HelenM

Yeah really.

Since theists believe in and worship God then wouldn't the natural assumption be that a Satanist believes in and worships Satan?

It seems odd to me to deliberately take on that name and then have to go to all the effort of saying it doesn't mean what people assume it means

I suspect that those who've said it's to annoy Christians are probably right. But anyone who chooses a name reactively like that shows themselves unduly influence by others, imo.

Anyway I have no opinion on the march; this was simply in agreement that it seems very odd to use a name which seems to have a certain meaning, but which isn't your meaning of it, so you are going to be always fighting against misunderstanding initiated by you. (Not you, Samhain but you, RyanS2, of course)

love
Helen

Autonemesis

I think Helen's and Samhain's last posts illustrate RyanS2's point very well. Despite Ryan's well argued proposition that the name Satan has acquired its negative baggage only recently, the other two make no attempt to refute that, but continue to insist that Satanists are the ones that are misconstruing it.

It's like the word "liberal" which used to be a positive description of a person's views, but lately has acquired a lot of negative baggage. Is it reactionary to want to restore Satan's reputation, or at least defend it? Perhaps. Is it reactionary for a person of liberal views to object to conservatives' derisive use of the word, as well as their twisted misconstrual (often deliberate) of socialist ideals?

Samhain

Nonsense, Kind Bud. Before trying to jump all over people and start saying "oh, you're wrong, and you're right" why don't you try bringing something with substance to the debate?

I will logically infer that the name "Satan" itself carries baggage for well over 20 years. "satan" is Hebrew for "adversary" is it not? Further, capitalizing it would infer a title of a timeless adversary, or perhaps an adversary against 'God', yes?

I see nothing well-argued about the position, it fails to address the fact that the term has been in use for over 20 years, and that it's root is not, by any means, positive. Further, I still see no reason why to hold onto the name, even if there was only 22 years of baggage attached. It still seems completely foolish and I see no argument justifying it's use as of yet. Further, Kind Bud's analogy is far off the mark I think, especially considering that "liberal" is still a positive term in many circles and in a vast percentage of the population. While conservatives may try to use it as some kind of title which does something to demean us, I see no accurate comparison between the two.

Autonemesis

No. I am not Hebrew, do not speak Hebrew. Nor am I Christian. So it does not carry any negative baggage, to me. The devil does not exist, after all. So why should I react to this name as if I were Christian? What benefit is there to having atheist views and shedding old superstitions if I must pretend to cower for the sake of the still-superstitious whenever the name of the biggest boogie man is mentioned? Shouldn't I instead demonstrate by example that there is nothing to fear from associating with people who call themselves Satanist?

Anymore than you can fight opression by opressing somebody else, you cannot fight fear by acting fearful. All we're talking about here is whether there will be any participants who identify themselves as Satanists, right? I mean, we're not talking about the backlash that would come should some of them sacrifice a virgin in front of the Washington Monument, or some such dramatic Satanic display, are we? What exactly is the concern here?

HelenM

So you too, seem to think that Satanism is about Satan, if it's about restoring Satan's reputation...

Why would people who don't believe Satan exists, have any interest in restoring his reputation?

But, if Satan is their god, then they are theists, of a sort.

Samhain

Kind Bud:

Does it matter? The English language borrows from a multitude of different languages, do you deny their roots?

Ah, but you admit that it would for a Christian?

Who's cowering? I think all who have read this thread and the previous thread concerning Satanism in the march will all concede that they know what the followers of LaVey Satanism is all about if they didn't know what it was about before reading these threads. No one's cowering, those who have raised objections see the potential damage that such could cause to the march and the movement at this particular time.

Do you deny the existence of traditional Satanists? Would this not burden the followers of the LaVey philosophy even more?

Who's acting fearful? These obvious straw man arguments add nothing to your credibility. I see nothing fearful in recognizing a potential problem and taking steps to see that it is no longer a problem.

