You should tweet that idea to Musk. That fellow really likes Twitter.

Cancel Culture is a mob mentality activity. This is a question of an individual's rational choice. Unless he was pressured by a mob making threats, doxxing him, protesting at his home and office door it can't be considered cancel culture.

@JacksonNought I think more an understanding that it is a study in victimology and promotes victimhood and the victim mentality. So if you wish to make victims of your students you should subscribe. But I don't think it was his objective as an educator to create victims. Did you take the course?

@FrankZeleniuk so you are fine telling a university what electives they are allowed to offer? If I wanted to ban a Bible Study course, would that be okay?

@FrankZeleniuk ok, to be fair, I missed the part where it was mandatory.

@JacksonNought

so you are fine telling a university what electives they are allowed to offer? If I wanted to ban a Bible Study course, would that be okay?

The fundamental purpose of a University is education not indoctrination in order to create socio/political activists. A University can exclude what it chooses from its electives but that doesn't mean, if you are curious about a subject, you can't study it on your own.

The best discourse on creating a victim class though, was written by a guy named Karl Marx. Intellectuals intent upon establishing a collectivist central authority have developed the idea of a victim class even further.

It used to be there was a ruling, ostentatious Monarchy, with Lords and Ladies, and the lowly serfs or plebes. Now, there are not just rich and poor, there are race victims, gender victims, migratory victims, cultural victims, ethnic victims, elderly victims, generational victims, religious victims - well, you can use your imagination.

These courses usually like to have people slot themselves into some victim class and then rage against society. So while the intent is to get people to slap a label on themselves it is sad to have to live life as a victim and strike out at society. Some people recognize themselves as privileged and become apologists, the protectors of, and advocates for victims.

@FrankZeleniuk do you think universities such as Brigham Young University and Liberty University should stop engaging in indoctrination to Christianity?

@JacksonNought People who go there, for the most part, are already indoctrinated so it would be superfluous.

I look at Bible stories this way. They highlight an aspect of man and what can be accomplished through what he believes he can accomplish for he cannot accomplish what he does not believe he can accomplish. He has to ignore the cold hard facts and overcome the impossible. The story of David and Goliath, for example. I don't know if it is a true story or not but if David did not have any belief structure at all and he were confronted with the task of defeating the enormous Goliath he would more than likely rabbit. It is only his belief that gave him the strength to confront the giant. It is only what he thought that got him through. Now, one of the commandments says, "Thou shalt not kill", so he had to also override that. Well, as you know killing goes on all the time in the Bible. The correct interpretation, or translation, should be, "Thou shall not murder." So, as a matter of self-defense, he believed he could justly kill Goliath.
Anyway, it was his thoughts that got him through it. Had he no belief he could defeat Goliath he would have just cowered before him like most people would. He didn't and it was like a miracle. It's just a story to illustrate one should not just let oneself be a victim but to meet the challenges of life head on and against all odds.

In a way you have a daunting task. You say you do not want to eliminate Christianity but you do want to crush its dissemination and its apparent "privileged" position in America. You have to believe it is possible and you are taking on Goliath. You believe you can do it. It would be a miracle.

@FrankZeleniuk I just want the First Amendment to be followed properly, with equal representation and access to all religions or irreligion. So yes, get rid of the "privileged" position of Christianity, as laws should not be drafted to benefit Christianity at the detriment of other religions, and Christians shouldn't get special access in public spaces when other religions are denied the same access.

It could have been said that ending slavery was a daunting task. Did that make it not worth it?

@JacksonNought The civil war was not worth it. 650,000 dead soldiers. Slavery was already seen as inhumane by most of the world and uneconomical. Why feed, clothe and house 50 slaves when you could just pay them a couple of bucks a day, if that, for their labor. They were costly to buy and always trying to runaway so you had to hire bounty hunters to bring them in. No. Slavery was plain stupid. Another 10 -20 years could have been spent educating slaves to be able to live on their own and there wouldn't have been all the destruction and loss of life. Plantation owners were increasingly inclined to treat their slaves better or they would run away. Everyone praises Lincoln, a Republican, by the way, for emancipating the slaves. But at what cost? Slaves that were freed on the spot didn't have a clue what to do with themselves and most just became sharecroppers, doing the same old thing. That's my view.

@JacksonNought If a judge or politician hangs the ten commandments on his wall. That should be ok, shouldn't it. I mean he shouldn't have to hang a picture of an Imam or the Buddha next to them, should he? There is no law made there, after all. It is just his right to freely practice his religion. I doubt he would be holding public office if he weren't elected so he is representing the majority and they were probably aware of his religious affiliation. I know the office space he occupies is probably public property but a Muslim or Buddhist elected to office would have the same right to hang whatever religious artifact he wishes to hang on the walls.

Satanism has been granted religious status but I doubt a Satanist would ever get elected so you might not see any Satanic symbols in public buildings. Since they do have religious status they should have the same access to public property as any religion. I actually wouldn't have granted it religious status since it is an entirely humanist only acknowledging the empirically existential. At least that is my understanding of it. There isn't anything spiritual about it.

