Satanic after school clubs?

[bettyandbob]

I understand the concept, it just doesn't seem that it is that much of a solution. And, if the kid is old enough to walk home, he/she is probably old enough to be alone for a couple of hours. If they really didn't want whatever the club was, the kid could just come home.

 

Here we have busses, most kids don't live close enough to walk, and even if they did, it isn't safe. Narrow streets and no sidewalks and having to cross busy streets without crosswalks. I realize this isn't where everyone lives, but I could not, in any good conscience, put my kid in a club with a religion I were completely in opposition to, even if I had no other alternatives. I would prefer he ride the bus home and be a latchkey kid.

 

I know a lot of people in my area who rely on patchwork solutions to cover childcare needs. Afterschool clubs even ones that meet 45 min fit into the patchwork.

 

I can find a neighbor to watch dc before school, work 7-3 and manage to get to school by 4 when the club finishes. Another day I might pick up from a neighbor. But if I can get three days in a club that is less I have pay babysitting rates for afterschool.

 

It's awful to have to rely on such a patchwork, but many people do.

 

Additionally, just because a child is old enough to stay home alone doesn't mean a parent won't think that is the safest choice for that child.

[Haiku]

 

So, basically the Christians are supposed to be polite and tolerant but the atheists aren't. Gotcha.

 

If the Christians would be polite and tolerant, then the atheists wouldn't have to make noise.

 

When the Christians stop trying to prevent other people from enjoying the same rights Christians demand, then everyone else will stop feeling the need to agitate for equal treatment.

[DawnM]

.

 

Edited August 6, 2016 by DawnM

[DawnM]

Nope. Done. 

 

Edited August 6, 2016 by DawnM

[albeto.]

Mockery is not how you counter ideas you find unconstitutional.

An organization (group, person) who does that is just being a jerk. 

 

I disagree with your first statement. Mockery, satire, and parody are long established ways of exposing perceived injustices. From Ben Franklin, to political cartoons, to Saturday Night Live's Weekend Update, mockery of problematic policies and people has been a popular tool in the toolbox of criticism. People have routinely mocked those in power to bring attention to situations argued to be unfair, detrimental, or downright absurd. The more negative attention a policy receives, the more likely it is to be modified. So, not only is mockery one way to counter ideas perceived to be unconstitutional, it's often an effective way.

 

Being a "jerk" is a purely subjective call, and while it can be lobbed both ways (as that's how subjective opinions work), it's ultimately a distraction from the point being made. The Satanic Temple is making a statement that legal rights should not be suppressed. After Congress passed the Equal Access Act of 1984, after-school bible clubs were deemed perfectly admissible on public school grounds, just like any other club. Well, the Satanic Temple's "After School Satan Club" is another club, and it has the right to gather kids for a specific purpose. In other words, what's good for the goose (Christian churches) is good for the gander (Satanists, Muslims, pagans, atheists, LGBTQ, etc).

 

Other secular groups have offered similar clubs, but they don't really catch on. The Satanic Temple has something that others don't - they're instantly recognizable. While many may find the name of the temple personally insulting, it shouldn't be a distraction from the function of the club - focusing on free inquiry, rationalism, the scientific basis for what we know about the world. It should also be noted, this club is offered only in districts where the Good News Clubs already exists (source, The Friendly Atheist).

[albeto.]

I'm sorry, Sadie, but you know I can't agree. Satan, demons, and Jesus either exist, or they don't. My opinion has no bearing on that objective truth. The experiences I mentioned here were solidly in the physical realm. You have my word, for what it's worth.

 

This is a really, really important issue, and one the After School Satan club will (hopefully) tackle. The question is, do subjective explanations of one's personal experiences accurately explain the natural world? Maybe so, maybe not. How can one tell? Well, different methods have been trusted throughout history, but there's been only one methodology that has been shown to be the most accurate and reliable. It's founded on making observations, collecting data, doing experiments, analyzing data, exposing results to peers so they can catch any unknown, personal biases (which we all have, and hardly ever see in ourselves). This is the exact kind of thing these After School Satan clubs ought to be exploring, imo, because religious and superstitious beliefs really do feel like accurate explanations of the world and if we want to solve our problems, it behooves us to be right. 

[8circles]

Albeto.!!!  Great to see you back!  Missed you!

[albeto.]

Albeto.!!!  Great to see you back!  Missed you!

 

Thanks, 8circles! I find conversations like this really interesting as well. There are so many things that catch different people's attention, different angles that one person finds more important than another. It's been interesting to watch the things people are focusing on. A few examples:

 

So, basically the Christians are supposed to be polite and tolerant but the atheists aren't. Gotcha.

 

Polite and tolerant are social skills, which, grateful as we are to run into them, is actually not a part of the equation here. Some people have better "people skills" than others. We can't all be like Captain Picard, eloquent and articulate and calm under pressure. But then, neither are we all like Christian Bale, ranting the moment our [comparatively low] tolerance for frustration is breached. Most of us fall somewhere in the middle, and even this changes from day to day. But really, this is about allowing all religious organizations the opportunity to benefit from the same law. Liberty Counsel, a Christian legal advocacy group that promoted the Equal Access Act of 1984, now states it will offer pro bono legal counsel to the schools "targeted by this disruptive group." (source, The Friendly Atheist) 

 

One might ask, what is disruptive about teaching kids about free inquiry and rationalism, and the scientific basis for which we know what we know about the world? What do they imagine is going on? What could possibly be dangerous about teaching science? 

 

Teaching the difference between the scientific inquiry and faith-based inquiry shouldn't be a threat, and yet it really does seem to be perceived in just this way. No one comes out and says this, but consider what is being said:

 

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.

