TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA —The Satanic Temple struck another blow for religious equality when it secured the right to erect a Satanic holiday display in Florida’s capitol. It will sit alongside a display celebrating the birth of Jesus, the noodly appendages of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and a pole marking Festivus. This is the same Satanic organization that has previously offered to make a bronze statue of Baphoment for the Oklahoma capitol, announced it would distribute Satanic literature to Florida schoolchildren, and performed same-sex weddings over the grave of Fred Phelps’ mother. Reviled by stalwart Christians and mistrusted by other Satanists, The Satanic Temple invariably makes a media splash when it comments on the separation of church and state.
So many Pagans have spent time either rehearsing or actually having conversations explaining how Paganism differs from Satanism. Therefore it is no surprise that The Satanic Temple has received negative reactions from Pagans. But is there anything this group can teach Pagans about public relations or defending religious freedom?
To find out, we first asked how this organization relates to Pagans, if at all. The spokesperson for the temple, who goes by the name Lucien Greaves, explained that there’s always been a bit of push back from Pagans:
It happens less now — probably because of our apparent successes — but in the beginning, we would receive occasional messages from Pagans and Atheists, both concerned that our activities were attaching their own values or symbols to a caricature of ultimate evil. The concern seems to be that, by invoking Satanism, we serve to justify the worst fears born of superstitious bigotry.
The notion that we should coddle such divisive witch-hunting impulses by maintaining a taboo against Satanism is, I feel, a completely backward approach. In fact, there is a culture of Satanism, culled from various elements, including Pagan symbols. The identification with Satanism isn’t arbitrary to the point that we feel it could simply be exchanged for a more palatable label. Satan symbolizes unsilenced inquiry, rebellion against tyranny, and personal freedom.
For a Pagan, or any other minority religion, to openly engage in efforts to distance themselves from Satanism serves only to affirm the misguided notion that Satanism stands for cruelty, abject depravity, and unabashed evil. As Satan, mythologically, stands in opposition to the Biblical God’s authority, Satanism too is feared to challenge Biblical doctrines of faith. To concede that such opposition must, by its nature, be corrupt and criminal is to conversely affirm that traditional religious institutions hold a monopoly on moral virtue.
In fact, we feel our campaigns embrace the highest of moral callings — from gay rights, to women’s rights, to the protection of children against institutionalized abuse. In each of these cases, we fight against regressive mainstream religious thinking. I think that by embracing Satanism, we represent another phase in our civilization’s social growth. This is another step toward ensuring that each individual is judged for his or her actual actions in the real world, free of fear from persecution for symbolic crimes and/or “blasphemy.” If our past has taught us anything, it’s that the most cruel and evil acts are committed not at the hands of secret religious minorities, but by the witch-hunters whose paranoia allows them to imagine such minorities are willfully acting against the common good.
With that background, we asked a few Pagans and Polytheists the following question. What can Pagans learn from The Satanic Temple? It turns out that they had a lot to say.
Author and activist T. Thorn Coyle recognizes the activism in the temple’s work:
T. Thorn Coyle
The Satanic Temple is approaching the public square head on, with no apologies. I appreciate that. Their take on things is, “OK. Religious materials in schools? Here’s an educational children’s book that we are handing out. You ruled that it was fine,” and, “Monumental religious statues at the state capitol? Here is one of our own.” They are also mobilizing around issues such as reproductive rights and the rights of children to not suffer corporal punishment.
The Satanic Temple are unapologetically themselves and move ahead by assuming they already have the same civil rights as other religions. In approaching the public sphere in this way, they serve to highlight where the real cracks in the wall of “separation of church and state” are. The Satanic Temple, by acting forthrightly, are taking a hammer and chisel to those cracks. For this, I applaud them.
Philosopher Hannah Arendt spoke of the need to become ‘conscious pariahs’ rather than parvenues (assimilationists) or pariahs outcast by society. The conscious pariah rejects and directly challenges the status quo, not from petulant rebellion, but because the status quo is corrupt. There is great power in choosing to be a conscious pariah. I see some Pagan groups wishing to be “just like everyone else” and that can take away some of the power and bite we have in not being like everyone else. The role of the conscious challenger is important to society. I think that Pagans could take some lessons from the ways the Satanic Temple are issuing their challenges and refusing to assimilate. They are acting from their power, rather than begging for it or giving it away.
Their most recent holiday display, though? I find it offensive. Why? It’s bad art.
Kirk White, author and (now unaffiliated) founder of Cherry Hill Seminary also appreciates that The Satanic Temple is true to its path:
Rev. Kirk White
I have long been an advocate for Pagans walking a middle path. On the one hand, I think it behooves and benefits us to resist being cast as ‘other, outcast, the antithesis of normal.’ On the other hand we absolutely must retain our integrity and not sell out those features of our beliefs and practices that define and distinguish us just to gain respectability and acceptance. And of course, we must always be willing to stand up against institutional oppression.
What the Satanic Temple is doing greatly benefits religious freedom across the spectrum and Pagans should support those and similar efforts. Their outrageous, funny, ‘in your face’ approach is proving effective. But they do so purposefully building on their otherness and with no expectation of being accepted or even taken seriously as a religion. Their social power is in their marginality and their oppositional approach. If Pagans decide to replicate their ‘in your face’ approach we allow the overculture to define us in contrast to themselves rather on our own unique qualities and merits. We become the enemy rather than the neighbors. We should support them, but I do not believe that we should replicate their methods.
Boeotian polytheist and Neo-Cyrenaic Ruadhán J McElroy would like to see more people pushing boundaries:
Ruadhán J McElroy
I pretty much only know the highly publicized activities of The Satanic Temple, but from that alone, I think between that and the later, philosophy-focused writings of LaVey, it would do the Pagan Community, and all pagans, polytheists, and others involved in alternative religion, a lot of good to do more questioning of the status quo and pushing boundaries of both society and oneself. Sometimes comfort zones exist for a reason, but a lot of times we construct them as a crutch, which does us no good.
If a person who can walk chooses to instead live in a wheelchair, their muscles atrophy and they come to need extensive physical therapy to be able to walk again, and if a wheelchair bound person doesn’t get certain physical therapies and daily time in a standing frame, they open themselves up to all sorts of health issues, from muscle spasms to potentially fatal blood clots. With my chronic back pain, you have no idea how much I want to just give up and get a wheelchair, some days, but if I can at all walk through the pain, I make myself cos it’s better for me to walk than to not. Since we clearly need to do physical things every day that push our boundaries, lest we risk atrophy or worse, we also have to push our boundaries mentally, emotionally, spiritually, and of the culture we are in. Or as the Cyreniacs might say, sometimes you gotta make a little rough motion to make a big smooth motion.
It’s good that The Satanic Temple is willing to push those boundaries of the culture in such a public way, though I wish I could say at this point that I’m disappointed that I’ve not seen as many pagans and polytheists doing similar –I’m too used to pagans (and especially Pagans) who are content with the status quo and too fearful of rocking any boats, even if someone set the starboard on fire and you gotta douse it (like what’s been going on in Missouri), to be disappointed in pagans, anymore.
