Actually the city council paid the religious organizations, not the other way around. So the city was publicly funding religions. Seem run-of-the-mill of Christians in power, Democrat or otherwise.

You really think Republicans would be any different?

@JacksonNought

You really think Republicans would be any different?

Probably not. It seems unconstitutional though. I would have to have more information before I could say anything conclusive about it. There seems some prejudice against non-traditional religions and politicians have inventively created a means to obstruct those they take issue with by picking and choosing who has the privilege.
,
The Satanic Temple seems to spend its time criticizing traditional religions in public forums and platforms. Some of it, I think, is valid. Most of it I find not much more than nitpicking or in some cases harrassment.

An individual has the constitutional right to freely practice his religion; also constitutionally, no law can be made regarding an establishment of religion.

Thus, I don't see a problem with a politician hanging a copy of the Ten Commandments behind hid desk. Or a Muslim displaying some passage of the Koran or a follower of the Satanic Temple displaying some symbol from his "church". Constitutionally, the individual is practicing his religion and no law has been made.

It is good that you are helping more traditional religions find where politicians, the ones that have legislative powers, have shown prejudicial favour in their laws.
Admittedly, they may have colluded with "acceptable" religions to bar others. But the politicians are the ones that make the rules.

So tell me, once The Satanic Temple has cleaned up all the constitutional irregularities that violate the separation of church and state what will be the tack on how you continue to destroy other religions?

@FrankZeleniuk nice little dig there at the end.

what will be the tack on how you continue to destroy other religions?

The Satanic Temple is all about religious plurality. They do not want to destroy other religions. They don't want to prevent people from openly practicing or having their religion in the public sphere. They don't even set out with the goal to just publicly criticize other religions. They just want equality. They want equal access. They want the same rights other religions are granted. If you see that as "destroying other religions" or the mere utterance of "I am a Satanist" as an attack on Christianity, or that the mere existence of a different religion being granted exposure is dangerous to your own, then maybe your religion isn't as strong as you think.

It's not the Satanists constantly trying to squash other religions. No, you'd find the majority / traditional religions, primarily Christianity in the USA, are the ones doing it. The ones who would rather completely shut down "free speech zones" than share the space with other religions.

No one thinks a politician hanging a copy of the Ten Commandments behind their desk in their office is a problem - I mean we have open Christian Nationalists in Congress today. The official representation for the GOP candidate for governor in my state has said that non-Christians aren't welcome - even saying that ultra right wing poster boy Ben Shapiro isn't welcome unless he repents and accepts Jesus - and he is still heavily supported.

But maybe putting an overtly Christian display front and center at a public courthouse, where all people are supposed to be judged fairly and without bias, can lead non-Christians to thinking they might not get a fair trial. Maybe having to swear an oath on the Bible at those courts violates others' religious liberties?

Maybe letting a Church advertise and hand out pamphlets in a school but not letting any other religions do so is anti-American religious endorsement? Maybe it's wrong to tell army cadets they can either go to Sunday Bible worship or spend the morning cleaning the latrines? Maybe Republicans and Conservative commentators shouldn't have gone on a tirade against Kyrsten Sinema when she swore her oath on a copy of the Constitution rather than the Bible, saying she should be disqualified?

Maybe if you create religious exemptions to laws, they shouldn't only favor Christians? If Christians don't have to cover birth control in their insurance plans, why can't a Satanist getting a legal abortion be granted an exception to a 3-day waiting period or mandatory ultrasounds and religious pamphlets?

It used to be that in military cemeteries, fallen solider headstones could have a Christian, Jewish, or Muslim symbol, or nothing. A group of Wiccans wanted a symbol for their families, and were denied. After multiple court cases it was uncovered that George W Bush directly had a hand in denying it, as he didn't consider Wiccan a religion and didn't want to acknowledge non-traditional / non-Abrahamic faiths. Our president was putting his religion above the Constitution. This is the kind of thing we are trying to expose and gain equality on.

Again, if you think this is "destroying religion" perhaps you should look in the mirror.

@JacksonNought You have the right, being a legally recognized religion in the US, to equal treatment under the law.

