The Church of Satan consisted of warmed over Rand as interpreted by the late Anton LeVey, who was as much of a Satanist as P.T. Barnum.
FTR, this display is sponsored by the New York based Satanic Temple, not the California based Church of Satan, which has fallen on hard times. The NY group’s ideology is grounded on a 20 something secularist who had done a college project on Satanic Ritual Abuse (IIRC) and its non-existence. Anyway, here are the principles they came up with, based roughly on the Lucifer legend. There are seven fundamental tenets.
One should strive to act with compassion and empathy towards all creatures in accordance with reason.
The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forego your own.
Beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the world. We should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit our beliefs.
People are fallible. If we make a mistake, we should do our best to rectify it and resolve any harm that may have been caused.
Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word. For the inside scoop on Lucien Greaves, the man behind all this, see this article: http://www.vice.com/read/unmasking-lucien-greaves-aka-doug-mesner-leader-of-the-satanic-temple VICE: Is the Satanic Temple a satanic, or a satirical group?
Doug: That is a common question. I say why can’t it be both? We are coming from a solid philosophy that we absolutely believe in and adhere to. This is Satanism, and to us it couldn’t be called anything other than Satanism. However, our metaphor of Satan is a literary construct inspired by authors such as Anatole France and Milton—a rebel angel defiant of autocratic structure and concerned with the material world. Satanism as a rejection of superstitious supernaturalism. This Satan, of course, bears no resemblance to the embodiment of all cruelty, suffering, and negativity believed in by some apocalyptic segments of Judeo-Christian culture. The word Satan has no inherent value. If one acts with compassion in the name of Satan, one has still acted with compassion. Our very presence as civic-minded socially responsible Satanists serves to satirize the ludicrous superstitious fears that the word Satan tends to evoke.
Vice: Reminds me of a darker version of the Yes Men.
The Satanic Temple also offers an attractive range of merchandise, including coffee mugs and bumper stickers. Shipping is only $3!
Lucien Greaves’s group is intrigued by the one-sided calls for violence and property damage by self identified Christians. eg1, eg2, also curses.
The proposed monument amuses me. But is it worthy of support? The satire has strong conceptual basis, but I have difficulty seeing why the majority is obliged to permit this sort of snark on prominent public grounds. For snark is what it is. Then again, I think the 10 commandments edifice is in your face to the point of being tacky, not to mention at variance with scripture. It’s a showy display of piety. Both works might be appropriate in a sculpture garden though. A zany, all-inclusive one.
So to make things more concrete, does the Satanic Temple deserve a $10 donation from me (or you)?
I’m a practicing Catholic and I think it hilarious, and I mean that in a good way
The fact of the matter is they’re absolutely right, religion has no place in the government and you really do need to treat everyone equally.
Not sure I agree with the statue and I won’t be donating but if it comes to pass I’m not gonna lose any sleep over it and I’ll probably get a good chuckle or three watching heads in Oklahoma explode and frankly I’ll be of the opinion that the Oakies got what they had commin’.
To be fair, we perfectly understand why nobody likes us - because we refuse to let Christians enforce their beliefs, especially the backwards, harmful beliefs, on others. There’s no real wondering to it.
Jesus doesn’t deny that Satan has power over the kingdoms of the world - Jesus’s response is just “Get away, Satan! It is written: ‘The Lord, your God, shall you worship and him alone shall you serve.’”
If they comply with the law, it’s their money.
There have to be clear rules, however as to what a religion is so the idea is. If there is one person who, 100% honestly, believes in the giant, child-raping penis and wants to set up a monument to that, do we allow it? Are all manners of religious expression equally “protectable”?
But, as I said, it’s their money and if, legal, no sweat. The appropriate Christian resposne is endless flickr/FB pics mocking the fuck out of it.
No, because that would be pornographic and an expression of an illegal act. So back to the drawing board until you come up with something more reasonable.
Actually I think the appropriate Christian response is to really live the idea of Love Your Neighbor as you Love Yourself without the qualification that it only applies to other Christians, and loudly say “This is why elevating one group over any other is a really bad idea in government policy.”
You probably get this but the issue isn’t putting this statue up in private land. It’s the Oklahoma State Capitol. Methinks the authorities have the right to filter on the basis of taste and heck arbitrary judgment. The problem is that the 10 Commandments monument places religious belief in a setting where it really doesn’t belong. It’s almost as silly as the Baphomet statue.
In practice, donations (5 days left!) will go towards legal expenses, as there’s no way Oklahoma will allow this on State Capital grounds and the Satanic Temple would be satisfied if the 10 Commandments unpaid advertisement was removed. Of course, most of the lawyers would presumably work pro bono, or for the ACLU.
Last month, the Satanic Temple petitioned Florida’s Department of Management Services to put their holiday display in the Florida Capitol Rotunda, alongside a nativity scene, a Festivus Pole and a Flying Spaghetti Monster. The Temple’s scene depicted Lucifer’s fall from heaven alongside Isaiah 14:12 and underneath a cheery banner which said, “Happy Holidays from the Satanic Temple”.
The DMS turned their application down, calling it “Grossly offensive”. Lucien Greaves was apparently bemused: “Please inform the Department that it is not our intention to offend… Our proposed structure does not present any images that would be inappropriate for people of any age. Like the Nativity scene, it presents an image from a Biblical story, which is shared with other religious traditions besides our own. In addition, a positive sentiment of ‘Happy Holidays’ is displayed.”
Greaves was open to reasonable compromise though, if only the DMS would point out which parts of the work were offensive. That sounds like a fair request to me. I myself am not overly familiar with local community standards in Florida, but perhaps a display that didn’t show a humanoid subjected to 2 fatal punishments (defenestration and burning) would be more consistent with the holiday spirit. http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2013/12/satanic_temple_rejected_by_flo.php
CLARIFICATION: The ACLU does not support the Satanic Temple’s display in Oklahoma, because they oppose any sort of religious display that implies official government endorsement of the same. MfM regrets the error.
