The concept of Satanism and Devil worship first appeared in the English and French languages during the 16th century as an invention from Jewish, Christian and Muslim sources. By the 18th century it began to inspire various occult sects and fraternities, often weaving in elements of Gnosticism being more theistic in quality in a belief and actual worship of the Devil as the "God" of this world to being simply the dark side or shadow side of God according to some examples of these various beliefs. All the same it predominates source of invention was Catholic and Christians sects used as a tool of manipulation, fear and fanatical extremist religious leaders of the worst possible kinds.
However, it wasn't until the 1960s that an official Satanic church was formed by Anton LaVey, with the establishment of the Church of Satan. Plagiarizing these concepts and even the "Chruch of Satan" that claims to be atheistic and using the imagery of such things as purely "artistic" and the Devil as more of a mascot rather than an actual evil entity is usually called non-theistic Satanism though a lot in the writings of that church indicated otherwise. Then another spin off plagiarizing off of this called The Satanic Temple.
This latest incarnation is riddled with even great amounts of hypocrisy, deception, money laundering, and has deep running ties with various racist and Marxist movements known for engaging in terrorism. It also claims to be non-theistic, however, the actions of this so called "parody" also engages in actions and behaviors that demonstrate and exhibit the same superficial comprehensions of the various philosophies they suck in from the previously mentioned more theistic sources, and use religion as a means to combat religion, claiming to engage in such actions to fight for religious equality and freedom when in fact its seeking to invalidate it.
Not only is it riddled with plagiarism that scams to ignorant like so many others and its own wide-ranging acts of hypocrisy, has been a growing, but it also has a history (or at least the two leaders at the top of the organization since its creation in 2013), engage in several actions of fraud and misrepresentation.
Among these include behaving like Scientologists sewing anyone that "dares" call them out which itself is a violation of freedom of speech which they claim to advocate, and freedom of expression, which they claim to advocate, and in turn critique every other religion that they choose to target and demand the right to do so but then engage in the same hypocrisy they claim to reject. It's truly a movement for the stupid, gullible and narcissistic, combined with its own ties to openly racist organizations of which some of its leaders are well known for. Let's explore some of its hypocrisy, behaviors and blatant lies.
The Symbols
Since 2009 I had been using the image of a stag skull and torch as a personal symbol. Others have hijacked it much later completely unaware of the significance. The lit torch represented the light of guidance, the inverted star the incarnation of life, the stag skull with its Paleolithic connections to ancient headdresses that had its Stag symbolism carried on in later Celtic cultures lore, and the symbol that looks like a question mark actually being a hand sickle for "reaping rewards" of life. It was not the same as the Goat Head symbol adopted by Anton LeVey who more or took it from "La Clef De Magie Noire (1897) and absorbed the usage of the Baphomet image from self-named Eliphas Levi Zahed who created the Baphomet image in 1854 for his book called Dogme et Rituel de la Haute Magie.
It actually was based on the concept of the Gnostic Evil Demi-urge as the lesser or secondary ignorant deity of this world which as such is, contrary to what many choose to ignore, considered to be the "Devil" that in a corrupt and fallen state is a hermaphrodite while the concept of the "divine state" would be androgynous, as least as far as these occult ideas are. This is because the Androgyne with no clear "visible sexual organs" was considered an expression of holiness while the pronounced sexual organs were associated with carnality and mixed in a single being in such a way as corruptions of nature. All the Satanic temple did was basically remake the logo to look more like a rotting goat head. I cover some of the connections here. I also address the actual factors of atheism and theism here without all the extra usual misleading bullshit these and other groups tend to bounce around.
