WA School Mistaken: Satan Group Is A Hate Group & Can't Use Campus Therefore

[Silhouette]

Splitting hairs or not, you are incorrect. The law specifically allows all groups access or no groups access.

And no, teaching against something is not hate. Christians teach against sin. Political action groups advocate against a particular candidate. I may teach my children that they should not act like the local skater group down the street. None of those actions are an example of hate.

I don't know...the Satanist group started right out of the chute labeling all other religions "tyrannical and oppressive". It labeled the idea of religion "tyrannical and oppressive"; while maintaining its own religion! It is the embodiment of hypocrisy & intolerance of other faiths and it willingly advertises that is its essence. So it has told the world "we hate other religions". No group like that is allowed on school grounds. It's a hate group. Same as the nazis forming a group based on defaming Judaism. Maybe not "jews" necessarily, but Judaism for sure! Would they be allowed to do that on school grounds? Hell no they wouldn't. So, neither can the Satanist Church/not church, whatever..

 

[FA_Q2]

I think if I were in high school I would demand the cafeteria only serve spaghetti as I would profess worship of The Spaghetti Monster and he would approve of 'eating of his body' for spiritual nourishment.

That's what tupperware is for. Bring your own spaghetti, you spaghetti worshipping nutjob.

None of what you said is coherent. Try again without the arm flailing.

I understood it perfectly. What is so complected?

here is the short of it - we are talking about allowing groups to meet at will, you were interjecting forcing the school to conform to your demands. As a hint - your silly assertion has nothing to do with the thread at all.

 

[FA_Q2]

Yeah there's more to that story. 3/4ths of his family not talking to him for 20 years? It isn't because they're Christian and he's not.

Right, so Christians can't be demonized here; like the Satan group professes to want to do, on school grounds no less. But intolerant hate groups can't do that on public property; especially schools. So the school district has a legal defense to keep them off the property while still allowing groups teaching people not to hate-broadly (bigotry) to be there. Christianity teaches to love all sinners, but to hate sins (behavior/verb). If you could embody in one sentence, all of Jesus' teachings in the New Testament, that would be the one. Plus, the Satan group has identified a broad class of people (noun) "the religious" to belittle and defame (to hate). Again, not allowed on school grounds.

They didn't actually do that, of course.

Since they don't actually have a legitimate purpose, people feel invited to fill in the blanks. They certainly seem to be there as an anti, not a pro.

Legitimate purpose? Who decides what purpose is legitimate, you?

Fill in the blanks? Well, sure, if you want to just fill in your own ideas about what the group is about, then you can say they are about anything.

They're agenda is to stop Christian groups. And from doing what? Holding Bible studies? Praying around the flag pole? They are shit disturbers with a sinister agenda.

Irrelevant. You are not the arbiter of what constitutes a 'legitimate' reason. They have legitimate reasons to gather in their own mind. Would you want them to be the arbiter of weather or not the local Roman Catholic group had a legitimate reason to gather? Of course not - your reasons for faith, community or fellowship are your own and not for anyone to judge outside of your own group.

You find their existence illegitimate (and I can kind of agree) but all that means is that you have no interest at joining them.

 

[Silhouette]

Irrelevant. You are not the arbiter of what constitutes a 'legitimate' reason. They have legitimate reasons to gather in their own mind. Would you want them to be the arbiter of weather or not the local Roman Catholic group had a legitimate reason to gather? Of course not - your reasons for faith, community or fellowship are your own and not for anyone to judge outside of your own group.

You find their existence illegitimate (and I can kind of agree) but all that means is that you have no interest at joining them.

If the Roman Catholic Church announced "we embody hatred and intolerance of all other faiths and exist to defame them", they wouldn't be allowed on school grounds. Neither should the Satanists be for saying just that.

Just because they have the word "Satan" attached to their outfit, doesn't mean they get a special pass to be assholes.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Right, so Christians can't be demonized here; like the Satan group professes to want to do, on school grounds no less. But intolerant hate groups can't do that on public property; especially schools. So the school district has a legal defense to keep them off the property while still allowing groups teaching people not to hate-broadly (bigotry) to be there. Christianity teaches to love all sinners, but to hate sins (behavior/verb). If you could embody in one sentence, all of Jesus' teachings in the New Testament, that would be the one. Plus, the Satan group has identified a broad class of people (noun) "the religious" to belittle and defame (to hate). Again, not allowed on school grounds.

They didn't actually do that, of course.

Since they don't actually have a legitimate purpose, people feel invited to fill in the blanks. They certainly seem to be there as an anti, not a pro.

Legitimate purpose? Who decides what purpose is legitimate, you?

Fill in the blanks? Well, sure, if you want to just fill in your own ideas about what the group is about, then you can say they are about anything.

