Always glad to see Trent's response these sorts of matters. One thing you always do well is that you do not make claims that are any more extreme than they have to be to make your case, and so you always come across as intelligent and reasonable. If we Catholics are going to engage with the modern world, we must do it the way you do: cautious, reasonable, calm, and professional. It is the only way we can win.
Prayer should be allowed in public schools, the Supreme Court was mistaken in prohibiting it just like they were mistaken in Roe, Casey, Dred Scott, etc.
@@watermelontreeofknowledge8682 Students can pray, create clubs for Christians and many other similar things. What can't be done is someone like a teacher mandating or leading such an activity.
So are atheists religious or aren't we? People constantly call us religious yet when some actually group together and form a religion it suddenly isn't one?
@@Boundless_Bordersatanism specifically hinges on the mockery of Catholicism. They take Catholic imagery and then invert it. Their service is even called a black mass. They’re basically a Catholic hate group.
How can this be considered a religion when the members don’t actually believe it as a religion. It’s an ironic club to disrespect Christians That’s why they shouldn’t get any legal protections
People ask “where do we draw the line,” and expect a specific rule, but it’s natural to rely on common sense and gut instinct. This was a very public anti-Christian display, and the man who destroyed it turned himself in immediately afterwards. Jesus didn’t make a habit of destruction of property, but the incident with the money changers in the temple warranted a more forceful response
Religions being antagonistic against other religions is entirely normal. The display in and of itself isn't anti-Christian. Notably, the retaliation of wanting to mandate the 10 commandments be put up is very blatantly anti other religions. As 3 of the commandments is about the subject. I'm not saying you're agreeing with that demand but I'm showing the difference between being blatantly against and the religion itself disagreeing with another but the display not being directly antagonistic.
@@Boundless_Border Santanism is explicitly anti-Christian and unreligious. They say so themselves. They do not believe in anything supernatural and they specifically mock Christianity because it’s the largest religion in the western world.
@@Boundless_Borderit is. Most Satinists aren’t truly Satanic. They are Atheists, or Humanists. They do not actually believe in a deity who is in an underworld, and commands them to worship a goat’s head. They claim to be satanic, entirely out of spite of Christianity. Ergo: antagonistic.
I live in Iowa. The average person was upset about this. What did a group of us Catholics do? We went to the Capitol to protest and pray twice with large groups. If people were really upset, they could have done the same. Anyone can write a comment instead of taking action. We were able to have conversations with people about why it upset us. The kids in our groups were able to see our faith in action. So yes, this was horrible, but we put ourselves into action. The week after this was put up, the Nativity scene was put up and welcomed by those at the Capitol. The Bishop was there to bless it. It is in the main rotunda area where it is easily seen from all angles.
As far as I understand the guy who broke the statue was protestant. I would say among other things he was looking for attention, but it's a reminder that protestants are very willing to show us up
This is a legitimate act of civil disobedience. He destroyed the statue openly and has admitted the action to authorities and seems to be willing to bear the civil penalties.
Too many Catholics, like Eve, are willing to dialogue with Satan when we should be casting him out. Btw... it was my understanding that the Satanists specifically wanted that statue next to a Nativity scene.
@@aaronvt9980 Rubbish. Imitating what Libs and fellow travelers do instead of doing better things is not a legitimate act of civil disobedience. In a confessional state based on sound Christian laws, such a "beheading" and/or full destruction of the vile statue would be a requirement, but in the US as it is put together, it is flat out hypocritical for Christians and others to protest the defacing of both secular and sacred statues by left wing woketards when at the same time it is considered a good and heroic thing to do the same to another statue because it is considered to be vile, offensive, etc. So much better and wiser would be to stage protests near the statue to continually mock it, explain the evil it represents, and why the Christian approach is so much better. Petitioning and/or voting to remove the statue can also be utilized, but doing the same thing that the Left does and advertising it as perhaps a form of "Christian Nationalism" in action sadly supports some of the claims made by libs and their fellow travelers that some Christian groups do not respect the Constitution and would impose their own brand of totalitarianism if X power was gained. Trent Horn's analysis is spot on, and his pointing out the dangers of a State religion not based on sound Christian laws is especially insightful as well.
I do not live in Iowa, but I thought that placing a St. Michael statue next to the satanic statue would have been an effective way to make a statement.
@@jwatson181This makes no sense. I'm not Catholic, but I would assume anyone who would leave their Church over this would become Eastern Orthodox, not Protestant.
@NMemone That would be a good option as well. I have known to many Catholics that have left God after church abuse or seeing the contradictions among popes. It is not a problem for many Catholics because they tend to not read their Bible or study church history.
If any person left Catholicism because of a scandal then the truth of the matter is their faith was weak to begin with.l and they did not believe Jesus is truly present in the Holy Eucharist. The Catholic Church was founded by Christ, and is perfect in all Her teachings, but that does not mean every Catholic is a perfect person. We have to remember that the scandal of Judas happened, and scandals unfortunately happen today too. However, the source and summit of the Catholic faith is the Eucharist, so with that said, why would we ever leave God or Catholicism because of a scandal?
People citing the first amendment in defense of the statue don't understand that it's about not letting Congress repeat what England did and establish its own national church.
So the first amendment doesn’t give me the freedom to practice my own religion? I just read it and it says the government can’t prohibit me from free exercise of religion
@@MarcLarocque - Freedom to set up religious imagery on government property would be a privilege, not a right. The Satanic Temple's agenda is focused on the first clause primarily.
@@evangelium5376 yeah so it seems like Iowa has allowed for religious displays in the state house. The satanists unfortunately seized on this opportunity for free expression. They should ban all religious imagery in the state house including the satanic temple until the law is changed to exclude satanism from free religion and expression. It’s a tough situation but the way the law is written and adjudicated currently is allowing for equal freedom of expression for all formations and kinds of religion
It was more like preventing the Roman Catholic church from continuing their persecution of Protestants in America ! The church of England also persecuted non Church of England Christians. But mostly started to avoid the Pope's telling English kings what to do!
@@davidjanbaz7728 Catholics were constantly persecuted in the time the US was founded up until the 20th century by protestants. If the there was no first amendment there would likely be no Catholics in America because of protestant persecution of Catholics.
@@kacperfrontczak1257 How would you implement that all people end up being Catholic? What should happen to people who do not want to convert to Catholicism?
And when Catholicism isn’t the state religion, I suppose your tone is gonna switch up then? Unless you’d rather be persecuted and have the one true church repressed in a country
Here's what I really don't like. We either have to give in to these pathetic people and let them blaspheme our Lord to our face. Or act rightly to remove these things and have our laws and courts used against us. Truly a lose-lose situation currently.
It does seem hopeless, but knowing that we’re going to be hated for our belief in Jesus as Lord, and in turn have treasures stored up in heaven makes death not all that scary. Then we can boldly love those who wish us harm. Whoever uses violence first loses.
Exactly why Adams said that ours is a system of government that can only succeed if for a Godly people. So it was crucial for us as a nation to protect our borders, and raise our children well in the ways of God - to stay true to him. For many generations, we did just that, and became the most prosperous, powerful, blessed nation the world has ever known...in no time. Horrifically, it took just two generations to undo all that, and prove John Adams 100% correct.
The founding fathers never had this interpretation in mind. Satanists would have been hung for doing this. Just because they didn’t specifically say we’re “not including muslims and satanists (same thing anyway)” doesn’t mean they ever thought that their words would be used to give any license whatsoever to muslims and satanists.
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims] - Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11 by John Adams. Jefferson also owned a Quran.
@@tomasrocha6139 This is simply restating the establishment clause, which you obviously don’t understand. The point of the establishment clause is to prohibit the federal government from creating a state church like the church of England.
Reality take here. They would not care about what that piece of paper said. They understood reality of what is good vs. evil. You don't tolerate evil for the sake of legalism.
@MycroftBHolmes Yes. The point is that it can not recognize, favor, or enforce some religions over others. To discredit Muslims and Satanists as not religions and so it isn't protected is similar to the rationale of arguing blacks aren't human and so don't have equal dignity under the law. Sure, the argument can work, but it is simple favoritism. You would be very pointedly defining religions so that it suited your purposes. You'd be unable to do it on secular grounds and so a secular government would be able to justify such a redefinition.
@@tomasrocha6139 You should read the responses some of the Founding Fathers made against Thomas Paine's deism in Age of Reason. They denounced him as a scoundrel. All of them innately reiterated that the foundations of Rights and Providence all stem from Christianity, that Christianity played a major role in the foundation of the US. Even Benjamin Franklin of all people, told Paine he should burn his work before anyone else reads it and then repent. This was against deism of all things. Imagine their reaction to Satanism and Islam.
