Muslims For Satan

[4588686]

What if part of the Miles-Is-amesome Religion (founded by Your Humbleness, Miles the Great) was burning mass quantities of Qur'ans? Should it be stopped if I wanted to do a ritual in His Greatness' honor on Harvard if Muslims found it deeply offensive?

 

This is why I don't like American politics.

 

 

I don't think so.  Although, depending on your motives, it may mean that you're a jerk.  The same is true of Satanists who want to conduct a Black Mass.

[PhuturePriest]

I don't think so.  Although, depending on your motives, it may mean that you're a jerk.  The same is true of Satanists who want to conduct a Black Mass.

 

I can hardly see how this wouldn't make His Humble Greatness a jerk, blessed be his name. I can hardly think of a valid reason to burn Qur'ans other than to compete with the Westboro Baptist Church for biggest d-bag of the year.

[4588686]

I can hardly see how this wouldn't make His Humble Greatness a jerk, blessed be his name. I can hardly think of a valid reason to burn Qur'ans other than to compete with the Westboro Baptist Church for biggest d-bag of the year.

 

 

I think if a group of Saudi Christians burnt Saudi manufactured Qur'ans to protest the Royal Family's theocracy then this would be an act that was far from obviously malicious.  

 

Although, of course, burning a Qur'an would be a lot more like desecrating a consecrated host, something the group here expressly said that they would not do out of respect for the feelings of practicing Catholics. 

 

Either way, it's speech that should be protected.  However I would say that morally there is a big difference between a minority and largely marginalized religious group, like Satanist in America or Christians in Saudi Arabia, engaging in this sort of action versus a dominate religion engaging in this sort of action with the iconography of a minority/marginalized religion.  

[Seven77]

I think if a group of Saudi Christians burnt Saudi manufactured Qur'ans to protest the Royal Family's theocracy then this would be an act that was far from obviously malicious.  

 

Although, of course, burning a Qur'an would be a lot more like desecrating a consecrated host, something the group here expressly said that they would not do out of respect for the feelings of practicing Catholics. 

 

Either way, it's speech that should be protected.  However I would say that morally there is a big difference between a minority and largely marginalized religious group, like Satanist in America or Christians in Saudi Arabia, engaging in this sort of action versus a dominate religion engaging in this sort of action with the iconography of a minority/marginalized religion.  

 

 

Just to clarify, you would say that burning a Qur'an is an act of free speech, an act to be protected?

 

And, by the way, I would agree that an act of desecration is *more* grave if it carried out by a majority religion against a minority one. But either way, the intentional action of desecration itself is grave.

[Socrates]

Other than that, the article makes good points. I like the part that implies that maybe none of this stuff is the purview of state power.

 

I agree about it not being the purview of state power.

As a Catholic, I believe the deliberate blasphemy of a "black mass" to be objectively gravely evil, but the decision of whether or not to host this or anything else belongs to Harvard, not to government courts.

 

Though I also don't believe the first amendment means that every private institution must be forced to accept and host whatever offensive act of provocation that demands it in the name of "free speech."

 

At the conservative Catholic school I went to, no one would consider the college allowing a "black mass" or other satanic ritual, and such a decision would not even be considered controversial there.  Courts should not force it to host "black masses" or other blasphemies.

Nobody's forced to attend or support that college, and if they want satanic orgies or whatever, they are free to go elsewhere.

 

People are free to debate the wisdom of Harvard's decision, and academic freedom - though personally I don't regard a divinity school declining to host a ritual with no purpose but to blaspheme God and insult the Christian religion a huge blow for freedom - but the decision belongs ultimately to Harvard.

 

I don't agree with much of what goes on many college campuses.  Many campuses are hypocritical about campus "freedom of speech" and, according to the author of this book, a self-described liberal atheist First Amendment lawyer, it's actually most often conservative Christians that are discriminated against. 

However, such controversies should be fought and settled at the individual college level, not dictated by government courts.  

[Winchester]

Filthy anarchist.

