NationStates Jolt Archive

A 35-year-old man imprisoned for drug possession has filed a $10 million federal lawsuit against Yellowstone County, Montana, alleging jailers interfered with his satanic religious practices while he was in jail. The lawsuit filed by Jason P. Indreland claims county jail staff took from him a religious medallion, denied him access to a "Satanic Bible or Book of Satanic Rituals" and ridiculed and punished him for his religious beliefs.

Satanist inmate sues county (http://billingsgazette.net/articles/2009/02/20/news/local/45-fruitsofthedevil.txt)
BY GREG TUTTLE
Of The Billings Gazette Staff

A Billings man in prison for drug possession has filed a $10 million federal lawsuit against Yellowstone County for alleged civil-rights violations, including interference with his satanic religious practices.

Jason Paul Indreland claims in the U.S. District Court lawsuit that county jail staff took from him a religious medallion, denied him access to religious material and ridiculed and punished him for his religious beliefs.

The lawsuit also alleges that Indreland was denied medical care for his drug addiction, that he was placed in situations where violence was expected and that he suffered harassment and retaliation while incarcerated.

Indreland said he has been a practicing Satanist for the past decade and the confiscated medallion was a "protective symbol" in his religion. The lawsuit claims jail staff refused to return the medallion or allow Indreland access to a "Satanic Bible or Book of Satanic Rituals."

Indreland, 35, is incarcerated at Montana State Prison for a term of five years, with two years suspended, for felony drug possession. Indreland was convicted of the crime after Billings police found him with 15 grams of methamphetamine in March 2007.

Indreland has previous felony convictions in Yellowstone and Stillwater counties for bad checks and theft.

Indreland is not represented by an attorney in his suit. An attorney for the county, Kevin Gillen, said the county has not been served with the claim and could not comment.

Indreland initially filed the handwritten federal lawsuit last March while he was still held at the county jail. The lawsuit names as defendants the Yellowstone County Board of Commissioners, Sheriff Chuck Maxwell, Undersheriff Jay Bell and Sheriff's Capt. Dennis McCave, who oversees county jail operations.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Carolyn Ostby reviewed the complaint and in October issued an order permitting Indreland to file an amended complaint. Ostby said in the order that there were several legal flaws in the original claim and it would be dismissed if not amended to comply with her order.

Indreland filed the amended complaint Nov. 12. In that document, Indreland named numerous members of the jail staff he alleges participated in violating his civil rights. Among the claims, Indreland alleges jail staff placed "Christian natured greeting cards under (his) cell door describing how he was going to undertake a huge change in his life and how Jesus was ready to save and accept him."

The lawsuit seeks $3 million for alleged civil-rights violations, $2 million for "the deprivation of his rights and injuries both mental and physical," and $5 million in punitive damages.

(I was unable to find a copy of the complaint online.)

I don't think I'd agree with a mulit-million dollar judgment, but if these allegations are true they are certainly a violation of the inmate's rights. Religious freedoms extend to everyone, including Satanists.

Also ridiculous is that he's even in jail in the first place. Assinine drug laws...

The devil you say! :eek:

Satanism - LaVeyan, at least - doesn't work this way.

Remember. when they say they found God in prision... they have to specify which god... :p

Satanism - LaVeyan, at least - doesn't work this way.

So your saying the man's beliefs aren't valid or protected because they don't conform to your expectations of a Satanist?

:headbang:

So your saying the man's beliefs aren't valid or protected because they don't conform to your expectations of a Satanist?

:headbang:

...yeah, Vito, that's what I'm saying.

Only, no, it isn't. Damn. I only said LaVeyan satanism doesn't include drugs. I said nothing else.

So your saying the man's beliefs aren't valid or protected because they don't conform to your expectations of a Satanist?

:headbang:

I think he means Leveyan Satanism doesn't involve rituals or medallions (not related to the separate issue of whether the man's beliefs are valid or protected)

...yeah, Vito, that's what I'm saying.

Only, no, it isn't. Damn. I only said LaVeyan satanism doesn't include drugs. I said nothing else.

That may be what you meant, it is not what you said. Regardless, how is your comment rephrased relevant?

That may be what you meant, it is not what you said. Regardless, how is your comment rephrased relevant?

I was saying that Satanism does not tend to involve drugs. I said nothing on whether the man's beliefs should be respected, whether he HOLDS them, or whether it matters if he does or not. I said Satanism, at least LaVeyian, doesn't involve drugs. That, only that, and nothing more. YOUR choice of interpretation is YOURS.

I was saying that Satanism does not tend to involve drugs. I said nothing on whether the man's beliefs should be respected, whether he HOLDS them, or whether it matters if he does or not. I said Satanism, at least LaVeyian, doesn't involve drugs. That, only that, and nothing more. YOUR choice of interpretation is YOURS.

Fine, I apologize for misunderstanding you.

I thought you meant something relevant, whereas his conviction for drug possession has NOTHING to do with his civil rights complaint.

I was saying that Satanism does not tend to involve drugs. I said nothing on whether the man's beliefs should be respected, whether he HOLDS them, or whether it matters if he does or not. I said Satanism, at least LaVeyian, doesn't involve drugs. That, only that, and nothing more. YOUR choice of interpretation is YOURS.

um...he's not saying that his arrest FOR DRUG POSSESSION is what violated his rights. He's saying his rights were violated, while in prison for drug possession.

It might be relevant in that I don't think you can just make up your own religion and then claim your religious rights are being violated. It's probably arguable, just a heck of a lot harder to win. So if he's not a LaVeyan Satanist, what kind of Satanist is he?

I'm obviously not a lawyer, I just remember reading about the Native American Church having to do a lot of explaining about their established historical religious practices so that the Feds would treat them as a church and not as a bunch of people doing peyote.

As much as I disagree with the man's beliefs I have to disagree much more with his treatment, if indeed he was treated like this.

um...he's not saying that his arrest FOR DRUG POSSESSION is what violated his rights. He's saying his rights were violated, while in prison for drug possession.

Yeah, you see, you folks CAN fault me for not reading the op fully, though. :p

*Beats self with a large trout*

Fine, I apologize for misunderstanding you.

I thought you meant something relevant, whereas his conviction for drug possession has NOTHING to do with his civil rights complaint.
that would be this post...

Also ridiculous is that he's even in jail in the first place. Assinine drug laws...

:p

Yeah, you see, you folks CAN fault me for not reading the op fully, though. :p

*Beats self with a large trout*

TBH... the article is vague on this part...
Jason Paul Indreland claims in the U.S. District Court lawsuit that county jail staff took from him a religious medallion, denied him access to religious material and ridiculed and punished him for his religious beliefs.


Incense could be considered a religious material, so would a sharp blade, matches and other implements, but I can't see those things being allowed in prision to a prisoner.

don't make his treatment right tho.

TBH... the article is vague on this part...


Incense could be considered a religious material, so would a sharp blade, matches and other implements, but I can't see those things being allowed in prision to a prisoner.

don't make his treatment right tho.

Um. The article says the religious material to which he was denied access was a "Satanic Bible or Book of Satanic Rituals" and I specifically highlighted that and the nature of the inmates complaint in the first two sentences of the OP.

Nowhere is there a reasonable inference that the inmate is demanding drugs, incense, a sharp blade, matches, etc.

Religious freedoms extend to everyone, including Satanists.

To what extent though? There's bound to be an upper limit where the claim of religious freedoms gets shot down because it breaks law or policy. There's not many places that will let you commit murder under the guise of religion after all.

Confiscating the man's medallion only has to satisfy a policy of whether the inmates are allowed personal affects or not while incarcerated I imagine.

To what extent though? There's bound to be an upper limit where the claim of religious freedoms gets shot down because it breaks law or policy.
It's against my religion to be confined to a cell.

*nods*

To what extent though? There's bound to be an upper limit where the claim of religious freedoms gets shot down because it breaks law or policy. There's not many places that will let you commit murder under the guise of religion after all.

Confiscating the man's medallion only has to satisfy a policy of whether the inmates are allowed personal affects or not while incarcerated I imagine.

Of course, generally applicable, nondiscriminatory laws apply without religous exceptions.

Further, the general rule is that prison regulations impinging on exercise of constitutional rights by inmates are '''valid if . . . reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.'''

Perhaps this prison does not allow any personal effects, but I doubt it. And if it does, I'm not sure such a regulation is legitimate.

Of course, generally applicable, nondiscriminatory laws apply without religous exceptions.

Further, the general rule is that prison regulations impinging on exercise of constitutional rights by inmates are '''valid if . . . reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.'''

Perhaps this prison does not allow any personal effects, but I doubt it. And if it does, I'm not sure such a regulation is legitimate.

depends on the size and material of the amulet.

I know some prisions, I couldn't take pens inside when I had to repair their computer equiptment.

To be honest while i say in theory his rights were violated, it was more likely the guards were trying to make sure he didn't get shanked for being a satanist. by taking away things that identified him as such. just a guess.

I can see giving the book back but the amulet could be dangerous for him. Likely the guard were trying to keep him alive but likely the courts won't see it that way. I hope find his way.

I can see giving the book back but the amulet could be dangerous for him. Likely the guard were trying to keep him alive but likely the courts won't see it that way. I hope find his way.

even the book. I mean come on a cell mate sees you reading that, next thing you know the prison is full of rumors you are there for killing and eating babies.
And then our would be suer for civil rights receives worse treatment then a child rapist.

even the book. I mean come on a cell mate sees you reading that, next thing you know the prison is full of rumors you are there for killing and eating babies.
And then our would be suer for civil rights receives worse treatment then a child rapist.

The man already is clearly open with his religious choice. Access to the book is a legitimate religious accomodation.

The man already is clearly open with his religious choice. Access to the book is a legitimate religious accomodation.

that's nice in a theoretical sense. in a practical sense he is likely to be killed by inmates for possessing that book.

that's nice in a theoretical sense. in a practical sense he is likely to be killed by inmates for possessing that book.

So if he says "I'm a satanist and I want to get this book" to everyone, he's less in danger than if he's reading the book?

If his constitutionally protected religious rights endanger him with other inmates, put him in protected custody in a segregated unit.

But saying "You can't excercise your rights because the other inmates would make it to dangerous for you" shows an utter lack of rudimentary institutional control. Segregated units (or even facilities) aren't cheap, but constitutional impetus can call for it.

The question that needs to be asked here is whether the prison allowed other prisoners access to their religious texts or paraphernalia. If so, then this man's rights have assuredly been violated in a moral, if not in a legal sense (since I'm not a lawyer, I'm not going to weigh in as if I am here).

So if he says "I'm a satanist and I want to get this book" to everyone, he's less in danger than if he's reading the book?

If his constitutionally protected religious rights endanger him with other inmates, put him in protected custody in a segregated unit.

But saying "You can't excercise your rights because the other inmates would make it to dangerous for you" shows an utter lack of rudimentary institutional control. Segregated units (or even facilities) aren't cheap, but constitutional impetus can call for it.

I am hoping of giving him a good talking to about not mentioning your religion to the other prisoners. That failing convince the other prisoners he is crazy.

Well in this case, the devil is literally in the details.

To be honest while i say in theory his rights were violated, it was more likely the guards were trying to make sure he didn't get shanked for being a satanist. by taking away things that identified him as such. just a guess.

