Your contempt and aversion to Christianity and religion in general has brought you into one.

The Constitution states that no law should be made regarding an establishment of religion. I grant you that this has been breached on occasion. Making Christmas and Easter statutory holidays are two instances the federal government has failed to uphold that tenet.

Allowing a creche on public property is not a violation of the Constitution it is merely a display of the freedom to practice a religion. No law was made to allow it. I don't think anyone can argue that the ten commandments are wrong-headed and not something any religion would have a problem with. Atheists just need to look at it from a secular perspective. You can ignore, though shalt have no other gods but me.
There is nothing wrong with Christianity but for a little needed updating. The practice of your religion is to just crush other religions and outlaw their practice or any empirical expression of it.

Religion has at times over human history strayed into the field of governance or allied with rulers and
even incorporated government rule unto itself as Islam has the misfortune to have done. I think the Constitution has done a fair job of separating church and State. England has its Anglican church with freedom of religion. South America is almost exclusively Catholic, and in some countries, not recognized freedom of religion.

You can call yourself a religion but as usual, those with the intent to destroy have to bend the definition a little to worm in there and attack from within.

You say you harbor no ill intent toward other religions just that they should not be sanctioned by or incorporated into government. I think the American Constitution was a first attempt to allow freedom of religion, the separation of church and state, and it has done a fairly good job. Not perfect but fairly good. The legal recognition of the Satanic Temple as a religion, if we want to maintain the integrity of the word, is dubious as there is no recognition of the spiritual or metaphysical nature of humanity, at least from what I understand of your view.

I don't see that religion has a big influence on the American political scene. It does recognize religion, especially Christianity, but by those attempting to crush it, by not allowing its practice or making the well-wishing of saying Merry Christmas, and things like that it is understandably pushing back.
The Christian faith has been losing numbers over the years so I don't think you have to drive a stake through its heart. As I said, it could use an update but it has for a couple of millennia served as a moral compass for humanity. I for one think we need one but it can't be forced upon us. Freedom of choice can't be overridden. You have freely made your choice allow others theirs - I think you try but it really bothers you.

@FrankZeleniuk And your contempt for Progressives and Leftists has turned you into one. I never said Christianity or religion is bad or should be banned from the public square. Actually, if you knew anything about my religion or its practices, as you claim to, you'd know we advocate vehemently for religious freedom and pluralism.

Of course I call out some actual members of Congress who openly profess that they want the Bible to outrank the Constitution, and you seem to take offense. Perhaps that means you want the Bible to be the supreme law of the land?

The Supreme Court has actually agreed that the Constitution imposes governmental and public "neutrality" and therefore if one religious display is allowed on government land then all religious displays must be allowed. This is why an Atheist holiday display can be in a capitol rotunda along with a Christmas display, and The Satanic Temple can run an after school program along with the Christian Good News Club.

You are right, having the Ten Commandments on government property is not a violation of the Constitution - as long as it passes the Lemon test, and other religious displays are allowed. You say we can just "ignore" the overt religious commands, such as pledging fealty to the Christian god or the "no other gods" declarations that directly contradict the First Amendment. Well sure, and you can just ignore the parts of my religious display that you don't like, such as a depiction of Satan or a promotion of critical thinking and Atheism.

The Constitution has done an adequate job of separation of Church and State, in the same vein as it did a good job on freedom and equality - the intent and literal text is there, but it took quite some time for society to actually accept it. This is why you had laws on the books banning Atheists from holding government office or banning sodomy just as you had laws on the books preventing women from voting and legalizing slavery.

Religion is not exclusive to those who believe in supernaturalism.

The idea that religion belongs to supernaturalists is ignorant, backward, and offensive. The metaphorical Satanic construct is no more arbitrary to us than are the deeply held beliefs that we actively advocate. Are we supposed to believe that those who pledge submission to an ethereal supernatural deity hold to their values more deeply than we? Are we supposed to concede that only the superstitious are rightful recipients of religious exemption and privilege? Satanism provides all that a religion should be without a compulsory attachment to untenable items of faith-based belief. It provides a narrative structure by which we contextualize our lives and works. It also provides a body of symbolism and religious practice — a sense of identity, culture, community, and shared values.

