Satanic Statues in Okieland and Black Masses at Harvard, Oh My!!

Monte del zorro

So it turns out that those pesky Satanists who want to decorate my state capitol lawn with what is one ugly bit of Satanic statuary also have their eyes set on higher ed.

The Satanic Temple evidently plans to hold a black mass at the Harvard Extension Cultural Studies Club. That’s Harvard, as in the hugely expensive university where so many of the poobahs that run this country for their own benefit get their tickets to power punched.

I chose to ignore this story when it first surfaced because I had no idea if it was true, and I had zero time for tracking it down. But Elizabeth Scalia, aka, The Anchoress, who is easily as busy as I am, made the time to do just that.

It turns out that yes indeed, Harvard is playing host to the black mass folks, and at least one of them is claiming that they’ve managed to procure a consecrated host to use in their alternative culture extravaganza. Others of them aren’t so sure they have a host, and after thinking it over (and getting flak from The Anchoress) they’ve announced that, even though they have — or don’t have, depending on who’s doing the talking — a consecrated host, they won’t be using it (if they do have it) at their shindig.

Of course, Satan is the father of lies, and these are his disciples, so who knows if they have a consecrated host or not? Who knows if they’ll use it?

In an interview on Mobile Movement, the leader of this hardy band of the damned first says that they do, in fact, worship Satan. Then, he goes off on a riff about literary constructs, referencing Milton and Anatole France. Since, as I said earlier, Satan is the father of lies, I don’t think it matters all that much what this guy says. Believe it or don’t, as it suits you. But, if you’re smart, don’t bet anything valuable on it.

Deacon Greg Kandra reminds us that Harvard was once a Christian university, that it was, in fact, founded on Christian principles. But that, as they say, was then. This is now.

Academic pretensions aside, Harvard today is the premiere ticket-puncher for the power elite of this country. Go to Harvard, rule the unwashed masses. There’s nothing, but absolutely nothing, Christian about that.

So, it doesn’t surprise that in addition to worshipping power and mammon, they’re taking the mask off that deal and putting the guy behind the mask right out there in public where we can all see him.

Not to be limited to ugly art and profaning the mass, the followers of the dark lord are also getting into politics. According to their Facebook Page, The Satanic Temple is running an Adopt a Highway campaign, and plans to hold a tongue-in-cheek rally in support of Florida Governor Rick Scott, an honor which I doubt the good governor really wants.

What do I advocate in response to Harvard’s foray into cultural experimentation by way of satan worship and talk of maybe defiling what might be a consecrated host that is the Real Presence of Christ the Lord?

Just this: Don’t send your kids to Harvard. And write your senators and representatives about taking a good long look at all those government grants that get funneled into that one school.

We need to do this anyway, you know. Harvard and its little troupe of elite schools are not healthy for this country. They create a 1% that is disconnected from and hostile to the rest of us. They are, in many ways, predatory. It would be much better for this country if we offered some of those grants to other institutions, including non-academic organizations.

The only other thought I have is to pray for these satanists. Not only are they desperate for attention and more than a little crazy acting, they’ve got horrifically bad taste in art.

Screen Shot 2014 05 01 at 1 26 43 PMThis is the ugly statue that the Satanic Temple wants to put on Oklahoma’s Capitol grounds.  

  • Elizabeth K.

    Why is a guy with a goat head an enlightened step forward from the Judeo Christian tradition? I really never understand this,

    • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

      He isn’t. He’s a distinct part of the Judeo Christian tradition, and worshipped by those who hate Christ. The tails side of the coin is still the coin.

  • Robin

    Another case for stopping communion in the hand…

    • Howard

      And also for eliminating the troops of “extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion” at every parish. And also, frankly, for cleaning up the seminaries.

    • FW Ken

      Ok, I’ll bite. What does a satanist statue in Oklahoma have to do with Communion in the hand? Or EMEs for that matter?

      • BooBooGlass

        It’s how a consecrated host MIGHT have been obtained for the Harvard “ceremony” if in fact one were used.

        • FW Ken

          Ok. I didn’t click to the Harvard thing. I have seen priests chase people walking off with the Host, but I’ve also seen the Host fall out of someone’s mouth, as well.

          • pagansister

            If that happens, host falling out of the mouth, what does one do? Seriously—I don’t know. Does it get picked up or is it left there until later? I would think since it is supposed to be the body of Christ, it would be picked up.

            • The Truth Will Set You Free

              … and eat it. It happened to me, only the Sacred Host did not fall out of my mouth but from the hands of a very holy priest.

            • FW Ken

              I picked up and consumed the Host in both cases.

              • pagansister

                Thanks, FW Ken. I wondered what a person did under those circumstances.

                • FW Ken

                  Actually Father talked this morning about going back to using the altar rail, which means I could receive in the tongue. Of course, they would need a crane to get me back up… ☺

                  • pagansister

                    Smiling! :-)

  • Romulus

    Oh, Harvard. I thought you said “higher ed”.

  • pagansister

    In this country we have freedom of religion, so I guess if the satanic group wants to have a black mass, why not? Obviously Harvard’s Extension said OK. I’d attend just to see what they did. (No, I don’t worship Satan or have any connection with those that do). As for the statue? It is interesting. :-) Someone mentioned in the other post about the proposed statue that if it is allowed, then the 10 commandments should be as well as symbols of other religions, for equality in representation. Not a bad idea—if one representation is, others should be too. Just my opinion.

    • MillerJM

      Not a very well formed opinion. The rationale for having the 10 commandments at a court house is, like it or not, because Judeo-Christian law forms the historical backbone for the laws for practically all western nations, including the U.S. Any legal scholar worth his/her own salt knows this. So while there are obvious links between the 10 commandments and religion, the 10 commandments are also the legal ancestor to our own legal system. The satan statue has no relevance to our laws at all – no historical link can be made. Maybe you could put something up there like the Code of Hammurabi, some Roman codices, etc. A statue of satan is purely a religious statement devoid of any historical connection to our legal system.

      • pagansister

        Well formed or not, just my opinion. The 10 Commandments were originally used to advertise the movie release in the US way back when. (which you probably know). That had nothing to do with historical backbone for us or other western nations. It not only seems to have worked, some feel they should still be outside government or court buildings. Folks now find them to be religiously based and some feel they are not necessary in court buildings and some think they are necessary. I am the latter in feeling. If they are allowed, so should other faith “ads”. However, the satanic statue really is ugly.

        • ME

          Why do judges wear robes? Why are their “benches” higher than the rest of the seating in the rooms? Why are people asked to swear on the bible. (Take an oath to tell the truth, so help me God.) These are all based on the Judaic-Christian elements of their legal systems. The judge wears the robe, as the high-priest did. The bench is higher, to remind people of the authority to mete out justice. Scott Hahn had an excellent discussion about this on his website as part of a series on the sacraments he did. I don’t remember all the other judicial elements that the court system has taken from the Judeo-Christian heritage, but I know there were a number of them.

          I don’t remember what episode it was, but I know it was part of this series.
          http://www.saintpaulcenter.com/audio-resources/swear_to_god1

          • pagansister

            If I had to swear in a courtroom, which I haven’t had to do, I would request not to do so on the Bible. It can be done, I’m sure, with out the words “so help me God” and using the Bible. I never actually thought about why all those things you mentioned occur. Now it is tradition.

      • Donalbain

        Of course it does. That is why so many of the 10 commandments are explicitly part of the law of the land. Well, except for the ones that aren’t. And for the ones that are explicitly denied by the US constitution.

