Jenyar--a few thoughts
Shocking, isn't it?
You mean there are actually people who believe in "doing unto others as they do unto you"and "Do what thou wilt" - No holds barred?
The thing is that it's sort of a balance.
• On the one hand, yes, there are people who believe this. However, I do wish to point out that the first part, "doing unto others as they have done unto you" in the "eye for an eye" sense exist in three Biblically-derived religions (Judaism, Christianity, Satanism) and is codified in a fourth--Islam. The sentiment does exist among atheists, and many of them do respond to the Biblically-derived cultural reference of "an eye for an eye". In terms of the second, "Do what thou wilt", it's a different story.
Comparative Digression
I wish to present a comparison I've used before for various things, but it's a nice direct idea this time instead of an illustrative side point.
The comparison is between the Wiccan Rede and the Law of Thelema:
•
An thou harm none, do what thou will. (Rede)
•
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. (Thelema)
Now, what might seem an odd question for the moment:
Why do so many (for instance) Americans who claim to be capitalists support socialist ideas?
Some concepts, when wrongly focused, become vicious. Capitalism in its advertised benefits, allows opportunity to gain wealth. Capitalism in its execution more often than not views the situation as competitive and seeks to gain at the deprivation of others. But Capitalists don't seek strife and harm, they seek triumphal prosperity. As such, some Capitalists recognize that by accepting certain socialist-derived policies, they increase their opportunity to profit.
Move it over into something a little more visceral: Why be kind to the homeless? Why "help" a drug addict? Because if you don't, the odds increase that a homeless person or drug addict will deprive you of what is yours. To pay for socialized education has increased profitabiity. To pay for socialized healthcare is proving to increase profitability. To pay for communal financial schemes is proving to be profitable. Charity, if even for its PR value and Q-rating, has shown to be profitable.
Just bear that in mind for a moment.
Back to the Rede, for starters: The Wiccan Rede specifically instructs a person to do no harm. In "eye-for-an-eye vs. other-cheek" considerations, this creates a small handful of ethical paradoxes, not the least of which are the need for defense and the permitting of harm unto others. Nonetheless, the instruction to harm none is important; it presumes that humans are not familiar with giving in order to gain benefit.
The Law of Thelema has no such safeguards. Hence you're left with the possibility of fundamentalism in a way strikingly familiar to conservative Christianity.
A Satanist might look at Thelema and derive from that license to do whatever. But it doesn't hold well for the obligation to the self (Satanism is entirely a self-centered religious perspective) because to go on a rape spree, for instance, endangers the self. You accept structures of courtesy because they make sense and allow an easier path to achieve the gratification you seek without endangering yourself by committing felonies.
If one is willing to put such effort into obtaining illicit gratification, though, it serves them well to question why it's so important. If we look at someone compelled to rape, it seems quite obvious that the more profitable course is to seek containment assistance, symptomatic relief, and to quest after the cause. Anyone who gets away with something can be said to be a genius, of a sort. Of course, in those cases, that someone was called a crackpot before succeeding.
But if we look over to the Wiccan Threefold Law, an interesting idea arises.
•
What you sow, so also shall you reap thrice over.
It's a simple idea. But it can be taken in a fundamentalist-literalist sense as well, so take what you will from that. But it does not prescribe direct natural retribution. The classic example is shoplifting: (1) The thief recognizes the inability to provide for their needs honestly; (2) Prices rise to accommodate "shrinkage" (lost product); (3) An atmosphere of suspicion grows around illegitimacy, which affects the thief, who must exist among that suspicion, directly.
As such, the idea is not to say that if you mug someone, you'll be mugged three times, or beaten three times worse. Rather it points out that as you go through the negative effects of your actions, there comes a point where you should be able to recognize that something is just not right.
In that sense, one can never account fully for human stupidity.
In order for the person to "get away" with rape, they would have to leave no chance that the victim knows they've been raped.
Frankly, if you can drug someone, rape them, and leave no marks, scars, residues, or suspicions that something has happened, maybe you deserve to get away with it. Doesn't make it right: if it's that important to pull off, one really should ask why. Perhaps I'm conciliatory toward that position because I find it so highly improbable, and let that be a lesson to me.
The purpose of documenting the Satanic sins, and especially in comparing them to the Nine Statements is somewhat direct. One must use wisdom. Adhering to conventions is not bad in itself. The out for that is to establish that the conventions adhered to reflect a profitable course, and to recognize that trying to change those conventions might bring more harm. If, however, one adheres to convention merely because it's convention, and never examines the process for its merits and challenges, one is merely being an idiot. I think that's the point of the Satanic sins.
Someone who is dumb enough to isolate Thelema in any religious system and apply it as a prime directive would be able to exploit any favorable passage in any religious system anywhere. (E.g.--I've had a number of less-than-amicable discussions at Sciforums with one of our Christian advocates, who defines his mission by citing those parts of the Bible which empower him to seek ideological and authoritative supremacy. When presented with the Sermon on the Mount, or Christ's discussion of redemption and condemnation in Matthew 25, he finds some reason why these things have nothing to do with being a Christian. It's a very interesting and stupid phenomenon to face. But I fear
Do what thou wilt in his hands.)
While the potential for the kind of idiocy you note does exist within Satanism, and while such potential has been exploited before, the safeguard against it is the empowerment of the self through knowledge.
In that sense, I digress toward the Drug War, but only for a moment: Prohibition policies show that the link between violence and illicit substances is the prohibitive policies in the first place. (Consider, please, Alcohol Prohibition, which spawned the infamous gangster wars of somewhat-romantic yore.) Take something like marijuana, which is wrongly besmirched as being more addictive and harmful than cocaine or methamphetamine. There
is, in fact, a certain seedy side to even my happy-hazy stoner world. But that all exists merely because we're daily felons. But by keeping marijuana illegal, we see some credence given to the "gateway drug" theory that says marijuana leads to cocaine, heroin, and other problems.
Now ... from that .... Satanism by itself is merely a philosophy which advocates the celebration and empowerment of the self. However, because it is associated with a certain sense of evil (and, by the terminology, I understand why this is), it tends to attract a certain high proportion of seedy outcasts. I know a few people who came to Satanism seeking power to get money, get revenge,
ad nauseam.
So like marijuana, Satanism's existence amid a lesser condition dictates that it will suffer the problems of that lesser realm. Satanism would actually work if only people were smart enough, but that apparently is part of the point.
But yes, there are some people who take that kind of stuff as literally and with as much hostility as possible. That "Satanic" crimes licensed in the perpetrator's mind by religion are few and far between (relatively speaking) does help dispel some of the nervousness that such a potentially-volatile philosophy invokes.
Let me know what doesn't make sense.
thanx,
Tiassa