Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The latest religious right freakout seems to be over a pink toy that is apparently going to force little girls to worship Satan and infest them with demons. I mean, it would do those things if Satan and demons actually existed.
A pink version of the popular Ouija board game has some critics seeing red.The children's sleepover staple -- sold by Hasbro since 1967 -- now comes in hot pink, an edition released two years ago that gets tweens to call on "spirits" to spell out answers to life's pressing questions.
Which makes it the equivalent of a magic 8 ball, for crying out loud. But not to everyone:
It's designed for young girls ages 8 and older, but some say the mysterious product is a "dangerous spiritual game" that opens up anyone, particularly Christians, to attacks on their soul..."There's a spiritual reality to it and Hasbro is treating it as if it's just a game," said Stephen Phelan, communications director for Human Life International, which bills itself as the largest international pro-life organization and missionary worldwide. "It's not Monopoly. It really is a dangerous spiritual game and for [Hasbro] to treat it as just another game is quite dishonest."
Phelan, who has never played the game, said the Bible explicitly states "not to mess with spirits" and that using a Ouija board will leave a person's soul vulnerable to attack.
"All Christians should know, well everyone should, that it's opening up a person to attack, spiritually," he said. "Christians shouldn't use it."
Asked how the game differed from magic kits or Harry Potter-themed merchandise, Phelan replied, "The difference is that the Ouija board is actually is a portal to talk to spirits and it's hard to get people to understand that until they actually do it. I don't pretend to know how it works, but it actually does."
Phelan also noted that the pink version of the game is explicitly marketed to young girls who may want to partake in "something dangerous" during a late-night sleepover.
Hey, I have an idea. If these folks don't want their kids to play with this game....don't buy the game. I know, I know, I'm being logical again. I gotta stop that.
Politics
Comments
Wow... who knew that Christian souls were so weak? I suppose that means that atheists' souls are much more robust, right? ;)
Posted by: mercurianferret | February 8, 2010 9:25 AM
...Human Life International, which bills itself as the largest international pro-life organization and missionary worldwide.
Huh. Maybe they'll dilute their resources fighting stupid causes that they'll become less effective in their fight against women's rights.
Posted by: Chiroptera | February 8, 2010 9:25 AM
I oppose ouija boards on the grounds that they promote false belief in the supernatural on the basis of misinterpreted ideomotor effect... Phelan being a case in point.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | February 8, 2010 9:26 AM
Hey, Phelen: "light as a feather, stiff as a board - light as a feather, stiff as a board".
Are you getting scared yet?
Posted by: Taz | February 8, 2010 9:27 AM
@ Jim Lippard
I support them because they taught me a valuable lesson regarding the gullibility of people in groups.
Yeah, I was the kid spelling out messages from Satan.
Posted by: snurp | February 8, 2010 9:42 AM
Mock, if you will. But, I once asked an Ouija board what the meaning of life was. It responded "grbxkpae." It was that moment I lost my faith in Jesus.
Posted by: carlsonjok | February 8, 2010 9:44 AM
You have a link to the original story, Ed? Does it allow comments?
I foresee hours of entertainment (my oiuja board told me so).
Posted by: FastLane | February 8, 2010 9:49 AM
Every time I read an adult(!) hyperventilating over a little bit of plastic opening a "portal" facilitating a "spiritual attack," I hear Burt Lahr in my mind's ear: "I do believe in spooks. I do believe in spooks. I do! I do! I do! I do believe in spooks."
Posted by: Woody Tanaka | February 8, 2010 9:49 AM
Its sad that people like this blinkered Christian, who fret over the "portal" this game "opens" to "actual spirits" -- are often wide open to real (if mundane) evil. They're on guard for evil demons, spirits, the devil himself, but the smiling religious con-man gets invited right in. And it is often that same fraud selling the wards and charms.
Posted by: debaser | February 8, 2010 10:00 AM
What's to fear? Every baptized Christian is immune to spiritual attacks.
I think this is a 'fear factor' aimed at kids. The fundies are screaming "Fear!" at everybody else. Now they have a new focus. They also went after Disney for not having fairy tales about Christ. But wait, there are fairy tales about Christ... they're called Scripture.
Posted by: Reverend Rodney | February 8, 2010 10:03 AM
Makes me wonder what they'd think about the bright red devil-horned rubber duckies that reside on a low rooftop where I work.
