Jump to content

Menu

Satanic after school clubs?


Meadowlark
 Share

Recommended Posts

So..I was driving along yesterday listening to our local Catholic radio. They mentioned that schools across the country are attempting to counter the religious after-school clubs and creating these Satanic ones. Yes, actually called that officially. They said it was NOT some radical school acting in isolation, but rather something that is gaining momentum. I guess there is one starting this school year in Georgia.

 

This is terrifying to me. Anybody know more about it? God help us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Satanic Temple is dedicated to reason and scientific inquiry. They are huge in the separation of church and state. They promote religious liberty for ALL religions. They do not worship Satan and in fact don't believe in any supernatural beings. There is absolutely nothing to be afraid of. If you want to know more about the Satanic Temple, read objective information about them. Don't rely on information from sources with an agenda.

 

ETA: It is not schools that are creating After School Satan Clubs. It is a project of the Satanic Temple, and it's to counter the proliferation of clubs run by the Child Evangelism Fellowship.

Edited by Haiku
  • Like 44
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were mad about some Christian afterschool club, so they are trying to be the bigger butthole in this.

 

This is absolutely untrue. The Satanic Temple is simply trying to ensure equal access for ALL religions and to prevent religious liberties from being extended merely to accepted, tolerated religions. There is nothing "buttholish" about that.

 

The Satanic Temple also did NOT choose their name to piss off Christians. They use the concept of Satan as a metaphor for free will and non-oppression.

 

(FWIW, I am not a member of the Satanic Temple, and I am not affiliated with them in any way. I'm just trying to counter misinformation.)

  • Like 32
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, not "worshipping satan" or any such deity. They could have called it the Santa Claus Club. They chose the name to highlight their belief that there are no supernatural beings.

 

Nothing to be afraid of here, but feel free to roll you eyes as many atheists do - it isn't an effective way to get the point across.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing to be afraid of here, but feel free to roll you eyes as many atheists do - it isn't an effective way to get the point across.

 

I consider it akin to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and personally I think both are pretty interesting ways to get their point across.

  • Like 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is absolutely untrue. The Satanic Temple is simply trying to ensure equal access for ALL religions and to prevent religious liberties from being extended merely to accepted, tolerated religions. There is nothing "buttholish" about that.

 

The Satanic Temple also did NOT choose their name to piss off Christians. They use the concept of Satan as a metaphor for free will and non-oppression.

 

(FWIW, I am not a member of the Satanic Temple, and I am not affiliated with them in any way. I'm just trying to counter misinformation.)

 

Choosing "Satanic Temple" as your offiical name does not seem to be a metaphor for free will. It clearly slants to the other side-if only in name.

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, not "worshipping satan" or any such deity. They could have called it the Santa Claus Club. They chose the name to highlight their belief that there are no supernatural beings.

 

Nothing to be afraid of here, but feel free to roll you eyes as many atheists do - it isn't an effective way to get the point across.

 

I think it's quite effective.  And it just goes to show that many people don't bother to actually find out what something is about before dismissing it. 

  • Like 17
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Choosing "Satanic Temple" as your offiical name does not seem to be a metaphor for free will. It clearly slants to the other side-if only in name.

 

Read about why they chose their name. Even if you don't agree with them, they have specific reasons for doing so.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's quite effective.  And it just goes to show that many people don't bother to actually find out what something is about before dismissing it. 

 

And conversely, it just goes to show that many people believe something without actually bothering to investigate it.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why I gave up on Christian and right-leaning news sources--the fear mongering was intense! "Oh noes, men will be lining up to watch women pee in Target!!" Please.

  • Like 20
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, I think both the FSM and ST are equally effective. I understand the point. I just think it's deliberately alienating or antagonistic to Xians and I wish there were a way to open up a conversation without invoking another group's deep fear.

 

I get it though. And find it interesting. And if it leads to people investigating and thinking and learning, then I'm all for it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on what I read, I have a different opinion.  These folks are not about religion.  Yet, they chose their name specifically because it was the name of evil incarnate of a religion.  There's no reason to do that except to make a point.  And to chose that specific...........mascot.........yeah, that's being a bunch of buttholes, IMO.

 

As I mentioned before, the way I understand it, the club meetings consist of history, literature and science lessons interspersed with the usual after school club stuff like snacks, membership cards etc.  SO...they are a history club, or a science club, or a literature club.  They AREN'T a Satan club.  The club has nothing to do with Satan.  Satan represents evil, the club doesn't mean to represent evil.  Therefore.....they are being a bunch of butts. 

