Forgive me but I really can’t quite get my head around what your concern is about? Can you try to explain it in easily digestible lumps please?
Recovered Memories
- Thread starter Collin237
- Start date
Forgive me but I really can’t quite get my head around what your concern is about? Can you try to explain it in easily digestible lumps please?
When did the Nazis use Satanic imagery?
The Satanic Temple (as opposed to any other group with similar names) is essentially an atheist or humanist organisation that uses the imagery of satanism to highlight instances where church and state are not being properly separated, and religious organisations (usually Christian ones) are getting preferential treatment over those of other religions (or none), or are imposing their religion on others (e.g. in some states women wanting an abortion are being forced to read religious literature before proceeding).
I'm not seeing the first part of that.
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 26,460
Re the Satanic Temple:
1. I saw an article about a "false memory syndrome foundation".
2. First reaction: A shell company of crooks, so what else is new?
3. Second reaction: Whoa! Where is the author going with this? Recovered memories? Satanic Ritual Abuse?
4. Lots of googling. I find crazy vs. crazy all the way down.
5. Somehow I end up here.
6. Suddenly this guy called Matthew Best insinuates, in contrast to everything I've seen, that Doug Mesner is not one of the crazies.
7. Why, I ask, is a Skeptic forum defending an antisemite and self-styled Satanist?
8. The other posters react like I'm speaking Martian or something.
2. First reaction: A shell company of crooks, so what else is new?
3. Second reaction: Whoa! Where is the author going with this? Recovered memories? Satanic Ritual Abuse?
4. Lots of googling. I find crazy vs. crazy all the way down.
5. Somehow I end up here.
6. Suddenly this guy called Matthew Best insinuates, in contrast to everything I've seen, that Doug Mesner is not one of the crazies.
7. Why, I ask, is a Skeptic forum defending an antisemite and self-styled Satanist?
8. The other posters react like I'm speaking Martian or something.
Thermal
August Member
Yeah or maybe you are starting off with assumptions that others don't make, so we are not following your train of thought.
Pretend your audience is not down with the intricities of satanic whatever and start again. Just a suggestion.
Pretend your audience is not down with the intricities of satanic whatever and start again. Just a suggestion.
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
All I was intending to insinuate was that you hadn't provided any evidence that Mesner is crazy.
Since then you've told me about some anti-semitic remarks he made many years ago, that he has since apologised for at some length and in some detail, but there doesn't seem to be much more than that. Everything else you've linked to that he's actually written I found to be mostly pretty reasonable.
So I remain unconvinced that you've made much of a case for him being crazy.
Satanic images and hate images both derive from the same motifs.
And the Charlottesville march itself was a classic Hollywood-style Satanic fane scene.
Essentially! Or rather, officially. But what's beneath the surface?
And if they really want to promote pluralism, why are they making up a guaranteed turnoff? Why not invite some people with a real marginalized viewpoint -- like maybe Ojibwe Medewin or something -- to provide an authentic differance?
And the Charlottesville march itself was a classic Hollywood-style Satanic fane scene.
Essentially! Or rather, officially. But what's beneath the surface?
And if they really want to promote pluralism, why are they making up a guaranteed turnoff? Why not invite some people with a real marginalized viewpoint -- like maybe Ojibwe Medewin or something -- to provide an authentic differance?
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
Depends on the images.
I have no idea what this means.
I have no idea what any of this means.
I don't know anything about "intricities", and I don't want to.
You're saying that you do and I'm supposed to pretend you don't?Joe Random
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2005
- Messages
- 3,426
"More matter with less art."
~Hamlet, 2:2
~Hamlet, 2:2
You think the Satanic Temple is so innocuous? Consider this:
"Let us stand now, unbowed and unfettered by arcane doctrines born of fearful minds in darkened times."
A license to terrorize people who live according to their own local traditions?
"Let us embrace the Luciferian impulse to eat of the Tree of Knowledge and dissipate our blissful and comforting delusions of old."
A license to stop fighting for justice because knowledge of past events makes it seem impossible?
"Let us demand that individuals be judged for their concrete actions, not their fealty to arbitrary social norms and illusory categorizations."
A license to allow people to spread hate and incite violence as long as it isn't done concretely?
