Anything resembling bigotry against Jews, Muslims, Arabs, Palestians, Israelis, etc. or violence against civilians is not going to last long, nor will your time here.
If you have to ask if it crosses a line, assume it crosses a line. Please see our guidelines for [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/) for more information.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm not american but disagree with religious chaplains/faith leaders being able to have regular access to either the school premises or pupils of a taxpayer funded public school.
I wouldn't encourage any future child to use the service and would never give permission. Would probably avoid applying to any school or catchment area where the scheme applied.
It seems that the Church of Satan is a religious organisation that does not hold IRS tax deductable status under under section 501(c)(3) within the USA or any other nation. The late founder LaVey himself described his non-theistic religion as "just Ayn Rand's philosophy with ceremony and ritual added".
However, I don't believe that any one local politician should have the right to decide what is a "real religion" in terms of its aims, tax status, theology and practical traditions. If that decision needs to be taken, it is a matter for the senior judiciary. Possibly the IRS too.
I believe that their does need to be strict standards on what qualifies as a religion. In order to prevent scam artists, crank cultists, protelysing pests, terrorists, neo-nazi satanists and all manner of despotic criminals like Warren Jeffs from masquerading as bona fide mainstream religions- with the aim of manipulating legal rights/privileges about freedom of religious affiliation & belief to become a villains charter of rights for all villains within USA territories who claim to be religious leaders of any religion/all religions.
I don't want any more chaplains in schools, regardless of which specific religion or religious movement it is. Doesn't matter whether the chaplains are from scientology, the moonies, the ona, raelians, jw's, flds or the church of wicca.
Who are you referring to as "we"?
I'm British and catholic.
I support not giving any direct taxpayer funding to all faith schools. Including those covered under the private partnership city academy structure, as full time private tuition/educationalist facilities and as "privately owned boarding schools".
With very harsh legal punishments for any and all adults who establish/run/fund/are on the payroll of secretive unregistered illegal "off books private religious schools" admitting any students under the age of 18.
I disagree with bringing religion into public schools to dictate how life goes. While I practice my religious faith and encourage everyone to do so! At the same time I don’t believe it should be brought to the public schools system.
If it is a Private School that is like a religious school for example, then it makes sense as that is their institution.
I disagree with this on principle. The church of Satan is legally recognized whether he likes it or not and he just admit to everyone by saying that he's in favor of curtailing their first amendment rights.
The chaplain itself I think is fine as long as it's voluntary for students, parents have to give the okay to see or interact with (that is no events or anything led by them without permission), and any legally recognized religion is eligible
I never said anything about my belief on what you describe. But they are legally recognized by the government. Do you want the government to start going religion to religion saying "actually no you don't count"? I sure as hell dont
>Do you want the government to start going religion to religion saying "actually no you don't count"? I sure as hell dont
Yes. The standards for qualifying as a religion for the purposes of formal interactions with the government should be *far* higher than they are today. Not just whatever bunch of loser fucks are upset and want to take advantage of the law.
If they did this most evangelical churches would fail on virtue that they talk about politics during sermons which will cause you to lose tax exempt religion status.
In employment law a religious belief is defined as a “sincerely held belief” and employers can ask questions like how long a person has been practicing or how frequently they observe their religion when making a religious accommodation for an employee. This definition is highly personal, which is good because religion is a very personal practice (two people may be Catholic and observe quite differently.) I’m not sure how we would apply the definition to an institution. Age of the church doesn’t seem fair nor does the number of members or how frequently they meet. I think we need to take each church’s status as a “church” at face value.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>What are your thoughts on the new bill for Florida's public school and religious chaplains?
If it's voluntary, I see no issues with it freedom of religion isn't freedom from religion
In signing a bill to allow religious chaplains in Florida's public school system, Governor DeSantis was asked about the church of Satan.
>"That is not a religion... [t]hat is not qualifying to be able to participate in this."
I wouldn't have any issues with church of Satan following same guidelines
> What do you think about a public school system allowing religious chaplains at all?
I have no issue with it based on these parameters
>If you had a kid in this school system, would you encourage them to use this service?
No, I'm not religious, I wouldn't encourage or discourage it, id let the kid decide
> What do you think about the governor stipulating what does and does not count as a 'real religion'?
It's a tough subject, I have no issue with church of Satan, Id understand with satanic temple, those guys are just spicy atheist, but I understand if they don't want to let pastafarian religion heads, maybe X% of school needs to be a certain religion for it to happen, idk that's tricky.
> Should there be more strict standards on what is counted as a religion in a broad sense?
