Autonemesis

No. It is very relevant. You are trying to argue that AA can use the same reasoning to exclude Satanists from the Godless Americans march, that Gay Pride organizers have used to justify excluding NAMBLA from their events. No way, Jose! NAMBLA is excluded because they are advocates for criminal behavior with children, or have committed criminal acts themselves. Satanists have done no such thing and calling oneself a Satanist signifies no such thing whether the claim is serious or in jest. I see absolutely NO JUSTIFICATION for punishing the Satanists for being as bad or worse than pedophiles, because they aren't, except in the minds of the most reactionary religious elements. And I am dumbfounded that you want to carry the banner of Righteous Indignation and mete out punishment to Satanists on behalf of the the most reactionary elements of the religious right! It boggles the mind!

I dispute that, too. You throw it out there like it is self-evident, but I don't see it as self-evident at all. Please elaborate and support this assertion, or stop using this canard.

A smaller percentage than will have heard of him after November 2, 2002. But I suppose you will come back with a retort to that claiming poor "Joe" is too stupid to learn anything new. You really have a very poor opinion of your fellow humans, don't you?

Autonemesis

Can't be. If this is the point, the march is doomed to fail.

Much more realistic is to hope that members of the public will say to themselves "There's a lot more of them atheists than I thought."

scigirl

Ryans2,

I'm a bit of a latecomer to this debate, so I apologize if you've answered this question already.

So you are willing to acknowledge that the satanists are misunderstood, right? Well, rather than try to re-invent the wheel, wouldn't it be easier just to change the name of the group? I've know businesses that went overseas and had to change their name because the translation of their business came out wrong in that culture. It was either that, or change the Japanese language. I think the first solution is easier.

It seems you aren't that concerned with the fact that a lot of people misunderstand your organization. But the fact that the Church of Satan wants to march in the event proves that they indeed are interested in their image, and in what people think. Right?

So. . . why fight an uphill battle? Is the name that "sacred" ? I for one wouldn't mind if "internet infidels" changed its name to "web freethinkers" or whatever, because it's the content, not the name, that matters.

I personally don't care who marches on Washington because my cynical nature tells me that it won't make one dent in anything unless at least a million or more people show up. So I guess I am for allowing as many people as possible. But that's just me.

scigirl

Samhain

"Yea, wow, Joe, a whole freakin' 10,000 of 'em, well, they aren't any threat to anything."

Please man, while the total of non-believers may range in about 10% of the U.S. population how many do you think will actually show up? A thousand? Ten thousand? A hundred thousand? A million?

I'd say that maybe we'll be able to swing 10,000, but I doubt it gets much media coverage anyway, if any it'll be 30seconds on Faux news saying "Satanists joined the march with atheists today..."

The only way to appeal to the "normal" 'God'-fearing American citizen is to act like civil human beings who don't really care to stir up the shit much, but would rather just have a place in America free of persecution and prejudice. Remember, people fear what they don't understand, they don't understand us, for the most part, by just revealing that we are a force in America (unsuccessfully I might add when a mere 10k un-believers show up) we accomplish nothing. We need to make them understand who we are and what our position is and appeal to tolerance before anything else, as our numbers are not so vast that we are really a large force within this nation.

Samhain

We wouldn't be "punishing" Satanists by keeping them out of the march. They took on the name, they can carry the burden. Personal responsibility for personal actions, or have we forgotten that little thing called responsibility? I have no illusions about what Satanists are or aren't, I am quite familiar with modern LaVey Satanism and most of it would seem quite benevolent to me, a humanism, if you will. But choosing a name that is the root of thousands of years of theistic fear and basically the root of all evil as far as many theists are concerned, is just inflammatory. I don't care what it "really" means or how "real" Satanists "really" act, it's all nonsense when it comes down to the single point that we should call a turtle a turtle and a tiger a tiger. What purpose does semantic word games serve in this regard other than confusion and prejudice and hate?

Nonsense.

Autonemesis

Then it would seem to me that currying favor with the religious right is more important to you than acknowledging benevolence, even when it is in our midst.

Did I mischaracterize your position?

