Posted on 05/07/2014 2:17:22 PM PDT by NYer
satanism is not a religion in its own right but is premised in demeaning an existing religion.
Imagine students of any other religion being subject to sanctioned degradation at Harvard and try to imagine space being made available for same.
Harvard is showing itself to be an island that accommodates haters.
Their loss...and their shame.
These folks are not satanists (or at least, not officially declared so). They claim to be a cultural studies club. Their ostensible claim is that they are studying cultural phenomenon. Are they sincere? From four hundred miles away, it's tough for me to tell.
Their actions are not “sanctioned” by the university. At most, the university might give them a room to use for their meetings. For this event, they're not even using free meeting space commonly available to practically all university student groups. They're RENTING space in a bar on campus.
But Harvard IS a university, and the exploration of things IS generally encouraged. These folks are not claiming to be holding a black mass, but rather, are claiming that they're going to run through what a black mass looks like, with running commentary and “historical context” (whatever that means). On the face of it, this meets the form of an intellectual enterprise.
I imagine Harvard is loathe to outright condemn something that has at least the veneer of an academic enterprise.
This is a touchy issue at Harvard. There are a lot of folks who are carrying the message of “academic justice” over academic freedom. There was an op-ed piece in the Crimson by an undergrad named Sandra Korn advocating that persons promoting viewpoints that are antithetical to the liberal view of things should be silenced. In her view (and the view of many like her), it is illegitimate for folks at universities to hold forth against homosexual rights and “marriage equality,” against “reproductive rights,” against affirmative action, global warming, etc.
It was heartening to see over 800 replies to her op-ed that ran about 19 to 1 against her view, and in favor of academic freedom, free speech, free expression, even of what someone might view as hateful speech or expression.
Harvard's record in this regard is hardly perfect, but it's not all that bad, both as an institution, and in terms of its culture. My son is a polite, well-mannered, pleasant, but plain-spoken conservative at Harvard. Even as an open, declared conservative, he is a writer for the main student newspaper, the Crimson. He is involved overtly in pro-life and pro-traditional marriage and morality organizations and movements. Institutionally, he experiences no bias from his professors, even though his conservative Catholicism is pretty much on daily display, even from his Old Left marxist former revolutionary professor (who likes to commiserate with my son about how terrible is the current occupant in the White House).
Socially, with other students, he experiences little negative bias. He's unusual to many, disconcerting to others, not their cup of tea for some, but he has a wide circle of friends who accept him and like him, even though he brings with some viewpoints that are somewhat checkered in their view. His last girlfriend was a very liberal, very politically-correct young lady who nonetheless wanted to marry him. This is hardly representative of a culture “showing itself to be an island that accommodates haters.”
But, this street goes both ways.
sitetest
So they just want to “demonstrate” degrading another religion if anyone’s curious what it looks like. :>)
I can hear the pride in your writing about your son. You should be. He sounds like a prize. Tell him one stubborn retired chaplain you know says that the Army (of my era) wouldn’t even have allowed a “demonstration” of what a degrading program would look like.
The reasons with the Army would have been (1)”morale and discipline” and (2)ethics/morality. It would have injured unity.
They have no such unity to preserve at Harvard, so that’s one thing. They do have a set of moral/ethical standards, though, and I’m betting this pushes them right up to the breaking point.
Look, to us Catholics, Protestanism often looks like a denigration of Catholicism, especially around this place, where anti-Catholic bigotry is prized and protected. I remember one poster in particular who degraded the Holy Mother of God by commenting on her toilet habits in the most disgusting and filthy way. Said poster was quite welcome here on FR while degrading Catholic faith, practice, and belief. It was only when said poster started getting in the proprietor's face that he was banned.
I have seen the Blessed Sacrament ridiculed and mocked by many herein, called a "cracker," a "cookie," and other terms that are, I assure you, offensive to many Catholics. Even within this thread, Catholic belief in the Eucharist is belittled. I look at these "satanists" with their "re-enactment" of a black mass, and then I look at some of my "fellow" posters, and the differences appear to me to be of degree, not differences of kind.
In fact, let's face it, for several hundred years, the only official view of the Church was that Protestantism degraded Catholicism. But we all figured out (mostly) how to live with each other, and (mostly) don't go to war with each other, anymore. I like it that way. My son's dating a Lutheran (strict LCMS) girl, now (although she's promised to convert). She seems like a very nice girl; I'd hate it if my son couldn't date her because her denomination holds that the office of the pope is the anti-Christ.
Pride & my son - Maybe. Maybe not so much. Joy. Joy and gratitude. It's beyond my capacity to believe that I bear much responsibility for how my two sons have turned out. It's all grace.
Harvard has its own spirit and its own unity. But intrinsic to that spirit is that of free inquiry. Harvard is an exceedingly liberal place. It's an ocean of political liberalism and political correctness, and the vast majority of those who swim in it don't recognize the water for what it is. For my son, the environment is, in many ways, toxic (although it's toxic for reasons other than its liberalism).
