Satanist father and Christian mother fight for Sunday morning custody rights

[emad]

Source: telegraph

By Tom Leonard in New York
Last Updated: 8:27PM BST 11/07/2008

A custody battle between a Satanist and his Christian ex-wife has raised constitutional issues after both demanded the right to share their religion with their three young children.

Kristie Meyer has cited the religious beliefs of her former husband, Jamie, as the main reason why an Indiana judge should restrict his visitation rights.

She wants the three to go to church on Sunday mornings - technically, when they are with Mr Meyer - but points out they are unlikely to do so if they are with their father, a member of an organisation calling itself the Church of Satan.

However, legal experts have warned that the American Constitution prevents judges from showing a religious preference.


Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/2287695/Satanist-father-and-Christian-mother-fight-for-Sunday-morning-custody-rights.html

[emad]

1. Satanism - good enough for the US Internal Revenue Service

to recognise it as a bona fide religion....

Maybe not for US social services and matrimonial disputes arbitration services...

[Ian David]

2. I can wait for them to be interviewed on The Daily Show. n/t

[Dr.Phool]

5. Daily Show my ass.

This is Dr. Phil or Bill O'rally territory.

[Ian David]

10. Geraldo Rivera Satanic Panic

Geraldo Rivera: Satanic Ritual Abuse & recovered memories
http://www.religioustolerance.org/geraldo.htm

[ben_meyers]

3. Cut the GD kids in half and solve the problem.

Ok, maybe kidding a bit. Good DOG, some people!

[awoke_in_2003]

19. Ain't nothing wrong with that

Hell, King Solomon almost did the same thing (if you believe works of fiction that purport to be holy scripture). Oh, and to those that are about to flame me, I am not just pointing a finger at christianity, but all religion.

[Betsy Ross]

30. They are holy scriptures.

Rather that some PURPORT to be TRUE.

[aspergris]

83. Actually no

He didn't "almost do the same thing" since he had no intention of cutting the child in half. His threat to do so was a ruse and it worked.

[w4rma]

128. Are you a mind reader? How do you know that it was a ruse? (nt)

[rug]

4. He's going to have to award one of them sole legal custody.

Whoevever gets sole legal custody will then call the shots on religion.

[emad]

8. Joint custody is possible but with just one parent being awarded

residency.

I expect the judge will want to know why the wife is now objecting given that she married the guy in the first place...

[JeanGrey]

39. Possibly he was different when they married?

[pnwmom]

47. He joined the "church" after his multiple divorces.

There is more than one ex-wife upset about this.

ROCHESTER, Ind. _ The "T" in Satan's name inked on Jamie Meyer's left leg is drawn to look like an upside-down cross. The crucifix suspended above his bed hangs upside down too.

Meyer's ex-wives say he also has turned their children's lives upside down since he joined the Church of Satan _ an organization that eschews spirituality and celebrates man's selfish desires.

SNIP

http://media.www.ecollegetimes.com/media/storage/paper991/news/2008/07/03/RealNews/Mans-Affiliation.With.Church.Of.Satan.At.Issue.In.Custody.Battle-3389476.shtml

[EvilAL]

118. its all the same.

ROCHESTER, Ind. _ The "T" in Christ's name inked on Jamie Meyer's left leg is drawn to look like a cross. He hangs a crucifix over his bed as well.
Meyer's ex-wives say he also has turned their children's lives upside down since he joined the Church of Jesus, an organization that forces spirituality and denounces man's natural desires.

[Ian David]

12. I wonder what those so-called "Fathers Rights" groups think of this? n/t

[beam me up scottie]

6. Of course people will now begin confusing atheism with satanism.

And make us out to be the bad guys...

sigh...

[girl gone mad]

14. If only.

When I was a kid, a cop came and spoke to our church congregation about a rash of satanic and occult type vandalism targeting homes and churches in the area. For an hour he showed us slides of extreme property destruction, and spoke of the potential for pet abuse among other horrors. Then in closing, "Don't worry", He reassured the audience. "At least if your kid is in a Satanic cult you know he's not an (in a mortified tone) atheist. You have to believe in God to worship the devil." The congregation ate that line up. Kitten torturing Satanists >> atheists.

[awoke_in_2003]

22. Well, I only eat kittens

(usually with teriyaki) does that make me a satanist? Wait, teriyaki, I must be an animist :)

[beam me up scottie]

38. Yeah, at least they believe in something...

:banghead:

[susanna]

114. Seriously? That's interesting to me...

In my neck of the woods, Satanist/Atheist are just about the same thing, according to the Book of the True American. (Not a real book of the Bible as I understand it, but close enough for them I guess.)

on edit: my subject line didn't GET it

[pnwmom]

54. The Satanists say they are atheists.

:shrug:

"Satanism is the world's first carnal religion," said Peter Gilmore, high priest of the Manhattan-based organization founded four decades ago. "Satanists are thus atheists _ not devil worshippers _ and we see Satan as being a symbol of pride, liberty and individualism, not a deity."

Meyer embraced the Church of Satan when an ex-girlfriend introduced him to the satanic Bible shortly after his second divorce about two years ago. The book, written by the Church of Satan's founder, Anton LaVey, spoke to Meyer more than any scripture ever had. It proclaimed no God, no heaven and no hell. It said Satanism had nothing to do with the devil.

"We take it on as a name because Satan means adversary or opposite," Meyer said. "We are the opposite of spiritual religions."

http://media.www.ecollegetimes.com/media/storage/paper991/news/2008/07/03/RealNews/Mans-Affiliation.With.Church.Of.Satan.At.Issue.In.Custody.Battle-3389476.shtml

[beam me up scottie]

57. Sorry, the satanists I know are not atheists and would be insulted if you told them they were..

These freaks are just your typical newbies overly impressed with their bad selves.

