By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Russia’s Prosecutor General’s Office has designated The Satanic Temple, an American non-theistic religious group advocating for secularism and individual liberties, as an “undesirable” organization. The designation, which carries legal ramifications for those involved, stems from accusations of promoting occult ideology, discrediting traditional values, and supporting extremist movements. The Prosecutor General’s Office cites alleged support for the Ukrainian Armed Forces and calls for regime change in Russia as justification. This action adds The Satanic Temple to a growing list of over 190 organizations similarly branded by the Russian government.
Read the original article here
The Satanic Temple, an anti-authoritarian group, recently found itself labeled “undesirable” in Russia. This designation, however, seems to highlight the effectiveness of the Temple’s tactics more than it reveals any inherent flaw in the organization. The group’s provocative name, “The Satanic Temple,” is deliberately chosen; it’s not just a shock tactic, but a strategic move to force a conversation about separation of church and state.
The Temple’s lawsuits challenging the presence of religious symbols and practices in government buildings funded by those same governments effectively expose hypocrisy. If the organization were simply named “Atheists for Separation of Church and State,” their arguments might be dismissed or ignored. The current name, however, forces a direct comparison, proving their point in a way that is undeniable. This tactic effectively counters the tendency to overlook the logical arguments of atheists, often sidelined with the blanket statement that they “have no faith” and therefore lack credibility in such debates.
The fact that Russia, a country with a history of authoritarian rule, deems The Satanic Temple “undesirable” suggests that the organization is doing something right. The label acts as an indicator of its effectiveness in challenging established power structures. The Temple’s actions directly contradict the kind of conformity Russia demands, making the “undesirable” label a kind of backhanded compliment. This aligns with the sentiment that anything officially deemed undesirable by Russia often points towards what’s truly right, at least in the context of supporting progressive and individual liberties.
However, the Temple’s approach isn’t without its critics. Some argue that the name alienates potential allies and hinders community outreach. It is also asserted that the organization is more interested in publicity and merchandise sales than genuine grassroots activism. The effectiveness of the organization is questioned, with the suggestion that it may be more focused on creating headlines than achieving tangible social change. It is suggested that the organization’s “free speech” advocacy is selective, only embracing causes that suit their agenda and brand identity.
Despite these criticisms, the Temple’s fundamental tenets focus on compassion, justice, individual autonomy, and the importance of scientific reasoning. These values are presented as guiding principles that inspire noble actions and thoughts. The organization explicitly advocates for the separation of church and state, challenging religious privilege and the intertwining of religious dogma and government policy. The members themselves describe the use of “Satan” as a metaphorical tool to challenge religious authority, not as an endorsement of Satanism or the worship of any deity. In actuality, the Satanic Temple is explicitly atheistic, with its members not believing in a literal Satan. Their use of the moniker is designed to provoke and to force dialogue.
The misunderstanding surrounding the group’s identity is a significant aspect of the controversy. Many confuse The Satanic Temple with other Satanic groups, failing to recognize its atheistic and activist nature. This confusion often leads to misconceptions about its goals and activities. This confusion is further complicated by the fact that the organization itself leverages a shock value name to emphasize and highlight the point of the separation of church and state in a more confrontational manner.
Ultimately, the controversy surrounding The Satanic Temple’s designation as “undesirable” in Russia highlights a fundamental clash between authoritarianism and anti-authoritarianism. The Temple’s provocative name and methods are designed to challenge established norms and power structures, and its actions are seen by many as a necessary counterbalance to religious influence in the political sphere. The Temple’s methods may be controversial, yet it serves as a powerful example of how strategic naming and a confrontational approach can be employed to effectively challenge powerful institutions and bring issues of social justice to the forefront. Whether one agrees with their tactics or not, the reaction of the Russian government serves to emphasize that the group is acting as a thorn in the side of political and religious authoritarianism.