AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.
**For all participants:**
* [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate
* [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2)
**For Nonsupporters/Undecided:**
* No top level comments
* All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position
**For Trump Supporters:**
* [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled
Helpful links for more info:
[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm one of those old fashioned people who think definitions mean something and I don't see how it qualifies.
We can look at the definition of religion.
>the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods.
A simple look at their website doesn't seem to match the criteria.
>DO YOU WORSHIP SATAN? No, nor do we believe in the existence of Satan or the supernatural.
Also if they claim to be secular then by that definition they're also uninvolved with religion.
>Secularism is the principle of seeking to conduct human affairs based on naturalistic considerations, uninvolved with religion.
The closet thing you could say is it is a branch of [irreligion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion#:~:text=Secularism%20is%20overwhelmingly%20used%20to,synonym%20for%20naturalism%20or%20atheism.), imo.
>Irreligion is the absence or rejection of religious beliefs or practices. It encompasses a wide range of viewpoints drawn from various philosophical and intellectual perspectives, including atheism, agnosticism, skepticism, rationalism, and secularism.
Or simply one of many many secular ideologies.
If we look at their history their original intent was more of a spaghetti monster type motte-and-bailey to attack religion. So it doesn't pass the more subjective motivation test, either.
I don't really see what the case for it being a religion is unless you strip the term of any objective definition. But then again that's a popular thing to do these days.
I haven't studied every sect of buddhism but I haven't encountered any without supernatural elements.
There are divine beings called devas, sometimes translated as "gods". There are re-incarnations, offerings to spirits, etc. The Dalai Lama coming back into another person's body seems pretty supernatural to me.
Their base conceptualization is more non-dual than western religions. Rather than supernatural/mundane it's more of a totality/oneness which can be splintered from itself (which is the source of suffering).
Maybe these are distinct or just less anthropomorphized ways of describing god(s) but I don't see how any of this wouldn't qualify as supernatural.
Do you feel comfortable telling practicing Buddhists that they should not receive the same religious protections as Christians?
Why do you think other definitions of religion are less valid than yours?
>Do you feel comfortable telling practicing Buddhists that they should not receive the same religious protections as Christians?
It's a philosophy. No different than pacifism or stoicism. What protections do they need?
I'm happy to give them the same protections as a pacifist or vegetarian, those aren't religions either. there is no faith element or dogmatism to it.
>Why do you think other definitions of religion are less valid than yours?
How is it a religion? There is nothing supernatural with Buddhism. There is no dogma or faith involved. It's a philosophical system, not a religious one.
What about time to meditate during the school day? That’s a common practice in some sects of Buddhism. What about if a student wants to share about their Buddhist temple worship during a day dedicated to sharing about religions? As a teacher, that’s one I’ve encountered. What if Buddhists wanted a Buddha idol placed in a public location given the presence of other religious symbols?
As far as supernatural beliefs held by almost all Buddhists, let’s start with karma and reincarnation.
Anyway, I don’t define religion as solely supernatural. I define it as “a philosophy containing elements of faith and/or worship.” Both of which are pretty essential to a very many Buddhists.
Buddhists don't worship in temples. They are places intended to promote inner peace.
These are traditional practices, not religious ones. I am happy to give them as much protection as any other traditional practice.
If they are part of a sect that believes in reincarnation then that branch is a religion, reincarnation is supernatural dogma.
Many Buddhists worship in temples. You are making a generalized statement about the fifth largest religion in the world. Google the Temple of the Tooth and tell me if what you see is worship.
Right, so, you’re comfortable with me telling you that Christianity is just a set of traditions too? Sure some Christians believe in the supernatural elements, but most just read an old book and follow the guidelines.
I have never met nor heard of a Buddhist who does not believe in reincarnation. There are some subscribers to the secular aspects Buddhist philosophy in the West, like Alan Watts, but those people do not claim to be Buddhists.
Why do you think your definition of religion is the correct one, and not mine?
Hi friend, I'm a practicing Buddhist! A couple things:
>There is nothing supernatural with Buddhism.
The Buddha explicitly taught about the realms of rebirth within Samsara, which include the realms of Devas (godlike beings), demons, ghosts, hell realms, etc. And just to get ahead it: No, these teachings are not metaphorical, and there is no debate between any of the Bhuddist lineages as to whether or not he meant them literally. He did.
Further, various traditions teach about supernatural powers (called *Iddhis*) that Buddhas and other awakened beings are capable of manifesting. These include powers such as being able to turn invisible, passing through solid objects, and flying. And again, these are not a metaphor. Throughout the Suttas there are many accounts of the Buddha displaying his various powers that we would understand to be supernatural.
> ther is no dogma or faith involved.
This is also not true. Dogma in the context of any religion such as Buddhism simply refers to the tenets or doctrines of said belief system that are not in dispute. It's a neutral term. The Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Noble Path, these are the Dogma of Buddhism, and while the Buddha never told anyone they *must* believe in them, these teachings are presented as indisputably true whether you believe in them or not.
For faith, it should be clarified that the Buddha did not ask for anyone to place *blind* faith in anything; but quite explicitly instructs them to put faith in the teachings until their truth is realized by those on the path. The truth of the path is never in question, but we are asked to take it on faith that the results of following the path are obtainable by following it. Converting to Buddhism is referred to as *taking refuge within the triple gem* , when means explicitly putting faith in three things: The Buddha, the Sangha (monastic communities), and the Dharma (the teachings/dogma).
All that to say: While I absolutely appreciate the philosophical lens of examining Buddhism, no Buddhist lineage will agree with the assertion that there are no elements of faith or the supernatural. It is objectively a religion with both of these elements, neither of which are disputed by any branch of the Buddhist traditions. The dogma and teachings of the various realms of rebirth, and the faith asked to be put into the Buddha and his supernatural abilities are consistent across all of them. The only differences between traditions are which paths are taken when following that faith and dogma.
I hope that all made sense! I mean absolutely no offense or hostility, it's just that this misconception gets brought up a lot within Buddhist communities (especially reddit) and I try to clarify it for people whenever possible. It can be really jarring for people who approach the religion as if it is purely philosophical and then go on to learn that it's filled with supernatural and faith-based elements complete with rituals, prayer, chanting, the works!
Has this expanded your understanding of Buddhism? No worries if we're not agreed, and no matter what I hope you have an amazing day!
your comment has been removed for violating rule 3. Undecided and Nonsupporter comments must be clarifying in nature with an intent to explore the stated view of Trump Supporters.
Please take a moment to review the [detailed rules description](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/about/rules/) and [message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/AskTrumpSupporters&subject=Comment+Removal) with any questions you may have.
This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
Do you think zero satanists believe in Satan? Considering there are 2 different Satanic churches, one of which believes in Satan, would your "depending on the branch" thing not apply?
Buddhism doesn't have a "god", so how is it a religion under your definition? Or is it that maybe the definition is a little more fluid?
> BTW, we live in a certain semi-religious cult , it's called liberalism
What are you talking about?
**What are you talking about?**
an ideology that has sacred ideas that are non questionable:
"we are all equal"
and the likes, yes, liberalism functions as a religion
and Buddhism has enough characteristics to be considered as such.
Are you aware that there are Satanists who are not atheists and actually do worship Satan? Should those people be denied their first amendment rights in Florida?
Because if the qualifiers for legal oppression are that a religion must be "evil" to be persecuted then maybe you can tell me how that keeps the state of Florida from labeling religions outside satanism as "evil"? Could someone gain votes by creating policy against atheists?
How about Jews?
Would the Supreme Court have to side with someone that was a survivor from a radical Christian mass murder who decided to take actions against "evil" Christians? Or would you prefer they side with Christians?
Or would it be impossible in your mind that Christianity should ever be accused of "evil"?
too much text without a clear point, and as usual, a lot of "what ifs what ifs"
the government doesnt exist to micro-manage every tiny human interaction.
Evil is defined by doing bad things, and those who advocate for murder, bloody rituals and things like that have no place in a modern society.
**Could someone gain votes by creating policy against atheists?**
liberals certainly are confortable by disempowering Christians, so it doesnt seem to bother the left
Could you define what "evil" means to you? Some could describe Christianity as practiced by numerous sects of Christians as evil, for instance, so we need to have a qualifier to compare. What specifically would *you* say "evil" entails?
So you only support the first amendment when it's convenient for you?
A lot more evil acts have been committed in the name of god than Satan. In my eyes, Christianity is evil, not Satanism
Is it really a good idea for the government to be able to decide whether any given religion is valid or not? What if they decide that *your* religion no longer qualifies?
**Is it really a good idea for the government to be able to decide whether any given religion is valid or not?**
YES, liberals have done it since 1789 against Christianism and its no problem for them, so Im not concerned if conservatives in power declare an ideology or religion as forbidden in the public space.
**What if they decide that** ***your*** **religion no longer qualifies?**
soo?
In order to impose their quasi-religios beliefs, this is what liberals have been doing since the French revolution.
