• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Atheist vows to affix Satanic symbols next to Nativity and Menorah if displays stay in public park

AGXStarseed

Well-Known Member
(Not written by me)


There are around 13,000 people in Claremont, New Hampshire, who may soon bear witness to a most unholy display. And it’s all courtesy of one of its God-denying denizens who remains offended by the city's unwillingness to boot a nativity scene and a menorah out of a public park.

Last week, Sam Killay, a local 36-year-old atheist, made an ultimatum to his city: Either move the Christmas and Hanukkah objects out of Broad Street Park to private land, or he will prop up a display of his own...one that hails the devil.

“People here would lose their minds over the sight of an inverted cross on that city park,” Killay declared in a statement he read during a city council meeting held last week. “But look at it from my perspective, and any argument that you could make for the presence of religious displays is one that I could make for the inclusion of an upside-down cross.

“That being so, far better that the city just remove itself from the whole discussion by not choosing to display partisan symbols of any kind.”

Killay, who works with disabled adults, has called Claremont home for seven years. And in that time, he’s become frustrated over the tradition of lighting up the public park and annually playing favorites to just two religious symbols.

broad-street-park-claremont-new-hampshire.png

If the city council doesn't move the Christmas and Hanukkah objects out of Broad Street Park, Sam Killay said he would prop up a pentagram or a Petrine Cross.

“The display sits on a prominent site at one of the busiest intersections in the city, directly across from City Hall and directly beside our monuments to the casualties of a World War and the Civil War,” Killay wrote in a letter to the City Council last year. “That looks very much to me like a spot of honor. It looks like the city is favoring two specific religions over all others (or none).”

And last year Killay, who told Newsweek he grew up in a rigorous Pentecostal household in Rhode Island, was determined to prove that he and other believers or disbelievers existed.

When he took his case to Claremont's city manager, he tried to see if they would simply move the displays directly across the street. "One of them is an active church that's been around for more than 100 years," he said. "The other is a defunct church, and the city used to own it... I'm not trying to be unreasonable."

But since his overtures failed to get any action, and the menorah and holy figures went into storage, he decided to wait until just before Thanksgiving to again appeal to city officials during meetings.

“We’re not all Christians or Jews,” he said he informed the City Council during last week's meeting in a speech reviewed by Newsweek. “I’m an atheist.

“In my years here, I’ve met a couple people like myself. I’ve also met Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and even a couple of Wiccans. We are not the majority, but we all live here and pay our taxes just like everybody else. I don’t see the city offering any acknowledgments [for] the rest of us. I only see two religions being treated with a privileged status, To my mind, that looks a lot like special treatment. It looks like the City of Claremont displaying an improper religious bias.”

To Killay, each religious item arranged by Claremont during the holiday season is a personal affront to him as an American who believes church and state should be separated.

“There are lights for the taller trees, ribbons and candy canes for the shorter ones—generic holiday stuff,” he wrote in a letter that was published in The Eagle Times last year. “But then, every single year, there's also a grubby Nativity display, always prominently placed, as well as a smaller menorah sculpture, usually somewhere off to one side. And after years of wondering, I have to ask aloud, what is EITHER of those religious pieces doing on civic (that is, public) property?”

What’s more, he considers the nativity scene a gift that should be returned to its rightful owner.

“I don’t know the origins of the menorah, but I understand that the Nativity was donated to the city as a gift from the Boy Scouts,” he later said to the city council. “But it’s still not appropriate. Even though it was offered, it’s not a gift that should ever have been accepted, never mind stored, maintained, and displayed with public funding all these years.”

Killay suggested they move them away to “receptive religious organizations.” Failing that, he could live with them so long as landed somewhere out of sight and mind.

“But I would also be satisfied if the city retained ownership of the displays but found host sites to display them elsewhere,” he said.

Killay considered propping up an atheist atomic whirl symbol, but then decided against it because he said he needed something "that is actually going to get attention."

Channeling Satan seems to be Killay’s only remedy.

