The Satanic Temple and Four Men on a Boat, Starving.
Despite its name, the Satanic Temple would have a charitable mission worthy of tax exemption even if it did not claim to be a religious organization. The group is agnostic or atheistic, but they aren’t really Satan worshippers unless you believe being in favor of abortion rights is Satan worship. “The mission of The Satanic Temple is to encourage benevolence and empathy among all people, reject tyrannical authority, advocate practical common sense and justice, and be directed by the human conscience to undertake noble pursuits guided by the individual will.” Still, the name was too much for some parents at a school in Pennsylvania that allowed use of its facilities by students after school, but denied a student group affiliated with Satan the same privilege. The group is called the “After School Satan Club” (ASSC), by the way, and at first the school acknowledged that it could not deny them use of the facilities once it opened its limited public forum. Limited to student groups, but no other restriction existed other than the use be lawful. But then parents revolted, and the school starting receiving threats of violence. One threat came from North Carolina. So the school rescinded its authorization, quite candidly stating that it did not want to risk student safety. Actually, the school came up with a lame excuse but student safety was its primary concern I bet.
Last week we blogged about a University President who banned a nonprofit drag show put on by students to benefit a nonprofit organization. Now West Texas A&M University is finna lose in court. The Pennsylvania School will also lose because the ACLU quickly filed suit claiming that the school district is engaging in viewpoint discrimination. I sympathize with the School. What might have happened if the group were allowed to hold the meeting and some nut came in blazing during the meeting or, worse, some other day while school was in session? If I were a parent, even of one of the little devils, I probably would thank the school for doing the constitutionally wrong thing. I mean, lets just be honest, let’s not talk about this like people who don’t have kids in school these days. On the other hand, if speech or ideas can be squelched by heckler’s making gun threats, we wouldn’t have free speech. So this is one of those first year law school cases. You remember what Dudley said, in Crown v. Dudley and Stephens, right?
“No vessel appearing on the morning, I made signs to Stephens and Brooks that we had better do it, but they seemed to have no heart to do it, so I went to the boy, who was lying at the bottom of the boat with his arm over his face. “I took out my knife-first offering a prayer to God to forgive us for what we were about to do and for the rash act, that our souls might be saved-and I said to the boy, ‘Richard, your time has come.’ The boy said, ‘What me, Sir?’ I said, ‘Yes, my boy.’
“I then put my knife [into the side of his neck.] The blood spurted out, and we caught it in the bailer and we drank the blood while it was warm; we then stripped the body, cut it open, and took out his liver and heart, and we ate the liver while it was still warm. Stephens at that time was in the stern of the boat and Brooks in the bow?” It was a terrible scene when later described by the survivors. “Mad wolves”, they described themselves: “We could not have our right reason”
Everybody remembers that the Court convicted the men. The Principal who is now getting sued must feel like those defendants. And so he knowingly killed the Constitution, understanding that its growing weaker by the day anyway and killing it now is the only way to save the rest of us. The President at West Texas could not have felt like that, though if the Pennsylvania school is allowed to argue “necessity,” it will be easy to make the President feel that way — just call in a couple of bomb threats maybe. Problem solved. And like Dudley and his fellows, the Principal and the President are candidly saying, “we killed him, drank his blood and ate him because we were gonna die if we didn’t.” And like Dudley, they both have to lose to protect a higher value. And finally, like the Court in Dudley, we might recognize that this is a life or death situation — or so they both thought so — but you can’t kill a dying weakling even if for the greater good. Here is a short blurb from the complaint:
That the District’s approval of the ASSC’s use of school facilities caused protest and death threats is of no moment: Under the First Amendment, the District can no more deny the ASSC access to its facilities than it could eject an after-school Muslim or Jewish club, or the Good News Club [a Christian student group allowed to use the facilities], from District schools due to a school district officials’ own bias or due to disruption caused by those who oppose the religion or viewpoint of the Under the First Amendment “protected speech or religious exercise [does not] readily give way to a ‘heckler’s veto.’”
darryll jones