The blogger Char investigated by police said this
-
Dun think he sound apologetic at all, somemore post this in a anti-christian blog belong to his fren
http://gssq.blogspot.com/2006/06/so.html
So... am I going to hell for this?
I may be, with hell being a 3-year, $5,000 stay in a Singapore prison.
But let me tell my story, free from any third-party reporting, and let people judge for themselves what the case is like. Gabriel has kindly consented to allow me to use his blog for my "official press releases", so yeah. I guess I've to thank him, in that sense.
In January 06, I posted one picture which I found on the now-defunct hamncheez.com as a filler between my regular blog posts (hamncheez.com eventually got shut down due to the owner not wanting to continue paying for its maintenence). This picture eventually came to be known as "Police Annex A" in my case file - the picture of a zombie version of Jesus biting on a little boy's head. (MediaWatchWatch has traced the original picture, and the article and picture has been reproduced here: [Caution! Potentially seditious material.])
During this period of time, I was actively participating in a online discussion forum on international news, and it just so happenned that the Jyllands-Posten/Mohammed cartoons issue was raised.
Well, to be honest, the discussion on forum was pretty decent and mature, but inevitably, it went diverged to discuss about Christianity as a reference point, due to the link between the Judeo-Christian-Islam zionist religions. Eventually, there arose a question about the difference in the Christian denominations, to which a particular forum member (we'll call him DP) pointed out that the difference of denominations lay mainly in the different fundamental beliefs; for instance, Catholics had a fundamental belief in Mary, and to believe otherwise, one could still be counted as a Christian, but not a Catholic.
Shortly after, this known troublemaker (we'll refer to him as FundieP) replies to the post with a very confrontational tone, going "I don't see why poor Mary needs to be dragged into this, and there shouldn't be any discussion about Christianity in the first place; moderators, shut this thread down now, etc."
Perhaps it was my own experience and distaste with religous fundamentalists which turned me towards renouncing my former religion (being that of Christianity), but I pretty much jumped to DP's defence, insinuating that FundieP was a religous fundamentalist bigot who knew less about his own religion than he should be, with his blind defence of it. Eventually, the thread turned into a flame war, and it was shut down.
Unfortunately, I used my blog URL as a signature on my forum posts.
One day after the thread was shut down, I recieved a very curt message from FundieP through the forum's private message system, going "take down the Jesus picture on your blog."
(It was around that period of time when it was revealed that the dossiers circulated to the Arab world contained extra, much more inflammatory cartoons included by the Danish imams, and were never published in the Jyllands-Posten)
Probably due to my ironically fundamental view against fundamentalists, I went out of my way to find more pictures to irk FundieP, which eventually came to be known as Police Annexes B, C, and D respertively - licenceplateworld.com - picture of licenceplate saying "Jesus loves you, everyone else thinks you're anasshole"; somethingawful.com, photoshop phriday "sensational news stories" - fake CNN image of Jesus on paper (Potentially seditious link) - third picture; and somethingawful.com, photoshop phriday, "the biggest movie of theyear" - edited photo of Last Temptation of Christ, with Jesus looking at a KFC bucket (Potentially seditious link) - first picture.
So there's the end of the story, sans the Uniquely Cantoment experience.
----------
Many people have been asking me why I decided to actually break the news, considering the fact that I could have stayed in relative anonomity, and have it eventually blow over, with the six month window for obtaining the public prosecutor's decision (Sedition act, chpt 290, 5 (1) No prosecution for an offence under section 4 shall be begun except within 6 months after the offence is committed... (2) No person shall be prosecuted for an offence under section 4 without the written consent of the Public Prosecutor).
But somehow, I'm guessing that after three and a half months, I do want to let it be known, somewhat. Because it's not about me, but for people to know where the OB markers are, whether the legal system can be hijacked by religious fundamentalists over (possibly) personal issues, and what has been done about it.
Personally, I do not have issues with Christians per se, despite having de-converted, now being a free-thinker-tending-towards-deism. And on that note, I'd definitely have to thank the number of my personal friends whom, while Christian, have been supportive of me all this while (and it's no small number, considering I pretty much grew up in a Christian environment which included my family and schools).
