Hail Satan

Feb 2006
14,537
3,077
California
So a couple of miles from my house a new "church" opened, The Satanic Temple.


Pretty interesting movie Hail Satan? - Wikipedia

I haven't stopped by yet, but after seeing the movie, I might drop by the gift shop...
I love that they say Lilith was the first!

Lilith is the most notorious demon in Jewish tradition. In some sources, she is conceived of as the original woman, created even before Eve, and she is often presented as a thief of newborn infants. Lilith means “the night,” and she embodies the emotional and spiritual aspects of darkness: terror, sensuality, and unbridled freedom. More recently, she has come to represent the freedom of feminist women who no longer want to be “good girls.”

 
Oct 2019
676
48
USA
Here's how it works, if you put up the ten commandments on public property, then you have opened that property to religious displays, hence, Baphomet.
If you leave up the ten commandments, Baphomet goes up next to it.
Given that choice, so far, people have decided that religious displays of any kind should not appear on public property.
What definition of religion or religious displays is that predicated on?

Our legal system does not distinguish between religions.
Technically, it does. As mentioned, "secular" systems such as Common Law evolved out of earlier systems, including "religious" ones, such as Exodus. (This is why "secular vs religious" is a false dichotomy, and doesn't exist that way except in pure abstraction - "secular" systems such as Humanism are founded on faith-based axioms and recognized as religions by the Supreme Court, whether or not they bring a "god" into it.)

So our legal system already favors religions (or aspects of religions) such as Christianity, which prohibit rape and murder over ones which do not. (Just as it favors religions or religious notions which do not demand state exclusivism over ones which do not).

I'm aware that this "Satanist" group are not literal Satanists, however Satanic cults which committed murders or rapes have existed. A rapist or murderer would not be able to escape prosecution by asserting that "Satan made me do it" or that they were merely practicing their "religion"; he would have the Judeo-Christian notion that "thou shalt not murder" forced on him by the state whether he likes it or not (regardless of whether this is an exclusively Judeo Christian notion, as opposed to being a notion which existed in other world religions or philosophies, such as Confucianism).

So the law already favors certain religions or religious notions over others. How could you argue otherwise?

They are all imaginary friends.
That's just silly rhetoric, and doesn't substantiate what imagination or imaginary even is to begin with.

If you reference Voltaire, your mental conception of Voltaire is imaginary - that doesn't mean that imagined concepts don't correspond to something - tangible or abstract.
 
Jul 2014
15,659
9,759
massachusetts
What definition of religion or religious displays is that predicated on?
The definition used by the courts
Technically, it does. As mentioned, "secular" systems such as Common Law evolved out of earlier systems, including "religious" ones, such as Exodus. (This is why "secular vs religious" is a false dichotomy, and doesn't exist that way except in pure abstraction - "secular" systems such as Humanism are founded on faith-based axioms and recognized as religions by the Supreme Court, whether or not they bring a "god" into it.)

So our legal system already favors religions (or aspects of religions) such as Christianity, which prohibit rape and murder over ones which do not. (Just as it favors religions or religious notions which do not demand state exclusivism over ones which do not).

I'm aware that this "Satanist" group are not literal Satanists, however Satanic cults which committed murders or rapes have existed. A rapist or murderer would not be able to escape prosecution by asserting that "Satan made me do it" or that they were merely practicing their "religion"; he would have the Judeo-Christian notion that "thou shalt not murder" forced on him by the state whether he likes it or not (regardless of whether this is an exclusively Judeo Christian notion, as opposed to being a notion which existed in other world religions or philosophies, such as Confucianism).

So the law already favors certain religions or religious notions over others. How could you argue otherwise?
Put up a nativity display on public property, and anyone can sue to have any religious display put up on public property.
And they will win. That's what has been happening, instead of saying "You can't up a religious display on public property", the courts say "Your government can choose to allow religious displays, as long as all religious displays are allowed, the 1st amendment doesn't prohibit religious displays, it prohibits favoring one religion over another."
That's just silly rhetoric, and doesn't substantiate what imagination or imaginary even is to begin with.
All of the supernatural is imaginary, at least that is what the evidence supports...

[QUOTE}
If you reference Voltaire, your mental conception of Voltaire is imaginary - that doesn't mean that imagined concepts don't correspond to something - tangible or abstract.
[/QUOTE]
Except we have proof that Voltaire existed, we have images, we have contemporary references, we have documents, we have his signature, we have accounts of eyewitnesses.
We have none of that to support the belief in a God
 
Last edited:
Oct 2019
676
48
USA
The definition used by the courts
And that is what?

Put up a nativity display on public property, and anyone can sue to have any religious display put up on public property.
And they will win.
Show me a record of that.

That's what has been happening, instead of saying "You can't up a religious display on public property", the courts say "Your government can choose to allow religious displays, as long as all religious displays are allowed, the 1st amendment doesn't prohibit religious displays, it prohibits favoring one religion over another."
You'll have to substantiate what definition of religion you're using. By itself, belief or lack of belief in a God wouldn't qualify as a "religion" to begin with.

Most of "religion" or even the Bible isn't even about mythology, as opposed to other concepts such as legal or moral systems and codes.

As an example:


Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek.

Per the beliefs of Satanism, if one were to become a vigilante and seek vengeance and murder someone for some imagined wrong, this would be fine according to their religion.

However the US legal system would still prosecute them for homicide if they did so.

So in practice, our legal system already favors certain religions or religious ideas (e.x. "thou shalt not murder) over ones which approve of murder, it doesn't have to "allow all" (even without defining what "all" are to begin with).

All of the supernatural is imaginary
That doesn't define what "supernatural" is, nor what "imaginary is".

If anything which isn't "natural" is supernatural, then all thoughts are "supernatural", regardless of what their content is (scientific, mythological, political, and so forth).

So your beliefs and opinions about... er… Donald Trump are "imaginary".

At least that is what the evidence supports...
That's the same argument from authority fallacy regarding Francis Bacon's method which has been debunked several times.

Your reference to Bacon's method or empiricism isn't based on having gathered the evidence yourself, but rather faith in the method or the people who've told you about the evidence.


If you reference Voltaire, your mental conception of Voltaire is imaginary - that doesn't mean that imagined concepts don't correspond to something - tangible or abstract.
Except we have proof that Voltaire existed, we have images, we have contemporary references, we have documents, we have his signature, we have accounts of eyewitnesses.
[/quote]

By the same token, we have proof of that Jesus existed, so ideas about Jesus would be no more imaginary than ideas about Voltaire (this is different than arguing about assertions of Jesus' divinity).

Historical evidence is not something under the scope of Francis Bacon's method, so you're merely dismissing one set of ideas on the basis of it not existing within the scope of Bacon's method (which was not the only method even during the Enlightenment era in which it originated), but not others.

We have none of that to support the belief in a God
It wouldn't be "we" to begin with, since in your case you're merely putting faith in a specific definition of evidence, or those who use that method, rather than having gathered and tested the evidence yourself.

By the same standard, Constitutional rights do not exist within the scope of Bacon's method, nor are they "natural" - so you're referencing one definition of evidence for the "existence of God", and another for the existence of other nonscientific concepts, such as the Constitution, or rights - which by your own definition, would be imaginary or "supernatural".