Ritualist and speaker Shauna Aura Knight thinks it’s worth learning how The Satanic Temple handles the media:
Shauna Aura Knight
The Satanic Temple effectively uses shock and the legal system to their advantage. There are few Pagan groups out there with much media savvy, and fewer still able bankroll lawyers. I have a background in marketing work, and I’d say that The Satanic Temple is cleverly using the fact that many people think that Satanists are about the worst thing ever. Specifically, they’re using the outrage to call attention to infringements on the separation between church and state.
It’s pretty clear that the dominant religions want those infringements—so long as it’s their own religion. When TST introduces themselves into that infringement they appall people. It’s incredibly effective tactic as an activist. You want prayers before city council meetings… religious holiday scenes…statuary at public buildings? You want to give out religious texts at school? You want your religion to provide a legal loophole supporting your beliefs on contraception and abortion?
Ok. Then Satanists can do that too. People rarely see a problem with the status quo until provoked.
This strategy of contrast doesn’t work quite as well for Pagans because most Pagans have been trying hard to put out the PR that we’re not that bad, we’re good people. Satanists don’t seem afraid of their own bad press and use it to further their goals.
However, Pagans can still effect the same legal pressuring which could provoke the, “If I have to include you, then we just won’t have any prayers at all.” However, that still requires us to have professional media and PR folks as well as lawyers on retainer.
What we can learn from The Satanic Temple is that with trained media professionals and a legal budget, we too can combat the system. TST understands a strategic aspect of activism; sometimes you have to play the legal game. TST grasps the rules of the system and is willing to exploit those rules and find the loopholes. We can do this too with enough budget and expertise.
Knight’s comments about being able to “bankroll lawyers” was not a unique sentiment, but Greaves says it’s not entirely deserved.
Our cadre of lawyers (from Americans United for the Separation of Church and State) representing us in Florida were pro bono, working for us at no charge, simply because they believed strongly in our position. To be clear, it would be a mistake to think that these lawyers were motivated by the prospect of receiving compensation in the form of monetary damages from the lawsuit. In fact, we weren’t seeking monetary damages at all, only to secure the right to place our holiday display in the Capitol Rotunda. And this, largely, is how we’ve managed to get so many things done: our campaigns have resonated deeply with people who support our positions, to the point that they will volunteer their efforts, even if many of them don’t care to identify as Satanists themselves.
In the case of the Baphomet monument, we crowd-funded around $30k through Indiegogo, after which we found an amazing sculptor who was willing to work on the project at-cost. Even with that solid foundation, the monument ended up costing 10s of thousands more. I, and the other core membership of The Satanic Temple, have consistently put significant amounts of our own money into our campaigns. It seems we’re always scraping up the bottom dollar to push things through, but we keep moving forward. Despite the heavy burden this imposes, we think that the imposition of dues for religious affiliation is inappropriate. We sell merchandise in hopes of generating revenue toward our campaigns, but this hasn’t proven lucrative by any means. We clearly have the beginnings of some enormous legal battles now in the works, for which we have set up a legal fund.
As for Greaves’ advice for Pagans talking to the media, he recommends, “Stay on point and control the dialogue. Don’t be pulled into superfluous and irrelevant arguments. If you’re asked an unreasonable question, simply answer with whatever message you wish to put forward, whether it addresses the question in any way or not.” He might file all questions about theology under ‘unreasonable,’ because he also says, “Move away from meticulously describing what it is you believe and practice. Your material has long been publicly available to the genuinely curious. You simply do not have to justify your religious perspective to anybody to assert your rights as equally regarded citizen[s].”
The Wild Hunt is not responsible for links to external content.
To join a conversation on this post:
Visit our The Wild Hunt subreddit! Point your favorite browser to https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Wild_Hunt_News/, then click “JOIN”. Make sure to click the bell, too, to be notified of new articles posted to our subreddit.
A wealthy discussion, and a well-written post!
So, should we thrive to become more accepted in the society or actively try to change said society?
In many ways I feel like Pagan groups may be too soft-spoken when engaging christianity and other mainstream/revealed/monotheistic/mass-religions. talking about inter-faith is nice, but we have plenty of work to do within Paganism itself.
On the other hand, Satanist have maybe an easier time presenting themselves as the “adversary” because the very image/concept of the “satanist” was born in a reaction to christianity and abrahamic faiths (even if, indeed, there is some limited Pagan influence as well). They can certainly get lot of press by both branding themselves satanists and presenting very liberal and definitely not “evil” views.
In my opinion it would be harder for Pagans to do that because we are much less the product of christian fantasies than satanists are. Paganism exist and has existed way before (and hopefully after) christianity and the like. Deep down, Paganism has less to do with christianity/mainstream-society than satanism. It’s just something completely different altogether.
I also very much like this idea of the conscious pariah but If Pagans were to elicit the same kind of reactions than TST they would have to definitely stress their uniqueness in a different way than TST stress their simple opposition/revolution of christian principles. This would make for a noisier, less socially acceptable Paganism but also, arguably, a stronger one.
I think the biggest issue with adopting the TST model would be that of association: In the subconscious mind of the public, when two separate and different entities behave in a similar manner; both entities are seen (subconsciously) as being the same. And since there exists the precedent in the bible about pagans=satanists; pagans doing as TST will only strengthen said idea.
We should instead strive to find (or make) our own way of gaining acceptance.
People who literally believe that (even though the actual “precedent” for it in the Christian Bible is weak, at its best) are going to look for anything they can to support that belief. If Greaves and, say, Oberon Zell both wear a brown shirt in public, they’ll use that as their excuse. If Blanche Barton and I both dye our hair and listen to Les Baxter, they’ll use that. Pulling similar publicity stunts to TST is only a convenient excuse —not just for Christians looking to compare pagans and Satanists, but for Pagans who’re content with things the way they are and feel they need to justify their desires to do nothing.
Have you any evidence that the public thinks all BGLTQQIA are Black because they use the same methods of protest? Or that American Indians are Mexicans? Puh-leez!
Technically, though, a lot of Mexicans (not all, but a significant population) have some Indigenous blood, some even claiming full indigenous ethnicity and raised in the culture and all. I’m sure some people will find citing her problematic for all sorts of reasons, but TS pornstar Vaniity is Indigenous Mexican rather than Latina, as she’s often billed.
I would never have thought that a post regarding a Satanic Organisation’s PR methods might lead to a discussion of Mexican Porn-star’s ethnicity, all the less on TWL.
That said, not an ugly model all things considered.
If I learned nothing else in my two years in Los Angeles, it’s that Mexican identity/ethnicity is complicated.
Excellent article and glad to see such an in-depth discussion of how to frame issues. My first choice is always no religious activities or symbols at government events or locations. But if there are going to be such activities and symbols, we Pagans need to be included. If that makes the powers that be decide it’s better to just not, for example, distribute religious materials at a public school, well, that’s even better.
Fine article. I’d like to point out that Pagans are by no means newcomers to this kind of on-point, under-the-skin public action.Sometime around 1990 (iirc) an arrangement currently known as charter schools, privately organized schools with public funding, was proposed in California. Religious private schools were licking their chops. The Contra Costa County Pagan Community Council announced they were ready to open a Pagan school that would teach spell-casting and astrology.Support for the charter movement split down the middle between horrified dominionists saying, “They can’t do that!” and principled libertarians saying, “Yes, they can, the whole attraction to us of this idea is autonomy.” The proposal foundered and flopped.
Yes, and here’s another instance of such a case from 2006 – a school board saying “we’ll distribute Bibles in school but we’re not OK with this” when Llewellyn donated some books for the same purpose: http://wildhunt.org/2007/09/return-of-brunswick-board.html
That, of course, was a one-off stunt. Obviously Llewellyn can’t be the one pushing this agenda because it would give the impression that we’re just trying to sell books and drum up publicity through controversy. (Ahem.) It is far more natural and relevant for local groups to pick their own battles with local ordinances, city halls, school boards, etc. And while that’s a lot to ask from small groups who may not have the organizational resources to make any too-grand gestures, I think it could be a priority for medium-sized Pagan organizations. You don’t necessarily need a lawyer to contact City Hall and ask to put up a 5-foot pentacle on the Capitol lawn to celebrate the solstice, for example. (You might need a lawyer if you actually want to get that pentacle up there, but half the battle is just in reminding the folks in power that there are plenty of non-Christians, which is precisely why we don’t want to see religious displays on public lands.)
The Satanist Temple wants to perpetuate a misrepresentation of themselves. They do not want people to know or understand their beliefs because that would take their power away from them. As long as the public continues to believe Satanists are evil incarnate then the folks from TST can get what they want, namely: forcing Christians to shut things down or to make Christians uncomfortably tolerate their statues. That is an agenda of manipulation and is one that precedes from false pretenses.
If we who are Pagans want to push the boundaries and make an impact on society at large, we can do so simply by being who we are and defining ourselves openly to the public while pushing an authentic agenda, whether it be religious freedom, environmentalism or racial equality. To be authentic in our pursuits creates bridges to community.
But when the people of the TST are done, there is only further distrust, misunderstanding and alienation. Of course, that may be part of their agenda, too. However, I personally would rather work toward building bridges because I think in the end it benefits everyone to do so.
What false pretenses? They want religious liberty, it seems to me they’re perfectly authentic about that and, I’d add, theologically sound in how they see Satan, as well. I don’t know what you think is inauthentic here. Satanism is a protest religion by its nature and I think even some Satanists forget that sometimes. They’re more fully grounded from within their own stream of thought than the dominionist Christians they oppose (who frequently only know the particular literalist Bible interpretation their pastor has taught them, and are ignorant of the history, founding culture, and worldview of their own religion).
I fully support them. Including the in-your-face quality of their approach. You can’t build bridges with Dominionists. Mainstream Protestants can’t even build bridges with Dominionists.
What is a dominionist? I get it’s a christian but besides…
http://justgit.com/
I prefer http://justfuckinggoogleit.com/
Make’s a much bolder statement, in my opinion.
I do, too, but I’ve had my comments deleted before, for posting it, and I know one of the Patheos people sited it (cos “unprovoked swearing”) as a reason for banning me from that particular Patheos blog.
…but hey, Christine will let all kinds of vile racism get spewed in the Daughters of Eve comments with barely a slap on the wrist, the real threat is a big bad 4’11” polytheist fag with multiple disabilities saying “fuck”. (Eyeroll)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Theology
These people are the reason why Pagans should own lots of guns and ammunition.
Okay so Intolerant, Theocratic and Bigoted christians…Sounds both scary and familiar…
Yes, all of those, but also part of an extremely organized global movement toward Christian theocracy. The individual congregations are not always but often de facto cults. You can have an intolerant, bigoted Christian that thinks theirs should be a Christian nation without the brainwashing and organization and they’d still be scary, but the combination is what’s especially terrifying. Anyone who thinks they can bridge-build with them in any meaningful way is delusional.
Is this really an organised movement with that much power? I tend to be doubtful when I hear about secretive groups taking over political power but I also had never heard of those fellas yesterday…
I won’t do your research for you, but yes. Although they’re not very secretive, there’s plenty available if you search well enough. Google “dogemperor”, the username of a walkaway who publishes extensive information about the movement she was raised in– you will have to google a lot of her terminology, but you’ll get the idea. Several books out there too, including a couple covered here on WH– in fact, Jason has had a fair amount of coverage of Dominionism here on WH, so check the archives (I know Jeff Sharlet’s “The Family” got coverage here, for one example).
Okay…
I have been looking around and I am quite appalled… how is it that I never heard about those guys? And…how is it that they have so much power? Fuck they even had the prime minister of Norway with them!
Thanks for the tip, I think I should consider buying a gun, or several!
By “false pretenses” I am referring to how TST chooses to let others assume the cultural definition that Satanists as immoral, maniacal, baby-sacrificing devil devotees. They are not interested in correcting this warped and (mostly) inaccurate view of themselves.
While you raise a decent enough point, the fact remains that it’s not the job of TST, or any alternative religion (Satanist, polytheist, or anything else) to educate the public with every move they make. The information on what Satanists really believe is out there for anyone who really wants to know. If you don’t want to know, or if you just don’t care to learn (as many Christians don’t), then all the earnest Satanists calmly and patiently repeating the same information at you isn’t going to amount to a hill of beans.
Pagans definitely need to figure that part out, too. If those who can, do, and those who can’t, teach, you can’t spend all your time trying to teach your detractors that you’re not killing babies for your Dark Lord or you can’t get anything else important done. The information for them to learn on their own is out there, if you feel obligated to point them in those directions, all you have to do is provide a reading list of online and/ or offline sources.
It’s a very basic “I don’t care what you think of me, so long as religious equality is maintained”, I think.
Or more likely people will believe about you what they want regardless of what you say. I was raised in a very fundamental Baptist church. They will believe what they want and trust me for those that are the most extreme there is no changing their minds. These are people who believe that every “dot and tittle” of the bible is 100% accurate and 100% the word of god. The only ones who change are the ones who figure it out on their own.
Pretty much this.Once the information is out there, all you can do is show people where it is. “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.” The same is true for teaching people, especially when they’re wrong about a subject. They have to take the active role in their own learning, you can’t do it for them.
I don’t care what they believe, so long as they respect my rights as equal to theirs.
To bad that for so many of them, their set of believes include seeing your rights as null and voids.
Those are the ones we fight.
They can either spend their time trying to correct people’s view of them or they can get the work they want to get done (showing the hypocrisy of those who want public displays of religion but only their religion) done. Also, correcting people is the last thing you want to do as a media strategy. If you say “we don’t sacrifice babies”, all that will be processed is “sacrifice babies” and “said the Satanist spokesperson”. Their enemies want them to correct every misperception, because then they’ll have them on record addressing all of these ridiculous views. Greaves (unlike a lot of Pagans) is savvy enough to not fall into that trap. You call it false pretenses, I call it knowing how to play the media game.
Pretty much this. Most people really have no problem with learning things when they really want to know about something, and just about anything one could want to learn about Satanists and their beliefs is on a few easy-to-find websites, including Wikipedia. Addressing the barrage of misconceptions and SPA accusations is a complete waste of time. Especially when there are Christians to troll.