    • peggy-o

      Not all representations in society are equal and that’s where we get hung up I guess. Trust me on this, you don’t want to go anywhere near a black mass. I know someone who has spent years dealing with the damage and after effects of that family background. I know two priests who have dealt with exorcisms – this stuff is very real and dangerous. This mass is highly offensive to Catholics and a compete desecration of Jesus’ very real presence. To receive the host properly is an awesome miracle and incredibly healing, but in the reverse way here, a matter of serious consequence to all involved. You can instead find incredible stories of Eucharistic miracles back through time all over the world that are verifiable accurate and more fascinating.

      • pagansister

        Thanks for the advice, peggy-o. I probably will never have the opportunity to attend one. I would only attend, not participate in any way. I do understand they can be very powerful. I have no desire to worship a creature called Satan. In spite of my name, I have no dealings with the dark side. I’m for light and love etc. I attended many Masses during my teaching years in the Catholic elementary school, and yes it was indeed beautiful. Obviously I couldn’t receive communion but being in the beautiful sacred surroundings with my “kids” and fellow teachers was very precious to me.

  • fredx2

    No, you were right the first time. The statue is not merely ugly. It is creepy.
    Let them put it up. It is basically an advertisement telling people how creepy they are.

    • Howard

      It is also something I never expected to see: explicitly Satanist kitsch. I always assumed that the sellers of black velvet paintings of the Devil on a toilet were not actually trying to honor the Devil.

  • FW Ken

    I don’t have strong feelings about the Ten Commandments in public places, but at least they reflect an historically important ethical foundation for western civilization. Seven of the ten are, I’ll warrant, what atheists mean when they talk about being “good without God”. That and maybe the Golden Rule.

    I agree with Fred. Let the world see them for what they are.

    • David M Paggi

      Good without God? Has it ever been tried successfully? Christendom has found trying WITH God hard enough!

      As for the Golden Rule, that was historically introduced by Our Blessed Lord, and represents a quantum leap from its progenitor, the silver rule: “Do NOT do unto others what you would NOT have them do to you.”

      A first condition for really living the Golden Rule is the recognition of the intrinsic worth of each human person, without regard to their assets, utility, or salvage value, all of which are extrinsic. Fr. Robert Spitzer, S.J. maintains that it is impossible to really live the Golden Rule without agape love, which is the radically different way of treating persons we learn from the Gospel, in particular Mt 5-7, the Sermon on the Mount. Or if you prefer, St. Paul’s beautiful but incredibly challenging model in 1 Cor 13.

      Post-Christian Western culture takes these for granted, but they really do depend on Christian values. In other words, we currently are living off the moral capital built by prior generations, who among other things had enough common sense to know that to refuse giving a platform to Satan is merely prudent, not intolerant.

      • pagansister

        So far I have been just that, good without God. My spirituality tends to take care of things. :-) I wasn’t convinced after the first 17 years of my life being raised in a Christian family, and found myself much happier when I decided to leave the church. However for those who do believe, including my 2 very devout Christian sisters—-getting help from God works.

        • ME

          But not matter how much you try to claim that you are “good without God”, you were still raised in a Christian family, and your parents tried to teach you Christian values. Regardless of whether you believed in God or not, you were following the structures of morals laid down by a Christian life. So “Good without God” is not what you are doing. You may wish to deny that they are Christian values that you are living, but that is what you are doing.

          • pagansister

            My children were not raised in a Christian faith, as I couldn’t in all honesty tell them I believed in God. They were raised liberally in the UU tradition, a tradition their father was raised in. He also doesn’t believe in God. They did get their maternal grandparents influence during the summers (we didn’t live in the same state) when we visited. They attended the Methodist VBS. (until they were too old to want to spend 2 weeks visiting the grands in the summer.) However, we spent many Christmas holidays with them and the grands came to visit us too. Neither child is associated with any faith whatsoever nor will our 1 grandchild be unless he decides differently as he gets older.

  • DC

    If Harvard is willing to host a black mass mocking the Catholic mass How about Harvard hosting a service mocking muslim services or a service mocking proststant or jewish or buddist or whatever.

  • one comment

    If you play with fire you will get burned. I am afraid as a society we are finding that this is true. All the “innocent” books and games and t.v. and movies dabbling into the darker side of things that seemed (and still seem to some) “harmless” or “entertainment” or (it is even told) they have some “good value” after all, they are coming back to bite us. This statue with children looking admiringly at Satan (who would just as well bite at them and eat them for dinner by the way) glares with so much scorn and hatred for humanity, and with many evil purposeful undertakings.

    ““Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’ ” — Jesus said that…

  • Rob B.

    My wife and I have decided to fast and say a rosary on Monday in reparation for this heinous act. Would anyone care to join us? :)

    • peggy-o

      I will

  • Romulus

    Can anyone explain why this page is right now displaying an ad promising me “scary accurate” horoscope results in exchange for my zodiac sign?

    • hamiltonr

      Because I don’t control the advertising, and probably because someone who has used either your computer or your router read a horoscope or looked at horoscopes or something similar. I see a lot of ads for home decorating, computer/camera gear and women’s clothing. :-)

      (The only way I know of to avoid running into this on the web sites you visit is to set your browser to not accept cookies. I suppose then you’ll see more generic ads, aimed at everyone.)

      • hamiltonr

        I should say that I am going to report your complaint and ask to have the offending ad removed. Haven’t had a lot of luck with that, since the ads rotate, but I’ll try and I know the Patheos people will try as well.

        • Romulus

          Thanks. FYI, I was using my cell phone to read your blog, and that’s where the ad appeared. No one else uses my cell phone, and I can assure you I have never visited an astrology site or conducted an astrology web search, even for educational purposes. You may not ever come up with an explanation. I am perfectly prepared to believe it was the enemy having his stupid joke.

          As for the sponsors of the “black mass”, my guess is that they’re a set of geeky losers, acting out with transgressive behavior as compensation for sensed inadequacies, grievances, and deep confusion about what to do with the call to faith they feel in their hearts. Perhaps the culture of death is the first “evangelization” they’ve ever known.

          • hamiltonr

            Someday, I may work up my nerve and open myself up for the inevitable ridicule by telling you what happened when I was trying to write this post.

            “I am perfectly prepared to believe it was the enemy having his stupid joke.”

            • FW Ken

              If there were ridicule, you know you’d still have a bunch of us “got your back”. Anyway, I suspect a lot of us have some weird stories to tell.

              • hamiltonr

                :-)

      • Paul

        Here are two other options that Romulus could use:

        1. To avoid targeted ads, set your web browser to accept cookies, but also set it to delete all cookies every time you close the browser. (This setting is available in Chrome and Firefox, but maybe not in Internet Explorer.) This will allow web sites to function correctly, but sites won’t be able to track you from one session to the next (unless they are tracking you through some method other than cookies). The only downside is that “Remember me” features on web sites will not work; you will have to log in manually each time.

        2. Install an ad blocking extension, such as Adblock for Chrome or AdBlock Plus for Firefox. This will simply display the page without the ads.

  • Donalbain

    So, a school has people who are of a religion you dislike, so they should not lose funding?

    • hamiltonr

      So far as I know, Harvard is and always has been a private school. As such, it receives no direct government funding. What I was talking about are the many grants that government gives for specific purposes (as opposed to funding the school itself.)

      I was also talking about the fact that certain schools have become ticket-punchers for their graduates. A diploma from one of these schools assures access to opportunities in government, finance, the judiciary and other areas that are denied Americans who do not possess this “ticket.”

      It becomes a question of access to opportunity in this country, and, sadly, the opportunities are weighted so far in this one direction that they are denied to everyone else.