If you don't see the Christian influence on American politics, you aren't paying attention. Like I said, it was favored for decades and decades with laws specifically favoring Christianity and removing the civil rights of non-Christians. The fact that we needed to argue for the ability to teach evolutionary science in school, or that public (tax-payer funded) schools can use public funds to force Abstinence-Only education that lies about contraceptives, or that there was a ban on homosexuality in the military or mixed marriages or same sex marriages. Our president is required by law to sign a proclamation every year for the "National Day of Prayer" encouraging all Americans to pray - not very religiously neutral if you ask me. As you acknowledge, Christian holidays are government holidays - as a Jew growing up, I would need to make up assignments or outright fail tests if I wanted to take my religious holidays off. The Supreme Court is made up of 7 Catholics out of 9 members - and most likely will gain an 8th with Biden's upcoming appointment. This despite Catholics only representing 20& of the population. The fact that it wasn't until very recently that jails allowed non-Christian pastors to accompany executions for last rights, or allowed non-Christian chaplains in the military, or allowed non-Abrahamic religions acknowledgement on fallen soldier tombstones.

You seem to be falling for the Fox News / Republican "war on Christmas / war on Christianity" fear mongering. Yeah, when Starbucks doesn't have enough snowflakes on their red cups, it is a direct attack on your religion. No one is trying to crush Christianity. No, people are just acknowledging that other religions exist. Saying Happy Holidays just acknowledges that there is Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Yule, Boxing Day, Rohatsu, Omisoka, Solstice, Krampusnacht, Zarathosht Diso, Diwali, Lohri, Bon Om Touk, Tet, etc etc etc. As is typical of American Christians, if you don't only acknowledge them and favor them, they throw a hissy fit and claim they are being attacked.

No one cares if you say Merry Christmas. The problem is if I say Happy Hanukkah or Happy Sol Invictus back to someone, they will get offended. Or if I was a retail worker and chose to say Happy Sol Invictus to someone, because it was my holiday, how much shit you'd see on Fox?

As I said in my original post, there are Christians in government who want to override the Constitution with the Bible - they want to take away people's choice. I am merely calling it out.

@JacksonNought My contempt is not for the people who are progressives and socialists, it is for the ideas. They are just imbalanced supporting the collective and crushing the individual. I can say that religion supplies an individual with some solace if he has faith. There are problems with organized religion. The practice of which can become ritualistic and robotic. But it can still offer "a sense of identity, culture, community and shared values". Unfortunately for you, I think your religion will remain small. It does not offer a sense of identity, culture, community to most - and especially not shared values.

Go ahead and wish others a happy Hannukah at Christmas and if someone complains you will have a good understanding of how it feels to Christians when you complain about them. It is the non-religious progressive liberals that wish to keep people from saying Merry Christmas. There are a lot of Christians in America and a lot are not practicing their religion. Though they still adhere to the Judeo-Christian ethic and cultural celebrations. If no one said Merry Christmas no one would care. It is only an issue to some because others say it. So you can't say no one cares if you say Merry Christmas. Stores were ordering their staff to not say it but use the generic Happy holidays.

Satanism, in America, is merely a place for people to get together and vent about Christians.

I will agree with you that when the American government supports a religion or provides one privilege above another through legislation it is in the wrong. If I see a Buddha in some politician's office or a cross or Christmas tree I'm not going to complain. I might complain about a Muslim icon but only ,because it ideologically combines church and state. I can't support Muslims participating in a government that promotes the principle of the separation of church and state.

At the moment, Christians, who are necessarily conservative in their religious views, are extending their conservatism to the socio/political realm. Not that they haven't done so ever but they are pushing back against what they see as contemporary destructive elements to their responsibilities which are mainly to the family, the community and the structure of such. There are elements in society that would like to break them down and it isn't atheists. It is mainly communists.

