An eastern Pennsylvania school district has reached a settlement with The Satanic Temple in a lawsuit alleging discrimination against students by barring one of the group's After School Satan clubs from using a school building.

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The ACLU filed the lawsuit in March after the district rescinded its earlier approval to allow the club to meet following criticism.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.

  • SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world
    5·
    1 year ago

    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.

    I suspect a lot of TST members sincerely believe in the tenants

    Good, they are very good tenants to live by, I salute them. I try to do so myself.

    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,

    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.

    which would mean they couldn’t legitimately challenge laws as a religion.

    How so? What qualifications do you have to decide which religions are allowed to be recognized under law?

    • banneryear1868@lemmy.world
      25·
      1 year ago

      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:

      …religion typically concerns “ultimate ideas” about “life, purpose, and death.” Social, political, or economic philosophies, as well as mere personal preferences, are not “religious” beliefs protected by Title VII.

      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.

      • SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world
        5·
        1 year ago

        Well, it doesn't really matter since my definition of religion is not what the laws use.

        So when you say it’s a “pretend religion” you’re basically saying it’s adherents aren’t really religious.

        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:

        "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,…”

        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,

        Fortunately for the lawsuit, it wouldn't because the definition of religion the court uses and mine if different.

        • banneryear1868@lemmy.world
          25·
          1 year ago

          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.

            • banneryear1868@lemmy.world
              12·
              1 year ago

              I've called the context the religion was formed in absurd (not a judgement because modern culture is absurd), and said the Church of Satan has effectively called them pussies (it has), but have not called the TST or it's adherent's stupid. Absurd doesn't mean stupid. Everything else is just from their own About Us page, which is mostly what people are disagreeing with here, which is funny cause I'm literally just saying what they say about themselves and getting debate-bro'd for it.

              Also calling someone's religion stupid is perfectly fine if you don't discriminate based on that or harass them in person. I was just surprised you said TST was a pretend religion cause the only way they're effective in challenging laws is being a real religion, like that's a harsh way to undermine them. The made up definition to amend that statement having no basis in real law is irrelevant. You can't defend TST and believe they're pretending, I merely think it's absurd they have to sincerely believe a religion to challenge these absurd religious laws, but you think they aren't even really religious.

              • SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world
                3·
                1 year ago

                I’ve called the context the religion was formed in absurd (not a judgement because modern culture is absurd), and said the Church of Satan has effectively called them pussies (it has), but have not called the TST or it’s adherent’s stupid.

                It’s all pretty stupid IMO, aside from the way they can mount legal challenges.

                I was just surprised you said TST was a pretend religion cause the only way they’re effective in challenging laws is being a real religion, like that’s a harsh way to undermine them.

                Undermine them? What?

                Okay. I'll accept that I'm undermining them if you show me 1 (one) court case I have lost for the TST by saying they are not a real religion. I'll wait.

                The made up definition to amend that statement having no basis in real law is irrelevant.

                The definition was from an earlier comment where I explained it. Not my problem you didn't pay attention.

                You can’t defend TST and believe they’re pretending

                I can, and will.

                But okay. Let's say you're correct. Let's say you can only challenge laws and institutions like these by sincerely help religious beliefs.

                Show me the test to determine if a belief is sincerely held.

                It doesn't matter if your belief is sincerely held or not, the courts have to treat religions equally, which is what the TST is here for.

                • banneryear1868@lemmy.world
                  32·
                  1 year ago

                  Yeah there's actually been interesting stuff around this lately because people have claimed to have sincerely held religious beliefs re: mandatory COVID-19 vaccination exceptions. In cases like that the definitions of "sincerely held" are very relevant and questioned by the court.

                  Here's some case law where a court found a plaintiff did not hold a religious belief sincerely. I pasted the relevant section here, states actually have definitions around what constitutes religious creeds/religion/sincerely held belief. If you Google these phrases with "case law" you'll find much examples.

                  The administrative agency charged with enforcing the FEHA, the Fair Employment and Housing Commission, has also enacted a regulation defining “religious creed.” California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 7293.1 (regulation 7293.1), defines “religious creed” as follows:  “ ‘Religious creed’ includes any traditionally recognized religion as well as beliefs, observations, or practices which an individual sincerely holds and which occupy in his or her life a place of importance parallel to that of traditionally recognized religions.” Consistent  with regulation 7293.1, plaintiff argues that his commitment to a vegan lifestyle occupies a place in his life parallel to that of traditionally recognized religions. Regulation 7293.1, by its express terms, reflects the notion that religious creed extends beyond traditionally recognized religions to encompass beliefs, observations, or practices occupying a parallel place of importance “to that of traditionally recognized religions” in an individual's life. As will be discussed later, that concept of religion originates from two United States Supreme Court cases involving conscientious objection to military service-United States v. Seeger (1965) 380 U.S. 163, 164-188, 85 S.Ct. 850, 13 L.Ed.2d 733, and Welsh v. United States (1970) 398 U.S. 333, 335-344, 90 S.Ct. 1792, 26 L.Ed.2d 308.

                  Some more reading:

                  https://www.callaborlaw.com/entry/defining-sincerely-held-religious-beliefs-that-might-excuse-mandatory-covid-19-vaccination

                  https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/section-12-religious-discrimination#h_9546543277761610748655186

                  https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/Nearly-200-S-F-police-staff-want-religious-16486136.php

                  https://casetext.com/case/malnak-v-yogi (long but gets in to all kinds of religious tests applied by court system and the corresponding law)