And I’m reminded of what a friend of mine said of the Ferguson, etc…, protests: “Let us reflect on the calm dignity of Dr MLK Jr., and how it got him shot, anyway.
“Simply being who we are” is absolutely the best thing that some people can do, but at the end of the day, it does nothing. Absolutely nothing. Matt Shepard was simply “being who he was”, and look where that got him –that reference too old for you? Check Wikipedia, ffs. Change come from those who put themselves out there and are willing to take risks. To “take one for the team” means not to just keep doing what one would be doing anyway, but to do and do something very risky for what will hopefully be an equally great benefit.
Nothing good has ever come from those who dare to be normal.
All movements have martyrs.
I agree, Rue, being authentic is not enough. But I think you’ll agree that it is the place to begin. Dare to be who you are is where it starts.
So you’re saying that 60+ years of the pagan community doing little more than “being authentic” isn’t enough? What good has that done? Contrary to what you may believe, the pentagram option for armed forces headstones didn’t get there without action taken.
And my name is Ruadhán. With your own name, if you don’t know how to make an a with a fada on your desktop, or select that option on a mobile device, just make a basic one. My name is not Rue.
Now I am very much confused, Ruadhan. In the article above you diss Pagans and state you are too disappointed to be disappointed in Pagans anymore… then you admire Pagans for accomplishing getting the pentagram on military headstones. So, how do you really feel, Ruadhan about Pagans?
I’m pretty sure it’s possible to acknowledge a win as a win and still be annoyed at overall organizational inertia and mulishness.
It is perfectly possible to admire the handful of pagans who do shit while going numb from the constant disappointment in the thousands of other pagans who would rather sit on their hands while singing “Let It Be” and hoping their new Age misconception of “karma” will take care of the status quo.
If you’re still confused, I can’t say anything that could help you.
Since you conflate Paganism and New Age, no wonder you think Pagans are latter-day Hippies. Paganism (by and large) is Earth-centered; New Age (same caveat) is Heaven-centered.
The way your average Neo-Wiccan understands the word “karma” *is* New Age, though, it sure as heck ain’t the proper cultural contextual Hindu understanding of it. But I suppose calling it “modern MUS” at least avoids the words “New” and “Age”.
(And an awful honking lot of Neo-Paganism is “heaven centered”, in terms of being way more focused on the afterlife than the original practitioners were. Hence the endless, unceasing drumbeat of “but will I go to Valhalla if I…” posts in any Heathen community that allows it. Or the “do you go to Hel or Valhalla” debates. Or all of the many, MANY examples of belief in “other worlds” that are utterly, 100% world-rejecting. They can call themselves “earth-centered” and maybe in terms of ritual and season-noticing it’s true, but most Neo-Pagans aren’t nearly as far from their original Christian cultural worldviews as they think they are.)
I distinguish Heathens and Pagans, largely because Heathens want it that way. No doubt that Christian culture is hard to shed. I don’t know any Pagans who celebrate Summerland with hand clapping and foot stomping, or keep dissidents in line with the threat of an undesirable afterlife.
I have literally no clue what the hand clapping and foot stomping refers to. I have, though, seen culty Pagan groups that threaten dissidents with being out of communion with their patron god if they leave the group, including being with that god in the afterlife.
If you can say that in complete seriousness, you clearly know nothing about karma before white people got a hold of the term.
By the way, the Pre-prod version of Let it Be is far superior to the Original
Eh… It’s still The Beatles. The only members who were worth anything as artists are still dead and the next runner up (for camp/kitsch appeal, alone), is still outsold by that icky elf who inflicted WINGS upon the world. The Who FTW, follwed by The Kinks, then The Pretty Things, and then (mostly for DECEMBER’S CHILDREN) The Rolling Stones. The Beatles wrote some catchy songs, and “Norwegian Wood” is art, but if you really know the history, the only thing they “revolutionised” in music was merchandising, and printing the lyrics with the album –just about every “innovation” they’re credited for was done by someone with a much smaller name, first.
So you *do* admire Pagans. I’m glad you cleared that up. Because it didn’t sound like you did.
Pushing boundaries is healthy but the ultimate goal of Satanists in these instances seems to be to remove Christian iconography and make Christiasn uncomfortable. They are doing it admirably but no one takes them seriously as a religion (including most of their current members).
“Tit for Tat” is wonderful fun on Facebook but their endgame seems to be no religion rather than pluralism. I do like Thorn’s point about behaving as if you believe you have the same rights as the majority is a good frame of mind to be in.
Ironically, your logic makes me even more of a “fan” of TST, as another poster put it, because I would like to see Christian iconography removed from public spaces, and the only way to do that is to remove all religious iconography. As a Humanist that was my goal; as a Pagan I find I can live with it. I would love to see a pentagram next to any crèche on the City Hall lawn, but not at the expense of permanent monuments (literally) like that Ten Commandments monolith.
Why just a pentagram? Why not some display representing the birth of the Child of Light, or have a revolving display of various cultures which form our seasonal mythology and celebration, explaining how various cultures saw the Winter (Summer if in the southern hemisphere) Solstice affecting their lives.
Hey, go for it!
I don’t want any of that in the public square, unless it’s on the front lawn of an art museum where revolving displays from various cultures are what the tax dollars pay for.
I don’t have a problem with communities making public displays of religiosity, and inviting others to join them, as long as it’s done on their own property or the property of someone who has given them permission. No Chanukah menorah lighting downtown in a public park, no Christmas carolers in government buildings, no pagan solstice displays outside the courthouse. No In God We Trust on our coins. These things are government endorsement of religion, one and all.
I’ll make an exception for statuary using classical pagan iconography to represent values, like Blind Justice and the Statue of Liberty.
All things considered, I don’t see that as a bad thing, at all.
…then again, I’m a big ol’ queermo (even at the staggering height of 4’11”), so the less Christianity in my face, the better, especially considering the sorts of Christians who *demand* that Christianity be in my face.
I don’t have a problem with that being their ultimate goal, I just don’t think it’s the ultimate goal of many pagans. Their ultimate goal as an organization is to be in opposition to Christianity (a group that deserves a great deal of opposition). As other have pointed out, pagans don’t necessarily want to be defined by what they aren’t (namely Christian).
That’s fine, but at the same time, pushing boundaries also asserts the rights of marginalised people.
The public transportation protests in the 1960s needed marginalised individuals willing to push boundaries to assert their rights.
Every place in the world that has made the recognition and performance of SSM legal did so by marginalised people pushing boundaries to assert their rights.
Those wheelchair ramps and handicapped parking spaces? People had to push boundaries to assert their rights to get those access points.
Do you see the pattern developing here?
Furthermore, yeah, most ethnic minorities, GBLTs, and disabled people have never been on the front lines or done anything but “simply be themselves”, but they ended up with the benefits of those willing to take one for the team, anyway. (Not to dismiss the fact that in all those areas mentioned, there is still a LONG way to go with society and even the judicial systems, but it doesn’t have to be perfect to support my point.)