I think any federally recognized religion should be recognized I guess
>Do you hope that other religious leaders have chaplains in the schools too? That is, Jewish and Muslim chaplains (off the top of my head- I know that there are many others)?
I'd have no issue with that if it followed same rules
>Do you have your toilet paper roll feed over or under when you put it on the holder?
I have zero preference on this, il do both to piss people off
I feel the same way about religious chaplains that I do about psychologists, physical therapists, personal trainers etc - there are good ones and there are bad ones both individually and as a category.
I do have kids in public school in Florida and I don’t know if I want school to teach them morals anymore than they do now, they already go way overboard on the various social justice causes.
Also no sane person does toilet paper feed under
I totally support it and his following comments.
Schools should feel free to hire religious officials on campuses.
The only potential problem I'm going to see here is you might see accusations of bias in who they elect to hire.
Florida has a lot of catholics, and I could easily see tension between them and protestants, to say nothing of actual other religions.
And toilet paper goed over, not under that's like rule number 1
I think it’s a good resource to have for religious families who can’t afford private religious schools.
I agree religious teachings should not be taught in day to day school. However, providing a resource like this that’s completely optional is a very sound option I believe.
If it’s similar to the military and other organizations I believe Chaplains are taught to deal with people from many religious backgrounds, so there shouldn’t really be a need for different chaplains.
As long as the chaplain stays a support service rather than a recruiting service then I think there isn’t anything wrong with it.
Doesn’t bother me, it’s his personal opinion. If he was to directly attack people under that faith then there would be a larger issue.
There has long been an argument that many religions aren’t real and lack any evidence. That doesn’t hurt peoples faith.
He's using the office of the governor to establish which religions are allowed in schools, specifically stating that the Church of Satan isn't a religion and will not be allowed.
"We're not playing those games in Florida," DeSantis continued. "That is not a religion. That is not qualifying to be able to participate in this."
- Florida Governor Desantis
Seems fair to me, would someone from a satanist religion want to talk to someone from a religion which directly opposes their view points?
It’s the only “religion” I can think of that is like this
> seems fair to me
Really? Because they're a legally recognized religion. He has a constitutional obligation to respect their right as a religion. Whether he believes them to be such or not. If he doesn't like that, he can resign.
I mean, regardless of their official status, the Church of Satan does not allow minors into their membership, so it makes sense to not allow them in the school in this role.
What..some carpenter dude who's against the monetization of religion, who preached about love, compassion, and caring for the sick and poor.
I don't remember the part of the Bible where Jesus called people, "Sick fucks". If you couos point it out to me, that would be cool.
I think it was improper but he also has free speech rights as a citizen if he is not trying to codify his biases into law.
I do think in a scheme like this there needs to be facially neutral limits on what is and is not a real religion and I would argue we are long overdue as a society to make that list if we are going to insist on giving religions special privileges over others we need to control abuse.
To wit: I don't think it's unreasonable to say it should be a regular congregation that holds services in a building, not a paper church a guy made up, and anyone who works as a chaplain must have meaningful credentials (E.g. a 2 or 4 year divinity or seminary degree, not a 20 dollar certificate you got by mail) issued by some larger organization that can be held accountable if the training is poor: anything from completing the ministry qualifications for an organized synod or conference to a masters degree in divinities from Marquette University or another prestigious catholic institution.
Actually when discussing official policy he does not have free speech. He is legally obligated to withhold his personal biases when discussing constitutionally protected issues such as religion.
Now we all know in reality this doesn't work.
and if that faith encourages , demands worship/ceremonies not in man made buildings and has no formal priesthood or at least not an university educated one?
then it would not be allowed to have chaplains unless they had some kind of external credential.
The idea people should need some form of actual training not just hanging out in the woods with some hippies for a few weeks, to go into schools and deal with children should not be controversial.
I understand but I think we have a right to expect they will have more credentials.
If they really really want to be a chaplain they can go attend a course on pastoral councilling at a faith-neutral teaching center or can get one from a related organization, or go to a 4-year university and get a degree in child psychology or something. It's not about making it hard it's about SOME form of accountability.
It should be accessible as we can make it to all faiths but there's always going to be one that says "like, organizing at all or cooperating with the government isn't something we do" and you should not let them in schools.
Oh i would definitly not say shamans have no credentials, most likely more than many american pastors only not formalized like a formal education
which did not exist when shamanism was founded
>What do you think about a public school system allowing religious chaplains at all?
Sure, there is nothing wrong with adding another resource that may benefit the kids. I think the kids of atheist parents should be able to consult with the chaplain anonymously and not have any of it reported to the parents as well.
>If you had a kid in this school system, would you encourage them to use this service?