They're agenda is to stop Christian groups. And from doing what? Holding Bible studies? Praying around the flag pole? They are shit disturbers with a sinister agenda.

Irrelevant. You are not the arbiter of what constitutes a 'legitimate' reason. They have legitimate reasons to gather in their own mind. Would you want them to be the arbiter of weather or not the local Roman Catholic group had a legitimate reason to gather? Of course not - your reasons for faith, community or fellowship are your own and not for anyone to judge outside of your own group.

You find their existence illegitimate (and I can kind of agree) but all that means is that you have no interest at joining them.

Roman Catholic groups don't meet in order to cause an uproar to get other groups shut down. That's where your argument falls to pieces faster than a Michael Moore diet.

 

[IsaacNewton]

I think if I were in high school I would demand the cafeteria only serve spaghetti as I would profess worship of The Spaghetti Monster and he would approve of 'eating of his body' for spiritual nourishment.

That's what tupperware is for. Bring your own spaghetti, you spaghetti worshipping nutjob.

None of what you said is coherent. Try again without the arm flailing.

I understood it perfectly. What is so complected?

here is the short of it - we are talking about allowing groups to meet at will, you were interjecting forcing the school to conform to your demands. As a hint - your silly assertion has nothing to do with the thread at all.

The OP claims the right to judgement over any group he sees unfit to 'gather' at school. He wants to force his religion on them.

See now Capt Dunzel.

 

[Silhouette]

The OP claims the right to judgement over any group he sees unfit to 'gather' at school. He wants to force his religion on them.

See now Capt Dunzel.

Nope. I'm calling out assholes when I see them. They announced in effect "we despise other religions generally" (see: "tyranny, intolerance"). And so, they don't get to meet on school grounds for their intolerant views and hate. You're the liberals who made these hate laws. So now it's time to lie in the bed you made. Comfy, eh?

 

[Montrovant]

Irrelevant. You are not the arbiter of what constitutes a 'legitimate' reason. They have legitimate reasons to gather in their own mind. Would you want them to be the arbiter of weather or not the local Roman Catholic group had a legitimate reason to gather? Of course not - your reasons for faith, community or fellowship are your own and not for anyone to judge outside of your own group.

You find their existence illegitimate (and I can kind of agree) but all that means is that you have no interest at joining them.

If the Roman Catholic Church announced "we embody hatred and intolerance of all other faiths and exist to defame them", they wouldn't be allowed on school grounds. Neither should the Satanists be for saying just that.

Just because they have the word "Satan" attached to their outfit, doesn't mean they get a special pass to be assholes.

They didn't say that, though. They just said they fight against religious tyranny and oppression. They call themselves activists. That is not the same as saying the silly crap you keep spewing.

You'll just keep spouting your lies, though, I'm sure. It's what you do.

 

[Montrovant]

Irrelevant. You are not the arbiter of what constitutes a 'legitimate' reason. They have legitimate reasons to gather in their own mind. Would you want them to be the arbiter of weather or not the local Roman Catholic group had a legitimate reason to gather? Of course not - your reasons for faith, community or fellowship are your own and not for anyone to judge outside of your own group.

You find their existence illegitimate (and I can kind of agree) but all that means is that you have no interest at joining them.

If the Roman Catholic Church announced "we embody hatred and intolerance of all other faiths and exist to defame them", they wouldn't be allowed on school grounds. Neither should the Satanists be for saying just that.

Just because they have the word "Satan" attached to their outfit, doesn't mean they get a special pass to be assholes.

Care to quote the Satanic Temple of Seattle saying they embody hatred and intolerance of all other faiths and exist to defame them?

Just because you consider them assholes doesn't mean you get a special pass to deny them access.

 

[FA_Q2]

They didn't actually do that, of course.

Since they don't actually have a legitimate purpose, people feel invited to fill in the blanks. They certainly seem to be there as an anti, not a pro.

Legitimate purpose? Who decides what purpose is legitimate, you?

Fill in the blanks? Well, sure, if you want to just fill in your own ideas about what the group is about, then you can say they are about anything.

They're agenda is to stop Christian groups. And from doing what? Holding Bible studies? Praying around the flag pole? They are shit disturbers with a sinister agenda.

Irrelevant. You are not the arbiter of what constitutes a 'legitimate' reason. They have legitimate reasons to gather in their own mind. Would you want them to be the arbiter of weather or not the local Roman Catholic group had a legitimate reason to gather? Of course not - your reasons for faith, community or fellowship are your own and not for anyone to judge outside of your own group.

You find their existence illegitimate (and I can kind of agree) but all that means is that you have no interest at joining them.

Roman Catholic groups don't meet in order to cause an uproar to get other groups shut down. That's where your argument falls to pieces faster than a Michael Moore diet.

