Satanists Claim Abortion a Religious Ritual

[Bree]

The Satanic abortion ritual provides spiritual comfort and affirms bodily autonomy, self-worth, and freedom from coercive forces with the affirmation of TST's Seven Tenets. The ritual is not intended to convince a person to have an abortion. Instead, it sanctifies the abortion process by instilling confidence and protecting bodily rights when undergoing the safe and scientific procedure.
https://announcement.thesatanictemple.com/rrr-campaign41280784

I find the music from the video a bit disturbing.

Do you think abortion should be protected as a religious right?

its for this reason that the God of the Bible outlawed satanic practices such as witchcraft, sorcery and the like.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

its for this reason that the God of the Bible outlawed satanic practices such as witchcraft, sorcery and the like.

That's why I keep saying, despite the claims of Christians there is just no possible way America was founded on Biblical principle because those are inherently and fundamentally incompatible with American values.

 

[Viker]

its for this reason that the God of the Bible outlawed satanic practices such as witchcraft, sorcery and the like.

The God of the Bible didn't write the US Constitution either, or the many state laws or the tenets of things like Modern Satanism or In Diabolica, so on and so on. This one particular deity of the Bible has no relevance or authority over everyone in the modern era.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wishful thinking.

No confirmed. You know that they only sources you have are highly biased ones. The "charges" would have barely covered the pay for the physicians involved in harvesting them if that. They were charged a nominal fee. You have to know that by now.

 

[74x12]

There seem to be at least two very different kinds of people calling themselves Satanists, and one seems to be essentially secular humanists spoofing religion. So, when the church gets permission to put up a religious icon on public property, the Satanists want to get Baphomet out there, not because they consider this to be a real god or want to promote any ism, but just to oppose Christian exceptionalism in the public sphere.

They'll do the same when churches get permission to hand out pro-religious literature in the schools, or public meetings begin with a theistic prayer. They want to hand out their literature right beside it, and give their own Satanic benediction. They're not promoting anything except to get the religious to rethink promoting their religions in public spaces. That's what this abortion thing is as well. Christians consider abortion wrong and want to make recriminalizing it law? OK, let's call abortion a religious ritual and get the protection that that claim garners the theists.

So if their religion is a farce and disingenious then of course they could be labelled an anti-christian hate group which apparently is what they are. Although I do realize some of them do believe in satan and do worship satan. That is not the position of the official organisation itself. But, it could even be argued in court that they are promoting hate speech. Since it is largely a Christian idea that "satan" comes to tempt and destroy people's souls. They've co-opted this concept for their own uses. Namely adopting this language in an attempt to offend and antagonize Christians whom they obviously have a lot of ire towards. Which should be the definition of hatred and hate speech.

So it looks like a no win scenario for them. We just need a lawyer smart enough to make this case and they're finished. Their time is over.

As for the idea of "Christian exceptionalism" it's a myth. There is no Christian exceptionalism. The only exceptionalism is that it's the majority religion in most counties of America. So of course when it comes to artwork or whatever then people are going to be thinking along the lines of their own culture which happens to be Christian. I'm sure if some other religion was in the majority in a given county or district then they would have other ideas on what art should be displayed. I think atheists and in particular satanists are just annoyed that this is still a majority Christian country. At least culturally anyway.

As for abortion. It's not just a Christian idea that the soul and the human spirit is real. That's in most religions around the world. So, the idea that it's only Christians opposing abortion is not necessarily true. It's a legitimate concern that human souls are being killed in so called abortions. This concern is serious and not to be marginalized just because a minority of citizens claim it's all nonsense and that there is no soul or spirit.

 

[Viker]

. I think atheists and in particular satanists are just annoyed that this is still a majority Christian country. At least culturally anyway.

No. They're concerned that minorities may be denied equal protection/consideration under the law, or that the law might be twisted to favor a majority alone.

 

[Viker]

Which should be the definition of hatred and hate speech.

Are you woke enough, now?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So if their religion is a farce and disingenious then of course they could be labelled an anti-christian hate group which apparently is what they are. Although I do realize some of them do believe in satan and do worship satan. That is not the position of the official organisation itself. But, it could even be argued in court that they are promoting hate speech. Since it is largely a Christian idea that "satan" comes to tempt and destroy people's souls. They've co-opted this concept for their own uses. Namely adopting this language in an attempt to offend and antagonize Christians whom they obviously have a lot of ire towards. Which should be the definition of hatred and hate speech.

