When the Chosen People went into the Promised Land, God went before them and defeated the pagans already there.
With this in mind, I think the focus of religion needs to be changed.
God gave humans free will. We can do wrong deliberately, we can choose to not get involved, and we can work for justice.
If people are practicing illegal acts, it doesn’t matter what church they belong to
they are subject to criminal prosecution for illegal acts.
As was mentioned above, all denominations have had something in their past. It is not the church doing wrong, it is the people.
Maybe a better approach is to limit the opportunities for law breaking.
Scripture promises if people are obedient, even our enemies will be at peace with us.
How does that look? One nation under God. Looking out for each other. Keeping track of what criminals target, and being proactive.
The bad actors will expose themselves. The good guys need witnesses and evidence.
The example of a righteous person empowers goodness and deters crime. That is what we need to promote.
“Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me." (Psalm 23:4)
I’m not saying the following to anyone in particular, only pointing out an observation with specific examples. Let me preface it by saying everyone’s got their opinions and that’s fine, I just want to compare:
So, I can read a post about whether to keep Japan from building up their navy or not and no one mentions a whole nation’s rights to defend themselves or freedom make their own choices, etc. Their freedoms aren’t discussed, only what to implement and why etc. I’m not implying any criticism, only noticing the facts of what was and wasn’t said last I looked.
We have a post proposing to force people on food stamps to take drug tests and cut them off if found they use substances. No one’s in there going on about their freedom to not have their privacy invaded with forced testing, or last I read, that some people use medicinal substances that could get them thrown off and they have the right to use them, etc. Or that people have the right to use drugs or even be drug addicts except if possessing the drugs are breaking the law. No criticism implied or opinion about their opinions. Just noting no one’s floating that kind of argument.
Ban lobbyists, ban HOAs, ban food coloring, ban toxic substances in our food and clothes and cookware, etc. Bans are okay over there. No one’s proposing the freedom to bribe, freedom to a impose rules on your homes so you can keep annoying neighbors at bay. Thankfully no one’s for the freedom to poison you, that I saw. Everyone seems comfortable with stopping those behaviors with legal force.
But suggest we ought to ban porn or suggest removing the Satanic “church” and suddenly it’s all the individual’s freedom to do whatever they want. No matter how bad it is for themselves or more importantly for other people. No, that doesn’t matter on these subjects.
Really interesting choices of what we have to take our stand for freedom over. Kind of specific, really.
Respectfully, are we all absolutely certain we’re thinking our own thoughts and not what we’ve been taught to have as knee jerk reactions? Honestly, it’s healthy to check and make sure. Is there an emotional reaction to one subject and not another? Why? Not saying there’s no reason to have reactions, just… it’s smart to check. There’s a lot of influence being thrown around these days.
This is a great time-out post.
For me, I compare everything to the constitution with an originalist interpretation as best as I understsand it. That’s all that matters to me, my own opinion doesnt matter if it contradicts. There are some bans I’m okay with because theyre not enshrined as rights and they protect individuals rights, such as private property rights vs HOAs, or bans that are already covered under legal precident, such as manufacuring safe cookware. I havent read the post about japan, for example, but I would say we have no business meddling in the affairs of other sovereign nations. Thats why I proposed us becoming a neutral country, and a few other originalist proposals.
I didnt read the porn ban one, but I do remember decades ago there was an attempt to ban it and the supreme court ruled against the ban saying it falls under one of the rights, someone correct me if Im wrong. I think it was 1st amendment.
Theres a lot of current legal precident regarding freedom of religion. For example i think in florida there was a church group, Santeria maybe? that was targeted for their animal sacrifices. The town passed animal cruelty ordinances and got sued by the religous group, and the group won. Generally the precident is any religion is protected and laws cant be created targeting or discriminating against specific religious groups. Now their sacrifices are protected.
The church of satan doesnt actually worship satan according to all of their documentation. Nor do they condone the things they have been accused of in this chat. They also dont believe satan is real or believe in a God. There arent many court cases involving this group, and for the most part have been recognized as an official protected religion in prisons and the military.
All of that is enough for me to argue in its favor.
As the arguments are meant to interlace, I’d like to link this post to my other thread
Death by a thousand cuts; focus on the bigger picture
<Death by a Thousand Cuts: focus on the bigger picture</>
(but I don’t remember enough html to get the link named and look nice for you, sorry.) 
What if They said, get rid of the church of Christ. What would You say?
FREEDOM OF RELIGION!!
I am a Follower of Jesus Christ but you are no better than them if you are trying to block 1a ok!
No i dont like that church and wished it didnt exist.
People have FREEDOM OF RELIGION and it matters!
I do think they should NEVER do sacrifice as they have been trying to get passed… That should continue to be ILLEGAL!
I guess to answer from my perspective, the three things I am considering in this instance are actions versus beliefs, systems already in place and professed beliefs of the group.
When it truly comes down to it, laws only apply to actions. It doesn’t matter what I believe as long as my actions are in line with agreed upon laws. We can’t legislate a belief in or out of existence, only practices.
