|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
If you want a Gordian Knot to untie during your idle hours, try defining religion. Most people and common dictionaries define religion as a belief system that involves a supreme deity and veneration of it. The Cambridge University dictionary defines religion as “The belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and
These definitions are satisfactory in a practical sense but less so in a legal sense. Not even the Supreme Court of the United States can define religion, and rightly so. According to the Cornell Law Review, “Although the Supreme Court has discussed the concept of ‘religion’ in several cases, it has not provided a specific definition to govern cases arising under the religion clauses.” (Italics added). Defining something necessarily excludes something else, so courts are not keen on “prohibiting the free exercise,” of any practice that might be excluded from any legal definition.
Which brings us to the point of this week’s column namely, a bill in the Florida state house allowing chaplains in public schools. The legislation is intended to “provide support, services, and programs to students,” in an effort to meet a growing demand for mental health counseling, and it has the full support of the Satanic Temple “Our ministers look forward to participating in opportunities to do good in the community, including the opportunities created by this bill,” wrote Satanic Temple Director of Ministry Penemue Grigori to the Tallahassee Democrat.
It’s a clever political ploy. By inciting concern among parents wary of promoting Satanism to school children, the Satanic Temple creates the presumed necessity of excluding all other faiths from any school chaplaincy program – an all-or-nothing proposition – claiming protection under the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. They may be Satanic but they’re not stupid.
But whether the Satanic Temple constitutes a religion is a legitimate question. Under broadly accepted definitions, it isn’t. In answering the FAQ “Do you worship Satan?” the group’s website is unequivocal. “No, nor do we believe in the existence of Satan or the supernatural.” So much for the notion of belief in, or worship of, a supreme being.
This begs the question of what the Satanic Temple does believe. Its followers “embrace rational inquiry removed from supernaturalism and archaic tradition-based superstitions,” and further instructs adherents to “actively work to hone critical thinking and exercise reasonable agnosticism in all things.” These are widely held ideals among scientists, but it’s not religion.
The Temple supports this conclusion by saying, “Our beliefs must be malleable to the best current scientific understandings of the material world.” These statements in support of the Satanic Temple’s claim of being a religion suggest that molecular biology, quantum mechanics and most any scientific pursuit could claim constitutionally protected status as a religion.
Academics have something to say about religion. Anthropologist Edward Burnett Tylor, in an attempt to define it, established “what Tylor called a ‘minimal definition’ of religion, and he proposed that the key characteristic was ‘belief in spiritual beings,’” according to the Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The Satanic Temple fails Tylor’s minimal definition test.
American philosopher and psychologist William James defined religion as “feelings, acts and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to what-ever they may consider divine.” The Satanic Temple doesn’t consider Satan divine and eschews the supernatural, so it fails this test too.
Typically, courts spend less time defining religion and more time examining actions springing from beliefs claimed to be religious. Judicial decisions involving religious exemptions to law provide guidance. It may be a Muslim organization not wishing to hire Presbyterians because Presbyterians don’t know a lot about Islam, or an Amish family arguing against compulsory education above a certain grade level. Both examples involve arguing for deeply held religious beliefs prompting actions and reactions, a standard that should apply to the Satanic Temple.
The Temple’s Seven Tenets include, among other things, acting with compassion and empathy; struggling for justice; respecting the freedoms of others; conforming to science; and accepting the fallibility of man. Everyone who lives on my block believes those things but that doesn’t make them Satanists any more than it makes their homes churches or their ideas a religion. The Satanic Temple is not a religion; it’s a club for people who wish to appear rebellious.
The goal of the Satanic Temple is to provide a pretext for keeping all religions out of Florida schools – if their chaplains are not allowed, neither are those of Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism or any other religion. They have thrown down the gauntlet. Let’s see if anyone picks it up and returns the favor in court.
How many realize the Pagan Idols around America many pagan idols and structures the Washington Monument a Egyptian Obelisks the Quetzalcoatl idol in Southern California dedicated toaa Pagan false religion that took part in Bloody Human Sacrifice
I don’t know that the shape of something necessarily defines its meaning. The cap to the Washington monument is inscribed “Laus Deo” (Praise be to God), in the cornerstone their is a Holy Bible, and on various landings there are memorials stones with inscriptions from Proverbs, Luke and others.
I don’t know that the shape of something necessarily defines its meaning. The cap to the Washington monument is inscribed “Laus Deo” (Praise be to God), in the cornerstone there is a Holy Bible, and on various landings there are memorials stones with inscriptions from Proverbs, Luke and others.
