Satanic after school clubs?

[creekland]

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

 

You seriously want to get into a religious discussion on this thread?  I don't - and won't.

 

Suffice it to say Holocaust deniers claim the evidence there is made up.

[zoobie]

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

 

Pregnancy Crisis Centers, anyone?

[SparklyUnicorn]

You seriously want to get into a religious discussion on this thread?  I don't - and won't.

 

Suffice it to say Holocaust deniers claim the evidence there is made up.

 

That would have been quite a massive undertaking of deception.

 

There is nothing to discuss.  There is no proof of a Satan.  The fact people believe there is a Satan is not proof.  I don't know what kind of discussion we could really have about that.  It would be very similar to discussing unicorns. 

[LMD]

I wonder what actual, religious Satanists think of the name?

 

I agree that it seems immature and divisive, which is totes helpful for school kids.

[zoobie]

So we want the Afterschool Satan Club to actually worship Satan, am I hearing that right? And the Afterschool Christian Clubs may only worship Jesus. No fun stuff, no snacks, no games. Who's going to police this? The whole point is that none of it should be allowed in our public schools. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

So we want the Afterschool Satan Club to actually worship Satan, am I hearing that right? And the Afterschool Christian Clubs may only worship Jesus. No fun stuff, no snacks, no games. Who's going to police this? The whole point is that none of it should be allowed in our public schools. 

 

I think that would be a hoot.

 

I think ideally this stuff would not be allowed in schools.  My basic reasoning is I have a problem with putting pressure on children to join religious clubs.  If they are there at the school that makes it more likely to happen.  If that is mostly not the case, where there is no pressure, then ok, I'm ok with it.

 

We had no religious clubs when I was in school. 

[Anacharsis]

I've met a few Satanists before. In my experience, they are more likely to be militant anti-theists rather than neopagans or even occultists -- the ones I've met have usually been from religious families or communities that treated them poorly. Whether that makes them more or less dangerous from a Catholic perspective I don't know.

 

I say anti-theist to distinguish from atheist, because I've found atheists who were simply raised in irreligious environments are harmless; they have no personal stake in religion, and are no more likely to harass Christians than non-baseball players would be likely to hang around at Little League games trying to convince children that baseball was a cruel and nasty sport. They have no personal wounds related to Christianity, which removes much of the motivation to do something which is very time-consuming.

 

Maybe this can be part of a difficult conversation about how churches and their communities sometimes fail their members, and how to reconcile the teachings of the Bible with its imperfect followers.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Anacharsis

[Bluegoat]

Can anyone here imagine the reaction I'd get if I said who cares about those xtian @$$holes.

 

If it was meant to apply to all Christians people would likely be reasonably annoyed.

 

If it was meant to apply to a group that were in fact doing something @$$holish, it could be a perfectly reasonable thing to say and many might well agree with that view.

[laundrycrisis]

They are making a point.  If public schools are to be hosts to after-school clubs of a religious nature, then they must be open to hosting clubs for any and all religions - even the ones that are unpopular.  

 

The other point that comes across to me, that may not be as obvious, is that much of the content of stories from the Bible can be seen as disturbing/disgusting to families who aren't in the faith.  A lot of people's initial reaction to the ASS clubs is disgust.  They will say the ASS clubs shouldn't be allowed because the "religion" is disgusting, wrong, an abomination, etc.   But people can feel that way about Christian teachings as well.  If everyone is to be tolerant of the activities of one religion on a public school campus, it must extend to all religions, because what's holy to one family may be disgusting to others. 

 

They don't want to promote satanism - they don't even believe in it.  IMO they don't especially want to promote atheism either.  They want to make the point that public schools are not an appropriate setting for any type of religious indoctrination.   One religion shouldn't get a pass on this just because it's the most popular while others are seen by the majority as wrong and/or disgusting.  The choice of satanism is meant to evoke disgust, because that feeling is part of the point they are making.  

[Bluegoat]

So we want the Afterschool Satan Club to actually worship Satan, am I hearing that right? And the Afterschool Christian Clubs may only worship Jesus. No fun stuff, no snacks, no games. Who's going to police this? The whole point is that none of it should be allowed in our public schools. 

 

I don't think anyone suggested anything like that - I can't really think of any school group that could not have snacks and fun stuff as part of their activity.

