When religious people just can't deal with the fact that theirs is just one of many religions out there in the world, when they need their god to be the one true god, that's when they become a real problem. That leads to them calling all others evil and trying to impose their values on everyone else. I know it's blithe of me to say that's got to stop, but really, people really need to acknowledge that it's a big planet, not everyone is like them, and that unlike-ness doesn't make them evil.
> Speaking to WMC, ASSC’s national campaign director pushed back against criticisms, saying: “We don’t go to a school unless there is another religious club operating.”
I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I really like this club and would consider sending my kids there.
‘the Satanic Temple was a non-theistic religion that views Satan as “a literary figure who represents a metaphorical construct of rejecting tyranny and championing the human mind and spirit”.
“After School Satan Club does not attempt to convert children to any religious ideology. Instead, the Satanic Temple supports children to think for themselves. All After School Satan Clubs … emphasize a scientific, rationalist, non-superstitious world view,”
‘
The satanic temple was created specifically to counteract the damaging effects of organized religion. I see nothing objectionable in what they do. I’d have joined it as a kid (once i figured out what they were about). I’d have no problem sending my kid to a club that supports thinking for yourself and a scientific and rationalist approach to life.
Keep in mind that the satanic temple does not believe in the literal existence of satan.
Good for them. Either keep religion out of schools, or learn to accept that there's a wide variety of beliefs and that might mean some religions you don't feel comfortable with also holding events.
Without any context, and this article spares no time for that, it's hard to know if that's their actual position. According to Wikipedia the organization was started in protest to George Bush's faith based initiatives and was designed to get federal dollars while intentionally being repugnant.
Which, is not the type of organization that puts it's obligation to after school activities at the top of it's list, and I'm not sure it's beneficial for anyone other than like minded ideologues who would rather engage in intentionally pugnacious protests rather than in any remedial civil actions.
Finally, what action are they protesting exactly? That a public building is being used by religions organizations in an after school setting? Are students being forced to participate in any way? So, why then involve the students in your federal funding protest? The whole thing seems gaudy and desperate for attention.
> Cofounders Lucien Greaves and Malcolm Jarry met in 2012,[6][12] and The Satanic Temple was active by January 2013.[29] In an interview with The New York Times, Malcolm Jarry stated that the idea of starting a Satanic faith-based organization was first conceived to meet "all the Bush administration's criteria for receiving funds, but was repugnant to them".
Quite literally, the first paragraph of their "History" section on wikipedia.
> Almost, but not quite. In this case, it is the fact that only certain religions were/are being allowed in a public building but not other religions.
That's the article I'd rather read. Do you happen to know of one that highlights this fact? I looked, but couldn't find any direct connection between a State action and this response.
> They also protest and litigate against corporal punishment for children and reproductive rights, among other things.
So do a lot of organizations that aren't trying to start after school programs, which was the thrust of my point, are the children legitimately being served by this or being used by this?
I may have misunderstood your original comment. The way I read it, you were saying that The Satanic Temple is being intentionally repugnant -- which it isn't and the part you quoted doesn't say that either. Either way, I'm still not sure why you wouldn't want to read about their beliefs from them rather than second-hand from Wikipedia.
>That's the article I'd rather read. Do you happen to know of one that highlights this fact?
You can read their legal proceedings at [1]. Advocacy at [2].
From [3] there is "It was created as an alternative to Christian-based after-school groups, specifically at schools that host the Evangelical Good News Club. The program neither teaches about Satanism nor attempts to convert club-goers; they instead teach about rationalism and understanding the world around us".
From [4], "The Satanic Temple has said it would prefer to exclude religious teachings altogether from school sites, but feels compelled to establish after-school programs to provide an alternative to Christian teachings."
[5] is an example of them being rejected from The Los Angeles Unified School District despite the district having a Christian religious club.
>So do a lot of organizations that aren't trying to start after school programs
As seen above, and elsewhere, they start after-school programs in schools which have Christian after-school programs, not simply wherever they can. The purpose of the clubs, where they exist, is to promote and teach rationalism.
>are the children legitimately being served by this or being used by this?
Considering they are basically a rational thinking club, I believe that children are legitimately being served by the existence of the club where it exists as an alternative to Christian clubs.
> According to Wikipedia the organization was started in protest to George Bush's faith based initiatives and was designed to get federal dollars while intentionally being repugnant.
Really? I can't find that in the Wikipedia page [1]. Perhaps you would share exactly which part says that?
A reminder that The Satanic Temple is not to be confused with the Church of Satan, as there has been a few comments in-thread which have confused the two. It's extremely common for them to be confused.
The Satanic Temple was founded in 2013, and rejects many of the beliefs of other Satanic organizations. To see their differences from The Church of Satan, see [1].
I would encourage anyone remotely interested (positively or negatively) to read through their FAQ[2], and if you have the time, to peruse some of their recommended readings[3].
The FAQ reads quite sane, in particular their belief list.
But then they choose a weird mascot. Satan as a metaphor for the rebel is drowned by the other metaphors, like the ultimate evil, the liar who corrupts you, who will happily look nice and friendly if that's what is needed for the job. Especially if you then insist you don't believe in any supernatural, Satan included.
It's a bit like an art movement in Hitler's name, insisting it's nothing to do with Nazism, and only his painting style.
If you want to preach kindness and rational words thinking, but your symbol is a ram's head in a pentagram, then you can't be surprised people are terrified.
I have no personal experience with this organization.
I think you may have rather missed the point. If they set up the "fluffy bunny after school club", how much attention do you think it would have brought to the hypocrisies they're trying to highlight? There would have been no religious fundamentalists protesting outside, it would not have made international news, and the in-school Christian indoctrination would have continued unchallenged. (Full disclosure, I've donated to them in the past)
You make it sound like a bad thing. Is the point to preach rationality or to piss people off? Surely they would get more people through the door with different branding.
But then, American debate in religion is weird from all angles so what do I know.
The only version we have is from God following Satan's planned coup who just says a bunch of mean things about Satan's character. We know that Satan led around 1/3 of the angels in his coup.
Whatever Satan was fighting for, it was something that he managed to persuade a large amount of God's supporters to join him in fighting for.
That lack of clarity creates a blank canvas to suggest your own reasoning. Certainly, in the majority of cases where a significant number of people fight back against an uncompromising and absolute authority, they are fighting against the coercive control involved.
But that doesn't really matter because Satanism isn't really about Satan in the same way that Christianity isn't really about God.
In some sense it is necessary theologically that Satan (and his followers) exist if a dialectical approach is taken. That view goes back thousands of years, to before Christianity, with the eternal struggle of Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu.
If I'm not mistaken, Paradise Lost is the original source for much of it, and more recent popular culture embellishment is much of the reset. Essentially the line "Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven" is split in half, and the focus is put on "than to serve in Heaven" as a rallying cry for independence, and the "better to reign in hell" part is ignored. The Satanic Temple doesn't worship (or believe in) Satan, so leaving off the other half is inconsequential as he's just a symbol anyway.
In addition to Biblical content, we should also refer to the biblical apocrypha – those ancient writings that are not included in the traditional Old and New Testaments. There are some fun stories to read in the apocrypha, building on the traditional stories we know.
To your point, I wonder how much Satan plays a part in each of these classes of writings.
Is there a good collection and retelling of these stories somewhere? I'm aware some versions of the Bible have some apocrypha, but after reading the old+new testaments, I'm just not up for more of that kind of writing.
The book I have on my bookshelf is called "The Forgotten Books of Eden", subtitled "Lost Books of the Old Testament". This one is a 1980 re-printing of the 1927 book edited by Rutherford Platt. This free PDF looks like a replica: http://www.evreninsirlari.net/dosyalar/155-156_s04_04.pdf
The first two chapters "The First Book of Adam and Eve" and the second, directly deal with their conflict with Satan.
It's essentially a parody/protest religion. Basically taking the idea of "Ok, you're gonna play the religious freedom card? How you like deez apples? If you want us out, you have to go too."
You switched 'god', from the parent post, to 'authority'.
If I did the same lexical sleight-of-hand, I could switch it to 'tyranny'. Is rejecting tyranny mature enough?
Or, just leave it at rejecting god, as plenty of mature individuals have done that.
