I don't understand the defeatism. You say you want them to "keep up the good fight," but then you denigrate them for trying. You belittle them and call them scammers and liars. You equate a religious practice that's little more than a moment of silence to ritualized meth use. You warn of some unspecified dire consequence of not being taken seriously for asserting their right to religious freedom, as if not defending their rights is how people have ever gotten them.
I like parodists. I hate lying. When the two start dancing cheek to cheek, perhaps you might understand my argument a little more clearly?
The legal standard for what constitutes a religious practice is a sincerely held belief. It doesn't have to be communal. It doesn't have to be in scripture.
The legal standard is broad, but a bit more complicated than that. Quoting below from linked EEOC, because they do a good job of plain-speaking fleshing-out of the issue, on the subject of testing 'sincerely held beliefs':
Factors that – either alone or in combination – might undermine an employee’s assertion that he sincerely holds the religious belief at issue include: whether the employee has behaved in a manner markedly inconsistent with the professed belief;[36] whether the accommodation sought is a particularly desirable benefit that is likely to be sought for secular reasons; whether the timing of the request renders it suspect (e.g., it follows an earlier request by the employee for the same benefit for secular reasons); and whether the employer otherwise has reason to believe the accommodation is not sought for religious reasons.
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/section-12-religious-discrimination#_Toc203359486
Have you read their abortion ritual?
Yep. Not even a ritual. Just (paraphrasing from above) a desirable benefit for secular reasons.
The woman takes a moment of silence and contemplates these three things:
Do you think you would have a problem believing someone asserting these tenets is holding them sincerely?
Not at all. But that is not enough to constitute religious protections.
The EEOC article gives good examples for vetting. In one, a woman has piercings and tats. Her employer passes a rule that workers should have no visible ink, etc. She tries for 'sincerely held beliefs' protections. The argument fails.
So my argument ITT is that The Satanic Temple is a great parody front to make a point and get some things done. Like The Flying Spaghetti Monster parody thing, which is great. But there comes a point where (g)you are taking yourself too seriously, and start becoming dishonest. No bueno. Why? Because virtually every problem, large and small in the world, has some son of a bitching liar at the bottom of it. When people start arguing that TST is
totes a real religion, dude, they are drifting to the dishonesty camp. They are not a religion. They are parodists who can do good works like getting the 10 Commandments off State property, where they don't belong. Underminng abortion coercion is a good thing too, but if they play this Lulz-puppy game, their edgelord pose will undermine their ability to do good. You get my argument now? well intentioned people getting so full of themselves that they are going to blow it.
