Satanism in Schools...

Seen this yet?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X55orqpFpo0

Thoughts?

Myself, I'm all for the separation of Church and State... education of any kind should be firstly and foremostly the responsibility of the parent, but if basic things like the "Three 'R's" are easily enough regulated and State run, okay... but it shouldn't mean the parents aren't responsible at all. But now, as far as spiritual beliefs? I think that should be directed by the parent & "church", for lack of a better term... what do you all say?

<facepalm>

florida....again.....i used to think all the nuts were in california....now that doesn't seem to be the case....

if they're going to allow any religion to have influence in school...then they MUST allow all religions equal access...

personally they need to keep ALL religion out of public school....public schools are run by the state....and the constitution clearly mandates a separation of church and state...why can't people grasp that simple concept?.....seriously is it really that complicated or are there just that many morons that can't grasp it?

my general philosophy on spirituality and life wisdom is that everybody should tell everybody everything that they know without expectation or need for agreement or collaboration

there may be some general exceptions to this but imo it is by throwing all that we have into the collective pool and diving into it ourselves that we grow the quickest and healthiest

secrecy and privacy allow people to take what are otherwise good ideas and twist them into abberations

Of course, I don't think religion has any place in school. But if they're going to allow one to distribute information and try to convert people, they shouldn't discriminate against who they allow to do it. It also might be the case that some students find the ideals of Satanism appealing and will find what they think to be religious truth in that religion. And, it might also be the case that some students will have better lives for deciding to follow one religion rather than another, perhaps Satanism as well.
I have read most of Anton LaVey's writings. To me, it seems that Satanism is nothing but the full embrace of hedonism while also showing respect to others. Standards such as not to hurt children and "Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal" are perfectly fine and things which are not, to my knowledge, covered well by Christian doctrine.

Kids should be allowed to access information and study whatever they want, but I don't think it should be the case that any religious group advertises in public schools. So why not just have a pamphlet which says "Here is a list of popular religions -- pick one, many, or none, and study it on your own time"? Then there is no bias, no real advertisement, and no issue as far as I can tell.

OB1Shinobi wrote: secrecy and privacy allow people to take what are otherwise good ideas and twist them into abberations

Well, we shouldn't confuse the two - not saying y'are, just sayin'...

I mean, one can be harmful (if and only if x, y, z... ), while the same *could* be said for the other as well (including the previous parenthetic statement)... but they vary vastly in nature to each other.

But using either in order to twist good ideas into aberrations (the aforementioned x, y, z), yeah - I totally see what you mean - and agree.

But NOT misused, the both do have their places.

RyuJin wrote: personally they need to keep ALL religion out of public school....public schools are run by the state....and the constitution clearly mandates a separation of church and state...why can't people grasp that simple concept?.....seriously is it really that complicated or are there just that many morons that can't grasp it?

No. It does not. It mandates that the State may not influence or legislate the Church, protecting the latter from the former. The idea that the State needs equal protection from the Church is a non-constitutional idea taken from a private letter. Please, please please, stop misunderstanding this.

Tarran wrote:

OB1Shinobi wrote: secrecy and privacy allow people to take what are otherwise good ideas and twist them into abberations

Well, we shouldn't confuse the two - not saying y'are, just sayin'...

I mean, one can be harmful (if and only if x, y, z... ), while the same *could* be said for the other as well (including the previous parenthetic statement)... but they vary vastly in nature to each other.

But using either in order to twist good ideas into aberrations (the aforementioned x, y, z), yeah - I totally see what you mean - and agree.

But NOT misused, the both do have their places.

agreed, basically

i do think theyre both overrated generally

also some people feel that their belifes can be cheapened or lessened by the wrong people knowing them or using them in a "disagreeable" way

which of course leads to the very thing they fear since people are going to create what they cant properly learn

again there are exceptions to every rule

but i am more frightened by the idea of people not being exposed to "the right" ideas than about them being exposed to "the wrong" ideas

steamboat28 wrote:

RyuJin wrote: personally they need to keep ALL religion out of public school....public schools are run by the state....and the constitution clearly mandates a separation of church and state...why can't people grasp that simple concept?.....seriously is it really that complicated or are there just that many morons that can't grasp it?

No. It does not. It mandates that the State may not influence or legislate the Church, protecting the latter from the former. The idea that the State needs equal protection from the Church is a non-constitutional idea taken from a private letter. Please, please please, stop misunderstanding this.

from wikipedia:
In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Court drew on Founding Father Thomas Jefferson's correspondence to call for "a wall of separation between church and State", though the precise boundary of this separation remains in dispute.

ah....well it seems schools need to do a better job of teaching the bill of rights....

still i firmly believe that state and church need to be kept separate....

the accepted interpretation is that it is not the governments place to endorse any particular religion as being "the national religion" and to ensure the citizens right to practice religion as they see fit

the specific wording confirms that theres no mandatory religious affiliation for government participation ie no religious test shall be given

it is fair to extrapolate that thr state should not endorse a particular religion in state functions from this as such a thing would highly implicate a favoured religion and as such, that other religions would be less favorable

the problem so to speak is that hand in hand with this is the traditional inclusiveness of religious thought and ritual within government operations and offices

such as swearing on the bible and opening meetings of the senate and house of representatives with prayer

theres enough ambiguity in the wording of the founding documents and moreover in the stated proclivities and faiths of the founding fathers themselves

for instance thomas jefferson had a lovely interpretation of the bible wherein he deleted every reference to any sort of miracle or supernatural phenomena

actually, i say "deleted" but point his editing pen was in fact a pair of scissors and to this day im pretty sure you can read his final draft via a web search of "jefferson bible"

ben franklin was openly deist (a common though not to my understanding the entirely predominent religious thought amongst the fathers) and john adams was a unitarian who rejected the idea of the divinity of jesus

washington is generally held to be christian but it has been noted (even by the preacher of the church his wife attended) that he was generally uninvolved in christian congregation
also he is noted for using the contemporary deist language of his day such as "supreme architect"

madison also many historians regard as expressing essentially deist perspective though i belive he also is held to have been essentially christian

on the other hand, the simple reality of the aforementioned points of the use of the bible and the invocation/prayer within the most solemn functions of the highest levels of government is far more convincing statement for the appreciation of religion by the early american government that any roster of denominational allegience could ever be

so imo the most precise and appropriate interpretation of the overall thought by the fathers on the relationship between church and state is the generally accepted (by the moderates) view that religion is highly valuable, highly personal, and highly outside of the perview of the state to either regulate OR endorse with any official or overt partiality

this is my personal view and understanding

Already? wow, time pass too much fast... :sick:

If at least we had the true book of satanism...
I had the chance to read it when I was teenager and some years after, when I get another one.
I never find all the chapters that I read before.

I am just going to disaprove, when someone said that the Bible dont tell about that. :blink:
There a lot of passage that speak about the love and the problems with the sex.
One passage, I know, talk about "not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal".
The passage I know speak more to the woman but there a lot of rule for the man also.
And also a woman is beautiful and a man is handsome.
They dont have the same approach and mating signal.
The dance in the appropriate club of the nude woman are not the same of the nude man dance.
(If someone want I can search where in the Bible it is exactly)

But I think its logic... No?
The problem its the peeps only like to read and keep what they like and forget or burn the rest.

We have a book of satanism here? Im going to read it again to know wich version it is. :evil:

They should talk about the Jediism instead