Malta is a very small country that's in the mediterranean, I am surprised Trent mentioned Malta too. I pray your fight against the atheistic wokeness that came from mainland Europe to your island goes well.
Well Iowa is 80% Christian. This has nothing to do with popular vote and everything to do with Liberalism. That said I’m not the biggest fan of democracy.
@@stcolreploverAthenian democracy was unlike any “democratic” system we have raised today. It would far more resemble a civic fascism with various compulsions. Exactly why sprawling, conjunctive republics have no business exiling themselves from the Church. There’s not a government in history that has stood absent this binding contract of man and God. The vehemently secular, humanistic administration we’ve come under is a relatively new invention. The United States has always been bound by God, it’s only recently that we’ve decided to abjure his guidance
I like how Trent thinks things through and doesn't just react. It is one of the things that keeps me coming back time after time to get his take. Well done sir!
I frankly find the start of this discussion as "the government was cohersive in this way, so why cant it be cohersive in this way?" disturbing. As if those previous cohersive methods werent morally reprehensible aswell.
This is so American. There more than three options and the bravado will fall flat. Politically there are always more than one or two options. Bureaucratic backlogging is a tactic the libs use, why not use it here.
Saint louis 9. Punish blasphemy, allowed direct bypassing of the courts, waged war in the holy land, and punished Jews in france. I have very little tolerance for 'but thing I think bad happened therefore all bad and you no use as model'
Good points for sure. But I would like to know why it was ok and acceptable to destroy so many of our statues without anyone getting in trouble or being held responsible during the"peaceful" protests
Absolutely. Regardless of whether it violates the First Amendment. If allowing idols is a requirement for the First Amendment, I’d rather it be repealed.
A society where a religious minority chooses what rights the rest of society should have? What minority, of Christian denominations, of non-Christian religions, of sects, of esoteric cults, etc. Should he have the power to prevail over the remaining majority?
@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd Ideally, America would be an Orthodox Christian country. But it should at least be nominally Christian, and idolatry shouldn’t be allowed. Full stop. I have no interest in the kind of “freedom” that you seem to value.
@@bradleyperry1735 Would you accept that the country officially adopts the religion professed by Jehovah's Witnesses and that its rules are imposed as laws? It is a Christian denomination.
@@bradleyperry1735you're trusting the govt to define what counts as Christian or idolatry. That's the problem. JWs and Mormons certainly think they're Christian. Or as just one historical example, see what happened to RCs under post Reformation govts in England and elsewhere.
I think the point he makes regarding "Where do we draw the line in tearing statues down?" is fair, but I do think it's also fair to say that when someone is INTENTIONALLY trying to disorder our affections, that is a noble incentive to do what is necessary to ruin their scheme.
I think there is some merit to your point in general, but not in specific. The problem is that there is plenty of precedent on this issue & therefore Trent is correct; you will lose.
What is the purpose of the American state at this point other than to maintain the power it already has? There’s no collective identity. It doesn’t mean anything to be American as opposed to being a modern secular person from any other country. And like you said the absolute bare minimum is some kind of moral principle and we can’t even seem to agree on what “good” and “bad” are anymore.
“Religious freedom” as entirely neutral is a myth, the state must by necessity give content to some form of the good in order to justify itself. Saying “you can’t instantiate a specific idea of the good in govt because someone else can then instantiate their idea” implies that the state can in principle be neutral, which is an American conservative conceit that has (in large part) caused conservatism to lose consistently in America. Catholics should not base their political theory on what conditions will preclude their persecution at the hands of Caesar-he will always come for us and we can have no truck with him. God bless you Trent 🙏🏻
@@joet7580 So true! Like I am very tolerant to other religions. People need to choose Christ freely, as the Church says. But Satanism? No. And honestly, I would say the same for similar ideologies that would use evil figures from other faiths and traditions as their "role models".
I agree with the principled arguments Trent is making, but politics comes down to practice. It's a war of many battles, and to give up one hill under the pretext of universal principles, in the hopes our political rivals with do the same has been proven wrong time and time again.
Eve dialogued with the serpent and the whole human race fell into sin. Solomon allowed his foreign wives to serve their gods, and Israel was led into idolatry. Moses commanded the Israel to smash every idol and not to even mention their names. We should do likewise: Pachamama belongs in the Tiber and the old goat belongs in the garbage.
