Within Reason - #42 Genetically Modified Skeptic - Why Satanism is Making a Comeback

Episode Date: October 4, 2023

Drew McCoy is the creator and host of the YouTube channel Genetically Modified Skeptic. His videos cover topics including atheism, cults, satanism, and Biblical scholarship. In this episode we talk about his recent trip to SatanCon in Boston, Massachusetts, and about what the modern satanism movement is all about. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to Within Reason. My name is Alex O'Connor. Drew McCoy is the founder and host of the YouTube channel Genetically Modified Skeptic, an atheist YouTube channel dedicated to discussing and criticizing topics such as religion and alternative medicine. Earlier this year, Drew attended Satan Con in Boston, Massachusetts, which was the largest gathering of self-described Satanists anywhere in the world. He joins me today to discuss what the modern Satanism movement is, and perhaps more importantly, what it isn't, as well as some of his experiences when attending this convention. With that said, I hope you enjoy the following conversation with Drew McCoy, or genetically modified skeptic.

Drew McCoy, thanks for being here. Hey, thanks for having me. I really appreciate it. Thanks for coming back, I should say. I think this is your second time on the podcast. I wanted to ask, actually, if you've ever considered starting a podcast. I know recently you've done at least one interview. with a Satanism expert, which is an interesting choice.

But I wonder if it's something that you've ever explored, a more sort of committed long-form type of content. Yeah, I've definitely looked at it. I've considered it. I think it's something that I could enjoy, but I realize that takes quite a bit of editing, which is not something that I really enjoy doing all that much. besides i watch video essays like the kind that i tend to make the most um and and for me you know

doing youtube has always been like primarily this passion project and so i i want to continue doing things that i just i would like to watch myself maybe that will mean in the future i'll do podcasts but it's to be determined right now what was it that inspired you to have a satanist on the channel uh the military Christian nationalism that's infected the U.S. government. I think that Satanism in the U.S. is really a reaction to the reactionary Christian nationalist politics that we're seeing arise right now. So the U.S. is becoming increasingly more pluralistic. We're getting slowly inching closer and closer to a future where white Christians, conservative Christians

or evangelicals don't hold all the power anymore. We've seen that, culturally speaking, but we haven't seen that politically necessarily yet. We are getting close to that. And so I think the fact that white evangelicals don't hold as much power as they did in, say, like the 1980s, 1990s, is scaring them a lot. And so you have a admittedly smaller fraction of Christians in the U.S. becoming more extreme, more vocal. And you see that manifested in things like basically the entire career of Matt Walsh, people like Sean Foyt who go sing Christian hymns and praise songs in state capitals,

where they invite the governor to come in and endorse the, endorse Christianity within within the U.S. government. And so Satanism, I think, has arisen as a response to that response, you know, saying like, these people are saying that everything but evangelical Christianity is horrible and disgusting and satanic. And you know what? If they're just going to keep saying that we're satanic over and over, they're going to keep saying that we're these horrible evil people, sure, yep, whatever, I claim that. I am a Satanist, you know, which is basically just a, it's a, it's kind of a screw you. And so we're kind of in the midst of this resurgence of a satanic panic right now in the U.S. And I think that in the 1980s, which was

the big satanic panic around like dungeons and dragons and metal music and stuff, that didn't have people outwardly saying, yes, I am a Satanist. Anyone who's accused of becoming or being a Satanist back then would have denied it like no this is just a game you know this is just music i don't really worship the devil i'm not really a satanist but now you have people saying no i don't worship the devil but i am a satanist and that's your fault you know you made me that way i'm taking this on as a big like you know to stick it in your eye uh and so i think that having a satanism expert just a scholar of religious studies who specializes in in studying satanism is just a way that I can spread religious literacy around this political problem that we have in the U.S.

I've gotten very negative reactions to it from Christians, obviously, but even some negative reactions from atheists that might surprise you. But I think that it's important conversation to have. It's absolutely vital if we're going to understand what's happening right now politically. So I've got two questions based on everything you've just said. The first is Satanism, therefore, some kind of reclaiming of a word in the way that sometimes people have done with slurs or like the Tory party in the UK, which started as a pejorative term, or the Big Bang, indeed, which I think was coined by Fred Hoyle on a radio station when he was making fun of this theory that the universe just started with a big bang. and they think it actually sounds kind of catchy, so take it on. Is that what Satanism is all about?

And also, you spoke in, I'll say, religious terms about Satanism. Is Satanism a religion? Yeah, so first of all, say, you've got it exactly right. I think that a big part of the current trend of Satanism, like the Satanic Temple type of Satanism, is reclaiming a word. You know, it's, this is also why I think people who identify as queer are also so interested in, in Satanism. Because, I mean, you know, when I was growing up, I was, when I was a kid, I was called queer all the time as like a slur. And now people just say, they use the word queer to identify themselves.