… or maybe Satan’s way of getting his horn in the Overton Window.
In a free society not only is there a separation of church and state, but there is also a separation of economics and state, education and state.
If you have government run and government owned schools, funded by compulsory taxation, who gets to decide what is taught and how it is taught? The gang with the biggest gun, that’s who. The clique with the biggest influence on the elected officials, that’s who.
In a free society if you have a child it is your moral and legal responsibility to educate your child either out of your own pocket or by private charity funding such as private scholarships, a Go Fund Me account, or friends, neighbors, and relatives that can help you. A free society is a society of voluntarism not government compulsory taxation.
“Since there is no such entity as “the public,” since the public is merely a number of individuals, any claimed or implied conflict of “the public interest” with private interests means that the interests of some men are to be sacrificed to the interests and wishes of others. Since the concept is so conveniently undefinable, its use rests only on any given gang’s ability to proclaim that “The public, c’est moi”—and to maintain the claim at the point of a gun….
Only on the basis of individual rights can any good—private or public—be defined and achieved. Only when each man is free to exist for his own sake—neither sacrificing others to himself nor being sacrificed to others—only then is every man free to work for the greatest good he can achieve for himself by his own choice and by his own effort. And the sum total of such individual efforts is the only kind of general, social good possible….
It is only on the basis of property rights that the sphere and application of individual rights can be defined in any given social situation. Without property rights, there is no way to solve or to avoid a hopeless chaos of clashing views, interests, demands, desires, and whims.” – Ayn Rand
After reading paragraphs 5 & 6 of this article, it struck me that Satanism is very compatible with Objectivism. Do you agree?
Ayn Rand was wrong to say there is no such entity as “the public.” The better word is “community.” Man is a creature of the polis, composed of other men sharing his culture and values. Man who lives alone is a most unhappy creature.
Objectivism is NOT compatible with Satanism, period.
The article you provide with a link to is misrepresenting the Objectivist ethics. Objectivism does not prohibit or discourage freely chosen, voluntary, charity, compassion, forgiveness, generosity, etc.
Objectivism does not prohibit or discourage, good will towards deserving strangers or deserving neighbors, friendship or love, or community, or society, or family, so long as those social groups are rational and healthy. There are dysfunctional families and abusive, and even evil parents. There are rational, healthy, freedom loving societies and there are societies of slavery, terror, and tyranny.
A free society is a society of voluntarism, not the INITIATION of force against peaceful citizens.
Need does NOT make right. My need does not give me the right to have the government force you to fund my need. Your need does NOT give you the right to run to the government and make the government force me to fund your need.
Ayn Rand is addressing the term “the public” as it is used by tribalists, collectivists, socialists, and “community”-communists. .
“Man gains enormous values from dealing with other men; living in a human society is his proper way of life—but only on certain conditions. Man is not a lone wolf and he is not a social animal. He is a contractual animal. He has to plan his life long-range, make his own choices, and deal with other men by voluntary agreement (and he has to be able to rely on their observance of the agreements they entered).” – Ayn Rand
It would be helpful if, instead of naked assertions like “objectivism is not compatible with Satanism,” you would distinguish the two.
As for goodwill / charity towards “deserving strangers” that is a subjective determination – not an objective one. Who is worthy of charity? Really none of us. That is why it is a mercy to us and we must practice it first in our families and communities.
What is an objective. rational, and precise definition of religion? Well, you begin by separating the concepts of religion and philosophy. Religion affirms the existence of the supernatural and affirms the superiority of faith over reason as a means of knowledge.
Philosophy, rational philosophy, rests on the natural, the observable, the demonstrable, the evidence of the senses, the provable, the definable. It rejects the supernatural, the magical, the causeless. It rejects that which contradicts reason, logic, and observable reality.
“Let us begin with a definition. What is religion as such? What is the essence common to all of its varieties, Western and Oriental, which distinguishes it from other cultural phenomena?
Religion involves a certain kind of outlook on the world and a consequent way of life. In other words, the term “religion” denotes a type (actually, a precursor) of philosophy. As such, a religion must include a view of knowledge (which is the subject matter of the branch of philosophy called epistemology) and a view of reality (metaphysics). Then, on this foundation, a religion builds a code of values (ethics). So the question becomes: What type of philosophy constitutes a religion?
