The contemporary atmosphere of paranoia and conspiracism has frequently reminded me of my childhood in the 1990s when the Satanic Panic was vibrant and mainstream, with allegations of Satanic cults attempting to pervert and destroy society through secret messages encoded in Heavy Metal music and other media. There was also a terror of Satanic cults that kidnapped, assaulted, and ritually tortured or murdered babies and children. People in therapy might “discover” a “memory” of being ritually tortured in this way and accuse their parents.
None of this surfaced any real cults that engaged in this activity, and since then it’s become clear that such memories “reconstructed” in therapy are more a reflection of the secret wishes and biases of the therapist rather than a historical occurrence. (And all of which made us so collectively focused on the boogeymen that the children actually being molested in Catholic churches were missed.)
The recent resurgence of conspiracies of blood-drinking pedophiles secretly running the world and kidnapping children makes it hard not to reflect on those times. But paranoia even seems pervasive on the Left, though in a different form, as I read articles of people going to great lengths to indict people for harmful thinking with little evidence.
Often I’ve thought about my interest in loneliness a few years ago, when I learned that chronic loneliness leads to rejection sensitivity and paranoia. The person who has been too lonely too long starts to be so vigilant against social exclusion that they start to assume people are cruel or out to get them by default, making them more likely to interpret warm or neutral social interactions as signs of rejection. Frequently I wonder to what extent this past couple years of isolation, social distancing, and masking has contributed to this paranoid atmosphere.
Moments like these make me so grateful to live in a moment where I could go to my computer and type “red head christian demon exorcist from 90s” and be led to the Wikipedia page that validated this was a real memory and helped me find a linkthe full video of the debate between Christian exorcist Bob Larson’s and Satanists Zeena LaVey and Nikolas Schreck. (As a note, I will refer to LaVey and Schreck as the Satanists, but in this video they suggest it would be more appropriate to refer to them as Setianists who honor the Egyptian god Set, and my understanding is that since the filming of this debate both people have moved into different spiritual paths.)
Looking back, it seems daring and necessary for the Satanists would participate in this interview during the heat of the Satanic Panic. I admire the calmness with which they mostly sustained in weathering Larson’s challenges and at times aggressive questions. I also appreciate that Larson offered a measure of generosity in allowing them to articulate their points.
While he frequently interrupts the Satanists and throws out misleading claims, it’s an almost refreshingly civil and thoughtful debate compared to your average Internet discourse. The sour note comes in his intervening clips where he talks directly to the video viewing audience, portraying these folks as cartoon villains—clearly a canny entertainer who knows how to play to the sensationalism of his audience, and the Schreck and LaVey themselves don’t seem above knowing how to draw and keep attention for entertainment purposes.
In all honesty, I absolutely love thoughtful but strident debate between different perspectives of people who can show up with mutual respect. But when I remembered this the other day, before I found the video, I was surprised and confused. Why on earth would the Satanists subject themselves to dialogue in a venue hostile to them, with an audience completely unlikely to be curious or willing to listen? What a waste of time.
Yet, I realized, even decades later I remembered it. I remembered how their calmness and thoughtfulness came through in spite of the bluster and sensationalism. I remember as a kid thinking Larson’s attacks of them and depictions of their beliefs were clearly unfair, and revealed more about his agenda than theirs. Though I am not aligned with either of their theologies—referencing the distinction Schreck offers between Right and Left Hand paths, I’m a person who thinks both hands are perfectly good and you may as well make use of them—witnessing that conversation opened a door for my own path.
Hard, direct, civil, and respectful conversations with one’s adversaries is always exceptional. And I’ve seen myself and others like me ground down by the effort to be openhearted, curious, and firm in the face of sheer unwillingness to engage. And I’ve seen minor disagreements become increasingly polarized into irreconcilable gulfs because those conflicts could never be fully surfaced, named, and worked through in an effort to stay connected.
Lately, my heart has felt scaled over with familiar cynicism and the sense that history is a serpent that undulates left and right regardless of our best efforts, and there is nothing to do but to hold on. But remembering this debate, and realizing it has stayed with me all these years—that felt important. That feels like a reminder that our efforts matter and have impacts greater than we can know.
These days, I feel minimal interest in engaging in debate with folks on the Internet, and I’ve had to work on strengthening my capacity to stay engaged when in person with the people whom I can disagree with and stay connected. Yet I’m also no longer willing to engage in bad faith arguments or imagine I can persuade the people arguing with me directly.
What I’ve absorbed is the wisdom not to JADE – Justify, Argue, Defend, or Explain. Make your point, answer earnest questions, and offer a clarifying perspective if needed, then lay it down. Don’t make persuading or defeating your adversary a condition of victory.
To some extent, I see this in the Larson debate linked above. Frequently the Satanists are challenged to justify, argue, defend, or explain their beliefs and practices based on the basic assumptions of Christianity—”How can you believe that when the Bible tells us this?” Instead of accepting defeat by accepting those conditions, the Satanists remind the entire audience that the Bible is a book of mythology not relevant to their lives and not their foundation for truth.
To do otherwise—to attempt to argue with Christians using the Bible—implicitly concedes the terms of debate, as though accepting Christianity as the measure of morality by which everything must be justified. When that territory has been ceded, then you are already at a great disadvantage.
Standing firm in our beliefs and values, and having esteem in our own identities and traditions, mean we are under no obligation to justify it on other people’s terms. That’s the whole point of a secular democracy with separate religions.
Yet also there is no reason to shy away from vigorous debate, if you have the will and energy. Whether another person is persuaded is perhaps less important than whether we have honored ourselves and maintained our own dignity in the face of adversity.