statue of baphomet in detroit - discuss civily

Umbran said:

Eh. You were good, until the "serious" part. Not that folks at the TST aren't serious. But it isn't exactly appropriate to cast aspersions on how seriously others hold their beliefs. "Us? We are dedicated to our faith! Those guys? They're just fooling around!" is not a generalization we should usually be making.

It would be interesting to see if the current TST has some roots in the Discordianism of the 60s and 70s....

Click to expand...

There's probably some overlap.

But when I said "serious" I meant it - Discordianism in part defines itself by being a parody religion, not unlike Pastafarianism or the Church of the SubGenius. Parody is arguably part of that practice. TST isn't a parody. It doesn't define itself in part by being a mockery of religion, or making a practice of parody. It's a religion that takes its tenets seriously, without the wink-wink-nudge-nudge-we're-not-serious-but-seriously-not-serious elements of parody religions.

That is, TST's religious practice isn't about making fun of religion. It is a religion, its convictions are serious, its followers believe them, and they would have them in absence of other religions.

That's what I meant by "more seriously held." Parody isn't a purpose here like it is in Discordianism.

I'm going back to being unsure of whether the belief is what most folks would consider a religious belief.

This:

What would you consider the goals of Satanism? In realistic terms.

To empower individuals to challenge tyrannical systems.

Click to expand...

Seems to not be what most folks would think of as Satanism. I can't say that I could pin down exactly what *is* Satanism, but I wouldn't think that it is the above.

I do suppose you could equate the idea of Satan's rebellion against Heaven's rule as rebellion against authority, if you consider Heaven's rule to be tyrannical. That is an interesting alternate view. (Although, it might be a-historical, based on what folks are saying above.)

While I'm generally against questioning someones religious views, that seems to be exactly what is relevant here, and in no small part due to the group presenting the statue, since they are offering what they say is a sincere view, but are also mixing in what seem to be deliberate absurdities.

(If the idea is to challenge tyrannical systems, there seem to be more important systems to which to direct challenges. Any why challenge in this form? Would a big pink easter bunny, or any number of other absurd symbols not also work?)

Thx!

TomB

Some would equate other religions to satanic following, such as witchcraft.

Have to admit, its within their rights but I really, really don't like it.

tomBitonti said:

I'm going back to being unsure of whether the belief is what most folks would consider a religious belief.

Click to expand...

What is accepted as a "religious belief" probably shouldn't hinge on what "most folks" would consider one, yeah?

Seems to not be what most folks would think of as Satanism. I can't say that I could pin down exactly what *is* Satanism, but I wouldn't think that it is the above.

I do suppose you could equate the idea of Satan's rebellion against Heaven's rule as rebellion against authority, if you consider Heaven's rule to be tyrannical. That is an interesting alternate view. (Although, it might be a-historical, based on what folks are saying above.)

Click to expand...

Yeah, one of the tyrannical systems they're empowering people to challenge is Christianity.

While I'm generally against questioning someones religious views, that seems to be exactly what is relevant here, and in no small part due to the group presenting the statue, since they are offering what they say is a sincere view, but are also mixing in what seem to be deliberate absurdities.

Click to expand...

I think they'd say the same thing about the folks who want a monument to the 10 Commandments - they seem to be offering a sincere view, but are also mixing in some deliberate absurdities (10? Golden Calf? A man receiving a divine revelation from a burning bush?).

Religion is a slippery fish to define even for those who dedicate their lives to it. The title is available for anyone who wants to claim it (Christians. Jedis. Scientologists. Hindus. Atheists. Mormons.), and always looks absurd from the outside (You eat human flesh as your weekly ritual?! You found magic golden tablets in the desrt?! How many arms?!). And given the Constitution, the American legal system has a bit of a binary thing: they can't declare some religions religions and other religions not religions, so they either accept all the diversity of human belief as - officially - equally worthy of representation, or they exclude all beliefs.

Or as they put it:

TST said:

The idea that religion belongs to supernaturalists is ignorant, backward, and offensive. The metaphorical Satanic construct is no more arbitrary to us than are the deeply held beliefs that we actively advocate for. Are we supposed to believe that those who pledge submission to an ethereal supernatural deity hold to their values more deeply than we? Are we supposed to concede that only the superstitious are proper recipients of religious exemption and privilege? In fact, Satanism provides us all that a religion should, without a compulsory attachment to untenable items of faith-based belief: It provides a narrative structure by which we contextualize our lives and works. It provides a body of symbolism and religious practice — a sense of identity, culture, community, and shared values.

Click to expand...

tomBitonti said:

I'm going back to being unsure of whether the belief is what most folks would consider a religious belief.

Click to expand...

