Alaska officials walk out of session after Satanist Gives Invocation, ‘Hail Satan’

[PetraG]

Do I wish there existed a place where the Government was Catholic and both the reason and faith of the Church were enshrined? Sure.

That has had its problems, too. If we are free to practice our religion, spread the faith to all who will hear, and use our faith to inform our voting, it isn’t a terrible thing that Holy Mother Church has no direct control over the secular government that has jurisdiction over those who are both inside the Church and outside of it.

Right now, by my birth, I live in the US. Free speech and freedom of religion and freedom of the press are enshrined in law. I am not going to wish those freedoms away because I don’t like one religion or one newspaper or one book.

This. All day long. Besides, when governments go to war or make monetary policy or any of the many practical things they have the authority to do, it is better if our bishops are in a position to preach the Gospel, admonish sinners and speak the teachings of the Church with a clarity that does not need to pander to a human power structure.

 

[adgloriam]

but for the most part they are reactionary against religions who both espouse love for all persons and yet launch phrases like “their TRUE UGLY FACE” in their direction.

Sure, don’t say anything and let the manipulating predators continue preying on the weak without denouncing them. Saint JPII did say plenty on the subject, it’s a pity that more people aren’t aware of what he said.

and most of them don’t “hate” anybody.

I’ve seen a lot of hatred, and manipulation, empirically.

It also relieves us of making sweeping statements about the philosophical positions of some sect or other

Now the “Christian Science” guys (US homegrown) let their own children die of curable disease out of their beliefs. Sorry if I think Child Protection Services should step up in those instances. (Yes, the State does hold sway in those cases - just laws, right?! Or does religion grant the right of infanticide? How about the homeopaths that convince cancer patients to stop their cancer treatments and go for “faith healing” instead? And so forth…).

The sect members I’ve met (and it weren’t few) somehow found themselves socially isolated precisely because nobody would talk with them about it.

Since the contemporary catholic church doesn’t mostly comment on sects, the faithful laity find themselves isolated from the guiding church authority (which need be circumstantiate!!). The popes however, prudently, haven’t shied away from commenting in recent decades. When a pronouncement by a (the) bishop(s) is issued, it’s only when numerically the specific sect has become so representative that “making like an Ostrich” stopped being an option.

and yet launch phrases like “their TRUE UGLY FACE”

I’m saying those gurus and sect leaders need to be denounced!! How many cases in the last 5 years of sects infiltrating catholic Universities (and other catholic venues under the churches authority) to use that specific institutions name as a means to legitimize themselves - before their believers and society? It were not few…(If the Scientologists started teaching dianetic courses at Georgetown someone might take notice, but many other sects are being given a “carté blanche”. And I’m sorry if bringing this to people’s attention isn’t sufficiently obscurantist it the current climate.)

 

[PetraG]

Sure, don’t say anything and let the manipulating predators continue preying on the weak without denouncing them. Saint JPII did say plenty on the subject, it’s a pity that more people aren’t aware of what he said.

Remind me what he said.

Now the “Christian Science” guys (US homegrown) let their own children die of curable disease out of their beliefs. Sorry if I think Child Protection Services should step up in those instances. (Yes, the State does hold sway in those cases - just laws, right?! Or does religion grant the right of infanticide? How about the homeopaths that convince cancer patients to stop their cancer treatments and go for “faith healing” instead? And so forth…).

I think I said that actions and persons are two separate categories. We need to be very careful, however, lest we be forced to accept treatments that we find morally repugnant ourselves. What goes around, comes around.

The topic of this thread is someone making an outrageous “invocation” to make the point that invocations are in fact an expression of established religion. Of course they are. We Catholics have to remember that if we don’t defend the right to have particular beliefs that aren’t in keeping with what is “right,” there will be Christians coming after us as followers of Babylon. Our memories should not be so short!!

 

[adgloriam]

adgloriam:

(…) Saint JPII did say plenty on the subject (…)

Remind me what he said.

“I know well that the promotion of these sects and groups has strong economic support and that their preaching seduce the people with mirages, fools them with twisted simplifications and sows confusion, above all, among the most simple who have very little religious education”.

