Court Rejects School District's "Heckler's Veto" of The Satanic Temple's After-School Meeting Application

From The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Saucon Valley School Dist., decided yesterday by Judge John M. Gallagher (E.D. Pa.):

[According to the Complaint,] Plaintiff, The Satanic Temple, Inc. ("TST") "is a non-theistic, religious not-for-profit corporation" that "has been recognized by the IRS as a church… and as a religious corporation." Plaintiff, TST, "does not worship Satan," but rather regards "Satan … as a literary figure who represents a metaphorical construct of rejecting tyranny, championing the human mind and spirit, and seeking justice and egalitarianism for all." TST "has more than 700,000 individual members" who believe in the "seven Satanic virtues: benevolence, empathy, critical thinking, creative expression, personal sovereignty, compassion, and the pursuit of justice." TST sponsors the After School Satan Club ("ASSC" or the "Club") at "a number of public schools across the country to provide young people with an alternative to other religious clubs that meet on campus after school." …

The District's process for approving individual and community group use of its facilities is governed by the District's Board Policy 707 ("Policy 707"). Policy 707 states: "It is the policy of the Board of School Directors of the Saucon Valley School District to make available the facilities of the school district to organizations, associations and individuals of the community for civic, cultural, educational and recreational activities when the scheduling of these activities does not interfere with the educational program of the district." …

Because the District sponsors some after-school activities and groups, such as "Girls on the Run," "the Boy Scouts," "the Joetta [Sports] & Beyond Camp," the "Saucon Valley Youth Sports Association," and "Saucon Valley Youth Basketball," groups approved for use of District facilities that are not sponsored by the District must abide by the following Policy 707 limitation, hereinafter referred to as the "Advertising Restriction":

When advertising or promoting activities held at school facilities, individuals and community groups shall clearly communicate that the activities are not being sponsored by the school district….

The Satanic Temple initially got District permission to hold four After School Satan Club meetings on campus in the afternoon after school dismissal, but this was rescinded after someone left a school shooting threat on the District's voicemail (which led to the District's closing the school for a day) and then the District "received over 40 phone calls and 50 emails or handwritten letters, daily, from concerned staff, parents, and community members." TST sued, claiming the District's actions violated the First Amendment, and the court allowed the case to go forward:

"[A] school district is under no obligation to open its facilities to expressive activity by outsiders." A public school district, just like a private property owner, "has power to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated."

However, where, as here, a public school district decides to open up facilities, such as classroom or meeting space, for use by the general public or community groups, it creates either a "designated" or "limited" public forum. Regardless of whether the District created a designated or limited public forum, the District is not permitted to discriminate against speech on the basis of viewpoint….

Here, TST states a colorable claim that the District's decision to rescind approval of its application and prohibit the ASSC from using school facilities for the remainder of the current school year restricts TST's speech based on TST's viewpoint, which shifts the burden to the District to justify its restriction on speech. TST credibly alleges the District rescinded approval of TST's application because of TST's "controversial viewpoint and [the] objectors' reaction to that viewpoint." …

Based on the District's quick rescinding of TST's application following widespread community backlash and threats of violence, Plaintiff colorably alleges the District engaged in viewpoint discrimination by rescinding approval of TST's application because of TST's "controversial viewpoint and objectors' reaction to that viewpoint." This alleged conduct is unconstitutional, as "[t]he censorship of messages because they are controversial is viewpoint discrimination." …

The District argues its restriction of TST's speech is justified under the First Amendment because the District determined TST violated the District's content-neutral Advertising Restriction contained in Policy 707 by posting social media advertisements on February 20, 2023 and February 23, 2023 that failed to clearly communicate the ASSC was not sponsored by the District. The Advertising Restriction requires all organizations not sponsored by the District to "clearly communicate that the activities are not being sponsored by the school district" when "advertising or promoting activities held at school facilities." …

[But u]se of government regulations or statutes as pretext to shut down an organization or business because of the content of its speech or some undesired secondary effects of that speech violates the First Amendment. The District has the burden of demonstrating its decision to rescind approval of TST's application is constitutional. The record before the Court does not support a finding, as the District claims, that "the decision to rescind approval of TST's applications resulted from TST's violation of Policy 707." Rather, such decision was unconstitutionally based on TST's controversial viewpoint….

