Let me begin by clarifying that there are two recognized sects of Satanism: LaVeyan and Theistic.
Theistic Satanists are those who truly belive that Lucifer exists and that he "blessed" mankind with knowledge which God forbade them. These people do worship Satan, yet follow many of the same moral codes as Christians. They believe in self-preservation and follow the rules of "civil society" in order survive in this manner. However, they are not one large group and are usually divided into smaller orgs or churches. They do not sacrifice animals, babies or virgins. They have a strict "no killing" rule and only offer prayers and lighted candles to their chosen deity.
LaVeyan Satanists are based on the written works of Anton Szandor LaVey who passed away in 1999. He was a philosopher who reasoned that the Devil is NOT REAL. He merely represent those things which mankind is naturally inclined to indulge in. In other words, "Satan" is merely the embodiment of what Christians would call "sin". Like the words "darkness" and "nothing" LaVeyans believe that the word "satan" is simply the word for a LACK of "moral value" rather than a physical thing. Therefore, they do not worship Lucifer in any real or theistic sense.
LaVeyan Satanists make up the large majority of practicing Satanists in the world. They indulge in free sexual lifestyles coupled with freedom of speech and creativity. They celebrate their own birthdays as the most important holiday of the year because they believe that they alone are in control of their lives. Displaying an existential nihlism, satanists believe that they are not obligated to please anyone but themselves and no one is obligated to please them.
What about the devil worshipping cults?
There has been no proof that they exist. Every case which mentions a "devil worship sacrifice" has been solved with real murderers who had real motives. In some cases, like with the West Memphis Three, people were falsely imprisoned because of religious bigotry. In that case, the young men were accused of "devil worshiop" simply because of how they dressed and the books they chose to read (H.P. Lovectraft, Aleister Crowley) These were inconclusive and unrelated facts which, when brought to an ill-informed jury managed to convince them that, by proxy, the young men were cultists and murderers.
This phenomenon is referred to as "moral panic". When an influential religious power finds an enemy to blame for the ails of society, then citizens who are scared are more likely to agree with the accusers rather than the victims. Another example would be the Salem Witch trials. In fact, you can even go further back to Europe and discover that over 400 men and women were put to death for simply "being different". Many of these people were simply educated women who enjoyed boks more than husband-hunting. the funny thing is, the oft quoted Bible phrase "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" was mis translated from the original, NON ENGLISH text. The phrase, back in context of the original book was warning Christians against visiting fortune tellers and telling them "not to support them finacially" by paying these phoney seers. Of course, over decades of panic, the phrase was misused to persecute hundreds of innocent people.
How do you know they don't secretly kill babies and goats?
Simple, I read the 9 Satanic principles. I cannot vouch for the innocence of every Satanist in the world (not any more than I can guarantee that every Christian is innocent of crime) but I can definately state that the Satanic Church is officialy against murder, rape and human sacrifice. Especially children and animals.
The 9 Principles, sometimes called the "anti-Commandments" are rules to follow for every Satanist. One of these is "Satanism respects and exalts life. Children and animals are the purest expressions of that life force, and as such are held sacred and precious." Satanists believe that the life we live now is our only one. There is no "afterlife" so they enjoy the current life to its fullest. This sometimes includes violating the "rules" of the Christian church as it often involves overindulgence in one of the 7 deadly sins, however, they are forbidden to violate the rights and freedoms of others in their own path for enjoyment.
But what about all those site which describe sacrifice and devil worshipping?