With that said, I'd do have to point out that the only people I meant to offend was, in particular, one individual fundamentalist Christian, whom I personally felt was an insult upon the name of his own religion; I felt him no better than the sadistic torturers in the spanish inquisition, nor the "holy knights" committing rape during the crusades. To FundieP, if you're reading this, I hope you will be able to look at the face of whatever god you see at the end of your time, and prouldly say " I have fought the good fight, I have run the race."
and amen to that. -
His fren the owner of the blog clearly supported him:
I guess it's time to:
- Ban the Da Vinci Code
- Unban the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Unification Church
- Stop condemning suicide bombers and religious extremists because we can't denigrate their faith
- Stop Christians condemning "false" Christians since it denigrates their faiths
- Report pastors/priests who preach at funerals and say non-Christians are fools, dommed and condemned to burn in hell
- Report people who say that "all gods are the same"
- Ban crucifixes worn by non-Christians
- Ban the swear word "Christ" or similar derivations, since this is taking the name of god in vain and offensive to Christians
- Ban books exposing Scientology
- Start reporting your neighbors and enemies for Sedition, making police reports at the drop of a hat (or for the slightest non-religious grudge) since if you "must [feel] very strongly about the issue", the police will "investigate"
- cut ties with Israel since this offends some Muslims
- Ban the teaching of Evolution in schools since it offends fundamentalist Christians
- Since evolution is termed as a 'Faith', even religion by its opponents, have Evolutionists cry 'Sedition!' at attempts to demonise their credo
- Take after the UK, where Christians were going to tape Muslim sermons and Muslims Christian ones so they could look for material in them to report each other
- Emigrate
Remember kids, Jesus was crucified for offending the Jewish religion!
I saw a movie poster in London which read: "Muhammad - the Last Prophet". MUIS would no doubt condemn this, since it implies that all other prophets who came after him are false, and this denigrates other people's faiths.
Consistency is the name of the game! -
Char's response to a newspaper article abt him
Singapore's Sedition Act, part deux?
Hi Zakir,
Congragulations on your article making the front page of Tuesday's
newspaper. I'm certain that "Blogger who posted cartoons of Christ
online being investigated." was a lot more eye catching a headline and
interesting a storyboard compared to "People left in limbo by police
cases", where you quoted me issues such as the Martin See episode,
whereby his recording equipment is still being held by the police
"pending investigation", in order to get me to agree to your interview
last Thursday evening.
It's no wonder your story did make the headlines, and no wonder the ST
is still the most read broadsheet newspaper in Singapore.
Anyway, here's to clarify a couple of points which probably ended up
being edited out in the rush for your story going to print; I will be
referring to your original article hereon in.
(I hope that you don't mind that I've included some friends, bloggers,
and the foreign media, of whom are included within the bcc list; so
that they'd get the story as well. I'm sure they would be interested
to know how I'm doing, as well as what's happenning. Of course, they
are very much free and welcome to reproduce and use the contents of
this email.)
----------
>June 14, 2006
Blogger who posted cartoons of Christ online being investigated
>By Zakir Hussain
>A 21-YEAR-OLD accounts assistant is being investigated for allegedly
flouting the Sedition Act by publishing pictures on his blog that were
thought to depict Jesus Christ in an offensive manner.
>The blogger, who used the online moniker Char, had found the cartoons
on the Internet and began posting them in January.
[While there is no real issue in this point, it did make it sould like
I posted more than four pictures, and was posting them regularly too.]
>He told The Straits Times last week that he was called in by the
police for questioning in March, after they received a complaint.
[Yes, I was called in by the police for questioning. However, I
believe that you failed to note that the complainent had prior
dealings with me before, after I implied on a forum that he was a
fundamentalist Christian bigot, and that I believed that he had
personal issues with my implied insult.]
>Yesterday, the police confirmed they are investigating the matter but
declined to give details as 'investigations are still ongoing'.
[No issue with that, as I do believe that investigations are still
ongoing three and a half months after my computers were siezed, when
you mentioned to me that for the first 3 sedition cases, the parties
involved were brought to court and sentenced within two months.]
>News of the investigation was announced online by Char himself last
week when he sent an e-mail to a mailing list of more than 300 young
Singaporeans. He told them of his experience and how it came about. He
removed the cartoons from his blog after he was questioned.
[Technically, I removed the pictures, then subsequently deleted the
blog, on advice of the investigating officer, as the pictures there
might "agitate others". My original email on the 7th of June is
replicated at:
http://gssq.blogspot.com/2006/06/story-friend-of-mine-told-me-while.html]
>When contacted by The Straits Times, Char asked that he not be
identified for he fears he may lose his job, which he wants to keep
before entering a local university in August.