Posted by: NancyNew | February 8, 2010 10:06 AM
Yet more laughable nonsense from the idiots who think "The Exorcist" was a documentary.
Posted by: Rick R | February 8, 2010 10:07 AM
"If these folks don't want their kids to play with this game....don't buy the game."
That won't work. Satan forces parents to buy it - parents are never responsible for their own actions, it's always the government/communists/muslims/gays/big pharma etc (All fronts for Satan Diversified Holdings Inc.)
Typical for the atheist conspiracy to be undermining America by successfully marketing HELLGATES to small girls.
Posted by: Captain Obvious | February 8, 2010 10:09 AM
I'd say look at it as a relative fraud comparison. The game manufacturer advertises the product as a game. The xian idiot belongs to a group that bills 2000 year old goatherd nonsense as the infallible word of god. Truth in advertising says enjoy the toy and shun the xian liars.
Posted by: MikeMa | February 8, 2010 10:12 AM
amazing how fragile a lot of these fundies are...
Posted by: VikingMoose | February 8, 2010 10:31 AM
Just wait until Phelan hears about the new hot pink vibrating Ouija Board that is coming out this summer.
Posted by: Dogbert | February 8, 2010 10:33 AM
What a damn bigot. My house got haunted after a long session of Monopoly.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | February 8, 2010 10:48 AM
@Ed: You can't just not buy the game! The insidious power of these games is such that just seeing one on the shelf corrupts your soul forever.
Posted by: Emily | February 8, 2010 11:09 AM
Besides, ouija boards are actually great teaching tools for demonstrating things like confirmation bias.
I used to freak people out in college with my ability to make "the spirits" behave themselves when other people were playing on ouija boards. It just took a confident attitude. As I "explained" to these goofy proto spiritualists, "The spirits know if they don't play nice, I won't believe in them, and since all they're made of is belief...*poof*!"
Now I just watch Psych with the kids. It gets the point across.
Posted by: tamara | February 8, 2010 11:22 AM
Taz said:
That's just what I was going to say. Is Phelan aware that engaging in occult rituals has been a staple of girls' slumber parties since time immemorial? Including the Christian ones? Ouja boards, "light as a feather," recalling past lives, Tarot cards, Bloody Mary....I'm sure there are more. Those are just some of the things we did at slumber parties.
Posted by: Gretchen | February 8, 2010 11:45 AM
What nonsense. So many Christians have this idea that Satan is fighting for their souls. What the hell would he do with it? Viewing Christianity as a dualism--as a battle between good and evil (if it were, it would be the most asymmetric warfare in history) is perhaps the most common misconception of Christianity among Christians.
To my fellow Christians: the battle, such as it was, is over. The good guys won. It is finished.
Posted by: heddle | February 8, 2010 11:53 AM
@ Gretchen: I can't help but wonder if the association of young girls with such activities is partly why the religious right is so freaked out by them. Religious righters aren't exactly fans of things feminine.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | February 8, 2010 11:57 AM
This line from the movie Sugar & Spice relates to this post so well:
Posted by: Jeremy Shaffer | February 8, 2010 12:12 PM
Phelan, who has never played the game, said ... "... the Ouija board is actually is a portal to talk to spirits and it's hard to get people to understand that until they actually do it. I don't pretend to know how it works, but it actually does."
Whenever Mr. Phelan uses the word "actually", assume the opposite.
Maybe he's drawing his conclusions from this researcher:
Or this one (same source):
Remember:
What else do you need to know?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | February 8, 2010 12:16 PM
My gf and I would love to summon a demon with a Ouija board (bought one last October), but that shit just doesn't work. One can posit the unfalsifiable hypothesis that we didn't believe hard enough (chilluns is more vulnerable!), but I find it dubious. If Satan is so hot for souls, why hasn't he showed up to collect on any of the numerous occasions people (myself included) have offered them, in exchange for a hint of anything magical or interesting outside the material sphere (proof as easy as just showing up when called)? Hey Satan, come and get me! Booga booga booga!
There's a common saying in my household: I wish I could believe in magic. The price they pay is living in fear, but Xians are lucky to live in a world where any crazy bullshit is possible. So dreamy!
Posted by: CS Shelton | February 8, 2010 12:39 PM
I have to get one of these boards!
I've played Dungeons & Dragons for forty years (white box edition) & still haven't been able to summon a demon.
This time for sure!
