582
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2023
582 points (98.8% liked)
News
23655 readers
3300 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Correct on The Satanic Temple (TST) being non-theistic. While it did start off as trolling, it has coalesced into a religion of its own (much to the chagrin of the nutty christians here), just without the superstition used to coerce people in abrahamic religions.
The idea that people take a troll religion made up to challenge laws seriously is as absurd to me as the laws they challenge, if not more so.
Man, I love threads about the TST, because there's always people like you who absolutely shit themselves over any mention of them, and write small novels about how stupid they are.
It's really all very entertaining.
No no, he's right. This is absolutely absurd.
Absurd doesn't always mean bad.
Absurd, sure.
Stupid (and racist, lol) like he says, no.
Likewise I think it's ironic that people who are against religion and it's political influence will flip when there's a religion exerting a good influence. Within the right moral and political context, a religion is deemed good and shouldn't be understood critically.
I don't think it's ironic, I think it's fighting fire with fire. People see that religion is afforded a lot of leeway that isn't afforded to other similar organizations, and they want to use that for a good cause of a change.
Exactly that's why it can work, the system by design requires this appeal to religion, so religious causes are manufactured ad-hoc like this to fulfill political goals. The idea of religion being a political influence is accepted by people who are against religion if it's a good cause, as long as it's in the context of being against a bad religious cause. The irony is they hold secularism as a tenant of the religion yet function the same as a traditional religion does in the political sense, and they're required to do this because of how the system works.
Yeah well, since the government and society is unfortunately infested by religion, you have two choices: you either do some actual good by pretending to be a religion, or you whine about it online.
One of those actually help people.
You don't think TST is a real religion... what would a real religion be then? I criticize this whole context of how religion operates in government and the absurdity of religions needing to be purpose-built like this, but I definitely wouldn't go so far to call them a pretend religion. I suspect a lot of TST members sincerely believe in the tenants, it's no less manufactured than other religions really. It's just manufactured in this post-political postmodern neoliberal context vs something like Mormonism or the Adventists that were manufactured in a different context. I think that's why you're calling it a pretend religion, but I would say this is maybe more like genuine pretending. To call it pretend like you have is way harsher than anything I've said about it, you're basically saying it's all a ruse and the adherents are all just knowingly faking it for show, which would mean they couldn't legitimately challenge laws as a religion. Like you've invalidated the whole church by saying that, at least I recognize it's a legitimate religion.
Well, they're not trying to manipulate their members for power over them and profit, and/or they're not trying to get them to believe in the supernatural, so they're clearly not a real religion.
Good, they are very good tenants to live by, I salute them. I try to do so myself.
Why would it be harsh? That's something you inferred, not something I said.
I personally don't think pretending to be a religion is a bad thing, it's a necessary thing. You seem to be projecting a lot of you own opinions onto what I actually said.
How so? What qualifications do you have to decide which religions are allowed to be recognized under law?
A political lobbying organization masquerading as a religion would run in to issues with it's tax exemption status and potentially not fall under Title VII as a protected religious belief, which is what a lot of challenges to these laws are filed under re: workplace discrimination. This is something that religions are very careful about and intentionally work around. So when you say it's a "pretend religion" you're basically saying it's adherents aren't really religious. Courts actually do care about whether someone truly believes in a religion, because someone's supposed religious beliefs are often appealed for why someone is a "good person," or to establish whether discrimination actually took place. The law doesn't share the same arbitrary definition of religion you have unfortunately, here's what has to be appealed to for laws to be challenged in reality:
If you were filing a lawsuit like the one in the article and you professed it was a "pretend religion" your case would be thrown out, that's why what you said is harsh because the implications of that invalidate it's validity and effectiveness to challenge these laws.
Well, it doesn't really matter since my definition of religion is not what the laws use.
I say it's a pretend religion because they’re not trying to manipulate their members for power over them and profit, and/or they’re not trying to get them to believe in the supernatural.
This is clearly different from the law's misunderstanding of what a religion is, as pointed out by yourself:
Fortunately for the lawsuit, it wouldn't because the definition of religion the court uses and mine if different.
If you called someone's religion "pretend" in the workplace it would count as discrimination under Title VII which is the famous Civil Rights Act of 1964, it doesn't matter what your personal definition is I'm talking about reality here.
