Baphomet stands opposite the Ten Commandments, at long last

I know it may seem abrupt, but I think I have to talk about this, because it seems like a notable positive development. The Satanic Temple’s statue of Satan, entitled Baphomet, has had quite a journey in its day. It was originally designed with the intention of standing opposed to the Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma State Capitol Building. But, after said monument was ordered to be removed, the statue found itself without a home, and in the end was placed at a private unveiling party held by The Satanic Temple in Michigan. For a while, I thought that was it, the closing chapter in the story of our delightful goat-headed friend. But it seems that’s not the case.

Last year, a new Ten Commandments monument was erected on the property of the Arkansas State Capitol buidling, just like what had been done with Oklahoma. The monument was destroyed by someone ramming his car into it not long after its placement, but it was replaced in April this year thanks to a fundraising campaign by one Jason Rapert – a Republican State Senator and the founder and president of an Evangelical Christian organization called Holy Ghost Ministries. This has predictably been met with opposition from The Satanic Temple, along with the ACLU and atheists and secularists in Arkansas, and in response to this development The Satanic Temple have decided to hold a rally, the Rally for the First Amendment, in front of the Arkansas State Capitol Building to protest this decision, bringing with them the famous statue of Satan they designed for Oklahoma. In the background of all this, The Satanic Temple are naturally also suing the government for the right to keep that statue there permanently, or at least for as long as the Ten Commandments monument remains.

This in a way is such a triumphant moment. After being denied its moment to stand opposite the symbols of Christianity, at long last, the Baphomet/Satan statue finds the opportunity to do exactly that. We’re finally seeing what we thought we were going to see about three years ago in Oklahoma. And, honestly, from what I’m seeing of this event, it actually does look glorious. I like the sight of that Satanic statue set against the State Capitol building from an aesthetic perspective, as well as political.

I expect this to be a productive effort too. My prediction here is that, just like last time, that Ten Commandments movement is being pulled from the State Capitol. We know already that Jason Rapert, and presumably his fellow Christians, will not stand for the Baphomet to have permanent residence on the property, and we can assume that Lucien Greaves and TST are going to push through with their suit. We can safely predict that, rather than allow the Satanic statue permanent residence, the government will ultimately remove the statue in order to please both TST’s demands for the government to uphold secularism and the Christian demands for Baphomet to just go away. Mark me when I say this is going to be a very cut and dry victory for The Satanic Temple.

Image courtesy of boingboing.net

Alright, fuck it, America probably needs The Satanic Temple

You guys know me by now: I’m not the biggest fan of The Satanic Temple. I kind of supported them in the early days of my blog, but then I went on to criticize them on numerous occasions, particularly last year as I found their particular brand of liberal politics unappealing despite their support for secularism. I was starting to see them as opportunistic, self-aggrandizing political activists who used Satanism as a costume through which to promote secular atheism through culture jamming, and was really annoyed that they had really nothing to do with Satanism. Now of course, much of that is probably still true, but insofar as their utility is concerned, I think recent developments in the US regarding religion have led me to change my mind.

This week, US Attorney General Jeff Sessions has announced the creation of what’s been dubbed the “Religious Liberty Task Force”. What is it exactly? Apparently it’s supposed to be the US government’s way of “implementing religious freedom”. Which, knowing American politics, simply amounts to increasing the power of Christianity in the public sphere. Sessions justifies this by claiming that there’s basically a conspiracy in America to undermine the religious freedom of Christians. To quote Sessions himself:

“We’ve seen nuns ordered to buy contraceptives,” he said. “We’ve seen U.S. senators ask judicial and executive branch nominees about dogma—even though the Constitution explicitly forbids a religious test for public office. We’ve all seen the ordeal faced so bravely by Jack Phillips.”

Jack Philips, of course, was the man who was sued by a gay couple for refusing to make a custom same-sex wedding cake. But let’s just get to the point.

“Let’s be frank: A dangerous movement, undetected by many but real, is now challenging and eroding our great tradition of religious freedom. There can be no doubt. It’s no little matter. It must be confronted intellectually and politically and defeated.”

That’s right. Jeff Sessions, and presumably others within the US government, believe there’s an unspecified, unnamed, mysterious movement that seeks to destroy religious freedom in the United States. Of course, there isn’t, really, but that never stopped anyone before. Honestly it seems like a major tell that this claim Session is making is most probably bullshit when he seems reticent to even give a name to his enemies. I mean who the hell are these enemies of religious freedom supposed to be anyway? Atheists? Humanists? Pagans? Liberals? Muslims? Satanists? Communists? Democrats? Freemasons? Pope Francis? Nazis? Jews? Stop me if I get it!