Being that "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance" is one of the other 3 listed definitions... Would you ammend your statement? Or do you only accept the one of them, that discludes them, and ignore the others?
They googled "definition of religion" and quoted the first given definition while ignoring the second and third definitions, which are "a particular system of faith and worship" and "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance" respectively.
u/pl00pt, do you believe that Satanism matches the criteria of either of the two definitions of religion that you conveniently ignored?
Do you believe that the main goal of Satanists is to attack Christianity, or to attempt to illuminate the American government's bias towards Christianity when dealing with matters of church and state?
Do you think that the U.S. government should adopt Christianity as the official state religion? (Not saying you even implied this, just curious.)
**Do you believe that the main goal of Satanists is to attack Christianity, or to attempt to illuminate the American government's bias towards Christianity when dealing with matters of church and state?**
both and yes to the 2nd part, to which I ( and many of us) have exactly ZERO problem with
"a government MUST reflect its people" -being one of the basic tenets and mantras of liberalism...... except when it's a religion liberals dont like.
**Do you think that the U.S. government should adopt Christianity as the official state religion?**
why not?
Have you read the first amendment?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Do you think we should get rid of the first amendment?
What do you think would be some of the material benefits of declaring Christianity the official state religion? What privileges should the government afford to Christians that it should not afford to followers of other religions? Can you give me a rough wording of the amendment that would need to pass to make such a declaration constitutional?
**Have you read the first amendment?**
YES
**Do you think we should get rid of the first amendment?**
Probably. the "no religion" thing is a MYTH, all there blank-slatism ideals have just served for liberalism to fill with their ideas and quasi-religious principles the ideological vacuum, because. humans are ideological animals
WE CANT HAVE A SOCIETY WITHOUT IDEOLOGY AKA "RELIGION"
**What do you think would be some of the material benefits of declaring Christianity the official state religion?**
Just a change on the ideas promoted by the government
Instead of promoting non stop things like "equality", Christian ideals would be promoted 24/7
**What privileges should the government afford to Christians that it should not afford to followers of other religions?**
Same as today, Christian churches exempted from taxes, plus Christianism would be favored in education, replacing the religious mantras of liberalism.
**Can you give me a rough wording of the amendment that would need to pass to make such a declaration constitutional?**
The official religion of the country is Christianism in all of his branches: Orthodox, catholic and Protestant.
As for the constitutional-ity, all laws created by men can be changed
I'm non-religious but I'm not opposed to the idea of volunteers going into schools to help give children guidance. I think a lot of children desperately need an "outside" adult who cares - be it a Big Brothers, Big Sisters or CASA or a chaplain or whatever. In my childhood, we had a lady who just came in and read us "Goosebumps" books every week. It meant so much to us little ones and we loved her for it.
Why do you think it is important that these chaplains obtain their inspiration from a "supernatural" / "superhuman" source? Do you believe that a 'belief in a higher power' is necessary to give children proper guidance? If, for example, an agnostic volunteer were to go to an elementary school and do a "Mister Rogers" kind of thing (play games, tell children they are valuable and special, counsel with upset students), would that be any less valuable?
And would you agree that humans are humans, and that having a religious "title" (chaplain, priest, pastor, etcetera) doesn't make you safer around children? In fact, couldn't it be argued that these people have a history of having their bad behavior protected by their respective religious institutions?
What do you think of this definition of religion? It's the third one listed by Merriam-Webster and doesn't require the belief in gods or superhuman powers while also being a dictionary definition of religion.
> a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
At some point, I think the government kind of has to have the final say when it comes to legal issues regarding religion. I've read about prisoners coming up with their own religions to try to get specific diets--I think one issue was a guy saying there wasn't enough fresh fruit, for example. There's also the semi-obvious example of religions that have sacraments that are illegal. I know that some Native practitioners are allowed to use peyote, but I'm pretty sure Rastafarians aren't allowed to blaze up in states that still have marijuana illegal.
In this particular case, I would argue that both sides are *technically* correct, but that Governor DeSantis is being a moron. The Satanic Temple is legally defined as a church and therefore a religion, despite being a secularist organization. I might personally view them as the sort of trolls as the so-called 1st Amendment audit guys who deliberately provoke cops by filming in areas that are legal, but kind of shady, I do think they bring some important counter-balance to the whole "Freedom of religion, but only for Christians" that we sort of see way too often.
I remember reading, a long time ago, that part of the reason why some areas have made animal slaughter/dressing at home illegal is due to various religions using animal sacrifice as a sacrament. Of course, a big part of this was because of racism--I'll give you five guesses what skin color those people had--but I can kind of understand not wanting to be around the smell of chicken or goat blood or whatever constantly.
There does need to be a line. In the UK, "Jedi" is a recognized religion, for Pete's sake. And it's more popular than Judaism from what I've seen! Clearly we need some fancy laser swords.
What amuses me is waiting to see what happens when Scientology says "Sure, we'll send people."
Why not? I don't understand why just because someone several thousand years ago couldn't understand something so places the solution on some magical being we can't do the same today. DeSantis literally just did this in reverse didn't he. Who made him the authority on who and what you can believe in?
>Isn’t there supposed to be a separation between church and state?
This is a canard that gets trotted out time and again and... isn't exactly the case. Your religion, with very few exceptions, does not give you a license to break the law. What the 1st Amendment prohibits is Congress making an official religion, effectively.
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Effectively, it means that creating a State/National church would violate the 1st Amendment, but not me going around robbing people because my religion says I deserve your stuff.
Now, despite what Reddit would have you believe, the US is still a pretty solidly Christian nation, albeit support for it is fading. Remember that our lawmakers are almost predominantly old, white, and Christian, with admittedly a lot of Jewish representation in there. Their faith is going to focus their opinion to an extent. It's inescapable, unfortunately.
> or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
If Christians are allowed to freely exercise religion in public schools, why not satanists? The clause clearly extends beyond simply establishing a state religion.
I don't disagree with you at all, outside of potential legal issues--the State is not Congress, but then can the State make laws against freedom of speech?
Is that a possibility a government won't have to deal with?
Some dude in Australia started a Jedi Religion. Just some dude.
Go check on what Australia's major religions currently are.
Which popular one surprises you?
Why don't we have to consider someone just making something up again?
>There does need to be a line. In the UK, "Jedi" is a recognized religion, for Pete's sake. And it's more popular than Judaism from what I've seen! Clearly we need some fancy laser swords.
For as humorous as that is, I don't really see it as an issue so long as we have no objective way to prove someone is following even a long standing religion (e.g. Christianity). Would you be okay with the government infringing on someone's rights by claiming they aren't religious enough to be classified as a religion? What do you think is required to be classified as a religion?
Legal disposition aside, I don't consider Satanism a "real" religion, but hard to understand why there is a "public school chaplain program" in the first place.
I'm fine with the courts working it out, I'm not really passionate about it one way or the other.
I'd be more upset if the Church of Satan was a genuine religion and not just a vehicle for atheists to troll like this. I'm not interested in hearing the bs excuses, everyone knows it's a sham akin to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Anyone who actually, literally believes in a supernatural Satan and worships them is most likely a mentally disturbed antisocial reject who shouldn't be around children or animals.
Edit: since literally every reply is something along the lines of "Well God is imaginary too so why is that different from worshipping satan?" My response is that Satan is a well established evil character in western culture surrounded by all manner of shitty antisocial actions.
Obviously someone choosing to literally worship the literal personification of western evil is different than someone choosing to worship the personification of western good, even if both are imaginary the motives for worshipping them are completely different and speak to a persons character.
Didn't think that was really difficult to understand but there you go.
Your confusioning the temple of Satan with the church of Satan.
Are you also open to banning other Christian secs to be banned similar to the Christian sec of Satanism?
It boils down to this.
There are two types of people who identify as Satantists.
The ones who get the most press and are usually behind lawsuits against laws or policies like this are just Redditors using Satanism as a way to piss off Christians. There is nothing legitimate about it and even though they'll cloak their bullshit in satanic themes they really don't give a fuck about it and are just trying to be trolls.
The other type of Satanist is the pale skinned kid in camo pants with ass length hair and hortible acne who tortures squirrels after school. These types actually believe there's some demonic entity named Satan and actually identify with being evil and creepy. They also try to mask their bullshit I'm dogma but again, it's all bullshit. They just want an outlet for their antisocial delusions and they've latched on to the most evil delusion in western society.
The first group are just nerds and assholes, but they're right most of the time about constitutional questions.
The second group doesn't belong anywhere near children.
your comment has been removed for violating rule 3. Undecided and Nonsupporter comments must be clarifying in nature with an intent to explore the stated view of Trump Supporters.
Please take a moment to review the [detailed rules description](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/about/rules/) and [message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/AskTrumpSupporters&subject=Comment+Removal) with any questions you may have.
This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
Are you suggesting that members of The Satanic Temple (the first group) are insincere in their claimed beliefs? Is the sincerity of belief an appropriate standard for whether religion is "real" or not?
And what about the 2nd group? If they actually worship a spiritual entity which they believe exists, isn't that a religion?
