Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
DiCiccio does a lot of great things for Phoenix. He consistently exposes corruption and always informs on how much money is being wasted. His newsletter is a treasure trove of valuable information and he has the best staff. Always helpful and always answer my questions when my councilman and his staff never does.
I disagree. He is a right wing extremist who will happily push his agenda and vote against civil liberties. Sal was one of the hypocrites who was exposed in this ordeal. He happily voted for a religious invocation until a religious group he didn't agree with volunteered to give invocation. He is nothing but a classic good ole boy Deep South politician from the 1960's on the council.
Like most obedient followers, you can't seem to see beyond your extremely narrow worldview. Simply because their beliefs don't align with what you've been indoctrinated with, does not make them a hate group. I can't find anything suggesting the Satanic Temple is promoting hate in any way. Clearly the same cannot be said for Westboro or ISIS. That argument is nothing more than a red herring.
Many people find Catholicism and Christinaity as a whole to be offensive. That doesn't eliminate them from the invocation. Why should it for others? The fact of the matter is there is absolutely no need for a silly prayer to open a municipal meeting. It should simply be abolished altogether. Until then, everyone gets to freely support their religion. It's called freedom.
Despite having what you claim to be an "extremely narrow worldview," and having views that I have been "indoctrinated with" [sic], (as it is always the other guy whose views are "extremely narrow" and "indoctrinated"), I actually have some familiarity with the Satanic movement in the U.S. I interviewed Anton Szandor LaVey, who founded the movement, for about 2 hours in 1978. Can you say the same? I was an atheist for decades, and have read pretty widely in that field as well - not only the currently popular writers like Dawkins, Hitchens, Denning, Harris, Myers, et al, but Ingersoll, Freud, Nietszche, de Sade, Hume, O'Hair, and so forth.
My objection to this trend is not based on their right to believe - or disbelieve - in whatever they wish. It is twofold:
1) It is dishonest. It is an openly Alinskyite tactic to hide behind the shelter of a faux-religion (even while admitting it is nothing of the kind - the members of the sect admit they are atheists and thus, a prayer or invocation is just a sham) and demand the right to perform a kind of street-theater to remove religious expression from the public square, and to eliminate a form of public expression that is expressly allowed by both the Constitution, as interpreted by the judicial system, to satisfy the demands of a small group of activists. Were the city councils to demand that we accept the beliefs of whichever denomination offers the prayers at that week's meetings, I would say you were correct. They do not do so, however. They allow an invited member of a particular faith to offer a non-offensive prayer. I don't have a problem with that prayer being offered by a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, a Scientologist, or a Unitarian. Congress allows such prayers in their own meetings, and it is not considered to be promoting a particular religion.
I honestly don't even have a problem with a "prayer" or a "vocal meditation" being offered by a member of a Secular Humanist church, or one of the military's atheist chaplains. I personally think it's kind of pointless, but we recognize that there are recognized religions that don't believe in a personal God (such as some Buddhist sects, although they recognize a higher power in such spiritual concepts as Karma, and some branches of Unitarianism) and even a surprising 9% of self-identified atheists admit to a paradoxical belief in either a personal god or a spiritual "higher power" There is an understanding that these groups, while they may disagree with other denominations (a Congregationalist may have some issues with a Catholic belief, or a Muslim with a Jewish belief), will not express such beliefs in an inappropriate forum, such as a city council meeting.
2) Satanism differs from the religions, and even atheist "religions" above in that it was created as a mock-religion specifically to mock an existing religion - Christianity as a whole and Catholicism in particular. The Satanic group that demanded the right to conduct a black mass on governmentally-owned space in Kansas City conducted a rite there that was specifically created as a mockery of a Catholic practice, and initially claimed that they would use a consecrated holy object that was as venerated by Catholics as the Koran is my Muslims.
If someone created a fake religion whose purpose was to scandalize, say, Muslims - who would drop their pants in the direction of Mecca and ritually burn a Koran, and denounce their ideas - we might argue that their beliefs were hate-filled but that they had a right to practice them and risk the consequences. But we certainly would not allow them to deliver an invocation, even if they did not directly perform such acts in front of a city council.
