Report Blog Entry
PREVIOUS ENTRY | NEXT ENTRY | ALL ENTRIES
as a former member of The Satanic Temple, why do i still consider myself a Satanist if i've left the organization and am not allied with any other Satanic sects? precisely because i consider myself a Satanist — it isn't about which organization i do or do not belong to, but rather my relationship to authority and my willingness to rebel against injustice, dogma, and arbitrary rules. i've realized that, even before i fully understood why i was opposed to most other Satanists within TST, it wasn't just because they were "liberal" and i was "progressive;" it was because i was developing a materialist understanding of the world, surrounded by idealists who claimed to believe in the "here and now" but whom were enamored with debate and minor concessions; who fought against me for wanting to participate in direct action schemes and who claimed my understanding of my religion was inferior to theirs (even when they had not read what i had nor affiliated themselves for as long as i had!). it is why such immense grief came upon me when the Sober Faction schism of 2023 happened and several Congregations shut down. i saw the Tenets in a way that others didn't — i saw them for what they were: vague in such a way as to appear progressive while actually catering to the (libertarian) interpretation of each person as their own dogma. the sad, pitiful irony was that while Lucien Greaves might have said that one Tenet could be interpreted openly, most people agreed with whatever his convenient interpretation was at any given time, without considering their own biases or sense of hero worship.
the mantra of anarchists and Satanists alike is, "No Gods, No Masters!" so why is it that so many Satanists took up the flag of TST and idolatrized the man who started it as if he were some sort of (un)saint or anti-Pope? much the same reasoning could be drawn out about Anton LaVey and his many worshipers (despite their protestations over this fact).
so now i'll dissect the Tenets of The Satanic Temple as i understood them, explain why i no longer follow them but still consider myself a Satanist. after all, TST has no monopoly on the word "Satanist," any more than does the Church of Satan or any other active iteration of a Left-Hand Path religion.
Tenet I: One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.
this one is fairly straightforward at a glance. "compassion and empathy" go a long way in treating "all creatures" thusly. the issue arises with, "in accordance with reason." whose reason is this in accordance to? i had vegan and vegetarian friends who would debate each other, pescatarians, and omnivores, about which is more compassionate and empathetic toward animals. but under the framework of this Tenet, it can't be easily sussed out, and it begs the question: what are any of them doing? examining this from a materialistic standpoint, some of their diets were seemingly more just than others (and we'll get to justice, soon); but when we take into consideration the fact that veganism and vegetarianism are complicated with classism and ableism, not to mention racism and imperialism as regards the extraction of the ingredients and vegetation from the Global South and other oppressed countries, the argument for any of us will fall short. there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, and if we spend time debating which model of "animal harm reduction" is purest, we aren't tackling the systems in place that are oppressing the poor and the animals involved in the processes of feeding the arguing liberals.
Tenet II: The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
justice is a tricky subject, and it's one i (regrettably) debated with other Satanists the most. what kind of justice are we talking about? i agree with the Tenet in its entirety, but because i have a nuanced definition of "justice." are we talking about punitive justice, or reparative justice? are we talking about justice for the working class, for animals, for the Earth itself? or are we talking about "justice" in a "law and order," Trumpian sort of way? my time was wasted talking at people who talked down to me about my "big ideas," or my "misinterpretations," when all i wanted to know was, "what kind of justice are we fighting for, and who says who ought to be the arbiter?" the anarchist in me sees the State as an oppressive boundary between peoples and their so-called nations, needing to ultimately be dissolved for the greater good of society (and arguably achievable under the conditions of a Leninist+ communist ideal). to me, the ultimate justice would have each person be free to do as they please, assuming it was neither harming themself nor others. is revolutionary justice not included in this Tenet? to many a TST member, the answer was an unwavering, unapologetic, "no." revolution, you see, is inherently violent. that's what they told me. and that being the case, would not the violence of the oppressor State, the oppressor regime, in any country, be less justified? what a segue into our next section.
justice is a tricky subject, and it's one i (regrettably) debated with other Satanists the most. what kind of justice are we talking about? i agree with the Tenet in its entirety, but because i have a nuanced definition of "justice." are we talking about punitive justice, or reparative justice? are we talking about justice for the working class, for animals, for the Earth itself? or are we talking about "justice" in a "law and order," Trumpian sort of way? my time was wasted talking at people who talked down to me about my "big ideas," or my "misinterpretations," when all i wanted to know was, "what kind of justice are we fighting for, and who says who ought to be the arbiter?" the anarchist in me sees the State as an oppressive boundary between peoples and their so-called nations, needing to ultimately be dissolved for the greater good of society (and arguably achievable under the conditions of a Leninist+ communist ideal). to me, the ultimate justice would have each person be free to do as they please, assuming it was neither harming themself nor others. is revolutionary justice not included in this Tenet? to many a TST member, the answer was an unwavering, unapologetic, "no." revolution, you see, is inherently violent. that's what they told me. and that being the case, would not the violence of the oppressor State, the oppressor regime, in any country, be less justified? what a segue into our next section.
Tenet III: One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
this one raises every black flag i've ever flown to the highest pole to catch the smoothest winds. i ought to be in control of my own body. currently, living under capitalism and imperialism, (and arguably the visible emergence of fascism in the US), i don't have the bodily inviolability i believe i deserve. would not the compassionate, empathetic thing to do be to "struggle for justice," by engaging in systematic deconstruction of the cisheteronormative, patriarchal, hegemonic power structures? "no," they said, "because that requires violence!"