The record (1) casts doubt on whether TST even actually violated Policy 707; (2) The record suggests the District enforced Policy 707 against TST in a manner inconsistent with its enforcement of Policy 707 as to other non-sponsored community groups; (3) The record does not support the District's argument that negative public backlash and criticism was caused by a mistaken belief that District sponsored ASSC [discussion of these three factors omitted, though you can see it in the full opinion -EV]; and (4) The record strongly indicates the District's decision to rescind TST's approval was motivated by unconstitutional considerations unrelated to Policy 707…. The District's own Superintendent, who made the decision to rescind TST's approval, stated in a March 2, 2023 e-mail to a District parent that:

It is difficult at times when the loudest voices are the most damaging in so many ways. This past week has not been the easiest… We couldn't do what other D[i]stricts have done. Unfortunately, it would have given the Satanic Temple exactly what they wanted, along with more publicity and ammunition and we may have been in a position have to take the Club back after thousands in legal fees, etc. We needed to put ourselves in the best position to fight this and hopefully, keep them out. I am not sure if we will see them back again, but I believe we are in a better position than other Districts have been. Sometimes true protection isn't noticed or noticeable immediately.

This statement strongly suggests the District's decision to rescind approval of TST's application was made not to evenhandedly enforce a content-neutral advertising restriction, but to remove TST from the District's facilities due to the controversy surrounding its viewpoint on religion….

In Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch. (2011), a public school district similarly opened district rooms and facilities for after school public use. There, the local Good News Club sought permission to use the district's school cafeteria for weekly after school meetings where the club would sing songs, hear Bible lessons, and memorize scripture. The school district denied the Good News Club's request because the district prohibited use of District facilities "by any individual or organization for religious purposes.". The Good News Club, as with TST here, filed an action alleging the school district violated its First Amendment rights and sought "a preliminary injunction to prevent the school from enforcing its religious exclusion policy against the Club and thereby to permit the Club's use of the school facilities."

In analyzing the claim, the Supreme Court assumed the school district operated a limited public forum, but noted that even in a limited public forum, the district's "power to restrict speech… is not without limits" and any restrictions on speech in the forum "must not discriminate against speech on the basis of viewpoint."  The Supreme Court held it was "quite clear that" the district "engaged in viewpoint discrimination when it excluded the Club from the afterschool forum."  The Good News Club, the Court held, sought "to address a subject otherwise permitted" by the district, which was "the teaching of morals and character." However, because the club sought to address this subject "from a religious standpoint," the district prohibited the Good News Club's speech. The Court held this prohibition of the Good News Club's speech based on their "religious viewpoint" as to an otherwise permissible subject matter of "morals and character" constitutes "impermissible viewpoint discrimination" in violation of the First Amendment  The Court also rejected the school district's argument that permitting the club to use district facilities would cause students to "misperceive" the club's permission to use district meeting space as "the endorsement of religion," holding this concern is no greater "than the danger that [students] would perceive a hostility toward the religious viewpoint if the Club were excluded from the public forum."

The facts here are strikingly similar. TST sought access to the District's public forum for its after school club, the ASSC. Regardless of whether the District's public forum is designated or limited, the District is prohibited from engaging in viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment.

TST sought access to the District's forum "to provide young people with an alternative to other religious clubs that meet on campus after school" and to express TST's viewpoint of the "seven Satanic virtues" and of "Satan … as a literary figure who represents a metaphorical construct of rejecting tyranny, championing the human mind and spirit, and seeking justice and egalitarianism for all." Accordingly, TST sought to present a constitutionally protected viewpoint on religion and philosophy.

The record indicates the District engaged in viewpoint discrimination by rescinding approval of TST's application based on the controversial nature of TST's viewpoint, and the negative community reaction thereto. See … Good News Club, 533 U.S. at 119 (declining to employ "a modified heckler's veto" as basis to bar group's speech in school district's limited public forum); Munroe v. Cent. Bucks School Dist. (3d Cir. 2015) ("The First Amendment generally does not permit the so-called 'heckler's veto,' i.e., 'allowing the public, with the government's help, to shout down unpopular ideas that stir anger.'").

