06 Oct 20
Do you think that the ritualized abortion procedure of the Satanic Temple is a valid attempt at making abortion a valid, religously protected procedure?
Or is it quite transparently trolling, and no serious religions can be regarded as having abortion as a sort of sacrament in their faith?
Some details on the argument can be found here:
https://www.washingtonian.com/2020/09/25/this-dc-area-lawyer-set-the-internet-ablaze-with-her-essay-about-joining-the-satanic-temple/
And I was fascinated with the approach they took, especially to maintaining the separation of church and state. I started paying more attention to what what what they what they’re doing, especially to protect reproductive rights. They recently came up with a reproductive rights ritual, which some of their members have used when they were seeking out abortions. And the ritual basically just involves some affirmation, repeating some of the tenets of the Satanic Temple and basically, having a woman reassure herself that she made the right choice for herself and going through with the procedure. And because the Satanic Temple is recognized as a religion under the law, it should be a religiously protected ritual. I think that’s just a brilliant strategy to use to try to safeguard reproductive rights.
06 Oct 20
@philokalia saidIts transparent trolling obviously.
Do you think that the ritualized abortion procedure of the Satanic Temple is a valid attempt at making abortion a valid, religously protected procedure?
Or is it quite transparently trolling, and no serious religions can be regarded as having abortion as a sort of sacrament in their faith?
Some details on the argument can be found here:
https://www.washin ...[text shortened]... al. I think that’s just a brilliant strategy to use to try to safeguard reproductive rights.[/quote]
Its also making the point once again that religion is a double edged sword and that civic law should never ever be influenced by religious text or sensibilities.
If you haven’t figured it out yet ‘The Satanic Temple’ is an outspoken secularist organisation who wish to guard against the creeping encroachment of religious dogma back into our civic lives.
@kevcvs57 said"Religious dogma"?
Its transparent trolling obviously.
Its also making the point once again that religion is a double edged sword and that civic law should never ever be influenced by religious text or sensibilities.
If you haven’t figured it out yet ‘The Satanic Temple’ is an outspoken secularist organisation who wish to guard against the creeping encroachment of religious dogma back into our civic lives.
Like maybe life is sacred and should be protected from conception to the end of life?
God forbid we should have our "sensibilities" assaulted with such an archaic notion.
Let's protect our civil rights and kill babies to prove we can do as we will without restraint.
06 Oct 20
Religious rights in the U.S. typically don't trump established crimes. For example, polygamy is illegal despite any religions that allow it. When SCOTUS inevitably bans abortions after their sixth conservative Justice is confirmed, "religious rights" won't override what will eventually be considered a crime.
06 Oct 20
@kevcvs57 saidI am aware that there are people who call themselves Satanists that are atheistic Satanists, but I was not sure if this group is made up exclusively of atheistic Satanists, and thus is solely existent for pushing for secularism of this stripe, or if it is a mix of all of these.
Its transparent trolling obviously.
Its also making the point once again that religion is a double edged sword and that civic law should never ever be influenced by religious text or sensibilities.
If you haven’t figured it out yet ‘The Satanic Temple’ is an outspoken secularist organisation who wish to guard against the creeping encroachment of religious dogma back into our civic lives.
I do not think that the membership would be particularly picky about this.
@kevcvs57, I think it is the case that religious sensibilities will, in one way or another, form the basis of any legal system, for the core of religion is faith, and even without religion, people are inclined to believe things based solely on faith. There is always a sort of metaphysics behind any idea that is still rooted in faith.
06 Oct 20
@vivify saidIt is also true that polygamous lifestyles are greatly tolerated throughout the US. It is rare for anyone to be charged with a crime when they do it. Indeed, if anyone is ever arrested for it, it is a sort of standalong charge.
Religious rights in the U.S. typically don't trump established crimes. For example, polygamy is illegal despite any religions that allow it. When SCOTUS inevitably bans abortions after their sixth conservative Justice is confirmed, "religious rights" won't override what will eventually be considered a crime.
07 Oct 20
@kevcvs57 saidI disagree with the last half of that statement. Religious sensibilities, for many people, overlap with at least some generally accepted moral sensibilities. Those that do are often codified into civic law.
Its also making the point once again that religion is a double edged sword and that civic law should never ever be influenced by religious text or sensibilities.
The main thing to avoid is preferential treatment of a single religion. There is nothing wrong with adopting a good general moral argument made by a religious text in support of making a law.
07 Oct 20
@bigdoggproblem saidI think it would make sense for a nation to give preferential treatment to its own religion in its own lands. Indeed, this is the preferable way to govern.
