Bill Whittle finds a trend among Leftists who identify with Satan — portrayed in a statue of Baphomet on his throne — as the icon of their views on diversity, equality, science, peaceful protest, and non-binary gender. They even go out and do good deeds in the name of Satan. Is this an aberration, a mental disease, pure evil, or the natural progression of Progressivism?
Bill Whittle, Scott Ott, and Stephen Green, host 20 news episodes of Right Angle each month, thanks to our Members. Join us today.
Listen to the Audio Version
Bill Whittle Network · Devil with a Blue Dress: Progressives Embrace Satan as Icon for Leftist Ideals
54 replies on “Devil with a Blue Dress: Progressives Embrace Satan as Icon for Leftist Ideals”
It is enough o make me nauseous.
While I don’t think most ‘progressives’ don’t think they are embracing Satan I do think they are embracing the devil with the blue dress.
As stated earlier 99.5% of satanists are just atheists. The actual belief in a deity named satan or lucifer is not very common.People that are atheists,but refer to themselves as “satanists” do it because it gets them attention and pisses-off any one with faith.That’s why they use pentagrams and baphomet as their adopted symbols. Our definitions of atheism are different from one anothers.My definition is the lack of belief in ANY gods,not just the christian god. There is no evidence for god any where in my opinion.Any one can practice their beliefs however they want, just leave me alone. Faith is not enough, it is meaning less.
If you look at the platform of the Democratic Party, you’ll find that they’ve essentially taken a list of everything that God hates and made it their mantra. So I find it as no surprise that they’re looking to Baphomet or Ba’al – particularly since the vast majority of human sacrifices made to the latter god were babies. They would heat up the arms of the metal statue and lay the baby across those arms. As the baby was dying from being burned to death, they would hold orgies. I don’t need a special pencil to draw the correlation.
We’re not fighting politics, we’re fighting powers and principalities.
The point that I’m trying to make is that as long as we live in a free country,people have the freedom to believe what ever they want. Idon’t have a problem with public displays of faith, or the pledge of allegiance, or “in god we trust” on our money. I’m not advocating for any thing other than to be treated equally. “The church of satan” is not a group of satanists who want equal rights, we’re atheists that just want the world to know that we exist and that we’re normal,moral individuals. YOU DON’T NEED RELIGION TO HAVE MORALS. IF YOU DON’T KNOW RIGHT FROM WRONG, YOU LACK EMPATHY, NOT RELIGION. p.s., this was a strange story for bill to choose.
I don’t consider Satanists and Atheists the same thing. One bows down to Satan, the other doesn’t believe in either Satan or God. I’m not sure why you’re equating the two?
Because both of those groups are considered anti-christian and not deserving of any kind of acknowledgment or acceptance.I was born and raised catholic and hated every minute of it. When I was about 16 my parents gave up trying to make me go to mass on sundays.After 9 years of catholic school they relented and let me go to high school at the public school 1/2 a block from our house. My 3 sisters all put in the full 12 years of private school. As we went off on our own and had families, the subject was never discussed at family get-togethers.In 2010, after our mom died,we all had to go to the funeral home to make the usual arangements.We were all crammed into this little office and the subject of religion came up.When the funeral director asked if it was alright to have a local nun come into the office to pray with us, I politely declined and went out side to get some air. I was shocked when my 2 younger sisters followed me out. They then both told me that they were atheists now. I never knew. They both said that they were ‘closet” atheists because of the grief they would have gotten from friends and other family members. Well now the cat was out of the bag. And yes, they were criticized and politely talked about behind their backs by members of my own family, who are all believers. Most christians just can’t accept the fact that there are people like us who choose to believe in “nothing” and feel it is their christian duty to “convert” us.I’m happy with my set of beliefs and my views on life. I’m a regular person with a wife and 2 kids and 4 grandkids. I’m retired on permanent disability and just want the same respect as every one else. To each their own. You can continue to “believe” in your god, but not believing like you doesn’t make us any lesser of a person.
I, too, am a former Catholic. I just chose a different path. No true Christian would ever deem anyone as being a lesser person as we are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God. It’s just a matter of ‘saved’ vs. ‘unsaved’ and I would challenge any Christian claiming differently.
Correction, I meant to say THE SATANIC TEMPLE, not the church of satan. They’re 2 different organizations with different tenets. Sorry about the mix-up.
Point taken. If I seem bitter, it’s because I have been living as a “free agent” for almost 40 years. My family situation is unique I think because I’m an atheist surrounded by “believers” and Idon’t really have an outlet to occasionally “vent”. We bump heads occasionally, but we make it work, that’s what families do.I just started this internet thing a few weeks ago, and I guess some times Idon’t know how to make a point with out sounding arrogant or condescending. I’ve been told that most atheists are liberal,and I think they may be right. I am on an atheist forum also and made the mistake of saying that I’m a conserative republican, and you wouldn’t the anger and hatred that I got.I’ll never make that mistake again.Live and let live. TRUMP2020.
