undefined | Better HN

0 pointsziddoap2y ago0 comments

If you are truly curious about what their position is, you can read [1]. That page answers most of your questions. Click on "What do we believe".

>while intentionally being repugnant

Are you sure you looked at the Wiki for The Satanic Temple, and not some other Satanic organization?

>Finally, what action are they protesting exactly? That a public building is being used by religions organizations in an after school setting?

Almost, but not quite. In this case, it is the fact that only certain religions were/are being allowed in a public building but not other religions.

They also protest and litigate against corporal punishment for children and in favor of reproductive rights, among other things.

[1] https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/faq

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

akira25012y ago· 1 in thread

> Cofounders Lucien Greaves and Malcolm Jarry met in 2012,[6][12] and The Satanic Temple was active by January 2013.[29] In an interview with The New York Times, Malcolm Jarry stated that the idea of starting a Satanic faith-based organization was first conceived to meet "all the Bush administration's criteria for receiving funds, but was repugnant to them".

Quite literally, the first paragraph of their "History" section on wikipedia.

> Almost, but not quite. In this case, it is the fact that only certain religions were/are being allowed in a public building but not other religions.

That's the article I'd rather read. Do you happen to know of one that highlights this fact? I looked, but couldn't find any direct connection between a State action and this response.

> They also protest and litigate against corporal punishment for children and reproductive rights, among other things.

So do a lot of organizations that aren't trying to start after school programs, which was the thrust of my point, are the children legitimately being served by this or being used by this?

ziddoapOP2y ago

I may have misunderstood your original comment. The way I read it, you were saying that The Satanic Temple is being intentionally repugnant -- which it isn't and the part you quoted doesn't say that either. Either way, I'm still not sure why you wouldn't want to read about their beliefs from them rather than second-hand from Wikipedia.

>That's the article I'd rather read. Do you happen to know of one that highlights this fact?

You can read their legal proceedings at [1]. Advocacy at [2].

From [3] there is "It was created as an alternative to Christian-based after-school groups, specifically at schools that host the Evangelical Good News Club. The program neither teaches about Satanism nor attempts to convert club-goers; they instead teach about rationalism and understanding the world around us".

From [4], "The Satanic Temple has said it would prefer to exclude religious teachings altogether from school sites, but feels compelled to establish after-school programs to provide an alternative to Christian teachings."

[5] is an example of them being rejected from The Los Angeles Unified School District despite the district having a Christian religious club.

>So do a lot of organizations that aren't trying to start after school programs

As seen above, and elsewhere, they start after-school programs in schools which have Christian after-school programs, not simply wherever they can. The purpose of the clubs, where they exist, is to promote and teach rationalism.

>are the children legitimately being served by this or being used by this?

Considering they are basically a rational thinking club, I believe that children are legitimately being served by the existence of the club where it exists as an alternative to Christian clubs.

[1] https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/legal-action [2] https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/advocacy-archives [3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_School_Satan [4] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/after-school-satan-satanic-temp... [5] https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-satanic-after-school-20...

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse