I'm serious. Someone burned down a temple in Buckeye, Arizona. TSK TSK judgmental fear mongers did not go for this at all.
Is this like really bad timing ?
Hello t:
Are there any Christian after school programs?? If so, devil worshipers ain't no different.
excon
Uh, well, we need more good, not more evil.
There is nothing judgemental about this. They deserve what they get.
Their usual M.O. is to deny they are evil and claim it's just philosophy that has nothing to do with the Judeo-Christian devil. Well, it doesn't take a PR genius to realise that naming yourself after the source of all evil might make people think you're the source of all evil. If they call themselves that, they deserve to be treated as if they are that.
I'm willing to tolerate them. By tolerate, I mean I let them live not respect them as a religion equal to others. They have no place in society. They should be ostracised. They can go underground as such cockroaches have always done.
The liberal left has taken non discrimination to a religious level. If you can't see these people are subversives who must be suppressed, then you're just a walking example of why society will continue to disintegrate.
Schwwwwwwwwwoooo. I was hoping someone would decide what is right for me.
So if the KKK decide they are a religion that worships the racial purity of their ancestors, are you going to let them go into schools and spread their message?
Why are you so obsessed with egalitarianism even when if has obvious negative effects?
If you want to be a Satanist, you are free to do so. No one has decided anything for YOU.
People do decide what is best for society all the time. This is the function of government. This is the duty of all citizens. If we're going to have public education, society has to decide what to fill young people's heads with.
Hello again, AS:
Here again, you show your disdain for our Constitution.. IF the stinkin government is gonna let Scientology be a religion, then ANYTHING can be a religion.. That's the law, whether you like it or not..
excon
The Constitution doesn't apply.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
The establishment clause is just meant to prohibit establishing an official religion. Your interpretation could be used to justify absolutely anything under the guise of religion.
In my view religious instruction shouldn't be in school at all. Though if it is present, it should be mainstream religions only.
Public education is geared to the public good. Anything deemed to be against the public good, shouldn't be there.
Repeating a caricature of my argument is not a counter argument. You are simply evading my question. Would you tolerate worship of the white race in public schools?
Glad you know "best".
"Thanks".
The world is built by people who think they know best. To think anything else in life is to be just a mindless follower and spectator.
If you buy into this egalitarian nonsense, you think you know better than I do. So don't pretend to be humble in your opinions.
Hello AS:
We don't differ in thinking that we know what's right.. The difference is that you want YOUR belief to be encoded into LAW.. That would make you a mindless authoritarian..
excon
No law is necessary, just common sense. Establishing appropriate school curriculum can be done by local executive authority in consultation with parents.
It is your egalitarian insanity that depends on an appeal to law. It is you that wish to use law to compel equal treatment on everything imaginable, in violation of what the vast majority of parents actually want.
I wish to let the chips fall where they may. Without the federal government to be their muscle the cockroaches will have no choice but to scuttle back into the shadows.
Hello again, AS:
As a small government liberal, I agree with you. I'm a believer in letting chips fall, as long as they fall CONSTITUTIONALLY.. I LOVE common sense, as long as it's CONSTITUTIONAL common sense. Local authority AND parents ARE free to make school policy and curriculum, as long as it meets Constitutional muster. That's why we HAVE a Constitution..
Yes, my egalitarian insanity, or Americanism as I like to call it, DOES depend on the Constitution.. That's why we HAVE a Constitution... I thought right wingers LOVED the Constitution.. No, huh?
excon
Hilariously silly.
Especially when the 'Satanic Temple' clearly states they believe in no religion. I wonder if that could become a 'thing'?
first off, there is such a thing as 'religious' freedom here, I think........and also, if this group wants to have classes, etc, let them do it in their OWN buildings, not the school......and this goes double for all the churchgoers out there who think PUBLIC SCHOOLS should have bible study.
Tell the damn churches - and Satanic temples - to open their doors to these kids..........ok???????????
JEEZE!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, that is their point. I am just saying, ex, PICTURE that happening. Oh right.
Satanism does not have to do with "evil".
