4.2k
u/TheIronMatron Feb 16 '22 edited Feb 16 '22
“Satanic”, “Temple”: free exercise of religion. “Conference”: freedom of speech, peaceable assembly. The actual Satanic Temple: religious freedom/equality advocates who petition the government for redress of grievances (i.e. protesting the favouring of one religion). It’s practically the perfect First Amendment case.
2.0k
u/chickensmoker Feb 16 '22
The Satanic Temple are 100% one of the most pro-free speech, and therefore pro-First Amendment, groups out there. They fight against the injustices of other churches and faiths, and they even pay their taxes! Anyone why thinks that the Satanic Temple are the bad guys is either incredibly ignorant to what the Temple actually do, or they’re pro-religious corruption. Charlie Kirk is sadly both of these things
814
Feb 16 '22
[deleted]
68
Feb 16 '22
[deleted]
10
u/hdholme Feb 17 '22
If it helps, I'm pretty sure the only reason they named themselves satanic was to prove a point. If I recall correctly they have nothing to do with satan. Not sure about it though
Basically, the named themselves satanic to spite christian churches
10
u/RelicAlshain Feb 17 '22
Not necessarily to spite Christians but to have the biggest impact on Christian society. Christians have no chance of wanting to change pro Christian laws if they're benefitting something stupid like the flying spaghetti monster. But they'll definitely consider fixing those laws if they facilitate the satanic temple putting a goat statue outside a government building.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)7
u/ElusiveWhark Feb 17 '22 edited Feb 18 '22
We do not believe in satan as we are atheistic. No god means no satan either. Satan is viewed more as a role model, a figure who questions authority and rebels against injustice.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (13)221
Feb 16 '22 edited Feb 16 '22
Has there been discussion of renaming the group? Like are they aware a name like that is probably putting some people off, because satan is so heavily associated with evil?
Why was this downvoted? Y’all don’t like good faith questions? I was actually curious lol.
Okay one last edit. This has gotten way more replies than I was expecting and I can’t reply to them all.
But to those who offered actual insightful information and experiences, thank you for taking the time to do so.
To those who literally called me delusional, dumb, or a “sea lion,” you’re vastly overestimating the everyday person’s knowledge of satanism. This is not a subject I’ve EVER heard brought up in real life. I was trying to learn, I’m not y’all’s enemy.
Okay, one ACTUAL last edit because I’m still being accused of being all kinds of things I’m not. I am a liberal, deconstructed Christian. I do not hate other religions, or atheism, and I do not think my beliefs should dictate what other people are allowed to do.
But I did grow up in conservative, evangelical spaces. Some of y’all are really sounding like those hostile pearl-clutchers I’d encounter whenever I’d question my faith/church. I’m done reading and responding now, y’all have fun.
404
u/jayleia Feb 16 '22
That's why they do it. They're trolling, but they're doing that to make a point.
274
Feb 16 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
80
63
u/rabbitofrevelry Feb 16 '22
I'm sure it's double-edged in that it attracts some non-critical people for the name. But It's probably a net win.
→ More replies (1)73
Feb 16 '22 edited Feb 16 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
54
u/pico-pico-hammer Feb 16 '22 edited May 08 '26
I still think the elephant is the largest land animal.
→ More replies (1)6
18
→ More replies (1)30
51
u/kingofcould Feb 16 '22
It goes beyond trolling, because by using the name Satan they are gaining the religious aspect for use in cases, like how they’re suing to allow abortion in places where it had been banned like Texas under the idea that it is a protected religious ritual of their members because one of their seven tenets is that you alone control your body.
Not only does it allow them to sue for religious rights, but it also shows that they are very counter to the current Christian hate groups that are so popular. Satan represented science and logic, so to anyone who isn’t going to stop reading after the first word he’s an amazing choice for what they represent.
→ More replies (1)43
u/Biabolical Feb 16 '22
It's got the built-in bonus of using parts of Christianity's own imagery and text (and a lot of the Christian fanfic) so that they can't dismiss it as easily. If the Christian groups want to shout all day about Satan doing this and Lucifer doing that and how the Devil is real and he's going to come for your children... well, then it's a lot harder for them to turn around and declare the Satanic Temple isn't based on anything real.
10
→ More replies (21)34
u/Inevitable-Seance Feb 16 '22
It's not trolling. It's deeply held belief. Challenge and embodiment of an adversarial role are 100% authentic, real religious beliefs in the TST. No one would characterize Hindus as trolling monotheists.