Posted by: Rob Jase | February 8, 2010 12:49 PM
CS Shelton
That's easy. The theological answer is that Satan is not after anyone's soul--the best he can do is to get believers to "curse God". That is, the only arrow in his quiver is to get believers to act in a way that is not glorifying to God. Furthermore, he can't even do that without God's permission--e.g., see the book of Job or the fact that Jesus states that Satan asked permission to sift Peter like wheat. (Luke 22:31).
As an unbeliever, Christian theology would simply state that Satan has no use for you or interest in you. In effect, you can't curse God anymore than you already are. So you are not on his radar. You can't help him in the only avenue of attack that he has--to get believers to curse God.
Posted by: heddle | February 8, 2010 12:53 PM
I've been accussed several times of being "spiritually blind" because "Satan has taken control of my soul". This is usually a response after I've destroyed a fatally defective argument.
My response is one of great gratitude and follow with, "Who knew that the one and only Satan thought enough of me little old me to focus his attentions on me alone given that no one or the Bible claims an omnipresent Satan?". Of course this is immediately responded to with, "Well then, it was one of his demons". To which I reply, "How do you distinguish whether its Satan instead of one of demons controlling me?"
What's nice about this go-round is that I've only had to suffer through it once per person, I think they learn their lesson, at least when re-engaging with me.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 8, 2010 12:58 PM
Sadie said:
Maybe so. Parker Brothers has been selling Ouija boards since 1966 (according to Wikipedia), and now because it's pink there's a problem?
From the article:
You bet your ass it is. And Phelan should thank his lucky stars, because when boys want to do "something dangerous" they're more likely to set something on fire. Maybe that's preferable, however, to putting your soul in peril.
Posted by: Gretchen | February 8, 2010 1:02 PM
The guy's got a point. I lost my soul opening a fortune cookie. I had to say "Bloody Mary" three times while looking into a mirror to get a new one. Now I get these cravings for vodka and spicy tomato juice. Which I must admit isn't too bad. But it's the principle of the thing, ya know?
Posted by: Abby Normal | February 8, 2010 1:06 PM
I guess if I told a Christian that the board has no real supernatural powers and tried to prove it to him by watching a group of people use the board blindfolded and watching what letters are chosen (or spaces between letters), he will interpret the nonsensical message that comes out as some kind of demon speaking in tongues. Blindfolded particpants leading to nonsense equals demons speaking in tongues. Right. Magically, to translate into English, use English-speaking participants who can see the letters. Wow! Magic is so mysterious. I can't think of a natural explanation at all!
Posted by: Chuck | February 8, 2010 1:11 PM
Chuck,
Only if by "I guess if I told a Christian" you mean: "I could find the right Christian, and then if I told that Christian..."
But if you really meant what you wrote--you could try your guess out on me.
Posted by: heddle | February 8, 2010 1:15 PM
The ideomotor effect is a well-known phenomenon which involves one's own hand moving without your being consciously aware of choosing to move it. Instead, it will feel just as if an outside force is pushing or pulling your hand. It's commonly manifested in dowsing, and explains why dowsers are so confident they can pass controlled tests. They're not knowingly lying.
Ouija boards can also involve a half-lie -- which needs at least two people, to work. Sometimes you push it, and know that you're pushing it. But not all the time! Those other times, are real! When you shove it along a bit, it seems to start up the spirits, that's all.
And the other person thinks the same thing.
If you have a mindset that works on the idea that subjective, personal experience is the gold standard to use to figure out what's real or not, you're going to fall into these cognitive traps.
Posted by: Sastra | February 8, 2010 1:21 PM
To be fair to these loonbars, not buying the toy isn't enough to stop their kids from playing with it, since it is, after all, a group activity - all it takes is one friend whose family is insufficiently True Christian(TM) and their darling girl is now exposed to Satan ... or, you know, playing with the ideomotor effect.
Posted by: Michael Ralston | February 8, 2010 1:21 PM
Gretchen #29 wrote:
Ha, you just reminded me of something that happened several years back, when a good friend who's a devout Mormon was visiting me. My teenage son and his friend came down from the attic and asked if I had a candle they could use: they were up there with the Ouija board, and getting messages from a spirit who said they needed a candle.
My reaction was swift and certain -- no way was I going to let those two boys take a burning candle up to the attic, which was filled with all sorts of flammable stuff. Forget it. Tell the spirit you have to use a flashlight.
