Satanists don't believe in Satana btw, they're mostly atheists, but adhere to the rule of Satan who happen to be better than the "all-loving all-good" God who brutally kills everyone opposing him
It's crazy how these Satanists are indoctrinating children. It's not like a child just naturally chooses to be a Satanist- their parents put them up to it.
Ain't gonna have none of that shit in our home- we take them to church every weekend and make sure they believe exactly what we believe or I'll tan their hides.
I'm a member of the local chapter of American Satanists. At least we're making some progress in schools that are in close-minded states. It's the hate speech of the protesters that keeps me keenly aware of why I love belonging to a group that gets so firmly and deliciously under their skin in every sense.
Just got done celebrating malicious compliance on another thread. So this one I'll just give a big cheer and thumbs up for The Satanic Temple and all the good it's doing in this country!
Those kids are very brave. School bullying is no joke. My daughter was bullied so harshly in her middle school that we had to pull her out of school and put her in online school. The school administration did nothing for her and they'll do even less than nothing for kids in this club that get bullied by religious students. I feel really bad for them in that regard and I hope they make it through without too much scarring.
The school administration did nothing for her and they’ll do even less than nothing for kids in this club that get bullied by religious students.
I think part of the purpose of the club is to create a sense of shared identity and form a collective defense mechanism against bullying by aggressive students and administrators.
Of course, this gives the administration one big target to smash rather than a bunch of little targets. But that's the nature of organizing in defiance of a violent and oppressive authority.
Maybe, but as kids found out who formed a Gay-Straight Alliance group in my high school back in the 90s, being united doesn't really stop the bullying.
The Gay-Straight Alliances formed back in the 90s were critical to establishing the LGBT population as a real and recognizable social cohort in need of a distinct codified set of legal rights. Prior to the formation of these groups, it was entirely too common for kids to be taught in school that gay relationships were a sign of physical and sexual abuse, a mental illness, and a moral perversion. Having a community in the school of out-kids who could testify to the contrary made a huge difference in how the subsequent generation of students (and their parents - I got to watch in real time family friends go from implicit bigots to LGBT advocates) perceived of the LGBT population.
Being united doesn't stop the bullying immediately. But it brings bullying into sharp relief and turns it into a conflict between groups rather than a social stigma against individuals.
I don't disagree with you, but these are the first group of kids doing this club, so they're going to face the brunt of the bullying, which is why I said they were brave and why I hope it doesn't scar them.
They likely already were facing a lot of bullying. I'm old enough to remember people claiming that being gay meant you could give people AIDS from a toilet seat. I had a Health textbook that described "gay bowel syndrome" as a chronic condition caused by intimacy. Nevermind the teacher-sponsored religious groups that talked about how sinful it was to express any kind of affection towards one another. Just enormous amounts of misinformation, fear, and hate. And if you were a singular Out voice, it all got directed at you.
Clubs like this are as much an immediate defensive measure and emotional support group as a long-term progressive spearhead.
Which isn't to say that spearheading the project doesn't take an immense amount of bravery (and hard work and some exceptional social skills). But I think it mistakes the pre-organized LGBT community as somehow enjoying security through obscurity, rather than a population that simply suffered in silence.
What infuriates me about articles like this is that it really should just say that the school Satanic Club had its first meeting, the kids had a great time, here's everything they did and what they plan to do for the year, and here are some kids' reactions and quotes about the club.
Instead, it says the kids had "a great time" and then moves on to the protesters, offering them several paragraphs to spew their vile hate speech, repeating the garbage that their hate-filled signs say, and then even quoting two people. And then it follows that with basically an advertisement for "the Good News club, a Christian evangelical Bible club that meets before school hours."
It's a sign of how biased society is towards religion that an article about a non-theistic after school club gives half of the article to a handful of religious bigots to let them spew their hate speech and then promotes their own Christian school club.
I think you’re whoooshing the article.
Let the author breathe and give them credit for parsing the subject in a carefully neutral manner whilst yet getting something of import across.
Indeed.
I certainly do not support the xtian whackos. And the Satanic club sounds like great thing.
The Guardian is definitely a left-leaning paper so accusations of bias against the ‘satanic club’ is likely not true.
