Why Do We Pledge Allegiance?

Ever feel,like you’ve been conned? (on a side note,we tried to make sure we lower cased ever single “god”,if we missed any,we apologize. there were a ton,of the little buggars……)

Pledge_feature

This was the first incarnation of the Pledge of Allegiance, composed by Bellamy, though conspicuously missing two prominent elements, namely, any mention of the United States or of God.

In August and early September, millions of U.S. children return to school. For most, their mornings begin with them standing, hand over heart, to recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. flag. This is not, however, an antique custom. The Constitution specifies an oath of office for the president, and witnesses in court are customarily administered an oath that binds them to tell the truth. Average Americans, though, were not expected to perform any oaths of allegiance for the first century of the country’s existence, nor, in particular, were children required to make such pledges. Indeed, historian Richard Ellis, whose deeply informative To the Flag (2005) informs much of my writing about the pledge, has noted that “democracies generally do not require their children to pledge allegiance to the nation on a daily or even regular basis.” How, then, did the Pledge of Allegiance come to be seen as such a key patriotic exercise that we require it daily of our children?

The origins of the pledge cannot be understood apart from the “flag movement” of the 1880s, which itself cannot be understood apart from the Civil War. Just as U.S. (that is, Union) flags became more omnipresent during the war, so “loyalty tests” also spread. People suspected of disloyalty were often arrested, eligible for pardon if they submitted to an “oath of allegiance” swearing to “support, protect and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States against all enemies, whether domestic or foreign,” and to “bear true faith, allegiance and loyalty to the same.” Such oral and signed performances were thought to be rehabilitative, making real Americans out of those whose devotion was questionable or had wavered.

During the war, the practice of oath-taking and pledging did not extend beyond captured Confederate soldiers and their suspected Northern sympathizers, but the “cult of the flag” that emerged two decades later began to stir a desire in many Americans to have more citizens—maybe all citizens—demonstrate their respect for the flag. Schools, in particular, became a site for organizing around this impulse. For example, in the last 1880s in New York City, George T. Balch, a West Point graduate and veteran of the Civil War, organized a number of flag-related patriotic ceremonies for schoolchildren, and in his 1890 Methods of Teaching Patriotism in the Public Schools, he published the first known pledge to the U.S. flag: “We give our Heads! —and our Hearts! —to god! —and our Country!” Around the same time, Charles Homer of the Grand Army of the Republic (GAR) began encouraging the GAR to promote “flag presentation ceremonies” in schools around the country.

In October 1888, a popular weekly children’s magazine, the Youth’s Companion, started running advertisements selling flags, and in 1890 it sponsored a promotional essay contest for students on the topic “The Patriotic Influence of the American Flag When Raised over the Public School.” The winner from each state would receive a large flag for their school. That same year, James B. Upham, head of the magazine’s promotions department, concocted an idea for a national public school celebration of the four-hundredth anniversary of Columbus’s arrival in the Americas. He took his plan to the National Education Association, which appointed a steering committee chaired by Francis Bellamy, minister of Bethany Baptist Church in Boston and a Christian socialist, as well as an editor at the Youth’s Companion.

By the summer of 1892, Congress had declared October 21 (not October 12) “Discovery Day” and indicated that it should be commemorated with “suitable exercises in the schools and other places of assembly.” Upham, Bellamy, and the Youth’s Companion designed the specific exercises and published them in the magazine under the heading “Official Programme for the National Columbia Public School Celebration of October 21, 1892.” Included in the day’s activities were a presidential proclamation, a flag-raising by veterans, a song, a speech, a poem, and a salute to the flag. The third section of the program, “Salute to the Flag,” contained these guidelines:

At a signal from the principal the pupils, in ordered rank, hands to the side, face the flag. Another signal is given; every pupil gives the flag the military salute—right hand lifted, palm downward, to a line with the forehead and close to it. Standing thus, all repeat together slowly: “I pledge allegiance to my flag, and to the republic for which it stands: one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” At the words, “to my flag,” the right hand is extended gracefully, palm outward, toward the flag, and remains in this gesture till the end of the affirmation; whereupon all hands immediately drop to the side. Then, still standing, as the instruments strike a chord, all will sing America—“My Country ’Tis of Thee.”

This was the first incarnation of the Pledge of Allegiance, composed by Bellamy, though conspicuously missing two prominent elements, namely, any mention of the United States or of god.

