The American Civil Liberties Union said Thursday that the Saucon Valley School District had agreed to pay $200,000 in attorney’s fees and to provide The Satanic Temple and the After School Satan Club it sponsors the same access to school facilities as is provided to other organizations.
The ACLU filed the lawsuit in March after the district rescinded its earlier approval to allow the club to meet following criticism. The After School Satan Club, with the motto “Educatin’ with Satan,” had drawn protests and even a threat in February that prompted closure of district schools for a day and the later arrest of a person in another state.
Saucon Valley school district attorney Mark Fitzgerald told reporters in a statement that the district denies having discriminated against The Satanic Temple, its club or “the approximately four students” who attended its meetings. He said the district’s priorities were education and the safety of students and staff.
I don't think it's ironic, I think it's fighting fire with fire. People see that religion is afforded a lot of leeway that isn't afforded to other similar organizations, and they want to use that for a good cause of a change.
Exactly that's why it can work, the system by design requires this appeal to religion, so religious causes are manufactured ad-hoc like this to fulfill political goals. The idea of religion being a political influence is accepted by people who are against religion if it's a good cause, as long as it's in the context of being against a bad religious cause. The irony is they hold secularism as a tenant of the religion yet function the same as a traditional religion does in the political sense, and they're required to do this because of how the system works.
Yeah well, since the government and society is unfortunately infested by religion, you have two choices: you either do some actual good by pretending to be a religion, or you whine about it online.
One of those actually help people.
You don't think TST is a real religion… what would a real religion be then? I criticize this whole context of how religion operates in government and the absurdity of religions needing to be purpose-built like this, but I definitely wouldn't go so far to call them a pretend religion. I suspect a lot of TST members sincerely believe in the tenants, it's no less manufactured than other religions really. It's just manufactured in this post-political postmodern neoliberal context vs something like Mormonism or the Adventists that were manufactured in a different context. I think that's why you're calling it a pretend religion, but I would say this is maybe more like genuine pretending. To call it pretend like you have is way harsher than anything I've said about it, you're basically saying it's all a ruse and the adherents are all just knowingly faking it for show, which would mean they couldn't legitimately challenge laws as a religion. Like you've invalidated the whole church by saying that, at least I recognize it's a legitimate religion.
Well, they're not trying to manipulate their members for power over them and profit, and/or they're not trying to get them to believe in the supernatural, so they're clearly not a real religion.
Good, they are very good tenants to live by, I salute them. I try to do so myself.
Why would it be harsh? That's something you inferred, not something I said.
I personally don't think pretending to be a religion is a bad thing, it's a necessary thing. You seem to be projecting a lot of you own opinions onto what I actually said.
How so? What qualifications do you have to decide which religions are allowed to be recognized under law?
A political lobbying organization masquerading as a religion would run in to issues with it's tax exemption status and potentially not fall under Title VII as a protected religious belief, which is what a lot of challenges to these laws are filed under re: workplace discrimination. This is something that religions are very careful about and intentionally work around. So when you say it's a "pretend religion" you're basically saying it's adherents aren't really religious. Courts actually do care about whether someone truly believes in a religion, because someone's supposed religious beliefs are often appealed for why someone is a "good person," or to establish whether discrimination actually took place. The law doesn't share the same arbitrary definition of religion you have unfortunately, here's what has to be appealed to for laws to be challenged in reality:
If you were filing a lawsuit like the one in the article and you professed it was a "pretend religion" your case would be thrown out, that's why what you said is harsh because the implications of that invalidate it's validity and effectiveness to challenge these laws.
Well, it doesn't really matter since my definition of religion is not what the laws use.
I say it's a pretend religion because they’re not trying to manipulate their members for power over them and profit, and/or they’re not trying to get them to believe in the supernatural.
This is clearly different from the law's misunderstanding of what a religion is, as pointed out by yourself:
Fortunately for the lawsuit, it wouldn't because the definition of religion the court uses and mine if different.
If you called someone's religion "pretend" in the workplace it would count as discrimination under Title VII which is the famous Civil Rights Act of 1964, it doesn't matter what your personal definition is I'm talking about reality here.
If you called someone's religion stupid, that would also count as discrimination, and yet you have no problem doing it.
Fettuccine alfredo is adult mac and cheese and religion is an imaginary friend for adults.