[pnwmom]

59. This isn't about the Satanists you know. It's about the Church of Satan

and its members, who believe themselves to be atheists.

[beam me up scottie]

61. MY comment, which was the one you responded to, was about satanists.

You know.;)

[pnwmom]

71. Your comment was about "Satanists" not "satanists."

And it's in the context of an OP about a member of the Church of Satan.

Maybe you should be more careful with your capitalization?

:hi:

But seriously, what do you think about his claim. Does he belong to a religion, or not? It sounds to me like he -- and the "church" -- is trying to have it both ways. How can you be an atheist and say you belong to a church?

[beam me up scottie]

73. WTF? Now you're telling me I don't know what I was referring to ?

I make it a habit to never capitalize any religions, sorry.

Read it again:

Of course people will now begin confusing atheism with satanism.

Pretty simple prediction, really, happens frequently whenever satanism makes the headlines.

And you certainly proved me right, didn't you?

I'll go over this once more, yes, members of certain religions can also be atheists. If you don't believe me, look it up yourself.

[pnwmom]

99. These people say they are not spiritual, in addition to being atheists.

So what makes them religious?

[beam me up scottie]

109. I don't care what they say, atheism is not a religion. Period.

I can't believe we're even discussing this again, I thought we understood each other after our previous conversations.

[yardwork]

119. Anyone can call themselves an atheist. Anyone can call themselves a Christian.

The word atheist is usually not capitalized but the word Christian is capitalized. Why? Probably because (1) Christ was sort of somebody's name (although it wasn't Jesus's real name, but a title given him by others) and (2) Maybe Christians like to capitalize it while atheists, not "believing" in any religion, don't care? I have no idea.

Anyway, anybody can call themselves a satanist or Satanist or member of a Church of Satan or anything they want.

[Miss Chybil]

80. What a bunch of bullshit.

Somebody is speaking with a forked-tongue and pointy tail. IF there were a Satan, this would be the kind of crap he'd come up with to trick somebody into selling him their soul! :evilgrin:

Sounds like it would make a good movie to me.

Opposite of "spiritual religions?" Not. Don't buy it.

[aspergris]

85. Satan’s greatest victory was when he convinced us he doesn’t exist - that's the saying n/t

[beam me up scottie]

94. I said pretty much the same thing down thread.

I don't know who is more aggravating, "brights" or these wanna-be satanists...

[aspergris]

84. That is true

But it's also a cop out these people engage in

There ARE real satanists who worship Satan

There are also posers like these Satanic bible people. The Satanic bible is basically an ode to hedonism, not Satanism

It is true that one can follow the Church of Satan and not believe in god or Satan.

So, it's totally illogical.

They should just call themselves the church of (whatever) to avoid the confusion.

[Q3JR4]

116. You know I read

the Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey and I have to say, wasn't really all that impressed. To me it seemed like Mr. LaVey was making shit up as he went along...which I suppose is what most religions do in the beginning.

My mother (straight-laced, no alcohol, sex only if your married, Jesus freak) also read the Satanic Bible and it completely changed her outlook on life (don't know if you'd call her a Satanist, but I think she's pretty damn close).

Q3JR4.

[Chovexani]

67. Really depends on the Satanists.

Actually the Satanists I know are atheists to a one. They're basically secular humanists with a hedonistic bent. They're also nicer than most of the Christians I know, and think very badly of the CoS LaVey fanboys.

"Satanism" is really a huge umbrella of various philosophies and beliefs, some of which are diametrically opposed to each other. That tends to get lost in stories like this, mostly because most people freak the fuck out at soon as you say the "S" word and the media always goes for the yellow headline.

[beam me up scottie]

69. Heh heh... " "Satanism" is really a huge umbrella of various philosophies and beliefs"

You can say the same thing about atheism except ours is more like a lack of them.:)

Unfortunately, around here they freak the fuck out as soon as you use the "A" word, too.

[hendo]

72. Atheism is also a huge umbrella of various philosophies and beliefs

any belief structure is. Atheism also relies upon faith, but that's another discussion.

[beam me up scottie]

74. No, I will not accept your definition of my atheism. It is not faith. It is the absence of it.

I lack belief in supernatural beings, this makes me an agnostic atheist - not a believer.



edited after a visit from the punctuation fairy

[hendo]

75. the lack of belief in supernatural beings is a belief and value structure

but whatever.

[beam me up scottie]

76. No, it's not. It is the absence of one. Do feel free to tell me what I believe

and what my "value structure" is, by all means, don't let me stop you.

[hendo]

77. the belief in nothing is a belief

the belief that science and the world can be explained without a higher power is a claim of faith.

I'm sorry that you don't understand that.

[beam me up scottie]

78. Why is this so difficult for you? My lack of belief in the Great Pumpkin is not a belief.

And exactly where have I professed the belief that science and the world can be explained without a higher power?

That must have been some typo.

[hendo]

98. thats almost as bad as fundie logic

edit: what do you use to define your world. Even abstract nihilism (the belief in nothing) is a belief structure that requires as much if not more faith than any of the major religions.

However, if you are a nihilist it's a shame. That is a very depressing belief system. If nothing means anything, and there is no morality, and there is no reason to live, then life has no purpose at all. There is then no reason to maintain life.

At least the satanists worship hedonism. That is a little more understandable than nihilism.

[Zhade]

108. Atheism does not equal nihilism.

NT!