 

Of course they are not about religion.  That is their point.  LOL

 

I'm not much of a club joiner, but I support the idea.  Religious folks have lots and lots of clubs and clout.  The non religious do not.  I live in a very secular area so I rarely encounter flack for the fact I'm not religious, but some people in some parts of the country encounter it daily. 

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

But....I don't need to shout all that from the rooftops.  I feel no need to make fun of a belief in God by utilizing redonkulous ideas like flying spaghetti monsters or using a representation of evil incarnate to make a point.  Those sorts of things are just...not nice...to put it politely. 

 

They do, however, generate interest from the press (of all persuasions) and thus generate conversations about church/state constitutional issues, and where the lines should be drawn.  If it was just called "Rational, Science and Logic After-School Club" then no one would really think about the issue of whether school-based religiously-oriented clubs are a form of establishing a government-sanctioned religion.

 

I can see both sides of the club issue, but it's clear to me that if you allow clubs at your public school, the rules as to which groups are eligible to start one have to be the same for all comers.

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel no need to make fun of a belief in God by utilizing redonkulous ideas like flying spaghetti monsters or using a representation of evil incarnate to make a point.  Those sorts of things are just...not nice...to put it politely. 

 

I don't think it's any less "nice" than claiming that everyone else has to follow the rules of one specific "mascot" and trying to legislate those rules into law.

 

And yes, FSM and ST are absolutely trying to make a point. Their point is that a pluralistic society needs to be open to a diversity of opinions and beliefs and not privilege one or a few. I think that's an extremely important point to make. It's also required by our Constitution, even though there are some who don't want to abide by that. I am religious; I do not believe that my religious beliefs deserve special consideration in society and law, but I can't say the same of a lot of other people.

 

As far as Satan being evil incarnate, well ... there is the idea that Satan was simply branded evil because he wasn't willing to be bossed around and that his bad rep is a matter of propaganda. ;) Since I am not Judeo-Christian, I have no opinion on the matter, but I do know that not everyone agrees with the idea that Satan is objectively evil.

Edited by Haiku
  • Like 15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I happen to think the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is rather "butthole-ish" as well. 

 

As I said.....I am an atheist.  Actually, to be more specific...an agnostic atheist....meaning I am pretty sure there are no devine beings, but am willing to admit that I could be wrong.

 

But....I don't need to shout all that from the rooftops.  I feel no need to make fun of a belief in God by utilizing redonkulous ideas like flying spaghetti monsters or using a representation of evil incarnate to make a point.  Those sorts of things are just...not nice...to put it politely. 

 

I don't feel the need either, but I do think atheists and secular folks don't have much representation.  They don't always have protections.  They aren't taken seriously and are not respected for their desire to not be in the religious clubs.  Take, for example, religious based charitable organizations.  They do a lot of good, but ultimately their goal is to push their religious beliefs on people.  They do not always give freely for the sake of caring about people.  My husband did some volunteer work for one such organization (this is part of a yearly thing his company does).  They said as part of getting the help (these are services for homeless people) that the requirement is for anyone receiving help to attend religious services daily (yes daily), but they deny that it's about converting people and they think they are being fair because it's non denominational.  Yeah well they don't have my "non denomination".  So how is that fair?  And how is that not about pushing religion on someone? 

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, are you saying that the point of the club is to generate press about an issue and not to really be about the kids joining the club?

 

No. The Satanic Temple exists to promote reason and scientific inquiry and to advocate for the separation of church and state.

 

The After School Satan clubs exist to provide an alternative to Child Evangelism Fellowship clubs. They exist to expose children to a diversity of viewpoints and beliefs and promote openness and scholarship. A tangential effect of that is that people get all up in arms about it and there is press, and then people have discussions about it. But that is not the purpose of the clubs.

  • Like 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, are you saying that the point of the club is to generate press about an issue and not to really be about the kids joining the club?

 

Because....that's what it sounds like and that makes it sound like they are using kids to make a point....which IMO might be worse than using another person's beliefs to make a point. 

 

From what I've read, which is not a ton, it seems to be both. The club teaches critical thinking skills, which is good for the kids (in their worldview - not everyone's) and the name encourages school districts and the general public to do some thinking about the constitutional issues.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I don't feel the need for "representation" as an atheist.  The fact that I don't believe in divine beings is, well, a non issue for me. 