(my computer is attributing this quote to Luanne, but it belongs to Anacharsis)

 

What is a "militant anti-theist"? What kind of military techniques do these extremists use? How do they harass people? In what way is "harass" being understood here? In what way are anti-theists, militant or otherwise, potentially "dangerous" from a Catholic perspective, or any Christian perspective? What' the perceived threat here? There seems to be one, and it's not just found here in this little community (nor does Anacharsis or others bear any blame for expressing this general opinion). Consider the letter the Liberty Counsel sent to Roskruge Bilingual School in Tucson, Arizona this week:

 

 

[The Satanic Temple] especially hates Christianity, and seeks to force permissible expressions of Christian belief from the public sphere, through various publicity stunts and antics. In the past, for instance, TST has presented state and local governments with the false choice of either accepting a statue of “Satan†to go alongside a Ten Commandments monument, or in removing the monument itself, despite the fact that courts have upheld Ten Commandments monuments as being completely legal on government property. See Van Orden v. Perry… Now, TST is seeking to intimidate school districts with another false choice, of either allowing an “After School Satan†club, or eliminating other privately-sponsored after school clubs, especially the Good News Club.

 

There are misleading statements inspired to raise a certain emotional response. For example, the Satanic Temple does not hate Christianity, nor does it seek to force permissible expressions of Christian belief from the public sphere - only to ensure the same legal right extends to all religions. Look how it's being challenged before it even gets off the ground - promises of legal service and inspiration of fear and persecution through misinformation and vague accusations. 

 

No one is being forced from the public sphere. The public sphere is just that - public. It belongs to everyone, not just the majority, not just those who have the most representatives in office. That means it belongs to Satanists too. If a local government opts to allow one religious group to set up a public forum, it must by law allow all. The Satanic Temple is taking advantage of this law, but any religious group can. Any. 

 

Anyway, as one who identifies as an anti-theist herself (that is to say, I believe behaviors inspired by theistic beliefs produce more negative effects than positive), I'm not sure how I *could* be militant. I suppose I could threaten bodily harm or vandalize property, but is this what "militant anti-theists" are understood to be doing? While this is done once in a while (can't think of any examples off the top of my head), there's no comparison to the violence and aggression inspired by religious beliefs. So I'm at a loss with respect to understanding what a "militant anti-theist" is, much less what danger I, or someone like me, poses. The only danger I can think of is that we take the opportunity available to those enjoying a free exchange of ideas to challenge certain assumptions and faith-based claims. In general, we remain a minority voice in society. According to the Pew Research Center, "In the 2014 Religious Landscape Study, self-identified atheists were asked how often they share their views on God and religion with religious people. Only about one-in-ten atheists (9%) say they do at least weekly, while roughly two-thirds (65%) say they seldom or never discuss their views on religion with religious people. By comparison, 26% of those who have a religious affiliation share their views at least once a week with those who have other beliefs; 43% say they seldom or never do."

[albeto.]

And yet it's being argued here that they are not in fact a religious group, they are a group that promotes non-religion and secularism. 

 

I have no issue with saying that religious and non-religious worldviews, theistic and pantheistic, atheistic, and every other variation, all constitute worldviews and should be equally treated as such.  So from my perspective, the principle and the law should protect their worldview as much as the evangelicals - (though not necessarily the way they choose to label their club.)

 

But that seems to be the opposite of what they are saying - they are saying religious worldviews should be excluded.  To say on the one hand that they are by principle a non-religious group makes it rather contradictory to claim they need to be included on the basis that they are a religious group. 

 

According to the Satanic Temple FAQ, they do identify as religious. They do not promote non-religion and secularism, they promote religion, "divorced from superstition":

 

 

It is the position of The Satanic Temple that religion can, and should, be divorced from superstition. As such, we do not promote a belief in a personal Satan. To embrace the name Satan is to embrace rational inquiry removed from supernaturalism and archaic tradition-based superstitions. The Satanist should actively work to hone critical thinking and exercise reasonable agnosticism in all things. Our beliefs must be malleable to the best current scientific understandings of the material world — never the reverse.

 

Nor are they saying religious worldviews should be excluded (they have a religious worldview remember, just not like yours). They're saying if the public sphere is open to the promotion of one religion (ie, Christianity, for example through a monument dedicated to the ten commandments, or the cross), then by law, and in reality, it should be open to all who ask. They're asking. They're asking in a most publicly unavoidable way, and while this may ruffle the feathers of those who believe Satan to be a real person (or person-like being), nevertheless it must be tolerated in a society that offers freedom and liberty equally. 

 

When one's feathers are ruffled, there are law-abiding ways to go about addressing the offence, and the Satanic Temple is doing just that. They are acting in compliance with the law. I submit that the push-back they get, both in legal action and in pleasant conversation like we see in this forum, exposes just how tolerant society is to religious inequality. There has been unchallenged privileges for many generations. I just learned it wasn't until the Vietnam war that military dog-tags offered religious identity other than Jewish or Christian. Muslims and atheists and Sikhs and Hindu and every other military person who identified with a different religion simply kept quiet (or were ignored). The assumption that only the Abrahamic religions need be taken seriously (and even that is debatable depending on who one speaks with) is one kind of privilege that some people are fighting back against, not just with regard to dog tags and military headstones, but after school clubs, too. 

 

In my opinion, their policies are clever because they kill two birds with one stone. They address the religious inequality that often gets a pass in society because most people are either innocently ignorant of the problem, or apathetic about the issues. And they address the religious indoctrination of school-aged kids by offering seemingly "safe" and "friendly" programs in what should be religiously neutral ground (public school) that are in fact designed to teach a certain worldview is right, a certain worldview that is considered harmful and dangerous to an increasing number of Americans. They address them by exposing them, and they expose them by taking advantage of their legal rights. They just turned it up to 11, and now everyone hears it. The squeaky wheel and all. 