[beam me up scottie]

111. Meh, four years later we're still fighting the same battles, Zhade.

I don't know how to tell if we've made a difference or not.

But I sure am glad we're both still here to fight.

:hug:

[Zhade]

112. At least we're alive to fight!

Good to see you again, BMUS. :hug:

[beam me up scottie]

110. Too bad, I don't fit into any of your neat little boxes so you'll just have to leave me uncatalogued

Pay attention this time:

1.) A lack of something is not something.

2.) I don't have to replace one religion with another, I have no use for any of them, I never did.

3.) You're the one passing judgment and telling other people what they believe and don't and you compare MY LOGIC to a fundie's?


You need to visit religioustolerance.org and start reading, 'cuz the rest of the world is not as simple as yours seems to be.

[yardwork]

121. You're making a lot of assumptions and rude conclusions about other people's opinions.

[exothermic]

102. And bald is a hair color.

:eyes: :eyes:

[Zhade]

107. No, it's not. It's NOT believing in nothing, it's lacking belief in something unproven.

NT!

[yardwork]

120. This is silly. You're telling another person what they think

even though the other person keeps telling you - very politely - that you are mistaken about what they think.

[beam me up scottie]

130. Thank you, yardwork.

I may be an uppity atheist but I would never presume to tell anyone else what they believe or don't.

[yardwork]

132. I got your back. I'm a pagan and we are routinely confused with satanists, too.

:toast:

Also, my son is an atheist and he often has to explain to people that atheism is not a religion.

[aspergris]

88. You are what is referred to as a "weak atheist" and are correct

Weak atheism - not having belief in God
Strong Atheism - claiming God does not exist

The former, your group , is not a religion

The latter IS

[beam me up scottie]

93. Thank you. Have we met? I'm bmus, and I've been fighting this battle for years

and while I'd like to be able to say it never gets old, it got old a long time ago. :freak:

[aspergris]

105. I'll fight the battle wit' ya

Sometimes people argue past each other, because they fail to define terms

I look at the beliefs this way

1) Belief (or faith) that God(s) exists - theism
2) Belief that God does NOT exist - strong atheism
3) NO belief in God - weak atheism
4) Thinking it is essentially unknowable, at least now with present technology/knowledge etc. - agnosticism

Note that 3 and 4 are kind of similar.

Note also that 1 and 2 are belief systems and require a leap of faith. 2 is arguably not a RELIGION, but it is definitely a belief system, like 1.

[beam me up scottie]

113. Welcome aboard, matey!

It gets even more complicated, I use the terms explicit and implicit when dealing with people who understand the basics.

I am an explicit atheist when it comes to certain gods who cannot possibly exist given the parameters of those who believe in them, but in general I'm an implicit atheist.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism">Wikipedia

A chart showing the relationship between the definitions of weak/strong and implicit/explicit atheism. An implicit atheist has given little or no consideration regarding the existence of deities; such an individual would be described as implicitly without a belief in gods. Explicit atheists are composed of two groups: the strong/positive variety (who explicitly deny the existence of deities), and the weak/negative (who explicitly eschew belief in gods, but do not necessarily deny the possibility of their existence).

Six years ago I wouldn't have known what the hell I'm talking about-I thought it was as simple as not believing.
But, since we're forced to define ourselves in terms of belief, I'd rather do it myself than let the believers keep doing it.

[aspergris]

117. I like it n/t

[yardwork]

122. Referred to by whom? Christians? Somebody else?

How would you like it if somebody on a message board said to you that you are "what is referred to as a weak Christian."

[aspergris]

127. It's not about what I would or wouldn't like. It's about accepted terms

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism

Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any other type of non-theism. Historically, the terms positive and negative atheism have been used for this distinction, where "positive" atheism refers to the specific belief that gods do not exist, and "negative" atheism refers merely to an absence of belief in gods.<1> Because of flexibility in the term "god", it is understood that a person could be a strong atheist in terms of certain portrayals of gods, while remaining a weak atheist in terms of others.

Note that Dawkins doesn't generally prefer this terminology.

But it is accepted, and in common use.

And by using accepted common use terms, we avoid the "arguing past each other" discussions that are so common when people are using DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS of the same word, to support THEIR argument

SO, it becomes simply a semantical dodge.

Note also the S/W distinction allows us to distinguish a BELIEF SYTEM (strong atheism) with weak atheism, which is not a belief system

[yardwork]

129. Ok, I understand now. I was reacting to the "arguing past each other" upthread.

I've noticed that people tend to make broad assumptions about atheism and then impose them on atheists, which is both silly and rude. I see now that your post was helpful. Sorry, and thank you!

[aspergris]

136. n/p i'm all about the Common Lexicon (tm) :) n/t

[aspergris]

87. Atheists aren't being disingenous

Atheists (I'm not getting into the strong vs. weak atheism distinction) correctly label their (dis) belief

So called Satanists who don't BELIEVE in Satan are playing silly word games.

[hendo]

100. I agree

So, I have always wondered if the Hedonism Resorts are unofficially run by the Satanists. Seeing as how they preach hedonism, it would seem to make sense.

[aspergris]

106. Right

I mean it's pretty clear that Satan (tm) (the classical conception assuming he exists bla bla) wants people to practice hedonism - which is essentially the worship of oneself/pleasure/sensation and in it's purist form holds one own's pleasure as the most important thing. Because one cannot subscribe to hedonism w.o turning away from god, since one is placing somethign (their own short-term gratification) above god.

