Satanists Denied Invocation at Boston City Council Meeting

[The Brytish Isles]

I can’t say I’m surprised. America likes to show favouritism whenever this sort of stuff goes on, and I can see how they’ve played right into the Satanists’ hands.

To be honest, these invocations and whatnot should be scrapped. Separation of church and state ‘n’ all, y'all.

You are aware Thomas Jefferson himself had prayer services in the Capital Building, you know the guy who wrote ‘separation of church and state’ in a letter to a friend?

No, I was not. I recall Jefferson as an agnostic or deist or something, but my knowledge on American history is pathetic at best.

[Camelone]

You are aware Thomas Jefferson himself had prayer services in the Capital Building, you know the guy who wrote ‘separation of church and state’ in a letter to a friend?

He believed church and state should be separated, doesn't mean he wasn't religious.

Yes but the point was the prayer service was in the Capital Building, the exact same building they made laws in. The entire thing about the establishment clause was that no religion would be made the established church of America, that doesn’t mean religion can not influence government nor does it mean it takes a backseat. That is how it had been traditionally understood for a substantially long time within the American political experience.

[Trinitarium]

Religion actually matters because it effects culture. That's why you have libertarianism stemming from a "judge not, lest ye be judged" style of theology. I think state religions are fine as long as private businesses are free to also discriminate, and the government never forces conversion or anything like that. You can have religious inclusion, but not to the point that it undermines politically affiliated spirituality.

Freedom of speech is letting them stand outside and deliver their own invocation, if they remain uninvited.

[Camelone]

You are aware Thomas Jefferson himself had prayer services in the Capital Building, you know the guy who wrote ‘separation of church and state’ in a letter to a friend?

No, I was not. I recall Jefferson as an agnostic or deist or something, but my knowledge on American history is pathetic at best.

He was but he also believed that religion was incredibly important to cultivate the republican virtues of the country. Alexis de Tocqueville, another important figure in early American history, also attributed the success and stability of the republic to its cultivation of religious virtue and a common understanding. Christianity at the very least emphasizes a system of self-restraint which is incredibly needed for a republic to actual function outside of a total state, as well as acting as a means to organize the community around without the chill of partisanship.

[The Brytish Isles]

No, I was not. I recall Jefferson as an agnostic or deist or something, but my knowledge on American history is pathetic at best.

He was but he also believed that religion was incredibly important to cultivate the republican virtues of the country. Alexis de Tocqueville, another important figure in early American history, also attributed the success and stability of the republic to its cultivation of religious virtue and a common understanding. Christianity at the very least emphasizes a system of self-restraint which is incredibly needed for a republic to actual function outside of a total state, as well as acting as a means to organize the community around without the chill of partisanship.

Hm. I can see where you’re coming from.

[UIJ]

He believed church and state should be separated, doesn't mean he wasn't religious.

Yes but the point was the prayer service was in the Capital Building, the exact same building they made laws in. The entire thing about the establishment clause was that no religion would be made the established church of America, that doesn’t mean religion can not influence government nor does it mean it takes a backseat. That is how it had been traditionally understood for a substantially long time within the American political experience.

And that should be changed, religion shouldn't have a place in the government.
So what's your point here?

[Bombadil]

He was but he also believed that religion was incredibly important to cultivate the republican virtues of the country. Alexis de Tocqueville, another important figure in early American history, also attributed the success and stability of the republic to its cultivation of religious virtue and a common understanding. Christianity at the very least emphasizes a system of self-restraint which is incredibly needed for a republic to actual function outside of a total state, as well as acting as a means to organize the community around without the chill of partisanship.

Hm. I can see where you’re coming from.

Yes.. except they're speaking from their times. Taking a look at the most irreligious countries - and ignoring China because one simply cannot trust that data - and you're practically looking at a list of most to least stable countries.

[Camelone]

He was but he also believed that religion was incredibly important to cultivate the republican virtues of the country. Alexis de Tocqueville, another important figure in early American history, also attributed the success and stability of the republic to its cultivation of religious virtue and a common understanding. Christianity at the very least emphasizes a system of self-restraint which is incredibly needed for a republic to actual function outside of a total state, as well as acting as a means to organize the community around without the chill of partisanship.

Hm. I can see where you’re coming from.

That’s all I can really ask for so thank you.

[The Brytish Isles]

Hm. I can see where you’re coming from.

Yes.. except they're speaking from their times. Taking a look at the most irreligious countries - and ignoring China because one simply cannot trust that data - and you're practically looking at a list of most to least stable countries.

So what’re saying is that in contemporary times, less religiosity is connected to higher stability? I’m not disputing that, mind you, just clarifying. I’ve sort of just woken up and so my brain is still half asleep.

[Twilight Imperium]

Hail Satan!

[Bombadil]

Yes.. except they're speaking from their times. Taking a look at the most irreligious countries - and ignoring China because one simply cannot trust that data - and you're practically looking at a list of most to least stable countries.

So what’re saying is that in contemporary times, less religiosity is connected to higher stability? I’m not disputing that, mind you, just clarifying. I’ve sort of just woken up and so my brain is still half asleep.

