Satanists demand Hobby Lobby style religious exemption


#1

[Permalink]


#2

The Satanists (Mephistopheles bless them!) don’t go far enough. They only want to “exempt us, and those who hold our beliefs”, whereas the Hobby Lobby people wanted to apply their belief system to all of their employees, believers and non-believers alike.


#3

The more I think about it, the more becoming an official “Satanist” makes sense to me. I really need to get in on some of that sweet “religious liberty” that’s flying around everywhere these days.

I have a small business and I feel like I don’t have enough control over my employees personal lives and beliefs. I really think a brisk “morning orgy/ritual blood sacrifice” could do wonders for employee moral around here. Like as a team bonding exercise.


#4

Oh hell yeah


#5

It’s sad that the quietly earnest followers of Satan will be judged by this attention-seeking wing of the church. These blowhards go around asking for permission while the truly faithful seek dominion only through ritual human sacrifice and blasphemy.


#6

It might not go so well for them. They will be relying on the same federal law that Hobby Lobby decision was based on. Which basically says laws should be crafted/ interpreted/enforced to minimize impact to religious practices.

These guys will have to demonstrate that a particular practice cannot be continued under the law. If they are stating that their particular practice is rational decision making, then they will have to point to which section of the law prevents them from making a rational decision. Is it the ultrasound? Is it the delay? Where precisely is the interference? And are ultrasounds doctrinally banned? Is waiting banned?

Ultimately they will have to demonstrate not just that there is a disagreement, but some or part of the law cannot ever be followed and still follow their doctrine. And that the doctrine is fundamental to their beliefs.

Given that ultrasounds are done to confirm the non-viability of a fetus (i.e. abnormal development) in support of medically necessary abortions, these guys will also have to show that the same procedure that can be scientifically sound is also not scientifically sound.


#7

Since you obviously did not read their press release, I will re-link to it here: http://thesatanictemple.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/TSTPRWomensHealth1.pdf

You’re welcome!


#8

Religion: it’s funny because it’s real.


#9

Faith is just hope, in denial.


#10

'#notallsatanists?


#11

Thanks. I had to base what I wrote from articles elsewhere. So had to makes a few assumptions instead of the source materials.

Unfortunately, the hurdle they have to overcome is still one of showing that their members are precluded from accepting scientifically unfounded or medically invalid information, and can show a pattern of avoiding it. I think they were on firmer ground with claiming the body is inviolable (even as they define it). Trying to prove that members never do something unless it is scientifically founded or medically valid, and are corrected when they do, is tough. Any of them got tattoos? Do any non-scientific rituals?

The final difficulty is they want to be able to provide a letter exempting them from getting particular information. But the letter itself has to include references to that information. Having the letter saying you don’t believe the information and shouldn’t get it means that there is no harm in receiving the information (having the letter saying you reject the information means you already have seen the information you are rejecting). Or at least that’s an easy out for some judge.


#12

It seemed to me that their claim is that an individual’s body is inviolable without consent, so I do not see that either the tattoo example, or the idea that they can only act within the constrains of scientifically established facts holds much water.

The information issue depends on whether the “waiting period” and “being statutorily lied to by a doctor” is considered part of what they object to.


#13

My personal religion forbids me from not constantly endeavouring to be a sarcastic and contrarian loon who’s only precept is to be talking about something other than what you think I mean.

Taxes? Don’t make me laugh.


#14

I’m just creating hypothetical arguments that could be used. Playing devil’s advocate…

Being statutorily lied to and waiting period or any other objection would have to be proven to be irreconcilable with their fundamental and long held beliefs. To do that, they would have to demonstrate that they don’t tolerate those behaviors elsewhere.

What causes them trouble is they either have to claim broadly (only use rational thinking) which is hard to demonstrate they have followed strictly for years. Or so narrowly (not allowed to wait for an abortion) which is also hard to demonstrate they have followed strictly for years. Note: I’m just using those as two example basis for doctrine claims. They might not be those. But any examples of them tolerating deviation from those doctrine, or not showing they are long established doctrine, makes it tough for them in court.


#15

I reckon this sort of concept could go far.

Imagine applying it to politics; we could have a ‘to hell in a handbasket’ party which promises to open more private prisons, only tax the poor, abolish every arm of government except the military, and so on…


#16

"Imagine applying it to politics; we could have a ‘to hell in a handbasket’ party which promises to open more private prisons, only tax the poor, abolish every arm of government except the military, and so on… "

We libertarians approve. OTOH, we’re also looking into the possibility of funding the military by bake sales.


#17

Also fun: the supreme court has essentially ruled that pacifists can use religious grounds to refuse to pay the portion of their taxes that would go towards the military.


#18

Why not fund the DEA through bake sales…of hash cookies. :wink:


#19

They will just earmark the portion to pay for the bands


#20

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.