While he also used some symbols drawn from Greek mythology, the common Devil cards in various oracle card games later to be called Tarot, he clearly drew from various representations of such a conceptualized representation of corruption and perversion and sin as in this example of the "Devil Card" from the "Game of Little Oracle" (1795–1799). As such, one will often find it is claimed that the oldest known conceptual imagery of the oldest known representation of the devil as a hermaphrodite is found in drawings of upright and inverted pentagrams from La Clef de la magie noire from 1879 by the French occultist Stanislas de Guaita, we can see this is false as we have the one from the earlier example of Eliphas Levi Zahed 1854, this example dated to between 1795–1799, and some tat still remain from the Tarot of Marseilles The Devil Switzerland 1751 by Claude, though it has in that case deer horns which is a rarity and upturned hat brim to give the appearance of ears, and others still that do not seem to go back much further than the 1600s aside from sculptures on cathedrals. Prior to all this later conceptualization, the previous ideas were the Devil and the demons (originally called devils till after the 1500s) were disembodied beings without forms as a cursed state and more nebulous in quality and used as an explanation for their desires to possess "human victims" and "foolishly willing hosts." In turn so called Angelic "good beings" were not always presented as androgynous but clearly having male or female gender before all these later odd twists had been imposed, and were not disembodied, but had what was called divine glorified bodies, without flaws or blemishes (a state promised to devout believers in a future life or resurrection state).
Rather than be a force for properly educating people on these matters as a way to fight paranoia often used as a hook for scared and misinformed individuals, these various "Satanic" assholes have played off of the same fears engaging in the same kinds of manipulation, while encouraging others to join in their idiocy and perpetuate the very things they claim to be countering. For example, as shown here, the never mention, or almost never mention that the inverted included coins and sculptures with the five letters in Hebrew and earlier proto-Hebrew spelled out to mean Jerusalem, which itself may have been inspired by the Pythagorean ones mentioned with the Greek letters that spell out Health in ancient Greek and shown. Of course, I have my own opinions about Pythagoreanism and some of the deceitful later claimed features of it that were in fact later claims and mostly from outsiders of that sect/religion/philosophy.
The fact is, before the occultists started pushing these narratives, while it is true that the upright star represented divinity, spirit and holiness reached "after death of course), the inverted wasn't actually "bad or evil." It simply represented the mundane, the body, and the basic physical five senses. In a sense as shown here, the inverted represented birth and incarnation, and the upright represented death and ascension. We find similar concepts present in various expressions of ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian artwork. How old is it? No one knows, but one example of it used as a symbol date back to about 3500 BCE at Ur of Chaldees. However, one has been found dating back to 120,000 years ago on bone fragments in the Ramle region in what came to later be called Israel thousands of years later. On either side, I show the positions of such Egyptian pentagrams one often finds in different tombs expressing similar concepts. The five-pointed Egyptian Star 𓇼 is a hieroglyph sometimes wrapped in a circle, it was often used in words related to the night sky, divinity, or the afterlife, such as in the word "Duat," which referred to the realm of the dead which only further proves my point. You can also read up more on this this section called Pentacles.
Going back to The Satanic Temple, its leaders claim people are free to criticize them, however, the reality is much different. For one, they demand people are not to use their various social networks to employ that criticism and yet they readily and constantly do just that with "targeted" religious groups and organizations. To present themselves in a false positive light, they intentionally trolled State officials by challenging the forced placement of the 10 commandments on State property as a trespass on the separation of Church and State. So, they commissioned a Baphomet like figure to be used and demanded it also be added out of "religious freedom and equality." It was a reasonable act of trolling but then it started going too far.
But then they sued others for using such a thing claiming it was plagiarism, especially with a similar, identical figure being used in a rather dumb and more "satanic warlocks and witches' bit" related to a teen witch named Sabrina. You can look it up yourself. The fact is, as previously shown, had the production company not caved, they could have done the same tactics right back and presented the factor with all the variations of the Baphomet, their claims of infringement was bogus. But whatever. TST mismanages funds, harasses dissenters, tolerates anti-Semitism and abusive leadership, and is a personality cult-like group masquerading as a religion. In addition, it was awarded 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, however, it has also engaged in political actions and that is not allowed.
Organizations with 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status are prohibited from engaging in political campaign activities. This means they cannot directly or indirectly support or oppose any candidate for public office. Violating this rule could result in the loss of their tax-exempt status and potential penalties. However, non-partisan activities are allowed. For example:
Conducting voter education or registration drives, as long as they are neutral and do not favor any candidate or party.