The Pledge of Allegiance was written only with this specific commemoration in mind, though, and with the express goal of driving sales of the Youth’s Companion. It likely would have fallen into obscurity if not for the intense anxiety about immigrants that began to grip many native-born Americans in the 1880s. More than 2.7 million immigrants arrived in the United States in the 1870s, followed by over 5.2 million in the 1880s and another 14.5 million between 1900 and 1919. Bellamy channeled the alarm many felt when he told the NEA in 1892 that “Americanism brings a duty . . . it must be made a force strong enough to touch the immigrant population which is pouring over our country.” Naturally the use of his pledge in public schools was a key component, he contended, for the inculcation of loyalty to the United States.

War only amplified this patriotic dread. When New York passed the first flag salute law in the country, the law required students to recite an allegiance pledge at the start of school to mark the beginning of the Spanish-American War in 1898. The state went so far as to promulgate its own Manual of Patriotism containing more than 400 patriotic poems, salutes, and songs for schools. The New York manual offers the option of five different flag salutes; although it includes Bellamy’s, it is listed dead last. It would remain a pledge of allegiance but not the Pledge of Allegiance until after World War I.

In 1923 the National Americanism Commission—a jingoist wing of the American Legion—believed that it was time for a single standard flag code, and it held a flag conference in Washington, D.C. Among the decisions made was to recognize Bellamy’s salute as the national Pledge to the Flag, with one small change of language. It was felt that “my flag” was too generic, so the conference recommended “the flag of the United States” instead. In a second meeting, held in 1924, the delegates appended “of America” to the pledge and specified that civilians should perform two gestures while reciting the pledge: a placing of the right hand over the heart, then a raising of the right arm, palm up, at the words “to the flag.” Members of the armed forces would offer the military right-hand salute. Bellamy allegedly disliked this tinkering, thinking that the added syllables disrupted the flow of the pledge. But all of this would remain unofficial until 1942 (in the midst of yet another war), when Congress passed the U.S. Flag Code, which officially adopted Bellamy’s Pledge of Allegiance—with the removal of the stiff-arm salute, which by then, enemies having changed, was seen as too closely resembling the fascist salute.

The Pledge of Allegiance had still not arrived at its final form, as two familiar words were absent. In 1954 Congress inserted “under god” into the pledge. “Under god” was not a particularly common political slogan until the late 1940s; Lincoln had uttered it in the Gettysburg Address, but in his comprehensive search, Ellis could find no evidence of a president using it during the ensuing fifty years, until it was adopted by both Presidents Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower in their speeches. The urge to add the phrase to the pledge arose out of anti-communist organizing, principally by religious groups such as the Knights of Columbus.

George M. Docherty, minister at the politically influential New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in Washington, D.C., famously pleaded in a 1954 sermon that doing so was crucial in the fight against the evil of communism and, by extension, atheism: “By adding ‘under God’ to the Pledge the nation would affirm the distinctive and defining characteristic of the American way of life: belief in God.”

Congress introduced seventeen “under god” resolutions in 1953 and 1954—ten of them from Catholic members—and Public Law 83-1683 of May 28, 1954, amended the pledge to include the words, with this justification:

At this moment of our history the principles underlying our American Government and the American way of life are under attack by a system whose philosophy is at direct odds with our own. Our American Government is founded on the concept of the individuality and the dignity of the human being. Underlying this concept is the belief that the human person is important because he was created by god and endowed by Him with certain inalienable rights which no civil authority may usurp. The inclusion of God in our pledge therefore would further acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon the moral directions of the Creator. At the same time it would serve to deny the atheistic and materialistic concepts of communism with its attendant subservience of the individual.

Eisenhower signed the bill on Flag Day, June 14, 1954, and released a statement celebrating that “from this day forward, millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural school house, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.” Hence the Pledge of Allegiance as it is known today was finally settled:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Yet congressmen and -women did not recite the pledge on the floor of the House of Representatives until 1988, and the Senate only adopted the practice in 1999.

While traditions often engender controversy and resistance, probably no U.S. tradition has sparked more opposition than the pledge (and, relatedly, the U.S. motto, “In God We Trust,” adopted around the same time). Not all of this resistance has come from atheists. Indeed, as Ellis notes, “the most important and enduring sources of resistance to the flag salute and the Pledge of Allegiance were religiously based,” coming from religious minorities with objections to the wording of pledges and mottoes and sometimes to the act of saluting or pledging to a flag. A very early illustration was the 1918 case of a Mennonite girl in Ohio who refused to salute and pledge allegiance to the flag on religious grounds; she was sent home from school, and a judge rejected her family’s religious appeal. In 1926 the American Civil Liberties Union aided a case in Denver of a Jehovite child who was suspended from school for refusing to salute the flag on the grounds that doing so would be “idol worship.”

