This is a class act in how to make use of the system through malicious compliance. If the theocrats demand a theocracy, then while we have a federal government that tries to enforce equal access, then demonstrate just how equal access will be used.
To do that, you need to be informed, engaged, willing to work, and willing to speak up with your voice. Sadly, democracy is only defended by an active and informed electorate. Politics is also a contact sport. We are served well by people stepping into the ring and putting some body blows on those in power who want to erode the foundations of secular society.
I’m from SF and am part of the community. I know and love the sisters! They’re not organized as a religion, though, and California doesn’t have any anti-drag laws anyway. We have mandatory drag shows that you must attend over cocktails and brunch.
I was thinking of something like making drag an official component of worship in TST or something, so it would get more headlines and TST has already established itself as a religion.
I feel like there could be an easy crossover with TST, or for SPI to have a religious arm. Either way, chapters in the threatened states could be effective in fighting the encroaching christofascism
Hartley was essentially admitting that Satanists (and Muslims and other non-Christian groups) would theoretically have access to the funds. However, if the state had a really good reason not to give it to them, there was a way to restrict the funds from going to those groups. You don’t have to be a lawyer to realize that a group being considered a “fringe” religion would never pass strict scrutiny.
N.B. “Strict scrutiny” is a standard applied by courts, not legislatures, when reviewing a law for infringements of constitutional rights. It’s the highest standard of scrutiny, and when applied almost always ends with the law being struck down.
In other words, she’s saying that a law that excludes “fringe” religions would almost certainly be struck down.
This is a class act in how to make use of the system through malicious compliance. If the theocrats demand a theocracy, then while we have a federal government that tries to enforce equal access, then demonstrate just how equal access will be used.
To do that, you need to be informed, engaged, willing to work, and willing to speak up with your voice. Sadly, democracy is only defended by an active and informed electorate. Politics is also a contact sport. We are served well by people stepping into the ring and putting some body blows on those in power who want to erode the foundations of secular society.
Excellently explained! I couldn’t agree more. Thank you for sharing that.
I love this idea 🐐
What we need to do is to make drag a religion so that Florida and Texas can’t ban shows.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisters_of_Perpetual_Indulgence
I’m from SF and am part of the community. I know and love the sisters! They’re not organized as a religion, though, and California doesn’t have any anti-drag laws anyway. We have mandatory drag shows that you must attend over cocktails and brunch.
I was thinking of something like making drag an official component of worship in TST or something, so it would get more headlines and TST has already established itself as a religion.
Hell yea
I feel like there could be an easy crossover with TST, or for SPI to have a religious arm. Either way, chapters in the threatened states could be effective in fighting the encroaching christofascism
Maybe FSM would adopt it as official dress?
My religion says I must do whatever the f I want as long as I respect other people’s human rights.
N.B. “Strict scrutiny” is a standard applied by courts, not legislatures, when reviewing a law for infringements of constitutional rights. It’s the highest standard of scrutiny, and when applied almost always ends with the law being struck down.
In other words, she’s saying that a law that excludes “fringe” religions would almost certainly be struck down.