 

But it seems pretty reasonable to say that their name should legitimatly represent what they are in some way.  Having, say, a group that claims to be about being proud of ethnicty that is actually a white supremacy group, would be misleading and inappropriate, even if they claimed (and believed) that the group was really about racial pride for whites which is the same as racial pride for minority populations and the name is designed to help people realize that.

 

A good general principle might be that school groups shouldn't be somehow directed against other groups of people, but should have some substance of their own.  The activities of this group seem fine in that respect, but the name isn't, it's totally directed to a sacrcastic use of other people's symbology.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I've met a few Satanists before. In my experience, they are more likely to be militant anti-theists rather than neopagans or even occultists -- the ones I've met have usually been from religious families or communities that treated them poorly. Whether that makes them more or less dangerous from a Catholic perspective I don't know.

 

I say anti-theist to distinguish from atheist, because I've found atheists who were simply raised in irreligious environments are harmless; they have no personal stake in religion, and are no more likely to harass Christians than non-baseball players would be likely to hang around at Little League games trying to convince children that baseball was a cruel and nasty sport. They have no personal wounds related to Christianity, which removes much of the motivation to do something which is very time-consuming.

 

Maybe this can be part of a difficult conversation about how churches and their communities sometimes fail their members, and how to reconcile the teachings of the Bible with its imperfect followers.

 

I waver.  I have my "let live" moments where I'm just an atheist leave me alone and I'll leave you alone.  But occasionally I do feel appreciation towards those brave enough to speak out against religion.  I do believe religion in the larger/broader sense often does more harm than good.  On an individual level I know it helps some people and I don't want to take that away from them.  I'd rather they see they don't need it, but I don't want to force them for the same reasons I don't want to be forced.

 

I just can't see me joining any of these sorts of groups because I'm not a group joiner.  If I were religious I doubt I'd be a member of a church either. 

[Bluegoat]

They are making a point.  If public schools are to be hosts to after-school clubs of a religious nature, then they must be open to hosting clubs for any and all religions - even the ones that are unpopular.  

 

The other point that comes across to me, that may not be as obvious, is that much of the content of stories from the Bible can be seen as disturbing/disgusting to families who aren't in the faith.  A lot of people's initial reaction to the ASS clubs is disgust.  They will say the ASS clubs shouldn't be allowed because the "religion" is disgusting, wrong, an abomination, etc.   But people can feel that way about Christian teachings as well.  If everyone is to be tolerant of the activities of one religion on a public school campus, it must extend to all religions, because what's holy to one family may be disgusting to others. 

 

They don't want to promote satanism - they don't even believe in it.  IMO they don't especially want to promote atheism either.  They want to make the point that public schools are not an appropriate setting for any type of religious indoctrination.   One religion shouldn't get a pass on this just because it's the most popular while others are seen by the majority as wrong and/or disgusting.  The choice of satanism is meant to evoke disgust, because that feeling is part of the point they are making.  

 

Voluntary student organizations are hardly religious indoctrination, any more than a student Marxist club is political indoctrination.  Students are allowed, like others, to create and join social, political, and other organizations that reflect their interests and goals.  As a concept of secularism that just sounds like control of thought and association and exchanging ideas.

 

But in any case, it's hard to see them as only making that political point when they are actually establishing these clubs, rather than just making waves about doing so.  If the kids are having lectures on science and reason, are they actually having any kind of worthwhile debate on the limits of secularism?  If that is the real goal of the group, shouldn't that tend to be the focus of the activity, for the kids,  after all?

[Anne in CA]

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? 

Helping the homeless is HARD. I've had a small business surrounded by a lot of homeless people for more than a year. The homeless people I see every day are not "urban campers". They are either extremely low IQ and should be in a group home, or they are so addicted and are willing to commit crimes to pay for their drugs, so they should be in rehab/ prison. NONE of the homeless people I see every day could just get a job or straighten up. They need real help, and the positive vibes from church are probably more helpful than any food or clothing, tents, sleeping bags. The community around them treats them like garbage a lot of the time.

 

I do think that being in church around people who want to love them is the best thing for the homeless I see every day where I live. I can see how that appears to be "pushing religion on people", but they need something positive in their life every day. Man cannot live by bread alone. EVERYONE needs to feel loved and surrounded by positive people sometimes.

[laundrycrisis]

Voluntary student organizations are hardly religious indoctrination, any more than a student Marxist club is political indoctrination.  Students are allowed, like others, to create and join social, political, and other organizations that reflect their interests and goals.  As a concept of secularism that just sounds like control of thought and association and exchanging ideas.