If you trace them back, many of those sites are run by Christian foundations. They are either uneducated and simply believe what they have been told, so they repeat it to the masses. Or, a less benign site will actually make up stories much in the way Abigail Williams did. Some people create things to fear because it gives them something to fight. Not all Christian churches are run this way, many of them focus on love, understanding and tolerance. However, there are a few Christians who see everything from heavy metal music to homosexuality as "the work of the devil" and will find his "worshippers" wherever they find these things they disagree with morally. However, as has already been stated, you will not find many satanists who even believe in the Devil's existence, much less "worship" him. The largest Satanic Church, located in Eastern Europe is actually centered around the idea of "non-religion" or finding faith within oneself. Again, no sacrifices.
sources:
http://http://www.churchofsatan.com/
http://www.theisticsatanism.com/politics/LaVey/9_statements.html
http://www.wm3.org/splash.php
http://www.goodfight.org/a_sataniccults.html <-- example of a misinformed site spreading rumors as fact.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Monday, May 12, 2008
Sean Bell: Why Al Sharpton Alters Reality
You've heard the story for almost a year now. You saw it on the news and backdropped by a sobbing fiancee and dramatic music. But here's what you didn't hear, the truth behind why those officers were acquitted and why, at the end of the day, they did what they were supposed to do and responded according to their training.
Racism?
No, this crime had NOTHING to do with racism. Let me repeat that. Nothing.
The undercover officers who killed Sean Bell were staking out the strip club in Queens because of its record of drug and gun traffiking. Their intentions that night were to protect the residents of Jamaica and the occupants of the club from violence. The undercover team was racially mixed, and the officer who fired the first shot was black.
51 shots?
Not all shots were fired into Sean Bell, nor were they fired by one man. 7 seperate officers fired these shots; that's an average of 7-8 shots each or less than one clip. Bell had 16 wounds on his body, several of which were exit wounds (i.e. a bullet leaves two holes, one on the way in and one on the way out).
Didn't one officer reload?
Yes. One officer unloaded 31 shot at the scene of the crime. He was acquitted of any "excessive force" charges because in the midst of a shootout, officers are trained to load and reload in one swift motion so as not to have any lapse in their firing. This way, they are less likely to become targets themselves. Anyone who's ever played a shooting game will atest to the fluidity and necessity of auto-reload features. Therefore, he was simply a more skilled marksman who squeezed off more rounds than his fellow officers.
Weren't the victims unarmed?
Yes, after the scene was cleared and the "dust had settled" the officers inspected the scene and checked for weapons. None were found.
How did this happen?
Ah, and now you have the question, the media seem to "forget".
At 4am, Sean Bell and his friend, Guzman stepped from the club which was being watched by undercover cops. Mr. Guzman got into an argument with a woman inside so they were escorted from the club and asked to leave. An officer overheard an innebriated Bell say, "Let’s fuck him up,” and Bell’s friend, Joseph Guzman, responded, “Yo, get my gun.
The officer (African American, btw) followed the men to their car and flashed his badge announcing that he was an officer. At this point Sean Bell attempted to run the cop over.
The cop began shouting "Show me your hands!" "Stop the car!" Bell did not stop and shots were opened on the driver and his friends. After all, how else do you get a car to stop from running you over?
Now let that sink in for a moment. Were you in the shoes of those cops, what would YOU have done? Granted one of them may have fired more shots than he needed to, he testified that he was scared for his life, he had to assume that the men were armed when he heard that they were going to the car for a gun. Was this one white cop (out of the only 2 white cops there) the racist one? Perhaps that is why he fired so many more times. If so, why is the entire NYPD being blamed for a death which was so obviously brought on by the irresponsible actions of Sean Bell himself?
Is this anything like the Amadou Diallo case from 1999?
No. That man was an immigrant who spoke very little English. He was alone, in a stairwell and when he reached for his wallet to show ID (his only form of communication) he was shot down by overly-aggresive offiers who assumed he was going for a gun. They were found guilty for their crimes. These cases are not "the same" because Diallo never assaulted any of the officers who killed him. Sean Bell tried to kill one of the men who shot him. There is a clear difference.
Why would Al Sharpton bend the truth?