      I also object to concentrating the group think that comes out of these schools in areas of influence and power. When their students go on to use their “tickets” to acquire the power to run our institutions of finance, government, etc; they form a club of like-thinking people who share almost identical values and ideas. This group-think has led this country into one abominably bad situation after another, beginning with Viet Nam and going up to our present day problems.

      I don’t think the government should give most of these grants to any school of higher learning because they always end up perverting the mission of the school. There are other organizations the grants could be dispersed to. Also, many of the grants need to be cancelled altogether.

      As to the religion of Harvard, I was unaware that this school has a “religion” other than picking up all the marbles and holding them tight.

      • Sus_1

        Harvard Medical School does cancer research with government grant money. I’m sure they do other research for other diseases also.

        I hear what you are saying but when doctors, who graduated from HMS helped save my life, I couldn’t say they shouldn’t receive government money. That government money helped test the chemo drugs I received.

        I can’t get excited about things this when I think most people will be viewing it with scorn and something to laugh at. In the grand scheme, who cares. Their Black Mass isn’t going to stop me from going to my Mass on Sunday.

        • hamiltonr

          … and Harvard was the only place this research could have happened? I rather imagine that the scientists would follow the money, don’t you? If the money moved, they’d go right along with it. That wouldn’t stop the research, it would lead to greater variety of thought and intellectual stimulation throughout our whole society. Putting everything in one place inevitably leads to stultification.

          • Becky

            Harvard and its peers have a tremendous research infrastructures. Scientists would follow the money if the money went elsewhere, but it would (and does) take years to build a good research infrastructure, and it’s not easy to do. (Many universities are attempting to strengthen their research infrastructures, including ones I have worked at, and let’s just say … it doesn’t happen overnight.) It’s actually good for there to be fairly large concentrations of researchers in certain areas — it enables scientists to learn from, work with, and compete with one another, which spurs new discoveries. Boston and Silicon Valley aren’t known as centers of innovation for nothing.

            This is not to say that Harvard should get *all* the money, nor that the scientists should be in only one place or a handful of places. Some amount of clustering at elite institutions, however, is pretty much inevitable. If it weren’t Harvard, it would be somewhere else. (And trust me, there’s plenty of competition between Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Caltech, Chicago, Stanford, Berkeley, Michigan, etc.)

            • hamiltonr

              I’m going to bow out for a while and see what Public Catholic readers have to say. I’ll end with this one comment: There is no excuse — ever — to use public monies to create elitist systems that destroy opportunity for the very people who are supplying the money. Also, individual citizens have every right to call their elected representatives in government and tell them so.

              The country would benefit enormously in many ways by ending this concentration of public monies in a few institutions of higher learning. Higher ed would benefit (though the squawking would be loud and prolonged) by moving these grants to other venues and pushing higher ed back into ed.

              Harvard, in the end, would still be Harvard. There’s a place for Harvards in this country. But a position of hegemony is not that place.

              Now, I’ve been talking too much. Let’s give somebody else a chance.

              • Becky

                I’ll just repeat that hollowing out the university research infrastructure without setting up alternative research structures in their place would be catastrophic for American science. That doesn’t mean things aren’t too concentrated — they are — but absent an alternative, it would be catastrophic to dismantle the current system. I’ll also mention that the STEM graduate programs at elite institutions are not, generally, reinforcing inequality — my husband and most of his fellow student peers came from middle-class backgrounds, and he participated in several university-sponsored programs to mentor students from inner-city schools while he was there. My husband attended a selective non-Ivy undergrad institution, but lots of other grad students in his program did not; if you do well at your undergrad institution, seek out undergrad research opportunities, and have decent GREs, you can generally get into an “elite” grad school in STEM fields. (All of the programs outside of the top 20 or so have difficulty attracting qualified American applicants, so it’s really not a super rarefied thing.) And, as mentioned, PhD grad programs are free and include a modest living stipend, so they’re not reserved for the rich. With very rare exceptions, scientists in this country are not the rich, powerful, or influential. They’re middle-class, but they are not at the levers of power. The people at Harvard with whom you have a real beef are the wealthy undergrads and the social science/humanities professors who vocally try to impose their beliefs on everyone else … but they aren’t the ones getting the big grant money. I hope this has been moderately helpful — I always appreciate your thoughtfulness, even when you disagree with commenters. :)

                • hamiltonr

                  I can’t resist this. I’ve said repeatedly to move the money, not end it, which would imply that I mean setting up new structures. Dispersing the money more widely would enhance science, not limit it. The more minds you have working, the more ideas and better ideas you get. Group think is disastrous for real thinking.

                  I also want to add that I love Public Catholic readers. We begin with a post about a black mass and end up with a serious discussion of the best way to fund scientific research in this country. That is incredibly rewarding to me. Makes me feel good about what I do.

                  Now, I’m going to back off and let somebody else talk.

                  • Becky

                    I don’t want to get repetitive, but it’s worth reiterating that NIH and NSF have grant programs that are designed to enhance research infrastructure at non-selective, non-graduate institutions. This is kind of my bailiwick since it’s what I used to do. I think you might have a slightly exaggerated perception of how much money Harvard gets relative to other schools. Last time I checked (which wasn’t terribly recently), Johns Hopkins was actually the #1 school in total federal grant dollars awarded, which makes perfect sense since they are huge in health research, and health research gets the biggest funding.

                    Okay, I just googled it, and Harvard isn’t currently even in the top 10: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/06/federal-research-and-development-fu.html.

                    Let me just state that the University of Pittsburgh is not the major engine of inequality in the United States!

          • kenofken

            I don’t disagree with your wider point on elitism in this country, but if we start cutting off dollars for ideological reasons or the antics of undergrads, we’re going to devastate our research capability and productivity at a time when they are already at risk of falling behind the rest of the world. Public research money is disbursed to those who have the best cutting edge relevant proposals and who have the track records and the intellectual, physical and institutional infrastructures to follow through and produce. There is no significant commitment to basic research in private industry, and very few academic institutions in the world which have the depth and capability in certain areas that Harvard has. Top scholars aren’t only attracted to Harvard by public research money, but also by prestige. I’m all for the idea of increasing and diversifying public research dollars, but punishing places like Harvard isn’t going to do anything but get us less bang for our buck. Such action would also gut whatever moral high ground you have in arguing against ideological purity test as they are used against Christians in the public sphere.

            On a broader point, it’s clear the only reason these so-called Satanists are doing a public mass is to get the goat of Christians, as it were. Why give them the satisfaction? They do these things only because they know they can get a rise out of you, collectively.

            • hamiltonr

              All the the commenters on this have missed one point: These are pubic monies, and citizens not only have a right, they have a direct interest in making their feelings known about how they are spent.

              You are also missing the point, that these monies can be moved at will by the government. Loading them up in one institution is just academic welfare. I have zero doubt that the scientists will follow the money.

              As to the idea that these grants are placed on rational rather than personal basis, you are too optimistic by half (at least.) When the people running government come from the same institutions that are getting the grants, and this happens over and over, that’s not objectivity. There are other names for it.

      • FW Ken

        Harvard was started by Puritan divines as a bible school for training preachers. That’s news you can’t use.

      • Becky

        Most of the grants to which you refer provide funding to graduate students and postdocs in STEM fields. My husband got a PhD in physics at a different Ivy League School, and the reason these schools get so many grants is that their name recognition enables them to attract top scientists … who are really good at getting grants. I’m sure you could find a handful of bizarre and unnecessary grants, and you and I both object to funding for things like embryonic stem cell research. However, the vast majority of these funds — probably well over 75% — are just for garden-variety, unobjectionable (often quite helpful!) basic research. I wouldn’t want my kids to attend an Ivy League school as undergraduates, either, but graduate student social life is 100% divorced from undergraduate social life and is far less dicey. We’re mostly talking earnest science nerds, many of them already married. It’s not fair to paint them with the same broad brush of these crazies.