If you believe that constitutional law applies in this case, you should call for secular public schools.
To even consider letting those subversives near children, out of some sense of fairness, is complete madness.
Three Devil-worshippers walk into a desecrated church ― stop me if you’ve heard this one. They light candles, burn incense, and, much to their surprise, they successfully summon Satan! When they bow down to worship His Infernal Majesty, He says, “Haven’t I taught you anything?!”.
Satanism is not Devil-worship. No matter how often we restate this, misunderstandings persist.
But that’s no surprise.
Anton Szandor LaVey codified this religious philosophy under a name that, while accurate, had hitherto been used almost exclusively as a religio-political slur against assorted heretics, freethinkers, and pagans.
This nomenclature has parallels to the term “Impressionism,” which was first used as an insult against a pioneering approach to painting in the late 19th century. Since it was basically accurate, this pejorative was adopted as the most suitable name for a movement that eventually became “respectable.”
But Satanism is far more controversial than the pastel Luciferianism of the Impressionists, and the history of slander against it spans millennia.
And yet, with the founding of the Church of Satan in 1966, Satanism transubstantiated from a scandalous accusation into an unconventional means of self-realization.
In The Satanic Bible, LaVey rhetorically asks whether Devil-worshippers are “practicing Satanism in its truest sense.” He points out that previous definitions of Satanism were merely Christian propaganda, whereas he is expressing “Satanic thought from a truly Satanic point of view.”
Unlike its theoretical caricature, genuine Satanism evolved from atheism. After all, the mythological Satan doesn’t worship any gods above Himself. Neither do we. Every Satanist is his or her own god. You can’t get more Satanic than that!
LaVey’s unprecedented formulation organically integrates the full spectrum of the Satanic, from traditional ritual trappings to literary predecessors to previously unidentified strains of cultural resonance.
With LaVey came the first definition of Satanism that is truly Satanic, through and through. It is a comprehensively sound work of conceptual architecture. Each and every element is integral to all the others. Even so, the resulting structure allows for infinitely varied elaboration in accordance with the idiosyncratic passions of each individual Satanist.
Satanism is not a faith, but an augmentation
Three Devil-worshippers walk into a desecrated church ― stop me if you’ve heard this one. They light candles, burn incense, and, much to their surprise, they successfully summon Satan! When they bow down to worship His Infernal Majesty, He says, “Haven’t I taught you anything?!”.
Satanism is not Devil-worship. No matter how often we restate this, misunderstandings persist.
But that’s no surprise.
Anton Szandor LaVey codified this religious philosophy under a name that, while accurate, had hitherto been used almost exclusively as a religio-political slur against assorted heretics, freethinkers, and pagans.
This nomenclature has parallels to the term “Impressionism,” which was first used as an insult against a pioneering approach to painting in the late 19th century. Since it was basically accurate, this pejorative was adopted as the most suitable name for a movement that eventually became “respectable.”
But Satanism is far more controversial than the pastel Luciferianism of the Impressionists, and the history of slander against it spans millennia.
And yet, with the founding of the Church of Satan in 1966, Satanism transubstantiated from a scandalous accusation into an unconventional means of self-realization.
In The Satanic Bible, LaVey rhetorically asks whether Devil-worshippers are “practicing Satanism in its truest sense.” He points out that previous definitions of Satanism were merely Christian propaganda, whereas he is expressing “Satanic thought from a truly Satanic point of view.”
Unlike its theoretical caricature, genuine Satanism evolved from atheism. After all, the mythological Satan doesn’t worship any gods above Himself. Neither do we. Every Satanist is his or her own god. You can’t get more Satanic than that!
LaVey’s unprecedented formulation organically integrates the full spectrum of the Satanic, from traditional ritual trappings to literary predecessors to previously unidentified strains of cultural resonance.
With LaVey came the first definition of Satanism that is truly Satanic, through and through. It is a comprehensively sound work of conceptual architecture. Each and every element is integral to all the others. Even so, the resulting structure allows for infinitely varied elaboration in accordance with the idiosyncratic passions of each individual Satanist.
