I would say Karl Marx with horns, but whatever floats your boat.
David
"We are now, my friends, in a situation where the majority of Americans
get their news and information about what is going on
"We are now, my friends, in a situation where the majority of Americans
get their news and information about what is going on with their
government from entities that are licensed by and subject to punishment
at the hands of that very government.Nobody can truly believe that this
is what our founding fathers had in mind."*---Neal Boortz*
On 1/10/2014 8:38 AM, [email protected] wrote:
*The American Interest*
**
*The Americanization of the Devil *
By: Peter Berger
TodayâEUR^(TM)s Satanists are not engaged in the worship of evil. What
they are engaged in is a classical American exercise: civilizing
something that was originally anything but civil.
On December 14, 2013, /The Economist/ published a short piece which
definitely qualifies depiction as a religious curiosity. /The
Economist/ does not often deal with religion (though its editor John
Micklethwait, with Adrian Wooldrige, who currently writes the column
âEURoeSchumpeterâEUR? in the magazine, co-authored an excellent
overview of the global religious scene âEUR" /God is //Back/, 2009).
This piece is titled âEURoeReligious Pluralism: Beelzebubba
<http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21591622-satan-threatens-heartland-beelzebubba>âEUR?.
It deals with a new candidate for First Amendment litigation, The
Church of Satan.
Here is what happened: In 2009 the Oklahoma legislature passed a bill
authorizing the erection of a monument inscribed with the Ten
Commandments on the grounds of the state capitol. Anticipating
possible challenges on constitutional grounds, the bill stated that
the Ten Commandments are âEURoean important component of the moral
foundation of the laws and legal system of the United States of
America and of the state of OklahomaâEUR?. The costs of this project
were not borne by the taxpayers but by private donors. The legislators
relied on a precedent: In 2005 the US Supreme Court ruled that a
similar project in Texas was constitutional, because the Ten
Commandments had âEURoean undeniable historical meaningâEUR?âEUR"in
other words, a state-sponsored history lesson is okay, state-sponsored
religion is not. Trust some lawyers to argue that the Oklahoma case is
profoundly different from the Texas case and therefore in violation of
the constitution. Not surprisingly, the American Civil Liberties
Union, that noble band of Kemalist legal warriors, brought suit
against the Oklahoma history lesson.
But as of this month, a new wrinkle has appeared in this episode: A
campaign of the New York-based Church of Satan (the story refers to it
as âEURoethe Satanic TempleâEUR?) announced its intention to place a
monument to Satan next to the Ten Commandments. The CoS promised that
the monument would be âEURoepublic-friendlyâEUR? (whatever that
means), âEURoesomething that children could play on.âEUR?
(âEURoeMommy, I think Satan took my ball!âEUR?) The Satanists are
obviously worried about possible litigation, and hope that the Supreme
Court would take their side.
The Church of Satan was founded in San Francisco in 1966; in 2001 it
moved (tongue in cheek. I would think) to HellâEUR^(TM)s Kitchen on
the West Side of Manhattan. The founder was Anton LaVey, author of
/The Satanic Bible. /The website of the CoS defines its basic
worldview as âEURoeacceptance of ManâEUR^(TM)s true natureâEUR"that of
a carnal beast, living in a cosmos that is indifferent to our
existenceâEUR?. All religion is an illusion, a flight from the
âEURoeacceptanceâEUR?. Satan is not to be LeVay himself understood as
a real being out there in the cosmos (/that /would be another
illusion), rather is âEURoethe symbol that best suits the nature of we
who are carnal by birthâEUR?. (English syntax does not seem to be part
of this nature.) But then, rather surprisingly, the manifesto goes on
to say that Satan represents âEURoepride, liberty, and
individualismâEUR? describes his movement as âEURoeAyn Rand with
trappingsâEUR?. I doubt whether Rand, that rigorous rationalist, would
have approved the ritual practices of LaVeyâEUR^(TM)s
âEURoeindividualismâEUR?: Imitations of the legendary Black Mass,
performed in darkness, with black candles, a naked woman lying on top
of an altar, the officiating priest performing a ceremony over (or on)
her body. The naked woman is apparently optional, as is a âEURoelust
ritualâEUR?, the details of which are not described (though mention is
made of another optional activity, âEURoemasturbation to
climaxâEUR?âEUR"mercifully to be undertaken, if at all, /solo/). The
preferred time for this liturgy is on April 30, supposedly the date of
the traditional /Walpurgisnacht, /or âEURoewitchesâEUR^(TM)
SabbathâEUR?. Speaking of which, the CoS has an elaborate priestly
hierarchy, with âEURoewitches and warlocksâEUR? in second place right
after the high priest (LaVey and successors, both male and female).
