After School Satan Club update.

[cleanhippie]

Last night I witnessed first hand, some of the most ignorant and repugnant people express their views at a School District meeting concerning the Satanic Temples' application to have an after-school club.

I don't need to repeat what was said by the troglodytes, you already know their responses. In a nutshell, religious freedom for me but not for thee.

The highlight of the evening was when the attorney hired by the school district stood up and said

...if the district were to deny the application they would face costly litigation that would not end in their favor.

The gasps from the troglodytes was palpable as they realized that the religious freedom they like to wave around in others' faces was going to be used by someone else. It reminded me of a quote that goes something like this...

"To those used to privilege, equality feels like oppression."

If they want someone to to blame, I hope they look to the Good News Clubs, as they are the ones that forced this door open.

When the After School Satan club begins their program, I'm going to volunteer my time.

[RKP5637]

1. Often some religious types stand for religious intolerance, not religious freedom. And they are

far too bigoted and lame to comprehend what religious freedom means.

[cleanhippie]

2. If the Satanic Temples' point was to shine light on religious bigotry, they've succeeded.

Why is it always the one's that yell most loudly for their "rights" that fight most strongly against everyone else getting the same treatment?

And why, in this county at least, are they nearly always Christians?

[Iggo]

3. Hail, Satan!

[jonno99]

4. Let's be honest, by definition the ASS club is oxymoronic:

- Religion is irrational, so let's have a "non-religious, religious club" whose only reason for existence is to "make those fundies squeal".

Hmmm...so exactly how is the ASS club teaching impressionable children to think & be more rational, inclusive, and pluralistic - when it's very founding is irrational?

[cleanhippie]

7. Not all will understand the point, especially those opposed to any reigi on but their own.

[jonno99]

8. I know, you keep making that point, while ignoring the

irrationality of your position.

What is irrational? The fact that you can do something, doesn't mean that you should do something - especially if it provides no benefit.

Unless you consider making fundies squeal the best use of your time...

[cleanhippie]

9. Ahh, but because you fail to see the benefit doesn't make it irrational.

I can understand how equality in this issue makes you uncomfortable.

Now, if you're saying that religion is irrational, I couldn't agree more.

[jonno99]

11. Chuckles, I'm not uncomfortable at all. But you are still in denial about

what the ASS club is about - and it's not about children.

Yes, everyone should feel free to exercise the benefit of their religious freedom. That the ASS club boosters - having no religion, and feel left out - are compelled to create their own provocative alternative is curious at best, but is in the end irrational.

Unless you consider deception, hate-baiting and using children as pawns to be rational?



edit:
btw: I should note that while I find the whole idea of the ASS club ridiculous (to say the least), I'd rather the fundies stop making a stink and simply let it happen.

But what fun would that be?

[cleanhippie]

12. The Satanic Temple isn't a religion? That's probably news to them.

Fortunately, your biased opinion means little when it comes to the rule of law, chuckles.

And where was your outrage when the Child Evangelical Fellowship sued the government for the right to have their after school clubs where they could peddle their irrational, and dangerous, agenda? Yeah, that's what I thought.

[jonno99]

15. Oh my, a complete diversion. So be it. Thanks for keeping us posted

on the ASS club's battles - I wish them all the best!

[cleanhippie]

16. Bye, Felicia.

[rug]

17. The rule of law applied here applies equally to the Satanic Temple.

The Court finds that FSMism is not a "religion" within the meaning of the relevant federal statutes and constitutional jurisprudence. It is, rather, a parody, intended to advance an argument about science, the evolution of life, and the place of religion in public education. Those are important issues, and FSMism contains a serious argument — but that does not mean that the trappings of the satire used to make that argument are entitled to protection as a "religion." Nor, the Court finds, has Cavanaugh sufficiently alleged how the exercise of his "religion" has been substantially burdened. The Court will grant the defendants' motion to dismiss.

https://www.scribd.com/document/308299698/Cavanaugh-v-Bartelt

Have fun volunteering at a sham.

[Angry Dragon]

19. are you saying Satan does not exist??