It's a bit like saying 'religion is responsible for great art', well it's not to say great art can't be created in the absence of religion but when religion completely dominates life then it becomes pretty much the only expression of art, to which people say 'look at how all great art is religious'.

However remove it and you find you have perfectly stable countries in comparison and perfectly fine art.

[Kowani]

Yes.. except they're speaking from their times. Taking a look at the most irreligious countries - and ignoring China because one simply cannot trust that data - and you're practically looking at a list of most to least stable countries.

So what’re saying is that in contemporary times, less religiosity is connected to higher stability? I’m not disputing that, mind you, just clarifying. I’ve sort of just woken up and so my brain is still half asleep.

Other way around, although not entirely. More stability equals less religiousity, although religion contributes to that lack of stability.

[Camelone]

Yes but the point was the prayer service was in the Capital Building, the exact same building they made laws in. The entire thing about the establishment clause was that no religion would be made the established church of America, that doesn’t mean religion can not influence government nor does it mean it takes a backseat. That is how it had been traditionally understood for a substantially long time within the American political experience.

And that should be changed, religion shouldn't have a place in the government.
So what's your point here?

My point is that it (a) should not change due to its grounding in the traditions established by the Founding Fathers who were not all that religious themselves and (b) the religious traditions of the people, Christianity for America, are substantially impactful upon the culture that to flat out ignore them is rather ridiculous.

Hm. I can see where you’re coming from.

Yes.. except they're speaking from their times. Taking a look at the most irreligious countries - and ignoring China because one simply cannot trust that data - and you're practically looking at a list of most to least stable countries.

Here’s the thing though how long have those countries been irreligious? Not very long so to say that their stability is from them being irreligious is a fallacy, instead their stability rests on a historical foundation built up by either (a) an existential threat that forced them to get their shit together (b) a long tradition of religion which influenced and guided leaders and their civil society or (c) outside stabilization in the Cold War. A combination of these factors are also possible and there are probably more but the fact still stands that the dominance of irreligion is a significantly recent thing.

[The Brytish Isles]

So what’re saying is that in contemporary times, less religiosity is connected to higher stability? I’m not disputing that, mind you, just clarifying. I’ve sort of just woken up and so my brain is still half asleep.

It's a bit like saying 'religion is responsible for great art', well it's not to say great art can't be created in the absence of religion but when religion completely dominates life then it becomes pretty much the only expression of art, to which people say 'look at how all great art is religious'.

However remove it and you find you have perfectly stable countries in comparison and perfectly fine art.

Ah, yeah, now I get it.

So what’re saying is that in contemporary times, less religiosity is connected to higher stability? I’m not disputing that, mind you, just clarifying. I’ve sort of just woken up and so my brain is still half asleep.

Other way around, although not entirely. More stability equals less religiousity, although religion contributes to that lack of stability.

Got ya

[Kowani]

And that should be changed, religion shouldn't have a place in the government.
So what's your point here?

My point is that it (a) should not change due to its grounding in the traditions established by the Founding Fathers who were not all that religious themselves and (b) the religious traditions of the people, Christianity for America, are substantially impactful upon the culture that to flat out ignore them is rather ridiculous.

You place far too much value on the Founding Fathers.

[Camelone]

My point is that it (a) should not change due to its grounding in the traditions established by the Founding Fathers who were not all that religious themselves and (b) the religious traditions of the people, Christianity for America, are substantially impactful upon the culture that to flat out ignore them is rather ridiculous.

You place far too much value on the Founding Fathers.

I brought them up more for the fact that they were notoriously not very religious yet they still supported these traditions which helped and aided their colonies for such a long time. Also because it’s a good idea to get the context of when the Constitution was written to correctly and accurately interpret it as it stands.

[Kowani]

You place far too much value on the Founding Fathers.

I brought them up more for the fact that they were notoriously not very religious yet they still supported these traditions which helped and aided their colonies for such a long time.

They did that with slavery as well, your point?

Also because it’s a good idea to get the context of when the Constitution was written to correctly and accurately interpret it as it stands.

You must not like amendments, then.

[UIJ]

And that should be changed, religion shouldn't have a place in the government.
So what's your point here?

My point is that it (a) should not change due to its grounding in the traditions established by the Founding Fathers who were not all that religious themselves and (b) the religious traditions of the people, Christianity for America, are substantially impactful upon the culture that to flat out ignore them is rather ridiculous.

Which is a fairly ridiculous claim, "yeah people from the 1700s did it so why don't we?". And staying on topic, the Satanist church has pointed out a flaw in this, you can't just say America is religiously free then turn around and say one stupid religion gets priority or favoritism over any other stupid religion because that's "traditionally how it goes". What people traditionally do doesn't matter in the eyes of the law. If the satanists want to pull this stunt to prove a point, by golly either let them or don't do it entirely. You can't play favorites with religion in the US.

America doesn't have a single, defined culture that you can just point at and say it's "christian". Rather, It would be ridiculous for you to assume that Christianity is this massive cultural backbone of the US, the US being the massive melting pot of races, cultures, and such that it is.