I can see giving the book back but the amulet could be dangerous for him. Likely the guard were trying to keep him alive but likely the courts won't see it that way. I hope find his way.
You evidently both missed the part where the prisoner alleges he was ridiculed and punished for his beliefs by the corrections staff, which apparently occurred in addition to the removal of his book and amulet.

I am hoping of giving him a good talking to about not mentioning your religion to the other prisoners. That failing convince the other prisoners he is crazy.
So, in other words, some religions just don't get their rights protected. I see.

I am hoping of giving him a good talking to about not mentioning your religion to the other prisoners. That failing convince the other prisoners he is crazy.

Or that he knows lot of hot satanist chicks he can hook them up with on the outside...

Well in this case, the devil is literally in the details.

Part of my brain just ate itself to avoid living in a world where somebody made that pun! You bad! You bad, bad!

So, in other words, some religions just don't get their rights protected. I see.

something about the guards can not protect him 24/7 comes to mind.

even the book. I mean come on a cell mate sees you reading that, next thing you know the prison is full of rumors you are there for killing and eating babies.
And then our would be suer for civil rights receives worse treatment then a child rapist.

If people are allowed a book full of rape, murder, torture, incest, genocide, etc - why not Satanic literature?

You can use the exact same "...a cell mate sees you reading that, next thing you know..." condition to prevent access to Bibles, Korans, whatever - if you want to. But it looks like the ONLY thing being blocked is Satanic literature.

something about the guards can not protect him 24/7 comes to mind.

No, that's why they call them 'guards', because they can't protect stuff.

I'm confused.

If people are allowed a book full of rape, murder, torture, incest, genocide, etc - why not Satanic literature?

You can use the exact same "...a cell mate sees you reading that, next thing you know..." condition to prevent access to Bibles, Korans, whatever - if you want to. But it looks like the ONLY thing being blocked is Satanic literature.

look its like higschool. the dorky kid who calls himself a satanist is going to get beat up every time the teacher is not looking.
Does the Muslim get beat up that often?
Does the Jew ? well a few times when we are upset why his dad can afford a Rolls Royce and ours cant.

And likewise will the satanist be accosted every second of his life in prison that a guard isn't around.

something about the guards can not protect him 24/7 comes to mind.
Something Hammurab mentioned about segregated detention comes to mind.

look its like higschool. the dorky kid who calls himself a satanist is going to get beat up every time the teacher is not looking.
Does the Muslim get beat up that often?
Does the Jew ? well a few times when we are upset why his dad can afford a Rolls Royce and ours cant.

And likewise will the satanist be accosted every second of his life in prison that a guard isn't around.
Right, and of course, the proper response is not to maintain discipline in the school/prison, but to repress the kid who gets picked on.

look its like higschool. the dorky kid who calls himself a satanist is going to get beat up every time the teacher is not looking.
Does the Muslim get beat up that often?
Does the Jew ? well a few times when we are upset why his dad can afford a Rolls Royce and ours cant.

And likewise will the satanist be accosted every second of his life in prison that a guard isn't around.

Right. So people of minorities should be hidden away, because otherwise they might cause other people to do violence to them.

And if ni**ers didn't want to get burned or hanged, they shouldn't have been stupid enough to be black, right?

Something Hammurab mentioned about segregated detention comes to mind.

screw that he is obviously faking for special treatment.

Right. So people of minorities should be hidden away, because otherwise they might cause other people to do violence to them.

And if ni**ers didn't want to get burned or hanged, they shouldn't have been stupid enough to be black, right?

satanism in the ignorant populations of prison is a little different. inmates will shank first ask if your beliefs involve sacrificing babies later.
Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and others tend to jsut get an Oh something different.

screw that he is obviously faking for special treatment.

Which, according to you, includes such joys as getting 'beat up', 'accosted' and 'shanked'.

Yeah, I can see why he'd fake it.

satanism in the ignorant populations of prison is a little different. inmates will shank first ask if your beliefs involve sacrificing babies later.
Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and others tend to jsut get an Oh something different.

Is this experience talking? You keep making claims like you know something. Or - is this just bullshit?

A 35-year-old man imprisoned for drug possession has filed a $10 million federal lawsuit against Yellowstone County, Montana, alleging jailers interfered with his satanic religious practices while he was in jail. The lawsuit filed by Jason P. Indreland claims county jail staff took from him a religious medallion, denied him access to a "Satanic Bible or Book of Satanic Rituals" and ridiculed and punished him for his religious beliefs.

Satanist inmate sues county (http://billingsgazette.net/articles/2009/02/20/news/local/45-fruitsofthedevil.txt)
BY GREG TUTTLE
Of The Billings Gazette Staff

A Billings man in prison for drug possession has filed a $10 million federal lawsuit against Yellowstone County for alleged civil-rights violations, including interference with his satanic religious practices.

Jason Paul Indreland claims in the U.S. District Court lawsuit that county jail staff took from him a religious medallion, denied him access to religious material and ridiculed and punished him for his religious beliefs.

The lawsuit also alleges that Indreland was denied medical care for his drug addiction, that he was placed in situations where violence was expected and that he suffered harassment and retaliation while incarcerated.

Indreland said he has been a practicing Satanist for the past decade and the confiscated medallion was a "protective symbol" in his religion. The lawsuit claims jail staff refused to return the medallion or allow Indreland access to a "Satanic Bible or Book of Satanic Rituals."

Indreland, 35, is incarcerated at Montana State Prison for a term of five years, with two years suspended, for felony drug possession. Indreland was convicted of the crime after Billings police found him with 15 grams of methamphetamine in March 2007.

Indreland has previous felony convictions in Yellowstone and Stillwater counties for bad checks and theft.

Indreland is not represented by an attorney in his suit. An attorney for the county, Kevin Gillen, said the county has not been served with the claim and could not comment.

Indreland initially filed the handwritten federal lawsuit last March while he was still held at the county jail. The lawsuit names as defendants the Yellowstone County Board of Commissioners, Sheriff Chuck Maxwell, Undersheriff Jay Bell and Sheriff's Capt. Dennis McCave, who oversees county jail operations.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Carolyn Ostby reviewed the complaint and in October issued an order permitting Indreland to file an amended complaint. Ostby said in the order that there were several legal flaws in the original claim and it would be dismissed if not amended to comply with her order.

Indreland filed the amended complaint Nov. 12. In that document, Indreland named numerous members of the jail staff he alleges participated in violating his civil rights. Among the claims, Indreland alleges jail staff placed "Christian natured greeting cards under (his) cell door describing how he was going to undertake a huge change in his life and how Jesus was ready to save and accept him."

The lawsuit seeks $3 million for alleged civil-rights violations, $2 million for "the deprivation of his rights and injuries both mental and physical," and $5 million in punitive damages.

(I was unable to find a copy of the complaint online.)

I don't think I'd agree with a mulit-million dollar judgment, but if these allegations are true they are certainly a violation of the inmate's rights. Religious freedoms extend to everyone, including Satanists.
Of course they extend to Satanists; the question is, do they extend to prisoners? Our society seems to have a judgemental attitude towards the "rights" of convicted criminals. After all, they still have to share a prison cell with someone else, even in spite of all the prison rape that goes on...

That said, I pretty much just skimmed over the article; haven't read it thoroughly.

Which, according to you, includes such joys as getting 'beat up', 'accosted' and 'shanked'.

Yeah, I can see why he'd fake it.

Considering Lavey Satanism is about pragmatism over martyrdom, yeah he is lying in the face of those threats to get special treatment. Any Satanist would have kept quite about it to stay alive. Its not like it will get you anything behind bars unless you enjoy being shanked.

screw that he is obviously faking for special treatment.
Is that what you fall back on when you have run out of argument?

Considering Lavey Satanism is about pragmatism over martyrdom, yeah he is lying in the face of those threats to get special treatment. Any Satanist would have kept quite about it to stay alive. Its not like it will get you anything behind bars unless you enjoy being shanked.

Any Satanist, huh? Not a single living La Vey style Satanist who would want to stand up for their religious rights, even if that means going to a segregated unit?

Any Satanist, huh? Not a single living La Vey style Satanist who would want to stand up for their religious rights, even if that means going to a segregated unit?

Pragmatism, survival, and secrecy (except in the goth clubs where it gets you laid). His claim to the religion is a violation of the religion meaning he is not entitled to the book.

Which, according to you, includes such joys as getting 'beat up', 'accosted' and 'shanked'.

Yeah, I can see why he'd fake it.

Yeah he better get used to prison I have feeling misfortune is going to follow him, just a hunch. I think they should give them back.

So he wins 10 Million bucks and his house will burn down or DWI or drug bust, or maybe a car crash. It will happen sure as anything.

The other side there is no time off for good behavior. Do what thou will shall be the entire law or something to that affect. I hope he wises up but before it is too late.

Yeah he better get used to prison I have feeling misfortune is going to follow him, just a hunch. I think they should give them back.

So he wins 10 Million bucks and his house will burn down or DWI or drug bust, or maybe a car crash. It will happen sure as anything.

The other side there is no time off for good behavior. Do what thou will shall be the entire law or something to that affect. I hope he wises up but before it is too late.
What are you talking about, and why are you talking about it?

What are you talking about, and why are you talking about it?

I think they should give back his stuff.

Pragmatism, survival, and secrecy (except in the goth clubs where it gets you laid).

Secrecy? La Vey satanism requires you to keep it secret? O Ry'lyeh?

He can pragmatically survive in a segregated unit.


His claim to the religion is a violation of the religion meaning he is not entitled to the book.

Really, so only people who perfectly follow a religion are allowed the means to learn to follow it?

That's not even internally consistent, because how can you even attempt to follow the religion without access to its doctrines.

If religious rights only applied to people who flawlessly follow their religion, the Free Excercise Clause would be largely meaningless. Your argument has become so flawed, I have to suspect your kidding at this point.

Idk about $10 Million, but His rights do seem to have been violated...

On the other hand, Im at a loss as to what he should get, Where's Neo? lol

Yeah he better get used to prison I have feeling misfortune is going to follow him, just a hunch. I think they should give them back.

So he wins 10 Million bucks and his house will burn down or DWI or drug bust, or maybe a car crash. It will happen sure as anything.

The other side there is no time off for good behavior. Do what thou will shall be the entire law or something to that affect. I hope he wises up but before it is too late.


Imagine watching someone scaring an ostrich on a concrete playground. That's what its like reading your post.

Imagine watching someone scaring an ostrich on a concrete playground. That's what its like reading your post.

I don't know, misfortune seems to follow these guys, I wonder why?

I don't know, misfortune seems to follow these guys, I wonder why?

Theyre not Truly Blessed?



(Im sorry, I couldnt resist, lol)

I don't know, misfortune seems to follow these guys, I wonder why?

"These guys" being who? Prison inmates? La Vey Satanists? The intersection thereof?

I think they should give back his stuff.
Okay...

*reads TB's post again* *shrugs*

I don't know, misfortune seems to follow these guys, I wonder why?
Which guys -- Satanists or drug addicts/pushers?

If Satanists, I was not aware that they are more unlucky than other people.

If druggies, yeah, no kidding.

Secrecy? La Vey satanism requires you to keep it secret? O Ry'lyeh?

He can pragmatically survive in a segregated unit.

even in a segregated unit he will have issues.
Even in full iso he will have issues (going crazy).


Really, so only people who perfectly follow a religion are allowed the means to learn to follow it?

More like violating one of the core tenants. think of it as claiming to be Baptist but publicly stating no belief in god Jesus (person or divine) or anything else in the bible. Also the copyright on the Satanic bible only grants recognition to paying members that adhere to the tenets.

That's not even internally consistent, because how can you even attempt to follow the religion without access to its doctrines.

its not like satanism is hard to do.
even if you cant remember the 9 statements, just remember do what you want, be pragmatic and keep it secret.

If religious rights only applied to people who flawlessly follow their religion, the Free Excercise Clause would be largely meaningless. Your argument has become so flawed, I have to suspect your kidding at this point.

religions are allowed to set guidelines for admittance. Catholics are allowed to deny communion to whom they so choose. And religions can refuse to sell copies of their book(given hard to enforce because someone else can buy it).
Not to mention why has he not purchased his membership in the church of Satan ? or if so has it been revoked ?

"These guys" being who? Prison inmates? La Vey Satanists? The intersection thereof?

All Satanists not just on sect.


Inmates are okay. Well as soon as they pay their debt to society.

All Satanists not just on sect.




Idk, I think things went/are going pretty well for, say, Marilyn Manson...The guy's rich as, well, Hell, lol...

Okay...

*reads TB's post again* *shrugs*


Which guys -- Satanists or drug addicts/pushers?

If Satanists, I was not aware that they are more unlucky than other people.

If druggies, yeah, no kidding.


How many Satanist do you know?

Druggies are also but that is more of a self destruction thing rather than embracing your own demise.

All Satanists not just on sect.

And you don't realize the profound difference between La Vey Satanism and Satanism as its otherwise conceived?

And on what do you base the premise that "misfortune" follows them around?



Inmates are okay. Well as soon as they pay their debt to society.

So, they suffer more misfortune in prison, and less outside of it. Yeah, brilliant insight.

Idk, I think things went/are going pretty well for, say, Marilyn Manson...The guy's rich as, well, Hell, lol...

A perfect example thank you.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_Manson
Divorce
On December 30, 2006 Von Teese filed for divorce due to "irreconcilable differences."[43] ET.com and People claimed that Manson was having an extramarital affair with then 19-year-old actress Evan Rachel Wood, who is to co-star in his horror film Phantasmagoria: The Visions of Lewis Carroll, and features in the video for his 2007 single, "Heart-Shaped Glasses."[44][45] The relationship was confirmed by Von Teese in an interview with the Sunday Telegraph, "I get the impression he thinks I was unsupportive, but the truth is I wasn't supportive of his lifestyle, and someone else came along who was."[46] Manson's alcohol abuse and distant behavior were also cited as cause for the split.[47] He is reportedly fighting for custody of the couple's three cats.[48] A judgement of divorce was entered in Los Angeles Superior Court on December 27, 2007.[49]


Lawsuits
In 1997, former guitarist and songwriter Scott Putesky, "Daisy Berkowitz," filed suit against Manson seeking unpaid royalties for his contributions to the band's output up to that period, including the recently released Antichrist Superstar. The case was concluded in 1998, although the outcome was confidential.
In a civil battery suit, David Diaz, a security officer from a concert in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on October 27, 2000, sued for $75,000 in a Minneapolis federal court.[50][51] The federal court jury found in Manson's favor.[52]
In a civil suit presented by Oakland County, Michigan, Manson was charged with sexual misconduct against another security officer, Joshua Keasler, during a concert in Clarkston, Michigan, on July 30, 2001. Oakland County originally filed assault and battery and criminal sexual misconduct charges,[53] but the judge reduced the latter charge to misdemeanor disorderly conduct.[54] Manson pleaded no contest to the reduced charges, paid a $4,000 fine,[55] and later settled the lawsuit under undisclosed terms.[56]
On April 3, 2002, Maria St. John filed in Los Angeles Superior Court accusing Manson of providing her adult daughter, Jennifer Syme, with cocaine and instructing her to drive while under the influence.[57]
On August 2, 2007, former band member Stephen "Pogo/Madonna Wayne Gacy" Bier filed a lawsuit against Manson for unpaid "partnership proceeds," seeking $20 million in back pay. Several details from the lawsuit leaked to the press.[58][59] In November 2007, additional papers were filed saying that Manson purchased a child's skeleton and masks made of human skin. He also allegedly bought stuffed animals, such as a grizzly bear and two baboons and a collection of Nazi memorabilia.[60] In December 2007, Manson countersued, claiming that Bier failed to fulfill his duties as a bandmember to play for recordings and to promote the band.[61]

How many Satanist do you know?

How many do you know? And what do you think a Satanist is, as referenced in this article?


Druggies are also but that is more of a self destruction thing rather than embracing your own demise.

I'd like you to take a look at that sentence for a moment, and ask yourself why it might cause palplable discomfort to any rational reader.

And on what do you base the premise that "misfortune" follows them around?


He was told by this guy...

http://www.adpulp.com/satan.jpg

A perfect example thank you.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_Manson


Right, because divorce and litigation happen in far fewer instances to non-Satanists....

Gotta love the use of anecdotal evidence to support absurd generalizations...

A perfect example thank you.


*snip*

Meh, thats largely a product of being famous...And Besides, thanx largely to his good fortune in the form of having managed to obtain large sums of Cash, Its nothing he cant handle, lol...

He was told by this guy...

http://www.adpulp.com/satan.jpg

Laughably, this jpg is about as credible and well reasoned as the Manson wiki he referenced.

As if musicians from every creed don't frequently experience divorce and litigation...

Right, because divorce and litigation happen in far fewer instances to non-Satanists....

Gotta love the use of anecdotal evidence to support absurd generalizations...

Maybe the poster is citing an example that money doesn't necessarily solve everything.

Maybe the poster is citing an example that money doesn't necessarily solve everything.
Lol, possibly, if it wasnt for this:

I don't know, misfortune seems to follow these guys, I wonder why?

All Satanists not just on sect.

Lol, possibly, if it wasnt for this:

Ah, didn't see that.

even in a segregated unit he will have issues.
Even in full iso he will have issues (going crazy).

Full isolation is unnessary, there are well managed ad-seg units in many facilities.


More like violating one of the core tenants. think of it as claiming to be Baptist but publicly stating no belief in god Jesus (person or divine) or anything else in the bible. Also the copyright on the Satanic bible only grants recognition to paying members that adhere to the tenets.

Being open about his satanism is hardly as contrary to La Vey Satanism (La Vey didn't keep his status secret, you'll notice) is hardly the same as publicly reject belief in the total doctrine.


its not like satanism is hard to do.
even if you cant remember the 9 statements, just remember do what you want, be pragmatic and keep it secret.

Your subjective judgment on its difficulty is irrelevant to his religious rights. If he thinks he needs to book for a religious reason, access to a book is reasonable accomodation. Just because you don't think he's adhering correctly, that doesn't mean he loses his constitutional rights.


religions are allowed to set guidelines for admittance. Catholics are allowed to deny communion to whom they so choose. And religions can refuse to sell copies of their book(given hard to enforce because someone else can buy it).
Not to mention why has he not purchased his membership in the church of Satan ? or if so has it been revoked ?

He may not have the wherewithal, but either way, its between him and his church. Even if he just wants to study the beliefs to understand them better to join the church, its protected religious practice.

Maybe the poster is citing an example that money doesn't necessarily solve everything.

Skallvia got it already, thanks dude.

No sweat.

I don't know any Satanists and would avoid them if I did know.

I don't know any Satanists and would avoid them if I did know.

Right, so based on zero observations, and a musician who isn't even actually a Satanist (especially not of the La Vey style relevant to the article) having divorce and litigation problems that are widely common among people as a whole, you think Satanists are somehow followed by misfortune more than anyone else.

Right, because divorce and litigation happen in far fewer instances to non-Satanists....


I think the best part, for me, is that TB is attempting to show that Satanists are unlucky because one of them has the terrible misfortune of.....screwing a 19-year-old Hollywood starlet (after several years of screwing a world-famous fetish model/burlesque star).

Something tells me many guys wouldn't exactly see these things as "unlucky." :p

I think the best part, for me, is that TB is attempting to show that Satanists are unlucky because one of them has the terrible misfortune of.....screwing a 19-year-old Hollywood starlet (after several years of screwing a world-famous fetish model/burlesque star).

Something tells me many guys wouldn't exactly see these things as "unlucky." :p

Christ with a dead hooker in his trunk, did you see the bit where TB basically says to the effect "Druggies are also but that is more of a self destruction thing rather than embracing your own demise."

It actually hurt my eyes to read.

Christ with a dead hooker in his trunk, did you see the bit where TB basically says to the effect "Druggies are also but that is more of a self destruction thing rather than embracing your own demise."

It actually hurt my eyes to read.

My eyes saw it, but my brain simply refused to believe them and is therefore insistent that such a thing never happened.

Christ with a dead hooker in his trunk, did you see the bit where TB basically says to the effect "Druggies are also but that is more of a self destruction thing rather than embracing your own demise."

It actually hurt my eyes to read.

I actually quite enjoyed it, It gave me a good excuse to go find a stupid Satan pic, lol...

I actually quite enjoyed it, It gave me a good excuse to go find a stupid Satan pic, lol...

At least you didn't use the obvious Robot Devil Schtick...

My eyes saw it, but my brain simply refused to believe them and is therefore insistent that such a thing never happened.

I used to have defense mechanisms like that, but they eroded somehow ever time. Now I'm thinking of just killing myself.

Right, so based on zero observations, and a musician who isn't even actually a Satanist (especially not of the La Vey style relevant to the article) having divorce and litigation problems that are widely common among people as a whole, you think Satanists are somehow followed by misfortune more than anyone else.

I do. Just a hunch.

At least you didn't use the obvious Robot Devil Schtick...

Ever since the incident with the Golden Fiddle, he no longer allows me to display his image, :(

I do. Just a hunch.

What a fine, fine way to form beliefs about groups of people. Huzzah, sir.

I used to have defense mechanisms like that, but they eroded somehow ever time. Now I'm thinking of just killing myself.

Aw, don't do that. Who would tell me I'm a dirty lettuce if you weren't around?

What a fine, fine way to form beliefs about groups of people. Huzzah, sir.

I have a theory that people whose posting names have the initials that are the same as an infectious lung disease are pedophiles.

Just a hunch.

What does it say about a group of people who ally themselves with the true enemy of God. Saying you don't believe is one thing but saying you are the opposite of everything God stands for is quite another.

I have a theory that people whose posting names have the initials that are the same as an infectious lung disease are pedophiles.

Just a hunch.

Explains a lot about Poliwanacraca aka "Pneumonia"...after all, you have a baby dick.

What does it say about a group of people who ally themselves with the true enemy of God. Saying you don't believe is one thing but saying you are the opposite of everything God stands for is quite another.

Considering what the people who align with what God supposedly stands for have done over the years...


I think id rather throw my lot in with the opposition myself...

What does it say about a group of people who ally themselves with the true enemy of God. Saying you don't believe is one thing but saying you are the opposite of everything God stands for is quite another.

So, no, you don't even have a basic concept of what La Vey Satanism (the one relevant to the article, and included in your broad misinformed claims) is about.

Like almost every thread I've ever seen you on, you've come to a conclusion without first developing even the most basic understanding of what you're talking about. At least you're consistent.

Explains a lot about Poliwanacraca aka "Pneumonia"...after all, you have a baby dick.

