By Peter Pinedo
Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Dec 14, 2023 / 18:15 pm
The Satanic Temple display in the Iowa state capitol building is not protected by the First Amendment, a Catholic legal expert told CNA.
Andrea Picciotti-Bayer, a legal analyst for EWTN, told CNA that the display installed at the request of a prominent atheist group is not religious expression but rather about making a mockery of religion.
not religious expression but rather about making a mockery of religion
Mockery of religion is religious expression.
Deeply held belief that these clowns are in fact clowns
insert that video of man holding up and laughing at orangutan with clown make up on its face
So, this chud’s claim is that it’s not a valid expression of religion because TST states on their website that they don’t actually believe in the existence of Satan as a spiritual entity. And… so what? According to her, you’re not allowed to express a mockery of religion because it’s so harmful for society. Right… religions are protected from criticism? And the only protected speech is an expression of religion? I don’t think so.
“concerted effort to undermine the fabric of American society.”
Ha ha. They could hardly ratchet up the hyperbolic paranoia higher. Anyway, I’d say the same about their decades long effort to protect serial child abusers.
Anyway, I’d say the same about their decades long effort to protect serial child abusers.
Or their attempts to turn the US into a theocracy.
If it’s isn’t a valid expression of religion, then it’s still constitutionally protected speech but Iowa may not be required to allow it in the state capitol building. If they permit a display from one religious group, they have to permit displays from other religious groups, but they (probably) don’t have to permit every single otherwise legal display.
I would argue (to Iowa, this person etc) that a religion doesn’t require belief in supernatural entities to be considered valid - it could just be a philosophy, which would include TST. Some forms of Buddhism would qualify as that, too, being non-theistic - some Buddhists believe in ghosts, devas, and brahmas, but some, particularly in the west, do not. On the other hand I’m sure some Catholics wouldn’t accept that as a valid religion either. I doubt whether it has a solid legal basis though.
But that logic, pulling baby Jesus (and Mary? IDK) out of a nativity scene, and then burning it down isn’t a hate crime.
I’m glad to know they have such a reasoned response to this. Because surely the Catholic church is to decide what counts as religious expression and what’s not. Not like they have a history of you know murdering people whose religious expression disagreed with theirs.
Crusade? Never heard of her.
A Catholic legal expert for the Eternal Word Television Network told the Catholic News Agency
exactly what they wanted to hear.
Well duh, she’d be an idiot not to say what they pay her to say.
Eternal Word Television Network told the Catholic News Agency
This sounds like the opening to an SNL sketch
I like that you don’t even have to specify in which country those ridiculous events take place. Readers will have automatically filled in the blanks with those two lines.
She’s lying.
Even though the founders of The Satanic Temple claim not to really be Satanists …
They are Satanists, and they say that they’re Satanists. They’ve never said any different.
Exactly. Who the hell are the Catholic Church to define Satanism for these Satanists? They might as well try to define what Islam is for Muslims while they’re at it. Lol
Oh, they do.
Fingers crossed for another Catholic schism about how to oppress their enemies best
Right. They’ve said they don’t worship Satan. Rather that Satan is used as a symbol of rebellion.
The disconnect comes from the catholic (mis)understanding that “Satanist” = “devil worshipper”
The TST may not believe in Satan as a literal figure, but as a religious icon.
Iconography is a popular expression of faith, especially in certain Orthodox Christian groups.
Therefore, the use of Satan as an icon to inspire certain beliefs is right inline with their own usage of iconography.
Their in the previous sentence being Christians as a whole, not just Catholicism.
Besides, TST is an atheistic interpretation of Satanism, whereas there are definitely Theistic Satanists.
I don’t understand what your point is.
Not so much a point, just taking it as a chance to broaden someone’s horizons, not you specifically.
Just used to a lot of heavy Christian propaganda in my geographic region, I try to combat misinformation when I can, and sometimes all it takes is a little real information.
It rarely works, but occasionally you get a couple (in a life time) that are open to new information.
notice they did not say attorney.
However, she is/was. From her awful website
Andrea Picciotti-Bayer is Director of the Conscience Project. A Stanford-educated lawyer, she has dedicated her legal career to civil rights and appellate advocacy.
Andrea got her start as a trial and appellate attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. Prior to leading the Conscience Project, she served as the legal advisor for the Catholic Association, filing amicus briefs with federal courts of appeal and the U.S. Supreme Court in key religious freedom and free speech cases.
She has also joined Fox News, Newsmax and a variety of other shows to share expert commentary.
Right. By ‘civil rights’ and ‘religious freedom’, she means things like the rights of Christians to oppress other people, like the article here.
yeah my comment was mostly just around how articles will call anyone things that sound official or significant when it means nothing. someone once went to a wedding for someone famous and is now a media insider or some crap. Sad she is an attorney but this type of thing seems common with religous “professional”
How the fuck did she graduate from Stanford without a basic understanding of the First Amendment?
Convenient. First Christians argue atheists make a religion of atheism, then say it’s not.
I pretty sure satan is from Christianity, are they saying it’s too hard to believe it? Also, even if it is making fun, is that not free speech? Is it not also art? And the real point is, this is about separation of church and state, not just taking the piss on dumb religious people.
Except like the Church of Satan, The Satanic Temple is very clear they don’t believe in a literal Satan. The Satanic Temple is also very much just a paper religion meant to counter these public Christian displays. They walk a fine line of making that very clear while also having plausible deniability.
Right but so what? That cancel out free speech? And besides, what is religion- it only counts if it’s totally fucking insane and you believe it anyway?
I wouldn’t call TST a paper religion. I get why you say it, but the tenants and beliefs would still exist, and the people would likely similarly be drawn together, even if the government didn’t overstep the way they do. The fact that they exist outside the US (though admittedly to a lesser degree) should speak to that point.
Raping kids is cool, though.
Yeah. The fucking balls. An expert from the child-rape church is telling us we aren’t a real religion.
Catholic legal experts, please stick to Catholic law. Your mental handicaps have no space in any justice system.
They cant. Theyre too busy covering up for pedos.
Yeah, Ms Catholic Lawyer, let’s say you and I go toe to toe on bird law and see who comes out the victor.
I have very small hands, can we pose with your hands over mine like they’re my hands?
Christofacist says what
If parody isn’t protected speech then Weird Al is in a boatload of legal trouble.
He’s one of the few who asks permission.
Maybe the satanists could do whatever they want and just ask for forgiveness after? Ya know, like any Catholic fuck might sin and do wrong onto others and only feel bad when praying to skydaddy.
Good point, but this isn’t a parody, no matter what the Catholics say.
Religion makes a mockery of itself, the Satanic Temple shows us this.
Legal Expert
Doubt.
They mean God’s law, not man’s, you silly devil worshipper.
So it’s only political speech? Definitely not something protected
