Page 3 of 5 <12345>
Topic Options
#31845 - 11/17/09 06:28 PM Re: Competing Philosophies [Re: Asmedious]
Choronzon333 Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/05/09
Posts: 20
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
The problem is that our society is not quite ready to embrace Satanists coming out and openly stating what they believe.


Zionists are a big control of our world and government. This hinders us from making bigger strides in the career front, at least open about who we are.



I hope that someday we can speak out more, and let them know that yes we are out there.

Top
#31878 - 11/18/09 03:54 AM Re: Competing Philosophies [Re: Asmedious]
nocTifer Offline
pledge


Registered: 11/07/09
Posts: 87
Loc: Khazakstan
hi Asmedious,
Anton LaVey gave a demonstration of a Satanism. he did not, however, define it for all time, and he did not set its limitations for anything other than LaVeyan Satanism, which the Church of Satan is now promulgating and championing in the midst of a flourishing diversity much beyond LaVey's interests and focus. good for them.

you are correct insofar as you are speaking of LaVeyan philosophy: to move beyond it is to leave it behind. that is what i think will have to happen, except for LaVeyan religious cultists, because the intellectual inferiority and serious weakness inherent to the LaVeyan philosophical foundation makes it necessary, in order to achieve much success, that it be transcended.

the idea that there is some limitation to what may be incorporated into or associated with the already-exploded and super-enriched 'Satan' content-label is not supported by you, and quite the contrary is already being demonstrated by numerous post-LaVeyan Satanians who have entered into demonolatry and other areas that LaVeyans would not wish to explore (laughing down their noses in petulant 'elitism'). your insistance that this means this label will then contain an "infinite" content is illogical and unfounded.

it is true that personal development beyond any Satanic philosophical foundation may not retain a Satanic character, but i am talking about specifically Satanian manifestations, especially those which extend far beyond the rudimentary and crude constructs created by LaVey and his associates. one need only examine how his supports (Rand especially) are deconstructed and reduced to quivering waste products under the full scrutiny of rational analysis to see that whatever uses it for its purposes is not much better off.

this is why i referred to Mathews. if you really think that LaVey represents something ideal and defining, then why not address Mathews' criticisms (or those of Aquino) in his defense? taking a vibrant stand is one thing, and admirable, but making it clear that your chosen limitation is worthwhile, and not just rudimentary, seems like a more convincing argument to stop with LaVey. elsewise it just seems a bit like LaVeyan fundamentalism.

for my part, it reminds me of very many religions i have studied where the communty or cult in the wake of an innovator proclaimed him the pinnacle and lone bastion of development. ultimately such a claim is only convincing to his faithful, and holds no ground with anybody else based merely on contention alone. all the same, i appreciate your valiant defense of the Founder. ;\)
_________________________
Troll Towelhead, Grand Mufti of Satanism
http://www.facebook.com/Tr0llT0welhead
http://www.gospel-of-satan.com

Top
#31880 - 11/18/09 06:35 AM Re: Competing Philosophies [Re: nocTifer]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1640
Loc: Orlando, FL
 Quote:
he did not, however, define it for all time,


Labels are labels; LaVey's portrayal of Satanism is certainly not the only contender to the title, but whether or not you want to buy his definition is entirely up for you.

 Quote:
that is what i think will have to happen, except for LaVeyan religious cultists, because the intellectual inferiority and serious weakness inherent to the LaVeyan philosophical foundation makes it necessary, in order to achieve much success, that it be transcended.


LaVey's brand is actually one of the most conceptually organized and intellectual formations of "Satanism" out there; although, granted, there aren't many competitors. While I must admit "The Satanic Bible & Co" are seriously lacking in occult depth, LaVey's primary intention was to promote a mundane, individualist philosophy of rational hedonism, and it seems that for all intents and purposes he hit the mark. LaVey's philosophy is only limiting for people looking for a one-size-fits all doctrine.