Samhain

Yes, currying favor does not concern me. I only wish for the issues of theism/atheism to be considered non-issues by the American public and by political parties and political agendas

Further, while I acknowledge the benevolence of the Satanist organizations themselves, I see no reason why they couldn't further their advances in their certain humanistic philosophies under a different name. Remember, responsibility is the issue here. Those who choose their actions are condemned to them.

Bible Humper

No, you have completely missed what the analogy meant. Perhaps you are unaware of how analogies are used.

I'll spell it out:

Imagine a group of gays who wish to join the "We're here, we're queer marches". ok?

#############IMPORTANT###################
This group does NOT engage in pedophilia, nor do they condone it. Got it?
#########################################

This same group calls themselves "pedophiles", despite not being literal pedophiles. Understand?

The "We're here, we're queer" organisers want to dispel the myth of homosexual men being pedophiles. Alright?

The "We're here, we're queer" organisers know that this group called the "pedophiles" does not consist of literal pedophiles. You see?

Joe Sixpackers often think that most gay men are pedophiles. You with me?

The "We're here, we're queer" organisers want to inform Joe Sixpack that gay men are not usually pedophiles. Comprende?

The presence of the group known as "Pedophiles", who are not actually pedophiles, makes the task of the "We're here, we're queer" organisers MUCH more difficult, especially considering the tendency of the media to focus on the most sensational aspects of any event. Clear?

1)Remove the red herring of "NAMBLA" from your considerations, I have never heard of them and was not referring to them.

2)Remove the red herring of my perceived distaste for the religion of Satanism from your considerations, I am making no comment on the virtues, or lack thereof, of Satanism.

If you are unsure of what an analogy is, make sure you find out before you answer.

Read my analogy again, it should be crystal clear now.

Kind Bud, much support for this assertion is to be found throughout the threads on this board regarding the pedophilia scandal of the Catholic church. The position of the church is that they will not implement a zero-tolerance policy on pedophile priests, and will defrock only those who become "notorious".

Stop chasing red herrings.

You think that they are going to take the time to explain LeVey Satanism to Joe? You have incredible faith in the media, Kind Bud, what leads you to conclude that they will do this?

Joe Sixpack is going to change the channel if they fail to keep him interested, the media knows that he is not going to stick around for an in-depth expose of LeVey Satanism.

Anyway, what happened to your assertion that everyone already knows all about LeVey Satanism, and it is only my "projections" of my own distaste for the philosophy that causes me to deny this "fact"?


I have an opinion of the "common Joe" that has been earned by the "common Joe".

My computer is telling me that it is "unstable", so I need to restart. Ask me later about this if you want, though I doubt you care.

Sorry if this post is in sad need of editing, brb.

Autonemesis

So you think Satanists choose to be excoriated by theists and non-theists alike, and even by people who claim to know better? Is that it?

RyanS2, is this an accurate characterization of why Satanists call themselves Satanists?

Autonemesis

And you have completely missed what my objection meant. You also assume quite a bit about the "We're here, we're queer" organizers that also doesn't wash, and which further undermines the analogy you are trying to draw. In no way has any pride parade been for the purpose of convincing the general public that gays are not pedophiles. That completely mischaracterizes what the pride parades are all about. They are for the benefit of the participants. People at a pride march don't give a flying fuck what the fundies think, or what their mothers think, or what you think.

I don't have to imagine, I have joined many of them. Why do you think gays have taken to calling themselves "Queer" and "Fag" and "Dyke" when these are the very terms that have been used in a hurtful way by their persecutors to refer derisively to homosexuals, to cast shame on them, and to rally others to hate them? Because when gays take ownership and identify positively with those words, they no longer have the power to opress.

RyanS2 will correct me (I hope) but it seems to me that Satanists feel much the same way. The traditions they preserve predate Christianity, and have nothing to do with the Devil. Christians are the ones who are mistaken by labelling these symbols and traditions Satanic. It's just pro-Jesus propaganda (which ends up becoming anti-not-Jesus in practice). As you acknowledged yourself, there is much that is benevolent and humanistic in LeVay Satanism. So there is no shame in the Satanist name, or in being associated with them.

So why act as if there is?