>Describing himself as a free thinker, he said he had posted a cartoon
that depicted Jesus as a zombie biting a boy's head in January.
[Technically, I'm an ex-christian-turned-deist/free thinker.]
>The following month, he received an online message asking him to
remove the image. It came amid the global furore over the publication
of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad by several newspapers.
>Char did not reply to the message but chose to irk the person
instead. He searched the Internet for more pictures depicting Jesus
and published three of them on his blog.
[Interesting that by not revealing what exactly I posted after the
Jesus zombie picture, it made it seem that my followups were even more
offensive, so much so, that they had to be obscured. Perhaps you
remember the description of police annexes B, C, and D, right? You did
have the printout of the original email when I met you. But
respectively, they are: licenceplateworld.com - picture of
licenceplate saying "Jesus loves you, everyone else thinks you're an
asshole"; somethingawful.com, photoshop phriday "sensational news
stories" - fake CNN image of Jesus on paper
(http://www.somethingawful.com/index.php?a=3193&p=9) - third picture;
and somethingawful.com, photoshop phriday, "the biggest movie of the
year" - edited photo of Last Temptation of Christ, with Jesus looking
at a KFC bucket (http://www.somethingawful.com/index.php?a=2995&p=5) -
first picture.]
>Looking back, he felt he made an 'unwise' move. 'I never thought
anyone would complain to the police because the pictures were not
insidious,' he said.
----------
I do have to include a point that a friend noted; that it would be
interesting to know what exactly IS offensive enough to threaten the
population. Otherwise, unchecked, this leads not to preservation of
harmony, but the creation of a frivolously litigious society. Or even
worse, a frivolous litigation via police proxy society. -
More from Char
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
A story a friend of mine told me a while back but has just decided to make more public.
Low crime doesn't mean no crime! I applaud our police for their efforts to keep our streets safe.
Okay, most of you know that in a couple of my recent mails, I've been hinting strongly about something about me having a few choice words the sedition act.
Well, here's the catch. I've been arrested, dumped in cantoment's lockup for three and a half hours, had my statement taken twice, and let out on a 10k bail - it's lapsed since then, so I'm no longer on bail. Anyway, the investigation is still "ongoing", with my computer and laptop having been siezed "for investigation".
The backstory?
Here goes: Three months back (today's the third month anniversary of my case. whee.), I kind of made an enemy online, thanks to a little flaming session. Back then, it was the height of the Jyllands-Posten/Muhammed pictures issue, and following some moronic arguements of his (We'll call this guy FundieP) on Christianity against someone else, I couldn't help but step in, and pretty much publicly humiliated him.
Dumb thing however, was that FundieP knew of my blog, thanks to a sigining off signature generated automatically. And being the fundamentalist Christian he was, he sent me a mail, requesting that an earlier cartoon I had on the blog be removed. [Police annex A, taken from hamncheez.com - cartoon of a zombie version of Jesus biting on a little boy's head. Boy is asking "why is my messiah trying to eat my brain?" and line below says "on the third day, Jesus rose from his tomb"]
Well, to those who know me, I'm strongly anti-fundamentalist, so I dumbly didn't reply to that mail, and instead went to search for a couple more pictures to agitate FundieP. Bad idea. [Police annex B, C, D respectively: licenceplateworld.com - picture of licenceplate saying "jesus loves you, everyone else thinks you're an asshole"; somethingawful.com - fake CNN image of Jesus on paper; and somethingawful.com - edited photo of Last Temptation of Christ, with Jesus looking at a KFC bucket.]
Well, FundieP made a police report. About 2 weeks later, I had the police knocking, got my computer siezed, was arrested and dumped into hotel Cantoment for 3.5 hours, and let out on bail for breaching 4(1)(c)-290 - our beloved sedition act.
[4. —(1) Any person who — (c) prints, publishes, sells, offers for sale, distributes or reproduces any seditious publication; shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction for a first offence to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to both, and, for a subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years; and any seditious publication found in the possession of that person or used in evidence at his trial shall be forfeited and may be destroyed or otherwise disposed of as the court directs.]
6 days before I was due for a three and a half week US trip.
I was pretty much a nervous wreck those few days, I eventually went, although it took 2 of my best friends (and an insanely high US phone bill) to convince me that I would need the trip - my passport wasn't impounded, and the police extended the bail to 4 weeks to let me fly, although I almost wanted to call the flight off.
