The 7 Tenets of the Satanic Temple

Here's a chart showing the diff between the Satanic Temple & the Church of Satan.

https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/church-of-satan-vs-satanic-temple

their packaging is such a conundrum. It gets them attention they would not get if they called themselves anything other than the Satanic Temple. And it makes their points very poignantly: satanism is repugnant to the people they are fighting against, and that forces those people to understand the Satanic Temple's point that it is dangerous to insist that religion be allowed to control the public forum.

But that same packaging also turns off a lot of people who would happily support what they are doing if they were packaged as, say, Pastafarians.

But, good for them and I support the things they are doing to try to maintain the separation of church and state.

turn a lot of people off. The Christians did not ingratiate themselves with the Romans.
While I would not join myself, I love the fact that all those who call for religious freedom, while really meaning Christian dominance must allow for the inclusion of the Satanist or be seen as total hypocrites.

political rather than religious. I don't think most members actually think of themselves as spiritual satanists, or even believe in satanism.

And they are doing a great job of making their really important political point by pointing out the Christian hypocrisy, just as you describe.

But do you think their message would be more or less supported if they called themselves something perhaps ridiculous, like the Pastafarian "religion", rather than something as culturally and emotionally charged as satanism?

Certainly, using the emotionally charged "satanism" makes them more noticed, and that is crucial, but do you think they would be able to garner more support with a less contentious packaging? I honestly don't know if it would work better, but I do wonder.

like another pastafarians.
They do do claim to believe in the biblical satan, but follow the Miltonian Satan. It's a strange line to tread, but as they say, respect the rights of other's beliefs.

I don't know enough to speak knowledgeably on this, but I am sure they have plenty online if you wish to pursue it.

find that kind of humor insulting. The Satan thing, though, it's repelling but also compelling. Because most of them believe in Satan they wonder why would anyone identify as a Satanist? They might actually click & check it out from a revulsion factor, like looking at a car accident. Also, I'm not sure the Pastafarians could get away with claiming that if Christians can put up a manger scene in the public sphere, then they should be able to put a plate of meatballs, whereas I believe the Temple has already successfully challenged & won the right to display their own statue.

and those are precisely the people who need to see that religious freedom doesn't just mean Christian religious freedom.

As for the insulting humor, though, I find the Satanic Temple coloring books and the Baphomet statues to be very tongue-in-cheek. They're really pretty funny, and I think they're meant to be.

In the end, thought, these guys are doing something important, and they're getting the message out, and as you point out, the message is going directly to the people who most need to see it.

& the Temple threw in their support, too. The reporter asked the rep from the atheist group what he thought of that & he said they were happy to have more support. The reporter asked, "But doesn't it bother you to be associated with Satan?" And the atheist guy said, "Not at all. We don't believe in him either."

A few years ago in Denver we saw the vanity plate: OH MY FSM

or know a bit about their history... from the 1960's onward (as I remember)... there was a rift brewing back then among the congregants. LaVey was very authoritarian, very ceremonial, very Darwinian in his view of society. His view would not be favorable among most of us here, and among many in his Church of Satan who joined for the rebellion factor as well as other factors, it didn't sist well, either.

Eventually, they schismed into the Satanic Temple. The Satanic Temple's views and beliefs very closely align with most of us here. Satan is not really even a philosophical construct for them; they truly are based more around a humanist set of beliefs. But they kept the "Satanic" to trace back the lineage from which they came. This isn't unusual among pagan groups that hive off other groups, for whatever the reason.

I remember one other group that arose around this time that, I think, should have carried more appropriately the moniker of "Satanic" in both name and rituals. No idea if they're still around, tho... they were called The Temple of Set. Perhaps they've stayed completely out of politics and concentrated completely on religion and rituals, instead, if they're still around.

Some of these groups arose around the same time as the Church of Eris arose (Hail, Eris!) and the Church of All Worlds (CAW). This was the heyday of PodsNet during the old BBS days. Disclaimer: I ran FidoNet and Podset (among others) on my BBS, Tapestry, out of Kansas City, Ks for decades. And loved every minute of it!!!!