Ritualized Abortion & Legal Rights

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.

@philokalia said
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 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.

@kevcvs57 said
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.

"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.

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.

@kevcvs57 said
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 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.

@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.

@vivify said
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.

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.

@kevcvs57 said
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.

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.

@bigdoggproblem said
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.

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.

@secondson said
"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.

A woman’s right to choose is a precious civil liberty to some of us wether you like it or not.
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 said
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.

Fortunately we don’t all live in the US where a minority of fundamentalist’s can control the majority via a panel of political hacks.
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 said
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.

Any that overlap will find themselves accepted and catered for via representative democracy so I don’t really see the problem.
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 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 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’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.

@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.

@philokalia said
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.

You're referring to polyamory, which is different from polygamy.

@philokalia said
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.

One of several problems with your position is that, when it comes to making policy, there is never just one single religion.

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.