Satanist leads prayer at city council meeting

[Wildswanderer]

The former would be the same as tossing salt over your shoulder.

That doesn't make any sense.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Why should I care what people like? If everything's relative and good and evil are just random concepts, then all that matters is what I can take for myself.

Because that's what living in society is all about.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Because that's what living in society is all about.

Why should I care about society?
The only thing that matters is there's no such thing as right and wrong, is what I want.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Why should I care about society?
The only thing that matters is there's no such thing as right and wrong, is what I want.

Because you evolved to. And, if you care about yourself, you'll care about society responds to you.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Because you evolved to. And, if you care about yourself, you'll care about society responds to you.

If we evolved to care, then millions of people are not very evolved, because plenty of people live is if all that matters is what they want.
Our prisons would not be full of that were true.

The truth is, many people find pleasure in killing and torturing and raping. Sure, many control those urges for fear of punishment, but that's far different than claiming it's because they care about society.
Right and wrong are not subjective.

 

[Tinker Grey]

If we evolved to care, then millions of people are not very evolved, because plenty of people live is if all that matters is what they want.
Our prisons would not be full of that were true.

The truth is, many people find pleasure in killing and torturing and raping. Sure, many control those urges for fear of punishment, but that's far different than claiming it's because they care about society.
Right and wrong are not subjective.

There is a statistical distribution of caring just as there is a statistical distribution of eye color.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why should I care about society?
The only thing that matters is there's no such thing as right and wrong, is what I want.

Why should you care about society?
Um, because you have to live in it.
You haven't really thought this through very deeply, have you?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Why should you care about society?
Um, because you have to live in it.
You haven't really thought this through very deeply, have you?

Not really. I can pretty much remove myself from society.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not really. I can pretty much remove myself from society.

Well, the rest of us that live in society, do care about society. Because we have to live in it.
Your question is silly when you actually think it through.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Well, the rest of us that live in society, do care about society. Because we have to live in it.
Your question is silly when you actually think it through.

No, what is silly is pretending right and wrong mean anything if they're subjective.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok...let's give an example.
Let's pretend I am the Minister of Interior of my onw country.
A LHP association comes to me and wants to be recognized as religion.
And I will tell them "well, do show your statute to me. Your values, your aims, your purposes".

And they start telling me: " we worship Satan, we reject Christian values of love, we want to spread the values of hatred. "

A Satanist would probably say that they spread love and it's the Christians who spread hate.

... but I'd say that the idea of religions having to apply to the government and meet certain criteria to be recognized is pretty toxic. This is one of the reasons why, IMO, it's better for the law to just ignore religions, give no special benefits to favoured religion, and just uphold everyone's individual freedom of belief, assembly, conscience, etc.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, what is silly is pretending right and wrong mean anything if they're subjective.

Oops you avoided addressing what I said. Now you've tried moving onto something else.
Right and wrong can certainly "mean something" even if subjective. I'm sure you think the rights and wrongs as supposedly dictated by the God you worship can actually "mean anything" despite the fact that they're also subjective (based on the whims of said God), right?

It doesn't appear as though you've thought this one through very deeply either.

 

[Estro Felino]

A Satanist would probably say that they spread love and it's the Christians who spread hate.

... but I'd say that the idea of religions having to apply to the government and meet certain criteria to be recognized is pretty toxic. This is one of the reasons why, IMO, it's better for the law to just ignore religions, give no special benefits to favoured religion, and just uphold everyone's individual freedom of belief, assembly, conscience, etc.

Let's not forget that Adam Smith, the father of liberalism, is associated with the motto laissez-faire.
I think it is a quid pro quo.
You want legal recognition as religion? Do demonstrate your statute is not unconstitutional.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Let's not forget that Adam Smith, the father of liberalism, is associated with the motto laissez-faire.

What does that have to do with anything?

I think it is a quid pro quo.
You want legal recognition as religion? Do demonstrate your statute is not unconstitutional.

What about Satanism do you think is unconstitutional?

And why would a religion need to jump through a hoop like that? Unconstitutional things are illegal anyway; if you catch someone violating the constitution, you address it then.

 

[Estro Felino]

What about Satanism do you think is unconstitutional?

.

Which Satanism? This? Theistic Satanism - Wikipedia

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Which Satanism? This? Theistic Satanism - Wikipedia

I'm talking about the hypothetical religion you were talking about here:

Ok...let's give an example.
Let's pretend I am the Minister of Interior of my onw country.
A LHP association comes to me and wants to be recognized as religion.
And I will tell them "well, do show your statute to me. Your values, your aims, your purposes".

And they start telling me: " we worship Satan, we reject Christian values of love, we want to spread the values of hatred. "

 

[Estro Felino]

I'm talking about the hypothetical religion you were talking about here:

On the basis of the several judgments of the Constitutional Court such a hypothetical religion would not get the juridical recognition per art. 8 It. Const. because the State cannot condone the spreading of values which are not conductive of the common good.
But professing such a religion and propagandizing the cult would be allowed, per art. 19 Const.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

On the basis of the several judgments of the Constitutional Court such a hypothetical religion would not get the juridical recognition per art. 8 It. Const. because the State cannot condone the spreading of values which are not conductive of the common good.

So a religion that, say, spoke out against same-sex marriage or reproductive rights would also be refused juridical recognition?

 

[Estro Felino]

So a religion that, say, spoke out against same-sex marriage or reproductive rights would also be refused juridical recognition?

The Pope can say whatever he wants within the Vatican, because that's a foreign country.
And has its own theocratic laws.

But priests who speak in the territory of the It. Republic are supposed to respect the individualistic choices of the faithful.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Pope can say whatever he wants within the Vatican, because that's a foreign country.
And has its own theocratic laws.

I didn't mention the Vatican. I thought we were talking about Italy.

But priests who speak in the territory of the It. Republic are supposed to respect the individualistic choices of the faithful.

But they get "juridical recognition" despite the fact that they "spread [...] values which are not conductive of the common good," right?