Who am I kidding? From what I have heard its likely that he might be referring to the rise of secularism, or the whole bake the cake issue – Sessions extrapolates the truly horrific burden of….the idea of actually having to serve gay customers gay wedding cakes…into some kind of grander conspiracy against Christianity and its believers. Perhaps it’s no surprise then that many liberals and human rights advocates are already worried that this “Religious Freedom Task Force” is simply a pretext to limit the rights of gay, bisexual and transgendered individuals under the auspices of Christian dogma cloaked in the mantle “religious liberty”.

Either way, it looks to me like the Trump administration is going to attempt to elevate the power of Christianity withing the political sphere by trying to grant more protections to Christianity under the law. And, to be honest, I think The Satanic Temple was probably trying to warn people about the Trump administration’s obvious play to Christianity, and that’s why they joined in on the anti-Trump protests during Inauguration Day back in January 2017.

That’s why I’ve decided to change my tune on them for the time being: it seems like they were probably right about the American government under Trump moving to expand religious power, and naturally I think they are one of the main forces in American cultural politics who could stand against this.

While I still dislike aspects of the actual politics they tend propose – I think of it as a mediocre liberalism with a dash of the brand of contemporary identity politics that comes with it – and I almost certainly maintain that they aren’t Satanists nor are they interested in Satanism (though me being a self-identified Luciferian one might wonder why I would complain), I am ready and willing to admit that some of their activism has been pretty effective. The famous Baphomet statue provoked a debate about the separation of church and state and got the Ten Commandments movement removed from government property, and I think that the After School Satan project, while admittedly weird in its execution, was a decent counter to the prevalence of Christian after school programs designed to indoctrinate children across America. I also approve of their Grey Faction, dedicated to debunking SRA conspiracy theories and related falsehoods. Now that there’s this looming threat of the expansion of religious power in American politics, it looks like the time is ripe for further activism on their part in order to confuse the conventional political boundaries regarding religious freedom in order to win the battle for secularism.

And I must say just as an aside, for a year or two until recently I was under the impression that the power of Christianity had declined and that fundamentalist Christianity was a toothless political force. But Donald Trump has made it explicitly clear that, in his view, religious organizations (read: Christian bullshit) will make up the bedrock of American society and that he will support Christianity, as evidenced by his statement from a few months ago. In a way this could be seen as a revival of George W. Bush’s policy concerning faith-based initiatives, which if anything is yet more proof that Trump is nothing more than Bush 2.0 (or should it be 3.0, counting Bush Sr?). Not to mention, the Republican Party has a stranglehold over the entire government (unless this blue wave I’m hearing about has anything to do with it), which makes it inevitable that there would be a religious agenda of some kind. And evangelical politics is not going away yet in America, especially now that the evangelicals seem to be getting social/religious conservatives in the Supreme Court, and guys like Jim Bakker and Rick Wiles will continue to have certain talking points mirrored by the conservative movement in the US. What’s more, a large section of Alex Jones’ hot takes now center around some kind of insane, coked up Christian victim complex wherein Christians are being persecuted by demons from the fourth dimension and how “left-wing Satanists” (or something) hate you and want you dead because you’re not one of them, and not only has he had correspondence with Donald Trump on his show but it also looks like the FBI might be taking his views seriously and acting on them. Needless to say, there is still some entrenched power

So take a bow, TST. You are not the kind of people who I wholeheartedly support for various reasons, but you might prove to be useful in making sure America doesn’t completely fall into theocracy, which would be an abomination to behold on top of numerous other developments. Keep culture jamming until all of this is over.

OK guys, you win this one. Good luck out there.

So I guess they did it

You may remember the Ten Commandments monument sitting at the grounds of Oklahoma’s State Capitol building. Well today I have heard the news that a commission in Oklahoma has voted to finally remove the monument. Prior to this vote, the monument was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in June of this year, on the grounds that the state constitution did not allow for state property to be used for the benefit of religious belief, and it was decreed that the monument be removed before October 12th.

Naturally, I feel this is a great moment in the history of the cause of separation of church and state, but I also feel like it’s been something of a long time coming. One question I have personally is that if someone smashes the monument again, what would they do about it this time instead of reinstalling it.