My friend's eyes were wide with wonder and a kind of glossy shock, and when the boys trudged back up she said "that was really ... interesting ... to see how you handled that. I know what I would have done. But what would have bothered me, didn't bother you. Because you really don't believe in ghosts ... at all." And then she laughed, and we talked about it a bit. She was fascinated. I was the only one of her friends who would have treated the issue so casually. In her world, this would have been a crisis.
To me, crisis would have been what happens after I let two 14 year old boys set something on fire in the attic.
Posted by: Sastra | February 8, 2010 1:36 PM
heddle:
And this of course has been the historical position, forever and ever, amen. Surely Calvin and Luther would agree with you...
Posted by: Ivan | February 8, 2010 1:42 PM
Satan's getting a lot of PR lately. It has just been revealed that he possessed Chuck Daly mere months before the NBA Detroit Piston coach led 'the Bad Boys' to their first of two consecutive NBA championships in 1989-90. Hey, it's true; the FBI even investigated!
Mr. Daly was notified of his possession by letter, where the author of the letter wrote:
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 8, 2010 1:49 PM
"Wow... who knew that Christian souls were so weak? I suppose that means that atheists' souls are much more robust, right? ;)"
We have +20 save against possession.
Posted by: Ian | February 8, 2010 1:55 PM
Ivan,
As far as I know, yes. Calvin didn't write nearly as much on Satan as Luther did. But everything that Luther wrote that I have read is consistent this view. Luther did not write about Satan being "after his soul", but about Satan trying to prevent him from doing God's work and Satan trying to create guilt in Christians over their past sins, etc.
I know of no writing of Calvin or Luther that suggests they believed that Satan collected souls. Indeed, they would know quite well that independent of one's eschatology, the model-independent end of Satan in the bible is not that he rules hell and all the souls he's managed to collect, but that he suffers in hell. He's a prisoner, not the warden.
Posted by: heddle | February 8, 2010 2:06 PM
The fundies have been all "Booga! Booga!" about Ouija boards since the 60's. I guess they think that a pink Ouija board is especially deceptive.
I got a Ouija board as a gift when I was a kid. Couldn't get it to do anything. Worst gift ever.
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | February 8, 2010 2:08 PM
heddle @ 39:
What's your opinion of this passage's inference regarding both Paul's self-proclaimed power over other men's souls and Satan's motivation to accept or impotency to deny this result?
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 8, 2010 2:21 PM
Michael Heath,
In 1 Cor 5 we have the story of the man sleeping with his step mother. Paul uses similar language: "deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh." Reading the entire chapter makes it clear what Paul actually means--he means that the man should be excommunicated.
Given that, I suspect Paul is using the same type of phrasing here: excommunicate these men--so that they can blaspheme no more.
Posted by: heddle | February 8, 2010 2:49 PM
Well, heddle, it's a good thing that Satan isn't after your soul, cuz otherwise I'd be worried about that kinky porn you've been looking at...
Posted by: Ivan | February 8, 2010 3:25 PM
Heddle @ 42:
Uh, that's a leap in logic. The plain meaning is that Paul delivered them to Satan, not necesarily physically but they were now under his control at least in terms of their souls. I agree your logic would be arguable, though not definitive, if the Bible didn't make any supernatural claims or promoted that God or Satan were actual entities. In addition, when did excommunication mean one could no longer be a Christian, which your point applies to since these two are 'delivered to Satan'? I thought that was between a person and Jesus Christ. I don't recall such powers by the church's human leaders that are explicitly noted in the Bible that their excommunicating people made them non-Christian and/or under the control of Satan, only that church leaders had the power to excommunicate.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 8, 2010 3:58 PM
@40: The fundies have been all "Booga! Booga!" about Ouija boards since the 60's. I guess they think that a pink Ouija board is especially deceptive.
Or maybe that the pinkness of the board will summon teh gay spirits. Evil of evils!
Posted by: eric | February 8, 2010 4:35 PM
The best thing about being a textual literalist is that you don't have to acknowledge subtext.
I wouldn't let this man anywhere near a pre-teen girls sleepover.
Posted by: Dr X | February 8, 2010 4:47 PM
Michael Heath,
This is a leap in logic? That Paul was talking about excommunication? Given that the chapter (1 Cor 5) ends:
Leap in logic? Not even an itty-bitty hop. It could not be clearer. Paul is saying:--toss the guy out of the community of believers---excommunicate him.