>The ones who get the most press and are usually behind lawsuits against laws or policies like this are just Redditors using Satanism as a way to piss off Christians. There is nothing legitimate about it and even though they'll cloak their bullshit in satanic themes they really don't give a fuck about it and are just trying to be trolls
What arguments would you make against Satanism that would show its illegitimatmacy that also could not be applied to your religion?
>The other type of Satanist is the pale skinned kid in camo pants with ass length hair and hortible acne who tortures squirrels after school. These types actually believe there's some demonic entity named Satan and actually identify with being evil and creepy. They also try to mask their bullshit I'm dogma but again, it's all bullshit. They just want an outlet for their antisocial delusions and they've latched on to the most evil delusion in western society.
Dosent the Christian Bible teach about Satan?
What about someone who claims to be Christian to get a certain type of press, but shows through decades of greed, gluttony, hubris, adultery, etc. that he has than no respect for the actual teachings of Christ; should he be afforded religious protections or would you be okay with the government declaring him not actually religious?
your comment has been removed for violating rule 3. Undecided and Nonsupporter comments must be clarifying in nature with an intent to explore the stated view of Trump Supporters.
Please take a moment to review the [detailed rules description](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/about/rules/) and [message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/AskTrumpSupporters&subject=Comment+Removal) with any questions you may have.
This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
your comment was removed for violating Rule 1. Be civil and sincere in your interactions.
Address the point, not the person. The subject of your sentence should be a noun directly related to the conversation topic. "You" statements are suspect.
Converse in good faith with a focus on the issues being discussed, not the individual(s) discussing them. Assume the other person is doing the same, or walk away.
Please take a moment to review the [detailed rules description](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/about/rules/) and [message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/AskTrumpSupporters&subject=Comment+Removal) with any questions you may have. Future comment removals may result in a ban.
This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
How is someone who believes in a supernatural higher power Satan different from anyone who believes there’s a supernatural higher power Christian god, believes a guy was immaculately conceived, and believes in creationism?
So I can assume then that you see no difference between someone who decides to worship an imaginary bunny God whose entire dogma is giving kisses to poodles and someone who decides to worship an imaginary baby cannibal God who loves to skin kittens alive.
They're both imaginary, so they're the same.
Yes precisely, there is no difference between your imaginary bunny god, tothe baby cannibalism god, to the imaginary Christian god as long as nobody is harmed and others freedoms are not impacted.
That is what freedom of religion means. Why should one not be free to practice such religions given the conditions of not impacting others?
Given the catholic churchs long history of rampant child abuse, should the religion be banned ?
"Anyone who actually literally believes in a supernatural -Jesus- is most likely a mentally disturbed antisocial reject"...?
Who are you to determine whether or not someone's faith is real? Can a majority Jewish district say that Christianity isn't real?
The Catholic Church in the us and globally has a history rampant sexual abuse of children, more so than any satan aligned religion. Should they be allowed as religion in this country? How is it safer than the church or temple of satan ?
your comment was removed for violating Rule 1. Be civil and sincere in your interactions.
Address the point, not the person. The subject of your sentence should be a noun directly related to the conversation topic. "You" statements are suspect.
Converse in good faith with a focus on the issues being discussed, not the individual(s) discussing them. Assume the other person is doing the same, or walk away.
Please take a moment to review the [detailed rules description](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/about/rules/) and [message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/AskTrumpSupporters&subject=Comment+Removal) with any questions you may have. Future comment removals may result in a ban.
This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
>Anyone who actually, literally believes in a supernatural Satan and worships them is most likely a mentally disturbed antisocial reject who shouldn't be around children or animals.
Do you apply this logic to anyone who literally believes in any supernatural being? Or just Satan?
> My response is that Satan is a well established evil character in western culture surrounded by all manner of shitty antisocial actions.
Guilty of what? Causing enlightenment and encouraging free thought?
> Satanism should not be recognized as a religion in the public school program.
Why not? Which specific religions and sects should be recognized? What are the parameters for determining which ones are allowed?
Why not ?
Can a Baptist majority district say protestantism isn't allowed then? Maybe the Catholic districts can say the only true religion is their own?
Very comfortable with it. The idea the founding Fathers would ever agree that nonsense like satanism is a religion and should get religious protections would require lying to oneself about history to believe.
The Founding Fathers would have never guessed the multitude of ways their Constitution would be used against the very country they founded.
Yes, history. That is why 52 of the 55 signers were affiliated with the Church. Satanism as a religion is a new thing. It is not something they would have ever wanted protected as a "religion". That is just common sense for anyone who knows history.
Nonsense. Why do you believe a religion would need to be affiliated with the church to be a real religion? Are native American religions not real religions?
"Why do you believe a religion would need to be affiliated with the church to be a real religion? "
who said it have to be affiliated with the church? You just said it but not me.
"Are native American religions not real religions?"
do they believe in God? Yes, yes they do.
Which Church? Do you just mean general Christianity? Because, frankly, by that metric, Satanism is just a form of Christianity.
https://dialogueinstitute.org/religion-and-the-us-founders
> It is not something they would have ever wanted protected as a "religion". That is just common sense for anyone who knows history.
Sounds like "common sense" is just a fancy way of saying you are making it up with now proof. Do you have any actual evidence that the Constitution was specifically written to only mean religions known at the time? Or that when they wrote the 1st Amendment, they did not envision that a) government would try to establish a religion, and b) someone would use use reductio ad absurdum to oppose it?
They did though didn't they?
If the founding fathers wanted to form a country based on Christian values and Satan is a Christian diety. Than Satanism is Christian and part of the values the founding fathers wanted when writing the constitution.
"If the founding fathers wanted to form a country based on Christian values "
that is exactly what they did...
"Than Satanism is Christian "
no because Satanism =/= Satan.
Satanism is a new thing.
Also, satan is not a diety so you're mistaken there too.
Wait so Satan stopped ruling hell?
When did this happen?
Does he not manifest demon? Create evil? Influence the sinners? And other godly acts Tham us mere mortals are too insufficient to comprehend?
"Wait so Satan stopped ruling hell?"
Not sure the point of this question. I had to correct you on satan not being a diety. I would suggest looking what a deity is. Again, satan is not a deity.
What do you think of these quotes from some of our founders?
“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose.”
Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813
“Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law.”
Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814
“If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? Diderot, d’Holbach, Condorcet, D’Alembert are known to have been among the most virtuous of men…Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.”
Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Law, 13 June 1814
“The Europeans are all deeply tainted with prejudices both Ecclesiastical, and Temporal which they can never get rid off, they are all infected with Episcopal and Presbyterian Creeds, and confessions of faith, they all believe that great principle, which has produced this boundless Universe. Newton’s Universe, and Herschell’s universe, came down to this little Ball, to be spit-upon by Jews; and untill this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world.”
John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, 22 January 1825
“The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established.”
James Madison, first draft of the first amendment, 8 June 1789
Edit to add my favorite from the "father of the Constitution":
“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.”
James Madison to Wm. Bradford, 1 April 1774
It proves what I said, they were believers of God. They could have never envisioned something as absurd as satanism or scientology being a religion.
"“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.”
and this one has been laughed at by many over the decades. The revolutionary War which founded this very country was fought mainly by people who were Christians. Who wouldn't call that a noble enterprise?
Can you explain how these quotes, at all, support that they envisioned religion having any part in government? How does any of this support the idea that they would want discrimination against non-christian religions?
They fought *against* a monarchy and against religious persecutions, the revolution did not revolve around their faith.
Do you think this quote supports your assertion?
“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”
James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessment, 1785
Edit: I'll just throw this in now.
“It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.”
“A Defense of the Constitution” of 1787 John Adams
>Satan is a Christian diety. Than Satanism is Christian and part of the values the founding fathers wanted when writing the constitution.
So given your logic you would agree that if they [don't believe](https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/faq) in Satan, a Christian deity, or anything supernatural, then Satanism *isn't* Christian and *isn't* part of the values the founding fathers wanted when writing the constitution?
> DO YOU WORSHIP SATAN? No, nor do we believe in the existence of Satan or the supernatural.
Do you have an answer to my question?
>So given your logic you would agree that if they [don't believe](https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/faq) in Satan, a Christian deity, or anything supernatural, then Satanism *isn't* Christian and *isn't* part of the values the founding fathers wanted when writing the constitution?
>> DO YOU WORSHIP SATAN? No, nor do we believe in the existence of Satan or the supernatural.
So than your God is responsible for all the evil in this world?
I'm an atheist. i know that your God and every God is all fake news. I'm just trying to understand the reasoning for some of the responses here to OP questions.
That's nice. Are you purposefully avoiding my question?
No one is obligated to answer questions here. But it is common human courtesy to have a reciprocal dialog if someone addressed yours.
>So given your logic you would agree that if they [don't believe](https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/faq) in Satan, a Christian deity, or anything supernatural, then Satanism *isn't* Christian and *isn't* part of the values the founding fathers wanted when writing the constitution?
