Recovered Memories

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Collin237

But I am a claimant. I'm expressing a concern about Doug Mesner. I haven't even gotten a perfunctory "we'll look into it".

Forgive me but I really can’t quite get my head around what your concern is about? Can you try to explain it in easily digestible lumps please?

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Collin237

As if this is a contest between Nazis and Christians??? What about us? The actual targets of the hate, liberal Jews like me, who don't believe that Satan exists, but who are just as terrified by Satan-like imagery for the very real reason that it's used by those who killed millions of us and are waiting for a chance to kill more.

When did the Nazis use Satanic imagery?

The Satanic Temple (as opposed to any other group with similar names) is essentially an atheist or humanist organisation that uses the imagery of satanism to highlight instances where church and state are not being properly separated, and religious organisations (usually Christian ones) are getting preferential treatment over those of other religions (or none), or are imposing their religion on others (e.g. in some states women wanting an abortion are being forced to read religious literature before proceeding).

Quote:

In the Trump era, when far-left and far-right are becoming almost indistinguishable, I won't turn a blind eye to someone who thinks he can play around with right-wing tropes

h t t p s : / / a n n o u n c e m e n t . t h e s a t a n i c t e m p l e . c o m /rrr-campaign41280784

and turns around and acts like he's rational and on the good side of things.

I'm not seeing the first part of that.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Re the Satanic Temple:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Collin237]

1. I saw an article about a "false memory syndrome foundation".
2. First reaction: A shell company of crooks, so what else is new?
3. Second reaction: Whoa! Where is the author going with this? Recovered memories? Satanic Ritual Abuse?
4. Lots of googling. I find crazy vs. crazy all the way down.
5. Somehow I end up here.
6. Suddenly this guy called Matthew Best insinuates, in contrast to everything I've seen, that Doug Mesner is not one of the crazies.
7. Why, I ask, is a Skeptic forum defending an antisemite and self-styled Satanist?
8. The other posters react like I'm speaking Martian or something.

[Thermal]

Yeah or maybe you are starting off with assumptions that others don't make, so we are not following your train of thought.

Pretend your audience is not down with the intricities of satanic whatever and start again. Just a suggestion.

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by Collin237

6. Suddenly this guy called Matthew Best insinuates, in contrast to everything I've seen, that Doug Mesner is not one of the crazies.

All I was intending to insinuate was that you hadn't provided any evidence that Mesner is crazy.

Since then you've told me about some anti-semitic remarks he made many years ago, that he has since apologised for at some length and in some detail, but there doesn't seem to be much more than that. Everything else you've linked to that he's actually written I found to be mostly pretty reasonable.

So I remain unconvinced that you've made much of a case for him being crazy.

[Collin237]

Satanic images and hate images both derive from the same motifs.

And the Charlottesville march itself was a classic Hollywood-style Satanic fane scene.

Originally Posted by zooterkin

The Satanic Temple (as opposed to any other group with similar names) is essentially an atheist or humanist organisation ...

Essentially! Or rather, officially. But what's beneath the surface?

And if they really want to promote pluralism, why are they making up a guaranteed turnoff? Why not invite some people with a real marginalized viewpoint -- like maybe Ojibwe Medewin or something -- to provide an authentic differance?

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by Collin237

Satanic images and hate images both derive from the same motifs.

Depends on the images.

Quote:

And the Charlottesville march itself was a classic Hollywood-style Satanic fane scene.

I have no idea what this means.

Quote:

And if they really want to promote pluralism, why are they making up a guaranteed turnoff? Why not invite some people with a real marginalized viewpoint -- like maybe Ojibwe Medewin or something -- to provide an authentic differance?

I have no idea what any of this means.

[Collin237]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Pretend your audience is not down with the intricities ...

I don't know anything about "intricities", and I don't want to. You're saying that you do and I'm supposed to pretend you don't?

[Joe Random]

"More matter with less art."

~Hamlet, 2:2

[Collin237]

You think the Satanic Temple is so innocuous? Consider this:

"Let us stand now, unbowed and unfettered by arcane doctrines born of fearful minds in darkened times."
A license to terrorize people who live according to their own local traditions?

"Let us embrace the Luciferian impulse to eat of the Tree of Knowledge and dissipate our blissful and comforting delusions of old."
A license to stop fighting for justice because knowledge of past events makes it seem impossible?

"Let us demand that individuals be judged for their concrete actions, not their fealty to arbitrary social norms and illusory categorizations."
A license to allow people to spread hate and incite violence as long as it isn't done concretely?