So it looks like a no win scenario for them. We just need a lawyer smart enough to make this case and they're finished. Their time is over.

As for the idea of "Christian exceptionalism" it's a myth. There is no Christian exceptionalism. The only exceptionalism is that it's the majority religion in most counties of America. So of course when it comes to artwork or whatever then people are going to be thinking along the lines of their own culture which happens to be Christian. I'm sure if some other religion was in the majority in a given county or district then they would have other ideas on what art should be displayed. I think atheists and in particular satanists are just annoyed that this is still a majority Christian country. At least culturally anyway.

As for abortion. It's not just a Christian idea that the soul and the human spirit is real. That's in most religions around the world. So, the idea that it's only Christians opposing abortion is not necessarily true. It's a legitimate concern that human souls are being killed in so called abortions. This concern is serious and not to be marginalized just because a minority of citizens claim it's all nonsense and that there is no soul or spirit.

I am sorry but that is unwarranted. Just because one can see how another religion does major harm to others does not make them a "hate group"
And almost none of them worship Satan and none of them worship the make believe Satan of the bible.

 

[Viker]

the make believe Satan of the bible.

Here, here!

 

[Wildswanderer]

No confirmed. You know that they only sources you have are highly biased ones. The "charges" would have barely covered the pay for the physicians involved in harvesting them if that. They were charged a nominal fee. You have to know that by now.

So? How does that justify it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So? How does that justify it?

Nothing in this world is free. Those doing the harvesting need to be paid. The fees appeared to only cover that. Do you have the faintest idea what parts could sell for on an open market? Do you seriously think that it would be as cheap as just the nominal fee that they charged?

 

[SkepticThinker]

So if their religion is a farce and disingenious then of course they could be labelled an anti-christian hate group which apparently is what they are. Although I do realize some of them do believe in satan and do worship satan. That is not the position of the official organisation itself. But, it could even be argued in court that they are promoting hate speech. Since it is largely a Christian idea that "satan" comes to tempt and destroy people's souls. They've co-opted this concept for their own uses. Namely adopting this language in an attempt to offend and antagonize Christians whom they obviously have a lot of ire towards. Which should be the definition of hatred and hate speech.

So it looks like a no win scenario for them. We just need a lawyer smart enough to make this case and they're finished. Their time is over.

As for the idea of "Christian exceptionalism" it's a myth. There is no Christian exceptionalism. The only exceptionalism is that it's the majority religion in most counties of America. So of course when it comes to artwork or whatever then people are going to be thinking along the lines of their own culture which happens to be Christian. I'm sure if some other religion was in the majority in a given county or district then they would have other ideas on what art should be displayed. I think atheists and in particular satanists are just annoyed that this is still a majority Christian country. At least culturally anyway.

As for abortion. It's not just a Christian idea that the soul and the human spirit is real. That's in most religions around the world. So, the idea that it's only Christians opposing abortion is not necessarily true. It's a legitimate concern that human souls are being killed in so called abortions. This concern is serious and not to be marginalized just because a minority of citizens claim it's all nonsense and that there is no soul or spirit.

Sorry but to me, concerns about souls aren't serious, unless and until anybody can demonstrate that souls even exist in the first place and that they can be killed (in abortions). They're serious to the people who believe in them, I'm sure, but I see no reason to take them seriously as a serious argument against rights to bodily autonomy.

 

[Sheldon]

It's a legitimate concern that human souls are being killed in so called abortions.

If it's a concern then don't have an abortion, or help anyone else have one. Just let others who don't believe in souls live their lives without telling them what to do with their own bodies.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

That reminds me that you haven't answered my question about that 1% fallacy yet.

I'm sorry if I failed to respond to one of your posts - I get overwhelmed by the number of comments I receive so some fall through the cracks.

Would you mind asking me that question again?

The other ramblings are as yet too weird for me to answer but I have yet another question.

Why do you describe my post as "ramblings" and "too weird"?

And - why do you use that as an excuse to ignore them?

