New Illinois tradition

Either we are all -ALL- equal in the eyes of the law or else none of us are. The establishment of one exception flings open the door to unlimited exceptions. Who are we (you, me, the government, anyone) to proclaim the “legitimacy” of anyone else’s religious beliefs? Legitimacy lies in the heart and soul of the believer, not in the consent of others holding differing beliefs.

That being said, I wish for you to have a Merry Christmas.


Ok, so lets have a Porn section in the school library, and Neonazi march next to Hanukkah festival.
These things may be legal, but in the eyes of majority of the Public they fall into the category of Profane and Threatening.
It is interesting though that carefree, liberal attitude from the IL state govt stops when it comes to lockdowns, forced masking and jab mandates. I wonder… is there a connection.

Such is the stuff of mob rule. Our Republic was designed with safeguards against the tyranny of the majority.

Porn in a school library would violate legislated age restrictions which have passed judicial and constitutional review and your argument is an exercise in reductio ad absurdum.

“Profane” is in the eye of the beholder. “Threats” are legally definable actions bearing criminal consequences.

It always does stop when it’s an attitude adopted by government to appease and distract. There is no conviction behind it.

1 Like

Er… You dispute that voting exercises the majority opinion? I don’t recall any Constitutional guarantee to freedom of worship in a religion that requires human sacrifice.

No, I am reflecting on the news. The law was violated, in spirit and in letter. Prove me wrong.

If something is placed into public view with the only purpose of offending people, it is an obscenity. The purpose of placing “baby Baphomet” next to a nativity scene is exactly that. While public display of a Satanic artifact is legal, the State must not endorse obscenity. Something tells me that IL may have anti-obscenity laws on the books.

It does indeed, but that opinion is not binding in all situations. The majority cannot vote to establish something that violates the constitution, for example. There is also a big difference between majority vote and majority opinion.

To the best of my knowledge, the Satanic Temple neither requires nor condones blood sacrifice, human r otherwise.

If the law has been violated there are steps which can be taken to redress the violation. That’s how the rule of law works. Also, I don’t have to prove you wrong; you are making the assertion, so the burden of proof is on you. Random “news” articles are not proof, they are at best allegations.

One man’s obscenity is another’s free speech. “Obscenity” is a word that describes a value judgement and all such judgements are highly personal and variable depending on the person, their culture, their religion, and other factors.

As to public displays which are intended to offend, well, so what? At no time in history has there ever been a “right” to not be offended. The state has no mandate to abolish things you find offensive. That’s what safe spaces and crying rooms are for.


If you followed this thread, you should have your answer.

1 Like

Speaking of human sacrifice, isn’t that the originating event which created the promise of redemption? Not to mention the regular celebration of the coming of redemption through the ritual cannibalism contained in the sacrament of communion. (To be sure, some sects emphasize the transmogrification of the wine and host more than others.)

Just sayin’.


I am afraid, I cannot speak with confidence about origins of religions. I think when you are speaking about ancient Israel circa 33 AD, there would be very strong sentiment against cannibalism. Same would apply to the Greco-Roman culture.
Did you see the link? Do you find Satanists’ views, as stated by themselves, OK, and compatible with public decency and appropriate for all ages of visitors to the IL State Capitol?

Frankly, I (and many of my friends) find religion of any kind extremely offensive, but I have to tolerate it anyway. It has been the source of many battles and deaths, all over made up beings for sheep. People like to be around people like them, which is a major reason people don’t have varied views, why they feel compelled to align with things like red/blue. Fortunately, humans don’t need imaginary beings and scriptures to know right from wrong.

Do I think Satanists are a great idea? Of course not. But if you stop that, it is a slipperly slope. The world would be a better place without any of it. We can’t have both sides. If it is so terrible, no one would be a part of it. (tongue in cheek…)

1 Like

Yet it is symbolically practiced every Sunday (and other days) during Christian worship services in churches around the world.

I did see the link, I read the link, and I went to the Temple’s website to review their publicly stated “7 Tenets”. I found nothing more objectionable there than I have found in the published information regarding other religions. I certainly did not find anything indicating a requirement for the practice of human sacrifice.

I am leaning towards the position that it is in poor taste. I have no doubt that they mean to shock, even offend the public, by way of stimulating curiosity, conversation, self-reflection, and etc.

Just as a personal aside, I find that a great deal of what goes on in state capitals, even those in states less famous for corruption, is barely suitable for adults, let alone children.


Well, I’d say the offensive qualities run the gamut from the mild to the outrageous. Depends on who you talk to.

Based on a cursory look at some material from the Temple of Satan, it doesn’t jump out as being much better or worse than many other, more “acceptable” teachings.

1 Like

The Chicago Tribune indicated that Broadview police Chief Thomas Mills explained that Lightford and McKennie were ordered out of the car by the suspects at some point during the carjacking. After that “There was an exchange of gunfire between McKennie and at least one of the carjackers.”

Sounds like a hungry man only committed this property crime because he wanted to eat. He then was assaulted by the privileged car owner, and had to defend himself.
Car owner goes to jail for attempted murder, the carjacker gets to sue him too. After all, this is the progressive state of IL! Inner party Dems never get a free pass!

1 Like

Illinois again, something must be in the water.

And the poor kids named Damien…they’re destined for leadership positions.

Maybe declare yourself a Mandalorian and place a Baby Yoda on display?
Oh gosh, now I really want a 2A religious holiday.


I have to question the sincerity of these so-called Satanists, since (according to the article) they claim to be “unconquered by superstition.” I think they’re just mocking people who celebrate Christmas. But either way, they’d be covered by the 1st Amendment, correct?

So if I show up next year with a Krampus, do I fall in with the pro-Christmas displays or the Satanic display that rejects superstition? Dang, I might have to claim my own piece of the lawn.


Nothing beats guessing like doing. I say go for it!

1 Like

I agree with you Alexander8. Being “anti-religion” is not a religion. It was seemingly done to mock those who believe in a higher power. It’s also what our country was founded upon.
Those who think that “man made religion” have not read the Good Book. There’s too much in there for it to be fiction.
I would also mention that I’d rather err on the safe side of eternity, rather than spend it suffering in hell.

1 Like

@James1160 , while your faith may be true and genuine (only you know for certain), if someone accepts Pascal’s Wager and assumes the mantle of faith without true commitment simply to hedge their bets against the possibility of hell, well, do you think God is dumb enough to fall for that?

1 Like