Having been around here for a while I can say most of us and at most times the attacks will be of poorly chosen words and we’re probably more libertarian (ideals, not Party) than Republican (party, not republican form).
I tend not to label people as Satanists unless they actually take that name or make pledges to Satan, which is why I find the topic Bill had rather odd. Often people that are make a point of it, and what he described doesn’t sound like more than run of the mill leftism with all its feel good quasi neo new age no absolute truth garbage.
There is also a substantial difference between the “there isn’t a god” people that you sound like, more or less willing to go along as long as you’re left alone. If we don’t make a big deal out of the “under God” in the pledge and leave you to Santa at Christmas while we put up creches, things are usually ok. The other kind (that sometimes shades into the anti-theist groups ACTS brought up) screams about freedom from religion whenever something might have a cross or star of David, someone says God bless you after a sneeze (or Holy Covid, burn the witch these days :-p ) or go on holy crusades to make sure not one dollar of public money is used by anyone that might fold their hands.
The leftist (not liberal) athiests I think just follow the standard leftist convention of being overly educated, indoctrinated in “right thinking” and just overly, what we could call self idolizing, People That Have Reasoned It All Out. They bow to no power but their own and cannot comprehend a loving God, much less one of any other kind, that should be above them. Really another example that you cannot put all people of one type into a box, and also that the most obnoxious people of a type tend to give the rest a bad name by being obnoxious in everyone else’s face.
The reason that I responded to bill’s story is because other people responded exactly the way I thought they would. It caused believers to get up and preach their beliefs and to “damn” any one else who thinks differently. I don’t consider my self to be a “satanist”, but I’d still be considered a heathen by most “believers”, including members of my own family. I don’t believe in anything, death is just the end of life. I don’t fear death,I embrace it, because it means no more pain. I’m no better than any one else,we all die alone.
No one is damning you Bob. In fact, that’s not even a thing because no one has the capacity to do that. If you feel that’s what others, including me, have been saying then I’m sorry but you’re mistaken.
Just because someone brings up their Faith does not constitute any sort of condemnation of you personally. Nor anyone else personally. If you demand the right to “think differently” then you must also grant that right to others, even people of Faith.
I see you have no problem expressing your views of Faith to others. You are a free agent in this regard, you make your own choices and while I do not agree with them, I respect them and ask the same respect in return.
If that’s the way an expression of Faith makes you feel maybe you should think about that for a little bit. I could be wrong, text isn’t the sort of conversation the human mind is best at but … You seem a bit bitter and there’s no call for that.
No one can damn you but you. As far as those of Faith are concerned I can speak for all of us in saying that the very last thing anyone of us wants for you is damnation of any sort be it corporeal, temporal, supernatural or mundane. While you may take that as you will and accept it in the spirit intended or not, no matter what it demonstrates and expresses our good will towards you. Reciprocity of that good will is not a requirement on your part but would be appreciated even so.
I can say that there are some that will attack those without faith quite harshly and Bob may have encountered such on other sites. Especially if someone doesn’t appear questioning and open to faith and instead is quite firmly in a non-faith camp, the attacks can be quite harsh for people who shouldn’t be able to see past the obstruction in their own eye.
Yes, I’ve seen that too and it’s usually but not always in response not to an atheistic view but because of anti-theism … Which is a horse of a different color. People don’t like having their faith attacked and doing so is every bit as scurrilous as the flip side of that coin.
Anti-theism is actually a religious position. It’s not “no religion” it’s four-square against main stream classical religion but it is a religious belief nonetheless. That an anti-theist argues otherwise is inconsequential. His god is essentially the no-god and he is taking a stance on religious matters by making religious arguments. If it walks like a duck …
It wouldn’t surprise me at all if Bob has been the victim of harsh words over his position on faith and a lot of that would proceed from the merits of how he presented his position. If he stated it like he did above, no one has any business attacking him for it. Nor has anyone here damned him for it that I can see. If he attacked others for their faith then he deserved to get as good as he gave … But I don’t really see him doing that here — except as you pointed out elsewhere that he hinted at the favorite tactic of blaming Christianity for the ills committed in its name. As you also pointed out, that’s ridiculous, too. Here’s why —
If people are going to point out the abuses done in the name of God then they need to also take into consideration that no faith ever practiced by mankind has done as much to help those in need or improve the general human condition On this very day as I write this there is no group of people on the entire planet dedicating anywhere near the time, money and effort to improving the lot of our fellow man than Christians and not by a slim margin but by a huge one. There’s a lot more good done in the name of Christianity than the ills perpetrated in the name of the faith by orders of magnitude AND on a mostly volunteer basis by the practitioners of Christianity. That’s just a simple fact.
Christians have no cause to be ashamed of The Faith because some have done evil while claiming to be Christians. This brings to those who actually do evil while claiming to be Christians.