"Let us reason our solutions with agnosticism in all things, holding fast only to that which is demonstrably true."
A license to ignore dangers that are known with high probability long before they're demonstrable? Like the climate chaos resulting from global warming?
"Let us stand firm against any and all arbitrary authority that threatens the personal sovereignty of One or All."
A license to rebel against your country?
"That which will not bend must break, and that which can be destroyed by truth should never be spared its demise."
A license to ignore social contracts? E.g., This isn't a number of dollars and cents. It's just pieces of paper and metal. Why should I give it to you?
No more of a stretch than the way I've seen Skeptics interpret holy books.
"Let us stand now, unbowed and unfettered by arcane doctrines born of fearful minds in darkened times."
A license to terrorize people who live according to their own local traditions?
"Let us embrace the Luciferian impulse to eat of the Tree of Knowledge and dissipate our blissful and comforting delusions of old."
A license to stop fighting for justice because knowledge of past events makes it seem impossible?
"Let us demand that individuals be judged for their concrete actions, not their fealty to arbitrary social norms and illusory categorizations."
A license to allow people to spread hate and incite violence as long as it isn't done concretely?
"Let us reason our solutions with agnosticism in all things, holding fast only to that which is demonstrably true."
A license to ignore dangers that are known with high probability long before they're demonstrable? Like the climate chaos resulting from global warming?
"Let us stand firm against any and all arbitrary authority that threatens the personal sovereignty of One or All."
A license to rebel against your country?
"That which will not bend must break, and that which can be destroyed by truth should never be spared its demise."
A license to ignore social contracts? E.g., This isn't a number of dollars and cents. It's just pieces of paper and metal. Why should I give it to you?
No more of a stretch than the way I've seen Skeptics interpret holy books.
Thermal
August Member
I don't know anything about "intricities", and I don't want to.
No, but I note posters saying with four-part harmony and feeling: "WTF are you talking about?"
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
You appear to have an, er, "interesting" relationship with the English language.
A bit of context wouldn't go amiss. What you've quoted is a prayer The Satanic Temple proposed should be read ahead of council meetings, as an alternative to Christian prayers, which had been ruled lawful as long as other religious groups were not discriminated against.
Your interpretation is somewhat creative; I'd be interested to see what you make of some common Christian prayers, for comparison.
For reference, the stated tenets of The Satanic Temple actually are:
What do you find sinister about those?
I consider language a way to express meaningful ideas, not just a cue for whether to cheer or jeer a politician or something. I'm fully aware that the Satanic Prayer is supposed to sound 
amaaaaazing. I just don't feel a need to play along. And I don't see why you would either.
amaaaaazing. I just don't feel a need to play along. And I don't see why you would either.Firstly, I don't know about Christian prayers; I'm Jewish. Secondly, I find some Jewish prayers pretty crummy too, which is one reason I haven't been to a synagogue in many years.
No, I don't see anything sinister about the tenets. Ironically, when I saw them earlier in thread I had the opposite reaction. I felt like they were appropriating the best parts of Judaism and giving them a bad brand.
I know it sounds like I'm playing hard to please, but I don't think it's an unreasonable reaction. The Satanic Temple is one of the worst public relations flops in the world, and I don't get why Skeptics give them any quarter.
No, I don't see anything sinister about the tenets. Ironically, when I saw them earlier in thread I had the opposite reaction. I felt like they were appropriating the best parts of Judaism and giving them a bad brand.
I know it sounds like I'm playing hard to please, but I don't think it's an unreasonable reaction. The Satanic Temple is one of the worst public relations flops in the world, and I don't get why Skeptics give them any quarter.
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
Your comment/ interpretation has no connection with what you're commenting on. You appear to have simply made this up.
Your comment/ interpretation has no connection with what you're commenting on. You appear to have simply made this up.
Your comment/ interpretation has no connection with what you're commenting on. You appear to have simply made this up.
Your comment/ interpretation has no connection with what you're commenting on. You appear to have simply made this up.
Your comment/ interpretation has no connection with what you're commenting on. You appear to have simply made this up.
Your comment/ interpretation has no connection with what you're commenting on. You appear to have simply made this up.
For example?
