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

[Wm777]

Correction: A simple google search makes it commonly understood Hebrew in its ancient form is a dead language.

Extinct Languages and Dead Languages - Language Direct

Contact Language Direct for help with Extint Languages . We have been doing this for the last 19 years all over the United Kingdom.

www.languagedirect.org

Argue it all you want, but you’re not going to be able change the name of an angel who God Himself named (originally Lucifer, and then later satan).

You’d probably have to spend an eternity in Hell trying to justify anything else.

But I dont think you or Ms Fontana really want to go that route…

I certainly dont, so I’ll just let be what common sense indicates.

People who have eye should see.

 

[jack63]

When I read this stuff, I wonder if there is a better response. The walk out sort of comes across as a fight over a comic book character. “I thought Luci was solving murders in LA while with Chloe Decker…right?!” That is my fear of what these walk out responses do. They trivializes things, and they make it a joke.

Perhaps a better response would be to have an articulate Catholic in there to explain their beliefs. Somebody who would try to explain what evil is and why it shouldn’t be trivialized.

 

[Zaccheus]

By walking out, the borough officials basically said that it is fine for the government to say that their religion is acceptable, and another religion is not.

The worship of the Evil One is not acceptable. Nor is this in any way a matter of fighting religious discrimination.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

That is my fear of what these walk out responses do. They trivializes things, and they make it a joke

It’s not a joke. Walking out is a traditional and polite/accepted way for legislators to express disagreement with what is being said by someone who has the right to say it. As someone else said, walking out is a form of protected speech. It is what I would have done if I were a lawmaker and a Satanist was praying, or someone was invoking Baal, or whatever. Arguing with an invocation that someone legally has a right to make is inappropriate. Walking out is permissible, appropriate and sends the proper message. Why would you think it is a joke? Someone else thinks the legislators should be forced to sit respectfully through it which would be a limitation on their free speech. I really don’t think people on this forum understand freedom of speech very well.

 

[jack63]

Hi Bear!..thanks for the response. I think I understand freedom of speech. Sometimes I walk out of situation literally or figuratively when I don’t have a voice. This can be very effective. However, when I have a voice, my style is to confront . In this situation, I would have thought some of those people who had a voice cold have used it and stated their fundamental disagreements with belief system of this group rather than walking out. Otherwise, it comes across like they are walking out because a group decided to hail a comic book character.

I think the group would not be back if people gave persuasive arguments against their belief system.

 

[CapitalistCatholic]

I would have given an invocation of my own directly after, and just for the fun of it, recited the entire Rosary, all mysteries included!

 

[VeryBlessed]

Back in post 27 where her “church” tenets are outlined, the last tenet says actions should be done in a spirit of nobility, and that “The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word”. But the another tenet further up enshrines “the freedom to offend”. Can you intentionally offend the deepest held beliefs of another and somehow call it noble or compassionate? It seems to me that in this invocation the nobility and compassion was discarded for the expressed purpose of offending. Sounds like so much beautifully worded double-speak to me. Interesting too that the tenets never mention respect for others beliefs, but rather seem to compel them to oppose others beliefs even to the point of offending. Ah, civility, where have you gone?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The issue here is that the people are permitted by law to give an invocation without being confronted.
If the law is not working for the group, one must figure out a way to change it.
Violating the law by confronting a hot button speaker is not only impermissible, but is EXACTLY what the hot button speaker wants.

 

[TheLittleLady]

If Scientology is still considered a legitimate religious for tax purposes, then, anything can get approval!

 

[njlisa]

Dear friends: Here’s some information you may find helpful. God bless you all.

I just wanted to point out that Hebrew is not a dead language. Modern Hebrew in the national language of Israel.

Here’s the etymology of lucifer.

Middle English lucifer morning star & Lucifer fallen rebel archangel, devil, from Old English, from Latin lucifer morning star, from lucifer , adjective, light-bearing.

Source: “Lucifer.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. 2019. Web. 22 Jun. 2019.

 

[jack63]

That’s too bad that you couldn’t confront the speaker…seems like a bad deal. Perhaps the law needs changed. In this case maybe walking out was the right choice.

Sometimes the media isn’t clear reporting the details on such things.

 

[Zaccheus]

This is why religious freedom is a farce. There is but one truth, don’t give lies equal footing.

Um. Be careful here. Next time it might be someone forbidding you to speak because you aren’t of their faith.
Error has no rights but people do.

The Satanist should never have been allowed to pray to Satan at that meeting, but the fact that he got to do so does not make ‘religious freedom’ wrong.

 

[adgloriam]

mdgspencer:

A new policy allows anyone to deliver an invocation, regardless of religion.

Good. Freedom of religion.

I’d remind you of some sects still in recent memory…Perhaps (certainly) too many to count…How about those “religions” who didn’t believe in disease? (hence those “believers” or “faithful”, if you will, let their own children die of curable disease?)