[Haiku]

So I'm at a loss with respect to understanding what a "militant anti-theist" is, much less what danger I, or someone like me, poses. 

 

Come now, albeto. Surely you realize that any time you question the dominant religion, you are being rude, violent, and militant. The dominant religion is immune from questioning and criticism, and it is only people who are threats to the social order who don't fall in line. You are smart; if you pretend not to know this, you clearly are being disingenuous.

 

:001_rolleyes:

[Anacharsis]

What is a "militant anti-theist"? What kind of military techniques do these extremists use? How do they harass people? In what way is "harass" being understood here? In what way are anti-theists, militant or otherwise, potentially "dangerous" from a Catholic perspective, or any Christian perspective? What' the perceived threat here? There seems to be one, and it's not just found here in this little community (nor does Anacharsis or others bear any blame for expressing this general opinion). Consider the letter the Liberty Counsel sent to Roskruge Bilingual School in Tucson, Arizona this week:

 

Militant is used here to mean aggressively active or combative in favor of a non-military cause. (This use started in the early 1900s.) I think one interesting aspect here is that this language may have been originally borrowed from religious fraternal organizations, which sometimes referred to their members as part of a "Church Militant" in allusion to the Crusaders. I think this is maybe the best way to describe militant -- crusading for a cause, rather than simply advocating for it.

 

My thought on whether they would be considered more dangerous than occultists or neopagans has to do with their relationship.

 

A Kemetist neopagan may pray to Ba'al, unnerving a Christian who knows of Ba'al from the Bible. However, the Kemetist would not see what they do as Satanic, nor as something done to spite Christians.

 

An occultist, perhaps following the guidance of the Lesser Key of Solomon, might attempt to invoke Ba'al as a demon servant; this is more explicitly within the Christian framework, but the goal is personal and non-missionary. Many occultists are highly secretive, and not interested in increasing their visibility.

 

A militant anti-theist, however, sees their goals as more than personal, even as the motivation for those goals is often highly personal. To re-visit my original analogy, they would gain personal vindication through turning away Little Leaguers from baseball due to their own negative experiences in Little League, while also seeing working towards an end to children playing baseball as part of a larger social good. So they might be willing to go to greater lengths to attack the institution than other groups that would traditionally be called Satanic by Christians.

Edited August 6, 2016 by Anacharsis

[albeto.]

Militant is used here to mean aggressively active or combative in favor of a non-military cause. (This use started in the early 1900s.) I think one interesting aspect here is that this language may have been originally borrowed from religious fraternal organizations, which sometimes referred to their members as part of a "Church Militant" in allusion to the Crusaders. I think this is maybe the best way to describe militant -- crusading for a cause, rather than simply advocating for it.

 

Thanks for this. For some perspective, when I see the word "militant" used with regard to some religious action, I expect it to be accompanied by some level of violence and aggression. "'Militant Christians' bombed another women's health facility where abortions are offered." Or "'militant Muslims' kidnapped school children and sold them as slaves for profit." Whereas "'militant atheists" don't stop asking, 'Why should this particular public policy revolve around faith-based claims that cannot be corroborated by any evidence, or when in fact the evidence suggests the contrary?'" Do you see the disconnect here? Violence and terror vs. exposing hypocrisy or injustice? 

 

A militant anti-theist, however, sees their goals as more than personal, even as the motivation for those goals is often highly personal. 

 

This interests me because as someone who has been tagged as a "militant anti-theist," I would say I don't relate to this at all. 

 

To re-visit my original analogy, they would gain personal vindication through turning away Little Leaguers from baseball due to their own negative experiences in Little League, while also seeing working towards an end to children playing baseball as part of a larger social good. So they might be willing to go to greater lengths to attack the institution than other groups that would traditionally be called Satanic by Christians.

 

(I bolded the phrases to divorce them from the specific analogy)

 

Upon what do you base this premise? To bring the topic back to the Satanic Temple, I don't get the impression they exist to deny children Christian experiences. Do you see the After School Satan club as "attacking" Christianity in some way? Or do you not consider the Satanic Temple a "militant anti-theist" group? 

 

 

[Mergath]

Militant is used here to mean aggressively active or combative in favor of a non-military cause. (This use started in the early 1900s.) I think one interesting aspect here is that this language may have been originally borrowed from religious fraternal organizations, which sometimes referred to their members as part of a "Church Militant" in allusion to the Crusaders. I think this is maybe the best way to describe militant -- crusading for a cause, rather than simply advocating for it.

 

My thought on whether they would be considered more dangerous than occultists or neopagans has to do with their relationship.

 

A Kemetist neopagan may pray to Ba'al, unnerving a Christian who knows of Ba'al from the Bible. However, the Kemetist would not see what they do as Satanic, nor as something done to spite Christians.

 

An occultist, perhaps following the guidance of the Lesser Key of Solomon, might attempt to invoke Ba'al as a demon servant; this is more explicitly within the Christian framework, but the goal is personal and non-missionary. Many occultists are highly secretive, and not interested in increasing their visibility.

 

A militant anti-theist, however, sees their goals as more than personal, even as the motivation for those goals is often highly personal. To re-visit my original analogy, they would gain personal vindication through turning away Little Leaguers from baseball due to their own negative experiences in Little League, while also seeing working towards an end to children playing baseball as part of a larger social good. So they might be willing to go to greater lengths to attack the institution than other groups that would traditionally be called Satanic by Christians.

