On the Business Insider website, the blog post Is Satan a Good Investor by James Altucher, Jan. 28, 2011, contains numerous favorable interpretations of Satan as portrayed in the Bible.
I wonder what kind of a reaction this will provoke, if any, from the more conservative and/or fanatical believers in the Abrahamic religions.
Business Insider is published here in New York City.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
New York Daily News and CBS News websites quote me on Christine O'Donnell
I got quoted on the New York Daily News website just now: NYC Satanist: O'Donnell Isn't One of Us by Kenneth R. Bazinet, September 21, 2010. NYC Satanists, Luciferians, Dark Pagans, and LHP Occultists got mentioned too.
P.S.: Later today, we also got mentioned -- and in a much better, less condescending way -- on the CBS News site: Christine O'Donnell's "Witchcraft" Comments Rebuffed by Satanist by Stephanie Condon.
P.S. (9/23/2010): Today, the above CBS News story was linked to by Christine O'Donnell's Younger Years: Forget Witchcraft, Think Media Goddess by Suzi Parter, Politics Daily.
P.S. (10/30/2010): My press release was mentioned in Crying Witch: Learning From the O’Donnell “Dabbling” Debacle by Spencer Dew on Religion Dispatches, October 28, 2010.
P.S.: Later today, we also got mentioned -- and in a much better, less condescending way -- on the CBS News site: Christine O'Donnell's "Witchcraft" Comments Rebuffed by Satanist by Stephanie Condon.
P.S. (9/23/2010): Today, the above CBS News story was linked to by Christine O'Donnell's Younger Years: Forget Witchcraft, Think Media Goddess by Suzi Parter, Politics Daily.
P.S. (10/30/2010): My press release was mentioned in Crying Witch: Learning From the O’Donnell “Dabbling” Debacle by Spencer Dew on Religion Dispatches, October 28, 2010.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Christine O'Donnell's alleged "little midnight picnic on a satanic altar"
Lately, quite a bit of mass media publicity has been given to Christine O'Donnell's claim to have "dabbled into witchcraft" and "had a little midnight picnic on a satanic altar" on one of her first dates.
It is clear that the "witch" she allegedly dated was not a serious practitioner of either Wicca or Satanism. As far as I am aware, no serious practitioner of any variant of Wicca or Satanism would have a picnic on one's altar.
To put her claim into context, we should note her tendency to confuse Satanism with not only Wicca but also rock fan culture. Back in 1997, in the Washington Post (15 June 1997), Christine O'Donnell made some pretty far-fetched claims about the alleged mass popularity of Satanism among young people. (See Remembering Christine O'Donnell: Praising Helms, Missing Lenny and Squiggy, and Worries of Rampant Satanism, Right Wing Watch, September 15, 2010.)
See also more about Christine O'Donnell on one of my other blogs.
P.S.: I just now posted comments (here and here) in reply to some nonsense about Satanism in the comments area of this page about Christine O'Donnell on Crooks and Liars.
It is clear that the "witch" she allegedly dated was not a serious practitioner of either Wicca or Satanism. As far as I am aware, no serious practitioner of any variant of Wicca or Satanism would have a picnic on one's altar.
To put her claim into context, we should note her tendency to confuse Satanism with not only Wicca but also rock fan culture. Back in 1997, in the Washington Post (15 June 1997), Christine O'Donnell made some pretty far-fetched claims about the alleged mass popularity of Satanism among young people. (See Remembering Christine O'Donnell: Praising Helms, Missing Lenny and Squiggy, and Worries of Rampant Satanism, Right Wing Watch, September 15, 2010.)
See also more about Christine O'Donnell on one of my other blogs.
P.S.: I just now posted comments (here and here) in reply to some nonsense about Satanism in the comments area of this page about Christine O'Donnell on Crooks and Liars.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
The Devil's Blood
Some good news for a change:
On August 25, 2010, the Baltimore City Paper published a favorable news story about a musician who is a theistic Satanist: Hail Satan: The devil made Dutch musician SL turn his life around—and forge a strangely moving band by Ian Grey, about “SL,” the "man behind" a Dutch band called the Devil's Blood.
