The Mrs. and I brought up our kids as Unitarian Universalists (aka godless dirt-worshipping heathens) in a very conservative calvinist community (made up of my kith and kin). Any disagreement or voicing opinions outside the community mainstream (Jesus is god, Hell is real, only christians are saved, and then only the ones in the correct denomination) brought swift condemnation in the local PUBLIC school, not just from many fellow students but from some teachers too. Disagree with the xtian mainstream here, or even fail to agree, and many of these folks feel they are being persecuted.
One teacher called us in for a conference because during a class discussion where one student voiced confidence that the Bible was inerrant and should be treated as such, my daughter replied with “a lot of people don’t believe that, though”. Teacher felt my daughter was ‘disrespecting’ the other students’ (and his own) beliefs by saying not everyone believed what they did.
We moved both kids to a private school pretty quick.
That was 2 decades ago, and the school (I am told) is less like that, but still influenced strongly by the locals.
The old christian assumption that their values are default for all and anything inconsistent with them is not allowable is slowly decreasing but still has a strong hold on a lot of folks.
“Under God” was not even in the Pledge until 1954, and I saw, on a TV show, some kids at a Muslim private school say “under Allah.”
Libraries often host various social and religious clubs, and honestly, I wouldn’t be as weirded out, for want of a better term, if they did it there or some other public building.
Why are you weirded out? Because they call them “Satanic”? This moniker is most probably tongue in cheek, and why shouldn’t Satanists be given the same rights as Christians, Muslims or whatever other religion for access to a school building anyway?
They use Satanic imagery specifically to drive home the principal that the First Amendment protects all religious groups. As @Darren_Garrison pointed out, they troll evangelicals to make their point.
I’ve heard some interviews with their founder, Lucien Greaves; he’s intelligent and articulate. He and his group are on the side of the angels.
And therein lies the problem. I have no problem with a group that fights for their religious rights. I have no problem with them using the rules that help Evangelicals.
Where I draw the line is with groups that think trolling is okay. Even if your cause is just, deliberately trying to piss people off for your own amusement is wrong. It’s wrong for the same reasons things like bullying or harassment are wrong.
And, similarly, if you act like those two are okay if the cause is just, then you give cover to those who are not just. How do you tell group A it’s okay for them to troll but treat group B as wrong for doing so?
Trolling used to be the one thing we could all agree was wrong. And I don’t know what happened to change that. But I see people all over acting like trolling is this perfectly normal thing, and I can’t help but associate that with the rise of so much trolling in everyday life. An entire political movement used trolling as their main weapon.
Again, let me make myself clear. I’m 100% fine with the idea of people using religious freedom laws in ways that thwart the Dominionist types. If the law was created by Christians to assert themselves as the supreme religion, I’m all for redirecting that. I’m even for the move to make abortion a religious right, since the objection to such is pretty much entirely religious, too.
I just object to the point where it becomes trolling. I don’t see deliberately pissing of the Evangelicals as any different than “liberal tears.”
AFAIK, it’s not the issue of it being a school, but being a government-run entity. The library would have the same issues unless it’s a privately-run library.
That’s not what they are doing (and @Darren_Garrison is wrong). They are making a very important point about the separation of church (especially a specific set of beliefs) and state. They are challenging the complacency of the kind of xtians that @Qadgop_the_Mercotan was describing, and emphasizing that all religious and secular groups should have equal standing and respect.
Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.
Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.
When in another’s home, show them respect or else do not go there.
If a guest in your home annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.
Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.
Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and they cry out to be relieved.
Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.
Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.
Do not harm little children.
Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.
When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.[110][111]
Lucien Greaves has described the Temple as being a progressive and updated version of LaVey’s Satanism.[93] The Temple views itself as separate and distinct from its forerunner, representing “a natural evolution in Satanic thought”. Greaves has said that the elements of Social Darwinism and Nietzscheanism within LaVeyan Satanism are incongruent with game theory, reciprocal altruism, and cognitive science.[94] He has also criticized the LaVeyan Church of Satan for its lack of political lobbying and what he sees as their exclusivity, referring to them as autocratic and hierarchical, and saying that the Church fetishizes authoritarianism.[13][54] Conversely, the Church of Satan has made statements claiming that The Satanic Temple are only “masquerading as Satanists”[95][96] and do not represent Satanism.[97]
Very good question. I’ve heard of the Satanic Temple and was aware that they don’t literally worship satan; their mission supposedly is:
…to encourage benevolence and empathy, reject tyrannical authority, advocate practical common sense, oppose injustice, and undertake noble pursuits.
