Satanic Temple counters anti-abortion regulations

[Darat]

We prove in a court of law that Satanism or Pastfarianism is a religion, the Catholic Church, Southern Baptist Convention, and Church of Latter Day Saints aren't going to "Oh you're right, we're on equal footing now." They are gonna laugh and say "Go fish."

You've got the wrong end of the stick, It's not got anything to do with any expectation of changing the behaviour of any other religion.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You've got the wrong end of the stick, It's not got anything to do with any expectation of changing the behaviour of any other religion.

And when the smaller religions try to get away with the same crap the big religions do the answer will also be "Go Fish."

 

[acbytesla]

And when the smaller religions try to get away with the same crap the big religions do the answer will also be "Go Fish."

I'm missing the point...What does it matter what the bigger religions answer is?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm missing the point...What does it matter what the bigger religions answer is?

99% of our elected officials belong to those bigger religions.

 

[acbytesla]

99% of our elected officials belong to those bigger religions.

This is a court and Constitutional issue. Remember..."Congress shall make no law". If the Unitarians qualify...why not the church of atheism?

 

[JoeMorgue]

This is a court and Constitutional issue. Remember..."Congress shall make no law". If the Unitarians qualify...why not the church of atheism?

Oh "Well the rules say." Oh well that's settles that I'm sure. Just let me look at American history since that "Congress shall make no law" part has been in there since the beginning.

Hmmmm that's odd.

 

[Thermal]

What is a religion? Therein lies the problem. Does it require a belief in a supernatural fairy sky daddy?

Do you have how many times I have heard from Christians and Muslims that "atheism" is a religion? It's not. But I believe that science should ALWAYS prevail over superstition.

I don't think anyone means atheism is literally a religion, so much as some of its more passionate adherents treat it like one, to the point where it is functionally indistinguishable.

And yes, plus or minus, I think a religion needs some kind of supernatural element. Without that, there's not much to get religious about. Unless we assume that rabid irrationality is the bedrock of rigious faith. It would explain the religious fervor of Dallas Cowboys fans.

 

[acbytesla]

I don't think anyone means atheism is literally a religion, so much as some of its more passionate adherents treat it like one, to the point where it is functionally indistinguishable.

And yes, plus or minus, I think a religion needs some kind of supernatural element. Without that, there's not much to get religious about. Unless we assume that rabid irrationality is the bedrock of rigious faith. It would explain the religious fervor of Dallas Cowboys fans.

I get you.... But no. The line is blurry. And that is why no one should get the tax exemption. It certainly contradicts the Establishment clause.

Seems pretty ridiculous to me to say that the teaching of unproven and unprovable fairy tales should be entitled to a tax exemption and reality based philosophy does not.

BTW, there are in fact atheist organizations with same exemption. IE: The FFR and the Atheist experience are just two off the top of my head.

 

[Thermal]

I get you.... But no. The line is blurry. And that is why no one should get the tax exemption. It certainly contradicts the Establishment clause.

Seems pretty ridiculous to me to say that the teaching of unproven and unprovable fairy tales should be entitled to a tax exemption and reality based philosophy does not.

BTW, there are in fact atheist organizations with same exemption. IE: The FFR and the Atheist experience are just two off the top of my head.

Absolutely agreed re taxes. A Church should pay property and income taxes, same as everyone else (excepting demonstrable charity: if they are running a soup kitchen or whatever, no tax on those funds).

 

[The Greater Fool]

Some may find this wikipedia entry interesting: Nontheistic Religion

Not really religion, it seems.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Remember the "Satanic Display at the State Capital Thread?" We got a whole lot of words as to why the Satanist doing it was obviously different. No arguments or reasons why mind you, but a whole lot of words about it.

And do you remember how that legal debacle played out? Their Baphomet statue was denied, but the Ten Commandments monument was also removed.* They won.

*Well, ordered removed, I didn't bother to google if it actually was.


I think you've overlooked a key detail of their strategy. They aren't asking for a fishy exception on the basis of religion, as you compare them to the Amish. They're asking for the same fishy exceptions already granted to other religions, using the same successful reasoning. If they win, they win. If they lose, they have a precedent for challenging the existing ruling.

Their answer to "well you're not really a real religion" is showmanship. They aren't suing to wear colanders on their driver's license photos, but to put a statue of Baphomet outside of a courthouse, or do an end-run around passive-aggressive abortion laws. Cases that are potentially as high-profile as they are legally solid. They may still run into the kind of hayseed moralizing judge that would still deny them no matter how clear a violation of the Establishment clause it becomes, but ****, it worked in Oklahoma. They're doing something right.

 

[Thermal]

And do you remember how that legal debacle played out? Their Baphomet statue was denied, but the Ten Commandments monument was also removed.* They won.

*Well, ordered removed, I didn't bother to google if it actually was.

I think he was referring to snakey-handy thing next to nativities and stuff, not the baphomet one. The Baphomet one was tied up because the State had a requirement for any proposed statuary to have a legislative sponsor. Baph did not.

But if they won, as you say, then they didn't actually want to display their collection of statuary? They lied, you say, to make a different point? Yeah, that's what's going to sink them. The outright lying, especially in a courtroom setting and sworn stuff, will be ye olde bite in the ass.

I think you've overlooked a key detail of their strategy. They aren't asking for a fishy exception on the basis of religion, as you compare them to the Amish. They're asking for the same fishy exceptions already granted to other religions, using the same successful reasoning. If they win, they win. If they lose, they have a precedent for challenging the existing ruling.

