CCN'S SATANIC PANIC: IS THIS REALLY ABOUT SATANISM, OR IS IT ABOUT PROTECTING FATHER'S HOUSE CHURCH?

 There are days when local social media makes you wonder whether somebody accidentally opened a portal to the 17th century. Then Cowlitz County News publishes a post like this, and you realize no portal is necessary. Apparently, all it takes is a Facebook page, a religious panic, and an alarming shortage of fact-checking.

CCN wants everyone to believe Longview has a growing Satanic influence problem. Its big investigation centers on a local business owner who belongs to The Satanic Temple and people who expressed support in the comments of an earlier post.

BREAKING NEWS: Someone has a religious or philosophical affiliation CCN doesn't approve of. Alert the authorities! Light the torches! Somebody find a pitchfork because apparently we're holding the Salem witch trials all over again, except this time the hysteria is being livestreamed on Facebook.

The more I look at this post, the more I have to wonder whether this is really about Satanism at all, or whether CCN is trying to distract from a much more uncomfortable question: Why are people demanding that churches step up to help the homeless, and which churches would rather not be held accountable for doing their part?

My suspicion is that this spectacle serves a convenient purpose. If the conversation stays focused on a local business owner who belongs to The Satanic Temple, CCN can turn that person into the villain of the story. Everyone gets something to be outraged about while the spotlight conveniently moves away from the local Christian institutions that might not appreciate being asked what they are actually doing to help people in need.

One church in particular comes to mind: Father's House Church.

Let's get something straight before the usual suspects start screaming persecution. I am not arguing that every church must operate a homeless shelter, nor am I suggesting that religious organizations are automatically responsible for solving every social problem in Cowlitz County. Churches have different resources, missions, and capacities.

What I am questioning is the apparent double standard. When somebody associated with The Satanic Temple advocates for homeless people, suddenly we have a BREAKING NEWS investigation into Satanic influence in Longview. When the discussion turns to whether churches should help people who are hungry, homeless, or freezing outside, things get considerably less comfortable.

Funny how that works.

THE SATANIC TEMPLE IS NOT THE SAME THING AS WORSHIPPING SATAN

Apparently, this distinction needs to be explained repeatedly because some people seem determined to ignore it.

The Satanic Temple is a nontheistic religious organization. It does not believe in or worship a literal Satan. Satan is a symbolic figure associated with individual liberty, resistance to arbitrary authority, and challenging religious privilege.

That is not the same thing as belonging to a group that worships a supernatural devil. Calling a member of The Satanic Temple a Satan worshipper is inaccurate, regardless of how much somebody dislikes the organization.

You can disagree with The Satanic Temple. You can criticize its positions. You can think its use of Satanic imagery is offensive. None of those things gives you permission to pretend it is something it isn't.

CCN's post takes a person's affiliation, adds a healthy helping of ominous language, and invites the community to contemplate a supposed growing Satanic influence in Cowlitz County.

Where is the evidence of wrongdoing? What specific threat has been established? What exactly has this business owner done that justifies treating their religious affiliation as a public safety concern?

The post does not establish those things.

Instead, we get warnings about Satanists, speculation about political candidates, and a comment section in which people start making accusations about pedophilia, witchcraft, and supernatural portals.

Notice how quickly this conversation goes from a person's religious affiliation to allegations about sex offenders. CCN's original post itself describes transients as likely sex offenders, registered sex offenders, and many non-compliant individuals. That sweeping characterization deserves scrutiny of its own, particularly when it is used to stigmatize an already vulnerable population.

The existence of registered sex offenders among people experiencing homelessness does not establish that homeless people generally are sex offenders. Individual criminal records are not evidence of collective guilt.

Apparently, one moral panic wasn't enough. We needed two.

Welcome to the 21st century, where all it takes to revive the Salem witch trials is a Facebook account and an audience willing to confuse religious differences with evidence of criminal activity.

WHY IS FATHER'S HOUSE CHURCH CONVENIENTLY OUT OF THE SPOTLIGHT?

Here is where the discussion gets considerably more interesting.

Father's House Church has been associated with local political activity and conservative Christian organizing. I have raised concerns about the role of Christian nationalism in local politics, particularly when religious organizations and their allies seek political influence that could affect the rights of people who do not share their beliefs.

My concern is not that Christians participate in politics. They have every right to do so, just like atheists, members of The Satanic Temple, and everybody else.