Tenet IV: The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own.
Tenet IV: The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own.
Tenet IV got me into the worst trouble. others never respected my "freedom to offend," when i brought up anarchist and communist talking points. of course, in some respects, i was operating under the assumption that "if this is true for me, it must be true for everyone." which is, unequivocally, incorrect. people outside of TST don't follow this Tenet, and people within TST aren't obligated to. you see, according to Tenet VII, these are "guiding principles," and not rules or regulations. we're not bound to them, when we pick up our nifty membership cards. we're just expected to act in such a way that doesn't offend Lucien Greaves or smear the "good name" of the organization. so for every "punch Nazis" meme i shared on my personal Facebook account and was inevitably told to "take down, because it gives us a bad look," i found no respect for my understanding. according to my reason, Nazis don't deserve compassion or empathy; justice against them looks like eradicating their threat to the world; if i don't fight back against fascists, i'm not practicing my own bodily autonomy and ultimately forfeiting to oppression in order to appear appealing... to whom? wasn't our whole thing, to offend Christian Evangelicals and fascists? didn't Lucien Greaves literally troll the Westboro Baptists by putting his testicles on their founder's headstone?
and here, all i was doing was saying, "if you want to oppress and/or kill me, i will fight you back." and that was enough to have them respond, "that requires violence!" to quote the rapper, NF, "i guess that your definition of violence, and mine, is something that we look at differently." violence, like justice, requires nuance. violence, when not used for self-defense or hunting, is oppressive. it seems LaVey had more thought put into Satanic Rule of the Earth number 10: "Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food." human-to-human violence isn't ideal, but it is constant. i argue that healthcare denied to a sick person is violence; that homes denied to the homeless is violence; that food denied to the starving is violence; that freedom denied to the oppressed is violence; but that fighting for a more just, egalitarian world, is self-defense, and therefore not violence!
Tenet V: Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs.
and here, all i was doing was saying, "if you want to oppress and/or kill me, i will fight you back." and that was enough to have them respond, "that requires violence!" to quote the rapper, NF, "i guess that your definition of violence, and mine, is something that we look at differently." violence, like justice, requires nuance. violence, when not used for self-defense or hunting, is oppressive. it seems LaVey had more thought put into Satanic Rule of the Earth number 10: "Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food." human-to-human violence isn't ideal, but it is constant. i argue that healthcare denied to a sick person is violence; that homes denied to the homeless is violence; that food denied to the starving is violence; that freedom denied to the oppressed is violence; but that fighting for a more just, egalitarian world, is self-defense, and therefore not violence!
Tenet V: Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs.
there was a (non-organized) group of people within TST who were anti-vaccine. they were against Queer and Trans people. they argued in favor of organic foods and non-homogenized, non-pasteurized milk and other such dangerous practices. yet they deserved an equal footing with me, because their beliefs conformed to their own best scientific understanding of the world! despite the second half of the Tenet being the most important part, it was overlooked entirely to allow these ignorant, backwards thinkers to file amongst our ranks! at this point in my life, i subscribe much more wholeheartedly (and with better understanding) to the scientific approach of Marxism which lay the foundation for historical dialectical materialism; that is to say, when i look back, i could see the seeds planted in my head from the few times i read "The Communist Manifesto" or any time i watched a video online explaining revolutionary theory, but my current understanding of the world is much more in line with Marx's and i cringe to think i couldn't go back and argue for a better position. not that anyone would have listened, anyway. one of my "friends" from the organization even wrote a thesis about why invalidating Trans people shouldn't be considered so offensive, using Tenets IV and V as his main points. he said something to the effect of, "just because i respect their pronouns and names, doesn't mean i respect their misguided understanding of themselves." modern science points to Queerness being inherent in many animals, and in humans the most prevalence because there are more of us than most other animals (not counting insects and microorganisms, of course). but, i digress... after all:
Tenet VI: People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one's best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused.
Tenet VI: People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one's best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused.
having come from Alcoholics Anonymous, i am extremely familiar with amends and apologies. and this, this Tenet specifically, is why i left the organization. when Lucien Greaves linked arms with a transphobe, myself and many others left Sober Faction and TST altogether and, as stated earlier, left several Congregations to fall apart. Lucien would not take accountability, or admit that he had caused his Queer members any harm. he called us "monsters" and "a mob," and we left. good riddance.
Tenet VII: Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.
you've read my piece by now. you'll know this was all a flag of false hope. it "inspired nobility" in people who want to further oppress and silence dissenters. there's no Satanic rebellion within TST. there is no revolution to be found there. its remaining members are religious extremists, whom are extremely boring. they have done good things, but they have mostly been ineffective. TST has never won a court battle. they have wasted our donation money on publicity stunts. there is no change, no material conditions to be affected. they are idealist, and liberal, and they are tolerated because they are not a true threat to any powers that be. and if any of this were untrue, i'd still be involved, and i'd be rallying those who agreed with me (as many did), to change it. there is no democracy. there is monarchy-by-proxy via Lucien, and meritocracy amongst Congregations.
i am a Satanist, because i am better than TST, and better off without them.
i leave you with a quote by Mikhail Bakunin:
"But here steps in Satan, the eternal rebel, the first freethinker and the emancipator of worlds. He makes man ashamed of his bestial ignorance and obedience; he emancipates him, stamps upon his brow the seal of liberty and humanity, in urging him to disobey and eat of the fruit of knowledge."
Comments
Comments disabled.