The mention of witches reminds one of another new religion, that of
âEURoewitchcraftâEUR?, renamed Wicca. There are some similarities, but
the two movements are really quite different (though both resemble the
way children dress up for Halloween in scary outfits). Wicca was
founded in the 1950s by Gerald Gardner, [This is only a small part of
the story, most Wiccans are NOT Gardnerians BR Note] a retired
British civil servant. Its website uses the full title âEURoeChurch
and School of WiccaâEUR?. It emphatically states that its adherents
are âEURoenot SatanistsâEUR?. The supposed roots of the movement are
in the pre-Christian paganism of Celtic Britain, which has left its
most impressive monument at Stonehenge. I donâEUR^(TM)t think that
LaVey would have approved of any of this. However, at least in that
respect similar to his community, the Wiccan ethic is similar in its
radical individualism. Emblazed on the website is its basic moral
maxim: âEURoeIf it harms none, do what you willâEUR?. I have not
explored just when and how Wicca came to America, but it seems to me
that it found fertile ground here, prepared by the more radical
feminist and environmental versions emerging from the late-60s
counterculture. To paraphrase LaVey, Wicca might be called
âEURoeenvironmentalism with trappingsâEUR?. Its worldview is a kind of
nature mysticism. Human beings are part of nature, and should
experience themselves as such. The feminist angle is that both gods
and goddesses are revered. There is a great variety of rituals, only
some with an overtly sexual dimension. All of this is a long way from
the witchcraft that surfaced here and there in pre-modern Europe and
so upset the Inquisition. These primeval witches would not have
disavowed Satanism; indeed, Satan played a significant part in their
rituals.
Satan is a very old figure in the history of manâEUR^(TM)s religious
imagination. He almost certainly originated in Iran and was at the
center of the teachings of Zarathustra (who is better known by his
Hellenized name Zoroaster). The world is seen as the arena of a
cosmic struggle between two powerful supernatural beings, one good,
one evilâEUR"Ahura Mazda and Ahriman. Human beings are enjoined to
take the part of Ahura Mazda against his adversary. For several
centuries Zoroastrianism was the official religion of the Persian
state. It was dislodged from this position by the Muslim conquest.
Little of it survives in its home country, though its emigrants, now
known as Parsis, are a small but influential community in India. But
it seems that ZoroasterâEUR^(TM)s archaic dualism has left a profound
imprint on Iranian culture and religion. (Perhaps all the way to our
own time: Is it lurking behind the Ayatollah KhomeiniâEUR^(TM)s
favorite name for America, âEURoethe Great SatanâEUR??) Some centuries
after Zoroaster, Mani, another Iranian prophet, founded the religion
named after him. It spread far beyond Iran and was a serious rival of
Christianity in the late Roman Empire. Manicheanism morphed into the
various strands of Gnosticism [Also waaaaaay too simplistic and even a
downright wrong reading of history - BR Note]during the same period,
then spread into different parts of Europe. A climax of this diffusion
was the Albigensian heresy. In the High Middle Ages it flourished in
the territory of the Counts of Toulouse, then known as Langue
dâEUR^(TM)Oc. We now know this area as the south of France; it became
that as a result of the crusade which exterminated the heresy and with
it the culture in which it was embedded.
This is an exceedingly long and complex history. I cannot possibly
pursue it here. I just want to make one point about it: Satan, in all
his incarnations, has been very serious business. He figures in the
Hebrew Bible as /shatan, /(âEURoeaccuserâEUR? or
âEURoeadversaryâEUR?)âEUR"most memorably in the Book of Job, where he
tries to turn a righteous man away from God. The Septuagint, the Greek
translation of the Hebrew Bible, called him /diabolos/
(âEURoeslandererâEUR?), from which our English âEURoedevilâEUR? is
derived. The same /diabolos /reappears in the New Testament, where he
tries to tempt Jesus. The three monotheistic religions have never
quite known what to do with Satan. I would think that he features,
however marginally, in the âEURoetheodicyâEUR? that always haunts
monotheismâEUR"the attempt to reconcile belief in an omnipotent and
benevolent God with the pervasive presence of evil in the world. The
adversary of God is then the personification of evil, whose final
overthrow will be the fulfilment of the creation. If we look for Satan
in this (as yet) unredeemed world, I donâEUR^(TM)t think that we will
find him dressed up in the costumes of contemporary Satanism or
witchcraft. More likely he will wear the uniform of HitlerâEUR^(TM)s SS.
Satan is serious business, because evil is serious business.
Contemporary Satanism or witchcraft is not engaged in the worship of
evil (as the SS definitely was). What they are engaged in is a
classical American exercise, civilizing (if you will, defanging)
something that was originally anything but civil. The late sociologist
John Murray Cuddihy spoke about the Protestant smile, that expression
of post-Puritan niceness that is the outward sign of the inward grace
of American civility. This Protestant smile can even be pasted on the
face of Satan: If we are going to have a devil, it had better be a
/nice /devil. Thus, as we have seen, both American Satanists and
witches claim to be âEURoechurchesâEUR?. That, of course, is a claim
for First Amendment protection. If (heaven forbid) I were a federal
judge, and a case came before me involving such a claim from either
the Church of Satan or the Church of Wicca, I think that I would be
compelled by the constitution to accept the claim. That would
obviously be different if the First Amendment were invoked by an
organization that incited the killing of Jews. /That /would be a
violation of the basic values on which the constitution is based, a
real evil that the courts have the duty to suppress. A federal judge
is not in a position to decide what is or is not a serious
âEURoechurchâEUR?. A blogger is not under such a constraint.
--
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection
is active.
http://www.avast.com
--
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
