It’s one part reclaiming and one part stirring up controversy. Normalizing the idea that demonic Satan doesn’t exist and it’s our own faults and sins to blame while also getting free publicity whenever the Christians get mad and talk about Satanism on the news.
The problem is, it makes it far too easy to brush it away from a point of ignorance and people who consider themselves devout will never look into it. It serves the interests of Christianity and edginess more than it serves something that would identify itself as, say, biblical scholars. Plus, if they become Satanists, which you may consider a joke label, people who would have had a degree of legitimacy in the eyes of Christians who might be convinced to begin questioning their beliefs can now be much more easily discarded because “Oh, didn’t you know, he’s a Satanist!”
Trying to argue for the term is akin to arguing identifying as a Nazi not because you really support WWII Nazis but want to reclaim the term of socialism within the national perspective as something that can be realistic without the hate, racism, eugenics, and populism. You would be doing more harm to the point you are trying to argue for. It will get views, yes, but are those the views you want?
Comparing Satanists to Nazis is really weird. Hitler was a real person who committed genocide. Satan isn’t real, and he never committed genocide, not even in the Bible.
Christians, on the other hand, have committed genocide, and so has the Christian God, according to the Bible, but that doesn’t seem to have harmed Christianity at all. Additionally, the Nazis endorsed Christianity, not Satanism; but, again, that association doesn’t seem to have harmed Christianity.
I grew up a Christian. Many apply the label Satanist liberally to biblical scholars and other legitimate criticizers. I honestly don’t think the label does them much harm. The ability to stand as a “religious” legal barrier against Christian Nationalism is served by their apparent distastefulness. If putting the ten commandments in front of the legal building also requires putting a statute of baphomet in front of the building they might think twice.
Idk about other branches of Satanism, but The Satanic Temple uses Satanic imagery to get Christians to vote against their own legislation and promote the separation of church and state.
For instance, in many US courtrooms, the ten commandments are displayed. So The Satanic Temple began to display Satanic statues in courtrooms, because our constitution makes it so it’s either all religions are allowed in the courtroom, or none are. This got many Christian people to vote for removal of the Ten Commandments in their state courthouses just so they didnt have to see Satanic statues. This is just one example of many.
It’s basically just symbolism to make Christians feel the same way they make non-Christians feel when they force their religion on everyone.
But those cases illustrate how what’s working out is its implied negativity, not how it’s getting those Christians to really inform themselves. I would even argue that part of it is what’s driving parties and political leaders to try to introduce religion more and more into governments, to get rid of the separation of church and state, which even New York’s current mayor seems to argue for nowadays. It’s a short term victory, and a long term loss that’s very beneficial to the rhetoric of certain parties.
I don’t get the downvotes, you made a really good point. The Hells Angels used to use Nazi iconography not because they were sympathisers, but because they thought it looked cool and it pissed people off. Not the brightest idea if you ask me.
While I get the idea behind adopting Satan, I don’t think it’ll do any favors against Christians other than call them out. This is why I prefer to call myself an Atheist than Satanist, it gets my point clearer.
Bikers and Nazi paraphernalia have a deeper connection than “it looks cool and pisses people off.” The biker movement and aesthetic arose from WW2 veterans. They were traumatized by the war and often felt they had no place in society when they returned. Many joined biker gangs in an attempt to find common community with other vets. Many wore plundered Nazi gear as evidence of their service to society and protest against the shit they dealt with from other citizens.
For sure some were neo Nazis or shit stirrers.
At the same time, it’s worth examining the narrative Satanists apply to the fallen angels. They see the rebellion of the angels as an act of revolution and bid for freedom against a tyrannical force. They don’t believe in a literal god or Satan but that story has appeal when they see an ascendant Christianity in American politics enforcing Christian dogma on the rest of us.
I think there’s more reason and purpose in both contexts than they are usually given credit.