Hosting public forums or debates, provided all candidates are given equal opportunities to participate.
Taking positions on public policy issues, as long as these activities are not tied to supporting or opposing specific candidates.
As such their status should have been revoked because they blur the line between religious expression and political activism, which is in conflict with 501(c)(3) restrictions on political campaigning. Lucien Greaves, co-founder of The Satanic Temple, is well known for his racism including his involvement in a podcast promoting a reprint of the controversial book Might is Right. During the podcast, Greaves reportedly made derogatory statements toward Jewish people. The Satanic Temple's 501(c)(3) status if these actions are interpreted as violating the organization's obligations to operate in a manner consistent with public benefit and non-discrimination. Here’s how:
Public Benefit Requirement: As a 501(c)(3) organization, The Satanic Temple must demonstrate that its activities serve a public benefit. Allegations of antisemitism or other discriminatory behavior could undermine this requirement, as such actions may be seen as contrary to the principles of inclusivity and equality that are typically expected of tax-exempt organizations.
Non-Discrimination Policies: Tax-exempt organizations are expected to adhere to non-discrimination policies. If leadership or members are found to engage in discriminatory practices, such as antisemitic remarks, it could be viewed as a violation of these principles, potentially jeopardizing their status.
Reputational Harm: While not a direct legal issue, controversies surrounding leadership can harm the organization's reputation, leading to increased scrutiny from the IRS or other regulatory bodies. This should result in investigations into whether the organization is fulfilling its stated mission and adhering to 501(c)(3) guidelines.
Use of Funds: If funds are used to support or defend actions or statements that are discriminatory or otherwise inconsistent with the organization's mission, it could raise questions about financial mismanagement or misuse of tax-exempt resources.
So, we know factually The Satanic Temple in this regard should have its status revoked:
Lucien Greaves' and other leaders within the organization known for and documented for past and current documented antisemitic remarks, particularly during a podcast promoting the reprint of Might is Right, represent a clear violation of the requirements for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status.
The IRS mandates that 501(c)(3) organizations adhere to principles of inclusivity and equality, ensuring their activities serve the broader community without alienating or harming specific groups. Antisemitic behavior directly undermines these principles, jeopardizing the organization's tax-exempt status. Furthermore, such actions are contrary to The Satanic Temple's own tenets, which emphasize compassion, justice, and respect for individual freedoms.
By tolerating or failing to address discriminatory behavior within its leadership, The Satanic Temple is and continues to be violating both its stated mission and the legal requirements of its tax-exempt designation. This creates a significant ethical and legal conflict.
To further try and push themselves in a "positive light to combat abuse of children" yet have themselves engaged in such things, including the leadership with a history of racial slurs and affiliations have also engaged in abuses of its members, including sexual abuses. With the Satanic Temple, it can be difficult to tell when something is intended to be serious action within the organization, or when it is meant to be a commentary on organized religion in general and Christianity in particular. But again, there is that "target specific" bit which not only demonstrates its excessiveness, but it's also violating its whole claim about religious freedom. It's also been engaged in clear acts of money laundering and has often sought to silence its critics and former members, including the use of threats and various forms of intimidation not unlike Scientology.
Lets look at this even further
The Satanic Temple's Seven Tenets emphasize values such as compassion, justice, and respect for individual freedoms. Specifically, the tenets state that one should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures, and that the freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. However, their actions and public activities have been criticized for contradicting these principles, particularly when targeting other religious groups.
Violations of Compassion and Empathy
The first tenet calls for compassion and empathy, yet The Satanic Temple has been accused of engaging in smear campaigns and inflammatory rhetoric against other religions. For example:
Public stunts, such as erecting a Baphomet statue to challenge Christian monuments, while framed as advocacy for religious equality, have been perceived as antagonistic rather than empathetic.
Leaders and members have made derogatory statements about specific religious groups, which undermines the tenet's call for compassion and understanding.