Wait, I thought we'd established he had the "Hebrew Hammer." NA, come sort out your penis size for us. :p

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism

[edit] LaVeyan Satanism
Main article: LaVeyan Satanism
LaVeyan Satanism is a religion founded in 1966 by Anton Szandor LaVey. Its teachings are based on individualism, self-indulgence, and "eye for an eye" morality. Unlike Theistic Satanists, LaVeyan Satanists are atheists and agnostics who regard Satan as a symbol of man's inherent nature.[2] According to religioustolerance.org, LaVeyan Satanism is a "small religious group that is unrelated to any other faith, and whose members feel free to satisfy their urges responsibly, exhibit kindness to their friends, and attack their enemies".[3] Its beliefs were first detailed in The Satanic Bible and it is overseen by the Church of Satan

Wait, I thought we'd established he had the "Hebrew Hammer." NA, come sort out your penis size for us. :p

Its not "baby" in size, he just wields it like a drooling, flailing, emotionally underdevloped man-child, so we call it a "baby dick".

That, and his balls are enormous compared to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism

[edit] LaVeyan Satanism
Main article: LaVeyan Satanism
LaVeyan Satanism is a religion founded in 1966 by Anton Szandor LaVey. Its teachings are based on individualism, self-indulgence, and "eye for an eye" morality. Unlike Theistic Satanists, LaVeyan Satanists are atheists and agnostics who regard Satan as a symbol of man's inherent nature.[2] According to religioustolerance.org, LaVeyan Satanism is a "small religious group that is unrelated to any other faith, and whose members feel free to satisfy their urges responsibly, exhibit kindness to their friends, and attack their enemies".[3] Its beliefs were first detailed in The Satanic Bible and it is overseen by the Church of Satan

Right, now if you'd actually read (and understand the article), instead of cut and pasting it, you'd realize that LaVeyan's are atheists who don't believe Satan is an existent figure, much less an "opposite" to god.

The very link you just posted utterly refutes how you've described Satanism.

Right, now if you'd actually read (and understand the article), instead of cut and pasting it, you'd realize that LaVeyan's are atheists who don't believe Satan is an existent figure, much less an "opposite" to god.

The very link you just posted utterly refutes how you've described Satanism.

So why not just say you are an atheist then? In which case you would not have to pay the $100.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_satan
Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence
Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams
Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit
Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates
Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek
Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires
Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of all
Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification
Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years!



This pretty much makes you the enemy of God.

So why not just say you are an atheist then? In which case you would not have to pay the $100.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_satan
Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence
Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams
Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit
Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates
Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek
Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires
Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of all
Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification
Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years!



This pretty much makes you the enemy of God.
If you're Christian aren't you supposed to seek out and reconcile with your enemies instead of avoid them as you mentioned earlier? -I'm speaking as someone sympathetic to the Christian religion.

So why not just say you are an atheist then? In which case you would not have to pay the $100.

That you think atheism is such a monolithic set of beliefs shows an utter lack of willingness to even try to understand.

You think all athiests have the same beliefs? That there aren't a wide range of issues and concepts that can be addressed indepedent of belief some deity?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_satan
Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence
Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams
Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit
Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates
Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek
Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires
Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of all
Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification
Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years!

This pretty much makes you the enemy of God.

So, you still don't get the most basic principle that they have to repeatedly explain to people: They don't believe there is a God to be an enemy of. You can claim that in YOUR belief system they are somehow the enemy of some petty god who feels the need to have enmity with people who don't believe in him, but in THEIR belief system, there is neither a God nor a literal or existent Devil.

Thus, your claim that these people "ally" themselves with Satan, who they have flat out said they don't even believe exists, shows you have no basic understanding of their beliefs or even a grasp of the material that you've posted yourself. Yet you make broad, uninformed assertions about it.

Can you at least understand at this point that the Satanism relevant to this article does NOT involve "allying" ones self with an existent Satan, and doesn't involve any deliberate choice to be the "enemy" of a God they don't even believe exists?

My head is going to explode from the number of people saying he must be a LaVey Satanist except that he can't be because he isn't complying with the tenets of LaVey Satanism.

Seriously, think that argument through a few times.

If you're Christian aren't you supposed to seek out and reconcile with your enemies instead of avoid them as you mentioned earlier? -I'm speaking as someone sympathetic to the Christian religion.

Very true. We are suppose to reach out. That would be the right thing to do.

My head is going to explode from the number of people saying he must be a LaVey Satanist except that he can't be because he isn't complying with the tenets of LaVey Satanism.

Seriously, think that argument through a few times.

Even if he's in some other kind of Satanism, Theistic Satanism or whatever, I can't see any court saying "we deny your religious rights because you aren't practicing your religion properly".

I've only ever seen one argument from somebody that was even close to that, and that person thought courts weren't part of the government.

Very true. We are suppose to reach out. That would be the right thing to do.

Cool. What denomination or church are you a member of??

Very true. We are suppose to reach out. That would be the right thing to do.

Yet you've said you'd avoid them; I think that was his point.

Frankly, I don't see anything wrong with choosing to avoid people that aren't interested in your message, but its problematic to simultaenously said you'd avoid them but also advocate the "rightness" of reaching out to them.

That you think atheism is such a monolithic set of beliefs shows an utter lack of willingness to even try to understand.

You think all atheists have the same beliefs? That there aren't a wide range of issues and concepts that can be addressed independent of belief some deity?

I am a catholic. I have always been a Christian. I practiced some times more, some times less, during the course of my life but it has always been there. So I am asking? I am trying not to be critical. Just seeking to understand.



So, you still don't get the most basic principle that they have to repeatedly explain to people: They don't believe there is a God to be an enemy of. You can claim that in YOUR belief system they are somehow the enemy of some petty god who feels the need to have enmity with people who don't believe in him, but in THEIR belief system, there is neither a God nor a literal or existent Devil.

So why ally yourself with some who you don't believe in who to others would be just about the most horrible thing you could ally yourself with. I mean really it is like saying you ally yourself with Adolph Hitler.



Thus, your claim that these people "ally" themselves with Satan, who they have flat out said they don't even believe exists, shows you have no basic understanding of their beliefs or even a grasp of the material that you've posted yourself. Yet you make broad, uninformed assertions about it.

I admit I do not. I am just curious.



Can you at least understand at this point that the Satanism relevant to this article does NOT involve "allying" ones self with an existent Satan, and doesn't involve any deliberate choice to be the "enemy" of a God they don't even believe exists?

To one who doesn't believe it may. Why not make up some other name? Let's face it you know what he stands for to Christians. If they didn't care about the name why not use Zeus or Apollo or Neptune? Secondly why ally yourself with a know evil entity?

So why ally yourself with some who you don't believe in who to others would be just about the most horrible thing you could ally yourself with. I mean really it is like saying you ally yourself with Adolph Hitler.


Hey, if Hitler's rights are being trampled, then I would defend him just as blatantly as anyone else...

Inalienable and all that...

Cool. What denomination or church are you a member of??


Holy Rosary in Greenwood lake NY

I am a catholic. I have always been a Christian. I practiced some times more, some times less, during the course of my life but it has always been there. So I am asking? I am trying not to be critical. Just seeking to understand.

Understanding is achieved better through questions than uninformed assertions like the ones you've made. But prior to this post, you haven't been asking questions, you've been making ill informed statements. If you are now changing to a mode of asking questions, that's definite progress.


So why ally yourself with some who you don't believe in who to others would be just about the most horrible thing you could ally yourself with. I mean really it is like saying you ally yourself with Adolph Hitler.

That's the point! If he's a La Vey Satanist, they DON'T ally themselves with Satan. That was one of your uninformed claims about their beliefs, not an actual facet of their beliefs.

You post so many Wiki articles, but you never demonstrate any basic understanding of the information, even that you post yourself.


I admit I do not. I am just curious.

NOW you admit you don't understand it, but before you were making uninformed assertions. Thats not curiousity, its lack of knowledge.


To one who doesn't believe it may. Why not make up some other name? Let's face it you know what he stands for to Christians.

If you actually followed up on researching beyond cut and pasting a wiki article you didn't read enough to understand, you'd already know why.

The article you posted referred to a group that doesn't believe in a existing Satan (or God), but they reject the mentality of Christianity, so choosing a symbolic name and focus to indicate that gets their point across. Thus, they are neither "allies" of a Satan nor "enemies" of a God, but they reject the belief system that both of those figures are predicated on.


If they didn't care about the name why not use Zeus or Apollo or Neptune? Secondly why ally yourself with a know evil entity?

Again, try actually reading and following up on the the stuff you post. Why should they use mythical characters as symbols that are less indicative of their beliefs? And your judgment or stereotypes of evil don't have to be the basis for other people's religious beliefs. (And for the last time, they don't "ally" themselves with a literal satan, for crying out loud, if you can't understand people's posts, at least try to read what you've posted).

Yet you've said you'd avoid them; I think that was his point.

Frankly, I don't see anything wrong with choosing to avoid people that aren't interested in your message, but its problematic to simultaenously said you'd avoid them but also advocate the "rightness" of reaching out to them.

The right thing to do is reach out to them. When I think Satanist, I think Night Stalker, Richard Ramirez. So undoubtedly some this is socialization on my part. We are lead to believe that they are law breakers etc.

Holy Rosary in Greenwood lake NY

So, if you're Catholic, you would acknowledge the teachings of the various Popes, yes?

That's interesting, because you've claimed in the past that "Freedom is a privilage", yet the Catholic Church has taught as doctrine for over a century that freedom is an intrinsic human right.

So, you don't really even understand your own belief system.

The right thing to do is reach out to them. When I think Satanist, I think Night Stalker, Richard Ramirez. So undoubtedly some this is socialization on my part. We are lead to believe that they are law breakers etc.

And throughout this thread, you've embraced and perpetuated those beliefs. If you recognize that much of your stance isn't rooted in any real understanding, and instead is the result of imposed stereotypes, that's at least some kind of progress.

The right thing to do is reach out to them. When I think Satanist, I think Night Stalker, Richard Ramirez. So undoubtedly some this is socialization on my part. We are lead to believe that they are law breakers etc.

Then my question would be, Who led you and the others you implicate to believe this?

And having been presented with an obvious stereotypical prejudgment, why do you still follow him/her/them?

And if ni**ers didn't want to get burned or hanged, they shouldn't have been stupid enough to be black, right?

Well it's not that they can't be black - that would be racist, and unfair - it's merely that they shouldn't be black in public.

Holy Rosary in Greenwood lake NY

Ah. I lean toward Eastern Orthodoxy... down with papal supremacy lol

Anyways, one probably doesn't need to be worked up by all this Satan and satanism stuff. It's true Leveyan and other forms of Satanism were founded by exhibitionists who wanted to stand out from the crowd. But so was the Christian Church. People want to be unique in some way, even if challenging or "shocking" the mainstream. So it was with Christianity. Not trying to equate Christianity with Satanism but people will always find a way to satisfy the human need for exceptionalism.

Then my question would be, Who led you and the others you implicate to believe this?

And having been presented with an obvious stereotypical prejudgment, why do you still follow him/her/them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Ramirez

Richard often drew the five-point pentagram, a symbol sometimes associated with Satanism, on his own body, and at his trial he would shout "Hail Satan!" in open court.

I think Richard did that. Is there such a thing as a "good" reason to be a satanist?

