Free To Offend: On Satanic Displays in Public Forums

A reply to the claim that Satanic displays in public forums are an expression of "hate speech" against Christians

Self-identified advocates for Religious Liberty often seem genuinely confused and frustrated by the existence of religions to which they do not subscribe. Some, failing to understand that Religious Liberty forbids the declaration of a national religion, argue for public religious displays that they hope will serve to do exactly that, only to find themselves feeling antagonized and undermined if another religion requests equal access. In order to resolve the dissonance, some, like American Family Radio broadcast host Bryan Fischer, have claimed — in the face of all evidence to the contrary — that "By the word religion in the First Amendment, the founders [of the United States] meant Christianity." The official equal treatment of disparate sects and creeds demanded by the principle of Religious Liberty, and codified in the First Amendment, is thought to be as easily ignored as the act of re-categorizing all non-preferred beliefs as something other than a “legitimate” religion.

Christian journalists and activists, offended by The Satanic Temple’s displays, activities, and very existence, typically ignore questions regarding the value of government viewpoint neutrality and religious pluralism in favor of framing Satanism as an anti-religion rather than a religion. To them, their being offended is not merely an unfortunate byproduct of our activities, but the very point of everything we do. They often show no hesitation in speaking (or writing) at length about our motives, with no reference at all to anything we ourselves have said about the meaning and intentions of our activities. When I have confronted those who have taken it upon themselves to put words in our mouths and apprise the public of the “true” meaning of our actions, I am often ignored, but sometimes I am met with disbelief. Certainly, we must be aware that the very idea of Satanism is offensive to Christians, they argue, so surely our primary motive must be in offending Christians. As non-theistic Satanists, they assume, we have no real attachment to the central icon of Satan itself, so if our interest was not in offending Christians, we could have easily chosen a different name and iconography with which to express our values.

Op ed writers that have sided with our public inclusion have far too often helped propagate the perception of our disingenuousness by assuring readers that we are not really religious, and that we are really just a hilarious band of clever “trolls.” Entrenched in a polarized Culture War where antagonizing the opposition is often thought to be a legitimate political end in its own right, even supporters of ours can be found failing to acknowledge the deeper ramifications of our efforts to preserve pluralism, preferring instead to revel in the Schadenfreude of seeing Christian Nationalists apoplectic over our presence. 

But upsetting Christians is not our goal, even if we can easily anticipate that our activities will inevitably upset a certain population of them. Knowing that some people will be upset because they disagree with what you are doing is not the same as doing something merely for the purpose of offending them. And the fact that we are non-theistic does nothing to suggest that our iconography and practices are not meaningful and non-negotiable elements of our identity that we hold regardless of how others might feel about it.

From the Satanist point of view, there is a certain absurdity to the claim that our presence in public forums — whether adding a religious display, delivering an invocation, or starting an after school club — constitutes a form of “hate speech” against Christians. For one, we never demand access to public forums where religious incursions are not already pre-existing, almost always at the behest of Christian Nationalist activists who seek exclusive privileges. Our battle is not against religion (we are a religion) but against tyranny and theocracy. But even if our primary motivation were nothing more than the criticism of religious superstition, it would be an indefensible abridgement of Religious Freedom to deny us that flexibility of religious opinion. Where public displays of religious perspective exist, we feel called to participate… not as a negation of other displays, but as an affirmation of pluralism and inclusion.

But, it is argued, our intentions matter little given that the blasphemous imagery attached to Satanism is seen as anti-Christian. This is where the idiocy afflicting the both the polarized Left and Right converge, agreeing upon one of the most counterproductive, divisive, and untenable stupidities of our time: the notion that any vaguely rationalized interpretation of offense takes absolute priority over the context, intention, and actual meaning of that which is said to be causing offense. Both sides now play by a set of infantile rules which dictate that whomever can first claim offense “wins,” leading to all kinds of disingenuous efforts to find offensive interpretations in oppositional, or even neutral to supportive, statements and activities — from the online open homophobe who feels clever waxing indignant over the "homophobia" of one who suggests his motivation to be rooted in shame and repression, to asshole students who would force the removal of a professor for teaching a chinese word that has a passing phonetic resemblance to an English racial slur. If we have any concern for the maintenance of a pluralistic democracy, we must reject these simplistic games and do our best to ignore the children who play them. 

