I don’t think he’ll win this one. I’m not even sure he should win - the principle of the government deciding what religions are valid/real is problematic. But it’s good politics for him.
Tomorrow some California governor could say Evangelical Christianity is not a real religion. It is just right wing politics.
There’s more than one viable argument here.
One is that satanism is not a religion as is claimed here. This is strong in that satanism opposes the universal moral principles found in every other religion.
Another argument is that satanism is the enemy of God, on which the Constitution is based and therefore satanism is the enemy of our Constitution.
In this case the Satanists themselves say they aren’t worshipping anything...in other words, they admit they aren’t a religion by stating they don’t worship..
That’s not to say unaffiliated Satanists groups aren’t...
I think the late Judge Bork addressed this type of issue in his book Slouching Towards Gomorrah and had some very interesting legal arguments against lawfare style extremism and their “living constitution” that changes with the winds.
Agreed.
If that is the case, then this is an example of why “religion” should not be promulgated at all in gov.
Besides satanism, it begs the question of allowing Moslem principles in the gov sphere. No thanks.
As with everything else, communists will use these principles against the republic’s proper government. Make it so they can’t.
A government absolutely has the right, even the duty, to not support beliefs that promotes actions and beliefs that contradict the common good.
Now I don’t think they should out right ban religions unless the “religion” actively promoted conducts that are illegal. But withholding public support should have a much lower criteria, and people can always fire the politician if they disagree.