However, one can <SUBSCRIBE> to hedonism w/o having any belief in Satan. Some theists would even argue that this is Satan's ultimate goal, since it turns people away from God (tm) without even acknowledging that he exists. Iow, a double whammy. The whole "satan's greatest victory is convincing others that he doesn't exist"

Opposed to say Mel Gibson's character in Lethal Weapon, who feels as if god hates him, so he "hates him back"

Falls under the "I'd rather be hated than ignored" principle I guess

[mitchum]

123. Absolutely,I am a confirmed hedonist who does not believe in God, Satan, pixies...

fairies unicorns or any other mythical beings

[aspergris]

126. assuming they ARE mythical

:P

[Chovexani]

124. I know, right?!

Hell, even we Pagans are the same way...which is why I tend to hang out with a lot of atheists. All of us are just cats with two legs. :D

[beam me up scottie]

131. Cats with two legs...I like that!

Another thing we have in common, pagans and atheists never try to convert anyone.

[aspergris]

86. Because it's so frigging disingenuous

that these people claim to be Satanists and then say they don't believe in the actual satan

I remember in High School I went to the library to read this fabled "Satanic Bible" and realized it had NOTHING to do with Satan. It's MARKETING. Not that other religions don't engage in marketing, but you get my point. Naming your religion after something you expressly DON'T believe in is, as they say in Rhode Island - Wicked Stupid



That makes about as much sense as being Christian and not believing Jesus existed, or being an atheist who believes god exists.

It's false advertising :)

[pennylane100]

7. I just read the eleven rules of Satan

They are a lot less barbaric than those in the bible.

[Ian David]

11. Satanism's Commandments go up to 11. The christians Commandments only go up to 10. n/t

[XemaSab]

18. Remind me never to be a Satanist

I'm not down with rules. :P

[dysfunctional press]

41. so this bloke is out there, he's broken all 10 commandments- where can he go from there...?

nowhere, right...?
but if he were a satanist he could keep on breaking, because ours go to 11...

[Ian David]

60. EXACTLY! n/t

[aspergris]

89. But why not make 10 the highest number and...

But my religion GOES TO 11!!!

[Ian David]

9. See also

Devil, US May Care About Satanist's Custody Fight
Posted Jul 10, 08 10:41 CDT in US, Crime & Courts Most Covered

<snip>

Experts say the Constitution prevents judges from showing a religious preference, but the father faces pressure to prove that Satanism, which he says is about celebrating man's desires rather than worshiping the devil, is a real faith. His ex-wife, in turn, could be required to prove that Satanism—recognized as a religion by the IRS—is harmful to their daughters' upbringing.

More:
http://www.newser.com/story/32075.html





Man's affiliation with Church of Satan at issue in custody battle
By Manya A. Brachear - Chicago Tribune

ROCHESTER, Ind. _ The "T" in Satan's name inked on Jamie Meyer's left leg is drawn to look like an upside-down cross. The crucifix suspended above his bed hangs upside down too.

<snip>

"People continue to bring it up even though the judge tells them they won't consider a belief system," said Ronald Nelson, chairman of the American Bar Association's custody committee. "Judges are people. They are swayed by their emotions and biases just like everyone else. ... 1/8Parents3/8 try to exploit the decision-maker's bias. What better bias than religion? It's a visceral thing."

Experts said the burden was on the ex-wife to show that the religion was harmful to the children.

Gaetano Ferro, immediate past president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, said the U.S. Constitution prevents judges from showing a religious preference. But the burden of proof might be on Meyer to prove the Church of Satan is an authentic faith.

"If Satanism is treated as religion, that's strike one to her case," Ferro said.

More:
http://media.www.ecollegetimes.com/media/storage/paper991/news/2008/07/03/RealNews/Mans-Affiliation.With.Church.Of.Satan.At.Issue.In.Custody.Battle-3389476.shtml

[enlightenment]

13. What, exactly, constitutes an "authentic faith"?

That is a bizarre term.

[Ian David]

15. Different government agencies define it differently.

The IRS has one definition, the Selective Service has another, and probably the Census Bureau has their own as well.

[enlightenment]

20. Would you happen to have a link? Seriously.

I've looked, but I'm coming up short.
Thank you!

[Ian David]

23. I think I found what we wanted...

EFINING RELIGION IN AMERICAN LAW
by Bruce J. Casino, Esquire
Partner, Baker & Hostetler, LLP
Adjunct Professor, George Washington University Law School
President, International Coalition for Religious Freedom

Presented May 15, 1999 at the
Conference On The Controversy Concerning Sects In French-Speaking Europe
Sponsored by CESNUR and CLIMS


<snip>

The IRS recognizes that the "statutory term ‘religion’ cannot be defined with precision" and the fact that "serious Constitutional difficulties would be presented if this section were interpreted to exclude even those beliefs that do not encompass a Supreme Being." The IRS nonetheless uses a subjective, highly questionable, fourteen point-test to determine whether or not an organization is a "church". Courts often use one or more of these criteria in determining that a mail-order ministry is not qualified for tax exemption. In general, the criteria tend to apply to large, formal, well-established churches but not to smaller and less traditional or established denominations. Indeed, because they discriminate between religious organizations, they would seem to violate the first amendment. The IRS, as is argued below, should abandon these criteria and use the test proposed above as its standard to determine whether or not an organization is, in fact, a church.

The IRS criteria are:

a distinct legal existence,

a recognized creed and form of worship,

a definite and distinct ecclesiastical government,

a formal code of doctrine and discipline

a distinct religious history,

a membership not associated with any other church or denomination,

an organization of ordained ministers,

ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed studies,

a literature of its own,

established places of worship,

regular congregations,

regular religious services,

Sunday schools for religious instruction of the young,

school for the preparation of its ministers.