[4588686]

Just to clarify, you would say that burning a Qur'an is an act of free speech, an act to be protected?

 

 

Yes.  Along with flag burning, Bible Burning, Holocaust denial et cetera.

 

Freedom of speech and expression isn't worth anything  if you don't allow shitty people to do and say shitty, non-violent things.  

Edited May 15, 2014 by Hasan

[Socrates]

Yes.  Along with flag burning, Bible Burning, Holocaust denial et cetera.

 

Freedom of speech and expression isn't worth anything  if you don't allow shiitake mushroom people to do and say shiitake mushroom, non-violent things.  

 

No one should be forced to host any of those things, though.

[4588686]

No one should be forced to host any of those things, though.

 

 

Sure.  I think it speaks negatively to Harvard's intellectual culture.  And I would probably view that intellectual culture in a negative light for similar reasons that you would, albeit with more sympathy to this particular group.  But this groups freedom of speech was not violated.  

[4588686]

I think that a lot of institutions like Harvard are seeped in a kind of center-left, MSNBCish echo chamber.  That's just my impression.  So you have students who have never had a genuine conversation with somebody who doesn't fit into that mold.  It's an intellectual echo chamber.  So when students or faculty like that are confronted with a weird, marginalized group like the Satanists or a vicerally homophobic pit preacher they have no idea how to even have a conversation with them because they've never really had a conversation with somebody who comes at things from a different mindset.  

[4588686]

I found that was the case at my school.  Which was academically well regarded and liberal.  But there's a big intellectual echo chamber in the student body.  Critical theory has made some genuinely important intellectual and moral contributions to academia but you read the student newspaper letter to the editors calling for a discourse on privledge before you start looking forward to Gary the Pit Preacher's visits to the Free Speech square.

 

Gary was a former Hell's Angle and ex coke-head who had done time.  He had some pretty disgusting political views.  Lots of homophobic and sexist epithets.  But at least he stirred the pot a little and they guy had a novel in him.  

 

He also had some nice practical life advice and nuggets of wisdom to hand out if you stayed around and talked to him after the show was over.  

Edited May 15, 2014 by Hasan

[Anastasia13]

Or a death sentence.

I thought I had a post that said this and what I wanted to add, but I only see this as my last post. So...

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free practice thereof.

 

...We They leave that to case law.

It's they. We are not the government. We were never the government. We never will be the government.  That was always a lie. 

People sue people (and maybe government) for violations of religious rights. People call other other people so the government can charge people for religious rights violations. I wish I could remember what else I said.

 

Anyway, people a right and responsibility to not be sheeple and to exercise influence over government gone astray.

[Winchester]

 

People sue people (and maybe government) for violations of religious rights. People call other other people so the government can charge people for religious rights violations. I wish I could remember what else I said.

 

Anyway, people a right and responsibility to not be sheeple and to exercise influence over government gone astray.

People have an aversion to not being killed, and that goes in the government's favor. The agents enforcing government whim are willing to kill over very minor incidents. If you jaywalk and ignore a cop yelling at you, you will be subject to ever escalating violence. There's no point at which they will cry off. 

 

I revisit this often, but it's because it's a stark image of the profound derangement of government law enforcement: An FBI sniper executed an unarmed woman because her husband cut a shotgun barrel to a length not approved by the ATF. Let's think about that. They will kill an unarmed woman for her husband's offense. An "offense" that is not violent or truly a crime by any stretch of the imagination. Obey or die, peasant. That's their sick ass mentality.

 

Is it any wonder people just knuckle under? They claim the right to throw you in a cage if you don't show up for jury duty. And it's not like a schoolyard bully, whom everyone knows is wrong. People really think that cops and judges and politicians are people worthy of obedience. If a cop tried out of the blue to handcuff you for no reason and you resisted, your chances of getting a fair hearing from his backup are essentially nil. 

 

Willingness to stand up to government is willingness to be killed, possibly have your family slaughtered in the overwhelming response, and then have you automatically considered the bad guy as an apparatus with virtually unlimited resources presents its case to an audience afflicted with Stockholm Syndrome beyond Patty Hearst levels. 