I think the reporting is accurate in that it’s telling the reader about the reaction ‘on the ground’ to this piece of social progress, by the parochial xtians.
People are left to read what they want into the reporting (neutral) but I really don’t think it’s ‘promoting’ the xtian view.
The only thing I can think of is that the other poster doesn't understand the difference between opinion and fact, and thus confuses their opinion (one I share) for fact. So anything that doesn't push their opinion seems counterfactual.
Reporting the reactions of both sides is technically neutral.
However I totally agree that ‘both sides-ing’ in terms of legitimising shitty views is unhealthy. I think the piece does not legitimise the xtian views as much as holding them up as the entrenched mindset that the SC is trying to (rightly) break.
I don't see it that way. What I see is the author giving a platform to bigots under the disguise of what should have been a story focused on what the club actually does.
The club is being protested because of ignorance and bigotry. A responsible journalist would help to banish the ignorance by exposing the truth that fear and hatred is unnecessary. Instead, they provided a platform for bigots to spew more their hatred, even quoted two of them, and promoted a Christian club that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the article.
Shining a light on them is mentioning that there were protesters there with signs while still focusing on the club.
Giving them a platform is dedicating half of the article to the protestors, quoting their bigoted signs, interviewing 2 of the protesters for bigoted quotations and publishing those quotes along with their names, then not interviewing or quoting any of the students.
Meh, I disagree with what you believe the focus of the article is. That's probably why we have different takes. You're upset because you want the article to be about 1 thing, but the author was writing for their audience instead.
Letting someone say mean shit and posting their name to the public is absolutely shining a light. Kids having fun and doing whatever is good, but not an interesting article. Also, you can't interview kids and post their names or anything without parental consent. Your expectations from the article would have possibly put those kids at risk, and responsible journalists shouldn't do that, so I'm glad you didn't get your wish there! 😉
Well I wouldn't have expected them to publish kids' names for exactly the reason you suggest. But getting quotes from them should have been possible. And in any case, whether they quote the kids or not, at the minimum I expect them not to platform the people spewing hate. I don't agree with you that what the article does is simply "shining a light." They're helping them out.
On one hand, I agree that the story could and should contain more info about the positives of the club to really show people what it's like. I've read similar articles about other school districts that have the club, and they often give few details about the actual club, which is frustrating. On the other hand, I understand why the author chose to focus on what they did. If this club was established and everyone was cool with it, it likely wouldn't receive an article in a national publication because that's not very noteworthy. The news story in this case isn't about the club being formed; it's about the backlash to the club being formed, and that's what they're going to focus on. I'm not saying it should be that way (I like having a more complete picture of what's going on), but focusing on one aspect of a story and ignoring others is often how it appears to be when reading news.
I get where you're going with this, but I'm not following along.
Pointing out that there were protesters and explaining what they were doing there/why they were there is one thing. And that's important news. But this article went way way beyond that. They interviewed the protestors, put their names in the paper, and published their bigoted message along with it. They gave them fame and a platform, and helped them spout their hatred.
When there's a terrorist attack, responsible news agencies are careful to avoid giving unnecessary publicity to the terrorists, such as publishing their name and manifesto, and instead they focus on the victims. That's the attitude that should have been taken here. Mention the protestors, but don't platform them. Focus on the kids who are being harassed by these bigots, and show them in the positive light they deserve.
These are protesters, not terrorists. A reputable news agency isn't going to take sides one way or the other. The reporting should be structured more like a debate, with both sides allowed to voice their positions in neutral language and offer a rebuttal.
If you can easily tell which side of the issue the presenter is on you're seeing an opinion piece, not news.
That article sounds like a bunch of religious nuts making threats and calling parents that let their kids join an inclusive club instead of one of hate, bad parents. This reads like they 100% gave a platform to the nuts, instead of showing how the club overcame their hate.
These people are harassing children and spewing hate messages. No they're not violent terrorists, but they're closer to that than they are to debaters.
both sides allowed to voice their positions in neutral language
Neutral language? Are you kidding me??