If you are having difficulty understanding my comments - simply point out what is confusing you - and I will clarify.

If you did understand my comments - yet you are just labelling them thusly as an excuse to ignore them - then this is nothing more than ad hominem.

You don't like women having sex out of marriage and the security to be able to raise the child (but would force those barely able to do it anyway).

In all cases of murdering the not-yet-born - excluding the cases of rape (which account for less than 1%) - the only "forcible act" is the murder of the not-yet-born.

Not allowing women to murder their not-yet-born children is not "forcing" anything on anyone.

Not allowing a woman to murder her not-yet-born child does not "force" her to raise the child.

No one is entitled to any kind of "security" - so I do not understand why you believe women who have children are entitled to it.

What everyone should be doing is living their lives in such a way to mitigate risks to their "security" and they should actively strive to build and maintain their own "security".

Which is one of the main reasons why I believe that men and women should not have sex outside of marriage.

What about the men?

Considering that - outside the cases of rape and sexual assault - acts of sexual congress are decided upon by the woman - I believe that women bear the brunt of the responsibility.

That isn't even to mention the fact that they themselves are the ones who can get pregnant and that men have virtually zero reproductive rights.

All that being said - men should also not have sex until marriage.

How many men shy away from their responsibility and flee from having to pay alimony?

I assume you mean "child support".

In our nation today a woman can get impregnated by a man - decide to keep his child without his consent or even against his expressed wishes - leave him - and sue him for child support.

Conversely - a woman could also get impregnated by a man - decide to murder the man's not-yet-born child without his consent or even against his expressed wishes.

Basically - women have all the reproductive rights and men have none.

So - yes - I believe that men should be responsible for the children they sire - but a system where a woman can decide to murder a man's child consequence free should also allow a man to abandon his child consequence free.

That would be true equality.

What about a "man tax" that every male has to pay?

No. We shouldn't have sexist or racist taxes or laws.

It would have to be set at a level so that every child can be raised under the conditions that you said you'd prefer it should have been conceived.

No - the legal guardians of a child are responsible for said child.

Would you vote for such a tax?

I would vote against such an absurd idea - yes.

Do they?

Yes.

Where are you from? This is about reproductive (and religious) rights in the US.

The topic of murdering the not-yet-born has nothing to do with religion.

I understand that you want it to be - but it doesn't.

And in many states women's rights are limited to non existent - and they are about to be cut even more. And you are advocating for it.

Considering that there is no Constitutional right to "abortion" or inalienable right to murder those who are inconvenient to you - what "rights" are being limited?

I've offered two solutions to better the circumstances for women and by that make it rational for women to have children so that abortion would become a purely medical decision. Please answer those questions.

Would you mind posting those questions again?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

If God is so offended by abortion, He’s free to stop them.

 

[Heyo]

I'm sorry if I failed to respond to one of your posts - I get overwhelmed by the number of comments I receive so some fall through the cracks.
Would you mind asking me that question again?

I'm the one who has to be sorry. I didn't ask you but @Wildswanderer in post #119. I got confused because you repeated that 1% number in post #210.

Why do you describe my post as "ramblings" and "too weird"?

It started with the red herring if "mother" is the correct term or "birthing person" would be more appropriate and was followed by a Gish gallop of equally unrelated topics.

And - why do you use that as an excuse to ignore them?

I like to keep the discussion manageable. Too many topics at once make posts unreadable, I'm willing to go back to other points when one is solved.

Not allowing women to murder their not-yet-born children is not "forcing" anything on anyone.

It is forcing her to give her body as a rent-free apartment to the fetus.

So - yes - I believe that men should be responsible for the children they sire - but a system where a woman can decide to murder a man's child consequence free should also allow a man to abandon his child consequence free.

That would be true equality.

I'm all for equality. I'd be willing to allow men to abandon their child in about the same time period as women are allowed to abort a fetus.

No. We shouldn't have sexist or racist taxes or laws.

Another point we can agree upon. We don't force men to carry a fetus for 9 month and neither should we women.

I would vote against such an absurd idea - yes.

Good. I think it is an equally absurd idea to vote for a "women tax" - forcing them to let their bodies be used for at least 9 month.

