“The Rise of Satan” Part II

July 28^th, 2019

By Jim Culp

In part one of this discussion, we talked about places in two popular holy books where the character Satan is found. We also talked about Anton LaVey, the founder of the Church of Satan. Now we are going to turn our attention to the Satanic Temple…its roots, its cause, and its popularity.

The Satanic Temple is not to be confused with the Church of Satan. The former was recently formed in 2013, and the Church of Satan was formed in 1966. Both organizations bear the name of Satan, but they do not believe the same things, and have very different causes. The Satanic Temple was formed by Lucien Greaves and Malcolm Jarry. The group has been known in the past decade or so to be highly anti-establishment; and opposed to religion being inserted into government in so many ways. They were greatly opposed to the Fred Phelps group in Topeka Kansas. The infamous Westboro Baptist church has been a pain in people’s asses for a long time.

I cannot blame any group for opposing hate like this. I was a security guard in Topeka in 1993, and the Phelps group was constantly picketing and protesting anything that they thought was evil in the eyes of God. Everyone has a First Amendment right to free speech, but actively sowing the seeds of hate (especially in children) is one of the things that is dreadfully wrong with our country as a whole right now.

These groups do not believe in Satan as a real entity, and both follow some of LaVey’s ideals; such as anti-establishment and freedom of self. I also don’t contest much of these beliefs, they make sense to me.

The Satanic Temple contests matters where the Separation of Church and State come to bear. This is an area where I am in full agreement with them, until they want to place a statue of Baphomet in the same place as the Ten Commandments. Why do that? Oppose the religious symbolism in a place where it doesn’t belong, but don’t replace that with something (religious) in its place. It would be like a car being your religious symbol, but you want a Ford in that spot instead of a Chevy.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution clearly separates church and state.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Are the “Satanists” right in their actions? According to the First Amendment they are.

Here’s my take on these Satanists, and I could care less what church, state, or city they are from. I read the Satanic Bible in 2003. It’s a long list of things that a guy doesn’t like about our society. They are things like women shaving their underarms and legs, people controlling themselves instead of punching someone that offends them, and government having control over a person’s body and spirit. In my opinion, Anton LaVey was about as much a Satanist as I am the Governor of California. The guy was anti-establishment, and he used a vehicle that was offensive to religious people, disruptive to “the way things should be,” and way out in left field to most people. As for the Satanic Temple, they openly claim that they don’t really believe in the Devil, Satan, or whatever it is. Why the statues of Baphomet? Why the esoteric symbolism? Why don’t you just drop the bullshit, and make your points without the references to a deity that you don’t even believe in?

My opinion on this matter is this. Groups that use symbolism like this are trying to employ a catalyst that automatically induces fear. Religions like Christianity and Islam are based on it. People from a hundred countries go to church, pay tithes, and never enjoy their lives because they are in fear of going to hell, a place where they burn for eternity. I think these “Satanists” just use the tool in another way and get results because of it.

-Jim

Follow me at jimculp.blogspot.com