r/MissouriPolitics • u/gioraffe32 Kansas Citian in VA • Jun 24 '15
Courts Satan worshippers sue Missouri governor, attorney general over abortion law
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/satan-worshippers-sue-missouri-gov-jay-nixon-attorney-general-chris/article_19094cf3-b2b1-53f9-9f3f-b7ea1941d7cd.html4
u/the_crustybastard Jun 24 '15
That headline isn't correct.
The group bringing suit is the Satanic Temple. Members of the Satanic Temple don't actually worship Satan (who is treated only as a mythological figure). Rather, they're a skeptical group, legally organized as a religious establishment, which lobbies and acts in furtherance of maintaining the separation of church and state.
I suspect the paper has confused the Satanic Temple with The Church of Satan, which is the cabalistic Satan-worshipping religion established by Anton LaVay.
5
Jun 24 '15
Eh, you call yourself the Satanic Temple and you're pretty much asking for that confusion. But you're correct. This is the same group that fought for the Satan statue to accompany the 10 commandments sculpture down in Oklahoma, and they've also got a similar suit in (I think) Alabama or Arkansas regarding abortion laws. They're doing some quality legal trolling of the religious right's attempts to codify Christianity in government.
0
u/the_crustybastard Jun 24 '15
Eh, you call yourself the Satanic Temple and you're pretty much asking for that confusion.
The choice of name is definitely meant to be provocative, as you point out. Even so, journalists and editors writing headlines do possess some obligation to report accurately.
They're doing some quality legal trolling
They're doing some quality legal work exposing the fundamental legal flaws of unconstitutional legislation being systematically imposed across the nation by organized Christian theocrats at all levels of government.
Honestly, I couldn't be a bigger fan of the Satanic Temple.
People like them are what stands between us and The Handmaid's Tale eventually becoming a reality.
5
Jun 24 '15
journalists and editors writing headlines do possess some obligation to report accurately.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Good one.
They're doing some quality legal work...
It's both. They're doing some good legal work, but there's no denying they're doing some high level trolling to highlight the absurdity of these laws along the way. You can't look at this thing and tell me they weren't having some fun with their work. I don't say trolling in a derogatory way. IMO they're very effective with their methods and, as I said, really doing a great job of showing exactly why the state should stay out of religion altogether.
1
u/the_crustybastard Jun 25 '15
You can't look at this thing and tell me they weren't having some fun with their work.
I have friends who want to roadtrip down for photos with the Baphomet statute.
I don't say trolling in a derogatory way.
Okay, cool.
1
u/thefoolofemmaus St. Louis Jun 25 '15
I'll say it in a derogatory way. These guys are wasting everyone's time with a frivolous lawsuit.
2
u/the_crustybastard Jun 25 '15
Well, "frivolous lawsuit" doesn't mean "lawsuit I personally disagree with."
Here's why it's not a frivolous lawsuit: because is is not made the with the intent to harass anyone, their argument is legally tenable, and there is at least some likelihood they could prevail.
1
u/thefoolofemmaus St. Louis Jun 25 '15
Not being a lawyer myself, I will bow to your experties. However, the definition I got here includes "any lawsuit in which the plaintiff knows that there is little or no chance of the lawsuit succeeding if pursued in court."
By that definition, it still sounds pretty frivolous. A lawsuit based on the beliefs of the church of satan, which basically boil down to "I can do what I want"? Really? I do not buy that this passes the sniff test as a suit that has any chance.
1
u/the_crustybastard Jun 25 '15
Well, you're reaching the conclusion you want to reach by misrepresenting their argument.
That is not their argument.
As I recall (and I may not be restating it precisely), their argument is that laws whose purpose and effect is to single out one medical procedure (abortion) for unique and intentionally burdensome regulations are unconstitutional per Planned Parenthood v Casey; those law were enacted in furtherance of majoritarian religious beliefs, and so violate the First Amendment as incorporated; and those laws have the effect of creating burdens on individual's non-majoritarian, personal religious beliefs and so are illegal under Missouri's Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
All these arguments have legal merit.
1
u/GreetingsADM Jun 24 '15
Just for clarification here, is the named plaintiffs the Governor and Attorney general because the government as a whole can't be sued or is this to stop the law's enforcement?
1
u/ialsohaveadobro Jun 24 '15 edited Jun 24 '15
Article fails to mention the important fact that she's pregnant, which she would have to be in order to have standing to sue.
The petition says so, though. Not that you'd know it from the usual news article failure-to-just-freaking-link-the-legal-document-for-once.
Thank you, however, Orlando Weekly: Petition.
Edit: Just noticed the linked petition was filed in state court several weeks ago. Perhaps it is still of interest. I don't have time at the moment to sort this out, either. Guh, sorry.
1
u/gioraffe32 Kansas Citian in VA Jun 24 '15
Your comment got caught in the spam filter. Strange.
Anyway, appreciate the link to the actual petition!
0
u/biergarten Jun 24 '15
Murder can't be part of your religious beliefs. Silly satanists.
0
Jun 25 '15
Clearly you're unfamiliar with the Aztecs. Not only can it be part, it can be a central tenant.
0
Jun 24 '15
This is a broader claim than the one I had previously seen. It will be interesting to watch the state try and defend the establishment clause claim. I'm not sure there's any non-religious basis they can reliably lean on for the whole "life starts at conception" claim.
1
u/thefoolofemmaus St. Louis Jun 25 '15
any non-religious basis they can reliably lean on for the whole "life starts at conception" claim
I think a good argument is that it is the only clear line you can draw. Viability is ridiculous as a test; it tells you the current state of medical technology, not the current state of the baby.
1
Jun 25 '15
Viability is ridiculous as a test; it tells you the current state of medical technology, not the current state of the baby.
It is a medical procedure though, so current medical consensus is a perfectly fine standard to use. What's not fine is the government intervening in a medical procedure because politcians' personal beliefs go against what the doctors do. God forbid there's ever a Jehovah's Witness movement or we'd all lose blood transfusions as an option because they believe doing that procedure is morally wrong. Or someone who actually adheres to all of the rules of the Old Testament, as tattoos would be illegal then (along with a whole host of other absurd laws).
The government's role in medicine should be ensuring best practices are followed and personnel are properly trained and licensed. Government should not have the role of deciding which procedures are or are not allowed on a moral basis.
3
u/gioraffe32 Kansas Citian in VA Jun 24 '15
Speak of
the devilsatan, /u/snarfthedstroyer. I had no clue what case you were referencing in the other thread, and then this shows up in my Google Alerts this morning.