does the Muslim ask for that? No. Might he ask to schedule the meeting at 3:15 if 3:00 is his mandatory prayer time? Yes. That’s fine, it’s different. Am I free to say “fuck you” in a council meeting? Nope. I’ll be asked to curtail my language or possibly thrown out on the spot.

Allowing freedom of religion doesn’t mean we want people forcing their religion down other people’s throats, it means you won’t be arrested, enslaved, killed, oppressed, or forced to convert for the religion you choose or were born into. You can practice and the government will respect and protect your right to practice.

@ARE_you_kidding_me:
“I have the opinion that the constitution got basically everything right and should be taken literally unlike the bible.”??

Yes, is that somehow controversial?

@MikeA “As a Mormon, I’m actually very aware of how the majority can systematically remove the right of the minority to express their religious beliefs in the public arena.”

But that’s not what I said. That’s just a misleading reworking of what I said that you are using to push your agenda. I was talking about the way in which a majority can impose harms upon a minority without the majority even noticing. Removing their right to religious expression is one way of doing so, but not the only way. And of course, no one is talking about removing anyone’s personal right to religious expression. The government is not a person—and not only does it not have any such right, it is expressly forbidden by the US Constitution from enacting any sort of law (which includes appropriations bills) favoring one religion over another. What people do with their own money on their own land is up to them. What the government does with public money, however, has to follow the rules.

“I personally am not harmed—meaning nobody is allowed to arrest me or forcibly silence me. That’s the harm I’m talking about.”

But the more relevant question is whether or not these are the only things you recognize as harms (since you asked about harm more generally).

In posing this question, the OP has lost sight of what the Satanic Temple, an atheistic religion, is trying to do. They are not trying to install their statues by themselves or in place of other statues. Their strategy is to place their statue alongside other religious symbols. Their argument, which is unassailable, is that because of freedom of speech and the illegality of favoring one religion over another, they have as much right to put up their statue as any other religion. In several cases, this has forced townships to decide that no religious imagery will be displayed, which suits the Satanic Temple just fine. Needless to say, their victories are driving religious extremists batty.

@LostInParadise Great point. It’s why in the parts of the country where separation of church of state is adhered to pretty well for the last 50+ years the Christians aren’t so vocal nor fearful that their religion is being attacked. In the Bible Belt they see their religious symbols and customs being taken down and forcibly changed. It does drive them batty.

Ugh, I can’t help thinking the people most freaked out are the ones who live in places who have ignored the law and who have held such a majority in our country, and especially their community, that they just don’t understand. People in diverse places fully understand how it’s basically impossible to favor one religion in a public way, because there are so many religions in the community. They also fully understand how the minority/majority make up can flip, and then you really want to have laws that you will be ok with when you are the minority.

I’m not including @MikeA in this, I want to be clear. Mormons are minorities, although not in many parts of Utah. They know if the fed decides to put the bible in school it won’t be their bible, and they know how prejudice Americans can be against Mormons. I have friends who really were apprehensive about Mitt Romney, because he was Mormon. They didn’t even want to listen to his ideas or record as a politician. I saw his religion as a possible positive, because he is a minority.