Once fundamentalist Christians finally figure out the central tenet of their entire religion is human sacrifice, and its holiest, most solemn ceremonial rite is pretend cannibalism, then somebody is going to have a LOT OF SPLAINING to do.
Who's going to tell Sandy Cheeks, er, Salmon, that her religion is based on human sacrifice. Since the Christ sacrificed his life to win God's favor for his people. That's the definition of human sacrifice.
This sentence: Any act of Satanic practice or worship that involves the ending of a life or the shedding of blood, whether the sacrifice be an animal or human, is prohibited. Is the word worship modified by Satanic or is it a stand alone. If a stand alone does the legislation prohibit Roman Catholics their body and blood of Christ?
The general attitude of Christianity is that the deities of all faiths and mythologies (other than their own) are, to quote Saint Augustine of Hippo, "evil and impure demons." He also said that anyone who contends otherwise "is either excessively dense, or unscrupulously argumentative!"
Sandy Salmon would conceivably have got along fine with him.
Very little, I agree. But I was suggesting that she would have got along fine with him - because of his Christian bigotry, of which I had no doubt after reading various parts of his magnum opus. And while certainly intelligent, he had huge blind spots because of his faith - not an uncommon trait of saints and theologians. I believe he suggested that those pagan gods which were not literally demons might have been distorted memories of great pagan personalities and ancient chieftains, an idea that wasn't original with him.
It never seemed to occur to him that the same process could have created the godhead of Jesus of Nazareth.
With one small edit, this statement perfectly outlines how politicians should treat religion in the US of A, “The general assembly finds that all people have freedom of conscience. The state of Iowa does not recommend religious practice in any form; however, the state of Iowa acknowledges that individuals are free under the Constitution of the State of Iowa to practice religious worship in their private thoughts and on their private property in ways that do not violate any Iowa law or harm or infringe on others.” That’s a beautiful explanation of religious freedom!
I clicked on the link about orders of protection for sexual and domestic abuse which was from 2018:
"Rep. Sandy Salmon claimed the two bills she introduced in the Iowa House of Representatives this month that would make it harder for victims of domestic and sexual abuse to get temporary protective orders were just attempts to “explore some options that curb abuses in the system.”"
So apparently Rep Salmon doesn't care about actual abuse, just abuses in the system which she knows about because of one constituent she spoke with. "Salmon explained she didn’t rely on any academic studies regarding domestic and sexual abuse, but instead relied on anecdotes."
This woman should not be in any level of govt as her beliefs seem to cause more harm than good.
Sandy Salmon's bill against animal sacrifice seems overly broad. I have no objection to a bill banning the bloodsport of salmon fishing in the state of Iowa. But if somebody's religion requires an offering of Sockeye served on a cedar plank with lemon and tartar sauce in order to be in the good graces of their creed, the state of Iowa would be in violation of the constitution to ban that.
Sandy's bill reminds me of the sign over the urinal in the barracks latrine. "Please do not throw butts in the urinal" - signed, PVT Butz
Nutso. And only a single step from forcing people to become their brand of Christian. And then you need a body to enforce that with arrests, trials, torture and executions.
You utterly floored me with your accurate and respectful reference to Thelema. I am a Thelemite, and I'm used to our religion being mostly ignored, with occasional bursts of wild misinformation just to liven things up. This whole article was great, but that one part made my day. Thanks! 🙂
"As for animal sacrifices, I can’t find any evidence of actual Satanists doing that, but Sen. Salmon will surely be disappointed when she hears about Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, the case in which the Supreme Court found that animal sacrifice for religious reasons is protected by the Constitution."
*** *** ***
I find it hard to understand why it should be okay to sacrifice an animal because you like bacon, but wrong to sacrifice an animal because you like Baphomet. Particularly because the First Amendment is a thing that exists.
Of course, real existing Satanists are satirists, not really religious people at all. But satire should be just as protected as religion. And really, as a general principle, all First Amendment freedoms depend upon reciprocity. My right to express myself really depends upon other people's responsibility to respect my right to express myself. And other people's right to express themselves depends upon my responsibility to respect their right to express themselves.
Once fundamentalist Christians finally figure out the central tenet of their entire religion is human sacrifice, and its holiest, most solemn ceremonial rite is pretend cannibalism, then somebody is going to have a LOT OF SPLAINING to do.
Heh heh heh. Well done, Sandy. The Dark Lord is pleased.
My first thought when I saw your headline, "well, no more crucifixes." Plain crosses might be iffy.
Don't worry, Sen. Sandy probably lumps Catholics in with Satanists because Xtianity is full of brotherly love for fellow Xtians.
Jesus spits at Sen. Sandy and her ilk.
Or at least rolls his eyes. Jay threatened fakes that at the final judgement the verdict would be "I know you not."
Who's going to tell Sandy Cheeks, er, Salmon, that her religion is based on human sacrifice. Since the Christ sacrificed his life to win God's favor for his people. That's the definition of human sacrifice.