No, you have avoided the points made entirely. Try again.

 

[FA_Q2]

I think if I were in high school I would demand the cafeteria only serve spaghetti as I would profess worship of The Spaghetti Monster and he would approve of 'eating of his body' for spiritual nourishment.

That's what tupperware is for. Bring your own spaghetti, you spaghetti worshipping nutjob.

None of what you said is coherent. Try again without the arm flailing.

I understood it perfectly. What is so complected?

here is the short of it - we are talking about allowing groups to meet at will, you were interjecting forcing the school to conform to your demands. As a hint - your silly assertion has nothing to do with the thread at all.

The OP claims the right to judgement over any group he sees unfit to 'gather' at school. He wants to force his religion on them.

See now Capt Dunzel.

Fair enough. I have not bothered to read much of the OP's statements considering the source.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Since they don't actually have a legitimate purpose, people feel invited to fill in the blanks. They certainly seem to be there as an anti, not a pro.

Legitimate purpose? Who decides what purpose is legitimate, you?

Fill in the blanks? Well, sure, if you want to just fill in your own ideas about what the group is about, then you can say they are about anything.

They're agenda is to stop Christian groups. And from doing what? Holding Bible studies? Praying around the flag pole? They are shit disturbers with a sinister agenda.

Irrelevant. You are not the arbiter of what constitutes a 'legitimate' reason. They have legitimate reasons to gather in their own mind. Would you want them to be the arbiter of weather or not the local Roman Catholic group had a legitimate reason to gather? Of course not - your reasons for faith, community or fellowship are your own and not for anyone to judge outside of your own group.

You find their existence illegitimate (and I can kind of agree) but all that means is that you have no interest at joining them.

Roman Catholic groups don't meet in order to cause an uproar to get other groups shut down. That's where your argument falls to pieces faster than a Michael Moore diet.

No, you have avoided the points made entirely. Try again.

Not really, and that's the second time you tried to make that lame excuse to cover the void left by your vapid arguments.

 

[Silhouette]

Fair enough. I have not bothered to read much of the OP's statements considering the source.

You mean THE SEATTLE TIMES...??? Not good enough of a source for you?

 

[Montrovant]

Fair enough. I have not bothered to read much of the OP's statements considering the source.

You mean THE SEATTLE TIMES...??? Not good enough of a source for you?

You, Sil. You are the source not worth reading much.

 

[Silhouette]

So he can read the Seattle Times and discover that the Satanist group is a hate group of other religions. Then from there he can plug in the laws applying to hate groups on public school grounds.

 

[Montrovant]

So he can read the Seattle Times and discover that the Satanist group is a hate group of other religions. Then from there he can plug in the laws applying to hate groups on public school grounds.

Which laws would designate the Satanic Temple of Seattle as a hate group and deal with such groups on public school grounds?

 

[Silhouette]

So he can read the Seattle Times and discover that the Satanist group is a hate group of other religions. Then from there he can plug in the laws applying to hate groups on public school grounds.

Which laws would designate the Satanic Temple of Seattle as a hate group and deal with such groups on public school grounds?

Pay attention when you read this to the fact that "harm" to a child can be her/his perception that her/his faith is hated, maligned or demonized by a group meeting at their school; pandering to other children in her/his peer group:

***** http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle911/files/library/hate_crime_laws_in_washington.pdf
Washington State has addressed hate crimes through the enactment of a malicious harassment statute...
...directed at crimes and threats motivated by bigotry, prejudice and bias.
A person is guilty of malicious harassment if he or she:
maliciously and intentionally
commits one of
the following acts because of his or her perception of the victim’s race, color, religion, ancestry,
national origin, gender, sexual orientation or mental, physical or sensory handicap:
•
Causes physical injury to the victim or another person; or
•
Causes physical damage to or destruction of the property of the victim or another person; or
•
Threatens a specific person or group of people and places that person or members of the specific
group of persons in reasonable fear of harm to person or property.
*******

What harms an adult is not the same as what harms a child. Children can be permanently wounded by psychological duress. Starting a group on their school campus which touts itself as "the new thing" and this "new thing" exists to demonize that child's family's faith, that child will feel real and proximate shame and harm for having their belief system....and would likely even be ridiculed by peers & influenced (bullied) via peer pressure to abandon that belief system from shame (the stated goal of the Satanists) of not fitting into "the new thing" on campus.

So the Satanists meeing on campus as a de facto "intolerance factory" would be attempting to churn out an environment of intolerance on campus; which would then predictably lead to more bullying. And it would instill a new form of shame in a religious child for simply believing in blind faith and their God. It would open them up to ridicule: since the Satanists themselves are the embodiment of ridiculing organized religion under God.