[Camelone]

I brought them up more for the fact that they were notoriously not very religious yet they still supported these traditions which helped and aided their colonies for such a long time.

They did that with slavery as well, your point?

Also because it’s a good idea to get the context of when the Constitution was written to correctly and accurately interpret it as it stands.

You must not like amendments, then.

Actually they did not, a state keeping slavery was a bad deal for them under the Constitution with the 3/5th’s compromise which pretty much punished a state for having slavery by reducing the numbers of representatives they would have in the House. The compromises were needed to prevent a fracturing of the republic but the seeds of abolitionism were planted within the Constitution.

“As it stands” come on your reading comprehension is better than this and I know that for a fact.

My point is that it (a) should not change due to its grounding in the traditions established by the Founding Fathers who were not all that religious themselves and (b) the religious traditions of the people, Christianity for America, are substantially impactful upon the culture that to flat out ignore them is rather ridiculous.

Which is a fairly ridiculous claim, "yeah people from the 1700s did it so why don't we?". And staying on topic, the Satanist church has pointed out a flaw in this, you can't just say America is religiously free then turn around and say one stupid religion gets priority or favoritism over any other stupid religion because that's "traditionally how it goes". What people traditionally do doesn't matter in the eyes of the law. If the satanists want to pull this stunt to prove a point, by golly either let them or don't do it entirely. You can't play favorites with religion in the US.

America doesn't have a single, defined culture that you can just point at and say it's "christian". Rather, It would be ridiculous for you to assume that Christianity is this massive cultural backbone of the US, the US being the massive melting pot of races, cultures, and such that it is.

Except it’s a continuity of the civic culture of America which in of itself is important. Is the free worship of the Satanists being adversely affected from this? No they are not. Can a Council made up of individuals of a community accept and decline invitations like these yes they should be able to because it is not granting any special privileges beyond the fact that the Council desires them to open their session. It’s their choice and they probably should restrict it to the the faith backgrounds of the sitting council members or if it relates to the topic of consideration of the session. It’s not an establishment clause issue as there is no reason for a group to open with an Invocation if no one on the council is actually of that background or if it doesn’t pertain to what is going to be discussed.

You are aware that the vast majority of those cultures and races that have come to America were either already Christian or became Christian? To deny that Christianity was a major aspect of American history and identity is simply a denial of a historical reality. Yes there were other minority faiths that immigrated over but the vast majority, to an overwhelming degree, were Christians. Heck one can even argue that Christianity was one of the few things that some Americans even had in common with each other.

[-Ocelot-]

Satanist organizations in the US are doing God's work.

But really, they are putting all religious freedom bullshit the US supposedly has to the test.

[Kowani]

They did that with slavery as well, your point?

You must not like amendments, then.

Actually they did not, a state keeping slavery was a bad deal for them under the Constitution with the 3/5th’s compromise which pretty much punished a state for having slavery by reducing the numbers of representatives they would have in the House. The compromises were needed to prevent a fracturing of the republic but the seeds of abolitionism were planted within the Constitution.

Haha-What? No! It gave the slaveholding states more representatives! It allowed for the white population to be counted as a full person-Plus the 3/5 portion from the slaves. Point
“The compromise solution was to count three out of every five slaves as people for this purpose. Its effect was to give the southern states a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes than if slaves had been ignored, but fewer than if slaves and free people had been counted equally”

“As it stands” come on your reading comprehension is better than this and I know that for a fact.

Ah, my bad. I’m tired.

[Camelone]

Actually they did not, a state keeping slavery was a bad deal for them under the Constitution with the 3/5th’s compromise which pretty much punished a state for having slavery by reducing the numbers of representatives they would have in the House. The compromises were needed to prevent a fracturing of the republic but the seeds of abolitionism were planted within the Constitution.

Haha-What? No! It gave the slaveholding states more representatives! It allowed for the white population to be counted as a full person-Plus the 3/5 portion from the slaves. Point
“The compromise solution was to count three out of every five slaves as people for this purpose. Its effect was to give the southern states a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes than if slaves had been ignored, but fewer than if slaves and free people had been counted equally”

“As it stands” come on your reading comprehension is better than this and I know that for a fact.

Ah, my bad. I’m tired.

It’s the compromise part I’m emphasizing. The compromise was better for the Abolitionists than the slaveholders because it recognized slaves as a human being and person, which in the legal realm was incredibly important to setup the abolition if the Supreme Court didn’t screw it up. It also was the better option than caving in to the South entirely and counting all slaves for representation. A sad but necessary compromise which made it more lucrative politically for the South to have more freemen then slaves. I’m up to continue this portion of the conversation in the RWDT or telegram because we may be a little off topic now due to my tangent.

No problem, same here. I’m well into the morning now with no sleep.

[Ethel mermania]

That’s a ridiculously easy hurdle.

How easy?

Because of things like the first amendment, the feds really try not to decide what is a religion. You have to really screw up to lose the tax exemption. Look how long it took with scientology.

[Risottia]

Boston can go to hell.

No. The city is too bulky to be moved from its current location.

[Al Mumtahanah]

No, Satanism should not even be legal, tolerating it is against God.