Satanism is not a faith, but an augmentation
Hello t:
Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom for a few.. If it only meant SOME, it wouldn't be free, would it?
excon
Three Devil-worshippers walk into a desecrated church ― stop me if you’ve heard this one. They light candles, burn incense, and, much to their surprise, they successfully summon Satan! When they bow down to worship His Infernal Majesty, He says, “Haven’t I taught you anything?!”.
Satanism is not Devil-worship. No matter how often we restate this, misunderstandings persist.
But that’s no surprise.
Anton Szandor LaVey codified this religious philosophy under a name that, while accurate, had hitherto been used almost exclusively as a religio-political slur against assorted heretics, freethinkers, and pagans.
This nomenclature has parallels to the term “Impressionism,” which was first used as an insult against a pioneering approach to painting in the late 19th century. Since it was basically accurate, this pejorative was adopted as the most suitable name for a movement that eventually became “respectable.”
But Satanism is far more controversial than the pastel Luciferianism of the Impressionists, and the history of slander against it spans millennia.
And yet, with the founding of the Church of Satan in 1966, Satanism transubstantiated from a scandalous accusation into an unconventional means of self-realization.
In The Satanic Bible, LaVey rhetorically asks whether Devil-worshippers are “practicing Satanism in its truest sense.” He points out that previous definitions of Satanism were merely Christian propaganda, whereas he is expressing “Satanic thought from a truly Satanic point of view.”
Unlike its theoretical caricature, genuine Satanism evolved from atheism. After all, the mythological Satan doesn’t worship any gods above Himself. Neither do we. Every Satanist is his or her own god. You can’t get more Satanic than that!
LaVey’s unprecedented formulation organically integrates the full spectrum of the Satanic, from traditional ritual trappings to literary predecessors to previously unidentified strains of cultural resonance.
With LaVey came the first definition of Satanism that is truly Satanic, through and through. It is a comprehensively sound work of conceptual architecture. Each and every element is integral to all the others. Even so, the resulting structure allows for infinitely varied elaboration in accordance with the idiosyncratic passions of each individual Satanist.
Satanism is not a faith, but an augmentation
Three Devil-worshippers walk into a desecrated church ― stop me if you’ve heard this one. They light candles, burn incense, and, much to their surprise, they successfully summon Satan! When they bow down to worship His Infernal Majesty, He says, “Haven’t I taught you anything?!”.
Satanism is not Devil-worship. No matter how often we restate this, misunderstandings persist.
But that’s no surprise.
Anton Szandor LaVey codified this religious philosophy under a name that, while accurate, had hitherto been used almost exclusively as a religio-political slur against assorted heretics, freethinkers, and pagans.
This nomenclature has parallels to the term “Impressionism,” which was first used as an insult against a pioneering approach to painting in the late 19th century. Since it was basically accurate, this pejorative was adopted as the most suitable name for a movement that eventually became “respectable.”
But Satanism is far more controversial than the pastel Luciferianism of the Impressionists, and the history of slander against it spans millennia.
And yet, with the founding of the Church of Satan in 1966, Satanism transubstantiated from a scandalous accusation into an unconventional means of self-realization.
In The Satanic Bible, LaVey rhetorically asks whether Devil-worshippers are “practicing Satanism in its truest sense.” He points out that previous definitions of Satanism were merely Christian propaganda, whereas he is expressing “Satanic thought from a truly Satanic point of view.”
Unlike its theoretical caricature, genuine Satanism evolved from atheism. After all, the mythological Satan doesn’t worship any gods above Himself. Neither do we. Every Satanist is his or her own god. You can’t get more Satanic than that!
LaVey’s unprecedented formulation organically integrates the full spectrum of the Satanic, from traditional ritual trappings to literary predecessors to previously unidentified strains of cultural resonance.
With LaVey came the first definition of Satanism that is truly Satanic, through and through. It is a comprehensively sound work of conceptual architecture. Each and every element is integral to all the others. Even so, the resulting structure allows for infinitely varied elaboration in accordance with the idiosyncratic passions of each individual Satanist.
Satanism is not a faith, but an augmentation
