School district and The Satanic Temple reach agreement in lawsuit over After School Satan Club
The American Civil Liberties Union said Thursday that the Saucon Valley School District had agreed to pay $200,000 in attorney’s fees and to provide The Satanic Temple and the After School Satan Club it sponsors the same access to school facilities as is provided to other organizations.
The ACLU filed the lawsuit in March after the district rescinded its earlier approval to allow the club to meet following criticism. The After School Satan Club, with the motto “Educatin’ with Satan,” had drawn protests and even a threat in February that prompted closure of district schools for a day and the later arrest of a person in another state.
Saucon Valley school district attorney Mark Fitzgerald told reporters in a statement that the district denies having discriminated against The Satanic Temple, its club or “the approximately four students” who attended its meetings. He said the district’s priorities were education and the safety of students and staff.
I assume the Satanic Temple is the non-theist one, which doesn't actually believe in Satan, and just uses it to troll religious nutjobs.
It's a pity the Christian right are invariably functionally illiterate, or they would have known to not kick themselves in the dick.
Why would you assume anything? The answer is provided in the article itself. Why can so few people be arsed to read the information provided before leaping to an attempt at pithy commentary?
(Boldface mine. "science" comes to us from Latin's "scientia": knowledge)
The irony of assuming something instead of learning/confirming it from the information provided, as regards an article about an organization whose stated focus is on knowledge and critical thinking, is disappointing.
Tbf they're using one of the internet's laws to their favour. I forgot the name, so I'll do the same thing and call it Godwin's law: when you want to know something you post an incorrect answer (or in this case not knowing the answer, they basically wrote the right answer) and someone will correct you soon enough.
It's lazy tbh, but it helps in case you don't know how deep the rabbit hole is gonna be and don't have the mental capacity or time to invest in it. This is specially relevant to people who have ADHD or other similar attention disorders.
P.S. I did end up looking up the actual name of the law and it's Cunningham's law, so I corrected myself in this case.
Let's get meta! lol
Godwin's Law: As an online discussion grows longer (regardless of topic or scope), the probability of a comparison to Nazis or Adolf Hitler approaches 1.
Cunningham's Law: The best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question, it's to post the wrong answer.
you are hitler
greatest reply of the season
Correct on The Satanic Temple (TST) being non-theistic. While it did start off as trolling, it has coalesced into a religion of its own (much to the chagrin of the nutty christians here), just without the superstition used to coerce people in abrahamic religions.
The idea that people take a troll religion made up to challenge laws seriously is as absurd to me as the laws they challenge, if not more so.
Man, I love threads about the TST, because there's always people like you who absolutely shit themselves over any mention of them, and write small novels about how stupid they are.
It's really all very entertaining.
No no, he's right. This is absolutely absurd.
Absurd doesn't always mean bad.
Absurd, sure.
Stupid (and racist, lol) like he says, no.
Likewise I think it's ironic that people who are against religion and it's political influence will flip when there's a religion exerting a good influence. Within the right moral and political context, a religion is deemed good and shouldn't be understood critically.
I don't think it's ironic, I think it's fighting fire with fire. People see that religion is afforded a lot of leeway that isn't afforded to other similar organizations, and they want to use that for a good cause of a change.
Exactly that's why it can work, the system by design requires this appeal to religion, so religious causes are manufactured ad-hoc like this to fulfill political goals. The idea of religion being a political influence is accepted by people who are against religion if it's a good cause, as long as it's in the context of being against a bad religious cause. The irony is they hold secularism as a tenant of the religion yet function the same as a traditional religion does in the political sense, and they're required to do this because of how the system works.
Yeah well, since the government and society is unfortunately infested by religion, you have two choices: you either do some actual good by pretending to be a religion, or you whine about it online.
One of those actually help people.
You don't think TST is a real religion... what would a real religion be then? I criticize this whole context of how religion operates in government and the absurdity of religions needing to be purpose-built like this, but I definitely wouldn't go so far to call them a pretend religion. I suspect a lot of TST members sincerely believe in the tenants, it's no less manufactured than other religions really. It's just manufactured in this post-political postmodern neoliberal context vs something like Mormonism or the Adventists that were manufactured in a different context. I think that's why you're calling it a pretend religion, but I would say this is maybe more like genuine pretending. To call it pretend like you have is way harsher than anything I've said about it, you're basically saying it's all a ruse and the adherents are all just knowingly faking it for show, which would mean they couldn't legitimately challenge laws as a religion. Like you've invalidated the whole church by saying that, at least I recognize it's a legitimate religion.
Well, they're not trying to manipulate their members for power over them and profit, and/or they're not trying to get them to believe in the supernatural, so they're clearly not a real religion.