The District's conduct is not justified by the "substantial disruption" test …. In Tinker v. Des Moines, the Supreme Court held "conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason … materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder … is of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech." In Dariano, the Ninth Circuit held this "substantial disruption" test articulated in Tinker permits school officials to "limit" student speech that "materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder" even when the "substantial disruption" is "caused by the reactions of onlookers" and not the speakers themselves. Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2014). However, this school-setting exception to the First Amendment's general prohibition against suppressing speech based on negative reactions from listeners (the "heckler's veto") is designed to address only situations where student speech causes internal disruption and disorder. See Munroe (discussing public school setting exception to First Amendment's general prohibition of the "heckler's veto" applies to reactions of students and their parents because "neither parents nor students could be considered as outsiders seeking to 'heckle' an educator into silence—rather they are participants in public education, without whose cooperation public education as a practical matter cannot function."); Zamecnik v. Indian Prairie School Dist. # 204 (7th Cir. 2011) (holding that Tinker's "substantial disruption test" considers a school district's "legitimate responsibilities, albeit paternalistic in character, toward the immature captive audience that consists of its students, including the responsibility of protecting them from being seriously distracted from their studies by offensive speech during school hours.")….

In this action, the speech at issue is that of an outside community organization during after school hours, not of a student during school hours. The differences do not end there. Here, Defendants identify the shooting threat made by an anonymous caller causing the District to cancel classes for a day as evidence TST's speech caused "substantial disruption." However, this disruption was external—not internal. The anonymous caller was not a student or District parent, but rather an individual from North Carolina. Considering Tinker expressly trained the "substantial disruption" test on "conduct by the student," and the Seventh Circuit's determination that the test considers a school district's responsibility "toward the… captive" student audience, as well as the unwillingness of any other federal court to apply the "substantial disruption" test to non-student speech occurring after school hours based on the hostile reactions of an individual external to the school district, the Court declines to hold the "substantial disruption" test applies here to justify the District's conduct. That the Supreme Court has recently counseled that "the leeway the First Amendment grants to schools in light of their special characteristics is diminished" while considering the "substantial disruption" test further informs this Court's decision. Mahanoy Area Sch. Dist. v. B.L. (2021)….

Comments

[Frank Drackman]

I hate Pennsylvania Satanists!

[Dr. Ed 2]

How is the school supposed to deal with the first amd rights of those who wish to protest the satanists?

[CJColucci]

The same way they'd deal with people who wish to protest the Boy Scouts. Maybe with a little extra security to account for the more deranged nature of the anti-Satanist protestors.

[KenveeB]

By informing them what areas are public for organizing a protest, and letting them rent a space for arts & crafts day to make protest signs if they want. People who want to protest are free to protest. They're not entitled to have the school ban a group because of their viewpoint. That's kind of Free Speech 101.

[Nige]

Who, The Esoteric Order Of Dagon?

[Magister]

They're probably too busy feuding with the Dagonite Esoteric Order.

[SRG]

Splitters!

[Sarcastr0]

Fragile Christians having rights is a long ago solved problem.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well some are going to refuse to send their children into the building.

[KenveeB]

If they feel they must refuse to send their children to school simply because a group they disagree with uses a classroom after hours for meetings, then they can follow the usual process of withdrawing their children and transferring them to a new district if available, a private school, or homeschool. They can express their opinions, they just can't require everyone else follow them. Again, Free Speech 101.

[Litoky]

senior high going to hell in a handbasket? Quare: if TST fabricated this entire 7 satanic virtues supposition, then shouldn't their application be rejected as unlike Boy Scouts or organized athletics or Bible groups that have alignment with a not-made-up supposition, or that TST does not involve "civic, cultural, educational and recreational activities"?
Just say No.

[CJColucci]

Do you really want to try to distinguish made-up religions from any other kind, if there are any other kinds?

[KenveeB]

All religions are just made up unless you believe in them. The whole premise of them coming from the word of God depends on you believing that's true. Otherwise, the Bible is a historical piece of fiction.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

All religions are just made up unless you believe in them.

They're "made up" without regard to how many people claim to believe a fictional work is true.

[Jerry B.]

So, sorta like people who believe in Socialism, Communism, or Progressivism?

[Magister]

Those would appear to be testable hypotheses, if definitions can be given. Communism has failed uniformly where it's actually been tried. Socialism is practiced in various ways in many countries, but the successful ones are generally dismissed under the no true Scotsman standard.

[Brett Bellmore]

Eh, the dose makes the poison, as they say. A healthy capitalist society can survive at least some socialism, as long as it is kept in check. You 'just' get a lower growth rate, which eventually results in your people being substantially poorer than they'd otherwise have been.

[Sarcastr0]

1. Growth for growth's sake is the philosophy of a cancer cell. For what is the number going up, if not to serve the members of society?

2. Your counterfactual of less growth is unproven.
The Great Depression, to most every economist outside of Chicago, shows that capitalism without guardrails is a recipe for collapse, not growth.