 

Other people feel a need to band together to counter the influence of certain religious groups who are vocal about their desire to legislate their beliefs.

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the name is ridiculous.  It seems disingenuous to say, "Oh we just picked the name for people to take a look at this issue..."  Maybe (maybe) they don't mean for it to, but it comes across as a deliberate provocation.

 

It's like calling it the Hitler Club or the Child Molester Club or the White Supremacy Club.  You can say, "Oh, it's all just words to make you think," but those words have meaning.  You can try to take the word and wrest control of the meaning (try to make the word "Satan" not be the equivalent of all that's evil in this world), but it's just grasping and a losing battle.

 

Words mean something.  Pretending that they don't, or saying, "it's just to get people to think," is sneaky at best and a deliberate provocation at worst.

 

To me, this is the same as people not understanding why flying the Confederate flag is a slap to black people.  Calling your club the Satan club is a slap to Christians.  To me, it's the exact same thing.  I have had a number of people try to rationalize that the Confederate flag isn't really about white supremacy or racism, but I'm not buying it.  And I'm not buying it that calling something the Satan Club is just about making people wake up.  The name was chosen to irritate/provoke/cause distress.

 

 

  • Like 39
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't feel the need either, but I do think atheists and secular folks don't have much representation.  They don't always have protections.  They aren't taken seriously and are not respected for their desire to not be in the religious clubs.  Take, for example, religious based charitable organizations.  They do a lot of good, but ultimately their goal is to push their religious beliefs on people.  They do not always give freely for the sake of caring about people.  My husband did some volunteer work for one such organization (this is part of a yearly thing his company does).  They said as part of getting the help (these are services for homeless people) that the requirement is for anyone receiving help to attend religious services daily (yes daily), but they deny that it's about converting people and they think they are being fair because it's non denominational.  Yeah well they don't have my "non denomination".  So how is that fair?  And how is that not about pushing religion on someone? 

 

Representation where?  In schools?  Because most of the scientific and academic community shuns intelligent people who also happen to also practice religion and I'm not talking about only Ken Ham-brand creationists.  

 

As for charitable organizations, is there something preventing atheists/secular people and groups from forming?  Yes, yes, I get your slams against the Christian organizations but I still don't see your case for where this lack of representation (or ability to create successful charities) comes from.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's disingenuous to prentend that angels don't represent good and demons don't represent bad.  Even if you just think of those ideas metaphorically instead of in actuallity.

 

I don't think they are trying to pretend that. I think they are encouraging people to look more closely at what is considered "common wisdom" and consider what it really means. I think they are promoting rational skepticism.

 

No one has to accept and automatically give credence or respect to other people's symbols. When we are asked to do so, told to do so, or told that we are being unkind if we don't, then we are also being told that opposing or divergent views are less valuable. I strenuously disagree with and object to that idea.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then.....be vocal.

 

Don't be buttholes. 

 

And yet ... there is no objective criteria of what constitutes being a butthole.

 

Pretty much any time someone tries to counter prevailing cultural thought, they are accused of being rude, unkind, subversive, or other negative things, pretty much regardless of how they carry it out. Even our traditional "accepted" method of marching and staging protests is branded in myriad negative ways by people who want to preserve the status quo. There's really no way to promote non-dominant alternative ideas without making at least some people feel threatened.

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they have very specific motives for choosing that specific name. 

 

Absolutely they do.

 

It is a cultural thing to view god as good. Personally, having read and studied the Bible (really! I was a member of a Bible study group at a Methodist church!), I find many of the supposed examples of god's love and kindness to be horrifying and cruel. But because Christianity is the dominant religion, we are told that these horrific and cruel things are good, and we are supposed to accept that. Because we just are. Because "they" say so.

 

And we are supposed to believe Satan is evil because "they" say so and avoid any use of the name or concept that doesn't support that idea.

 

Why?

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Satan is a metaphore of evil....much like fire or Dante's Inferno...which I think is where much of the idea comes from.  To deny that in our western society that demons and Satan and fire and hell aren't at least representations of evil is disingenous.  Just like halos and clouds and white light are all metaphors of good.  Those things are generally accepted in our society, even if you specifically don"t thing they ACTUALLY exist. 

 

Yes, I agree with the fact that they are metaphors for those things.