Contradictions in Justice
The second tenet emphasizes the pursuit of justice, yet actions targeting specific religious identities can appear unjust and excessive:
By singling out certain religions for criticism or parody, The Satanic Temple risks creating an environment of hostility rather than fostering equitable dialogue.
Allegations of antisemitism within the leadership further conflict with the principle of justice, as such behavior marginalizes and discriminates against a specific group.
Disrespect for Individual Freedoms
The fourth tenet stresses respecting the freedoms of others, yet The Satanic Temple has been accused of hypocrisy in this regard:
While advocating for their own freedom of expression, they have reportedly sought to silence critics through lawsuits and intimidation tactics, which contradicts their stated commitment to respecting differing viewpoints.
Their targeted criticism of other religions, while claiming to fight for equality, can be seen as encroaching on the freedoms of those practicing those faiths.
Broader Implications
These contradictions not only undermine the ethical foundation of The Satanic Temple but also raise questions about their adherence to their own guiding principles. By engaging in actions that appear to target and antagonize other religious groups, they risk alienating potential allies and diminishing the credibility of their advocacy for religious freedom and equality.
Claiming Abortion is a Protected Religious Rite
Lie it or not, this is directly advocating the defining of abortion as a protected religious rite which it isn't, is more or less proclaiming it to also be considered a form of human sacrifice by engaging in willful infanticide. This not only shows the more mentally unstable and abusive nature of The Satanic Temple, but it also contradicts its claims of respecting the sanctity of life. Let's be blunt here. That is not funny. It's really fucked up.
The first tenet calls for acting with compassion and empathy toward all creatures. Critics contend that presenting abortion as a ritual undermines this principle, as it disregards the emotional and ethical complexities surrounding the act.
The second tenet emphasizes the pursuit of justice, yet the ritualization of abortion has been criticized for potentially trivializing the gravity of the act and disregards the potential trauma women may develop later out of a sense of guilt for ending a life.
The fourth tenet stresses respecting the freedoms of others, yet the ritualization of abortion has imposed a specific ideological framework on a deeply personal and divisive issue. This alienates individuals who hold differing beliefs about abortion, including those in the medical profession, thereby undermining the principle of respecting diverse perspectives.
By framing abortion as a religious rite, The Satanic Temple risks alienating members and critics alike, as this practice may be perceived as inconsistent with the organization's stated commitment to compassion, justice, and respect for individual freedoms. Additionally, such actions could provoke legal and societal challenges, further complicating the organization's ability to uphold its tenets.
Human sacrifice is unequivocally not protected as a religious freedom under U.S. law. The First Amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion, but this right is not absolute. Practices that violate public safety, morality, or established laws—such as human sacrifice—are not protected. Courts have consistently ruled that religious practices cannot infringe upon the rights or safety of others, ensuring that such acts remain illegal regardless of their claimed religious significance.
Let's review some videos in regard to this organization and this hypocrisy.
Other examples of Hypocrisies of TST
Lucien Greaves has close ties with David Silverman, a former president of American Atheists Society, was kicked out for sexual misconduct. Greaves defended Silverman on X in 2018, arguing the accusations were unproven and his dismissal hasty.
Lucien Greaves was recorded promoting eugenics during a 24-hour radio livestream and expressed support for selective breeding and made derogatory remarks about individuals with low IQs, historically linked to white supremacy and totalitarian ideologies, specifically National Socialist (NAZI) movements. Greaves praised “Might Is Right,” an 1896 text advocating social Darwinism and racial hierarchy, and mused about breeding out “undesirables” with low intelligence, calling it a rational fix for societal ills.
These racist commentaries also tie in with his advocacy of antisemitic ideologies and remarks specifically about Jews in general (which is a bit laughable because Judaism isn't an ethnicity as some racist Jews like to claim, but a religion).
The Satanic Temple, under Greaves' leadership, has been involved in actions such as desecrating the Eucharist, a sacred Catholic sacrament playing off the Medieval claims of such actions as devil worship which are contrary to the principles of religious pluralism.
