Do you think The Satanic Temple, a religious and activist organization based in Salem, MA, deserves to be called a religion and have the legal privileges as a religion despite being nontheistic? Why, why not?

31 comments

  1. > despite being nontheistic?

    I’m not sure why that would matter, Buddhism is nontheistic, for example.

  3. Yes, because when you start trying to define what is and isn’t a religion, you’re gonna realize that, from an academic perspective (which is how the legal system has to look at it), the only thing that separates mainstream religions from cults and other fringe belief groups is their popularity. So as long as they’re not just putting one together for tax benefits and it’s a sincerely held belief system and they’re not really hurting anyone then have at it.

    You don’t have to believe in a God to be a religion. See Buddhism and Shinto for examples.

  4. I think I have no objections.

    I’m not sure what legal privileges they have that would be worth revoking.

  6. Absolutely! There are hundreds of different religions. They all have to be treated equally.

  7. The satanic temple meets all the requirements to be considered a religion, so it’s fine by me.

  8. There are more than a few nontheistic religions.

    I’m not sure what legal protections you mean. Freedom of religion does not explicitly require you to worship a personified god or gods or even to be religious, atheists and agnostics are as free as theists. Their 501c3 tax status is also open to a variety of nonprofits, not just religious orgs.

  9. First Amendment

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    This is literally the first part of the first amendment to the US Constitution. So, yes it’s a religion even if it is non-theistic.

  10. Of course it does. Freedom of religion. Whatever you want to worship is fine. Even if it’s spaghetti

  12. Sure, why not.

    But once it’s called a religion, all the other 1st amendment issues apply also.

  15. Here’s what they have to say themselves:

    https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/faq

    A bit of it:

    Satan is a symbol of the Eternal Rebel in opposition to arbitrary authority, forever defending personal sovereignty even in the face of insurmountable odds. Satan is an icon for the unbowed will of the unsilenced inquirer – the heretic who questions sacred laws and rejects all tyrannical impositions. Our metaphoric representation is the literary Satan best exemplified by Milton and the Romantic Satanists from Blake to Shelley to Anatole France

    The idea that religion belongs to supernaturalists is ignorant, backward, and offensive. The metaphorical Satanic construct is no more arbitrary to us than are the deeply held beliefs that we actively advocate. Are we supposed to believe that those who pledge submission to an ethereal supernatural deity hold to their values more deeply than we? Are we supposed to concede that only the superstitious are rightful recipients of religious exemption and privilege? Satanism provides all that a religion should be without a compulsory attachment to untenable items of faith-based belief. It provides a narrative structure by which we contextualize our lives and works. It also provides a body of symbolism and religious practice — a sense of identity, culture, community, and shared values.

  16. They’re a non-profit right? Even if they weren’t designated a religion why should a non-profit have to pay taxes?

  17. I thought the whole point of the Satanic Temple and similar organizations is to point out the hypocrisy of claiming “separation of church and state” while also allowing churches to recieve special legal privileges.

  18. I think they should have all of the same rights as any other private organization unified by a common belief structure. I don’t see why being theistic should grant special privileges.

  19. Theism isn’t the defining characteristic of religion and the government shouldn’t be in the game of picking winners and losers on the religious sphere.

    It would be a staggering violation of the constitution if we had government bureaucrats regularly deciding what was and wasn’t protected religion.

    Satanist are often tongue in cheek but so it goes.

  21. If you mean tax exemption, they specifically do not want to be considered a religion (by government, I mean) for that purpose because they don’t believe that organizations related to other worldviews should be tax exempt.

  24. Religion’s a belief in something. So lack of theism doesn’t matter because it doesn’t have to be a god they believe in. If they want to be a religion it certainly qualifies by definition…

  26. Our Constitution provides the guidance in terms of not making legal distinctions for and about religion. TST is just as “valid” as Judaism, Baptists, and The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in the eyes of the law and that is how it should be.

  27. It’s just as real as any other religion. If anything religions shouldn’t have legal privileges at all.

  28. Is there a rule I am unaware of that says a non-theistic religion is illegitimate?

  30. Theres plenty of nontheistic religons, and you can make anything a religon really. Like theoretically a class fits the definition with some finagling.

  31. A definition of religion from Google

    > a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

    I think they fit that definition. Theism isn’t the same thing as religion.

Leave a Reply
You May Also Like