Do you just wish social change or do want an ideological political change. A Duma, a dictator, a monarch, a democracy. If you want a democratic republic you are going to have to be tolerant of other minorities and especially tolerant of the majority. Most western developed nations have gotten into protecting minorities, granting them rights and privileges in exchange for votes, when their focus should be on protecting the rights of individuals. It is just easier for governments to cater voting blocks rather than the single vote of an individual.

@FrankZeleniuk wow you are misguided.

You have contempt for ideas of individual freedom and basic humanity like healthcare and shelter and food? I guess I have contempt for the ideas of right wing conservatism, like crony capitalism and corrupt autocracy.

My religion is growing. And even if my specific religion isn't large, its basis in Atheism is growing and growing, with the "none" being the fastest growing identity as the Abrahamic religions start to dwindle. But I couldn't care less, because as I said before, I vehemently support religious freedom and pluralism. As long as everyone is treated equally and no one religion is shown favoritism, it's all good with me. Can't quite say the same for Christians in the USA, who think allowing anyone else to play is equal to an attack.

It does not offer a sense of identity, culture, community to most - and especially not shared values.

I guess you're right. Who can get behind altruism and personal freedom and critical thinking and rational inquiry? No shared values there I suppose. I guess we should stick to "don't be gay" and "blindly serve" and "children die of cancer because Ellen hosted the Emmys" to create an identity. You are right about one thing, my religion isn't as popular, but that's because It doesn't provide a source of control and power and unquestioningly subservience - no profit motive like the big ones and their prosperity gospels.

You seem to know nothing of Satanism. I guess I could just as easily say that Christianity is nothing more than a place to get together and vent about Jews and Pagans.

You claim to agree that it is wrong to provide a religion with favoritism, but then turn around and single out a religion to be discriminated against. Your thoughts about Islam are no different than my thoughts on both Islam and Christianity. You don't think a Muslim can separate their faith from the state, and therefore shouldn't be involved in government. Well I don't think a devout Christian can't separate their faith from government, and we've seen it time and time again with some Christian lawmakers violating the constitution in favor of their Bible. But as a staunch advocate of religious freedom I would never claim that they should be barred from holding office, only held to Constitutional standards. You seem to disagree and want to bar specific religions from holding office. In fact you seem to support what I just said that Christians are trying to shape the country based on their religion, because they see progressive values as an attack on their values; individual freedom is bad for their brand, gay marriage makes their marriages worse, women in the workplace is against the will of their god, etc etc. You just give them a pass it seems.

Again you seem to be falling hook line and sinker for the Fox News right wing media machine narrative. There are no scary Communists trying to destroy America and outlaw Christianity. They just love a good persecution complex to act like they're the poor oppressed victim while still being in absolute power. Oh no, over 90% of the most powerful deciding body in the land, which gets to decide what rules everyone must follow, are Christians - how will they ever survive? Every president in modern history has been a Christian (except maybe Trump) - won't someone please think of them?

Yes, a Democratic Republic needs to protect minorities. Seems like protecting the rights of individuals supports that. I don't think we were really protecting the rights of individuals when we were allowing minorities to be sold into slavery and prevented them from holding jobs or going to school or getting married, do you?

Here in the USA the single voter doesn't actually hold power. It is all about building blocs, and gerrymandering to rig the system for those blocs. Our Electoral College strips the rights of the individual. A couple of hundred thousand people spread out in the Dakota territory have more governing power than tens of millions in California. The "popular vote" means nothing, as Republican presidents have won the election despite losing the popular vote - the last one getting to install three Supreme Court justices that will shape the politics of the country far longer than his term.

@JacksonNought > You have contempt for ideas of individual freedom and basic humanity like healthcare and shelter and food? I guess I have contempt for the ideas of right wing conservatism, like crony capitalism and corrupt autocracy.

I would never deny anyone from accessing healthcare, shelter or food. If it isn't free for me though I don't expect it to be free for anyone else. Nor do I expect an agency to take it from me and give it to someone else for nothing.
"Crony" is an adjective that modifies "capitalism". It should be its own word "cronyism". It exists in any human collective activity. One could just as well say crony socialism. Hitler and Mussolini were old cronies. If you really want to make it a pejorative.