But the school, in spite of its overwhelmingly liberal character, has tried hard to be open to all, including CONSERVATIVES, of which there are more than a few.
Harvard, itself, is not participating in this event. It isn't sponsoring it. It isn't accommodating it. The event's costs are being borne privately by the students making it happen.
I doubt that Harvard will somehow force the issue and have the event canceled, for reasons outlined previously.
However, it is my understanding that there will be a response from other quarters in the Harvard community. And Harvard, the university, the administration, will be hands-off toward that response (as long as everyone stays inside the law - you can SAY what you want at Harvard, but if you DO things that are illegal, the community doesn't tolerate that so well - look at the recent protests regarding fossil fuel divestment).
sitetest
REALLY, Sitetest???!!! Bemoaning the intentional denigration of your religion while doing the SAME thing to those without it smacks pretty hard as hypocrisy and lumping Freeper "Protestants" in with Satanists is a new low. What you call "anti-Catholic bigotry" most times is no more than a basic disagreement with Catholicism's dogmas and is not done with an intent to injure or hurt feelings. It's funny how FRoman Catholics can denigrate those they label as "Protestants" (really their catchall for non-Catholic Christians), make pointedly bigoted, belittling and hurtful comments, condemn all of us as bound for hell until we "swim the Tiber" and smugly assert a superior faith, worship style, understanding of sacred Scripture and relationship with Almighty God, but then act like persecuted innocents if it blows back on them. Catholics here rarely walk a mile in our shoes.
Perhaps if there really WAS more empathy and recognition of a shared love of God and the Christian faith, we could avoid the frequent dust ups and offensive banter. If we Conservative Freepers cannot find common ground around our shared beliefs and be able to respectfully discuss where we differ, what hope is there for the secular, liberal institutions out in the world?
Hey sitetest (in particular this time)- when y’all gonna learn its all V2-the “apostacy” of 2 Thess 2:3?
Archbishop Lefebvre Concerning Religious Liberty
http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_two/Chapter_15.htm
WELL SOME GOOD NEWS ON THIS ANYWAYS- note too sitetest point is NOT about ‘extension school’ being adjunct or wonder bread being used (instead).
Catholic Church Condemns Black Mass Reenactment At Harvard University
By Katie Brace, WBZ-TV May 8, 2014 9:51 PM
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/05/08/catholic-church-condemns-black-mass-reenactment-at-harvard-university/
CAMBRIDGE (CBS) – A reenactment of a Black Mass celebrating Satan is scheduled to take place at Harvard University on Monday evening. It has outraged the Catholic Church, but the group holding the event says it’s educational .
The Harvard Extension Cultural Studies Club is hosting the Satanic Temple from New York. The Black Mass is scheduled for Monday night in the basement of Memorial Hall.
“It’s kind of troubling especially to Christians, but at the same time if they’re doing it for academic inquiry. This should be a safe place,” said Misan Oteri, student.
“It is still heavily offending a group. And, what’s the purpose?” student Farhad Dokhani said.
“Educational purposes definitely give you a reason to look into anything,” student Laureen Brady said.
The club released the following statement:
We are hosting a reenactment of a historical event known as a Black Mass. The performance is designed to be educational and is preceded by a lecture that provides the history, context, and origin of the Black Mass. While a piece of bread is used in the reenactment, the performance unequivocally does not include a consecrated host. Our purpose is not to denigrate any religion or faith, which would be repugnant to our educational purposes, but instead to learn and experience the history of different cultural practices. This performance is part of a larger effort to explore religious facets that continue to influence contemporary culture.
The Archdiocese of Boston wants Harvard to put a stop to the event saying:
The Catholic community in the Archdiocese of Boston expresses its deep sadness and strong opposition to the plan to stage a “black mass” on the campus of Harvard University in Cambridge.
For the good of the Catholic faithful and all people, the Church provides clear teaching concerning Satanic worship. This activity separates people from God and the human community, it is contrary to charity and goodness, and it places participants dangerously close to destructive works of evil.
In a recent statement, Pope Francis warned of the danger of being naïve about or underestimating the power of Satan, whose evil is too often tragically present in our midst. We call upon all believers and people of good will to join us in prayer for those who are involved in this event, that they may come to appreciate the gravity of their actions, and in asking Harvard to disassociate itself from this activity.
In response to the Black Mass the archdiocese is holding a holy hour starting at 8 p.m. on Monday at St. Paul’s Church, which is also the Catholic Church at Harvard.
Harvard University says it supports the rights of students and faculty.
Forgive me for being unfamiliar with you, as I don't think I've ever previously read a post by you. So, I may get some of my inferences wrong about you. My apologies in advance.
Nonetheless, it appears that you seem to have taken issue with me about one or more items. One is about the Second Vatican Council, which you seem to denounce, and the other is with issues concerning Harvard and the so-called “black mass” controversy.
