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.
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.