 

But in any case, it's hard to see them as only making that political point when they are actually establishing these clubs, rather than just making waves about doing so.  If the kids are having lectures on science and reason, are they actually having any kind of worthwhile debate on the limits of secularism?  If that is the real goal of the group, shouldn't that tend to be the focus of the activity, for the kids,  after all?

 

The point of the Good News Club is absolutely evangelism/indoctrination.  Their own website makes that clear.  

https://www.cefonline.com/good-news-clubs?phpMyAdmin=pgUKJYQ51kFEptI4a9y-KfNTYW3

 

"As with all CEF ministries, the purpose of Good News Club is to evangelize boys and girls with the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and establish (disciple) them in the Word of God and in a local church for Christian living."

 

I imagine that on campuses which continue to allow evangelical Christian clubs to meet after school, where the purpose is clearly evangelism, the ASS clubs will actually meet and promote the ideas of non-religious reasoning.  

[Janeway]

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."

Ok..but then it is definitely not ok because blasphemy is meant as an insult to other religions. How can anything be in the name of religious freedom if you are purposefully making a group for the purpose of insulting others?

[Janeway]

The point of the Good News Club is absolutely evangelism/indoctrination.  Their own website makes that clear.  

https://www.cefonline.com/good-news-clubs?phpMyAdmin=pgUKJYQ51kFEptI4a9y-KfNTYW3

 

"As with all CEF ministries, the purpose of Good News Club is to evangelize boys and girls with the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and establish (disciple) them in the Word of God and in a local church for Christian living."

 

I imagine that on campuses which continue to allow evangelical Christian clubs to meet after school, where the purpose is clearly evangelism, the ASS clubs will actually meet and promote the ideas of non-religious reasoning.  

 

 

The Good News Club does not belong there either.

 

But there is a huge difference between promoting non-religious reasoning and attacking another's religion.  Calling yourself something for Satan is religious. Satan is a religious figure. They are purposefully calling themselves the name of the thing that represents evil. Next up..the Nazi's will be allowed to go to the schools because they have the right to promote against Judaism.

[Jenny in Florida]

I feel that by chosing a being, real or otherwise, that specifically represents EVIL to Christian (and many other monotheistic faiths) they are specifically trying to represent those faiths as "less valuable."  The idea is "people who believe in God are so stupid, that I choose a being that they fine to be the most reprehensible as my own mascot, just to prove how wrong they are." 

 

 

 

That's how the point comes across to me.....as someone who doesn't believe in divine beings. 

 

No, I think the idea is to offer kids an alternative to religiously-based organizations AND to challenge the very idea that schools should host religiously-based organizations.

 

These "satanic" clubs would not be allowed on campus if some Christians hadn't pushed for schools to allow their own clubs to meet on school property. The point is that, if one religious group is allowed that right, then all religious groups must be allowed an equal right. Christians don't get a free pass because their "mascot" is the "good" or "correct" one.

[creekland]

Pregnancy Crisis Centers, anyone?

 

We do not have one of these at our school.  Perhaps they are at other schools?  We are, after all, talking about school clubs, no?

 

So we want the Afterschool Satan Club to actually worship Satan, am I hearing that right? And the Afterschool Christian Clubs may only worship Jesus. No fun stuff, no snacks, no games. Who's going to police this? The whole point is that none of it should be allowed in our public schools. 

 

:lol:

 

You're certainly reading way too much into it, and of course, no one has suggested this. 

 

Consider our Environmental Club (a real club at our school).  Should it be called that if they never actually do or talk about anything environmental?  Perhaps they spend their time playing chess instead (a worthy endeavor)?  (And snacks or Chess movies, etc.)

[Bluegoat]

The point of the Good News Club is absolutely evangelism/indoctrination.  Their own website makes that clear.  

https://www.cefonline.com/good-news-clubs?phpMyAdmin=pgUKJYQ51kFEptI4a9y-KfNTYW3

 

"As with all CEF ministries, the purpose of Good News Club is to evangelize boys and girls with the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and establish (disciple) them in the Word of God and in a local church for Christian living."

 

I imagine that on campuses which continue to allow evangelical Christian clubs to meet after school, where the purpose is clearly evangelism, the ASS clubs will actually meet and promote the ideas of non-religious reasoning.  