Another real take. The serpent has no principles. He is the father of lies. Those that do his bidding are all the same. They only hate you, your family and Christ. Nothing is below them as long as it deals damage.
Wholeheartedly agree. Did the soviets show the same honor that the post-czar provisional government did by honoring democratic governance? Nope. When they couldn’t win in the agreed game, they broke it. Same thing with the jacobins. Same thing with the all of these secular anti-Christian political/social movements. They want to destroy the good and remake the world in their own image. And every time you play nice and concede they just push to the next battle. The moderate liberals are learning that the hard way, now that they are getting cancelled and fired and bullied by the leftists.
12:08 This is probably trent’s most reasonable take In order for religion to be compatible in a secular state like America, you must be willing to allow others the same rights to speech as you. Even if (as you believe) they are objectively wrong. People are allowed to be objectively wrong.
@@carsonianthegreat4672 Be careful what you wish for. By those lights atheists would give zero rights to Catholics whose whole framework of belief is unfalsifiable and undemonstrated claims. If someone is addle-minded enough to think wafers change when words are spoken, because of obedience to an unimpeachable authority, then let's not give them too much rope to influence public policies. Garbage in, garbage out.
The constitution doesn’t protect this and historically has never. Its like saying the constitution supports abortion or contraception. Using tradition plus reason we can conclude displays of the true religion are acceptable and atheism etc aren’t. Just because Catholics were historically opposed in America doesn’t mean we can’t actually interpret the constitution properly. Using tradition and reason.
Which faiths constitute "true religion?" This is not like saying the constitution supports abortion or contraception. There is no mention of abortion in the Constitution. The Constitution explicit provides protection for religion.
“Our constitution is for a moral and religious people” - John Adams. What is the religion? Christianity. What were the morals? Christian morals. The philosophical underpinnings of the Constitution were Christian in nature. They make no sense outside of them.
@@Vaughndaleoulawhe meant to say devout religious expressions. Take the truth part out of it for the sake of argument. Clearly satanism, Scientology, and the church of Jedi are not serious devout religions and we don’t have to pretend they are serious.
@@sivad1025 If you wanted to look at it mechanically, then there is. The First Amendment prohibits the federal government from endorsing a state religion. Back then, each state had its own particular religion (i.e., Maryland = Catholic and Virginia = Anglican). The 14th Amendment takes the Bill of Rights and applies to them to the states, so no state by that way can endorse a particular religion. However in a “real politic” sense, then yes nothings stopping the state from endorsing a religion assuming its within the scope of the dominant belief system. Today we worship Liberalism, which is now hostile to Christianity (and satanic if you ask me). Therefore it is no feasible for any state in the union to openly endorse Christianity
The Supreme Being thing in the Iowa constitution is kind of a silly talking point. It seems extremely obvious that they were referring to the Christian God. Why wouldn’t you read their constitution in the context of the time they were living in, where the mention of a supreme being would be understood by all reading the text as the Christian God.
@@TheCASSMAN777 do you have evidence that the people who wrote the Iowa state constitution were Freemasons? Also, even if that were the case, it would still be reasonable to assume that most everyone reading the state constitution back in the day would have assumed that they were talking about the Christian God
I agree with Trent: the solutions proposed to "legally" do away with the statue are guaranteed to cause greater problems for religious people down the line. One thing that Trent alluded to but didn't flesh out, though (perhaps to avoid turning this into a 2 hour podcast), is that Satanism of the kind represented here only vaguely qualifies as a religion. They tend to present it as one only in legal contexts, the rest of the time they're--very openly--a parody or mockery with a veneer of humanism. So imagine someone coming up with a new religion, say Shmohammedanism. Imagine the Shmohammedans doing the same to a certain other world religion as the Satanists do. Would it be taken seriously as a religion? Would it be legally recognized as one? Would it be tolerated by those who tolerate the Satanists?
