Black Mass Planned for Oklahoma City Sept 2014

a reply to: Nikola014

You really think bringing up something that is against the law is relevant?
This is about freedom of expression at the very least and that is protected.
Try to avoid appeal to emotions in the future, and comparing these people to pedophiles I'd exactly that

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: blupblup

I see what you mean!

I'm not attacking other Christians who don't like it and think it unconstitutional.
And I'm not supporting it.

All I stated was that it was constitutional.

So in order to be "correct" I have to support and/or attack others that don't support.

No.

Actually no... you started with a negative comment and then said "the constitution allows this" - Not "the constitution allows this and I will defend their right to have the mass" as you ALWAYS do when it's people like you... who think like you and That is why you're a hypocrite.

originally posted by: beezzer
On a personal level, I have severe issues with this. Messing with Satan, demons, devils, all that is generally associated with evil and (in my opinion) not a good thing.

The Constitution allows this though.

If a religious ritual brings about Satan and hell on Earth and the destruction of mankind, then that is the ultimate edge to the double edged sword of freedom.

You even go on to hint that just by them having the mass then they may bring about the destruction of mankind.
Which is actually quite worrying... you actually posted that?? For real?
Wow... no wonder you can't be fair and balanced in your support of US citizens and the constitution.

It's not about being correct, you just have to practice what you preach and uphold civil rights, laws and the constitution.
Not cherry pick when it's "your guys"

a reply to: blupblup

nm. you aren't worth it.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Where did i compare these people to pedophiles? I just said, if it's worshiping the Devil a normal thing nowdays, and there are no problems about it, then maybe in the future pedophilia will be considered a normal thing. Can you tell for sure that it will not happen? Same thing happened with homosexuals and still is happening around the world. Just think a bit.

And, I was just pointing out that there are no more moral standards, principals, and who knows what awaits us with that kind of behaving.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: blupblup

nm. you aren't worth it.

I'm like L'Oreal, baby!

originally posted by: 3n19m470
a reply to: CloudsTasteMetallic

Yeah but this nation was founded on Christianity to a good extent. Look at the references to God, In God we trust, etc. And while laws concerning religion have changed, a statue of the 10 commandments has a historical reference to this country. And unless it's openly stated or historical documentation found, Satanism does not hold that same claim. We've had Christian related monuments here for a long time. It has historical value.

Excerpt from the Treaty of Tripoli, 1797

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

a reply to: Nikola014

So since we let people freely express them selves we are sooner or later allow men/women to violate kids....
You don't see that you are making a giant leap there?

Your definition of the devil is probably different then theirs, so that is why you can't see it as normal or right.
Just like their definition of god is different then yours and they wouldn't think that you are normal or right.
Same for homosexuality, you see and as unmoral and wrong, doesn't make it the case for everyone.

And i can't tell for sure that it won't happen but you can't know for sure that it will, so why bring it up?

I wonder if satanism, as practiced by some of these groups, even qualifies as a religion.

The following link gives the following definition of religion:

The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment.

And states that:

As the case of United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 64 S. Ct. 882, 88 L. Ed. 1148 (1944), demonstrates, the Supreme Court must look to the sincerity of a person's beliefs to help decide if those beliefs constitute a religion that deserves constitutional protection.

So does satanism, when practiced primarily to make a statement/mock/belittle Christianity and to make a political statement, even qualify as a religion?

a reply to: imwilliam

So does satanism, when practiced primarily to make a statement/mock/belittle Christianity and to make a political statement, even qualify as a religion?

It is only the view of christians that satanism is practiced primarily to mock/belittle christianity. No one else's.

I have met many satanists in my life, and none do it simply to mock other religions. Most are quite sincere.

As much as christians want to try and make it about them (as per usual), its not.

I want to add that from what I can see in this thread, a majority of the people who oppose don't understand what it is the church goers are doing in a church like that. That's why you go, to learn. I go to Christian churches* with my friends but it doesn't make me a Christian.

originally posted by: spite
I want to add that from what I can see in this thread, a majority of the people who oppose don't understand what it is the church goers are doing in a church like that. That's why you go, to learn. I go to Christian churches* with my friends but it doesn't make me a Christian.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

a reply to: captaintyinknots
"Again, what? You are putting a lot of very interesting personal projections on these...