 

In the same way that the Marxist club is about teaching Marxism, and promoting it, mainly to the kid who choose to join it.  It isn't just there to have debates about whether Marxism is good or not, though they might also do that. 

 

The Good News Club is talking about evangelizing the kids who choose to join it, that is who have some sort of interest in learning about what they have to say, and their parents are ok with it.  Indoctrination is a loaded word to some extent, but not one that normally describes what goes on in a voluntary organization.  Otherwise anyone who goes to a group that teaches about almost any POV that could be seen as controversial or even just a particular perspective would be said to be indoctrinating people. 

[Bluegoat]

We do not have one of these at our school.  Perhaps they are at other schools?  We are, after all, talking about school clubs, no?

 

 

:lol:

 

You're certainly reading way too much into it, and of course, no one has suggested this. 

 

Consider our Environmental Club (a real club at our school).  Should it be called that if they never actually do or talk about anything environmental?  Perhaps they spend their time playing chess instead (a worthy endeavor)?  (And snacks or Chess movies, etc.)

 

What if the environmental club was really an anti-climate change group?

[SparklyUnicorn]

Helping the homeless is HARD. I've had a small business surrounded by a lot of homeless people for more than a year. The homeless people I see every day are not "urban campers". They are either extremely low IQ and should be in a group home, or they are so addicted and are willing to commit crimes to pay for their drugs, so they should be in rehab/ prison. NONE of the homeless people I see every day could just get a job or straighten up. They need real help, and the positive vibes from church are probably more helpful than any food or clothing, tents, sleeping bags. The community around them treats them like garbage a lot of the time.

 

I do think that being in church around people who want to love them is the best thing for the homeless I see every day where I live. I can see how that appears to be "pushing religion on people", but they need something positive in their life every day. Man cannot live by bread alone. EVERYONE needs to feel loved and surrounded by positive people sometimes.

 

I agree with you.  I just hope I'm never so desperate as to have to endure that for help.

[creekland]

A good general principle might be that school groups shouldn't be somehow directed against other groups of people, but should have some substance of their own.  The activities of this group seem fine in that respect, but the name isn't, it's totally directed to a sacrcastic use of other people's symbology.

 

:iagree:

 

There seems (to me) to be nothing at all wrong with what the group in question does (nor is there anything wrong with what Child Evangelism Fellowship does) since both are voluntary clubs.  There would be no problem with a "real" Satanic group either since public schools are there for the public.  Some members of the public might want one.

 

My problem lies solely with the name when it does NOT represent what it is doing and is there solely to provoke others.

 

Of course, a real Satanic group would also provoke others, I'm sure (just as Christian groups do to the anti-religious folks out there), but that's a totally different thread and that answer would be solely based upon religious liberty.  The right of those groups to exist with volunteer participation has been decided already.

 

This one is based upon deception/purposeful provocation IMO.

[Jenny in Florida]

The Good News Club does not belong there either.

 

But there is a huge difference between promoting non-religious reasoning and attacking another's religion.  Calling yourself something for Satan is religious. Satan is a religious figure. They are purposefully calling themselves the name of the thing that represents evil. Next up..the Nazi's will be allowed to go to the schools because they have the right to promote against Judaism.

 

Here's the thing: Christians don't own the concept of "Satan," any more (and I know this will be shocking to some) than they own the concept of "God."

 

For many years, I belonged to a religion that encouraged its members to define for themselves what the word "god/God" represents for them and to define for themselves what role, if any, Jesus has in their personal theology. I did a lot of work on those questions and developed my own understanding of those concepts. And, although I am no longer active in that denomination, my personal faith is still extremely important to me.

 

So, unless you want to tell me, to my "face," that I'm not allowed to follow the dictates of my own religion, then it's not fair for you to claim you get to define for everyone what "Satan" means.

 

This particular group has decided to recognize that name as applying to something -- or a set of somethings -- that is meaningful to them. And, if Christians and Jews and any other religious groups get to have clubs meeting on school property, then this group has every right to be there, too. They are not "against" any particular religion, just in favor of fundamental fairness: If one relgious group gets to have clubs on public school campuses, then every religious group gets the same right.

 

(Also, just for the record, Nazis are a political group, not a religious one.)