Greaves led a ritual known as the "Pink Mass" at the grave of Catherine Johnston, the mother of Westboro Baptist Church founder Fred Phelps Jr. involved same-sex couples kissing over the grave and declaring Johnston a lesbian in the afterlife. This certainly does not promote tolerance for same sex people and unacceptable disrespect for the dead. Its juvenile execution undermined any pro-LGBTQ message, clashing with TST’s claimed tolerance. It’s less bigotry than crass insensitivity, but it fuels the extremism charge.
Greaves himself, to make matters even worse, was photographed engaging in inappropriate acts at the gravesite. Greaves was rubbing his genitals on the headstone. This act was widely condemned as a desecration of a cemetery as it indeed was and resulted in misdemeanor charges, though it should also be considered abuse of the dead. Charges were later dropped after paying a fine.
Greaves collaborated with Shane Bugbee, a controversial figure known for promoting extremist views, including racism and misogyny, undermining the organization's claims of inclusivity and equality.
Augustus Sol Invictus (Austin Gillespie): Invictus briefly aligned with TST in 2017 during a free speech rally in Boston, where TST opposed a far-right event. A former Libertarian Senate candidate from Florida, he’s infamous for extremist views—publicly advocating eugenics, praising Adolf Hitler in a 2015 speech, and admitting to sacrificing a goat in a ritual he called “pagan,” not Satanic. Later Greaves claimed TST does not support such views, though he clearly does.
Greg Stevens was an early collaborator with Lucien Greaves in TST’s formative years, notably co-hosting the 2012 “Satanic Strategies” podcast with Greaves and Shane Bugbee. This predates TST’s official founding but aligns with its ideological origins. Stevens, a writer and provocateur, has a history of inflammatory online behavior.
Now, one criticism that I find to be reasonably stupid as a complaint is when Greaves hired Marc Randazza, a lawyer known for representing alt-right clients, including neo-Nazi publishers and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. The reason is everyone has a right to legal representation regardless of who they are or affiliated with.
Associating Alex Jones as synonymous with neo-Nazis (most of whom also support democrats no less (just saying) or so-called alt-right as bad and alt left as good is socio-political driven bullshit. My concerns are with valid issues as previously noted.
Staging rituals that mock or desecrate religious artifacts, including Christian symbols are contrary to the principles of religious tolerance. If they stated honestly, they are not tolerant as part of their tenets then we would have some much-needed honesty, but clearly money, not honesty is the goal, and TST uses ignorant people identifying with the organizations that call themselves LEGTQ whatever Communities, (which are not communities but money grabbing organizations also claiming to demand tolerance while pushing intolerance) is also a clear ethics violation.
Web and Lawsuit Data: The 2020 Washington lawsuit (United Federation of Churches, LLC v. Johnson et al.) names Leah Fishbaugh and Nathan Sullivan alongside Johnson and Meeham. Fishbaugh and Sullivan helped seize TST’s social media, alleging leadership tolerated bigotry (e.g., Randazza’s hiring). Their dissent doesn’t mark them as extremists—rather, they opposed perceived extremism. No new names with bigoted views surface.
Historical Collaborators: Amy Bugbee, Shane’s ex-wife, co-hosted the 2012 livestream, laughing at racist jabs and praising white nationalist Tom Metzger. She contributed to TST’s 2013 Florida stunt but split with Greaves alongside Shane. Her role ties her to TST’s origins, and her relish for Metzger’s “humor” (e.g., lynching anecdotes) fits bigotry.
Let's also cite and analyze properly the usual rhetoric of TST and its supporters. It generally goes like this:
We organize as a religion by the legal standards necessary to qualify for legal protections of a religion, but we are secular by nature and do not practice actual spirituality. It is a religion designed to protect the rights of people who choose to abstain from more traditional religion for whatever reason.
Freedom of religion has been interpreted in the past by spiteful individuals as requiring a religion to have freedom thereof... I.E. if you have a religion, you have religious freedom rights, and if you don't have a religion, you have zero religious freedom rights. You must have a religion, or you are less than equal and do not have rights, some have argued.