 

It's true that most of the time, they don't. They have perfected the art of pillaging enough to keep the villagers going. Hopefully, we will reach the Magificent Seven level at some point, but unless the enforcement class wakes up and stops obeying the political class, it will be a bloodbath.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Winchester

[Anastasia13]

People have an aversion to not being killed, and that goes in the government's favor. The agents enforcing government whim are willing to kill over very minor incidents. If you jaywalk and ignore a cop yelling at you, you will be subject to ever escalating violence. There's no point at which they will cry off. 

 

I revisit this often, but it's because it's a stark image of the profound derangement of government law enforcement: An FBI sniper executed an unarmed woman because her husband cut a shotgun barrel to a length not approved by the ATF. Let's think about that. They will kill an unarmed woman for her husband's offense. An "offense" that is not violent or truly a crime by any stretch of the imagination. Obey or die, peasant. That's their sick ass mentality.

 

Is it any wonder people just knuckle under? They claim the right to throw you in a cage if you don't show up for jury duty. And it's not like a schoolyard bully, whom everyone knows is wrong. People really think that cops and judges and politicians are people worthy of obedience. If a cop tried out of the blue to handcuff you for no reason and you resisted, your chances of getting a fair hearing from his backup are essentially nil. 

 

Willingness to stand up to government is willingness to be killed, possibly have your family slaughtered in the overwhelming response, and then have you automatically considered the bad guy as an apparatus with virtually unlimited resources presents its case to an audience afflicted with Stockholm Syndrome beyond Patty Hearst levels. 

 

It's true that most of the time, they don't. They have perfected the art of pillaging enough to keep the villagers going. Hopefully, we will reach the Magificent Seven level at some point, but unless the enforcement class wakes up and stops obeying the political class, it will be a bloodbath.

 

This is a more severe or extreme example than some cases but def. not unheard of. I was talking with someone about terrorists recently and had an affirmative response to saying that when we change our lives and live in fear, then the terrorists have won.

 

Politics, votes, the right kind of candidates

 

people not content with buying only the most mainstream political economy's news but instead actually do their research.

 

You want to talk that level, I know people willing to die for the real American way. If you want to live your life cowtowing to the wrong powers that be, fine, but when the time comes, vote for someone who believes in the way this country was founded and how can stand up for it and wish them luck in their advocacy as you stay stafe withing your little corruption-approved pocket.

 

Government is a necessary evil, but its cancer is even harder to fight for the next when all someone does is sit at home and whine.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Light and Truth

[Winchester]

This is a more severe or extreme example than some cases but def. not unheard of. I was talking with someone about terrorists recently and had an affirmative response to saying that when we change our lives and live in fear, then the terrorists have won.

 

Politics, votes, the right kind of candidates

 

people not content with buying only the most mainstream political economy's news but instead actually do their research.

 

You want to talk that level, I know people willing to die for the real American way. If you want to live your life cowtowing to the wrong powers that be, fine, but when the time comes, vote for someone who believes in the way this country was founded and how can stand up for it and wish them luck in their advocacy as you stay stafe withing your little corruption-approved pocket.

 

Government is a necessary evil, but its cancer is even harder to fight for the next when all someone does is sit at home and whine.

Right kind of candidates? How's that happen? You have to get a majority of the right kind, and even then, you're still legally obliged to obey their whims. We just need the right kind of master, and everything will be okay.

 

It might be an inevitable evil. that doesn't make it necessary. I don't need jackbooted pigs to make me do what's right. The change will only come as people realize that the state is not in fact necessary, good, or even the lesser evil. That will take time, and it won't be solved by electing the right thugs. Elections are useless, at this point. Jury nullification will work if we can get the word out, but if that gets popular, they will take it away. Thankfully, there is a rising tide of opposition against the government. Police brutality has finally gotten to a level where people previously unaffected are affected and aware. I expect the state to get more violent as people begin to resist. They've a similar mentality to spouse abusers.