NIJamesHughes

Two words: Free Will.

Ayn Rand discusses drug use in "The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution." "Apollo and Dionysus" page 80, "But all discussions or arguements about the hippies are almost superfluous in the face of one overwhelming fact: most of the hippies are drug addicts. Is there any doubt that drug addiction is an escape from an unbearable inner state, from a reality one can not deal with, from an atrophying mind one can never fully destroy? If apollonian reason were unnatural to man, and Dionysian "intuition" brought him closer to the truth, the apostles of irrationality would not have to resort to drugs. Happy, self-confident men do not seek to get 'stoned.' Drug addiction is an attempt to obliterate one's consciousness, the quest for a deliberately induced insanity. As such, it is so obsene an evil that any doubt about the moral character of its practitioners is itself an obscenity. Such is the nature of the conflict of Apollo verse Dionysus" Any questions?

Thanks for the information! They type of house I am looking to build is a 3 bedroom 2 bath home modern style made with poured concrete and the exterior of the living, dining and 2 bedrooms (one the master) made from glass and steel.

Actually Brook states that it is useful to target civilians, as it breaks the will of the enemy. capmag.com dollars and crosses

you would only run into trouble if what they sent to you was copyrighted, which emails usually arn't.

Here is the whole quote from the site "Generally, we must disappoint them, as the Church of Satan has no political dogma and does not endorse candidates. Our members determine their own personal political agendas, based on pragmatism. Satanists are not idealists, and they don’t vote in any sort of block. They are individualists who have set their own personal standards, who vote for the candidates that they have decided will have a positive impact on their lives. So amongst our members there are conservatives, liberals, republicans, democrats, independents, libertarians, and just about everything else that could be found in the spectrum of politics. The only basic commonality might be that Satanists tend to seek candidates that are supportive of civil liberties, as we are not interested in living under some theocratic system which would prohibit our personal freedom."

From the churchofsatan.com "Generally, we must disappoint them, as the Church of Satan has no political dogma and does not endorse candidates. Our members determine their own personal political agendas, based on pragmatism. " Doesn't pragmatism lead to a certain political "dogma"?

The point of war is not to win the hearts and minds of the citizens; it is to eliminate the threat that the country poses. We should not re build or reform. We should take them out with as few causualties as possible on our side, then leave.