Their answer to "well you're not really a real religion" is showmanship. They aren't suing to wear colanders on their driver's license photos, but to put a statue of Baphomet outside of a courthouse, or do an end-run around passive-aggressive abortion laws. Cases that are potentially as high-profile as they are legally solid. They may still run into the kind of hayseed moralizing judge that would still deny them no matter how clear a violation of the Establishment clause it becomes, but ****, it worked in Oklahoma. They're doing something right.

What they are working toward is laudable. How they are doing it is going to backfire sooner or later, I think. They are going to face some conservative justice one day who doesn't relish the Temple's Lulz-puppy posing, and might get acquainted with things like contempt of court and perjury (theoretically). Might conventional legal analysis and argument, a la successful ACLU suits, be better than the deliberate dishonesty?

eta: case in point: the OP article claims that the Satanic Abortion Ritual is protected on religious grounds. But TST's own About page states clearly that they have no rituals, and members kind of make stuff up. This is the kind of thing that I think will backfire on them under the scrutiny of an unfriendly judge. Saying that you have created a religion, and are inventing rituals on the fly (that you said you didn't have) will sink this ship.

From the site:

The Satanic Temple does not have any required rituals, but some members choose to participate in rituals that they find personally meaningful. There is no absolute “right” way to perform any of them. Typically, they are composed by members themselves, adhere to the TST tenets, and are tailored to meet their individual or local needs. Rituals never involve the promotion of suffering, do not involve animals, and are always consensual among all participants. Some of the rituals that have been held by TST members include:

o Black Mass — a celebration of blasphemy, which can be an expression of personal liberty and freedom

o Unbaptism — participants renounce superstitions that may have been imposed upon them without their consent as a child

o Destruction ritual — participants destroy an object they own that symbolizes a source of pain in their lives

o Defiance ritual — a pledge to challenge the status quo in a way that is personally meaningful

So they say they don't have any particular Abortion Ritual...till they want to pretend they do for political benefit. Not a whole lot different than founding a religion that trips balls on acid for Communion. I don't think a judge will buy "it was just satire bro"

 

[Beelzebuddy]

They lied, you say, to make a different point?

I do not say. I do say they made it into a win/win scenario. In losing, they won. You're the one who seems to think they're lying. Do you have anything to add other than "but it's not a really real religion and one day it won't be recognized?"

 

[Thermal]

I do not say. I do say they made it into a win/win scenario. In losing, they won. You're the one who seems to think they're lying. Do you have anything to add other than "but it's not a really real religion and one day it won't be recognized?"

I did, and you snipped it out. They are doing a good thing, and with legal force, and it would be a damned shame to get discredited or have to waste their donations (which should be used to fight the good fight) dealing with contempt charges and the like. This non-existent (according to them) Abortion ritual thing is a slamming way to lose the legit status they currently enjoy. Will it still be a Lulz-fest if they lose their protected status over play-acting taken too far?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The point is to get politicians and judges on the record for being blatantly in contradiction with the Constitution.

 

[Thermal]

Which can, and has, been done without making up rituals. See ACLU.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I did, and you snipped it out. They are doing a good thing, and with legal force, and it would be a damned shame to get discredited or have to waste their donations (which should be used to fight the good fight) dealing with contempt charges and the like. This non-existent (according to them) Abortion ritual thing is a slamming way to lose the legit status they currently enjoy. Will it still be a Lulz-fest if they lose their protected status over play-acting taken too far?

What protected status? You mean to say that if they don't stop pretending to be a religion, people aren't going to recognize them as a religion?

Re: the highlighted, they're far from the only group taking legal measures. Looking at the projects they have on their website, at least a few have stemmed from failed legal actions by the Freedom From Religion folks. So it looks like the good fight has been fought already, and lost, so what's the harm in trying it this way?

 

[zooterkin]

eta: case in point: the OP article claims that the Satanic Abortion Ritual is protected on religious grounds. But TST's own About page states clearly that they have no rituals,

No, it says they have no required rituals, not the same thing at all. They clearly do have rituals, they're there on the website.

and members kind of make stuff up.

Typically. Which is different from any other religion how, exactly?

 

[Thermal]

What protected status? You mean to say that if they don't stop pretending to be a religion, people aren't going to recognize them as a religion?

Re: the highlighted, they're far from the only group taking legal measures. Looking at the projects they have on their website, at least a few have stemmed from failed legal actions by the Freedom From Religion folks. So it looks like the good fight has been fought already, and lost, so what's the harm in trying it this way?

The harm, as I see it, is that they have a successful approach to challenge religious obnoxiousness, but are being careless with this one. As I said uphill, they opportunistically made this Abortion Ritual up out of whole cloth, which puts them in a position of possibly being discounted as a legit religion, if members can just make up whatever rituals are convenient to circumvent law. Kind of takes the teeth out of their otherwise valid pose.

 

[Thermal]

No, it says they have no required rituals, not the same thing at all. They clearly do have rituals, they're there on the website.

Distinction without a difference. They say point blank that the members make them up to suit their purposes. Surely you can see the legal dick-stepping there?

Typically. Which is different from any other religion how, exactly?

Other religions dictate rituals, that followers...uh, follow. Just making them up are not recognized by the religious body. Unless the RCC for example now has a Sacrament of 'Oh, Just Make It Up Guys'?