I grew up around bikers, including some "1%" types, and have lived in Daytona Beach since 1979. You don't need to explain anything about bikers to me. I know more than I want to.

Greetings hellofahells, and Hail Satan!

>>>if you associate with anyone who could in some way be affiliated with GANG activities,

--->That's one area of the law that needs to be changed, at least in CA.

CA defines a gang as two or more people who are both invovled in committing a crime. I believe that definition is unconstitutionally broad.

According to that definition, if you're camping with your buddies, consuming alcohol around a campfire that you don't have a permit for, you and your friends are now gang members.

I don't think that's an appropriate enhancement for that crime under those circumstances, but under the law in California that is a likely scenerio.

So you think the Crips, Bloods, MS13 etc. should get a free pass just to avoid the unlikely possibility that two morons making a campfire without a permit don't get tagged as a "gang" ...?

Personally I think they should be rounded up and shot.

This has gotten incoherent.

You and your argument are flawed.

Wearing a helmet on the bus to school does not make you a biker.

I will not discuss this with you any further. You seem to be seeking validation for your desire to join a "club". That or you have an agenda.

You've been given straight forward replies that are easy to understand. Either you get it, or you don't.

Absolutely not, but I appreciate the question.

I think the laws should be written and applied to fit the crime. Unfortunately, where I live they frequently are not.

Far too many times people guilty of serious crimes are either allowed to get away with their crimes, or allowed to plead down to a lesser crime, and in some cases, people guilty of smaller crimes are sentenced to punishments that greatly exceed the scope or impact of the crime. In the worst cases, people who aren't guilty at all are punished while the guilty go free.

I think our justice system needs a complete overhaul, but that's a bit off topic so I wont go into more detail on that here.

I'm about to leave for a few days. I hope you all have a wonderful weekend/holiday and I wish you all and your loved ones success in the new year!

>>>Wearing a helmet on the bus to school does not make you a biker.

--->You are correct about that, but being a master of the obvious isn't what drew you to satanism....

Please identify what you believe to be flawed about my comments.

I hope you have a wonderful holiday!

>>>I will not discuss this with you any further.

--->Thank you for the discussion with you that you have allowed me

>>>You seem to be seeking validation for your desire to join a "club".

--->That is truly not my intent. I don't seek validation... If I seek anything it's challenging discussion that provokes me to think beyond what I've been able to provoke myself.

>>>You've been given straight forward replies that are easy to understand.

--->I do appreciate them.

In this instance, they create a case out of thin air.

Unlike priggish groups that refuse to allow their members any freedom at all, it has been my experience that the Church of Satan is extremely tolerant of members who wish to belong to other groups unless those groups are clearly anti-COS or advocate criminal activity.

The Church assumes that you are an adult and have the brains to keep your nose clean and not betray the legacy of Satanism.

6. How do they deal with Anton LaVey and the Church of Satan?

Backstabbers who speak against Satanism while claiming to be Satanists themselves are playing a fool's game.

To my knowledge the Church does not restrict your affiliation with other groups but will judge you harshly if you are not smart or loyal.

I would suggest that any real Satanist would take precisely the same perspective.

My top values are my survival and my personal wellbeing. I suspect I speak for others here when I say that.

If a law conflicts with my values, I'll work to change the law, re-shape my values, or move where the laws are different. It ain't worth the trouble of going to prison, or worse.

I couldn’t agree more. I love motorcycles as a mechanical artistic platform, but I despise biker culture and the modern biker aesthetic. It had some relevance in the late forties and early fifties when bikers were GIs returning from the second World War, looking for a way to continue the brotherhood they’d formed on the battlefield.

I own a couple of businesses, one of which is a small manufacturing company that makes custom motorcycle parts. This grew out of a passion for building 1940's style custom bikes. I’ve scaled down that business a good deal in the last couple of years because I just can’t stand being subjected to the customers anymore. They’re either insurance salesmen trying to play tough, or they’re gang members who are bigger than me, profoundly dumb, and wired to the gills on crystal meth. I consider myself one of the true 1%ers: The 1% of motorcyclists that aren’t retards

I used to make the trek to Daytona twice a year to promote my wares. I don’t know how you tolerate the bikers, spring breakers, and inbred NASCAR fans.

Yes, but your talking about YOUR club president, right?
You didn't mention what kind of club it is either.

Bingo.

The question of breaking laws in the name of "Satanic individualism" comes up from time to time here. It seems to me that most of the time, they aren't really talking about the abstract morality of obeying an unjust law. Instead, it's usually code for "Yeah, you SAY you won't tolerate weed-smoking, but... you don't really MEAN that, right?"

As for me, there are plenty of laws that I disagree with. And while I do think there's a tipping point where illegal actions become necessary, I don't try to kid myself into thinking I'm anywhere near it. A ban on leaf-burning isn't even in the same league as, say, the fugitive slave laws from the 19th century.

Oh, and back on the original motorcycle topic -- yeah, it all depends on which "club" we're talking about. There's a world of difference between the Hell's Angels and the Motorcycle Safety Foundation, after all.

-Chess

I also notice that the people who take this line don't seem to acknowledge a distinction between unjust laws, and merely inconvenient laws. You can't have a productive and reasonable discussion about civil disobedience if you don't start with that distinction.

Edit: In short, little words: It's not "civil disobedience" to break a law just because it's inconvenient. Obey the laws of your state, even inconvenient laws.

We could talk about civil disobedience and Satanism - that would be a really interesting discussion, but not one to have out in the public forums.