I think it rather a stretch that the Satanic Temple is a religion but the argument has been officially decided. Your belief that the Satanic Temple is only calling out Constitutional irregularities regarding the separation of church and state, is a mission that lends it credibility. Really though, you have expressed a distaste for religious people to hold true to their "myths" and I believe that after equality is achieved there is no other direction for the ST to go but to proselytize and spread the scientific "truth" to dispel them of their false beliefs and they may even use the State to make it illegal for them to hold beliefs that cannot be scientifically proven to exist. Sad, no more Santa Claus or wishes for a Merry Christmas, which we have already witnessed.

Personally, I think that religion started going awry when the word was distorted and applied to things like Marxism. Something that was hardly religious but fell into the framework of adherents being "cultish" in their behavior. This broadened and blurred the definition and paved the way for the inclusion of irreligious entities to gain religious recognition.

The Satanic Temple, being composed of athiests for the most part, should actually have stayed in the realm of science instead of venturing into the scary, ethereal world of religion and individualism.
The Freedom From Religion school of thought is where the ST really belongs

After all, the word religion, originates from the Latin, religare, - "re"- back and "ligare" - to bind.
So you are now bound. What binds you together? The notion you wish equality with other religions, equal treatment under the law? It may be a stated objective but it is not the ultimate objective. No. what truly binds the adherents of the Satanic Temple is a belief in science and a dispelling of anything ethereal. It cannot be denied although you deny it at your peril.

It is my opinion that the purpose of religion is to give strength to the individual so he can face the challenges of the unknown come what may and an idea of strength in numbers should one succumb to those unknowns, for if they are not faced they will never become known. Humanity has few unknowns to face these days. There are few frontiers to explore and many dangers have been met and vanquished. Without religion they would never have been confronted.

So religion, in the past, was always about having the courage to face the unknown and provide a context for the formation of a world view that gives existence purpose.

The difference between science and religion is that religion provides purpose to existence and is uniting whereas and science has removed any purpose at all and is not binding at all. Certainly people can get behind science but it is not binding. Even now, science is proclaiming genders that exist in the mind only and biological sex is not a marker of gender. I would say that is not science but a destroyer of science and is more a political tool.

The more this "science" progresses in evolved societal constructs the more resistance it will meet. Mostly because it is not achieved through evolution but by political force. If political force an be used to shape civilization we are all left open to the dictates of a few individuals. It is then that those few individuals will ultimately decide the fate of all individuals dependent upon their whim or proclivities as who should live and who should die. One day they may come for me and the next they may come for you. I think those that are bound together will stand. Individuals left to cling to what was once science will remain small in numbers and have nothing to bind them together so they will have to stand as individuals and will not be able to do so on their own against a people bound together. Bind means bind.

Change must be left to evolutionary elements and processes to be sustained - force only brings a sustained use of force that collapses once it loses potential. It's what happens to all efforts to establish a socialist world.

Has religion been abused? Of course. it has been used to create war, destructive inquisitions, make men cower and the individual feel inadequate and worthless. Men create these institutions so there is no question their centralized power to bind people together will be abused. The intent and purpose of them is to make sense of the world by providing a point, fact or fiction, to provide purpose and formulate a plausible worldview from which to operate. As we learn more about our world, traditional religions become less relevant to our understanding and survival. It's a place from which men can dream. You dream of a world free of religion and then trap yourself within one. Better dreams can be imagined and realized than that. I believe, the future is born out of the dreams of mankind not the acceptance of an inevitable end.

@FrankZeleniuk

you have expressed a distaste for religious people

I have always said I support religious liberty and pluralism. I have no problem with people practicing religion and holding whatever beliefs they wish. Hell, to paraphrase Penn Jillette, if the only thing stopping you from murdering and raping every day is the belief in an eternal paradise or eternal torment, then I am glad you have it. My problem is when you try to force others to believe your religion, or prevent other religions from having equality, as I exemplified multiple times in my last post. When you enact law to cater to your specific religion, such as preventing mixed-race marriages, same-sex marriages, contraception, sodomy, alcohol, porn, marijuana, etc - that is the issue. When you fight against progress because of "tradition" that Christianity has always been in charge, that is the issue. When you literally want to prevent people from having jobs or housing, or want to jail or murder them because they are different - that is the issue. I have never deviated from that in my posts. If I am critical of Christians it is when someone tries to hide behind their religion to excuse child rape or murder while throwing stones at others, or to try and lie about other groups and foment outright hatred of others while pretending they are full of Christian love. I actually know quite a few Christians who would be the best examples of truly following Jesus' teachings and they are full of love and acceptance, and I have no problem with their faith, as they have no problem with mine.

