Should Satanism be illegal?

[Madmaxepic]

I recently stated my opinion elsewhere that I think Satanism should be illegal, and the opinion was not met with much approval.

Should Satanism be illegal, or is it wrong for me to think that?

Also, if this thread doesn’t belong here, please correct me, I’m new here.

 

[PrayHarder]

Can you explain your reasoning why satanism should be illegal? Let me pose this question. What about satanism makes it fall outside of the protection of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution in your opinion?

 

[Madmaxepic]

Can you explain your reasoning why satanism should be illegal? Let me pose this question. What about satanism makes it fall outside of the protection of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution in your opinion?

I don’t believe it is a legitimate religion, only an extremely dangerous evil cult. Similar to the reason why religions such as those that contained human sacrifice are not allowed, or why some countries have chosen to ban Scientology.

I believe the risk of demonic possession and activity generated by the veneration of Satan is sufficient danger to warrant banning the veneration of Satan.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I recently stated my opinion elsewhere that I think Satanism should be illegal, and the opinion was not met with much approval.

Should Satanism be illegal, or is it wrong for me to think that?

Also, if this thread doesn’t belong here, please correct me, I’m new here.

I think it is a very dangerous road to start banning religious beliefs, even if they are satanic.

Who decides? The government? The people?

Either one of those two may outright ban Christianity if it weren’t sacred in the constitutions.

 

[Madmaxepic]

I think it is a very dangerous road to start banning religious beliefs, even if they are satanic.
Who decides? The government? The people?
Either one of those two may outright ban Christianity if it weren’t sacred in the constitutions.

More dangerous then the risk of demonic possession?

I just don’t categorize Satanism as a religious belief, all it is is a dangerous, evil cult. I don’t think it should be tolerated, and I don’t personally buy that slippery slope idea that if Satanism was banned other real religions would be as well. I don’t think that would happen.

 

[Jon_S_1]

More dangerous then the risk of demonic possession?

I just don’t categorize Satanism as a religious belief, all it is is a dangerous, evil cult. I don’t think it should be tolerated, and I don’t personally buy that slippery slope idea that if Satanism was banned other real religions would be as well. I don’t think that would happen.

Demonic possession can come in a myriad of ways. Banning Satanism will not stop satanism, nor will it stop Satan from tempting, and sending his demons to interfere with people.

Whether or not you characterize it as a religious belief is irrelevant. Some people do and that is what matters.

In Iran they don’t characterize Christianity as a religious belief. At least not one that is valid. As such it is banned.

The free world rests on different principals than banning those the majority disagree with.

 

[invocation]

You mean you don’t think anyone would be tempted, after your successful campaign to ban Satanism due some imagined risk of demonic possession (I mean, how would you go about showing that there was an epidemic of possessions among professed Satanists in the first place?? Are there studies on that published in The Lancet?), to start a campaign to ban a religion that “sacramentally” sacrificed someone at the altar almost every time it’s adherents gathered, at which time said adherents drank the victim’s blood and ate his flesh?

I can’t imagine that turning out well for us, if, somehow, someone opened that constitutional can of worms. One need only recall that John Locke, whose political philosophy informs so much of the American idea of personal and political freedom, didn’t think that the freedom of religion that he was willing to grant to other Christian groups should be allowed for Catholicism because it was a dangerous superstition according to him. Catholics faced very significant legal barriers in the UK well into the 19th c., and it.is still technically illegal for a Catholic to be Prime Minister (or the monarch, or in line to the monarchy, or married to someone in line for the monarchy…, I believe). And of course Catholics faced discriminations of various sorts in the US and Canada as well. Never assume that your religion is safe from being the object of someone else’s prejudice, and remember that when you want to start making legal and political judgements about that suitability of someone else’s.

 

[SecretCatholic]

We have no legal nor moral authority to keep others from their own beliefs and congregations. God gave us freedom to choose and we allow everyone that same freedom. When they start having human sacrifices we can shut them down. Until then, they have a right to believe in what they will and congregate freely.

 

[Brendan_64]

Who decides? The government? The people?

Either one of those two may outright ban Christianity if it weren’t sacred in the constitutions.Either one of those two may outright ban Christianity if it weren’t sacred in the constitutions.