Dennis Prager once said that “Taking the Lord’s name in vain” is about doing evil in the name of God (and btw, His name is not “God” or “Lord” those are titles), meaning to do evil and attribute said evil deeds to God or using God as the excuse to do evil — more than it is about the desecration of His Name. I think that I could count on one hand the number of times I’ve actually heard someone attempt to speak God’s Real Name in desecration over my entire life, There’s a good reason for this as the actual pronunciation of the Name of God has been lost since the Babylonian exile. So I tend to agree with Mr. Prager’s reasoning on this because otherwise the Commandment proscribing taking God’s Name in vain is largely meaningless. You cannot curse a name whose very pronunciation you cannot utter except, maybe, by the sheerest of accident.
But you can do evil in the Name of God and use Him as an excuse. If you do that, you’re not a Christian. There’s an argument about that called the “No True Scotsman” fallacy …
Thus with that understanding regarding what actually constitutes taking God’s Name in vain some will try to apply the “No true Scotsman” logical fallacy to Christianity. That’s also ridiculous. The fallacy states that “All True Scotsmen eat haggis so anyone claiming to be a Scotsman but won’t eat haggis is ‘”No true Scotsman'”. The application regarding Christianity is that no true Christian would commit evil in the name of Christianity and if he does so is no Christian. This, unlike the preposterous notion about the dietary habits of Scotsmen, is true. To be a Christian is to follow the teachings of Christ. To, as I clearly described above, take the Name of God in vain by perpetrating evil using God as your excuse — Is clearly against the teachings of Christ.
Surely a True Scotsman’s comestible foibles do not disqualify the fact of his Scotsman-ship by birth. He is still a Scot whether he eats haggis or not. This is obvious. The fact that he was born a Scotsman is a condition outside of his control, no choices made by him are involved in the matter at all. He does not DEMONSTRATE his Scottish ethnicity by the eating of a particular food or not because he cannot forsake the fact of his birth whether he wants to or not. The concept is purely circular.
The fact that someone might perpetrate evil yet claim to be a Christian is another matter entirely because in that case, choices ARE involved. In fact it is all about choices. The choice is either to BE a Christian, which by the very name means an obedient follower of Christ, or not. If you do not follow Christ you are not a Christian no matter what label you find convenient. If you claim to follow Christ but intentionally do evil in His Name, you are taking His Name in vain. You are not following the tenets of Christianity and ipso facto are not a Christian. If you do evil in the name of Christianity your profession of Faith is empty and the text of the Bible states that very clearly.
Though you might be a member of a Christian organization, that membership does not make you a Christian, it makes you nothing more than a club member. To be clear about this, you can be a Roman Catholic, a Lutheran, a Methodist, Presbyterian or a Southern Baptist and not be a Christian. I have known many such people in my life, one of them lives next door to me and he’s a fine man and a good person but he’s not a Christian in spite of his regular church attendance. (His wife makes him go …) He has no profession of Faith, no acceptance of Grace and that doesn’t make him a bad person but it certainly does make him not a Christian. I do not judge him for this as that is not my place, in fact I like him a lot. But he is no Christian because he does not practice the essential tenets of Christianity and having known him for several years I am convinced he does not want to. That’s on him, there’s nothing I can or should do about it.
You can also be a Christian and not belong to those or any other denomination, this too is possible. As is also possible to be any of those denominations and be a Christian. The Church is universal in its appeal and application but it is not a building or a synod or a social unit or a label. There are people in those buildings or synods or social groups or use the label that are Christians and there are likewise people in all those cases that are not.
This “No True Scotsman” fallacy is simply a false comparison used to attack the faith of others. Attacking someone’s faith is unjust because they’re entitled to it whether someone else agrees or not. This is one of the last socially acceptable forms of true bigotry and it is a bigotry some practice with great zeal. It will always be socially acceptable because there is more at work here than the societal framework.
It’s rather pathetic attempt at logic too because the two things are not at all equal. It is a false equivalency and that is sophistry, the opposite of logic. False equivalencies are like saying “All camels have humps on their backs so anything with a hump on it’s back is a camel.” Which makes humpback whales into camels. Or “All doors have knobs so anything with a knob is a door”. So you can turn the knob on a radio to enter another room …
The people who attempt to apply this false equivalency merely demonstrate their lack of grasp in Christian Theology. It is a position of ignorance and should be regarded as such. I’m not saying they’re ignorant people, ignorance is lack of knowledge and they lack this particular knowledge. Most people who attack the Christian Faith don’t really know a lot about what they’re attacking (there is a LOT to know and while Grace is simple the theology that describes and legitimizes Grace is a very, very involved study) and are blind to their ignorance. Though of course they’ll never admit to that ignorance and that’s fine but does not change a thing.