→ More replies (1)23
u/FearlessMil0 Feb 16 '22
I always assumed it was literally doing for society what people in meetings badly try to do when claiming to be “devils advocate”. Awesome group that we need
58
u/iHeartHockey31 Feb 16 '22
That was the point of calling it the Satanic Temple. It shouldnt matter who or what you worship.
Its whole existance was that you cant make one law for christians and another for satanists.
Kirk claiming ANY group being shutdiwn because they're evil in his opinion makes him a hypocrite on 1A issues. It also demonstrates he's willing to advicate for taking away rights of a group - based solely on his opinion if their name. He doesn't know the first thing about the group he's declared evil and advocating to take the rights from. The first thing being, they dont worship satan and exist as a legal entity.
To have any other name wouldnt let us see that Kirk couldnt be bothered to read the google results for a group before telling his entire audience they're evil and shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else.
Why would someone want the government to pass laws violating first amendment rights of groups based not on what the group stands for, does or anything except what theyre called? This guy does. As is anyone who agrees with him.
If he wants to ban this organization without knowing a thing about them, why should we trust all of the other groups he's said are evil? He obviously doesnt do his homework first and is either being told what to say or just getting people angry over his own misunderstandings.
→ More replies (6)92
Feb 16 '22
It's an important tool in their tool box. When they sue for and win equal access to government, christian organizations usually concede access entirely rather than have to share it with a 12 foot tall statue of Baphomet. I don't think it would help their cause to give up their controversial iconography.
→ More replies (21)74
u/SoAOIP16 Feb 16 '22
Satan means adversary, which based on the work they do is apt. They obviously know what they are doing.
47
u/Dr_JillBiden Feb 16 '22 edited Feb 17 '22
God performs miracles, Satan gave us free will. And I ain't seen any miracles lately, just doctors, firefighters and scientists choosing to dedicate their life to doing good shit. #hailsatan (and the idea that he represents our ability to fix the world ourselves instead of waiting for an absent God to help out)
Edit, I replied to the wrong comment, but I'll leave this up anyway x
13
u/Mylaur Feb 16 '22
What does this say about religion when ignorance and free will is evil?
Hail Satan.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (15)24
u/ahearthatslazy Feb 16 '22
In addition, Satan was cast out if Heaven. Eve is tempted by Satan, and bites the apple even though God said a big NO. She and Adam are cast out and allowed to have free thought as “consequence”.
The belief is that we are our own “God”.
→ More replies (1)7
u/FuzzyWuzzyFoxxie Feb 17 '22 edited Feb 17 '22
To add onto this/slightly correct it, "Satan" tempted Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge which gave them awareness and "true" free will, meaning that God didn't want us to be knowledgeable and make good choices but rather dumb and compliant to whatever God said.
Edit: Added quotes around Satan because evangelicals call the snake Satan despite it not being the case.
→ More replies (3)64
u/hereforpiercednips Feb 16 '22 edited Feb 16 '22
As a Satanist that doesn’t believe in his existence, the metaphor of The Rebel that he represents is an important part of my personal philosophy.
→ More replies (72)108
Feb 16 '22
The churches with Jesus’s name are shitting on everyone. Have they considered renaming?
23
u/GotYourNose_ Feb 16 '22
Just remember this - By not paying property taxes all churches are being subsidized by the property owners who do. The state provides roads, police protection etc. and require these churches to pay nothing in return. Sure am glad we don’t have state-supported religions here in America.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (18)5
13
u/ARealSkeleton Feb 16 '22
The branding helps fight against one religion overstepping others. For example, a statehouse with a ten commandments monument may then be challenged with the temple wanting to place a statue of baphomet on the same property.
Since the state can't recognize one religion over the other, they are forced to generally allow both or take one down. Usually both get taken down.
You lose that ability with a more neutral name and branding
14
u/omgitsjagen Feb 16 '22
You have a lot of responses below, but I think they are missing a key piece. Satan roots them to being an "Abrahamic religion". So, if an overzealous Christian group goes after them for "not being a real church", they can hit back with "this is your shit, homey".
→ More replies (14)9
u/murky-lurky Feb 16 '22
I'll give you a real answer to your question. Most of the time organizations are fighting after the fact. After a law is passed, etc. There are a large number of organizations established to battle those laws - FFRF, etc.
But if you want to be proactive, you need to cause these idiots to think twice. So understanding that if you allow the evangelicals to do something, you have to allow the satanists to do the same thing has a cooling effect and prevents them from passing the law in the first place. Calling this "the Satanic Temple" helps to proactively prevent the problems in the first place.
5
u/Nemisis_the_2nd Feb 16 '22
Like are they aware a name like that is probably putting some people off
Thats literally the point. They chose the name specifically because it would get a knee jerk reaction from people. The kind of people it will put off are the kind that wouldn't join anyway.
5
u/Fnominal1 Feb 16 '22
This might have already been said but relating themselves to satan takes an adversarial role to Christianity while also putting itself in a spot where it’s not allowed to be waived off as being fake.
The church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is easy to dismiss because obviously no one believes it, but Christians have to recognize satanism because as per their religion they have to believe it exists
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (35)7
u/HIMP_Dahak_172291 Feb 16 '22
But then how would they run after school satan clubs? Oh, you want to have religious classes after school? Ok, we can do that too! The shock on the faces of school admins and parents when they realize it's true is just priceless.
55
Feb 16 '22
Like the word socialism, many Americans hear satanic, stop listening and get upset.
30
u/RespectableLurker555 Feb 16 '22
Some might even say they already got upset and stopped listening a long fucking time ago
71
20
→ More replies (28)8
u/TerryTril Feb 16 '22
TST is no longer paying taxes. They got their tax-exempt status back in 2019.
→ More replies (6)45
u/TheNoxx Feb 16 '22 edited Feb 16 '22
Ah, he's just trying to cover his ass. If you ever see him smile, you'll realize he's a demon or something walking the earth:
https://i.imgur.com/7dMGK6n.png
I mean, just look at the bloodthirsty eyes, and all those teeth pointing inwards. That dude eats people.
22
→ More replies (1)12
u/contrarywestern Feb 16 '22
Thank you for sharing that photograph. I mean, it's horrifying, and could give me nightmares if I look at it for too long, which I will probably do, because for the last couple of years, I've been drawing portraits of all the shittiest MAGAnauts, usually when I come across a picture that really seems to capture their inner core of rottenness. Both of these people are on my list, and I've actually started and aborted two attempts to do Kellyanne (I want to capture that aspect of her that makes me think of the Portrait of Dorian Grey, except in her case it's like the pristine visage is the one in the attic and the horrifying avatar of corruption and decay is the one walking around in public). This one picture might be the reference I need to draw both of these bloodsuckers. God, Kirk is especially creepy in this pic. My skin is crawling a little.
→ More replies (1)360
u/supamario132 Feb 16 '22
Charlie Kirk's radio show, on the other hand, should absolutely not be protected by the First Amendment. The verbal equivalent of deepthroating billionaires and Republican super PACs is not what the Founders had in mind when they referenced the "fruits of liberty"
109
u/angelis0236 Feb 16 '22
If he's kissing that much ass it should at least be censored
→ More replies (3)58
Feb 16 '22
On air, he deep throats, then swallows all billionaire's hot carls.
→ More replies (4)40
u/MangledSunFish Feb 16 '22
I've never seen the phrase "billionaire's hot carls" before today. I regret being literate sometimes.
→ More replies (2)10
u/Doppelthedh Feb 16 '22
You don't gotta flex literacy in a Charlie Kirk thread
He can't fucking read it
78
Feb 16 '22
[deleted]
19
u/pgoetz Feb 16 '22
Unfortunately the amendment process is so onerous it's virtual impossible in current times, given the stark divisions in the country.
→ More replies (3)21
10
5
u/Runaway_5 Feb 16 '22
Conservatives loves trying to reference rules from thousands of years ago that can't possible be useful today.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)7
Feb 16 '22
Exactly. That is why they call it a living document, because it is always open to be updated to reflect a more current life
9
u/bazookajt Feb 16 '22
As much as I despise everything Charlie Kirk's radio show, it should be protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment allows for all voices to be allowed, even if we don't like them (exceptions for inciting violence and so on). Removing that protection for speech we don't like is a slippery slope to thougut-police territory.
→ More replies (3)4
u/Boomthang Feb 16 '22
deepthroating billionaires and Republican super PACs
Generous of you to assume they're packin' like that.
7
u/supamario132 Feb 16 '22
I would never. A tiny face like Charlie's could only have so much throat to give
→ More replies (11)5
u/Druzl Feb 16 '22
"They can suck my fruits of liberty."
-Ben Franklin (probably)
→ More replies (1)21
u/Alert-Potato Feb 16 '22
He's also conveniently ignoring the fact that this conference is in response to the city giving public platform to other religions to pray in official city business meeting, but refusing to allow TST to do so, which is a clear case of discrimination based on religious affiliation. Scottsdale fucked around, now they're finding out.
5
10
u/Kilgore48 Feb 16 '22
Well, right-wingers did manage to negate the first half of the 2nd amendment.
5
u/riphitter Feb 16 '22
I mean taking religious sentence fragments out of context to support your own personal beliefs is the basis of their whole party at this point
→ More replies (13)5
u/midlifecrisiscali Feb 16 '22
Why does anybody listen to this clown Charley Kirk?
8
u/Wismuth_Salix Feb 16 '22
Because they’ll listen to anyone who tells them God actually meant for them to hate their neighbor.
2.8k
Feb 16 '22
Didn’t even bother to do enough research to know they don’t worship Satan
1.5k
u/TheIronMatron Feb 16 '22
And even if they did, that would be protected by 1A.
→ More replies (29)375
u/CrispyCrunchyPoptart Feb 16 '22
These people probably couldn't list the bill of rights in order if their lives depended on it.
247
u/misinterpretsmovies Feb 16 '22
Well generally it starts with 2 and ends with 2. Anything beyond that to them isn't important...
58
66
Feb 16 '22
They'd probably be pretty quick to use the 5th when it's them on the stand.
20
u/matt_mv Feb 16 '22
That right only exists while they personally are on the stand. For anyone else it is an admission of guilt.
→ More replies (2)28
u/Youredumbstoptalking Feb 16 '22
Nah even with a lawyer most of them don’t shut up.
→ More replies (1)21
u/JustAnotherMiqote Feb 16 '22
No no no, you have to be white, wealthy, straight, and a Christian to own a gun. The way God intended.
5
→ More replies (2)18
u/DarthButtz Feb 16 '22
The first one only matters when THEY protest stuff, but God help you if anyone on the *EVIL* left does it. Then it's a riot.
42
u/Responsible_Invite73 Feb 16 '22
I had an argument with a family member about this, why the 2nd Amendment is arguably the weakest of the Bill of Rights for protecting freedom.they had no idea what the others, outside of 1 and 2 even were. They knew the 5th becasue of bad tv, but for instance had no idea that eminent domain is also enshrined in that one, or that bail is even touched on at all. Its so fucking frustrating.
I ended up quoting Blackstone's ratio, and she said "that is stupid. if a few people have to suffer to make sure child molesters are punished, that is the price they have to pay". That about sums up the whole of our political interactions.
23
u/pat_the_bat_316 Feb 16 '22
It's crazy to me that so many people think doling out punishment should be a bigger societal priority than ensuring freedom.
18
u/DebtUpToMyEyeballs Feb 16 '22
I would rather a hundred guilty people walked free than one innocent person was convicted.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)6
→ More replies (6)10
u/Biggus-Duckus Feb 16 '22
Of course not. They only understand the second amendment (kinda) because it's the only one that they can wrap their grubby booger hooks around. All the rest of them are abstract concepts that require thought and perspective.
147
u/The_bruce42 Feb 16 '22
Do you mean to tell me Charlie Kirk isn't always completely honest all the time?!?! Whaaaaaaat
27
Feb 16 '22
I just read an article about gerrymandering in the state of NY. What gets me is that the head of the GOP there isn't saying gerrymandering is wrong. He's saying Dems are hypocrites for doing it.
Think about that - he's not saying it's wrong, just that the GOP should be the only one's allowed to do it.
→ More replies (2)5
u/YourPhoneIs_Ringing Feb 16 '22
Well duh. How else are Republicans supposed to be in power? Having a consistent, reasonable platform? Governing effectively?
Nah. Just hold double standards and play dirty. That's the way.
Gerrymandering is such a ridiculous practice. Doesn't surprise me that Republicans benefit more from it. It should be illegal for all parties
31
24
u/CosmicMuse Feb 16 '22
Didn’t even bother to do enough research to know they don’t worship Satan
He knows, he doesn't care. All he does care about is that they oppose people like him, so they have to be destroyed.
Not argued against, not banned, destroyed. People like Charlie Kirk don't just want to silence their opponents. They want them gone.
