h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Count Zero wrote (a page or so back)"They feel ok with it because they share the beliefs displayed... When I asked how they would feel if some other icon was thusly displayed, say a giant statue of Ganesh or Kali, they honestly don't give it a thought because the idea is so foreign to them as to be comical... they really have NO empathy for people with widely varied beliefs from their own."

I find that entertaining because for fairly random reasons I have a little statue of Ganesh sitting on my computer monitor. And I happen to be American, but firmly opposed to including religion in state matters.

No, the words "under God" really do not belong in the Pledge of Allegiance if we take the established separation of church and state precedent, which we keep touting about like the current administration believes in it.

> I am coming out as an anti abortionist (we prefer to be called pro-life) and I don't know what I look like, but I have certainly had sex, as my children can testify by their existence. There are even some exes around who could likewise verify that I am no virtuoso...

Whups! Didn't mean to deride your sex appeal - I was thinking about those pro-lifers and creationism types that I see on tv, waving signs and throwing rocks. They never look very happy. There's lots of people who feel the same way, but manage to talk about their opinions without resorting to protests in the streets. I don't think of them as pro-lifers, just people with a pro-life philosophy. Maybe this is specious reasoning, I dunno.

> *cough cough* Me. Satanist. Ug. Google helps. Ug. Try churchofsatan.com. *scratches butt*

Actually, I did look at one of the Church of Satan websites, and briefly skimmed the philosophy of the Church. What I got from it was that the Church of Satan doesn't actually worship Satan, because Satan is a creation of the Christian church. Satan represents the nature of humanity, which the Christian church tries to stifle.

"We are the first above-ground organization in history openly dedicated to the acceptance of Man’s true nature—that of a carnal beast, living in a cosmos which is permeated and motivated by the Dark Force which we call Satan. Over the course of time, Man has called this Force by many names, and it has been reviled by those whose very nature causes them to be separate from this fountainhead of existence."

Where I get confused is the need to call it 'The Church of Satan.' Why not call it the 'Church of Me?' It's a religion of pragmatism, and the way to be a good Satanist is to be true to yourself. Adding Satan to the mix ties it up with Christian mythology, which the Church of Satan was founded to rebel against. (I think.)

You could easily call Satanists 'secular humanists' as the Church practices responsible behavior without the goad of punishment by an omnipotent deity. Secular humanism is about doing good deeds because they're good for the society, and help to further the existence of humanity here on earth. Follow society's rules because they work, not because a religion has told you it's a good idea.

Course, that's just what I think...

>> Follow society's rules because they work, not because a religion has told you it's a good idea. <<

I think there you have touched on the reasons why religions exist. You Lentilla are an educated individual, wordily wise and with considerable knowledge of things beyond your immediate surroundings.

However, put yourself in the place of an ordinary person two thousand years ago. Imagine trying to explain to them the concepts of a society when their perception of society hardly goes beyond their immediate family.

Some method had to be devised to convince people that activities that make you feel good in the short term, ultimately have a detrimental effect on everybody, including yourself. An all powerful deity seemed like a good way to do it - and while you are at it, imply that retribution only comes after death. That way nobody will be able to argue with you as nobody has ever comes back to confirm if it is so.

Two thousand years later we know better, or at least some of use do.

Donald

This is my first post. Being American I found myself drawn here.
The Americans I most distust came from Europe. Would you be interested in taking them back?

Spelling is another thing. Looking for an edit button.

Those Americans are long dead. Let it go.

>>>"Where I get confused is the need to call it 'The Church of Satan.' Why not call it the 'Church of Me?' "<<<

Because it's not as aesthetic, and more fun.

>>>"It's a religion of pragmatism, and the way to be a good Satanist is to be true to yourself. Adding Satan to the mix ties it up with Christian mythology, which the Church of Satan was founded to rebel against. (I think.)"<<<

Being that Satan is a cross cultural figure, and just the English version of the word is used (alongside Leviathian, Belial, and Lucifer), it only ties it up in Christian mythology if you know nothing else besides white English speaking culture. I know more than that, therefore I don't have that problem. And why should I cater or submit to everyone else's ignorance?

>>>"You could easily call Satanists 'secular humanists' as the Church practices responsible behavior without the goad of punishment by an omnipotent deity. "<<<

Slightly incorrect. Satanist's (try not to think of the Church of Satan as where all Satanists reside - just the authority on Anton LaVey's work, on which Satanism is based. You can certainly be a Satanist without owning the red card, and you are certainly allowed to disagree with what LaVey writes, to a certain degree) live (not practice) responsible behaviour. The punishment comes from onesself - if you screw up, then you and only you are responsible for the consequences. You kinda make it sound like there are no consequences for behaviour because there is no external god.

>>>"Secular humanism is about doing good deeds because they're good for the society, and help to further the existence of humanity here on earth. Follow society's rules because they work, not because a religion has told you it's a good idea."<<<

Then Satanism is certainly not secular Humanism.

A Satanist would not do "good" deeds to benefit society out of any desire to see other people prosper. The only time I will do good deeds is if they make me feel good, or if they benefit myself or the people I love. I couldn't give a flying fig if society crumbled around me, as long as my standard of living is up to par.

A Satanist does not follow societies rules because they necessarily work. It's more to do with the consequences of what will happen - I will not break the law because it will inconvenience me. I don't particularly want to end up dead, with a criminal record, or in jail for the rest of my life. It's not to say I don't break the law on a minor scale...I'm just smart enough to not get caught if I do. If I don't agree with an aspect of society, then I either change it or shut the up.

i'd be happy to take them back atalaNTA....TELL THEM TO BRING THEIR YANKEE DOLLARS WITH THEM OOPs sorry about the caps

Blicky, do you need help with your bits? Sorry, I can't assist.
(Humour, BB dear, that was my intent, so keep your hear on...)

No problemo... I was being light-hearted, as poor Blicky didn't seem to realise.
I take your point.

It all sounds a bit Nietzschen really.

Could someone be a Satanist if they do things to help society because they happen to quite like society?

Then they'd be pretty close to a secular humanist, albeit without all that rubbish about "humans are worth looking out for because they possess these qualities which we say are important because humans possess them. Circular? What?" Ooh, its sooooo 18th century darhling. More like "humans are worth looking out for because I say so damnit!"

Let's just say, I know of plenty of Satanists that are in the military (some are between Iraq and Germany I believe) police force and the medical areas (nurses/doctors/care workers) of life.

I know of plenty who help out at their children's schools, give to charity and are involved in community work.

So, it's all down to personal choice really. But it's never a selfless act, like 99% of people who involve themselves in such activity claim.

I have a heart y'know.

As Saturnine has shown, Satanists are not what the general public thinks they are. If you think the days of witchhunts are gone you are quite mistaken. I used the phrase 'Baby killing Satanists' because of this: In 1993 three young boys were brutally raped and murdered in Robin Hood Hills, West Memphis, Arkansas. Three teenaged boys were convicted of this crime based soley on a coerced (and later retracted) confession and the music and clothing these boys prefered. There exists no hard evidence linking them to the crime. There is evidence that suggests one of the murdered boys' father may have commited the crime. (For more info see http://www.religioustolerance.org/ra_robin.htm)

This community is mostly fundamentalist and evangelical christian. The prosecuter knew that if he could prove the three teens were 'satan worshipers' a conviction would be easy. One of the things brought in to evidence was that these kids wore mostly black clothes. The prosecution brought in an 'Expert' in 'occult killings'. This expert received his degrees through mail order classes that required no school work.

In any decent sized town in the US these boys would not have stood out. Their dark clothing and heavy metal music if anything might have seemed dated. But in the backwoods of Arkansas it was enough to pin three horrible crimes on them, simply because they were different.

Um. Actually, for more info, try http://www.wm3.org - they have all the trial information up on that site and everything.

This is making the rounds here:

http://douweosinga.com/projects/bushsfriends/

(Only a little off topic.)

Genius.

That's a cute trick. Of course you realise it is rigged. That's not an actual google page.

They are all linked to real articles, though. That makes it a bit scarier.

A different link about US troops:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1184960,00.html