Supreme Court Backs Satanism…
To the consternation of nationally syndicated conservative radio talk show host Sean Hannity (depicted on the right) , “The Supreme Court sided with a witch, a Satanist and a racial separatist Tuesday, upholding a federal law requiring state prisons to accommodate the religious affiliations of inmates.” The case is reported in an AP article here. Hannity's web site is here.
Hannity’s chief argument was that the Court should rightly protect religion, but not Satanism which Hannity characterized as “evil.” Hannity espoused that the Court should exercise “common sense.” I contend that the Court acted properly by recognizing that the government does not have the right to decide in this case what is and what is not a correct religion.
The assertion that Satanism is inherently “evil” is a matter of definition. The practice of Satanism cuts a wide swath and there are adherents who either do or do not incorporate acts of violence in the name of their religion. I suspect that every religion has some practitioners who harm others. The Christian religion, to which Hannity is an adherent, is no exception. Examples include the white racist Christian church, the Church of the Creator, and the Army of God, etc.
Satanism, as practiced in the U. S. and recognized by the U. S. military as a legitimate religion, reportedly does not engage in acts of violence. Rather, it is an outgrowth of the church founded by the famous Satanist Anton LaVey, who was the High Priest of the Church of Our Lord Satan headquartered in San Francisco. That is not to say that non-affiliated self-styled groups do not commit violence in the name of Satanism. They do, as evidenced by Charles Manson and his ilk and others.
The standard that should be employed when judging whether or not a religion, or some variant of a particular religion, is legally acceptable is the axiom of the WICCAN religion paraphrased here as, “Do what you will, but do harm to none.”
Hannity’s chief argument was that the Court should rightly protect religion, but not Satanism which Hannity characterized as “evil.” Hannity espoused that the Court should exercise “common sense.” I contend that the Court acted properly by recognizing that the government does not have the right to decide in this case what is and what is not a correct religion.
The assertion that Satanism is inherently “evil” is a matter of definition. The practice of Satanism cuts a wide swath and there are adherents who either do or do not incorporate acts of violence in the name of their religion. I suspect that every religion has some practitioners who harm others. The Christian religion, to which Hannity is an adherent, is no exception. Examples include the white racist Christian church, the Church of the Creator, and the Army of God, etc.
Satanism, as practiced in the U. S. and recognized by the U. S. military as a legitimate religion, reportedly does not engage in acts of violence. Rather, it is an outgrowth of the church founded by the famous Satanist Anton LaVey, who was the High Priest of the Church of Our Lord Satan headquartered in San Francisco. That is not to say that non-affiliated self-styled groups do not commit violence in the name of Satanism. They do, as evidenced by Charles Manson and his ilk and others.
The standard that should be employed when judging whether or not a religion, or some variant of a particular religion, is legally acceptable is the axiom of the WICCAN religion paraphrased here as, “Do what you will, but do harm to none.”
posted by Paul Coambs | 6:15 AM
<< Home