In a speech to a group of Brazilian bishops John Paul II spoke directly about the “serious problem of sects that are expanding like an oil spill, threatening to destroy the faith structure of many nations”.

In the encyclical Redemptoris Missio , the Pope even says that the sects pose a challenge to all Christian confessions because “the expansion of these sects represents a threat for the Catholic Church and for all the ecclesial communities with which she is engaged in dialogue”

Probably thinking about the attempts of “double membership” by Catholics, the Pope is categorical when asserting the following in his message about migrants: “The sects and new movements’ teachings oppose the Catholic Church’s doctrine; therefore, adhering to them means renouncing to the faith in which you were baptized and raised”.

in fact, the problem can be summed up as follows: “the weaknesses used by the new religious movements are instability and uncertainty. They offer attention and services to make emigrants abandon their faith and adhere to a new religious proposal. They present themselves as the only owners of the truth, they assert the falsity of the religion professed by the emigrant and they ask him to change abruptly and immediately. It is, obviously, a real moral aggression, from where it is difficult to flee in a polite way, since their ardor and insistence are oppressive”. In this context, the assessment of sects and their proselytism in the migrant is clearly negative, since “they get to him in a moment of deep unease in order to deceive and instrumentalize him”.

Source:

Sects in the teaching of John Paul II

Therefore, the critical discourse of the Catholic Church regarding the sects is not an attack on the freedom of religion, nor a “witch hunt”, but very specific references to proselytism, as a strategy of illegitimately attracting followers and separate from what is really religious.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[PetraG]

The civil and social right to religious freedom, inasmuch as it touches the most intimate sphere of the spirit, is a point of reference of the other fundamental rights and in some way becomes a measure of them. For it is a matter of respecting the individual’s most jealously guarded autonomy, thus making it possible to act according to the dictates of conscience both in private choices and in social life. The State cannot claim authority, direct or indirect, over a person’s religious convictions. It cannot arrogate to itself the right to impose or to impede the profession or public practice of religion by a person or a community. In this matter, it is the duty of civil authorities to ensure that the rights of individuals and communities are equally respected, and at the same time it is their duty to safeguard proper public order.

Even in cases where the State grants a special juridical position to a particular religion, there is a duty to ensure that the right to freedom of conscience is legally recognized and effectively respected for all citizens, and also for foreigners living in the country even temporarily for reasons of employment and the like.

In no case may the civil organization set itself up as the substitute for the conscience of the citizens, nor may it remove or take the place of the freedom of action of religious associations. A right social order requires that all - as individuals and in groups - should be able to profess their religious convictions with full respect for others .
Pope St. John Paul II, 21st World Day for Peace, 1988

 

[Frankenfurter]

These are actually atheists who use these types of occasions to try and have religion removed from the public sphere.

So basically they are proposing a choice: either you get rid of religion entirely OR you allow all religions including worship of Satan, and here it is for all to see.

This sort of binary choice is common to atheists way of thinking since they don’t see any one religion being any more true than another since they see them all as make believe. So they are lumping all religions into one. Even though in reality they are NOT Satanists by their own statements, and are just trying to use these occasions to have religion removed from the public sphere by forcing this binary choice on the government. How Satanists are using religious freedom to challenge Christianity - Catholic Herald

Note where they describe that they don’t believe in Satan.

I have confronted a few of these folks before and it seems that they really do consider themselves more a political cause - to have their government conform to their atheism or agnosticism. They are truly offended that there is some religious, and specifically Christian norms in government.

Of course, things are more nuanced. Our government in the U.S. was informed by religion. In God we Trust. On Nation under God.

Separation of church and state was proposed by the US founders to protect the church from being regulated by the government - to protect religion from being influenced by the the government. There is NO constitutional basis for preventing religion from informing or being displayed publicly in the government. It always has been.