The problem was exacerbated when the pledge attained the force of law. In state after state, schools had the legal right to expel students who broke the law by abstaining from the pledge, long before “under God” was appended to the text. A key moment was the case of Lilian Gobitas, an eleven-year-old Jehovah’s Witness who was expelled from her school in Minersville, Pennsylvania, for religious opposition to the pledge. A judge in 1938 ruled in her favor, but the school appealed the decision all the way to the Supreme Court, which decided in 1940 (Minersville School District v. Gobitis) that mandatory flag salutes in school were constitutional and thus that the expulsion was legal. The matter was hardly settled, as more children around the country were subsequently banned from school for objecting to the pledge and flag salute. The Supreme Court heard another case on behalf of a different Jehovah’s Witness family and on Flag Day 1943 (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette) reversed the previous ruling, declaring that children could not be forced to recite the pledge. In a stirring opinion, Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote:

There is no mysticism in the American concept of the state or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. Authority here is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority. . . .

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.

Obviously, none of these complaints reacted to the reference to god in the pledge, as the reference was not there yet. But in May 1954, as Congress proceeded in that direction, the Unitarian Ministers Association opposed doing so on the ground that it was “an invasion of religious liberty.” The same anti-communist energy that added “under God” to the pledge also led the country in 1956 to adopt a new motto, “In God We Trust,” and subsequent challenges to the pledge’s God language were often entangled with challenges to this motto. The constitutionality of the new motto was directly challenged in 1970, when Stefan Aronow argued that it violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. But Aronow’s claim was dismissed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Aronow v. United States) on the premise that the motto “is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise.” The Supreme Court declined to hear the case. In 1979 the Fifth Circuit Court also rejected atheist Madalyn Murray O’Hair’s challenge to the motto (Madalyn Murray O’Hair v. Michael Blumenthal) with the determination that it is essentially secular, not religious—merely what has been dubbed “ceremonial deism.” Even so, in the 1978 Lipp v. Morris case, a federal court asserted that students had the right to remain seated and silent during the pledge—putting the burden of nonconformity on the individual child.

The most recent and successful challenge to the pledge’s reference to god was made by atheist Michael Newdow on behalf of his school-age daughter. In June 2002 the Ninth Circuit Court (Michael A. Newdow v. U.S. Congress et al.) ruled in Newdow’s favor, recognizing that the 1954 pledge “takes a position with respect to the purely religious question of the existence and identity of God. A profession that we are a nation ‘under God’ is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation ‘under Jesus,’ a nation ‘under Vishnu,’ a nation ‘under Zeus,’ or a nation ‘under no god,’ because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion.”

Justice Alfred Goodwin added that, historically, the insertion of “under god”—and by extension, the adoption of the motto—had the “sole purpose . . . to advance religion, in order to differentiate the United States from nations under communist rule.” The Supreme Court reviewed the lower court’s ruling and, rather than deciding the merits of the argument, dismissed Newdow as lacking the legal standing to raise the objection in the first place. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor reiterated that “under God” was not a religious claim, just ceremonial deism.

Nevertheless, on the fiftieth anniversary of the adoption of the motto in 2006, President George W. Bush urged Americans to “reflect on these words that guide millions of Americans, recognize the blessings of the Creator, and offer our thanks for His great gift of liberty”—a religious profession if there ever was one. Shortly thereafter, the House of Representatives introduced the “Pledge Protection Act of 2007,” denying any court the jurisdiction “to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, the Pledge of Allegiance.” The bill was never enacted, but it is an interesting instance of government using its power to defend a tradition that indisputably means different things to different Americans.

The Pledge of Allegiance and the motto are two particularly clear examples of the invention of traditions. The U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1787, specified no pledge or motto, and the country survived for more than a century without either, just as it possessed or needed no national anthem. In the process of nation-building in the late 1800s and early 1900s, made urgent by the trauma of the Civil War and the perceived menace of immigration and socialism, the United States created and promoted these and many other traditions for the express purpose of instilling national identity. That wars hot and cold contributed to the drive toward tradition illustrates the role that such traditions play in the inculcation of patriotism and the realization of the dream of “out of many, one.”

 

 

 

Advertisements

When Exorcisms are Used to “Cure” Homosexuality and Mental Disorders


the exorcist


                                                                                    frame of the film ‘ The Exorcist ‘

Experts point to an exponential increase in requests for demon-expelling rituals, which are applied primarily to psychiatric patients and sexual minorities.