I understand there are poor and needy people. If you know anything about economics you should understand that, in order to share, there has to be an abundance of production. If we are equally poor there is very little to share. You must also understand that an agency, that does not produce but takes from the production of others can only do so if there is an abundance of production. If everyone is poor, little is available to be redistributed in order to improve the lives of others. The agency authorized to do the redistribution will ensure it has enough first.

We see healthcare being forced on people now. Something that is proclaimed to be done for the good of all does not usually turn out to be for the good of all. Vaccines are touted to be safe and effective. No vaccine is 100% safe for everyone. And we have now determined that these mRNA vaccines are not really that effective. Now it is claimed that they will at least ease symptoms. Was there a study?

Why would I, or even any "right-wing conservative", support crony capitalism and corrupt autocracy?
Crony capitalists and corrupt autocracies would always want you to focus on their benevolence and their loud proclamation of how much they are giving back to the community. I guess you have observed how corporations are doing that today and how benign and benevolent the welfare system claims to be while it keeps itself ever-expanding - compassionately, mind you.

There are no scary Communists trying to destroy America and outlaw Christianity.

Why does BLM claim to be Marxists? Why does Bernie Sanders claim to be a socialist and advocate of the old USSR? Why is conservatism vilified? Why are most of the professorial faculty of universities fond of socialism. Communism is basically a Marxist, revolutionary blueprint to totalitarian socialism. There is ample evidence that progressive socialists would prefer to do away with many parts of the constitution, which would ultimately destroy what has been understood to be America, and of course, under a system of total socialism, not just Christianity but mostly all religions would be outlawed.

You claim to agree that it is wrong to provide a religion with favoritism, but then turn around and single out a religion to be discriminated against. Your thoughts about Islam are no different than my thoughts on both Islam and Christianity.

The Constitution provides for the separation of church and state which I agree with. Islam does not agree with that principle. I just would prefer not to live under sharia "law". Laws are for government legislators to determine and enact not Popes or Imams.

You seem to think that the ten commandments, which have their origin from the Jewish religion, and were only adopted into Christianity, are laws in America. Most of them are simply values most religions would hold. Simply common sense to most societies and have no problem with incorporating them into their secular laws.

I don't think we were really protecting the rights of individuals when we were allowing minorities to be sold into slavery and prevented them from holding jobs or going to school or getting married, do you?

Yes, I don't think we were. The reason it changed is because some people thought it was unconstitutional. The reason it existed was an example of the level of understanding that we had of humanity at the time. The framers of the Constitution were way ahead of their time by not incorporating slavery into the Constitution and separating church and state.

We cannot say that violations of the Constitution have not occurred or some amendment has not granted privilege to...oh let's say "bankers".
Yet today the fruits of our labor are forcibly taken from us beyond our consent and for purposes we may disagree with by an agency which may use them entirely for their own purposes that may work against our best interests. Is that not a type of economic slavery?

Our Electoral College strips the rights of the individual. A couple of hundred thousand people spread out in the Dakota territory have more governing power than tens of millions in California.

Seems incongruous that you argue in one paragraph"a Democratic Republic needs to protect minorities" and in the next paragraph complain "A couple of hundred thousand people spread out in the Dakota territory have more governing power than the tens of millions in California". I would have thought "equality" an important concept to you.The Electoral College gives individuals in small States a shot at having a say in the national dialogue. The Electoral College creates an equality of the States andis set up that way so tens of millions in California (the majority) do not always overwhelm the couple of hundred thousands in the Dakotas (the minority).

Truly though, each State has it's own constitution, independent but not in conflict to the federal constitution. The Federal government, in my opinion, should have limited powers and perhaps close to zero influence or concern regarding the social issues of each State. Thus we see such differences in State governments where, for instance, California is a socialist government impinging heavily on the economy and the Dakotas are more laissez faire with lower taxes, less intrusion in the economy.

You might consider California to have more individual freedom than the Dakotas and we might have a disagreement there. But that's a different discussion.

