Page 1 of 2
Rambling or coherent?
Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:38 am
by Prak
Ashley posted about Mrs. Bardot being a racist for speaking out about animal sacrifice in a muslim festival, this is what I was going to comment with at first, but decided to make a post for the bulk of it:
You completely omit any details about what she wrote. I'd be very intested to know what she said that was supposedly racist. Seeing as how it was a letter published in an animal welfare journal, and how she was complaining about a festival, she was probably doing something more a long the lines of speaking out against acts that could be perceived as animal cruelty that might be part of such a festival.
--actual comment left
It was probably regarding the festival "Eid ul-Adha" (wikipedia redirects searchs for "Eid al-Kabir" to this, and the article says that "al-Kabir" is another name for "ul-Adha" the second name meaning "the Big Eid", probably similar to calling christmas "the big day") in which muslims present an animal sacrifice to god in thanks. This sacrifice is likely what she complained about. Legally speaking, they are, in the US (as well as the majority of European nations), perfectly within their rights to slaughter animals for religious purposes, because america doesn't care about animals... I myself find the sacrifice of animals to be pointless, because, "mystically speaking" you'd probably get a good god damned deal more energy for your magical tea party out of a human sacrifice then an animal, but even that's pointless because, as it's all about release of energy for various rituals, you get even more fucking energy from exploring your own psyche and embracing your own emotions when performing your ritual.
Anyway, she has every right to speak out against this act, as it could certainly be construed as animal cruelty, depending on how the animal is slain. At the same time, they have every right to sacrifice animals for their religion.
Why does this bring to mind an old satirical role-playing game entitled "Kill Puppies for Satan?" Also, why does everyone accuse us (satanists) of sacrificing everything from animals to babies to hookers, when in reality no real satanist has done these things, while plenty of mainstream religions have a good deal more blood, both of animals and children, on their hands than we do? I speak of the moronic superstitions that hang around my religious persuasion to this day from the era of the Satanic Panic.
"The Satanic Panic", ie: the rash of "Satanic Ritual Abuse" accusations which surfaced in and plagued the courts of the late 70's-early 90's, leveled serious allegations at the Church of Satan, Temple of Set, Sinagogue of Satan, and any other person who called themselves a satanist along the lines of "they kidnapped/raised me, brainwashed me, raped me, forced me rape others, etc. ad nauseum" and dragged our budding little circle of misanthropes through the mud almost irreparably. In fact, as I said, the superstition that satanists kidnap people, brainwash them and rape them persists to this day in the small minds of the terminally weak. Even when we can reply with "The FBI has never found any proof of a world wide satanic plot involving kidnap, rape, murder, molestation and ooky rituals in the woods," people still think this what we're all about. The people running around saying that they "kill for satan" aren't helping either. However, there is a double standard here. If a christian gets arrested for blowing up abortion clinics in the name of god, how many people are going to think that all christians blow up abortion clinics for god? Now compare that to some nutjob, whether here or across the pond in Sweden, who "kills in the name of satan" and the media fall out of that. So if one christian blows up abortion clinics he's whacko, nutty, or, more charitably, "misguided," while if some corpse-faced heavy metal singer with long blonde hair and an almost indiscernable unfamiliarity with proper language says "Ya, I kills in the name of satan" we're all labeled as dangerous nutjobs and people start running around screaming "oh noes the satanists are comings!! run!!!11!! don't let them drink your precious bodily fluids!!" Not only that, but when satanic metal singers in Sweden burn down a church, they do it in a drunken stupor at night when no one's around to die in the blaze, and when they kill some one, they kill just that one person and, again, in a drunken stupor! Meanwhile, the christian abortion-hating nutjob picks the most busy part of the day and blows up a clinic with anywhere between 20 and 50 people in them!
More than this disparity, the whack-jobs who blow up abortion clinics are actually christian, while the nutjobs who burn down churches, kill priests/hookers/etc aren't actually satanists! Not a single satanic church, temple, or what-have-you will acknowledge them as satanists, and they are operating under their own warped little mind not even going by any established form of religious satanism(and there are plenty to pick from too).
Back to the point, a LaVeyan Satanist, or a satanist belong to a derivative sect(ie, real satanist) would not, ever, sacrifice an animal or molest a child, animals and children are held as the most pure forms of life force around as they have not been shackled with taboos, repression, or other such things, and while this very quality makes them absolutely perfect sacrificial subjects, we tend to just about worship life force and the pure expression of it, free from repression or taboos, and thus would not do something so sacrilegious (if such a thing exists in a religion that just about serves as a mockery of religion itself) as to use it for our own ends against the will of the being. There is also the fact that far more energy can come from the investment of the ritualist's own emotions and desires, be they rage, lust, compassion, or other such things, into his ritual.
Ritual sacrifice came about as a way to release the energy that was generated by such things as appreciating and desiring a nice ass that just walked by, or the enjoyment of a nice bloody steak or the like in a nice little socially acceptable way. It is the tool of "white-lighters" too afraid of their own natures or energies to release them into the ritual. What does it say about these unenlightened masses that they are more comfortable with spilling blood, another's, at that, in a ritual than their own seed?