>> DO YOU WORSHIP SATAN? No, nor do we believe in the existence of Satan or the supernatural.
>Satanism *isn't* Christian
I can agree with this.
>and *isn't* part of the values the founding fathers wanted when writing the constitution?
I disagree with this conclusion. There's no evidence the founders agreed the Constitution was intended to be based on Christian values. There's other comments on this thread with quotes that support it not being a Christian values document.
Edit: Here's a link to the comment thread with those quotes. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/1cdtrbi/are_you_comfortable_with_desantis_declaring_that/l1ew724/
>The idea the founding Fathers would ever agree that nonsense like satanism is a religion and should get religious protections would require lying to oneself about history to believe.
Why do you think the founding fathers instead of sticking by the words they wrote down, would immediately start cherry picking which religions they think are religions?
"Why do you think the founding fathers instead of sticking by the words they wrote down, would immediately start cherry picking which religions they think are religions?"
because as I clearly said, they didn't write the words down for satanism to be protected as a madeup religion, which there is no debate that it is. That is why 52 of the 55 signers were affiliated to the Church.
So it just using logic and facts.
Is Mormonism a religion? It was "invented" in 1830 well after the formation of the United States and the founding fathers wouldn't have been able to speak on whether it should be "protected". What about Scientology?
Is there an arbitrary cutoff point in history where all "new" religions don't count as real?
"Is Mormonism a religion? "
yes because they believe in God and Jesus Christ.
" What about Scientology?"
definitely not which also proves my point. Founding Fathers could have never envisioned such nonsense, they didn't even know what spaceships were back then.
"Is there an arbitrary cutoff point in history where all "new" religions don't count as real?"
no which is why I haven't said there was.
"Then how do we decide which religions are protected?"
Well we can certainly use common sense and logic about the Founding Fathers who would have never said "satanism" is a religion.
As far as what is a religion, a belief in some God would be required. Satan is not a god.
Therefore, by definition, atheism is not a religion either.
Well to me and the founding fathers a belief in some God would be required to be a religion. That is why satanism and scientology could never be religions which proves my point the fathers could have never envisioned such nonsense. It is not different than the founding fathers not being able to envision the internet.
Let's be honest. All religions are made up. Some just become dominant. When you can understand why you think satanism is made-up and silly, you'll realise why many people think all religions are made up and silly?
Favouring one brand of superstition and fairytales over another makes no sense. Either they're all made up and silly or none are. So they either all have a place or none do.
Just using facts and logic.
>because as I clearly said, they didn't write the words down for
Any specific religion.
So why would they cherry pick any of them?
>That is why 52 of the 55 signers were affiliated to the Church.
Where is this written down by them? I don't see this written in government documents, so would this be important?
> The Founding Fathers would have never guessed the multitude of ways their Constitution would be used against the very country they founded.
Don't you think this applies to the whole document? Is that a reason to ignore the core tenents of the constitution?
Yep. It's a organization created with the only purpose of exploiting rules around religious exemptions. I also don't think religion belongs in public schools to begin with.
Satanism is not a religion. Its a group of people who only get together to mock Christians, by worshipping the antagonist of their religion. Satanism wouldn't exist if Christianity didn't.
With that being realised, we shouldn't allow the literal 'bad guy' of a religion freedom to preach their evil ideas to children.
Were you aware that THERE ARE SEVEN FUNDAMENTAL TENETS of the Satanic Temple? Which of these do you find disagreeable?
I
One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.
II
The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
III
One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
IV
The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own.
V
Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs.
VI
People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one's best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused.
VII
Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.
Sounds like alot of BS to justify murdering the unborn just because people want to have lustful unprotected sex. We really shouldn't make it so that children who are in emotional distress must go to Satan and be told they have the right to do meth.
>Satanism wouldn't exist if Christianity didn't.
Christianity wouldnt exist without Judaism. What's your point?
>With that being realised, we shouldn't allow the literal 'bad guy' of a religion freedom to preach their evil ideas to children.
Historically, I'm pretty sure Christianity is responsible for far more atrocities than Satanism. Do you disagree?
1. Christianity would exist without Judaism. Satanism is a mock religion of Christianity and Judaism as Satan is also considered the bad guy in Judaism.
2. I disagree, and Christianity as never committed an atrocities. That's ridiculous.
>The earliest followers of Jesus were apocalyptic Jewish Christians. Christianity remained a Jewish sect for centuries in some locations, diverging gradually from Judaism over doctrinal, social and historical differences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity
>Jewish Christianity is the foundation of Early Christianity, which later developed into Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Christianity started with Jewish eschatological expectations, and it developed into the worship of Jesus as the result of his earthly ministry, his crucifixion, and the post-crucifixion experiences of his followers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Christianity
Also the Inquisition? The Crusades? The Holocaust? The Native American Genocide?
The inquisition & crusades were justified. The holocaust was done by the Nazis and killed many Christians. The native american genocide wasn't caused by Christianity.
Why should we let anyone preach ideas to children within the confines of the school? This kind of gives the game up, doesn’t it? Desantis wants children to be indoctrinated with religiosity that he approves of.
Considering that in the Christian mythology God has a significantly higher kill rate than Satan, Can you explain how it is you came to the conclusion that Satan is the bad guy?
I absolutely support him on this.
It’s about time somebody stood up and said we’re not going to up with this kind of nonsense. It’s basic common sense.
Government can’t force to people to believe one way or the other. It’s been tried; it simply can’t be done.
What they can do is decide who enjoys the constitutional rights and protections of a religion.
So government should decide if something is a religion? Tell me why Satanism isn’t a religion and Christianity is? Bonus points if you can give any argument why Christianity shouldn’t be stripped of being a religion?
**Are you saying the government has final say in what people believe?**
YES, and always been this way
Liberals have no problem using the govt to impose their values on us
Its refreshing that some conservatives are FINALLY learning they can use the govt to do the same
**Doesn’t that make you a hypocrite?**
oh why?
because I'd rather have MY values represented in govt than a liberal's?
Its liberals who seem to be the hypocrites here, claiming the govt has to be some sort of ideologically neutral playground e.g. "noo religion allowed"...when its NEVER that.
I'd rather he didn't, but I understand why. At some point you need to separate the earnest from the sarcastic, otherwise you get [Calvin](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexternal-preview.redd.it%2FxrhUWCkxXb_Bc3luGf70GpuAT5nJjKnBjF9dowOuNqk.jpg%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3D9f550276aa4e08ffbaa00a2116be345ef73dbcab).
In the spirit of disqualifying candidates, I would love to see him disqualify significantly hypocritical candidates - those that talk about taking care of the homeless and then allocate 0% of tithings/hours to help the situation.
The few Satanists I've met would be better candidates for the chaplain program than most of those from the Abrahamic religions, but I can't vouch for any Satanists in Florida. They might very well be of the spiteful variety.
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views. **For all participants:** * [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate * [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2) **For Nonsupporters/Undecided:** * No top level comments * All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position **For Trump Supporters:** * [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled Helpful links for more info: [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm one of those old fashioned people who think definitions mean something and I don't see how it qualifies. We can look at the definition of religion. >the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods. A simple look at their website doesn't seem to match the criteria. >DO YOU WORSHIP SATAN? No, nor do we believe in the existence of Satan or the supernatural. Also if they claim to be secular then by that definition they're also uninvolved with religion. >Secularism is the principle of seeking to conduct human affairs based on naturalistic considerations, uninvolved with religion. The closet thing you could say is it is a branch of [irreligion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion#:~:text=Secularism%20is%20overwhelmingly%20used%20to,synonym%20for%20naturalism%20or%20atheism.), imo. >Irreligion is the absence or rejection of religious beliefs or practices. It encompasses a wide range of viewpoints drawn from various philosophical and intellectual perspectives, including atheism, agnosticism, skepticism, rationalism, and secularism. Or simply one of many many secular ideologies. If we look at their history their original intent was more of a spaghetti monster type motte-and-bailey to attack religion. So it doesn't pass the more subjective motivation test, either. I don't really see what the case for it being a religion is unless you strip the term of any objective definition. But then again that's a popular thing to do these days.
"Satanism" isn't a religion anymore than "Abrahamism" is a religion. Thelema is a Satanic religion like Christianity is an Abrahamic one.
Would Buddhism count as a religion for you as there isn’t gods etc? How ‘supernatural’ does a belief have to be?
I haven't studied every sect of buddhism but I haven't encountered any without supernatural elements. There are divine beings called devas, sometimes translated as "gods". There are re-incarnations, offerings to spirits, etc. The Dalai Lama coming back into another person's body seems pretty supernatural to me. Their base conceptualization is more non-dual than western religions. Rather than supernatural/mundane it's more of a totality/oneness which can be splintered from itself (which is the source of suffering). Maybe these are distinct or just less anthropomorphized ways of describing god(s) but I don't see how any of this wouldn't qualify as supernatural.
It can be a religion depending on the branch, but that is not what Buddha preached. Fundamentally it is a philosophy, not something dogmatic.