It’s one part reclaiming and one part stirring up controversy. Normalizing the idea that demonic Satan doesn’t exist and it’s our own faults and sins to blame while also getting free publicity whenever the Christians get mad and talk about Satanism on the news.
The problem is, it makes it far too easy to brush it away from a point of ignorance and people who consider themselves devout will never look into it. It serves the interests of Christianity and edginess more than it serves something that would identify itself as, say, biblical scholars. Plus, if they become Satanists, which you may consider a joke label, people who would have had a degree of legitimacy in the eyes of Christians who might be convinced to begin questioning their beliefs can now be much more easily discarded because “Oh, didn’t you know, he’s a Satanist!”
Trying to argue for the term is akin to arguing identifying as a Nazi not because you really support WWII Nazis but want to reclaim the term of socialism within the national perspective as something that can be realistic without the hate, racism, eugenics, and populism. You would be doing more harm to the point you are trying to argue for. It will get views, yes, but are those the views you want?
Comparing Satanists to Nazis is really weird. Hitler was a real person who committed genocide. Satan isn’t real, and he never committed genocide, not even in the Bible.
Christians, on the other hand, have committed genocide, and so has the Christian God, according to the Bible, but that doesn’t seem to have harmed Christianity at all. Additionally, the Nazis endorsed Christianity, not Satanism; but, again, that association doesn’t seem to have harmed Christianity.
Have you seen the kill counts?
God is roughly over 2 million deaths in the Old Testament alone while Satan is around 10 deaths.
I grew up a Christian. Many apply the label Satanist liberally to biblical scholars and other legitimate criticizers. I honestly don’t think the label does them much harm. The ability to stand as a “religious” legal barrier against Christian Nationalism is served by their apparent distastefulness. If putting the ten commandments in front of the legal building also requires putting a statute of baphomet in front of the building they might think twice.
Idk about other branches of Satanism, but The Satanic Temple uses Satanic imagery to get Christians to vote against their own legislation and promote the separation of church and state.
For instance, in many US courtrooms, the ten commandments are displayed. So The Satanic Temple began to display Satanic statues in courtrooms, because our constitution makes it so it’s either all religions are allowed in the courtroom, or none are. This got many Christian people to vote for removal of the Ten Commandments in their state courthouses just so they didnt have to see Satanic statues. This is just one example of many.
It’s basically just symbolism to make Christians feel the same way they make non-Christians feel when they force their religion on everyone.
But those cases illustrate how what’s working out is its implied negativity, not how it’s getting those Christians to really inform themselves. I would even argue that part of it is what’s driving parties and political leaders to try to introduce religion more and more into governments, to get rid of the separation of church and state, which even New York’s current mayor seems to argue for nowadays. It’s a short term victory, and a long term loss that’s very beneficial to the rhetoric of certain parties.
I don’t get the downvotes, you made a really good point. The Hells Angels used to use Nazi iconography not because they were sympathisers, but because they thought it looked cool and it pissed people off. Not the brightest idea if you ask me.
While I get the idea behind adopting Satan, I don’t think it’ll do any favors against Christians other than call them out. This is why I prefer to call myself an Atheist than Satanist, it gets my point clearer.
Bikers and Nazi paraphernalia have a deeper connection than “it looks cool and pisses people off.” The biker movement and aesthetic arose from WW2 veterans. They were traumatized by the war and often felt they had no place in society when they returned. Many joined biker gangs in an attempt to find common community with other vets. Many wore plundered Nazi gear as evidence of their service to society and protest against the shit they dealt with from other citizens.
For sure some were neo Nazis or shit stirrers.
At the same time, it’s worth examining the narrative Satanists apply to the fallen angels. They see the rebellion of the angels as an act of revolution and bid for freedom against a tyrannical force. They don’t believe in a literal god or Satan but that story has appeal when they see an ascendant Christianity in American politics enforcing Christian dogma on the rest of us.
I think there’s more reason and purpose in both contexts than they are usually given credit.