As I said, Satanism is merely an Alinsky-style piece of political performance art whose purpose is not consonant with the purpose of the public prayer offered at City Council meetings. It's a dishonest movement, and it's a hate movement.
Last edited by Arizona Mike; 02-10-2016 at 08:52 AM..
I think that's a little bit of hyperbole, but your point is valid. But I'd counter by saying that no religion, faux or otherwise, should be participating in official civic events. I actually think the moment of silence that Phoenix went with is a great approach. No one is excluded and no one is having another's belief system forced upon them. Folks can use that time to pray to God, Allah, Satan, a three-eyed martian, or simply spend a few seconds contemplating what they plan on making for dinner that night.
If someone recites a simple, non-offensive prayer asking for God's guidance before a city council meeting - do you really believe that is "forcing their belief system" on you? They are not demanding that you accept the Real Presence in the Eucharist, they are not demanding that you accept the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, and they are not demanding that you follow the Eightfold Path of the Buddha.
No public funds are being expended by allowing these people to say a simple prayer.
It does recognize that people of faith have a place in the public square, as U.S. law and history recognize. I have not heard anyone declare that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King's stirring, Biblically-based pronouncements on the rights of man be removed from plaques on monuments in public places due to their religious component, nor do I think people are demanding that children in public schools should not be required to memorize Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, which contains the phrase "that this nation, under God..."
How fragile are the egos of disbelievers and secularists that such statements discombobulate them so?
I don't believe in any of that fear-mongering so it doesn't matter to me at all. I don't believe in fables.
I absolutely never said that firearms should be banned.
I think this puts Scottsdale in a very favorable light.
"Fear mongering"? lol Ok, bud. Yeah, love, self-sacrifice, self-control, and submission facing suffering, persecution, and ridicule sure sounds like we do it out of fear, doesnt it?
And you dont believe in fables, you say? Im willing to bet you believe in the fable that all of life and its irreducible complexity just "happened" to spring into existance, right?
"Fear mongering"? lol Ok, bud. Yeah, love, self-sacrifice, self-control, and submission facing suffering, persecution, and ridicule sure sounds like we do it out of fear, doesnt it?
And you dont believe in fables, you say? Im willing to bet you believe in the fable that all of life and its irreducible complexity just "happened" to spring into existance, right?
How is threatening hell, damnation and desolation not fear mongering? That sure doesn't sound loving to me. Typical religious hypocrisy though. Fortunately, our great city sees through such silliness.
"Fear mongering"? lol Ok, bud. Yeah, love, self-sacrifice, self-control, and submission facing suffering, persecution, and ridicule sure sounds like we do it out of fear, doesnt it?
In my view, Evangelical Christians and non-Evangelical Christians are two entirely different religions. Non-Evangelical Christians believe in Jesus Christ and God but they don't believe in imposing their beliefs upon the greater society. They also admit that they do not know how God judges people of other faiths, sexual orientations etc. hence they do not judge these people accepting that only God is the final judge. They do not interpret the Bible literally. As a result, these Christians do not attempt to limit the rights of people of other faiths and lifestyles.
Evangelical Christians do the opposite. They are like the Taliban in that they believe it is their fundamental right to impose their beliefs on the greater society and justify this view by saying they are "spreading the gospel". They state they know how God judges people because they refer to the Bible as a literal interpretation. They believe this literal interpretation empowers them to judge others. They argue it is their religious duty " to spread the gospel" even at the expense of others' rights. Politically, they are active and have sought to limit gay rights, a women's right to choose, stem cell research, euthanasia even in terminal disease states like ALS, limiting sex education in schools, and encourage Christian dogma in public education. This is essentially one religous group's efforts to impose their faith and philosophy on the greater society with no respect to people of other faiths, beliefs and lifestyles. In short, this is very un-American in my opinion. To me, this is no different that what any other fundamentalist religious group does.
