Pennsylvania school board torpedoes After School Satan Club

SFC (Join to see) Satan *is* illegal. Satanism is a religion, which then means that a government entity providing resources for the advancement of that religion violates the Supreme Law of the Land. And is thus, illegal.

SFC Casey O'Mally - Satan *is* illegal? A search I did that says it's legal. Maybe you mean a religion using a school is illegal? I wouldn't doubt that. Judges make bad decisions every day. I would always hang my hat on: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech". If a school denied facilities (a room, no copies and stuff like that) that they would provide for any other organization, then they would be "prohibiting the free exercise" and Free Speech for that matter. I realize judges probably ruled technically about this stuff copies and things "given in support". In my view when a judge adds all this stuff into a ruling, they are trying to make excuses to get around the law as written, in this case the First Amendment. I know people will say it is settled law, all I can say to that is that at one time "The Dred Scott decision" was settled law.
https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/35597/are-satanists-legal-in-the-us

SFC (Join to see) Digging way back in memory here but I can remember the Catholic church asking to use rooms in our schools to hold after school Catechism classes. The schools refused because it was a religious class but did agree to let Catholic students out early to be picked up by church busses to bring them to classes elsewhere.

SFC (Join to see) Satan and satanism is legal, in general. Just as Hustler is. But *in context* neither are legal. That was what I was getting at.

I understand your point, and admit it has a definitive logic to it. Especially when viewed through the free speech lens. The big deference I see is that the Constitution does not have "special rules" for PFLAG, NAMBLA, 4H, Young Republicans or the Boy Scouts. But it *does* have "special rules" for Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, or Satanists.

SFC (Join to see) The question, as it has been interpreted time and again by the courts, is not about allowing the meeting, but about providing government resources to facilitate the meeting.

The school can absolutely allow staff and students to attend. But they can't use school (i.e. government) facilities, electricity, equipment and/or supplies (to include printing/copying pamphlets on school printer/copier) to do so.

The only way around this that I could see would be an "all religions room" or something similar. A room that is available to any and all religions - to include agnostics and atheists - to meet. The room would have to be sterile, save basic furniture like tables and chairs, and maybe a chalkboard/whiteboard. Groups would have to bring any supplies or equipment in with them, and also bring it back out. This would prevent any sort of favoritism. Even that, though, seems on shaky ground.

But that is just how I see things. I am neither a lawyer nor a judge.

SFC Casey O'Mally - I understand this situation has been ruled on. My heartburn is with the interpretation of “providing government resources to facilitate the meeting”. I can’t get my head around that allowing a meeting to take place on public property violates “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. As long as all religions are treated equally, I don’t see a problem. I believe anyone that could render such a ruling has a warped sense of reality that isn’t what our judicial system is supposed to be about. I guess I’m just a dumb engineer.

SFC (Join to see) I get where you are coming from. But those facilities aren't free. Someone (the taxpayer) is paying for the electricity. Even if no other costs.

Which means at the most basic level, taxpayers are being forced to support a religion they may not agree with.

If you wanna meet on the football field, though (when no one else is using it for parctice, game, etc.) that's a whole different argument - and I would agree with you.

SFC Casey O'Mally - Some things just seem too weird for me, maybe that's why I didn't go into law. :)

SFC (Join to see) Our Founding Fathers established separation of church and state, period. Problem is that in their time schools were pretty much all private, and in most cases church affiliated. The public "state" schools we know today weren't factored into their thinking because there was no need, but their idea to keep church and state seperated certainly applies to our state run schools of today.

Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen - I understand. They were persecuted and therefore they didn’t want to persecute others. They had not thought of how they left themselves open to being attacked by others because of their generosity.

SFC (Join to see) The kind and generous are forever cursed to be taken advantage of.

SFC Casey O'Mally - You got that right.