I believe that after equality is achieved there is no other direction for the ST to go but to proselytize and spread the scientific "truth" to dispel them of their false beliefs and they may even use the State to make it illegal for them to hold beliefs

This is the whole "great replacement" belief for a different topic. Those people think that the white race will become a minority, and they specifically are afraid because they don't want to be treated how they have treated minorities for generations. This is the same. You think Satanists and Atheists will try to make religion illegal and use the state to enforce their religion on others... why? Well probably because that is what Christians have done in the West and Muslims in the Middle East. When Christianity and Islam has power they force it on others and make other religions illegal, as we have seen time and time again, as I already listed above. Well the Satanists and Atheists aren't asking for power, just equality. Maybe check your own ranks before projecting onto others.

no more Santa Claus or wishes for a Merry Christmas, which we have already witnessed

Have we? You mean because there is more than just Christmas during the winter months, so some people prefer to say Happy Holidays... to, you know, acknowledge that there is more than one holiday and maybe not everyone celebrates Christmas? Did you know Christmas was illegal to celebrate in the early days of America and the Puritans? Because, you guessed it, Christians thought it was too extravagant and found no scriptural justification for it - are Christians canceling Christmas? Do you mean because some retail corporations made it a policy for their employees to say Happy Holidays instead? I thought we were a free-market capitalist society where corporations can run themselves however they wish. Would you think it was tyranny if Hobby Lobby or Christmas Tree Shops didn't want an employee to wish customers a happy Sol Invictus or say Hail Satan to their primarily Christian client base? Oh, is it because the Starbucks cups weren't Christmassy enough one year? Or because government buildings started letting Hanukkah menorahs in the holiday displays? Last I checked, my office building still has multiple Christmas trees set up during the last quarter of the year, and Christmas is a national holiday whereas my holidays (either from when I was a practicing Jew or now as a Satanist) require dipping into my PTO? I can't walk into a grocery or department store or even turn on the radio starting in November without being bombarded with Christmas regalia and music. I guess things are different in Canada?

I think that religion started going awry when the word was distorted and applied to things like Marxism

I agree with that. Too often people will claim something, like a political ideology or a lifestyle, is a religion. This definitely blurs the lines and waters down the term. Marxism is not a religion. Conservatism is not a religion. LGBTQ+ is not a religion. MAGA is not a religion. And no, Atheism is not a religion. However, I have to disagree with:

The Satanic Temple, being composed of athiests for the most part, should actually have stayed in the realm of science instead of venturing into the scary, ethereal world of religion

Because Satanism IS a religion. Just because it is non-theistic does not mean it cannot be a religion. A religion does not need belief in a higher power or supernatural to qualify. It provides an ethos to live by, a set of tenets, community, ritual, and practice - basically everything a religion provides other than believing there is one or more gods who may or may not have a direct impact on our lives. Our beliefs are just as deeply held as any other religion. Just because TST - one branch of Satanism - chooses to fight for equality and the First Amendment, doesn't make it any less a religion. In my city the Catholic Church sued the city over public funding of an adoption agency - does that mean the Catholic Church is no longer a religion? The Mormon (LDS) Church in Utah spent millions upon millions of dollars back in 2008 to push for California to make same-sex marriage illegal through Prop 8 - does that mean it is no longer a religion?

What binds you together?

As already stated, we have tenets, ethos, ritual, community, etc. Satanism isn't strictly about trying to get equal First Amendment rights, just as Catholicism isn't strictly about trying to outlaw abortion. "Belief in science and a dispelling of anything ethereal" isn't the only thing about Satanism. Luckily people like you aren't the ultimate arbiters of what is or is not a religion and what is granted First Amendment freedoms. I think a lot of people are cafeteria Christians who like to hide behind it to hate on gay people or minorities, while not adhering to parts of the Bible that would inconvenience them, but I don't get to use that to disqualify them from religion.

It is my opinion that the purpose of religion...

And as I have explained, Satanism follows that purpose in every way - it just doesn't have a supernatural belief as part of it.

The difference between science and religion is that religion provides purpose to existence and is uniting whereas and science has removed any purpose at all and is not binding at all. Certainly people can get behind science but it is not binding. Even now, science is proclaiming genders that exist in the mind only and biological sex is not a marker of gender. I would say that is not science but a destroyer of science and is more a political tool.