[Brett Bellmore]

Growth for the sake of people being less poor, OTOH...

[Sarcastr0]

That makes an assumption of how the growth is distributed.

Focusing purely on optimizing GDP is an awful idea.

[Brett Bellmore]

"That makes an assumption of how the growth is distributed."

So does defending socialism, Sarcastr0, in case you hadn't noticed.

"Focusing purely on optimizing GDP is an awful idea."

So is focusing purely on routing as much of GDP through the government as possible. Which is as fair a thing to say of socialism as "focusing purely on optimizing GDP" is of capitalism.

I'll point out to you that we not only had a higher growth rate back when we were less socialist a country, we had lower income inequality.

Here's a graph of the government's direct percentage of the GDP. I say "direct", because it doesn't count the flows the government orders about without officially including in its budget, an increasingly popular option:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=8fX

That stretch at the beginning of the graph, when total government was only 20-25% of the economy? Economists studying inequality of income call it "the great compression", because it was a period of unusually low income inequality, the top 1% only getting 10% of total income. Coincidentally, once government's share of GDP rose to a third of the economy, income inequality started rising again, and it's now more like the 1% getting 32% of income, a level not reached even during the Gilded era.

Well, at least we got some growth out of that, right? Nope:

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/gdp-growth-rate

Growth rates went down, not up, as government and income inequality increased. The government did successfully get rid of the booms, I'll give them that. The busts, OTOH, they were not as good at getting rid of. So the time averaged growth went down. "V" shaped recessions got replaced with "L" shaped recessions, which lacked any subsequent bounce back to the previous trend.

During that 15-20% of GDP era, when income inequality was so low, growth was consistently over 3.2%, the average for the last century.

4.2% in the 50's.
4.5% in the 60's.
3.2% in the 70's.

As government increased, growth dropped, and since 2000 it's averaged about 2%.

But, hey, at least that larger government, while it might have slowed growth, did reduceincrease income inequality!

So, no, we've become more socialist, but we haven't gotten anything good out of it in terms of economics.

But, why would you expect it to? That's a serious question, by the way.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, and here's that growth rate chart. Too bad I can't include enough links to show all my sources in one post.

https://www.crestmontresearch.com/docs/Economy-GDP-R-By-Decade.pdf

[Sarcastr0]

This is some extremely janky economics. Lets ignore whatever else was going on in 1950, and also not bother with actual causal relationships in economics always being lagging or leading in economics!
Did you just make this up yourself?! Read other people who have thought about this to avoid elementary mistakes.

And, of course, you exclude the middle - no one is talking about "focusing purely on routing as much of GDP through the government as possible."

The government did successfully get rid of the booms, I’ll give them that. The busts, OTOH, they were not as good at getting rid of.
We don't know a lot about economics, but we do know countercyclical spending works. The Great Depression, and indeed more recent recessions.

This is just stupid. You are not stupid, but your analysis is heterodox not because you are a free thinker, but because it is very bad economics. That's what happens when you are driven by ideology and start with an outcome in mind.

[Brett Bellmore]

"And, of course, you exclude the middle – no one is talking about “focusing purely on routing as much of GDP through the government as possible.”"

Says the guy who accused me of focusing purely on maximizing GDP growth.

"We don’t know a lot about economics, but we do know countercyclical spending works. The Great Depression, and indeed more recent recessions. "

Sure. We know, by now, that it works to even out economic cycles by chopping off the peaks. Which, yes, does reduce variation in the economy, but at the expense of lowering the overall growth rate, without eliminating the busts.

I put it to you that a boom/bust cycle is BETTER than a meh/bust cycle, even if the latter yields a smoother curve.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Or that somehow the people in the State are altruistic, omnipotent, and benevolent demigods free from the failings of us regular humans.

They suffer no greed, no sloth, and no corruption amd deserve to rule over us so we don't make the wrong decisions and harm the public good which is their sacred duty to shepherd and steward.

All Hail the State!

[Sigivald]

Sports groups have alignment with a "not-made-up supposition"?

What makes you think "not-made-up" is important or relevant for this?

*All* suppositions about valuations are "made up" in this context; the Law and reason both have no category for "actual divine revelation, we can prove it and it's totes real".

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Bible groups that have alignment with a not-made-up supposition

Which Bible groups are not based on illusory events, principles, suppositions, etc.?

Spoiler: Competent adults neither advance nor accept superstition-based arguments or positions in reasoned debate.