"Let us reason our solutions with agnosticism in all things, holding fast only to that which is demonstrably true."
A license to ignore dangers that are known with high probability long before they're demonstrable? Like the climate chaos resulting from global warming?

"Let us stand firm against any and all arbitrary authority that threatens the personal sovereignty of One or All."
A license to rebel against your country?

"That which will not bend must break, and that which can be destroyed by truth should never be spared its demise."
A license to ignore social contracts? E.g., This isn't a number of dollars and cents. It's just pieces of paper and metal. Why should I give it to you?

No more of a stretch than the way I've seen Skeptics interpret holy books.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Collin237

I don't know anything about "intricities", and I don't want to. You're saying that you do and I'm supposed to pretend you don't?

No, but I note posters saying with four-part harmony and feeling: "WTF are you talking about?"

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by Collin237

You think the Satanic Temple is so innocuous? Consider this:

"Let us stand now, unbowed and unfettered by arcane doctrines born of fearful minds in darkened times."
A license to terrorize people who live according to their own local traditions?

"Let us embrace the Luciferian impulse to eat of the Tree of Knowledge and dissipate our blissful and comforting delusions of old."
A license to stop fighting for justice because knowledge of past events makes it seem impossible?

"Let us demand that individuals be judged for their concrete actions, not their fealty to arbitrary social norms and illusory categorizations."
A license to allow people to spread hate and incite violence as long as it isn't done concretely?

"Let us reason our solutions with agnosticism in all things, holding fast only to that which is demonstrably true."
A license to ignore dangers that are known with high probability long before they're demonstrable? Like the climate chaos resulting from global warming?

"Let us stand firm against any and all arbitrary authority that threatens the personal sovereignty of One or All."
A license to rebel against your country?

"That which will not bend must break, and that which can be destroyed by truth should never be spared its demise."
A license to ignore social contracts? E.g., This isn't a number of dollars and cents. It's just pieces of paper and metal. Why should I give it to you?

No more of a stretch than the way I've seen Skeptics interpret holy books.

You appear to have an, er, "interesting" relationship with the English language.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Collin237

You think the Satanic Temple is so innocuous? Consider this:

"Let us stand now, unbowed and unfettered by arcane doctrines born of fearful minds in darkened times."
A license to terrorize people who live according to their own local traditions?

"Let us embrace the Luciferian impulse to eat of the Tree of Knowledge and dissipate our blissful and comforting delusions of old."
A license to stop fighting for justice because knowledge of past events makes it seem impossible?

"Let us demand that individuals be judged for their concrete actions, not their fealty to arbitrary social norms and illusory categorizations."
A license to allow people to spread hate and incite violence as long as it isn't done concretely?

"Let us reason our solutions with agnosticism in all things, holding fast only to that which is demonstrably true."
A license to ignore dangers that are known with high probability long before they're demonstrable? Like the climate chaos resulting from global warming?

"Let us stand firm against any and all arbitrary authority that threatens the personal sovereignty of One or All."
A license to rebel against your country?

"That which will not bend must break, and that which can be destroyed by truth should never be spared its demise."
A license to ignore social contracts? E.g., This isn't a number of dollars and cents. It's just pieces of paper and metal. Why should I give it to you?

No more of a stretch than the way I've seen Skeptics interpret holy books.

A bit of context wouldn't go amiss. What you've quoted is a prayer The Satanic Temple proposed should be read ahead of council meetings, as an alternative to Christian prayers, which had been ruled lawful as long as other religious groups were not discriminated against.

Your interpretation is somewhat creative; I'd be interested to see what you make of some common Christian prayers, for comparison.

For reference, the stated tenets of The Satanic Temple actually are:

Quote:

I
One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.

II
The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.

III
One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.

IV
The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own.

V
Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs.

VI
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.

VII
Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.

What do you find sinister about those?

[Collin237]

I consider language a way to express meaningful ideas, not just a cue for whether to cheer or jeer a politician or something. I'm fully aware that the Satanic Prayer is supposed to sound amaaaaazing. I just don't feel a need to play along. And I don't see why you would either.

[Collin237]

Firstly, I don't know about Christian prayers; I'm Jewish. Secondly, I find some Jewish prayers pretty crummy too, which is one reason I haven't been to a synagogue in many years.

No, I don't see anything sinister about the tenets. Ironically, when I saw them earlier in thread I had the opposite reaction. I felt like they were appropriating the best parts of Judaism and giving them a bad brand.