This is not a debate. One side's position is "we want an after school club where we can learn about science and feel accepted." The other side's position is "you are evil and deserve to die." If you give those two positions equal time, you are not being neutral. And there is no "neutral language" for hate speech.
The story is about the controversy surrounding the club. "New club starts after school, kids have fun" is a story that would only run in the schools newspaper. Outside of that it's a complete non story.
So of course they are going to report about what the people who are protesting this are saying about it.
Additionally, the "advertisment" was really just a clarification on the point by ASSC that they only go to schools where there is another religious club.
This is a very neutral article just reporting the facts, you had to try very hard to be offended by it.
really should just say that the school Satanic Club had its first meeting, the kids had a great time
And you're trying to argue that
“New club starts after school, kids have fun”
Is some gross misrepresentation of what you said? And you're claiming I'm dishonest? Is this a joke?
Nah, I didn’t have to try very hard at all.
It was a completely inoffensive article that you blatantly misrepresented so you could offended. Sorry, but you clearly tried hard to do so.
And I notice that you didn't actually challenge any of my claims. I suspect this is because you know I'm right, but your ego is too fragile to admit it.
And you’re trying to argue that “New club starts after school, kids have fun” Is some gross misrepresentation of what you said?
Yes. Because that's not what I said at all. Go read what I actually fucking said.
It was a completely inoffensive article
It wasn't.
that you blatantly misrepresented so you could offended. Sorry, but you clearly tried hard to do so.
I didn't.
And I notice that you didn’t actually challenge any of my claims.
Because it was a dishonest troll comment that misrepresented what I said. Just like this one is too. There's nothing to challenge when all that you wrote was dishonest. And there's no reason to treat you seriously when you're just trolling.
My complaint is that they are platforming the bigots. Rather than reporting what is going on, they are serving as a mouthpiece for a hate group and promoting their agenda.
Now go fuck off to whatever bridge you crawled out from under.
Literally cut and paste it and you're still pretending you didn't say it. Lol you're fucking nuts denying reality. It's like when I argue with climate change deniers and trump cultists.
I also addressed your other point about giving a platform, by pointing out that the only story here is the controversy.
It's not that I don't understand your point, it's that we both understand at least part of your point is absolutely ridiculous, you're just too fragile to admit it. So gaslight and and attack.
Literally cut and paste what you said, and all you can do is try and gaslight and call me a liar and a troll over and over again. Lol Pretty sad what a joke you are.
Isn't the name of the club deliberately provocative though? The only reason you would call it the Satanic Club would be to make Christians mad. Seems like trolling to me. Articles like this are exactly what the club wants.
Is that provocative? Is that offensive? Would you say that the school's evangelical "Good News Club" is provocative or trolling?
Calling is a Satan Club is "only to make Christians mad" but calling it a "Good News Club" is not trolling to make non-Christians mad? This says more about your own prejudices than anything else.
Articles like this are exactly what the club wants.
Not like the wholesome Christian indoctrination clubs and Christian students who bully anyone who isn't cishet and white. Thank goodness they're in the school to show us the light.
Meanwhile, another protester, Samantha Harmon, said, “There is no reason that Memphis should have ever allowed an after-school Satan club to come in. It’s time to revise policy and it’s time for parents to get on their post and pray and protect their kids.”
Speaking to WMC, ASSC’s national campaign director pushed back against criticisms, saying: “We don’t go to a school unless there is another religious club operating.”
Oof. Nice rebuttal. I wonder how many kids attended; being in elementary school, I would imagine a lot of parents told their kids they couldn’t go. I’m glad it was successful but I’m honestly surprised they had any kids attend, given Tennessee and all.
Consider, too, how tragic it is that this has to be in an elementary school.
Nobody was willing to step in and protect these kids from indoctrination and abuse until the Satanic Temple came along. It's depressing to even think about how commonplace this is across the country.
It's after school, which is a smart move - there are probably some working single parents who are delighted to have a couple of hours of free child care.
Meanwhile, another protester, Samantha Harmon, said, “There is no reason that Memphis should have ever allowed an after-school Satan club to come in.told on herself about her seditious, anti-American attitudes and ignorance of the First Amendment.