I disagree with the last half of that statement. Religious sensibilities, for many people, overlap with at least some generally accepted moral sensibilities. Those that do are often codified into civic law.
The main thing to avoid is preferential treatment of a single religion. There is nothing wrong with adopting a good general moral argument made by a religious text in support of making a law.
Hardcore secularism is not arbitrary.
07 Oct 20
@secondson saidA woman’s right to choose is a precious civil liberty to some of us wether you like it or not.
"Religious dogma"?
Like maybe life is sacred and should be protected from conception to the end of life?
God forbid we should have our "sensibilities" assaulted with such an archaic notion.
Let's protect our civil rights and kill babies to prove we can do as we will without restraint.
No one is telling you to get an abortion or how to manage your fertility. You seem to think that forcing a woman to take a foetus to term is actually possible, it’s not, the pagans had ways of terminating a foetus and you don’t need a big clinic to do it in, it’s just safer for the woman.
@vivify saidFortunately we don’t all live in the US where a minority of fundamentalist’s can control the majority via a panel of political hacks.
Religious rights in the U.S. typically don't trump established crimes. For example, polygamy is illegal despite any religions that allow it. When SCOTUS inevitably bans abortions after their sixth conservative Justice is confirmed, "religious rights" won't override what will eventually be considered a crime.
I think with the death of R.B.Ginsburg and the forcing through of another right wing panelist by a minority POTUS how far removed from representative democracy SCOTUS actually is.
@bigdoggproblem saidAny that overlap will find themselves accepted and catered for via representative democracy so I don’t really see the problem.
I disagree with the last half of that statement. Religious sensibilities, for many people, overlap with at least some generally accepted moral sensibilities. Those that do are often codified into civic law.
The main thing to avoid is preferential treatment of a single religion. There is nothing wrong with adopting a good general moral argument made by a religious text in support of making a law.
The main thing to avoid is preferential treatment for religion period.
The democratic wishes of a religions adherents providing that they do not clash with basic human rights legislation that any given government has signed up to is perfectly reasonable.
@philokalia said“ I am aware that there are people who call themselves Satanists that are atheistic Satanists, but I was not sure if this group is made up exclusively of atheistic Satanists, and thus is solely existent for pushing for secularism of this stripe, or if it is a mix of all of these. ”
I am aware that there are people who call themselves Satanists that are atheistic Satanists, but I was not sure if this group is made up exclusively of atheistic Satanists, and thus is solely existent for pushing for secularism of this stripe, or if it is a mix of all of these.
I do not think that the membership would be particularly picky about this.
...[text shortened]... n faith. There is always a sort of metaphysics behind any idea that is still rooted in faith.
I’m sure there are theists who worship Satan the Fallen Angel but the members of The ‘Temple of Satan’ do not. They are secularists who in a light hearted way use satanic lore to oppose the imposition of religion and religious symbols into civic life.
If you tried to put up a statue of Christ outside the state senate house they would demand the right to erect a statue of Satan or one of his many manifestations next to it.
07 Oct 20
@philokalia said“
I am aware that there are people who call themselves Satanists that are atheistic Satanists, but I was not sure if this group is made up exclusively of atheistic Satanists, and thus is solely existent for pushing for secularism of this stripe, or if it is a mix of all of these.
I do not think that the membership would be particularly picky about this.
...[text shortened]... n faith. There is always a sort of metaphysics behind any idea that is still rooted in faith.
@kevcvs57, I think it is the case that religious sensibilities will, in one way or another, form the basis of any legal system, for the core of religion is faith, and even without religion, people are inclined to believe things based solely on faith. There is always a sort of metaphysics behind any idea that is still rooted in faith.”
And again if your alluding to religious specific laws such as sharia then obviously the society in question would have to be overwhelmingly of that religion.
07 Oct 20
@philokalia saidYou're referring to polyamory, which is different from polygamy.
It is also true that polygamous lifestyles are greatly tolerated throughout the US. It is rare for anyone to be charged with a crime when they do it. Indeed, if anyone is ever arrested for it, it is a sort of standalong charge.
07 Oct 20
@philokalia saidOne of several problems with your position is that, when it comes to making policy, there is never just one single religion.
I think it would make sense for a nation to give preferential treatment to its own religion in its own lands. Indeed, this is the preferable way to govern.
Hardcore secularism is not arbitrary.
For example, not all American Christians have a problem with working on the Sabbath. Or praying to the Virgin Mary. Most are not opposed to graven images.
By making official laws on any of these topics, the state is necessarily preferring some religious beliefs over others.