Another Guest Post From Jack Seney

 My friend, Jack Seney, favours my readers with another guest post.

✠✠✠✠✠

So we are now at the point that "Wiccan" witches and such are claiming the "right" to perform bizarre ceremonies in public-owned spaces set aside for them, just like Christmas displays are publicly allowed for Christians in many localities.

America does not have to be under any obligation to accept any "religion" that someone wants to dream up. It only must accommodate large-scale, well-known established religions, as was clearly the intent of the same U.S. government that supplied funds for Christian missionaries at one time. I have a lot of problems with that government of back then and with the one now. But believing that it must please every Tom, Dick and Harry's made-up "religion" is not one of them. Tom, Dick and Harry can engage in whatever weird practices they want. But that doesn't mean that the government "must" recognize them.

As far as I'm concerned the U.S. government is required only to make allowances for major, well-known religious practices. For Christianity, obviously, as the nation's founders and their supporters were overwhelmingly Christian (if also often Freemason cultists).

Then would come Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism. And some others. I may not be a fan of these, but am willing to recognize their public influence and widespread practice.

But "Wicca" is nothing but a hodgepodge of baloney that actually means nothing concrete in any given situation. The same goes for similar "pagan" practices, which are usually made-up, widely varying exercises that claim ancient roots but concoct wildly different modern "rituals." The same would go for "voodoo" types of ceremonies supposedly based in Africa but having no discernible regular structure.

The same also goes for "Satanism," which is often practiced as a "joke" by actual atheists. Indeed this seems to be the motivation behind the "Church of Satan" as founded in the U.S. in the 1960s. Sorry, but atheists by definition cannot have a "religion." They might be protected by First Amendment "free speech" stuff, but not by First Amendment religious safeguards.

Of course, all this assumes that whatever the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution are supposed to be, they will be sanely applied. And now that they have been interpreted to mean that babies may be murdered by the millions in the womb, we who are still lucid know that rational and moral application will never be the case with them.

Of course this should have been obvious long ago from these documents' interpretation to mean that one man is allowed to "own" another man in slavery. This was as late as the 1850s, centuries upon centuries after the Catholic Church had already condemned slavery. But hey, Americans tend to be slow learners, what can you do?1