Ah. I lean toward Eastern Orthodoxy... down with papal supremacy lol

Anyways, one probably doesn't need to be worked up by all this Satan and satanism stuff. It's true Leveyan and other forms of Satanism were founded by exhibitionists who wanted to stand out from the crowd. But so was the Christian Church. People want to be unique in some way, even if challenging or "shocking" the mainstream. So it was with Christianity. Not trying to equate Christianity with Satanism but people will always find a way to satisfy the human need for exceptionalism.

Wow that truly is a unique view. Just to stand out from the crowd? I think I might take up art or something like that.

Well it's not that they can't be black - that would be racist, and unfair - it's merely that they shouldn't be black in public.

Exactly. Much like sodomy, Satanism, non-Christian literature, Scorcese movies, and women wearing pants, being black is fine as long as its done in your own home with the shades drawn.

Wow that truly is a unique view. Just to stand out from the crowd? I think I might take up art or something like that.
Egads not art! Nah, I'm just explaining the origins of an ideological movement.

Secondly why ally yourself with a known evil entity?

I've never understood that about Catholics either.

The right thing to do is reach out to them. When I think Satanist, I think Night Stalker, Richard Ramirez. So undoubtedly some this is socialization on my part. We are lead to believe that they are law breakers etc.

Much as people are lead to believe Catholics worship Idols?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Ramirez

Richard often drew the five-point pentagram, a symbol sometimes associated with Satanism, on his own body, and at his trial he would shout "Hail Satan!" in open court.

So, by that argument, those killers over the years that have been Christian are indicative of all Christians? Do you ever NOT engage in obtuse stereotypinig?


I think Richard did that. Is there such a thing as a "good" reason to be a satanist?

Good by whose reasoning and knowledge? Yours?

So, if you're Catholic, you would acknowledge the teachings of the various Popes, yes?

That's interesting, because you've claimed in the past that "Freedom is a privilege", yet the Catholic Church has taught as doctrine for over a century that freedom is an intrinsic human right.

So, you don't really even understand your own belief system.

Freedom is very much a privilege. You have to work for it, defend it etc. Freedom is also a human right. If you want it you have to work for it and protect it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Ramirez

Richard often drew the five-point pentagram, a symbol sometimes associated with Satanism, on his own body, and at his trial he would shout "Hail Satan!" in open court.

I think Richard did that. Is there such a thing as a "good" reason to be a satanist?

Okay...Im not the type to let one guy ruin a whole group, afterall, that would mean that This Guy (http://www.dreamindemon.com/2009/02/17/troy-brisport-spreads-the-good-word/) makes Christianity a bunch of Kidnapping torturers...


I could ask whether there is a such thing as a "good" reason to be Christian?

I've never understood that about Catholics either.

You are on your own there. I don't think God is evil.


Much as people are lead to believe Catholics worship Idols?

Symbols not Idols. We don't pray to the symbols either it is just a focus. Also they are artistic purposes the statues are usually well done. Stained glass windows and all that. The place is suppose to be peaceful.

Freedom is very much a privilege. You have to work for it, defend it etc. Freedom is also a human right. If you want it you have to work for it and protect it.

So, you don't understand that a privilege is diametric to an intrinsic human right.

Privilege:

A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste.

Such an advantage, immunity, or right held as a prerogative of status or rank, and exercised to the exclusion or detriment of others.
Thus, by definition, a privilege is NOT granted to all, but an intrinsic human right IS.


That you would consider human rights to be a privilege is disgusting.

Symbols not Idols. We don't pray to the symbols either it is just a focus. Also they are artistic purposes the statues are usually well done. Stained glass windows and all that. The place is suppose to be peaceful.

Why do you kill babies? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh#Religious_beliefs)

Okay...Im not the type to let one guy ruin a whole group, afterall, that would mean that This Guy (http://www.dreamindemon.com/2009/02/17/troy-brisport-spreads-the-good-word/) makes Christianity a bunch of Kidnapping torturers...


I could ask whether there is a such thing as a "good" reason to be Christian?

I think he is off his rocker. He should also be punished just to be clear.

Symbols not Idols. We don't pray to the symbols either it is just a focus. Also they are artistic purposes the statues are usually well done. Stained glass windows and all that. The place is suppose to be peaceful.

Yet much like you've done here, others could have a "hunch" or be "socialized" to believing something completely uinformed about your beliefs, the way you've done to others.

See the problem?

Why do you kill babies? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh#Religious_beliefs)

His parent were he was not. The Guardian reported that McVeigh wrote a letter claiming to be an agnostic.

Side note: My wife cousin in Buffalo, NY got a jailhouse interview with him before he got sent up.

That you would consider human rights to be a privilege is disgusting.
Nah, believing humans have rights is arrogant.

Why do you kill babies? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh#Religious_beliefs)


That's okay...Tim McVeigh was tried by a Court, and according to Truly Blessed, the Court doesn't have to abide by constitutional constraints that apply to the government, which apparently doesn't include the courts.

Nah, believing humans have rights is arrogant.

Then Truly Blessed, if he's a catholic who believes the Pope teaches true doctrine, is also arrogant, yet also contradictory, thinking that human rights can simultaneously be a privilege (which by definition is only granted to some).

His parent were he was not. The Guardian reported that McVeigh wrote a letter claiming to be an agnostic.

Side note: My wife cousin in Buffalo, NY got a jailhouse interview with him before he got sent up.

So at times he says he's catholic, at other times he's something else. Isn't it frustrating whem people contradict themselves?

How hard would it be to find fifty christian murderers for every one satanist?

Then Truly Blessed, if he's a catholic who believes the Pope teaches true doctrine, is also arrogant, yet also contradictory, thinking that human rights can simultaneously be a privilege (which by definition is only granted to some).

Yeah, who does the bishop of Rome think he is? It's primus inter pares, not ineffabilis deus.

That's okay...Tim McVeigh was tried by a Court, and according to Truly Blessed, the Court doesn't have to abide by constitutional constraints that apply to the government, which apparently doesn't include the courts.

wait...what? seriously?

So, you don't understand that a privilege is diametric to an intrinsic human right.

Privilege:

A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste.

Such an advantage, immunity, or right held as a prerogative of status or rank, and exercised to the exclusion or detriment of others.
Thus, by definition, a privilege is NOT granted to all, but an intrinsic human right IS.


That you would consider human rights to be a privilege is disgusting.

A privilege in the sense that those rights may be taken away if you break the law. Benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual. The benefit is enjoyed by those in a democratic society. Everyone should have those rights but if those people want them, then they must fight for them, protect them, defend them etc.

You can give up those rights as well. No one should force you to give them up but some countries do.

You are on your own there. I don't think God is evil.

Reread your old testament. Pay close attention to the actions of your god of genocide and hate. If you want to call other peoples gods evil, perhaps you shouldn't be following one who would wipe out innocent children because he was pissed at some of the adults.

wait...what? seriously?

I did not say anything like that for the record.

A privilege in the sense that those rights may be taken away if you break the law.

Actually, the accused and the convicted have a WIDE range of human rights, and the fact that you think a person's human rights become forfeit shows you don't understand rights, or the law.

Try making a very basic study of civil procedure, and you'll understand why the idea that human rights can be taken away when people break the law is odious and rejected by the law.



Benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual. The benefit is enjoyed by those in a democratic society. Everyone should have those rights but if those people want them, then they must fight for them, protect them, defend them etc.

That rights have to be defended doesn't make them a privilege. That's not what the word means. Read the definition again, more carefully. A privilege applies only to some in a group. Intrinsic human rights apply to EVERYONE, and are thus not, by definition, privileges.


You can give up those rights as well. No one should force you to give them up but some countries do.

Having someone "Force you to give up" your human rights is just someone violating your human rights. You know, like you've claimed should happen to people who break the law.

I did not say anything like that for the record.

Do you stake your honestly and integrity as a Catholic on that claim?

wait...what? seriously?

Hang on, I'll go find it.

Okay...Im not the type to let one guy ruin a whole group, afterall, that would mean that This Guy (http://www.dreamindemon.com/2009/02/17/troy-brisport-spreads-the-good-word/) makes Christianity a bunch of Kidnapping torturers...


I could ask whether there is a such thing as a "good" reason to be Christian?


There are many reasons but this guy was off his rocker.

I did not say anything like that for the record.

Once the information is gathered by the police we appoint a committee to see what can be done. This should be one of the functions of law. Preventing those who might break the law from committing such offenses. You may argue that should go to the government. Government is suppose to stay out of religion so we need someone else who is qualified in this regard. Since the courts do not per say have to stay out of religion they may work in this case. If the court wanted to it could appoint a commitee or some other entity.

You were saying?

There are many reasons but this guy was off his rocker.

Whereas Richard Ramirez was perfectly sane?

Yet again, nice reasoning....

You were saying?


That was a different discussion but yes I said that. The case was as you recall the couple who let their child die because they relied solely on faith based healing.

I was putting forth an idea to work within the system to help people like this.

That was a different discussion but yes I said that. The case was as you recall the couple who let their child die because they relied solely on faith based healing.

I was putting forth an idea to work within the system to help people like this.

An idea that apparently thinks that the courts are not under the same constraints as the EDIT government, which you somehow think aren't part of the government or limited in the same way.

I'm well aware of the context of the quote.

Again, you said this:

Government is suppose to stay out of religion so we need someone else who is qualified in this regard. Since the courts do not per say have to stay out of religion they may work in this case.

This clearly includes the (monstrously misinformed) premise that courts are not restricted in the same way the government is in regard to religion.

Thus, when you said this:

I did not say anything like that for the record.

you were either lying or don't remember your own misunderstanding of the law. Either way, your statement here (and above) is false.

Actually, the accused and the convicted have a WIDE range of human rights, and the fact that you think a person's human rights become forfeit shows you don't understand rights, or the law.

Try making a very basic study of civil procedure, and you'll understand why the idea that human rights can be taken away when people break the law is odious and rejected by the law.




That rights have to be defended doesn't make them a privilege. That's not what the word means. Read the definition again, more carefully. A privilege applies only to some in a group. Intrinsic human rights apply to EVERYONE, and are thus not, by definition, privileges.



Having someone "Force you to give up" your human rights is just someone violating your human rights. You know, like you've claimed should happen to people who break the law.

To a degree I agree with you. certainly religion should not be one that an inmate should have to give up. People have the right to move around freely within reason, inmates do not. Citizens have the right to vote, inmates do not. I do not think they should be tortured. I guess it would depend on which right we are talking about.

To a degree I agree with you. certainly religion should not be one that an inmate should have to give up. People have the right to move around freely within reason, inmates do not. Citizens have the right to vote, inmates do not. I do not think they should be tortured. I guess it would depend on which right we are talking about.

We are talking about intrinsic human rights, which are NOT privileges. A person convicted of a crime retains rights, despite what you've claimed.

If you think "Freedom" is just the ability to physically move around, you have a woefully narrow grasp.

You made the (typically) broad assertion that "Freedom is a privilege". Its not. Thus, you don't agree with me, even on those areas where I happen to intersect with Catholic beliefs.

An idea that apparently thinks that the courts are not under the same constraints as the Government, which you somehow think aren't part of the government or limited in the same way.

I'm well aware of the context of the quote.

In that discussion I also said we need to change the rules.