If being part of a public protest, whatever form it takes, is not for you, great, you know what you’re capable of, so you’re not going to do anyone any good unless you can do more than that and you say you can’t, so fine. But don’t discourage others from doing it just because you either can’t or don’t want to. What’s good for you is NOT what’s good for others, not even other pagans.
“But don’t discourage others from doing it just because you either can’t
or don’t want to. What’s good for you is NOT what’s good for others,
not even other pagans.”
If I am discouraging anyone it’s because my career is in public relations. The question posed by the article is: “Can The Satanic Temple Teach Pagans About PR?” I can only give my own answer informed by my own professional experiences and others’ mileage may vary. There is a lot to admire about their approach but that approach isn’t applicable to the aims of many other pagan groups if you are talking about public relations.
Similar methods don’t imply similar goals, except in minds already made up. The purpose of such actions is to deter, not convince. And I have no problem with the Satanists’ goal being anti-Christianity, if it is; I don’t dictate their goals and they don’t dictate mine. Right now they’re carrying Pagan water, and I support that.
Rock on. I find myself drifting toward the LHP these days, so articles like this are a real breath of fresh air.
As I asked Twitter, yesterday: would a veg*n LHP’er be a Seitanist?
As long as they’re not intolerant to gluten and other wheat-y products, then yeah, I think they would. That’s very punny, lol
That was more my point than as a serious comment.
You have to respect their “this is us” attitude.
So much better than the “what will the neighbours think” attitudes we find elsewhere.
Word.
Being unapologetic might or might not work as far as PR goes, but it definitely internally strengthens a group in the face of others.
Especially here. Though admittedly more often in the comments than the posts. Still, though, some posts…..
Some people don’t want to rock the boat, whilst others are in the hold knocking out the bungs.
Well put! *laughing*
I was taught early on that we don’t recruit. We don’t evangelize. I am against both. Let people find their own path and lets not shove our personal beliefs down other peoples throats. Each individual has the right to determine their spirituality, if any, on their own accord. This is wrong and quite akin to the christian ways. I will stand my ground on this.
TST is only asking for what the Christians assume is their privilege. I support their campaign, and I will stand my ground.
Considering the typical Satanist and LHPer stance on seekers is very anti-proselytising (sometimes even anti-nub of any sort, remembering some of the people I knew when I was with [Anton LaVey’s] Church of Satan), this isn’t about proselytising or even opening up doors to those who’re seeking on their own. It’s about asserting the same rights that Christianity has, or instead seeking the abolishment of *all* religious symbols on State grounds.
It’s not prosetylisation. It’s protest. LHP religions are far more anti-proselytisation than all other pagan/alternative religions combined (if you disagree, you’ve clearly never been in any LHP religion), and Satanism in particular, by its very nature, is a protest against the Christian status quo (and if Christianity remained a minor Abrahamic cult, it would be a protest against the Greco-Roman status quo –the Baccanalians at the time it was banned, the Hedonists and Cynics thumbing their noses at Plato, etc…)
I really don’t see why anyone would want what Christianity has but that is a personal choice I guess. Thanks so much for your thoughts, I appreciate your view.
Public representation of other religions (in addition to Christianity) –yeah, I certainly don’t have any idea why anyone in an alternative religion would *want* that!
[eyeroll]
I really don’t see what the fear of evangelism is about.
Obviously going door to door with a copy of the Edda would be stupid, but I think that by (good) examplia alone it’s possible to proselytize.
To be an example, you have to put yourself in a position to be seen by others.
Knocking on doors, probably not a great idea – it is intrusive.
But putting on performances of select tales from the body of lore you adhere to, in public spaces, does sound like it is a positive step into the public perception.
That reminds me of the Ásatrúafélagið and their performance of Skírnismál some years back…
I don’t fear it. I don’t like it. It’s intrusive.
Door-to-door, yes, but the public street performance thing I mentioned previously? Not so much.
We need to forget all of those christian/monotheistic concepts about faith and religion. Deep down we have nothing to do with those beliefs. Doing door to door always look stupid, except when it’s kids for Halloween.
Presenting the most positive and least harmful aspects of a faith/religion/worldview/culture we love is something to be celebrated, and as Léoht said, it can start anywhere. A ren-fair or a Viking festival can be a form of proselytism
I’d say evangelism rather than proselytism.
The latter term carries connotations of coercion.
Did not thought about that…but I don’t really like using the word evangelism considering it’s a term based on the gospels.
I especially like Kirk White’s comments, because he framed the issue in a way that was fresh for me–in spite of being a longtime friend. The Satanic Temple’s “power is in their marginality and their oppositional approach. If we Pagans decide to replicate their ‘in your face’ approach, we allow the overculture to define us in contrast to ourselves rather [than] on our own unique qualities and merits… We should support them, but I do not believe that we should replicate their methods.”
Yeah. Makes sense to me.
Come to think of it, I’ve long wished we were more willing to define ourselves by what we are, rather than what we are not. I’ve been grateful for the work the Satanic Temple has been doing, and you can set me down as a fan.
But we’re our own thing, and perhaps we have other roles to play in our relationship to the wider culture.
“I’ve long wished we were more willing to define ourselves by what we are, rather than what we are not.”
This, right here, is one reason why I shrug off the “Pagan” label. It is a lot easier to describe what Paganism is not than what it is. By contrast, Heathenry has a definitive, positive, description.
Not what I meant by not defining ourselves by what we are not, but you’re entitled to your own preferences, of course. I simply meant, discuss our religious movement with reference to itself, not as a contrast to any other. We can do that, and I think we should… even if it is complicated.
Can you, though?
How often does the “What is Paganism” argument surface? Every few months or so, for as long as I have known about it, and then some?
Paganism holds all of Nature to be sacred, including human nature, and infuses the world with Divinity in order to relate to it. How difficult is that?
Not universally accurate.
But it has to be –or he can’t get indignant when people say pagans are a continuation of the hippies, at this point. Or something like that. Hippies get him really ornery, for some reason, that’s all I know.
Geez, you and I were on the same wavelength in this thread… for a while…
Stop saying things that aren’t universally true of pagans, and we will be.
You mean like they’re Hippies? 😉 Seriously, I intended that as a quick first draft, not a final answer. You may be taking the Internet too literally. While I have your attention, what you said in the post is spot-on. As another back-pain sufferer (clearly not in the same league as yours) I empathize.
I didn’t say that pagans are hippies, but that the Pagan Community culture serves more as a continuation of what was laid out by the hippies than as a unique religious culture, at this point in time.
Certainly there are commonalities, but they were also becoming part of the mainstream at the same time. It is the very religious nature of Paganism that distinguishes it from the Hippies (among other things) so your proposition collapses under its own weight.If you want a tradition that carries forward Hippie religiosity, try New Age.
When very prominent pagan voices (i recall Jason Mankey and JP-W, off the top of my head) refer to Burning Man as a “pagan” gathering, I fail to see your point.
Now you’re saying Burning Man is a Hippie festival?
More like the Hippies would be after a couple of generations on Arrakis!