They could of course try to flip this argument on its head against Christians; claiming the same thing. But Christianity preaches to love the sinners, all of them, but to hate sin (the verb). The Satanists made the fatal legal error of announcing their embodiment and intent was "to teach that other religions are stupid, bad and wrong", generally. Which is bigotry outright. No mincing words here.

In short, the presence of the Satanist group on school grounds, after their clearly enunciated intent, would result in the proximate harm and shaming of religious children attending school. And the Washington law would kick in to prevent real, proximate harm (psychological wounds count where children are involved) to children via hate.

 

[Montrovant]

So he can read the Seattle Times and discover that the Satanist group is a hate group of other religions. Then from there he can plug in the laws applying to hate groups on public school grounds.

Which laws would designate the Satanic Temple of Seattle as a hate group and deal with such groups on public school grounds?

Pay attention when you read this to the fact that "harm" to a child can be her/his perception that her/his faith is hated, maligned or demonized by a group meeting at their school; pandering to other children in her/his peer group:

***** http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle911/files/library/hate_crime_laws_in_washington.pdf
Washington State has addressed hate crimes through the enactment of a malicious harassment statute...
...directed at crimes and threats motivated by bigotry, prejudice and bias.
A person is guilty of malicious harassment if he or she:
maliciously and intentionally
commits one of
the following acts because of his or her perception of the victim’s race, color, religion, ancestry,
national origin, gender, sexual orientation or mental, physical or sensory handicap:
•
Causes physical injury to the victim or another person; or
•
Causes physical damage to or destruction of the property of the victim or another person; or
•
Threatens a specific person or group of people and places that person or members of the specific
group of persons in reasonable fear of harm to person or property.
*******

What harms an adult is not the same as what harms a child. Children can be permanently wounded by psychological duress. Starting a group on their school campus which touts itself as "the new thing" and this "new thing" exists to demonize that child's family's faith, that child will feel real and proximate shame and harm for having their belief system....and would likely even be ridiculed by peers & influenced (bullied) via peer pressure to abandon that belief system from shame (the stated goal of the Satanists) of not fitting into "the new thing" on campus.

So the Satanists meeing on campus as a de facto "intolerance factory" would be attempting to churn out an environment of intolerance on campus; which would then predictably lead to more bullying. And it would instill a new form of shame in a religious child for simply believing in blind faith and their God. It would open them up to ridicule: since the Satanists themselves are the embodiment of ridiculing organized religion under God.

They could of course try to flip this argument on its head against Christians; claiming the same thing. But Christianity preaches to love the sinners, all of them, but to hate sin (the verb). The Satanists made the fatal legal error of announcing their embodiment and intent was "to teach that other religions are stupid, bad and wrong", generally. Which is bigotry outright. No mincing words here.

In short, the presence of the Satanist group on school grounds, after their clearly enunciated intent, would result in the proximate harm and shaming of religious children attending school. And the Washington law would kick in to prevent real, proximate harm (psychological wounds count where children are involved) to children via hate.

So a Muslim or Jew or atheist or Buddhist or Hindu could call a meeting a Christian group a hate group because they feel their religious beliefs are "hated, maligned, or demonized"? After all, a Christian group may well be teaching that all of those people with different beliefs are going to spend eternity in torment.

I'm sure you can give an example of the Satanic Temple of Seattle causing physical injury, or physical damage to or destruction of property, or threatening a specific person or group of people. Or are you just going to once again insist that saying they fight against religious oppression and tyranny is somehow the same as calling all religions and all religious people oppressive and tyrannical, and then further say that such a statement counts as a threat?

Once again, you quote someone as saying something when they did not. You have real issues with the use of quotations. Feel free to show where a spokesperson of the Satanic Temple said their intent is "to teach that other religions are stupid, bad and wrong" if you disagree. Besides, don't pretty much all religions teach that other religions are wrong which, by implication if not direct statement, makes those other religions 'stupid' and 'bad'?

This is just more example, among so many, of you having no idea what laws mean or how they are applied. Even for a layman like myself, your wild take on the law is a near constant source of amusement.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ When I answered you plainly, flatly and nailed your ass, you argue that psychological damage to a child for the religion they practice (by the Satanists announcing their intent was to malign other religions and those who have them in their hearts) isn't real damage to a child. You're all heart. Are you sure you're not a lawyer?

I know about hurting children and the laws that keep them from physical AND psychological harm. Apparently you interpret your own unfamiliarity with them as "they don't exist if Monty doesn't understand those laws"... But they do exist Monty....they do...federally too. In fact, if a school doesn't act to protect the psychological well being of a child, it can lose federal funding via CAPTA laws. Hows that for a pickle for the Satanist group?

 

[Silhouette]

Creating an atmosphere ripe for bullying of religious children is not going to fly on a school campus...