So then I look at existing systems. The fears this group inspires are already illegal. So, then I reason we already have the systems in place to dissuade adverse actions without encroaching on said freedom of religion.
The first two are pretty standard considerations for me. In this case, I also considered the group itself. At the end of the day, it is a group of atheists who are striving to live by a common and quite benign creed.
All in all, that is what led to my conclusion that banning was neither appropriate nor necessary.
Well, I’ve put forth arguments that have apparently gone unnoticed by the responders. I’m dismayed and alarmed at the change in our culture that I’m looking at in these responses. I wonder what will ever be too far for people of this day and age to support and accept, outraged for the individual rights over the good of the whole. Selectively, and in favor of evil.
Thankfully the point of the post was to get the ideas out there in hopes that someone in charge who feels the same might find the arguments useful. It’s a shame people can’t see eye to eye enough to promote this and make that more likely.
I do thank those who have supported this and voted for it, past and maybe future.
Maybe we dont understand what message youre trying to convey. Are you referring to somthing like,
“In order to make greater society more free, we need to reduce certain freedoms or liberties of the individual?”
The first amendment is not about protecting religion, assembly, and speach you agree with.
It’s about protecting the point if view, or opinion you don’t understand, or agree with.
You want to lock them up, or disband them for what they do? I’m all for that, but to go after anyone for what they think, or say, that’s not okay.
If I and my friends came into your house and took dumps on your living room floor, you would not tolerate it and say, “you can gather whenever and wherever and do WHATEVER you want.”
There used to be decency laws in every state, when the quality of moral life in America was better than it is today. I think it’s time they made a comeback.
You’re take is full cuckoldry. Cuckolds are men that are perverts, or can’t perform sexually and enjoy watching other men service their wives, and “do whatever they want” to them. In this case let’s swap out wife for country. The concept is the same.
You take no sense of pride or ownership of what by rights and law belongs to you. Yet your apathy and decision to squander it and not defend it has deleterious consequences for the public. Your decision to abdicate responsibility is following one crime with another. your own.
For those reading who unlike Greg here, WOULD have a problem with someone taking a dump in their living room, only needs to expand upon the concept of private property, what you would and would not tolerate, and extend the concept of law as it applies to private property, and like all things illegal and apply it to the furthest boundary beyong private property possible. A healthy response would be one of disgust and action. It is ALL our responsibility to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. And keep it beautiful. Nowhere within the United States should either Satanism or pooping on the floor be tolerated. As they are both harmful to public and private spaces. And naturally should be punished, and NOT tolerated.
Cucks are more than happy to whore out their country in the name of freedom of to the lowest common denominators to ruin her in whatever way they want, taking no responsibility to account for costs imposed on others, or protect or preserve common rights of others to remain free from those impositions, likewise taking no responsibility for the consequences, harms, and hazards that result whatsoever, and somehow repeat FREEDOM slogans that make them feel virtuous, when they are the opposite. nothing but weak enabling scum. If your freedoms impose costs on others, then they are not freedoms.
You can’t post anything that isn’t sophistry.
Freedom of religion should be amended to Christianity only.
Diversity is not our strength. Diversity causes weakness.
You cucks should read the Federalist Papers. This nation was never intended for multi culti and any other religion than Christianity.
So much hate and fear in this post. I pray one day his Holy Noodliness, who has bigger balls than all the other gods, graces you to float down and caress you with his Noodly Appendage so that you might feel the warm and cozy embrace of His Sauciness.
There’s no need for this. Hate and fear only lead to suffering. Lets break that cycle.
This is dumb.
‘Satanism’ in the US is a satirical organization making fun of organized religion, and the tax restrictions placed on religious gatherings in the US.
In Springfield, MO one of our streets was adopted and maintained by the local Satanic church.
It’s making fun of you religious fanatics, just like pastafarianism.
ANY GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN RELIGION IS A DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE 1ST AMENDMENT.
Ethan with the mic drop. We’re done here.
this country was founded on the freedom of religion, and for anyone to single out a satinic religion just show the hive mentality and hypicrital retardness, all religions should be given respect(even if I disagree with it) it is a right under our constituion, come on people wake up and realize protection of religioud freedon covers all religions, PS religions are the root of hate, spirituality is the only thing that will set us free from the devil( remenber the devil runs religion)
Freedom of religion is a fundamental right, as evil of a belief as it may be as long as they’re not committing any crimes they are protected by the constitution. The government should not be involved in our religion in any form. If you give them the right to ban one they’ll use it as a way to ban others as well
It sounds from above like this Church of Satan isn’t actual religion— more like a Club.
In any case, lawyer Podcaster Ben Shapiro remarked that the laws protecting and even favoring religion were never conceived to encompass anything having to do with Satan, the historical and iconic Being of evil, of anti-Christ.
So I’d vote no.
My No vote was to not acknowledge any group concerning Satan as a protected Religion