Satanists use Hobby Lobby decision to ask for exemption from anti-abortion laws

[Blue3]

http://theweek.com/article/index/265471/speedreads-satanic-temple-seeks-hobby-lobby-style-exemption-from-anti-abortion-laws

Since the Hobby Lobby decision says conservative Christians can be exempt from a law they say violates their beliefs, a Satanic Temple is asking for exemption from state anti-abortion laws based upon their own beliefs.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The right-wing 5 on SCOTUS will just ignore their previous precedent here. They don't care about consistency.

[Joe Republic]

... Does the Satanic Temple provide abortion services?

[AggregateDemand]

Satan worship is not a religion. We wouldn't recognize Islamic jihadism, either.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Satan worship is not a religion. We wouldn't recognize Islamic jihadism, either.

How does one determine what exactly is a religion and what isn't?

[MaxQue]

Satan worship is not a religion. We wouldn't recognize Islamic jihadism, either.

How does one determine what exactly is a religion and what isn't?

We ask to the supreme religious authority of the USA, Marcus Bachmann.

[Indy Texas]

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Hobby Lobby decision is irrelevant to the Satanic case.  Hobby Lobby was based upon an interpretation of the scope of RFRA and not a generic application of the First Amendment's guarantee of Freedom of Religion.  However, back in 1997 SCOTUS already ruled in City of Boerne v. Flores that RFRA does not apply to the States, hence a RFRA claim to an exemption from State anti-abortion laws would be tossed based on City of Boerne.  Conceivably they could make a Federal case against any Federal anti-abortion laws, or possibly a State case against State laws in those States that have adopted their own version of RFRA.

[DemPGH]

Since the majority five do not recognize a separation of church and state (prayer in public meetings, religious exemptions to nearly anything you can think of) and since Hobby Lobby was such an outlandish decision, I would expect this. It's simple, really: I don't like a law, so I seek a religious exemption. The SCOTUS allows Christians to do it, so why not others? How about Muslims?

[Simfan34]

Because Satanism isn't actually a religion.

[Blue3]

Because Satanism isn't actually a religion.

Yeah, it is.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Because Satanism isn't actually a religion.

Who are you to determine that? Samuel Johnson?

[angus]

Some of them have filed for tax-exempt non-profit status, others have not.  The Satanic Temple is an example of one that has not.  From its website:  "Please note that The Satanic Temple believes that religious organizations should not be tax exempt and for that reason contributions are not tax deductible."  In fact, it is officially a Limited Liability Company (LLC).  (They also have a Facebook page which makes a similar claim regarding their philosophy about contributions to religious organizations.)  My guess is that a taxpaying LLC is not a religion, at least in the eyes of the government.

[Blue3]

Some of them have filed for tax-exempt non-profit status, others have not.  The Satanic Temple is an example of one that has not.  From its website:  "Please note that The Satanic Temple believes that religious organizations should not be tax exempt and for that reason contributions are not tax deductible."  In fact, it is officially a Limited Liability Company (LLC).  (They also have a Facebook page which makes a similar claim regarding their philosophy about contributions to religious organizations.)  My guess is that a taxpaying LLC is not a religion, at least in the eyes of the government.

That's a truly stupid reason to think something is not a religious organization.


Also, you don't even need to belong to a religious organization to have religion.

[angus]

I'm not defending anything the government does or doesn't do.  Moreover, I have no legal training, so I really don't know how their case will play out.  I'm just saying what I think the courts will say.

Still, as long as we're on the subject, I don't really think of them as a real religion.  Ever read their websites?  All they do is bitch about stuff and attack stuff.  All of them.  Church of Satan.  Satanic Temple.  Satanic Chapel.  Knights of Satan.  They're pretty much all a bunch of stuck-up primadonnas who think the world owes them something.  And they're awful bigots.  They love attacking each other.  And I mean even worse than different brands of Muslims attack each other.  They're just really nasty, narrow-minded people.  Even more narrow-minded, perhaps, than the sorts of folks who judge the reasoning of others to be "stupid."  I just don't see anything "religious" about any of what they do.  To be fair, there have been some pretty horrible religions.  Drunken builders who need to cut the still-beating hearts of the enemy soldiers to feed their gods.  High priests who need to de-flower hundreds of virgins in order to propagate the true blessed peoples.  Visionaries who must consume mind-altering narcotics in order to become oracles.  At least they pay a courtesy homage to the idea of an Ultimate Reality.  These satanist guys are basically the Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons, except slightly more nerdy.  Don't take them so seriously.

[Blue3]

Some people would say the same about Christians.

Don't go judging what is and isn't a "real religion."

[GaussLaw]

Hobby Lobby was about the use of an employer's funds to subsidize birth control.

Violating abortion laws is a completely different story, and the OP knows this.

[Blue3]

Hobby Lobby was about the use of an employer's funds to subsidize birth control.

Violating abortion laws is a completely different story, and the OP knows this.

I'm no lawyer, just think it's ironic and fitting. Maybe it will stand, maybe it won't, have no idea.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I don't think it's at all unreasonable to say that a limited liability company cannot be a religion at the same time, honestly.

[Simfan34]

Some people would say the same about Christians.

Don't go judging what is and isn't a "real religion."

But that would make sense if Satanism, at least of the LaVeyan kind, wasn't an atheistic movement that simply appropriated devil-worship imagery.

[Blue3]

Some people would say the same about Christians.

Don't go judging what is and isn't a "real religion."

But that would make sense if Satanism, at least of the LaVeyan kind, wasn't an atheistic movement that simply appropriated devil-worship imagery.

Theravada Buddhists (the original Buddhists) don't believe in God or worship anything. Yet they're a religion.

[Simfan34]

Well that's because they have a metaphysical framework. Satanists merely allude to one while not actually believing in it.

[Blue3]

Well that's because they have a metaphysical framework. Satanists merely allude to one while not actually believing in it.

Not really. Many of them don't even believe in the literal version of reincarnation that we have in the West.

Many self-proclaimed Christians don't actually believe in it either.

Again, nobody can judge whether something is a religion or not. If a person says they have a religious belief in x, then no one has a place to tell that person it's not a religious belief. Least of all the government, especially since we have the first amendment.

[Oakvale]

Are people seriously claiming that "Satanism" is a legitimate religion? lol

[Blue3]

No religions are legitimate or illegitimate.