Better still, how about “hate speech laws” currently in place - that would prevent some of those “religions” of showing their TRUE UGLY FACE?! (Satanism advocates Hate.) How about all those “religions” made of coercion and manipulation (with a long trail of destroyed lives and destroyed families in their wake)?

In any case, the current debate on “religions”(sects) is held mostly between the medical field and the State in how to justly proceed and limit their nefarious effects. (Pseudo-therapies are a Trillion dollar business…)

Ohh well…Slogans…(“Liberté, égalité, fraternité” still sounds good, Napoleon marched over half of Europe on that - all the while suppressing the catholic church).

• @TheLittleLady @Tis_Bearself @PetraG @dochawk

 

[adgloriam]

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.

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.

You appreciate that “back in the day” someone wouldn’t have been tolerant of the mentioned invocation? In a country where historically everyone bears arms I doubt a satanist would have risked martyrdom by publicly delivering such an invocation…In fact, in a deeply Christian country like the US historically some morality law would have been in place and applied beforehand to prevent such an episode.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Better still, how about “hate speech laws” currently in place - that would prevent some of those “religions” of showing their TRUE UGLY FACE?! (Satanism advocates Hate.)

“Hate speech” is really narrowly defined, because otherwise somebody would be alleging that every negative comment by another person constitutes “hate”. The left would be looking to charge Trump with hate speech, for example. There has even been considerable debate about whether “hate speech” laws are worthwhile to have or are enforceable at all.

There’s a simple way to solve this in my mind - it would be to create an office of legislative chaplain, have the chaplain be selected via some process, and have him deliver non-denominational invocations. This would pretty much guarantee you’re going to get a legit clergyman and he’s most likely in USA going to be a Christian, although I suppose an indigenous religion is also possible, but that still wouldn’t be Satanism. Any time you have a law where virtually anyone can get up and give an invocation, you’re going to start getting weird religions. If Satanism is allowed, next they’ll be having the parody religions like Church of the Subgenius and Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or whatever the updated modern equivalents to those are. Another way would be to limit those who can give an invocation to religions practiced by a certain percentage of the state residents. I’m sure there are other ways to consider.

 

[jack63]

Beliefs should conform to one’s best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one’s beliefs.

I strongly disagree with this tenet. Science has only scratched the surface in its understanding of the Universe. Therefore to base one belief system on science theories makes no sense. I don’t think these people understand what scientist do either. They create a theory (hypothesis), test it, and refine it. The thing is scientist always refine theories. Even major scientific theories are always changing. This process is supposed to be learned in 9th grade. You can’t create a believe system for yourself based off of this.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

I feel like complaining is falling right into her hands. She isn’t going to stop worshiping Satan (if she even is) because it isn’t public and most people won’t take it seriously if it is.

 

[francisca.chapter3]

Satan is adversarial toward God and religion, therefore by nature it cannot agree with freedom of religion.

 

[TheLittleLady]

in a deeply Christian country like the US historically

The founding fathers could have founded a Christian nation. They choose not to. This is a secular state with at the most “deism” referenced by our founders.

I’d suggest some reading, two books both titled “Anti Catholicism in America” to help better understand how deep these roots go. Your historically Christian US was intolerant of Catholics. This strain still ripples through our country. We know what persecution is like.

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

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.

 

[PetraG]

I’d remind you of some sects still in recent memory…Perhaps (certainly) too many to count…How about those “religions” who didn’t believe in disease? (hence those “believers” or “faithful”, if you will, let their own children die of curable disease?)

Better still, how about “hate speech laws” currently in place - that would prevent some of those “religions” of showing their TRUE UGLY FACE?! (Satanism advocates Hate.) How about all those “religions” made of coercion and manipulation (with a long trail of destroyed lives and destroyed families in their wake)?

In any case, the current debate on “religions”(sects) is held mostly between the medical field and the State in how to justly proceed and limit their nefarious effects. (Pseudo-therapies are a Trillion dollar business…)

Ohh well…Slogans…(“Liberté, égalité, fraternité” still sounds good, Napoleon marched over half of Europe on that - all the while suppressing the catholic church).

• @TheLittleLady @Tis_Bearself @PetraG @dochawk

Most people who call themselves “satanists” don’t worship any deity (or “anti-deity”) and most of them don’t “hate” anybody. I think there is one sect that is pretty free with the rightness of contempt for fools, if memory serves correctly, and there are probably some psychopaths out there who really do fancy themselves the literal allies (rather than the pawns) of the Evil One, 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. (That is not a good look for us, viewed from their direction.)

Just as I would hope people would oppose people who call themselves Catholic and yet support some law or rule or other that is unjust, I don’t think it is too much to ask that we oppose bad acts or bad policy, rather than making what could be construed as personal attacks. It also relieves us of making sweeping statements about the philosophical positions of some sect or other, since there are too many to keep track of and it is better to say nothing than to make statements that later turn out to be false.

I think it is a bad policy to be taking turns at spiritual invocations to kick off official public policy meetings when we know we don’t have and do not want a state religion. The idea is nice and optimistic, but experience says it doesn’t work very well.