To be offended by the "blasphemous" imagery of Satanism to the point of framing it as "hate speech" is, at best, to assume that the imagery tacitly advocates for the dehumanization and oppression of those who find it blasphemous to begin with. At worst, it is the articulation of a sense of entitlement that demands only one acceptable interpretation of a ubiquitous fundamental mythology — one that is often invoked, or thinly concealed, as justification for attempts at imposing general legislation thought to be consistent with the mythology's worldview. 

Satanists are not offering an unwelcome critique on the beliefs and practices of some maligned other. By and large, we have grown up in a "Judeo-Christian" world, have been subjected to early indoctrination into Abrahamic beliefs, and have developed our sense of affirmative values with reference to the cultural framework we were given. We are not co-opting or "appropriating" the iconography of a distant culture, we are repurposing the cultural raw material imposed on us in our own lives in a way that we now feel best represents our own worldview. To the Satanist, embracing "blasphemous" imagery takes on a religious significance of its own, signifying personal liberation from superstition. The imagery has personal, positive meaning for us, regardless of what it may mean to others. It is beyond misguided to expect that a significant population should indoctrinate their children into a religious belief system, fight for their “right” to similarly indoctrinate others, and seek to impose moral legislation upon the general populace, all while demanding that any expressions of doubt regarding their religion’s moral supremacy — whether expressed satirically, academically, or even insultingly — be treated as hateful oppression.

Many of us recognize that there are Christians for whom Christianity holds a meaning that aligns more closely with the values of The Satanic Temple than with the values of the Christian theocrats with whom we find ourselves at odds. For us, however, the symbols of Christianity are not representative of those values and never will be. 

For us. 

We are happy to accept that the traditional symbols of the sacred within Christianity hold prosocial and noble interpretations for others. Such interpretations simply do not speak to us, given our personal experiences and sense of history.

But this is our holiday, they cry, when the issue is one of holiday displays in a public forum. 

No it isn’t. Again, we are not marauding barbarians from another world. Most of us grew up in environments where Christmas was celebrated. We live in a world where Chirstmastime offers opportunities for time off of work and celebrations of friendship, family, and community. Most of us probably celebrate it without worrying about the “Christ” in Christmas. Just as the Pagan traditions that were repurposed into the celebration of “Christmas” are no longer recognized for their origins by Christians celebrating Christ’s birthday on December 25th, the Christian nature of Christmas is little more than a bit of historical trivia for the Satanist holiday celebrant.

But this is a Christian Nation, they sob during the eleven remaining months in which the complaint is not that we are ruining Christmas. Our values are predicated on Christian precepts. 

No this isn’t, and no they are not. If there is a responsible and productive brand of American patriotism, it is one that venerates constitutional principles such as pluralism over the supremacy of a specific world view. It is one that views the Bill of Rights as guiding values that forbid government encroachment into the territory of personal conscience and persuasion. If our motives (which are for nobody but ourselves to articulate) were, in fact, merely to criticize Christianity, still it would be a far greater evil to allow the government to silence us than to suffer the insult of such criticism in a public forum. 

If there is any sense of obligation to intellectual honesty, it should demand some effort to understand what Satanism means to us before ascribing motives to us based on what Satanism means to non-Satanists who oppose us. Anybody who suggests that we could easily migrate our sense of identity to any arbitrarily selected iconography and mythology must not understand what it means to have any real sense of religious identity at all.

But, to be clear, in explaining what our motives are, I am emphatically not endorsing that notion that it is our lofty ideals respecting the promise of democratic inclusion that renders our equal access in public forums justifiable. We do not owe anybody such justifications. We are not obligated to prove that we are “just like you” in order to have the rights you have. We do not care if you understand or approve of our lifestyles. We do not need to dress a certain way, read the same religious fiction, have the same types of sex, or enjoy the same types of entertainment. 

You may not understand us. You don’t have to. You may not like us. You don’t have to do that, either. This isn’t about you. It was never about you. We are not here to insult you, and it is because of that, not in spite of that, that we are indifferent to your offense. 

If you truly respect Religious Liberty, and you truly respect Free Expression, you will look upon a representation of Satanism in a public forum with pride in our shared, unwavering adherence to those values, regardless of how you feel about Satanism itself.