So long Ten Commandments monument. You won’t be missed.

I suppose we have The Satanic Temple to think for this. If they hadn’t dared to propose their Satanic statue to go alongside the Ten Commandments, I don’t think many people would care about the fact that a monument designed to promote the Christian faith is sitting on the property of what is supposed to represent secular law. And as bold and gallant as the idea of a statue representing Satanism is, I think it’s likely they proposed it because they know that most people are uncomfortable with supporting Satanism, due to their own ignorance of Satanism, and because of this politicians would rather remove the Ten Commandments monument than support the inclusion of a Satanic monument. I’m not sure I like the Satanic Temple’s tactics very much, but they work, and now partly because of them that Ten Commandments monument will no longer stand on Oklahoma’s State Capitol building.

Is Britain really a Christian nation?

It has come to my attention that David Cameron has claimed that the UK is a Christian nation and tonight ITV is shitting out a half-hour TV special that talks about whether or not the UK is a Christian nation. So I’ve decided to finally get off my ass and cover the same subject. To be honest, I don’t know what took me so long to write about the subject. In the past, I’ve wrote about the fallacy that America was founded on Christianity, so why not the UK? I guess I just wasn’t as interested in talking about it initially compared to talking about Christianity in America.

Anyways, let’s start with the argument that any idiot may use: the argument that most British people are Christians so Britain is a Christian nation. This argument is nonsense because all that means is most people in Britain are Christian. That’s it. Demographics don’t make a nation Christian, or Muslim, or Buddhist. For the UK to be a Christian nation, one or both of two things have to be true:

1. Christianity, or more or less an organization representing the Christian faith (such as the Church of England), would have to wield supreme or at least dominant political influence or authority.
2. The laws of the United Kingdom would have to be based on Christianity.

People often assume that because the royal family in the UK is Christian, and endorses Christianity, and are considered Head of State, that the UK is based on Christianity. Problem: the Royal Family aren’t really very powerful anymore. In modern times they only exist to inaugurate Prime Ministers, make TV appearances, and smile for the camera. Seriously, the Queen is exceedingly wealthy but does nothing but make droll TV appearances every Christmas, travel round the world, and other trite that affects nothing. Oh, and guess who pays to keep this useless royal family in their wealthy abodes? The common people. That’s the only reason they’re around enough to get us thinking they do anything.

Now the Church of England used to wield supreme political authority in Britain, obviously supported by the royal family. However, the church no longer has that kind of political authority in modern times, and the royal family isn’t changing that any time soon. And keep in mind, during this time you could get killed by the state for witchcraft and in general not being a Christian. So in case you think Christian Britain was free, think again.

I would advise that we keep the following five things in mind regarding the concept of “Christian Britain”:

1. Whatever rights you have in the UK now were the same rights that were opposed by the Christian church long ago. The only reason Christians seem to think that their religion embraces any secular human rights is because they lost the battle and to compensate the Christian just assimilated as a Christian norm probably without even reading the Bible twice, just like any pick-and-choose believer who claims to follow the Bible but does not follow it entirely. And think about this: if you say you follow the words of the Bible, and that the Bible is the truth, you don’t put yourself in any logical position to cherry-pick from the Bible. It’s not as though it’s like my case where I can take beliefs from places and form my own system with them, most Christians don’t afford themselves that freedom
2. If you were really living in a Christian country, you wouldn’t be allowed to worship any god other than the Christian one and his son, and it’d be illegal to practice any religion other than Christianity, since the Christian faith doesn’t allow you to worship any god other than Jehovah/Yahweh and forbids any other worship or religious practice. That means if you’re a Muslim or Hindu in a Christian Britain, you’d be practicing your religion underground living with the constant looming threat of discovery and persecution by the state. In fact I’d be surprised if they didn’t bring back the Inquisition in some way, or burning witches on the stake.
3. If you were really living in a Christian country, you also wouldn’t be free to practice any sexuality other than heterosexual in a consensual manner. And while we’re still talking about sex, a Christian country would most likely make it illegal to sex before and/or outside marriage, after all, you aren’t allowed to do that in Christianity. You wouldn’t even be allowed to masturbate because it would be considered a sin. Abortion would also be completely illegal, and so would contraception if the laws are based on Catholic Christianity. In fact, I would think discourse on sex would be limited to how evil it supposedly is. You wouldn’t be able to talk frankly or openly about sex, which would lead to more sexual diseases.
4. Practicing magic, witchcraft, or occultism would be illegal if you were living in a Christian country, mostly because the Bible forbids magic and sorcery, and I assume this would apply to fortune telling too when you consider the Bible also forbids soothsaying and fortune telling. Any non-Christian esoteric practice or folk tradition would be criminalized in a Christian country. I must wonder if cremation would be made illegal too, since I doubt cremation is very accepted among Christians and might be associated with pagan practice (interesting to note by the way: Islam also forbids cremation and traditional Jews are prohibited from practicing it). I can’t help imagining a Christian Britain would forbid wearing the skin and heads of animals because of the belief that it was merging human and animal, which conflicts with the Christian separation of human and animal, not to mention wearing animal heads and skins for pagan revels would be illegal. I also don’t think any non-Christian holidays could be celebrated, or Halloween for that matter, and the only reason Christmas and Easter would stay is because we’ve connected them to Christianity.
5. Britain was pagan first, not Christian. Even if you choose not to refer to the Celtic Britain, which was scattered into many different tribes, as Britain, Roman Britain was still pagan, and bear in mind the Romans conquered Britain as the province of Britannia in the 1st century AD, and Romans in those days were still pagan (they didn’t turn Christian until the year 380 AD). And let’s not forget, a lot of British law, along with much of Western law came from pagan Rome, including the concept of trial by jury, along with numerous other things.

