Veil of Fire

Why else would they accquire such a loaded name?

It's like the people who are already social outcasts converting to Setism and then claiming the reason they're social outcasts is religious discrimination. The only reason you apply a potentially harmful label to yourself is for scapegoating purposes.

Either that, or you're trying to twist someone's nose, which isn't particularly evidence of the maturity this march seems to be aiming at.

Autonemesis

Why would gays call themselves Queers and Fags, when those are such loaded names? Because identifying positively with those names takes away power from the ones who would use those names to cast shame upon them, and to rally others to persecute them.

Now let's all join hands and sing "Kum Bay Yah, My Dark Lord".

Bible Humper

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

First of all, when I say "We're here, we're queer" marches, I'm talking about the original marches that were held to raise awareness of gay issues, not the Pride parades of today. Gay people didn't always enjoy the level of acceptance that they have today, you know. I'm referring to the marches that helped bring about this acceptance. This should have been clear if you understood my analogy, because atheists are very much "in the closet" today, just as gay people of the past were, and in many ways still are.

Whether the "We're here, we're queer" marches were meant to dispel a "gays are pedophiles" myth or not is completely irrelevant, my analogy is not dependant on a historical intent of the "we're here, we're queer" organisers to dispel any kind of pedophile myth. My analogy is dependant on their desire (possibly non-existant, it doesn't matter) to dispel any myth about them that may have contributed to their repression, nothing else. You have completely missed the point of my analogy again.

My analogy is meant to illustrate how the misconceptions of what a particular name(Satanist, Pedophile) means can frustrate efforts to dispel myths that are associated with that name(Devil worship, Pedophilia). Nothing more, nothing less. Look at my analogy from this perspective and no other, all else is irrelevant.

Kind Bud,I hate to ask this, but please write a short analogy. Sorry if this request sounds insulting, but it is important because there is clearly a failure to communicate here.

Exactly! At last we will make some much deserved progress. I have nothing against the content of their religion/philosophy. The name is terribly misleading to anyone with a layman's knowledge of occultism, as is the imagery, and this is the entire point.

Ryan has already stated that he is not going to be waving "Satan" banners, and causing all kinds of misconceptions to flourish thereby, and I thus have no problem with his participation in the march. I would have a problem if he did want to advertise the name of his religion/philosophy, but he does not.

Bible Humper

You rock, Veil!

Why would gays call themselves Queers and Fags, when those are such loaded names?

Terrible comparison.

"Queer" and "Fag" are derogatory names for someone who is gay. Nobody doubts that when you call someone a "Queer" or "Fag" that you are calling them gay.

Satanist is a name used to describe devil worshippers. Few are aware that you are calling them a follower of "LeVey's philosophy".

Autonemesis

And my objection to it is meant to illustrate that shunning Satanists because they call themselves Satanists is doing the work of the ones who would opress us.

My analogy: Trying to show you that you can't fight opression by opressing someone else is like trying to teach a pig to sing. It wastes my time and annoys the pig.

Did I pass?

Bible Humper

Your objection is noted, but has nothing to do with whether you understood my analogy or not, alas.

Yes! Congratulations!

Your prize is.......a long wet kiss from your pig!!



Edit: In case my "prize" didn't make it clear enough, your "analogy" is actually a simile.

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: Splashing Colours Of Whimsy ]</p>

Autonemesis

Yes, I did. You just didn't understand my rebuttal to the point you were trying to make with it. So I will take a different tack now.

"Freedom FROM Religion" "Satanist" "Atheist"

"Separation of Church and State" "Pentagram"

"Homosexual" "Secular" "Socialist" "Liberal"

"Materialism" "Evolution" "Communism"

These are all synonymous with the work of the Devil, to the people you would associate with the religious right. You may argue that some or many of them will see each of these as different in degree if not kind, and I'd not contest that. People in the general population - "the vast majority" - also have many negative associations with these terms and ideas, though they may not be so strident, and may not even think about any of them so long as "it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg". So I suggest that calling whoever it is you're referring to "Joe Sixpack" is not helping communication. There is not a hive mind or whatever that reacts in unision controlling the general public, so I don't know who you mean, and I wonder if you do yourself. The most reactionary and ignorant will see what they want to see, and some of those will even produce their own version of events and mix satanic imagery in with scenes from the march because it suits their agenda to do so. The more mainstream the reports, the more moderate they'll be, though the media will give plenty of time to the most extreme right wing elements, but hopefully they'll also have moderate opinions and atheist soundbites here and there.