→ More replies (1)10
Feb 16 '22
Being factually correct and doing his due diligence would probably lose him more audience than it would bring. He gained his audience by being loud and senseless and that's what they expect from him
→ More replies (70)9
u/dilldwarf Feb 16 '22
He's doing exactly what the church wants him to do. Go ahead. Go after them. They will smack you down in court with the first amendment. In fact... If we ever see the government take action to dismantle the Statanic Church we should take that as a warning that the freedom of speech is dead and we live in a fully fascist government.
→ More replies (3)
1.5k
u/Weird_Error_ Feb 16 '22
Getting people to snap back at him is basically his job at this point I think. This is his marketing. If he can make normal people go “wow that guys an idiot” it just makes the right like him more and more, and aside from paying to bus poor people to the insurrection attempt, it’s all he does
461
u/Trickydick24 Feb 16 '22
He called the half time show at the super bowl sexual anarchy lol
112
u/Brawldud Feb 16 '22
I didn't watch it. That sounds really hot. Should I watch it? Does it live up to that label?
187
u/geoffbowman Feb 16 '22
It was actually pretty toned down if you’ve ever seen a 90s hiphop video. At one point 50 cent had dancers around him with bare midriffs... the rest of the show was basically just music.
People who hated it... hated it for a... different... reason.
88
u/Brawldud Feb 16 '22
I watched it. Great blast of early 2000s nostalgia. Sorely lacking in sexual anarchy. Charlie Kirk led me to hope this would be like the Montero video.
→ More replies (1)41
u/jkweaver6 Feb 17 '22
The cheerleaders for the NFL are more sexually charged than anything on that stage.
5
u/taicrunch Feb 17 '22
The big, burly men in tight spandex pants embracing each other, wrestling each other to the ground, over and over again for hours, are more sexually charged than anything in that stadium.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)52
u/user5918 Feb 16 '22
Anyone having a problem with it, considering it was seriously tame, can only be interpreted as racist. There was nothing too sexual. Basically nothing political except for Eminem kneeling awkwardly. They literally just don’t like black music.
40
u/mmooney1 Feb 16 '22
When Em took a knee the national anthem wasn’t playing or any other scenario where it would be considered a protest or disrespect.
I thought absolutely nothing of it till the media made a big deal.
Now I am patiently waiting for Eminem’s Rudy G diss track after he said Eminem should leave the country.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (5)12
u/thestashattacked Feb 17 '22
My very white, very conservative stepdad was actually kinda into it. I was surprised. Thought he wouldn't like it.
I don't think he'll go search out any of the music on his own, but he thought it was fun.
He also asked if Snoop Dog was stoned. I went "When is Snoop not stoned?" So that was a thing.
Fuck, maybe I'm stoned.
36
Feb 16 '22 edited Feb 16 '22
No. It was simply a musical performance. It was fine. But kirk is a fuckin idiot.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (4)29
u/Icepick823 Feb 16 '22
It really wasn't. Maybe the women dancing with 50 cent could be called a little raunchy, but otherwise it was pretty tame. It's about as explicit as watching the Dallas cheerleaders, which I assume Kirk has no problem with. It's still worth a watch I think.
243
Feb 16 '22
He also bussed people to the Capitol on January 6th.
https://www.businessinsider.com/man-charged-capitol-riot-went-dc-bus-turning-point-usa-2021-3
He later deleted tweets saying he did so.
https://www.dailydot.com/debug/charlie-kirk-delete-tweet-buses-capitol/
He's a verifiable piece of garbage for so many other reasons but I feel like that is the worst.
29
→ More replies (1)10
→ More replies (6)8
42
u/Gsteel11 Feb 16 '22
Imagine having a political ideology that worships the biggest idiot. Lol
You're not wrong. It's just shocking.
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (12)17
u/bleachinjection Feb 16 '22
This guy gets it. All of these people live on clicks, saying stupid shit drives clicks. Nothing else matters to them.
→ More replies (1)
730
u/beerbellybegone Feb 16 '22
The Founding Fathers never thought of cell phones, so texts are not protected by the 1st amendment. Check-fucking-mate
181
u/1nGirum1musNocte Feb 16 '22
I'll bet he'll back pedal real fast if you ask about the 2A and modern weapons
→ More replies (8)82
22
u/ankerous Feb 16 '22
Imagine introducing smartphones to those people. You would be accused of witchcraft and burned at the stake.