My concern is what happens when political activism stops being about representing your own beliefs and starts being about using government power to impose those beliefs on everyone else.

There is a substantial difference between saying, "My faith guides my personal decisions," and saying, "My faith should determine the laws everyone else has to live under."

The first is religious freedom. The second raises serious questions about religious liberty, equal treatment, and the separation of church and state.

I am concerned that the political activity surrounding Father's House and its allies reflects a broader effort to increase the influence of conservative Christianity over local government. Those concerns deserve scrutiny, especially when political organizing involves candidates, public institutions, and policies affecting people who do not belong to the same religious community.

The public should be asking questions about that activity, examining public records, and looking at actual policy proposals and voting records.

Instead, CCN has chosen to focus attention on a member of The Satanic Temple.

That is a remarkably convenient distraction.

Andrew Hagle raises an important distinction in the comments: practicing Christianity is one thing; using Christianity to justify a political agenda that conflicts with the teachings of Jesus is another. His criticism goes directly to the issue of Christian nationalism.

Other commenters are making the same point. People are allowed to practice their religion, but the moment someone tries to use that religion to dictate how everybody else must live, the discussion changes.

That is not anti-Christian persecution. It is a legitimate question about the role of religion in government.

Longview does not belong to one church, one denomination, or one political faction. It belongs to the people who live here, including those who do not share the religious beliefs of the people seeking political power.

THE ELITE CLIENTELE PROBLEM

There is another question worth asking about the role of prominent churches in the community: Who are they serving, and what does that service actually look like?

Father's House has a public profile and connections within the local political landscape. My concern is that an institution with influence among prominent and politically connected people can devote considerable energy to public affairs while the less glamorous needs of the community receive less attention.

Homelessness is not glamorous. Feeding people is not glamorous. Providing a warm place to sleep is not glamorous. Helping someone navigate addiction, disability, unemployment, or the bureaucratic nightmare of obtaining housing is not glamorous.

There are no political victory laps in handing somebody a meal. Nobody gets to feel like the savior of Western civilization because they helped a person who has nowhere to sleep.

Yet those are precisely the kinds of mundane, practical acts of compassion that matter when people are struggling to survive.

I question whether the priorities of an institution that cultivates an influential clientele are aligned with the needs of the people most vulnerable in our community. If a church has the resources, connections, and political influence to make its voice heard, it is reasonable for the public to ask what it contributes to the wider community.

That is a question, not a proven finding that the church refuses to help homeless people. Its actual charitable work, spending, and programs should be evaluated using evidence rather than assumptions.

Still, the broader point stands: If we are going to scrutinize who helps the homeless, we should scrutinize everyone fairly, not just the people whose religious affiliation makes an easy target.

Why should a person advocating for warming shelters face a religious loyalty test while powerful religious institutions escape equally pointed questions about their own priorities?

If CCN believes that churches should do more to help homeless residents, then that standard should apply to churches across the board.

If CCN believes that churches have no particular obligation to provide shelter or food, then it should say so consistently.

What makes no sense is treating advocacy for homeless people as suspicious when it comes from one religious perspective while treating the political ambitions of another as beyond scrutiny.

The question of tax-exempt status is also worth discussing. Churches receive tax advantages under the law, subject to applicable requirements. That does not automatically mean every church must run a homeless shelter, nor does it mean that every church is failing its community.

It does mean the public can reasonably debate the relationship between religious tax benefits, charitable activity, and the public good.

If people want to examine whether churches should retain tax-exempt status, that debate should be based on tax policy, legal requirements, and evidence. It should not depend on whether the church belongs to the politically fashionable side of a religious argument.

This is another example of how quickly the discussion gets sidetracked. Cherie Tobin makes a claim about homeless funding in Seattle being used to hire a drag performer for a meeting. That allegation would need to be independently verified before being treated as fact.

The public should absolutely scrutinize the use of taxpayer money. If public funds were misused, the evidence should be produced and the responsible parties held accountable. A sensational claim about an unrelated program, however, does not answer the question of what Longview's churches are doing for people who need shelter.

We can investigate government spending without turning every conversation about homelessness into a culture-war circus.

CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM IS THE BIGGER ISSUE

This is not simply about whether a church hands out meals or operates a warming shelter. It is about the relationship between religious power and government power.

