582
submitted 1 year ago by girlfreddy@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

The American Civil Liberties Union said Thursday that the Saucon Valley School District had agreed to pay $200,000 in attorney’s fees and to provide The Satanic Temple and the After School Satan Club it sponsors the same access to school facilities as is provided to other organizations.

The ACLU filed the lawsuit in March after the district rescinded its earlier approval to allow the club to meet following criticism. The After School Satan Club, with the motto “Educatin’ with Satan,” had drawn protests and even a threat in February that prompted closure of district schools for a day and the later arrest of a person in another state.

Saucon Valley school district attorney Mark Fitzgerald told reporters in a statement that the district denies having discriminated against The Satanic Temple, its club or “the approximately four students” who attended its meetings. He said the district’s priorities were education and the safety of students and staff.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Well, it doesn't really matter since my definition of religion is not what the laws use.

So when you say it’s a “pretend religion” you’re basically saying it’s adherents aren’t really religious.

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:

"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,...”

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,

Fortunately for the lawsuit, it wouldn't because the definition of religion the court uses and mine if different.

[-] banneryear1868@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

If you called someone's religion stupid, that would also count as discrimination, and yet you have no problem doing it.

[-] banneryear1868@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

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.

It’s all pretty stupid IMO, aside from the way they can mount legal challenges.

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.

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 made up definition to amend that statement having no basis in real law is irrelevant.

The definition was from an earlier comment where I explained it. Not my problem you didn't pay attention.

You can’t defend TST and believe they’re pretending

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.

[-] banneryear1868@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

The administrative agency charged with enforcing the FEHA, the Fair Employment and Housing Commission, has also enacted a regulation defining “religious creed.” California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 7293.1 (regulation 7293.1), defines “religious creed” as follows:  “ ‘Religious creed’ includes any traditionally recognized religion as well as beliefs, observations, or practices which an individual sincerely holds and which occupy in his or her life a place of importance parallel to that of traditionally recognized religions.” Consistent  with regulation 7293.1, plaintiff argues that his commitment to a vegan lifestyle occupies a place in his life parallel to that of traditionally recognized religions. Regulation 7293.1, by its express terms, reflects the notion that religious creed extends beyond traditionally recognized religions to encompass beliefs, observations, or practices occupying a parallel place of importance “to that of traditionally recognized religions” in an individual's life. As will be discussed later, that concept of religion originates from two United States Supreme Court cases involving conscientious objection to military service-United States v. Seeger (1965) 380 U.S. 163, 164-188, 85 S.Ct. 850, 13 L.Ed.2d 733, and Welsh v. United States (1970) 398 U.S. 333, 335-344, 90 S.Ct. 1792, 26 L.Ed.2d 308.

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)

this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2023
582 points (98.8% liked)

News

23655 readers
5158 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