Fettuccine alfredo is adult mac and cheese and religion is an imaginary friend for adults.
If you called someone's religion stupid, that would also count as discrimination, and yet you have no problem doing it.
I've called the context the religion was formed in absurd (not a judgement because modern culture is absurd), and said the Church of Satan has effectively called them pussies (it has), but have not called the TST or it's adherent's stupid. Absurd doesn't mean stupid. Everything else is just from their own About Us page, which is mostly what people are disagreeing with here, which is funny cause I'm literally just saying what they say about themselves and getting debate-bro'd for it.
Also calling someone's religion stupid is perfectly fine if you don't discriminate based on that or harass them in person. I was just surprised you said TST was a pretend religion cause the only way they're effective in challenging laws is being a real religion, like that's a harsh way to undermine them. The made up definition to amend that statement having no basis in real law is irrelevant. You can't defend TST and believe they're pretending, I merely think it's absurd they have to sincerely believe a religion to challenge these absurd religious laws, but you think they aren't even really religious.
Undermine them? What?
Okay. I'll accept that I'm undermining them if you show me 1 (one) court case I have lost for the TST by saying they are not a real religion. I'll wait.
The definition was from an earlier comment where I explained it. Not my problem you didn't pay attention.
I can, and will.
But okay. Let's say you're correct. Let's say you can only challenge laws and institutions like these by sincerely help religious beliefs.
Show me the test to determine if a belief is sincerely held.
It doesn't matter if your belief is sincerely held or not, the courts have to treat religions equally, which is what the TST is here for.
Yeah there's actually been interesting stuff around this lately because people have claimed to have sincerely held religious beliefs re: mandatory COVID-19 vaccination exceptions. In cases like that the definitions of "sincerely held" are very relevant and questioned by the court.
Here's some case law where a court found a plaintiff did not hold a religious belief sincerely. I pasted the relevant section here, states actually have definitions around what constitutes religious creeds/religion/sincerely held belief. If you Google these phrases with "case law" you'll find much examples.
Some more reading:
https://www.callaborlaw.com/entry/defining-sincerely-held-religious-beliefs-that-might-excuse-mandatory-covid-19-vaccination
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/section-12-religious-discrimination#h_9546543277761610748655186
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/Nearly-200-S-F-police-staff-want-religious-16486136.php
https://casetext.com/case/malnak-v-yogi (long but gets in to all kinds of religious tests applied by court system and the corresponding law)
I would say far less absurd than most other religions. Looking at their tenets, its basically how descent society should function anyway.
I - One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.
II - The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
III - One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
IV - The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own.
V - Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs.
VI - People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one's best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused.
VII - Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.
Yeah thats intentional because they made it up to be this then appropriated Satanic imagery to brand and commodify it, that's the troll aspect of it. The original Church of Satan and them denounce each other, the Church of Satan claims to be the true representative of Satan and includes a lot of the "bad" things Satan represents as well.
They didn't "appropriate" anything. TST's tenets are based around the Lucifer/Satan depicted in Paradise Lost, The Revolt of the Angels, and other Romantic era literary work. In those works, Satan was a rebel overthrowing the yoke of the tyrant and encouraging people to think for themselves and use compassion for others.
The Church of Satan, on the other hand, was established by a megalomaniac magician who based his philosophy on social-Darwinism. His works reek of sexism and elitism, while trying to convince people magic was real.....
They've appropriated Satanic imagery and used that literary identity of Satan yes, because it serves the political mission the church was created for. If Christianity didn't have political influence in the US this church would not have been formed, or would be of a completely different nature.
I just checked the wikipedia page of the church to make sure I was correct and it actually states exactly what I am here. They use Satanic imagery as a political tool and the literary Satan as a metaphor. IE they don't actually sincerely believe in an actual Satan, unlike the Church of Satan which is sincerely Satanic.
I think that's why Satanic Temple members dressed in very over-the-top Satanic/goth aesthetic is cringe, because it's done in this hyperreal ironic context and not actually sincere. Like it's not borne of their own agency and preferences but centered around stereotypes that offend Christians, or created by Christians entirely. A lot of what's associated with Satan and being adopted here are rooted in completely racist and false depictions of Paganism for instance.