I know it sounds like I'm playing hard to please, but I don't think it's an unreasonable reaction. The Satanic Temple is one of the worst public relations flops in the world, and I don't get why Skeptics give them any quarter.

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by Collin237

You think the Satanic Temple is so innocuous? Consider this:

"Let us stand now, unbowed and unfettered by arcane doctrines born of fearful minds in darkened times."
A license to terrorize people who live according to their own local traditions?

Your comment/ interpretation has no connection with what you're commenting on. You appear to have simply made this up.

Originally Posted by Collin237

"Let us embrace the Luciferian impulse to eat of the Tree of Knowledge and dissipate our blissful and comforting delusions of old."
A license to stop fighting for justice because knowledge of past events makes it seem impossible?

Your comment/ interpretation has no connection with what you're commenting on. You appear to have simply made this up.

Originally Posted by Collin237

"Let us demand that individuals be judged for their concrete actions, not their fealty to arbitrary social norms and illusory categorizations."
A license to allow people to spread hate and incite violence as long as it isn't done concretely?

Your comment/ interpretation has no connection with what you're commenting on. You appear to have simply made this up.

Originally Posted by Collin237

"Let us reason our solutions with agnosticism in all things, holding fast only to that which is demonstrably true."
A license to ignore dangers that are known with high probability long before they're demonstrable? Like the climate chaos resulting from global warming?

Your comment/ interpretation has no connection with what you're commenting on. You appear to have simply made this up.

Originally Posted by Collin237

"Let us stand firm against any and all arbitrary authority that threatens the personal sovereignty of One or All."
A license to rebel against your country?

Your comment/ interpretation has no connection with what you're commenting on. You appear to have simply made this up.

Originally Posted by Collin237

"That which will not bend must break, and that which can be destroyed by truth should never be spared its demise."
A license to ignore social contracts? E.g., This isn't a number of dollars and cents. It's just pieces of paper and metal. Why should I give it to you?

Your comment/ interpretation has no connection with what you're commenting on. You appear to have simply made this up.

Originally Posted by Collin237

No more of a stretch than the way I've seen Skeptics interpret holy books.

For example?
More specifically, how about some examples from this forum?
So far, the only one willfully misinterpreting holy books is you.
My own assumption here is that you are actually a Christian fundamentalist, and your agenda is to somehow rehabilitate the ideas of SRA and recovered memories, so as to be able to rail against the dangers of atheism and Satanism, two things you probably (wrongly) conflate.
Quite prepared to be wrong about this, but you need to be a heck of a lot clearer in your posts than you have been up to now.

[Carrot Flower King]

Originally Posted by Thermal

No, but I note posters saying with four-part harmony and feeling: "WTF are you talking about?"

I thought we were off into a full "Spem in Alium" 40 voice piece.

We started with the thoroughly done over many times over the years SRA and "recovered", i.e. made up, "memories" and now we have some supposed "prayers" which some minor supposedly Satanist group came up with...

Please explain to me what this is all about?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by Carrot Flower King

I thought we were off into a full "Spem in Alium" 40 voice piece.

We started with the thoroughly done over many times over the years SRA and "recovered", i.e. made up, "memories" and now we have some supposed "prayers" which some minor supposedly Satanist group came up with...

Please explain to me what this is all about?

Good question.

[Collin237]

I'm not the one conflating atheism and Satanism. It's the Satanic Temple that claims they are atheists, which I doubt. The Satanic Temple is giving the public every reason to side with anyone who wants to stop their displays. So I could just as well call them Christian Fundamentalists.

I've read that therapists have created false memories of SRA in their patients. I've also read that there's a group, the FMSF, that's conflating those therapists with advocates for victims of real abuse. I've also read about connections between FMSF and the Satanic Temple.

Christian Fundamentalists are well-known for protecting, or perhaps even being, child abusers. So I suppose you could put this all together and say it's an argument that Christian priests perform SRA. But that would be ignoring two facts: One is that accounts of SRA always include things that are manifestly impossible, such as demons and aliens. The other is that such accounts have never been corroborated, even without the impossible stuff.

However, the therapists that led their patients to these accounts seem to be real. (I suppose these therapists could be called Christian Fundamentalists also. ) But if a therapist gives a patient a memory of abuse, then the patient suffers just as badly as a real abuse victim. So abuse has still been committed. And since the perpetrators in the memory don't exist, the real perpetrator is the therapist. Accusing an idea of being used to traumatize people is not "rehabilitating" it.

