this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2024
162 points (100.0% liked)

Atheism

4070 readers
43 users here now

Community Guide


Archive Today will help you look at paywalled content the way search engines see it.


Statement of Purpose

Acceptable

Unacceptable

Depending on severity, you might be warned before adverse action is taken.

Inadvisable


Application of warnings or bans will be subject to moderator discretion. Feel free to appeal. If changes to the guidelines are necessary, they will be adjusted.


If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a group that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of any other group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you you will be banned on sight.

Provable means able to provide proof to the moderation, and, if necessary, to the community.

 ~ /c/nostupidquestions

If you want your space listed in this sidebar and it is especially relevant to the atheist or skeptic communities, PM DancingPickle and we'll have a look!


Connect with Atheists

Help and Support Links

Streaming Media

This is mostly YouTube at the moment. Podcasts and similar media - especially on federated platforms - may also feature here.

Orgs, Blogs, Zines

Mainstream

Bibliography

Start here...

...proceed here.

Proselytize Religion

From Reddit

As a community with an interest in providing the best resources to its members, the following wiki links are provided as historical reference until we can establish our own.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

If the bill succeeds, taxpayer dollars could be funneled to religious schools... including Satanic ones.

top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] azimir@lemmy.ml 40 points 10 months ago (1 children)

This is a class act in how to make use of the system through malicious compliance. If the theocrats demand a theocracy, then while we have a federal government that tries to enforce equal access, then demonstrate just how equal access will be used.

To do that, you need to be informed, engaged, willing to work, and willing to speak up with your voice. Sadly, democracy is only defended by an active and informed electorate. Politics is also a contact sport. We are served well by people stepping into the ring and putting some body blows on those in power who want to erode the foundations of secular society.

[–] nkat2112@sh.itjust.works 7 points 10 months ago

Excellently explained! I couldn't agree more. Thank you for sharing that.

[–] Pickle_Jr@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 10 months ago

I love this idea 🐐

[–] SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml 15 points 10 months ago (3 children)

What we need to do is to make drag a religion so that Florida and Texas can’t ban shows.

[–] synae@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I’m from SF and am part of the community. I know and love the sisters! They’re not organized as a religion, though, and California doesn’t have any anti-drag laws anyway. We have mandatory drag shows that you must attend over cocktails and brunch.

I was thinking of something like making drag an official component of worship in TST or something, so it would get more headlines and TST has already established itself as a religion.

[–] synae@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 10 months ago

Hell yea

I feel like there could be an easy crossover with TST, or for SPI to have a religious arm. Either way, chapters in the threatened states could be effective in fighting the encroaching christofascism

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 6 points 10 months ago

Maybe FSM would adopt it as official dress?

[–] Cosmicomical@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

My religion says I must do whatever the f I want as long as I respect other people's human rights.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Hartley was essentially admitting that Satanists (and Muslims and other non-Christian groups) would theoretically have access to the funds. However, if the state had a really good reason not to give it to them, there was a way to restrict the funds from going to those groups. You don’t have to be a lawyer to realize that a group being considered a “fringe” religion would never pass strict scrutiny.

N.B. "Strict scrutiny" is a standard applied by courts, not legislatures, when reviewing a law for infringements of constitutional rights. It's the highest standard of scrutiny, and when applied almost always ends with the law being struck down.

In other words, she's saying that a law that excludes "fringe" religions would almost certainly be struck down.