I can only speak as a Christian, but a lot of the Bible and Christian teachings are kind of fascist. A lot of worshipping God, treating God and Jesus like King, God killing people, etc. Also, a lot of rules (many quite arbitrary and nonsensical). I could 100% see Satan considered some kind of champion of liberal and libertarian values.
It's unclear from the article whither you are correct or you are offering a straw-man argument. Obviously the situation you are positing
1. You posit a distorted idea of "tyranny" - you extend it to all morals
2. You assume a second stage of Satan Worship, which might not be present.
From the article it seems far more likely to be an Atheist club that chose a name to cause debate about the cultural capital religion has.
Bear in mind that for centuries the church has been used as a means of control and to support autocrats and persecution. It's far more likely the Satanic club is objecting to that use.
I don't assume. I believe everyone must be given a chance to make an informed choice, so every time those preachers of the left hand try to fool the naive folk, I feel it's my duty to give them a more complete picture. And if they still choose to jump off a cliff, then well, it's their right.
To their credit, that quoted statement rejects the claim that they're a religiously motivated club. They outright state that the worship of Satan is not what they do (because they are non-theistic) and encouraging that would probably have you removed. Either way, moral apathy exists with or without religion, so I'd argue it's pointless to blame it on an optional extracurricular club (for teenagers).
So far, the only instigators of conflict here seem to be religiously-involved adults. So long as individual self-expression is respected, I see no reason why Satan Club should be treated different from a religious fellowship or book club.
Ceding your concept of morality to a book someone wrote thousands of years ago is the pinnacle act of moral apathy. That level of apathy is revealed in the way you make your argument: Others' way(s) of life can't possible be moral because they're doing things differently... revealing a lazy mind incapable of compassion and unable to comprehend the values of others.
Seriously, take a look at what you wrote and think about the implications of painting people involved in Not Your Preferred Religion as "naive followers" with "amoral apathy" that are lured into "actual worship"... which sounds a lot like how certain popular religious organizations slip into the philosophies of others who were better off without them, not that I'd name names. It'd be difficult, anyway, as the hypocrisy is usually thick with individuals who engage in these sorts of mental gymnastics.
It's super common when TST gets involved, and it's always amusing to watch.
It's entirely possible in the UK, it's just simply not very popular anymore as the region has already seen a major push back against overbearing Christian practices and pushed most of them out to the Americas and elsewhere.
Today there are on the order of a 100 or so committed Satanists in the UK according to:
Journal of Contemporary Religion: Satanism in Britain today (1995) - Graham Harvey
This paper discusses the views and activities of self‐identified Satanists in Britain, especially the Temple of Set, the Church of Satan, the Order of the Nine Angles and Dark Lily. It also comments on ad hoc, adolescent and multi‐generational Satanism.
Satanism is a series of techniques for allowing individuals to affirm, develop and express themselves, and to do what they wish to do in the context of a spirituality.
It does not require belief in the Satan of the Christian pantheon although thriving on the sinister image and the hostility it can evoke in Christians and the media.
Satanism is an adversarial form of self‐religion.
...
There are Satanists in Britain.
There are six groups who between them have less than 100 members.
There are more people who read Satanist magazines or have bought books by Satanists, e.g. Anton LaVey's
Satanic Bible (1969).
Again they are few in number compared to the scare-estimate.
A larger number of people—some adolescents—name themselves Satanists, but belong to no formal or organised Satanist group.
Sounds like a dramatically effective name to garner attention for a critical-thinking club and force some of the worst traits of the opposition to the fore.
Those religious signs are priceless:
- There is power in the blood of Jesus
- There is room at the cross.
- The wages of sin is death
- Schools in the name of Jesus
It sounds like Christians trying as hard as they can to control the general population. Sounds like Tyranny.
"This fight is between God and the satanic club, and God’s going to bring it down"
So many wars have been fought in the name of god, and strangely many of them have been lost.
I love the irony that the club only practices at schools which already have a religious club. You really cannot object to other religions holding attendance while yours continues.
The more students actually think critically the more they realize that all religions are ridiculous. We just have to make the most of a positive life in a society in this material existence. People can be moral without the threat of a magical entity "with a big stick."