Killay said he would prop up either a pentagram or a Petrine Cross (an inverted cross) to plead his case.

“It’s going to piss a lot of people off,” Killay said in an interview with The Manchester Union Leader.

In terms of specs on constructing the pentagram or cross, Killay's remained mum.

"I have a couple of ideas, but I'm not going to tip my hand on that one."

While Killay doesn't consider himself a Satanist, he said much of the belief system made sense to him.

"I actually can say I do agree with the philosophy in Satanism as laid out in Satanic Bible," referring to the late-'60s compendium of essays.

And Killay "proudly" had a version of the Petrine Cross tattooed on his back.

"It looks like broadsword, from a medieval sort, and it cuts into the skin," he said. "It carries a great meaning for me."

Newsweek’s attempts to reach Claremont’s mayor and assistant mayors were unsuccessful.

So far, it appears the displays haven’t been taken down or moved.

Assistant Mayor Allen Damren told the paper that he had considered Killay’s arguments, which supposedly have been endorsed by other residents as well. But the leader hasn’t yet decided how to proceed.

For Damren, the fuss over the holiday displays seems to be overwrought. “Personally, I don’t have an issue with [the current displays],” he said.


Source: Atheist vows to affix Satanic symbols next to Nativity and menorah if displays stay put in public park
 
This guy sounds foolish, to me.

Just trying to be edgy and get a rise out of people.
 
Ironically enough, the inverted cross has been a Christian symbol for hundreds of years, associated with St. Peter. As an atheist, I think he's being disrespectful though. Let people be people and put up what they want, the whole "being offended for the sake of being offended" movement that we're seeing is going slightly too far. It's ok to ask questions and try to present the case for trying to be inclusive in a peaceful way, however, tearing everything down, creating havoc and INTENTIONALLY offending people isn't right.
 
Last edited:
Satanism involves another belief system involving a deity. Atheism is the absence of such a belief system. This alleged atheist sounds uh.....confused. :rolleyes:

But then this person exists in a body politic that constitutionally allows for freedom of religion, but not necessarily freedom from religion. There is a difference.

IMO if he's serious about this, his fight should be on Capitol Hill and not with Nativity scenes in public parks. Though much of anyone seeking any kind of change to their First Amendment freedoms is looking for the political fight of their life. Something a bit more involved than suggesting confusing gestures that miss their mark.
 
Last edited:
Satanism involves another belief system involving a deity. Atheism is the absence of such a belief system. This alleged atheist sounds uh.....confused.
It depends which 'Satanism' you refer to. There is the more traditional Satanism which (probably) does worship Satan. But, the more modern (LaVeyan) Satanism founded in the 1960's rejects the existence of supernatural beings and instead focuses on materialism, self-improvement and individualism. I have his book somewhere, it was an interesting read. :)
 
It depends which 'Satanism' you refer to.

I think it ultimately depends on which "Satan" he refers to. He's the one making this empty gesture. Not me. ;)

It would be far more to the point if instead he chose to simply stand at the location of such a Nativity scene and hold a sign citing his disbelief in any deity. Without any need to qualify- or confuse his own point of view.

Especially if he were to legally secure his protest with local authorities. Whether he is granted authorization or not. And if they turn him down, he'd get far more publicity in the process. To manipulate not only local government, but the media as well. Not to mention his constitutional rights of free speech and assembly.

Though it would be amusing to me if he otherwise drew a crowd of atheists and satanists at the park who get into a spirited argument with each other over such distinctions. That could be priceless. :p
 
Last edited:
or he will prop up a display of his own...one that hails the devil.

I'm not religious but I'm not an atheist either. It is my understanding that the elevation of any personified spiritual being, whether one is considered evil or good, is in itself a recognition as such as a deity or god. It is also my understanding that "atheism" is the denial of "any" god. I'm not revealing this out of any disrespect to anyone but the guy mentioned in the above news article is a bit confused and is just stating some controversy.