Very high-minded of them. So why do they call themselves ‘satanic’? From the “About Us” page that @pulykamell linked to:
With unfortunate regularity - and much to our chagrin - The Satanic Temple is confused with an earlier organization, the Church of Satan, founded by Anton Szandor LaVey in the 1960s.
Gosh, I wonder what would cause such a misunderstanding? Wait, so why do they call themselves ‘Satanic’? From their FAQ page:
Q. DO YOU WORSHIP SATAN?
A. No, nor do we believe in the existence of Satan or the supernatural. The Satanic Temple believes that religion can, and should, be divorced from superstition. As such, we do not promote a belief in a personal Satan. To embrace the name Satan is to embrace rational inquiry removed from supernaturalism and archaic tradition-based superstitions. Satanists should actively work to hone critical thinking and exercise reasonable agnosticism in all things. Our beliefs must be malleable to the best current scientific understandings of the material world — never the reverse.
So using the term ‘Satanic’ seems deliberately provocative and trolling to me. Not to mention, their website is crowded with scary images of upside-down pentagrams, goat skulls and images of ol’ Nick himself. I don’t feel like looking into TST’s origins any further, but I’m guessing it was started by some Goth kid looking to piss off his parents and teachers, and it took on a life of its own.
Oh, yes. It and Anton Szandor LaVey used to be incredibly famous. Just look for his name in Google Books. He still has shown up in news articles fairly recently, too:
I once saw a huge, jet black Great Dane. He approached me and I was petting him. I saw an ID on his collar, and read it as SATAN. The owners came over and I mentioned what a sweet dog Satan was.
They went batshit crazy on me. The dog’s name was SATIN. They were extremely religious and were offended that I misread the dog’s tag.
My question was more rhetorical in the sense that I was asking and answering my own question. As I quoted from their FAQ page:
…we do not promote a belief in a personal Satan. To embrace the name Satan is to embrace rational inquiry removed from supernaturalism and archaic tradition-based superstitions.
Which as I then went on to speculate, was probably BS, and using the name satan as well as a ton of satanic imagery on their website was a form of deliberate provocation or trolling. There’s even another question on their FAQ page asking if they are trolling; they don’t outright deny it, and admit that invoking the name of satan has led to publicity they wouldn’t have gotten otherwise.
IS TST A MEDIA STUNT/HOAX/TROLLING, ETC.?
Some have conveniently concluded, upon observing The Satanic Temple’s media coverage, that attention is the primary objective of our activities. While media outreach has helped to raise awareness of the campaigns we have initiated, these campaigns have articulated goals related issues that are important to us and our membership. So inured is the general public to the idea that there is only one monolithic voice of “the” religious agenda that any attempt at a counter-balance — or assertion of a minority voice — is often viewed as a targeted provocation against those who enjoy traditional religious privilege.
How’s that for a deliberately disingenuous, non-answer answer? “Just because we call ourselves ‘The Satanic Temple’, it’s viewed as a targeted provocation! Boo hoo, how unfair”. I mean, fine and dandy, I guess. The band Black Sabbath weren’t devil worshippers, they simply traded on the ideas and iconography, causing deliberate provocation of parents everywhere, to sell records.
They’re pushing for separation of church and state. If a government building is endorsing Christianity by displaying monuments or hosting evangelical clubs, then The Satanic Temple comes in and says hey, we get to participate too! A statue of Newton at the courthouse or an Empathy Club might be cool, but it doesn’t remind Christians of the importance of separation of church and state. Make it a statue of Baphomet, or rename the empathy club to After School Satan, and people start to reconsider whether their government should be endorsing religion.
Also, Satan is a great metaphor for rebellion against tyranny. In the Bible, the Lord commits and endorses genocide, slavery, and rape. He creates a Hell of eternal torture for his children. The Lord creates humans but forbids them from learning about morality. A talking snake, presumably possessed by Satan, gives humanity the ability to recognize good and evil. The Lord is an evil tyrant, and Satan is his adversary. People have gotten used to the word “satanic” being synonymous with “evil,” but modern Satanists regard Yahweh as a fictional evil character and Satan as a fictional hero standing up to an all-powerful bully.