It would help, however, if you posited which points specifically you would like to contest about LaVey's philosophy, or contrasted it with other Satanic frameworks that you believe make a better point.

======

re: Choronzon333

 Quote:

Zionists are a big control of our world and government. This hinders us from making bigger strides in the career front, at least open about who we are.


I was about to rationally debate your flawed logic, but then I succumbed to the forum's general air of elitism, and have decided that you are, indeed, a moron.


Edited by The Zebu (11/18/09 06:56 AM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#31889 - 11/18/09 10:50 AM Re: Competing Philosophies [Re: The Zebu]
nocTifer Offline
pledge


Registered: 11/07/09
Posts: 87
Loc: Khazakstan
blvd Zebu,
I agree with you about buying the labels. what seems important to me (because i happen to be studying and trying to flesh out the history of Satanism as it begins in the 1960s) is that we not lose sight of where Satanity CAME from: that it took the putrid subversion ideologies of Christians, mixed these with some fancy pop culture referents from movies and horror, some philosophy from Redbeard and Rand, throw in some fresh Wicca and warmed-over Crowley shards, and voila! ce manifique!! mwah!

regardless of the pitiful condition and status of Satanity as it stands today, if we want what FromGehenna was talking about at the inception of this topic i think we must admit greater things must take place and be constructed. it wasn't to "occult depth" that i or that post were pointing, but to serious philosophical weakness. I am certainly not looking for a one-size-fits-all doctrine. my point primarily consisted of indicating what is being done to Rand in general public venues. she's TRASHED AS A WHACKO AND EXTREMIST BAD THINKER. associating with that isn't going to win Satanists any social status prizes.

your request for particular examples is of course quite reasonable. I will endeavour to come up with some for you. at present i am spending my spare time attempting to cover Satanian history and sociology to an extent few have done before me (alluded to in other posts). I suggest that you look to the sources that i previously mentioned (Aquino, free!; Mathews), and to one of the600club members who was badly snarled over in 2008 and apparently hasn't been back (Amina Olander Lap, whose analysis on LaVey's text for academic papers has been quite excellent). until then i will see what i can do. my study of philosophy makes it plain to me, but i agree with you that i should not expect you to take my word for it. at least i should be able to come up with regurgitated Aquino for you (or convince him to post here about it!!) as i haven't obtained the Mathews text yet (see the Lewis refutation!).

kind regards,
_________________________
Troll Towelhead, Grand Mufti of Satanism
http://www.facebook.com/Tr0llT0welhead
http://www.gospel-of-satan.com

Top
#31913 - 11/18/09 05:35 PM Re: Competing Philosophies [Re: nocTifer]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1640
Loc: Orlando, FL
 Quote:
regardless of the pitiful condition and status of Satanity as it stands today...


And when was this "golden age" of Satanism? The renaissance when it was embellished by the lurid imaginations of Inquisitors, the 18th-19th centuries when it was flaunted by esoterically-uninformed and reverse-Christian hedonists, or the 20th century when it was predominantly overshadowed by SRA allegations and LaVey's theatrics, which you seem so intent on marginalizing?

Furthermore, it would be of great clarification if you defined what distinction, if any, you make between "Satanity" and Satanism.
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#31924 - 11/18/09 08:34 PM Re: Competing Philosophies [Re: The Zebu]
nocTifer Offline
pledge


Registered: 11/07/09
Posts: 87
Loc: Khazakstan
hi Zebu,
I'm aware of no Satanic Golden Age, but merely imagined a positive future. to my knowledge, Satanity began in 1966, though i am researching possible precursors. LaVey's efforts (in association with his co-founders) were much more than mere theatrics, and i am not intending to marginalize anyone, quite the contrary -- my observation is that LaVey's apparent successors are attempting to marginalize a large segment of Satanity, and by this action stigmatizing themselves as authoritarian dogmatists. my aim, as usual, is improvement, and a clear assessment of what seems possible given those who seem to be involved.