I've posted my thoughts about this news story on another blog of mine.
On August 25, 2010, the Baltimore City Paper published a favorable news story about a musician who is a theistic Satanist: Hail Satan: The devil made Dutch musician SL turn his life around—and forge a strangely moving band by Ian Grey, about “SL,” the "man behind" a Dutch band called the Devil's Blood.
I've posted my thoughts about this news story on another blog of mine.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Forthcoming comment policy
I need to write up a formal comment policy sometime soon. This blog is not intended to be a forum for complete nuttiness.
Just today, someone tried to post a comment threatening mass murder of Christians. HELLO? That's an incredibly stupid idea, even "regardless of what the law says." Someone has apparently been taking black metal lyrics a little too seriously, methinks.
Just today, someone tried to post a comment threatening mass murder of Christians. HELLO? That's an incredibly stupid idea, even "regardless of what the law says." Someone has apparently been taking black metal lyrics a little too seriously, methinks.
Friday, August 27, 2010
How bigotry against Muslims threatens Pagans and Satanists too: an example
The Green Bay Gazette has a Guest column: America needs to have the real debate on Islam, in which one Dan Linssen said the following on August 20, 2010:
First, "human sacrifice" and child molestation are not allowed under U.S. law, period, not even in the name of religion. Dan Linssen is grossly ignorant of constitutional law if he really thinks these are unsettled questions. He needs to look at, for example, the Supreme Court decision in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993), which ruled on the legality animal sacrifice.
The 1993 Supreme Court ruling held that no law can single out animal sacrifice. But animal sacrifice can still be prosecuted under other, more general laws, e.g. against cruelty to animals, depending on the locale. Thus, animal sacrifice - at least of some species of animals - might be legal in many rural areas, where hunting is allowed and where people are allowed to slaughter their own farm animals, but still illegal in most urban areas. The point is that animal sacrifice must be subject to the same laws that govern animal-killing in general, whatever those laws might be. (See my page about animal sacrifice.)
Laws against murder and child molestation are general. They do not single out any religion. Thus, no religion is allowed to commit these crimes as part of its religious practice.
Be that as it may, the worship of "fertility gods" need not entail "human sacrifice" or child molestation. Nor does it typically involve such activities, at least in today's world. Ditto for Satanism. See the Church of Azazel statement against violent crime and vandalism, for example. There are plenty of law-abiding Pagans, and there are plenty of law-abiding Satanists too.
By the way, the decision by the British Navy to allow a Satanist to practice his religion does not imply that Satanism has become "prevalent" there.
Anyhow, Pagans and Satanists should take note of the following: See how Dan Linssen appears to be using the current wave of anti-Muslim scaremongering to argue that the government should consider taking away our rights too. And indeed, if even the constitutional rights of Muslims can be abridged, then all the more so can the rights of smaller religious minorities. We must stand up for across-the-board religious freedom, limited only by generally applicable laws with a secular purpose.
(Dan Linssen himself seems educable, though. On his blog, he does not come across like a full-blown religious right wing demagogue. However, it is highly likely that plenty of right wing demagogues will be using arguments similar to his in the not-too-distant future.)
When our founding fathers drafted the First Amendment to the Constitution stating "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," they likely viewed religious diversity as variations of the Judeo-Christian theme prevalent throughout Europe and the colonies at the time. But things are much different today.
So, the first question we should be discussing is: Do we really mean "any" religion? Satanism is on the rise in countries like Poland, and it has become so prevalent that its practice is now allowed in the British Royal Navy.
What if the Aztec religion, complete with horrific human sacrifice and its policy of conversion or death, suddenly enjoyed resurgence? What if some religion worshipped a god of fertility and practiced pedophilia?
