Satanic Mass at Harvard University cancelled

I was very excited to go to this. Obviously this event had a historical context and the satanic organization does not believe in the supernatural, but it was going to give voice to something that was not represented very well, if at all, in a public setting. The ultimate litmus test for freedom of speech in America happened tonight and it failed. Hard. Check the article, both pages.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2014/5/12/black-mass-relocated-controversy/?page=1

maybe it just wasn't a very good satanic mass

Who will know? It's not like they are molesting thousands of children and trying to get away with it.

i dont think it had anything to do with freedom of speech

seems to me like a victory for freedom to not do or sponsor something you don't like

how does the harvard group exerting their freedom to drop sponsorship of an event constitute them infringing on freedom of speech? don't you think it's a bit of a cop out to go crying about freedom of speech when someone is simply choosing not to support or allow certain speech with their support? like if joyrex banned certain words from here, it'd have nothing to do with freedom of speech. you can always start your own forum and say whatever you want. harvard doesn't have to support something they don't want to. doesn't your thinking they should have to do/support things they don't like equate to you trying to infringe on their right not to?

Because they were bullied into not supporting it by several organizations on and off campus. It was cancelled a few hours before it was supposed to happen because of the negative publicity which is entirely based on ignorance and negative publicity from sources not connected to Harvard University. If anything, this shows that even fucking Harvard has to buck under pressure from the Catholic Church and people who do not feel comfortable with their supernatural beliefs being challenged. In 2014.

How many people on the Harvard campus are homophobic? Oops. That's taboo. We won't hear from them because it won't fly in 2014 and it's based on ignorance. And somehow this is an exception.

but those people expressing their disapproval of the thing were utilizing their freedom of speech to do that. harvard didn't have to buckle under that but for whatever reason they did, which was them exerting their freedom to handle things how they feel they should.

like if i had wanted to hold a meeting for a club i started called the 'heman woman beaters' and asked you to let us have our meetings in your building, or asked you to sponsor our meetings, and you said 'ok' but then some feminists got pissed about it, even after i explained that it's just a funny or provocative name and not anything to do with how we feel about women (this is actually a perfect comparison to this 'satanism' stuff which 'has nothing to do with satan', but only chose that name for the specific purpose of shocking and pissing people off... and surprise! it worked), so then you decided to withdraw your support, it'd be pretty preposterous of me to say you were somehow taking away my freedom of speech, wouldn't it?

Obviously the reasons it was cancelled had nothing to do with freedom of speech, if you read the article, you would have understood the university's views on the rights for students to assemble and speak on whatever they want. It has to do with the consequences of negative publicity and the further consequences of financial support from organizations who's views contradict such an event. But I'm sure you just love watching yourself type.

i know it has nothing to do with freedom of speech, thats why i corrected you on your post saying it did.

Maybe you should have gone under the moniker of humanism.

I don't know much about 'Satanism' myself, but the general consensus seems to be that it celebrates Satan who is generally understood to represent the antithesis of 'good'. It doesn't surprise me that a lot of religious folks would be upset about this on a superficial level just as it wouldn't surprise me if Satanism were actually much more accommodating, positive and life-affirming than Christianity could ever hope to be, but fails to gain mass cultural traction due to popularly ascribed 'baggage' on the part of Satan as a historic figure.

I agree though, it is disheartening that an institution with the clout of Harvard should buckle under criticism that is likely insubstantial and baseless.

I personally don't identify with satanism at all, but I still found this to be significant because it illustrates how kneejerk reactionism can inhibit the rights of a group within even the most respected of institutions and can erase a voice entirely. With net neutrality on the chopping block, this topic is more relevant than ever. This an example of that playing out in real time and it's not hard to imagine it happening when you want YOUR voice to be heard, or if you want to hear about something. What dictates freedom of speech? Money? If you're okay with that Mister E then I hope you're ready to bend over and take some institutional cock up your ass and beg for more.

it seems to me like you just think that some groups should be allowed to force others to support them in activities that many won't find tasteful.

you have two different sides to this, but you draw a line around one side and say that if THIS side doesn't get ITS way, then that's rights being infringed or inhibited. but for that side to get its way, the other side will have to be forced to support something they don't like. nobody is saying these people can't do this thing. nobody is trying to force them to do anything. but you want the other side to be forced to go along with something they don't want to. you mentioned financial support being cut as a fear of Harvard's, but this is part of freedom of speech. if there is actually some hypothetical catholic/christian group out there that could somehow pull financial support from Harvard for supporting this, that would be them exercising their freedom of speech and freedom to do whatever they want with THEIR money.

i have a hard time believing you would have any problem at all if the roles were reversed and Harvard decided to withdraw support for some kind of prayer session because of protests. this is how society works. institutions are supported by people. if enough of the people supporting an institution don't like something it's doing, they bitch about it, and that institution then may or may not buckle. they choose how to act with their resources, just like everyone else in the whole process. to me what you are saying seems like the exact opposite of freedom. it's closer to fascism to suggest that institutions or people should HAVE to do this or that regardless of how it might conflict with their beliefs or support.