Switch back to present, and well, I've told the story to only a select few so far, but to be honest (and to sound stupid), I never actually decided to read the entire Sedition Act till today, after 3 months. Sure, I read the earlier portions (about section 1-5, but not the later portion. Yes, berate me on my stupidity, but I was seriously freaked out for that long to not notice article 6.
[Evidence. 6. Cap. 97. (2) No person shall be convicted of any offence referred to in section 4(1)(c) if such person proves that...he did not know and had no reason to believe that the publication had a seditious tendency.]
and, linking back,
[Seditious tendency. 3. —(1) A seditious tendency is a tendency — (e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.]
While Malays and Islam are interwined, it would take a long shot to link Christianity as a dividing issue between races or classes of the population of Singapore.
For an additional note, the Da Vinci Code would be probably be more seditious, if one goes by the severity of the "evidence" - mildly put, it virtually criminalises Christianity as a conspiracy, and that Christianity itself is illicit (Of course, all monotheist religions claim that all other religions are illicit anyway), plus, its publicity is about a few hundred times more (now showing?) than my now-defunct blog.
(anyway, I called the police today to ask on the case, as well as my computer, and the investigating officer sounded pretty miffed, just telling me that the case was still "under investigation") -
This is one reason why we have to guard against certain groups who might want to misuse the Sedition Act.
-
I have strong doubts abt this "Char" claims that he is only against a certain fundamentalist christian. His fren's blog seems to take delights in taking hits against Christianity.Originally posted by LazerLordz:This is one reason why we have to guard against certain groups who might want to misuse the Sedition Act. -
This is also why we need to take guard on what we write in public (forum/blog) so that these certain group who might want to misuse the Sedition Act cannot find any to use against ourself.Originally posted by LazerLordz:This is one reason why we have to guard against certain groups who might want to misuse the Sedition Act.
-
It's true.Originally posted by vince69:This is also why we need to take guard on what we write in public (forum/blog) so that these certain group who might want to misuse the Sedition Act cannot find any to use against ourself. -
Dun think he sound apologetic at all, somemore post this in a anti-christian blog belong to his fren
Would you be apologetic if you and 4 of your friends were in Orchard Road, your enemy made a police report about illegal assembly and you were thrown in the slammer for a few hours, had to pay bail and spent 3 months being "investigated", with your handphone taken as "evidence"?I have strong doubts abt this "Char" claims that he is only against a certain fundamentalist christian. His fren's blog seems to take delights in taking hits against Christianity. [/b]
What do my opinions have to do with Char's? I don't see how it's relevant. He needed a place to put forward his POV, so I lent it to him.This is also why we need to take guard on what we write in public (forum/blog) so that these certain group who might want to misuse the Sedition Act cannot find any to use against ourself.
After a while, you can get very sick of Sillypore. If thinking were banned, would we all stop thinking because we feared going to jail?
"But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." -
"Thinking"? I dun think ur fren is thinking when he decided to irk that certain fundamentalist.Originally posted by gssq:After a while, you can get very sick of Sillypore. If thinking were banned, would we all stop thinking because we feared going to jail?
"But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
So the fundie should turn his cheeks for Char to slap? Thanks for agreeing Char is doing evil. -
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dun think he sound apologetic at all, somemore post this in a anti-christian blog belong to his fren
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you be apologetic if you and 4 of your friends were in Orchard Road, your enemy made a police report about illegal assembly and you were thrown in the slammer for a few hours, had to pay bail and spent 3 months being "investigated";, with your handphone taken as "evidence"?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have strong doubts abt this "Char" claims that he is only against a certain fundamentalist christian. His fren's blog seems to take delights in taking hits against Christianity. [/b]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do my opinions have to do with Char's? I don't see how it's relevant. He needed a place to put forward his POV, so I lent it to him.
1. The fact is, if Char and friends walking down Orchard Road doing nothing and yet still arrested by police, then there would be something to argue abt. The fact is: He did something to irk someone.
2. Definitely it have something to do. By showing his "innocence" on ur blog which attacks Christianity does not help his cause, only to show he like to irk pple more. -
well... PAP and extremist fundamentalist xtians. Don't they just go so well together hand in hand? Narrowmindedness, draconian authoritarian, blind fundamentalism and conservatism just attracts each other so nicely.
