But not using provocative imagery and “satanic iconography” means that A) you are buying in to the notion that delicate Christian’s sensibilities are somehow more important than anyone else’s and B) using the stronger imagery drives the point home better that they need to SHUT THE FUCK UP and stop trying to control the lives and beliefs of others just because their god seems to tell them that’s a good thing to do. Use soft pedalled imagery and it won’t stop them from freaking out–FFS, look at the Banned Books Week displays to see the absolutely inoffensive things they think are appropriate to demand being sheltered from. Christians are fucking annoying and quite frankly I’d be perfectly fine with the entire religion vanishing from the face of the earth. It’s societal cancer.
But now they’re not only not getting the message, they’re getting the wrong message. Pissing people off just reinforces preconceived notions.
So? Some preconceived notions really NEED a good hot pissoff session or twelve to teach the owner of those notions that they need to shut up and fuck off. Christians are the Karens of the spiritual world.
I disagree. When they hear “religious freedom”, they think “freedom to be Christian”. When another entity takes advantage of that same freedom, in a really in-your-face way, it forces them either to try and ban them from the premises (which would cause themselves to be banned) or accept that religious freedom means every religion.
Ugh. OK, let’s take religion out of it altogether and just say someone formed a group called “The Hitler Society”, using a bunch of Nazi propaganda. But the stated mission and intention was “we don’t advocate for or worship Hitler at all, rather we use Hitler’s name metaphorically to break through people’s preconceived notions and advocate for love and compassion for people of all ethnicities and religious beliefs”. How well would that go over?
Again, if you have a better and more effective way to get the message across, I would love to hear it.
Well, considering he actually existed, and that the victims of his policies still exist, I would say your example really doesn’t apply.
I know, I’m so opaque, I should work on that. 
Doesn’t work. Hitler was a real person in the world whose actions are absolutely and unequivocally known to be malign. Satan, or God for that matter, are simply matters of opinion. They don’t exist, never did, they are wholly made up constructs onto which any person is free to hang their own opinions and ascribe motives to them.
Kind of hard to do with this topic.
Right. There is nothing subtle about it. Many examples over the years. Here’s one of the most recent:
Can’t a person have an opinion that a certain approach is not effective without already having the perfect solution to replace it with?
OK, good point. But I think the basic premise holds, that taking a person or thing as the symbol or your philosophical movement that’s anathema to a large number of the population, when your actual message is the opposite of what that person or thing is believed to represent, is not the best way to get your point across. To a religious person, Satan exists, and even for those who are religious but consider the devil a metaphor, people really don’t like their religion mocked. It tends to be a very sore subject.
As I said, I am not religious, so I don’t have a dog in this fight. But there seems to be an undercurrent of “athiesm = good; Christianity = bad” to these arguments. Yes, many atrocities have been committed in the name of Christianity. Many atrocities have been committed in the name of the US as well, but I don’t hate America. I try to respect the beliefs of anybody who considers themselves atheist or religious, regardless of denomination. So maybe I’m closer to the beliefs of TST than you naysayers 
One of the reasons, so I suspect, that the Neo-Satanists appropriate the iconography of the Christian Satan is to deflect the legal issues that Pastafarianism and other so-called ‘joke’ religions get nailed with. A number of court cases have ruled against followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as deserving of protection, as they do not find it a ‘real’ religion.
And others. Generally these aren’t big issue rulings, but the point remains. By using the Christian Churches terminology, they can bypass some of these risks. After all, the various governments have approved Christianity as a real religion, and they’re (from a certain POV) just worshipping the same thing as a different sect.
But yes, in part, they’re trolling (although see our recent thread on what trolling means) - they are trying to get a reaction, one that lets them emphasize a current issues with unthinking religious privilege as well as a strong tendency in the US towards sanctioned Christian protectionism. IMHO though, the intent isn’t to primarily generate the outrage, but to generate discussion and the underlying issues. So short of trolling for me. I absolutely do know some Neo-Satanists who are doing it to troll, including one of my friends trolling their parents way back in college these many years ago.
Not permitting this club would be the exact opposite, wouldn’t you say. Besides, when did “atheism” become the opposite of “Christianity”?
This isn’t a “Both sides do it!” argument-This is a “Why should only one viewpoint be allowed?” argument.
OK, I am all for freedom of speech, and I never said the club should not be permitted. All I have ever said in this thread is that if you call yourselves “The Satanic Temple” and use a lot of satanic iconography, it’s a bit disingenuous to be all like “why all the controversy? Of course we don’t actually worship Satan! How in the world did anybody ever get that idea??”
Uh, well, it may not be opposite, exactly, and I don’t think I actually claimed that, but the two are not exactly compatible. I’ve heard of an 'Existentialist Christian" but not an “Atheist Christian”.
There is definitely the thought in some quarters of Satan as being a bit of an anti-hero or even hero. The Romantics often held that type of view of him as being an adversary who stands up to the authority of something like Milton’s God. Satan wasn’t into this autocractic, subjugating, and extremely hierarchical structure of God and basically said “fuck you, you ain’t my boss” and espoused a more egalitarian attitude. Viewed in that context, Satan is a symbol of the independent spirit, and all this “root of all evil” garbage is just bad-mouthing propoganda by those in power.
Why do you think TST is “surprised” by reactions to their presence?
If Christians get a chance to explain what they are all about and dispel what they think are myths, shouldn’t Satanists get the same opportunity? BTW, how long did nasty rumors about Christianity persist when it started up?
Besides, of the two groups, only one is trying to get the other banned.
Here you go:
I feel like motivations are being ascribed to me that aren’t there. I do not wish to deny The Satanic Temple any right to free speech, or any opportunity to be all that they can be.
Huh. Thanks for that, interesting.