[Dilan Esper]

If anything, the Satanists' scriptures are MORE reliable. At least we have a lot of accurate information about their authoriship, provenance, etc.

With the New Testament, the initial drafts of the Gospels were written decades after Jesus, assuming he existed, died, and we have no idea who wrote them. They were hearsay-upon-hearsay-upon-hearsay. And there were numerous OTHER Gospels that were written as well. A couple of hundred years out, church councils codified what is now the accepted New Testament and declared all the other Gospels heretical, presumably based on their own conceptions of what the religion should contain (they weren't doing historical scholarship back then).

Plus you have the fact that several New Testament books were written by a guy whose only knowledge of the subject is he claims he had a hallucination of Jesus after Jesus died, but who nonetheless claimed to know extensive details about Jesus' life.

So yeah, not a lot of "truth" there.

[Ghost of Patrick Henry]

This comment is historical revisionism of the hack variety. The Gospels are, by far, the most historical support than any other ancient text. More than the Greek ancient texts, more than the Roman and more, even than the Old Testament which was oral history for centuries. Your anti-Christian bias may make you feel better, but it is historically illiterate.

[Dilan Esper]

The Gospels are, by far, the most historical support than any other ancient text. More than the Greek ancient texts, more than the Roman and more, even than the Old Testament which was oral history for centuries.

I guess if you really want to believe in life after death, you'll say crazy things, and this is a crazy thing. (And no, that isn't "anti-Christian bias". That's what's going on here.)

First, ancient texts pose a very low bar. Basically there's no reason to believe the DETAILS of ANY ancient text- it's not like they had standards of journalism back then. So even if I granted your claim, it would still just mean that the Gospels are merely incredibly inaccurate rather than astoundingly inaccurate. There would still be no reason to think that any of the words attributed to Jesus actually were said. They were written down decades later!

Here's an example- if Mary banged some guy, you have ZERO way of knowing it. Why would any author, decades after the events in question, know anything about the details of an obscure woman's sex life? So OK, fine, you think the New Testament is more reliable than other ancient texts, but what ancient text gives accurate details about anyone's sex life? And yet folks state with CONFIDENCE that Mary never slipped off and got some action. You KNOW it. Why do you know this? Other than you desperately want life after death.

And of course, the premise I granted is, in fact, not true. Other ancient texts were written contemporaneously by people with personal knowledge. To take one example, Pliny the Younger personally witnessed the eruption of Mount Vesuvius and wrote about it. That is a far more accurate historical text than anything in the New Testament- it was contemporaneous, and written by an eyewitness. Only someone with that intense desire for life after death would deny this.

So no, you're completely nuts. You can believe what you want to believe, of course, but your holy texts are utterly unreliable and nobody should assume they depict actual events or depict them accurately.

[HumanoidAnderoid.]

The vast majority of scholars agree that historical Jesus (i.e, a man called Jesus with roughly the biography we know from the gospels) existed. That definitely puts them above the reliability levels of all but the latest chronological bits of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible). But to claim that the Christian gospels are the ***most*** documented narrative of the ancient world is absurd puffery. We have massive amounts of contemporary physical evidence for the existence of, say, Roman emperors, Egyptian pharaohs, or Mesopotamian rulers: coins, epigraphs, triumphal arches, diplomatic letters, edicts, mummies, law codes etched in stone, etc, etc. We simply don't have any of that for anyone in the first century or so of Christianity.

[John F. Carr]

I call the second century writings "Jesus fanfic". He was a popular figure that people liked to write stories about. If you belong to the Satan club, he was a popular legend that people liked to write stories about.

[Dilan Esper]

It's hard to know what really happened (other than that there was no resurrection and were no miracles in the strongest sense of the claim, as those things are physically impossible).

But my best guess is that Jesus existed and was a charismatic preacher who said many wise things ("love thy neighbor" and "turn the other cheek" are both memorable and the sort of things that probably stood out in a Bronze Age society), and as happened with many other figures, a cult developed around him after his death, who then shared stories and embellished tales which spread until there was a large enough community of Jesus followers to create demand for writings. Then a bunch of stuff was written down, containing some stories that had passed through the oral tradition along with a ton of embellishment, and after the Church was organized the authorities had to pick and choose from all these sources what the official story was going to be.

That official story became the New Testament.

[SRG]

I note that the judge is a Trump appointee.

[SimonP]

They're not all bad. Some of them are good-faith judicial conservatives. But the ones that are bad really stink.