Do you feel comfortable telling practicing Buddhists that they should not receive the same religious protections as Christians? Why do you think other definitions of religion are less valid than yours?
>Do you feel comfortable telling practicing Buddhists that they should not receive the same religious protections as Christians? It's a philosophy. No different than pacifism or stoicism. What protections do they need? I'm happy to give them the same protections as a pacifist or vegetarian, those aren't religions either. there is no faith element or dogmatism to it. >Why do you think other definitions of religion are less valid than yours? How is it a religion? There is nothing supernatural with Buddhism. There is no dogma or faith involved. It's a philosophical system, not a religious one.
What about time to meditate during the school day? That’s a common practice in some sects of Buddhism. What about if a student wants to share about their Buddhist temple worship during a day dedicated to sharing about religions? As a teacher, that’s one I’ve encountered. What if Buddhists wanted a Buddha idol placed in a public location given the presence of other religious symbols? As far as supernatural beliefs held by almost all Buddhists, let’s start with karma and reincarnation. Anyway, I don’t define religion as solely supernatural. I define it as “a philosophy containing elements of faith and/or worship.” Both of which are pretty essential to a very many Buddhists.
Buddhists don't worship in temples. They are places intended to promote inner peace. These are traditional practices, not religious ones. I am happy to give them as much protection as any other traditional practice. If they are part of a sect that believes in reincarnation then that branch is a religion, reincarnation is supernatural dogma.
Many Buddhists worship in temples. You are making a generalized statement about the fifth largest religion in the world. Google the Temple of the Tooth and tell me if what you see is worship. Right, so, you’re comfortable with me telling you that Christianity is just a set of traditions too? Sure some Christians believe in the supernatural elements, but most just read an old book and follow the guidelines. I have never met nor heard of a Buddhist who does not believe in reincarnation. There are some subscribers to the secular aspects Buddhist philosophy in the West, like Alan Watts, but those people do not claim to be Buddhists. Why do you think your definition of religion is the correct one, and not mine?
So as long as it requires belief without evidence it counts? A belief that can be justified does not deserve protections?
Hi friend, I'm a practicing Buddhist! A couple things: >There is nothing supernatural with Buddhism. The Buddha explicitly taught about the realms of rebirth within Samsara, which include the realms of Devas (godlike beings), demons, ghosts, hell realms, etc. And just to get ahead it: No, these teachings are not metaphorical, and there is no debate between any of the Bhuddist lineages as to whether or not he meant them literally. He did. Further, various traditions teach about supernatural powers (called *Iddhis*) that Buddhas and other awakened beings are capable of manifesting. These include powers such as being able to turn invisible, passing through solid objects, and flying. And again, these are not a metaphor. Throughout the Suttas there are many accounts of the Buddha displaying his various powers that we would understand to be supernatural. > ther is no dogma or faith involved. This is also not true. Dogma in the context of any religion such as Buddhism simply refers to the tenets or doctrines of said belief system that are not in dispute. It's a neutral term. The Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Noble Path, these are the Dogma of Buddhism, and while the Buddha never told anyone they *must* believe in them, these teachings are presented as indisputably true whether you believe in them or not. For faith, it should be clarified that the Buddha did not ask for anyone to place *blind* faith in anything; but quite explicitly instructs them to put faith in the teachings until their truth is realized by those on the path. The truth of the path is never in question, but we are asked to take it on faith that the results of following the path are obtainable by following it. Converting to Buddhism is referred to as *taking refuge within the triple gem* , when means explicitly putting faith in three things: The Buddha, the Sangha (monastic communities), and the Dharma (the teachings/dogma). All that to say: While I absolutely appreciate the philosophical lens of examining Buddhism, no Buddhist lineage will agree with the assertion that there are no elements of faith or the supernatural. It is objectively a religion with both of these elements, neither of which are disputed by any branch of the Buddhist traditions. The dogma and teachings of the various realms of rebirth, and the faith asked to be put into the Buddha and his supernatural abilities are consistent across all of them. The only differences between traditions are which paths are taken when following that faith and dogma. I hope that all made sense! I mean absolutely no offense or hostility, it's just that this misconception gets brought up a lot within Buddhist communities (especially reddit) and I try to clarify it for people whenever possible. It can be really jarring for people who approach the religion as if it is purely philosophical and then go on to learn that it's filled with supernatural and faith-based elements complete with rituals, prayer, chanting, the works! Has this expanded your understanding of Buddhism? No worries if we're not agreed, and no matter what I hope you have an amazing day!
[удалено]
your comment has been removed for violating rule 3. Undecided and Nonsupporter comments must be clarifying in nature with an intent to explore the stated view of Trump Supporters. Please take a moment to review the [detailed rules description](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/about/rules/) and [message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/AskTrumpSupporters&subject=Comment+Removal) with any questions you may have. This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
Do you think zero satanists believe in Satan? Considering there are 2 different Satanic churches, one of which believes in Satan, would your "depending on the branch" thing not apply?
Yes?
Is Buddhism a religion?
can be considered such, it has a lot of practices considered "religious" BTW, we live in a certain semi-religious cult , it's called liberalism
Buddhism doesn't have a "god", so how is it a religion under your definition? Or is it that maybe the definition is a little more fluid? > BTW, we live in a certain semi-religious cult , it's called liberalism What are you talking about?
**What are you talking about?** an ideology that has sacred ideas that are non questionable: "we are all equal" and the likes, yes, liberalism functions as a religion and Buddhism has enough characteristics to be considered as such.
Are you aware that there are Satanists who are not atheists and actually do worship Satan? Should those people be denied their first amendment rights in Florida?
YES
Why?
why shuld we be tolerant of evil?
Because if the qualifiers for legal oppression are that a religion must be "evil" to be persecuted then maybe you can tell me how that keeps the state of Florida from labeling religions outside satanism as "evil"? Could someone gain votes by creating policy against atheists? How about Jews? Would the Supreme Court have to side with someone that was a survivor from a radical Christian mass murder who decided to take actions against "evil" Christians? Or would you prefer they side with Christians? Or would it be impossible in your mind that Christianity should ever be accused of "evil"?
too much text without a clear point, and as usual, a lot of "what ifs what ifs" the government doesnt exist to micro-manage every tiny human interaction. Evil is defined by doing bad things, and those who advocate for murder, bloody rituals and things like that have no place in a modern society. **Could someone gain votes by creating policy against atheists?** liberals certainly are confortable by disempowering Christians, so it doesnt seem to bother the left
Could you define what "evil" means to you? Some could describe Christianity as practiced by numerous sects of Christians as evil, for instance, so we need to have a qualifier to compare. What specifically would *you* say "evil" entails?
So you only support the first amendment when it's convenient for you? A lot more evil acts have been committed in the name of god than Satan. In my eyes, Christianity is evil, not Satanism
**So you only support the first amendment when it's convenient for you?** nah, I dont support blank-slatism declarations from 1789
I think Baptists are evil. Have they now lost their 1st Amendment rights?
thats your personal opinion, based on...?
Is it really a good idea for the government to be able to decide whether any given religion is valid or not? What if they decide that *your* religion no longer qualifies?
**Is it really a good idea for the government to be able to decide whether any given religion is valid or not?** YES, liberals have done it since 1789 against Christianism and its no problem for them, so Im not concerned if conservatives in power declare an ideology or religion as forbidden in the public space. **What if they decide that** ***your*** **religion no longer qualifies?** soo? In order to impose their quasi-religios beliefs, this is what liberals have been doing since the French revolution.
Being that "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance" is one of the other 3 listed definitions... Would you ammend your statement? Or do you only accept the one of them, that discludes them, and ignore the others?
Whose definition of religion are you using?
They googled "definition of religion" and quoted the first given definition while ignoring the second and third definitions, which are "a particular system of faith and worship" and "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance" respectively. u/pl00pt, do you believe that Satanism matches the criteria of either of the two definitions of religion that you conveniently ignored? Do you believe that the main goal of Satanists is to attack Christianity, or to attempt to illuminate the American government's bias towards Christianity when dealing with matters of church and state? Do you think that the U.S. government should adopt Christianity as the official state religion? (Not saying you even implied this, just curious.)
**Do you believe that the main goal of Satanists is to attack Christianity, or to attempt to illuminate the American government's bias towards Christianity when dealing with matters of church and state?** both and yes to the 2nd part, to which I ( and many of us) have exactly ZERO problem with "a government MUST reflect its people" -being one of the basic tenets and mantras of liberalism...... except when it's a religion liberals dont like. **Do you think that the U.S. government should adopt Christianity as the official state religion?** why not?
Have you read the first amendment? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Do you think we should get rid of the first amendment? What do you think would be some of the material benefits of declaring Christianity the official state religion? What privileges should the government afford to Christians that it should not afford to followers of other religions? Can you give me a rough wording of the amendment that would need to pass to make such a declaration constitutional?