Do I believe in God? The humanistic delineating view in conjunction with all the diverse cultures’ abstract conjectures inclusively, portray the philosophical concept of a deity as a manipulating and controlling force personified. The term God is an all-inclusive generalization of that concept. Philosophically speaking and simply implied, I would rather convey my personal cognitive reasoning toward a supernatural attribute as merely a “creative consciousness”. The elementary deictic implying a God having supernatural properties “personified” lends credence to the belief of materialistic ownership negating a creative essence. Do I believe in God – no. Do I believe in a “supreme creative consciousness” – yes!
 
It is also my understanding that "atheism" is the denial of "any" god
Pretty much so,
Atheism is literally translated as "no god belief" so it means someone who lacks belief in a deity or deities but includes those who actively deny.
I think he perhaps is thinking in crude mathematical terms. God (+1) combined with Satan (-1) equals atheism. +1 + (-1) = 0
 
Last edited:
This isn't really about theology. "The war on Christmas" is now an annual story on the media whose primary purpose seems to be to give us things to be upset about. So they find an idiot like this one, and try to make it sound like there's a whole movement.
 
So they find an idiot like this one, and try to make it sound like there's a whole movement.

Good point. The media doesn't inform anyone any more. It only seeks to evoke guttural reactions.

The very idea of an atheist "movement" seems a bit preposterous. Much like the non-partisan, anti-unicorn league. That the most sincere atheists never argue their point of view, for the most basic of reasons.

If you have a sincere belief that something does not exist, it seems logical not to waste time or effort in aggressively disputing what does not exist in the first place.
 
Most atheists don't argue the point for that exact reason. Why bother? The same applies to most people of faith, however it's the tiny but vocal minority who spoil it for everyone else.
 
For many atheists, annual nativities, and the recounting of other religious stories--- especially those that "illustrate" supernatural or "divine" intervention--- equate to indoctrination.
For many, that "divine" intervention is out of step with logic, and sidesteps entirely the responsibility of humankind to solve it's own problems.
Why should humankind fix anything that it has "broken", if (any number of) God(s) can do it "in the wink of an eye"?
Shouldn't an "all-loving god" wish to save humankind from itself?
Isn't that the very purpose of the nativity story, that God sent his son to save us?
Surely any problem facing us isn't really a problem, considering that we're being carefully watched over.

Many atheists and agnostics, as well as followers of less mainstream religions, seek to eliminate anything resembling this "indoctrination", seeing the way forward, and to progress, in the realm of scientific literacy.
They view any escape from responsibility as deleterious.
Indeed, overwhelmingly, they view this "escape from responsibility" as being the primary cause of the many difficulties that humankind now faces.
To them, we never did take responsibility for our actions, because we didn't have to.
Viewed in this light, it is not difficult to understand the resistance, and sometimes hatred, for what would seem on the surface a kind, compassionate, reassuringly warm story of paternal care and guidance.

To this group, such stories are simply a hindrance, a detractor from this, and successive generation's ability to rise to the challenges facing us as a species, and the destruction that we have wrought, and are currently wreaking on the planet and ourselves.

And so, while it would seem that such squabbles are petty, mean, and superficial,
sometimes on both sides, there are those who view them as deeply relevant to our
place in the universe, and the moral and ethical standing thereof.
 
Most atheists don't argue the point for that exact reason. Why bother? The same applies to most people of faith, however it's the tiny but vocal minority who spoil it for everyone else.

Indeed, just the loony left Guardian readers who get all upset about everything on behalf of people they think should be upset.
 