I usually just ignore such people on this topic. While they may be very well learned on other subjects and thus well worth the conversation, they really aren’t informed enough to argue with on this one.
BTW, thanks … I enjoyed writing all that up. It’s highly likely that neither you nor anyone else will read it because it is verbose and involved but I enjoyed it anyway. If you did read it all and comprehend my points agree or not, God Bless you for your forbearance.
I am pretty sure I saw that PragerU video you mentioned along with his others on the Commandments.
I am pretty firm in my “if you want to blame Christianity for this person’s doing this, I can call him not-a-Christian” because unlike being black, which you are regardless of your behavior and you will suffer discrimination regardless of voting for Joe or not (opposite of his pandering and lies) Christianity is defined by actions and you cannot expect to play baseball with a pointed end pigskin.
Turning the radio nob to open a new room is somewhat metaphysical, and not quite a dramatic as opening a book, but yeah.
There is a reason why there are a lot of hospitals named Saint and none after the Great Philosophers.
The rest of this could continue in blog posts but I have to figure out why someone’s printer isn’t working.
What do you mean by we all die alone?
No one can die with you and then come back and say it was “peaceful” or it was “painful” or he died with god in his heart. Only the dead know the truth.
Scott seems to have misgendered eve several times. lol.
With the fall of the Soviet Union atheism had failed them and so they turned to something older and a clearer evil. Atheism can’t promise anything but extinction. The occult promises power. Baphomet is a merging of Baal and Pan and was a common pre-Islamic god of the middle east. A Hellenization of the god of the Phoenicians and the Philistines [Palestine in Latin]. These are gods of sex, incest, pedophilia & human sacrifice. The stone table in the woods is obsolete; the abortion clinic has replaced it. It is defended so much by the left because those clinics are their temples.
Regarding the implications of child sacrifice … I’ve long thought the same as you appear to in this regard.
Supports diversity: will take anyone in hell
Equality: all are damned the same
On the statue, I suppose with what passes in that trans / body autonomy people (at least from their mug shots and publicity photos) that statue is just where some of them are planning.
“Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.” Ephesians 5:11
Can we all just take a breath and slow down a little? I might get in trouble for saying this, but (this is a quote,but Idon’t know who gets the credit),”you don’t need religion to have morals.If you don’t know right from wrong,you lack EMPATHY, not RELIGION”. I am an atheist that some people might consider to really be a “satanist”.All satanists (probably 99.5% percent) are atheists, but not all atheists are satanists. We do not believe in ANY kind of god or deity. The sigil of baphomet was created in 1856 by an occultist named eliphas levi as a depiction of what the knights templar were accused of worshipping by king philip iv of france. He had several of them arrested on friday the 13th of 1307, and accused them of “devil” worship. If they didn’t confess, they were tortured and then BURNED ALIVE. So much for christian charity. It turns out that philip was deeply in debt to them and decided to do this instead of paying them back. In 1312 the pope dis-banded them. The sigil of baphomet and the satanic pentagram have been used by atheists since anton levay started “the church of satan” in 1966. I think the main reason that “satanists”use these images, including the inverted crucifix and the pentagram is because of the reaction that it causes. I may be the only person on this web-site to have these beliefs,but it is who I am. My wife and kids and their families are all christians. We have had many discussions on the subject, but we have agreed to disagree and that’s good enough. I Hope that my lack of belief in a god won’t get me in trouble on this web-site, but believe or not, I don’t drink(never have), don’t smoke,don’t use drugs(prescriptions only), have never been arrested,and worked 50-60 hours a week for 35 years. Now I’m retired on permanent disability, and have the time to do stuff like watch bill whittle and right angle and I feel like I belong here. TRUMP2020!
People keep bringing up historical christians doing very un-Christian things as if that means more than they were either flawed people or opportunists wearing the fad of the day. Just because someone elected on the Republican ticket does something that does not discredit the whole party. Any group, including churches, are made up of people. Some are there for tenants and ideals, others are scammers and sheepskin wearers.
I’ve also heard atheists described in two ways. Those that “do not believe in anything” and “those that believe a god exists.” I would say there is a slight, but meaningful, difference. One has not been convinced about something. The other is very convinced. The flip side is people of faith vs people of spirituality. One is certain and the other is more in the “probably something” camp of the unsure.
People are free to make up their own religion and create whatever sigils and symbols they wish, but when they start plagiarizing another religion they’re going to look more like a break off of that and not their own. If Satanists aren’t Christian they really should not be using a Christian religious character’s name. A number of people have accused Christians of just taking over various pagan holidays to usurp the religions of others in the early days of the church. The same accusation could be made against Satanists, trying to gain notoriety by using already popular symbols.