Edited August 3, 2016 by Jenny in Florida

[zoobie]

Ok..but then it is definitely not ok because blasphemy is meant as an insult to other religions. How can anything be in the name of religious freedom if you are purposefully making a group for the purpose of insulting others?

How is offering sports and snacks insulting to a religion?

[JanetC]

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.

 

Actually, I've been really impressed with how well they get their point across! Their proposals are legally tight and serious enough to force governments or schools to respond, but they generally don't follow through and implement them. (The children on Satan's lap statue in Oklahoma was never built, the satanic coloring book to be handed out alongside the bibles a church wanted to give public schoolkids wasn't actually handed out, etc.)

 

They're quite happy to make the spaces they're protecting a little less Christian rather than following through and making them a little more "satanic." I'm quite sure the materials they created for the satanic school club are scrupulously nondiscriminatory and not hateful towards Christians. Besides the deliberately provocative name of their organization, they have made sure there is nothing in them that could be used against them in court. Because the debate about where religion belongs in civic life is the point, not actually building what they propose.

[Anne in CA]

I wonder what actual, religious Satanists think of the name?

 

I agree that it seems immature and divisive, which is totes helpful for school kids.

I thought that this name might offend Satanists. I mean, if I BELIEVE in Satan, and you don't, don't use the name of my god to stir controversy, lol.

 

 

Also, they can't really want many kids to come to the clubs. No one is going to go because of the name. "Go pick up Hannah from the Satanist Club, dear." "Larry has my permission to go to the Satanist After School Club." "Jenny said the most interesting thing she learned in Satanist After School Club..." No, no one really is going to send their kids there, and it's bound to annoy actual Satanists. Good Grief.

[hornblower]

It would be really nice if people could refrain from calling people who support this or the FSM as 'immature' and 'childish' 

It wouldn't fly to call any other beliefs or believers that. 

[LMD]

Oh come on.

 

You're allowed to blaspheme, I'm allowed to be offended. If you purposely blaspheme in my face to make a point, don't expect us to have a mutually respectful relationship.

 

Likewise, you're allowed to have your beliefs and even tell people about them. But if you continue after I've said no or manipulate me into giving further audience don't expect us to have a mutually respectful relationship.

 

A club challenging cultural expectations and encouraging open dialogue with radical ideas - all over it. Using a deliberately nose-thumbing name screams disrespect. I get that disrespect of 'those' groups/belief is kind of the point...

[LMD]

It would be really nice if people could refrain from calling people who support this or the FSM as 'immature' and 'childish'

 

It wouldn't fly to call any other beliefs or believers that.

Oh, the irony! Isn't the whole point of the FSM concept to paint the idea of faith in a god as 'immature' or 'childish'?

[Janeway]

How is offering sports and snacks insulting to a religion?

Because they say they are there to do blasphemy. 

 

And still, no teaching for or against a religion belongs on a public school campus. And no outside groups should be allowed to bring it in.

[hornblower]

Some of us find the dominant Christian ideology to be disrespectful, as well the constant obvious religious pandering.

When an American politician can end a speech without invoking ________ (geeee, I'm debating whether to use what I consider an accurate term but most would consider 'disrespectful' ... but I don't want to get suspended off the board & mostly I actually am a nice person.....) when they can end without saying that thing that everyone feels they have to say..... then I might feel like we've arrived at a place that we can mutually communicate with respect. 

The fact that "Americans like atheists less than they like members of most major religious groups."  makes us a pretty disrespected group. 

[FaithManor]

I feel that while catchy names, even shock names have a purpose, for the pursuit of marketing to minors, schools hshould be able to ask that club names lind of be obvious so students do not inadvertently end up signing up for something that is offensive to them.

 

In 4H all club names have "4H" in them so it is a no brainer affiliation. We also have a rule about not choosing readily offensive names or denigrating names. This is a good thing because we once had a group of middle school boys join an archery club and wanted to rename it "The Buttheads". Uhm no. And with the rules in place, that made it easy to shoot down the idea.

 

Just my personal preference of course.

[Janeway]

People saying they have the right to their beliefs, no one said they don't. 

 

They don't have the right to come in to a school and talk to the children behind the backs of the parents. This goes on at our public schools and I am sickened to know it does. The local churches go in at lunch time to speak to kids that the parents have not consented to them to speak to. They also have not had the background checks required of every volunteer.  It is crazy and shows a serious lack of judgement on behalf of the school district.

[Dmmetler]

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).