The same reason Louis Farakhan and Jesse Jackson do: they have agendas. It's not an unholy or evil one. Racism does exist in this world and it always has. As long as one group is being oppressed by another, there will be those who speak for the weaker party. Black men and women have been degraded for many years, and since people are used to seeing this, they begin to find "racism" in places where it doesn't exist. It may be out of fear or reflex. In some cases, it may just be a means to an end. In this case, the family of Sean Bell is being used as a gateway to speak about other problems in that community.
Can this kind of lie become dangerous?
As a fellow blogger once said: "the specious racial rhetoric is becoming more ugly and dangerous. To the extent that the exploitation of this tragic event makes the police think twice about engaging with possible criminals or turn a blind eye to crime in the ghetto (as was once the case), the most direct victims will be the hundreds of thousands of innocent, upstanding minority New Yorkers."
To summarize, the more cops get dragged through the mud for simply doing their jobs, the less likely they will want to get involved in any crime crackdown in minority neighborhoods. In truth, in NYC, the African American community was responsible for 62 percent of all murders, rapes, robberies, and assaults from 1998 to 2000, according to victim and witness identification. A large majority of these crimes were commited against OTHER minorities. It’s not the “criminal-justice system” that has broken down for young black males; it’s families and other sources of cultural support. Minority children are being raised to believe that all cops are evil, racist murderers who don't care about them. This increases violence against officers. The same people who complain that the cops never want to respond to crime in their neighborhood are making it impossible for a cop to step foot there.
Next time you shoot off your mouth, think about how many innocent lives YOU'LL be ruining.
Racism?
No, this crime had NOTHING to do with racism. Let me repeat that. Nothing.
The undercover officers who killed Sean Bell were staking out the strip club in Queens because of its record of drug and gun traffiking. Their intentions that night were to protect the residents of Jamaica and the occupants of the club from violence. The undercover team was racially mixed, and the officer who fired the first shot was black.
51 shots?
Not all shots were fired into Sean Bell, nor were they fired by one man. 7 seperate officers fired these shots; that's an average of 7-8 shots each or less than one clip. Bell had 16 wounds on his body, several of which were exit wounds (i.e. a bullet leaves two holes, one on the way in and one on the way out).
Didn't one officer reload?
Yes. One officer unloaded 31 shot at the scene of the crime. He was acquitted of any "excessive force" charges because in the midst of a shootout, officers are trained to load and reload in one swift motion so as not to have any lapse in their firing. This way, they are less likely to become targets themselves. Anyone who's ever played a shooting game will atest to the fluidity and necessity of auto-reload features. Therefore, he was simply a more skilled marksman who squeezed off more rounds than his fellow officers.
Weren't the victims unarmed?
Yes, after the scene was cleared and the "dust had settled" the officers inspected the scene and checked for weapons. None were found.
How did this happen?
Ah, and now you have the question, the media seem to "forget".
At 4am, Sean Bell and his friend, Guzman stepped from the club which was being watched by undercover cops. Mr. Guzman got into an argument with a woman inside so they were escorted from the club and asked to leave. An officer overheard an innebriated Bell say, "Let’s fuck him up,” and Bell’s friend, Joseph Guzman, responded, “Yo, get my gun.
The officer (African American, btw) followed the men to their car and flashed his badge announcing that he was an officer. At this point Sean Bell attempted to run the cop over.
The cop began shouting "Show me your hands!" "Stop the car!" Bell did not stop and shots were opened on the driver and his friends. After all, how else do you get a car to stop from running you over?
Now let that sink in for a moment. Were you in the shoes of those cops, what would YOU have done? Granted one of them may have fired more shots than he needed to, he testified that he was scared for his life, he had to assume that the men were armed when he heard that they were going to the car for a gun. Was this one white cop (out of the only 2 white cops there) the racist one? Perhaps that is why he fired so many more times. If so, why is the entire NYPD being blamed for a death which was so obviously brought on by the irresponsible actions of Sean Bell himself?
Is this anything like the Amadou Diallo case from 1999?