In view of the simple, plain very non-supernatural instruction as to what the Corinthians are to do with this man, the lead-in:
"deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh."
is viewed as either hyperbole or a metaphor--tossing someone out of the church is likened to delivering them to Satan for destruction. Since Paul never claimed that he had special knowledge about how a person could literally be delivered to Satan--nor did he instruct the Corinthians on the matter--we have to assume that the detailed and mundane instructions he gave represent the literal intended content of his message.
Posted by: heddle | February 8, 2010 5:07 PM
Heddle is right, but not as clear as he could be. The Bible makes it fairly plain that Satan is free to roam the Earth and tempt humans* to make them stray from God -- until Judgement Day. Then Satan, along with the rest of the damned, is cast into Hell, to either suffer for eternity or be destroyed, depending on your interpretation of some trickier verses. He certainly doesn't rule Hell; after Judgement, only God retains power over anything, humans having been rid of their free will. That's just your classic Biblical Hell, though; everyone knows that in Baator, your ass belongs to Asmodeus.
*With the exception of some of God's favorites, like Job, it would appear.
Posted by: wheelbrain | February 8, 2010 5:11 PM
This thread was funnier before the quibbling about fairy tales started up. But I guess that's partially my fault as well. I got chuckles from 12, 17, 23, 26, 38, and a few more I'm sure. ThxYo.
-
Posted by: CS Shelton | February 8, 2010 5:24 PM
Back in the 1970's, a friend of mine asked the Quija board to tell us a joke from the future.
I now share that joke, and if you pass it along, the prophecy will come true.
Q: How do you eat a cowboy's ass?
A: You end him.
Hilarious stuff, no?
Posted by: feralboy12 | February 8, 2010 5:52 PM
so heddle, Satan is not real, it's just a metaphor?
I get your point if Satan is a myth or metaphorical figure, but if we put it into the context that Satan and Jesus are real beings than your point does not make sense.
Actually 1 Cor. 5 has my head spinning regardless of your point since it claims that by serving this dude up to Satan, either literally or metaphorically, he's got a better chance of being saved. If Satan weren't a real entity than I get Paul's point (though I see it as mere arguable human position), i.e., his excommunication might prod true repentence. But again you believe Satan is a real entity and Paul is commanding the church serve him up to Satan. I'm struggling to recall other passages when someone is being told to be served up to a powerful supposedly real person or entity where the meaning was not literal; and I'm coming up empty.
If I asked 1000 Christians: Which has a better chance of redeeming a fellow church member after this person initially and stubbornly resists correcting their sinful nature:
a) being kept in a church who aggresively works, disciplines, loves, and stays involved with that person to order to get them to repent so that that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus, or
b) "deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus"
Assume I reworded the choices a bit to hide the fact that "b" is from the RSV and a is my invention. I'd bet all day long the vast majority of conservative Christians would go "a". I realize arguments from popularity do not test efficacy, however I'm struggling to buy into your logic which doesn't work foe me at all if we assume Satan is real and given other Biblical passages which claims he's able to interact with humans.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 8, 2010 6:03 PM
Dr X posted (#46) " wouldn't let this man anywhere near a pre-teen girls sleepover."
I agree with you 100%
I'm guessing that Mr. Phelan, in such company, would be both 'light as a feather' and 'stiff as a board'. - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | February 8, 2010 6:16 PM
In fairness, I don't think that simple solution solves anything from their perspective. Obviously Phelan and his ilk would never buy the game. But the fear is that good Christian girls could be exposed to it while at a slumber party when another girl whips one out.
That said... it's still stupid.
Posted by: Michael Hoaglin | February 8, 2010 6:17 PM
Michael Heath,
Huh?
Sometimes I don't understand you. That is so obviously not what I said or implied. Where did I say Satan was a metaphor? No, I said that Paul's sentence in 1 Cor 5: "deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh" may have been metaphorical. That he was likening excommunication to being delivered to Satan.
Again the evidence: Paul never claims that he knows where Satan lives--so that a person might be delivered unto him. Or that he can summon Satan. He does, after he makes that statement, go on to clearly instruct that the man be removed from the community.
But this has nothing to do with the reality of Satan--clearly Paul believed in the reality of Satan.