I would encourage you to broaden your research beyond Wikipedia. While it is a great jumping off point for many things, it is not a credible source in any academic or judicial sense. Lucien Greaves has some some very on-point statements in the court cases he's been involved in detailing how TST is a genuine religion.
I think you're getting too hung up on your idea that it is "centered around stereotypes that offend Christians," which it is not. There is deliberately no standard for how to practice, and you will find many that identify as Satanist have had past experiences with Wicca, Paganism, and other non-theistic/mono-theistic religions. They bring those past experiences to their personal practices and rituals, which is hardly appropriating or as you said, "cringe."
I don't see why you keep trying to compare the two, they are entirely different religions. In this context then would you say Buddhists are appropriating the image of the Buddha? They do not see him as their "god," yet they use his image and name whenever they refer to themselves.
It seems like you both basically agree and are just arguing at each other without trying to understand each other.
Church of Satan = Worships a concept of Satan, pretty much invented by "Anton LaVey" to get laid and get paid; by all accounts it worked. He wanted it to be the inverse of Christianity. Largely based on the idealogies of Nietzsche, Rand, and social darwinism with many of the actual rituals inspired by LaVeys love of H.P. Lovecraft.
The Satanic Temple = secular activist group that uses satanic imagery to agitate for civil rights/secularism/separation of church and state/etc. They refer to the literary concept of Satan as opposed to the literal Fallen Angel Lucifer.
Yup that's exactly it, everything I've said about the TST here is what I've read from their own "About Us" page so it's funny to me that I'm getting debate-bro'd and downvoted for it. Someone even called it a "pretend religion" to me which means it wouldn't even be able to challenge these discrimination laws in court. Calling someone's religion "pretend" would actually be discrimination.
A lot of western Buddhism is Buddhist in the same way Satanic Temple is Satanist. IE it's contingent and determined by the hegemonic cultural ideologies that are manufacturing it in to an identity available for consumption in an individualist capitalist context. Appropriated and removed from the context it originated and defined itself within.
It's similar with certain Pagan groups, because Paganism was absorbed into Christendom, so what's happening is people are manufacturing this modern notion of what Paganism was, completely removed from the conditions it existed in. And as you say there's no standard, which is entirely the point I'm making, it's up to the individual to construct their identity around it and decide "what it means for me." That's entirely different than the mode of traditional identity which was fulfilled by your role in the society, handed to you and determined. Now it's a modern notion of authentic identity where you "discover me" and decide what that is. That's why these pseudo-religious roles people claim cannot be genuine, the time and context they existed in are gone, and it's now a form of packaging ideals that already exist in our culture in to a mode of commodification.
The tenants of the Satanic Temple are basically the hegemony of our modern culture, individual liberty etc. Satan as historically depicted provides the iconography, used in an ironic metaphorical sense, appropriated from the context from which it originated, commodified and consumed. That's why I use the term hyperreal to describe it, because it's a notion of something reflected back on itself through modes of representation.
Yeah, protecting people's constitutional rights is just absurd right?
I think it's absurd in the technical sense, yeah.
It's absurd this is necessary to accomplish that yes. Like in order to challenge religion you have to make up an opposite religion and go through the motions, that's absolutely absurd.
It's also hilarious how the original Church of Satan and the Satanic Temple have denounced each other's legitimacy as the true representation of Satan. The Church of Satan recognizes a bunch of the "bad" ideas associated with Satan and basically calls the Temple pussies. Then the Temple calls them outdated and irrelevant. It's just like Christian sects but it's more absurd because the Temple was constructed to oppose Christian political influence, the Satanic branding is supposed to be a troll to shock pearl clutching Christians. I actually agree with the Church of Satan because of this, because the Temple's appropriation of Satanic imagery is basically done in jest.
Fear not my brother or sister or nonbinary friend, for ye too shall one day be touched by His Noodly-appendage. Ramen.
Our pasta, who art in a colander, draining be your noodles. Thy noodle come, Thy sauce be yum, on top some grated Parmesan. Give us this day, our garlic bread, …and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trample on our lawns. And lead us not into vegetarianism, but deliver us some pizza, for thine is the meatball, the noodle, and the sauce, forever and ever. R’amen.
And salsa with you.
Like the folks who got a pass to wear a colander on their head for their driver's license photo because they're Pastafarian. It's happened at least twice
You can form a community around all kinds of random things.