The Satanic Temple is a real religion, says IRS

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

The Almighty may not think the Satanic Temple is a church.
But the taxman has given it the thumbs-up.
The Satanic Temple, which is featured in a documentary called “Hail Satan?,” announced this week that the IRS now recognizes it as a church.

That recognition means the group can now get the same benefits as religious organizations — including tax exemption and protection from discrimination....

To read more:

https://religionnews.com/2019/04/25/the-satanic-temple-is-a-real-religion-says-irs/

[sandensea]

1. Good.

Besides: if it's a question of devilishness...

[ck4829]

2. Good lord... Who is the last one?

Looks like some character out of a fantasy movie

[guillaumeb]

3. Fantasy, or nightmare?

Writing this while hiding under my desk.

[sandensea]

4. That's the late, great Jan Crouch

Best known as Paul Crouch's wife, co-star, and of course partner-in-crime.

But to be fair to her, she was actually the nicer one of the two.

Paul would sometimes rant about "liberals going to hell!" - to which Jan would sometimes suggest, oh so meekly, "well, the Good Lawd Jesus said love thine enemies, yes he did!"

Paul was having none of it though.

"Well, I don't always agree with the Lawd Jesus, I gotta tell you."

[tymorial]

10. Looks like a drag queen.

And I know my drag queens.

[The Genealogist]

13. I think she was in competition with Tammy Faye Bakker for the "most make-up ever" award

Makes Baby Jesus cry.

Jan Crouch is not much of a drag name tho. Should be something like "Anita Lotamoney."

[tblue37]

17. Did she get garbed in the crouch? nt

[tymorial]

18. Needs something with crotch in it .. crouch/crotch

Anita Crotch

[MineralMan]

5. Of course it is.

And as unsupported by evidence as all religions.

[guillaumeb]

6. You seem confused about the relationship of evidence to religious belief. eom

[MineralMan]

7. No, I'm not.

Not at all.

[guillaumeb]

8. Well, given that faith needs no evidence,

and given how often that point has been made, one might wonder why anyone who is not very new to DU and/or this Group would feel the need to reiterate what has never been an issue.

[MineralMan]

12. Discounting faith as belief in imaginary things

Is something that is always needed. Faith is evidence of nothing at all.

[guillaumeb]

14. That seems like an article of faith for you.

Faith is a belief in the unprovable.

[MineralMan]

15. No, it is not.

What has no evidence does not exist. If something exists, there is evidence for it. Inescapable. Faith is belief in imaginary things.

[guillaumeb]

16. Your assertion rests upon no foundation.

You cannot say what constitutes evidence.

You cannot say anything about what cannot be observed due to the limitations of science and human knowledge.

So your assertion of non-existence is a statement of faith.

[MineralMan]

19. No, it does not.

Evidence is observable. If it cannot be observed, either directly or with instruments, then there is no evidence. If there is no evidence, I do not accept it as fact. Thus, I do not accept some scientific hypotheses as fact. As evidence is observed, I reconsider.

For gods and other supernatural entities, no evidence has ever been presented. They are imaginary. If evidence is presented, I will reconsider. The ball is in your court.

[guillaumeb]

20. You missed the point,

or you preferred to not argue it.

[PJMcK]

51. Sorry, but you've missed MM's point, as usual

If the religions that believe in the Abrahamic god can have status with the IRS, then logic dictates that those who worship the antithesis of those faiths should have the same status.

In the end, it’s all unprovable. Science has more evidence than any religion. If you disagree, you shouldn’t accept any of the facts that science exhibits because you have faith that there’s something else.

[whathehell]

27. Bingo!

"an article if faith", indeed.

[trotsky]

37. Which means that faith should always take a backseat to actual evidence.

If there can be no evidence your faith is right, then there can be no evidence your faith is wrong.

And thus, the faith of homophobic monsters like those in the Westboro Baptist Church is just as valid as your faith.

[guillaumeb]

40. Again, you argue a point that has been argued many times.

To what point?

[trotsky]

41. Argued how?

Do you accept that the faith-based propositions are equally valid for all believers? I.e., do you accept that the homophobic views of the Westboro Baptist Church are just as valid as your faith-based opinions?