 

I also think there is nothing wrong with pointing out that this is a rather arbitrary and cultural designation and that there can be alternative interpretations.

 

I'm off to have dinner with my dad and family. Have a good one!

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And some in our country are apparently trying to get more polarized.  Joy, joy.  (sigh)

 

Sorry.  I can't support something like that.  I could support an atheist club and I could support a philosophy club, etc, but I see no need to promote a club of any sort purposely trying to drive in a wedge dividing people.

 

It's pretty obvious what Christian clubs are.  Take them or leave them.  Ditto that with Atheist clubs or Jewish clubs or whatever.  This "Satanic" Club is not obvious and is purposely misleading, not to get people to think, but to provoke many.

 

If one were to try to start up in the school where I work, I would do my best to see that it had to be renamed appropriately.  No clue if I would win or not, but I can guarantee there'd be a ton of teacher/admin support for naming it akin to its purpose - and not because our teachers are mainly Christian (several are not).

Edited by creekland
  • Like 16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why being polite has become the end all and be all.  Being polite is not what wins rights and changes society. 

When fighting for separation of church and state, and at a time when people in the US are all shouting about religious freedom but what they really mean is Christian religious freedom. groups like this are vital. 
 

  • Like 20
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if the ST is having some kind of a publicity push right now; one of their members gave the invocation at a nearby city council meeting earlier this month and caused quite a fuss. 

 

(His invocation was to the tune of the Lord's Prayer with different words and wasn't, per se, a prayer at all, which was IMO both blasphemous and ridiculously derivative, but that's neither here nor there.  I laughed, anyway.)

 

I'm inclined to think that secularists insisting they are under-represented in public schools is akin to Christians insisting that there is a War on Christmas.  I could be wrong.  I'd need to see some real numbers.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. The name is not reflective of the activity. Maybe that's a reason to disallow...

 

 

2. (And this is important) these clubs are not sponsored by the schools. The group is reacting to religious, specifically Christian, groups having after school clubs. If the district allows one religious groups run an activity it has to allow other religious groups do the same. So, this group is doing an activity to be an alternative.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. The name is not reflective of the activity. Maybe that's a reason to disallow...

 

 

2. (And this is important) these clubs are not sponsored by the schools. The group is reacting to religious, specifically Christian, groups having after school clubs. If the district allows one religious groups run an activity it has to allow other religious groups do the same. So, this group is doing an activity to be an alternative.

 

I'd support the club's right to meet if they actually worshipped Satan as the name implies or similar (one wouldn't have to be a Satan worshipper to attend - few clubs are exclusive).

 

I also wouldn't support a Christian/Jewish/Hindu/Buddhist/Whatever club that used the name of the religion, but didn't really "mean it" - if they meant something totally different and "just wanted to get people thinking."

 

I'm against purposeful deception.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me groups can call themselves what they want. 

I don't think many people would support a move to start arguing with the tenets of one group or another or picking apart which has 'real' beliefs. 

From their FAQ "We do not believe in symbolic “evil.†We embrace blasphemy as a legitimate expression of personal independence from counter-productive traditional norms."

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the name is ridiculous. It seems disingenuous to say, "Oh we just picked the name for people to take a look at this issue..." Maybe (maybe) they don't mean for it to, but it comes across as a deliberate provocation.

 

It's like calling it the Hitler Club or the Child Molester Club or the White Supremacy Club. You can say, "Oh, it's all just words to make you think," but those words have meaning. You can try to take the word and wrest control of the meaning (try to make the word "Satan" not be the equivalent of all that's evil in this world), but it's just grasping and a losing battle.

 

Words mean something. Pretending that they don't, or saying, "it's just to get people to think," is sneaky at best and a deliberate provocation at worst.

 

To me, this is the same as people not understanding why flying the Confederate flag is a slap to black people. Calling your club the Satan club is a slap to Christians. To me, it's the exact same thing. I have had a number of people try to rationalize that the Confederate flag isn't really about white supremacy or racism, but I'm not buying it. And I'm not buying it that calling something the Satan Club is just about making people wake up. The name was chosen to irritate/provoke/cause distress.

Seriously. You could not have made this point any better. And that is exactly why I am against racist symbolism such as the confederate flag.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And some in our country are apparently trying to get more polarized.  Joy, joy.  (sigh)

 

Sorry.  I can't support something like that.  I could support an atheist club and I could support a philosophy club, etc, but I see no need to promote a club of any sort purposely trying to drive in a wedge dividing people.