<snip>

And the following is the opionion of the person from whose paper I drew the above IRS criteria.

In summary, the IRS criteria are hopelessly flawed. They favor large, well-established, high or formal churches and discriminate against small, new, unconventional, informal or low churches. The Christian churches of the New Testament at Philippi, Corinth, and Thessalonica arguably would not meet the first through eighth, tenth, eleventh, and fourteenth criteria of the IRS test. The criteria are conceptually flawed and should be abandoned. In their place, the IRS should use a simpler, broader, and more constitutionally acceptable definition.

More:
http://www.religiousfreedom.com/articles/casino.htm





From The Selective Service (the people in charge of things like the draft board):


<snip>
15. Minister of religion (Class 4-D)

In order for a registrant to be granted a ministerial exemption, Class 4-D, he must establish to the satisfaction of the board that the following conditions exist:

He is recognized by his church, religious sect or organization as a minister of religion, either through ordination or some other form, depending upon the requirement of the church, sect or organization of which he is a member; and,

His church, sect or organization is established on the basis of a community of faith and belief, doctrines, and practices of a religious nature; and,

He is presently serving as a minister as his primary occupation.

Documentation Required

The Claim Documentation Form - Minister of Religion (SSS Form 25), which the Area Office will furnish a registrant claiming Class 4-D, must be completed together with documents and written statements from appropriate church officials. He may also furnish oral information and present witnesses at his personal appearance, if he appears before the board.

His documentation must establish to the satisfaction of the Local Board that:

He preaches and teaches, as his primary and customary vocation, the principles of religion of a recognized church, religious sect or organization of which he is a member; and,

He is recognized by such church, religious sect, or organization as a minister; and,

He is presently serving as a minister as his primary occupation.

A registrant who claims to be a duly ordained minister of religion must also submit a Certificate of Ordination or other document to prove his ordination was in accordance with the ceremonial ritual of his church, sect, or religious organization.

More:
http://www.sss.gov/regisrantsbk.htm#(Class%204-D)




Apparently, the Census Bureau doesn't track religion?




Why Doesn't the Census Ask Any Religion Questions?
John P. Marcum, Research Services Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Louisville, Kentucky

<snip>

Why, then, when one turns to the U.S. decennial census--the ultimate source of information on who Americans' are, demographically speaking--is there nary a mention of the 'r' word? 'Good question,' you reply; 'why is that?' Glad you asked, for in answering lies an interesting tale. (1)

From 1850, and continuing every ten years (with an interruption or two) until 1936, the U.S. government took censuses of religious bodies (CRB). That is, they compiled statistics on churches and synagogues by requesting membership numbers from the religious bodies themselves. The Bureau cancelled the program in 1946, in part because of the opposition of Christian Scientists (a group doctrinally opposed to enumeration). (2)

The end of the CRB was, coincidentally, a time of expanding survey research focusing on individuals, and many surveys asked questions on religion. Whatever the initial impetus, the interest in research on religion fed itself, as faith distinctions--particularly the broad divisions of Catholic, Jew, Protestant--were often found to be related to other aspects of behavior (e.g., childbearing, education, marital status). In short, the time was ripe for placing an individual question on religion on the decennial census.

Hence, the Bureau announced in 1956 that it was considering a religion question for the 1960 U.S. Census. This pleased social scientists, but opposition emerged from the American Civil Liberties Union and some religious groups, particularly Jewish ones. (3)

The basic arguments were that a question on religion (1) invades privacy, and (2) violates the 'separation of church and state' provision in the First Amendment. Some opponents feared that Census records could be used to identify individuals in some future wave of extreme religious hatred--understandable, perhaps, in the wake of the Holocaust, although the Census Bureau has a perfect record of maintaining confidentiality. In fact, during World War II, the U.S. government tried to use Census records to identify Japanese Americans for internment, but the Bureau refused, a position upheld by the Supreme Court.

More:
http://www.pcusa.org/research/monday/censmm.htm




Any references or opinions expressed above and any information provided above is from me as an individual, and not as a representative any other group or organization.

[enlightenment]

31. Thank you! Very interesting . . . just read your cuts,

now I'm off to read the rest.

The IRS bit made my hair stand on end, frankly.

[emad]

32. Hair on end? ALWAYS suspected satanists are in charge of IRS!

Ditto British counterpart Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs.

[enlightenment]

34. I don't think satanists go in for the sort of true evil that

they practice in the Revenue services (either side of the pond). . .

[emad]

35. Ever had a surprise audit on your annual returns?

Scared the hell outta me.

[enlightenment]

36. ewhhh . . . *the icy finger of doom just ran down my back . . .*

. . . must find chocolate. It's the only cure for the IRS boogyman.

Actually, a very good friend of mine is an auditor for the IRS in Atlanta. She goes after businesses, not individuals, but I still can't grasp how she can sleep at night.

[Ian David]

44. Satanists are to Humanists what Libertarians are to Republicans.

That's a vague idea that just popped into my mind and hasn't been completely formulated yet.

[yardwork]

133. I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the correlation between humanists and Republicans

I think that three of your four groups - the Satanists, Libertarians, and Republicans - belong to organizations that have a recognizable identity. I don't think that's true of Humanists. Are they organized at all, or do some folks just call themselves Humanists?

Anyway, it's an interesting puzzle. Thanks for posting that - thought-provoking!