This sentence: Any act of Satanic practice or worship that involves the ending of a life or the shedding of blood, whether the sacrifice be an animal or human, is prohibited. Is the word worship modified by Satanic or is it a stand alone. If a stand alone does the legislation prohibit Roman Catholics their body and blood of Christ?
Whisky-paleans too, also.
With a dry sherry.
The general attitude of Christianity is that the deities of all faiths and mythologies (other than their own) are, to quote Saint Augustine of Hippo, "evil and impure demons." He also said that anyone who contends otherwise "is either excessively dense, or unscrupulously argumentative!"
Sandy Salmon would conceivably have got along fine with him.
Saint Augustine may or may not have been a Christian bigot, but he was undoubtedly intelligent.
There is no chance that Saint Augustine would have gotten a long with her.
Very little, I agree. But I was suggesting that she would have got along fine with him - because of his Christian bigotry, of which I had no doubt after reading various parts of his magnum opus. And while certainly intelligent, he had huge blind spots because of his faith - not an uncommon trait of saints and theologians. I believe he suggested that those pagan gods which were not literally demons might have been distorted memories of great pagan personalities and ancient chieftains, an idea that wasn't original with him.
It never seemed to occur to him that the same process could have created the godhead of Jesus of Nazareth.
Actually Robyn, the almost funny thing is that there is a shadowy organization of Satan worshippers. The twist is that they're Nazis - "The Order of Nine Angles." They don't make the news here much b/c they're based in the UK. I've seen Bellingcat report on them - https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2023/06/30/the-mainstream-publishers-distributors-and-bookshops-selling-satanist-neo-nazi-books/, as well as the BBC - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-53141759. I'm sure Sen. Salmon would be simply appalled by the very idea...
With one small edit, this statement perfectly outlines how politicians should treat religion in the US of A, “The general assembly finds that all people have freedom of conscience. The state of Iowa does not recommend religious practice in any form; however, the state of Iowa acknowledges that individuals are free under the Constitution of the State of Iowa to practice religious worship in their private thoughts and on their private property in ways that do not violate any Iowa law or harm or infringe on others.” That’s a beautiful explanation of religious freedom!
Hail Satan.
Or hail, satin, if you're into silky things.
Not hail Santa?
Oh, yeah, that's what I meant to say.
I clicked on the link about orders of protection for sexual and domestic abuse which was from 2018:
"Rep. Sandy Salmon claimed the two bills she introduced in the Iowa House of Representatives this month that would make it harder for victims of domestic and sexual abuse to get temporary protective orders were just attempts to “explore some options that curb abuses in the system.”"
So apparently Rep Salmon doesn't care about actual abuse, just abuses in the system which she knows about because of one constituent she spoke with. "Salmon explained she didn’t rely on any academic studies regarding domestic and sexual abuse, but instead relied on anecdotes."
This woman should not be in any level of govt as her beliefs seem to cause more harm than good.
Sandy Salmon's bill against animal sacrifice seems overly broad. I have no objection to a bill banning the bloodsport of salmon fishing in the state of Iowa. But if somebody's religion requires an offering of Sockeye served on a cedar plank with lemon and tartar sauce in order to be in the good graces of their creed, the state of Iowa would be in violation of the constitution to ban that.
Sandy's bill reminds me of the sign over the urinal in the barracks latrine. "Please do not throw butts in the urinal" - signed, PVT Butz
Nutso. And only a single step from forcing people to become their brand of Christian. And then you need a body to enforce that with arrests, trials, torture and executions.
You left out the Spanish Inquisition. I didn't expect that.
Well there goes Halloween!
I love that this law will outlaw crusifixes and crosses bc they are literally emblems of human sacrifice.
You utterly floored me with your accurate and respectful reference to Thelema. I am a Thelemite, and I'm used to our religion being mostly ignored, with occasional bursts of wild misinformation just to liven things up. This whole article was great, but that one part made my day. Thanks! 🙂
"As for animal sacrifices, I can’t find any evidence of actual Satanists doing that, but Sen. Salmon will surely be disappointed when she hears about Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, the case in which the Supreme Court found that animal sacrifice for religious reasons is protected by the Constitution."
*** *** ***
I find it hard to understand why it should be okay to sacrifice an animal because you like bacon, but wrong to sacrifice an animal because you like Baphomet. Particularly because the First Amendment is a thing that exists.
Of course, real existing Satanists are satirists, not really religious people at all. But satire should be just as protected as religion. And really, as a general principle, all First Amendment freedoms depend upon reciprocity. My right to express myself really depends upon other people's responsibility to respect my right to express myself. And other people's right to express themselves depends upon my responsibility to respect their right to express themselves.
Which suggests that an enterprising entrepreneur should start selling Baphomet Bacon! Naturally cured and smoked in hellfire (and hickory).