        Moreover, Harvard *extension* school is similar to the extension school at my husband’s alma mater — that is to say, a much less selective program whereby people with money to burn can take random classes that don’t lead toward actual degrees. Google it, you’ll see. It’s not like this is the cream of the crop at Harvard …

        • hamiltonr

          The grant process as a whole as perverted higher education into a grant-garnering machine, with a concomitant neglect of teaching the students. This is something of a scandal in higher education. Schools like Harvard, which get outsized portions of these grants, are simply being given too much government money at the expense of education generally.

          None of this even addresses the group-think that these schools, by their ticket-punching powers, foist on the entire American system of governance, finance, military, etc.

          • Becky

            I used to be a higher ed grant administrator before I quit to stay at home with my kids, so I agree and disagree at the same time. Harvard is a research institution, and serious research requires serious money. Harvard and the other schools in the Ivy League (and other elite institution such as MIT, Caltech, etc.) have so many resources that undergraduates aren’t really terribly shortchanged by the fact that many faculty are more focused on getting grants than teaching. I think this is a bigger problem at state institutions who don’t have as many resources and therefore rely more heavily on adjuncts and grad students to get undergrad courses taught. This isn’t to say that the Ivies don’t do this … just that they’ve got more support services that help make up for it.

            This could get very long, so I’ll simply mention that at Harvard, many faculty aren’t actually expected to teach — a lot of them are affiliated with hospitals and the like in addition to being faculty. I had numerous doctors when we were there who were technically research faculty at my husband’s institution. I don’t find this to be problematic. It tends to lead to research clusters of excellence, which are important to science.

            The groupthink issue is actually a bigger problem in the humanities and social sciences than the hard sciences, but the hard sciences get the bulk of the grant funding. I also think it has more to do with the undergraduate experience, which is part of the reason I would *not* encourage my kids to attend Harvard when the time comes. The undergraduates tend to come from more privileged backgrounds than graduate students, which makes sense since you have to pay upward of $50k a year for an undergraduate education. Graduate students don’t pay tuition and receive a very modest living stipend … which often comes from grant money. I suppose I am biased since my husband’s graduate education was almost entirely grant-funded, but I don’t think the world would be a better place if he hadn’t had that opportunity. (I don’t want to say too much about what he does now, but let’s just say we’re not even remotely rich or powerful, and my husband definitely gives back in may ways.)

            The vocal atheist scientists are not even remotely representative of most research scientists. My husband’s graduate program included many devout students and faculty. However, most research scientists are, as stated, diligent nerds — they aren’t interested in going to the press with axes to grind. The jerks who go on TV with their anti-religion screeds would have you believe that they speak for most scientists, but that isn’t even *remotely* true, even in the Ivy League.

            I would love it if there were more industry support for basic research (there used to be), and I think it would be great if there were more government labs. Unfortunately, however, the universities are research centers in this country. I don’t think it would improve things if we dismantled their research capabilities. This is not to say there aren’t problems with the grant-funded research university model — there are, and they should be addressed — but lots of really good research comes out of U.S. universities, and dismantling that infrastructure without putting some alternative infrastructure in place would seriously damage U.S. leadership in technical fields.

            I guess this did get really long. :) I just wanted to point out that it’s a complicated situation, and I don’t think the solution to the groupthink/elitism problem that you mention actually has much to do with grant funding (since, again, the rich and powerful tend to be the undergrads, and the grants are primarily for the research enterprise, which has very little to do with the undergrads. Since you’re an elected official, I think it’s important for you to consider all aspects of the issue. Which isn’t to say that this will change your mind, but I hope you have a sense that it’s not entirely a black-and-white thing. :)

            • hamiltonr

              Interesting comment Becky. (Love your name. :-) )

              I still think that the nation as a whole would be better served if these monies were more widely dispersed. I also question using higher ed as research engines. I get what you’re saying about it doing less damage at Harvard than at state schools. I honestly don’t know enough to say if I think this is true or not.

              However, these are PUBLIC monies, which should benefit the public and the common good. If they benefit the institution to which they are granted, that is just a side effect. I believe strongly that too much public money is concentrated in too few schools and that this practice does not benefit the public good.

  • top8305

    When I attended Hamilton College and hung out at Colgate and Cornell in the late 70s / early 80s, there were satanic rituals going on with burnt offerings, dead, blood-drained horses and such. Big Red has (apparently forever) a tower which houses a witches’ covenant.

    The difference between then and now is that now it our apostatized post-Christian, neo-pagan secular society is receptive to Satanism and other occult practices after decades of subtle subversion of the zeitgeist consequent of the Heresies of Modernism, Indifferentism, Relativism and Americanism.

    [2] He said to them in reply, “In the evening you say, ‘Tomorrow will be fair, for the sky is red’; [3] and, in the morning, ‘Today will be stormy, for the sky is red and threatening.’ You know how to judge the appearance of the sky, but you cannot judge the signs of the times.
    Matthew 16

  • Bill S

    Hypothetical conversation with a Satanist:

    So. You’re a Satanist. I’m an atheist and I think you are more idiotic than those who worship the good imaginary being, God.

    What possible reason could there be for worshipping an evil imaginary being? You are a loser either way. You either worship a real evil being or an imaginary being. You really can’t be right no matter what the real truth is. That is truly laughable.

    • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

      And if the truth is that both God and the Devil exist, they respond by cursing you.

      • Bill S

        True, Ted. But in reality, Satan worship is just immature foolishness because there are no gods, angels, demons, etc. They are just being ridiculous and they deserve to be mocked for their beliefs.

    • Tom Hanson

      What possible reason could there be for worshipping an evil imaginary being?
      Historically the answer is very simple in the early stages. To appease him/her or her/him or himher or it, whichever you might prefer. It got more complicated when people started to think and develop cosmologies which explain what we today would call the problem of evil. Look up gnostic cosmology out of which grew what today is referred to as Christian Gnosticism, and the the religion of Manee which is referred to today as Manichaeanism which had Augustine in its ranks for a while.
      Query, under what possible logic can you think one more idiotic than another? There may be hope for you yet. I hope you think about the problem of evil in the world. It’s a good one, that Richard Dawkins pretty much ignores.

      • Bill S

        “I hope you think about the problem of evil in the world.”

        Good point. Man has evolved to differentiate between good and evil and we have learned that our chances of survival as a species are greatly enhanced if everyone values good and discourages evil. Our myths present stories about good prevailing over evil such as Jesus prevailing over Satan. In reality, they are all just fairy tales. And people who worship Satan (the Evil One) might just as well worship Lux Luther or the Joker. That’s how foolish they are being.

        • Rob B.

          “we have learned that our chances of survival as a species are greatly enhanced if everyone values good and discourages evil. ”

          It seems that lots of people still haven’t gotten this “evolutionary memo.” This is why I think evolutionary explanations of of the philosophical concept of natural law just don’t work.

  • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

    I’ve got a question- why does this “Satanic Temple” from New York, have any standing in Oklahoma at all?

    • hamiltonr

      Good question Ted, which the courts will have to sort out. But my take is that, unless they got a local to file, they may not have standing.