TST tries to counter this by organizing a formal practicing religion that passes the legal test and elevate their members to the standard of being equal to other citizens (it hurts my brain to have to explain how citizens need to work and present evidence to achieve the status of equal rights in a country whose founding principle is that every human who has ever existed was born with those rights).
Claim 1: “Freedom of religion has been interpreted in the past by spiteful individuals as requiring a religion to have freedom ...
Contradiction: The phrasing suggests a historical interpretation where only religious adherents have rights, implying non-religious individuals lack protections. This contradicts the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Legal precedent, like Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993), affirms that religious freedom includes protection for both belief and non-belief—non-religious individuals aren’t stripped of rights. The contradiction lies in exaggerating a fringe view as a widespread past norm, unsupported by constitutional history.
Fallacy: Strawman. The statement attributes an extreme position to unnamed “spiteful individuals” without evidence of this being a dominant legal or cultural stance. No major U.S. case (e.g., Reynolds v. United States, 1878, or Employment Division v. Smith, 1990) denies rights to the non-religious; instead, they balance religious exercise against state interests. This oversimplifies and misrepresents historical interpretations.
Correction: Freedom of religion, as enshrined in the First Amendment and clarified in cases like Torcaso v. Watkins (1961)—which struck down a Maryland law requiring religious oaths for public office—extends to atheists and agnostics. The Supreme Court ruled that neither states nor the federal government can favor religion over non-religion, ensuring equal protection.
Claim 2: “You must have a religion, or you are less than equal and do not have rights, some have argued.”
Contradiction: This implies a legal hierarchy where religious identity is a prerequisite for equality, clashing with the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, which guarantees rights regardless of religious status. Historical arguments (e.g., 19th-century Christian moralism) may have favored religious citizens culturally, but legally, rights weren’t contingent on faith. The statement’s vagueness (“some have argued”) avoids citing who or when, undermining its weight against documented law.
Fallacy: Hasty Generalization. It leaps from “some have argued” to an assumed systemic truth without evidence. No U.S. statute or binding precedent supports this—e.g., West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) protected Jehovah’s Witnesses’ refusal to salute the flag, but also implicitly safeguarded non-religious conscience. The claim overstates a minority view as a legal standard.
Correction: Equality under the law doesn’t hinge on religion. The American Humanist Association notes that Reed v. Reed (1971) and subsequent cases reinforce equal protection irrespective of belief, countering any notion that non-religious citizens lack rights.
Claim 3: “TST tries to counter this by organizing a formal practicing religion that passes the legal test and elevate their members to the standard of being equal to other citizens.”
Contradiction: TST’s strategy assumes its members need to “elevate” to equality, implying they’re unequal without religious status—yet the statement later rejects this premise as absurd. If TST believes all citizens already have equal rights (as the parenthetical suggests), forming a religion to claim them is redundant. TST’s actual legal battles—like Satanic Temple v. Scottsdale (2018)—focus on equal access (e.g., invocations) for recognized groups, not granting rights to the non-religious.
Fallacy: False Cause. It assumes TST’s formation as a religion directly counters a lack of rights for the non-religious, but TST’s mission (per its website, March 29, 2025) emphasizes challenging religious privilege (e.g., Christian monuments) via parody, not securing baseline equality. The causal link is shaky—legal equality predates TST’s 2013 founding.
Correction: TST doesn’t elevate members to equality but leverages religious status for parity in public forums. The IRS recognized TST as a church in 2019, granting tax-exempt status, but this amplifies their activism (e.g., Baphomet statues), not their members’ inherent rights, which exist under the First and 14th Amendments regardless.
Claim 4 (Parenthetical): “It hurts my brain to have to explain how citizens need to work and present evidence...
Contradiction: The frustration hinges on a clash between the Declaration of Independence’s “all men are created equal” with “unalienable rights” and the idea that citizens must “work” for them. Yet, the Declaration isn’t law—the Constitution is—and rights like free exercise required judicial clarification (e.g., Cantwell v. Connecticut, 1940). The statement romanticizes a founding principle while ignoring practical legal evolution, contradicting its own premise that rights are innate yet contested.