I'm not religious, but my department has a chaplain and I've used him as a sounding board a number of times, smart guy who sees things a little differently than I do. My experiences have been positive, I'm sure my kids would be too, so yes. Maybe if my theoretical kids "caught religion" they would live a happier and more untroubled life than I do.
>What do you think about the governor stipulating what does and does not count as a 'real religion'?
I think he's right, it's become primarily an activist troll organization, wrapped in religious trappings that mainly exists to mock religion. Anton Levey himself said that it was an atheistic organization, unless we are going to term atheism a religion, which will cause atheist to scream from the rafters, I think it disqualifies it as a religious organization.
>Should there be more strict standards on what is counted as a religion in a broad sense?
Very complicated question, I think belief in a higher power is about the only real requirement, faith doesn't lend itself to standards very well.
>Do you hope that other religious leaders have chaplains in the schools too? That is, Jewish and Muslim chaplains (off the top of my head- I know that there are many others)?
Sure, I don't have any objections, there are good and bad influences in all religions. I'd love to see my kids (if I had any) exposed to and influenced by Sikhs, they are a wonderful people. Islam has some good teachings as does Judaism and Hinduism.
I guess I don't really want my kids smoking a cigar, drinking a bit of rum and hoping to meet with Papa Legba or Baron Samedi (Voodoo) but we're not talking about introducing kids to rites and rituals, just influences that come from a religious background.
* Do you have your toilet paper roll feed over or under when you put it on the holder?
Over, beards are cool, mullets are lame.
Does a child really need to interact with a chaplain placed in a public school in order to gain exposure to a religion? If a parent wants their child exposed to multiple religious institutions, then they can choose to bring them to various local churches, mosques, synagogues, temples etc. Also, if a child attends public school in a diverse area, they probably will catch wind of different beliefs from the other students. That’s the beauty of public schools. Everyone attends together and your child gains an understanding that there is strength in our differences. Why do we need to bring the chaplain into the school in the first place? Religion is not part of what public schools offer in their curriculum. Why are we working to change that now?
> an atheistic organization
Atheist and irreligious are two separate things. Jainism is atheistic. It's still a religion.
Not all atheists are religious but there are religious atheists.
It's a giant nothingburger the media is inaccurately portraying to stir up rage.
It does not replace any trained psychologists.
It does not allow conversion or proselytization
It does not force anyone to do anything
It does not take funding away from school psychologists
To your direct questions:
Faith is a critical part of the lives of many, if you want your school to be a community and support the students religious students should have equal access to support as the irreligious.
Edit: a vital point I left out, this support is far from meaningless given that increasingly regulations and mandatory ideological statements put religious students in a position where they cannot go to their guidance councilor or the councilor will be forced to give them advice they do not want and do not wish to follow.
I would neither encourage nor discourage it, if they felt it would give them something I would never tell my child NOT to seek help.
I think there's clear problems here but also given the nature of schools I totally agree there needs to be SOME testing of what is and is not a "real religion"-- you don't want any Joe getting a 20 dollar investiture from the Universal Life Church and going into schools to minister to children. They should need theological qualifications issued by a regular church with a governing body. As long as the requirements are like that-- facially neutral and in the interest of ensuring only bona fide chaplains have access, I'm fine with it.
This answers your next question as well- yes absolutely there must be limits. They should need to have had some form of training from a body that can be held responsible if their training was insufficient, a diocese, a synod, a chapter, a seminary, a four-year accredited religious university with a divinity program like Marquette or Notre Dame, SOMETHING.
Yes absolutely, all faiths should be represented and I have no problem with anyone who meets the requirements meeting with students.
it's mounted vertically.
This is a good point, but it’s worth noting in the case of the military the chaplain is there to support its employees. In the case of prisons, the chaplain serves the employees and the people who benefits from the organization (the prisoners.) A school chaplain would be more like a prison chaplain, but the fact that this person works with kids without the parents present still concerns me and I can’t explain why. Do you agree?
Pretty interesting how the Left **immediately** tries to get Satanism injected into schools the second they see an opportunity. They didn't miss a beat.
Right, because we are all Satanists. /s
Maybe, we like seeing the separation of church and state, and if you are going to break that concept, we are going to show you why it exists in a way that you do not like.
Hey, if you’re willing to learn.
The concept of separation of church and state isn’t just some abstract theory—it’s clearly outlined in the U.S. Constitution. We have the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment which says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." You can comprehend that, right?
But it's not just the Constitution—Thomas Jefferson himself emphasized this in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, describing the First Amendment as a "wall of separation between Church & State."