Satanity is the greater envelope within which numerous Satanisms will be found, including LaVeyan, Jantsangian, possibly Aquinoan, Debooan, and nocTiferian. an 'ism', by this taxonomy, is a singular ideological set, whereas the whole of a religious complex reflecting some positive semblance of its central figure (Christ, Satan, Crowley, etc.) is suffixed as an 'anity'.

Blessed Beast!
_________________________
Troll Towelhead, Grand Mufti of Satanism
http://www.facebook.com/Tr0llT0welhead
http://www.gospel-of-satan.com

Top
#31931 - 11/18/09 08:59 PM Re: Competing Philosophies [Re: nocTifer]
Nemesis Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/01/07
Posts: 2175
Loc: US
What about Islam? The cluster of variations Koranic interpretations centered around Allah doesn't end in "-ity", does it? Nor does Wicca, with all of its myriad and fluffy "branches". Hmmmmm.....

I just really can't take any of your posts seriously when you use the word "Satanity". I think others are having a difficult time of it as well. No one asked you to recategorize the various LHP beliefs into one "blanket corporation", now did they?

Or did you just like the word because it rhymed with "insanity"?
_________________________
Nothing is sacred.

Top
#31933 - 11/18/09 09:23 PM Re: Competing Philosophies [Re: Nemesis]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
Most of it is masturbation. It's the typical megalomania you see in wannabes. "I'll reinvent the wheel and people will think I am cool or intelligent or whatever." The problem is that it not only accomplishes the opposite in the eyes of those they seek to impress, but shows their weaknesses as glaringly as those they contend are displayed in others.

Knock off all of the word invention, the posturing and the silly semantics and get on with it. What the hell have you done to do anything in Satanism that would even give you the right to list your "name" in the same paragraph as LaVey or Aquino? Making a website and putting in links to the works of others hardly qualifies as much of anything, any more than the hundreds of others out there. The silly blood pacts and self promotion is juvenile at best.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#31934 - 11/18/09 09:41 PM Re: Competing Philosophies [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
nocTifer Offline
pledge


Registered: 11/07/09
Posts: 87
Loc: Khazakstan
hi MawhrinSkel,
agreed that it is easy to prove that Satanist philosophy as it stands is a concoction of other philosophies. nobody is stating that anything is "invalid", to my knowledge, only weak and not the trumpeted badge of the successful. the original post in the topic evaluated the heights of 'success' of Satanity as touted in the Satanic Bible, and how this is demonstrably false. nobody rose to that challenge, though i can imagine how one might do so. this was FromGehenna's point, alongside which i echoed that it is pitiful, comparably. I also said i thought that his was too harsh a comparison (of competing philosophies) given the infancy in which we find Satanity at this time. dressing a baby up like Superman and expecting him to bend steel in his bare hands is rather pitiful.

I am not of the superstitious type, no, and i do not in fact use that term as i find it rather biased. I am likewise persuaded of the fictional quality of Jesus characters, as i have recently made very plain.

it is interesting that you regard Rand's philosophy (Objectivism) as viable (extremism). I wasn't suggesting that its unpopularity per se was the deciding factor, but that it appears known that there are serious problems with her logic and conclusions, that these have been deconstructed in public and therefore could be brought to bear on LaVeyan philosophy quite easily if LaVeyans ever get an interest in doing it. I logically concluded that the fact that LaVey's philosophy integrates portions of it or rests atop Objectivism is a major weakness when considering the viability of philosophies in general, and those wielded by success stories in particular (name some very successful Objectivists as a counter-argument, if you like; i'm not familiar with Objectivism sufficiently so as to argue against it -- it's too far off my interest to consider seriously; i mentioned this above and gave referrals).
_________________________
Troll Towelhead, Grand Mufti of Satanism
http://www.facebook.com/Tr0llT0welhead
http://www.gospel-of-satan.com

Top
#31936 - 11/18/09 10:58 PM Re: Competing Philosophies [Re: nocTifer]
CJB Offline
member


Registered: 10/12/09
Posts: 125
Loc: Virginia Beach, VA
So you don't know enough about Objectivism to argue against it, and yet you argue against it? Throughout the last couple of posts, I've pretty much ignored you, even though I was tempted to ask you what your problem with Objectivism is. No, it's not perfect, yes it does have a couple of (comparitively minor) fallacies, but to completely dismiss it without even giving reason why?

