Friday, 17 August 2018

The Satanic Temple Is in a schism over the use of a lawyer with Alt-Right Clients.

quote [ "In January, Lucien Greaves of the Satanic Temple announced that he was considering a lawsuit against Twitter on religious discrimination grounds. In the intervening months, the decision to sue Twitter has grown into part of a controversy that’s engulfed the organization and recently led one of the Temple’s major chapters, the Satanic Temple Los Angeles, to leave the group entirely. The breaking point..." "Marc Randazza, a First Amendment lawyer who currently represents a major neo-Nazi publisher, several key alt-right figures, and Alex Jones." ]

Randazza offered to work the case pro bono, and has experience with twitter. However, there has been conflict over his other clients. Portland mentioning proud boys and patriot prayer as spurring them to action.

Satanic Portland's statment
[SFW] [religion & spirituality] [+2]
[by biblebeltdrunk@6:02amGMT]


zarathustra said @ 11:38am GMT on 18th Aug [Score:1 Underrated]
Personally, if I was in need of a first amendment lawyer I would go with a firebrand who defends the principles of the first amendment no matter how odious the manifestation than one who picks and chooses who deserves it.
WeiYang said @ 10:31am GMT on 17th Aug
No so much "Do As Thou Wilt", as apparently, 'Have Thee A Vote And Go With The Majority'...and it is not clear that if there had been the vote that they complain there was not, that the chapter would have gone with a negative decision.

I dunno if these guys are Crowley-ans, but the idea of one Satanist or group trying to tell anyone else what to do is not good Satanism, especially when it is apparently based on the moral sensibilities of the of the dissident group. It's pretty funny actually. A church is a church is a church.

It's not their breaking away that is ironic, it's their high sounding moral tone, and seeming desire to justify the doing of Their Will. Doing Thy Will is its own justification.
Ankylosaur said @ 1:08pm GMT on 17th Aug [Score:2]
They're not Crowley-ans. They have nothing to do with the "do as thou wilt" crowd. They're atheists and secularists who are co-opting satanic imagery to trigger fundamentalists that use religious freedom arguments to get around separation of church and state into admitting they only want rights for Christians, thereby ruining the legal basis of their schemes. They're the ones who tried to get that goat-headed devil statue installed next to a 10 commandments monument on public property, resulting in the commandments monument being removed, which was the satanic temple's real goal. Basically they have weaponized trolling for lawsuits.

It's not surprising people who were on board with those goals balking at associating with alt-righters.
WeiYang said @ 4:45pm GMT on 17th Aug
Oh, so they are like fake christians who like the lable but not the practice. Got it.
Ankylosaur said @ 5:32pm GMT on 17th Aug
No, you don't got it. They are an activist group for church/state issues that uses the same tactics as those trying to get around the establishment clause - making appeals to religious freedom rhetoric and taking advantage of open access laws - only doing it in such a way as to be religiously odious to the christian right (as opposed to actually odious in a way that would legally legitimize government discrimination, as Crowley/LaVey satanists might be considered), so that when the christian right objects to sharing public spaces with "satanists" they undermine their own legal claims.

The problem secularists face is arguments over religious rights often favor those who profess a religion over those who don't, largely because the framing being used has been created by religious proponents. With the sort of establishment clause cases that the ST has gotten involved with, you have people trying to use public spaces to promote their religion exclusively. If someone simply objects, even on the correct grounds that it amounts to government promotion of one religion over others, they can be dismissed as just "being offended", especially if they are nonreligious.

By creating an ostensible religion, one with intentionally reasonable and harmless beliefs (read their seven fundamental tenets and try to muster any real outrage at them), the ST can interact with these groups on their own terms, and expose the disingenuousness of their agenda when they object to being offended by superficial satan imagery.
arrowhen said @ 5:52pm GMT on 17th Aug
Do you think there's some kind of orthodox Satanism that these guys have strayed too far from?
mechanical contrivance said @ 6:03pm GMT on 17th Aug
If not orthodox, they could be conservative or reform Satanists. I just hope they're not Hasidic Satanists. Those guys are weird.
zarathustra said @ 11:33am GMT on 18th Aug
It's the little hats.
arrowhen said @ 5:46pm GMT on 17th Aug
Crowley wasn't a Satanist.
cb361 said @ 6:22pm GMT on 17th Aug
captainstubing said @ 9:39pm GMT on 17th Aug
A shame. I have been following TST for a long while and find LG's decision a bit of a dick move. I can understand the appeal of pro Bono, but I can understand a y TST members feeling queasy about this.
the circus said @ 11:34pm GMT on 17th Aug

Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment, then click the reply link on that comment instead]

You must be logged in to comment on posts.

Posts of Import
4 More Years!
SE v2 Closed BETA
First Post
Subscriptions and Things
AskSE: What do you look like?

Karma Rankings