The Oxford English Dictionary defines “religion” as “a particular system of faith an worship,” and goes on, in part: “Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience, reverence and worship.”
The fundamental concept here is “faith.” “Faith” in this context means belief in the absence of evidence. This is the essential that distinguishes religion from science. A scientist may believe in the entities which he cannot observe, such as atoms or electrons, but he can do so only if he can prove their existence logically, by inference from things he does observe. A religious man, however, believes in some “higher unseen power” which he cannot observe and cannot logically prove.” – Objectivist philosopher Leonard Peikoff, “Religion versus America
THX: “Religion affirms the existence of the supernatural and affirms the superiority of faith over reason as a means of knowledge.”
The religion of faith is Christianity. If faith is a means of knowledge, then you should be able to demonstrate it from Scripture.
But faith is never a means to knowledge. It is always BASED upon knowledge.
THX, I once said you were ungentlemanly. To continue to use falsehoods to prop up your religious objectivism is weak and very ungentlemanly.
Show how faith is a means to knowledge from the Bible. Give an example. It should be easy if it is true, because FAITH is near the heart of Christian doctrine. Do that and I will apologize and repent in dust and ashes.
“Show how faith is a means to knowledge from the Bible.”
I did not say that faith is an actual means of knowledge. I said that the religious person CLAIMS that faith is an actual means of knowledge.
The Christian claims that Jesus was born of an Immaculate Conception and a Virgin Birth, these claims are not actual knowledge, but articles of religious, supernatural, faith. No different than the Muslim faith-based claim of 72 Virgins In Paradise.
Since I am not a Roman Catholic, I cannot comment from a believing standpoint on the belief that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was conceived without sin. However, there is a difference between the Christian belief that Jesus was born of a virgin, and the Muslim belief about the reward that is said to await their martyrs. The Christian belief is a particular explanation of the historical events that are known to have occurred. A young woman who was engaged to be married became pregnant, and her fiance knew he’d had nothing to do with it, so he was going to break off the engagement. He then changed his mind, and the explanation for this in Matthew’s gospel is that he was told in a dream by a supernatural being that Mary’s account of a non-sexual conception was true. You are at liberty to conclude that both parties belonged in a psychiatric unit if you wish – but the faith-based explanation is given because the baby later became famous (and one assumes that there might have been rumours about the precise nature of Joseph’s relationship with him). The Islamic belief in the reward of martyrs does not explain anything for which there is any earthly evidence.
Good example!
The immaculate conception is something that must be taken on faith, but it is NOT a means of knowledge. Close, though.
The faith here is that the miracle was performed in accordance with the Word of God, who proclaimed this event to Mary prior to its happening.
Joseph wanted to annul their engagement when she was found to be pregnant, but he likewise was informed by God of the true nature of her pregnancy.
Jesus’ mandatory presentation in the temple and Mary’s purification ritual also caused those who heard from God to recognize Jesus and proclaim the long-awaited birth of the King of Israel.
The FAITH was in God – that God’s Word would be true and validated by foretold miraculous events. The knowledge was given beforehand, and thus was not the result of faith in virgin birth, but in God’s promise – in God Himself.
Excellent try, THX.
Kynarion, the focus of Objectivism is NOT on attacking religion or even attacking Marxism.
The focus of Objectivism is on this human, mortal, and fragile life on earth. And how to live it successfully, how man and mankind can flourish and achieve happiness by pursuing rational values.
No Objectivist who believes in Objectivism and is living up to Objectivist principles is ever going to initiate force or fraud against a Christian or anyone else. If Objectivism ever becomes the dominant philosophy of the USA every individual will be free to follow his conscience, his own individual mind, and live by his convictions — so long as he respects the same right in every other American.
“The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. No man—or group or society or government—has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man. Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. The ethical principle involved is simple and clear-cut: it is the difference between murder and self-defense. A holdup man seeks to gain a value, wealth, by killing his victim; the victim does not grow richer by killing a holdup man. The principle is: no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force….
In accordance with the principles of America and of capitalism, I recognize your right to hold any beliefs you choose — and, on the same grounds, you have to recognize my right to hold any convictions I choose. I am an intransigent atheist, though not a militant one. This means that I am not fighting against religion — I am fighting for reason. When faith and reason clash, it is up to the religious people to decide how they choose to reconcile the conflict. As far as I am concerned, I have no terms of communication and no means to deal with people, except through reason.” – Ayn Rand
4 “Look at the proud: he is inwardly not upright;
but the righteous will attain life through trusting faithfulness.