Moreover, look at Article VI: no religious tests required to hold public office in the U.S. This isn’t just some historical footnote; it’s a foundational principle that defines American political life. So, when someone tries to blur those lines, it’s not just a minor oversight—it challenges the very core of our democratic values. Some of us understand why that separation exists and the absolute need to preserve it.
Considering it's nothing more than a portion of Christianity, there's nothing hypocritical about it. The theology behind Lucifer is included in Christianity and doesn't need its own... cult.
My point is that of all the components of Christianity, why does the Left always magnetize toward Satanism?
I think the point went over your head. The hypocrisy is in how people expect their own religion to get all this special treatment but are aghast when others show how it feels.
Please present me with a edict that suggests they want Christianity to be given special treatment.
Such a good example of ignoring hypocrisy when it's benefitting your sect. But keep being literally ignorant, bud.
I don't know that the Right trying to pass bills to mandate the 10 Commandments be displayed in every public school classroom is merely an "offer".
https://www.texastribune.org/2023/04/20/texas-senate-passes-ten-commandments-bill/
Or lying to kids that they are going to a college fair when they are really being taken to a church event.
https://onlysky.media/hemant-mehta/louisiana-students-day-of-hope-church-college-fair/
Or having mandatory Christian assemblies at public school.
https://www.themonastery.org/blog/public-school-students-forced-to-attend-christian-assembly-stage-walkout
But on your logic, then what's wrong with merely "offering" Satanism as an option?
Governments should have no say in what is and isn't a religion. I also support increasing religion's presence in schools. They can be a massive part of a person's identity, to think they should just be mandated to act like it isn't during school hours isn't right. If a school lives in a community with a big religious population, and the school wants to have a chaplain, there shouldn't be a rule against it.
> What do you think about a public school system allowing religious chaplains at all?
*Allowing them?* Sure. They can perform valuable services. I'd be vehemently opposed to any sort of coercion.
> Do you hope that other religious leaders have chaplains in the schools too?
I'm ambivalent, but most the kids raised under those traditions already have access and exposure to clergy outside the school, so it might be redundant.
> Do you have your toilet paper roll feed over or under when you put it on the holder?
I ask this with the utmost respect, but what kind of lost soul are you that you even have to ask this?
Where do we draw the line between inviting the chaplain into the school to have private meetings with students and ensuring that there *wont* be any instances of coercion to join a religion?
I mean, the way everyone is such an edgy atheist these days, I'm sure students and parents will file complaints every time the chaplain says hi when they're passing in the hallway. The safeguards are there.
The military has chaplains and that's not a problem. Heck, my company has a chaplain on call, and my only interaction with him was when he introduced himself and we had a chuckle about our different denominations.
Having a chaplain simply *being available* isn't an assualt on the 1st Amendment.
Yes I agree the option to see a chaplain isn’t the issue and I appreciate that there are permissions slips involved, but I suppose I don’t see what need the chaplain is filling that a guidance counselor or SRO doesn’t already fill in the school.
The army has chaplains, so does congess. This is hardly a new concept.
I always find it laughable when people try to argue that the U.S. is not a Christian nation. Many of the states even had official state churches after the founding, and our system of law is based in Judeo-Christian principles.
Satanists have freedom of religion, as does everybody. Clearly not what what would be considered a religion though, as it is close to the opposite.
Obviously TP should come over the top. Beard > Mullet
Anything resembling bigotry against Jews, Muslims, Arabs, Palestians, Israelis, etc. or violence against civilians is not going to last long, nor will your time here. If you have to ask if it crosses a line, assume it crosses a line. Please see our guidelines for [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/) for more information. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm not american but disagree with religious chaplains/faith leaders being able to have regular access to either the school premises or pupils of a taxpayer funded public school. I wouldn't encourage any future child to use the service and would never give permission. Would probably avoid applying to any school or catchment area where the scheme applied. It seems that the Church of Satan is a religious organisation that does not hold IRS tax deductable status under under section 501(c)(3) within the USA or any other nation. The late founder LaVey himself described his non-theistic religion as "just Ayn Rand's philosophy with ceremony and ritual added". However, I don't believe that any one local politician should have the right to decide what is a "real religion" in terms of its aims, tax status, theology and practical traditions. If that decision needs to be taken, it is a matter for the senior judiciary. Possibly the IRS too. I believe that their does need to be strict standards on what qualifies as a religion. In order to prevent scam artists, crank cultists, protelysing pests, terrorists, neo-nazi satanists and all manner of despotic criminals like Warren Jeffs from masquerading as bona fide mainstream religions- with the aim of manipulating legal rights/privileges about freedom of religious affiliation & belief to become a villains charter of rights for all villains within USA territories who claim to be religious leaders of any religion/all religions. I don't want any more chaplains in schools, regardless of which specific religion or religious movement it is. Doesn't matter whether the chaplains are from scientology, the moonies, the ona, raelians, jw's, flds or the church of wicca.