 

It's pretty obvious what Christian clubs are.  Take them or leave them.  Ditto that with Atheist clubs or Jewish clubs or whatever.  This "Satanic" Club is not obvious and is purposely misleading, not to get people to think, but to provoke many.

 

If one were to try to start up in the school where I work, I would do my best to see that it had to be renamed appropriately.  No clue if I would win or not, but I can guarantee there'd be a ton of teacher/admin support for naming it akin to its purpose - and not because our teachers are mainly Christian (several are not).

 

I thought I knew what some Christian clubs were all about. Boy was I wrong.  They are just as "not obvious" sometimes. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole idea - and of the Spagetti Monster too for what it is worth, is really immature.

 

If you think that there is a lack of diversity in society or school clubs, start some clubs that reflect your interests or views.  For the most part, they would probably be allowed without much controversy.  Have a humanist club if that is your thing, or a liberal arts club, or whatever.

 

Calling it a silly name to make it seem as if it is something it isn't, to purposefully create a controversy where none would exist, is at best childish.  The reason some people worry about the name is they understand Satanism as something specific, that is some kind of raising up of a particular idea that represents the ego as being more important than all other principles - because, you know, that has generally been what Satanism is actually about, and as a religious system it's been attached to practices that come out of that view.  A lot of people I think would be concerned about a club for kids that was dedicated to that kind of principle if it was put in totally objective terms.

 

To say "ha ha tricked you that isn't what we believe in at all" is not creating any kind of reasoned debate, nor is it throwing any light on anything, any more than talking about the FSM actually allows people to think in a more complete way about what philosophy and religion have said about the metaphysical foundations of being for the past several thousand years.  On the contrary it shuts down real learning.

 

Talk about becoming a parody of the thing you are complaining about.

 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't support a club (at school) calling themselves the KKK or the Native Americans or the Nazis or ______ and being all about botany or animal welfare or science or whatever either.

 

Some words really are defined in our language/culture.

 

Then again the KKK, Native Americans, or Nazis aren't mythical beings.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I knew what some Christian clubs were all about. Boy was I wrong.  They are just as "not obvious" sometimes. 

 

Examples?

 

There are all sorts of aspects to Christian faith.  Would love to know how you've seen some so similarly misnamed at public schools.  Do some claim to be Christian and do absolutely nothing related to faith as they see it?

 

If so, that doesn't happen at our school, so perhaps we've set a precedent for what we allow.

 

We also, of course, have plenty of non-religious clubs and anyone can join (almost) any club.  Some are exclusive, but not any based upon religion.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then again the KKK, Native Americans, or Nazis aren't mythical beings.

 

For many Satan isn't either.

 

There are Holocaust deniers - do they get to start an offensively named (to the majority) club that talks about science and literature?

 

Edited by creekland
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For many Satan isn't either.

 

There are Holocaust deniers - do they get to start an offensively named (to the majority) club that talks about science and literature?

 

 

There is plenty of evidence, physical evidence, that the Holocaust happened.  Where is the proof that a creature called Satan exists? 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Representation where?  In schools?  Because most of the scientific and academic community shuns intelligent people who also happen to also practice religion and I'm not talking about only Ken Ham-brand creationists.  

 

As for charitable organizations, is there something preventing atheists/secular people and groups from forming?  Yes, yes, I get your slams against the Christian organizations but I still don't see your case for where this lack of representation (or ability to create successful charities) comes from.

 

This hasn't been the case in my observation, in my neck of the woods.  Lots of people I know are both religious and academic/scientific.  As an example, there are many very academically oriented private college-prep schools in my area that have a religious affiliation of one kind or another - Catholic, Episcopalian, and Quaker come to mind.  That's not to say it's not different elsewhere - we live in a big country with striking differences in this kind of thing - but it's not the case here.

 

...

I'm inclined to think that secularists insisting they are under-represented in public schools is akin to Christians insisting that there is a War on Christmas.  I could be wrong.  I'd need to see some real numbers.

 

I think it varies significantly by locale.  The kind of locale which has a religious invocation as part of their city council meeting (or other government-run events) is probably more likely to have a pretty homogeneous community, religiously speaking, and thus may be more likely to allow religious groups access to the public schools (and thus public schoolchildren).  It is these areas where people who are not of the dominant religion may be more likely to feel the need to exercise their rights around church/state issues.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...