And it's, it's reclaiming this. So, yeah, Satanism is the same thing, you know, I don't think that we would have. this rise of modern Satanism without people using that term as a slur, as this like demeaning thing in the 80s, 90s, and even a little bit more recently. Now, secondly, what do you think just before moving on to the religion thing, I have this horrible habit of asking multiple questions at once, which I should probably not do as a good interviewer. You mentioned that a lot of queer people, queer identifying people, associate themselves with Satanism? Yeah, I won't say, you know, it's a majority of queer people, but I would say that the majority of Satanists, at least from, this is, it's anecdotal, but from my experience, are related to, or at least very strongly allied with queer communities. You know, going to SatanCon 2023 in Boston, you're looking around and thinking, man, are there any straight people here? And what do you think explains that?

Yeah, I think I think that it is the fact that queer people are literally demonized more than just about any other group in the U.S. right now. You have people wanting gender affirming care to be completely outlawed, you know, under the guise of we're trying to protect children. but also I think that being gay is wrong and maybe should even be a crime. And they're being called satanic. You know, pride is satanic. The greatest sin that Satan never committed was pride. People like Matt Walsh have books where they say that, you know, the grave sin, the ultimate sin of liberalism and queerness and everything in the U.S.

is self-worship and self-worship is satanic. So therefore, the LGBT liberals, anything other than his ideology is literally Satan worship. And so, I mean, when you are accused of being satanic constantly because you're queer, then I think it makes sense to try to reclaim that. And again, queer people have, they're often already practiced at saying, yeah, you know what, if you're going to call me queer, then sure, that's what I'm going to call myself. and taking that power away from the accuser. But in this instance, when someone like Matt Walsh or a sort of religious opponent of Satanism

accuses people of being satanic, accuses the pride movement of being satanic, presumably they mean something religious, right? They mean that there's something about this movement or about, you know, back in the 80s, this game or this TV show that really is in. invoking an evil energy that has some kind of, you know, anti-Christian sentiment that has some kind of God-repellant, sort of allergic to God tendency about it, presumably this is not how self-described Satanists in the modern age see themselves as actually invoking any kind of evil spirit or deity. And so isn't it sort of bad optics, perhaps, for them to,

adopt this label such that when somebody is a bit suspicious about, say, the pride movement, and they see a bunch of queer people saying, yeah, we're Satanists, hail Satan. Don't you think that this is maybe going to be quite problematic in terms of the optics in trying to improve the public image of such movements? It can definitely make things more confusing at first. However, I think there is a definite point and utility in doing. this. I think that it's, I'll leave it at your discretion to say whether or not you think this is ultimately more helpful or more hurtful to like LGBT communities and people understanding them.

But when you see people claiming the label of Satanism, but then very clearly explaining that this is a reclaimed identity, this is not something indicating their belief in the supernatural, this is really meant to take away power from people who are. accusing them, you see people who make that accusation receive that explanation and then not react to it, just completely act as if they didn't hear that, they don't interact with it, or they say, oh, that's just a lie. And really what happens is those people who are making that accusation kind of show their hand in that way. They show that they're making this accusation, but there's nothing behind it but superstition. There's nothing behind it but

fear. They're not willing to listen to an explanation of what Satanism means. They are, they're just trying to provoke and to literally demonize other people. And so for, for people who are willing to sit and listen to the conversation for longer than maybe just one cycle of back and forth, it's, it's pretty quickly revealed that, oh, huh, the Satanists are the ones, who are kind of doing the work here. They're the ones who have thought through this more clearly. They're the ones who are giving to charity. They're the ones that are fighting for people's rights.

They're not the ones who are just kind of like sitting in a place of privilege and power and trying to demonize people. That is the people. Those are the Christians who are making accusations that are doing that. And so for people who are willing to sit and listen, I think that it becomes so clear that, the kind of role of good and evil, so to speak, in American society has become reversed, that it can be an efficacious approach to be a good person, be a marginalized person, and

claim Satanism. Unlike an average pejorative term that gets reclaimed by a community, Satanism seems to invoke something quite specific, which is the religious idea of this character, Satan, which historically has represented some quite specific things, for example, and most prominently, being the personification of evil. I understand the idea of taking on a term because that term is being thrown around, but in some cases, it seems to me almost quite bizarre in that if you imagine what Satanism is to a Christian, if you imagine what that word represents. It means complete anathema to their moral worldview. Just the sort of worst thing

that they can think of is the devil. And this is a word that people are using to describe themselves. And you can say, yeah, but we're sort of using it to mean something metaphorical. And we're using it because you've called us this. And even though we're not this, you know, if you're going to call us it, then we may as well just accept the label. Imagine in like an opposite direction. If there are some, there's a group of people who think to themselves, all I'm trying to do is promote traditional gender roles or something. You know, they, they support sort of marital roles in the family or something. And they're often accused of being sexists or misogynists because they think that there's a sort of natural role for women. Now, this might not be a particularly

tenable view in the modern age, as you see it. But they might think to themselves, well, look, I'm being called a sexist left, right and center. So you know what? I'm just going to reclaim the word. Sure, we are the sexists. That's our movement. We are part of the sexist movement. And they could say the same thing, which is that, well, we don't actually think we're sexists.

We're just being called it so much that we want to reclaim the word. But if somebody were to do that, I think they'd be looked upon with awe. It would be sort of one of the most bizarre moves you could make in public relations. And I feel like to a Christian, calling yourself a Satanist, is sure. surely doing something a little bit like that, especially if you're not actually someone who believes in Satan and believes in a deity and worships this, you know, this, this demonic being, you're just sort of trying to offer a resistance against what you see as religious oppression. It seems like a particularly strong way to do it, to put it mildly.

Yeah, I think that one of the reasons why it can work is because we're flipping like I say we I have to clarify I'm not I'm not affiliated with Satanism with the satanic temple I'm not a Satanist I just think that this is an important conversation to have I think that one of the reasons why this works is because one narrative is dominant and has been dominant for a long time one group of people is in power has been in power for a long time namely Christians especially evangelical Christians in the U.S. And this is what's called appropriating the discourse of evil. It is taking these narratives that have been traditionally very powerful and purposely turning them on their heads. Because if you take someone's categories the way that they classify good and evil, and you turn them around, you inject your own ideas into that, I think that it really messes. with power structures. It messes with the way that people think about good and evil. And, you know, on the ground, that works in a way that I've already explained. Now, yes, someone could, and people do say, oh, yeah, if you're going to call me sexist and homophobic and transphobic,

whatever, I'm just going to go ahead and claim that for myself. I think one of the differences is that when you have people claiming Satanism, they're claiming this. this image this symbol that's represented ultimate evil for a long time and then so incredibly clearly by doing charity work by fighting for the for the rights of other people by fighting for the marginalized basically do something which is very much in line with like a traditional image of christ um that that's something that's going on when people are claiming satanism If someone was to go ahead and claim the term sexist because they believe that women shouldn't be able to divorce their husbands, they're not actually doing anything to turn that narrative on their head. You know, if Matt Walsh, I bring up Matt Walsh again, if he claims the term of transphobe, what is he doing to challenge the idea that a transphobe is someone who spreads lies about transphobe?

trans people or is afraid of trans people or wants trans people to not exist. They're not doing the same work to actually turn the thing on its head. And so, yeah, I think that you're totally right. If someone was to claim the term sexist when they don't want women to have rights or transphobe, when they don't have trans people to exist, that probably wouldn't work out in their favor. But that's because they're not doing the work on the ground to actually turn that turn them aside down. well one thing that satanists do seem to do which is in line with traditional notion of satan is negating faith or negating christianity or negating the bible or something like it

do you think that's a fair assessment and actually to return to the question that i sort of jumped in and didn't let you answer earlier is satanism a religion in its own right so as far as the satanic temple goes which is i think kind of the most cultural culturally powerful force in modern Satanism. They are a pluralist, non-supernaturalist organization, and so that doesn't mean that they are against believing in God, and it actually doesn't mean that they're against religion. In fact, I would say that they are probably more pro-religion than the average Christian. And I know that sounds strange, but one of the goals of the Satanic Temple, like if you look

at their activism that they do, you know, someone puts up a Ten Commandments monument on a state capital. And so the Satanic Temple goes in and says, okay, if you are allowed this religious privilege, if Christians are allowed this place of exaltation in our culture and in our politics, then any and all religion should. So we're going to put up a Baphimet statue. They're not doing that because they want their Baphimit statue to be displayed at the state capitol. They're not doing that. capital because they want to proselytize for Satanism. Never once has the satanic temple or any satanic organization that I'm aware of ever instigated trying to put up any kind of symbol or proselytize using the state. They do this as a response. And so one of the reasons why I say

that I think the satanic temple in a way is more pro-religion than even Christianity, typically is in the U.S. or evangelical Christianity is that Satanists are saying if one religion gets privilege then they all should, including those that are not us. Whereas Christians are saying, we are the

only legitimate religion. We're the only legitimate spiritual path. We are the only ones who deserve this exaltation and privilege in society. And so no, I don't think that the Satanic Temple is this anti-religious organization. Even one of the founders

Malcolm Jerry has said that you could hypothetically be a Christian and be a part of the satanic temple because it's not about believing in Satanism. It's really about fighting for pluralism, like religious pluralism within the U.S. and more broadly. It's really more about sharing values with the people who are part of the satanic temple, not believing in one metaphysical system or anything like that. I don't think that that means that they're not a religion, though,

just because they're not comparable to Christianity in that way. You know, religion is an incredibly broad term, and as much as people in my common sections, both Christians and atheists, like to define religion as Christianity and Christianity as religion,

no, it's a lot more complicated than that. I won't go into exactly how scholars try to define religion, because that's a complicated conversation, as I'm sure you well know, having gotten a degree in, you know, basically a religion and philosophy degree. But no, I don't think you have to believe in the supernatural. I don't think that you have to literally worship something. If you're doing rituals, you're getting together with people who are like-minded, you have central symbols, even, I'm comfortable with calling that a religion, and so are many other

scholars and the IRS who kind of determines what a religion is in the U.S. Yeah, I think what is religion is like the, what is a woman for the study of theology. Yeah. I did a podcast with Andrew Mark Henry of Religion for Breakfast, so I know you've also worked with and are a fan of, and we discussed this very question at length of people are interested. Also, if there are any Christian Satanists out there, send me an email. I would love to speak to you. I have a lot of questions.

Drew, you were at SatanCon, weren't you? Right. Yeah. What is Satan Con and why did you go? SatanCon is just the, I mean, it was the second annual meeting of different congregations in the Satanic Temple. You don't have to be a part of the Satanic Temple to go. but it's really like any other conference they get a hotel and they have speakers come in and sit and speak on panels or give presentations and they have some activities and things

like that it's uh it wasn't really any different than any other conference that i had been to other than i thought it was actually a lot more fun and more relevant than a lot of the atheist conferences that i've been to uh the reason why i went was kind of I just had previously stated that this is an incredibly important conversation that we're having about religion and politics in the U.S. This is the largest gathering of self-described Satanist that has probably ever happened in history. There was something like 820 people there. And the fact that this is happening says something. It's a massive statement about what's going on right now.

And this is why, you know, news outlets like Fox News and even like CNN and MSNBC were reporting on SatanCon the day that it was happening. This is why the Christian Broadcasting Network wouldn't shut up about SatanCon for several days, both when it was happening and afterward. I went to be boots on the ground and just report on what I saw there. I remember one of the most prominent news items that came out of SatanCon was the burning of a Bible, not the burning of a Bible, the ripping up of a Bible on, I think, the first day of the conference. So there was somebody on the stage ripping a part of Bible and this video went totally viral on social media. What was all that about? Yeah, so I think that there are multiple interpretations of it. This was part of the invocation ceremony.

This was like the commencement ceremony. They got up and Chalice Blythe, one of the main spokespeople for the Satanic Temple and one of the leaders of Satan Khan, got up and was talking about barriers to their activism, barriers to religious freedom and, you know, how there are forces in American society right now that are fighting their right to exist, not just as Satanist, but as Satanus, but as. as women, as queer people, and so they are getting up there to say, there's nothing that you can do to stop us. We are going to be here, whether you like it or not, and in fact, we are going to destroy your symbols of oppression. So, you know, Fox News, which seemed to circulate the clip most successfully, I saw they had like 30 million views just on Twitter alone, on this clip of Chalise ripping up the Bible. they didn't include footage of them ripping up and destroying other symbols. They might have lost out by not including the fact that they also ripped a thin blue line flag, which is a pro-police flag in half.

And they also got a keyboard which represented kind of like slackivism, like online-only activism that people gather around to say, you know, I've left mean comments, and that means that I'm helping. I'm a real activist just like these people who are actually, you know, leading, you know, addiction recovery groups within Satanism. And so they destroyed a keyboard. They ripped a thin blue line flag. There may have been other symbols that they destroyed.

I'm not totally sure. But then they ripped pages out of a Bible saying, we're here destroying symbols of oppression. Shalise Blythe was asked about this, and she said, you know, This is not intended as a statement to intimidate Christians. It's not supposed to be an anti-Christian statement. This is a statement that the Bible has been used by the specific group in American culture to oppress marginalized people. And so we are going to get up as marginalized people and destroy this symbol to show that there's nothing that you can do to actually stop us. I find it

where there are two amazing things that I find in what you just said the first is that they tore up a symbol of, do you say a symbol of the police this thin blue line? A pro-police flag yeah the thin blue line flag

again I mean knowing nothing much about modern Satanism and certainly not much about Satan Con in particular it seems to me easy pickings for somewhere like Fox News to look at an organization that described themselves as Satanist that tear up a Bible

that are sort of seemingly at least anti-police as this at least left-wing, possibly woke collection of people, many of whom are queer identifying. You know what I mean? There's a sort of reputation that you're building for me around this kind of organization, which I imagine is a kind of reputation that they would want to resist? Yeah, I think that, I mean, I'd have to ask, don't you think that things like Fox News, even before the satanic temple was even founded in 2013, used basically anything they could get to smear people as, you know, we didn't have the term woke then, but as radical leftists and as even potentially satanic, even when people were not buying into or using these kinds of narratives? Perhaps, but there's, but

I think tearing up a Bible on stage and then claiming that it's not an anti-Christian message is a bit testing for such people and for viewers of such channels who are looking at somebody tearing up the sacred scripture of a religion and then claiming that in doing so they're not supposed to be putting forward an anti-religious or anti-Christian message. I'm sort of struggling to make that work. Maybe you can run it. buy me again. Yeah, no, I don't think that it's something, you don't, you don't necessarily have to completely buy Shalise's message. You know, I do think that, you know, having thought about this continuously since then, that it was primarily for, or at least in my opinion, primarily for the Satanus in the room, but I do think that it was supposed to be sending a message to the people who are going to put this out there. The main message was probably just, we're here we're doing something provocative look at us pay attention to us but the the secondary message there is you're not going to be able to intimidate us there there's nothing that you can actually do

to stop us and not stop us from oppressing you but stop us from living our lives and and you know pursuing happiness and liberty despite you know you trying to to suppress that so there's a there's a commentator and ex singer-songwriter in the UK called Lawrence Fox. I don't know if you've heard of him. He's part of the conservative journalist commentator crowd here in the UK. And recently he got into some hot water for burning pride flags in his back garden, setting them on fire. Now, to be honest with you, I didn't actually watch the video. I don't know why he did it. I don't know about the details. But I'm imagining Lawrence Fox burning some pride flags and then saying this wasn't supposed to be an anti-LGB message. This isn't supposed to be sort of anti-pride. I'm just sort of

burning a symbol that I think has become politicized and used to shut down debate and stifle free speech or whatever it is he might think. Would you accept that kind of explanation if somebody were to, if I were to tear up a pride flag right now to make a point and then say, but this isn't an anti-LGB message. Yeah, no, it's a great question. And I mean, my answer to that would depend on whether or not this person that's tearing up or burning pride flags has an entire organization that has, you know, sober recovery groups, which are basically providing an alternative to institutional

groups that kind of demand one specific perspective in order for someone to be a part of a group that's meant for you to come out of alcoholism. Do they have programs that are going in and advocating? And I mean actually advocating boots on the ground going to and speaking to teachers to keep children from being literally abused. And I don't mean being told that the opposition exists, but I mean beaten.

legally. Do they have programs that are going and giving, you know, warm blankets to homeless people in the winters? Do they have programs where they're donating, they're donating like feminine products to homeless women? Do they have all of these things set up in an institution that they're a part of that back up the idea that they're not just here? to make a statement. They're not just here to intimidate, but they're also here to actually do

good works in a very, you know, you could say Christ-like way. For the person burning the pride flag, if they had an entire institution behind them that they're a part of and that they're championing while doing that, that totally negates the idea that, or challenges at least, the idea that they are trying to do something to intimidate people. And that is just kind of for pure evil, yeah, maybe I take them seriously when they're burning that pride flag, that that's not an anti-LGB statement. As I'm sure you can tell, I'm referring to a lot of specific things that the Satanic Temple does. You know, the majority of the function of the Satanic Temple, as far as I can tell what

their activism is ministering to the homeless, to food insecure people, from keeping people from literally hitting children, which is a legal thing to do in some school districts in the U.S. They are donating feminine products to homeless women. They are going in and protecting minority rights. And they also have like, I think it's over 5,000 people in sober recovery groups, you know, or sober groups. Like, I'm trying to remember what it's called. It's an alternative to AA, which kind of is backed up and funded by the U.S. government, but also demands that you believe in a God, or at least a higher power in order to do it. It's called sober faction. It's very active. They've seen thousands of people actually come away from alcoholism

through sober faction rather than Alcoholics Anonymous. And this is why, yes, while look at the Bible tearing as something that is a bit of a fuck you to Christians, that's not all it is. because they actually have done the work to back up the fact that it's not just that. It sounds like you're saying something along the lines of particular behaviors and charitable campaigning can not just make up for doing something like ripping up a Bible or indeed setting fire to a pride flag, but somehow negate the message. That is, it also becomes the case. Because the Satanic Temple are donating to charitable organizations, somehow tearing up a Bible isn't an anti-Christian message because the other things that they're doing are a little bit Christ-like in their nature. It seems to me that tearing up a Bible on stage has a quite straightforward purpose, one that if somebody wanted to claim that, no, that's not really what was going on there, requires a bit of,

convoluted mental gymnastics I wouldn't call it convoluted mental gymnastics I would call it research and and careful thought you know additional thought beyond being reactionary and and so like I was saying earlier if people look at this discourse between Christians and Satanus and they're willing to look at it in a way that is reactionary they'll see a very surface level thing you know Christians are accusing people of being satanic and then people are claiming Satanism and then doing bad things and and that's that's what's going on you know the traditional narrative of good and evil of Christ and Satan is all intact it all makes sense but if you're willing to go just one level deeper you see that it's so much more complicated than

that and that does not mean that you can't you know interpret Satanus as doing something which is meant to you know disrupt Christianity in some way but the way that you see that they might be doing something to disrupt Christianity in some way will be, will be different. If you just watch the clip of them tearing up the Bible, then you're going to take that away and be like, they just don't like Christians for some, you know, dumb, shallow surface reason, and that's why they're doing this. If you look deeper, though, you see that Satanists are doing things that are traditionally, you know, attributed to Christians. And it's very challenging to the traditional idea of good and evil. especially in the American consciousness to see people acting like Christ basically while also claiming Satanism.

And it makes you realize that maybe actions, maybe behavior is more important than the symbols that people identify with or maybe it's more important than tribal affiliation. Andrew Tate saw the video of the Bible being torn up and retweeted it saying, try the Quran if you're so brave why wasn't there a Quran tearing as well at the satan con i mean can we name a single instance of anyone trying to you know put up like giant monuments to muhammad or or the Quran in like on like federal property or like public property i'm not sure if a if a Muslim would be particularly enthusiastic about putting up a a big statue of Muhammad in a state building. I get what you're saying,

but you as well as I must know about, I mean, if you believe in the concept of religious persecution, you must think that this happens within Islam as well as Christianity. And so it seems, in other words, a moment ago when I was discussing the implicit claim

that Satan Con and Satanism is an anti-Christian organization, You say, no, no, it's not. It's sort of anti-tools of oppression generally that are represented in the Bible. Not the Quran as well? Yeah, and it's a great question. I mean, they're not doing it right now because generally speaking, people who are Satanists are in the West, especially in the U.S. and Canada, and they're not particularly affected by people using the Quran to try to institute religious rule or, try to oppress anyone. But I think that you're right that we do need to be looking for this

on the horizon. I think that as Satanism spreads, which it's got over 700,000 members right now, just the satanic temple alone, and I don't think it's going to slow down. I do think eventually people will be, you know, desecrating Qurans or at least using kind of these satanic narratives to speak against the overreach of Islam. It's just not going on right now because, I mean, Muslims are one of the most distrusted and hated minorities in the U.S. along with atheists and Satanists. And so there's not really any reason, I think, in the minds of people who are already participating in Satanism to tear up a Quran.

Maybe it will happen in the future, though. So if the idea of Satanism and the Satanic Temple are to resist oppression, resist controlling narratives and false narratives and protect minority interests such as those of queer people that we've already discussed seeing as you've just described accurately Muslims in the US as

a sort of distrusted and persecuted minority would it not make more sense for at Satan con a Quran to be presented as sacred as a sacred object to sort of support this group of people who've just described as a minority and if that's the case

doesn't it seem strange to you that we've got this conception of Satanism that leads to a situation in which you can have a bunch of Satanists in a room treating the Quran as sacred? Yeah, I mean the most important thing to realize there is that they didn't in fact have a Quran or praise Islam or anything like that

I'm sure that Muslims would be very much well welcome to come in and as long as they were abiding by the rules and keeping everyone safe and respecting others like any other attendee they'd be allowed in. But no, I don't think that the veneration of symbols outside of the actual culture of Satanism is really something that's happening. You're seeing people use Satan as depicted in romantic era literature by people like Byron, Percy Shelley, and Atoll France. You know, they're elevating this figure and saying that this represents, you know, liberty, freedom from oppression, and fighting oppressors. And that's the central symbol.

It's not saying that you can't have any other symbols that you like. This is a kind of pluralist organization. So there are people from other religions who are also Satanists. But no, I don't think that they're going to be adopting any actual religious texts or books or anything. like that anytime soon just because it would get so crowded. So I do have a question for you, which is that given your recent interest in Satanism, and you seem quite sympathetic to its message, you talk about it being an important issue in which I'm hearing something like this is an important movement that is, that you, I don't

want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds as though you're glad that this kind of thing exists. you attend the the satan con given all of that and given your understanding of modern satanism as essentially just a movement against religious and other kinds of persecution why are you not a satanist why don't you identify with the temple which is something that you've also said a few times throughout this podcast yeah no that's i mean it's a good question i i don't as i've said on my channel affiliate with things very easily i don't take on label very easily. You know, I also am a massive fan of the philosopher Epicurus, but I don't really go around

calling myself an Epicurean or join an Epicurean commune or things like that, just because for me personally, being able to personally understand something is probably more important than being able to be a part of it. And that's, I mean, that's my own personal choice, but I really do think that for myself, Being able to understand Satanism to get what it's doing is going to be easier if I'm not necessarily. Like I'm not outwardly aligning with this group if I'm not identifying as a Satanist. And then also, you know, I think that religious groups, while I am very sympathetic to what they're doing and I do agree with a lot of the activism that they're doing, I think that religious groups that gather around symbols can be really great until they're not. And so while I don't really see any avenue or issue that could bubble up so badly that the satanic temple could become this horrible toxic thing in the next few years,

as institutions gain power, people become corrupted by power. And so that's been enough for me to be satisfied with being on being. on the outside looking in, and while I may support some of the things that they're doing, that doesn't mean that I have to be a part of them necessarily. Now, I also should say that while I am kind of arguing for the efficacy of this thing that we'd call culture jamming, which is taking, you know, taking these narratives and turning them on their head in order to make some kind of statement, I don't, I don't. I don't like have some kind of loyalty to something like appropriating the discourse of evil or culture jamming such that I'll say that oh they always work it's always a good idea I'm playing pardon the pun devil's advocate here with you and kind of defending this because I don't think that the majority of people even atheists give it a single thought they don't really seem to care that much about it they don't seem to try even to understand it most of the time they're there

willing to just take on the Christian narrative of what good and evil are and what symbols must represent good at evil and just leave it at that. And even though I'm not a Satanist, I don't think that that's sufficient. I think that that's intellectually lazy. And so I'm out here just trying to spread religious literacy, which is why I kind of, like, I'm so adamant about educating people on this. Is your impression of Satanism and Satan con and the temple that of a left-wing organization and movement? Left-wing, I guess it depends on how you define that. I mean, are they pushing for, you know, like a Marxist understanding of, like, economics

and culture? No. Are they all anarchists or something like that? No. If you are pro-capitalist, can you not be a part of the satanic temple? No. So, saying that their leftist organization is difficult, I will say that it seems that the vast majority of people who are involved do vote, you know, on the left side of the spectrum. But, you know, there are people who would define themselves as like neoliberal that are a part of it too.

I'm sort of thinking about the fact that you have someone on stage at, I believe you said it was like the opening ceremony or something. thing of this conference, desecrating the symbol of the police. That's the fact that that can sort of be comfortably done. I don't know if that was received controversially by the attendees when you were there, or if people sort of cheered, or if anybody booed. But for example, if somebody were to get up and burn a symbol of capitalism, that would be a little bit more sort of obviously political. But again, maybe people would sort of get behind that.

But presumably there are certain things that people could get up and burn on stage that would be met with a more controversial response. There are certain political ideas. You know, if somebody were to get up and burn a symbol of like privatized healthcare or something, it would start getting a little bit more contentious. And people would probably begin to ask, why are you doing this at Satancon? What's this got to do with what we're gathering for?

it seems to me the fact that you can tear up a symbol of the police in this way to and you can you can tell me whether there was any kind of controversy in the response to that if not seems to me to suggest that there's something of an underlying political tone to this movement oh there's not even an underlying political tone there's an overt political tone to the movement now I'll I'll say that I think that what a member of TST would say to defend the idea that it makes sense to tear up a thin blue line flag at SatanCon is that the religion kind of revolves around and even since the era of romantic literature the the symbol of Satan has revolved around you know putting mud in the eye of the the authority of not respecting and even outwardly disrespecting undeserved authority it makes sense to tear up the symbol of people who fight for an organization or an institution, which has been revealed repeatedly to be systematically racist. And so the statement is kind of, you know, God, Christianity is, has undeserved authority.

The police also have undeserved authority. It makes sense to rip up their symbols back to back. The police have undeserved authority. I mean, this is, whether you. think it's true or not, I think fair to say, a left-wing talking point? Yeah, culturally speaking. Yeah, I think in American culture, yes, that is the case. But regardless of whether or not it is left-wing, I still think that in a kind of theological

sense, if you want to use that term, it does make sense for that to be a part of Satanism. And it doesn't mean that it's not a political statement. It absolutely is. but there's another way to understand it than just through a political lens. Do you get the impression that if somebody had stood up and started railing against capitalism

that it would have been a problem or do you think people would have clapped along and cheered that too? Yeah, I think that having one of the leaders of the organization get up there and be anti-capitalist might have been a little bit different than one of the members

who was just speaking on a panel. I don't want to misrepresent things, but I feel like that may have happened. There may have been someone on a panel who made just some offhanded remark about, you know, this is what late stage capitalism does and is and didn't really get that much of response either way. But I think that people might have seen that, not everyone there, but some people might have seen that as not completely relevant in the same way that like the thin blue line flag or the Bible are.

So it may have caused some controversy, but not necessarily because people like outwardly disagree with it, but because they don't really see it as central. Shifting gears while I still have you. You made a video about a month or so ago, which opens with a tweet from at shorn underscore vids, which is an account I think I've seen before, but I can't remember if this is some kind of content creator, a YouTuber, but the tweet reads and was fairly popularly received. Listen, I know the new atheists made it extremely cringe to say God isn't real,

but if some religious type is using their belief in a god, to justify attacking abortion or minority rights or whatever, it's okay, you get a pass then. Let's bring atheism back to YouTube. I'm going to turn this ship around. We can all pretend to sip whiskey and talk about banana. shapes again, like the old days. Now, in the video, you don't seem to be best pleased with this suggestion that new atheism, or I should say that atheism needs bringing back to YouTube,

yourself being one of the principal figures of modern YouTube atheism. But this tweet got a lot of likes. What do you think explains that? Why is it that when somebody says we need to bring this back, despite the fact that here you are doing it on a regular basis, people resonate with that idea. I think there's good reason that people may not associate people like me or you or Pollygea or, you know, telltale Owen Morgan, people like, or rationality rules, people like this, with people like Sargon of Akad or Thunderfoot even or Armored Skeptic, or atheism is unstoppable. and that's we haven't we haven't made really the same kind of content we've talked about atheism we've talked about politics yes but maybe the main difference is that we haven't done this in

in overtly antagonistic and purposely angry and outrage baiting way we haven't gone and talked about SJWs calling them bitches and losers. And so I don't think people like Sean who have always had a great deal of disdain for people like that, the anti-SJW type atheist YouTubers. I don't think they see channels like yours or like mine as having continuation from those.

And I mean, and also maybe more realistically, I kind of doubt that Sean even knows that like our channels exist. And a lot of people probably don't think that our channels exist because they've been so put off by, you know, YouTube atheism as it used to be in 2014 that they wouldn't dare watch a video that's arguing against Christian apologetics or or talking about atheism today because they assume that it's going to be the same thing that that was going on 10 years ago. What do you think explains the fact that so many of the atheist YouTubers of the past went on to? become bastions of right-wing, anti-SJW talking points. And so much of the atheist community on YouTube today is quite explicitly on the left. That's a pretty big question.