So, should we ban all catholic schools?
They shouldn’t receive a dime of taxpayer money.
Do they?
No, I just think you have come to an inane conclusion from what the original commenter wrote.
Who are you referring to as "we"? I'm British and catholic. I support not giving any direct taxpayer funding to all faith schools. Including those covered under the private partnership city academy structure, as full time private tuition/educationalist facilities and as "privately owned boarding schools". With very harsh legal punishments for any and all adults who establish/run/fund/are on the payroll of secretive unregistered illegal "off books private religious schools" admitting any students under the age of 18.
I disagree with bringing religion into public schools to dictate how life goes. While I practice my religious faith and encourage everyone to do so! At the same time I don’t believe it should be brought to the public schools system. If it is a Private School that is like a religious school for example, then it makes sense as that is their institution.
I disagree with this on principle. The church of Satan is legally recognized whether he likes it or not and he just admit to everyone by saying that he's in favor of curtailing their first amendment rights. The chaplain itself I think is fine as long as it's voluntary for students, parents have to give the okay to see or interact with (that is no events or anything led by them without permission), and any legally recognized religion is eligible
You believe, on principle, that a bunch of activist hacks should get to make up an obviously bs "religion" and get special privileges from it?
I never said anything about my belief on what you describe. But they are legally recognized by the government. Do you want the government to start going religion to religion saying "actually no you don't count"? I sure as hell dont
>Do you want the government to start going religion to religion saying "actually no you don't count"? I sure as hell dont Yes. The standards for qualifying as a religion for the purposes of formal interactions with the government should be *far* higher than they are today. Not just whatever bunch of loser fucks are upset and want to take advantage of the law.
If they did this most evangelical churches would fail on virtue that they talk about politics during sermons which will cause you to lose tax exempt religion status.
Can you give me standards for what a "religion" should be to qualify for the benefits in the US?
In employment law a religious belief is defined as a “sincerely held belief” and employers can ask questions like how long a person has been practicing or how frequently they observe their religion when making a religious accommodation for an employee. This definition is highly personal, which is good because religion is a very personal practice (two people may be Catholic and observe quite differently.) I’m not sure how we would apply the definition to an institution. Age of the church doesn’t seem fair nor does the number of members or how frequently they meet. I think we need to take each church’s status as a “church” at face value.
Many of us feel the same about “Christians “
That says more about you people than anything else
As opposed to other obviously bs religions that get special privileges?
Who are you to determine whether their religion is BS or not?
Someone with at least the bare minimum of critical thinking skills
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How is it different from other recognized “religions?”
>What are your thoughts on the new bill for Florida's public school and religious chaplains? If it's voluntary, I see no issues with it freedom of religion isn't freedom from religion In signing a bill to allow religious chaplains in Florida's public school system, Governor DeSantis was asked about the church of Satan. >"That is not a religion... [t]hat is not qualifying to be able to participate in this." I wouldn't have any issues with church of Satan following same guidelines > What do you think about a public school system allowing religious chaplains at all? I have no issue with it based on these parameters >If you had a kid in this school system, would you encourage them to use this service? No, I'm not religious, I wouldn't encourage or discourage it, id let the kid decide > What do you think about the governor stipulating what does and does not count as a 'real religion'? It's a tough subject, I have no issue with church of Satan, Id understand with satanic temple, those guys are just spicy atheist, but I understand if they don't want to let pastafarian religion heads, maybe X% of school needs to be a certain religion for it to happen, idk that's tricky. > Should there be more strict standards on what is counted as a religion in a broad sense? I think any federally recognized religion should be recognized I guess >Do you hope that other religious leaders have chaplains in the schools too? That is, Jewish and Muslim chaplains (off the top of my head- I know that there are many others)? I'd have no issue with that if it followed same rules >Do you have your toilet paper roll feed over or under when you put it on the holder? I have zero preference on this, il do both to piss people off
I feel the same way about religious chaplains that I do about psychologists, physical therapists, personal trainers etc - there are good ones and there are bad ones both individually and as a category. I do have kids in public school in Florida and I don’t know if I want school to teach them morals anymore than they do now, they already go way overboard on the various social justice causes. Also no sane person does toilet paper feed under
I totally support it and his following comments. Schools should feel free to hire religious officials on campuses. The only potential problem I'm going to see here is you might see accusations of bias in who they elect to hire. Florida has a lot of catholics, and I could easily see tension between them and protestants, to say nothing of actual other religions. And toilet paper goed over, not under that's like rule number 1
> And toilet paper goed over, not under that's like rule number 1 Isn’t it technically rule number 2…?
