|
Satan Tells Satanosphere about being Banned in Florida: UPDATE
|
|
By matt, Section News
Posted on Thu Mar 7th, 2002 at 04:05:59 AM PDT
|
 |
Satanosphere Exclusive!
Many of you will remember the amazing interview we did with the leader of the Church of Satan. I know we do. This interview has generated good traffic for us, as well as being very interesting.One thing that High Priest Gilmore said was that as things in this world of ours develop, we may contact him from time to time to get his take on certain things. So, when I heard that a fucked up town in Florida (!) was banning Satan from city limits I had to get his take, and he was gracious enough to oblige.
Update [2002-3-7 4:5:59 by Paul Shrug]: Somebody with idle hands has stolen the posts which bore the city of Inglis's anti-Satan proclamation. C'mon, kids, 'fess up.
|
| First off, let me state that the story is the funniest thing in the world. Especially since the ACLU is coming to Satan's aid! Maybe we should sue the town... people there can't legally visit our site, it would seem! Think of the lost revenue of Satanodollars! At any rate, here's what Mr. Gilmore, the High Priest of the Church of Satan, has to say about the situation: "Mayor Carolyn Risher appears to be pulling a publicity stunt which proves
the Ninth Satanic Statement: "Satan has been the best friend the church has
ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years!"
If she sincerely believes in Satan as the "ruler of darkness," as is quoted
from her proclamation, then it is amusing to me that she might suppose that
the writing of such a proclamation on town letterhead would have much of an
effect on a supernatural entity. Perhaps the next step would be to perform
an exorcism of the town?
An article on CNN.com states that Ms. Risher claims that the events of
September 11th inspired her to make this proclamation, and to me it is quite
a sad thing that she may not realize that religious bigotry of any sort
places one in the same camp as the fundamentalist fanatics who attacked the
United States on that tragic day. If indeed she has said, as claimed in that
same article, that "there are people in Inglis who needed to repent," she is
apparently demonstrating intolerance for pluralism of belief - something
that I posit most Americans would judge as running counter to the founding
principles of the United States. Additionally, we who are aware of history
know that in the past when Christianity has been allied with governments,
that its methods for forcing "repentance" upon those who do not share its
faith have included the rack, thumbscrews, and, ultimately, the bonfire.
I think that the danger of fundamentalist fanaticism, particularly when it
is aligned with a government, whether the faith that inspires it is Islam,
Christianity, or any other, should be abundantly clear to every supporter of
freedom of thought."
I must say, I heartily agree with Mr. Gilmore's assessment. What do you think? Comment below! |
|
|