No. That man was an immigrant who spoke very little English. He was alone, in a stairwell and when he reached for his wallet to show ID (his only form of communication) he was shot down by overly-aggresive offiers who assumed he was going for a gun. They were found guilty for their crimes. These cases are not "the same" because Diallo never assaulted any of the officers who killed him. Sean Bell tried to kill one of the men who shot him. There is a clear difference.
Why would Al Sharpton bend the truth?
The same reason Louis Farakhan and Jesse Jackson do: they have agendas. It's not an unholy or evil one. Racism does exist in this world and it always has. As long as one group is being oppressed by another, there will be those who speak for the weaker party. Black men and women have been degraded for many years, and since people are used to seeing this, they begin to find "racism" in places where it doesn't exist. It may be out of fear or reflex. In some cases, it may just be a means to an end. In this case, the family of Sean Bell is being used as a gateway to speak about other problems in that community.
Can this kind of lie become dangerous?
As a fellow blogger once said: "the specious racial rhetoric is becoming more ugly and dangerous. To the extent that the exploitation of this tragic event makes the police think twice about engaging with possible criminals or turn a blind eye to crime in the ghetto (as was once the case), the most direct victims will be the hundreds of thousands of innocent, upstanding minority New Yorkers."
To summarize, the more cops get dragged through the mud for simply doing their jobs, the less likely they will want to get involved in any crime crackdown in minority neighborhoods. In truth, in NYC, the African American community was responsible for 62 percent of all murders, rapes, robberies, and assaults from 1998 to 2000, according to victim and witness identification. A large majority of these crimes were commited against OTHER minorities. It’s not the “criminal-justice system” that has broken down for young black males; it’s families and other sources of cultural support. Minority children are being raised to believe that all cops are evil, racist murderers who don't care about them. This increases violence against officers. The same people who complain that the cops never want to respond to crime in their neighborhood are making it impossible for a cop to step foot there.
Next time you shoot off your mouth, think about how many innocent lives YOU'LL be ruining.
Scientology Misconceptions Revealed #2
source: http://www.scientologytoday.org/Common/question/index.htm#misconception
*fair use policy dictates that I can use this text in my Cross-Examination and rebuttal of your claims.*
Question: Why has Scientology sometimes been considered controversial?
Scientology's Reply: Like all new ideas, Scientology has come under attack by the uninformed and those who feel their vested interests are threatened. As Scientologists have openly and effectively advocated social reform causes, they have become the target of attacks. For those vested interests who cling to a status quo that is detrimental to society, Scientology’s technology of making the able more able and teaching people to think for themselves poses a serious threat.
This conflict dates back to 1950, a time when psychiatry was entrenched among the United States intelligence services and living off the fat of government grants. In May of that year, L. Ron Hubbard published Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. Not only did Dianetics contain the first workable technology of the mind that anyone could apply, but it also labeled their “state-of-the-art” psychiatric drugs as dangerous. Moreover, it decried the inhuman use of electro-shock treatment and lobotomy—then the mainstay of psychiatric treatment”. One cannot overestimate the threat that Dianetics posed to that medical/psychiatric establishment, both in terms of its inherent message and its
unprecedented popularity with the American public; for suddenly here was a work that
effectively ripped away their pretense of authority.
The response was immediate and considerable. Less than a month after the publication of Dianetics, psychiatrists on government payrolls were denigrating the book as a hoax, while admitting in the same breath that they had never even read it. A handful of influential psychiatrists used their government connections to spread lies and false reports through media and government files, escalating into an all-out attempt to close down the Dianetics
foundations which had sprung up across the country and later, after its formation in 1954, the Church of Scientology. The issue was clearly financial: how long could psychiatrists continue to convince the American taxpayer to foot the bill for multimillion dollar psychiatric appropriations when Dianetics provided a means to greater happiness and ability for only the price of a book?