Again, Satanism isn't just science, though it adheres to science. There are Christians who believe in evolution. Many faithful people believe in science, as they clearly use technology and medicine rather than relying solely on prayer. Why not live like the Amish or Christian Scientists then? And I'm not going to get into it here, but gender is a social construct, and even with biological sex there is a multitude of gene combinations that destroy any claim of strictly binary results. Hell, you could have XX chromosomes but one happens to contain the SRY gene that encodes biological male characteristics, and not even know it, yet I doubt if you found that out you would start claiming you were female.

If political force an be used to shape civilization we are all left open to the dictates of a few individuals.

How is that any different than how it is now? In the USA we are at the whim of two political parties which are basically two sides of the same religious corporatist conglomerate, with the ultra wealthy and lobbyists and special interest groups shaping our legislation with everyday citizens not really having any say. I mean one major Conservative Catholic group, The Federalist Society, has installed all of the recent SCOTUS judges.

One day they may come for me and the next they may come for you.

It may not be who you think. It is the American Right which has started stripping away civil rights, and has announced their plan to keep going (SCOTUS judge Thomas saying we should overturn the right to contraception, sodomy, and maybe mixed-race marriage). It is the American Right having wet dreams about civil war so they can have any excuse to murder people who don't think like them. They are the ones who think they will reign supreme in their Judeo-Christian utopia... just wait until Dave Ruben is jailed / murdered for being gay, Candace Owens for being black, Ben Shapiro for being Jewish... Then when there is no one left, they will turn on each other as they fight on which Christian denomination is correct.

Change must be left to evolutionary elements and processes to be sustained

Not always. Sometimes you need to actually follow the law and the Constitution, not just shrug it off until people have become less bigoted enough to do it themselves. Perhaps we should allow for freedom of religion instead of just crossing our fingers and hoping that maybe one day in the far future Christians will decide other religions can join the party. How long should we have let black people be enslaved and raped and murdered just so all white people could naturally decide they should stop?

You dream of a world free of religion and then trap yourself within one

I don't know where you keep getting this notion. As I have said time and time again, I have no problem with religion or people being religious - only when they try to subjugate others into it. That doesn't mean I think any religion is above criticism or needs a safe space to not be challenged, and I definitely believe in the freedom to offend, but again I have never advocated for the removal or outlawing of religion in any way shape or form. That is nothing but your own projection and strawman beliefs when you are told directly the only goal is equality.

@JacksonNought

As I have said time and time again, I have no problem with religion or people being religious - only when they try to subjugate others into it.

What religion does not proselytize and attempt to maximize itself while minimizing others? That would be where I get that notion. I doubt your religion different in that respect.

Each point of contention you have with traditional religion is a timeless condemnation of it as though its perfection should have been reached at its conception.. It never has been perfect yet you condemn it for not being so.

America so far is the only nation that constitutionally protects the free practice of all religions.
The fault in that is the State is left to define religion and theocracies without a separation of church and State would soon dissolve that part of the constitution.

The American Constitution also mentioned nothing of abolishing slavery but it eventually did, albeit with the loss of over 600,000 lives through the use of political force. It was a revolutionary process
and not an evolutionary process and there are still today unresolved differences, 150 years later. We would expect evolution to move toward good. Things like justice, equality under the law, the sanctity of life and the protection of the individual and his right to the private ownership of property. Unfortunately, we are witnessing a dilution of these rights today.

A religion is a religion is a religion. I don't see the Satanic Temple as any different other than it being non-traditional and anti-theistic. It has been granted and assumed the label now it will behave like one with a new altar and refreshed rituals, a brand new set of ethos. It is the same trap of all organized religions

The Federalist Society, has installed all of the recent SCOTUS judges.

Correction, they supported the appointment of the recently installed SCOTUS judges. The President nominated the judges, and Congress, both the Senate and the House, approved their nomination and appointment.

Tucker's on Gotta go.

@FrankZeleniuk

What religion does not proselytize and attempt to maximize itself while minimizing others?

Umm... plenty of them? If you think that is all a religion is, you have a pretty narrow definition.

Amish don't proselytize. They just want to be left alone. Same with Quakers. Hindus. Wiccans and Pagans. Sikhism outright discourages it. Buddhism too, with the Dalai Lama criticizing it. Judaism doesn't proselytize, and believes any convert should join only through their own accord - they even usually discourage converts. Many religions believe in live and let live - they may think they are the the only correct religion and others can be saved or not if they so desire, or they may think there are many paths to salvation, or they may just be ways of living and understanding the world with no promise of salvation or punishment. Not ever religion is violent Muslims using force to convert or execute non-adherents, or Christian Missionaries / Colonialists going into the jungle to thrust their Bible into some poor civilization's faces.