[Bored Lawyer]

And therefore, what? Trump judges follow the Constitution?

[David Nieporent]

I believe his point was, "And therefore the loons who get upset about this decision can't blame it on evil satanic liberals."

[Bored Lawyer]

Perhaps. It certainly undercuts the notion that the Trump judiciary is a bunch of partisan hacks or know-nothing boobs.

[SRG]

David gets it right.

And we know from the post-election cases that many Trump judges are not partisan boobs, which we should not lose sight of, Judge Cannon notwithstanding.

[CJColucci]

Trump lacked the energy, knowledge, and seriousness to pack all the open seats with partisan hacks, even with Leonard Leo's help. As a result, there are some perfectly fine Trump appointees, generally locally-prominent, normal, middle-aged Republicans with boring career paths.

[HumanoidAnderoid.]

Also keep in mind that the Senate kept the blue slip tradition through the Trump and Biden eras, meaning that in every state with a Dem Senator, a Trump nominee had to get sign off from Democratic Senator (and same for Biden nominees from states with GOP senators).

[Super Scary]

Oh, we're suppose to care about who appointed the judges now? I recall that being wrong when the other side did it. Curious.

[Brett Bellmore]

" Plaintiff, TST, "does not worship Satan," but rather regards "Satan … as a literary figure who represents a metaphorical construct of rejecting tyranny, championing the human mind and spirit, and seeking justice and egalitarianism for all.""

Of course, Satan being the lord of lies, isn't that exactly what a group that DID worship Satan would say?

[Currentsitguy]

Perhaps, but this group has existed for a long time as a sort of religious parody who’s real purpose is to advocate for secular reason, rather than some form of supernatural worship.

The name is deliberately provocative.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, yeah, probably.

But I'd rather see a Discordian after (fnord) club; There's big difference between religious (fnord) parody that's just parody, and religious parody that deliberately seizes on a figure of evil to pretend worship.

For one thing, Discordianism is less likely to slide by increments into actual Satanism.

[Currentsitguy]

Not going to argue that. What I'd really like to see is a branch of the Church of the Subgenius spring up. Bob knows that we could all use some Slack.

[David Nieporent]

Satan is only a "figure of evil" to Christ worshippers.

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, to all the "Abrahamic" religions. Jews and Muslims, too.

[SRG]

Nope. You will look in vain in the OT for any reference to Satan's being evil. And later, some Jewish theology curiously overlaps with TST in viewing Satan as more of a principle than a true entity.

[HumanoidAnderoid.]

One days you guy will realize that Jews are not just Christians who haven't found Jesus yet, but this is not this day.

[SRG]

Yup. He only appears twice in the OT, in Zechariah and in Job, and he's more of a zealous AG than anything. He's not depicted as evil.

[Sarcastr0]

I’m not worried about ‘actual Satanism’ at all. Are you?

[Brett Bellmore]

Why wouldn't I be? There are some real crazies out there, in case you hadn't noticed. And some really, really ugly religious have existed in real world history, do you imagine we're somehow categorically immune to that sort of thing?

[Sarcastr0]

The few crazies into organized Satanism are overdetermined in being an issue, Satanist or not Satanist.

The Satanic Panic was not really the height of psychic safety. This decision is not going to enable some kind of evil Satanic cult.

And the way to deal with a faith of evil is not to make it illegal and forbidden.

[Brett Bellmore]

Wow, you actually DO imagine we’re somehow now immune to the appeal of human sacrifice. With multiple states legalizing elective abortion right up to the moment of birth!

We’re the same species that threw babies into the flaming maw of Baal, Sarcastr0. We’re never more than a generation away from that sort of thing, and less than that if we don’t put in the work to keep it at bay.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm all for laws against human sacrifice, and beyond that don't spend a lot of time worrying about the rise of Satanism.

And fuck you re: abortion being Satanism. Theocracy isn't going to sell here, we're all full up on bad government shit.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Satan being the lord of lies

Satan is the lord of lies.

Jesus is the lord of child abuse.

The Holy Spirit is the lord of torture.

Other currently invoked gods are the lord of other child abuse (circumcision).

Where is the hope for mankind?

More important, why are gods such paltry, objectionable beings?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You’re the Lord of Hurt Feelings seeings how you still cry about getting spanked for being naughty over 5 years ago.

[Currentsitguy]

Because Man made his Gods in his own image.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Congregation of Exalted Reason is the best available way.