LOL! Or the outer moons of the Firefly system…
Most branches of Paganism have something to be thankful for the Hippie culture indeed but nowadays some “branches” have definitely nothing to do with it anymore.
It certainly depends on how one is defining paganism. If one is only using the academic/anthropological definition of defining “paganism” as Pre-Christian polytheist Europe and new religious movements based on or inspired by said, then yes, you’d be correct. On the other hand, many people in recon and other tradition – minded polytheist religions eschew self – identification with the word “pagan” as they see a “Pagan Community” (note use of caps) that has very little to do with religion, these days, and more to do with polyamoury, pop psychology, and Green Capitalism under a veneer of love beads and RenneFaire garb.
Indeed and here we come back to the question of defining Paganism… No an easy one!
And the fact that many prominent and otherwise outspoken people who self-identify as pagans have been extremely hostile toward defining the term at all doesn’t make the task of defining “pagan” and “paganism” positively (by “what it is” rather than by “what it is not,” the negative definition) any easier.
Tweak it, then, but don’t say it can’t be done.
Well, not all forms of Paganism that I am aware of are nature-centric. What about Technopaganism? Or Atheistic Paganism for those not infusing the world with divinity?
I’m not invested in the term, personally. I am more interested in seeing clarity of terminology so that people (such as myself) who would be allies with the various Paganisms understand where those Paganisms are coming from.
Don’t know enough Technopaganism to comment; maybe a Technopagan will.Is “Atheistic Paganism” what they call themselves? For me the gods reside in the Collective Unconscious. Some have called me theist for that; would you differ?
Describing the nature of the gods is always a messy discussion, but I have encountered people who self identify as both atheist *and* as Pagan.
Technopaganism
Hearing about Transhumans deities is always guarantee of a good laugh.
What is it about their beliefs that’s laughable, but your beliefs are ostensibly sacred?
I did not say I held my beliefs to be sacred, but come on, Transhuman Gods? Seriously ? How can both terms go together? Seems like a lot of TumblrBS to me, but again, I might have been mis-educated on the question.
How can the terms “pagan atheism” go together, but a lot of people identify that way. As a former member of The Church of Satan, it’s still hard for me to really take Theistic Satanism seriously, but usually these people aren’t harming anyone, so why should I care? As a polytheist, I have a hard time accepting that many pagans feel the whole “all gods = one god” thing is true, but it’s not something I really need to worry about so the best thing for me to do is stop caring.
I don’t have to think any of those things make any sense, but I’m not doing anyone any good by openly laughing at something that’s not harming any one or any group. If anyone into the whole “transhuman gods” thing later decides it’s silly and move on to something else, that’s still not a reflection on that community any more than it’s a reflection on one person’s evolution.
I agree that Paganism should not be conceived solely by opposition to the wider culture but that does not mean that it is, or can be fully integrated within said society.
Agreed in full.
Thank you for this article! I utterly adore these Satanists, I think their spokesperson is incredibly well-spoken and savvy and I couldn’t agree more with what he’s saying. There are two things in there that I think Pagans as a whole should adopt. The first is the thing he says at the end, that our material has been out long enough for those who truly want to know to look it up, that we don’t need to justify ourselves in order to assert (note, not “ask for”, “assert”) our rights. Pagans are often overly earnest and will happily explain when people ask questions like “do you hate God? do you worship Satan?”, not realizing that these questions are often a derailing strategy. If they can get you having to address them seriously, it doesn’t matter what your answer is, the connection between “Pagan” and “hates God” is already primed by the question and the Pagan taking it seriously. There are a variety of these that masquerade as a person wanting information but are really a demand to justify your beliefs to their satisfaction– Greaves is smart enough to see these as what they are, and it’s a lesson we should heed.
The other is the idea of starting with the position that you already have the rights you seek. This also is a “don’t accept the subordinate role” situation and it’s enormously effective.
I appreciate what people are saying about wanting to be the neighbor and not the enemy, but that’s not always a choice you get to make. *Wanting* to be seen as the neighbor will not always make it so, and sometimes I think we can be a bit blind to enemies who are actually enemies. (Yes, I have no doubt that interfaith councils are effective in some things, but the Christians who go to interfaith councils aren’t the ones you’ve got to worry about.) The ST is taking on the very groups who are most serious about turning this country into a theocracy and they’re winning. I think we dismiss their methods too quickly– how would it play with the public to want a statue glorifying a goddess of justice? To give our books about Athenian democracy in a school? They’re putting up deliberately provocative things, but in the places the ST is making their stand, simple, true expressions of Paganism would be equally provocative to those who truly would make themselves enemies of free thought.
Hear, hear.
Absolutely agreed!
On one hand, if a person is clearly very young and/or inexperienced, it’s good to be helpful and point them in the right directions for answers to the questions they’re likely very honestly asking —on the other, it’s not at all helpful, and potentially harmful to one’s own cause to cave in to such derailment tactics and “do the homework for them” by patiently, earnestly, answering every single, repeated question in detail. There are too many “Paganism F.A.Q.” pages and “paganism 101” books to waste one’s precious time saying the same things, over and over again. If a person is genuinely interested in knowing the answers to those questions, they’ll follow your leads on finding the answers they seek; if they’re not, this will become very clear with their indignant response to your suggested reading. People who really want to know will behave accordingly; people who don’t will make their real wishes just as clear.
Absolutely. It’s about asserting that these are the rights one has and is thus entitled to. Sometimes a situation means that one has to make that assertion with bureaucracy, sometimes with protests and demonstrations. Either way, the overculture/mainstream wants those of us who live outside that to believe that we’re subordinate, that we don’t have these rights, that we don’t even deserve these rights.
Absolutely.
Because most pagans (at least in my own experiences) see or hear “Satanist” or “Left-Hand Path” and they immediately shut down all potential for dialogue, because they don’t want to be associated with “the bad guys”, when most Satanists want the same things that pagans want: Political, religious, and social freedoms in most of the truest senses, to not be harassed for being different, and to demolish institutionalised Dominionist Christianity as a cancer on society. Sure, there are some glaring differences, but where it’s most important in North American culture, Satanists and Pagans tend to want the same things. Unfortunately, in my experiences, most Satanists also shut down when something is presented as a “pagan’ perspective or activity, so that’s another area where both groups have a lot more in common than they’d imagine.
the one that made me cry and opened my eyes to the power
being used againstus everywhere….
and started this mind-control re-search
Street Hypnosis Blond Girl Getting Orgasm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahaOi_LZyss
Walt Disney, MTV & Hollywood – Mind Control
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kXosbJSLFk
online youtube converter top 10
http://www.flvto.com/
short re-mix version:
Next step: Legalize pdaphilia to force man of sin to appear
HYPERSEXUALIZED Full Documentary SHOCKING TRUTH !!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIspdSNu7aI&feature=player_detailpage
any sexual image blox nurture and spirit brain for reptilian-brain growth in your cells…
Illuminati Symbols in Movies, Seris & Cartoons (A MUST SEE !!!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=QjzDHc29e6U
I do find it odd that Byron Ballard wasn’t interviewed for this post, especially given her experiences in this area. I’d have liked to have gotten her take on this issue.
