Satanic Temple counters anti-abortion regulations

[zooterkin]

This seems to be an interesting tactic, to counter the interference by some religious groups in medical decisions by the use of the same regulations that allow that interference. (They also campaign to have statues of Baphoment erected authorities have put up the 10 Commandments on state grounds, to highlight breach of church and state separation.)

By stating a ritual to be followed when having an abortion, IIUC, they can claim that any unnecessary requirements imposed by the state can be ignored as they would violate the freedom of expression of religion.

As a federally-recognized religion, The Satanic Temple utilizes RFRA and the Hobby Lobby precedent to protect its members from unnecessary abortion regulations that inhibit their religious practices and force them to violate their deeply-held beliefs.

The First Amendment and RFRA:
The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause and several state Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRA) “protects religious practices and beliefs from government interference.”

State Law:
State laws governing abortions commonly serve no medical purpose and
do not result in better health outcomes. Therefore, they unlawfully hinder access to the Satanic abortion ritual.

(Note, the Satanic Temple members do not believe in Satan or any other supernatural beings, they are, as I understand it, humanists using the protections afforded to religions by law to protect their own beliefs.)

 

[smartcooky]

This seems to be an interesting tactic, to counter the interference by some religious groups in medical decisions by the use of the same regulations that allow that interference. (They also campaign to have statues of Baphoment erected authorities have put up the 10 Commandments on state grounds, to highlight breach of church and state separation.)

By stating a ritual to be followed when having an abortion, IIUC, they can claim that any unnecessary requirements imposed by the state can be ignored as they would violate the freedom of expression of religion.



(Note, the Satanic Temple members do not believe in Satan or any other supernatural beings, they are, as I understand it, humanists using the protections afforded to religions by law to protect their own beliefs.)

This almost qualifies as "playing the bastards at their own game"!

 

[Beelzebuddy]

The Satanic Temple are a stand up bunch. They don't waste their time trolling; I've no doubt they've run this by a ream of lawyers and have a pretty solid legal argument.

 

[smartcooky]

The Satanic Temple are a stand up bunch. They don't waste their time trolling; I've no doubt they've run this by a ream of lawyers and have a pretty solid legal argument.

Scientology claims to be a "Religion" for tax exemption purposes; at a cursory glance, this lot seem far more qualified to be classed as such.

 

[uke2se]

As much as this speaks to the "OMG they owned those bastards" part of me, it's probably not going to do any good. What are they going to do when the court rules against the temple? Say that the religious bigots are hypocrites? They already know that and don't care.

 

[Darat]

As much as this speaks to the "OMG they owned those bastards" part of me, it's probably not going to do any good. What are they going to do when the court rules against the temple? Say that the religious bigots are hypocrites? They already know that and don't care.

The idea I presume is to set a precedent. One for or against their argument would be useful for them.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"There's unofficial list of 'real religions'" already is the precedent.

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.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

As much as this speaks to the "OMG they owned those bastards" part of me, it's probably not going to do any good. What are they going to do when the court rules against the temple? Say that the religious bigots are hypocrites? They already know that and don't care.

Being ruled against creates an opening to challenge the ruling or the RFRA law itself on constitutional grounds.

The case reveals the absurdity of the current weight given to "sincerely held beliefs" which, if equally applied, would make whole swathes of staturory law unenforceable.

So the decision opens the possibility of a very effective challenge against some recent rulings on RFRA that give clear benefits and privileges to "people of faith" or opens the floodgates to challenges of every kind on every subject.

"Check. Your move."

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again "Yeah we say 'All Religions' but everyone is onboard with us meaning 'The already approved one'" is already the established Precedent.

Don't believe me? Tell you what the Amish and Mennonites don't have to pay into Social Security for religious reason. Go start your own religion and try not to pay into it. Let me know it works.

As noted the establishment is already completely comfortable with religious hypocrisy. This isn't going to do anything.

 

[Thermal]

Being ruled against creates an opening to challenge the ruling or the RFRA law itself on constitutional grounds.

The case reveals the absurdity of the current weight given to "sincerely held beliefs" which, if equally applied, would make whole swathes of staturory law unenforceable.

So the decision opens the possibility of a very effective challenge against some recent rulings on RFRA that give clear benefits and privileges to "people of faith" or opens the floodgates to challenges of every kind on every subject.

"Check. Your move."

It might also open a reconsideration of what constitutes a religion, or sincerely held belief. When the Satanic Temple, for instance, publicly claims they are not serious but are gaming the exemptions, they may be taken at their word and lose their protected status.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Again "Yeah we say 'All Religions' but everyone is onboard with us meaning 'The already approved one'" is already the established Precedent.

Don't believe me? Tell you what the Amish and Mennonites don't have to pay into Social Security for religious reason. Go start your own religion and try not to pay into it. Let me know it works.

As noted the establishment is already completely comfortable with religious hypocrisy. This isn't going to do anything.