You take "do not make sexual advances" to mean rape is okay?

Twisted. "
The term "mating signal" is a very disturbing term" Its an un-human, un-spiritual term when describing what should be a sacred act between a Man and a Woman. Why use THAT term if not to imply somthing? What do YOU think it implys?
Nothing to say about #11 or #4?
Also I am not a christian nor do I identify with any religion.

I personally think it's a great idea that this mass is taking place, although I do view it more as an entertainment spectacle than anything 'religious' given that they're selling tickets for the event. If any other denomination can gather and congregate, why not Satanists, too? Freedom and tolerance is a two-way street for it to actually mean what they are.

I'm also surprised that no one else here has mentioned that the majority of Satanist religions do not actually worship Satan or demons, but people commonly make that assumption due to the name and associated imagery burned into our collective social consciousness.

a reply to: captaintyinknots

It is only the view of christians that satanism is practiced primarily to mock/belittle christianity. No one else's.

I think it's possible that there's a subset of satanists that can be objectively viewed as primarily or largely motivated by the negative feelings they hold towards religion and Christianity in particular rather than sincere religious convictions, though I suppose that depends how you define religion.

Here is an article/interview with Lucien Greaves/Doug Mesner

The Satanic Temple was actually conceived of independent from me by a friend and one of his colleagues. They envisioned it more as a “poison pill” in the Church/State debate. The idea was that Satanists, asserting their rights and privileges where religious agendas have been successful in imposing themselves upon public affairs, could serve as a poignant reminder that such privileges are for everybody, and can be used to serve an agenda beyond the current narrow understanding of what “the” religious agenda is. So at the inception, the political message was primary, though it was understood that there are, in fact, self-identified Satanists who live productive lives within the boundaries of the law, and that they do deserve just as much consideration as any other religious group

To be fair, for those who can't read the entire article, Greaves then says:

We’ve moved well beyond being a simple political ploy

Lets not forget either that the black mass is a inversion of the Catholic Mass and that mockery of the Catholic Mass, whatever else maybe present, is inherent in it.


So:

It is only the view of christians that satanism is practiced primarily to mock/belittle christianity. No one else's.

No, because at least at one time in the not so distant past, it was the stated goal, the reason for the groups founding, of at least one group of satanists, as reported by the now head of that group in an interview with a satanist. Reading the article, I don't see where it's still not a primary goal.

As much as christians want to try and make it about them (as per usual), its not.

I don't think its exclusively about Christians, but I do think it's significantly about them and I don't think that statement requires one to be a Christian to make.

Anyway, as I said I was "wondering" about whether some of these "satanic" groups would really qualify as a religion or not. But now I don't think it makes much difference in the context of the event talked about in the op. The group doesn't have to be "religious" to use the facilities, so I think the point in the context of this discussion is moot. If they weren't considered a "religion" legally, they could still hold their event.

a reply to: CloudsTasteMetallic

Okay, that's the number one nicest thing anyone has said to me on this forum.

originally posted by: ArchAngel_X
I personally think it's a great idea that this mass is taking place, although I do view it more as an entertainment spectacle than anything 'religious' given that they're selling tickets for the event. If any other denomination can gather and congregate, why not Satanists, too? Freedom and tolerance is a two-way street for it to actually mean what they are.

I'm also surprised that no one else here has mentioned that the majority of Satanist religions do not actually worship Satan or demons, but people commonly make that assumption due to the name and associated imagery burned into our collective social consciousness.

To play as the Devil's Advocate (bad pun definitely intended,) I don't see much difference between asking for tithes and selling tickets at the door.

a reply to: spite

D'aww. Thanks. Yes, it can get a bit nasty around here at times, but only because we are all passionate about our sometimes conflicting views. Hate is not the opposite of Love, it is Apathy.

Of course under the law they have to allow it to go forward.

I don't understand why anyone would protest - at least in any angry or forceful way.

As a practical matter, it just draws more attention towards the event which furthers their goal.

More importantly, all that anger and resentment would only add to the negative energy that's created.

I would simply say a peaceful prayer and use the time to be kind to people in need.

a reply to: imwilliam

If they weren't considered a "religion" legally, they could still hold their event.

Ah, had not read this before I posted
Foot in mouth if you had read my post before I edited

a reply to: Sremmos80

No worries Sremmos.