[rug]

20. I'm saying the Satanic Temple is a sham.

Starting with, they themselves don't believe Satan exists.

[Angry Dragon]

21. so you are saying that you know what they believe??

[jonno99]

22. Sure, if you can believe their FAQ:

https://thesatanictemple.com/faq/

[Lordquinton]

25. I dunno, I read the RCC FAQ and bring it here and I'm told every time I'm wrong

and that it's not at all what Catholics believe.

[jonno99]

27. Granted. And while I can't claim to have done an exhaustive search,

from what I've seen thus far, the philosophy and teaching of the ST group seems fairly homogeneous.

If you can provide a different faq or opinion piece from other ST members, I'm sure we'd appreciate an alternative viewpoint - to round out our understanding.

[Angry Dragon]

39. it holds as much validity as other organized religions

[cleanhippie]

42. That seems to be the part those enjoying religious privilege don't understand.

Or refuse to understand.

[rug]

43. Promoting bullshit is not a privileged activity.

[cleanhippie]

44. Religion isn't a privileged activity?

If promoting bullshit isn't privileged, why does the RCC get tax-exempt status?

[rug]

45. It is, by the Constitution. It's also not bullshit. The Satanic Temple is.

But you knew that. You just can't admit it. You prefer to peddle false equivalence.

[cleanhippie]

46. Actually, it's not. They enjoy the same status as the RCC.

I can see that bothers you, but fortunately, equality is the rule of law.

Will you post the decision against the pastafarians again? It means nothing in this case, as the Satanic Temple is as much a religion as Catholicism and Islam, just a bit more rational.

[rug]

48. Actually, it is. They enjoy the same status as the Ringling Brothers.

I find it as amusing to discuss law with you as it is religion.

Don't worry, if the Satanic Temple ever goes to court, I'll be sure to post it. Even though it will bother you.

[cleanhippie]

64. They're not going to go to court, no one is gonna take them.

You're free to, of course. I know they bother you.

[muriel_volestrangler]

47. What - it should be allowed in places other than the RCC FAQ?

Yes, that's rather the point of this. That the Good News Club, or other Christian religious groups, do not have a special privilege to promote bullshit on school property. If they can do that, then anyone can promote their beliefs there.

Though I can't see bullshit in " a healthy snack, literature lesson, creative learning activities, science lesson, puzzle solving and art project" myself. Is it the science lesson you object to?

[rug]

49. Your heading is incoherent.

What should be allowed?

If you read the law on this, it has little to do with religion and everything to do with the use of public schools by private groups, secular or religious.

The Satanic Temple could ask to form a secular club - which would be an allowed use - but instead chooses to masquerade as a religion. Ironically, if they were indeed Satanists and not poseurs they should be allowed. But instead they are simple frauds.

[muriel_volestrangler]

51. There were only 2 nouns in the whole of your post to which I replied

Since you said "Promoting bullshit is not a privileged activity", when I replied "it should be allowed in places other than the RCC FAQ?", anyone with a moderate grasp of English can see that 'it' refers to 'promoting bullshit'.

OK, quote the laws which you think mean that after school clubs can be either secular or religious, but that ones that say they're religious should be judged by someone on their sincerity before being allowed. I note that the professional lawyer advising the schools has said "the Satanic Temple should be allowed to do this".

Your opinion of them (that they are 'frauds' because they have a philosophy of how to live and what is moral, but no supernatural beliefs) is only of interest for what it tells us about you, and that you desire the privilege to suppress other people's ideas because they don't contain enough supernatural credulity for your taste.

[rug]

52. Which is what makes it incoherent.

As to the law, it is Good News Bible Club vs. Milford Central School District.

As to when a group characterizes itself as a religion, Cavanaugh v Bartelt is the test of whether it is a religion or a masquerade.

As to your last paragraph, muriel, I really have no interest in what a person who speaks in the plural thinks he surmises from what I post. Feel free to use it as a Rorschach test but don't delude yourself into thinking it has any meaning outside your own head.

Now carry on and Hail Satan! if you think that is the rational thing to do.