Do we truly believe Americans should be allowed to practice any religion? If not, we are abandoning a founding tenet of American liberty. And where do we draw the line?
I'm guessing the majority of Americans have limits to what they believe is acceptable as religion. But that's not what we espouse. We need to resolve this dichotomy.
First, "human sacrifice" and child molestation are not allowed under U.S. law, period, not even in the name of religion. Dan Linssen is grossly ignorant of constitutional law if he really thinks these are unsettled questions. He needs to look at, for example, the Supreme Court decision in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993), which ruled on the legality animal sacrifice.
The 1993 Supreme Court ruling held that no law can single out animal sacrifice. But animal sacrifice can still be prosecuted under other, more general laws, e.g. against cruelty to animals, depending on the locale. Thus, animal sacrifice - at least of some species of animals - might be legal in many rural areas, where hunting is allowed and where people are allowed to slaughter their own farm animals, but still illegal in most urban areas. The point is that animal sacrifice must be subject to the same laws that govern animal-killing in general, whatever those laws might be. (See my page about animal sacrifice.)
Laws against murder and child molestation are general. They do not single out any religion. Thus, no religion is allowed to commit these crimes as part of its religious practice.
Be that as it may, the worship of "fertility gods" need not entail "human sacrifice" or child molestation. Nor does it typically involve such activities, at least in today's world. Ditto for Satanism. See the Church of Azazel statement against violent crime and vandalism, for example. There are plenty of law-abiding Pagans, and there are plenty of law-abiding Satanists too.
By the way, the decision by the British Navy to allow a Satanist to practice his religion does not imply that Satanism has become "prevalent" there.
Anyhow, Pagans and Satanists should take note of the following: See how Dan Linssen appears to be using the current wave of anti-Muslim scaremongering to argue that the government should consider taking away our rights too. And indeed, if even the constitutional rights of Muslims can be abridged, then all the more so can the rights of smaller religious minorities. We must stand up for across-the-board religious freedom, limited only by generally applicable laws with a secular purpose.
(Dan Linssen himself seems educable, though. On his blog, he does not come across like a full-blown religious right wing demagogue. However, it is highly likely that plenty of right wing demagogues will be using arguments similar to his in the not-too-distant future.)
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Exposing the Christian theocratic crazies (to Deady)
Deady has called my attention to an Alternet post titled Right-Wing Crazies Who Fight Witchcraft and Demons Are Taking Over a State Near You by Bruce Wilson.
I'm already well aware of it, being a regular reader of the excellent Talk To Action group blog, which has special sections titled Resource Directory for New Apostolic Reformation and Sarah Palin & The New Apostolic Reformation.
To everyone: If you happen to be in a good position to educate any mainstream journalists, religion scholars, or other mainstream published writers about the "New Apostolic Reformation" and its theocratic ambitions (and its actual attempts to infiltrate the power structure), I would very much appreciate anything you can do (after educating yourself about this matter, of course). This whole issue needs a lot more exposure.
For more about the religious right wing in general, see Resources for learning about the religious right wing on the website of New Yorkers Against Religion-Based Bigotry.
I'm already well aware of it, being a regular reader of the excellent Talk To Action group blog, which has special sections titled Resource Directory for New Apostolic Reformation and Sarah Palin & The New Apostolic Reformation.
To everyone: If you happen to be in a good position to educate any mainstream journalists, religion scholars, or other mainstream published writers about the "New Apostolic Reformation" and its theocratic ambitions (and its actual attempts to infiltrate the power structure), I would very much appreciate anything you can do (after educating yourself about this matter, of course). This whole issue needs a lot more exposure.
For more about the religious right wing in general, see Resources for learning about the religious right wing on the website of New Yorkers Against Religion-Based Bigotry.
Werewolves (reply to Justin)
In the General feedback thread, Justin wrote:
As far as I am aware, the only "werewolves" that exist in real life are Otherkin/Therians -- people who feel that they are the reincarnation of non-human animals (in this case, wolves) or other nonhuman entities, or who otherwise feel that they are nonhuman souls in human bodies.
