Sunday, March 15, 2009

Avoiding Precedence

NOT one for the books!

Before my most recent lumbar relapse the big Satanism issue was the putz described above who wants to sue because he is a pussy. The article above and the exchange from a message board below sum up my view. I hope you find it enjoyable.
The following, with minor variations based on type of media, type of article, the response I have sent to over 40 various news and blog outlets:

As an authorized spokesperson and member of the clergy of the Church of Satan I am writing to respond to the articles about the inmate suing the prison in order to be allowed to practice “Satanism.” It is important to note that the Church of Satan prohibits all illegal activity.
In this particular and specific case the criminal deserves no assistance from the Church of Satan, and it is highly unlikely that the organization will support his alleged rights. If he is looking for forgiveness and welcome he’d do better by the Christian religions that practice mercy---we don’t.
As far as the Church of Satan is concerned this inmate is not a Satanist and we will not have our religion attached to such a ridiculous and shameful attempt at avoiding responsibility. Our rules are clear. He has broken them. Now he must face the consequences. Those who are interested in true Satanism and the difference between Satanism and devil worship are welcome to visit the following sites:

The Official Church of Satan

From a well intentioned CoS Member:

Ok, but sometimes one person can start a personal action. If the clergy supported all personal causes they would not have time for anything else, but besides to condemn a person or to support him there is also the position of remaining neutral. CoS is not of course a layers studio. It is possible that this man had been practicing Satanism. The important thing in this case, in my opinion is not to support that person, or the relation between Satanism and law, but to stress that the religious practice should be guaranteed, even if it is … Satanism.

I don't know where you got the idea that was being denied. I said any Satanist of any rank is free to discuss their Satanic perspective, provided they make no implications or statements to make the readers/watchers/;listener believe that what is being said is the answer from the Church of Satan rather than the individual Satanist.

Or, perhaps you meant this um, brave man, oppressed and denied his valuable right to worship while being kept down by the man?

Surely no one is denying that this guy has been free to start a personal action. My not liking it in no way prevented it. I mean, really, would I have heard of him and been able to start MY personal action if he hadn't already been successful at the same?

If the clergy supported all personal causes they would not have time for anything else, but besides to condemn a person or to support him there is also the position of remaining neutral. CoS i

I am having problems completely understanding you so if I am answering with non-sequitors, please forgive.

The clergy exist for the Institution above all things (except their individual lives, we are Satanists after all.) Most religious clergy are, although the Christians will imply that ministering to their members is their primary function. We are honest. Just like most of our members will admit that they joined the Church of Satan to demonstrate their respect for LaVey's creation, protecting the institution will always come before anything else.

I don't understand neutrality in this context, but I have this feeling you want me to agree that protecting the religious rights of Satanists should be my primary concern.

It is possible that this man had been practicing Satanism.

Yeah, maybe. I bet he Hailed Satan every 5th meth hit. He showed his devotion by always passing the pipe on the left. This is when he wasn't committing the Satanic sacrament of fraud---best done while chanting to Abaddon. No doubt he waited for Walpurga to dismantle the meth lab on the theory if it blew it would provide a cheery conflagration for the ceremony.


He is not a practicing Satanist. You know how I know? It isn't just the crime---and you'd do well to remember, as would every member or potential member reading this---The Church of Satan prohibits ALL (not just the crimes you like because you think they should not be crimes,)ILLEGAL ACTIVITY.

But that alone doesn't prove that he isn't a Satanist. There have been many Satanists who have made some serious legal errors, taken complete responsibility for them, risen above them, and generally become more Satanic as a result. Hell, there are Satanists who screw up and it is never found out for whatever reason.

This guy is not a Satanist because he is whining like a bitch because he can't have his Baphomet Butt Protector and the mean Christians made him read Christian thoughts and they said Christian things.

In a word: Pussy.

This will not be the one for precedence.