That and a large potential loss of credibility for atheists due to a media fiasco. Should we ignore the great potential for disaster that such actions might bring to the march? Are we to ignore the problems and barrel head-first without examining what negatives might possibly come to our movement if we chose to take such actions?

While I agree that such may not take place I do not agree that the media would not make it sound as bad, or that even the general public wouldn't.

I think a large portion of us have stated the concern ad nauseam, are you just choosing to ignore the concerns that we've presented?

We are not suffering from delusions of what LaVey Satanists are or aren't, I think most of us here have a pretty good grasp on what the philosophy is concerned with. However, many of us can see the potential danger of the media concerning our cause if we choose to move too far too quickly. Further the majority of the problem stems from not releasing the death-grip on a name that essentially means nothing to their philosophy at all. To aquire a name with such baggage and continue to perpetuate it and at the same time rationalize that the name means nothing but expect those who stand against the name to treat them fairly and civilized is wholly absurd. What is the point? If it's just to piss theists off do we really want that in our movement?

Autonemesis

Make "what" sound as bad? What specifically do you fear will happen that will bring any more "bad" publicity than the march has already drawn just by having been announced?

Is it a contingent of people marching under a banner that says "Satanists"? What banner would you substitute?

Your position also begs the question: when is the "right time?" When can they "come out" without causing us to "move far to quickly?" I think that question requires an answer if your position is to be taken seriously. Otherwise, you're calling for an indefinite hiatus on the mention of Satanism in connection with Godless Americans.

So when it the right time? Under what conditions would you be able to overcome your qualms about this?

Autonemesis

One other thing:

What is a traditional Satanist? Please describe, and give an example if you can. I want to see how much urban legend is mixed in with your ideas on this topic.

Samhain

Kind Bud:

You, of course, know that I am talking about the march. We stand to lose credibility by joining hands with those who would take a title that breeds misunderstanding and distrust amoung theists. So, let's hear it, Bud, I've asked it more times than I care to count, what is the purpose of the name "Satanist" other to piss off theists? Do you have a logical explanation for it?

1. It's their movement, not ours, remember that, Bud, they chose the name they can carry the baggage, it all brings it back to personal responsibility. If they wish to educate people on who they are and what they stand for, then let them do so, alone, for I do not wish to overcomplicate our own matters and shoulder their burden just because they've chosen a name which is potentially harmful to their movement and to our own. Do you not think we're having enough time educating the public what we actually are without throwing on the burden of trying to deconstruct a name with over a millenia of baggage? While the LaVey Satanists may be godless, I do not think they are actively seeking what we are, or in the correct manner.
2. We, just as atheists, must gain credibility and destroy the prejudices of old against us before we can logically even possibly wish to move any further. Without gaining credibility in a civil and tolerant manner, we become a voice with no ear to listen to our cries, perhaps a louder voice, but still, without anyone to hear what we have to say. Moving more slowly and deconstructing the prejudices that just atheists have against them is the first step to gaining our ear and gaining our support to go along with our voice. I would not wish to cause irreparable damage to a movement which I am a part of.

What about the multitude of questions that I and others have posed which have not recieved any answer? You have chosen to ignore the questions posed and instead have just replied with irrelevant questions of your own (I say irrelevant because since you have not addressed the points we have posed, your position really means nothing). Let's hear some logical answers to the questions posed, or else, I'd say, your position should not be taken seriously.

When we, just as atheists have gained some amount of acceptance and credibility, without our credibility, we have no ear to listen to our voice, and we stand to lose credibility (or at least not gain any, but lose is far more likely) with Satanists in the march.

Traditional Satanist would be a Satanist who understands their title as "Satanist" and embraces it for what it is. It would be your basic dictionary definition of "Satanist" without any mumbo-jumbo about how they do not really believe in Satan and all other sorts of such nonsense that seems to be so popular with the followers of LaVey.