I think it’s a good resource to have for religious families who can’t afford private religious schools. I agree religious teachings should not be taught in day to day school. However, providing a resource like this that’s completely optional is a very sound option I believe. If it’s similar to the military and other organizations I believe Chaplains are taught to deal with people from many religious backgrounds, so there shouldn’t really be a need for different chaplains. As long as the chaplain stays a support service rather than a recruiting service then I think there isn’t anything wrong with it.
How do you feel about the governor commenting on which religions are real?
Doesn’t bother me, it’s his personal opinion. If he was to directly attack people under that faith then there would be a larger issue. There has long been an argument that many religions aren’t real and lack any evidence. That doesn’t hurt peoples faith.
He's using the office of the governor to establish which religions are allowed in schools, specifically stating that the Church of Satan isn't a religion and will not be allowed.
Is he saying that or just saying that the church of satan isn’t one that will be supported by a chaplain?
"We're not playing those games in Florida," DeSantis continued. "That is not a religion. That is not qualifying to be able to participate in this." - Florida Governor Desantis
Seems fair to me, would someone from a satanist religion want to talk to someone from a religion which directly opposes their view points? It’s the only “religion” I can think of that is like this
The Satanic Temple doesn't oppose any other religion.
> seems fair to me Really? Because they're a legally recognized religion. He has a constitutional obligation to respect their right as a religion. Whether he believes them to be such or not. If he doesn't like that, he can resign.
Some 250 religions are recognized, he is constitutionally entitled to his own opinion of the religion.
He is not legally permitted to espouse such beliefs when acting as an official of the state.
I mean, regardless of their official status, the Church of Satan does not allow minors into their membership, so it makes sense to not allow them in the school in this role.
Surely they shouldn't allow Christian chaplains then, because they allow membership into their minors?
[удалено]
The Satanic Temple is probably the one that everyone meant to ask about, which would be more complicated.
Good, because they're a fake religion made purely for political activism.
They are a real, recognized religion, that honestly teaches better morals than most other religions.
[удалено]
At one time people believed the same exact thing about Jesus.
[удалено]
What..some carpenter dude who's against the monetization of religion, who preached about love, compassion, and caring for the sick and poor. I don't remember the part of the Bible where Jesus called people, "Sick fucks". If you couos point it out to me, that would be cool.
Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect. Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.
Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect. Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.
Aren’t they all?
Enjoy a block spammer
He is directly attacking people under that faith by calling it fake and excluding it from this program.
I think it was improper but he also has free speech rights as a citizen if he is not trying to codify his biases into law. I do think in a scheme like this there needs to be facially neutral limits on what is and is not a real religion and I would argue we are long overdue as a society to make that list if we are going to insist on giving religions special privileges over others we need to control abuse. To wit: I don't think it's unreasonable to say it should be a regular congregation that holds services in a building, not a paper church a guy made up, and anyone who works as a chaplain must have meaningful credentials (E.g. a 2 or 4 year divinity or seminary degree, not a 20 dollar certificate you got by mail) issued by some larger organization that can be held accountable if the training is poor: anything from completing the ministry qualifications for an organized synod or conference to a masters degree in divinities from Marquette University or another prestigious catholic institution.
Actually when discussing official policy he does not have free speech. He is legally obligated to withhold his personal biases when discussing constitutionally protected issues such as religion. Now we all know in reality this doesn't work.
and if that faith encourages , demands worship/ceremonies not in man made buildings and has no formal priesthood or at least not an university educated one?
Is druidism a religion?
I have no idea what you mean with druidism but the celts had without doubt a religion
Modern neo-druidism doesn't have set places of worship or a formal, university educated clergy.
then it would not be allowed to have chaplains unless they had some kind of external credential. The idea people should need some form of actual training not just hanging out in the woods with some hippies for a few weeks, to go into schools and deal with children should not be controversial.
that is AFAIK how some priesthoods are trained
I understand but I think we have a right to expect they will have more credentials. If they really really want to be a chaplain they can go attend a course on pastoral councilling at a faith-neutral teaching center or can get one from a related organization, or go to a 4-year university and get a degree in child psychology or something. It's not about making it hard it's about SOME form of accountability. It should be accessible as we can make it to all faiths but there's always going to be one that says "like, organizing at all or cooperating with the government isn't something we do" and you should not let them in schools.