[TrogL]

55. I started a new religion two months ago

...pretty much along the way Luther started his - nailing a letter to the church door (well, figuratively, anyway, and it's more of a schism). Theoretically, my priest would be have been in his rights to have me burned at the stake, but he was gonna having problems getting a fire permit during the current dry spell.

Pretty much everybody involved (and these people know what they're talking about) agreed that it was a "religion" even though it fitted almost none of the criteria above.

I think the big cheeses got word of what was going on, saner heads prevailed and a compromise was sorted out that didn't involved turning Christendom on its head - again.

[yardwork]

134. LOL!

Very good point.

[Wizard777]

40. None of which are Constitutionally legal. The government cannot say what does and does not

Constitute a "real religion." That's another aspect of "an establishment of religion." To say it's not a real religion is to also say it's not an established religion. As everyone knows the only real religion in the world is your own.

[pnwmom]

53. Is atheism a religion? Because the High Priest says Satanists are atheists.

"Satanism is the world's first carnal religion," said Peter Gilmore, high priest of the Manhattan-based organization founded four decades ago. "Satanists are thus atheists _ not devil worshippers _ and we see Satan as being a symbol of pride, liberty and individualism, not a deity."

Meyer embraced the Church of Satan when an ex-girlfriend introduced him to the satanic Bible shortly after his second divorce about two years ago. The book, written by the Church of Satan's founder, Anton LaVey, spoke to Meyer more than any scripture ever had. It proclaimed no God, no heaven and no hell. It said Satanism had nothing to do with the devil.

"We take it on as a name because Satan means adversary or opposite," Meyer said. "We are the opposite of spiritual religions."


http://media.www.ecollegetimes.com/media/storage/paper991/news/2008/07/03/RealNews/Mans-Affiliation.With.Church.Of.Satan.At.Issue.In.Custody.Battle-3389476.shtml

I would think that most atheists would strongly say that they don't practice a religion. How can a group say both that it is a religion and that it is atheist? That is the stance of the Church of Satan.

[Wizard777]

63. Satan is Hebrew it simply means enemy. So their "satan" is enemy of who?

So either they don't know what they are talking about or they aren't giving you the whole story. Ommission is a form of lie. Druj!(Sorry that's my religion. A Druj is a Lying Spirit.)

To a certain degree satanist being Atheists can be true. Theology is the study of God. A Theist or theologist is a person that studdies God. If satanist spend no time studying God in any way, shape, or form. Then they are in deed Atheists = without a study of God. But if they believe in theomachy (My God can beat up your God.) They are theists or antitheists. So it is possible for them to be atheists. But they are usually considered to be Antitheists.

[LanternWaste]

70. Satan is the ancient northern Semitic word for 'Wanderer'

Satan is the ancient northern Semitic word for 'Wanderer'

'One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic: A New Apologetical Study Of The Church' by Kenneth Whitehead

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan#Etymology

[Wizard777]

79. In Hebrew it means Adversary or Accuser.

Semitic is not so much a language but a group of languages that includes Arabic, Hebrew, Amharic, and Aramaic. At least in the broadest sense. In the narrowest sence it's anyone of those four languages. But in Hebrew it means adversary or accuser. Enemy is also acceptable. But not Wanderer.

[LanternWaste]

92. My sources tend to disagree with you...

My sources tend to disagree with you...

On Edit as per Wiki... The word 'Satan', and the Arabic شيطان "shaitan", may derive from a Northwest Semitic root śṭn, meaning "to be ridge", "to ray."<1> An alternative explanation is provided by the Hebrew in Job 1:7. When God asks him whence he has come, Satan answers: "From wandering (mi'ŝuṭ) the earth and walking on it" (מִשּׁוּט בָּאָרֶץ, וּמֵהִתְהַלֵּךְ בָּה). The root ŝuṭ signifies wandering on foot or sailing. 'Satan' would thus be "the Wanderer".

Saw the translation of Accuser, but where'd you get 'Enemy? Got a source for that...?

[Wizard777]

97. In our language Adversary and Enemy can be synonymous.

My source is a Rabbi that I can't link to. Because of this he also cannot be edited by any 10 year old. This also cannot be edited by any 10 year old.

While I don't dispute that satan is a wanderer like Del Shannon he gets around. But it's not his prime directive and whole reason for existing. It's not what made him what he is. It's not what made him Satan. It was his defiance of God that made him the Adversary of God. When that adversarial relationship advanced to the war in heaven (which actually comes from Zoroastrianism.)That's when Lucifer became the enemy of God. Satan is not a name. It's more of a title like the Devil. In Zoroastrianism Lucifer is Ahriman (the destroyer/the deceiver.) Beneath him are the devi/devils/demons/angra mainyu. There are other classifications such as Druj (lying spirits.)

[beam me up scottie]

68. Many buddhists are atheists, so are many jews but that doesn't make atheism a religion.

These boneheads just want a shortcut to the credibility, tax exempt status and notoriety previously established religions enjoy.

[aspergris]

91. An atheist can be a jew only because

"Jew" is a term used both to refer to a people, a matrilineally passed religion, AND a faith.

So, if you mean Jew in the "cultural" sense, yes.

But an atheist can't be a Jew in the religious sense.

There are "cultural catholics" similarly who don't believe in god, but still consider themselves Catholic because they identify with the rituals, culture, etc.

[aspergris]

90. Strong Atheism

Is a belief system. Whether or not it is a religion is arguable.

Weak atheism is not a belief system
Strong atheism requires a leap of faith. just like any other religion
weak atheism doesn't

[yardwork]

135. I doubt that many "satanists" or "Satanists" belong to any formal group.

This guy Peter Gilmore calls himself the "high priest" of a Manhattan-based organization. Anton LaVey founded something similar in Los Angeles in the 1960s. Anyone can start their own "religion" but that doesn't mean that everyone calling themselves a "satanist" knows anything about the supposed Church of Satan or has anything to do with it.