Considering that there is no Constitutional right to "abortion" or inalienable right to murder those who are inconvenient to you - what "rights" are being limited?

In the US there is no constitutional right to bodily autonomy but there is also no inalienable right to life.

 

[ppp]

Considering that there is no Constitutional right to "abortion"

The 9th amendment of the US Constitution states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
This means that the government does not own the rights that are not listed in the Constitution, but rather that they belong to the People. We have all rights that are not specifically restricted by law.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm sorry if I failed to respond to one of your posts - I get overwhelmed by the number of comments I receive so some fall through the cracks.

Would you mind asking me that question again?

Why do you describe my post as "ramblings" and "too weird"?

And - why do you use that as an excuse to ignore them?

If you are having difficulty understanding my comments - simply point out what is confusing you - and I will clarify.

If you did understand my comments - yet you are just labelling them thusly as an excuse to ignore them - then this is nothing more than ad hominem.

In all cases of murdering the not-yet-born - excluding the cases of rape (which account for less than 1%) - the only "forcible act" is the murder of the not-yet-born.

Not allowing women to murder their not-yet-born children is not "forcing" anything on anyone.

Not allowing a woman to murder her not-yet-born child does not "force" her to raise the child.

No one is entitled to any kind of "security" - so I do not understand why you believe women who have children are entitled to it.

What everyone should be doing is living their lives in such a way to mitigate risks to their "security" and they should actively strive to build and maintain their own "security".

Which is one of the main reasons why I believe that men and women should not have sex outside of marriage.

Considering that - outside the cases of rape and sexual assault - acts of sexual congress are decided upon by the woman - I believe that women bear the brunt of the responsibility.

That isn't even to mention the fact that they themselves are the ones who can get pregnant and that men have virtually zero reproductive rights.

All that being said - men should also not have sex until marriage.

I assume you mean "child support".

In our nation today a woman can get impregnated by a man - decide to keep his child without his consent or even against his expressed wishes - leave him - and sue him for child support.

Conversely - a woman could also get impregnated by a man - decide to murder the man's not-yet-born child without his consent or even against his expressed wishes.

Basically - women have all the reproductive rights and men have none.

So - yes - I believe that men should be responsible for the children they sire - but a system where a woman can decide to murder a man's child consequence free should also allow a man to abandon his child consequence free.

That would be true equality.

No. We shouldn't have sexist or racist taxes or laws.

No - the legal guardians of a child are responsible for said child.

I would vote against such an absurd idea - yes.

Yes.

The topic of murdering the not-yet-born has nothing to do with religion.

I understand that you want it to be - but it doesn't.

Considering that there is no Constitutional right to "abortion" or inalienable right to murder those who are inconvenient to you - what "rights" are being limited?

Would you mind posting those questions again?

I really don't like when people dismiss rape-related pregnancy this way, by claiming "oh they're only 1% of abortions" as though that doesn't amount to thousands of people in just the US alone. But not only that, it's wrong. In actuality, the national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5% per rape, among victims of reproductive age. Which accounts for tens of thousands of rape-related pregnancies just in the US alone. Not only that, but such pregnancies usually also involve some sort of domestic violence (abuse, manipulation, coercion, spousal rape, etc.). You know, an environment that isn't very conducive to raising well-rounded, physically and mentally healthy human beings. I once wrote a paper on violence among adolescents and found that the biggest predictor of violence in that age group is the child's direct, surrounding environment. In other words, violence breeds violence.

Rape-related pregnancy: estimates and descriptive characteristics from a national sample of women - PubMed

Anyway, perhaps in the future when you dismiss the violent acts committed against millions of women as insignificant, you could at least get the number right.

Meanwhile, I'm going to push for bodily autonomy rights for every human being on the planet and recognize that it's not my place to tell others what they should do with their bodies.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The 9th amendment of the US Constitution states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
This means that the government does not own the rights that are not listed in the Constitution, but rather that they belong to the People. We have all rights that are not specifically restricted by law.

And yet we clearly can’t have rights until the government signed off on them. See: voting, citizenship, etc.

 

[ppp]

And yet we clearly can’t have rights until the government signed off on them. See: voting, citizenship, etc.

I agree. We only have the rights that we can defend. And we use the government to defend those rights. At least we do when things are working correctly.