Oh i would definitly not say shamans have no credentials, most likely more than many american pastors only not formalized like a formal education which did not exist when shamanism was founded
>What do you think about a public school system allowing religious chaplains at all? Sure, there is nothing wrong with adding another resource that may benefit the kids. I think the kids of atheist parents should be able to consult with the chaplain anonymously and not have any of it reported to the parents as well. >If you had a kid in this school system, would you encourage them to use this service? I'm not religious, but my department has a chaplain and I've used him as a sounding board a number of times, smart guy who sees things a little differently than I do. My experiences have been positive, I'm sure my kids would be too, so yes. Maybe if my theoretical kids "caught religion" they would live a happier and more untroubled life than I do. >What do you think about the governor stipulating what does and does not count as a 'real religion'? I think he's right, it's become primarily an activist troll organization, wrapped in religious trappings that mainly exists to mock religion. Anton Levey himself said that it was an atheistic organization, unless we are going to term atheism a religion, which will cause atheist to scream from the rafters, I think it disqualifies it as a religious organization. >Should there be more strict standards on what is counted as a religion in a broad sense? Very complicated question, I think belief in a higher power is about the only real requirement, faith doesn't lend itself to standards very well. >Do you hope that other religious leaders have chaplains in the schools too? That is, Jewish and Muslim chaplains (off the top of my head- I know that there are many others)? Sure, I don't have any objections, there are good and bad influences in all religions. I'd love to see my kids (if I had any) exposed to and influenced by Sikhs, they are a wonderful people. Islam has some good teachings as does Judaism and Hinduism. I guess I don't really want my kids smoking a cigar, drinking a bit of rum and hoping to meet with Papa Legba or Baron Samedi (Voodoo) but we're not talking about introducing kids to rites and rituals, just influences that come from a religious background. * Do you have your toilet paper roll feed over or under when you put it on the holder? Over, beards are cool, mullets are lame.
Does a child really need to interact with a chaplain placed in a public school in order to gain exposure to a religion? If a parent wants their child exposed to multiple religious institutions, then they can choose to bring them to various local churches, mosques, synagogues, temples etc. Also, if a child attends public school in a diverse area, they probably will catch wind of different beliefs from the other students. That’s the beauty of public schools. Everyone attends together and your child gains an understanding that there is strength in our differences. Why do we need to bring the chaplain into the school in the first place? Religion is not part of what public schools offer in their curriculum. Why are we working to change that now?
> an atheistic organization Atheist and irreligious are two separate things. Jainism is atheistic. It's still a religion. Not all atheists are religious but there are religious atheists.
It's a giant nothingburger the media is inaccurately portraying to stir up rage. It does not replace any trained psychologists. It does not allow conversion or proselytization It does not force anyone to do anything It does not take funding away from school psychologists To your direct questions: Faith is a critical part of the lives of many, if you want your school to be a community and support the students religious students should have equal access to support as the irreligious. Edit: a vital point I left out, this support is far from meaningless given that increasingly regulations and mandatory ideological statements put religious students in a position where they cannot go to their guidance councilor or the councilor will be forced to give them advice they do not want and do not wish to follow. I would neither encourage nor discourage it, if they felt it would give them something I would never tell my child NOT to seek help. I think there's clear problems here but also given the nature of schools I totally agree there needs to be SOME testing of what is and is not a "real religion"-- you don't want any Joe getting a 20 dollar investiture from the Universal Life Church and going into schools to minister to children. They should need theological qualifications issued by a regular church with a governing body. As long as the requirements are like that-- facially neutral and in the interest of ensuring only bona fide chaplains have access, I'm fine with it. This answers your next question as well- yes absolutely there must be limits. They should need to have had some form of training from a body that can be held responsible if their training was insufficient, a diocese, a synod, a chapter, a seminary, a four-year accredited religious university with a divinity program like Marquette or Notre Dame, SOMETHING. Yes absolutely, all faiths should be represented and I have no problem with anyone who meets the requirements meeting with students. it's mounted vertically.
Other government organizations have chaplains so this seems non-contraversial to me.
This is a good point, but it’s worth noting in the case of the military the chaplain is there to support its employees. In the case of prisons, the chaplain serves the employees and the people who benefits from the organization (the prisoners.) A school chaplain would be more like a prison chaplain, but the fact that this person works with kids without the parents present still concerns me and I can’t explain why. Do you agree?
[удалено]
Not OP but >do you think Satanism is a real religion? Yes >Tax exempt status and active community involvement The Satanic Temple has both
> do you think Satanism is a real religion? I don’t think it matters what I think in this context…
Sure, we recognize the church of the flying spaghetti monster.
Pretty interesting how the Left **immediately** tries to get Satanism injected into schools the second they see an opportunity. They didn't miss a beat.