Just saying "it's extremist!" is the stupidest argument ever. Extreme is an adjective, and yes, Objectivism is extreme. That doesn't make it inviable. Skydiving is pretty freaking extreme, too, is skydiving bad? Something can be extremely fun or extremely nice. Something can also be extremely stupid or extremely ignorant. The "extreme" part isn't bad, it's what about something is extreme that determines whether it's a good or bad thing.

I challenge you to tell us why you think Objectivism is such a weakness. That may require you to do some homework, but after just a few hours of reading about it on the internet should give you a pretty decent idea on what it's major flaws are, since you've already decided it has them. Go ahead, I'll wait. It is a pretty simple philosophy, especially if you just want to understand the basics.

Find anything wrong with the metaphysics? The epistemology? The ethics? The standard Rand approved aesthetics aren't really my cup of tea, maybe that's the whole reason it's a failing philosophy! The politics are quite a bit extreme, it's true! And depending on how you think about it, the ideal political structure is almost too idealistic; utopian, even! Go ahead, read up on it, think about it, take your time. Nobody here will mind if you think it through, I can almost promise.

I'm sure you'll find something. I consider myself mostly an Objectivist, and I can find things in it that I don't like.

Not that I'm actually expecting you to do any of that. Actually expecting a bit of an evasion, to be honest. And, if that's the case, than this will be the last time I waste time on you.


Edited by CJB (11/18/09 11:05 PM)
Edit Reason: Added more crap
_________________________
~~CJ
"To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"
-Ayn Rand

Top
#31937 - 11/18/09 11:39 PM Re: Competing Philosophies [Re: CJB]
nocTifer Offline
pledge


Registered: 11/07/09
Posts: 87
Loc: Khazakstan
HS CJB!
no, i wasn't arguing against Objectivism, and didn't call it extreme (MawhrinSkel did, as i understood him, and you seemed to agree). more than one of you have characterized Objectivism as needing improvement ("not perfect", "Rand has her flaws"). others have projected my conclusions (untrue) about it therefore being "invalid" or "bad". I agree that "it's what about something is extreme that determines whether it's a good or bad thing." and would go further to say that that good or bad thing may not be an absolute, but may apply from individual to individual who applies it (when it comes to philosophies).
 Quote:
...it's major flaws are, since you've already decided it has them. Go ahead, I'll wait....
no thank you. perhaps you will wish to start another topic on Rand and overlap with LaVeyan philosophy. if so, i will try to learn something from it. I provided pointers* as i replied to the original post in this thread and even gave what i thought were some good suggestions for countering that very strong argument on FromGehenna's part. I've said i think it is unfair to compare the competing philosophies due to their age (that pretty much stops the comparison in its tracks), and i've suggested that a few examples of successful Objectivists would demonstrate the counter-point.
 Quote:
I consider myself mostly an Objectivist, and I can find things in it that I don't like.
then thank you kindly for adding to this thread. might you explain what you, as a Satanist, dislike and whether this features as a facet of LaVeyan philosophy? how integral would you say that Objectivism is to LaVeyan Satanism? the comparison might be interesting, if you find them to be quite different at points.

kind regards,

*note -- pointers to 1) Aquino, i think he deconstructed LaVey and Rand in his "Church of Satan" or another text, but it is possible he merely deconstructed LaVey to helpfully reveal Rand's basis; 2) Mathews, but i won't be able to report on his analysis in his "Modern Satanism" until after i obtain his text used or when it comes up on my reading list, and that may be months (he apparently spent some time refuting and disposing of Rand first before LaVey! see his website if you have interest); 3) Lap, and i have just finished her paper analyzing LaVey's writing, but it is a sociology of religion analysis and does not mention philosophical strength or anything pertinent to this topic.