And another thing, it's not necessary to get into Levay to defuse any anti-satanist outburst directed your way. Do you think that not having any overt sign of Satanists at the march will deflect all attempts to associate atheism with satanism? You and I - if we're "visible" atheists - will get that accusation anyway. Proper response: Dude - there ain't no Devil. Why should I worry about some idiots prancing around (or whatever the complaint is). That's all the argument I need. I've been thinking it is often less painful to try and change someone's mind on the existence of Satan than it is on the existence of God. And I seem to recall that studies have shown many fewer people believe in Satan than believe in God.*** I think I can look that up if you require. Point being, if there's going to be atheist "outreach", instead of only trying to deconvert people from a belief in God, try deconverting them from belief in Satan. Maybe the Satanists have something there...

In short, I think you're making a mountain out of, maybe not a molehill, a termite mound. Not that I'm validating the reactionary hive mind, mind you.

*** excreationist did my research for me and posted it to another thread: <a href="http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PageCategory.asp?CategoryID=6" target="_blank">here's a survey</a> done by <a href="http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PageAboutBarna.asp" target="_blank">Barna Research</a>, a Christian market research firm.

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: Kind Bud ]</p>

Samhain

Kind Bud:

I'd say that all of those terms are considered "sins" perhaps and the sinful works of man, but the only one that I think could be synonymous with the work of the Devil for the religious right would be Satanism.

RyanS2

I dozed off in the hum-drum of it, but this post to me:

"Further, while I acknowledge the benevolence of the Satanist organizations themselves"

Shows that "Joe Sixpack" can in fact be educated, and with improved benefits, can be done wellso. For the record, the fear of Satanism extends back to about 1980. Jules Michelet, Anatole France, Mark Twain, Charles Baudelaire, James Branch Cabell, and Lord Byron all used Satanic imagery rather freely depicting Satan as a good guy. One famous atheist, Joseph McCabe, also had detailed a book which painted Satanism in a positive fashion.

So, we are effectively battling about 20 years of ignorance because Satanists were generally too cowardly to say otherwise because of the manhunt going on then. (There's still people in prison over it.) So, because the occult community kept its mouth shut while a cottage-cheese industry popped-up, we're now suffering residual side-effects. So, our name has approximately (22) years of baggage associated with it.

Samhain

While I might agree that "Satanism" as an organization may only have 22 years of baggage, the name "Satan" itself carries over a millenia of baggage.

What is the purpose? Why the semantics? Why the redefining of words which hold so much baggage just to try and "educate" people? What's with the blantant misdirection and deception?

How about addressing the point at hand? What purpose does the title of "Satanist" serve other than to rub christians the wrong way?

RyanS2, I appreciate the message that the movement tries to portray, but isn't this going about it the wrong way? You know as well as I do that there are some theists, a few of them in power with the public, who will twist things to further their own agendas; this just all but invites such. Educating theists to the point that they will no longer think of us as heathen retches will be difficult enough without the fear of symbolism dating back for over a millenia looming over our advances in educating the public. Why the death-grip on the name? If you are truly concerned with portraying a positive message to the theistic masses, then why not dump the baggage in its entirety? I am sure you are not unaware of the problems with Satanists in Europe. Do you think that that card won't be pulled by those who would stand against the godless? The title "Satanist" makes a multitude of assertions that is absent with just "atheist", and logically one of those would be praise, or worship, or reverence to a being called "Satan", a name which carries more baggage than any rational person would choose to deal with. While I understand that is not the case with those who follow the philosophies of LaVey, it still doesn't do away with the fact that taking on that title and then re-defining it to your own means makes no sense at all.