And there also probably would be quite a few parents who would be fine with their kids joining a club with the purposes given-but not with the name "Satan" attached. Myself definitely included.

[MistyMountain]

I never heard of this club but maybe they are calling it satanic because they get accused of that kind of thing anyway and it makes no sense to them since they do not believe in any deities. So they are poking fun of themselves and what they get called anyway. People hold a very negative view towards atheist lower then any minority religion or race. I sometimes joke and say I am raising a bunch of Godless heathens.

[LMD]

Hornblower, I don't disagree with your last post. I disagree that stooping to deliberate offense is an honourable or effective way to make a point.

 

Obviously this group disagrees with me. Good luck to them. Everything in JaneC's post is something that I can support for a supposedly secular society - minus the actual intended offense towards other real people.

[Dmmetler]

So we want the Afterschool Satan Club to actually worship Satan, am I hearing that right? And the Afterschool Christian Clubs may only worship Jesus. No fun stuff, no snacks, no games. Who's going to police this? The whole point is that none of it should be allowed in our public schools.

FWIW, here the after school Christian clubs actually meet at churches that just happen to be near the school so kids can walk, or in some cases, the church may have a bus. The only involvement the school has is that the parent has to send a note in giving permission for the kid to walk to the church after school or be picked up. Many also provide dinner for the kids, and keep them until parents are likely to be off work. My gut feeling is that if the Christians did one on Monday, Jews on Tuesday, Moslems on Weds, Unitarians on Thursday and the Satanists on Friday, a lot of kids of working parents would be signed up for all five. However, at least here, only the Christians (and, specifically, the evangelical denominations and non-denominations) do so.

[Bluegoat]

I wonder what alternative names people could come up with that communicate the point of the group ?

 

It's hard to defend the right to blaspheme, communicate that religion doesn't belong in schools, promote free thinking and have a gentle name that bothers no-one, kwim ?

 

But I'd love to hear suggestions!

 

Are they presenting a worldview, or a political position about schools?

 

If they want to present some sort of non-religious wordview, I'd suggest naming it in some way in relation to that worldview.  Secular Humanist club, or the Platonist Posse.  It might be hard to find one that somehow covered all non-religious worldviews, or non-theistic ones, or the various combinations thereof, simply because that is so broad that it would include people with opinions that differed as much as they would with some religious perspectives.

 

If they want to debate about various worldviews or say that worldviews are bad or something similar, they might try free-thinkers club, or anarchists club. 

 

If they want to talk about secularism in particular, I am not sure, but I suspect that might be a narrow topic to sustain a club alone, so perhaps it would fall under some larger political banner?  Something about the Constitution, perhaps, in a US context?  I'm not sure in a Canadian one as secularism in schools has a much different history and legal life here.  You could always call it the Secularism club, but that would also likely appeal to many religious people.  But, I would not consider that a club that wanted to promote that would also consistently be able to also include the above worldview-promoting aspect.

[LMD]

I wonder what alternative names people could come up with that communicate the point of the group ?

 

It's hard to defend the right to blaspheme, communicate that religion doesn't belong in schools, promote free thinking and have a gentle name that bothers no-one, kwim ?

 

But I'd love to hear suggestions!

Free minds, free voices

Think Out Loud

Humanity unbound

We The Thinking People

[LMD]

The thing is, LMD, religious people evangelizing - of any persuasion - on public school campuses offends me. Different country now, but my dd's school had an extreme Christian group operating in her school and taking girls out of science class for bible study among their many other violations of policy and they were protected. By the school, by the department, by the Minister.

 

A name, OTOH ? It hardly rates in comparison.

 

Protect the right to blasphemy and there is no need to blaspheme.

 

Take religion out of schools and there is no need for Satan clubs.

 

The answer to this so-called offence lies within the hands of the religious.

That, I do agree with.

[Χά�ων]

As the parent of a child who has been confronted multiple times by friends and peers about his "relationship with jesus" I highly respect this group and the work they do. I, as one person, do not have the time or resources ($$) to fight against those who view it as vital to "save" my child's enternal soul by any means. In this I am including pushing for their organization to be in publicly funded schools and relying on fun activities and peer pressure to bring in more kids, as well as groups making demands to have their mythology taught as fact in the same schools.