Edited by nocTifer (11/19/09 12:08 AM)
Edit Reason: added links to noted referrals
_________________________
Troll Towelhead, Grand Mufti of Satanism
http://www.facebook.com/Tr0llT0welhead
http://www.gospel-of-satan.com

Top
#31939 - 11/19/09 12:32 AM Re: Competing Philosophies [Re: nocTifer]
FriendlyS Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/05/09
Posts: 39
Loc: Toronto, Canada
Alright, I'd been leaving this alone because I didn't really have much to add but I'm starting to get annoyed with what you're saying about LaVey and Rand and what you're not saying about their philosophies. As your last post was a little long but really didn't say anything at all, I'm going to be responding to your last few posts.

First of all, one thing that's really been bothering me is your use of "Satanity." As far as your logic behind it, I think its been responded to well by Nemesis. Aside from that though, having made absolutely no contribution to Satanism (I know you think you have, but really you haven't, or at least haven't shown any) aside from reading some Satanic works and planning on reading a few more, you have no place in creating a new word in an attempt to generalize the LHP and show your "genius."

As far as your apparent dislike for LaVey, it seems to stem more from a dislike of Rand, which, although LaVey took ideas from, he did not base all of his philosophy on hers. Had he, he would have just been another Objectivist, rather than a Satanist. Now, since you admittedly have little to no knowledge of Objectivism, I take it that your hatred for her philosophy comes from a public view, or rather from the fact that the public doesn't take her seriously, or even really acknowledge her philosophy. In my opinion, that is both the loss of the public and you, but that's not my point. And since you have not really offered any points on why you don't like LaVey's philosophy, I must also conclude that you haven't really thought this through and have been quick to dismiss him and Rand based solely on your objections of Rand's philosophy (which you also don't seem to have any of, so really, one has to ask, "What exactly are you objecting against?"). This is also ignorant on a whole other level as LaVey took from several philosophies and his own ideas to make Satanism what it is, which seems to be exactly what you're trying to do so should we dismiss all of your ideas when there is only one we don't agree with? Although I must admit that this is hard since you haven't offered anything new.

Also, I believe it to be the "bad" form of extreme when one calls another extreme without knowing anything about them.

 Originally Posted By: nocTifer
she's TRASHED AS A WHACKO AND EXTREMIST BAD THINKER


So please, do some research before posting and come up with some arguments rather than new ways of working around peoples questions without any sort of information.

Top
#31960 - 11/19/09 12:18 PM There's a life after Objectivism [Re: FriendlyS]
ballbreaker Offline
member


Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 134
Loc: Toronto, Canada
I think the point that is being made here is that there is life after Objectivism...or rather that there's a Satanism after Objectivism.

I'm ignorant of exactly how much writing LaVey did during his life; I've only read the bible, notebooks, and rituals. From these I can see that the Rand that we see in LaVey's writings is mostly of a superficial variety. I'm not suggesting LaVey didn't understand Rand, rather that the ideas he drew from her were of the 'peripheral' sort; i.e. they aren't closely tied to the core of Objectivist philosophy. I'm not an authority in the least bit on LaVey, so maybe someone with some more knowledge could step in here.

So while it looks like LaVey is aping Rand at certain moments, I don't think it is anything more than a similarity of style and prose; nowhere in LaVey do I see the puritanical influences of Rand's natural rights/law leanings, or any of the more central tenets of objectivism. Rand isn't espousing anything like 'might is right'; even her fierce support for, say, Israel against the Palestinians is a little more nuanced than simply showering the guy w/the bigger guns w/praise.

I can definitely see how so many Satanists might move on to adopt Objectivism as their political philosophy because of these superficial overlaps...of course Satanists and Objectivists share, broadly, 'rational egoism', but both philosophies approach this in a different way.