You then respond to me by quoting approvingly a statement put out by the Archdiocese of Boston, led by that NewChurch fellow Sean Cardinal O’Malley.
That's a little incoherent.
sitetest
Bravo!!! Well said, sir or ma’am, well said indeed!
sitetest-
Some of us ‘denouncers’ of V2 will point to the pronunciations of the V2/Novus Ordo apparatus when they get it right. Their left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing but one of the hands happens to be correct at times.
Indeed at times its all we have in appeal to the uninformed public that will only respect authority of same V2 apparatus, just as the many a solid conservative will cite Lamestream media ‘coming around’ to the correct conclusion belying a hole in their dike, their veritable broken clock being right twice a day in attempt to ‘convert’ uninformed public that only respects same Lamestream media authority.
Trying to make best of bad situation, which is what we have everywhere.
O’Malley and The Pretenders on Lake St., Brighton MA get it right once in a while...rather nearly right. SSPX would have said it differently.
We could go back pre-V2 to Fr. Leonard Feeney during the St. Benedict’s Center wars where he said no Catholic should attend Harvard to which his right hand gal, a nun (can’t recall her name off top of head) replied that NO ONE should go to Harvard. I’m sure those such as the Kennedys regarded such as archaic Boston College boosterism.
BTW I’m a sedevacantist and even would have to qualify forwarding SSPX lit if it was off as some of its post V2 lit is. The forwarded doc of Archbishop Lebfevre’s looks solid to me.
We are in a terrible state of things as indeed we are in 2 Thess 2:3.
Can you show me how the Satan of Judaism differs from the Satan of Christianity? I would be very interested in learning that.
Can you show me how the Satan of Judaism differs from the Satan of Christianity? I would be very interested in learning that.
The topics of angels, demons, and the afterlife are more esoteric in Judaism than they are in chrstianity. I will give you the short version, to the best of my ability, but you are better off asking an Orthodox Jewish FReeper.
The Satan is merely an angel of G-d doing his assigned job(s). The primary job is accusing people before G-d in Heaven, though he has also traditionally identified with the angel of death the evil inclination, and the angel of the nation of 'Edom. At any rate, angels do their jobs. They do not rebel, whether this is because they lack free will or because their free will is so perfectly attuned to that of G-d that they never swerve from it. The chrstian "satan" as an evil counterpart of G-d does not exist in Judaism, since G-d has no counterpart of any kind--evil or otherwise.
You might want to see this.
Judaism and chrstianity are very different. Judaism is NOT just chrstianity waiting for J*sus to come. Chrstians get their chrstianity from the "new testament" which is then projected onto the Hebrew Bible.
How do you square that with Isaiah 14:12-15?
BTW, as powerful as Satan is (aren't all angels powerful?) he is not a counterpart of God because he is not infinitely powerful.
‘Lucifer’ or its equivalent does not appear in the original Hebrew. The reference is to Nebuchadnezzar.
I must confess that this is very interesting, I had never heard these verses applied to Nebuchadnezzar, but it makes sense considering the previous part of the chapter. One thing that fascinates me about Scripture is how some times there's more than one meaning to a word or passage. For example, matzah referring to the bread the Hebrews did not have time to let rise, or as an image of Messiach. Is it possible that Isa. 14:12 has more than one meaning?
When I want to check the Tanakh, I go to jewishvirtuallibrary.org. In the book of Yeshayahu, chapter 14 verse 12 I read “ How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!”. It sounds just like my King James! Do you have a better, I mean more accurate, English translation of the Tanakh?
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15945/jewish/Chapter-14.htm#showrashi=true
Lucifer is Latin. The Hebrew says ‘ben shachar’ - son of the morning, which, curiously, is also there in English along with the Latin Lucifer (with a capital ‘L’) added for purely theological reasons.
I can’t think of any other place where a Latin name is added to what is already an English translation of a phrase in question.
The Nebuchadnezzar reference also makes sense for the subsequent part of the chapter.
Thanks. It seems like Chabad.org is a treasure trove for someone wanting to know more about Scriptures. I am a Christian, but if it seems like the New Testament contradicts the Tanakh, it is obvious that the problem is with me, I am misunderstanding either one (or both). Thanks again.
The Jewish Virtual Library uses the 1917 Jewish Publication Society Bible, which borrowed heavily from the Christian English Revised Version and the American Standard Version. They viewed the Tanakh as a mere cultural artifact.
Jewish secularists regard Christianity and Judaism as equally mythological, so aren’t really particular about such things as precise translations.
I also have a link to Mechon Mamre. Are they ok?
Mechon Mamre uses the 1917 JPS for (copyright) convenience, but does offer side-by-side Hebrew with the English for verification.
MM are good guys, for sure. English just isn’t considered such a big deal one way or the other to serious Jews.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.