[swood1000]

” Plaintiff, TST, “does not worship Satan,” but rather regards “Satan … as a literary figure who represents a metaphorical construct of rejecting tyranny, championing the human mind and spirit, and seeking justice and egalitarianism for all.””

Of course, Satan being the lord of lies, isn’t that exactly what a group that DID worship Satan would say?

And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness.

So what’s new?

[John F. Carr]

The interesting part of this case is the school's facially neutral excuse for banning the event. In many cases such an excuse is good enough. When the case involves a right that judges take seriously, it is not enough.

[QuantumBoxCat]

Eve is the one that rejected the tyranny of God in Genesis and freed the human mind. All Satan did was add a touch of doubt.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You must be a woman, lol.

[SRG]

There's no textual evidence to support the idea that the serpent was Satan, and abundant evidence to support the idea that it wasn't.

[swood1000]

There’s no textual evidence to support the idea that the serpent was Satan

Rev 12:9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

[SRG]

There are other references to serpents in the Bible and nor does that comment necessarily apply just to an OT entity . FWIW I should have clarified that I was referring to the OT, but nonetheless the identification of Satan with the serpent in the Garden is speculative even here.

And the evidence that the serpent in the Garden was merely a snake is substantial.

1. It is only ever referred to as a serpent. If it had been as important a figure as Satan the text would have said so explicitly. Consider that if someone says, “I had dinner with someone in the government” you can be sure that it was not the president, even though the president is part of the government, because if they had had dinner with the president, they would have said so.

2. The line “The serpent was cleverer than any beast of the field” is a nonsense comparison if the serpent were anything other than a (particularly smart) animal.

3. The curse applied to the serpent makes sense only if the serpent were the ancestor of snakes, and were not Satan.

If you read the account in the Garden without any preconceptions about who or what the serpent is, it’s very clear that it’s simply a talking – and clever – snake.

There’s an amusing point lost in translation. Adam and Eve are described as being naked, and in the next sentence, the serpent is described as being cleverer than other animals. The Hebrew word for “clever” and “naked” is the same word – aroom. Perhaps it originally meant “hairless” ????

[David Nieporent]

Rev 12:9

That's not the Bible; that's the unauthorized sequel.

[SRG]

LOL - yes, there is that.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

White, Conservative, or Christian groups get no such protections from violent Democrat activists.

[CJColucci]

Nor do they need it.

[Drewski]

What's hilarious about this comment is that the controlling precedent, referred to repeatedly in the opinion, is about a conservative Christian group that in fact got exactly such protection.

BCD's real complaint can only the "white" part. Which is typical for VC commenters but should be called out explicitly as the evil that it is.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why is being White, or White culture, or White heritage, or White contributions to humanity, the only race-related that's evil to be proud about?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You're at the Volokh Conspiracy. You can be a loud, proud racist here. Indeed, racists are this white, male, right-wing blog's target audience.

[Krayt]

Good. Now do Congress threatening section 230, with attendant hundreds of billions in stock losses, if companies don't censor harrassment, especially harrassing tweets of political opponents right before an election

If threats to blow up the place are insufficient to ban speech, certainly harrassing tweets don't get a pass for censorship.

[Sarcastr0]

Not a thing that happened. The threat is entirely made up by you.

But you think government is a protection racket, so I imagine the narrative was too alluring for critical thinking.

[Krayt]

Perhaps you should watch one of the Democratic debates, where they had an entire discussion unit on it, the candidates one-upping each other on who will hurt the companies more, and how, if they don't censor harrasement.

This in turn lead to Republicans responding by fighting fire with fire, threatening to scrap 230 if the companies didn't stop censoring such things.

But other than missing all that monstrously large and obvious documentation, good comment!

[Sarcastr0]

The Democratic Presidential Debates acted as a threat to American companies regarding the repeal of a law that no one on either side of the aisle moved to repeal. But the companies knuckled under anyway, not because toxic shitholes were a bad product to sell.

Yeah, you're emotional as all hell; no talking facts to you.

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, tough crowd for the Hey-Zeus Freaks!

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course, this raises the issue: Suppose they actually WERE worshiping Satan? Wouldn't they still be protected under 1st amendment doctrine, along with Thugee and Baal worshipers?

I mean, not insofar as they were throwing live babies into the fiery maw, of course, but for purposes of forming an after school club.

The 1st amendment was kind of tacitly written on the assumption that they were only dealing with reasonable religions... Jews, Christians, the occasional Muslim or Anglican... I don't think Madison was actually gaming out the real possibilities of what it might confront in a more decadent society.