This situation involving the Phoenix Council was another example of Evangelical Christians attempting to impose their beliefs on the city. There is no need for any prayer at a government event. They somehow got prayer involved. Sure, they tolerate some other religions' presence on occasion but do so knowing that the majority of prayers will be Christian. Then when a satanic group decided to offer a similar service, their faux display could not be upheld and their Evangelical roots rose and guys like Sal DiCiccio stood up and did everything in their power to oppose it because it goes against their fundamentalist Evangelical beliefs.
Last edited by azriverfan.; 02-10-2016 at 10:31 AM..
2) Satanism differs from the religions, and even atheist "religions" above in that it was created as a mock-religion specifically to mock an existing religion - Christianity as a whole and Catholicism in particular. The Satanic group that demanded the right to conduct a black mass on governmentally-owned space in Kansas City conducted a rite there that was specifically created as a mockery of a Catholic practice, and initially claimed that they would use a consecrated holy object that was as venerated by Catholics as the Koran is my Muslims.
If someone created a fake religion whose purpose was to scandalize, say, Muslims - who would drop their pants in the direction of Mecca and ritually burn a Koran, and denounce their ideas - we might argue that their beliefs were hate-filled but that they had a right to practice them and risk the consequences. But we certainly would not allow them to deliver an invocation, even if they did not directly perform such acts in front of a city council.
As I said, Satanism is merely an Alinsky-style piece of political performance art whose purpose is not consonant with the purpose of the public prayer offered at City Council meetings. It's a dishonest movement, and it's a hate movement.
I agree with you that is a "religion" to mock other relgions. But to that, my answer is how does that change things? So now we have to conveniently employ the principle that only sincere religions and beliefs need apply?
Furthermore, you are contradicting yourself. You are open to human secularist groups giving an invocation which is essentially what this satanic group is. You just take issue because they are flamboyant and irreverent in their approach to it.
You may disagree with their true purpose and status as a fake religion but it does not give you or anyone the right to deny them from expressing their view or philosophy at an invocation.
What you fail to appreciate is that if you openly allow an invocation at a city council meeting, you cannot selectively exclude one group no matter how much you disagree with their purpose or beliefs. Either you exclude such invocations or allow everyone to participate.
And with all due respect, I believe you are a fundamentlist Christian using this argument as a loophole to justify excluding a satanic group. You are too educated and intelligent to know that you would lose credibility by arguing to justify excluding them on religious grounds so you employed this angle.
Would you be okay if a prayer was offered in front of the council which stated that all atheists were wrong, were subject to eternal damnation, and were evil people?
If you find that offensive, do you understand that people would be upset about a religion that was formed to mock their own religion, attack Catholicism, and (in Oklahoma), wanted to use a consecrated Eucharist they stole in a Satanic ceremony in the Civic Center in 2014?
I understand that you may not agree that the Eucharist is considered the literal Body of Christ by about 2/3 of the world's Christians, but it is an act that is as offensive to them as burning the Koran would be to Muslims.
It is a faux-religion formed around hate speech, and hateful actions, and as a mockery of an existing religion. As such, it should not be permitted to participate in civic space, anymore than ISIS, the Westboro Baptist Church, a KKK-affiliated church, or the minister who planned to publicly burn the Koran down south would be, even if you are not a member of those faiths.
The statement in bold basically describes the majority of prayers ever uttered by Christian evangelical preachers. IMO, all religions engage in hate speech and none of it has any place in an official government setting.
I disagree. He is a right wing extremist who will happily push his agenda and vote against civil liberties. Sal was one of the hypocrites who was exposed in this ordeal. He happily voted for a religious invocation until a religious group he didn't agree with volunteered to give invocation. He is nothing but a classic good ole boy Deep South politician from the 1960's on the council.
Plus he's pandering to corrupt the libertarian vote in AZ for his aim to restrict personal freedoms like pro-choice, religion etc. Unfortunately he like other conservatives have been quite successful at that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