Christian nationalism, broadly speaking, is a political ideology that seeks a privileged place for Christianity in the nation's identity, institutions, or laws. Its forms vary, but the concern arises when one religious tradition is treated as more entitled than others to shape public policy and civic life.

That is particularly concerning at the local level, where school boards, city councils, and other public bodies make decisions that affect everybody.

Longview belongs to Christians, atheists, Jews, Muslims, members of The Satanic Temple, and people who want nothing to do with organized religion. No church owns this town. No pastor gets an extra vote because of his theology. No religious organization gets to dictate public policy simply because its members believe God is on their side.

If people connected to Father's House or other Christian organizations want to run for office, they have every right to do so. They should be judged by their policies, their conduct, their public records, and how they intend to govern.

The same standards apply to everybody else.

My concern is that some of the political activity surrounding these organizations reflects an effort to turn Longview into a Christian nationalist stronghold, where conservative Christian beliefs receive preferential treatment in public policy. That concern deserves serious examination through public records, candidate platforms, and actual policy proposals.

The goal should not be to prevent Christians from participating in government. The goal should be to prevent any religious group from using government power to impose its beliefs on people who do not share them.

You cannot preach religious freedom while demanding that government privilege your religion.

You cannot insist that your beliefs deserve protection while treating the beliefs of others as a threat to society.

You cannot claim to defend Christianity while demanding that everybody else live according to your interpretation of it.

You certainly cannot claim the moral high ground merely because your political agenda comes wrapped in a Bible.

Caitlin Marie Puffenbarger makes this point directly in her comment. She challenges people to practice Christianity rather than use it to condemn others, and she reminds them that religious freedom applies to people whose beliefs differ from their own.

Her comment cuts to the heart of the problem: people cannot demand that their own religious beliefs be respected while insisting that everyone else conform to them.

The discussion also includes the familiar attempt to compare LGBTQ+ identities and advocacy with religion. They are not the same thing. Sexual orientation and gender identity are not religions, and advocating for equal rights does not turn someone into a member of a competing faith.

People can debate public policy without pretending that every disagreement with conservative Christianity is an attack on Christianity itself.

Some commenters dismiss religion altogether, while others defend it. That is what freedom of expression looks like: people disagreeing, sometimes sharply, about matters they consider important.

The solution is not to silence the people with unpopular beliefs or portray them as threats simply because they disagree with the majority.

THE HOMELESSNESS DEBATE EXPOSES THE HYPOCRISY

Look at the comments under CCN's post. Some people are arguing that homeless residents should be denied help if they are unwilling to work. Others are blaming addiction, demanding punishment, or suggesting that providing shelter only makes matters worse.

Meanwhile, others are pointing out that the Bible contains plenty of instructions to feed the hungry, welcome strangers, and care for people in need.

Matthew 25:35-40 is not exactly subtle about the importance of helping people who are hungry, thirsty, or without shelter. James 2:14-17 challenges the value of professed faith that does nothing to meet people's needs.

Christians can debate how those teachings should be applied to public policy. They can disagree about the responsibilities of churches, governments, and individuals. Those are legitimate discussions.

Using a single verse about unwillingness to work to justify writing off everyone who is homeless is not a serious analysis of poverty. It ignores disability, illness, unemployment, addiction, and the many barriers that can prevent someone from finding stable housing.

It also conveniently avoids the more uncomfortable question: What does compassion actually require when the person in need is difficult to help, politically inconvenient, or unable to offer anything in return?

That is where the rubber meets the road.

It is easy to talk about Christian values when the audience is full of people who agree with you. It is considerably harder to demonstrate those values when the person in front of you is poor, struggling, addicted, disabled, or sleeping outside.

If a church chooses to focus its energy on political influence while leaving practical community needs to others, the public is entitled to ask whether its priorities reflect the teachings it professes to follow.

Again, the answer should be based on what the organization actually does, not on assumptions. The question itself is entirely legitimate.

Angela Lovelady Rapp argues that people should use their gifts and abilities wisely. Jeremy McShane pushes back by pointing out that the argument is not simply about personal responsibility; it is also about a religious organization that makes demands of its members.

The exchange raises an important question: What happens when a verse about unwillingness to work gets applied indiscriminately to people whose circumstances may prevent them from working?

Homelessness is not a single condition with a single cause. Some people are employed but cannot afford housing. Some are disabled. Some have lost jobs or family support. Some struggle with addiction or mental illness. Some face multiple barriers at once.