A nonprofit organization pays payroll taxes and employer contributions to unemployment, etc. There is no "equal protection" hay to make there.

Your example is both off target in terms of faith-based exemptions, but also not even a proper comparison because being a believer in a religion (even an "approved" one) isn't grounds for payroll tax exemption and to my knowledge, nobody is granted such status on those grounds. Someone may achieve that status through creative accounting and claim they feel justified doing so on faith grounds, but that isn't what the law says or how it is applied.

 

[The Greater Fool]

It might also open a reconsideration of what constitutes a religion, or sincerely held belief. When the Satanic Temple, for instance, publicly claims they are not serious but are gaming the exemptions, they may be taken at their word and lose their protected status.

As I recall, The Satanic Temple is very serious about their beliefs and presentation. They do not claim to be gaming the system. Ah, their website

Now, people near and far away from the organization make those claims with some regularity but not the Satanic Temple themselves.

 

[Thermal]

As I recall, The Satanic Temple is very serious about their beliefs and presentation. They do not claim to be gaming the system. Ah, their website

Now, people near and far away from the organization make those claims with some regularity but not the Satanic Temple themselves.

Ya, and there were yahoos in the 60s and 70s claiming to have founded a religion that included some colorful communion smokables. They were shut down on the GTFOOH legal interpretation, too.

The site pretty much describes a conventional social philosophy and their political actions. That's going to bite them in the ass, in terms of claiming to be a religion one of these days.

The play acting of espousing Satan, while at the same time claiming to not believe in Satan, is making their dishonestly glow in the dark. While I support what they do, loosely, putting them on par with the Amish is tilting them too far in the Lulz-puppy category. The wink and nod is fun to make the point, but they are going to blow it if they take their pose too seriously.

 

[acbytesla]

Only my religion is actually a religion.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Ya, and there were yahoos in the 60s and 70s claiming to have founded a religion that included some colorful communion smokables. They were shut down on the GTFOOH legal interpretation, too.

The site pretty much describes a conventional social philosophy and their political actions. That's going to bite them in the ass, in terms of claiming to be a religion one of these days.

The play acting of espousing Satan, while at the same time claiming to not believe in Satan, is making their dishonestly glow in the dark. While I support what they do, loosely, putting them on par with the Amish is tilting them too far in the Lulz-puppy category. The wink and nod is fun to make the point, but they are going to blow it if they take their pose too seriously.

No play acting:

DO YOU WORSHIP SATAN?
No, nor do we believe in the existence of Satan or the supernatural. The Satanic Temple believes that religion can, and should, be divorced from superstition. As such, we do not promote a belief in a personal Satan. To embrace the name Satan is to embrace rational inquiry removed from supernaturalism and archaic tradition-based superstitions. Satanists should actively work to hone critical thinking and exercise reasonable agnosticism in all things. Our beliefs must be malleable to the best current scientific understandings of the material world — never the reverse.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

If having a long-winded explanation for irreconcilable aspects of stated beliefs that amounts to a solipsism is a disqualifier for being considered a religion...

 

[Thermal]

No play acting:

Right...that's that conventional social philosophy thingy. To say 'duuuuuude, this is totes a real religion's is the problematic point. It's not. It's just a way of thinking.

Without getting too deep into the R&P thing, religion typically involves belief in some kind of supernatural something or other. I have a ton of sincerely held beliefs that I don't expect religious protections for. But I do expect a Muslim to be allowed to say their prayers without interference from the irreligious, because they are practicing their religion sincerely. I do not expect Catholic organizations to be able to deny birth control; if they cannot provide it in good conscience when required, they need to withdraw from the situations where the law requires them to do so. Kind of like that other Yahoo that wouldn't marry a gay couple because of her personal beliefs. Its your own obligation to remove yourself at that time, not the courts to protect you.

 

[uke2se]

Being ruled against creates an opening to challenge the ruling or the RFRA law itself on constitutional grounds.

The case reveals the absurdity of the current weight given to "sincerely held beliefs" which, if equally applied, would make whole swathes of staturory law unenforceable.

So the decision opens the possibility of a very effective challenge against some recent rulings on RFRA that give clear benefits and privileges to "people of faith" or opens the floodgates to challenges of every kind on every subject.

"Check. Your move."

But that only works if both sides are playing the same game fairly. That is clearly not the case.

 

[acbytesla]

Ya, and there were yahoos in the 60s and 70s claiming to have founded a religion that included some colorful communion smokables. They were shut down on the GTFOOH legal interpretation, too.

The site pretty much describes a conventional social philosophy and their political actions. That's going to bite them in the ass, in terms of claiming to be a religion one of these days.

The play acting of espousing Satan, while at the same time claiming to not believe in Satan, is making their dishonestly glow in the dark. While I support what they do, loosely, putting them on par with the Amish is tilting them too far in the Lulz-puppy category. The wink and nod is fun to make the point, but they are going to blow it if they take their pose too seriously.

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.

 

[JoeMorgue]

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."