Well yes, one can always create leading questions. How about asking 1000 Conservative Christians:
Faced with a man who refuses, after repeated appeals, to repent from sexual immorality, the proper response of the church, as modeled on Paul's instruction to the Corinthian church when faced with similar situation is:
a) Keep him in the body and aggressively work on discipline and love and stay involved with that person to order to get them to repent so that that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus, or
b) deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus, or
c) Excommunicate him
then I'll take the bet that the majority will answer c. As long as it is made clear that repeated attempts to get the man to repent have been made.
Posted by: heddle | February 8, 2010 6:45 PM
The next edition of this Ouija board should have printed on its box, with a sign of the cross:
Prominent Christian leader, Stephen Phelan, communications director for Human Life International,... the largest international pro-life and missionary organization worldwide has now endorsed this Ouija board:
"..the Ouija board is actually is a portal to talk to spirits and it's hard to get people to understand that until they actually do it. I don't pretend to know how it works, but it actually does."
Probably this would increase sales in the Bible Belt.
Posted by: A | February 8, 2010 7:10 PM
This "wigout" is hardly the worst I have heard of from these religous bigots. The absolute worst was, last year, I met this young woman who said it was "satanic" to read the astrology columns! Jeez, sometimes they're funny! In any case, she claimed she went to a Chinese restaurant, looked at the Chinese horoscope -- just glanced at it, mind you -- and got sick. I told her flat out, in so many words, she was an idiot for believing this nonsense. I think she had, uh, mental problems.
Anne G
Posted by: Anne Gilbert | February 8, 2010 7:14 PM
It's also been known to ruin your Armor Class and give you massive penalties to your savings throws.
Posted by: DaveL | February 8, 2010 7:31 PM
As one who suffers from severe allergic reactions to theological debates, I tend to skim the comments whenever a thread gets heddle-jacked (which is by no means always heddle's fault, I hasten to add), and did so again this time.
For some reason, however, I had a change of heart and wanted to see what the debate with Michael Heath was about and so I went back. In rereading the comments, I discovered that I had completely skipped Michael Ralston's point @34 before I made the exact same point @53. Sorry for the redundancy and sorry for skipping over you, Michael R.
(Man, there's way too many Michaels in here.)
Posted by: Michael Hoaglin | February 8, 2010 7:45 PM
I suddenly recall that youtube video from a couple of months ago that showed the "exorcising" of a gay demon.
At least we found the source of teh gay :P
Posted by: Twin-Skies | February 8, 2010 7:50 PM
Heddle,
I understood all your points. I was trying to get you to see my point, which I either failed to convey or you avoided. Your argument didn't convince me, not even close, so I was attempting to get you to work your way to an answer empathetic to my problem with your line of logic.
Your modified set of suggestions actually helps to make my point. God/Paul could have clearly written "c", but he/they didn't, he instead commanded they serve this guy up to an entity this group believed was real. And we see this twice. If it were a common phrase about a long-dead historical character or a known mythological character, than your point is arguable to convincing. However given Satan was supposedly a living entity and a threat to one's salvation, I see your description as a very illogical explanation. In fact IMHO your responses have weakened your position, not strengthened it.
It's not a big deal if you don't respond. I was merely looking for biblical passages searching by the word "Satan" to test your claim that the Bible doesn't claim that Satan was interested in owning men's souls as you stated earlier, especially since you coupled that to describing Satan as a mere "prisoner" rather than a "warden", where my 1 Timothy 1 example and 1 Cor. 5 example challenges that point and possibly even falsifies your point. They were the best I could find so your larger point (Satan isn't recruiting in volume) withstood my casual test while your minor point (Satan's indifferent about having us served-up) appears weak.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 8, 2010 7:53 PM
As an interesting side-note, apparently it's part of the folklore of the Beauce region (part of Maine and Québec) that local Catholic pastors would summon the devil to assist in such chores as building bridges or churches.
source
Posted by: DaveL | February 8, 2010 8:08 PM
Oh Satan. Your reality and acceptance change so much over the ages.
Posted by: Rutee | February 8, 2010 8:20 PM
A more accurate headline is "Religious right wigs out over a toy yet again." Or a children's book or a game.
Posted by: Monado | February 8, 2010 8:44 PM
What to do:
Write letters to those anti-Ouija nutjobs, for example:
Dear (so-and-so): You are so right about those horrid Ouija boards! Last week the girls had a party and one of their friends brought over the pink Ouija board. Not five minutes went by when one of them said the board had spelled out "k-i-s-s-h-e-r." That's "kiss her." Then the girls started talking about kissing each other! I nearly died! Those things aren't just promoting Satanism, they're promoting Lesbianism too! ...(etc.)..."