I'm not religious but I'm not an atheist either. It is my understanding that the elevation of any personified spiritual being, whether one is considered evil or good, is in itself a recognition as such as a deity or god. It is also my understanding that "atheism" is the denial of "any" god. I'm not revealing this out of any disrespect to anyone but the guy mentioned in the above news article is a bit confused and is just stating some controversy.

denial
/dɪˈnʌɪ(ə)l/
noun
noun: denial
  1. the action of denying something.
    "she shook her head in denial"
    synonyms: contradiction, counterstatement, refutation, rebuttal, repudiation, disclaimer, retraction, abjuration; More

    antonyms: confirmation
    • a statement that something is not true.
      plural noun: denials
      "his pious denials of responsibility"
      synonyms: contradiction, counterstatement, refutation, rebuttal, repudiation, disclaimer, retraction, abjuration; More


      antonyms: confirmation
    • the refusal of something requested or desired.
      "the denial of insurance to people with certain medical conditions"
      synonyms: refusal, withholding, withdrawal; More

      antonyms: acceptance
    • refusal to acknowledge an unacceptable truth or emotion or to admit it into consciousness, used as a defence mechanism.
      "I was an addict in denial"
    • short for self-denial.
    • refusal to acknowledge someone as one's leader.
Whilst this is a bit of a nitpick, I would say that denial is not the most accurate of words because of its connotations. There are a few possible uses of the word, one which simply means to provide a counter statement or argument. However, there is one definition that describes denial as the refusal to accept unacceptable truths (often as a defense mechanism).

Due to this, I think that does not believe would be a more accurate and less biased term. With the word denial there is the possible implication that there is a God and this is a definite truth, but atheists refuse to accept this. In the five stages of grief (which typically applies to coping with death and loss, but can apply in other situations), the first is denial in the refusing to admit the truth sense. The person going through these stages refuses to admit that the person they are grieving is gone.

Five Stages of Grief by Elisabeth Kubler Ross & David Kessler

Anecdotally, I often hear this definition used more in my everyday experiences. Just to clarify, the above statement about it being a definite truth does not reflect my own beliefs. That was simply to show how it may unknowingly come across that way to a reader due to denial's connotations. I'm actually an atheist. However, I wouldn't go around drawing Satanic symbols everywhere. I quite like Christmas, (whilst I don't believe in the religious themes associated with it, I still find it an enjoyable experience) although I'll admit that I always found Nativities a bit of a chore to perform in at school. Which is understandable, considering the fact that the only parts I ever got were either the donkey or a random sheep. :D
 
Last edited:
For many atheists, annual nativities, and the recounting of other religious stories--- especially those that "illustrate" supernatural or "divine" intervention--- equate to indoctrination.
For many, that "divine" intervention is out of step with logic, and sidesteps entirely the responsibility of humankind to solve it's own problems.
Why should humankind fix anything that it has "broken", if (any number of) God(s) can do it "in the wink of an eye"?
Shouldn't an "all-loving god" wish to save humankind from itself?
Isn't that the very purpose of the nativity story, that God sent his son to save us?
Surely any problem facing us isn't really a problem, considering that we're being carefully watched over.

Many atheists and agnostics, as well as followers of less mainstream religions, seek to eliminate anything resembling this "indoctrination", seeing the way forward, and to progress, in the realm of scientific literacy.
They view any escape from responsibility as deleterious.
Indeed, overwhelmingly, they view this "escape from responsibility" as being the primary cause of the many difficulties that humankind now faces.
To them, we never did take responsibility for our actions, because we didn't have to.
Viewed in this light, it is not difficult to understand the resistance, and sometimes hatred, for what would seem on the surface a kind, compassionate, reassuringly warm story of paternal care and guidance.

To this group, such stories are simply a hindrance, a detractor from this, and successive generation's ability to rise to the challenges facing us as a species, and the destruction that we have wrought, and are currently wreaking on the planet and ourselves.

And so, while it would seem that such squabbles are petty, mean, and superficial,
sometimes on both sides, there are those who view them as deeply relevant to our
place in the universe, and the moral and ethical standing thereof.