This was "thoroughly done over" until Katie Heaney brought up, out of the blue, a supposedly newly revealed allegation about the FMSF. I had never before heard of either Katie Heaney or the FMSF, and it appears the allegation, and discreditation of the FMSF, was actually made a long time ago, and duly recorded, by the psychiatric establishment. So why is Katie Heaney suddenly making news of it now? The same Katie Heaney who observed the U.S.'s first-ever coup and wrote an article featuring a photo of the terrorists, on the same day, on the same website thecut.com. The only person I've seen write anything about this is Rebecca Watson. And curiously enough, one of the commenters on her article identifies himself as a leader of the Satanic Temple.

[Darat]

Colin - reading your posts and trying to understand you but there appears to be some form of disconnect - it’s as if there are links in your chain or reasoning missing - perhaps you assume knowledge that most people won’t have?

It makes it seem like you are conflating different things which shouldn’t be conflated.

This is what I’ve got so far:

1) Recovered memories aka false memories

You agree with the current science that these are indeed false?

2) The claim of widespread, co-ordinated “satanic ritual abuse” of children

You believe this happens?

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by Collin237

I'm not the one conflating atheism and Satanism. It's the Satanic Temple that claims they are atheists, which I doubt.

You really need to do a bit more research into what the Satanic Temple is. You appear to know nothing about them other than the name.
Go back to their website, from which you got those tenets, and read the FAQs. It might help to clear up your obvious misunderstandings here.

Originally Posted by Collin237

This was "thoroughly done over" until Katie Heaney brought up, out of the blue, a supposedly newly revealed allegation about the FMSF. I had never before heard of either Katie Heaney or the FMSF, and it appears the allegation, and discreditation of the FMSF, was actually made a long time ago, and duly recorded, by the psychiatric establishment. So why is Katie Heaney suddenly making news of it now? The same Katie Heaney who observed the U.S.'s first-ever coup and wrote an article featuring a photo of the terrorists, on the same day, on the same website thecut.com. The only person I've seen write anything about this is Rebecca Watson. And curiously enough, one of the commenters on her article identifies himself as a leader of the Satanic Temple.

Like Darat, I confess myself unable to make sense of this.
Some kind of detail, a coherent statement of the points you want to make, and some kind of evidentiary support, would be helpful.

[Collin237]

1. I believe that recovered memories are false. However, I believe the reports of therapists creating the false memories are probably true. On the gripping hand, I believe the claims made in defense of probable abusers that witnesses are victims of such therapists are probably false.

2. I do not believe that SRA happens. However, I believe there is a widespread, co-ordinated defense of individual, usually religious, child abusers, shielded behind staged debates about the SRA myth.

[ahhell]

I'm late to the game on this but....

I have a hypothesis about the Satanic Panic and Q anon. So, the satanic panic and claims of ritual satanic abuse were circulating among some extreme christian churches through the 70s but then exploded into the public consciousness in the 80s. Probably related to the movement of women into the work place. I think it then went underground again but never went away and Q Anon's vast pedophile conspiracy seems like it came out of nowhere but it is probably built on something that never went away.

Also, SRA is not an acronym that most folks(normies) are familiar with. I though normies was a term normies were familiar with though. It basically means anyone not in the in what ever subculture is currently being discussed.

I watched Rebecca Watson's video but I have not read the article. I was pretty unimpressed with her take though. The headline is BS, she doesn't actually change her mind about false memories just about the one organization mentioned in the article.

[Carrot Flower King]

Originally Posted by Collin237

1. I believe that recovered memories are false. However, I believe the reports of therapists creating the false memories are probably true. On the gripping hand, I believe the claims made in defense of probable abusers that witnesses are victims of such therapists are probably false.

2. I do not believe that SRA happens. However, I believe there is a widespread, co-ordinated defense of individual, usually religious, child abusers, shielded behind staged debates about the SRA myth.

1: Yes, we know this happened: Loftus' work, for example, is well known. Is this still happening? If so, some evidence please?

2: Can we have some support for that one as well, please? It's not one I've actually come across (my earlier suggestion about the RCC and CoE, for avoidance of doubt, was sarcastic).

Thank you.

[Cavemonster]

Originally Posted by Collin237

You think the Satanic Temple is so innocuous? Consider this:

"Let us stand now, unbowed and unfettered by arcane doctrines born of fearful minds in darkened times."
A license to terrorize people who live according to their own local traditions?