Come up with a bunch of variations on the theme. "....and then it spelled out a word that looked an awful lot like the first five letters of that disgusting thing that lesbians do to each other!..." Lesbians, lesbians, lesbians!
The point being to get these religious righties to start thinking that the pink Ouija board is a Super-Secret Lesbian Recruiting Tool. Whip up their paranoia real' good. Get them so freaked out that they start accusing the manufacturer of weird occult conspiracies. The more freaked out the better, and the weirder the conspiracies the better.
Posted by: the Department of Gray Ops | February 9, 2010 1:10 AM
Everyone knows atheists don't have souls!
Heddle wrote:
Are you kidding? I'm no Luther scholar, but if these quotes are genuine, then you should best keep Luther out of your apologetics strategy.
Posted by: Joe | February 9, 2010 2:33 AM
Anyone else amused and maybe also slightly disturbed by the fact that a NYC cop assists in exorcisms?
"Hey, Satan, you rekkonize me? Huh?"
(Pulls out gun, badge, and holy water)
"You gonna make my day, Satan? Huh? You feelin' lucky today, asshole?"
Posted by: Adrienne | February 9, 2010 8:29 AM
Joe,
They are genuine. And I'll keep Luther as part of my apologetic arguments--one of the biggest parts--but thanks for your concern.
(You do realize that Luther's antisemitism and obsession with Satan are well-known among his admirers? That while we reel in disgust at what he wrote about Jews and have no excuse for it, we nevertheless can admire his elucidation of the concepts of Justification and of grace and guilt? You can grasp that concept?)
Posted by: heddle | February 9, 2010 8:39 AM
From the page of Luther quotes:
Posted by: James Hanley | February 9, 2010 9:28 AM
James Hanley,
You are usually a careful scholar. I'm surprised you'd actually make anything out of Luther's isolated quotes on reason--seemingly unconcerned that you might be quote-mining.
Not that it matters--since Luther's work on Justification was well reasoned--it wouldn't matter that if some other point he railed against reason. But still, I would have though that you'd question whether Luther was really taking a dogmatic stand against reason in the writings from which those quotes were plucked.
Posted by: heddle | February 9, 2010 9:37 AM
Thanks, Joe. That's exactly the point I was getting at-- there's very little resemblance between beliefs about Satan then and beliefs about Satan now (at least among the saner sort of xians).
heddle: I notice you haven't offered any evidence that those quotes are mined. Their meaning seems plain enough.
Yes, I'm sure that all the children who are taught to admire him are made aware of all those things, right?
Posted by: Ivan | February 9, 2010 10:00 AM
Oh Heddle, you comic cafeteria Calvinist! :) - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | February 9, 2010 10:04 AM
Ivan,
?? All quote mines are quote mines because, stand alone, their meaining in plain enough. That is why they are mined in the first place. Nobody mines statements that, stand alone, are nebulous.
But to be brief:
1) I can make a case that his anti-reason quotes are quote-mined.
2) I don't think his views on Satan or Jews are quote-mined.
3) Regardless of his views on Satan, he does not believe that Satan literally collects the souls of men.
4) His views on Satan, Jews, and even reason are not relevant when I judge his seminal work on the meaning of justification.
Posted by: heddle | February 9, 2010 10:20 AM
Yes, heddle, I think we are all aware that you are quite capable of making a case for just about any premise, no matter how absurd. Thank you for sparing us in this instance.
Posted by: Ivan | February 9, 2010 10:37 AM
Heddle - wait just a cotton-pickin' minute there sparky!
Points 3 and 4: "what he clearly says he believes ain't what actually he believes, 'cause I say so" and "his insane views on a germane topics ain't germane to a topic that ain't germane"? That's the best you got?? - DIngo
Posted by: DingoJack | February 9, 2010 10:59 AM
Well, around 50 million gassed, shot, hung and tortured, but that's nothing: Hitler loved babies so that whole mass murder thing is like, totally irrelevant.
apply similar tortured logic to Luthier and you'll reach the "Heddle nirvana" - Dingo
----
*Yes, I'm invoking Godwin';s law, but really, who wouldn't?