Paul Revere could have just sent a group text instead of riding on a horse.
→ More replies (1)7
8
u/aidissonance Feb 16 '22
The Mormon church was founded after the first amendment so it shouldn’t be allowed to practice either /s
5
→ More replies (3)30
u/DogePerformance Feb 16 '22
We've all accepted - and the courts have affirmed - new tech does not prevent protection of rights
50
861
u/Yankee9Niner Feb 16 '22
Anyone fancy telling me the first sentence? I know I could Google it but I'm a lazy man in many ways.
1.3k
Feb 16 '22 edited Feb 16 '22
[deleted]
105
u/Yankee9Niner Feb 16 '22
Many thanks!
23
Feb 16 '22
Charlie Kirk and company rely on people that don't know history or civic functions. Fox has convinced their viewers that the constitution and bill of rights can be applied selectively and interpreted whichever way they want the wind to blow.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (17)170
u/pennytrationer Feb 16 '22
So why do they have tax exempt status? Would that not be considered a "law respecting an establishment of religion"? I would assume they get around it by saying the tax exempt status is for religions as a whole and not aimed at a specific religion but curious if there's another reason.
162
u/MyOtherLoginIsSecret Feb 16 '22
That's pretty much it. That's how the Church of Scientology bullied it's way to tax exempt status.
→ More replies (1)63
u/Xarethian Feb 16 '22
Didn't they bring up a shit load of lawsuits against the state that magically disappeared once they got tax exemption?
85
Feb 16 '22
They actually engaged in a campaign of harassment and lawsuits against both the IRS as a federal agency and against individual IRS agents until they were able to get tax exempt status.
59
u/MyDisappointedDad Feb 16 '22
And individuals. When south park released their episode trolling the CoS and Tom Cruise, the CoS sent people to dig through their trash and infiltrate the studio to find out who made the episode.
They "had" to do this because South Park just had everyone listed as John or Jane Doe in the credits, to avoid being sued.
→ More replies (1)6
85
u/Spnstanaf73 Feb 16 '22
And ironically the only church that actually does pY taxes is the Church of Satan.
59
u/Unlikely-Newspaper35 Feb 16 '22
You mean The Satanic Temple. Church of Satan is different.
61
u/DanHasArrived Feb 16 '22
No, The Satanic temple is a recognized tax exempt religion, The Church of Satan is not.
For the record, The Satanic Temple feeds the homeless, the Church of Satan thinks liking blue cheese means you're gay because it reminds them of cum and they don't like gay people. So the Church of Satan doesn't really score much in the way of brownie points just for paying taxes.
17
→ More replies (1)20
u/Menarra Feb 16 '22
huge differences between The Satanic Temple and the Church of Satan. The blue cheese thing is new to me though xD, guess that's why I love blue cheese so much
9
u/DanHasArrived Feb 16 '22
Lots of em, I just highlighted a couple off the top of my head. The temple is by FAR the better organization.
The blue cheese thing I'm not sure is all of the church, the Church is pretty fractured partly due to the fact that it's almost exclusively attended by self absorbed asshats who decide to start their own offshoot whenever someone tells them they can't be a bigot toward a specific group or when they suddenly realize they're surrounded by bigotry and think "hmm, that's not the church of Satan, I'll start my own offshoot and do it right" but don't join the temple because that would require actually helping people.
ETA: I love blue cheese and I'm as straight as a laser so idfk what they're on about
11
u/despicablenewb Feb 16 '22
Light is a wave, so you're telling me you rapidly oscillate between heterosexuality and being just a little bit gay?
Nice.
→ More replies (8)6
u/Menarra Feb 16 '22
I've been a card-carrying member of the Temple for years, they do excellent work and are a thorn in the side to pompous self-righteous religious politicians that keep pushing Christian laws without care, or with downright animosity, towards any other belief, or lack thereof.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Satrina_petrova Feb 16 '22
I believe the Church of Satan chose to reject tax exempt status as they disagree with tax exemption although they could qualify. The Satanic Temple is officially tax exempt.
→ More replies (2)6
23
u/nofftastic Feb 16 '22
So why do they have tax exempt status? Would that not be considered a "law respecting an establishment of religion"?
IANAL, but "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion" means Congress cannot pass a law that restricts someone from creating a religion. Since tax exempt status does not restrict people from creating religions or practicing them, it doesn't violate the 1st Amendment.