It's Memphis, right? There a probably tens of thousands of atheists in Memphis, and basically any big city. Not every person in Tennessee is a Maga christofacist.
Always amusing that people protest this stuff based on some made up fear of their "soul", that can only be "saved" by preaching HATE for others different than you, instead of inclusion like the Temple. Hopefully these kids see the protesters for what they are and go on to have a more positive impact on society instead of trying to bring us all backwards.
The Satanic Temple only goes to schools that have other relgious groups opening after school programs. They preach the belief to follow science and reason and find the best/most logical answers instead of listening to absurd unproven beliefs (such as dinosaurs not being real). They do NOT believe in Satan or preach that any such thing is good.
The name is a little tongue/cheek with the whole idea that some Christians would call any who don't act as sheep and act as part of the heard that follows the lord, their shepherd is satan or guided by satan in disguise.
Yeah, that's my point. Their whole organization is trolling and I don't think that they should use kids for publicity. Nor do I think that they should attempt to influence kids at all, just like every other religion.
I can see what you're driving towards. It'd be far more ideal for us adults to hash this out, yeah?
I wish they'd remove Under God from the damn pledge of allegiance, but it seems schools are the next major battleground (sometimes literally) for all things political.
Should get rid of the pledge completely tbh.. Having children pledge allegiance to the country (or, bizarrely, a symbolic piece of cloth) is some North Korea type shit on par with Trump’s military parade..
That's exactly my point. Insecure religions (including the Satanists) use schools as a battleground for their political goals. It shouldn't be allowed.
Religion should be something that's between the kids and the parents (for better or for worse) until the kids are matured, maybe 16 years old at least.
It's generally been the case that the parents are the most unbiased wellwishers of the kids, something that religious organizations often cannot do.
It's a non-religious group that chose an ironic name. The name is the only part that is even close to "trolling", everything else is dedicated to science and reasoning.
It's generally been the case that the parents are the most unbiased
Hahahahaha. You actually think parents are unbiased? That's hilarious.
How are they influenced, and they aren't used being used for publicity from what I can tell from the article. One of the first posts here does a pretty good summary of the article that it centers more around the outrage than actually the after-school program itself.
I don't believe that elementary school children sought the local chapter of the Satanists by themselves. Someone invited themselves into the kids lives and I think that's inappropriate.
I don't think that children should be involved in extracurricular religious activity until they're 16. Just like they shouldn't be involved in sexual activity until they're 18, despite being physically capable.
You're confusing Satanists with Pastafarians. The latter ones are indeed grumpy, annoying, one-trick pony trolls, while Satanists are an inclusive, rational, social movement which has understood that levity is serious business.
I wish that I could be so simple. My personal experience is that all humans are prone to hypocrisy and the tendency to exploit others. The Satanists are not exceptional.
Thankfully, intellectual dishonesty doesn't cause searing abdominal pain, as you'd probably spend a lot of your waking moments curled up in fetal position.
Why doubt when you can do the research and find out for sure? There is a federally mandated science curriculum that Tennessee must teach. It includes the latest scientific paradigms like evolution. It would be illegal for the Memphis school district to not teach evolution or whatever else is contentious to the religionists. The district would be sued. In fact, this has happened in school districts all over the country.
So I don't believe the Satanists are really concerned with supplementing the kids education, nor are they explicitly qualified to do so. As I've said, based on the several members that I've met and based on their literature, they are a trolling organization meant to illustrate the hypocrisy of Christianity, and I think that's totally fine. They have my passive support. But using kids for this purpose is inappropriate.
They also have classes for reading, but that wouldn't rule out a book club. I'm sure they have gym classes too, and are allowed to have after school sports "clubs". This may surprise you, but some kids are more intelligent than average, or have a higher level of interest in a subject than is taught in classes. After school, optional clubs allow them to explore those interests.
Some kids are sexually mature at 9, 10, or 11 years old. But we don't allow them to procreate because we know that they're not emotionally and intellectually developed enough to understand the repercussions of sex.
Similarly, in my opinion, religion is something that should not be pushed onto children, especially in a public school setting, until they are mature enough to contemplate the issues. It's categorically different from other special interests like sports.