As far as I am aware, they do not have any full-fledged superhuman abilities, although they may well be more likely than normal folks to have certain talents.
I would like to ask you if you could please share any knowledge that you might have regarding physical werewolves. Not the ones bound by mythology and superstition.
As far as I am aware, the only "werewolves" that exist in real life are Otherkin/Therians -- people who feel that they are the reincarnation of non-human animals (in this case, wolves) or other nonhuman entities, or who otherwise feel that they are nonhuman souls in human bodies.
As far as I am aware, they do not have any full-fledged superhuman abilities, although they may well be more likely than normal folks to have certain talents.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Forums (reply to Deady)
In the General Feadback Thread, Deady wrote: "Hello, I recently joined your Theistic Satanism forum, but it seems like it's been deserted since the year 2007. Do you have any other groups that are currently active?"
Indeed I am not running Yahoo groups anymore. They are closed, though still available as archives.
These days my efforts are focussed more on building in-person groups than online groups. So far, the most successful of my in-person groups has been the NYC Satanists, Luciferians, Dark Pagans, and LHP Occultists discussion group.
Eventually I plan to build an Online Congregation of the Church of Azazel, once enough suitable people are interested. If interested, please show your interest by posting comments on my blogs and creating your own blog, as instructed on this page.
Indeed I am not running Yahoo groups anymore. They are closed, though still available as archives.
These days my efforts are focussed more on building in-person groups than online groups. So far, the most successful of my in-person groups has been the NYC Satanists, Luciferians, Dark Pagans, and LHP Occultists discussion group.
Eventually I plan to build an Online Congregation of the Church of Azazel, once enough suitable people are interested. If interested, please show your interest by posting comments on my blogs and creating your own blog, as instructed on this page.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Irving Davis in Austin, Texas
I just now came across the news story Satanism wrongly used at trial, death row inmate argues by Chuck Lindell, American Statesman, Austin, Texas, Tuesday, July 6, 2010.
First off, I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone who rapes and kills a 15-year-old girl.
Nevertheless, the issue of how Satanism gets used in court is indeed an important matter for people of all nonmainstream religions. In particular:
Hello??? The particular form of Satanism he is said to have practiced is "the Church of Satan." The Church of Satan does NOT condone illegal acts. On the contrary, I think most Church of Satan members would insist that he deserves the death penalty regardless of what his religion might be and regardless of how it got used by the prosecutor. I find it hard to imagine that the Church of Satan would actually have accepted him as an active member, given the CoS's stance on violent crime, although he may have adopted the CoS belief system (or some aspects of it, at least) informally.
Thus, his interest in Satanism a la the Church of Satan is clearly not evidence of anything having to do with the crime he's convicted of, and its use by the prosecutor was clearly wrong.
Irving Davis, convicted of raping and killing a 15-year-old El Paso girl, has asked a Texas appeals court to throw out his death sentence, arguing that jurors should not have been told about his new religion — Satanism.
First off, I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone who rapes and kills a 15-year-old girl.
Nevertheless, the issue of how Satanism gets used in court is indeed an important matter for people of all nonmainstream religions. In particular:
Prosecutor Lily Stroud said the evidence was meant to show that Davis had chosen to affiliate with an organization that condones and encourages human sacrifice and other illegal acts.
Hello??? The particular form of Satanism he is said to have practiced is "the Church of Satan." The Church of Satan does NOT condone illegal acts. On the contrary, I think most Church of Satan members would insist that he deserves the death penalty regardless of what his religion might be and regardless of how it got used by the prosecutor. I find it hard to imagine that the Church of Satan would actually have accepted him as an active member, given the CoS's stance on violent crime, although he may have adopted the CoS belief system (or some aspects of it, at least) informally.
Thus, his interest in Satanism a la the Church of Satan is clearly not evidence of anything having to do with the crime he's convicted of, and its use by the prosecutor was clearly wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