As the Spaniard reports, until this Saturday an unusual course was held in Rome; In fact, it’s unique in the world. Behind closed doors, more than 250 registered from 51 countries attend the XIII edition of the course of exorcism and prayer of liberation. To sit in the seats of the John Paul II Auditorium of the Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum, a university led by the Legionaries of Christ, attendees must have overcome a rigorous selection process that showed their “Need for updating “, according to Vatican News. The subject in which these students are updated is the practice of exorcisms.

Many the idea of exorcism will evoke an image that begins in the Middle Ages to end at the time that passes The Exorcist (William Friedkin, 1973), the chilling movie with the girl Linda Blair rotating his head and blaspheming. Error: “Although many people think of exorcisms as a relic of the Dark Ages, they are still practicing today,” says Spanish psychologist and skeptical researcher Benjamin Radford.

In fact, the chronology is different from what might be expected: Although exorcisms are practiced since ancient, it was not until 1614 when Paul V’s papacy formalized the ritual with official guidelines that remained virtually unchanged during Centuries. With the advent of modern times the practice was not abandoned; On the contrary, the ritual was adapted to the current language at the end of the twentieth century, mostly under the prefecture of Cardinal Spanish Eduardo Martínez in the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the sacraments. The new rite was presented in 1999 by its successor, the Chilean Jorge Medina, who declared: “Whoever says that the devil does not exist is not a believer “.

Half a million possessed in Italy

The truth is that this update came motivated by the fact that not only the exorcisms continue practicing, but today their demand is greater than ever. Although the Catholic Church prefers to give these cases the slightest publicity, in Italy more than half a million people ask each year an exorcism. Applications have soared in countries such as France, the US or Ireland, where priest and exorcist Pat Collins speaks of an “exponential increase “. The International Association of Exorcists, approved by the Vatican in 2014, qualifies the situation as a “pastoral emergency “. A year ago Pope Francis exhorted the priests to resort to an exorcist when they suspect that a parishioner suffers “real and true spiritual disturbances “.

But what does “real and true” mean? The current doctrine of the Catholic Church invites to distinguish what it considers to be true possessions of mental illnesses. One of the sessions of the course has been about the “psychological, medical, pharmacological aspects “, with a session dedicated to the “differential diagnosis of the phenomena of spiritual order and other orders “. But to begin with, not even all the exorcists consider such a distinction to be feasible… without practising an exorcism, as noted in 1999 The Exorcist of the Diocese of Rome, Gabriele Amorth, on the occasion of the publication of the new guidelines.

And of course, for scientists such a distinction cannot be proved in any way, irrespective of the religious beliefs of each. “Many people benefit from religious conversion and feel comforted in finding a spiritual sense in their lives,” says psychiatrist James Harris, director of the Neuropsychiatry Development Clinic at Johns University. Hopkins (USA). But with regard to the difference proposed by the Vatican, Harris is blunt: “What is described as possessions are mental disorders, and not a separate category

From transsexuality to kidney diseases

As a result, according to Radford, exorcisms are often being practiced “to emotionally or mentally disturbed people “. Only often, because sometimes perfectly healthy people have also been administered. In 1977 a group of American researchers reported in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior how a transsexual man had been “healed by the faith” thanks to an exorcism practiced by a doctor who had expelled a total of 22 evil spirits. “Immediately after the session, John announced that he was a man, threw his feminine clothes (hiding his breasts as he could) and went to the barbershop to cut his long hair in a more masculine style ” the authors wrote.

But two years later, another team of doctors reported in the same magazine of another exorcism practiced in Finland to a homosexual man, with no other effect than to provoke nightmares by how terrifying was the experience. The authors of the report concluded that, if something served an exorcism in such cases, it was only to “Confirm the negative view of an individual about his behavior “, in order to create him “much more serious problems ” and, ultimately, “increase the discrimination to which Homosexuals and transsexual face. “

However, and although the current psychiatry does not contemplate these conditions as disorders, this has not served to abandon the practice of the exorcisms in cases of the most diverse, and not only in the Christian cults: A study of 2016 in Palestine with almost 300 patients of hemodialysis from renal disease showed that 17% of them had undergone an Islamic exorcism. But certainly the most common case is the application of these rituals to psychiatric patients diagnosed, because in many cases they are themselves who believe they are possessed.