In the same vein, it's rather odd (in my opinion) to include Nietzsche and Rand as part of the same reading list for prospective Satanists...Nietzsche would be rolling in his grave.


Edited by ballbreaker (11/19/09 12:20 PM)

Top
#31962 - 11/19/09 12:41 PM Re: There's a life after Objectivism [Re: ballbreaker]
Asmedious Moderator Offline
Moderator
senior member


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 1724
Loc: New York
This thread has gotten me somewhat curious about “Objectivsim,” as per Ayn Rand’s philosophy, and how it is viewed by Satanists.

I’ve read her Novels, and found them thought provoking. As a matter of fact, one of my all time favorite books is “Anthem.”
Although I did read “The Virture of Selfishness,” it was a very long time ago and don’t recall much of it.

I find a considerable amount of similarities between her ideas in her novels and that of the book “1984" by Orwell.

I feel that many of the ideas in the afore mentioned books are especially pertinent in today’s “information,” “New world order,” and “One world,” political climate.

For me being “Objective” appears to be a highly positive Satanic ideal, as opposed to a “Subjective” view of the world. Since Objective and Subjective, and the question regarding the possibility of one being able to be truly Objective while viewing the world through a Subjective view (Everything happens in ones mind which is subjective) has already been covered, I don’t think that we need to get into that.

I’ve only took a brief look at the Ayn Rand Objective website’s dedicated to her philosophy, so I was wondering if some of you would forgive my laziness (bad unsatanic attitude) of not wanting to do a lot of research on my own at this time, so would you be willing to shed some light on the subject for me, by giving a brief overview of what her philosophy is all about as you understand it, and the Negatives vs. the positives in it.

Thanks.
_________________________
"The first order of government is the protection of its citizens right to be left alone."

Top
#31969 - 11/19/09 04:12 PM Re: There's a life after Objectivism [Re: Asmedious]
CJB Offline
member


Registered: 10/12/09
Posts: 125
Loc: Virginia Beach, VA
The biggest negative on Objectivism would have to be the Objectivist cultists. They're as hide bound and unquestioning as the worst fundamentalist Christian if you question Objectivist doctrine. I would probably not be accepted in most of those circles (nor would I really want to be) even though we believe 90+% of the same philosophy. Example: Ayn Rand didn't like homosexuals. Thought they were disgusting. Most fundy Objectivists (that I've known, anyway) take that as fact and don't question why it's such a terrible thing.

For the good parts: the core tenets of it make rational sense. Very few things in it are not based on sound rational logic. And it's rather fulfilling.

For me, personally, Objectivism complements Satanism (...or vice versa, really). I'm sure there are other philosophies that do as well, since Satanism is very ethics strong and has a bit on aesthetics, but not so much on metaphysics or epistemology. Put short: Satanism, as it is written down, is an incomplete philosophical system.
A lot of the ethics in Objectivism are complementary to Satanism, as well. Satanism does advocate "might makes right," while Objectivism is more into protecting those less mighty from abuse by the mighty.

I'm not as well-versed in other philosophical systems (as of yet...I usually stop studying one after I find some core tenet I strongly disagree with), so other philosophical systems may round out Satanism as well or better than Objectivism.

Gonna quote a little intro to Objectivism from the ARI website.

 Quote:

At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did as follows:

1. Metaphysics Objective Reality
2. Epistemology Reason
3. Ethics Self-interest
4. Politics Capitalism

If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” or “Wishing won’t make it so.” 2. “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.” 3. “Man is an end in himself.” 4. “Give me liberty or give me death.”

If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency—to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them—requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot—nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics.

My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.


There's a lot more that goes into it, obviously, but that's the basics. I could go more into it here, but this thread's been rather nicely derailed enough...
_________________________
~~CJ
"To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"
-Ayn Rand

Top
Page 3 of 5 <12345>


Moderator:  SkaffenAmtiskaw, fakepropht, TV is God, Woland, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.031 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.