 

More dangerous? That would imply Pagans and occultists are dangerous as well. In what way do you think you're in danger from these people? 

 

[Tanaqui]

Come now, albeto. Surely you realize that any time you question the dominant religion, you are being rude, violent, and militant. The dominant religion is immune from questioning and criticism, and it is only people who are threats to the social order who don't fall in line. You are smart; if you pretend not to know this, you clearly are being disingenuous.

 

*snrk*

 

I think I've seen a comic about this somewhere.

 

Time for me to bow out again, btw.

[Anacharsis]

Thanks for this. For some perspective, when I see the word "militant" used with regard to some religious action, I expect it to be accompanied by some level of violence and aggression. "'Militant Christians' bombed another women's health facility where abortions are offered." Or "'militant Muslims' kidnapped school children and sold them as slaves for profit." Whereas "'militant atheists" don't stop asking, 'Why should this particular public policy revolve around faith-based claims that cannot be corroborated by any evidence, or when in fact the evidence suggests the contrary?'" Do you see the disconnect here? Violence and terror vs. exposing hypocrisy or injustice?

 

I think this is because the term can still be used in its original sense to refer to military action, so it is sometimes used in a way where it is not clear how they mean it. Stories about militant atheists using the original definition were more common during the Cold War, I think. For instance, the Khmer Rouge could probably be described as militant atheists in the traditional sense of using military action.

 

This interests me because as someone who has been tagged as a "militant anti-theist," I would say I don't relate to this at all.

 

 Perhaps they've misunderstood your views or actions?

 

(I bolded the phrases to divorce them from the specific analogy)

 

Upon what do you base this premise? To bring the topic back to the Satanic Temple, I don't get the impression they exist to deny children Christian experiences. Do you see the After School Satan club as "attacking" Christianity in some way? Or do you not consider the Satanic Temple a "militant anti-theist" group?

 

The motivations behind the Satanic Temple founders seem complex. It's a bit hard to determine because not much is known about their personal lives. A good place to start for context might be the writings of shock-publisher Shane Bugbee. Bugbee has a lot to say about the origins of the Satanic Temple, as he saw it grow from the beginning.

 

He met Lucien Graves back when he was Doug Mesner, a high-schooler looking for a copy of Might Is Right, which Bugbee's publishing house had recently re-printed with a new introduction by Anton LaVey.  After developing his relationship with Bugbee, a limited edition of Might Is Right was released that had Mesner doing the chapter opening illustrations. Here's an example:

 

 

What were Mesner's motivations? We don't know.

 

After Mesner was accepted to Harvard, he met the other founders of the Temple: Malcolm Jarry, who was then known as Cevin Soling, and David Guinan, who doesn't have a stage name as he has largely remained out of the limelight. What were their motivations? Again, we don't know. I thought the article in the Village Voice made an effort to outline things in a balanced way, although I'm sure things are more complicated.

Edited August 7, 2016 by Anacharsis

[fraidycat]

It reads to me like Mesner and the others' motivations are to make sure that "separation of church and state" is, you know, separate. That public accomodations are...public.

 

I see no nefarious motivations like human sacrifice or eating babies. Why do you keep questioning their motivation when they repeatedly say exactly what their motivation is? And that, again, you can go directly to the source website to read what they have to say about their own motivations.

Edited August 7, 2016 by fraidycat

[albeto.]

 

I think this is because the term can still be used in its original sense to refer to military action, so it is sometimes used in a way where it is not clear how they mean it. Stories about militant atheists using the original definition were more common during the Cold War, I think. For instance, the Khmer Rouge could probably be described as militant atheists in the traditional sense of using military action.

 

This argument is used generally only with those new to debating such topics. Many articles and essays have been written to explain the appeal, and the failure, of this particular tu quoque (“you tooâ€) fallacy, and I won't waste the time or the good will of others reading repeat it here.

 

This is a short attention-span, light-hearted, fairly spot-on response. 

 

 Perhaps they've misunderstood your views or actions?

 

I think that's exactly what's happened, but then, I think this same misunderstanding explains most (all?) accusations of "militant atheism." 

 

The motivations behind the Satanic Temple founders seem complex....

 

What's wrong with going to the source itself? They answer frequently asked questions, and explain what their mission is. Upthread you made a reference to Catholicism. Are you Catholic? I ask because I was Catholic, and began my homeschool journey on a homeschool forum populated with mostly Evangelical Protestants. We constantly fielded questions and accusations of what our faith supposedly was, according to people who did not share or understand the faith. I want to respect the Satanic Temple in the same way I appreciated when someone respected me enough to believe that my faith was what I said it was. 

 

Like others, I cannot find any dangerous or militant elements in this club (even when using the word broadly). It's an after school club that offers a tried and true way to understand and know the world around us. Kids are curious, I hope the clubs are fun. Anyway, I've found that when I go for too many rounds here some people assume I'm trying to insist on having the last word, or am being uncivil. I'll go now, but I wanted to thank you for taking me seriously and being so kind. I appreciate that. I'm happy to continue any of these ideas in PM. I believe we can include up to 5 people in a single PM. 

[Anacharsis]

​​

Why do you keep questioning their motivation when they repeatedly say exactly what their motivation is? And that, again, you can go directly to the source website to read what they have to say about their own motivations. This is 2016 - the age of the internet - easy access to information.

​

Two people can deliver truthful autobiographical accounts of the same event, experienced at the same time in the same place, yet have their stories disagree. You can then ask the same two people to reflect on those same events years later; they may not even agree with their former selves.

