Satanic Temple to deliver invocation at Scottsdale City Council meeting (Phoenix: public school, landlord)

[PoppySead]

If our government needs blessings from some sort of God or Goddess before they have a meeting that signals more trouble to me then the prayer itself......I mean, am I suppose to take blessed decisions more seriously than non blessed decisions? How old are we? Can Santa be begged for presents first as well? "May Santa Claus bring us a new building this Christmas" lol

[Bondurant]

Originally Posted by azriverfan.

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.

But Nowakowski gets a pass on this issue because he's in your preferred polifical party? People seem to forget Sal wasn't alone on this.

[Valley Native]

Oh Lord ... this nonsense again! While the idea of Satanism does bother me a little, I really don't see the need in having any kind of prayer or religious invocation in any sort of business, including, and especially government business. Freedom of religion is a Constitutional right, but our founding fathers (specifically Thomas Jefferson) also believed in the separation of church & state. As I said before: keep City Council meetings reserved for city government business only. Praying is not part of government business.

[azriverfan.]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

Oh Lord ... this nonsense again! While the idea of Satanism does bother me a little, I really don't see the need in having any kind of prayer or religious invocation in any sort of business, including, and especially government business. Freedom of religion is a Constitutional right, but our founding fathers (specifically Thomas Jefferson) also believed in the separation of church & state. As I said before: keep City Council meetings reserved for city government business only. Praying is not part of government business.

That was the point of the satanists. It was to expose the ludicracy of having an invocation to begin with because the evangelicals on the council insisted on one. I'm completely satisfied with the manner in which this turned out.

For our state to progress, the voters really need to vote these extreme right wing members out of government. I have no problem with any Republican or Democrat serving but I think the extreme right has been causing problems for this state. We nearly lost a Superbowl because they wanted to enact legislation that would have allowed businesses to discriminate against gays and lesbians. Thankfully, then-governor Jan Brewer vetoed this measure. We lost conventions and tourist dollars following the passage of proposition 1070, which would have enabled law enforcement to racially profile anyone they deemed was in the country illegally. If more people voted and took part in the political process here, we would have much more sensible and moderate legislation.

[azriverfan.]

Originally Posted by Bondurant

But Nowakowski gets a pass on this issue because he's in your preferred polifical party? People seem to forget Sal wasn't alone on this.

You are right. He doesn't get a pass either. I have no preferred political party. I'm like most residents here. I'm moderate. I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Lately, I've found myself siding with Democrats but I mostly voted Republican in the past. Unfortunately, the right wing of the Republican party has hijacked it. It is not the Republican party that I once recognized.

[Arizona Mike]

Originally Posted by phxone

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'm not an Evangelical, but no. That is utter nonsense.

[raindance maggie]

Originally Posted by BIG CATS

I guess Hell, damnation, and desolation reminds you a bit of Detroit? Is that why youre happy? lol Happy to have a taste of home here in Scottsdale?

And if Im not mistaken, wasn't it you the other day who wants firearms banned? But yet you're here proclaiming "freedom wins"? Do you not see the hypocrisy?!

On topic, I think its fair that the Satanists get to do their bizarre invocation. Do I agree with it? Well, long story short, no.

Lol, let me guess----
You're a recent convert to religion-christianity, am I right?
I'm on to ya buddy because I've come across many like you that claim to have recently found the lord and then condemn other people that express different points of view.
You have every right to believe what you want but so do other people, including atheists and agnostics. I confess to being a very outspoken agnostic and I'm sick of the religious kooks pushing their beliefs on the rest of us. It has gone on for too long, now it's time for some of us to rise up and take a stand.
This satanist prayer crap is just that----a bunch of crap but I'm glad it's being publicized to bring out the hypocrisy of christians that have had their way for too long. Religion and prayer shouldn't be taking up time in government affairs. If people want to pray they should do so on their own time.

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by KurtAZ

Are we really having this discussion AGAIN?