[muriel_volestrangler]

54. Oh, OK, incoherent to you. I won't bother educating you, then.

No, "Good News Bible Club vs. Milford Central School District" is not a law. It's a decision. (Are you really a lawyer? Really?) But it's a decision that does not say that after school clubs that say they are religious must be scrutinized by someone for sincerity. It says all clubs must be treated equally, whether religious or secular, so anyone's opinion of whether a club is religious or not would be irrelevant.

Which is pretty much the reverse of the discrimination you propose. But you're not one to pass up an opportunity for discrimination when it comes to religion, are you?

[rug]

55. There are two sources of law, statutes and case law.

(Do you really come from a Common Law country?)

And since you are not a lawyer, or even a solicitor, I will educate you: The other cited case provides the answer which eludes you.

Now, as to discriminating against religion, I'll cite your posting history as exemplars of antitheism, occasionally bordering on bigotry, dependent on which religion upsets you at the moment./

[muriel_volestrangler]

56. The other cited case wasn't about the Satanic Temple

and it has nothing to do with use of school facilities, or judging after school clubs, so it doesn't provide an answer at all. The case which does is the one saying all clubs should be treated equally, proving you wrong.

You wouldn't know what bigotry is without a mirror, rug. You're arguing in this thread that a religion should be discriminated against. Maybe you are scared of the word 'Satan', or maybe you really are worried by their intention to teach some science.

[rug]

57. The first thing taught in law school is to extract the principle and apply it to the facts.

That is extremely difficult for literalists.

Now you have a shabby habit of reformulating opposing views to views you can more easily counter.

I'll tell you again, muriel, and I invite you to read every post in this thread: the Satanic Temple is not a religion, it is a deliberate and explicit sham.

And I do recognize bigotry quite well, muriel. I make a point of reading every single thing you post here on the subject of religion.

[muriel_volestrangler]

58. You make a point of being wrong, and then blithely carrying on as if no one has noticed

Luckily for the world, you don't get to decide if religions are religions or not. It doesn't matter that you've repeated your wish several times in the thread. It doesn't make it true.

Seriously, I hope you don't approach your job in this sloppy way. It would have awful effects on your clients.

[rug]

59. Okay you'r.e reduced to making cheap ad hominems.

Much as I'd like to return the compliment, I'm going outside to enjoy a beautiful fall day.

Meanwhile the point stands, no matter how much angry spittle you direct at it. Spit washes off. Gormlessness doesn't

[muriel_volestrangler]

60. Too late - you leaped in with ad hominems a long time ago

"I'll cite your posting history as exemplars of antitheism, occasionally bordering on bigotry", for instance.

Point? You really think you've made a point in this thread? You've shown your fear of the Satanic Temple, but you've pointed at a Supreme Court decision which backs up the school lawyer's opinion that the club should be allowed. You've then shown professional incompetence by claiming it shows the opposite. Just as well you're anonymous here, or you'd be losing custom.

[rug]

61. You mean like this?

You wouldn't know what bigotry is without a mirror, rug. You're arguing in this thread that a religion should be discriminated against. Maybe you are scared of the word 'Satan', or maybe you really are worried by their intention to teach some science.

Tsk, again you resort to believing what you think is the same as reality. No, muriel, I have no "fear of the Satanic Temple". What I do is have contempt for frauds and those who promote them.

Finally, your opinion of someone else's incompetence, professional or otherwise, is completely undermined by what you think passes for argument in this subthread. Get back to me after you read up on what Common Law is.

[muriel_volestrangler]

62. You made the accusation of bigotry against me in #55, rug; I was replying to you in #56

because you'd made it personally insulting.

I've never seen anyone as worried about the Satanic Temple on DU as you are, rug. The progressive theists I read welcome their actions to uphold equal treatment of all religions, and of the non-religious. To you, they're the enemy for wanting that equality. You're desperate to slur them. Now you're libelling them as 'frauds'. Not very lawyerly of you. Just as well your peers can't tie that to you.

You have got the simple result of a Supreme Court decision completely wrong. Yes, that was incompetent of you, and your method of arguing is to just ignore your error.