 

​Motivation is especially complicated. There may be a difference between how people see themselves and how they want to be seen by others; the way they describe events to someone they want to impress may be different than the way they describe events in their diary. There may also be a difference in self-awareness; a person might see themselves as someone who never gets lost, while their friends will bemusedly tell you that they are someone who never asks for directions.

​

This is just talking about individuals. When you talk about a group, you are talking not only about individual motivations, but the turbulence caused when those motivations meet up together in a shared group bond. Understanding why organizations do things can be very complicated without taking a cautious approach to their mission statements.

[Joules]

Just another view, because I don't like militant for non-violence:  I think of people like albeto* as evangelical atheists (or maybe anti-theists).  They believe the world would be a better place if everyone eschewed religion, and they share this view with other people and try to persuade them.  In the same way, evangelical Christians think the world would be a better place if everyone accepted Christ as their savior, and they share this view with other people and try to persuade them.  I'm using the third definition below:

 

e·van·gel·i·cal

ˌēvanˈjelək(ə)l/

adjective

 

 

1. of or according to the teaching of the gospel or the Christian religion.

synonyms:      scriptural, biblical; fundamentalist

"evangelical Christianity"

 

2. of or denoting a tradition within Protestant Christianity emphasizing the authority of the Bible, personal conversion, and the doctrine of salvation by faith in the Atonement.

synonyms:      evangelistic, evangelizing, missionary, crusading, proselytizing; informalBible-thumping

"an evangelical preacher"

 

3. zealous in advocating something.

 

 

All religions have militant members who bomb abortion clinics, or mosques, or community centers... I'm sure there are actual militant atheists in the U.S., too.

 

I see other categories on the spectrum:

-There are live-and-let-live members of most religions.  Sometimes you hear the Christians referred to as silent witnesses.  They live their life in a Christ-like manner, but don't push religion on people. In diverse cities, people of all religions work together without pushing their religions on others.  I think most atheists fall in this category (though they are not the only "real" atheists.)

 

-And there is something between evangelical (encouraging people to their viewpoint) and militant (violence), where members try to deprive the other group of rights.  An example would be not allowing a Muslim mosque or a Hindu temple in an area where a Christian Church permit would be easy to get. Or allowing Christian groups or prayers in government organizations, but not other religions. There are also lots of examples of Christians not being able to build churches or worship in other countries.

 

When they are deprived of rights, even the live-and-let-live members of groups start to speak up.  They say, "Hey, you can worship however you like, just allow me to do the same."

 

*ETA: albeto, I'm characterizing you based on your posts.  My apologies if I'm way off reading between the lines.  

 

Edited August 7, 2016 by Joules

[Carrie12345]

 

 

A militant anti-theist, however, sees their goals as more than personal, even as the motivation for those goals is often highly personal. To re-visit my original analogy, they would gain personal vindication through turning away Little Leaguers from baseball due to their own negative experiences in Little League, while also seeing working towards an end to children playing baseball as part of a larger social good. So they might be willing to go to greater lengths to attack the institution than other groups that would traditionally be called Satanic by Christians.

 

Going off on a slight tangent, it really bothers me when secularism, atheism, or even militant anti-theism, however one perceives that, gets chalked up to "negative experiences".  No one assumes Christians came to be Christian because of negative experiences with Buddhism or Satanism or secularism.

 

I was raised going to church every Sunday, taking all the standard classes and sacraments. I even taught Sunday School.  ZERO negative experiences.  I'm just a very contented atheist.  (Who loves Little League, lol.)

[Haiku]

What were their motivations? Again, we don't know.

You keep saying this, yet we do know their motivations. They are very upfront about them. You may choose not to believe them, but that doesn't mean their motivations are murky and unknowable. It just means you choose to be suspicious.

[Pam in CT]

re "reading" motivations, of others and even our own:

 

​Two people can deliver truthful autobiographical accounts of the same event, experienced at the same time in the same place, yet have their stories disagree. You can then ask the same two people to reflect on those same events years later; they may not even agree with their former selves.

 

​Motivation is especially complicated. There may be a difference between how people see themselves and how they want to be seen by others; the way they describe events to someone they want to impress may be different than the way they describe events in their diary. There may also be a difference in self-awareness; a person might see themselves as someone who never gets lost, while their friends will bemusedly tell you that they are someone who never asks for directions.

​

This is just talking about individuals. When you talk about a group, you are talking not only about individual motivations, but the turbulence caused when those motivations meet up together in a shared group bond. Understanding why organizations do things can be very complicated without taking a cautious approach to their mission statements.

 

:iagree:

 

That is why it is IMO much more instructive to focus on actions, of others and of ourselves, rather than trying to tease out /insist on motivation or (related) intent.

 

 

 

"Militant" to me connotes aggression, with clear threat of or actual use of violence.  Clever use of legal strategies or button-pushing media generation doesn't warrant the term.  Militance uses tools of violence: beatings, bombs, guns etc.

 

"Evangelism" to me means "strongly urging others to replace their practice/belief with one's own," be that religion, breastfeeding, home birth, Saxon math, whatever.   It uses tools of persuasion: talking, writing, documentaries.  Also, sometimes, satire.  

 

"Militant" activists and "evangelist" activists can sometimes share some overlapping objectives (Jesuits v Conquistadores, Malcolm v King, anti-abortion protestors v. clinic bombers, blah blah blah).  To the motivation question, they may share some similar motivations too -- who knows what goes on inside another human being's head?  I have only the most rudimentary grip on what goes on in my own!! and in any event what practical difference does it make? -- but the means -- actions -- they use define the difference.

 

So these guys in my estimation are evangelist, using provocative strategies.  Not militant.