Treating every homeless person as lazy is not a solution. It is an excuse to stop thinking about the problem.

CarolAnn Liebelt argues that biblical teachings discourage supporting people who refuse to work or enabling addiction. There are legitimate discussions to be had about personal responsibility, effective assistance, and the limits of charitable support.

The problem comes when those arguments are used to treat an entire population as undeserving of basic compassion.

The Bible passage about unwillingness to work does not establish that people who cannot work should starve. Nor does it say that someone must demonstrate moral perfection before they deserve food or emergency shelter.

A person can believe in accountability and still recognize that leaving people to freeze outside is not an effective social policy.

Jeremy McShane makes a broader point about virtue signaling. If religion becomes a way to feel morally superior without actually helping people, the performance can become more important than the purpose.

That criticism deserves consideration regardless of whether someone agrees with his conclusions about religion.

Jeremy also questions the usefulness of churches that leave the practical work of feeding and sheltering people to food banks and other organizations.

I would put it this way: Churches are not obligated to solve every social problem, but a church that regularly invokes compassion and service should expect questions about how those values translate into action.

If a church is doing substantial charitable work, document it. If it is not, the public can ask why. Either way, the answer should come from evidence, not assumptions.

This exchange reinforces the distinction between professing a moral position and putting it into practice. Religious belief is a personal right. Public claims about morality, however, are fair subjects for discussion and criticism.

Some of the strongest pushback in this discussion comes from people who are willing to challenge the arguments rather than simply repeat slogans. That is how a public conversation should work.

Linda Levier's response is a reminder that not everyone is interested in accepting somebody else's religious demands as the price of participating in public life.

People are allowed to disagree with Christianity. They are allowed to disagree with The Satanic Temple. They are allowed to reject organized religion entirely.

Nobody is required to pretend that every religious claim is beyond criticism.

THE WARMING SHELTER STORY DESERVES FACTS, NOT FEAR

There is another detail in these screenshots that deserves attention.

John Hamill initially explains that the original discussion concerned the impending closure of a warming center and the loss of civic support. CCN later replies that it is not closed and that the page received an email about it.

This exchange matters because it shows that the warming shelter situation itself needed clarification.

If the center was not closed, that is useful information. If there were concerns about future funding, operating arrangements, or services, those concerns still deserve a factual explanation.

What the public needs is clear information about shelter availability, funding, operating hours, and what happens to people who need somewhere warm to sleep.

What the public does not need is a story that takes a dispute about community services and turns it into a warning about Satanic influence.

The shelter issue should be examined on its merits, regardless of who first raised it or what religious beliefs they hold.

THE SATANIC PANIC IS A VERY USEFUL DISTRACTION

This is what makes CCN's post so troubling.

Instead of keeping the conversation focused on homelessness, warming shelters, and the responsibilities of community institutions, it directs attention toward an alleged Satanic threat.

Instead of asking whether powerful religious organizations are doing enough to help vulnerable people, it encourages readers to worry about a business owner's religious affiliation.

Instead of examining the political influence of religious institutions and their allies, it invites the public to view people outside the Christian mainstream as enemies.

I cannot prove CCN's motive from a Facebook post alone. The effect of this framing, however, is clear: it shifts the spotlight away from the practical question of who is helping homeless residents and toward a sensationalized story about Satanism.

That shift benefits anyone who would rather not answer uncomfortable questions about their own priorities.

If Father's House and other churches are doing meaningful work to help people experiencing homelessness, they should be able to discuss that work openly. If they have chosen different priorities, the public can evaluate those choices for itself.

What should not happen is for the entire conversation to be derailed by a religious scare campaign that treats an unpopular affiliation as evidence of a threat.

Teresa Edwards responds by portraying Longview Resistance as a group of people who hate Christians and suggesting that their efforts are an attack on Christianity. That is a convenient way to avoid engaging with the actual criticism.

Questioning Christian nationalism is not the same thing as hating Christians. Criticizing a church's political influence is not the same thing as opposing religious freedom. Asking whether religious institutions should help homeless people is not a declaration of war on Christianity.

People can criticize political movements, institutions, and public statements without attacking every person who shares a religious identity.

At some point, the entire discussion becomes so detached from the original issue that all you can do is ask what on earth happened to a conversation about warming shelters.

The answer appears to be that the discussion was pulled into a culture-war argument in which a person's religious affiliation became the main event.