I think that I'm going to take a pretty cynical view here, unfortunately, when it comes to why atheist YouTubers of the past went into like anti-SJW type content. So people like T.J. Kirk, you know, the amazing atheist, got started on YouTube very early making atheist content. And this content was, as people like T.J. himself would say, was angry, was provocative. It was a kind of an unhinged rant against, you know, insert religious thing here. that's that's not what all atheist YouTube of the past was I wanted put out there there there have always been atheist YouTubers and content about atheism on YouTube all the way back to 2007 which is good quality which I would put on my channel which I totally stand by the stuff I'm talking about right now is not that it it was kind of as one Christian apologist once put it to me throwing red meat to the wolves which is giving this this angry rant to to YouTube so that mainly disaffected young men who have been intensely questioning the religious upbringing could finally see someone not only saying what they're thinking but saying it in a way that they would like to say it probably to

their own parents and their own pastors you know they would these young men would probably like to do some kind of unhinged rant to these people who have been oppressing them them who have been forcing them to believe a certain thing, which is patently not true. And so it's kind of like, it's kind of catharsis to watch this stuff. I know that when I became an atheist at first, yeah, I was extremely angry. I was consumed by anger all the time. And that wasn't because being an atheist makes you angry or makes you a bad person. it's that realizing that you have been a part of this system that you have been had all these ideas forced on to you and that everyone has inverted you know good and evil even in some instances in order to serve their specific tribal affiliation that's disgusting and you don't you don't like that you've been a part of it so you're you're very much justified in feeling incredibly angry when you first come out of Christianity or come out of Islam too

But I think the difference is, you know, with people today, YouTube atheism has gone through its adolescence already. That has happened. People have gone out and made angry rants. And they've seen how that's devolved into, oh, my audience likes very reactionary, angry content. I'm running out of ideas about religion. So what else can I get angry out at and scream at and, you know, insult people? people about. Well, they're all young white men who probably are not particularly well exposed to people

who are not conservative Christians or other white people at this point. So maybe me doing rants about social justice warriors or about women or pop feminism or whatever it is. Maybe that will do well on YouTube. It did do extremely well on YouTube. I mean, I think that some of the anti-SJW content got more views and became more popular for some people than the atheist stuff ever was. And so, I mean, my cynical view of that is they did it for money. I don't think that just because someone's an atheist YouTuber who was maybe trying to give these young people catharsis, I don't think that makes them a good person. It also doesn't make them incorruptible. You know, if there's a big paycheck on the line, people will sell out and they did. Now, people today have seen that. They've seen that that has

happened. And I mean, I'll speak for myself here. When I started my channel, I used the word skeptic in my channel name because I very much identified with like the cultural movement of like YouTube skepticism. You know, I love like Dark Matter 2525. I love your channel. I liked like Holy Kool-Aid, things like that. And so that was kind of part of my identity. And as I made content, which was probably not particularly angry, not super outwardly angry, but was driven by anger at first, I just started to grow as an individual, started to see that, oh, while we are justified in being angry, sometimes people are doing things that are not okay with this. I didn't really think that anti-SJW content was a problem when I first became an atheist. I was like, oh, you know, I didn't really have complex thoughts on it, but I didn't really think that it was anathema to the entire atheist genre in the way that I think now.

But eventually I changed my mind on that and realized that just because we're angry doesn't mean that role models leaders people who are speaking on atheism and and yeah serving as role models for for all these viewers need to be spewing the most over the top rhetoric possible just to get views um for me keeping skeptic in my name became a purposeful move to be the kind of role model that I wish that I had when I first became an atheist. I wish that I had gone online and seen people, you know, saying, I think that there's perfectly good reasons to be incredibly angry after you've come out of religion, but it's not going to serve you and it's not going to serve others to constantly act out of anger.

We need to deal with our anger, cope with it in healthy ways. That might mean making videos about why we're angry, but it needs to. be done in a way that will actually serve your goals so that the reasons why you're angry, the root causes for your anger, will be done away with, rather than just dealing with the feeling that you're having that's overwhelming you. I think that there are plenty of other YouTubers who are doing the same thing, like specifically Polygia, I would say, counterapologist YouTuber. One of the best role models and examples that I think someone could even be for people

who are interested in counterapologetics, you know, he, he is kind and charitable. And, I mean, even for me, privately, personally, has been a role model in my actual life to just, just showing me how this can be done in a way that, that serves everyone and doesn't just destroy relationships because there's so much pain that is resulting from them. I'll make sure that Paul's channel is linked in the description and in the show notes if you're just listening. Drew McCoy, thank you so much for seeing that. Yeah, again, thanks for having me on. This was a pleasure.

Maybe I'm the first guest that's been on twice. I don't think that's true. Well, it depends what you count. I mean, I rebranded as within reason. So I think you're the first repeat guest since then, although I think you were still just about on the Cosmic Skeptic podcast. You were probably the last or the second to last ever episode of the Cosmic Skeptic. podcast. So they're at the end and they're at the new beginning. And possibly the first to be

on three or four times in the future. I'm sure that that will happen. For anybody who hasn't already followed your channel, I'll make sure that everything's down in the description. Yeah. Again, thanks Alex. It's been a pleasure.