@FrankZeleniuk you're right, the Civil War wasn't worth it - slaves should have been freed immediately with no opposition. However, it was the Confederacy and pro-slavery groups that started it because they were opposed to giving Black Americans freedom and civil rights. You think it would have resolved itself in 10-20 years... personally I don't think civil rights are something that can be waited on or dismissed as potentially resolving themselves. Let's say one of the Conservative bogeymen comes to fruition, and Biden starts taking people's guns. Let's say that he even starts implementing Socialism and outlawing Christianity. Do you think people should just accept it and say "oh well I am sure it will become unpopular enough that it will eventually reverse on its own" and not do anything to fight for civil rights?

Oh, not sure why you threw in the "Lincoln was a Republican" bit, as if he has anything in common with today's Republican party. I don't like speaking in party affiliation, as it doesn't mean anything when talking about the past. I speak about Conservative vs Progressive, Right vs Left. And Lincoln was definitely towards the Left.

As for public displays of religion, well there is a difference between a judge hanging a religious display in their own office vs a courthouse prominently displaying a specific religious monument in common space. That is similar to if the President had a crucifix in the White House in their living quarters vs sticking a 20 foot cross out on the front lawn. You are right, it would be unlikely for an out Satanist to be elected to a position, though maybe a closeted Satanist could be? Or someone already elected could convert. How well do you think it would go over if a judge displayed a Satanic symbol while ruling on a case. Do you think Christian defendants would be fine with it and not have any objections?

It's funny how much some Conservatives defend the Ten Commandment monuments at courthouses, considering a large percentage of them were actually brought about due to marketing for the Charlton Heston movie. Yet the laws have been pretty clear and consistent that opening up public "free speech zones" allow all viewpoints, and many times places would rather remove the ability for any representation rather than having to share the space with others.

You are also right, Satanism is not spiritual, and is very akin to Humanism. However, that doesn't matter, as religion is not exclusively spiritual / supernatural, and one doesn't have to believe in deities in order to be religious. There are plenty of non-theistic religions, and all are equally valid and deserving of freedoms.

@JacksonNought > slaves should have been freed immediately with no opposition.

So.. you would just leave them on their own? Most of them would know no other life. you wouldn't gradually educate them to be able to make a living - feed, clothe and shelter themselves? Sounds cruel to just throw them out in the street.

Let's say that he even starts implementing Socialism and outlawing Christianity. Do you think people should just accept it and say "oh well I am sure it will become unpopular enough that it will eventually reverse on its own" and not do anything to fight for civil rights?

As I said in my other post, You have to have a valid argument to convince people in a free society to pretend along with you, it's how the society evolves. Either that or you have to use the hammer of tyranny and that violates individual freedoms and liberties.

I think the US, and basically western democratic republics is the only society where you are able to pretend what you want. Certainly, your world would be crushed in China andnever would have been tolerated in the USSR.

If you want your freedom you have to allow the freedom of others. If you are not mainstream you have to put up with other people's crap. In a free society you can try and convince them they are pretending and you are not. But they still figure you are the one pretending or wish to destroy what they wish to pretend.

I have no beef with religion. I look at Christianity as a valuable tool that served the people of the time well. It was a collection of writings based upon an understanding drawn out of the language and technical knowledge that existed at the time. It needs some updating today but it was great as a religion in providing an aid and guide to living life, beating the odds and surviving. It gave meaning and purpose to life and for many it still does today. For you life has no meaning or purpose it's just a matter of "Shit happens". You may be right but I'm not convinced. I would rather pretend otherwise. that there is more to life than this mortal coil. You have given up on pretending, I think. It's hard to be creative when you can't pretend.

There are plenty of non-theistic religions, and all are equally valid and deserving of freedoms.

Do you have a list? Religion to me deals with the ethereal as opposed to the empirical. So I would have trouble with the idea that anything non-theistic was a religion. We can loosely use the term like he religiously brushes his teeth. In that sense it is just a practice and more ritualistic than religious. I can't say that some religions today, such as yours, are more ritualistic than actually religious.

@FrankZeleniuk

So.. you would just leave them on their own?

Whatever happened to the whole "40 acres and a mule" philosophy. No, I wouldn't have just left them on their own. They were stolen from their homes and subjected to decades and decades or some of the worst treatment imaginable. Their owners should have had to provide for them, or reparations paid. Or, like you said, they could become indentured servants or sharecroppers - you know, something where they are actually paid for their services and choose to work, and not be beaten and raped and torn away from their families? Don't tell me you are one of those "we did them a favor by making them slaves" people. I guess all prison sentences should either be life terms or the death penalty then, since prisoners are in a bad position upon release and we can't just throw them out in the wild? I guess you have to be pro-choice, or even pro-abortion, since it is cruel to bring unwanted children into the world and have them be thrown in the street and deprived of care?

What is this "pretend" you keep bringing up? I guess you are right, civil rights are a bit pretend in the USA, considering how we strip them away from people constantly. Maybe the straight white Christian men in the country should stop pretending and admit they don't care about the rights of anyone else, and just want to live in an autocratic theocracy.