I think that you are taking these people far too seriously.

[Ian David]

62. If you want to protect Freedom of Religion, you must also DEFINE what a religion is.

It's a sort of catch-22, isn't it?

[Wizard777]

65. Okay who's bible do we use to define religion? Let every war ever fought begin now!

Religion is better professed than defined. If you say NASCAR is your religion. So be it! If you say God says you have to drink a 12 pack as your sitting in the pews of the indianpolis 500. Then so be it! If your lying about that. That's between you and God and no one else.

[awoke_in_2003]

24. Ceiling Cat is the one true god. nt

[derby378]

49. Ceiling Cat's Eleven Rules of the Earth

1. Do not give opinions or advice about Ceiling Cat unless you are asked.
2. Do not tell your troubles to Ceiling Cat unless you are sure he wants to hear them.
3. When in another's lair, show them the respect you would show to Ceiling Cat or else do not go there.
4. If a guest in your lair annoys you, you are free to turn all Ceiling Cat on their ass.
5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal. Remember, Ceiling Cat is watching you masturbate.
6. Do not take that which does not belong to you, unless Ceiling Cat says it is a burden to the other person that must be relieved.
7. Acknowledge the power of Ceiling Cat if you have employed him successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of
Ceiling Cat after having called upon it with success, Ceiling Cat will deny you the power to masturbate.
8. Do not complain about anything to which Ceiling Cat subjects you.
9. Do not harm little children unless they talk trash about Ceiling Cat.
10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food. Dogs are forever exempt from this rule.
11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask them to stop. If they do not stop, you are free to
turn all Ceiling Cat on their ass.

[happyslug]

16. A little more details from American Newspapers on the Subject:

For example the Chicago Tribune:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-satanjul09,0,508402.story

The case will NOT be decided till August:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/080710-satanist-web,0,2256024.story

The key in my opinion is that the Statement made to the Chicago Tribune but NOT repeated in the Telegraph:

Jamie Meyer's first ex-wife, Misty Hoff, said he already has alienated his oldest daughter by calling her a hypocrite for her Christian beliefs. She considers his encounter with the Church of Satan nothing but a phase.

If this is Nothing but a "phase" the court will order what the mother wants. Furthermore the article makes it sound like he has custody, but I suspect that is NOT the case. What the Father probably has is the child every other weekend, which by definition includes Sunday. Thus the Mother is only asking that the Father turn the Child over to her for Church on the Sundays he has the child, then the child will be return to him. In most such situation the Mother has to give him some additional time, such as giving up some of her Saturday or Sunday or maybe increase visitation during the week (Or maybe more time in the Summer or over the Holidays). Given that such Orders are considered Closed to the Public what was plead and asked for are known only to the Judge and the parties. Thus all we are getting is comments from the Parties (and I suspect the Father only) and other people who know of the case (Such as the case of his other ex-wife making the comment that this is just a Phase in his life).

Just a word of Warning, do NOT assume this case is all that it is written up to be. From what I read the Mother is NOT talking, all we are getting is a report from the Father (and a comment from another of his ex-wives).

[musette_sf]

17. hahahaha

the First Church of Basement Cat

[awoke_in_2003]

25. HERESY!!!

As I stated upthread, Ceiling Cat is the one true god.

[emad]

33. These two damned sight more scary looking than some serpentologists

I've met....

[LiberalFighter]

21. Whether Satanism is a religion or not should be immaterial.

Unless the non-custodial parent places the child in a harmful environment the parent should be free of interference from the custodial parent.


As for the legal experts stating that the Constitution prevents judges from showing a religious preference. That is total hogwash. When it comes to religion many judges will ignore the Constitution.

[Ian David]

28. If that's the case, they're going to cite the Newdow case in defense of the Satanist father? n/t

[Wizard777]

43. SCOTUS has already ruled that Satanism and Paganism are protected under the first amendment.

They have even gone as far saying Prisons must provide them with items that would otherwise be considered contraband, like candles, so they may freely exercize their religion.

I know this isn't going to sit well with the OH YES WE CAN OUTLAW YOUR RELIGION!!!!!!! crowd on this board. So :crazy: to them.

[Ian David]

45. I'm all in favor of equal treatment for everyone's immaginary friend playtime. n/t

[Wizard777]

50. Like they say. The God of the old religion is always the devil of the new religion.

Until SCOTUS closed that loophole and protected both with the first amendment.

[Hugabear]

26. Satanists use babies for human sacrifices!

:sarcasm:

Well, only partly. If you believe the propaganda that many Christians put out about satanism, then you might be led to believe that they actually do this. Of course, I'm sure that the mother in this case probably has all sorts of satanic rituals in mind, things that she's perhaps seen in movies that she thinks are real.

[AlbertCat]

27. Back and forth

I say shuffle the kids back and forth. Satan....Christ....Satan....Christ....Satan.....Christ....

They no doubt will realize early both are a bunch of malarkey and become rational atheists.



Like Richard Dawkins points out, Religion is a form of child abuse.

[LiberalFighter]

104. Under normal circumstances when there are visitation rights

the children don't go back to the custodial parent for church.

When I was the non-custodial parent my kid went to my church during visitation.

Later I was custodial and he didn't even have the right to go to his mother under state requirement.

[iamthebandfanman]

29. did they ask the kids what they wanted?

either way youre forcing your kids.

let them decide whether they want to go to church or not.