Diabolical possession in Madrid

A notable case occurred in Madrid a few years ago, when the psychiatric team at San Carlos Clinical Hospital knew that a 28-year-old patient diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia abandoned her medication following the instructions of an exorcist who had Subjected. “The priests led the patient to believe that their psychotic symptoms were due to the presence of a demon,” the psychiatrists wrote in 2011 in the magazine BMJ Case reports. “We are surprised that in the 21st century and in Europe there are still experts and clerics who believe that some types of schizophrenia are due to demonic possession,” they added.

In their study, the authors themselves confessed the dilemma they encountered when dealing with the case. Finally they decided to contact the Archdiocese of Madrid to help them convince the patient to resume treatment, but the response they received stunned them: “To our surprise, the clerics assumed that the Psychotic symptoms of the patient were due to a malignant presence.

According to experts, the problem is aggravated by the fact that in many cases patients not only believe in possession, but also in their healing through ritual. After her eight sessions of exorcism, the Madrid patient described that she “slept deeper and felt more rested.” “In most cases, exorcisms are practiced on people with a strong religious faith,” says Radford. “As they work, it is mainly due to the power of suggestion and the placebo effect: If you think you are possessed and that a certain ritual will cleanse you, it may do so.”

But even this possible beneficial effect should not confuse those affected by mental disorders, says Radford, for whom the distinction proposed by the church between these conditions and the real possessions only fosters this confusion. “Using scientific jargon, the Vatican conveys the impression that the exorcism has proven its efficacy and is scientifically validated. ” The psychologist admits that each person’s beliefs should be respected, but “If someone chooses to see an exorcist, it should be in addition to, and not instead of a trained medical professional “.

Original Article in Spanish

 

The Occult History of The Templars

Knight of The Red Cross

 

The Templar Order of the Middle Ages was a originally a Gnostic based order that maintained secrecy of the occult. Although misinformation is being told in regards to the strict Christian stance of the Knights Templar, their esoteric identity is hardly ever revealed nor fully uncovered by mainstream historians and scholars. The Templars weren’t your average Christians who obeyed and remained loyal the Church. Their involvement actually goes much further than what has been said.

It seems that the Templars of the Middle Ages kept their practices underground to avoid execution and interference from the Church. Nonetheless, the Catholic Church did manage to massacre some of the Templars during these times, due to their Occult practice and Gnostic identity being discovered. Not to mention the spiritual knowledge that the Templars contained which the Church considered a threat.

Most Templars were aware of their coming death sentence so they planned their escape from Christian prediction. The…

View original post 1,762 more words

Review of Hell, Heaven and Hope: A journey through life and afterlife with Dante

Cool.

READ

Photograph of a round sculpture based on Dante's inferno underworld Image courtesy of Durham University.

Dante’s The Divine Comedy takes readers on a voyage through the afterlife, exploring themes of love, justice, resilience, and hope along the way. The exhibition Hell, Heaven and Hope, on display in Durham’s Palace Green Library until March 18, similarly takes visitors on a physical journey through his fourteenth-century masterpiece and its subsequent influences on art and culture. Aalia Ahmed and Lucia Scigliano review.

The exhibition opens with a small section which contextualises The Divine Comedy both in terms of Dante’s life and contemporary society. The layout of the exhibition cleverly mimics the journey through hell, purgatory, and paradise which the writer (and protagonist) undertakes in his epic; through the use of lighting and the colour scheme chosen for the displays, we are invited to take part in this pilgrimage and learn the many lessons this masterpiece has to offer.

Various artistic interpretations of Satan…

View original post 417 more words

Hexes & Curses,Thoughts & Prayers,Oh My…..

There’s a pretty good chance you’ve seen it,or read about it,at least online.

Especially in the Trump era…..

Witches cast a Hex on Trump,Witches gather to put a spell on Trump,Witches Hex the Patriarchy……Blah,blah,blah.

Lana Del Ray exclaims “I do a lot of shit”……Whatever….

This amounts to “Please pay attention to us/me.” Or,”Thoughts and Prayers”. It doesn’t mean Shit.

If a person was to cast a Hex,their would be Two people that would know about it. The Hexer,and the Hexee.

There would be No Need to run around blabbing to any,and everyone,unless “Pay attention to me”.

In this age of the Interweb,be very aware of those who brag,those who seek attention,those who want you to “Pay attention to me”…

They are usually,Trying to sell you something.

Something you Don’t Need.

imageedit_91_3960516568

Satan as an Racist Slur

The early Origins of Satan

The early origins of Satan,the Devil,Lucifer,however you prefer to name him/it, were black and white,very much Caucasian in origin.