TRUTH: Notice how the author keeps going back to psychiatry instead of answering the question? Scientology has been and still remains controversial because of its numerous practices which violate human rights and place its own members in harm. These include but are not limited to child labor, coerced disconnection from family members, coerced abortions and harrassment of former members. High ranking members, including Hubbard's wife, were caught infiltrating the IRS to steal anti-CoS documents. They were sent to prison. It wasn't a scheme set in motion by overpaid psychiatrists. These sceintologists broke the law and they were arrested. Thus the "controversial past". Scientology's controversial past has to do with their own actions, not those people have taken against them.
In response to all of the propaganda surrounding Hubbard's pseudo-scientific novel, Diantetics, none of what is said there is true if not skewed. Psychiatrists do not see and never have seen this book as anything more than a farce. No scientific study was ever researched nor were any of the "techniques" discussed in this text ever proven useful. In fact, the e-meter used to do these "techniques" bears a warning label that reads "The e-meter by itself does nothing..." because part of Scientology's controversial past includes several lawsuits against auditors from the church lying to patrons and making false medical claims about the e-meter.
For more information: http://www.xenu.net/
*fair use policy dictates that I can use this text in my Cross-Examination and rebuttal of your claims.*
Question: Why has Scientology sometimes been considered controversial?
Scientology's Reply: Like all new ideas, Scientology has come under attack by the uninformed and those who feel their vested interests are threatened. As Scientologists have openly and effectively advocated social reform causes, they have become the target of attacks. For those vested interests who cling to a status quo that is detrimental to society, Scientology’s technology of making the able more able and teaching people to think for themselves poses a serious threat.
This conflict dates back to 1950, a time when psychiatry was entrenched among the United States intelligence services and living off the fat of government grants. In May of that year, L. Ron Hubbard published Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. Not only did Dianetics contain the first workable technology of the mind that anyone could apply, but it also labeled their “state-of-the-art” psychiatric drugs as dangerous. Moreover, it decried the inhuman use of electro-shock treatment and lobotomy—then the mainstay of psychiatric treatment”. One cannot overestimate the threat that Dianetics posed to that medical/psychiatric establishment, both in terms of its inherent message and its
unprecedented popularity with the American public; for suddenly here was a work that
effectively ripped away their pretense of authority.
The response was immediate and considerable. Less than a month after the publication of Dianetics, psychiatrists on government payrolls were denigrating the book as a hoax, while admitting in the same breath that they had never even read it. A handful of influential psychiatrists used their government connections to spread lies and false reports through media and government files, escalating into an all-out attempt to close down the Dianetics
foundations which had sprung up across the country and later, after its formation in 1954, the Church of Scientology. The issue was clearly financial: how long could psychiatrists continue to convince the American taxpayer to foot the bill for multimillion dollar psychiatric appropriations when Dianetics provided a means to greater happiness and ability for only the price of a book?
TRUTH: Notice how the author keeps going back to psychiatry instead of answering the question? Scientology has been and still remains controversial because of its numerous practices which violate human rights and place its own members in harm. These include but are not limited to child labor, coerced disconnection from family members, coerced abortions and harrassment of former members. High ranking members, including Hubbard's wife, were caught infiltrating the IRS to steal anti-CoS documents. They were sent to prison. It wasn't a scheme set in motion by overpaid psychiatrists. These sceintologists broke the law and they were arrested. Thus the "controversial past". Scientology's controversial past has to do with their own actions, not those people have taken against them.
In response to all of the propaganda surrounding Hubbard's pseudo-scientific novel, Diantetics, none of what is said there is true if not skewed. Psychiatrists do not see and never have seen this book as anything more than a farce. No scientific study was ever researched nor were any of the "techniques" discussed in this text ever proven useful. In fact, the e-meter used to do these "techniques" bears a warning label that reads "The e-meter by itself does nothing..." because part of Scientology's controversial past includes several lawsuits against auditors from the church lying to patrons and making false medical claims about the e-meter.
