- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
Satanic Temple objects to governor’s push for more religion in schools and says members could act as student chaplains
Dark messengers of satanism could soon be walking the hallways of Florida’s public schools, and it’s a consequence of hard-right governor Ron DeSantis’s push for more religion in education.
Members of the Satanic Temple say they are poised to act as volunteer chaplains under a state law that took effect this week opening campuses to “additional counseling and support to students” from outside organizations.
Although HB 931 leaves the implementation of chaplain programs to individual school districts, and only requires schools to list a volunteer’s religion “if any”, DeSantis has made clear its intent is to restore the tenets of Christianity to public education.
Without the bill, DeSantis said at its signing in April: “You’re basically saying that God has no place [on campus]. That’s wrong.”
The satanists see the law, which comes amid a vigorous theocratic drive into education by the religious right nationally, as an equal opportunity: if Christian chaplains are permitted access to students, often at the most vulnerable and impressionable stages of their lives, then so are they.
So the burden of proof is now tied to people who actually believe in X entity existing (don’t move the goal post)? How does one validate that a source in this context (you cant, or there arent any)?
Thats the whole point, you cant philosophically prove anything.
Well, proving something that doesn’t actually exist being in favor of a specific doctrine would certainly be challenging. Generally with questions involving things like history, mythology or literature we would look to original source material for our answers though. I just don’t know enough about this specific topic to say if that is possible or not, you would need someone knowledgeable about religious studies I imagine.
Thats exactly it, you have flipped the burden of proof.
The group making the statement does not have the onus of providing proof that disproves their own statement. This goes for all logical statements. The proof of actual satanist doctrine (What that actually is and where in their dogma it resides) within the TST in a logical argument would be something that you would need to provide in this context. Otherwise the request is illogical and their point stands that they are as legit as any other religious entity until proven otherwise.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t care nearly enough to seek proof one way or another, this is why I am not strenuously pursuing the argument. However, when we do have historical documentation, which I am simply presuming we do, not asserting we do with any certainty, then disregarding that material in favor of modern interpretations is not sound. If I really cared I suppose I could google satanist doctrine, but religion just doesn’t interest me that much.
I don’t get where you think I am making any sort of request, at any rate. Have I come across as having a strong position on any of this?
Dont presume, do the leg work, back up your statements with logic and reason or get out of the way and stop muddying the waters.
Im not calling you out over the content of your stance, im calling you out for logical foibles that readers of your comments could fall into.
What logical foible could that be? The importance of original source material?
edit: I think you just assumed I was making a pro-religion argument and got your panties in a bunch, incidentally. When I actually never did.