This is kinda fun, and a little scary. --- Original Message -------------------------------------------------- Mr. James Hughes 1005 N 28th St Van Buren, AR 72956-3883 E-Mail: [email protected] Subject: Freedom Date: November 26, 2004 My question is: How can you reasonably justify the statement that the FRC defends freedom while at the same time taking actions to deprive individuals of such freedoms as the right to an abortion or the right to engage in a partnership contract regardless of sex? How can you violate individual rights in the name of freedom? Freedom in the political sense means freedom from government coercion, but in supporting a ban on abortion and homosexual marriage and bio-research, government coercion is exactly what the FRC supports. It is an either-or issue. Either one supports Freedom or one supports tyranny, which is it? Respectfully yours, James Hughes ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear James, Thank you for emailing Family Research Council. We appreciate the opportunity to discuss the issues of abortion and marriage with you. We (and the majority of the pro-life community) believe that every single human life from the moment of conception until natural death ought to be protected by law. This belief comes from our regard for the sanctity of life. Until the 1960's, almost all states banned abortion except when necessary to save the life of the mother. Then advocates of legal abortion began putting exceptions in several state laws. In the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade, the United States Supreme Court granted women the "fundamental right" to have an abortion. Roe v. Wade repealed all state laws prohibiting abortions. Its companion case, Doe v. Bolton, extended the "right" to abortion to all nine months of pregnancy if the mother's "health" is at stake. Yet, because health was defined as everything from physical well-being to psychological and financial well-being, abortion became an unrestrained practice. Life is an unalienable right. The Declaration of Independence states that "all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." In its Preamble, the Constitution of the United States declares that one of its purposes is to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." The national government has the duty of securing the rights of all Americans. The significant question that individuals have trouble agreeing to is at what stage a human being is entitled to his or her unalienable rights. From the moment of conception? Beginning at the second trimester, or the third trimester, or not until the baby is born? In other words, when does life begin? Once we answer this question, we can establish when it is the state's duty to begin providing protection. Modern medical science proves that life begins at conception. (The website, www.justthefacts.org , reveals this fact in detail.) We know that the moment the ovum is fertilized by the penetration of the sperm, the 23 pairs of chromosomes are complete; the zygote has a specific genotype that is distinct from both parents; and the child's sex, size, shape, skin, color, hair color, eye color, temperament, and intelligence are already determined. Between the time the human being begins as a single fertilized cell to the time it becomes an adult (from fusion to maturity), 45 generations of cell division occur, 41 of which occur BEFORE birth. Realizing the significance of the fact that life begins at conception, the First International Conference on Abortion, meeting in 1967 in Washington, D.C., declared, "We can find no point in time between the union of sperm and egg and the birth of an infant at which point we can say that this is not a human life." Dr. Jerome Lejeune, one of the world's foremost authorities in genetics and the discoverer of the cause of Down's Syndrome, also testified in the Municipal Court at Morris County, New Jersey on April 13, 1991 that life begins at conception. Therefore, the United States government ought to protect every human life from the moment it is conceived. Protecting the lives of unborn children is not a matter of "telling a woman what she must do with her body." It is a matter of caring about both the child and the mother, as each has been endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights. Regarding the issue of allowing homosexuals to marry: the fundamental "right to marry" is a right that rests with individuals, not with couples. Homosexual individuals already have exactly the same "right" to marry as anyone else. Marriage license applications do not inquire as to a person's "sexual orientation." Many people who now identify themselves as homosexual have previously been in legal (opposite-sex) marriages. On the other hand, many people who previously had homosexual relationships have now renounced that behavior and married persons of the opposite sex. If we define a "homosexual" as anyone who has ever experienced homosexual attractions, then both of these scenarios represent "homosexual" individuals who have exercised their right to be legally married. However, while every individual person is free to get married, no person, whether heterosexual or homosexual, has ever had a legal right to marry simply any willing partner. Every person, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is subject to legal restrictions as to whom they may marry. To be specific, every person, regardless of sexual preference, is legally barred from marrying a child, a close blood relative, a person who is already married, or a person of the same sex. There is no discrimination here, nor does such a policy deny anyone the "equal protection of the laws" (as guaranteed by the Constitution), since these restrictions apply equally to every individual. Some people may wish to do away with one or more of these longstanding restrictions upon one's choice of marital partner. However, the fact that a tiny but vocal minority of Americans desire to have someone of the same sex as a partner does not mean that they have a "right" to do so, any more than the desires of other tiny (but less vocal) minorities of Americans give them a "right" to choose a child, their own brother or sister, or a group of two or more as their marital partners. James, I hope I have answered some of your questions and addressed some of your concerns. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have further questions or concerns. Sincerely, Kathy Athearn Correspondence ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Kathy, Thank you for your timely response. I understand the issue of abortion and homosexual marriage. My question is how do you justify the claim that the FRC is an advocate of freedom (again freedom in a political context can only be defined as freedom from government coercion), when it also advocates the use of force to forbid abortion and homosexual marriage? Although that question was my primary reason for correspondence, I would like to also address the points you made in your previous reply. As you stated individuals have the inalienable right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. None of these three can be violated to secure the other, or they are all forfeit. If you take away life, you lose everything. If you take away liberty (freedom) you lose the capacity for life (in the human sense of the word) and the pursuit of happiness. If you take away the right to the pursuit of happiness you make the other two meaningless. In the case of abortion you have a human being (the mother) and a potential human being, a cluster of cells which, given time may develop into an actual human being. The only way a baby can be born is to injure the mother. A person certainly has the right to choose whether or not they will endure personal injury for whatever reason. If the mother has no right to choice what happens to her body by what logic does a child have that right? To make that claim is to invalid both parties right to life. Thus a child rightly only gains rights after it is born, until then it lives by permission and by the grace of its mother, who does not have to endure the labors of child birthing; she does so by right, not by compulsion. To say that every embryo conceived has the right to destroy the body of its mother, destroys all rights. By what logic does a fetus have the right to a woman's body, if she herself does not? That is exactly what is meant when the government compels an individual to give up the right to Liberty for the sake of what she has made possible. The issue of marriage is one of contracts. Marriage is a partnership contract. The government cannot rightly dictate the content of a contract, rather the governments role is to enforce the contract. The edict that two men or two women cannot marry, is essentially the same as saying a black man and a white woman cannot marry; it is discrimination. In closing, why would you even care if two men were married. In the words of Thomas Jefferson "it neither picks [your] pockets nor breaks [you] legs" Respectfully yours James Hughes

I'm trying to get an idea of how much i need to save to build a modern home and some of the difference styles, but I really can't find any resources on the web, does anyone here know of any? Thanks James

So language is one of the defining criteria of a rational faculty? That is really what I am looking for: what are the objective hallmarks of a rational faculty? What is the evidence of the ability to reason in existential terms?