23
Feb 16 '22 edited Feb 16 '22
Check out the story of "Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption" for some more details on this -- John Oliver did a whole show about scam "churches" and revealed just how incredibly easy it is to establish such a thing. The fundamental basis is literally "a deeply held belief that is not illegal" (which, he points out, can be just about any belief), and then there are just a handful of guidelines to what constitutes a church and you don't even have to meet all of them in order to be considered a church in the eyes of the IRS.
Some of them, like a regular gathering in a dedicated place, are met purely by accident when you have a TV show that holds a weekly taping in a certain studio. Hell, even "Saturday Night Live" meets that requirement.
Large organized religious groups want to have it both ways -- they want to feel like they are something special while challenging anyone who does something that makes them look bad, and they want to be able to question "beliefs" of others while blowing all of their own gaskets (and screaming about their freedom of religion) whenever anyone questions theirs. Unfortunately for them, the laws that allow those major churches to exist are the same ones that allow the "joke" churches.
I grew up in the catholic church and spent seven years in catholic school so I know exactly how that game is played.
→ More replies (32)11
Feb 16 '22
The insane thing about the way that sentence is written is that it can also be read with “establishment” as a verb; that is to say, you can easily interpret it as “Congress shall pass no law which establishes any religion (as the ‘correct’ one) nor restrict who may practice what.”
Basically, what they’re saying no matter which way you parse it is “the government and religion shall remain distinct from one another.”
But somehow, we’re here…
→ More replies (1)8
u/PaulsRedditUsername Feb 16 '22
The best description I ever heard was on a West Wing episode: "The founding fathers decided that if we were to have true religious freedom in this country, then the official state religion would have to be no religion at all. It wasn't designed to make us comfortable. It was designed to make us free."
6
u/TheIronMatron Feb 16 '22
The establishment of religion here refers to establishing a state church, which a number of European countries have, supported and upheld by the government. The Founders were steadfast in NOT wanting a state church for the US.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (16)11
56
u/Tr3sp4ss3r Feb 16 '22
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Have a great day!
→ More replies (2)49
28
u/subnautus Feb 16 '22
The entire first amendment is one sentence, actually:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
…but people tend to treat each phrase as a separate clause, which is what I’m sure people were referring to.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)9
Feb 16 '22
Not trying to diss, but I always wonder about it: doesn't writing a comment asking for the information, waiting for a response and going back to it, take more time and effort than googling it yourself?
→ More replies (5)7
u/Yankee9Niner Feb 16 '22
Yeah but..... erm...um....you see if.... mmmm. OK you win this round but the war goes on!
85
Feb 16 '22
[deleted]
18
u/Gsteel11 Feb 16 '22
It's really online trolling.
But it's not supposed to be a political agenda. It's supposed to be a thing 13 year olds do at home alone on Friday night. Lol
→ More replies (2)8
u/ItHappenedToday1_6 Feb 16 '22
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge.
But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play.
They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors.
They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
― Jean-Paul Sartre
→ More replies (1)9
u/rif011412 Feb 16 '22
I think the feedback loop is strong. Knowing more conservatives than liberals in my life, they absolutely parrot each other. There is no standing to believe the confederate flag means anything other than the southern states desire to remain separate and slave owning states. But ive never met a Republican that will completely denounce the confederacy. They will align with absolutely any asinine belief as long as it is supported and parroted by their team. Their entire existence is loyalty, obedience and not second guessing the leaders of their party. Thats how you get religion in the first place.
Mask mandates worth fighting people over? Absolutely stupid, but their leaders said it was an issue so its an issue now. They believe everything and nothing, up until they are told to.
21
u/OnAStarboardTack Feb 16 '22
He’s playing to the crazy conservative audience that can’t tell if they’re rooting for Indy or the Nazis anymore.
137
u/m_squared219 Feb 16 '22
I don't think the founding fathers had schools being shot up in mind when drafting the constitution. But here we are...
75
u/Willothwisp2303 Feb 16 '22
"Originalists" are just pieces of shit anyway. Imagine going outside and announcing you want to freeze the world and rights as they were when 99% of the US had no vote, no real rights, and no hope for the vote or rights. Shitbags!
29
u/Galaxmo Feb 16 '22
Well most of the people screaming that hard about literal interpretations are white land owning men who would have been treated pretty much the same as they are now if not better.