  On 5/13/2014 at 6:21 AM, Goiter Sanchez said:

I don't know much about 'Satanism' myself, but the general consensus seems to be that it celebrates Satan who is generally understood to represent the antithesis of 'good'. It doesn't surprise me that a lot of religious folks would be upset about this on a superficial level just as it wouldn't surprise me if Satanism were actually much more accommodating, positive and life-affirming than Christianity could ever hope to be, but fails to gain mass cultural traction due to popularly ascribed 'baggage' on the part of Satan as a historic figure.

I agree though, it is disheartening that an institution with the clout of Harvard should buckle under criticism that is likely insubstantial and baseless.

No. This is not what that group represents. Look it up. I don't even particularly care about this group, just the right for them to assemble and express their views. A fictional character isn't a threat to anyone in my opinion. They are simply demonstrating a ritual that people used to partake in when they wanted to rail against the Catholic Church, which isn't allowed in a public setting if anyone knows about it, apparently. Again there was supposed to be a narration that put everything in a historical context. Meanwhile, you can order books on nazi Germany history on amazon.

  On 5/13/2014 at 6:43 AM, MisterE said:

it seems to me like you just think that some groups should be allowed to force others to support them in activities that many won't find tasteful.

 

you have two different sides to this, but you draw a line around one side and say that if THIS side doesn't get ITS way, then that's rights being infringed or inhibited. but for that side to get its way, the other side will have to be forced to support something they don't like. nobody is saying these people can't do this thing. nobody is trying to force them to do anything. but you want the other side to be forced to go along with something they don't want to. you mentioned financial support being cut as a fear of Harvard's, but this is part of freedom of speech. if there is actually some hypothetical catholic/christian group out there that could somehow pull financial support from Harvard for supporting this, that would be them exercising their freedom of speech and freedom to do whatever they want with THEIR money.

 

i have a hard time believing you would have any problem at all if the roles were reversed and Harvard decided to withdraw support for some kind of prayer session because of protests. this is how society works. institutions are supported by people. if enough of the people supporting an institution don't like something it's doing, they bitch about it, and that institution then may or may not buckle. they choose how to act with their resources, just like everyone else in the whole process. to me what you are saying seems like the exact opposite of freedom. it's closer to fascism to suggest that institutions or people should HAVE to do this or that regardless of how it might conflict with their beliefs or support.

No because I know people who go to church and I respect their right to do so. You tried, though.

i tried? in your first post you said a litmus test for freedom of speech just failed miserably, then you said kneejerk reactionism has inhibited the rights of the people wanting to do this thing, then you just now again used the word right.

yes. christians have a 'right' to go to church.

no. they do not have a 'right' to have harvard support them going to church or praying. neither do these satanists.

these satanists haven't been told they cant have their pretend devil worshipping party. they were just told harvard won't support it. according to you that is their rights being inhibited. so they had a right to be supported by harvard? doesn't harvard have a right to support what they want, or not to?

why does it seem like i've laid this out pretty clearly, numerous times, and you still refuse to respond to this very basic logic, instead choosing to ignore it and continue repeating your vague claims that somehow, rights of some group have been refused? oh it's because that's exactly what's happening here. well just keep saying it over and over, i'm sure it will seep into some skulls out there. it's become a proven tactic by now. i'm done though, because it's fucking ridiculous.

If Harvard chose to host them in the first place and backed out last minute under pressure that that other organizations do not have on them, then yeah, it's pretty unfair. Harvard faced opposition to this event for several days before reiterating their stance on their rights for their student organizations. And no, it's not a devil worshipping party, but apparently you can type a lot, but not read. I'll just chalk this up to you being an idiot after failing to respond to a few points I've made but this isn't news to wattm anyway. Good luck.

Lol, they held it later anyway at a Chinese restaurant across the street!

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2014/5/12/black-mass-relocated-controversy/

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/05/12/harvard-president-student-groups-black-mass-decision-abhorrent/

The Hong Kong should be a venue for all metal bands coming to Boston now.