That is precisely the problem.

Zane Pennington asks whether CCN is having a slow day. CCN responds that it posts topics that interest the page and the community.

Fair enough. A local news page can choose what it covers. That does not mean every editorial decision is beyond criticism.

When a page presents a supposed growing Satanic influence as BREAKING NEWS, the public is entitled to ask what evidence supports the claim and whether the framing serves any useful purpose.

Calling something an investigation does not automatically make it meaningful journalism.

THE COMMENTS SHOW WHY THIS MATTERS

One of the most disturbing features of the discussion is how quickly people move from a person's religious affiliation to accusations about child abuse, pedophilia, witchcraft, and supernatural conspiracies.

Calvin Duane Baker makes an extraordinary claim about Satanic factions and alleged child abuse. The screenshot illustrates how far the conversation has drifted from the original issue.

Claims of criminal conduct should be supported by credible evidence. They should not be inferred from someone's membership in an organization, the symbolism they use, or the fact that their beliefs differ from those of their neighbors.

Accusations involving children are serious. Treating them as casual talking points in a religious argument does a disservice to actual victims and to the public.

The appearance of another familiar online participant adds yet another layer to the spectacle. The broader issue remains the same: the public should be looking at verifiable conduct and evidence rather than treating political or religious disagreement as proof of wrongdoing.

Mary Kay Burdett Rice calls for Satanists to be identified and run out of town. That is an especially troubling response to a discussion about religious freedom.

People are entitled to criticize The Satanic Temple. They are not entitled to decide that people should be driven out of their community simply because of their religious affiliation.

The First Amendment protects religious exercise and freedom of expression. A person's unpopular beliefs do not make them an appropriate target for public intimidation or exclusion.

This is precisely why religious freedom must apply to everyone, not just people whose beliefs are popular with the majority.

THANKFULLY, NOT EVERYBODY IS BUYING IT

The encouraging part of this mess is that plenty of people in the comments are pushing back.

They are questioning the claims, challenging the hypocrisy, defending religious freedom, and reminding others that helping homeless people should not depend on whether the person offering help belongs to the correct religious club.

Some are pointing out the difference between Christianity as a faith and Christian nationalism as a political ideology. Others are questioning why churches that preach compassion are not being asked the same questions as everyone else.

Those are precisely the conversations CCN should be encouraging if it genuinely wants to examine community responsibility.

Instead, the post invites readers to fear a supposed Satanic influence without establishing what concrete harm has occurred.

A community does not become safer because its residents are encouraged to suspect one another's religious beliefs. It becomes more divided.

Longview has enough real problems without inventing new ones.

THE QUESTION CCN SHOULD BE ANSWERING

Here is the question I would like to see CCN address:

Why is the religious affiliation of a local business owner being presented as a community threat, while the political influence and practical responsibilities of powerful religious institutions receive comparatively less scrutiny in this discussion?

That is a legitimate question about consistency, accountability, and the direction of local politics.

If CCN wants to investigate, investigate. Examine public records. Document charitable programs. Ask churches what services they provide. Ask local officials about warming shelters. Examine candidates' policy positions and the organizations supporting them.

Do the work.

Do not substitute insinuations about Satanism for reporting. Do not encourage people to treat religious affiliation as evidence of criminal conduct. Do not turn a public discussion about homelessness into a modern-day witch hunt.

Do not expect the public to ignore the possibility that this sensationalized story serves a political purpose, either.

Longview is not the private property of Father's House Church, CCN, or any other organization. Its government belongs to the public, and its laws must protect the rights of everyone, not just those who subscribe to a particular religious worldview.

If people want to build warming shelters, feed hungry residents, and help homeless people find stability, those efforts should be judged on their merits.

If people want to run for public office, their records and policies should be examined.

If churches want to influence public policy, their proposals deserve the same scrutiny as anyone else's.

What we do not need is a religious panic designed to make the public afraid of people who believe differently.

CCN can call this an investigation into Satanic influence if it wants. From where I sit, it looks a whole lot more like a distraction from the uncomfortable questions surrounding homelessness, religious hypocrisy, and the effort to use Christian beliefs as a political blueprint for everybody else.

The Salem witch trials were a disgrace because fear and accusation replaced evidence and reason. We should have learned better by now.

Apparently, some people are determined to keep the tradition alive. They have just traded the village square for Facebook.