[Dilan Esper]

I think you should draw a distinction between religion, and religious violence.

A student Christian Club that plots the murder of abortion doctors could be shut down too. It's not the denomination that is the issue- it's the fact that violence and violent advocacy meets the Sherbert test and therefore it doesn't matter that it is religiously motivated. (And of course, under Smith, it's even easier- generally applicable laws against violence and incitement don't even receive free exercise clause scrutiny.)

So there's nothing wrong with the First Amendment here. The First Amendment was meant to protect religions, whether you think they are reasonable or unreasonable. But it doesn't protect religiously motivated violence from any denomination, reasonable or unreasonable.

[Brett Bellmore]

Point, though, is that whether or not they actually worship Satan is legally irrelevant, they just push that point for PR purposes.

[Sarcastr0]

And why does it give rise to any PR difference at all?

That’s not on them.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, you're right: Why would there be a PR difference between promoting "benevolence, empathy, critical thinking, creative expression, personal sovereignty, compassion, and the pursuit of justice.", and worshiping the devil? Beats me.

I think it's got something to do with Satan not actually being associated with "benevolence, empathy, critical thinking, creative expression, personal sovereignty, compassion, and the pursuit of justice." But I'm just guessing here.

[Sarcastr0]

You're the one that said it was the Satan thing that was the PR deal. Not the other stuff you brought in alluva sudden.

Satan being in the brand matters because of fragile weirdos can't stop striking at the bait over and over again.

[RhymesWithRight]

You do realize that the Satanic Temple does not "worship the devil" in any literal sense. In fact, they explicitly reject the existence of both God and Satan, and argue that Lucifer is a metaphor for human rationality and freedom. They are significantly more benevolent than most Christian groups.

[Brett Bellmore]

Aside from that last, again, my point is that legally it should make no difference whether or not they actually did worship Satan.

The only difference is in terms of public relations. Which Sarcastr0 insanely denies is actually a difference!

[Sarcastr0]

I'm aware it doesn't matter for the dumb bait-taking to occur.

Brett - I'm noting that the PR aspect matters only because some small but loud number of demon-haunted Christians have decided it does.

[Brett Bellmore]

And I'm noting that your connection to reality is fraying.

Satan doesn't have to be thought to exist, for people to worry about a group that claims to worship him. Actually worshiping Satan would be a big PR hit even in a world of atheists.

[Sarcastr0]

YOU are worried about the growth of some Satanic human sacrifice movement in the modern US.

I don't have a problem with reality - you have a problem with drama.

[KenveeB]

[RhymesWithRight]

"Reasonable religions"? That is an oxymoron, sort of like "jumbo shrimp".

[Rossami]

Given what the Founders were tolerating at the time (including a large number of small and flighty sects fleeing religious persecution in various European states), I think you are wrong. I think the Founders knew exactly what they would be dealing with - and that it went way beyond the "reasonable" religions even then.

[ReaderY]

I find myself somewhat sympathetic to the school district here, separate from my view of the First Amendment issues. If they want to open up their school to a few select relatively non-controversial organizations like the Boy Scouts to do some after-school activities they approve of and think will complement their educational mission, they then have to open it up to every crazy who might either throw bombs themselves or attract bomb-throwers, and who not only have nothing to do with the educational mission of the school, they will end up eating up the budget intended to educate children just to provide them with security. That seems a difficult dilemma to put a school district in as a practical matter.

Perhaps the answer is that the First Amendment requires prohibiting all outside activities at all if a school district doesn’t want to end up spending its budget providing security guards to keep angry adults from damaging each other, and its premises. That may be. But I think it’s worth acknowledging that that means the children end up losing.

Perhaps there is a way a public school can select specific outside organizations that it thinks complement its educational mission without opening its doors to everyone and everybody, so it can allow its facilities to be used by the Little League or something without having to admit and provide security to absolutely everyone who wants it. I don’t know. The Boy Scouts are a religious organization, so if the school gets to pick select sponsored organizations, it probably can’t pick them.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"We're the East High Billygoats!

"(By the way, our mascot has disappeared again.)"

[Fred2515]

Interesting news. And I'm glad that schoolchildren were provided with all the necessary support. After all, it is very difficult for young people in the learning process. In addition to a complex curriculum, there are also many social problems. That is why, I believe, such online services as buyessay.net are necessary for every schoolchild and student. After all, thanks to this, they can find all the necessary help in solving household chores. Such as writing essays and other complex academic content.