Fallacy: Appeal to Emotion. “It hurts my brain” sidesteps argument for sympathy, weakening the critique. It also commits False Dichotomy, pitting an idealized “born with rights” against a strawman of earned rights, when U.S. history (e.g., slavery, suffrage) shows rights often need enforcement, not just recognition.
Correction: The Declaration’s rhetoric inspired the Constitution, but rights aren’t self-executing—cases like Brown v. Board of Education (1954) show equality requires legal battles. TST’s efforts align with this, not against it, by testing religious freedom’s scope, as Greaves argued in a 2019 New York Times interview: “We’re exposing the double standard.”
The statement’s core contradiction is its oscillation between decrying an alleged religious prerequisite for rights (unsupported by law) and critiquing TST’s response as unnecessary yet mischaracterizing it. It fallaciously inflates a fringe view into a systemic flaw, then faults TST for a solution it doesn’t fully pursue—members’ equality isn’t their goal, but equal treatment of their “religion” is. Historically, U.S. law protects non-religious rights (e.g., Wallace v. Jaffree, 1985, striking down school prayer), debunking the premise that equally fails to come to a logical and reasonable conclusion. Such simply cannot see, much less comprehend the logical traps they have set for themselves.
Satanism broadly splits into two camps: theistic (worshipping Satan as a deity) and nontheistic (using Satan as a symbol). TST, founded in 2013, is nontheistic, promoting secularism and empathy via Seven Tenets. The CoS, founded by Anton LaVey in 1966, is also nontheistic, emphasizing individualism and hedonism via Nine Satanic Statements. Theistic groups, like the Order of Nine Angles (ONA), are rarer and more fringe, treating Satan as a literal entity. Here’s why pursuing any form can be deemed nonsensical and foolish:
Lack of Empirical Foundation (Theistic Satanism)
Reason: Theistic Satanism posits Satan as a real, supernatural being worthy of worship, yet offers no verifiable evidence for his existence beyond Judeo-Christian texts it claims to reject. ONA, for instance, blends Satan with occult rituals and extremist ideologies (e.g., culling), but its cosmology relies on unprovable metaphysics—e.g., “acausal realms”—lacking scientific or historical backing.
Why Foolish: Devoting time, resources, or acts (e.g., ONA’s alleged human sacrifice advocacy) to an entity with no demonstrable reality is irrational. If Satan’s existence hinges on scripture, why worship the loser of that narrative? It’s a gamble on faith without payoff, contradicting reason—a hallmark of foolishness.
Self-Defeating Symbolism (Nontheistic Satanism)
Reason: TST and CoS use Satan as a symbol of rebellion or individualism but leans on a figure defined by Christian mythology—a system they oppose. TST’s Seven Tenets (e.g., “compassion and empathy”) clash with Satan’s cultural baggage as a malevolent tyrant, while CoS’s “indulgence over abstinence” mimics secular hedonism without needing a demonic mascot. The symbol’s power derives from the very tradition they critique, making it parasitic and incoherent.
Why Nonsensical: If the goal is secular ethics (TST) or self-empowerment (CoS), why tether it to a loaded, borrowed icon? Satan adds no unique value—humanism or libertarianism suffice—rendering the framework an unnecessary costume. It’s a performative contradiction, diluting its own message.
Provocation Over Substance (TST Specifically)
Reason: TST’s activism—like Baphomet statues or the 2013 Pink Mass—aims to expose religious privilege but often prioritizes shock over constructive dialogue. Lucien Greaves’ gravesite stunt (rubbing genitals on a tombstone) drew charges and alienated allies, undermining TST’s claimed empathy. Legal wins (e.g., IRS church status, 2019) prove a point, but the antics invite dismissal as juvenile trolling, not serious philosophy.
Why Foolish: Pursuing a “religion” that thrives on outrage risks trivializing its own tenets. If TST seeks equality, as in Satanic Temple v. Scottsdale (2018), why muddy it with stunts that fuel caricature over credibility? It’s a strategic misstep, squandering potential for real impact.