This whole affair makes me feel like I’m in law school again haha. Yes, there is generally freedom of religion (not freedom FROM religion as people often phrase it). There is precedent that says you do have to show the religion you propound has some sincerely held beliefs and has some baseline level of organizational structure. This has been used for people claiming to be in some Native American religious sect to justify drug use and even rape. So the law allowing the displays could easily say that it will allow displays CELEBRATING winter religious holidays. Because the Satanic display is just a display of Satan. They don’t have a Christmas equivalent holiday. From what I’ve gathered they have no holidays. So it could be rejected as the display isn’t one meant to celebrate a particular holiday. It can be argued that the display is only meant to be inflammatory. Think about a holiday like Rosh Hoshanna (sp?) there are typically no Christian holidays near that holiday. If some Jewish group put us a happy Rosh display and my Church goes over and puts a giant crucifix in front of it, I’m not practicing anything religious. I’m simply being an a-hole and veiling my actions under the penumbra of religion. Now while I think you could ultimately prevail in this, another question is: is it worth it to the taxpayers? The answer is probably not. The law in Iowa doesn’t guarantee any particular floor space. They could easily tell the Satanists that the only floor space left is in front of the janitor’s closet on the 5th floor that no one uses. They aren’t required to give them most privileged access to any particular space. Of course the easiest is to simply allow no displays at all. The “piss everyone off” option the government often takes. Which I’m honestly in favor of. I don’t go to the DMV for spiritual growth.
There's not a lot of legal issues at the core of this, I think everyone will understand that the crux of the struggle is cultural. If the satanic shrine needed a winter themed (why is winter the criteria?) They can make one up in the same way that they made up a cult, they can say baphomet is the lord of festivus or whatever.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj uh no there are actually a lot of legal issues. Non-lawyers won't see them. Why does it have to be winter themed? You can't be serious? Christmas and Hannukuh are holidays in December aka Winter. You narrow the scope. Also, simply making up a holiday is not necessarily sufficient as I noted with the people who claimed Native American religious practice to justify otherwise illegal acts. The courts ruled it wasn't a sincerely held belief. I get the sense you didn't read my comment at all to be perfectly frank.
It always seems that when modern Christians are confronted by evil we descend into word games and puzzles to try to determine what to do about it. I don't feel the need to quibble about my desire to stamp out Satanism and drive its malignant adherents out into the darkness . Jesus did not stop to debate with himself about "the true meaning of free will" before he drove the money changers out of the temple, he acted with righteous anger and firm resolve, two traits that Christians today would do well to emulate more often.
It’s meekness. Sorry but we have plenty of cases where holy men destroyed idols and accepted punishment. Play word spaghetti legalism on laws that aren’t set in stone and it turns into a cancer, people then don’t take you seriously.
The Temple of Satan is doing its job perfectly. It proves Christians are happy to not only break the constitution and freedom, but they will not research something before hating it. The Temple of Satan is a non-theistic religion. It’s very open. They are very open they believe Satan does not exist. You would know this if you actually RESEARCHED THEM. You confused them with the CHURCH OF SATAN which is a sect of CHRISTIANITY. You heard me. True Satanist are CHRISTIANS. Here is the Temple of Satans tenats. Tell me. Which one screams evil? THERE ARE SEVEN FUNDAMENTAL TENETS I One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason. II The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions. III One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone. IV The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own. V Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs. VI People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one's best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused. VII Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word. FYI the goat head? It’s not even Satan, it’s Baphomet, a PAGAN GOD which represent balance and order. Not Satan. Baphomet. If you read all of that and go “Nope it’s still Satan and evil” you are only proving the Temple of Satans points more. Matthew 6:6-7 King James “But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.” Notice how it not you should go shove it down everyone throat and into the government?
Tolerance is not a virtue? Do you, then, have anything to say about the persecution of Christians in Muslim and other countries that want to suppress Christianity? Is it fine for people who believe that other religions are false to oppress people of those religions? It's easy to speak the way you do when you are in a Christian majority country but if were in the minority, you'd be crying for religious freedom, just like Christians in the Roman Empire did before Constantine legalized the religion. That's just hypocritical.
No you don't only have two options. You tear it down, you don't apologize, you don't pay, and you legislate them out of our states. If they have any protection under the law to do this the law is unjust and inappropriately applied.
Completely correct. Either God's law and will is sovereign or it isn't. Simple. That's how He's going to judge it. You think you're going to stump Christ at the judgement seat with legalism?
For reference, here is the entire text of the 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Congress cannot establish a state religion, but also cannot prohibit religious practices. Of interest, in countries that still have a Christian denomination as the established state religion (as with several countries in Europe), church attendance is almost non-existent. In the U.S., which has no established state religion, church attendance has soared.