More specifically, how about some examples from this forum?
So far, the only one willfully misinterpreting holy books is you.
My own assumption here is that you are actually a Christian fundamentalist, and your agenda is to somehow rehabilitate the ideas of SRA and recovered memories, so as to be able to rail against the dangers of atheism and Satanism, two things you probably (wrongly) conflate.
Quite prepared to be wrong about this, but you need to be a heck of a lot clearer in your posts than you have been up to now.
Carrot Flower King
Janitor of Lunacy
I thought we were off into a full "Spem in Alium" 40 voice piece.
We started with the thoroughly done over many times over the years SRA and "recovered", i.e. made up, "memories" and now we have some supposed "prayers" which some minor supposedly Satanist group came up with...
Please explain to me what this is all about?
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 26,460
Good question.
I'm not the one conflating atheism and Satanism. It's the Satanic Temple that claims they are atheists, which I doubt. The Satanic Temple is giving the public every reason to side with anyone who wants to stop their displays. So I could just as well call them Christian Fundamentalists.
I've read that therapists have created false memories of SRA in their patients. I've also read that there's a group, the FMSF, that's conflating those therapists with advocates for victims of real abuse. I've also read about connections between FMSF and the Satanic Temple.
Christian Fundamentalists are well-known for protecting, or perhaps even being, child abusers. So I suppose you could put this all together and say it's an argument that Christian priests perform SRA. But that would be ignoring two facts: One is that accounts of SRA always include things that are manifestly impossible, such as demons and aliens. The other is that such accounts have never been corroborated, even without the impossible stuff.
However, the therapists that led their patients to these accounts seem to be real. (I suppose these therapists could be called Christian Fundamentalists also.
) But if a therapist gives a patient a memory of abuse, then the patient suffers just as badly as a real abuse victim. So abuse has still been committed. And since the perpetrators in the memory don't exist, the real perpetrator is the therapist. Accusing an idea of being used to traumatize people is not "rehabilitating" it.
This was "thoroughly done over" until Katie Heaney brought up, out of the blue, a supposedly newly revealed allegation about the FMSF. I had never before heard of either Katie Heaney or the FMSF, and it appears the allegation, and discreditation of the FMSF, was actually made a long time ago, and duly recorded, by the psychiatric establishment. So why is Katie Heaney suddenly making news of it now? The same Katie Heaney who observed the U.S.'s first-ever coup and wrote an article featuring a photo of the terrorists, on the same day, on the same website thecut.com. The only person I've seen write anything about this is Rebecca Watson. And curiously enough, one of the commenters on her article identifies himself as a leader of the Satanic Temple.
I've read that therapists have created false memories of SRA in their patients. I've also read that there's a group, the FMSF, that's conflating those therapists with advocates for victims of real abuse. I've also read about connections between FMSF and the Satanic Temple.
Christian Fundamentalists are well-known for protecting, or perhaps even being, child abusers. So I suppose you could put this all together and say it's an argument that Christian priests perform SRA. But that would be ignoring two facts: One is that accounts of SRA always include things that are manifestly impossible, such as demons and aliens. The other is that such accounts have never been corroborated, even without the impossible stuff.
However, the therapists that led their patients to these accounts seem to be real. (I suppose these therapists could be called Christian Fundamentalists also.
) But if a therapist gives a patient a memory of abuse, then the patient suffers just as badly as a real abuse victim. So abuse has still been committed. And since the perpetrators in the memory don't exist, the real perpetrator is the therapist. Accusing an idea of being used to traumatize people is not "rehabilitating" it.This was "thoroughly done over" until Katie Heaney brought up, out of the blue, a supposedly newly revealed allegation about the FMSF. I had never before heard of either Katie Heaney or the FMSF, and it appears the allegation, and discreditation of the FMSF, was actually made a long time ago, and duly recorded, by the psychiatric establishment. So why is Katie Heaney suddenly making news of it now? The same Katie Heaney who observed the U.S.'s first-ever coup and wrote an article featuring a photo of the terrorists, on the same day, on the same website thecut.com. The only person I've seen write anything about this is Rebecca Watson. And curiously enough, one of the commenters on her article identifies himself as a leader of the Satanic Temple.
Last edited: