Satanic Temple launches campaign to 'protect' children and permit them to pray to Satan

Satanists want in on the right to pray in school - as long as they can pray to the devil.

The Satanic Temple states that they are fighting for the rights of public school students to learn in a cruelty-free classroom.

In a press release, the NYC organisation declares May 15 as "Protect Children Day," and describes a goal of ending physical and mental abuse in public schools.

After students register on Satanic Temple's ProtectChildrenProject.com, "the Temple will then notify their respective school boards that their deeply held beliefs oppose physical and psychological abuses, including the use of corporal punishment, physical restraints, and isolation rooms as forms of punishment," a press release states.

The Protect Children Project's website encourages children to submit their name, email address, and the name of their school in order to receive help from the Temple. The organization maintains that submission does not make one a Temple member, and is open to all denominations.

"One of the fundamental tenets of The Satanic Temple is personal sovereignty and the inviolability of one's body and mind," Temple spokesperson Lucien Greaves said. "Hitting a child or placing them in solitary confinement goes entirely against our beliefs."

According to an Education Week article, there are no federal laws regarding corporal punishment, and the practice is legal in 19 states. The article and The Satanic Temple's press release both cite a U.S. Department of Education statistic stating that in one year, over 200,000 students were physically punished in school.

ProtectChildrenProject.com provides fact sheets on physical and psychological abuse in schools, an FAQ for students, and a Satanic activity book.

"We want children to know that they are permitted to pray to Satan in school and that they can even share their religious beliefs with others in accordance with certain guidelines," Greaves said.

You're forgetting the 14th Amendment. SCOTUS has ruled several times over that the First Amendment establishment clause was fully applicable to the state governments and local governments. See Everson v. Board of Education and Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet.

The First Amendment actually reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …

The First Amendment is the only one which clearly limits its reach to Congress. In Everson v. Board of Education the Supreme Court actually referred back to Muddock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in its claim that the First Amendment was made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth. The reasoning of the Court in Muddock is specious. No attempt was made to show how "Congress" somehow mutated into "states". It just makes a broad statement:

The First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states, declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ....'

The reasoning of the Court however can be found in how it addresses the question of taxation in regard to religious freedom:

It may be said, however, that ours is a too narrow, technical and legalistic approach to the problem of state taxation of the activities of church and press; that we should look not to the expressed or historical meaning of the First Amendment but to the broad principles of free speech and free exercise of religion which pervade our national way of life. It may be that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees these principles rather than the more definite concept expressed in the First Amendment. This would mean that as a Court, we should determine what sort of liberty it is that the due process clause of [319 U.S. 105, 129] the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees against state restrictions on speech and church.

This search for broad meaning rather than what the Constitution actually says is gate through which the Philosopher-Kings of the Court have marched in order to impose what they think is good government and turned what was suppose to be a limited federal government to the all-powerful monster we have today. Stare decisis be damned. It is time that these bogus rulings of the Court be challenged and overturned.

In Everson v. Board of Education the Supreme Court actually referred back to Muddock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in its claim that the First Amendment was made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth. The reasoning of the Court in Muddock is specious.

The problem is that it doesn't matter if it's specious or not. If it's the accepted legal holding by the Supreme Court, then that's all she wrote until a) it's overturned or b) Marbury vs. Madison goes out the window. While I would hope for B, I know it's not going to happen, so we have to operate by what is rather than what we wish it were.

Stare decisis be damned. It is time that these bogus rulings of the Court be challenged and overturned.

I don't disagree that they need to be challenged and overturned. But we have to use persuasive legal arguments if we want that done.

[ECO] There is nothing wrong with favoring Christianity over satanism, islam, or atheism. In fact, it is the right thing to do.

[GAFreedom] If you can do it without falling afoul of the Establishment Clause, more power to you. How do you plan to avoid it?

I don't think the Establishment clause or any other clause in any document prohibits me from favoring Christianity over, say, islam. Christianity is good, islam is evil, and it would help if people realized there are no constitutional gnomes living in their heads that prevent them from favoring good over evil.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.