If you are not mainstream you have to put up with other people's crap.

Only to a degree. The Constitution is pretty clear on some things, and it protects against the tyranny of the majority. Freedom of religion is a pretty big part of that. Are you saying you want the government to step in and tell certain people they can't do something (the college can't hold this seminar, despite students being able to drop out if they don't want to attend) but not others (let public governments officials discriminate against religion)? Covid precautions were pretty mainstream, so the people who didn't want to get the vaccine or wear masks should have just shut up and put up with it?

I have no beef with religion either. I don't like Christianity, or any of the stone-age Abrahamic organized religions, but I would never tell someone they couldn't practice it as long as it wasn't forced on me. I also think it has done a lot of harm throughout history, but if it never came to be, something else would have replaced it - that's just human nature. It has also done a lot of good throughout history. There are plusses and minuses to a lot of things.

Also I would say I see a lot more meaning in life than perhaps an evangelical. Since I don't believe in an afterlife, I see this as our only time to live and make the most of it. I enjoy myself while here, rather than walking on eggshells and praising fealty to an imaginary jealous and vengeful being. I don't assume I'll have an eternity of paradise waiting for me and don't pray that some being appears to bring about the end of the world as some do. I see everyone as of equal worth and don't think I am a chosen person or special. I make the effort to change my life for the better rather than just pray to something that is most likely not there. Evangelicals just see this life as a trial run, perhaps a tutorial level or training seminar, before the real deal. Seems less special to me. I also prefer to live in the truth rather than "pretend" and live in some fantasy just to make me feel warm and fuzzy.

Religion isn't exclusive to theism. The idea that religion belongs to supernaturalists is ignorant, backward, and offensive. Religion provides a narrative structure by which we contextualize our lives and works. It also provides a body of symbolism and religious practice — a sense of identity, culture, community, and shared values. This is all possible without belief in any deities.

Satanism, of the Satanic Temple and LaVeyan variety, are non-theistic. Scientology. Secular Humanism. Syntheism. Unitarian Universalism. Transcendentalism. Quakerism. Certain sects of Buddhism. Epicureanism. Where does ritualism and religion differ? The metaphorical Satanic construct is no more arbitrary to us than are the deeply held beliefs that we actively advocate. Are we supposed to believe that those who pledge submission to an ethereal supernatural deity hold to their values more deeply than we? Are we supposed to concede that only the superstitious are rightful recipients of religious exemption and privilege?

@JacksonNought > Their owners should have had to provide for them, or reparations paid

Unfortunately, a lot of them were just left to muddle through things on their own. You're talking about easing them into society like I suggested. That would be the responsible, civil thing to do. Should slave owners have been compensated for feeding, housing and clothing the slaves they paid dearly for? Preposterous, you say! Well, I would agree. The Emancipation act should have phased it out and had the owners prepare them to live on their own. It may have taken ten to twenty years to completely eradicate slavery.
Not all slaves were horribly abused. True, they didn't have any rights which left owners to their own methods and some were pretty cruel but there were no standards. Ever read Uncle Tom's Cabin?

I guess all prison sentences should either be life terms or the death penalty then, since prisoners are in a bad position upon release and we can't just throw them out in the wild?
They already have a grounding in social standards. Teachers aren't very good today in preparing students with the tools to contribute to society or enhance their chances for a good life. They like to teach them about their feelings, caring and sharing, and relationship skills - whatever that is.
They could probably hone their social skills while serving a sentence. So not the same thing.

I guess you have to be pro-choice, or even pro-abortion, since it is cruel to bring unwanted children into the world and have them be thrown in the street and deprived of care?

Adoption is a choice if you don't want it.

if it never came to be, something else would have replaced it - that's just human nature.

Agreed.

I also prefer to live in the truth rather than "pretend" and live in some fantasy just to make me feel warm and fuzzy.

Saying you know the "truth" is pretending. You too live in a fantasy to comfort yourself.

The idea that religion belongs to supernaturalists is ignorant, backward, and offensive. Religion provides a narrative structure by which we contextualize our lives and works. It also provides a body of symbolism and religious practice — a sense of identity, culture, community, and shared values. This is all possible without belief in any deities.

True. But it will be hard to build a community out of the larger populace. People tend to experience things they can't explain and these are what contextualizes their lives. A religion explains some of these things that are otherwise inexplicable. For some science explains everything and if it doesn't then it will later.

Satanism, of the Satanic Temple and LaVeyan variety, are non-theistic. Scientology. Secular Humanism. Syntheism. Unitarian Universalism. Transcendentalism. Quakerism. Certain sects of Buddhism. Epicureanism.

Hmmm....Okay.

Where does ritualism and religion differ?

Ritualism is a part of religion mostly the rites that are performed to symbolize the beliefs.

Are we supposed to concede that only the superstitious are rightful recipients of religious exemption and privilege?

They would probably take issue with calling their beliefs "superstitious". But religion usually deals with the the ephemoral as opposed to the realm of science that deals wholly in the empirical, the metaphysical as opposed to the physical.