Well, most folks can be wrong about things. For example, most folks (in the USA) may not understand "nontheistic" religion, but about half a billion Buddhists would smirk kindly at them for it.

Seems to not be what most folks would think of as Satanism. I can't say that I could pin down exactly what *is* Satanism, but I wouldn't think that it is the above.

Click to expand...

Yes, well, most folks probably get their ideas on Satanism from Christians, rather than from actual modern Satanists. How many have actually gone to read up on the modern practice of Satanism? Unless you've actually done some open-minded work to educate yourself, "what you would think it is," isn't an informed position, and you should not trust it.

I do suppose you could equate the idea of Satan's rebellion against Heaven's rule as rebellion against authority, if you consider Heaven's rule to be tyrannical. That is an interesting alternate view. (Although, it might be a-historical, based on what folks are saying above.)

Click to expand...

Modern Satanism has little to do with what a Medieval Inquisitor would have called "worship of Satan" if that's what you mean by being a-historical. But, that Inquisitor probably didn't know much about *actual* Satan worship anyway. You have to go a long, long way to find documentation on actual historical Satan worship. And, historical status isn't really relevant. You don't have to be historical to be a real devotion.

The folks we are talking about are, by their own description, non-theistic. Satan is a metaphor and symbol for them, not a real extant entity.

(If the idea is to challenge tyrannical systems, there seem to be more important systems to which to direct challenges.

Click to expand...

I heartily disagree, insofar as in certain sections of our country, a great deal of effort is being made to push religiously-driven laws onto the books. Seems a pretty important system to challenge.

Any why challenge in this form? Would a big pink easter bunny, or any number of other absurd symbols not also work?)

Click to expand...

You mean specifically, for the statue? You couldn't use any old absurd symbol, because in order to qualify for inclusion, and to be a fitting contrast, it must be your *religious* symbol. The Satanists haven't established the Easter Bunny as a symbol, so it isn't a valid religious display for them.

Kamikaze Midget said:

What is accepted as a "religious belief" probably shouldn't hinge on what "most folks" would consider one, yeah?


Yeah, one of the tyrannical systems they're empowering people to challenge is Christianity.



I think they'd say the same thing about the folks who want a monument to the 10 Commandments - they seem to be offering a sincere view, but are also mixing in some deliberate absurdities (10? Golden Calf? A man receiving a divine revelation from a burning bush?).

Religion is a slippery fish to define even for those who dedicate their lives to it. The title is available for anyone who wants to claim it (Christians. Jedis. Scientologists. Hindus. Atheists. Mormons.), and always looks absurd from the outside (You eat human flesh as your weekly ritual?! You found magic golden tablets in the desrt?! How many arms?!). And given the Constitution, the American legal system has a bit of a binary thing: they can't declare some religions religions and other religions not religions, so they either accept all the diversity of human belief as - officially - equally worthy of representation, or they exclude all beliefs.

Or as they put it:

Click to expand...

AAAAAAAH! Atheism is not a religion!

That's a 50 dkp minus for you.

Kamikaze Midget said:

That is, TST's religious practice isn't about making fun of religion. It is a religion, its convictions are serious, its followers believe them, and they would have them in absence of other religions.

Click to expand...

It is hard to say that one would have a belief in the absence of other religions, when those other religions are clearly a strong influence on the beliefs. It isn't like Satanists are somehow immune to the impact of history on their own beliefs - and Christianity is a major portion of that history.

That's what I meant by "more seriously held." Parody isn't a purpose here like it is in Discordianism.

Click to expand...

Insofar as there's no intent to make people laugh, I'll buy. But parody isn't limited to the cheap laugh. Do you want to tell me the other aspects of parody - the cognitive tweak of the contrast, the commentary and satire aspects - were not a major point of choosing the Satanic symbology?

To say that one thing is absurd (a religion which erects a bizarre statue as a symbol of protest against tyranny) is not to say that other things are not also absurd. That one would imply the other is unsound.

From:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism

I do see "The Satanic Temple" down at the end, including a very short discussion of the statue. The group doesn't seem to represent "Satanism" except in a very small way. I don't have a way to tell how true the group's beliefs are, and how much might be a cover for usually frowned upon activities.

Where I end up with all of this is that this emphasizes the need for the state to stay far away from religious matters, since questions of what is a "true belief" are hard to answer.

Thx!

TomB

Joker said:

AAAAAAAH! Atheism is not a religion!

Click to expand...

We could use a working definition of "religion" for this context. Nothing we come up with will be entirely satisfactory to anyone, but I'll submit we might steal from Wikipedia to get in the right neighborhood:

A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.

Atheism, in its basic form, does not qualify, as it is really only one belief - broadly, that there is/are no god or gods. And that's it. Not enough meat there to call it a religion.