We are once again pleasantly gobsmacked by the simple brilliance of our favorite First Amendment trolls, the dead-serious activist/satirists at the Satanic Temple. If Christianists are going to insist that sincerely held religious beliefs give them an opt-out for any law, then by the Hoary Beard of Baphomet, the same should hold for Satanists, which is why the Missouri branch of the Satanic Temple is preparing to sue for the right of a Satanist lady to skip Missouri’s dumb 72-hour waiting period for an abortion. You see, according to Damien Ba’al, head of the Satanic Temple’s St. Louis chapter, the 72-hour wait would severely restrict the rights of a Missouri woman, whom they’re identifying only as “Mary”…to practice her Satanic faith, a central tenet of which is that “one’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.”
So here’s a question for the good, God-fearing, faithful patriots in the studio audience: When is a religion not a religion? When does “religious freedom” stop…and does it apply only to certain religions (e.g.- Christians)? Who gets to makes those decisions? And what criteria does one use to determine which religions are “valid” and thus worthy of constitutional protection?
In what seems a clear case of “Be careful what you ask for, ‘cuz you just might get it…and then some,” the fine folks at the St. Louis Satanic Temple have decided to test their contention that America, and with it the attendant expectation of religious liberty, isn’t the sole property and purview of Christians. Turns out that when it comes to “sincerely held religious beliefs,” someone neglected to realize that “religious” doesn’t ipso facto translate to “Christian.”
So what happens when a (non-Christian) religious groups attempts to use the “sincerely held religious belief” argument in the same way that Christians do? Are Satanists less worthy of those considerations because they don’t worship Jesus and adhere to the tenets of the majority religion? If you’re going to argue “Yes, of course,” how do you reconcile the glaring inconsistency and hypocrisy inherent in elevating one religion over another? That’s a clear violation of the 1st Amendment’s Exclusion Clause. Or do you simply not care about that because you believe your faith to be above the laws of Man?
Oh, and have I mentioned that American ISN’T a Christian nation, but rather a secular nation with a pronounced Christian majority?? In this case, that distinction is key. Our secular government is prohibited from passing legislation that elevates the interest of one religion over any and all others, though many Christians seem willing to blow past this because Jesus.
We like this approach a hell of a lot. If wingnuts are going to insist that science and secular values are a “religion,” then by Crom, let’s go ahead and demand that our “beliefs” get the same weight that the god-botherers’ do. Waiting periods serve no good medical purpose, and are designed to make getting an abortion more burdensome for women, so why not subvert them by declaring one’s bodily autonomy to be a matter of inviolable religious principle? Hell, if Hobby Lobby’s sincerely held beliefs about contraceptives don’t even have to be medically accurate, then a set of sincerely held beliefs that also have the benefit of actually being grounded in reality ought to make for an airtight case.
It was really only a matter of time until someone discovered that what Christians were trying to win for themselves could apply to other religions as well. Many Christians, of course, never considered the possibility that Satanists would demand the same rights and respect for their “sincerely held religious beliefs” that they’re after. Again, the argument isn’t “sincerely held CHRISTIAN beliefs,” which any lawyer worth their J.D. would have known wouldn’t pass constitutional muster. Welcome to the latest manifestation of the Law of Unintended Consequences.
When you’re trying to win special treatment for your co-religionists, you can’t claim to be surprised when members of other cults religions stake their claim to the same treatment. If you’re going to demand that your “sincerely held religious beliefs” be respected, you might be surprised to learn that being a Christian doesn’t make you worthy of special rights not available to other religions. You may believe your religion to be the One, True, and Only Faith ©, but in the eyes of the law and the Constitution, it’s no more or less valid and worthy of special treatment than any other.
Be careful what you ask for, eh??