Posted by: DIngoJack | February 9, 2010 11:45 AM
Heddle
Actually it is a concept I have always found exceedingly difficult to grasp! Granted, Luther's deranged rants about demons, witches and Satan reflect typical beliefs of his time. Nevertheless, one would have have hoped that an intelligent deity would exercise some degree of discretion in his choice of earthly agents. Or at least put some of that divine inspiration towards their general enlightenment. Honestly, your God has made some callous decisions in this regard.
Posted by: Joe | February 9, 2010 3:33 PM
Joe,
It's curious, to be sure. I mean, I would have picked Esau over Jacob any day. But Jacob he loved, and Esau he hated. Go figure. It's that inscrutable thing, I guess.
Posted by: heddle | February 9, 2010 3:56 PM
Heddle,
Exactly. Inscrutable. All I see is bathwater while you, on the other hand, insist there's baby in there somewhere. :)
Posted by: Joe | February 9, 2010 4:04 PM
Of course, I think it's entirely possible for a Christian to see Luther as a man who had some good ideas about theology as opposed to a Chosen Vessel of God, in which case I would have to point out that we're perfectly capable of appreciating Newton's work despite his occultism, Darwin's despite his latent racism, etc.
Posted by: DaveL | February 9, 2010 4:30 PM
Don't give us that shit about Darwin being a racist.
But to the larger point: we have a solid basis on which to check the work of scientists. How do you check the work of a theologian? (And you'd better be right, or else you'll go to the bad place when you die.)
Posted by: Ivan | February 9, 2010 6:03 PM
Well, compared to modern standards, he was. So was Abraham Lincoln. In the context of their own time and culture, however, they were both very egalitarian, forward-thinking individuals.
Posted by: DaveL | February 9, 2010 6:19 PM
I honestly don't know how you would check the work of a theologian. It seems to me that would be very much like checking the credit score of a herring.
Posted by: DaveL | February 9, 2010 6:22 PM
Never saw any ouja boards other than on the store shelf until I was in grad school, though I remember the sermons back in the day about how evil they were. In my experience, elementary school girls got their fortune telling fixes from something where the "just don't buy it" approach doesn't work - a plain piece of paper. Several decades later, I'm sure I could still fold one up in minutes if given a loose leaf of paper. Way more popular at my elementary school, and there was even a South Park ep featuring those, for anyone who doesn't remember the origami fortune tellers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marjorine
Posted by: Djinna | February 9, 2010 8:53 PM
@ DaveL
Jesus had an opionion on the matter.
The impact of the Reformation was such that I find it hard to swallow that God's choice of Luther would have been incidental.
But then, we may as well be arguing about how it is that Superman can fly to other planets when the canonical view is that he derives all his powers from the Earth's yelow sun.
Posted by: Joe | February 10, 2010 3:02 AM
I've had a lot of fun with Quija boards. One time, when I was about 12, "it" told me my greatest fear was insects. Which is actually kind of true. Later that night I saw the hugest centipede I've ever seen in my life, so for years I was paranoid that spirits were attacking me with creepy bugs. Trauma can be fun!
Posted by: Leni | February 10, 2010 6:53 AM
Ivan, #70
Well, yes, depending on how you define "children". As in all things the goal is to teach children age appropriate material. In my experience we don't teach (in Sunday School) very young children about Martin Luther at all. They start learning about the Reformers around middle school age-Grade 6 or so. (Some of the home-schooled kids will already know.) It is true that at first it would be Luther at Wittenberg, Luther's crisis of faith, Luther at Worms, etc. I guess that you somehow think that is bad? By high school they will learn of Luther's dark side. I know, because I myself have taught them--and even if I didn't some of them would bring it up, because by then some would have learned it elsewhere.
Maybe you think we tell them: Oh no, all those bad things you hear about Luther on the evil intertubes were made up by godless atheists and evilutionists and Papists!
Posted by: heddle | February 10, 2010 9:09 AM
Don't want your child to have a pink Ouija board? Then don't buy one. Instead you can get them a religiously neutral stripper pole, also targeted for girls ages 8 and up.
Posted by: TSFN | February 10, 2010 9:26 AM
heddle, that is the most perfect rationalisation of brainwashing that I've ever heard. By high school means by the time they're well-indoctrinated enough to ignore such troubling data.
Dark-sided, indeed!
Posted by: Ivan | February 10, 2010 10:32 AM
Heddle, you have school on Sundays?! Dude, you're so not selling this Chrisintanity thing very well.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | February 10, 2010 11:21 AM