Habakkuk 2:4 (Complete Jewish Bible)
THX :
The Christian community does not have enough faith to be atheists,
This is because we have examined the evidence that points to our Creator and, from that, we have made a logical inference.
Science cannot prove or disprove God. When humans employ reason and logic they can conclude that it is more likely than not that God exists.
Science has proven that (Space, Time and Matter) had a beginning. Logic holds that anything that begins to exist has a cause. Reason holds that what “caused” our universe lies beyond our universe and thus outside of Space, Time and Matter.
Since an infinite regression into the past is not supported by logic, a Christian can reasonably conclude that in order for anything to exist, something must, of necessity, be eternal.
We know this eternal ‘something’ is God and His dwelling place. We know this is the most plausible explanation because, being outside of Space, Time and Matter, means God is not subject to the constraints of physics, including time and the necessity of a prior creative force for His Own existence.
How do atheists explain ‘existence’ ? Is it due to the mythical “multiverse”; infinite regression; the universe is somehow eternal or it created itself ? – All of these atheistic explanations require a leap of faith. A leap that this Christian believer cannot abide because I adhere to facts and logic.
May you discover the peace and happiness that flows from God, the Creator.
“Philosophy, rational philosophy, rests on the natural, the observable, the demonstrable, the evidence of the senses, the provable, the definable. It rejects the supernatural, the magical, the causeless. It rejects that which contradicts reason, logic, and observable reality.”
Materialist childplay.
Aldous Huxley is certainly considered a philosopher, and because of his experiences with mescaline developed a keen appreciation for mysticism and intersections of what he called ‘perennial philsophy’ in traditions of the West and the East and wrote a book of that title.
Same thing for William James, considered a giant in American psychology and also a PHILOSOPHER influenced by experiences with mescaline and nitrous oxide, with a similar orientation as with Aldous Huxley.
Then there was Ralph Waldo Emerson, transcendentalist PHILOSOPHER heavily read in the Eastern mystical traditions and the godfather of William James. he was also an ordained minister.
May I point out that “the observable” includes the inner vision and with the current revolution in clinical applications of psychedelic substances, thousands of people every month are experiencing the intiation of personal ontological shift with the power of an inner earhtquake. Persons holding to a rigid worldview of philsophical materialism are unable to experience such a shift.
Statue seems quite at home in front of the Capital building.
Religion needs to understand that it does not and never again can be allowed to rule. Islam is a good example of the destructive nature of religion though history both ancient and new are testament to the issues presented by extremist religionists. After all, the fundamental requirement of any religion is to convert the infidel however you can.
Believe if you must. Indoctrinate your children if you must. But live within the confines of the secular system that has been established deliberately to constrain your proclivities.
The fundamental conflict is not religion or secularism, but reason versus faith, the real versus a fantasy.
Marxism, after all, claims to be secular, logical, and scientific. Marxism claims to be based on reality and reason, but it is nothing more than irrational, illogical, mumbo-jumbo. Marxism is a mystical fantasy divorced from both reality and reason.
In a free and rational every individual must be left free to think and believe whatever he wants to think and believe. So long as he respects the right of every individual to live in peace and free from the INITIATION of force or fraud.
Something you never learned to do. The only reason you have never learned that is you hide behind your eternal fallback position “free from the INITIATION of force or fraud.” You know your kind could never win a stand up fight. And there aren’t enough of you anyway.
Ok, THX1138
Your comment really makes a lot of sense to me.
“.. live within the confines of the secular system that has been established deliberately to constrain your proclivities.”
Which system is that?
Like the Church of Scientology, the Satanic Temple has tax exempt status and is classified by the IRS as a “church or a convention or association of churches.” If nothing else, they stand on solid legal ground. On the other hand, like Scientology, they’re often labeled a cult. Unless they get their tax exemption revoked, it will remain just a philosophical or ideological argument.
I don’t know very much about the cult of Scientology, but any cult is bad for people. I was a member of a certain cult; sort of like “a mind science thing.” This org has become very powerful, and has become the normal go to for law enforcement, among other entities. This cult that I’m referring to has become anti-Christian because I cannot speak openly about my beliefs. They say they are spiritual, but I question what spirit they are following because I am not an Agnostic. In that setting, I am required to acknowledge that I am an Agnostic, although I am not. What a strange conundrum.
So just how soon will they be pulling down that idol of Baphomet and smelting it down into a Christian Cross? And where is the ACLU?