 

 

 

Nice to have you back, albeto!  FWIW, I've always (in my head) counted you, based on your words/actions, as an "evangelist atheist."  Takes all kinds to make this beautiful world.

 

 

 

 

 

ETA clarity

Edited August 7, 2016 by Pam in CT

[TranquilMind]

*snrk*

 

I think I've seen a comic about this somewhere.

 

Time for me to bow out again, btw.

 

I worry about who you people know when I see stuff like this.  There may be some individuals out there but this is representative of nothing normal. 

[TranquilMind]

See, I see this as completely different than offering an after school club that preaches Jesus.  This is a PS situation where a child is lead to feel shame.  I honestly do have a problem with some of the shame culture I see in Christianity.  And I am a Christian.  I went to a Christian school for a while where there was a lot of shame manipulation.  I still struggle with some of the things we were told in our 3 day revival meetings we had to go to each year.   I won't go into details, partly because I don't want to bring it all up again.

Wow.  I'm always surprised at things like this.

 

I don't do shame and I don't do guilt either.  To me what you are saying is completely backward.

 

The only time I have ever felt guilty is when I know I have sinned.  Then I make it right, as far as possible.

 

 

Repent, Quit it, Forget it.  That's how I see the Lord and that's what we were taught.

 

Edited August 7, 2016 by TranquilMind

[TranquilMind]

In some cases a "real" atheist is fine to live and let live.  And then she sends her child to a public school, where other children try to convince him that Jesus is the answer to everything and make him feel bad that he doesn't have Jesus, every single day.  The teachers might mention Christianity in class and discuss Creation Science.  The fun clubs that ALL the kids are part of are Christian.  There are even Christian groups that sponsor assemblies or offer Christian prayer at events.  Then the atheist parent might feel that the "live and let live" is a bit one-sided.  

 

If "Jesus" is replaced with "Muhammed" and "Christian" is replaced with "Islam," you might get an inkling of how she feels.  

 

The hypothetical family probably ought to move out of the Bible Belt, but sometimes that isn't possible and gosh-darn-it public schools are not supposed to push a specific religion.  (Some frustration here might explain the origin of the club from the OP.)

 

When does the bolded happen?  Are you living in a time warp and it is 1950?

 

It doesn't happen at all today. If anything, one can't even mention "Christmas" in a public school.  It has to be "Winter Holiday". 

The "It" club today is the gay-straight alliance that is everywhere.

 

So I don't know where you live, but it sure isn't remotely representative of the world here. 

 

 

[Χά�ων]

I worry about who you people know when I see stuff like this. There may be some individuals out there but this is representative of nothing normal.

Actually it very much is normal where I live.

[TranquilMind]

Actually it very much is normal where I live.

 

Wow.  That's pretty amazing. 

[Χά�ων]

When does the bolded happen? Are you living in a time warp and it is 1950?

 

It doesn't happen at all today. If anything, one can't even mention "Christmas" in a public school. It has to be "Winter Holiday".

The "It" club today is the gay-straight alliance that is everywhere.

 

So I don't know where you live, but it sure isn't remotely representative of the world here.

 

 

It happens all.the.time. Children are being taught not only to witness to friends, but how to do it. Google it, there are entire websites devoted to the topic.

[TranquilMind]

It happens all.the.time. Children are being taught not only to witness to friends, but how to do it. Google it, there are entire websites devoted to the topic.

In public schools?  She said public. Man, you would be shut down around here if you dared mention Jesus. 

In What public schools are kids routinely witnessing?  I've got to see this. 

[Joshin]

When does the bolded happen?  Are you living in a time warp and it is 1950?

 

It doesn't happen at all today. If anything, one can't even mention "Christmas" in a public school.  It has to be "Winter Holiday". 

The "It" club today is the gay-straight alliance that is everywhere.

 

So I don't know where you live, but it sure isn't remotely representative of the world here. 

 

 

To be fair, you don't see it because you aren't the target of it. In this case, you are part of the privileged majority. It's just like it is rare for me to experience racism or for my husband to experience misogyny. It is often insidious and subtle, but the intent is very much obvious once you have been on the receiving end enough times.

 

So just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Your experience isn't the only experience.

[Dmmetler]

When does the bolded happen? Are you living in a time warp and it is 1950?

 

It doesn't happen at all today. If anything, one can't even mention "Christmas" in a public school. It has to be "Winter Holiday".

The "It" club today is the gay-straight alliance that is everywhere.

 

So I don't know where you live, but it sure isn't remotely representative of the world here.

 

 

It's quite common here in some parts of the city, but not all. In the school I taught in, yes, it was common. Basically all the kids went to two specific churches, both of which actively taught evangelism, but didn't do a good job of teaching when/how to do so. The result was that as a teacher, I had to spend a lot of time putting out what essentially was religious bullying, where upper elementary mean-girl techniques were used to put down kids of the "wrong" religion (including Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormons.) Kids who didn't attend church basically got love bombed and pressured to become part of the group. The kids who had it the hardest were Hindu and Moslem, and I suspect a vocal atheist would have been relegated to this group as well. As you said, it really does feel like the 1950's.

 

In other parts, not a big deal. Many of the private schools, especially the long-standing ones with high tuition are very inclusive, very diverse, and very accepting, even though they may be Saint Someone's Academy or have the word Episcopal on their sign. The neighborhoods that such schools draw from often have public schools that are equally accepting, inclusive, and lack the weekly chapel.

 

My suburb is somewhere in the middle-more tolerant, the Christian club meets after school at a church down the block, and so on, but social activities are largely divided by church groups, and the kid who may be perfectly friendly at lunch is unlikely to invite you to their birthday party after you refuse to go to Awana, unless the excuse is "no, I can't, I have GA's at my church".