[cleanhippie]

23. The Districts attorney knows what is and isn't legal, and prohibiting the ST would be illegal.

That's all that really matters here.

[jonno99]

24. Again, why should a DA take ANY group seriously that uses 'ASS Club' for

then name of their kids after school program?

I mean, do you really expect this to play out in any other way than the following:

Dad: "Hi Johnny, how was your after school SATAN club today?"
Johnny: "I don't think I want to go anymore, the kids were making fun of me - they said I was going to ASS club."
Dad: "Well, those kids were just being bullies, don't pay any attention to them."
Johnny: "But why did they name the club so that the initials spell ASS?!"
Dad: "Oh, that's just us trying to get a rise out of all those intolerant people - those fundie xians."
Johnny: "You mean they named it ASS club - just to make people mad? Isn't that what the bullies were doing to me - trying to make me mad?"
Dad: "Well it's different - we're the rational bullies..."

Yes, yes, I know - it's all about protecting the children - or something...

[cleanhippie]

29. It's not about protecting children, it's about equal treatment under the law.

And the school districts attorney knows what's up. And that's all that matters.

[jonno99]

32. What we talking about here however, is equal treatment

of religious "entities". Is the ST actually a religious entity - or are they really just a parody organization?

If they are not a parody, then why create a program entitled the A.S.S Club?

[cleanhippie]

33. File a suit against them on those grounds then.

Until someone does, and they won't, they are a religious organization with the same rights as the RCC.

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. Why would anyone take a religion seriously if their initials spell out "arsey"?

Obviously, the 'RC' Church is a sham. I look forward to you advocating it has all religious privileges taken away from it for having a satirical name.

[rug]

31. No, it's simply a means of avoiding another nuisance lawsuit.

If this ever went to court the Satanic Temple would lose. Decisively.

Although the deposition of Messner/Greaves would be satisfying.

[Humanist_Activist]

34. The Satanic Temple has yet to be ruled a "parody" and frankly the court overreached...

in attempting to judge a religion's "sincerity" in this example. Sets a dangerous precedent if it isn't ignored or overturned by other courts.

Not to mention they are doing a public service for everyone with this type of legal activism that is occurring.

https://www.stlmag.com/news/missouri-abortion-satanic-temple/

Seriously, the judge dismissed the case because she was no longer pregnant, Roe v. Wade actually explicitly addressed this and said that this is NOT a valid reason to dismiss the case because of the nature of pregnancy itself. Roe took 3 years or so to reach the Supreme Court, I think its safe to say she was no longer pregnant at that time. This dumbass decision will be overturned on appeal.

You can call TST a sham until you are blue in the face, they are performing a public service to help preserve all of our religious freedoms, even yours rug, if you are too blinded by your own bigotry to see that, too fucking bad.

[rug]

36. It's worse than a parody; it's a deliberate sham.

http://www.vice.com/read/unmasking-lucien-greaves-aka-doug-mesner-leader-of-the-satanic-temple

http://www.tinfoilhattime.com/2014/05/20/doug-mesnerlucien-greaves-the-huckster-behind-the-harvard-black-mass-and-similar-shams/

I would be very careful about calling other people bigots if I were you. Especially while flailing to defend this explicitly overt sham. It's odd how the loudest proponents of reason and evidence become the most gullible advocates of this group so long as it promotes antitheism. They have as much to do with religious freedom as the republican party does.

[Humanist_Activist]

50. Are you even trying here?

This is old stuff, much of it from questionable(CT) websites.

Yes its a sham, a sham in the best possible way, the only way I would care about it being a sham is if they were doing nothing, that would be a true sham, like Scientology, where they claim what they do helps, but then don't do anything. These are real court cases, real after school clubs being organized, real statues being sculpted, etc. If none of that was happening, and TST asked for money and did nothing, then your arguments would hold water.

By the way, what is it with your and SRA conspiracies? This isn't the first time you've linked to nuttiness like this. You do realize its way outside the mainstream, right?