The fact is, Britain is a secular nation, and it’s not that hard to see that. Not to mention, religion is slowly losing influence in politics, though you might not always know from looking. Before you mention “God Save the Queen”, remember that, as I said, the royal family is for show with no less authority than a stick insect. If the UK weren’t ultimately secular, points 1-4 from above would all apply in some way. We at least have the freedom to practice any religious belief we want, or none at all, and worship any god we want, or none at all, that alone puts a dent in the status of “Christian nation”.

All I can say in closing is what lots of people in the UK are probably thinking already, that David Cameron is on another quest for votes and gaining favor with religious and right-wing quacks. It’s hardly any different to America to be honest, except that it’s for more droll over here in the UK. Nonetheless, I think we shouldn’t let any of this “we are a Christian nation” crap have any influence. If men like Cameron had their way, we would be a nation where freedom of choice is a painfully distant memory.

Russian tyranny

With the three Pussy Riot members still in jail (apparently the whole Free Pussy Riot thing in the West didn’t do much, which is disappointing to say the least), and the world abandoning the cause of Pussy Riot and fighting tyranny in Russia in favor of “trendier” causes of late, I still take the time to look into the whole thing and learn a little about the nature of tyranny in Russia.

I don’t think Russia was ever a very free country. From the Czars, to the Communist regimes, to modern Russia, it’s always been autocratic, and there is anti-individualist sentiment afoot in the country, as always. It’s reflected in the Pussy Riot trial where one guy (presumably a prosecutor) shouted that “lawlessness reigns in Russia”, and that the Pussy Riot members on trial should “repress their individuality”, “lick the judge’s boots”, and “become nothing”, in order to get a more lenient sentence. Another example of the sentiment is one found in Russia’s Prime Minister, Dmitry Medvedev, who at one time kept blabbing on about combating “legal nihilism”. It sounds like meaningless crap, and it probably is, but it’s probably just something he uses as part of his preaching of the so-called value of law and order.

Russia, much like China, places value on social order over individual liberty, which finds its expression in recent times not just in the arrest of feminist punk rockers, but also in Russia’s recent crackdown on homosexual activity. Russia, it seems, has never caught on to the idea of gay rights, despite how massively gay Putin’s shirtless performances are. There’s also an intimate relationship between church and state in the country. The Russian government has a very special relationship with the Orthodox Christian church, and it seems orthodoxy and obedience to the government go hand in hand. You could compare it to America, except it’s a lot worse. Christians in Russia are certainly as annoying as Christians in America, and when they were protesting Pussy Riot, they harassed people. Hell, they actually believe that the Orthodox Church is the source of stability or structure in the country, and that without Orthodox Christianity “we’d all be dead”, thus the reason why they wear admittedly badass T-shirts that say “Orthodoxy or Death”.

Come on, you gotta admit it looks badass.

Keep in mind though, it wasn’t always this way. When the Soviet Union took over and implemented their communist regime and policies, Orthodox Christianity lost influence. For example, in the 1930’s, the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour was demolished, and a public swimming pool was built where it once stood. After the fall of communism, however, the Cathedral was rebuilt, and eventually the relationship between Orthodox Christianity and Russian government came back.