Separation Of Church And State

Separation Of Church And State - Understand the concept of the Establishment Clause in the context of the time and the framers of the constitution.

www.allabouthistory.org

The goal of the ‘Satanists’ then, to remove religion from government and public life is NOT constitutional and that needs to be pointed out to them

If they argue that it makes them uncomfortable to have religion in the public, tell them politely that there is nothing in the constitution about not having to feel uncomfortable. We all do, but about different things. That is what makes us equal.

Oh, and stop pretending to be a religion if you say that you are not. You are just wasting everybody’s (the public’s) time and making yourself look like silly.

 

[Elf01]

So basically they are proposing a choice: either you get rid of religion entirely OR you allow all religions including worship of Satan, and here it is for all to see.

In the absence of a state religion they have a point.

It should be removed or replaced with a moment of silence.

 

[adgloriam]

and at the same time it is their duty to safeguard proper public order.

with full respect for others

You’ll notice this last one is a condition placed on the former. And the definition of the word respect is a lot more trickier than might seem. For example: a sect can claim there’s no incompatibility between them and catholic doctrine (dual M3mbership) - a blatant lie. In this case sacramental discipline is to be enforced by the church, otherwise the church itself disrespects its own faithful - not to mention they expose the faithful to falling pray to the sect.

But we could go on, regarding respect. You’d care to notice sects are the first to cry “respect” with the only intention of isolating their members from critical dialogue. So there’s more than one meaning to the word “respect” including the false and manipulative meanings.

BTW, saint JPII’s quotes I included are dated posterior to your quote, so, not(hing) withstanding, NIHIL OBSTAT.

(And yes, I do know the doctrine on freedom of conscience.)

 

[PetraG]

You’ll notice this last one is a condition placed on the former. And the definition of the word respect is a lot more trickier than might seem. For example: a sect can claim there’s no incompatibility between them and catholic doctrine (dual M3mbership) - a blatant lie. In this case sacramental discipline is to be enforced by the church, otherwise the church itself disrespects its own faithful - not to mention they expose the faithful to falling pray to the sect.

But we could go on, regarding respect. You’d care to notice sects are the first to cry “respect” with the only intention of isolating their members from critical dialogue. So there’s more than one meaning to the word “respect” including the false and manipulative meanings.

BTW, saint JPII’s quotes I included are dated posterior to your quote, so, not(hing) withstanding , NIHIL OBSTAT .

(And yes, I do know the doctrine on freedom of conscience.)

You’re making this a lot harder than it has to be.
The thread has nothing to do with dual membership.
It has nothing to do with sacramental discipline.
Our faith does not require that when we participate in secular government that we offer public invocations. It just doesn’t.
As for me, I’d rather not go through the dilution of faith required to offer public invocations that don’t offend either someone else’s faith or mine. When people of different faiths get together and everyone agrees beforehand, there can be enough common ground for something meaningful. In this case, the common ground isn’t there, and we ought not try to force it into existence.

 

[francisca.chapter3]

God give us freewill to choose even bad if we wills it. However, we as society has decided to forbid things we see as crime, immoral, indecent. In other words, we are free, and with that freedom, our humanity decide to choose good, if that makes sense.

So, whatever represent good preferable over whatever represent bad. And so lawmakers makes law which arguably good and able to uphold whatever is seen as good. Are we free to make laws to favor something known to be bad? Are we, under our human law, free to do bad things? No.

Religious freedom does not include religious positions that detrimental to human health, endangering the existance of a person, a community and even the whole humanity. If we allow parents to let die children of curable deseases or terrorist to bomb malls ( out of their religious believe), then that is chaotic freedom: the very things we try to cure our religious society from.

So religious freedom should include freedom of speech, but it does not include offensive phrases such as “blip blip blip” and “hail satan” as well

With the above argument, does it makes sense to ban satanism on the bases of satanism explicitly or implicitly include teachings that adversary of good values, the opposite of good?

 

[AlNg]

Replace it with a Hindu prayer then.

Hinduism is a respectable religion with a very long history.

 

[Elf01]

Hinduism is a respectable religion with a very long history.

I know. I chose a well established religion that I felt would be difficult to offer prayers that would be compatible with Christianity in to test if it was the perceived sincerity of the belief or disagreement that was the cause of the discomfort.