[rug]

53. WTF are you talking about, "SRA conspiracies"? Do you think Vice is a CT website?

Speaking of Scientology, your hero also has a bone to pick with psychiatry:

In this incendiary interview with Matt Dwyer, Doug Mesner discusses the shameful mental health scandal of Multiple Personality Disorder/Dissociative Identity Disorder — a diagnostic classification that persists in the Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association despite being debunked by the best available contemporary empirical evidence, and despite the very evident harmful effects of the imaginary condition’s so-called treatment. Mesner speaks of his own experiences in documenting the pseudoscientific psychotherapeutic subculture of dissociative disorders, and reveals how, at its core, it is a subculture that is driven by, and dependent upon, Conspiracy Theory of the most paranoid delusional kind.

https://dougmesner.com/

http://www.feralaudio.com/74-doug-mesner-repressed-memories/

Not to mention other bizarre interests:

http://www.process.org/discept/2009/08/25/report-from-the-s-m-a-r-t-ritual-abusemind-control-conference-2009/

Glad you agree he, and this group, is a sham. How long before you realize it is a dangerous sham?

[Humanist_Activist]

63. Uhm, you linked to a website of a conspiracy theorist who doesn't believe...

that certain mass shootings happened, along with other, really outside the mainstream stuff.

As far as the rest goes, who fucking cares, and now you are calling it a dangerous sham, in what way is it a dangerous sham? Who is it a danger to and why is it a sham?

A sham would be taking someone's money under false pretenses and then not doing what you claim you are going to do. For example, taking donations to have a Baphomet statue built, then not building it, or taking donations to produce materials for an after school satan club and then not producing said materials. Are these things not happening?

A truly dangerous sham would be, for example, faith healers that claim to cure the sick, heal the blind, and tell their flock to throw away their medicines, etc. That's a dangerous sham, is Mesner doing anything close to that?

[rug]

65. "who fucking cares"

I think I'll use that as my response.

There is too much wrong with that post to start. Fortunately, it's not my mission to correct it.

"who fucking cares"

[Dorian Gray]

35. If that happened, then

this whole thing wouldn't be going on now. Where's the fun in fighting to open a club to prove a point if nobody gives a shit about the point?

[trotsky]

5. Well obviously, the people with religious privilege get to define what religion really is.

And - surprise, surprise - it only has the features of THEIR religion. Amazing how that works!

"To those used to privilege, equality feels like oppression."

Couldn't be more true.

[cleanhippie]

13. THEIR religion isn't irrational, but others' most certainly is!

We learn so much here!

[trotsky]

14. Ah, that trademark Christian love and tolerance.

Well, for those who deserve it at least. Just like Jesus said! You can hate everyone else.

[rug]

18. No, but the fedral courts do.

https://www.scribd.com/document/308299698/Cavanaugh-v-Bartelt

[Lordquinton]

26. The courts, which are run overwhelmingly by Cis, Het, White, Christian Men

decide Trottles.

Of course if the After School Satan Club isn't a religion, then they can't be kept out on the grounds that it's a religious group, unlike the evangelical clubs...

[trotsky]

37. Oh but of course.

Just like a court of white men decided Dred Scott v Sandford. Of course they know what's best!

[LiberalLoner]

6. I love it!

[thucythucy]

10. This reminds me of the old Samuel Johnson quote:

"How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?"

I can just imagine Thomas Jefferson wincing when he heard of that comment.

In this case here, equality certainly does seem to feel like "oppression" to at least some of these religious zealots.

[guillaumeb]

28. Agreed. But the District should be standing on principle, not hiding behind cost.

Free speech means free speech.

[cleanhippie]

30. They are doing just that, standing on principle.

He was answering the troglodytes' question about why the district doesn't fight it, and that was his legal answer. The district superintendent stated early on that all groups must be given equal access.

We have smart, rational people running our district.

[guillaumeb]

38. In our area also.

Our town library has stood up to various Christian groups advocating censorship by calling it "protecting the children". Internet access is the particular focus of these anti-free speech types.

[Jim__]

40. Me and the devil

[center]

[/center]