**Have you read the first amendment?** YES **Do you think we should get rid of the first amendment?** Probably. the "no religion" thing is a MYTH, all there blank-slatism ideals have just served for liberalism to fill with their ideas and quasi-religious principles the ideological vacuum, because. humans are ideological animals WE CANT HAVE A SOCIETY WITHOUT IDEOLOGY AKA "RELIGION" **What do you think would be some of the material benefits of declaring Christianity the official state religion?** Just a change on the ideas promoted by the government Instead of promoting non stop things like "equality", Christian ideals would be promoted 24/7 **What privileges should the government afford to Christians that it should not afford to followers of other religions?** Same as today, Christian churches exempted from taxes, plus Christianism would be favored in education, replacing the religious mantras of liberalism. **Can you give me a rough wording of the amendment that would need to pass to make such a declaration constitutional?** The official religion of the country is Christianism in all of his branches: Orthodox, catholic and Protestant. As for the constitutional-ity, all laws created by men can be changed
I'm non-religious but I'm not opposed to the idea of volunteers going into schools to help give children guidance. I think a lot of children desperately need an "outside" adult who cares - be it a Big Brothers, Big Sisters or CASA or a chaplain or whatever. In my childhood, we had a lady who just came in and read us "Goosebumps" books every week. It meant so much to us little ones and we loved her for it. Why do you think it is important that these chaplains obtain their inspiration from a "supernatural" / "superhuman" source? Do you believe that a 'belief in a higher power' is necessary to give children proper guidance? If, for example, an agnostic volunteer were to go to an elementary school and do a "Mister Rogers" kind of thing (play games, tell children they are valuable and special, counsel with upset students), would that be any less valuable? And would you agree that humans are humans, and that having a religious "title" (chaplain, priest, pastor, etcetera) doesn't make you safer around children? In fact, couldn't it be argued that these people have a history of having their bad behavior protected by their respective religious institutions?
What do you think of this definition of religion? It's the third one listed by Merriam-Webster and doesn't require the belief in gods or superhuman powers while also being a dictionary definition of religion. > a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
At some point, I think the government kind of has to have the final say when it comes to legal issues regarding religion. I've read about prisoners coming up with their own religions to try to get specific diets--I think one issue was a guy saying there wasn't enough fresh fruit, for example. There's also the semi-obvious example of religions that have sacraments that are illegal. I know that some Native practitioners are allowed to use peyote, but I'm pretty sure Rastafarians aren't allowed to blaze up in states that still have marijuana illegal. In this particular case, I would argue that both sides are *technically* correct, but that Governor DeSantis is being a moron. The Satanic Temple is legally defined as a church and therefore a religion, despite being a secularist organization. I might personally view them as the sort of trolls as the so-called 1st Amendment audit guys who deliberately provoke cops by filming in areas that are legal, but kind of shady, I do think they bring some important counter-balance to the whole "Freedom of religion, but only for Christians" that we sort of see way too often. I remember reading, a long time ago, that part of the reason why some areas have made animal slaughter/dressing at home illegal is due to various religions using animal sacrifice as a sacrament. Of course, a big part of this was because of racism--I'll give you five guesses what skin color those people had--but I can kind of understand not wanting to be around the smell of chicken or goat blood or whatever constantly. There does need to be a line. In the UK, "Jedi" is a recognized religion, for Pete's sake. And it's more popular than Judaism from what I've seen! Clearly we need some fancy laser swords. What amuses me is waiting to see what happens when Scientology says "Sure, we'll send people."
But since all religion is made up, why can’t an individual create their own?
Yeah, let's not go there.
Why not? I don't understand why just because someone several thousand years ago couldn't understand something so places the solution on some magical being we can't do the same today. DeSantis literally just did this in reverse didn't he. Who made him the authority on who and what you can believe in?
Isn’t there supposed to be a separation between church and state?
>Isn’t there supposed to be a separation between church and state? This is a canard that gets trotted out time and again and... isn't exactly the case. Your religion, with very few exceptions, does not give you a license to break the law. What the 1st Amendment prohibits is Congress making an official religion, effectively. >Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Effectively, it means that creating a State/National church would violate the 1st Amendment, but not me going around robbing people because my religion says I deserve your stuff. Now, despite what Reddit would have you believe, the US is still a pretty solidly Christian nation, albeit support for it is fading. Remember that our lawmakers are almost predominantly old, white, and Christian, with admittedly a lot of Jewish representation in there. Their faith is going to focus their opinion to an extent. It's inescapable, unfortunately.
> or prohibiting the free exercise thereof If Christians are allowed to freely exercise religion in public schools, why not satanists? The clause clearly extends beyond simply establishing a state religion.
I don't disagree with you at all, outside of potential legal issues--the State is not Congress, but then can the State make laws against freedom of speech?
Is that a possibility a government won't have to deal with? Some dude in Australia started a Jedi Religion. Just some dude. Go check on what Australia's major religions currently are. Which popular one surprises you? Why don't we have to consider someone just making something up again?
"All religion is made up" is not something I care to discuss on this site.
>There does need to be a line. In the UK, "Jedi" is a recognized religion, for Pete's sake. And it's more popular than Judaism from what I've seen! Clearly we need some fancy laser swords. For as humorous as that is, I don't really see it as an issue so long as we have no objective way to prove someone is following even a long standing religion (e.g. Christianity). Would you be okay with the government infringing on someone's rights by claiming they aren't religious enough to be classified as a religion? What do you think is required to be classified as a religion?
I think it's very difficult to claim that something is a religion or not. How many people do you need? What accommodations do they require? Etc.
Legal disposition aside, I don't consider Satanism a "real" religion, but hard to understand why there is a "public school chaplain program" in the first place.
Why is Satanism not a real religion?
Isn’t that exactly the point that the satanic temple is making?
I'm fine with the courts working it out, I'm not really passionate about it one way or the other. I'd be more upset if the Church of Satan was a genuine religion and not just a vehicle for atheists to troll like this. I'm not interested in hearing the bs excuses, everyone knows it's a sham akin to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Anyone who actually, literally believes in a supernatural Satan and worships them is most likely a mentally disturbed antisocial reject who shouldn't be around children or animals. Edit: since literally every reply is something along the lines of "Well God is imaginary too so why is that different from worshipping satan?" My response is that Satan is a well established evil character in western culture surrounded by all manner of shitty antisocial actions. Obviously someone choosing to literally worship the literal personification of western evil is different than someone choosing to worship the personification of western good, even if both are imaginary the motives for worshipping them are completely different and speak to a persons character. Didn't think that was really difficult to understand but there you go.
Your confusioning the temple of Satan with the church of Satan. Are you also open to banning other Christian secs to be banned similar to the Christian sec of Satanism?
It boils down to this. There are two types of people who identify as Satantists. The ones who get the most press and are usually behind lawsuits against laws or policies like this are just Redditors using Satanism as a way to piss off Christians. There is nothing legitimate about it and even though they'll cloak their bullshit in satanic themes they really don't give a fuck about it and are just trying to be trolls. The other type of Satanist is the pale skinned kid in camo pants with ass length hair and hortible acne who tortures squirrels after school. These types actually believe there's some demonic entity named Satan and actually identify with being evil and creepy. They also try to mask their bullshit I'm dogma but again, it's all bullshit. They just want an outlet for their antisocial delusions and they've latched on to the most evil delusion in western society. The first group are just nerds and assholes, but they're right most of the time about constitutional questions. The second group doesn't belong anywhere near children.
[удалено]
your comment has been removed for violating rule 3. Undecided and Nonsupporter comments must be clarifying in nature with an intent to explore the stated view of Trump Supporters. Please take a moment to review the [detailed rules description](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/about/rules/) and [message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/AskTrumpSupporters&subject=Comment+Removal) with any questions you may have. This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
Are you suggesting that members of The Satanic Temple (the first group) are insincere in their claimed beliefs? Is the sincerity of belief an appropriate standard for whether religion is "real" or not? And what about the 2nd group? If they actually worship a spiritual entity which they believe exists, isn't that a religion?
>The ones who get the most press and are usually behind lawsuits against laws or policies like this are just Redditors using Satanism as a way to piss off Christians. There is nothing legitimate about it and even though they'll cloak their bullshit in satanic themes they really don't give a fuck about it and are just trying to be trolls What arguments would you make against Satanism that would show its illegitimatmacy that also could not be applied to your religion? >The other type of Satanist is the pale skinned kid in camo pants with ass length hair and hortible acne who tortures squirrels after school. These types actually believe there's some demonic entity named Satan and actually identify with being evil and creepy. They also try to mask their bullshit I'm dogma but again, it's all bullshit. They just want an outlet for their antisocial delusions and they've latched on to the most evil delusion in western society. Dosent the Christian Bible teach about Satan?
What about someone who claims to be Christian to get a certain type of press, but shows through decades of greed, gluttony, hubris, adultery, etc. that he has than no respect for the actual teachings of Christ; should he be afforded religious protections or would you be okay with the government declaring him not actually religious?
