Again, my question as posed was more rhetorical, but good point that being deliberately provocative sometimes can be an effective device to get your point across, though it can also be misinterpreted to the extent that your point is missed altogether.
Not everything provocative is trollery. Some times it takes upsetting comfortable sensibilities to make people realize that this comfort is the comfort of privilege.
In the Old Testament, the name Satan stands for the Accuser or Antagonist, and in the Book of Job he is in good speaking terms with Elohim, and his role is to put the faith of believers to the test.
So these organizations use the name of The Antagonist to raise the issue, whether the alleged religious “tolerance” of the society is so, or is really just an enforcement of a cultural consensus that privileges a specific set of “safe” establishment beliefs.
Yes, I did acknowledge in my previous post that deliberate provocation can sometimes be an effective rhetorical device, but it can just as often backfire. It’s kind of a dice-roll.
True, but if you stand up at the Jane Addams PTA meeting and proudly proclaim “I support Satan!”. They’re not going to ask, do you mean the Jewish ‘Adversary’ or ‘Prosecutor’, an agent of G-d, very much part of the divine council, or do you mean the Christian version, who is a fallen angel, dedicated to evil, and the enemy of God? They’re probably going to assume the latter.
If you read LaVey on this, he’s perfecly clear in not promoting a theistic Satan. They worship the adversarial attitude, not some Christian figure.
I guess it depends on your definition of “trolling” and what methods you think are appropriate in service of a cause. They have an agenda and they’d like to advocate for it. If they named their organization "ANGOP (A Nice Group of People) they wouldn’t have much impact.
To me, trolling has a simple, base motive: it’s about pissing people off, and feeling glee in the discomfiture of people you disagree with. Trolling is not about forcing people to think, confront their hypocrisy and defend their beliefs.
This group has chosen their name to be provocative, sure. But what they want to provoke is an actual analysis of the actions of the religious right. They are forcing others to defend their point of view, and to expose logical weaknesses in their thinking. To me, that’s not trolling, it’s just clever strategy.
Yeah, I mean, I agree with you, but it’s not just the name-- their website is chock full of satanic images like upside-down pentagrams, scary-looking goat skulls and such. There’s quite a bit of cognitive dissonance between all that and the text of the site, which is quite non-controversial and reasonable. It’s like “however from our name and the way our website looks did you possibly get the idea we worship Satan? So silly of you! Perish the thought”.
Don’t get me wrong-- as a web designer / developer, I think their site is well made and, well, kinda badass. I like their choice of title and text fonts (the name of their text font is, amusingly, ‘Philosopher’).
There is nothing scary about an upside down pentagram, a goat skull or any other image on the TST website, IMO
What I find scary is a picture of a man suffering while he slowly bleeds to death because he’s been nailed to a wooden cross.
What I find more upsetting, tho, is that some people think it’s fine to denigrate other religions based on their guesses.
IOW: your bias is showing. Which is part of the point that TST is making.
I mean, I agree, but just to play Devil’s Advocate, so to speak…parents of kids in an Illinois elementary school probably beg to differ.
Well, yeah…the Christian Church is responsible for some of the most epic trolling in history 
I disagree. I’m fine with the stated aims of TST, and I have acknowledged that deliberate provocation can be an effective rhetorical device. I just feel that they’re being a wee bit disingenuous with the attitude “What? How can you possibly think we’re Satan worshippers? Just because we call ourselves ‘The Satanic Temple’ and use satanic iconography? That’s on you, man.”
You agree? Then why did you twice call them scary?
Well, yes, but does it “remind Christians of the importance of separation of church and state,” or does it send the message that freedom of religion is bad because it grants freedom to evil, false, and dangerous religions (from their point of view)?
Oh jeez, come on. No, I don’t find the images scary, because I’m a grown-up, not religious, and I know what’s make-believe and what’s not. But if you have a little kid, get a poster-sized version of this, put it up on his bedroom wall where it’s the last thing he sees as he falls asleep, and see if he doesn’t have nightmares (just kidding; don’t do that):
A view already held and strongly reinforced, and thus needing to be challenged.
Yes, but my point is that this sounds much more like something that would reinforce it than something that would challenge it.
If they can get used to (and eventually look at with love) an image of a man being tortured to death on a large wooden cross, I can’t see much of a problem with that image if it shown to that even a tenth as much.
If you have a better way…
That’s as may be, but why is the onus of explanation on me rather than the burden of learning to understand another’s views being on the Christian? That’s rather the point, that they consider their superstitions to reign supreme over anyone else’s beliefs and they need to learn to shut the fuck up and sit down and stop insisting everyone kowtow to their superstitions and give an undue amount of respect to them. A person’s belief in a god does not supersede my atheism and they need to pull back and understand their rules and beliefs apply only to themselves and others who consensually agree to abide by them.
As a former Quad Citian I am deeply shocked at this attempt to recruit our vulnerable youth into His Satanic Majesty’s service. Such a thing would never have happened in Bettendorf.
Yeah, that’s just what Satan would say.
Pretty much the same as the Satanic Temple, only with rummage and bake sales.
Unfortunately, for far too many of them, this point of view is considered to be a direct attack on their religion and to even consider it to be a betrayal of their god.
All I’m saying is, I agree with the stated aims and intentions of TST, but when you couch your message in the name of satan, and use a lot of satanic iconography in the process, you can’t be too awfully surprised that a bunch of Illinois parents of school children don’t automatically say, "ohhhh…I see what they’re trying to do- they’re being deliberately provocative in order to challenge our preconceived notions, so that we and our precious children will be encouraged to practice “benevolence and empathy, reject tyrannical authority, advocate practical common sense, oppose injustice, and undertake noble pursuits.” How clever of them to do so in such a manner! I would not have gotten the message otherwise!
If your medium is deliberately provocative, it will get you more attention, but maybe not the kind you want, and your actual message may be overlooked.
They wouldn’t have gotten the message otherwise. If the club were just “Good Samaritans” or “Secular Humanists”, it would just slide under the radar.