For more information: http://www.xenu.net/
Scientology "Misconceptions" Revealed #1
source: http://www.scientologytoday.org/Common/question/index.htm#misconception
*fair use policy dictates that I can use this text in my Cross-Examination and rebuttal of your claims.*
Question: Why do some people oppose Scientology?
Scientology's reply: There are certain characteristics and mental attitudes that cause a percentage of the population to oppose violently any betterment activity or group. This small percentage of the society (roughly 2 percent) cannot tolerate that Scientology is successful at improving conditions around the world. This same 2 percent is opposed to any effective self-betterment activity. The reason they so rabidly oppose Scientology is because it is doing more to help society than any other group. Those who are upset by seeing man get better are small in number compared to the millions who have embraced Scientology and its efforts to create a sane civilization and more freedom for the individual.
TRUTH: There are several people across the world (over 10,000 at the moment) who have been protesting Scientology since January of 2008. In some cases, there are former scientologists who have been protesting outside their former churches for over 20 years. These are not a group of people who all have "one goal" nor do they "rabidly oppose" scientology's supposed ability to "help society" or "improve conditions around the world". In fact, many of these people are out protesting because they were personaly harmed by the cult (http://www.exscientologykids.com/ http://www.fairgamed.org/ http://www.scientologydisconnection.com/) These are not fanatics who are against saving the planet. The remaining members of the protest groups, those known as "Anonymous" were incited to join after Scientology violated the Freedom of Information Act by removing a video of Tom Cruise from YouTube in order to supress the incriminating speech he showed as a member of their church. This was an obvious attack meant to silence the truth and thousands of people who frequented YouTube and other common networking sites were alarmed by the church's blatant disregard for free speech. Since then, they have been outside of every major church across the globe letting the public know of the other secrets Scientology has been hiding.
So why do people REALLY oppose Scientology? It's because they think the people in charge of it are criminals who should be held accountable for their crimes, especially those crimes against its own members.
For more information from the OTHER side: http://www.enturbulation.org/
*fair use policy dictates that I can use this text in my Cross-Examination and rebuttal of your claims.*
Question: Why do some people oppose Scientology?
Scientology's reply: There are certain characteristics and mental attitudes that cause a percentage of the population to oppose violently any betterment activity or group. This small percentage of the society (roughly 2 percent) cannot tolerate that Scientology is successful at improving conditions around the world. This same 2 percent is opposed to any effective self-betterment activity. The reason they so rabidly oppose Scientology is because it is doing more to help society than any other group. Those who are upset by seeing man get better are small in number compared to the millions who have embraced Scientology and its efforts to create a sane civilization and more freedom for the individual.
TRUTH: There are several people across the world (over 10,000 at the moment) who have been protesting Scientology since January of 2008. In some cases, there are former scientologists who have been protesting outside their former churches for over 20 years. These are not a group of people who all have "one goal" nor do they "rabidly oppose" scientology's supposed ability to "help society" or "improve conditions around the world". In fact, many of these people are out protesting because they were personaly harmed by the cult (http://www.exscientologykids.com/ http://www.fairgamed.org/ http://www.scientologydisconnection.com/) These are not fanatics who are against saving the planet. The remaining members of the protest groups, those known as "Anonymous" were incited to join after Scientology violated the Freedom of Information Act by removing a video of Tom Cruise from YouTube in order to supress the incriminating speech he showed as a member of their church. This was an obvious attack meant to silence the truth and thousands of people who frequented YouTube and other common networking sites were alarmed by the church's blatant disregard for free speech. Since then, they have been outside of every major church across the globe letting the public know of the other secrets Scientology has been hiding.
So why do people REALLY oppose Scientology? It's because they think the people in charge of it are criminals who should be held accountable for their crimes, especially those crimes against its own members.
For more information from the OTHER side: http://www.enturbulation.org/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