"Let us embrace the Luciferian impulse to eat of the Tree of Knowledge and dissipate our blissful and comforting delusions of old."
A license to stop fighting for justice because knowledge of past events makes it seem impossible?

"Let us demand that individuals be judged for their concrete actions, not their fealty to arbitrary social norms and illusory categorizations."
A license to allow people to spread hate and incite violence as long as it isn't done concretely?

"Let us reason our solutions with agnosticism in all things, holding fast only to that which is demonstrably true."
A license to ignore dangers that are known with high probability long before they're demonstrable? Like the climate chaos resulting from global warming?

"Let us stand firm against any and all arbitrary authority that threatens the personal sovereignty of One or All."
A license to rebel against your country?

"That which will not bend must break, and that which can be destroyed by truth should never be spared its demise."
A license to ignore social contracts? E.g., This isn't a number of dollars and cents. It's just pieces of paper and metal. Why should I give it to you?

No more of a stretch than the way I've seen Skeptics interpret holy books.

I think I see where you were going with this.

First I'd argue that your versions are more of a stretch than most widely held criticisms of religion. You'll find individuals making specious arguments in any community.

But more importantly, most critiques around religion are centered around the actions taken in the name of the religion. When that religion's texts are brought up, it's generally as a lens for talking about how those actions are encouraged by the religion.

The interpretations you've made of the text of the TOS don't really correspond to actions taken in the name of the organization.

When your interpretations are a stretch, and they don't line up with any actions we've seen, it would be fairly safe to say you don't have a good reason for holding those interpretations.

[Collin237]

CFK: I haven't seen anything that I consider evidence of actual events. Just a lot of contradictory suggestions. It was the lack of reasonable information that I was complaining about.

Cavemonster: That's good to know. I hope it stays that way.

[Collin237]

An article by Mesner, finally making sense this time:

https://www.patreon.com/posts/46379921

Pretty much what I've been trying to say.

[theprestige]

What's wrong with a license to rebel against your country? As far as I'm concerned, it's a fundamental human right. If the COS or whatever endorsed it openly, they'd get no complaints from me.

That said, your interpretations seem way off. It's like you have a blank space where understanding of parody should be, and you're filling that space with arbitrary woo.

[Axxman300]

While everyone is talking the big concepts, I'd like to discuss to basic issue of repressed memories because they are a real condition. For children they are a survival reflex, or the event(s) they experience are beyond what their young brains can process. They don't know what happened, they just know they didn't like it, or it was frightening/embarrassing/humiliating.

Here's a personal example:

On my 8th birthday I had party where all of my friends came. We were having fun. Then my stepfather, who was drunk, got mad, and beat me in front of everyone. My stepfather had been released from prison a year before after serving three years for child molestation (the great thing about that was he was frequently beaten himself while in Soledad because nobody like pedophiles).

I have no memory of this whatsoever.

The event came up at my 20-year high school reunion where three of my friends recounted that day to me. As I said, I have no memory, but for all of my life I don't like to celebrate my birthday. I never tell people when my birthday is, and one of the few bright sides of my mother having dementia is that I can go the entire day without being reminded. This event explained why I was suddenly unwelcome at most of my friend's homes.

This really happened to me. I suppose if I went to a psychiatrist I could work to unlock this memory, but I don't see the need. I'm grateful that I learned about it at the reunion, and I feel that is more than enough to function. I suspect there are more things from that time that my mind has locked away, or washed from my brain cells.

I am certain none of them have anything to do with Satanic cults, and this is what angers me. There are people who need help, and here is a prime example of how conspiracy theories hurt, and in some cases through suicide - kill people.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

That would be science.

Satanic abuse/recovered memory is more busted than dowsing. If only a small number of people bother trolling the True Believers, it's no surprise. I thought it had all died out, so I'm pleased someone is keeping an eye on the nutters.

As an aside, we have a dead bloke in NZ who died while still convicted under recovered/false memory. Thanks to our peculiar laws, the case for his exoneration is still ongoing.

Those filth destroyed many lives, and put an indelible blight on male teachers of young kids for at least an entire generation. ******* them with Baphomet's horns would be too good for them.

Some years ago, just about 10 years after the Peter Ellis/Christchurch Civic Creche case of which you speak, my daughter graduated Early Childhood Education at Christchurch College of Education. Along with her at the capping ceremony were about 170 other ECE students graduated... only two of them were male.

This is one of the legacies that the SRA bollocks has left for us.