I have the impression that when someone says "religion is that which has the characteristics of my religion" they commit a fallacy. Which one will it be?
I can't believe that in today's world we even have to ask the question of if a demon statue should be allowed in the state capitol. Would your grandfather have allowed it? Of course not.
Some people's grandfathers here probably supported separate drinking fountains for "colored folks." So I don't think that is the metric you want to promote.
Uhhh you realize Christianity is responsible for waaaaay more violence and hate in the world than Satanism, right? In fact I'm willing to bet you don't actually know what Satanists even believe lol. Pure ignorance. Also, I hate to break it to you but those granfathers also didn't want women or black people to have equal rights lol. Did you forget that?
I've struggled with this issue, since I'm a strong supporter of freedom of religion, and it's one of the foundational freedoms of the United States. But I don't think that freedom of religion can *legitimately* be stretched so far that Satanic statues are erected in state capitol buildings. Satanism is not an independent religion. Rather it's an anti-religious movement, specifically an anti-Christian movement. And I don't think that anti-religious movements legitimately fall under the protections of freedom of religion. (There is a right to anti-religious speech, certainly, but that's freedom of speech, not freedom of religion.) I take the point about court cases that have gone in favor of Satanic organizations, and I agree that from a practical perspective, we have to work within the system as it exists. But that's no different than how Christians (and others) spoke out in favor of the right to life, even when Roe v. Wade and other Supreme Court decisions denied that right to life. I can't see how any Christian who is in a position of authority can, in good conscience, allow a Satanic statue to be erected on public property, or allow a Satanic club in a school -- any more than a Christian public school principal could in good conscience allow Planned Parenthood to come to their school to educate students on how to obtain an abortion, even prior to the Dobbs decision.
Many of these "Satanic" churches do have central tenants. While they don't really worship Satan, they have a code of ethics that they promote and try to follow.
I think one aspect is how a country's government defines what a religion is. In the U.S. we've had a few Supreme Court cases, that I've recently heard discovered, that have contradicting verdicts on what constitutes as a religion. So it was the case that religion had a rather limited definition at the beginning of the country, but it got broader over time. So I think if you want to classify satanists groups as mere cults or non religious groups you have to tackle the "What is a religion" question.
@@feliz2564 Agreed. The way I look at it, how do these Satanists even know anything about Satan? The answer of course is that they know about him from Christianity and Judaism (and perhaps also from Islam). So their choice to worship Satan is not an independent religious movement, but rather an obvious attempt to construct a pseudo-religion that is anti-Christian by design (or anti-Jewish or anti-Muslim).
@@funkatron101 I'm not proposing a general test, and I agree that there can be gray areas. I'm just saying that in this particular case, it seems clear to me that Satanism is not really a religion, but rather a ploy to take advantage of religious freedom protections to troll Christians.
@@Consume_Crashtell me which tenant of the Temple of Satan is evil? THERE ARE SEVEN FUNDAMENTAL TENETS I One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason. II The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions. III One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone. IV The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own. V Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs. VI People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one's best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused. VII Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word. Also establishment clause
@@Consume_Crash it is in the constitution. the first amendment prohibits the government's intervention with anything religious. also, the state isn't for preventing evil. it's for keeping order. a morally focused state is one that's tyrannical
If the Constitution of the United States protects this sort of activity, I don't desire to protect the Constitution of the United States. Kingdom first, country later.
You are probably right in everything you said but it feels like you just argued us into inaction and provided no solution. As a Catholic in modern times it’s frustrating that we always seem to be stuck between a prudence that renders us inert and a radicalism that goes too far.
Although I agree with Trent’s overall message, I would side with Michael Knowles’s Originalist/Trad argument more. For me what makes America’s history of mistreatment of Catholics bad (besides the hatred) was that it came from a false belief that Catholics have to agree with the Pope on secular political issues. For example, would it be wrong for me to criticize a Muslim politician out of concern that they believe the Quran is the literal of God and states in Tawbah 9 29 that the nonbelievers should be subdued until they pay the jizyah?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" -1st amendment of the constitution I think that's where the idea of separation comes from. Not just the Jefferson quote.