The minor league baseball player?
No, this one: http://witchesandpagans.com/pagan-culture-blogs/byron-ballard.html
Your Google-fu is weak, grasshopper.
Why don’t you invite her to post here?
The TST are Atheists and contain Sex Offender friendly leadership as The Largest Theistic Temple we have condemned them and exposed the connections to Sex Offenders .No support can come to this group from real practioneers.
Sources?
Voiceoftheisticsatanism dot Com
Point, then.
When I hear these things I have to laugh. As far as I’m concerned, as Pagan I see Christianity and Satanism as being the same religion.
Same gods, same pantheon, same history and creation mythos, same inane foolishness pretending that they’re monotheists when clearly they’re nothing of the sort.
It’s all Abrahamic, but different sects.
Same story, but backing the Villain instead.
Not… really, no. Satanism is a big pot of different ideas spackled together with a lot of UPG (kind of like Wicca). They owe more to poets (Paradise Lost, anyone?) than to the Bible. It’s Abrahamic by way of same basic worldview, but the rest is a big ‘ol stew of stuff.
More or less. LaVey’s writings owe far more to Neitzsche and (eyeroll) Rand than anything in the Abrahamic canons or even angel lore. And the Infernal Names alone culls names from all over world mythology, though LaVey’s texts are clear that the intent of ritual is more “theatrical” than an act of “worship” or similar. Yeah, there are a lot of Hebrew names listed, but he also pulls from Greek, Indigenous American, Celtic, Berber, Japanese, African…. Another ex-Satanist i know (and one of my best friends) who’s since been studying Feri is pretty sure that some Feri stuff made its way to LaVey, and the timelines and shared location certainly make it plausible.
LaVey’s stuff, especially (as that’s what I’m most-familiar with), is a patchwork off stuff, and to summarise it as simply “Abrahamic” is to really betray one’s ignorance of the material.
Except when it’s not. As a former Satanist in The Church of Satan, I can say with confidence that it is not Abrahamic in any meaningful way. The use of an Abrahamic name is simply a coincidence of history.
Hardly a coincidence of history, if we are talking about LaVey…
Except where he stated as much, repeatedly, throughout his works. I can cite you quotes, with page numbers and everything, when I get home. Cos I just *love it* when people say that they know more about the things I was doing than I do.
Please cite quotes showing how he managed to coincidentally use the term “Satanism” for his philosophical system.
A coincidence of history means that if the history went differently, and Christianity either never happened or remained a minor Abrahamic cult, LaVey maintained that “Satanism”, or to be more accurate, a cultural analogue to it would have happened. Say Germanic people conquered the Roman Empire and said polytheisms flourished — what is known as “Satanism” now would be people worshipping Loki. If the Roman Empire never went Christian, “Satanists” would instead be the Bacchanallians, especially at the time the festival was banned. If Australian Aboriginals dominated in some alternate timeline, it would be people veneration Captain Cook (or an equivalent, one would presume).
It’s only “Satanism” because the timeline it developed in maintained a dominant Abrahamic culture, but the actual writings it’s based upon stand in opposition to Christianity by claiming no God exists outside oneself and that God and The Devil were created by Man in Man’s images. In a different history, they’d be “Cookists” is something, and maintaining that the “Captain Cook” entity of Aboriginal “Everywhen” narrative mythology exists to better the dominant culture of Hypothetical Indigenous Australian Peoples who came from across the waters to disrupt and improve the Australian social order, or would have if the Rainbow Serpent would only let it (again, very hypothetical). If it developed in a Zoroastrian society, it would be those who worship Angra Mainyu.
It’s less “Satanism” as in the Biblical figure, and more “Adversaryism”, as in the translation of the word “Satan”. If you actually read his work, this becomes very clear.
Apologies for being unable to find the quotes today, but I wasted a lot of time looking for those old books, and they’re not where i thought they were.
So… The Satanists who are actually atheists or maltheists (the later writings of LaVey suggest this more than atheism or monotheism) don’t mean anything to you? You know what other people believe better than they do? Keep that in mind the next time one of Sarah Palin’s fan girls tells you that you and all pagans “hate Jesus” and implies you kill puppies.
I support what they did in Oklahoma, but I’m not ready to become an all-out fanboy of the Satanists or proclaim them the First Amendment heroes of the hour. They didn’t break some new legal ground or stick to the decade long fights that created the sort of case law they invoked. It’s great they made the Oklahomans live up to it, but I’m not sure they served as the best teaching platform for ordinary people as to why separation of church and state is so important. Outside of the minority who already gets that issue, I don’t think anyone at all saw past the controversy of the Satanists themselves. If anything, it handed the dominionists a huge victory in the sense that it rallied their troops as few things could.
I find the Satanist’s record in this area to be mixed in the bigger picture. Back in May, another group did that whole Black Mass at Harvard thing, and it was pure wankery. They folded like a wet noodle under pressure and conveyed the message that Catholic bishops and others can, in fact defeat the First Amendment if they muster enough public pressure.
“They…conveyed the message
that Catholic bishops and others can, in fact defeat the First Amendment
if they muster enough public pressure.”
I’d call that a win, in some ways.
Absolutely.
I would too. That bunch were/are certainly wankers, but those watching the story saw Catholic bishops throw their immense weight at a bunch of college students. The disproportionate use of power pretty much spoke for itself.
The bishops already had a pretty solid reputation as bullies prior to this. They’ve been throwing their immense weight against generations of little kids their priests raped, after all. They picked a battle they had no leverage whatsoever to win.
Since Harvard is private property, they had no First Amendment challenge to mount. The whole thing depended on the good will of a wealthy institution which had absolutely nothing to gain by standing up. Whatever positive publicity might have been generated for the free exchange of ideas was completely overshadowed by the idiocy of the Satanists involved. They boasted about using a stolen consecrated Catholic host, which they probably never had, then immediately reneged.
Carrying out sacrilege is merely dishonorable in my book. Issuing an empty challenge of that magnitude to one’s enemy is utterly pathetic. They spent weeks amassing reality show fame for themselves, probably raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for the bishops, and at the end of it all…nothing. Their “Black Mass” turned out to be an impromptu and furtive gathering in a Chinese restaurant!
I’m not sure they served as the best teaching platform for ordinary people as to
why separation of church and state is so important.I’m seventy-three, and all my adult life I’ve seen plenty of explanation of why separation is good for both church and state. Anyone seriously interested can find out. These actions push back against breaches of that separation in ways that hurt those who breach it. It’s not education, it’s action.
Most pagans seem to be of the ass – backwards belief that action doesn’t do anything, in spite of repeated evidence to the contrary. At least in my experiences.
Separation of Church and state is one reason I enjoy living in Europe.
Except in the countries where it’s only a nominal State guideline? Like Germany (where there are state-funded churches and religious instruction is normal school curriculum) and Italy (cos the Vatican’s sovereignty means the RCC has no effect on the rest of the country, I guess[/sarcasm])? And the fact that, as a condition to join the EU a few years ago, Greece had to drop the whole swearing of allegiance to the Orthodox church as a condition for gaining citizenship, well, that means the Church there is *completely* irrelevant to everything in Greece except “strictly church matters”[/sarcasm].