I some times think there are two kind of Satanists like there are two kinds of envornmentalists. There are the real kind that truly do worship a supernatural being and think this will gain them power in the afterlife, just like some ecos think the world is ending, wear hemp and never drive a car, and then there are the satanists (which I think includes some if not all of the topic of this conversation) that might be closer to your athiest satanists who don’t believe in an afterlife and do what they think is harmless to fit in with the right crowd, like the jet setting celebs and speakers that talk about Climate Change but do nothing in fear of it.
There is a third form of atheist, which is actually an anti-theist. It seems to me that an atheist who has no belief in things Divine at all could care less if others do. No more than that I would refuse a Conservative who thought single-payer healthcare is a good idea (or is “off” on any other plank) the right to vote for Donald Trump.* If it comes up in conversation I might state my position against government controlled healthcare, provided that’s the topic but … Then again I might not while thinking “Yeah, OK, whatever. Good luck with that.”
That’s not a great analogy but the “Yeah, OK, whatever. Good luck with that.” seems to me to be the logical, reasonable position of an actual atheist. On the other hand, when you run into an anti-theist once you put a quarter in him he never stops trying to destroy your God in favor of his Lacking God.
The funny thing about anti-theists is their position is actually a religious faith. The kind of person I’m referring to proselytizes his lack-of-belief religion with all the fervor of any other religious zealot.
Which is likely a third form of Satanism too. Satan doesn’t care if people worship him because that’s not the damning factor. Denial or the refusal of Grace is the critical factor in Christianity. People who don’t understand Christianity often say things like “I don’t drink and I don’t smoke and I don’t do drugs, steal or murder people”, which proves they’ve missed the whole concept of Grace. You can’t earn Grace by being a “good person” who never did any of those things. Ask the thief on the cross next to Jesus if he lived the life of a good person.
The one thing I’ll give an anti-theist credit for in view of your above post is that he actually does practice what he preaches, and preaches, and preaches.
(*And there are people I would deny the right to vote if it were up to me. Those people should be grateful it’s not up to me, but that’s another topic.)
This video has stirred up a lot of conversation and discussion (internal to BWDC) that I wish would make it to the outside world.
I sent the video (but cannot and will not send the ensuing discussion) to a couple pastors I know (and have not gotten a response yet, btw). They need to know what is happening in the society outside the ‘church’. They already know that society in general is spiraling down to you know where.
Thanks for all the discussion, guys!
There being three of us involved in this discussion thread (before you posted) I can only speak for myself. So for myself I say …
“You’re most welcome.”
I’ve encountered an anti-theist before but the antigonist attitude wasn’t present here so I didn’t bring it up, going more with the otherwise labeled athiest/agnostic descriptions which fit the discussion more aptly since I saw examples of both here.
I disagree with this. “Atheist” doesn’t mean “not believing in the god of Christianity.” If someone is a satanist, they believe that Satan exists. Therefore they believe in a supernatural being. By definition that is not atheism.
You mention drinking and drugs. For the record, I have maybe 3 – 5 drinks over the course of any given year and the only two drugs I ever tried many years ago were pot, which did things to my mind that I did not like, and cocaine, which only made me talk really fast for half an hour. What’s the fun in either of those effects? There were no second times with either.
Anyone practicing a well-founded, well educated and informed Judeo-Christian faith, or who has studied the theology of that faith regardless of belief or lack of — Is not at all surprised by this.
What is surprising if anything at all is that evil is now so ascendant and confidant that it can openly show itself and its symbology with the clear promise of growth thereby. Evil would not demonstrate itself so openly if Evil did not think it would benefit from doing so. Just 20 years ago this would not have happened because enough people would heap richly deserved scorn on such thing, having had the visceral reaction to it that Bill speaks of in the video.
It’s that lack of a visceral reaction, the lack of revulsion and skin-crawling creepiness in large numbers of people that is new.
From a purely academic theological perspective — In Christian theology all believers are indwelt by God’s Holy Spirit. This indwelling acts as a moral compass among other things. This is also provisions correctly the human “conscience”. The lack of this indwelling is why there are so many people that do not experience the revulsion that should accompany the sight of worship and edification of Evil.
I’m so glad Scott managed to work “The Big Lie” into this conversation too. That lie is “I will be like the Most High God” and is the original, foundational deception that all others are based upon. You are hearing The Big Lie every time you hear someone say words to the effect of “I’m a good person, I don’t murder or steal or harm other people etc. I reject the idea of external, immutable morality and don’t need religious faith to be a good person.” Because without the guidance of religious faith, which the Founding Fathers relied upon heavily BTW*, that person is subject to the whims and winds of sophistry and argument. The same people who were saying that 20 years ago are now the people who support abortion, anti-science gender militancy and are bringing their kids to kneel before the statue of Baphomet.
(* … and they did rely heavily upon Faith. If you admire the Founding Fathers and their labors in creating this nation and our Constitution, know that you are admiring the Handiwork of God — Because HE is Who the Founders appealed to for guidance and attributed to their successful bid for Independence and the eventual final form of the U.S. Constitution. They were not a bunch of superstitious apes from the dark ages, they were highly intelligent, highly rational, highly educated good men and true. The chief difference between then and now is one of technology, not intellect. If you don’t understand this and refuse to credit their Faith then you’re saying that you’re smarter than they were … which provides ample reason to doubt that is so.)