[luuknam]

It doesn't happen at all today. If anything, one can't even mention "Christmas" in a public school.  It has to be "Winter Holiday". 

 

There's been a thread about this before, and iirc, most people said they could say christmas at school. Both in rural north Texas and suburban WNY teachers and kids would say christmas in my experience.

[TranquilMind]

To be fair, you don't see it because you aren't the target of it. In this case, you are part of the privileged majority. It's just like it is rare for me to experience racism or for my husband to experience misogyny. It is often insidious and subtle, but the intent is very much obvious once you have been on the receiving end enough times.

 

So just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Your experience isn't the only experience.

 

Where is it happening?  Show me.

 

Here, you literally cannot say the word "Christmas" in public school because it might offend someone.  It has to be "Winter Holiday". 

 

I want to know where these 1950 enclaves are.

 

[DawnM]

Wow.  I'm always surprised at things like this.

 

I don't do shame and I don't do guilt either.  To me what you are saying is completely backward.

 

The only time I have ever felt guilty is when I know I have sinned.  Then I make it right, as far as possible.

 

 

Repent, Quit it, Forget it.  That's how I see the Lord and that's what we were taught.

 

It has to do with WHAT people call sin.  Within various Christian groups, they view what is sin differently.

 

Secular music

Going to the movies

Playing cards

drinking alcohol

wearing bathing suits in "mixed company"

skipping church

not having devotions

the list is LONG

 

Surely you have seen the Duggars?  They don't even date.  It is shameful to kiss a girl/guy before you are married.  It leads to thoughts of lust.

 

When you grow up with this, you view what is actually sin differently and you have to ask yourself what is "conviction from God" and what is really just your upbringing telling you something is sinful when it isn't.

 

I don't know what brand of Christianity you follow, but my guess is that there would be another brand that would disagree with you about stuff, even Biblical stuff.

[Caroline]

Where is it happening? Show me.

 

Here, you literally cannot say the word "Christmas" in public school because it might offend someone. It has to be "Winter Holiday".

 

I want to know where these 1950 enclaves are.

 

So a kid at your school can't say, "For Christmas we went to visit my grandma."

[Χά�ων]

In public schools? She said public. Man, you would be shut down around here if you dared mention Jesus.

In What public schools are kids routinely witnessing? I've got to see this.

Jesus or saying Merry Christmas? The two are different. One is a well wishing for federally reconized holiday, the other is a deity.

[Laura Corin]

Going off on a slight tangent, it really bothers me when secularism, atheism, or even militant anti-theism, however one perceives that, gets chalked up to "negative experiences".  No one assumes Christians came to be Christian because of negative experiences with Buddhism or Satanism or secularism.

 

I was raised going to church every Sunday, taking all the standard classes and sacraments. I even taught Sunday School.  ZERO negative experiences.  I'm just a very contented atheist.  (Who loves Little League, lol.)

 

And there are those of us who never had a religion, whose parents were also atheist, and are just fine with it.  Nothing to react against.

[TranquilMind]

It has to do with WHAT people call sin.  Within various Christian groups, they view what is sin differently.

 

Secular music

Going to the movies

Playing cards

drinking alcohol

wearing bathing suits in "mixed company"

skipping church

not having devotions

the list is LONG

 

Surely you have seen the Duggars?  They don't even date.  It is shameful to kiss a girl/guy before you are married.  It leads to thoughts of lust.

 

When you grow up with this, you view what is actually sin differently and you have to ask yourself what is "conviction from God" and what is really just your upbringing telling you something is sinful when it isn't.

 

I don't know what brand of Christianity you follow, but my guess is that there would be another brand that would disagree with you about stuff, even Biblical stuff.

I don't care what others call sin.  I've read the Bible and I know what sin is.  I only feel convicted if I violate that.   Some others may have some slightly different convictions.  I don't care.  Follow what God says and it will all turn out all right. 

 

Many on that list are not scriptural proscriptions - they are extrapolations of scriptural principles, necessary for some, but not others.  Maybe JimBob, for example, feels really strongly that playing cards is bad because for him, it started a gambling problem (just using this as an example - not saying he has this problem as I have no idea).  So for HIM, it IS sin.  For me, who has played Crazy 8's with the kids when they were little and never set foot in a casino to gamble, it is not sin. So I have no conviction there.  If you (whoever you are) do, you had better follow that for your own good. 

 

Someone here mentioned not eating meat was a moral stance for her.  To violate that would be sin to her, but not to me.  For her to drink (using another example, not sure if she does drink) would be fine for her, but sin for me, as the Lord delivered me completely out of that over 20 years ago. 

 

There are some personal variations and you know what they are for you. 

 

James 4:

 

...

7Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. 8Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. 9Grieve, mourn and wail. Change your laughter to mourning and your joy to gloom. 10Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up.

11Brothers and sisters, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against a brother or sister^d or judges them speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. 12There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?

 

13Now listen, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money.†14Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. 15Instead, you ought to say, “If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that.†16As it is, you boast in your arrogant schemes. All such boasting is evil. 17If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them.

 

 

Edited August 7, 2016 by TranquilMind

[DawnM]

I don't care what others call sin.  I've read the Bible and I know what sin is.  I only feel convicted if I violate that.   Some others may have some slightly different convictions.  I don't care.  Follow what God says and it will all turn out all right. 