I get that it’s cool to look down on people in the US as being ass-backwards about religion, but there’s nominally “separation of church and state” on this side of the Atlantic, as well, and in all honesty, all countries considered, Europe’s relationship with religion is really only slightly more progressive than it is in the Americas. Remember how, only about ten years ago, that city in Wales *finally* lifted its ban on Monty Python’s Life of Brian? Or the “scandal” when Blair “came out” as Catholic? And how, though it’s been typically delegated to the Synod for about a century, UK Parliament *does* still retain power of veto (and certain other authority) in The Church of England? Oh, and the Blasphemy Law in the UK was only repealed about six years ago –that had no effect on anyone, cos “separation of church and state” (and the fact that a lot of things previously falling under the anti-blasphemy law are now punishable under other Acts, well….)
You forgot to mention the fact that the head of state of the UK is also the (figure)head of the Church of England and, by extension, the Anglican communion.
That, along with the Lords Spiritual, does mean that the UK is *technically* an actual theocracy.
Nor is the US a theocracy, especially with far less
Right. And I get that there are some strong cultural differences (I lived in the UK off-and-on for about seven years), but religion has been so tightly interwoven into nit only the UK’s history, but her laws and culture that it’s easy for a lot of people to forget about it. One example that really stood out to me was the use of “Christian name” when in the States, “first name” is most common (granted, I noticed that less in Islington, but we were often enough in Manchester and Wales and for a week every August my sister took us to see a great aunt in Cornwall, I definitely noticed it). The sort of hostile Christianity that gets privileged in certain US media outlets is rare in the UK, sure, that’s pretty obvious, but it’s still a country that strongly identifies itself as being Christian –it’s been that way so long, it’s practically invisible to many people there.
Yup. A very depressing situation.
I agree the situation is different regarding where you are. But even in places that have nominal ties with some form of State church there is still much less infringement than in the so-called “secular” U.S and A.
Western Europe is much more culturally secular even if not completely so in law. Which is “better”? It’s debatable. As an American, I would find it galling that an official state church has any advantages over others and entitlement to state tax money etc. On the other hand, at the ground level, I think their cultures are far less religiously toxic.
They have their big state churches, but almost no one attends them regularly. They’re more of a cultural heritage thing, and Western Europe has far, far fewer fundamentalist nutjobs than in the States. They have a few, but very often when you do hear of the rare incident, you find that it was in fact orchestrated by an American loon who went over to stir up publicity.
The good news for the U.S. is that we’re rapidly secularizing. We still have the fundamentalists of course, but their power and credibility is a tiny fraction of what it was even three or four years ago. They staked their entire movement on fighting gay marriage and lost, big time.
their cultures are far less religiously toxic
Point. They are part of the State so they can’t spend their days ranting and panting. Lots of these are also fairly liberal (Females priests, LGBT and so on).
They’re more of a cultural heritage thing
So True. Where I live in Norway, there’s this church at the entrance of a mountain valley. When we spend time there hiking on Sundays, there are probably ten times more people there than in the church.
it was in fact orchestrated by an American loon who went over to stir up publicity
It reminds me of this American dude who came to France where local nutjobs were protesting Gay Marriage. But there were a lot of local crazies as well. and France has no state church…
Here a few counterpoints……1. Just who is in the Temple of Satan? How visible are the members in the public? How large is the group? The spokesman has a pseudonym. The legal challenges are provided pro bono. The statue was crowd funded. Are really just talking about a committed group of 5-6 people? I can tell you, the Church of Satan is not that public. Check out the website, you can only find out about joining by emailing the group. I’m sure they thoroughly vet any candidates. 2. Why are we assuming the Temple of Satan represents all satanists? I bet there are hundreds of satanists who also hope their boss doesn’t find out or their ex doesn’t use that information against them. 3. The fact remains that a huge percentage of humans are frightened of “the other”. They may describe them as “evil” only because those are handy tools to define “the other”. We can set up “Pagans” as an official “other” but how does that really help paganism? As I have gotten older, I realize very few nominal christians are actually religious. They use the term to identify as the “in group”. The high visibility of appalling stances the Christian church has taken in this country has only resulted in more younger people identifying as “spiritual but not religious”. Could it possibly be that the tolerance we are hoping for is going to happen anyway?
The Temples of Satan is based in Michigan with 20 plus Michigan off line members and Texas and Florida with about the same. We do not count on line members which range in the several hundreds. We are mixed Pagan and Satanist equally and own properties and function as a legal Church. We have done so since 2000 and give back to the Community not crowd fund uncompleted projects.We have removed our sex offenders in the past the TST has duck and covered.
Many public pagans use pseudonyms, or do you seriously believe that TO RIDE A SILVER BROOMSTICK was published under Jenine E. Trayer’s legal name? Or that Miriam Simos’ parents named her “Starhawk”? Even Zsuzsana Budapest uses a pseudonym, ffs….
And? And so what? Are you saying that The Chicago Seven (Eight) should’ve been found guilty because they weren’t 700? And it is their right to vet Amy candidates they want to. Are you SERIOUSLY saying that they can’t have the same religious freedom that a traditiknal Wiccan coven has?
As someone who was asked for a statement in yhr article, I’m certainly not assuming that. Then again, I was also a Satanist. Other people can think what they like (and they tend to anyway, as evidenced by the fact that you even asked your question in the way that you did), but the information that TST isn’t the whole of Satanism is certainly available to any and all who genuinely want to know.
You’re certainly welcome to assume that, but I’m not much of a gambler.
The satanic temple (or the second coming of Marilyn Mansons “Antichrist Superstar”) can’t teach anyone anything about any religion because they have admitted to being athiests. They have also insulted the entire Satanic community by saying that anyone who actually believes in a deity is “an idiot who believes in fairy tales.” It was also admitted that their actual goal is NOT in fact religious equality but the absolute secularization of EVERYTHING. These people are nothing but low grade attention whores who are so unoriginal they can’t do anything unless someone else does something they can sqawk about so as to give the ILLUSION that they give a damn about anyone else! If they are such righteous fighters then why are they grandstanding in Florida and not squaring off with the pastor in Arizona? It would seem to me that fighting the ACTUAL fight would and should be more important than some asinine holiday display! Of course that’s just me!
This is a barrage of trolling. 1) Atheists can be religious; ask any Unitarian Universalist Humanist. 2) We must give TST the same right we demand, to pick our fights according to our best judgment. 3) Who are you to presume to know their motivation?
I agree to the extent that I find many of them are just your basic run of the mill humanists, and I’d have more respect for that if they didn’t feel the need to dress it up in the bad-ass trappings of Satanic imagery. There are others who have more of a serious religious and theological bent to their Satanism, and I’m good with that. I support their right to be who and what they are and I share their interest in chuch/state separation. I don’t, however find any real theological or cultural kinship with them. Satanism is Abrahamic to the core. Much of it seems to be the anti-matter version of Opus Dei Catholicism.
I am a big fan of TST. They are great champions of the separation between church and state. Also, their educational children’s book is wonderful.