By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Russian government has designated The Satanic Temple (TST) an “undesirable” organization, accusing it of promoting “occult ideology” and discrediting traditional values. Authorities allege TST supports extremist groups, criticizes the Ukraine conflict, and advocates for regime change in Russia, claims the group denies. The designation stems from a 2015 law expanded earlier this year, resulting in the group’s forced dissolution and prohibiting any involvement with it. This action follows Russia’s characterization of its invasion of Ukraine as a battle against satanic forces.
Read the original article here
Russia’s recent addition of The Satanic Temple to its list of “undesirable” groups, citing “occult ideology,” is certainly a curious development. It’s a move that seems to generate more questions than answers, particularly given the Temple’s actual activities.
The irony isn’t lost on many that Russia, a nation steeped in its own brand of mysticism and often associated with authoritarianism, would take issue with a group that champions freethinking and challenges established power structures. The Satanic Temple’s focus on human rights and social justice seems to be the real reason for their inclusion on this list. It’s a testament to their effectiveness in advocating for causes often overlooked or suppressed.
This action by Russia could be interpreted as an attempt to appeal to certain religious groups within the US, a form of propaganda leveraging religious sensitivities. It suggests that perhaps their knowledge of The Satanic Temple is limited to its name, not its actual philosophy or actions.
The Satanic Temple’s use of the name “Satanic” is strategic. It’s a provocative move intended to challenge religious dogma and invoke a reaction from groups who would otherwise dismiss their message. By invoking a symbol considered taboo by many Christians, the Temple secures the legal protections afforded to religious groups when engaging in free speech and advocacy efforts, leveling the playing field in their fight for social justice.
The organization’s tenets, centered around empathy, reason, and social justice, are starkly different from the commonly held stereotypes associated with Satanism. Their work stands in stark contrast to the often violent and oppressive acts associated with many historical and current religious institutions, including those within Russia itself.
This situation highlights a significant misunderstanding, even deliberate misrepresentation, of The Satanic Temple’s goals and activities. Many commentators highlight the group’s dedication to human rights and social justice, activities that stand in direct opposition to the oppressive nature of many authoritarian regimes, including Russia’s. The very actions that Russia considers “occult” are precisely those that challenge its autocratic rule and the status quo.
It’s also worth considering the potential for this move to backfire. By singling out The Satanic Temple, Russia inadvertently elevates its profile and could unintentionally garner support for the organization from those who value free speech and challenge authoritarianism. The irony seems to be lost on the Russian government in the broader context of global perceptions of their own actions.
The situation underscores the complexities of religious freedom and the often-blurred lines between religious expression and political activism. It raises questions about the definition of “occult ideology” and the implications of using such broad terms to suppress dissenting voices.
It’s a fascinating case study in how the perception and reality of an organization can differ drastically, particularly when viewed through the lens of ideological conflict. The Satanic Temple’s actions are likely seen by Russia as a direct threat to their power and control, and this listing serves as a warning to others who might dare to challenge their authority. But by silencing those voices, Russia also gives credence to their message and strengthens the resolve of those who champion free speech and human rights globally. Ultimately, this decision might have far-reaching consequences beyond just Russia’s borders.