Whilst I agree that much of what you say in that post rings true, I still believe that such attitudes are short sighted and counter productive.
Individuals who see indoctrination everywhere are (IMO) suffering from a variety of paranoia. Yes it exists sometimes within the activities they criticise but they rarely stop to find out.
To give an illustration. I was involved in a Nativity play (I was a shepherd) when I was four years old. It was just a story to me. This was the early seventies, but even then the organisers described the story as being the Christian story of the origin of Christmas. What they did not do was try to convince us that it was literal truth. This was in a Methodist church where I attended Sunday School at the time. My parents said it was to allow me the choice to believe or not, but I think it was more about giving them a couple of hours of "private time" on a Sunday morning.
So I was in a Christian church and they were telling me it was a story, not literal truth. They left it open to interpretation. That was not indoctrination.
A couple of years later in infant school I was invited to be Joseph in their Nativity and I refused. Why? Because my teachers were telling me that it was literal truth. We were forced to pray and sing hymns even if we were atheist or of a different faith. There was a Hindu and a Moslem kid who were punished for not wanting to pray or sing. I was thrown out of the recorder group for wanting us to play classical tunes occasionally instead of hymns. In a school. That was indoctrination. That was authority figures forcing their beliefs on me. The church was more tolerant and open minded than the school.
The problem I see is that fundamentalists, whether religious or atheist, see indoctrination everywhere they look. I went to a church that respected choice and a state school that didn't. Educating people about the beliefs and traditions of a belief system is not necessarily an attempt to change the belief systems of anyone, child or adult.
Indoctrination exists, but it is wise to wait for it to present itself rather than accuse the innocent.
 
Whilst I agree that much of what you say in that post rings true, I still believe that such attitudes are short sighted and counter productive.
Individuals who see indoctrination everywhere are (IMO) suffering from a variety of paranoia. Yes it exists sometimes within the activities they criticise but they rarely stop to find out.
To give an illustration. I was involved in a Nativity play (I was a shepherd) when I was four years old. It was just a story to me. This was the early seventies, but even then the organisers described the story as being the Christian story of the origin of Christmas. What they did not do was try to convince us that it was literal truth. This was in a Methodist church where I attended Sunday School at the time. My parents said it was to allow me the choice to believe or not, but I think it was more about giving them a couple of hours of "private time" on a Sunday morning.
So I was in a Christian church and they were telling me it was a story, not literal truth. They left it open to interpretation. That was not indoctrination.
A couple of years later in infant school I was invited to be Joseph in their Nativity and I refused. Why? Because my teachers were telling me that it was literal truth. We were forced to pray and sing hymns even if we were atheist or of a different faith. There was a Hindu and a Moslem kid who were punished for not wanting to pray or sing. I was thrown out of the recorder group for wanting us to play classical tunes occasionally instead of hymns. In a school. That was indoctrination. That was authority figures forcing their beliefs on me. The church was more tolerant and open minded than the school.
The problem I see is that fundamentalists, whether religious or atheist, see indoctrination everywhere they look. I went to a church that respected choice and a state school that didn't. Educating people about the beliefs and traditions of a belief system is not necessarily an attempt to change the belief systems of anyone, child or adult.
Indoctrination exists, but it is wise to wait for it to present itself rather than accuse the innocent.
Agreed, entirely.

I must say, that even though I like aspects of the nativity, I would feel much better about it if those that were told that it was "fact", were also taught that as honorable, responsible humans, we should shepherd ourselves as we would like "the creator" to shepherd us.
That we would shepherd "his creation".
That this teaching would accompany even the teaching of this "fact".
There seems to be far too much short sightedness prevalent today, to relinquish any degree of control by which we are able to steward, even the "creation" of, the world that we inhabit, and the rapidly expanding circle of influence of ours that grows beyond it.
I try my most fervently not to be that "fundamentalist" that you speak of, but my hopes are growing dim that we may even be able to forestall "apocalypse".

It seems that as human beings, we are wont to test the boundaries even of our own greed and destruction against that of any "saving grace".
I truly hope that we can continue to curry the favor of "he who we rely on" for our continued existence.
We have, after all, mocked his "ultimate creation".

May you all be well.

sidd
 

New Threads

Top Bottom