  • Darryn Webb

    I damn near lost it when i read that you can sit on old Lucy’s lap XD. Come on they know what theyre doin, theyre being smartasses, albeit in a slimy but clever way. They want people to get riled up and in arms and then pull that whole “how do you think public Christian or Catholic monuments make us feel?” Or “We deserve to be recognized and respected as a religion”. Tricky part is theyre kind of right. Either everything is okay or none of it is, we don’t really get to cherry pick em. Id actually applaude those crafty lames if I thought they meant it.

    • hamiltonr

      Darryn, I’m allowing this because you a new here. In the future, would you please watch you language? I don’t allow profanity on this blog.

  • SteveK

    As a Catholic and a Harvard alumnus, I feel I need to clarify what I think is really going here and why.
    The Satanic Temple is not a religious organization, it is an irreligious one. Their intent is to make fun of what they perceive is religious hypocrisy, using religious symbolism. The statue in question was to confront the hypocrisy of the Oklahoma legislature, which permitted a Ten Commandments statue in front of the state house, in clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. As a number of the Founders said, the only way to protect all religions is to keep them all out of the state, and thus this organization is deliberately confronting the Oklahomans by choosing a symbol that is appalling to them. Either the legislature must live by their espoused values (they claim it is open to others), or they should remove the Ten Commandments, in which case I would expect the other would also be withdrawn. You can certainly question their taste and civility, but their intent is to ensure the Constitution that protects all religions — including Catholicism — does not get undermined by a few.
    And they have said elsewhere that they are not, in fact, in any way religious and indeed that statue is based on something made up by the Inquisition to condemn the Knights Templar. And they provide a thorough history of it on their website, just to make sure people know that they are “promoting” an entirely fictional creation.
    As for Harvard, a few points. Please don’t mistake the actions of a few rebellious adolescents for the actions of a university.
    I respect your concern with the 1% and share it, but many, many Harvard grads (including many I know personally) also work hard in service to the poor and NGOs, and make sacrifices for the betterment of mankind. Harvard Legal Aid has helped countless people get representation over the past century. Many students go on internships to go to improve literacy, health, and the environment in under-served regions. And some become cardinals, like Bernard Law.
    Harvard itself ensures that any child accepted can go by providing all — ALL — the funds necessary for tuition, room, and board, free and clear if the parents are unable to do it. (Information available on their website under Financial Aid.) I know — I would not have been able to go had I not had financial aid, as do 70% of undergraduates. I spent a fair amount of time at the Harvard Catholic Student Center, which I still support.
    To condemn Harvard for the actions of a few night school students is equivalent to condemning the Catholic Church for the Crusades. Please don’t do it.

    • hamiltonr

      I am aware that the Satanic Temple puts out a muddled message about itself and that on its website it lists claims about following science and debunking religion.

      All this is is a muddled message in my opinion, which allows people to pick a mission for them that will work for the person picking. It is also blatantly dishonest. In fact, the dishonest part is the only bit that’s clear.

      As for their being many Harvard grads who are fine people and who do good things. True.

      But that doesn’t matter or apply to the overall problem of a few schools controlling this country through their graduates, or that by that means we are placing our most powerful institutions under group-think. It also does not answer or even address the great injustice of denying opportunity to all the other people in this country because of it.

      • SteveK

        I agree there is a problem of too few people controlling this country, and the consolidation of wealth in a small number of hands is core to that problem. Many of those people get to go to elite schools because they can pay the money (or donate the building!) that I couldn’t. But I have to say blaming Harvard for it is inappropriate. If you think there is a Harvard group-think, all I can say is you don’t know enough people from Harvard! My friends include every piece of the political spectrum (not just Democrats and Republicans, but Green Party and even anarchistic), and they range in religiosity from evangelical minister to atheist. (Would you condemn the Harvard Divinity School? My daughter’s theology teacher in her Catholic high school went there.)

        I absolutely agree there is denial of opportunity to other people in the country, but the dividing line, as Pope Francis has pointed out, is capitalism and entrenched wealth, not education. Harvard provides opportunity to those who cannot afford it, and opens doors to the poor but talented.

    • AnneG

      Steve, Who said, “the only way to protect all religions is to keep them all out of the state,” and, where did they say it? Most of the founders addressed government restrictions of religion not restrictions from religion in public.

      • SteveK

        Contrary to what is being said by many politicians today, the Founders were probably more concerned to keep religion out of government, and Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and Madison wrote explicitly about that very point, having seen the impact of state-administered religion in England and the New World. Jefferson referred explicitly to “a wall of separation between church and State” (Thomas Jefferson, letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, January 1, 1802). Given that Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin “were not Christians, did not accept the authority of the Bible and were hostile to organized religion” (Robertson, 1987), we should not be surprised that they were more worried about religion affecting government than the other way around. Having said that, I know I found a quote saying roughly what I asserted earlier this week, and I am having trouble tracking it down again; apologies, Anne, I will check again.
        Posting the Ten Commandments at a state capital is government supported advocacy of religions that use them. Let me turn it around, Nick: how would you feel if a copy of the Koran were placed at the state capital to the exclusion of others?
        Had the Oklahomans truly respected freedom of religion, we could see a copy of the Koran, a Buddha, a Shinto shrine, or a memorial of Thor right next to the Ten Commandments. And there are many other religions than are represented in that list. The simpler way to deal with this is to exclude them all. It does me no harm to exclude my religion from the State House; my relationship with God will be entirely unaffected.
        Indeed, as a Catholic, I object to the Ten Commandments being given emphasis over Jesus’ law.

        A few examples:
        Madison objected to chaplains being appointed and paid from tax funds, feeling that “It would have been a much better proof to their constituents of their pious feeling if the members had contributed for the purpose a pittance from their own pockets.” (James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822)

        Generally they wanted religion and government completely separated, e.g. James Madison: “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.” James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822; from Jack N. Rakove, ed., James Madison: Writings, New York: Library of America, 1999, p. 789.

        Jefferson spoke strongly enough on this that he was accused of being an atheist during his presidential campaign: “”[T]he successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro’ the U.S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalian & Congregationalist. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me;”
        - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800; from Thomas Jefferson: Writings, Merrill D. Peterson, ed., New York: Library of America, 1984, pp. 1081-1082

        James Madison: “It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Govt. could not stand without the prop of a Religious establishment; & that the Xn. [Christian] religion itself, would perish if not supported by the legal provision for its Clergy. The experience of Virginia conspiciously corroboates the disproof of both opinions. The Civil Govt. tho’ bereft of everything like an associatd hierarchy possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success; Whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State.”
        (letter to Robert Walsh, March 2, 1819; from Jack N. Rakove, ed., James Madison: Writings, New York: Library of America, 1999, pp. 726-727)

        • Nick_from_Detroit

          SteveK, Thank you, for your thoughtful reply.
          I read your quotations and I see Jefferson and Madison making my argument. They were against state intrusion into religion, since, at the time these letters were written, there were still state churches in this country. This included Connecticut, whose legislature was interfering with the Danbury Baptist’s religion. That was why they wrote President Jefferson.
          George Washington does not belong on your list with Jefferson and Franklin. He belonged to the Episcopalian church.
          Madison’s lack of support for a paid chaplain was fiscal, not religious. He lost that argument, by the way.

          To answer your specific question, to me, if a state legislature decided to display the Qur’an, that would be their decision. I would not care. I believe in federalism.
          If my state legislature decided to do that, I would work to change it, through the political system, not the courts.
          This is not what these so-called “satanists” did, is it? So, this is apples-to-oranges.
          Posting the Qur’an would not infringe on my right to worship as I choose. As you stated, “my relationship with God will be entirely unaffected,” correct? The same goes with displaying the Decalogue. It doesn’t violate anyone’s rights.
          If you’re wondering why I would try to change this in my own state, in this hypothetical, it’s because I don’t agree with many precepts found in the Qur’an and Hadith. I believe the branches of government should stand for the Truth, as they derive their just powers from Almighty God.
          I would also oppose the posting of Luther’s 95 Theses for the same reason. But, if it happened, it still wouldn’t violate my religious liberties.