Again, you said this:


This clearly includes the (monstrously misinformed) premise that courts are not restricted in the same way the government is in regard to religion.

Again I said we need to change some of the roles.



Thus, when you said this:

you were either lying or don't remember your own misunderstanding of the law. Either way, your statement here (and above) is false.

I thought we were talking about this discussion. For the record I advocate changing some of the roles of certain parts of our government.

We are talking about intrinsic human rights, which are NOT privileges. A person convicted of a crime retains rights, despite what you've claimed.

If you think "Freedom" is just the ability to physically move around, you have a woefully narrow grasp.

You made the (typically) broad assertion that "Freedom is a privilege". Its not. Thus, you don't agree with me, even on those areas where I happen to intersect with Catholic beliefs.

So what are intrinsic human rights to you? Freedom is a privilege.

In that discussion I also said we need to change the rules.

Again, you said this:

Again I said we need to change some of the roles.

I thought we were talking about this discussion. For the record I advocate changing some of the roles of certain parts of our government.

For the record, you said this:

Government is suppose to stay out of religion so we need someone else who is qualified in this regard. Since the courts do not per say have to stay out of religion they may work in this case.

Now, did you say "should not" or did you say "do not"? This is very very basic grammar here.

Does what you said above indicate a suggestion of how things should change, or does it clearly make a claim of how things are now? Be honest.

At several points in that thread, you did advocate changing the law (ironically requiring mutilation of the 1st amendment and religious freedom, making the prosecution of the parents HARDER and putting the children at MORE risk), but in what you said above, you made a (false) claim about what the courts supposedly "do not" have to stay out of.

So what are intrinsic human rights to you? Freedom is a privilege.

So, then, are you now claiming that Freedom is NOT an intrinsic human right?

http://www.printnpost.net/articles/9277/1/DO-INTRINSIC-HUMAN-RIGHTS-EXIST/Page1.html

Do we as human beings have intrinsic rights? In a word, no. But words are the products of lawyers. And "rights" is just another word. There is a conflict between the attorney's meaning of "rights" and the meaning used by those we serve.

Black's Law Dictionary defines "rights" as a power or privilege, or immunity granted under a constitution, statutes or decisional laws, or claimed as a result of long usage(1). But The American Heritage Dictionary of The English Language (2) defines "rights" as being in accordance with or conformable to justice, law, morality, or another standard. The first concentrates on the legal (system dependent) meaning, while the second focuses on what it means to that person (system independent) meaning. With mere words written on a piece of paper men can be put to death, or the course of our whole nation changed. Whether it is a death warrant or the constitution, it is just so many words. As with anything else these words can be used for the benefit or the harm of each other and our society. It has been the organic and flexible Nature of our constitution that has allowed that document to survived to serve us over the centuries. But today certain of its words are losing their meaning, or are being used in a way that is not beneficial to society. As with a trademark words can be diluted and turned into the ordinary in the commerce of everyday living (3). Our "rights" are what we are giving up in our exchange with the merchants of power in our government.

So what are intrinsic human rights to you? Freedom is a privilege.

I refer you to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights#Preamble

Specifically the first three Articles:

Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

http://www.printnpost.net/articles/9277/1/DO-INTRINSIC-HUMAN-RIGHTS-EXIST/Page1.html

Do we as human beings have intrinsic rights? In a word, no. But words are the products of lawyers. And "rights" is just another word. There is a conflict between the attorney's meaning of "rights" and the meaning used by those we serve.

*snip*



That's one model, sure.

But according to your own (supposed) beliefs as a catholic, humans have intrinsic rights, and freedom is one of them. Catholic Popes have taught this for over a century.

Thus, by posting the position above, you have now proven that you don't understand your own belief system, even though you've advocating having the courts "change" the beliefs of others.

For the record, you said this:

Now, did you say "should not" or did you say "do not"? This is very very basic grammar here.

Do not per say have to stay out. We invite the courts into matters of religion. How many court case have there been with religious motives?


Does what you said above indicate a suggestion of how things should change, or does it clearly make a claim of how things are now? Be honest.

I think we are splitting hairs again. It depends on your point of view. If the courts have to stay out of religion, why invite them in to settle your disputes?


At several points in that thread, you did advocate changing the law (ironically requiring mutilation of the 1st amendment and religious freedom, making the prosecution of the parents HARDER and putting the children at MORE risk), but in what you said above, you made a (false) claim about what the courts supposedly "do not" have to stay out of.

I disagree with this assessment.

I refer you to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights#Preamble

Specifically the first three Articles:

Those are really good. Now how do we enforce them in the People republic of China? This is all well and good but if those countries do not believe in these then you are screwed. When you go, if you go to, Saudi Arabia do you think your rights go with you?

Do not per say have to stay out. We invite the courts into matters of religion. How many court case have there been with religious motives?

Please read the context of your own quote. You claimed "Government has to stay out of religion" but that the "courts per say do not have to stay out of religion".

Courts are one of the three branches of government. Therefore, YOUR premise that "government has to stay out of religion" would equally apply to the courts.

Courts can intervene in matters that involve religions, but must be neutral to that religion, and have the same exact constraints on their interaction with religion that government has, because despite what you said above courts are part of the government.

Can you honestly not get that?


I think we are splitting hairs again. It depends on your point of view. If the courts have to stay out of religion, why invite them in to settle your disputes?


Because like any other branch of the government, they can interact with religion by treating it neutrally, the same as the other parts of the government. Your "point of view" apparently doesn't include grasping that courts are part of the government that you claim has to "stay out of it".


I disagree with this assessment.

Of course you do, but as typical, you present no cogent argument as to how or why.

Those few times your post contains a cogent idea, its because you cut and pasted from somebody else's information, yet in a way that shows you that what you've posted represents no critical thought, no discernible synthesis of the linked idea to your own, or even awareness that what you post often refutes your own argument.

Those are really good. Now how do we enforce them in the People republic of China? This is all well and good but if those countries do not believe in these then you are screwed. When you go, if you go to, Saudi Arabia do you think your rights go with you?

So, because China and Saudi Arabia do something, the United States, and its people, should follow suit?

Furthermore, China and Saudi Arabia disobeying the Declaration makes it wrong somehow?

Idk about you, but I always hoped the US was above those cesspits...maybe Im just naive in that way...

That's one model, sure.

But according to your own (supposed) beliefs as a catholic, humans have intrinsic rights, and freedom is one of them. Catholic Popes have taught this for over a century.

Thus, by posting the position above, you have now proven that you don't understand your own belief system, even though you've advocating having the courts "change" the beliefs of others.

What does this have to do with what we are talking about? I believe human have freedom but they can and do choose to give them up for stability, for peace, for whatever.

Those are really good. Now how do we enforce them in the People republic of China? This is all well and good but if those countries do not believe in these then you are screwed. When you go, if you go to, Saudi Arabia do you think your rights go with you?

Well, a fellow in Rome with a hat seems to think that, although not all governments recognize or respect rights, that those rights are intrinsic to you as a human being, no matter where you go. Those rights can be and sometimes are violated, but you still have those rights, intrinsically, by virtue of being human.

But then, some countries don't listen to the fellow in Rome, much as not all of the purpoted followers of his religion understand or follow the teachings of that church.

What does this have to do with what we are talking about?

You seriously don't see the relevance of your stated positions about concepts like freedom and religious excercise apply to a thread discussion about the religious rights of a convict? Seriously?


I believe human have freedom but they can and do choose to give them up for stability, for peace, for whatever.

You believe (or claim to believe) that freedom is a privilege, which by definition only belongs to some.

There are few things so foul in history as the conflation of a right with a privilege.

The fact that some "choose" to give up rights for "stability" or anything else hardly justifies the premise that freedom is a privilege.

Please read the context of your own quote. You claimed "Government has to stay out of religion" but that the "courts per say do not have to stay out of religion".

Courts are one of the three branches of government. Therefore, YOUR premise that "government has to stay out of religion" would equally apply to the courts.

Courts can intervene in matters that involve religions, but must be neutral to that religion, and have the same exact constraints on their interaction with religion that government has, because despite what you said above courts are part of the government.

Can you honestly not get that?

I know how it is under the current system. I understand but again I think we need to change that.



Because like any other branch of the government, they can interact with religion by treating it neutrally, the same as the other parts of the government. Your "point of view" apparently doesn't include grasping that courts are part of the government that you claim has to "stay out of it".

I am saying give them very limited ability to intercede.



Of course you do, but as typical, you present no cogent argument as to how or why.

If you are serious about fixing the problem you must work within the system to change it. Right now there is big wall preventing it.



Those few times your post contains a cogent idea, its because you cut and pasted from somebody else's information, yet in a way that shows you that what you've posted represents no critical thought, no discernible synthesis of the linked idea to your own, or even awareness that what you post often refutes your own argument.

I had the same conversation with Ghost. You seem pissed although I am not sure what at?

I know how it is under the current system. I understand but again I think we need to change that.

Lets again have a look at basic grammar. You said this:

Government is suppose to stay out of religion so we need someone else who is qualified in this regard. Since the courts do not per say have to stay out of religion they may work in this case.

So, I ask you again (because you dodged it before), does "do not" mean a suggestion about the future? Or does it mean how it (supposedly) is now?

Again, this is very simple reading comprehension.

It is dishonest for you to pretend that you said "I think courts should not" have to stay out of religion, but that's not what you said. You said they "do not", and you contrasted them to government as if they were not a branch of the government.



I am saying give them very limited ability to intercede.

They already have that ability to intercede in child neglect, and from what I saw in that thread, that was explained to you by multiple people. What you advocated was using the courts (which you apparently still think are separate from the government) to change people's beliefs.


If you are serious about fixing the problem you must work within the system to change it. Right now there is big wall preventing it.

The fact that you see the religious freedom protected by the constitution as a "big wall" as opposed to a "big protection" says a lot about your grasp of the law. I reviewed that thread, and it was shown several ways, several times, how the problem could be fixed without violating religious freedom.


I had the same conversation with Ghost. You seem pissed although I am not sure what at?

Even ingoring your constantly disingenuous debate, your painfully erroneous reasoning, and your frequent contradictions, do you truly not grasp why people would be perturbed by the premise that freedom is a privilege? Really?

People like you are easy tools in the hands of tyrants...from your "socialized" assumptions and misinformation about groups of people to your utter absence of consistency in argument, you are the ideal fodder for dangerous, clever people.

You seriously don't see the relevance of your stated positions about concepts like freedom and religious exercise apply to a thread discussion about the religious rights of a convict? Seriously?

I have no problem with the prisoner practicing his or her religion.


You believe (or claim to believe) that freedom is a privilege, which by definition only belongs to some.

You have to recognize that not all people have it. It is a privilege and you must protect it. If you do not realize that it can be taken away then you have not been studying history. It is the privilege of living in a free society.


There are few things so foul in history as the conflation of a right with a privilege.

The fact that some "choose" to give up rights for "stability" or anything else hardly justifies the premise that freedom is a privilege.

Living the USA is a privilege, as I am an immigrant.

I have no problem with the prisoner practicing his or her religion.

Then you understand why this vein of discussion is relevant, so why did you ask what it has to do with what we're discussing?


You have to recognize that not all people have it.

According to the Popes of the last century, they do. You claim to be a Catholic, yet don't understand your own religion.

