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

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
(Eph. 6:10 - 13) Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore take the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. “In the holy mass we are clothed with this armor of God” .The Spiritual and intellectual legacy of Pope Benedict by James Day
 
The Church of Satan and the Pastafarians etc are satiric organisations engaging in theatre to expose and ridicule the practices religions of involving others in their rituals and requiring lip-service to their gods. It is extraordinary that their actions are so misunderstood as illustrated in this thread.
 
GordonP said:
The government does not have the right to make that determination. They have to take a person’s statement of belief at face value, regardless of whether it is true or not.
Click to expand...
As far as US law goes, you have it exactly backwards.

Clear and settled USSC precedent is that the court may (and must) evaluate the sincerity of the belief, but cannot question the content.
 
FiveLinden said:
The Church of Satan and the Pastafarians etc are satiric organisations engaging in theatre to expose and ridicule the practices religions of involving others in their rituals and requiring lip-service to their gods. It is extraordinary that their actions are so misunderstood as illustrated in this thread.
Click to expand...
Yes, they are satiric organizations, not religions. So why are we required to treat them as religions?
 
dochawk said:
Clear and settled USSC precedent is that the court may (and must) evaluate the sincerity of the belief, but cannot question the content.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are correct. I looked that up after I wrote it.

However, sincerity is not at issue here as the woman sincerely believes in the tenets of the religion, which I listed above in post 27.
 
Goes totally against our Founding Fathers and that our country is based on Judeo / Christian beliefs. This group is not a religion no matter what they claim and if we forget our roots ----then tragically,maybe the USA will one day mean…under satans authority…may it never happen. Putting our history in the basement creates base lives.
 
Except that all she really did was say “Hail adversary”, because Satan isn’t the name of the Enemy.
 
Actions like hers push government bodies to eliminate invocations. But that is no good answer either, in that it only strengthens the establishment of the “religion of atheism” as the official religion. Atheism alone amongst all religious views enjoys and takes advantage of a gigantic loophole. By claiming to have no religion I can in fact successfully have the government increasingly enforce my religious views on others. We all have religious views, even atheists.
 
Last edited:
FiveLinden said:
The Church of Satan and the Pastafarians etc are satiric organisations engaging in theatre to expose and ridicule the practices religions of involving others in their rituals and requiring lip-service to their gods. It is extraordinary that their actions are so misunderstood as illustrated in this thread.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it is that sad that sarcasm is lost on some of its targets, particularly sarcasm aimed at their most cherished beliefs. I get the complaint of the non-religious, but I don’t really think that it is something to complain about when you tell someone who really believes that Satan exists that you are a Satan-worshiper and they believe you are a pawn of Satan. That should be foreseeable, I would think.

Having said that, I’d think their attitude is, “well, if you think I’m a pawn of Satan, that’s your issue. I am what I am, I’m tired of having to act as if I take you seriously and you’re going to have to live with that.”
GordonP said:
Almost. She was smacking religious believer with the realization that their invocations were irking those that don’t share their particular religious beliefs. Those irked might be atheists, or members of other religious groups. Or even Catholics like me who would feel creeped out if the invocation were given even by a Catholic priest. Sorry, but there is a time and a place, and during a government meeting is neither.
Click to expand...
Ironically, her invocation fell just as flat as theirs had, if not more so.
(Go figure. I’m thinking she saw that coming and was fine with that, though.)

It was as good a way as any to entirely get rid of religious invocations at government gatherings.
VeryBlessed said:
Actions like hers push government bodies to eliminate invocations. But that is no good answer either, in that it only strengthens the establishment of the “religion of atheism” as the official religion. Atheism alone amongst all religious views enjoys and takes advantage of a gigantic loophole. By claiming to have no religion I can in fact successfully have the government increasingly enforce my religious views on others. We all have religious views, even atheists.
Click to expand...
No, actually, I don’t think that having no invocation at all establishes a religion of atheism. Agreeing that there is no version of religon that can be watered down enough to represent everyone present and yet still deserve to be called a religious invocation is a reasonable solution.
 
Last edited:
Invocations before governmental meetings have been pretty common in the USA for the last several hundred years, even in Congress. It is only in recent years that objections to them have become common. Still, while generic Christianity seems to have been commonly acceptable as religious expression in the past, more recently atheism or secular humanism seems to be becoming the established religion.
 
Last edited:
If the tenets are the only religious body of work they have, I wouldn’t call it a religion. They don’t see to make any direct metaphysical claim but an indirect one through ethics/axiology (and one can even consider it “secular ethics” i.e. relativistic). In other words, it seems to speak about morals but not about any faith.

An ideology would be a better name to clasify legally this satanists.
 
Last edited:
Not if they identify that religion with evil and do not want to be in its presence.
 
Freedom of religion?

The freedom we derive from our rights also carries responsibilities.

For instance, a person can have the freedom to speak their mind, but they cannot harm another in so doing.

To me it sounds more like a case of deranged dereliction, a hate crime, or a waste of public resources.

Why?

In Hebrew, which is a dead language, the name “satan” itself means “adversarial” or “accusatory”, so there’s really no way to prevaricate the intention into anything worthy of legal and ethical public conduct. In the sense she is speaking, her whole effort is completely self-defeating; akin to something like 9/11.

However, I dont know how - other than to confess by the blood of Christ - Christianity converts satan’s accusations by absorbing them by the wood of the cross, and then turning the matter over to God, who created and controls satan entirely.

Thus, no matter how people try to bastardize the meaning of the original word and its intention; for those who could bear it, the utter patience of the Alaskan Court only demonstrates the goodness and grace of Christ’s loving and providential nature.

Chances are if someone posed a threat to the speaker in question, she would ultimately end up defending herself in the interest of self-preservation; or, in other words, she would end up suddenly very “pro-life”. On the other hand, Christ went so far as to demonstrate His love for us by dying for our sins, and He rose again when He overcame the world. There’s really no adversary or contest here, since Christ offers no resistance to it.

But woe to the son of destruction… for anyone who misleads one of Christ’s little ones… it would be better he were drowned with a great millstone around his neck…

Those words came from the author of all Creation - just before He was crucified in a baptism by fire…

Something created has a sense of life and worth to it; something destroyed is essentially worthless.

The enormous difference is - when Jesus renewed creation - it was actually worthy of redemption… worthy of life…

The sad part is - some people just dont get it…
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top