I don’t do religion and that is most definitely not true of me. I don’t support any of the things that you say those without religion support. And I’m far from the only one.
I disagree with your footnote, too. Yes, the founders were religious to one degree or another, however it wasn’t religion but reason that guided them, because reason is the only tool of cognition that humans have. It doesn’t matter whether they asked God for guidance or that they claimed that they got that guidance, the only way they and all other humans can think correctly is by using reason.
I say all this, of course, because the supernatural does not exist. Of this I am certain.
Logical fallacies equal invalid argument. False Cause, Ad Hominem, Black and White, and maybe even a form of No True Scotsman all pervade your comment. Other than its conclusion that the left engages in evil, it can be dismissed.
You can dismiss anything you choose, that’s your prerogative. I’ve heard all these arguments before, especially —
I’m completely convinced otherwise by reason of personal experience. I’m not going to relate those experiences, they’re none of your business and would have no effect on you anyway. Like I said, I’ve heard all this before an no doubt will hear it many times again.
You can discount the Founders Faith as incidental to their reasoning, I see their reasoning as incidental to their Faith. I think their Faith profoundly impacted their reasoning and I know that there is no doubt they were men of Faith. The argument you make, that because the Founders were men of intellect and reason said intellect and reason could not be a result of their Faith — and so Faith played no role in their accomplishments … Is also a logical fallacy that flies in the face of available facts. If they credit Divine Guidance and you poo-poo their words then you’re just projecting onto them something that is not true of them.
Notice that I never said you had to believe in Divinity the same as they did. I just said that was their immutable position and if you refuse to credit them for their Faith you’re not really fully understanding what happened with them. YOU, like them can believe in whatever you like, THEY helped secure that God-given Right for you. That’s the way they saw it, they were not granting you a right as an American Citizen, they were merely affirming and guaranteeing that you were in possession of that right.
The Founders did an amazing and uniquie job of that. I would gladly argue it’s never been done as well before or since. I choose to consider that their prayers were answered, you can consider what ever you want. I’m NOT trying to proselytize or convert you. MY Faith actually counsels against that in circumstances like you represent.
One of the greatest, most immutable, most powerful statements those men made was —
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
In these words they leave no doubt about their position nor their Faith. (They were not stupid nor ignorant and likely had a better classical education than either of us. There were people that took your position back then too, it’s not like it’s anything new nor the result of any modern differentiation in thought.)
The reason that single statement is so vital is that it clearly takes the position that these unalienable rights originate outside of man, by the Creator of man, and so are beyond the reach of man to deny. That these “rights were endowed by their Creator” is why those men felt justified in armed resistance to a King who claimed to rule by Diving Right yet denied those very rights to his subjects.
It is upon this foundation that the entirety of the concept of undeniable human liberty is laid by our Founding Fathers. This same concept of Rights Divinely Endowed would later be applied to the government they would form. It is inseparable from the guarantee to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness” the Founders were attempting to create in their own system of governance. If these Rights they tried to protect with all their blood, treasure and intellect are the province of Men then Men can alter the application of them. If they are the province of God then they are alterable only by The Almighty and no man can gainsay their existence..
The intellect and reason of these men was immense and admirable but to say that was all they relied upon does not fit the facts and diminishes not enhances their arguments for Individual Liberty. They argued that Individual Liberty was the endowment of their Creator. To omit the weight of that argument is sophistry and fallacious whatever approach is attempted to effect said omission. That was their unequivocal position. You don’t have to believe in the Creator they believed in but you cannot deny that those beliefs were a primary driver for the results they attained.
Repeat; You don’t have to believe as the Founding Fathers did. They secured the Divinely Endowed Right for you to make that choice. The right you do not possess is to dismiss them in any manner for their beliefs, The fact of their Faith and the impact that Faith had on the inception and development of the United States of America is unequivocal. This is not a logical fallacy, it is documented historical fact.
We can disagree on things of this nature without curtly dismissing each other … Which is exactly the direct ad hominem you accuse me of. You could easily have made your argument without going that far because …
I guarantee you there are people who agree with you and people who agree with me. You are “far from the only one” and SO AM I on my side of this topic. In either case, the consensus of others does not constitute correctness. That is a logical fallacy also.
I soundly disagree with you but do not hold my disagreement against you nor consider it cause to “dismiss” you outright. In matters of Faith I do not judge you, I do not seek to convert you, your ideas on this topic are your own and I am not compelled to answer for you in any manner. If you cannot agree to disagree on this topic that’s your problem not mine.
I think the One Big Thing that gets glossed over here is the Name they’re not mentioning. The cultists refer to Satan, and Baphomet, and Lucifer.