Satanism is one of these non-proselytizing religions, as they do not go around trying to convert anyone or deprive others of their own beliefs. In fact, you will rarely find a Satanist telling a Christian / Muslim / Jew that they have to take down some display or stop some sort of promotion - they only ask for the opportunity to join or be given equal opportunity. It is the Christian / Muslim / Jew who then decides if they can't be the only voice then no voice should be allowed.

It never has been perfect yet you condemn it for not being so.

Again, I don't really know where you are getting these wild assumptions. I never said religions had to be perfect, and I have stated multiple times I have no problem with religion in general or people having whatever beliefs they want, but my problem comes with people forcing their will on others and trying to legislate their religion into law.

America so far is the only nation that constitutionally protects the free practice of all religions.

Also not true. Actually the USA ranks #6 in religious freedom, with the Netherlands, Canada, Australia, Denmark, and New Zealand ranking above it. Now being a Canadian you may disagree with this, but the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifically enshrines freedom of conscience and religion, so it does in fact constitutionally protect it.

theocracies without a separation of church and State would soon dissolve that part of the constitution

Yes, and that is what America is starting to head towards with Christian Nationalists in Congress who want the Bible to be the supreme law of the land. They have said it outright. Catholics are only 20% of the population but make up 8 out of 9 Supreme Court justices. Prominent right-wing media personalities have called upon the government to prevent certain religious people from being allowed to practice, such as Charlie Kirk calling on law enforcement to bar Satanists from privately gathering. When you have one religion specifically calling on their members to proselytize and convert and that anyone who doesn't think like they do is evil, and another religion which specifically calls out freedom and pluralism, which do you think is gunning for a theocracy? You should be able to deduce which is which.

Correction, they supported the appointment of the recently installed SCOTUS judges.

Yes, technically speaking, the President nominates the judge and Congress votes on it. But each of the nominees were hand-picked and trained by the Federalist Society - the President was just there for appearances.

[washingtonpost.com]

[news.harvard.edu]

@JacksonNought

Amish don't proselytize. They just want to be left alone. Same with Quakers. Hindus. Wiccans and Pagans. Sikhism outright discourages it. Buddhism too, with the Dalai Lama criticizing it. Judaism doesn't proselytize, and believes any convert should join only through their own accord - they even usually discourage converts.

True. Very good argument against my claim that all religions proselytize. All generalities can generally be proven wrong.

Let me be more clear. There are other means of growth than proselytizing. Propagation, for example. Growth may not be the prime concern though. Ideological purity may take precedence, as we see in
Christian Protestant sects like the Amish, Mennonites, Quakers, Puritans, Hutterites. Conservation is their means of sustainment - but let's face it they need a method of growth or they contract and die.

The government has given the TST a means of establishing itself as a religious entity otherwise people would just continue to ignore, ridicule, fear and/or condemn it as just a bunch of crackpots. Not dissimilar to Satanism's ridicule and condemnation of them.

It' too bad the government gets to define and confer what is and what is not a religion. We do need a definition of it.

Judaism has been in the past racially exclusive. I'm certain you are more knowledgeable about it than I am since you were once Jewish. If it is a race you will always be Jewish. Many Jews today are atheists but still call themselves Jews. There is some debate about it.
Dennis Prager says in his book "Why the Jews" citing a quote form the Old testament that the Jews, who have been known as the "chosen people" were actually chosen to bring monotheism to the world and was not about them being particularly special in any way.
I'm sure you will piss all over that idea since Mr. Prager seems to wish a reconciling of Chrisitans and Jews.

the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifically enshrines freedom of conscience and religion, so it does in fact constitutionally protect it.

It still maintains the power to define what is officially recognized as a religion. TST has only officially recognized Religious status in the US, as far as I know. You can correct me on that if I'm wrong. A group of people can't just call themselves a religion and receive protection from the government as a religion. The government giveth and the government can taketh away.

Anyway at the moment, It is my opinion, that the public sees TST as more of a political activist group than a religion. You will have to do more than just erect statues of Baphomet to establish yourself as a religion in the public's eye.