Look, having a right doesn't mean those rights won't be violated in some places and some times. But that DOESN'T transform the right into a privilege.
It just means that rights are sometimes violated, but they are still rights.


It is a privilege and you must protect it.

You seem to think that the meaning of "privilege" is "something that you must protect or work to get and protect". That's not what a privilege is. Its something that, by its nature, only belongs to some, based on class or sect. Read the definition again, please. Please.


If you do not realize that it can be taken away then you have not been studying history.

Oh, shall we debate history now? Will Wiki be up to carrying your end of the discussion?

The fact is, a right can be violated, yes, but that doesn't suddenly magically transform it into something that should only belong to some (read: privilege).


It is the privilege of living in a free society.

One of the first columns of a free society is the premise that rights are intrinsic to all human beings.

That also happens to be a belief of the Catholic Church, but apparently, not everyone understands their own claimed beliefs.


Living the USA is a privilege, as I am an immigrant.

Living in the USA is not an intrinsic human right. You still don't seem to have a basic grasp of what that is.

Hey I gotta get some smokes and some sleep it almost 4:00Am here. You can yell at me tomorrow. I do enjoy talking with you. You are very good debater.


Good night!

Hey I gotta get some smokes and some sleep it almost 4:00Am here. You can yell at me tomorrow. I do enjoy talking with you. You are very good debater.


Good night!

Smoking's no good, man...I've heard its tough to quit, though. Maybe you've tried to quit before, I don't know, but you might try again.

Good night.

What does it say about a group of people who ally themselves with the true enemy of God. Saying you don't believe is one thing but saying you are the opposite of everything God stands for is quite another.

There have been several Christian sects that have argued that the Bible is a construction of the devil, that the character we CALL 'god' is actually the enemy, and that the character we call 'the devil' is actually the victim of a smear campaign.

If they are right, it would be you that is serving the 'true enemy of god', and what-we-call-Satanists would be the only true servants of the real god.

Well it's not that they can't be black - that would be racist, and unfair - it's merely that they shouldn't be black in public.

I stand corrected.

I think Satanism is a religion invented by shut-in teens to "fight the man".

Get some friends!

I think Satanism is a religion invented by shut-in teens to "fight the man".


Awesome. And the best bit is that, your opinion is worth exactly that - the weight of opinion.

I'm sure you realise it's irrelevant, anyway.

I'm sure you realise it's irrelevant, anyway.

Even shut-in, dyed-black-hair, Ayn-Rand-reading, fake teenage religions get government protection.

Even shut-in, dyed-black-hair, Ayn-Rand-reading, fake teenage religions get government protection.

All religions are fake, but they all get the same protection.

Part of my brain just ate itself to avoid living in a world where somebody made that pun! You bad! You bad, bad!

You know that you liked that... and that is what he said.

Even shut-in, dyed-black-hair, Ayn-Rand-reading, fake teenage religions get government protection.

Am I the only one who gets the irony in that statement?

How many Satanist do you know?

Druggies are also but that is more of a self destruction thing rather than embracing your own demise.

I don't know any Satanists and would avoid them if I did know.
Well, that means that I know three more than you do, but of course, personal anecdotal stories are not relevant to anything, now are they? You asserted that Satanists suffer misfortune. I stated that I was not aware that the misfortunes of Satanists were any more noticeable that the misfortunes of other people. The links you posted in an attempt to prove your point actually proved mine -- Satanists are no different from any one else in the fortune/misfortune department. So why would you say otherwise? You answered that, too, in the post above and in subsequent posts: You were just making it up because you don't actually know jack about Satanists.

I have a question for you: Why do you think that stuff you just imagined is a sound foundation for an opinion about real people?

Finally, helpful hint of the day: "self destruction" and "embracing your own demise" are the same thing.

Also, what makes you think Satanists "embrace their own demise"? Is it the same thing that makes you think they are unlucky, i.e. your own imagination?

I think the best part, for me, is that TB is attempting to show that Satanists are unlucky because one of them has the terrible misfortune of.....screwing a 19-year-old Hollywood starlet (after several years of screwing a world-famous fetish model/burlesque star).

Something tells me many guys wouldn't exactly see these things as "unlucky." :p
And all that money and those admirers. And the money. Poor fake-satanic bastard -- how does he cope?

What does it say about a group of people who ally themselves with the true enemy of God. Saying you don't believe is one thing but saying you are the opposite of everything God stands for is quite another.
Yeah, but what is it, specifically? I mean, aside from something of no interest to anyone who does not worship your god?

Very true. We are suppose to reach out. That would be the right thing to do.
So, since you said, above, that you would avoid Satanists if you met any, does that mean you would consciously choose NOT to do the right thing?

<snip>

So why ally yourself with some who you don't believe in who to others would be just about the most horrible thing you could ally yourself with. I mean really it is like saying you ally yourself with Adolph Hitler.

<snip>
To one who doesn't believe it may. Why not make up some other name? Let's face it you know what he stands for to Christians. If they didn't care about the name why not use Zeus or Apollo or Neptune? Secondly why ally yourself with a know evil entity?
Well, let me hazard a guess...

Since we have established that there is no reason to think that Satanists are different from other people, I wonder if they do what they do the way they do it for the exact same reason that I do what I do, the way I do it -- because they want to.

Does it occur to you that when they chose what they wanted to be, they did not think about you at all? In other words, that their life/religion/beliefs/etc are not about you?

The right thing to do is reach out to them. When I think Satanist, I think Night Stalker, Richard Ramirez. So undoubtedly some this is socialization on my part. We are lead to believe that they are law breakers etc.
Well, that's another thing you were grossly misled about. Satanists are not more lawbreaking than Christians, just like they are not more unlucky than Christians. If you were led to believe otherwise, then you must be very easily led, because whoever told you that could not have had any evidence to back up such assertions, since there is no such evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Ramirez

Richard often drew the five-point pentagram, a symbol sometimes associated with Satanism, on his own body, and at his trial he would shout "Hail Satan!" in open court.

I think Richard did that. Is there such a thing as a "good" reason to be a satanist?
One murderer copped satanic symbols, and to you, that represents all Satanists, eh? So, then murderer John Wayne Gacy who dressed up as a clown to visit children in hospitals thus represents all clowns, proving that clowns are all homosexual sexual-sadist-serial killers, eh? And Ed Gein, who was a farmer, goes to prove that all farmers are graverobbers and murderers. Etc, etc, etc.

I wonder if you are able to see the flaw in your reasoning.

Satanism - LaVeyan, at least - doesn't work this way.

So maybe he's not LaVeyan?

look its like higschool. the dorky kid who calls himself a satanist is going to get beat up every time the teacher is not looking.
Does the Muslim get beat up that often?
Does the Jew ? well a few times when we are upset why his dad can afford a Rolls Royce and ours cant.

And likewise will the satanist be accosted every second of his life in prison that a guard isn't around.

Except, and this is kind of important, he was being mocked by the guards. It's like the dorky kid on the playground getting beaten up by the teacher!

What does it say about a group of people who ally themselves with the true enemy of God. Saying you don't believe is one thing but saying you are the opposite of everything God stands for is quite another.

You're aware that they view Satan as a metaphor for individuality and freedom and not as a literal entity...right?

There have been several Christian sects that have argued that the Bible is a construction of the devil, that the character we CALL 'god' is actually the enemy, and that the character we call 'the devil' is actually the victim of a smear campaign.

If they are right, it would be you that is serving the 'true enemy of god', and what-we-call-Satanists would be the only true servants of the real god.

Well technically the what-we-call-Satanists wouldn't be servants to anyone, just like now. ;)

Those are really good. Now how do we enforce them in the People republic of China? This is all well and good but if those countries do not believe in these then you are screwed. When you go, if you go to, Saudi Arabia do you think your rights go with you?

Yes, my rights DO go to China and Saudi Arabia if I go there. The fact that those governments IGNORE those rights does not make them cease to exist any more than a rape victim looses their right to not be raped.

One murderer copped satanic symbols, and to you, that represents all Satanists, eh? So, then murderer John Wayne Gacy who dressed up as a clown to visit children in hospitals thus represents all clowns, proving that clowns are all homosexual sexual-sadist-serial killers, eh?

Hey! LG is most definitely not a homosexual!

Hey! LG is most definitely not a homosexual!
Well, according to TB's reasoning, he is too. Someone better alert Mrs. LG. She might want to check what he's got stacked up in the basement.

(Gods, that was inappropriate. Shame on me.)

So why ally yourself with some who you don't believe in

I am not sure if the proper response to this is laughing hysterically or beating my own skull in with a tire iron. I'm pretty sure it's one of those.

I am not sure if the proper response to this is laughing hysterically or beating my own skull in with a tire iron. I'm pretty sure it's one of those.

Or one then the other. Seriously, if you keep reading his stuff, it gets worse...waaaay worse..

All religions are fake, but they all get the same protection.

In theory, yes, but members of minority religions have a harder time making their case in practice. Wiccans in the army and all that. Which is why it would be interesting to know if he's claiming LaVeyan tradition or not. Prison authorities tend to discriminate against religions they don't believe exist, as they probably should, otherwise someone's going to claim the Aryan Brotherhood is a church.

This whole thing makes me curious as to how an inmate could establish actually belonging to a religion. There is some precedent here in the US: if you wish to claim Concientious Objector status, you have to do more than simply state that you are against war. You have to show that the rest of your life is consistent with the claims you make on your CO form. The courts do sometimes have to make the call, and sometimes that means that they have to decide whether a person's claim to follow a peace religion is credible (as that is sometimes the reason the claimant cites). I don't know an exhaustive amount about how this has gone in the past, but the burden of proof is definitely on the person wanting to practice their religion in the way they see fit, even when that person is not an inmate. (I have long thought this unfair, for the record.) So I can definitely see a precedent for a court to examine the credibility of an inmate's claim to belong to the religion he wants to practice in prison.

I don't think that is really the biggest problem the inmate is facing, however, if the allegations of the article are true. The first issue to deal with is _that_ he is receiving discriminatory treatment-- not _why_.

As a side note: prisoners, by definition, have their human right to liberty taken away. I don't know that anyone here is arguing that that is wrong, in cases where it is necessary to protect the public from being harmed by convicted criminals. (Not to say drug addicts... I could go on for longer than I should about the broken prison system of the US...)

This whole thing makes me curious as to how an inmate could establish actually belonging to a religion. There is some precedent here in the US: if you wish to claim Concientious Objector status, you have to do more than simply state that you are against war. You have to show that the rest of your life is consistent with the claims you make on your CO form. The courts do sometimes have to make the call, and sometimes that means that they have to decide whether a person's claim to follow a peace religion is credible (as that is sometimes the reason the claimant cites). I don't know an exhaustive amount about how this has gone in the past, but the burden of proof is definitely on the person wanting to practice their religion in the way they see fit, even when that person is not an inmate. (I have long thought this unfair, for the record.) So I can definitely see a precedent for a court to examine the credibility of an inmate's claim to belong to the religion he wants to practice in prison.
The same way he could if he wasn't a prisoner -- by referring the authorities to the whole rest of his life? Just like conscientious objecters do.

Although, to be honest, I don't think they have to prove they actually belong to a religion. Just saying it is enough. After all, they're not trying to get a special privilege, like being let out of combat duty. Now if they doubt the religion actually exists, that's something else, but recognized religions are recognized by the government, so they should be able to look it up.