          “Indeed, as a Catholic, I object to the Ten Commandments being given emphasis over Jesus’ law.”

          This is not a serious statement, is it? Christ is the author of the Ten Commandments. He is God, after all. I assume you were being facetious?

          • Bill S

            I believe the branches of government should stand for the Truth, as they derive their just powers from Almighty God.

            There is nothing truthful about that statement. It is only a religious belief held by some but certainly not all.

            A statement about “Truth” that is in itself untrue.

            • Nick_from_Detroit

              Bill S.,
              There is nothing truthful in your statement. See, we can both make mere assertions.
              But, my belief was shared by the Founding Fathers, after all. And, since, I’m a “Originalist” when it comes to the Constitution and just government, I’m in much better company. God Bless!

        • AnneG

          Steve, Jefferson’s letter to Danbury Baptist about the wall of separation was referring to the state interfering in religion.
          Washington was an Anglican, practicing, which, at the time was Christian. Jefferson was more of a wise guy pantheistic, but when pressed, was Christian. So were the others except Franklin who was who knows.
          These men were coming from a world where the Church was controlled by the State and declared by the state. Rather than establishing a state church, we established freedom of religion. Now we are dealing with a situation where the State is again trying to control religion by suppressing it. Then, diluting with unserious stuff like this statue.
          As for the Koran, Congressman Keith Ellison was sworn in using the Quran.
          Citizens have a right and responsibility to safeguard their rights and to express themselves. That is what the 10 Commandments on the lawn in Oklahoma are.
          Finally, you might want to look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church. About 1/3 of the CCC covers the 10 Commandments.

        • Kazz

          Let us look at what a sectarian government, a Darwinian government, really is. All our Common Law Courts (High Court) – (please keep in mind that common law is where
          all of our liberties and rights are secured under the authority of God) are there to protect your rights and freedoms. The legal maxim of law is that that which
          is created cannot be greater than that which created it. Under common law God created Man and Woman, who then created governments and corporations, so private
          Man and Woman are masters over the governments and corporations, but look what happens when we remove God from the equation. Men and women are registered at
          birth under the Darwinian sectarian system, but when something is registered it becomes the property of the person, or entity, that it was registered to, so those
          registered become the property of the corporate United States of America. Guess who owns this corporation, you guessed it the same people that are lending it fiat money, so the elite have set up a corporation which lends money to its subsidiary corporation and then they deceive us into paying back the debt, which they are all accruing by living like royalty off the sweat of all of our brows. And the thing is fiat money is only worth the paper it is written on. So they are giving us nothing in exchange for our life’s energy. This is what a Satanist really is, someone who steals the life energy of others. The real kicker is that they are not actually guilty of enslaving us because we all consented willingly; the only thing is they tricked us into it
          while they were operating in a fiduciary capacity towards us, which is a breach of trust, and as far as I am concerned makes the trust void.

          This is just a modern day slavery system which relies upon fraud to operate, which is why the monetary system of usury that we are currently under was banned by God
          in the Old Testament. They accomplish this via your birth registration, that is used to create a trust, your slave papers, so when you use that birth certificate name to open bank accounts, buy a home etc. you are registering (giving away ownership) of everything you own. Please take note that this is no longer optional, free will has gone out the window. The birth certificate is used to
          create a Cestui Que Trust, and since you claim to be that trust and they created the trust, I think you are getting the picture. Your driver’s license is a foreign situs trust which is used to raid your Cestui Que Trust.

          God’s common law courts are now under the corporation too, which means they are no longer under the authority of God, and therefore they no longer have any authority, which is why these criminals are getting away with all their crimes. I hope you are starting to understand why it was so important for the world elite to brainwash everyone into believing that there is no God. Just for the record the churches are all under the control of the world elite and always have been, the Bible tells us not to build a temple with our hands and stones, because our real temple is our body, as it houses our soul. The problem is when people got pissed off with the churches, whose representative work for the elite, they through the baby out with the bath water. Jesus was telling us all about these people and their plans, if you had ever bothered to really listen to what he was telling you. The soul is what
          the Satanists really want! You see shortly they will be implementing a RDIF chips to operate in commerce and if you refuse to have it you will be killed. At first though they will simply not allow you to enter into commerce, but later this will morph into a death sentence. This way the only surviving people on the planet will be chipped with a
          copyright and forever the property of the satanic elite. When these people have children they will be born into slavery and never know freedom. This is what your
          sectarian government is and I can assure you it is absolutely religious. Satanism is the worship of the creation instead of the creator, so they worship
          mammon/money, and their law is merchant law/banking law, and if you do your homework you will see that Merchant law has its origin in Old Babylon. This is why there is a bull standing outside of Wall Street. Ever heard of the golden calf?

          The global elite have activated Agenda 21, which is the depopulation of the planet by 90%, but the truth be to they want to assassinate everyone, because dead men tell no tales. You have to give it to these people they are no slouches!

          You see once you remove God from the equation you return man back to the law of the wild where might makes right, which is exactly what you are seeing with
          American foreign policy currently. You wanted to get rid of God and now you are under Man. Good luck with that. Just for the record the Roman Catholic Church used trusts to do exactly the same thing to the Knights Templar. The elite have been using institutions as a cover
          for their crimes since the beginning of time, the only difference now is they have gotten rid of the only protection we ever had which is God’s Law. Be
          careful for what you wish for!

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ME7K6P7hlko
          http://www.barefootsworld.net/usfraud.html

        • FW Ken

          George Washington was an Episcopalian. His level of piety is a question of some lively debate.

    • Nick_from_Detroit

      “As a number of the Founders said, the only way to protect all religions is to keep them all out of the state [...].”
      Please, name one Founder who ever said anything close to that, SteveK?
      The Founder’s intent was to keep government out of religion, not the other way around. The Bill of Rights is a charter against government intrusion into, and abuse of, an individual’s rights, primary of which is the right to an individual’s freedom of conscience.
      Posting the Ten Commandments at state capitals does not violate the First Article of Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, nor, does it violate an individual’s right to freedom of conscience. It doesn’t “establish” any religion, at all. Unless, you can name this phantom religion?
      Since, this group’s rights are not being violated, and they are not a “religion,” they have no right to have their ugly statue displayed by the Oklahoma legislature. God Bless!

      • Derek Chin

        “If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.” – George Washington

        “The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”
        ~1797 Treaty of Tripoli signed by Founding Father John Adams

        “We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society.”
        ~Founding FatherJohn Adams, letter to Dr. Price, April 8, 1785

        “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”
        ~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802

        “Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, then that of blindfolded fear.”
        ~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

        “I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.”
        ~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, January 26, 1799

        “Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”
        ~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

        “The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State.”
        ~Founding Father James Madison, 1819, Writings, 8:432, quoted from Gene Garman, “Essays In Addition to America’s Real Religion”

        “Every new and successful example of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance.”
        ~Founding Father James Madison, letter, 1822

        “No religious doctrine shall be established by law.”
        ~Founding Father Elbridge Gerry, Annals of Congress 1:729-731

        Enough? We could continue if you’d like…

        • Nick_from_Detroit

          Mr. Chin,
          I see that you selectively quoted President Washington, in you first citations, eh? Here’s how it began:
          “If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution framed in the Convention, where I had the honor to preside, might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical society, certainly I would never have placed my signature to it [...].” (Letter to the United Baptist Churches in Virginia, 1789.)