The horns & tail only came into play after Dantes Inferno.

Once the white Europeans set sail upon the oceans,and started exploring other continents,enslaving the Indigenous population,and destroying their cultures,did Satan,suddenly get a “Sun tan”.

He became Black………..

1500_ 018

fall_of _the_ damned

 

apocalypse6

blackdevil

And he became Red…….

satan

in fact when we went to Satan’s Kingdom,in Connecticut,just to check out part of New England history(what the hell,we live here,we should know),It got it’s name,because of a Indigenous Native Chief,the locals named Satan,due to the color of his skin. (If that’s not Racist,what is?)

One huge reason,(like we need another?) We will not tolerate racism in our Coven. We never have,we never will. Those that seem to think Satanism,the Occult,Witchcraft,Atheism,or any path,that isn’t Christian,is racist.

 

Think again. Just because some organizations mix racism in with whatever the fuck they pretend to be doing……We don’t.

If you want to practice Racism. Go join Trump,& the Alt right.

Hail Satan,Hail Freedom. #FuckTrump #FuckFacistScum

Luciferian and Satanic Views of Christianity Satanism vs Christianity

While Luciferians and Satanists do not view Satan and Lucifer the same as Christians do, their choice of those Biblical names has everything to do with their views of Christianity. Satan and Lucifer are rebels against the Christian God, representing all of the things that God denies humanity according to the Satanic and Luciferian perspective. This is a summary of those perspectives.

my neon baph                                                                                          Picture Copyright MSOwolf 2013

God is Oppressive

The God of Christianity is oppressive, cruel, and arbitrary.

 

Whether or not such a being exists is irrelevant in this context. The fact is Christians submit themselves to a demanding deity committing spiritual blackmail by threatening to damn the disobedient.

God Derides his Own Creations

According to traditional Christianity, the material world is full of sinful temptations that can lead a person from the path of salvation. These things are the comforts of life: good food, sex, luxury items and so forth. Why create them and then tell people not to enjoy them?

Both Luciferians and Satanists are unashamed about enjoying life to its fullest, ignoring cultural or religious taboos. For Satanists, physical existence is the sum total of human existence. For Luciferians, both spirit and body are important, but they are not in conflict with one another.

Encouragement of Mediocrity

Christianity downplays the importance of the individual. Pride in one’s accomplishments is considered by many a sin.

 

Without the promise of some wort of reward – acclamation, wealth, advancement, all of which are temptations – how can one be encouraged to excel beyond minimal expectations?

Mass Religion as a Means of Control

Christianity depends heavily on assumed authority. Christians are expected to accept he Bible as fact and to follow the dictates of church leaders.

 

Personal interpretation is frequently condemned, particularly when it contradicts the understanding of the majority.

Satanism and particularly Luciferianism are esoteric religions. There are no holy texts. There are no gurus, saints or authoritative leaders. Both groups encourage individual study of all things and to never accept something solely because you’re told you should.

Both religions are also religions of true believers. Because they do not seek converts, much less pressure people to join, all members want to be actively involved. Many Christians, on the other hand, were born into the religion and, at least in the mind of the Satanist or Luciferian, stick around mostly because it would take work to leave. They accept it because they’ve been raised to accept it. They disagree with contrary ideas simply because they run contrary to what they have been taught.

Delusions vs. Reality

Christianity paints an image of the world completely at odds with reality. Natural urges are spiritually damaging. People are expected to be polite or even submissive in order to avoid conflict even with a clear aggressor. Spiritual beings judge each soul on arbitrary rules, leaving men in constant fear of their potential salvation.

Satanists and Luciferians agree that there is more to the world than in readily apparent. Those things take time and energy and investigation to understand. But that doesn’t make such things inexplicable. The world is able to be rationally understood. It doesn’t need the existence of a being whose only proof of existence is a book claiming such a being exists.

Moreover, the Christian worldview denies natural laws such as survival of the fittest. Struggle is something to be embraced, not shunned.

A Good God Could Not Have Created ​This World

Christians insist that God is entirely good, and also that he is the creator of everything. He created a world of hardship and struggle and pain, yet insists he only loves humanity. The reality of this world is at complete odds with the image of the world painted by such claims.

The answer to this problem is to blame sin or Satan to have caused the Fall which perverted his entirely good creation. But that still doesn’t address the fact that God allowed that to happen. Instead, it hands responsibility off to humanity or Satan, beings less than God according to Christianity.