Ethical Inconsistency (CoS Specifically)
Reason: CoS’s Nine Statements (e.g., “Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek”) and Eleven Rules (e.g., “destroy” those who annoy you) glorify egoism and retaliation, yet LaVey preached law-abiding behavior to avoid jail. This tension—promoting aggression while dodging consequences—reveals a hollow bravado. X posts from CoS affiliates (e.g., 2023 debates) often defend it as “natural,” but nature also favors cooperation, not just dominance.
Why Nonsensical: A philosophy urging followers to “strike back” but stay legal is a toothless pose—either commit to the ethos or admit it’s theater. It’s incoherent to lionize Satan’s defiance while bowing to mundane rules, making pursuit a half-hearted charade.
Cultural Irrelevance and Alienation
Reason: Satanism’s appeal hinges on opposing a dominant Christian culture, but in an increasingly secular world (e.g., 29% of U.S. adults unaffiliated per Pew, 2021), its edge dulls. TST’s abortion clinics or CoS’s rituals feel like relics of a theocracy that’s fading—e.g., U.S. church attendance dropped to 27% in 2023 (Gallup). Satanism thrives on resistance, but with less to resist, it’s a solution without a problem.
Why Foolish: Clinging to a countercultural identity loses meaning when the culture shifts. Pursuers risk isolating themselves from broader humanist or secular movements that achieve similar goals (e.g., ACLU’s religious liberty wins) without the divisive branding, rendering Satanism a dated gimmick.
Historical Baggage and Misalignment
Reason: Satan’s literary roots—Dante’s whimpering devil, Milton’s tragic rebel—don’t match Satanism’s aspirations. Theistic forms worship a defeated figure; nontheistic ones cherry-pick a “noble” Satan that history never consistently offers. Greaves’ eugenics flirtations (2012 livestream) or LaVey’s Ayn Rand plagiarism (e.g., Satanic Bible echoes Atlas Shrugged) show Satanism borrowing incoherently from other ideologies, not forging a distinct path.
Why Nonsensical: Building a worldview on a mishmash of fiction and poached ideas lacks originality. Why pursue a “religion” that’s a pastiche of better-defined systems (objectivism, atheism) with a mascot that muddies the waters? It’s intellectual laziness masquerading as depth.
Practical Futility
Reason: Satanism yields no tangible benefit over secular alternatives. TST’s legal battles mirror humanist lawsuits (e.g., FFRF’s Ten Commandments challenges); CoS’s rituals offer no measurable gain beyond placebo—e.g., no studies show Satanic magic outperforms therapy or meditation. Theistic groups like ONA face criminal scrutiny (e.g., UK bans, 2020), risking jail for no provable reward.
Why Foolish: Investing in a system that delivers nothing unique—socially, psychologically, or spiritually—is a waste. Pursuers could achieve TST’s equality, CoS’s self-actualization, or ONA’s transcendence elsewhere without the stigma or legal baggage, making Satanism a pointless detour.
IN CONCLUSION:
Any form of Satanism—whether theistic reverence or not for an unproven entity, TST’s theatrical secularism, or CoS’s posturing individualism—falters under scrutiny.
It’s nonsensical for its lack of coherence, reliance on a borrowed symbol, and failure to stand apart from existing frameworks.
It’s foolish for squandering effort on provocation or fantasy when direct, effective alternatives exist, and do not rely on playing the boogie man of another religious identity.
Pursuing it buys into a brand that promises rebellion or meaning but delivers redundancy, contradiction, or empty spectacle—reasons enough to dismiss it as a serious endeavor.
If nothing else, you fuel their infantile activities by being their free marketing posting and publishing all their idiotic antics driven by their own extremist paranoid anti-religious idiocy as paranoid religious idiots. Without your "oh no, their doing bad and evil things mocking my religion" bit, and your lack of reaction or concern of their stupid cosplay, they have nothing and the majority of them will abandon that shit because it no longer gets the intended attention and rise out of you. Its only when they get into actual abusive behavior, especially acts of vandalism then you got something to see them busted for. Otherwise, it's just showboating that gets boring fast.