 

[francisca.chapter3]

Hinduism and other well established religions at least speak about good values. Although the ‘version’ of good are different for each religion, at least they desire good and seek for that good.

Satanism is adversarial to good. So it’s not about “different version or interpretation or opinion of what good is”. It is hard to include it into human society that-- despite imperfect-- seeks and inspired by good values

Freedom of speech does not mean anything goes. Example online bullying is excluded from freedom of speech, because our humanity has decided-- out of freewill-- that we prefer good over bad, and is seeking for peace and orderly living.

 

[PetraG]

Hinduism and other well established religions at least speak about good values. Although the ‘version’ of good are different for each religion, at least they desire good and seek for that good.

Satanism is adversarial to good. So it’s not about “different version or interpretation or opinion of what good is”. It is hard to include it into human society that-- despite imperfect-- seeks and inspired by good values

Freedom of speech does not mean anything goes. Example online bullying is excluded from freedom of speech, because our humanity has decided-- out of freewill-- that we prefer good over bad, and is seeking for peace and orderly living.

Are you suggesting the government ought to be in the business of deciding which invocations come from religions that have “good values” and which come from religions are “adversarial to good”?
Who gets to decide that? I mean, I don’t expect satanists to say, “oh, well, of course, we’re nasty people who don’t have anything praiseworthy about what we’re doing, so we totally get your objections…”

 

[adgloriam]

Are you suggesting the government ought to be in the business of deciding which invocations come from religions that have “good values” and which come from religions are “adversarial to good”?
Who gets to decide that?

You appreciate that in most of Europe fascist political parties are outlawed?

We could repeat: who’s to decide on “good values” and “adversarial to good”…

[After the US forces took control of the Japanese mainland a bunch of sect leaders were exiled…The examples go on, freedom isn’t as absolute as may seem, sects aren’t innocuous nor should they be exempt of public scrutiny as some would have us believe…A contemporary example would be the German government keeping close watch on an aforementioned sect of US origin.]

 

[PetraG]

You appreciate that in most of Europe fascist political parties are outlawed?

I appreciate that Alaska is part of the United States, not part of Europe.

After the US forces took control of the Japanese mainland a bunch of sect leaders were exiled…The examples go on, freedom isn’t as absolute as may seem, sects aren’t innocuous nor should they be exempt of public scrutiny as some would have us believe…A contemporary example would be the German government keeping close watch on an aforementioned sect of US origin.

Again, these are examples of people not protected by the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution.

 

[francisca.chapter3]

Well, words has meaning, don’t they?

Satan means adversarial to good.

Unless satanism refer to a man sitting on a high chair wearing scary mask on a halloween night.

“All hail satan” has meaning. It means “we worship the opposite of good” which is not inline with any order of humanity.

Example I say “i need to go to the bathroom”, then somebody suddenly give me a plate and a cup. Is it possible he misinterpret my sentence in that manner?

Hinduism express God’s qualities in the personification of each quality. So then they have many stories about many gods, in which those qualities may exist some/ partially in our One God revealed to us. Our church teach that other religions seek and desire the truth, but to us that truth has been revealed.

Satan is adversarial to whatever truth. In this the meaning is easy and simple: there is no truth in satanism

 

[francisca.chapter3]

I am suggesting satanism being ruled out not by “government interpreting religion”, rather by its own meaning, satanism is not even religion. It opposes religion.

 

[Finn]

A staggering number of Catholics in this thread seem prepared to rationalise, accept or outright support invoking Satan.

Is this truly where your faith & reason leads you?

 

[KMG]

It really is appalling how many Catholics appear quite fine with allowing a Satanist to give the invocation at a government meeting.

What if a religious movement developed that included belief in the efficacy of the ritual slaughter of children? (Satanism has, historically, supported this view). Or the sexual abuse of children? (Again, Satanism has, historically, endorsed this).

Or is all okay because “nice, moderate” Satanists don’t endorse such things?

Or is this all irrelevant to the intention of the Founding Fathers?