 

The ST exists because of the actions of christians who feel they must have their religion in the public sphere. The work the group does is very much needed to counter the continued push by the christian right's attempt to make their narrow brand of christianity the officially reconized relgion of the US. I support any and all organzations who will push back and make sure it is clear that this is NOT a christian (or any relgion) country.

 

I am fully aware that many people here will find it offensive to call the biblical creation myth, well, a myth. It is an accurate term and I cannot be held responsible for the feelings of others.

 

I am fully aware that many posters on this forum who would be delighted if their child "brought little Johnny to jesus" while being horrified if little Johnny talked about how wonderful their religion is and converted their child to another religion and would never make the connection that both are equally wrong.

[SparklyUnicorn]

As the parent of a child who has been confronted multiple times by friends and peers about his "relationship with jesus" I highly respect this group and the work they do. I, as one person, do not have the time or resources ($$) to fight against those who view it as vital to "save" my child's enternal soul by any means. In this I am including pushing for their organization to be in publicly funded schools and relying on fun activities and peer pressure to bring in more kids, as well as groups making demands to have their mythology taught as fact in the same schools.

 

The ST exists because of the actions of christians who feel they must have their religion in the public sphere. The work the group does is very much needed to counter the continued push by the christian right's attempt to make their narrow brand of christianity the officially reconized relgion of the US. I support any and all organzations who will push back and make sure it is clear that this is NOT a christian (or any relgion) country.

 

I am fully aware that many people here will find it offensive to call the biblical creation myth, well, a myth. It is an accurate term and I cannot be held responsible for the feelings of others.

 

I am fully aware that many posters on this forum who would be delighted if their child "brought little Johnny to jesus" while being horrified if little Johnny talked about how wonderful their religion is and converted their child to another religion and would never make the connection that both are equally wrong.

 

Only encountered nastiness towards my kid once thankfully, but you aren't the only person to say this.  It's one thing if someone wants to get into it with me.  That's annoying enough, but you don't act like an arse towards my kid.  And I'm referring to an adult!

[Bluegoat]

It would be really nice if people could refrain from calling people who support this or the FSM as 'immature' and 'childish' 

 

It wouldn't fly to call any other beliefs or believers that. 

 

 

 

Have any really rich adult discussions ever come out of that kind of approach to criticizing an idea? 

[Bluegoat]

There won't be Satan clubs if Christians ( and Muslims and Jews and Buddhists and whomever else) stop using public schools as a huge pool of potential converts. 

 

Hold your groups at your places of worship  and nobody will complain or object.

 

I think it's a tad hypocritical to get knickers in a knot over Satan club without being prepared to countenance that maybe school children on their public school campus' aren't fair game for your particular religion.

 

Srsly. Anyone who imagines what many Christian clubs teach isn't offensive to others needs to go and read some Christian club curriculum** And if you still believe in your right to promote those things despite being offensive, then you darn well should be believing in the rights of others to promote what is offensive to you.

 

It either works both ways, or it doesn't work at all. Personally, I'd kick Satan Temple and the Christians* off campus.

 

*plus other religions as applicable.

** One gem is the licked cupcake/used car activity. Totally inappropriate in a public school setting ( totally inappropriate anywhere, imo).

 

I don't see anyone making this kind of argument though, only that religious clubs of all kinds, if that is actually what they are, should be allowed.  The objection to this club, in this discussion,  is from a wholly different perspective.

 

That being said, on that principle of freedom for students to form groups around a variety of religious beliefs, it is possible for someone to consistently say there should be an exception because a particular religious group is somehow so dangerous that the normal freedom of students to associate and form clubs as they choose should be curtailed.  I suspect that some people might feel that way about a real Satanists club, but judging that would be more a matter of figuring out the facts - either looking at the activities of that particular club, or perhaps looking at the way such groups usually behave, if the trend is extreme enough.

 

I'm not really sure why it matters that any group may have beliefs that are offensive to any other. No doubt the Marxists' beliefs are offensive to the Young Libertarians. That is not the same as saying the purpose of the group, or it's name, is chosen specifically in order to create offence amongst a certain group of people, and without it having any real substantive need to do so.

[Haiku]

I'm against purposeful deception.

 

They aren't being deceptive. All their information is readily available on their website. They are perfectly upfront about who they are and what they believe.

 

When I said to myself, "Self, what is this Satanic Temple I am hearing about?", I sat right down and Googled it and, lo and behold, the internet had a wealth of information readily available to me.