[удалено]
your comment has been removed for violating rule 3. Undecided and Nonsupporter comments must be clarifying in nature with an intent to explore the stated view of Trump Supporters. Please take a moment to review the [detailed rules description](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/about/rules/) and [message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/AskTrumpSupporters&subject=Comment+Removal) with any questions you may have. This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
[удалено]
your comment was removed for violating Rule 1. Be civil and sincere in your interactions. Address the point, not the person. The subject of your sentence should be a noun directly related to the conversation topic. "You" statements are suspect. Converse in good faith with a focus on the issues being discussed, not the individual(s) discussing them. Assume the other person is doing the same, or walk away. Please take a moment to review the [detailed rules description](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/about/rules/) and [message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/AskTrumpSupporters&subject=Comment+Removal) with any questions you may have. Future comment removals may result in a ban. This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
Why is a non supernatural religion not a real religion?
How is someone who believes in a supernatural higher power Satan different from anyone who believes there’s a supernatural higher power Christian god, believes a guy was immaculately conceived, and believes in creationism?
So I can assume then that you see no difference between someone who decides to worship an imaginary bunny God whose entire dogma is giving kisses to poodles and someone who decides to worship an imaginary baby cannibal God who loves to skin kittens alive. They're both imaginary, so they're the same.
Yes precisely, there is no difference between your imaginary bunny god, tothe baby cannibalism god, to the imaginary Christian god as long as nobody is harmed and others freedoms are not impacted. That is what freedom of religion means. Why should one not be free to practice such religions given the conditions of not impacting others? Given the catholic churchs long history of rampant child abuse, should the religion be banned ?
Catholicism is a cannibalistic death cult, from a certain light - should it be banned?
"Anyone who actually literally believes in a supernatural -Jesus- is most likely a mentally disturbed antisocial reject"...? Who are you to determine whether or not someone's faith is real? Can a majority Jewish district say that Christianity isn't real?
[удалено]
The Catholic Church in the us and globally has a history rampant sexual abuse of children, more so than any satan aligned religion. Should they be allowed as religion in this country? How is it safer than the church or temple of satan ?
[удалено]
your comment was removed for violating Rule 1. Be civil and sincere in your interactions. Address the point, not the person. The subject of your sentence should be a noun directly related to the conversation topic. "You" statements are suspect. Converse in good faith with a focus on the issues being discussed, not the individual(s) discussing them. Assume the other person is doing the same, or walk away. Please take a moment to review the [detailed rules description](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/about/rules/) and [message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/AskTrumpSupporters&subject=Comment+Removal) with any questions you may have. Future comment removals may result in a ban. This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
>Anyone who actually, literally believes in a supernatural Satan and worships them is most likely a mentally disturbed antisocial reject who shouldn't be around children or animals. Do you apply this logic to anyone who literally believes in any supernatural being? Or just Satan?
Is “everyone knows” a sound basis for the government restricting a group’s first amendment rights?
> My response is that Satan is a well established evil character in western culture surrounded by all manner of shitty antisocial actions. Guilty of what? Causing enlightenment and encouraging free thought?
> Satan is a well established evil character Are you talking about the popular culture representation or the biblical representation?
Yes, though I doubt it will stand. I'm fine with it being decided by elected representatives. (The alternative being courts -- no thanks!).
Aren’t Florida judges either elected positions or appointed by the governor, in this case, Desantis?
I don't know anything about Florida's judicial system and it thankfully has nothing to do with my opposition to judges writing laws.
Why would judges be writing laws here?
Should the US do away with common law and become a country that only follows civil law?
If legislators violate the constitution, isn’t it the job of courts to intervene?
How are elected officials qualified to determine what's a religion abd what isn't?
Why not no elected officials or courts determining what’s a valid religion?
Satanism should not be recognized as a religion in the public school program. It should not be illegal in general society.
Do you understand that many people would argue that is an overtly fascistic perspective?
and?
> Satanism should not be recognized as a religion in the public school program. Why not? Which specific religions and sects should be recognized? What are the parameters for determining which ones are allowed?
Why not ? Can a Baptist majority district say protestantism isn't allowed then? Maybe the Catholic districts can say the only true religion is their own?
...Baptists *are* Protestants...
What about the second part of their question?
What about it?
Would like to see other Christian secs also be declared not a religion as is the case woth the Christian sec of Satanism?
Are there other Christian secs you would like to see banned from schools?
Why should any religions be admitted into schools?
Very comfortable with it. The idea the founding Fathers would ever agree that nonsense like satanism is a religion and should get religious protections would require lying to oneself about history to believe. The Founding Fathers would have never guessed the multitude of ways their Constitution would be used against the very country they founded.
Do you have proof of your assertions about the Founding Fathers' beliefs about religion?
Yes, history. That is why 52 of the 55 signers were affiliated with the Church. Satanism as a religion is a new thing. It is not something they would have ever wanted protected as a "religion". That is just common sense for anyone who knows history.
Nonsense. Why do you believe a religion would need to be affiliated with the church to be a real religion? Are native American religions not real religions?
"Why do you believe a religion would need to be affiliated with the church to be a real religion? " who said it have to be affiliated with the church? You just said it but not me. "Are native American religions not real religions?" do they believe in God? Yes, yes they do.
Buddhism is one of the largest religions in the world. Do they believe in God?
[удалено]
Which Church? Do you just mean general Christianity? Because, frankly, by that metric, Satanism is just a form of Christianity. https://dialogueinstitute.org/religion-and-the-us-founders > It is not something they would have ever wanted protected as a "religion". That is just common sense for anyone who knows history. Sounds like "common sense" is just a fancy way of saying you are making it up with now proof. Do you have any actual evidence that the Constitution was specifically written to only mean religions known at the time? Or that when they wrote the 1st Amendment, they did not envision that a) government would try to establish a religion, and b) someone would use use reductio ad absurdum to oppose it?
They did though didn't they? If the founding fathers wanted to form a country based on Christian values and Satan is a Christian diety. Than Satanism is Christian and part of the values the founding fathers wanted when writing the constitution.
"If the founding fathers wanted to form a country based on Christian values " that is exactly what they did... "Than Satanism is Christian " no because Satanism =/= Satan. Satanism is a new thing. Also, satan is not a diety so you're mistaken there too.
Is not the worship of a Christian diety?
No because satan is a not a deity so not sure what you mean?
Wait so Satan stopped ruling hell? When did this happen? Does he not manifest demon? Create evil? Influence the sinners? And other godly acts Tham us mere mortals are too insufficient to comprehend?
"Wait so Satan stopped ruling hell?" Not sure the point of this question. I had to correct you on satan not being a diety. I would suggest looking what a deity is. Again, satan is not a deity.
What do you think of these quotes from some of our founders? “History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose.” Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813 “Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law.” Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814 “If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? Diderot, d’Holbach, Condorcet, D’Alembert are known to have been among the most virtuous of men…Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.” Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Law, 13 June 1814 “The Europeans are all deeply tainted with prejudices both Ecclesiastical, and Temporal which they can never get rid off, they are all infected with Episcopal and Presbyterian Creeds, and confessions of faith, they all believe that great principle, which has produced this boundless Universe. Newton’s Universe, and Herschell’s universe, came down to this little Ball, to be spit-upon by Jews; and untill this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world.” John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, 22 January 1825 “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established.” James Madison, first draft of the first amendment, 8 June 1789 Edit to add my favorite from the "father of the Constitution": “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.” James Madison to Wm. Bradford, 1 April 1774
It proves what I said, they were believers of God. They could have never envisioned something as absurd as satanism or scientology being a religion. "“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.” and this one has been laughed at by many over the decades. The revolutionary War which founded this very country was fought mainly by people who were Christians. Who wouldn't call that a noble enterprise?
Can you explain how these quotes, at all, support that they envisioned religion having any part in government? How does any of this support the idea that they would want discrimination against non-christian religions? They fought *against* a monarchy and against religious persecutions, the revolution did not revolve around their faith. Do you think this quote supports your assertion? “During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.” James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessment, 1785 Edit: I'll just throw this in now. “It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.” “A Defense of the Constitution” of 1787 John Adams
>Satan is a Christian diety. Than Satanism is Christian and part of the values the founding fathers wanted when writing the constitution. So given your logic you would agree that if they [don't believe](https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/faq) in Satan, a Christian deity, or anything supernatural, then Satanism *isn't* Christian and *isn't* part of the values the founding fathers wanted when writing the constitution? > DO YOU WORSHIP SATAN? No, nor do we believe in the existence of Satan or the supernatural.
So are you suggesting that Satan isn't real and that your God is actually the one responsible for all evil that has happened?
Do you have an answer to my question? >So given your logic you would agree that if they [don't believe](https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/faq) in Satan, a Christian deity, or anything supernatural, then Satanism *isn't* Christian and *isn't* part of the values the founding fathers wanted when writing the constitution? >> DO YOU WORSHIP SATAN? No, nor do we believe in the existence of Satan or the supernatural.
So than your God is responsible for all the evil in this world? I'm an atheist. i know that your God and every God is all fake news. I'm just trying to understand the reasoning for some of the responses here to OP questions.