Its lovely to see the people who are going to ruin society getting along so nicely. -
1. The fact is, if Char and friends walking down Orchard Road doing nothing and yet still arrested by police, then there would be something to argue abt. The fact is: He did something to irk someone.
that someone is likely a narrow-minded idiot with no sense of humor. He went to someone's blog clearly spoiling for a fight after the warring thread was closed. Shining example of a Xtian to me..
2. Definitely it have something to do. By showing his "innocence" on ur blog which attacks Christianity does not help his cause, only to show he like to irk pple more.
Maybe that probable moron will be better off following the Satanic Commandments.
Commandment no. 3 states:
When in anotherÂ’s lair, show him respect or else do not go there.
Xtianity is fine if it makes one a better person. Its really the fundamentalism thats worrying. Luckily I can say most Xtians I know are nice people.
Isn't it scary that the law can be so easily manipulated by fundamentalists? They are the people more likely to do harm to our fracticious society. -
"Thinking"? I dun think ur fren is thinking when he decided to irk that certain fundamentalist.
He didn't know how vindictive that fundamentalist would be, and how stupid Singapore was.So the fundie should turn his cheeks for Char to slap? Thanks for agreeing Char is doing evil.
Whether someone is actually slapping you on the cheek or whether it's just the wind, the principle is the same.2. Definitely it have something to do. By showing his "innocence" on ur blog which attacks Christianity does not help his cause, only to show he like to irk pple more.
Do not see daggers where none exist. People have better things to do than think up such subtle and finely-tuned ways to annoy people (which won't even catch everyone's attention). -
1. The fact is, if Char and friends walking down Orchard Road doing nothing and yet still arrested by police, then there would be something to argue abt. The fact is: He did something to irk someone.
Suppose I am part of the 369 gang and a geeky bespectacled schoolboy ("A") offends me by staring at me (actually he likes my spikey dyed ah beng hair). I then get offended, interpreting this as a provocative act, and call my gang members up and start a gang riot.
Can A be convicted both for offending me and starting the chain of events that led to the riot? Especially if Secret Societies have historically been a problem.
Now suppose again that I am part of the 369 gang and a geeky bespectacled schoolboy ("A") offends me by staring at me (once again, he likes my spikey dyed ah beng hair). An upright, righteous and civic-minded citizen ("B"), wary of the damage this could do to the fabric of our society, reports him to the police for offending me and A gets convicted for offending me and potentially causing harm.
Recast the scenario. Now suppose I am still part of the 369 gang and a Mohawked Ah Beng ("C") offends me by telling me that he hates my hairstyle, and that I should change it. I then get offended, interpreting this as a provocative act, and call my gang members up and start a gang riot.
Can C be convicted both for offending me and starting the chain of events that led to the riot? Especially if Secret Societies have historically been a problem.
Now suppose still that I am part of the 369 gang and a Mohawked Ah Beng ("C") offends me by telling me that he hates my hairstyle, and that I should change it. An upright, righteous and civic-minded citizen ("D"), wary of the damage this could do to the fabric of our society, reports him to the police for offending me and C gets convicted for offending me and potentially causing harm.
Should A be convicted? How about C? Was B right to report A to the police? What about D?Xtianity is fine if it makes one a better person. Its really the fundamentalism thats worrying. Luckily I can say most Xtians I know are nice people.
Notice that no one (except fundamentalists) complains a lot about or dislikes liberal/moderate Christians/people of other religions? It's always the extremists who induce strong emotions.
Isn't it scary that the law can be so easily manipulated by fundamentalists? They are the people more likely to do harm to our fracticious society.[/b] -
Maybe that probable moron will be better off following the Satanic Commandments.
LaVey Satanism /= All Satanism.
Commandment no. 3 states:
When in anotherÂ’s lair, show him respect or else do not go there.[/b]
Actually I agree with more of the LaVey Satanic commandments than the Biblical ones. -
i'll go one step better. not only do i notice that, i also notice its the same fundamentalists who used carry out crusades against fellow Christians, such as that of the Spanish Inquisition and massacres of Albigensian Crusade.Originally posted by gssq:Notice that no one (except fundamentalists) complains a lot about or dislikes liberal/moderate Christians/people of other religions? It's always the extremists who induce strong emotions.