>Again you seem to be falling hook line and sinker for the Fox News right wing media machine narrative.

I do watch Tucker religiously (Ha) and Gutfeld for humor but that's about the extent of my Fox input.
Of course, I get alot of my "news" from IDW, right here.

You seem to know nothing of Satanism.

True. I think I know more than most Christians or Americans though. Not that I am either.

@JacksonNought > Marxism isn't the same as Communism, and Socialism isn't the same either.

I said they were all forms of "socialism". The trouble with pinning down what a socialist state is or even what socialism is, is that every time it fails the definition changes. Of course Marxism is communism. Others have later morphed it into different things, anarchists such as Bakunin and Kropotkin, who thought the State would eventually wither away. HaHa, like that would happen.

There are plenty of Socialist policies in America - the police, fire department, social security, the military.

Are you complaining? Your original stance is that America is capitalist. I guess it is still too capitalist for you. But capitalism is a system of economy, not a system of governing.

You know, I have concluded that your belief is that we are all Satanists - and you are not.

@FrankZeleniuk

You and those in your camp fall on the same excuses that you accuse Communists and Socialists of. I always hear "when Socialism takes over get ready for X and Y and Z" and yet those same things happen in today's Capitalist society. You see people making memes with pictures of things happening currently, like empty store shelves or homelessness or food lines, and they say "this will be America under Socialism" - yet it is America under Capitalism. When presented with the failures of Capitalism - mass poverty, mass hunger, broken healthcare, homelessness, civil rights issues, a recently struggling democracy... you get the same excuses.

Socialism is a system of economy as well, as it is a system for production and exchange, meant as an alternative to Capitalism. You mistake many people who advocate for social policies as Socialists, rather than supporting a form of Democratic Socialism, which is indeed different. For example, workers rights such as unions or child labor laws or pollution regulations and the FDA saying you can't give people ecoli... those are all a result of Socialist policies. True unregulated Capitalism favors profit over all else, and wouldn't care who is killed in the process.

No idea what your last statement is supposed to mean. I am an avowed Satanist. You seem to be a Christian of some variety, and many on this site are either fundamentalist Christians or some sort of non-religion.

@JacksonNought > I always hear "when Socialism takes over get ready for X and Y and Z" and yet those same things happen in today's Capitalist society.

The US is not a capitalist society "today". Like you say, "the police, fire department, social security, the military" are all socialist policies....oh and the Democrat party finally overrun by socialists.

It seems to me you are pointing out who the evil ones really are and since Christians consider Satan their evil nemesis, they are becoming him. You are the proof.

@FrankZeleniuk except the USA is most definitely a Capitalist society. We just have a tinge of Socialist policy here and there, despite many people foaming at the mouth over it despite supporting things like the police and military. Having a few Socialist programs doesn't make the whole thing Socialist.

The Democrat party is most definitely not overrun by Socialists. Biden is as middle ground centrist corporatist as you can get. Same with Hillary, same with Nancy, same with all leadership. Bernie couldn't win the primary, doesn't sound like he is taking over? The "squad" is only a small voice which can't get any of their policies enacted, like the Green New Deal. If you believe this then, would you say the opposite side argument is true - that the Republican party is overrun by white supremacists and fascists?

I don't care what Christians think. Satan is not evil to me - as my religion describes, he was the ultimate freedom fighter against arbitrary oppressive authority. He freed people from their shackles and gave them critical thinking and self awareness. If anything, the Abrahamic god is the evil one. But who cares, they are all imaginary friends. I don't think all Christians are bad - most are good people, and I have many friends who are all different religions. That doesn't mean there aren't specific Christians in the US government who are trying to install a dictator and a theocracy, as I said in my original post.

This is getting similar to the CRT hysteria. A teacher says "hey some white people hundreds of year ago were bad" and then some white people today cry that they have their feelings hurt and will interpret that as "you and all white people are bad". Well I am saying there are specific Christians and Republicans trying to destroy America and make it a theocratic dictatorship, and you are getting offended - which shouldn't be the case unless you are one of those people.