[Major Nikon]

22. "Confused"

[TreasonousBastard]

21. But you still have not defined "evidence"...

I doubt we have the time (or the knowledge) to discuss ontological truth here, but still the question is open about just where we get any sort of knowledge.How does a bird know where to fly when heading south? Or know what seeds are poisonous.

Much is still unknown about how we obtained our common fear of snakes, or the dark. Ancient memories passed down through the amygdala?

We believed in black holes long before we found one. There was no "evidence" of them-- merely the best answer to curious calculations and phenomena we noted.

Belief in some god or gods is common throughout human history. Rather than simply denying those beliefs, which is the easy way out, why not attempt to find out why such a universal attitude exists?

[Major Nikon]

23. Because there's no reason why one can't do both

There’s several reasons for the so-called “universal” attitude you describe all of which are explainable so it’s not as if it’s a huge mystery. Has a lot to do with our innate survival instincts, fear of the unknown, and susceptibility to manipulation of those base instincts.

Meanwhile most religions subscribe to the idea that humans are transcendent of the rest of the animal kingdom(even though we really aren’t). Even if one subscribed to the idea of human exceptionalism the one defining feature of humanity is certainly reason, which allows us to explain our emotional want of imaginary sky daddies, and rise above any primitive desire for them.

Belief in deities requires the abandonment of reason which is exactly the opposite of why people “believed” in black holes. Comparing those two things as if they are no different isn’t exactly accurate.

[TreasonousBastard]

24. Actually, there is still some mystery to these universal attitudes...

Quite a bit, really.

The concept of genetic memory has been out of favor for a while, now, although amateurs like me still ask why babies are afraid of spiders and don't like the answers.

Nobody seems to believe in tabula rasa much any more, either, although I've come across this idea of "cognitive modules", which seems like a desperate stretch. Nativism doesn't seem much better.

I should admit my personal view of psychology as an immature science and at this point little better than religion. Not even up to the low standards of economics. (My first economics course in college began by the department head telling us everything we were about to learn was bullshit. The psych prof though, was so proud of the understandings she was about to bestow on use, even though the textbook was 10 years old)

As to black holes, this was a theoretical attempt to explain an unexplainable observation. While the technique is modern, why is it substantially different from Thor's hammer causing thunder or a geocentric universe? We answer questions within the limits of our knowledge. That's kinda where ontology and epistemology slug it out.

[Major Nikon]

25. Do I really need to explain the difference between science and mythology?

Understandings of light, mass, and the nature of the universe provided sound scientific theories regarding black holes. It has foundation in the work of extraordinary genius from Newton, Einstein, et al. Comparing this to a story someone just made up reminds me of religionists who want to equate creation mythology with the theory of evolution if not even more nonsensical. Not to mention there’s a significant difference between an unfalsifiable claim and a testable one.

[TreasonousBastard]

28. Not really, but we're not talking about that anyway...

We're talking about the means of knowledge, not the legitimacy of silly myths. At least I am.

You do realize that Aristotle believed in God, don't you? He's the guy who came up with the Prime Mover idea all from his own logical self. I doubt he believed the Sun was flaming chariot, but that was the myth-- the system that allowed the idea of a flaming chariot was the important thing.

And Einstein proved that Newton was dead wrong about his understanding of time and space. Lotta good experimentation and the scientific method did for poor old Isaac.

And, finally, I'll admit I'm a big fan of mythology. I do not for a minute believe in the stories in Genesis, but I do believe that they were explanations of underlying truths that worked well for the people they were aimed at.

And when staying a few days in Inverness a while back, I do admit to a small disappointment in not seeing the Loch Ness monster, even though I had no actual belief it's there.

[Major Nikon]

35. No one must think that Newton's great creation can be overthrown in any real sense

... by this [Theory of Relativity] or by any other theory. His clear and wide ideas will for ever retain their significance as the foundation on which our modern conceptions of physics have been built.
-- Albert Einstein

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." -- Isaac Newton

Einstein was standing on the shoulders of Newton, from which his work would never have been possible.

And no, I don't realize Aristotle believed in god. Not sure how you think you do either. If you think Aristotle believed in anything he couldn't see or reason, you don't understand Aristotle all that well. Aristotle's unmoved mover simply describes a force that set everything into motion. While it doesn't exclude a "god" neither does it describe one and it certainly bears no resemblance to any notion of a western deity who creates and intervenes. Religious belief didn't influence Aristotle. Religious belief was influenced by Aristotle.