 

I get that people object to them using the word Satan, and I understand (even if I don't agree with) why. But to claim that the Satanic Temple is being deceptive is simply wrong; they state very clearly why they chose the name Satan (which is not actually copyrighted and doesn't belong to anyone, so there are no rules or laws about how it can be used) and how it relates to what they do.

 

However, I absolutely think that the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks should change their name, as they don't actually do anything to help actual elks. It's really misleading.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Haiku

[Bluegoat]

lol, probably not, but change certainly has. 

 

I'd take change over a polite chat over tea and bikkies.

 

Change that isn't based on substantive ideas doesn't seem like a particularly good idea to me.  Even if it's by chance is change toward truth, if you don't manage to actually convince people, it isn't going to be very effective and might well be counter-productive. 

[JanetC]

Ok..but then it is definitely not ok because blasphemy is meant as an insult to other religions. How can anything be in the name of religious freedom if you are purposefully making a group for the purpose of insulting others?

 

Christian beliefs and practices can be deeply wrong to those of other faiths. Christians believe in a messiah that others are still waiting for or perhaps have found in a different prophet. Perhaps you find their alternative prophet to be a false one as well. Your right to proclaim your beliefs in your own church is protected in this country, as is the right of this organization to proclaim its beliefs in its own temple. However, if you are proclaiming your beliefs in a public square that the local satanic temple believes they are also paying for via their taxes, they may try to craft a test case out of it. They never come in first, they are always asking for access to some public space another religious organization already has access to.

 

As they said in the FAQ, it's showing independence from traditional norms which is core to their belief systems, not offending you. But, they really don't mind at all if you want to see them in court. They would prefer to create a more secular society than to enjoy equal access for satanistic temple members and Christians. They are looking for the public institution to try to ban them or to offer something "separate but equal" instead to create that test case.

 

Is it polite? No. (It is much easier for those who are not deeply offended to say, "it's just a name, get over it.") Is it effective? Yes and no. Is it a form of free speech and freedom of religion as guaranteed in the constitution? Yes, absolutely.

[Χά�ων]

What kind of "alternetive" do they need? There are already a BAZILLION other alternetives. There's chess club and environmental club and anime club and math club and battle bots club and equestrian club and...and...and...like evelenty billion other after school clubs and groups and activities that NOTHING to do with Christianity. Every single one of those is an alternative to a religiously based club.

 

I think the thing for me about the "point" of allowing all religious groups since one religious group is....is that this group ISN'T a religious group. They took their name to make it seem like they were a religious group that is the exact opposite of this "good news". club. They don't do ANY religious activities during their meeting. They aren't a religious group and are masquerading as such just to prove a point.

 

 

Sorry...I don't let my kids join a club that is using them just to prove a point.

 

The point is that if one religion is represented, then all need to have equal access. This does not happen. A secular club is not an alternative.

[Χά�ων]

That being said, on that principle of freedom for students to form groups around a variety of religious beliefs, it is possible for someone to consistently say there should be an exception because a particular religious group is somehow so dangerous that the normal freedom of students to associate and form clubs as they choose should be curtailed.

 

I would like to point out that the good news club is not a student organized or student lead club.

 

From their own website:

"What is a Good News Club?

 

Good News Club® is a ministry of Child Evangelism Fellowship in which trained teachers meet with groups of children in schools, homes, community centers, churches, apartment complexes, just about anywhere the children can easily and safely meet with their parent's permission. Each week the teacher presents an exciting Bible lesson using colorful materials from CEF Press. This action-packed time also includes songs, Scripture memory, a missions story and review games or other activities focused on the lesson's theme."

 

No one is denying a student freedom to associate and form a club. The students are free to join and attend. The school is not free to promote or allow only the good news club.

 

What is happening is an evangical christian organization has pushed to be allowed as an after school group. The group is not student lead and is not secular has been allowed into publicly funded schools. Now a different group is using the same grounds to gain the same access to elementry aged children. Theu even offer a teacher lead curriculum and similar tactics to draw in students.

[Χά�ων]

except...again...this group isn't a religious club. They are doing science and history lessons, not participating in religious activities. These people are atheists. As an atheist, by definition, is WITHOUT religion.

Point of interest: In the evangical christian world, religion is being called science and history. Not sure how teaching actual science and history, that have supportive evidence is any different.

 

Religion gets a pass, and that brings us back to why the efforts of this organization are needed.