You know something else? There actually exists a ultra right-wing metal band in Russia, I think it’s Corrosia Metalla, which, ever since the 90’s, was like a kind of spokesperson for the far-right, fascist, ultranationalist youth in Russia, and from what I heard about the band, they advocate that Russia rise up and become an empire and conquer the rest of Europe, and ultimately the world, and these guys didn’t really get in a lot of trouble there. I think that tells you all you need to know about the Russian government’s attitude towards music: you can be an ultranationalist far-right band promoting pretty much Nazism-like politics, but if you’re in a feminist punk rock band who questions the leader and the relation between church and state, you get arrested.

Going to back to the topic of gays, it could be argued that Russia is implementing a brutal crackdown on gays in order distract the country, and the rest of the world, from the fact that Pussy Riot members are still unjustly in jail, that there is a gross intimacy between church and state, and that the government is still very much an authoritarian mess that deserves to be annihilated. In this regard, Russia displays behavior typical of any authoritarian nation, or for that matter any government, since they wish to control as many people as possible. And is it any coincidence that the Western nations, or other nations in general, don’t seem to be fighting or opposing Russia at all? And no, publicly criticizing Russia doesn’t count as anything other than lying, since deep down they don’t oppose Russia’s tyranny.

What’s sad is the only part of Russian tyranny most of us are paying attention to is the crackdown on gays, and not everything else as well, such as what I already mentioned, and most people are most likely going to stop paying attention to it after it stops being trendy, even if it’s still going on. And so I end the post with a message: don’t abandon causes that are still relevant and still going on just because they are trendy.

Why I hate religion as a concept

This is about religion in general, as you can guess. I am anti-religious, that much is already clear from previous posts (that doesn’t make me an atheist). Though I respect some religions, like Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, pagan religions, and even Satanism to a small extent, along with other religious ideas, I still very much hate religion as a concept. Why? I’ll tell you.

It turns virtues into moral obligations

Virtues, by definition, are characteristics that make one admirable in people’s eyes. They are characteristics of moral excellence, not necessarily laws of morality. What religion does is socialize, if you will, virtues and turn them into codified moral laws outline how you should behave or not behave.

It turns mythology into doctrine

Mythology and religion are not the same. Mythology is great. At it’s heart it’s about storytelling, an art form as old as mankind himself, right down to when we first started gathering around fires and telling each other stories, long before the English language had been invented. Religion, on the other hand, is designed around creating a moral doctrine or dogma for you to follow in hopes of acheiving salvation or so-called spirituality (religion doesn’t real spirituality, but rather uses spirituality as a hook to lure fools in). To do this, it transforms mythology from almost spiritual storytelling to a matter of faith.

It socializes tradition into law

Traditions are customs that different people have and that have been passed down by enough generations. Religion, however, turns that into a religious law for all people to follow. Even little beliefs among religious people become full on doctrine, such as when the belief in the Assumption of the Virgin Mary became dogma, and thus mandatory.

It furthers social control and the power of the state

It seems as though religion has always had a special relationshop with the state, the authorities, and the ruling classes. Those sorts of people have always use religion to falsely justify their authority, especially when their authority unjustified. Popes, Lamas, Ayatollahs, and other such religious leaders have attempted to impose their dogma on whoever they see for ages now, and they work within secular authoirty. Religion has been in bed with state for so long, that separation of religion and state is an important issue of modern times.

It ruins war

War is always spoilt and corrupted when you try to use religion to support it. I’m not saying that war is never right, but I’m saying wars can be unjust if religion is used to support it. Through religion, war is turned into a campaign of religious cleansing on the part of both sides (if both sides are religious), with only the religious viewing it as “fighting the good fight”.

But in the end…

All religion ever was is a mass cult

All religion has ever consisted of as a concept is the idea that if you worship our god, follow our dogma (moral or othwerwise), and believe what we tell you, you’ll get into heaven, achieve enlightenment, or some other form of salvation or spirituality. In fact, salvation has always been the hook to lure in those who aren’t strong or wise enough to save themselves or forge their own path. It’s nothing but a cult-like entity, with no worth other than to the desperate, the weak, and the gullible. The sad thing is, even if we get rid of religion, what’s stopping other dogmatisms from replacing it, as long as people are weak and in need of a voice telling them what to do so that they can save them, rather than take the initiative to save themselves. I wonder what the next religion will be?

That sounds likely, don’t you think?