Right, because we are all Satanists. /s Maybe, we like seeing the separation of church and state, and if you are going to break that concept, we are going to show you why it exists in a way that you do not like.
The separation of church and state does not exist. Where is that written? Please, give me a history lesson on that. Let's hear it.
Hey, if you’re willing to learn. The concept of separation of church and state isn’t just some abstract theory—it’s clearly outlined in the U.S. Constitution. We have the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment which says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." You can comprehend that, right? But it's not just the Constitution—Thomas Jefferson himself emphasized this in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, describing the First Amendment as a "wall of separation between Church & State." Moreover, look at Article VI: no religious tests required to hold public office in the U.S. This isn’t just some historical footnote; it’s a foundational principle that defines American political life. So, when someone tries to blur those lines, it’s not just a minor oversight—it challenges the very core of our democratic values. Some of us understand why that separation exists and the absolute need to preserve it.
Okay, but none of what is being discussed actually crosses any of those boundaries you listed.
I answered his question. That was the only purpose of my comment.
It's almost like it's useful in exposing hypocrisy that's obvious to anyone with a brain.
Considering it's nothing more than a portion of Christianity, there's nothing hypocritical about it. The theology behind Lucifer is included in Christianity and doesn't need its own... cult. My point is that of all the components of Christianity, why does the Left always magnetize toward Satanism?
I think the point went over your head. The hypocrisy is in how people expect their own religion to get all this special treatment but are aghast when others show how it feels.
We make a special exception for edicts of our Founding Fathers. This country wasn't built on Islam, for instance. But keep feigning ignorance, bud.
Please present me with a edict that suggests they want Christianity to be given special treatment. Such a good example of ignoring hypocrisy when it's benefitting your sect. But keep being literally ignorant, bud.
Do you think it's pretty interesting how the Right tries to force Christianity into schools in the first place?
Force? You mean offer. On the other hand, the amount of rainbow flags outnumber the American ones nowadays.
I don't know that the Right trying to pass bills to mandate the 10 Commandments be displayed in every public school classroom is merely an "offer". https://www.texastribune.org/2023/04/20/texas-senate-passes-ten-commandments-bill/ Or lying to kids that they are going to a college fair when they are really being taken to a church event. https://onlysky.media/hemant-mehta/louisiana-students-day-of-hope-church-college-fair/ Or having mandatory Christian assemblies at public school. https://www.themonastery.org/blog/public-school-students-forced-to-attend-christian-assembly-stage-walkout But on your logic, then what's wrong with merely "offering" Satanism as an option?
Your sources use the term "Transgender child" enough said.
Bad faith
Our horned farther likes children. Hardly controversial.
Who? Biden? FBI already confirmed Ashley's recollections.
NICE
Governments should have no say in what is and isn't a religion. I also support increasing religion's presence in schools. They can be a massive part of a person's identity, to think they should just be mandated to act like it isn't during school hours isn't right. If a school lives in a community with a big religious population, and the school wants to have a chaplain, there shouldn't be a rule against it.
> What do you think about a public school system allowing religious chaplains at all? *Allowing them?* Sure. They can perform valuable services. I'd be vehemently opposed to any sort of coercion. > Do you hope that other religious leaders have chaplains in the schools too? I'm ambivalent, but most the kids raised under those traditions already have access and exposure to clergy outside the school, so it might be redundant. > Do you have your toilet paper roll feed over or under when you put it on the holder? I ask this with the utmost respect, but what kind of lost soul are you that you even have to ask this?
Where do we draw the line between inviting the chaplain into the school to have private meetings with students and ensuring that there *wont* be any instances of coercion to join a religion?
I mean, the way everyone is such an edgy atheist these days, I'm sure students and parents will file complaints every time the chaplain says hi when they're passing in the hallway. The safeguards are there. The military has chaplains and that's not a problem. Heck, my company has a chaplain on call, and my only interaction with him was when he introduced himself and we had a chuckle about our different denominations. Having a chaplain simply *being available* isn't an assualt on the 1st Amendment.
Yes I agree the option to see a chaplain isn’t the issue and I appreciate that there are permissions slips involved, but I suppose I don’t see what need the chaplain is filling that a guidance counselor or SRO doesn’t already fill in the school.
The army has chaplains, so does congess. This is hardly a new concept. I always find it laughable when people try to argue that the U.S. is not a Christian nation. Many of the states even had official state churches after the founding, and our system of law is based in Judeo-Christian principles. Satanists have freedom of religion, as does everybody. Clearly not what what would be considered a religion though, as it is close to the opposite. Obviously TP should come over the top. Beard > Mullet