For those unfamiliar, The Satanic Temple is an atheistic organization. Here are its tenets. I often ask people what they disagree with and get very little in the way of meaningful response.
THERE ARE SEVEN FUNDAMENTAL TENETS
I
One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.
II
The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
III
One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
IV
The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one’s own.
V
Beliefs should conform to one’s best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one’s beliefs.
VI
People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one’s best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused.
VII
Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.
https://thesatanictemple.com/blogs/the-satanic-temple-tenets/there-are-seven-fundamental-tenets
DO YOU WORSHIP SATAN?
No, nor do we believe in the existence of Satan or the supernatural. The Satanic Temple believes that religion can, and should, be divorced from superstition. As such, we do not promote a belief in a personal Satan. To embrace the name Satan is to embrace rational inquiry removed from supernaturalism and archaic tradition-based superstitions. Satanists should actively work to hone critical thinking and exercise reasonable agnosticism in all things. Our beliefs must be malleable to the best current scientific understandings of the material world — never the reverse.
https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/faq
She’s 13. Does anyone know if she’s allowed to become a member? The website isn’t clear on that.
Justice is not always preferable to laws and institutions. If you deliver justice to one, but weaken an institution that materially helps thousands, is that desirable?
This I strongly disagree with. The community has a right to the use of individuals, according to the needs of the community. If your arm is stuck blocking an essential passage off, even if through no fault of your own, the community does have a right to remove your arm, if need be, to serve the needs of the community.
You’re getting caught up in the minutiae of definitions and are missing the big picture. These tenets were put in place to counteract anti-abortion laws under the guise of religion. It’s a subversion of religious and conservative tactics with a much better message.
I have no dispute with that as a strategic choice (since lying about one’s values is conditionally acceptable), just figured I’d offered a bit of dissent for the OP.
Alright, yeah. Fair enough. Have a good day!
You too!
Snarky response: Human sacrifices were a thing once and served the needs of the community.
Serious response: TST Satanists don’t treat the tenets as absolutes. More like guidelines. There are situations where tenets can be in conflict. The individual is supposed to work through that and make the best decision they can.
Observation: No, that would be the Sith
The point is that justice is the end goal. Institutions and laws are solely means. And one should never confuse the means with the goals.
Note that the very tenets are an example of that. In some cases you need to go against them, and that’s fine - focus on what the rule is supposed to achieve, not the rule itself.
Contrast it with Christianity and its “BUT IT’S IN THE 10 COMMANDMENTS! You’re supposed to follow it even when unjust! The law is the law!”
Exactly! Which is why all women are sent to the breeding farm as soon as they have their first menses, it’s for the good of the community! /s
Tenet 3: One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
I don’t know how you got “Everything every community decides is absolutely correct and should be obeyed without question” from that, but go off, I guess.
So the community has a right to the use of you, but you also have a right to deny the use to of to the community, based on your judgement?
What remains in a conflict between individual autonomy and community need is morality, not rights. The community has a right to make what judgement calls it deems necessary - whether any particular judgement call is right or wrong, or whether it is reasonable to resist it, is another issue entirely.
So you extend that right to the community, but no to the individual.
So even if their morality is wrong, you think a community should have the right to force an individual’s actions.
The community has the power, by virtue of majority usually, but not the right. You cannot simply disentangle rights from morality and assign ‘immoral rights’, that goes against the concept of rights and this sort of scope creep is how we get into present issues in the first place (see the current elephant in the western world - abortion, for instance).
To quote Motorhead -
This is the response of somebody who just wants to argue about religion. Common sense prevails.
I know a bunch of horny dudes that need to bang something. Pull down your pants and services the community.
deleted by creator
Did you even read the original comment?
Laws and institutions generally follow public opinion. If the public finds something unjust that laws and institutions cannot address, it can affect change and make those laws and institutions stronger.
Generally, but not always - and that presumes that the public interpretation of justice is the correct one. If you’re in early 19th century Britain and the public is 95% in support of executing homosexuals, then obviously no amount of institutional responsiveness to public opinion will fix this unjust situation. So what is the answer? To preserve the institutions in the hope that someday, they may be used to defend the lives of LGBT folk, or to oppose the institutions and tear them down even at the cost of the welfare of millions and against the will of those same millions?
Of course, most of us will never be in such a position, and early 19th century Britain had fairly robust institutions that most individuals would struggle to damage. But again, these are questions of principle.
You are assuming there is such a thing as a “correct interpretation of justice”, but there really isn’t
So this applies to all institutions?
Does… weighing the pros and cons of an action with regards to justice vs. utilitarianism apply to all institutions?
Uh. Yes. I suppose it does.
Vll
I think I would ask, if you deliver justice to one, but weaken an institution that materially helps thousands, is that actually justice?
I mean, probably, right? Justice is generally transactional (he stole my cow, he gets me a new one), while institutions are more generally following overall utilitarian policies.
I can’t really think of any real overlap scenarios here where literally just one person could meaningfully damage the system other than “you are the only one immune to the zombie plague, we have to remove your brain to become immune because science”
I would say that it could be. Justice and utilitarian results are not necessarily synonyms. It is intuitively unjust to allow a ruler to get away with literal murder, yet the dissolution of their rule could mean the deaths of many thousands. An institution may lead to the death of an individual through negligence, but the resulting dissolution of the institution, should it be revealed, could lead to the deaths of many more, ironically, through further negligence.
Obviously, in functioning modern societies, these are less concerning, as there is a much greater capacity for reforming or remaking institutions, or diverting resources until an alternative can be found; institutions and their effects are generally robust and can handle whatever scandals are revealed, and thus it is a duty, rather than a question, to reveal abuses as openly and loudly as one can.
But in principle, in the abstract, they’re valid questions to be asked.
Definitely valid questions, good things to think about
deleted by creator
So you agree with the legality and the morality of abortion bans then?
Tenet 3: One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
Yup, I agree.
PugJesus doesn’t. As I found out, he also has some more… unfortunate opinions.
Don’t know where you got that from.
So if you want to abort the fetus, but the community decides the birth of it serves the needs of the community, it was a right to the use of you.
The community would have the right to make that call and attempt to enforce it. Bodily autonomy is not an inviolable defense against a decision by the community to violate it.
Whether that particular call would be morally correct is dubious.
So for example, if china wants to genocide all uygurs, you argue they should have the right to do it.
My argument there would be that genocide is wrong, not that every violation of bodily autonomy is wrong.
Answer the question:
According to you, should china have the right to genocide uyghurs?
Yes or no.
If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be?