Here is the issue though. If you say Satanists don't really worship Satan, then they aren't a religion and they aren't protected and they are purely a group that exists to mock Christians. If you say they do really worship Satan, then they are promoting evil. Either way, Satanic statues and activities should be against the law
Buddhists don't necessarily worship Buddha yet it's still a religion. In any case, this whole issue comes down to lawfare, they're just using the legal system to exploit benefits for their atheist club
I really really appreciate everything you do Trent, you put out really great content that I use often in my discussions with friends, families and others about the faith. That said, I think you really missed the mark on this. This situation falls into one of two categories, either the satanists are not a true religion, which they claim themselves, and they have no right to put up the display, or they are truly satanists in which case they shouldn't be allowed to have a platform. I also don't think the argument that we would come across as extreme to the rest of the world holds water either. You yourself gave the case of saints who tore down idols and made converts of the pagans. Just kind of weak sauce on this. Also to the video of Dr. King you shared, while the law can't convert men to worship christ, it can prevent them from openly trying to convert men to satanists.
They do say they are a religion. And like Trent said, who would be in a position to judge whether a religion is legally tolerated or not. And like he said if atheists or Muslims gain power to decide this, wouldn’t that rationale be a very big problem for Christians?
@@MarcLarocque They are quite open about being a satire of religion. And I think the ship you’re describing has sailed. In Minneapolis the call to prayer is broadcast all times of the day or night whether you like it or not. If you work for the government or are in the military or just public school, transgenderism and all sorts of perversity are pushed on you. We are at the bottom of the slippery slope, and if we don’t start to wake up and fight back there won’t be anything to fight for in the very near future. This is a Christian nation for God’s sake, if we as Catholics can’t call a spade a spade and fight for what is right what use are we.
Greetings from one of the countries where denying the Holocost can be a criminal offense: usually religious or political parties, politically active organizations are not given exhibition space either inside a government building or in shops. No business wants to alienate other customers in this way and neutrality must be maintained within a "state" building (which can be rented rooms for the employment agency or a service center to apply for identification papers, etc.).
@@Qwerty-jy9mj Ah, because there are no “advertising spaces” available for religious institutions, political or politically active groups within a public or semi-public building, can the state act arbitrarily? And I always thought that arbitrariness was limited by a right to demonstrate and laws that apply to everyone.
Honestly I watch these in part just to see how skillfully trent manages to tie in a plea for subscribers with the topic in the video. A+ this time round
The thing a lot of people are missing with this and the reason it will have no immediate resolution is because the mission statement of TST is to troll. Even the premise of this video is that they are doing it as an actual religion which they aren't. They're being confused for LaVey. All the concerns about religious exemptions and displays require the presupposition that you're dealing with actual religion and not a group that has written documentation they exist simply to troll. I say the resolution is to first separate the trolling from the public display. Which throws out people who have written public statements that say they're trolling. If they want to wear the clown costume and say they're satanists when they're actually just being inflammatory they need to never take it off. Never be caught taking it off or they lose their status. To me that's the easiest solution to this but people are so quick to take the bait they just completely leap over the bait and switch where you can actually nail them for lying publicly about the kind of institution they are. If there's a concern about actual Satanism in public life that's a different topic entirely. People are getting the factions jumbled and only adding fuel to the fire because TST is just enjoying endless benefits from both being considered satanists and non satanic trolls at the exact same time.
I do have to wonder what would be allowed, and what reaction would be if another self proclaimed troll group came around with its official/unofficial, but obvious purpose being to mark Muslims are Jews. Would the state have been forced to display that too? Seriously, what if somebody started an Aryan German cold officially claims to be non-hateful despite their symbolism? Would they be allowed to put up a display?
Is there a threshold they had to reach before the state recognizes them with religious protections? Like regular gatherings, published doctrine, criteria for establishing who is in their religious community?
I think Iowa must have it's own set of criteria to recognize religious groups or at the very least as long as the IRS forms go through then I guess they would be federally recognized
How do Satanists not literally worship Satan? 1 John 3:10: By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother. Satanists aren't children of God, so they are children of Satan. There is no "oh I just call myself a Satanist ironically" here
I support satanist statues. I don’t see how anyone could not support the statues. If you want your manger and crucifix statues in state buildings then let the satanists have their statues too
Listen all the time as a Protestant. Good stuff. Appreciate the logic and the explanations from a Catholic perspective. Regarding the response of the Governor, my own opinion is that he should’ve removed or blocked the statue on the grounds that satanism isn’t a real religion, whether or not it’s federally recognized as such. They would surely get sued, he may even need to resign, but we need Christian civil magistrates who govern with courage and a conscience, not merely as short-term pragmatists. It would’ve been a win for the culture and a long-term win for religious liberty.