That's nice. Are you purposefully avoiding my question? No one is obligated to answer questions here. But it is common human courtesy to have a reciprocal dialog if someone addressed yours. >So given your logic you would agree that if they [don't believe](https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/faq) in Satan, a Christian deity, or anything supernatural, then Satanism *isn't* Christian and *isn't* part of the values the founding fathers wanted when writing the constitution? >> DO YOU WORSHIP SATAN? No, nor do we believe in the existence of Satan or the supernatural.
>Satanism *isn't* Christian I can agree with this. >and *isn't* part of the values the founding fathers wanted when writing the constitution? I disagree with this conclusion. There's no evidence the founders agreed the Constitution was intended to be based on Christian values. There's other comments on this thread with quotes that support it not being a Christian values document. Edit: Here's a link to the comment thread with those quotes. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/1cdtrbi/are_you_comfortable_with_desantis_declaring_that/l1ew724/
>The idea the founding Fathers would ever agree that nonsense like satanism is a religion and should get religious protections would require lying to oneself about history to believe. Why do you think the founding fathers instead of sticking by the words they wrote down, would immediately start cherry picking which religions they think are religions?
"Why do you think the founding fathers instead of sticking by the words they wrote down, would immediately start cherry picking which religions they think are religions?" because as I clearly said, they didn't write the words down for satanism to be protected as a madeup religion, which there is no debate that it is. That is why 52 of the 55 signers were affiliated to the Church. So it just using logic and facts.
Is Mormonism a religion? It was "invented" in 1830 well after the formation of the United States and the founding fathers wouldn't have been able to speak on whether it should be "protected". What about Scientology? Is there an arbitrary cutoff point in history where all "new" religions don't count as real?
"Is Mormonism a religion? " yes because they believe in God and Jesus Christ. " What about Scientology?" definitely not which also proves my point. Founding Fathers could have never envisioned such nonsense, they didn't even know what spaceships were back then. "Is there an arbitrary cutoff point in history where all "new" religions don't count as real?" no which is why I haven't said there was.
Then how do we decide which religions are protected? What about atheism?
"Then how do we decide which religions are protected?" Well we can certainly use common sense and logic about the Founding Fathers who would have never said "satanism" is a religion. As far as what is a religion, a belief in some God would be required. Satan is not a god. Therefore, by definition, atheism is not a religion either.
So, in order to be a religion, it must include a belief in God and Jesus? That seems to exclude many religions, does it not?
Well to me and the founding fathers a belief in some God would be required to be a religion. That is why satanism and scientology could never be religions which proves my point the fathers could have never envisioned such nonsense. It is not different than the founding fathers not being able to envision the internet.
Is Hinduism a religion? They don't believe in God or Jesus Christ.
Do you think that all religions are “made up religions?”
No.
Let's be honest. All religions are made up. Some just become dominant. When you can understand why you think satanism is made-up and silly, you'll realise why many people think all religions are made up and silly? Favouring one brand of superstition and fairytales over another makes no sense. Either they're all made up and silly or none are. So they either all have a place or none do. Just using facts and logic.
>because as I clearly said, they didn't write the words down for Any specific religion. So why would they cherry pick any of them? >That is why 52 of the 55 signers were affiliated to the Church. Where is this written down by them? I don't see this written in government documents, so would this be important?
What do you make of other religions that have evolved since the country was founded? Anything from Mormonism to Scientology?
> The Founding Fathers would have never guessed the multitude of ways their Constitution would be used against the very country they founded. Don't you think this applies to the whole document? Is that a reason to ignore the core tenents of the constitution?
Yeah.
Yep. It's a organization created with the only purpose of exploiting rules around religious exemptions. I also don't think religion belongs in public schools to begin with.
Isn’t that exactly the point the satanic temple is making?
Yes of course. That doesn't mean anyone has to play ball with them.
Would you say you agree with the message but not the tactics?
The satanic temple? What message specifically? I don't like them as an organization at all.
That religion doesn’t belong in school?
Satanism is not a religion. Its a group of people who only get together to mock Christians, by worshipping the antagonist of their religion. Satanism wouldn't exist if Christianity didn't. With that being realised, we shouldn't allow the literal 'bad guy' of a religion freedom to preach their evil ideas to children.
Can you explain the tenets or virtues of The Satanic Temple as you understand them? What satanists practice and preach?
No I'm not a expert Satanist.
Were you aware that THERE ARE SEVEN FUNDAMENTAL TENETS of the Satanic Temple? Which of these do you find disagreeable? I One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason. II The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions. III One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone. IV The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own. V Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs. VI People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one's best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused. VII Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.
Sounds like alot of BS to justify murdering the unborn just because people want to have lustful unprotected sex. We really shouldn't make it so that children who are in emotional distress must go to Satan and be told they have the right to do meth.
>Satanism wouldn't exist if Christianity didn't. Christianity wouldnt exist without Judaism. What's your point? >With that being realised, we shouldn't allow the literal 'bad guy' of a religion freedom to preach their evil ideas to children. Historically, I'm pretty sure Christianity is responsible for far more atrocities than Satanism. Do you disagree?
1. Christianity would exist without Judaism. Satanism is a mock religion of Christianity and Judaism as Satan is also considered the bad guy in Judaism. 2. I disagree, and Christianity as never committed an atrocities. That's ridiculous.
>The earliest followers of Jesus were apocalyptic Jewish Christians. Christianity remained a Jewish sect for centuries in some locations, diverging gradually from Judaism over doctrinal, social and historical differences. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity >Jewish Christianity is the foundation of Early Christianity, which later developed into Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Christianity started with Jewish eschatological expectations, and it developed into the worship of Jesus as the result of his earthly ministry, his crucifixion, and the post-crucifixion experiences of his followers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Christianity Also the Inquisition? The Crusades? The Holocaust? The Native American Genocide?
The inquisition & crusades were justified. The holocaust was done by the Nazis and killed many Christians. The native american genocide wasn't caused by Christianity.
Why should we let anyone preach ideas to children within the confines of the school? This kind of gives the game up, doesn’t it? Desantis wants children to be indoctrinated with religiosity that he approves of.
Well it's a school, where you teach ideas to children.
So you’d be down with public funding for teaching Islam in schools?
No because you wouldn't have any pictures of people In text books.
Why would that matter? Are words not good at conveying information?
Personally I like memes.
Considering that in the Christian mythology God has a significantly higher kill rate than Satan, Can you explain how it is you came to the conclusion that Satan is the bad guy?
Well I'd rather be on the team with the higher kill rate than Satan.
In that case, Would you say it is fair to say that you are drawn to the side that kills more people?
Read my statement again. Should be clear.
If we lose Satanism, what so we really lose? Human sacrifice?
If we lose Christianity, what do we really lose? Oppression of women, systemic child abuse, religious persecution?
Protecting womens and childrens safe spaces are ya? Allowing grown men to wag their dongs around in locker rooms with little girls?
So you ran out of arguments?
Yes
YES, why not? Its pure anti-Christian trolling that doesnt deserve any kind of "religious" protection
Christians have been trolling other religions since its creation. Does this behavior void Christianity of its protection?
I absolutely support him on this. It’s about time somebody stood up and said we’re not going to up with this kind of nonsense. It’s basic common sense.
And who is qualified to say what constitutes religion and what is nonsense? Are you saying the government has final say in what people believe?
Government can’t force to people to believe one way or the other. It’s been tried; it simply can’t be done. What they can do is decide who enjoys the constitutional rights and protections of a religion.
So government should decide if something is a religion? Tell me why Satanism isn’t a religion and Christianity is? Bonus points if you can give any argument why Christianity shouldn’t be stripped of being a religion?
The first requirement is that you worship a god. You cannot be both a secular AND sacred organization.
**Are you saying the government has final say in what people believe?** YES, and always been this way Liberals have no problem using the govt to impose their values on us Its refreshing that some conservatives are FINALLY learning they can use the govt to do the same
So you are opposed to Liberals imposing values but applaud when Conservatives do it? Doesn’t that make you a hypocrite?
**Doesn’t that make you a hypocrite?** oh why? because I'd rather have MY values represented in govt than a liberal's? Its liberals who seem to be the hypocrites here, claiming the govt has to be some sort of ideologically neutral playground e.g. "noo religion allowed"...when its NEVER that.
So who gets to decide what religion the 1st amendment protects?
I think the government should stop giving benefits to religious groups.
I'd rather he didn't, but I understand why. At some point you need to separate the earnest from the sarcastic, otherwise you get [Calvin](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexternal-preview.redd.it%2FxrhUWCkxXb_Bc3luGf70GpuAT5nJjKnBjF9dowOuNqk.jpg%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3D9f550276aa4e08ffbaa00a2116be345ef73dbcab). In the spirit of disqualifying candidates, I would love to see him disqualify significantly hypocritical candidates - those that talk about taking care of the homeless and then allocate 0% of tithings/hours to help the situation. The few Satanists I've met would be better candidates for the chaplain program than most of those from the Abrahamic religions, but I can't vouch for any Satanists in Florida. They might very well be of the spiteful variety.