You see a First Amendment Issue where the equality of The Satanic Bible and The Holy Bible can finally be established.

I see the reality that because of who this guy is all he can do is damage us. Joe and Mary Mainstream are reading this and all they can see is their tax dollars being wasted to get some methhead special treatment so he can worship the devil. this case Joe & Mary Mainstream may just have it right.

Please. Please. Bring me an innocent Satanist. Bring me an intelligent and well spoken Satanist who is even guilty but is applying Satanic principles to take responsibility and improve his life and his impact on society.

Truly, at some point this fight, the prison fight will happen. It is my hope that we, the Church of Satan, get to orchestrate the scenario so instead of this association:

Mugg Shot-Methamphetamine-Recidivism-Suing-Devil Worship---what would you expect from satanists other than drug use and taking advantage of religious freedom?

We can manipulate this one:

Attractive Human--Satanist? No way, you're kidding?----Well, if he did that it isn't so bad----Intelligent---Not allowed his Bible?---That is not American to allow one and not the other

Digging me ?

We go to bat for the wrong one, it hurts every Satanist's reputation. We got to bat for the right one and we all benefit. If we purposely distance ourselves from scum often enough, scum won't want to come, and our reputation for high standards is set in stone.

The important thing in this case, in my opinion is not to support that person, or the relation between Satanism and law, but to stress that the religious practice should be guaranteed, even if it is … Satanism.

In the world that should be I'd have to respond to that with a big, fat "duh!" Of course in that world it would not even be an issue.

In the world that is there is meth head that looks like the most dull and stereotypical petty criminal and right now his is the face of Satanism to the world.

You go ahead and be ok with that.

In your post you exposed your opinion about that man so strongly that now I also am finding that man a complete idiot, a danger for the reputation of The Church of Satan. Boh! At the beginning I did not find him so ridiculous. shocked
Anyway, agreed, he is a complete fool.

Just so you know, I wasn't trying to be snotty to you, although I confess to "using" you to answer any potential argument I could foresee.

Suffice to say that of course I know that legally the bureaucracy is dead wrong. Luckily I don't represent the bureaucracy.

Anyway, again, the bitchiness wasn't for you exactly. More like sharpening the claws in preparation for others.


The most salient point is how we can utilize the First Amendment without playing victim, without presenting a stereotype of Satanism, and actually win a precedence setting point that guarantees the legal rights of Satanists who actually represent the religion well.

The day will come. It is bound to. This, however, isn't it.

Hail, Satan!



The following exchange from the same thread may prove of value to those who would like to utilize Response, op-ed's, Letters to the Editor, and Comment forms:

From an Active CoS member:

I have a question related to this topic...
If a CoS member sees media such as this, is the recommended action to alert a clergy member to respond publically; or, is it proper for a non-titled member to make a public response?

1. Yes, tell a clergy member or agent so they can deal with the "official" CoS position.

2. Although registered and active members CANNOT claim to be giving the official position, or imply that they are speaking for all Satanists they are perfectly capable (if they feel they have writing talent) of commenting/responding like this:

While I refer you to the Church of Satan website to clarify the overall Satanic view of this subject, as an individual Satanist I feel........................"

Or something to that effect.

If you are concerned about your comment ask a clergy member or agent you feel comfortable with to assist you.


Finally, thanks to Roho & Xerx!

1 comment:

Magistra_Y said...

Peter Ingestad, Sweden tried to kill me. Really. He attempted to bore me, and you my friends, to death with deadly dull art, poetry challenged in it's depth by anything beginning with "Roses are red......."and the profound statement "Anton LaVey is a fAg. Aleister Crowley a midget. Ighe, Kraxpelax, the One & Onlie, bring Thee the Righte Stuffe. Have a glance in the Windowe Mirror."

Yup. Come bearing insults and THEN try to advertise.

'fuckin moron.


Featured Post

 7th Annual Wicked Witch of the Year Lizzie Hendrix