The main question of this post was supposed to be Since animals evolve, at what point do we as humans recognize the rights of a animal that has become rational? when they develop complex language? when they use tools? When they use fire, invent the wheel? when they have complex social structures? when the build sky-scrapers? At what point does a species develop to the point to earn the status of "rational animal?"

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computin....idg/index.html This one has lots of good references to companies whose leaders admire Ayn Rand.

I agree, but the reaso that arguement won't work against Satanist's is that they don't believe in god either, the terms are just metaphors, they say. Just check out some of the sources before you try to evaluate the philosophy. It is completely wrong, but not for the reasons most people think.

This is the way Satanist argue it: God (christianity) represents the collective, faith, altruism, and theocracy. Satan means "opposite" so they say that if that is what God represents, then Satan represents Individualism, Reason, Selfishness, and Freedom. That is why they say they picked the name Satan to represent their movement.

I said the Church of Satan doesn't disclose membership figures. The US Army estimates 10000 to 20000 members in the US. 2nd point: They join because they claim to support Individualism, rationality, and achievemnt, and give rationalization for the term Satanism. They say that they only use the word satanism because it scares off the too timid or unfit. LaVey says that he named it Satanism for the same reason people didn't like it. Sound familiar? Try changing the word satanism to selfishness a. Secondly they claim that they don't believe in Satan, that it is just a metaphor for the individual, and the opposite if the dominate altruist philosophy. As to the irrational creeds i said that they CLAIM to promote all those things. Which means in their literature they say that they promote individualism, reason, logic etc. Anyone who hasn't read Ayn Rand wouldn't disagree that they do promote these things. Its only after one has seen what real individualism and reason are, that they discover that Satanism is a sham. Next Satanism is a religion and so it is a philosophy. all the philosophys that are used do go together, except for objectivism. This too is familiar. Remember the way the Nazi's ideology came together?

They were founded in 1966, the membership numbers are unknown. their main statement of principles, i have reprinted on my other thread satanism. They claim to support individualism, but equate it with "satanist are born not made"--racism They claim to support reason, but they equate it with instinct, intuition and the idea that whoever "wins" is right. They claim to support rational self-interest, but equate it with hedonism. They claim to support freedom, but equate it with fascism, the idea that satanist's are a ruling elite. They claim to support individual rights, but promote violence as the natural order (might is right), That it is right to do anything you can get away with-- as long as nothing bad happens to you, its moral to do it. The main reason that i think this group is a threat is that Ayn Rand said that Fascism is the future of america if we don't do something about it, and the Satanist's, in their literature and in their implicit philosophy support fascism. I quoted Anton LaVey (the founder of the church of satan) from his last book here once where he said " the only place a rational amalgram of proud, admitted Zionist Odinist Bolshevik Nazi Imperialist Socialist Fascism will be found-and championed-will be in the Church of Satan." The second reason i think the group is a threat is that they bill themselves as rational and logical. Many people who are searching for a rational philosophy can be and are misguided by this posing, mainly because to the philosophically uninitiated, the idea's seem to make sense. a list of philosophers the group claims to have adopted its philosophy from are Mark Twain, Niccolo Machiavelli, G.S. Shaw, Ayn Rand (!), Friedrich Nietzsche, Marquis de Sade and Ragnor Redbeard. some resources to see what modern satanists are like you can refer to DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PAMPHLET NO. 165-13 RELIGIOUS REQUIREMENTS AND PRACTICES OF CERTAIN SELECTED GROUPS A HANDBOOK FOR CHAPLAINS HEADQUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY APRIL 1978 http://www.algonet.se/~lottrik/satanism.htm www.churchofsatan.com www.satannet.com (official Church of Satan messageboard with many members and priest, including the High Priestess) www.satanism101.com

I just replied to this in my last post. I did not mean "in the absents of metaphysical principles," i mean that in the absents of explict metaphysical beliefs, ie primacy of consiousness, " " " reality, etc.