Of course. Let's face it, a Christian prayer at the beginning of every session of Congress is what has led our Congress to be perfectly effective in serving the needs of all Americans 100%. Similar prayers have assured that state governments and local governments all act brilliantly and in the best interests of all the constituents. Those prayers have totally eliminated greed and corruption in politics. Those prayers have kept our elected officials from committing any sins and becoming embroiled in any scandals while in office. Prayer works in government meetings; it makes everything come out perfect.

Oh wait...I seem to have been having some type of seizure.

[Arizona Mike]

Originally Posted by azriverfan.

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"...

Gotta cut you off right there. As far as I know, Evangelical Christians in 'Murica in the majority do not behead disbelievers or blow up schools that teach evolution. I am pretty sure that any number of secular, non-religious organizations also "believe it is their fundamental right to impose their beliefs on the greater society" in the name of the environment, of redistribution of wealth, of inclusivity, or identity politics, or what have you. I may agree with some and may disagree with some, but why do you feel those who try to advance their policy objectives in the names of their religious beliefs are any different than those who do so for any secular reason?

Aside from the few people who try to blow up abortion clinics, who can be regarded as outliers like the few atheists who walk into places like the Family Research Council and start shooting, most members of the "Religious Right" do so through the same means everyone else does - they practice their constitutional rights to vote, to contribute money to candidates they support, they write blogs, and so forth.

MoveOn.org, ACT-UP, the Occupy Wall Street Movement, GLAAD, and the ACLU all "believe it is their fundamental right to impose their beliefs on the greater society." Why should they be allowed to play a role in politics when the dreaded death squads of "the Evangelicals" and "The Christian Right" should not?

There is also no shortage of people who regularly attempt to impose their beliefs on the greater society based on religion that might be considered "progressive." The leader of the largest sect of Christians in the world is traveling to Mexico and is expected to preach about the rights of the poor and disenfranchised and migrants. You can find quite a few people in the environmental movement who hold the environment as holy because they are Buddhists or Christians or Gaeans. The anti-war movement and the anti-nuclear movement is and was full of Quakers, Jesuits, and Unitarians. The movement to end the sexual trafficking of children is spearheaded by, again, Catholics and Evangelicals. The vast majority of charities that feed, clothe, and house the poor are Christian and Jewish organizations. The civil rights movement in America was largely run by "Evangelicals" - black ones. The primary activists that ended slavery in the United States and England were Christian ones - while Richard Dawkins' family was making its fortune in slave-trading black Africans, religious leaders like William Wilberforce and the Abbe Guillame were fighting to end the practice. In Germany, what little resistance there was against Hitler among the German people came from two groups - Catholics, like Bishop Galen and Josef Muller, or Evangelicals, like Pastor Martin Niemöller and Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer (who died in the death camps for his opposition).

Do you think that voices like those should be denied a role in the American marketplace of ideas because their political beliefs and actions derive from their religious ones?

No? Why, then? Because you only want to silence the voices that disagree with you?

[Potential_Landlord]

Originally Posted by azriverfan.

That was the point of the satanists. It was to expose the ludicracy of having an invocation to begin with because the evangelicals on the council insisted on one. I'm completely satisfied with the manner in which this turned out.

For our state to progress, the voters really need to vote these extreme right wing members out of government. I have no problem with any Republican or Democrat serving but I think the extreme right has been causing problems for this state. We nearly lost a Superbowl because they wanted to enact legislation that would have allowed businesses to discriminate against gays and lesbians. Thankfully, then-governor Jan Brewer vetoed this measure. We lost conventions and tourist dollars following the passage of proposition 1070, which would have enabled law enforcement to racially profile anyone they deemed was in the country illegally. If more people voted and took part in the political process here, we would have much more sensible and moderate legislation.

Yes. It turns out the the extremist voting block in Arizona has grown unfortunately and they show up 100% at the election. This gives them a disproportional influence on the state government and legislature. They vote for Sheriff Joe, for example, and that's enough to push him through every time. He has I think 85%+ vote from Sun City, for example. Similar situation in Prescott. The rest of the populace is much more moderate but does not vote nearly as much. That's why we're more or less controlled by the radical right wing in AZ. This problem is compounded in the Republican primaries.