Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"The Satanic Temple embraces the free expression of religion, and Satanists are happy to show their support of Rick Scott who -- particularly with SB 98 -- has reaffirmed our American freedom to practice our faith openly, allowing our Satanic children the freedom to pray in school."
"Satanic children"will be permitted to read - presumably aloud - inspirational messages of their choosing at school activities and events, without "mediation" or approval of school administrators.
"He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth." - Matt 12:30
At first I thought this was a clever way to point out the hypocrisy of Christians demanding a public forum to proselytize while disallowing other faiths the same access. If that was it's point, it succeeded, as evidenced by the original post.
As I dug into it, it looks even stranger than that. This particular Satanic temple appears to be serious. They are very grateful for the opportunity for their children to express their beliefs without censure. What is funny about the outrage, is that their beliefs are not that dissimilar from much of Christianity. From their website, their beliefs can be summed up as:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fundamental Tenets of the Satanic Temple
People should be guided by compassion and wisdom and follow the golden rule of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
The Circle of Compassion should extend to all species, not just humans.
People are fallible, and although we should all try to do our best, poor judgment is inevitable. If we make a mistake, we should do our best to rectify it, and resolve any harm that may have been caused by our misdeeds.
The Satanist should ever be self-reflective.
All life is precious in the eyes of Satan.
The freedoms of others should be respected, even the freedom to offend, but great care should be exercised to avoid wrongly encroaching on the freedoms of others.
There are things we don’t understand, and it is appropriate to acknowledge that. It is not appropriate, however, to be proud of ignorance.
While proselytizing might have noble intent, it is not acceptable to coerce or push your beliefs on others. It is always best to lead by example.
Every tenet is a guiding principle to designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion and wisdom should always prevail over the written or spoken word.
Other than the word 'Satan', they don't seem much different than a liberal Christian group. They have an entirely different concept of Satan, and are not worshiping an embodiment of evil, but rather who they see as a deistic God's chosen representative to a material world. This is a group that is likely to speak about the golden rule, compassion, love, and individuality. Horrific concepts, those...
I personally find the whole thing as crazy as I find any other religion, but if the governor of Florida wants to allow students to share a religious message or prayer at school events, it is only right that any and all religious viewpoints be permitted.
If as a Christian, you object to the public display of other religious faiths, maybe you should encourage people to, "... not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men."
I personally find the whole thing as crazy as I find any other religion, but if the governor of Florida wants to allow students to share a religious message or prayer at school events, it is only right that any and all religious viewpoints be permitted.
"Only right"? What's right about it? Or is that just your personal opinion?
It is only right that if ONE group (christians etc) are allowed, then ANY religion should be allowed to.
It's an all or none kind of deal.
"It is only right" is a specifically moral truth claim. Who determines whether it's right or wrong? Who says it's an all or none kind of deal? What gives you the right to impose your "all or none" morality on schools in Florida?
"Only right"? What's right about it? Or is that just your personal opinion?
Well of course it is my personal opinion. When it comes down to it that is all anyone really has...
To elaborate, though, as far as I can tell every religion or metaphysical system, has basically the same amount of empirical, testable support. None. Religion, be it Christianity, Ba'hai, Jainism, or Satanism are all based on, wait for it... Faith. Seeing as they are matters of belief, independent of actual empirical evidence, why should we not treat them all equitably? Really, it is a basic application of the golden rule, which both you and the Satanists in question claim to hold as a fundamental principle. To deny someone else the same protection under law on the grounds of a personal, subjective belief would appear to violate the admonition given in Micah 6:8, "He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God" It appears to be that my evaluation of attempting to apply simple humanistic principles of equity and reciprocity lead to the same moral point that you should reach through your scriptures.
"It is only right" is a specifically moral truth claim. Who determines whether it's right or wrong?
In religious matters, I'd say it's the adherents of the specific faith.
Quote:
Who says it's an all or none kind of deal?
The US Constitution.
Quote:
What gives you the right to impose your "all or none" morality on schools in Florida?
See previous answer. Christianity does not hold preferential status in US legislation, simple as that. I know Christians feel very strongly that other faiths should be happy to sit at the back of the bus, but that;s just not how it works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