          And, then, there are these:
          George Washington: “[T]he conscientious scruples of all men should be treated with great delicacy and tenderness; and it is my wish and desire, that the laws may always be [] extensively accommodated to them…” (Letter to the Annual Meeting of Quakers, 1789.)

          George Washington: Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. [...] Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.” (Washington’s Farewell Address, September 19, 1796.)

          John Adams: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (Message to the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, October 11, 1798.)

          Thomas Jefferson: “No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.” (Letter to New London Methodist, 1809.)

          James Madison: “[T]he equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his Religion according to the dictates of conscience is held by the same tenure with all our other rights. If we recur to its origin, it is equally the gift of nature; if we weigh its importance, it cannot be less dear to us; if we consult the Declaration of Rights which pertain to the good people of Virginia, as the basis and foundation of Government, it is enumerated with equal solemnity, or rather studied emphasis.” (Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessment, 1785.) (Internal quotation marks omitted.)

          James Madison: “[W]e hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth that religion, or the duty which we owe our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence. The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate.” (Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessment, 1785.)

          I could go on, if you’d like?

          [Edit: I should've added, I don't consider Jefferson much of a Founding Father. Except for acting as scribe for the Declaration (the ideas weren't his, they came from Franklin & Adams) he didn't do much during the War of Independence. He fled from the British as Governor of Virginia and never fought in battle. He was in France during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and, thus, didn't have any input. And, as president violated the Constitution several times. E.g., the Louisiana Purchase, he tried to impeach and remove the Federalists on the Supreme Court.
          Unfortunately, Jefferson had too much influence on Madison, later in life. I much prefer the Madison of 1787.]

    • Kazz

      Dear Steve,

      You sound as if you are a really good hearted person but I fear you speak of matters that you have little understanding of. People are so spiritually blinded today that they do not even know who Satan is. Babylonian law was merchant law, which is today’s Civil Law. The reason Christians see it as Satanic is because it is being used to enslave humanity (please refer to the links I have provided above to Parque). The Constitution that you speak of has been removed by your illustrious US corporation, which is used to steal and extort all the life’s energy of the people and transfer it to their elite satanic money lending masters. You know the 10 kindgom’s of Satan that are spoken of in Reverlations. They are here guys, and most of us are so wrapped up in our false beliefs that we can’t see what is right in front of our faces

  • kendallpeak

    When a people refuses to use sense, this is what we get. The common sense of our ancestors has been replaced with childishness. We have allowed the nine court jesters to make a mockery of our society. Freedom of religion does not mean we have to give a stage to every group of freaks who wishes to offend us. Our manly forefathers knew this, so should we.

    • pagansister

      Then you don’t feel that every group representing a certain religious point of view shouldn’t be represented? How about a representation of the Islamic faith, or a statue of Buddha? Should that be allowed or just that of a Christian faith? It is called equality.

      • kendallpeak

        Your questions are addressed in my original post. Please read carefully.

        • pagansister

          OOOOOK………

  • John Ritchie

    How low can Harvard go !?! Sign this protest against
    the Satanic Black Mass at Harvard
    University planned to
    happen on Monday. Blasphemy is not free speech.

    Sign it here:

    http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/get-involved/online-petitions/satanic-black-mass-at-harvard-university-sign-protest-message.html

    God bless you.

    • Parque_Hundido

      Wrong. Blasphemy is free speech. If Christians hadn’t insisted on placing their statutes and saying their prayers in the public sphere, this wouldn’t be happening.

      • Nick_from_Detroit

        Wrong. Christians don’t lose their free speech rights just because they are elected to the state legislature.

        • Parque_Hundido

          Don’t change the issue. Ritchie is claiming that blasphemy is not protected speech. This is in direct contradiction to our Constitution. You’re dead wrong about this.

          • hamiltonr

            Don’t be so bossy Parque. Commenters on Public Catholic are free to change the issue, if they want.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            I was only objecting to your objection to Christians “placing their statutes and saying their prayers in the public sphere,” Mr. Hundido. Which is protected speech under both the Establishment Clause and the Free Speech Clause. God Bless!

      • kenofken

        Yes, blasphemy is entirely free speech. The way to counter speech you don’t like is by putting your own ideas forward, and I commend Mr. Ritchie for doing just that.

      • Kazz

        I have no problem at all with people being able to believe what they want. God gave people free will and it is not within our authority to remove others free will. However, we do have a lawful right to protect ourselves if others try to hurt us, our property, or if they commit fraud against us. This is all that God’s law requires of his people. Satan that is a different story. Satan’s law is Merchant Law/Banking Law and if you worship Satan you bow down to Mammon/money/men that own money. In order to acces mammon you must live within Satan’s statutes and acts, which regulates every aspect of human life. If having your every move dictated, and every choice you make decided for you is your cup of tea then I believe you should totally have a right to be a Satanist. My gripe with Satanism is that it does not honour free will because it forces everyone to live under its perspective of the world. As a child of God I am more than happy to let others choose, without holding a gun to their head, are others willing to give me the same respect and consideration?

  • Parque_Hundido

    I donated money to put the Satanic statute in Oklahoma and salute the patriotic Americans who spearheaded this initiative. They are fighting for freedom of religion and the American way.

    • FW Ken

      Inasmuch as poking grownups in the eye is part of “the American way” – and it is – you have a point. But all this pretensious hoorah about religious freedom is a bit much, when what’s at issue is nothing more than transgressive adolescent nose-thumbing.

      • Parque_Hundido

        No, it’s not. This is the only way to teach a lesson to those who believe that putting the stamp of their religious beliefs on public life makes either stronger. Unless you want satanic prayers opening public ceremonies, think twice about blurring the boundary between church and state.

        • FW Ken

          Your superiority is noted, as you teach us lessor mortals the lessons you think we ought to learn. Of course, it’s not “churches” praying, but persons. And the Supreme Court doesn’t agree with you, so grow up.

          • Parque_Hundido

            Unless you’re renting out humans, I presume you mean “lesser”. You’re welcome.

            I’m quite confident of the Supreme Court’s history on this issue. You’re dead wrong, so wise up.

            • hamiltonr

              Stop sniping at one another.

            • FW Ken

              Read the current SCOTUS decision.

              • Parque_Hundido

                I have. That’s precisely the decision that supports the position Satanists have taken here. Absent coercion, Satanic prayers and ceremonies are welcome in public. Please re-read the decision.

                • FW Ken

                  Right, prayers are allowed at public meetings.

                  Satanist prayers? Personally, I don’t care. I’m not much of one for that kind of prayer in any shape form or fashion. If Satanists want to sink their teeth into the civil religion, works for me.

                  Although the pretentiousness is annoying.

    • AnneG

      I don’t agree. The “satanists” aren’t serious. They just want to irritate.
      On a personal note, why is your name Flooded Park?

      • Parque_Hundido

        You’re wrong. The point we’re making just happens to irritate you. My name is not “flooded park”. My name refers to a landmark near my home.

    • haggis95

      LOL – then I realized you are serious. Gravely mistaken… but serious.