I raise a fine example here:
In July the crusaders captured the small village of Servian and headed for Béziers, arriving on July 21. They surrounded the town and demanded that the Cathars be handed over; the demand was refused. The town fell the following day when an abortive sortie was pursued back into the town. Although Béziers is believed to have held no more than 500 Cathars, the whole population was slaughtered. According to the Cistercian writer Caesar of Heisterbach, one of the leaders of the Crusader army, the Papal legate Arnaud-Amaury, was asked by a Crusader how they might distinguish the Cathars, their enemies, from other citizens. He answered: Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius" — "Kill them, for the Lord knows those who are his own."[1] Contemporary sources give estimates of the number of dead that range between 7,000 and "nearly 20,000"; this highest figure is in Arnaud-Amaury's report to the Pope. The news of the horror at Béziers quickly spread and many settlements were cowed.
Note that Cathars and catharism is a form of christianity considered heretical. They hold similiar beliefs to modern day protestanism. -
i'll go one step better. not only do i notice that, i also notice its the same fundamentalists who used carry out crusades against fellow Christians, such as that of the Spanish Inquisition and massacres of Albigensian Crusade.
Amen to that,brothersister. One can just read a Chick Tract to realise how disgusting some of these fundies are.He answered: Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius" — "Kill them, for the Lord knows those who are his own."
Wasn't this what they said when the First Crusade attacked Jerusalem and they waded in the streets with blood up to their knees? -
i consider LaVey's Satanism as the only Satanism. Paganism and wicca is wrongfully seen as Satanic by Xtianity. Then again, Xtianity also considers any religion other than their own Satanic. I'll never forget when I was 8, a friend told me he goes to church, then when I said I go to a temple he told me I was worshipping Satan. Ever since, I haven't felt too favourable about the attitude of "typical singaporean" Xtians.Originally posted by gssq:LaVey Satanism /= All Satanism.
Actually I agree with more of the LaVey Satanic commandments than the Biblical ones. -
they ALWAYS justify their sins in the name of the Lord, the bloody hypocrites. They always do. Everything they do is "in the name of the Lord"Originally posted by gssq:Wasn't this what they said when the First Crusade attacked Jerusalem and they waded in the streets with blood up to their knees?
look at George Bush and Iraq. things haven't changed much... -
i consider LaVey's Satanism as the only Satanism. Paganism and wicca is wrongfully seen as Satanic by Xtianity. Then again, Xtianity also considers any religion other than their own Satanic. I'll never forget when I was 8, a friend told me he goes to church, then when I said I go to a temple he told me I was worshipping Satan. Ever since, I haven't felt too favourable about the attitude of "typical singaporean" Xtians.
Only LaVey Satanists are "True Satanists"? Sounds like those who talk about "True Christians", don't it (non-True Christians aren't necessarily satanic)? *wink* I think it's hard to define things so arbitrarily. I'd probably say the defining criterion for a satanist is belief in and worship of satan.
Actually how many Christians condemn other religions is quite seditious, no? Mmm... -
they ALWAYS justify their sins in the name of the Lord, the bloody hypocrites. They always do. Everything they do is "in the name of the Lord"
As the saying does: "My Jesus forgives your Jesus"
http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/003530.html -
im not promoting "true satanism". rather im speaking in defence of other religions often mistakenly classed as satanic. Afterall, Wicca and Paganism have actually been around much longer than Satanism has. I think they deserve to be respected as individual religions.Originally posted by gssq:Only LaVey Satanists are "True Satanists"? Sounds like those who talk about "True Christians", don't it (non-True Christians aren't necessarily satanic)? *wink* I think it's hard to define things so arbitrarily. I'd probably say the defining criterion for a satanist is belief in and worship of satan.
Actually how many Christians condemn other religions is quite seditious, no? Mmm...
-
by the way, wondering if u want to read more about the Albigensian Crusade. I found it particularly barbaric as... well... its one thing to hold a crusade against people of other religions, its another to hold one against your fellow xtians.
this one particular line is very..... spine chilling...the violence inflicted was extreme even by medieval standards
also, what is very galling... is that the true purpose of the Crusaders were not so much religious as it was territory expansionary...the church offered legally sanctioned dominion over conquered lands to northern French nobles and the King of France, acting as essentially Catholic mercenaries, who then nearly doubled the size of France, acquiring regions which at the time had closer cultural and language ties to Catalonia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade -
The reason such atrocities happen is because people cling on to beliefs even when the beliefs become internally incoherent.
To assuage their own doubts, they have to remove all those who point out the incoherences.
Instead of discovering the truth for themselves, they remove the source of their doubts, the "others."
It is still happening and will continue to happen to a more or lesser degree.