Good, they are very good tenants to live by, I salute them. I try to do so myself.
Why would it be harsh? That's something you inferred, not something I said.
I personally don't think pretending to be a religion is a bad thing, it's a necessary thing. You seem to be projecting a lot of you own opinions onto what I actually said.
How so? What qualifications do you have to decide which religions are allowed to be recognized under law?
A political lobbying organization masquerading as a religion would run in to issues with it's tax exemption status and potentially not fall under Title VII as a protected religious belief, which is what a lot of challenges to these laws are filed under re: workplace discrimination. This is something that religions are very careful about and intentionally work around. So when you say it's a "pretend religion" you're basically saying it's adherents aren't really religious. Courts actually do care about whether someone truly believes in a religion, because someone's supposed religious beliefs are often appealed for why someone is a "good person," or to establish whether discrimination actually took place. The law doesn't share the same arbitrary definition of religion you have unfortunately, here's what has to be appealed to for laws to be challenged in reality:
If you were filing a lawsuit like the one in the article and you professed it was a "pretend religion" your case would be thrown out, that's why what you said is harsh because the implications of that invalidate it's validity and effectiveness to challenge these laws.
Well, it doesn't really matter since my definition of religion is not what the laws use.
I say it's a pretend religion because they’re not trying to manipulate their members for power over them and profit, and/or they’re not trying to get them to believe in the supernatural.
This is clearly different from the law's misunderstanding of what a religion is, as pointed out by yourself:
Fortunately for the lawsuit, it wouldn't because the definition of religion the court uses and mine if different.
If you called someone's religion "pretend" in the workplace it would count as discrimination under Title VII which is the famous Civil Rights Act of 1964, it doesn't matter what your personal definition is I'm talking about reality here.
I would say far less absurd than most other religions. Looking at their tenets, its basically how descent society should function anyway.
I - One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.
II - The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
III - One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
IV - The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own.
V - Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs.
VI - People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one's best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused.
VII - Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.
Yeah thats intentional because they made it up to be this then appropriated Satanic imagery to brand and commodify it, that's the troll aspect of it. The original Church of Satan and them denounce each other, the Church of Satan claims to be the true representative of Satan and includes a lot of the "bad" things Satan represents as well.
They didn't "appropriate" anything. TST's tenets are based around the Lucifer/Satan depicted in Paradise Lost, The Revolt of the Angels, and other Romantic era literary work. In those works, Satan was a rebel overthrowing the yoke of the tyrant and encouraging people to think for themselves and use compassion for others.
The Church of Satan, on the other hand, was established by a megalomaniac magician who based his philosophy on social-Darwinism. His works reek of sexism and elitism, while trying to convince people magic was real.....
They've appropriated Satanic imagery and used that literary identity of Satan yes, because it serves the political mission the church was created for. If Christianity didn't have political influence in the US this church would not have been formed, or would be of a completely different nature.
I just checked the wikipedia page of the church to make sure I was correct and it actually states exactly what I am here. They use Satanic imagery as a political tool and the literary Satan as a metaphor. IE they don't actually sincerely believe in an actual Satan, unlike the Church of Satan which is sincerely Satanic.
I think that's why Satanic Temple members dressed in very over-the-top Satanic/goth aesthetic is cringe, because it's done in this hyperreal ironic context and not actually sincere. Like it's not borne of their own agency and preferences but centered around stereotypes that offend Christians, or created by Christians entirely. A lot of what's associated with Satan and being adopted here are rooted in completely racist and false depictions of Paganism for instance.
I would encourage you to broaden your research beyond Wikipedia. While it is a great jumping off point for many things, it is not a credible source in any academic or judicial sense. Lucien Greaves has some some very on-point statements in the court cases he's been involved in detailing how TST is a genuine religion.
I think you're getting too hung up on your idea that it is "centered around stereotypes that offend Christians," which it is not. There is deliberately no standard for how to practice, and you will find many that identify as Satanist have had past experiences with Wicca, Paganism, and other non-theistic/mono-theistic religions. They bring those past experiences to their personal practices and rituals, which is hardly appropriating or as you said, "cringe."
I don't see why you keep trying to compare the two, they are entirely different religions. In this context then would you say Buddhists are appropriating the image of the Buddha? They do not see him as their "god," yet they use his image and name whenever they refer to themselves.
It seems like you both basically agree and are just arguing at each other without trying to understand each other.
Church of Satan = Worships a concept of Satan, pretty much invented by "Anton LaVey" to get laid and get paid; by all accounts it worked. He wanted it to be the inverse of Christianity. Largely based on the idealogies of Nietzsche, Rand, and social darwinism with many of the actual rituals inspired by LaVeys love of H.P. Lovecraft.
