Stylish display of tenets (horizontal) from @darkartrandy on Twitter
You must log in or register to comment.
I think so many will interpret ‘the right to offend’ as the right to say what they want without consequence. I also think the overuse of the pronoun ‘one’ is a silly attempt to make these tenets sound ‘nobler’ than they are.
I think these are very reasonable concerns.
“One” is instantly formal in an unapproachable way. But at the same time, also the right tone to take when the need is a legalistic juxtaposition to, e.g. the “10 commandments.” Although, I think most folks tend to think of those in the legalistic KJV “thou shalt not” style too. Perhaps we need an “NIV” style translation of the tenets for the contemporary reader.
The “right to offend” seems to me to be very intentional. The Satanic Temple stands in direct opposition to mainstream religion (Christianity). If mainstream (Christian) voices are “free” to offend and be offended by other expressions of religion, it seems to stand to reason that it is important to redouble the freedom of expressing oppositional opinion.
Outsider question, just curious:
Have these ever been updated?
In my opinion, they have a lot of room for improvement. Not that I completely disagree with any, but for something that evokes a flair of universality, they seem awfully specific or even dated in some places and missing some crucial details in others.
No, they haven’t. What do you suggest changing?
Oof, that would be quite a long list. Basically everything could be improved or at least clarified, but I would have to ask something first:
What is the intended target audience for the tenets? Members? The general public? Converts? Specifically christian sect (Mormons, LDS, etc) exiteers from north america? Refugees from non-christian religions?
Hell yeah. Hail Satanism! 🤘
I generally really like the tenants, but tenant 4 seems to violate the paradox of tolerance. I feel like it should be not include those who wish to use their freedoms (of offence and otherwise) to abuse and limit the freedoms of others. Otherwise, we won’t really have freedom at all.
I think you are misunderstanding the fourth tenant. It means that you are free to cause offense to others so long as that offense doesn’t infringe on anyone else’s freedoms. As soon as you infringe on someone else’s freedoms, you have given up your claim to your freedoms and should expect reprisal in some form.
The paradox of tolerance has best been explained to me not as a paradox, but as a social contract. In the contract, all parties respect eachother as they are, but when intolerance enters and the contract is broken, you are no longer bound by the contract, therefore you are now allowed to be intolerant back. Im a conditional pacifist, in the event of me being attacked i will defend myself to the best of my abilities and to whatever force is justified.