Meanwhile as far as what you are taking about there's nothing common or universal about belief in deities. Many if not most Eastern religions do not. Many if not most religion from native people and isolated tribes do not describe deities. Belief in deities is a feature of large civilizations that needed an invisible sky daddy as a more effective means of control. There's practically zero evidence of belief in deities prior to the development of agriculture. It's actually a quite modern invention in the span of human history and certainly not universal.

[Voltaire2]

31. Black holes were considered speculative

consequences of theoretical problems in general relativity until observational evidence demonstrated that they did in fact exist. Because you know, science.

[MineralMan]

33. Black holes are an excellent example.

When their existence was first proposed, all we had was math and physics to explain why they probably existed. I did not "believe in" them at that stage, although I was very interested in that hypothesis. Now, in 2019, we have seen an image of one, along with its surrounding effects. Now I believe that black holes exist. I have seen images on one. The hypothesis is supported by actual evidence, not simply mathematical and physical predictions.

As for fear of snakes, I never had that fear. Since early childhood, my motto has been: "See a snake and pick it up. All the day you'll have good luck." Also since childhood, I've been picking up snakes and helping people lose their fear of them.

[trotsky]

38. Your post makes use of equivocation on the word "belief."

"Believing" in a black hole when only mathematical evidence existed isn't the same as "believing" Jesus rose from the dead, or even just "believing" in a god.

[Humanist_Activist]

49. As far as I'm aware of, its a non-theistic, humanistic/overtly political society...

so closer to let's say an Ethical Culture group or certain types of UUA congregations than any relation to more traditional religions that make supernatural claims and the like.

They just like the ascetics of the Occult and Satan is symbolic of rebellion, not a literal being.

Since it makes no supernatural claims, your post makes no sense.

[tymorial]

9. I love it.

If we aren't going to end tax exemptions for churches then why shouldn't the church of satan be exempt?

[guillaumeb]

11. I agree.

There is no one definition for what religion is, or what it must be, so this makes legal sense.

[Humanist_Activist]

50. CoS is a different group and has been tax exempt for years....

That's the church founded by Anton LaVey back in the 1960s.

[Soxfan58]

26. Only fair!

[no_hypocrisy]

29. Does that mean that "religion" can open Congress with an opening prayer of

"HAIL SATAN"?

[samnsara]

30. cool!

[IphengeniaBlumgarten]

32. This is merely a judgement about its tax reporting status...

Not a determination about the truth of its beliefs.

[Mariana]

34. That is true of every church that has tax exempt status.

It's impossible for all of the tax exempt churches' beliefs to be true, except for one. The only belief they all have in common is the belief that they should be exempt from paying taxes. Every single one of them believes that.

[uriel1972]

36. Interesting and Just...

but how do you feel about this? I am interested in your view rather than just an info dump without comment.

[guillaumeb]

39. This is an IRS ruling.

And the IRS has its own criteria for deciding what qualifies for tax exempt status.

But people might argue that this is not a religion. And it is not my opinion that determines the matter.

[trotsky]

42. uriel1972 specifically asked for your opinion, g.

If you value discussion and dialog, why won't you provide it?

[Major Nikon]

43. Because that's not how sermons work

[trotsky]

44. At least guillaumeb makes it crystal clear to everyone why he cannot be taken seriously.

Next time he whines about the lack of dialog here, this post can be added to the list as Exhibit M or N or whatever we're up to with him now.

[guillaumeb]

45. Remove the beams, t.

[trotsky]

47. Ah yes, a tu quoque.

Typical.

You keep showing us what you think Christianity is about, g. You're doing a fantastic job.

[guillaumeb]

46. My view is that religion takes many forms.

If the believers see this as a religion, and not as a parody, I accept that.

[trotsky]

48. THANK YOU FOR OFFERING YOUR OPINION! This is nice.

But in all seriousness, who cares if they think it's a parody? "Religion" is a whole spectrum, not everyone takes their beliefs as seriously as the next person. Certainly there are lots of things in Christianity that you completely disregard. The stuff about loving your enemies, turning the other cheek, and judging not lest you be judged - I mean you clearly don't care about any of that, so do you think your religion is real or a parody?