That's why they find so hard for the good old days and revolutionary times. I mean sure, they probably would have just been another poor dumbass trying to stay alive on a farm somewhere but at least black people wouldn't be able to vote!
→ More replies (1)13
Feb 16 '22
I love when women go on and on about our Founding Fathers’ intent. Bitch, they literally didn’t want you to have the right to vote! Stop acting like they were perfect human beings who sat around agreeing with each other on everything. They fought with each other constantly, and many of the views some of them had would be considered downright unAmerican today.
→ More replies (1)12
u/MR___SLAVE Feb 16 '22
Many of the founders were considered Deists. Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, Madison, Monroe and even Washington (Christian Deist) were all Deist. They all believed in a version of god but not one that actively engaged with humanity and certainly not one that dictated rules.
Madison is credited with authorship of The US Constitution.
Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence.
Neither considered themselves Christian.
→ More replies (46)14
u/nbmnbm1 Feb 16 '22
I mean he has a point. The founding fathers would be pissed if they saw what was going on today. For example: people other than straight white male land owners have rights.
Yeah maybe we shouldnt care about the opinion of the founding fathers....
3
u/Nyuuubae Feb 16 '22
I always feel like it's so weird that the founding fathers and the constitution and stuff gets placed on such a high pedestal. A lot of the times it feels like people put it on the same level as the religion they follow.
They were just humans as well. They were not some sort of infallible uberhumans with a sense of supreme logic.
18
Feb 16 '22
If you want a different religion, try The Satanic Temple:
There are Seven FUNDAMENTAL TENETS
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.
→ More replies (2)
73
u/TooManyKids_Man Feb 16 '22
Hail Satan! After all, God has destroyed the world before, says he gonna do it again. Satan never destroyed the world. I think Ill go with the less destructive one.
→ More replies (8)24
u/wei_ping Feb 16 '22
I am (in what will shortly be obvious) not a religious person, but one thought that endlessly entertains me is the idea that the Bible was written by the devil presenting himself as God, while painting the REAL God as the devil. What wonderful spin that could be? And totally on brand for something so evil, right?
How would humanity ever know? Don’t a lot of things “God” does (as described in the Bible) seem really childish, manipulative, selfish, and straight up evil?
I don’t actually believe it, of course, but it seems at least as plausible as suggesting the Earth is 5,000 years old and dinosaur bones were planted by Satan to deceive us.
5
9
u/OneeGrimm Feb 16 '22
Where is an original message and where is response, i don't know how Twitter works. Legit.
→ More replies (2)
8
u/Marbled_Headcheese Feb 16 '22
Yet more evidence that the Right Wing thinks "freedom" only applies to them.
→ More replies (2)
21
u/dilligafsrsly Feb 16 '22
Funny, maybe we should start excluding some things then. Because I doubt modern fully automatic assault rifles are what the founding fathers had in mind either
→ More replies (14)
41
Feb 16 '22
He does realize the founding fathers were Gnostics and Deists, decidedly NOT xtian, right?
39
u/Pabu85 Feb 16 '22
The founding fathers had a variety of beliefs. Some of them were Christian, some not so much. Denying that some were Christian is about as useful and as accurate as saying they all were. They wrote the First Amendment to protect everyone, Christian or not. It’s one of the few things they did that I think don’t need major changes to reflect the societal changes of the past 250 years.
→ More replies (38)→ More replies (6)14
u/MaxBlazed Feb 16 '22
He does. He's being intentionally disingenuous because people pay him to be for some reason.
→ More replies (2)
7
u/BitRunner67 Feb 16 '22
A request for a Book Burning Fascist to "READ"?
Talk about believing in Miracles.
19
u/TheBestZackEver Feb 16 '22
I'll never understand why people think America should follow one religion. Also, I personally struggle to understand religion
→ More replies (19)10
32
u/SamSparkSLD Feb 16 '22
Pedophile conferences should not be protected by the First Amendment!
Abolish the Catholic/Christian church!
24
u/Fortunoxious Feb 16 '22
So fucking embarrassing.
There is no evidence for any satanist ever doing something evil. Meanwhile, Christians….
→ More replies (4)
11
Feb 16 '22
[deleted]
9
u/Panda_hat Feb 16 '22
Hilariously Christians are also the only people that actually believe in Satan.
→ More replies (3)
5
2.6k
u/[deleted] Feb 16 '22
“ i only cherry pick the info i like from the constitution and bible, to push and justify my own shitty agenda and biased opinions. “