So I posted this on a class blog where we pretty much have free reign, but I'm wondering how coherent it is...
Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:00 am
by Maj
The first part is a bit confusing, but I get the point. Ish. I'm sort of wondering what the Satanic information is doing in there...
Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:54 am
by Prak
like I wrote, I started it as a comment on another student's post, and it started to snowball, since I did want to express the latter part of it, I merely snipped the comment down to the first paragraph, which should hopefully make sense to people who read the other post, and then put everything into a post. The satanic info is in there because I'm a satanist and apparently I felt like ranting. I think it's getting to be a writting style for me...
Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 3:21 am
by Count Arioch the 28th
It doesn't sound any more batshit insane than any other religion.
Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 3:53 am
by Crissa
Rambling.
Not sure the connection between defending someone's freedom of speech vs the harassment of your own church.
-Crissa
Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 4:06 am
by Prak
yeah, neither am i... I suppose it went something along the lines of:
"animal activist declared racist over comments about muslim festival>>probably has something to do with animal sacrifice*check wikipedia*>>yep, animal sacrifice, I wonder what the legality is there...*check wikipedia*>>So ritual sacrifice of animals is legal, ok>>I object for some reason that even I don't understand, well, regardless, I do find it completely pointless, and that I can qualify, so...*writes about pointlessness of animal sacrifice*>>wow, maybe I should explaing where I'm coming from on this*writes about satanism*>>how is it that we're accused of animal and human sacrifice as if it's some great evil when we don't sacrifice anything? hey, most of our accusers have animal sacrifice in their religions, at least in their past*ramblerambleramblemoraloutragedamnyou!!!ramblerambleramble*"
Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 4:27 am
by CatharzGodfoot
Heh. Satanism seems to be 'I want to intentionally antagonize Christians by naming my religion after the antithesis of theirs, so that I can complain when they "misunderstand" and accuse me of witchcraft. Plus, I want the sex appeal of evil while still being a nice person.'
Not that that's worse than any major religion I can think of

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 6:38 am
by Prak
I think that was the basic line of thinking in LaVey's head, at the time...
Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 10:59 am
by Koumei
And Catharz has basically explained why I think the name "Satanism" is stupid. But I'm not going to hold it against Satanists. Hell, if they're going to go for the "Don't be a [EDITED]" thing*, then it gets my approval in helping to combat such things as Christianity, Islam, Mormonism and the Co$.
*Seriously, let's pretend for a moment that the Old Testament, as written in the version of your choice, is true. God should totally have just said "Don't be a [EDITED]" as his one and only rule.
Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:47 pm
by JonSetanta
Look, if a person kills anything (animal or human) for the sake of an imaginary friend, they are batshit crazy.
Valid established religion or not.
Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:59 am
by CatharzGodfoot
sigma999 wrote:Look, if a person kills anything (animal or human) for the sake of an imaginary friend, they are batshit crazy.
Valid established religion or not.
So is it more crazy to kill an animal for an imaginary friend than to have an imaginary friend in the first place? Is it more crazy to kill an animal than to have an imaginary friend? I happen to like barbecue.
Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 1:36 am
by JonSetanta
CatharzGodfoot wrote:sigma999 wrote:Look, if a person kills anything (animal or human) for the sake of an imaginary friend, they are batshit crazy.
Valid established religion or not.
So is it more crazy to kill an animal for an imaginary friend than to have an imaginary friend in the first place? Is it more crazy to kill an animal than to have an imaginary friend? I happen to like barbecue.
Having an imaginary friend is fine. Billions around the world do.
Some call it Buddha, some call it their atman, some call it Jesus. I don't care which.
But when certain individuals bleed out that personal fantasy into the physical world, that's when I start to get wary.
Sacrificing a goat for divine favors is stupid. Not because their ethos is different from my own, but because the rite insists on expending life for the sake of a personal fantasy, that some invisible, intangible god will return physical blessings in kind. I have yet to see such results. Hell, look at what the Mayans did to their own young.
And what happened anyway?
In the name of science, where's the proof that living sacrifice
works?
Unless that fucking animal is being eaten afterward, they've lost all respect from me.
RAAAGE!
And then there are people that kill animals due to their own inherent biological or social mental corruption. They kill for pleasure, and for the sole purpose of taking life because it gives them that adrenaline rush, rather than out of necessity, hunger, fear of being attacked. Those people should be bled like pigs for being less than human, but that's another matter.
And I like BBQ too. Go eat it. It will keep you alive.
But if you throw away food in the name of any deity, that's some hardcore respect -10 right there.
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 1:50 am
by tzor
Sorry for the late reply, I've been massivley busy this month. I would not call it "rambling" as much as I would call it "back door" reasoning. The threads seem like they are all somehow connected, you just don't know where you are going until you arrive at your destination.
Then again I grew up in the literary style of Andy Rooney.
I should also point out that my Father used to complain that I needed to post the title of all my talks ahead of time because he never knew what I was talking about until I've talked for at least several minutes.