Though there are also many sports fanatics who use kids and sometimes damage their well-being, but that's another subject...
Similarly, in my opinion, religion is something that should not be pushed onto children, especially in a public school setting, until they are mature enough to contemplate the issues.
THIS CLUB IS NOT RELIGIOUS!
You have seen nearly a dozen posts pointing this out and you still ignore it and continue to spout blatantly false statements.
It's also not being pushed on anyone. It is an optional after school club. Enough with the lies and blatant misrepresentiation of the facts already.
So they don't believe in doing it... but they do it.
Explain to me how it's not just trolling?
Again, I don't believe that elementary school children sought out the Satanists on their own. It would be almost impossible for 8 or 9 year old kids to know that the Satanists exists.
Do you think elementary school kids woke up one day and decided to spontaneously join together with other elementary school kids to reach out to the local Satanist chapter to invite them to bring more schoolwork?
Come on. Kids just want to play. The Christians, the Satanists and especially the kids parents are all complicit in using children for political gain.
My daughter has been an outspoken atheist since she was six years old since she told her grandmother, "grandma, when I stay over at your house on the weekends, I don't want to go to church with you, because I don't really believe in god." And none of it has been at my prompting in any way. I haven't been quiet to her about what I personally think, but I also have made it very clear to her that other people think other things and it's up to her to figure out what she believes. She's still an atheist at 13. She's far too shy to open such a club. If my shitty private elementary school existed now and I knew about those clubs by the time I was in fifth or sixth grade, I would have formed one because I wasn't shy. You do not give kids enough credit.
You said that your daughter didn't start a special interest group because she was shy. Similarly, 8 or 9 year old kids probably didn't seek out the local chapter of the Satanists. Someone told them to do this.
I don't think that any religion should be doing that.
Got it. You didn't read my entire post. I'll help you out:
If my shitty private elementary school existed now and I knew about those clubs by the time I was in fifth or sixth grade, I would have formed one because I wasn’t shy.
You didn't disagree with me. Your question showed an ignorance of what I said.
Me: "If my shitty private elementary school existed now and I knew about those clubs by the time I was in fifth or sixth grade"
You: "How would you have known about the Satanists when you were in fifth grade?"
I literally said I didn't know about the clubs. I also wouldn't know about TST because they were founded in 2012 and, believe it or not, I'm not 12 years old.
So since you really need an answer to your silly question, I wouldn't have known about The Satanic Temple or the After School Satan Club when I was in fifth grade because I wasn't in fifth grade last year.
I'm saying that you wouldn't have known about the Satanists or any other religion unless an adult told you about it. I'm opposed to preaching to kids.
I'm also a parent (though my kids aren't yet at school age) and I'm frustrated with how public schools have become a battleground for the political gain of warring groups. A Satanist after school club is another example.
You mentioned that you went to private school. I also went to a Catholic private school until third grade so I understand your frustration with them.
Yes. Please answer me this hypothetical. Why do we prohibit young kids from viewing porn?
The Satanists shouldn't be allowed to preach to kids just like the Jews and Muslims and Christians shouldn't be allowed to. The kids aren't mature enough to understand the issues at hand, just like they can't understand the repercussions of sex.
There are ways of protecting kids from the chaotic influence of the internet. Most states prohibit minors from viewing porn and they're developing more effective ways to enforce it. Similarly, some states are prohibiting kids from using Instagram until they're 13.
In New Zealand they've made it illegal to preach religion to kids. I don't know exactly the the method but I've seen firsthand that it's possible.
I won't be able to find the exact ordinance and I don't really care enough to search for it. I've heard from reliable sources and I witnessed firsthand that missionaries in New Zealand are not allowed to talk to kids. There are lots of missionaries, especially Mormons, so the rule is widely known.
"Missionaries are not allowed to talk to kids" is not the same as "preaching to kids is illegal." And the fact that you won't even look it up and are doing the "trust me, bro" thing makes me doubt even that is true.
Exactly. These clubs are not being put into schools by some outside corporation. They are made by students, with faculty support, like all clubs. The Satanic Temple provides support to these groups, because without an organization like them to back them up, clubs like this would all get shut down by bigoted principals and PTA groups.