Christianity is not mentioned at all in the Constitution of the USA, not once. Christianity has no special protection under your Constitution, none at all.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Christianity is not mentioned at all in the Constitution of the USA, not once. Christianity has no special protection under your Constitution, none at all.

That’s not what I was saying.

The constitution explicitly allows the free exercise of religion, any religion. That is what is “sacred” in our constitution that allows us as Christians freedom to practice despite constant threats.

 

[PazzoGrande]

More dangerous then the risk of demonic possession?

I just don’t categorize Satanism as a religious belief, all it is is a dangerous, evil cult. I don’t think it should be tolerated, and I don’t personally buy that slippery slope idea that if Satanism was banned other real religions would be as well. I don’t think that would happen.

I agree that it should be. So should Scientology. But most countries can’t outlaw any religion and cannot make judgements on which religion is right or wrong. That has come to the Catholic Church’s benefit in the United States, which was founded mainly by protestants who bickered with each other while all only agreeing that they hated Catholicism. But because the country couldn’t ban it, eventually Catholicism got to grow. It still faces bias under the radar but we’re leaps and bounds ahead now, past the ridiculous times when people wouldn’t elect a Catholic president.

I do see your point. I mean, satanism can and has been proposed as just another way of belief. That stupid Harvard Black Mass was advertised as an exercise in open-mindedness. First, wicca made the way for occult to be brought into the mainstream, and it was only a matter of time until the satanists took advantage of it. You just know that our side that protested against it was accused of being closed-minded old coots who aren’t open to other ways of belief, blah, blah, blah.

What’s right isn’t necessarily what’s legal. What’s legal isn’t necessarily what’s right.

At least some countries do have certain suspicious religions and cults under a special watch. They might not ban them but at least are giving them more scrutiny.

 

[Isca]

I’d rather see Westboro Baptist “Church” banned first, as they call themselves Christians and some people might be led to believe that that’s what Christians are all about.

 

[Francise777]

I would vote for that and would praise the competent authority if they would regulate new laws in discouraging,banning and erasing such so-called ‘religious’ practices.

 

[agnes_therese]

I don’t believe it is a legitimate religion, only an extremely dangerous evil cult.

Some people would say that about Catholicism. I doubt that’s your preferred outcome.

 

[Brendan_64]

That’s not what I was saying.

The constitution explicitly allows the free exercise of religion, any religion. That is what is “sacred” in our constitution that allows us as Christians freedom to practice despite constant threats.

Fair enough, point taken.

 

[MJJean]

As others have pointed out, it’s a slippery slope. Right now, religious practice is protected. If we remove legal protections and pass a ban on one religion we allow for the possibility of other religions being banned. Including ours.

 

[ManyFaces]

As others have pointed out, it’s a slippery slope. Right now, religious practice is protected. If we remove legal protections and pass a ban on one religion we allow for the possibility of other religions being banned. Including ours.

True.

 

[Beryllos]

Satanists should be prosecuted when they break the law. So should Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddists, Hindus, Pagans, Wiccans, atheists, or anyone else.

 

[antunesaa]

As others have pointed out, it’s a slippery slope. Right now, religious practice is protected. If we remove legal protections and pass a ban on one religion we allow for the possibility of other religions being banned. Including ours.

Of course, if the new religion involves materially violating other aspects of the US Constitution, then it should be banned. For example, if some religion imposes that you kill human beings, then it should be banned. But the reason would have to be very strong for any such action.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I would say Satanic magic should be illegal, and all magic whose aim is to harm other people. You can’t go around assaulting people in the name of your religion; neither should you be allowed to go around cursing them with black magic (regardless of whether it is effective in a certain case or not). Satanism itself could be outlawed as a kind of treason against human society, analogous to being an agent of a hostile foreign government, but only provided our government recognizes the existence and malevolence of demons, which it will not do for the foreseeable future.

In any case though, I don’t think that now, with the Federal Government’s rapid erosion of religious liberty especially for Catholics, is the right time to push for these kinds of laws. We know such efforts would be misunderstood as attempting to restrict other people’s freedom of religion. This perception would be turned against us to make us appear hypocritical in standing up for our own rights and feed into the perverse line of argument that says conscience rights mean us forcing our beliefs on others (by not paying for their contraception, not participating in their weddings, etc.).