He could have worked against the horrendous false idol being up and tell everyone that he doesn't want it up. Christians should work to take down false idols. No argument
Since each religion offends the others, how is a defense against blasphemy that encompasses different religions determined? Blasphemy is the offense against God. Not to Christians. And God knows it. That is between each individual and god.
Since each religion offends the others, how is a defense against blasphemy that encompasses different religions determined? Blasphemy is the offense against God. Not to Christians. And God knows it. That is between each individual and god.
This is a very authoritary way to think. The State's actions should be merely subsidiary, which means that only those conduct that DIRECTLY represent some sort of impediment to the exercise of our freedom must be prohibited. For instance: if my neighbor decide to worship satan, it doesn't represent any type of harm in my personal freedom, therefore, the state shouldn't prohibit this kind of thing. Observe that everything that I said here is aligned to the idea of final causes.
Why should “personal freedom” the way that you’ve defined it be the moral baseline for society? Also, just because your neighbor does something that doesn’t immediately harm you does not mean it didn’t affect you. The most obvious example is that you view personal freedom as some kind of ultimate goal to aim for but if you were born 400 years ago, you would see things differently. The culture you grew up in instilled this idea that personal freedom is the highest value in you.
@@harrygarris6921 youtube is deleting my comments. Here is the thing, I'm sure that you agree with me that you don't want anyone intervening on your freedom in an arbitrary way. You want to protect your freedom. And so does everyone else. Therefore everyone agree in this point. On the other hand I don't have any particular interest in defending your faith. Most people don't. Therefore, socialy speaking, we should respect the only value that everyone has in common, which is the freedom. This is just the practical aspect of my argument. But there is a methaphysical one as well.
@@harrygarris6921 no, bro. What is the point of having freedom of ideas if you don't have free speach? What is the point of having freedom of ideas if you don't have freedom to use your own property? You don't want arbitrary intervention on your actions as well.
@@inrisalvatore9520 That's a strawman. I never said anything about supporting some kind of arbitrary rule of law. I'm just not convinced the enlightenment era idolization of individual rights and freedoms is the best way to structure society.
They shouldnt be banned anymore than Christianity statues. In fact, thats kinda the point of them isnt it? To be a counter to religion? Most people dont seem to understand that Satanists dont actually believe in satan.
@@BiteTheHook No. I did not ask for a married bachelor. I asked for an answer to my question "Do you think it is civil not to give evil a chance and force all people to be Muslim believers?
I agree with Trent on the unfairness of the criticism of the lawmaker here based on practicality but I also think that his thinking also leads to the David French “Blessing of Liberty” view in other issues … fair enough on agreeing with that but the argument later on that the state doesn’t draw lines well means no lines at all kind of defeats any impositions of morality (which I think Trent disagrees with) so I’d want to know where Trent in a sense would “draw the line” .. MLKs speech implies the same thing about the need for lines in any case at the end so kinda confused here
It’s nothing personal against Trent or French and it’s kind of hard to come up with a solution here honestly.. I just think there is going to be a point at which you need to have a hard line in some sense or else and someone will find it unreasonable. The line may not be on this case but it’s going to be an interesting century for sure legally , morally, etc
@@landonlowe4029Solution is simple, but difficult. Gain political power, wield it. The problem is that too many Christians want their guy to get in office and not actually do anything. This is why weak Republicans have taken so many L’s over the decades while Democrats have no problem using the power they are given.
@@landonlowe4029 I would definitely criticize French. He has spent the last decade kowtowing to the liberal establishment and writing pieces to defend their attack on culture, including the defense of abortion. I'm sick of people like French getting a pass for being "fair" when he's really just spinelesd
@@sivad1025I wouldn’t judge him because I don’t think it’s as easy as it seems (hence my statement) .. choosing between what’s practical and what’s ideal has always been a human struggle.. also ultra idealism seems to lead to totalitarianism while ultra practicalism also seems to be destructive to society itself. I think there definitely has to be more explored on the big picture though in between fellow Christians
@@sivad1025with that (what I said) being said when David’s only attacking “one side” you do begin to question whether he is being disingenuous about it but that doesn’t necessarily mean the points aren’t true .. someone could make a claim in bad faith but that claim itself may still be true