[Taverner]

37. That, sadly, is what is most important

Unfortunately, we know that children can be manipulated - think Elian Gonzales.

[Ian David]

46. Why should people with a political agenda consider the needs of actual people? n/t

[LiberalFighter]

103. Until the kids are old enough the parents decide.

[zanne]

42. I'm agnostic, but if I had had kids...

I wouldn't teach them my beliefs. Personally, I think a person who believes in the tenets and figures of a religion are better off, as long as the religion isn't extreme or fanatical. I guess I'd just want my kids to feel secure and have something to hold onto. I never had that, having rejected Catholicism and later on, religion altogether. I can't make myself believe, but I would hope that my kids would.

As far as that couple, I think they're both a lost cause.

[Wizard777]

48. Then you're an atheist not an agnostic. Agnostic = without knowledge= believer.

The Gnostic's claim to have knowledge of God's existance. I was an agnostic until I had a near death experience and actually met God. That's when I became a Gnostic. I can no longer believe God exists. Because I now know God exists. If you don't even believe. Then you are atheist = without a study of God.

[zanne]

56. I believe that God is a possibility.

I don't believe in organized religion; ie, the ten commandments, Jesus, the saints, the bible or all the religious stories I was brought up with.

I do believe that there may be an essence or a spiritual force that created the universe, but I don't claim to know what that force is or whether it is good, bad or indifferent to us.

[Wizard777]

66. Okay then you are agnostic boardering Ba'hai'.

Basically the Ba'hai' claim that they do not know who or what God is. They just know that he loves them. At least that is how the religion was summed up to me. It's a relatively new religion. It was founded in the middle east in the mid 1800's. About the same time Joseph Smith was founding Mormonism here in America. But I think the Ba'hai' faith is very beautiful in it's philosophy. Especially in their courage and out right honesty to say, "we don't know." I found that to be extremely refreshing.

[Miss Chybil]

81. They just know "he" loves them...

**Sigh**

[hendo]

101. he in the non-gendered way perhaps?

like how "all men are equal". that sense?

edit: http://www.bahai.org/ Bahai actually sounds intriguing

[Miss Chybil]

82. Agnostics feel there is no way to either prove or disprove the existence

of a creator and/or god. You can play semantics with it if you like, but your "knowing" does not negate my belief that I can "not" know. Many people say they "know" their beliefs are true. This does not make their "knowing" truth. Being an agnostic allows me to recognize the possibility of your truth AND my doubt about it. Your near death experience could be explained by saying it was caused by electrical impulses created inside a dying brain, or you could have seen God. You cannot prove you saw God. I can't prove you didn't see god. To me, this is where the "truth" lies - semantics and labels aside.

[anonymous171]

51. Oh god, this sounds like an episode of Jerry Springer or something.

[Ian David]

52. Yes, but The Midget KKK is not involved. n/t

[slackmaster]

58. I'm shocked that this happened

In Indiana and not Hollywood, California.

[emad]

64. Maybe the husband said he's a Satanist just to piss off his Christian wife.

and stop the kids 'getting indoctrinated.'

SNIP
Meyer embraced the Church of Satan when an ex-girlfriend introduced him to the "The Satanic Bible" shortly after his second divorce about two years ago. The book, written by the Church of Satan's founder, Anton LaVey, spoke to Meyer more than any scripture ever had. It proclaimed no God, no heaven and no hell. It said Satanism had nothing to do with the devil.

"We take it on as a name because Satan means adversary or opposite," Meyer said. "We are the opposite of spiritual religions."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-satanjul09,0,508402.story

[NC_Nurse]

95. But what about the Jewish grandparents and the Buddhist aunt? Maybe

they could make this a Celebrity Deathmatch of all religions. Now THAT would be cool.

[beam me up scottie]

96. LOL!

:rofl:

[Q3JR4]

115. Interesting quotes from the article....

"In a forthcoming court case in Fulton, Indiana, Mr Meyer may now be asked to prove that Satanism, which he says is about celebrating man's desires rather than worshipping the devil, is a real faith.

Meanwhile, legal observers say his former wife may have to show that Satanism - which is recognised as a religion by the US Internal Revenue Service - is harmful to their daughters' upbringing."

My question is, if he goes to church (as she does), why does he have to prove that his religion is the "real" one? Has hers been around longer? What criteria for "real"-ness is the judge going to set? Furthermore, how can he set this criteria without any overarching mandate?

To me this whole line of reasoning already smacks of religious bias.

Q3JR4.

Edited to add:
I am an atheist who doesn't really understand the "my magic invisible friend is better than yours" bitchfest. Even when I claimed a religion (somewhere in the neighborhood of two years ago), I didn't get it then either.

[rayofreason]

125. I 1st thought it said "Stalinist father and..."

Same difference!

[dropkickpa]

137. Bullcrap

She wants to infringe on his custodial time, and religion is the excuse. She can take them to midweek services during HER custodial time if it was really about the religion.

[petronius]

139. Exactly - I don't see how his religion is relevant at all - despite her claim

that he is "embarrassing the children." If the original agreement gave him custody over the weekend, then what he and the children do or don't do during that time is none of her business (with obvious limits, of course).

My guess is that this is just a very acrimonious divorce, and there'd be something else to go to court about if this issue wasn't available...

[gorbal]

138. It shows him must be a great dad if that's all she has on him

If she can't find any excuse but his religion to restrict visitation he must be a pretty awesome dad, when you think of it.
On Sunday mournings: I think the children should decide, just like my parent's let me go to church when they weren't religious themselves.