I did not mean "is the quoted statement true, if..." i meant is the method of going down from ethics to metaphysics valid. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

"LaVey stated that his religion was “just Ayn Rand’s philosophy, with ceremony and ritual added.” LaVey as cited in Bill Ellis, Raising the Devil: Satanism, New Religions, and the Media (Lexington, Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky, 2000), 180. "

right, that is what a packaged deal is, when you lump unrelated ideas into the same category.

here are the notes that i have taken so far on the subject. Satanic metaphysics fail horribly in several respects. First, Satanism promotes belief in the supernatural. Secondly, Satanism claims that perception creates reality. Last, Satanic metaphysics states that races is a basis for evaluation of an individual. In summation, while claiming to be a "down-to-earth, rational" philosophy, Satanism promotes subjectivism and irrationalism. Satanic philosophy supports belief in supernatural entities. In the Satanic bible, Anton Lavey states that "god" is defined as the "balancing force in nature" and as a "powerful force which permeates and balances the universe." "Satan," which is used as interchangeable with "god" here, "merely represents a force of nature" The nature of this force is completely mystical. LaVey asserts that "science [has not] been able to apply technical terminology to this force." LaVey does not ask why. The answer is that science can not analyze and label this force for the same reason it can not study "god," or "imps," or "unicorns"-- these concepts do not refer to facts of reality and concepts that do not refer to reality are meaningless. Thus "Satan," the basis of the satanic metaphysics is an anti-concept, it is literally nothing. The fact that Satanism promotes the idea that such an entity does exist is evidence of the fact that the philosophy is built upon false metaphysical assumptions. Satanism promotes the idea that perception determines reality. Satanist’s engage in rituals that they believe can change the facts of reality in accordance with their will. The ritual is called an “anti-intellectual device, the purpose of which is to disassociate the activities and frame of reference of the outside world from that of the ritual chamber, where the whole will must be used.” The purpose of this “contrived ignorance” is to “expand his will” or control over reality. Satanism, in effect says “If I wish something to be bad enough, if I believe it enough, if I feel that it is true, it will be true.” Besides denying the objective nature of reality, LaVey confesses his lack of knowledge of human consciousness in regards to rituals. He states that “It is one thing to accept something intellectually, but to accept the same thing emotionally is an entirely different matter” Here he presents ideas and emotions as unrelated when actually emotions depend on ideas. If one truly accepts an idea intellectually, the emotional acceptance will follow automatically. It is only in the case of self-deceit that emotions are not consistent with ideas. He goes on to say that “[satanism] provides man with his much needed fantasy.”Fantasy meaning “escape from reality.” Outside of rituals, Satanism claims that reality is subjective because information is gathered by the senses and processed by each individuals consciousness, thus reality is not objective but rather is determined by the perspective of the observer i.e. that consciousness controls reality. This mentality displays itself with the notion that ritualization can effect reality. However, there must be some thing for the senses to respond to, and if there is something, then it is what it is and thus reality is objective and its nature is absolute. Satanist’s advance this idea implicitly with ethical statements such as “Definition of good and evil: Good is what you like. Evil is what you don’t like” This statement is apparently applied equally to all people, including those who like to murder, rape and steal. No exception is made for those type of behaviors. No person, no matter how depraved is exempt from the declaration. Why? Because as is evident in this statement ideas don’t matter, because reality may or may not be what it is, thus calls upon everyone to play it as they see fit, with no guiding standards. If you can’t know what reality is, how can you know what to do in it?

Because I think that many people are snared by this religion who are looking for a rational, logical philosophic system (as I was). This is a religion that bills itself as "down-to-earth and rational" one Satanic biographer said of LaVey that his rhetoric is "pragmatic, relativistic, and above all rational" (talk about a packaged deal). Also there is no good critizism of the philosophy avalible. The only sources are christian websites. This is a growing and popular movement, especially with young people, and I think that I should provide an antidote- if only for the simple fact that noone else will.

I haven't wriiten anything but notes yet, because i want to make sure I am right. The quote that i provided is in the form of a maxim in the book. I will present it exactly: * "Definition of Good and Evil: Good is what you like. Evil is what you don't like." *

I am writing a critical essay on Satanism. I came to the conclusion that satanists do not believe in objective reality because they do not believe in an absolute right and wrong. Anton LaVey, the founder of satanism states: "Good is what you like, bad is what you don't like." In the absence of explict metaphysical principles is this method valid? and is my deduction correct?