The Satanic Temple = secular activist group that uses satanic imagery to agitate for civil rights/secularism/separation of church and state/etc. They refer to the literary concept of Satan as opposed to the literal Fallen Angel Lucifer.
Yup that's exactly it, everything I've said about the TST here is what I've read from their own "About Us" page so it's funny to me that I'm getting debate-bro'd and downvoted for it. Someone even called it a "pretend religion" to me which means it wouldn't even be able to challenge these discrimination laws in court. Calling someone's religion "pretend" would actually be discrimination.
A lot of western Buddhism is Buddhist in the same way Satanic Temple is Satanist. IE it's contingent and determined by the hegemonic cultural ideologies that are manufacturing it in to an identity available for consumption in an individualist capitalist context. Appropriated and removed from the context it originated and defined itself within.
It's similar with certain Pagan groups, because Paganism was absorbed into Christendom, so what's happening is people are manufacturing this modern notion of what Paganism was, completely removed from the conditions it existed in. And as you say there's no standard, which is entirely the point I'm making, it's up to the individual to construct their identity around it and decide "what it means for me." That's entirely different than the mode of traditional identity which was fulfilled by your role in the society, handed to you and determined. Now it's a modern notion of authentic identity where you "discover me" and decide what that is. That's why these pseudo-religious roles people claim cannot be genuine, the time and context they existed in are gone, and it's now a form of packaging ideals that already exist in our culture in to a mode of commodification.
The tenants of the Satanic Temple are basically the hegemony of our modern culture, individual liberty etc. Satan as historically depicted provides the iconography, used in an ironic metaphorical sense, appropriated from the context from which it originated, commodified and consumed. That's why I use the term hyperreal to describe it, because it's a notion of something reflected back on itself through modes of representation.
Yeah, protecting people's constitutional rights is just absurd right?
I think it's absurd in the technical sense, yeah.
It's absurd this is necessary to accomplish that yes. Like in order to challenge religion you have to make up an opposite religion and go through the motions, that's absolutely absurd.
It's also hilarious how the original Church of Satan and the Satanic Temple have denounced each other's legitimacy as the true representation of Satan. The Church of Satan recognizes a bunch of the "bad" ideas associated with Satan and basically calls the Temple pussies. Then the Temple calls them outdated and irrelevant. It's just like Christian sects but it's more absurd because the Temple was constructed to oppose Christian political influence, the Satanic branding is supposed to be a troll to shock pearl clutching Christians. I actually agree with the Church of Satan because of this, because the Temple's appropriation of Satanic imagery is basically done in jest.
Fear not my brother or sister or nonbinary friend, for ye too shall one day be touched by His Noodly-appendage. Ramen.
Our pasta, who art in a colander, draining be your noodles. Thy noodle come, Thy sauce be yum, on top some grated Parmesan. Give us this day, our garlic bread, …and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trample on our lawns. And lead us not into vegetarianism, but deliver us some pizza, for thine is the meatball, the noodle, and the sauce, forever and ever. R’amen.
And salsa with you.
Like the folks who got a pass to wear a colander on their head for their driver's license photo because they're Pastafarian. It's happened at least twice
You can form a community around all kinds of random things.
It's great. It calls out their hypocrisy.
It's too much brain cells because all they can think about is
Christian == good
Satan == bad
They’re both non-theist though
That's the Church of Satan, the Satanic Temple and them deny the legitimacy of each other. The Church of Satan accepts all of Satan's supposed ideology even the "bad" things, and the Satanic Temple was basically constructed as a "good" alternative/challenge to Christian political influence from a logical positivist perspective with individualism and neoliberal ideology commodified and branded with Satanic iconography. It's all pretty stupid IMO, aside from the way they can mount legal challenges. The fact they need to exist to do this is absurd but it is what it is I guess.
Whatever happened to the satanic popular front?
He's over there.
Iirc TST doesn't deny anything about, or really ever mention CoS. CoS doesn't like TST because of the same reasons you listed (basically they don't like being conflated or associated with TST, cus their super cereal).
I personally love the absurdity of TST, and heavily believe in their mission/philosophies. Lucian Graves has some issues, but overall they track overwhelmingly on the side of good. Am also a lifelong gothy metal kid so the aesthetic also pleases me.
It's right at the top section of their About Us page which provides a link to this long article about the difference, complete with infographics.
And yeah they've branded it with those aesthetics as opposed to cottagecore or something soft, so it can have the affect that serves the idea of what the church is the best.