I don't think that is really the biggest problem the inmate is facing, however, if the allegations of the article are true. The first issue to deal with is _that_ he is receiving discriminatory treatment-- not _why_.

Precisely.

The same way he could if he wasn't a prisoner -- by referring the authorities to the whole rest of his life? Just like conscientious objecters do.

Although, to be honest, I don't think they have to prove they actually belong to a religion. Just saying it is enough. After all, they're not trying to get a special privilege, like being let out of combat duty. Now if they doubt the religion actually exists, that's something else, but recognized religions are recognized by the government, so they should be able to look it up.

In the US, the current law says the court should determine if a prisoner's belief is a) sincere and b) religious when ruling whether the state can interfere with a religious practice. (I think. The relevant law is RLUIPA, and I'm still struggling through the case law on it.) I'm assuming that it's easier for a prisoner to establish a) and b) if they're following an established tradition. (For all I know there's another Church of Satan besides LaVey's, maybe he's a member of that one. If he's claiming that he's a Satanist just because he always does exactly what he wants, then I imagine that would be a harder case to prove.) And they are trying to get special privileges in that many prisons don't allow personal items, or don't allow personal items that might be prohibited because of anti-violence or anti-gang regulations.

Well, that means that I know three more than you do, but of course, personal anecdotal stories are not relevant to anything, now are they? You asserted that Satanists suffer misfortune. I stated that I was not aware that the misfortunes of Satanists were any more noticeable that the misfortunes of other people. The links you posted in an attempt to prove your point actually proved mine -- Satanists are no different from any one else in the fortune/misfortune department. So why would you say otherwise? You answered that, too, in the post above and in subsequent posts: You were just making it up because you don't actually know jack about Satanists.

You are right, just a guess.



I have a question for you: Why do you think that stuff you just imagined is a sound foundation for an opinion about real people?

I said I felt that misfortune would follow him. It may not be a sound foundation, just a theory.


Finally, helpful hint of the day: "self destruction" and "embracing your own demise" are the same thing.

Yeah they do sound the same. Druggies are sometimes unaware that they are destroying themselves and do it for the "pleasure" the drugs provide. While the other case the people are inviting disaster.


Also, what makes you think Satanists "embrace their own demise"? Is it the same thing that makes you think they are unlucky, i.e. your own imagination?

Well if you believe what I believe they are asking for trouble, inviting negative forces into your life is not a good idea. It likely will lead no where good.


Yeah, but what is it, specifically? I mean, aside from something of no interest to anyone who does not worship your god?


I just curious at the motives behind aligning yourself with a known evil entity? They made it my business per say when they crossed over into my belief set. There is no question he is the enemy of the church.


So, since you said, above, that you would avoid Satanists if you met any, does that mean you would consciously choose NOT to do the right thing?

I doubt that I could convince them to change. I wish I had that ability.


Well, let me hazard a guess...
Since we have established that there is no reason to think that Satanists are different from other people, I wonder if they do what they do the way they do it for the exact same reason that I do what I do, the way I do it -- because they want to.


Right those are the motives I am questioning. What do you think would make them want to?


Does it occur to you that when they chose what they wanted to be, they did not think about you at all? In other words, that their life/religion/beliefs/etc are not about you?

I quite sure of that.


Well, that's another thing you were grossly misled about. Satanists are not more lawbreaking than Christians, just like they are not more unlucky than Christians. If you were led to believe otherwise, then you must be very easily led, because whoever told you that could not have had any evidence to back up such assertions, since there is no such evidence.

Like the guy in question. Sorry I couldn't resist. I sure they are great human beings.


One murderer copped satanic symbols, and to you, that represents all Satanists, eh? So, then murderer John Wayne Gacy who dressed up as a clown to visit children in hospitals thus represents all clowns, proving that clowns are all homosexual sexual-sadist-serial killers, eh? And Ed Gein, who was a farmer, goes to prove that all farmers are grave robbers and murderers. Etc, etc, etc.

All three were playing for the same team whether they knew it or not.


I wonder if you are able to see the flaw in your reasoning.

I have plenty of flaws, that is just one of them. I find interesting to talk about these matters.

There have been several Christian sects that have argued that the Bible is a construction of the devil, that the character we CALL 'god' is actually the enemy, and that the character we call 'the devil' is actually the victim of a smear campaign.

If they are right, it would be you that is serving the 'true enemy of god', and what-we-call-Satanists would be the only true servants of the real god.

I will have the whole church for company in the afterlife then. He sounds legit. He does back it up with action as well. Right or wrong I am in his camp.

You're aware that they view Satan as a metaphor for individuality and freedom and not as a literal entity...right?

He very much real entity to me. To them I am not sure. Why not call it the Church of Freedom and Individuality then? When you align yourself with Satan, you align your church with pretty much everything that is wrong with the world. Sin, corruption, greed, murder, selfishness, lust, jealousy, envy, and false pride. Not a very good metaphor.

He very much real entity to me.

But not to them, which is all that is important in the context of their beliefs.

To them I am not sure.

Having known a few, and having done my research, I am sure. They do not believe in Satan as an existing entity.

Why not call it the Church of Freedom and Individuality then?

Because they didn't want to. They could've named it the Church of Deep-fried Unicorn droppings for all I care.

When you align yourself with Satan, you align your church with pretty much everything that is wrong with the world. Sin, corruption, greed, murder, selfishness, lust, jealousy, envy, and false pride. Not a very good metaphor.

OK. I'm going to take this slowly, so follow along.

They thing that the biblical depiction of Satan represents X.

They don't believe in Satan, but use him as a symbol. They do however believe in X and that is what forms the core of their beliefs.

You claim that Satan is real and actually represents Y. Just because you think Satan represents Y doesn't mean that Satanists believe Y. They believe X, because that's what they think Satan represents.

Is that making sense? So they're not aligning themselves with all those things that Satan represents in your mind, because Satan represents something else in their minds and it is those other things which model their beliefs.

So if he says "I'm a satanist and I want to get this book" to everyone, he's less in danger than if he's reading the book?

If his constitutionally protected religious rights endanger him with other inmates, put him in protected custody in a segregated unit.

But saying "You can't excercise your rights because the other inmates would make it to dangerous for you" shows an utter lack of rudimentary institutional control. Segregated units (or even facilities) aren't cheap, but constitutional impetus can call for it.

So, it is a reasonable step by the penal authority to protect the prisoner.

I can see denying someone certain Satanic ritual paraphenalia in prison (the ritual sword comes to mind), But a book? Denying him access to his religious texts and ridiculing his beliefs means he has a case. Saying you are doing it for his protection is bogus, as he is obviously open about his beleifs.

And, in an earlier post someone asked how you could know he was a Satanist, and not just out fro attention: I don't know about the other sects, but we CoS members get a nice pretty red card with our membership in the Church.

You are right, just a guess.




I said I felt that misfortune would follow him. It may not be a sound foundation, just a theory.
No, it's not a guess -- it's a fiction, a story you just made up.

If it were a guess, you'd have made it based on at least having seen something of the subject. But you have admitted that you have no experience of Satanists, and everything you have been told in this thread goes against what you have been saying. You have been given information and explanations that show how your guess is wrong.

And yet you keep repeating it, totally ignoring everything you are told.

You know what it's called when someone keeps repeating something that has already been shown to be false?

Yeah they do sound the same. Druggies are sometimes unaware that they are destroying themselves and do it for the "pleasure" the drugs provide. While the other case the people are inviting disaster.
No, they don't. They really, really don't invite more disaster on themselves than anyone else who does not follow your religion.

Or do you also believe that Jews invite disaster upon themselves by being Jews? Or Buddhists invite disaster upon themselves by being Buddhists?

Well if you believe what I believe they are asking for trouble, inviting negative forces into your life is not a good idea. It likely will lead no where good.
And if I/they don't believe as you do, then they aren't asking for trouble, now are they? So, this "invitation to disaster" is entirely of your own imagining, isn't it? Which makes it of interest only to you. Therefore, your categoric statement that Satanists are followed by misfortune, even though no misfortune occurs in their lives more than anyone else's, and that they are inviting disaster just by holding the beliefs they do, is actually not a fact, now is it?

So we've established that YOU think this is true of Satanists. We have also established that it is NOT actually true of Satanists. Therefore, I think we are prepared at this time to dismiss everything you are saying as prejudiced judgmentalism.

I just curious at the motives behind aligning yourself with a known evil entity? They made it my business per say when they crossed over into my belief set. There is no question he is the enemy of the church.
Bullshit. THEY don't think it's evil. THEIR beliefs are THEIRS, not yours. THEIR story is not about YOU. YOUR church should maybe keep its nose out of THEIR beliefs. How's that for a suggestion?

I doubt that I could convince them to change. I wish I had that ability.
Cop-out excuse for shirking your duties.

Right those are the motives I am questioning. What do you think would make them want to?
Who cares? What difference does it make?


All three were playing for the same team whether they knew it or not.
More bullshit, and self-serving bull this time, too. You get to dictate all the rules. You get to weasel out of addressing the logic of your arguments with these sweeping after-the-fact categorizations. These are not good arguments, and they do not make you seem like a reasonable thinker. They make you seem like someone who just likes to announce his bigoted opinions while denying they are bigoted and still refusing ever to examine them, or even really defend them against challenges. Lazy, shallow, self-centered, and empty.

EDIT: To explain that harshness: There is little content and no direction to your arguments. You claim you are interested in exploring issues, but you don't explore them. You do not give any credence or even attention to what others say in response to your postings. You just keep repeating yourself over and over again. All we have learned from you in this thread is that you are prejudiced against Satanists even though you know nothing about them. You have wasted a lot of words telling us that several times over. You have been given counter arguments which you have ignored. Oh, you have quoted them in more posts, but your statements have been non-responsive to what you are quoting and have been mere repetitions of your original baseless statements. It is clear to me that you see everything through the prism of your church doctrine, that you have zero intention of ever questioning anything you think that doctrine is telling you, and that your claims that you are just trying to learn and understand are false because you make no effort to do either of those things.

I have plenty of flaws, that is just one of them. I find interesting to talk about these matters.
Perhaps you should find an online support group, one that specializes in this kind of journey of personal self-discovery. They might find it interesting too.

But not to them, which is all that is important in the context of their beliefs.

Having known a few, and having done my research, I am sure. They do not believe in Satan as an existing entity.

Because they didn't want to. They could've named it the Church of Deep-fried Unicorn droppings for all I care.

OK. I'm going to take this slowly, so follow along.

They thing that the biblical depiction of Satan represents X.

They don't believe in Satan, but use him as a symbol. They do however believe in X and that is what forms the core of their beliefs.

You claim that Satan is real and actually represents Y. Just because you think Satan represents Y doesn't mean that Satanists believe Y. They believe X, because that's what they think Satan represents.

Is that making sense? So they're not aligning themselves with all those things that Satan represents in your mind, because Satan represents something else in their minds and it is those other things which model their beliefs.
It seems pretty obvious that what TB is doing but does not want to say he is doing, is defining Satanism according to HIS church doctrine's rules. He wants to criticize their choice of the name of THEIR religion because he thinks they should have taken HIS feelings and HIS beliefs into consideration in setting up this part of THEIR lives. He thinks he should be allowed to define what THEY believe according to what HE believes. Essentially, even though they are not followers of his church, he still thinks HIS CHURCH should set the rules of THEIR BELIEFS.