New Zealand Conservative

Over the past few years, Anton LaVey and his book The Satanic Bible has grown increasingly popular, selling thousands of new copies. His impact has been especially pronounced in our nation’s capital. One U.S. senator has publicly confessed to being a fan of the The Satanic Bible while another calls it his “foundation book.” On the other side of Congress, a representative speaks highly of LaVey and recommends that his staffers read the book. A leading radio host called LaVey “brilliant” and quotations from the The Satanic Bible can be glimpsed on placards at political rallies. More recently, a respected theologian dared to criticize the founder of the Church of Satan in the pages of a religious and cultural journal and was roundly criticized by dozens of fellow Christians. Surprisingly little concern, much less outrage, has erupted over this phenomenon. Shouldn’t we be appalled by the ascendancy of this evangelist of anti-Christian philosophy? Shouldn’t we all—especially we Christia...

What have the Tea Party and the Church of Satan got in common? Answer: the sinister Ayn Rand I do find it odd that Tea Partiers are getting into Rand, a woman who is so obviously immoral and destructive that it would be better to run, run, run far away from her writings than to read them for inspiration. But then it just goes to show that human beings, left to their own devices, are very easily led astray.

How not a surprise. Any movement that gorifies selfishness makes men incapable of being fathers. How Ayn Rand ruined my childhood ~ Salon.com My dad saw objectivism as a logical philosophy to live by, but it tore my family apart

Not PC is attacking Christians again because in a democratic society, we still allow laws he doesn't like, to exist. It would seem to me his problem should be entirely with the secular authorities that make and enforce the laws. The Christian lobby group is not as powerful as he imagines. He of course resents the feeling that Christians are in control: Because today is one day the religionists still have control over us. A day when flunkies carrying clipboards fan out around the country hoping to fine someone for the crime of selling someone else a pot plant, or a pint of milk. [Actually, it's legal to sell milk. Even the cafes are open.] Tradition and history - the enemies of freedom obviously. It's not religionists though going around fining people. Statistically, it would be rational atheists going around imposing fines in the name of the all powerful State. It's not the tithing bowl being filled, but the coffers of the secular state. The issue of f...

Last week the Not PC blog published a post by James Valliant, Gimme That Old Time Religion . The stated purpose of the post was to prove that Christianity did not underpin Western Civilisation. I don't know if James Valliant considered that to be the main thrust of his post, but Peter Cresswell certainly thought the post succeeded in that apparent aim. After having read the post, I thought that if James Valliant did want to "puncture the myth" that "Western Civilisation is underpinned by Christianity", he failed miserably. It seemed more like a diatribe against everything Christian than any sort of myth buster. Matthew Flannagan has written a very good two part counter of Valliant's post, the most recent part being put up this morning. See Part i and Part ii . I think he neatly demolishes many of Valliant's points in the original post. The only criticism I can make from my kitchen chair is that the supposed intention of Valliant's post to destr...

So, says Lindsay Perigo. In the case of the good guys like Aristotle and Jefferson, their lapses contradicted their essential goodness. In the case of Christianity, persecution, torture and bigotry went with the territory (and still would if the fagot-lighters had political dominance) [ie, Christians are EVIL!!!] . They who believe absurdities (such as your lonely goblin story) commit atrocities. [See, see, EVIL!!!!] They who are capable of believing in the justice of eternal torture are not going to have any qualms about inflicting temporary torture [Oh, except for not wanting to end up there themselves, but we'll ignore that ... Christians are EVIL!!!!] . That was Lindsay's attempt to justify his position after Matthew pointed out that: What your answers show is simply that objectivist attacks on Christianity are arbitrary. When its writers like Rand or Aristotle, or Jefferson, one should accept certain qualifications, take into account such things as historical context etc....