But the Name no-one is mentioning, the Name that tells the whole tale, is Father Of Lies. That’s how these people are being swept into this scheme. and by the time they discover their error, their neck will be collared and they’ll be in chains.
I agree completely with this assessment. However …
Those who believe neither in El Shaddai, God Almighty, nor The Adversary, the Father of Lies — Will perforce ignore this assessment.
Oh … They might agree with “the sentiment” of it but if they say that, they have already missed the essence of it. The Father Of Lies very favorite lies are the ones people tell to themselves.
does anyone have a link to the article that Bill is referencing?
I would like to read it as well. I recall seeing an article a couple weeks ago how leftists have just “given up” and turned to Satanism. I thought it was some kind of “haha look at me, oh well, 2020, right?” joke, as I just glanced over it on a facebook post.
As I’ve said before at various times in blog comments and posts, I don’t do religion. Not of any kind nor to any degree. Therefore, I’m neither a Christian nor a satanist.
What I see in these and other religions is attaching or assigning beliefs to symbols created by the human mind for that purpose. The specific symbols created are secondary to the beliefs and, far more importantly, secondary to the actions that are the consequences of living with those beliefs.
My fundamental social and political principle is that as long as what one does causes no actual harm to anyone other than the actor – actual as opposed to imaginary harm, like theft or murder vs hurt feelings or being offended – then I have no problem with the action. I don’t care one bit about what anyone thinks; it’s only when those thoughts turn into deeds that it matters to me.
That’s why I find myself, unlike most people who would be classified as atheists, agreeing with nearly everything on the conservative side. (I don’t call myself an atheist because atheism is a result of my beliefs, not a foundation for them.) I maintain a rigid adherence to reality and reason which – as far as I’ve been able to determine, and that’s awfully damn far in three months shy of 60 years – has led to an all but scientific conclusion that the conservative side is nearly always correct. (I almost always arrive at my conclusions using different reasoning than most conservatives, but we end up in the same place.)
All that prologue having been said, it’s not difficult for me to see the topic of the video the same way our intrepid trio does. The Biblical Satan stands for the evil, and that evil is bad (i.e., from my position, against human well-being) when it comes to actions. Trying to Newspeak that evil into progressive “good” changes things as much as every other progressive redefinition of accepted terms does – not at all.
I’ll be defending myself against evil, whether it’s in the name of Baphomet or The Climate™ or any other malarkey.
(“Malarkey” – see what I did there? LOL)
If you’ll bear with my reasoning and questioning:
You are an atheist. Does that mean you are not attracted to Satanism (in whatever name is attached to that)? Being attracted I would guess would be not reason-induced but some emotion-induced. How do you rationalize the fact that many people are attracted to Satanism? (especially when they first progress thru atheism, that God does not exist…)
I am not at all attracted to any religion of any kind whatsoever, no matter its form or name. I was raised Roman Catholic (I like to jokingly refer to myself as a “recovering Catholic”) but ever since I can remember I have always been driven to investigate everything I come into contact with, if it affects me more than a passing fly does. I did so with religion and philosophy starting at about age 6, looking into it as best I could given whatever my age and ability to understand allowed, and I continue that investigation to this day. I learned about and tried many religions and philosophies but I came to the conclusion at approximately age 37 that nothing ever claimed to be supernatural actually exists; nothing I have observed or learned since has changed my mind.
(Another joke I came up with is that I considered becoming a Quaker once but quit when I learned that the initiation included taking a turn in the oatmeal mines. lol)
So I didn’t start as an atheist, I came to it based on what I learned over the years. In fact, as I mentioned in the above comment, I don’t even call myself an atheist – atheism isn’t the basis of my philosophy or world view or whatever you want to call one’s most fundamental thinking. Instead, it arose from all that learning, after working for so long to integrate all that I know and seeing what conclusions are necessitated by applying reason to that. Having determined that the supernatural doesn’t exist, reason demanded that I eschew religion entirely.
(On a technical note, that’s not rationalization, which is, effectively, deciding on an answer or course of action and then cherry-picking facts and reasons that support it while ignoring anything contrary, rather than letting fact and reason determine what the answer must be, ignoring nothing, whether or not it’s answer you prefer. I don’t mean to be pedantic, it’s just that I’m used to using terms like that in their more academic sense.)
As for why people are attracted to Satanism, it’s the same reason they are attracted to any religion – they seek answers and find comfort in something that provides them answers without requiring them to do the hard work of learning and thinking about what life really is. They stop at that point and never bother to look further. Intellectually and, for that matter, spiritually, it’s the easy way out. All religious belief is based in emotion, which is one of the many things that argue against it. A believer’s emotions are mollified by their belief, so all questioning stops. However, knowing what emotions actually are – how they’re formed, their function, how they can often be completely wrong or applied incorrectly – leads, in part, to rejecting religion as correct thought.