Sometimes you have to get in through the back door, unlike those liberal elite Vulcans who poo poo anyone who doesn't believe according to their superior logic by dissing their ideas out of hand. "Nowhere men" to everyone but themselves, laughing at their superior intellect while failing to see the very flaws in thier own science and logic.
By the way, what did the Mayans do to their young? This is news to me and I used to study Mezoamerica in College. Myan sacrafice was done mostly to themselves and secondly to adults, not their young.
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:14 am
by JonSetanta
Granted, Wiki is a fickle source of info, but it is a good start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sacr ... n_cultures
I first heard about it in a show about exploring forgotten 'underworlds', places of burial for dead civilizations.
One of them was a sunken cave that held leftovers of increasingly desperate and vile sacrifice the further one explored into it, up until right before the collapse of Mayan culture.
Reason would state that child sacrifice doesn't work because it simply does not produce beneficial results unless one had the explicit intent on reducing the population of YuGiOh fans in the world. Something else drives people to sacrifice.
What's the word... religious fervor?
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:20 am
by Koumei
sigma999 wrote:Reason would state that child sacrifice doesn't work because it simply does not produce beneficial results unless one had the explicit intent on reducing the population of YuGiOh fans in the world.
I don't think sacrificing a child nets you anything in YuGiOh. You'd want to sacrifice something like a Black Mage Girl, and bring forth the Blue Eyes White Dragon.
On a more serious note, sacrificing children would really only be beneficial if you wanted to slow/stop the growth of your civilisation. And that seemed to work pretty damn well for them.
Or maybe they did have a huge problem with YGO fans.
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 5:10 pm
by Prak
Koumei wrote:sigma999 wrote:Reason would state that child sacrifice doesn't work because it simply does not produce beneficial results unless one had the explicit intent on reducing the population of YuGiOh fans in the world.
I don't think sacrificing a child nets you anything in YuGiOh. You'd want to sacrifice something like a Black Mage Girl, and bring forth the Blue Eyes White Dragon.
On a more serious note, sacrificing children would really only be beneficial if you wanted to slow/stop the growth of your civilisation. And that seemed to work pretty damn well for them.
Or maybe they did have a huge problem with YGO fans.
I can see a huge population of YGO fans driving ever more desperate and vile sacrifices... Satan knows I want to start performing human sacrifices when I have to work during a YGO tournament at my store...
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 6:13 pm
by CatharzGodfoot
tzor wrote:Sometimes you have to get in through the back door, unlike those liberal elite Vulcans who poo poo anyone who doesn't believe according to their superior logic by dissing their ideas out of hand. "Nowhere men" to everyone but themselves, laughing at their superior intellect while failing to see the very flaws in thier own science and logic.
Man. If only there was some kindly Republican Christian capable of seeing through all of the bullshit and uncovering the flaws of the Liberal Elite's scientific logic.

Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:55 pm
by Calibron
Not rambling, proseletizing.
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 11:45 pm
by JonSetanta
CatharzGodfoot wrote:
Man. If only there was some
kindly Republican Christian capable of seeing through all of the bullshit and uncovering the flaws of the Liberal Elite's scientific logic.

There's your problem.

Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 2:40 am
by PhoneLobster
So... wait, Tzor, you say logical ideas are bad and you bemoan that illogical ideas lack someone capable of defending them...
Well, how about that.
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 3:19 am
by Prak
Caliborn wrote:Not rambling, proseletizing.
really? how so? I wasn't aware I was...
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 8:54 pm
by tzor
sigma999 wrote:Granted, Wiki is a fickle source of info, but it is a good start:
Ah now I see, the site was uncovered in 2005, much later than my studies in 1982.
I don't say logical ideas are bad. I do say that a blind obedience to "logic" is bad. The promotion of ones own position as a superior position and the debasement of all ideas that are not in support of that position under the name of "logic" is not only illogical but it is anathema to true science. This is the problem with the liberal elitist mentality, which ironically is the same problem with the conseravte fundamentalist mentality.
And where was I bemoaning about "illogical" ideas lacking defenders?
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:15 pm
by PhoneLobster
I do say that a blind obedience to "logic" is bad.
So then you are promoting a world view that being obedient to illogical ideas is a good thing.
Its simple as that. If logic is bad then there is only one other option and that is insanity, and you openly criticise things using the very word logic like it was itself a crime.
Sorry but when it comes to understanding politics and the world, or ANYTHING logic, reason and science are the tools to be used. If you can't accept that you don't get to sit at the adults table.
"I hold this view because sometimes its good not to be logical" is not a valid argument about anything ever and it is RIGHT to discount it out of hand as stupid. Sure it's not nice for you but frankly it is a childish unproductive and meaningless argument that brings nothing of substance or value to any discussion.
Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 4:23 am
by CatharzGodfoot
PhoneLobster wrote: I do say that a blind obedience to "logic" is bad.
So then you are promoting a world view that being obedient to illogical ideas is a good thing.
Well, he did say "blind". Apparently us Liberal Elites just need to swap out our blind obedience for full-sensory obedience.
Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 4:26 am
by Count Arioch the 28th
I think the point he's making is that blind obedience to anything is bad. I'm just sayin'.