    • Kazz

      Unless the American way is to be the home of the damned and the land of the enslaved I think you might be a little misled. Take a look at how your master is sucking the very life’s energy out of the American people, and in order to do this they had to remove God’s Law/Common Law, because that is the cloak under which humanity is protected. They don’t call Satan the Grand Deceiver for no reason, and keep in mind that he deceives ALL. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ME7K6P7hlko
      http://www.barefootsworld.net/usfraud.html

  • Kazz

    Let us
    look at what a sectarian government, a Darwinian government, really is. All our
    Common Law Courts (High Court) – (please keep in mind that common law is where all of our liberties and rights are secured under the authority of God) are there to protect your rights and freedoms. The legal maxim of law is that that which is created cannot be greater than that which created it. Under common law God created Man and Woman, who then created governments and corporations, so private Man and Woman are masters over the governments and corporations, but look what happens when we remove God from the equation. Men and women are registered atbirth under the Darwinian sectarian system, but when something is registered it becomes the property of the person, or entity, that it was registered to, so those registered become the property of the corporate United States of America. Guess who owns this corporation, you guessed it the same people that are lending it fiat money, so the elite have set up a corporation which lends money to its subsidiary corporation and then they deceive us into paying back the debt, which they are all accruing by living like royalty off the sweat of all of our brows. This is what a Satanist really is, someone who steals the life energy of others. The real kicker is that they are not actually guilty of enslaving us
    because we all consented willingly; the only thing is they tricked us into it
    while they were operating in a fiduciary capacity towards us, which is a breach
    of trust, and as far as I am concerned makes the trust void.

    This is just a modern day slavery system which relies upon fraud to operate, which is why the monetary system of usury that we are currently under was banned by God in the Old Testament. They accomplish this via your birth registration, that is used to create a trust, your slave papers, so when you use that birth certificate to open bank accounts, buy a home etc. you are registering (giving away ownership) of everything you own. Please take note that this is no longer optional, free will has gone out the window. The birth certificate is used to
    create a Cestui Que Trust, and since you claim to be that trust and they
    created the trust, I think you are getting the picture. Your driver’s license
    is a foreign situs trust which is used to raid your Cestui Que Trust.

    God’s common law courts are now under the corporation too, which means they are no longer under the authority of God, and therefore they no longer have any
    authority, which is why these criminals are getting away with all their crimes.
    I hope you are starting to understand why it was so important for the world
    elite to brainwash everyone into believing that there is no God. Just for the
    record the churches are all under the control of the world elite and always
    have been, the Bible tells us not to build a temple with our hands and stones,
    because our real temple is our body, as it houses our soul. The soul is what
    the Satanists really want! You see shortly they will be implementing a RDIF
    chip to operate in commerce and if you refuse to have it you will be killed.
    This way the only surviving people on the planet will be stamped with a
    copyright and forever the property of the satanic elite. When these people have
    children they will be born into slavery and never know freedom. This is what your
    sectarian government is and I can assure you it is absolutely religious.
    Satanism is the worship of the creation instead of the creator, so they worship
    mammon/money, and their law is merchant law/banking law, and if you do your
    homework you will see it has its origin in Old Babylon. This is why there is a
    bull standing outside of Wall Street. Ever heard of the golden calf?

    This is why Agenda 21 has been initiated. Agenda 21 is the depopulation of the planet by 90%, but the truth be told is that they want to assassinate everyone,
    because dead men tell no tales. You have to give it to these people they are no
    slouches!

    You see once you remove God from the equation you return man back to the law of the wild where might makes right, which is exactly what you are seeing with
    American foreign policy currently.

    You wanted to get rid of God and now you are under Man. Good luck with that. Just for the record the Roman Catholic Church used trusts to do exactly the same thing to the Knights Templar. The elite have been using institutions as a cover for their crimes since the beginning of time, the only difference now is they
    have gotten rid of the only protection we ever had which is God’s Law. Be
    careful for what you wish for!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ME7K6P7hlko
    http://www.barefootsworld.net/usfraud.html

  • FW Ken

    Deacon Greg has some good posts about this. Apparently, the kids backed out and the real satanists went drinking instead. The interesting thing is that this filled a church for Holy Hour and Benediction and generated a Eucharistic Procession. Probably not what the satanists wanted to see happen.

  • Greg

    Let them erect that statue.. It will be fun to see how long it lasts. Remember the Eagle that King Herod put over the temple? That didn’t last long and the Jews were outnumbered and outgunned.

  • pagansister

    The inverted pentagram in the pictures is considered to represent “evil”. If it is turned right side up—with the point at the top it is not considered an evil symbol at all—by most. There are those that think either form is “bad”. The Pentagram with the point up represents Spirit, the other 4 points are Earth, Air, Fire and Water. As a person who wears a Pentagram (point up) I figured I’d mention this—in case anyone was/is interested. If I remember correctly (and I might not) the star that was supposed to have shined above the stable when Jesus was born was a 5 pointed star. (I’m sure I’ll be corrected. :-)

    • Nick_from_Detroit

      The Gospel of Matthew only mentions the Star of Bethlehem, not how many points it had, if any, Pagansister.

      • pagansister

        Knew I’d hear from someone. :-)

    • Rob B.

      The pentacle (the star with the point at the top) was even adopted by the Church. This is possibly why Satanists embraced the inverted version.

      • pagansister

        I had heard/read that, Rob. B. but had forgotten. Thanks for reminding me. It would make sense that the Satanists would adopt the inverted version to represent their “cause”.

  • Nick_from_Detroit

    No we don’t, Bill S. The people of the Founders’ generation knew much more than people in this country, today, know.
    Most of the Founding Fathers were classically educated, knew Latin, Greek, French, etc.
    Many of them were brilliant. Not to be deified, certainly, but, definitely to be respected.
    Today, we’re stuck with people like Boehner & Reid. Don’t you like our Constitution, Bill?

    • Bill S

      The brightest, most intelligent and most highly educated people in the world today (and those who aspire to be like them) have more worldly knowledge (the only knowledge worth having) at their disposal than has ever existed before.

      • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

        And the knowledge they have is more accessible.

      • Nick_from_Detroit

        Bill S.,
        Having all this knowledge at one’s fingertips doesn’t mean anything if one is not wise enough to know how to use it. Or, to think logically.
        You didn’t answer my question, by the way.

        • Bill S

          In answer to your question, of course I like our Constitution. As for the examples you give for modern thinkers, I too would exclude politicians. Dawkins et. al. are good examples of representative modern thinkers. Dennett’s Breaking the Spell is far better than anything from antiquity.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Dawkins? As in Richard Dawkins?
            He couldn’t hold a candle to the most of the Founders.
            For modern thinkers, you can’t get better than Venerable Bishop Fulton Sheen, Dr. Scott Hahn, or Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.

            • Bill S

              Those are modern theists. Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens (deceased), etc. are modern atheists. The former believe things that defy the laws of nature. The latter do not. The laws of nature cannot be circumvented. Therefore, theists believe things that can’t possibly be. I will go with the atheists. I have faith in the laws of nature.

              • Nick_from_Detroit

                God is the author of natural law. Divine Law is above natural law. This is something that the Founders understood implicitly.
                Which is why they were far superior than your list of modern “thinkers.” God Bless!

                • Rob B.

                  Modern “thinkers” want to abandon the idea of natural law altogether, for this will allow them to rewrite the moral code of humanity however they wish. Of course, they will justify the new morality by claiming that they discovered these precepts through “science.”

                • Bill S

                  The Founders were great men but they were limited in what they knew at the time. Everyone knows that.

                  • Nick_from_Detroit

                    Limited? Only in scientific knowledge.
                    They knew more about the nature of man and what just government consisted of than about 90% of those serving in office today. Or, those who teach about government and pontificate about it.

                    • Bill S

                      Being limited “only is scientific knowledge” is a significant shortcoming. Scientific knowledge changes everything. You should know that.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X