900
Satanists to volunteer in Florida schools in protest at DeSantis religious bill
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2024
900 points (98.8% liked)
News
23655 readers
2921 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
You are letting Christians tell you what Satanists are instead of letting Satanists tell you what they are.
Except the Satanic Temple does not believe that a Satan exists.
While nothing stops them from adopting the name, it doesn't mean we should suddenly ignore old sources on the topic.
So which Elves are allowed to exist? Tolkeins or Santa Clauses? Do we have to deny one because the other exists to someone else
Love it, thank you so much for the giggle.
As someone brought up initially in a primary RC school I always find the fact that while they had a top notch reputation for giving you a "better education" than general comprehensive schools really ironic because their science dept actually taught me, that there are no fairies in the sky and it's actually where we end up, as Earth burps 🌨️
I for one welcome these chaplins, elves, and umpa lumpas in our RC schools. Gives a bit of diversity.
*typo
tbf, it is a common and valid complaint that so many people want elves to be tall now, when that runs contrary to their mythological history.
Elves being diminutive is actually the newer invention.
first season of american gods did a good job of talking about the gods to fairies demotion thing.
I didn’t say ignore old sources but at the same time i’m not sure what old source you are referring to. The Bible will not tell you anything about the satanic temple so I guess you mean something else?
I would say the same thing if the shoe were on the other foot.
Well, like I said, I don't know a lot about religious studies. If there are any sources about satanic doctrine provided by people that actually believe he is real, then those should be included as well.
So the burden of proof is now tied to people who actually believe in X entity existing (don't move the goal post)? How does one validate that a source in this context (you cant, or there arent any)?
Thats the whole point, you cant philosophically prove anything.
Well, proving something that doesn't actually exist being in favor of a specific doctrine would certainly be challenging. Generally with questions involving things like history, mythology or literature we would look to original source material for our answers though. I just don't know enough about this specific topic to say if that is possible or not, you would need someone knowledgeable about religious studies I imagine.
Thats exactly it, you have flipped the burden of proof.
The group making the statement does not have the onus of providing proof that disproves their own statement. This goes for all logical statements. The proof of actual satanist doctrine (What that actually is and where in their dogma it resides) within the TST in a logical argument would be something that you would need to provide in this context. Otherwise the request is illogical and their point stands that they are as legit as any other religious entity until proven otherwise.
Don't get me wrong, I don't care nearly enough to seek proof one way or another, this is why I am not strenuously pursuing the argument. However, when we do have historical documentation, which I am simply presuming we do, not asserting we do with any certainty, then disregarding that material in favor of modern interpretations is not sound. If I really cared I suppose I could google satanist doctrine, but religion just doesn't interest me that much.
I don't get where you think I am making any sort of request, at any rate. Have I come across as having a strong position on any of this?
Dont presume, do the leg work, back up your statements with logic and reason or get out of the way and stop muddying the waters.
Im not calling you out over the content of your stance, im calling you out for logical foibles that readers of your comments could fall into.
What logical foible could that be? The importance of original source material?
edit: I think you just assumed I was making a pro-religion argument and got your panties in a bunch, incidentally. When I actually never did.