I'd change Tenent IV to something like "The freedoms of others should be respected" only. The rest of it is debatable and in my opinion against the principle I and in general against civility. Instead of "the right to offend" it could be changed to "the right to disagree"
this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2023
28 points (100.0% liked)
The Satanic Temple
2524 readers
1 users here now
I noticed there wasn't a TST Lemmy community. The Satanic Temple is a modern satanic religion that aims to promote human rights and compassion. Check out their about page on their official website at https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/about-us. Note that this community is not an official affiliation. TST is also separate and not affiliated with the Church of Satan, who have a slightly different viewpoint of what satanism truly is. Dunno what to post in here, but maybe some will search for this and take part. Hello!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That "Freedom to offend" was weird. Is that not a contradiction, a paradox of sorts? Certaintly, I have the freedom to be respected and not being bullied. If someone offends/bullies me, he is violating that freedom, no?
Also, "Struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit". It would be nice to have a definition of "justice". Is killing/torturing someone for a crime they committed seen as justice in the TST?
To be clear, you're not going to get definitive answers from anyone on canonical meanings for the tenets because they're open to interpretation. They were written fairly broadly by design to accommodate various worldviews (and likely to be interesting to discuss).
For me, Tenet IV which talks about the freedom of others to offend is not a paradox. You have every right to remove yourself from the company of those who are offending you, but they in turn have the right to be offensive. Now, that is not to say that people who choose to offend are absolved of the consequences of their actions. In our Satanic social circles for example, if people are offensive, they are removed and are free to go be offensive elsewhere. Therefore, the personal choice to offend as a Satanist is one that must be taken deliberately. I see this tenet as a caution against pushing for restrictive free speech in the public square lest we lose our own free speech which may, through no direct intent of our own, offend people like fundamentalist Christians, for example.
Tenet II which is about the struggle for justice has been kicked around a lot in discussions. The other part of the wording that people ponder is the meaning of "prevail". There are obviously various meanings for both of those words. Justice could be moral justice, social justice, legal justice... I've seen some people question if it even means retributive/vigilante justice and I think that's obviously a bridge too far and incompatible with the rest of the tenets, which are meant to be understood holistically. As far as "prevail" goes, I interpret it to be more of a synonym for "guide" or "inspire" than "supercede".
Thank you for the insightful reply. I think the "freedom to offend" comes down to personal opinion. I am honestly against it. I understand your viewpoint, and I am all for general freedom of speech, as it is an important metric for an improving society. However, imagine a scenario in which removing oneself from the situation is hard. Say a school. Should student A be free to offend student B? It is my view that student B should feel safe in school. He/She should not have to wake up and dread going to school.
We're getting into an area where religious beliefs are less defined for me than my political beliefs lol. I'll gladly share my political beliefs on this topic, but I can offer even less assurance of consensus with fellow Satanists on this.
I personally believe in clearly defined free speech zones and I do not believe school should qualify as one. There have to be rules against harassment, hate speech, and proselytizing in places that people have no choice but to be (and the possibility of home schooling or private schooling does not preclude this right because those are not available to all).
Free speech zones should be limited to the public square (public property, parks, sidewalks, etc). There've been many debates about whether social media sites should become mandated free speech zones and I personally think that is a really bad idea. We need to be able to choose not to be harassed in our personal areas both in real life and online.
Unfortunately, we have to let bigots be able to speak freely both in their personal spaces and in the public square (within reasonable constraints, no credible threats of violence obviously). They have the right to free speech and all we can do is walk away or drown them out in public.
--
Revisiting the whole idea of offense, I think there are really 2 broad categories. There are willfull acts of offense and unintended offense. The first category could be shouting slurs at people, attacking someone's character, engaging in general emotional bullying, etc. The second could include, for example, offending someone by simply existing and living out one's life in public (LGBTQIA+ individuals, BIPOC individuals, atheists, and Satanists are a few examples). The first kind of offensiveness is rarely warranted. The second kind is unavoidable for people who want to live normal lives amongst pearl clutching haters. To the haters, I say suck it up.
Previously, I mentioned the tenets should be understood holistically and Tenet VI is a great example to look at:
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.
I think this ties into the topic of offense at least as far as a Satanist is concerned because it encourages us to try to make amends if we offend someone without justification.
So TL/DR on the topic of offense, I believe the tenets encourage us not to do it without a good reason, but also not to encroach on others' right to offend within reasonable limits.
If you have no freedom to offend; then you have no freedom of speech.
For example, if some one espouses and expresses a truly idiotic political philosophy; and you have no freedom to offend… then you cannot truly express your view on that philosophy.
As an example of how the fourth tenant might work, say that I tell you that your comment offends me. What would you think?
Do you have the right to say what you said?
Should you be forbidden from saying it?
Should I have the expectation that you take down your comment?
You probably answered "yes", "no", "no" because you don't see your comment as offensive. You may even find my assertion that your comment is offensive to, itself, be offensive. What do we do the?
Without the right to offend we get into a lot of unending arguments where each person asserts offense and both may actually be right!
What happens when there are no consequences to someone who is offending you, and you can't remove yourself from the situation?
So I'm by no means an expert in the nuances of modern liberal Satanism, but I'll do my best to give my own viewpoint.
That “Freedom to offend” was weird. Is that not a contradiction, a paradox of sorts? Certaintly, I have the freedom to be respected and not being bullied. If someone offends/bullies me, he is violating that freedom, no?
First and foremost, TST promotes respect between individuals, as it's the first tenet. But sometimes you are going to do something that inadvertently offends someone else. Like if you are a woman out and about in a heavily fundamentalist Muslim country. Showing too much leg skin would be offensive to many (and quite frankly unwise due to safety concerns, but that's besides the point). But she is simply exercising her own freedom of expression which is not actually harming anyone.
I will say I do agree that it is a bit of an odd tenet, but I see why it's on there. Satanism may offend many religious individuals, but we are just out here trying to live our lives the best we can.
Forgive me, as I'm not the best with words.
Also, “Struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit”. It would be nice to have a definition of “justice”. Is killing/torturing someone for a crime they committed seen as justice in the TST?
The nice thing about the tenets is that there is room for nuance. TST was never designed to be a rigid set of unwavering core beliefs without any room for discussion. I would say your question would be more of a personal one in nature, and not a question for TST themselves. However, I would say that most of TST members do not seem to support capital punishment.
The reason that tenet exists in the first place is that TST was borne out of an attempt to fight against religious oppression, which is a very real issue. It doesn't necessarily mean that we advocate for mowing down people with AK-47s, just that we believe in fighting for human rights.