 

Many on that list are not scriptural proscriptions - they are extrapolations of scriptural principles, necessary for some, but not others.  Maybe JimBob, for example, feels really strongly that playing cards is bad because for him, it started a gambling problem (just using this as an example - not saying he has this problem as I have no idea).  So for HIM, it IS sin.  For me, who has played Crazy 8's with the kids when they were little and never set foot in a casino to gamble, it is not sin. So I have no conviction there.  If you (whoever you are) do, you had better follow that for your own good. 

Someone here mentioned not eating meat was a moral stance for her.  To violate that would be sin to her, but not to me.  For her to drink (using another example, not sure if she does drink) would be fine for her, but sin for me, as the Lord delivered me completely out of that over 20 years ago. 

 

There are some personal variations and you know what they are for you. 

 

James 4:

 

...

7Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. 8Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. 9Grieve, mourn and wail. Change your laughter to mourning and your joy to gloom. 10Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up.

11Brothers and sisters, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against a brother or sister^d or judges them speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. 12There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?

 

13Now listen, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money.†14Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. 15Instead, you ought to say, “If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that.†16As it is, you boast in your arrogant schemes. All such boasting is evil. 17If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them.

 

 

I am sorry I said anything.  You have no idea how demeaning your post is.   Bolding/Shouting at me is exactly what I had to endure throughout my childhood.  

 

[TranquilMind]

So a kid at your school can't say, "For Christmas we went to visit my grandma."

 

Well of course.  A kid can state an assertion like that, because you cannot dictate (yet) what someone says, though it will be discouraged and re-routed.  If little Sarah says, "We saw Grandma at Christmas!" it may simply go on to other things, or the teacher may redirect and say, "That's lovely, Sarah, that you got to see Grandma on your Winter Holiday! What did the rest of you do for Winter Holiday?"

 

Subtle, but effective.   The teacher or the school will not be talking about "Christmas" in any way, and will go out of their way to scrub all references.

 

[TranquilMind]

I am sorry I said anything.  You have no idea how demeaning your post is.   Bolding/Shouting at me is exactly what I had to endure throughout my childhood.  

 

Um, I wasn't doing anything at all "at you".  ??

 

I was simply bolding what *I* was referencing in a longer passage of scripture, to support my own point.  You are free to respond to my point or not.  But no one was "bolding" AT you. 

Wow.

 

[Joshin]

Where is it happening?  Show me.

 

Here, you literally cannot say the word "Christmas" in public school because it might offend someone.  It has to be "Winter Holiday". 

 

I want to know where these 1950 enclaves are.

 

 

I don't have to prove anything. You just did it for me. You took the normal defense tactic of the privileged majority -- denied and belittled the experiences of the minority and then turned it around so that the majority is the victim. This right here is what privilege looks like.

 

You can continue to engage me if you wish, but I will not be responding back.

[DawnM]

Um, I wasn't doing anything at all "at you".  ??

 

I was simply bolding what *I* was referencing in a longer passage of scripture, to support my own point.  You are free to respond to my point or not.  But no one was "bolding" AT you. 

Wow.

 

 

You quoted me, you were speaking to me.  

[TranquilMind]

I don't have to prove anything. You just did it for me. You took the normal defense tactic of the privileged majority -- denied and belittled the experiences of the minority and then turned it around so that the majority is the victim. This right here is what privilege looks like.

 

You can continue to engage me if you wish, but I will not be responding back.

 

So, no facts to support the assertion.   Ok.

 

[Caroline]

Well of course. A kid can state an assertion like that, because you cannot dictate (yet) what someone says, though it will be discouraged and re-routed. If little Sarah says, "We saw Grandma at Christmas!" it may simply go on to other things, or the teacher may redirect and say, "That's lovely, Sarah, that you got to see Grandma on your Winter Holiday! What did the rest of you do for Winter Holiday?"

 

Subtle, but effective. The teacher or the school will not be talking about "Christmas" in any way, and will go out of their way to scrub all references.

 

So a kid could be evangelizing at lunch, which you said could never happen in your school.

[TranquilMind]

You quoted me, you were speaking to me.  

I did quote you, because you had a list, and I was responding to your list of things.  I won't bold them to point them out, though I typically do that in order to draw attention to the part I am referencing.  Sorry it was offensive to you, as that wasn't remotely intended.  I only quoted you because you had a good jumping off point with the list.  And I mentioned JimBob as an example, because you mentioned the Duggars. 

 

It has to do with WHAT people call sin.  Within various Christian groups, they view what is sin differently.

 

Secular music

Going to the movies

Playing cards

drinking alcohol

wearing bathing suits in "mixed company"

skipping church

not having devotions

the list is LONG

 

Surely you have seen the Duggars?  They don't even date.  It is shameful to kiss a girl/guy before you are married.  It leads to thoughts of lust.

 

When you grow up with this, you view what is actually sin differently and you have to ask yourself what is "conviction from God" and what is really just your upbringing telling you something is sinful when it isn't.

 

I don't know what brand of Christianity you follow, but my guess is that there would be another brand that would disagree with you about stuff, even Biblical stuff.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

I worry about who you people know when I see stuff like this. There may be some individuals out there but this is representative of nothing normal.

I see this type of behavior as well, often.

[Χά�ων]

I don't have to prove anything. You just did it for me. You took the normal defense tactic of the privileged majority -- denied and belittled the experiences of the minority and then turned it around so that the majority is the victim. This right here is what privilege looks like.

Very well said.

[TranquilMind]

So a kid could be evangelizing at lunch, which you said could never happen in your school.

Of course a kid can say anything when no one is watching.

 

But it won't be supported by school staff and discussed in class.  It will be reworded, as I stated. 

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

There's been a thread about this before, and iirc, most people said they could say christmas at school. Both in rural north Texas and suburban WNY teachers and kids would say christmas in my experience.

Rural IL too.