I would also contend that the path to Satanism doesn’t of necessity go through atheism, simply because I have seen enough atheists and Satanists to know that that’s not the case. It’s also true that not all atheists are or end up Satanists, if only because I am not and never will be one (though, again, I’ve seen enough of both to know that it’s not true anyway). And I don’t see why someone who has concluded that God doesn’t exist would become a Satanist – if God doesn’t exist, then Satan must not either.
I strongly believe that, as Socrates said, the unexamined life is not worth living. Knowing the how and why of things is fundamental to me – I need to learn everything I can – always have, always will. There was no way I wasn’t going to question what I was brought up to believe, as well as everything I was ever taught. When I found something that didn’t fit reality, I discarded it as something contrary to living a good life. (though I always kept it merely as part of all the information I have gathered).
I don’t care what others think or believe as long as they don’t cause real harm to anyone but themselves. (If they harm themselves, that’s their problem to deal with.) All I set out to do in this reply was to explain my own thinking – I’m not interested in changing anyone else’s mind, either. Live and let live, to put it simply. However, I don’t stand for ignorant characterizations that claim that the non-religious must be wrong and that lacking the same beliefs as whoever is making the claim makes them doomed to failure and evil. (That’s not you, but some here are like that.)
Sorry about the length. I always think I have to explain fully because so few people I talk with about these things have anything like an understanding of them.
I feel like this year God pulled back the curtain and showed us just exactly how bad it will eventually get, and in a hurry. Fire, flood, famine, pestilence and Satan worship. Like Bill said, it gives a person a real sick feeling deep down in your soul. The political stuff is only a manifestation of the evil rot. The problem is not with who they want to elect, but with the depravity that is beginning to become bolder with every passing day. Even is Mr. Trump wins re-election, the rot isn’t going away. This is truly a war we can’t pull our troops out of.
I’m old enough to remember when Slayer (an 80s Death metal band) was considered evil, while the Democrats were considered good by many.
Since they’ve retired from touring, Tom Arraya (lead singer for Slayer) should start showing up at DNC events & slap PMRC warning labels on all of their campaign signs & literature.
Remember when Kiss – four guys playing mainstream rock & roll while wearing clown makeup – were thought to be satanic? I had a good laugh at that kind of thinking back then and I still do today.
The mom put it best in an old Calvin and Hobbes strip:
Heh, just a few years ago I was commenting how AC/DC was once considered evil and now gets played in kids’ animated movies!
And great comic – Calvin always had the best insights…
But I wanna goto Hell. All my friends’ll be there.
The Dems’ embrace of Satanism reminds me of one of The Onion’s old horoscopes from back in the day. It went something along the lines of : Contrary to what your t-shirt says, while Heaven doesn’t want you, Hell actually has no fear whatsoever of you taking iver.
Darn it! I was going to use the line about Hell being afraid of the take over!😡
Bill does describe Baphomet as “goat headed” so you are half way there already. Now just get rid of the fluff and find a couple of adoring children and ….
Oh, geeze. All the neighborhood kids think my dog is the best thing ever. They keep coming over and will not go away.
When they tell you who they are, believe them.
The demented left of left’s fundamental flaw is a basic error in metaphysics. They believe, to a person, all they have to do is want it and reality will make it so simply because they want it to be so. We, the opposition, know differently so they want us to be silenced by any means necessary. Reality is supposed to make that so also: yet doesn’t.
It follows that they will believe if they call a thing what it isn’t, it becomes what it isn’t. If they change the definition of a concept to what it isn’t, it becomes what it isn’t. If they don’t talk about something, they believe it no longer exists. Then, when none of their wishes come true, they look for a cause.
They find that cause in we who know reality is what it is, isn’t what it is not, and totally ignores what we wish it to be no matter how convenient it would be. Obviously, we are in the way of their wishes being fulfilled so we must be eliminated.
Rather than examine their errors, they double and triple down on them and become nothing but totally spoiled three year old mentalities. Who, when denied ice cream and candy for lunch riot, burn, pillage, and violently attack those whom they think are denying their wishes. THIS is evil incarnate. It does not need to be personified by a statue. It walks among us today almost without opposition. Especially not effectively opposed by the typical “conservative”. Whatever that means today. Personally, I don’t believe it means anything that really matters.
We are in a life and death struggle for the continued existence of our republic. Far too many “conservatives” have been absent from this struggle and try to make nice-nice with the total evil we are fighting. They are part of the problem.
We the People have survived many times of great difficulty. Will we survive this one? If we don’t bring machine guns to the back street no holds barred knife fight that is going on, we won’t.
A good start: Trump 2020. Unfortunately that is only the beginning of the work that needs to be done.
There are many nice people, not so many nice people with courage.
.
Not only have I not forgotten how to be violent, I had some of the worlds best education on that subject. Semper Fi
😉