Does Satanism have a place in society?

I ask this because in the British House of Commons an MP asked Children's Secretary Ed Balls to support moves by Child Protection Services to remove a child from a household with "Satanic" parents who worshipped the Devil and taught their child that hate and revenge where the most productive way to survive in society.

The CSA removed the child because of fears of its upbringing being damaged by the parents.

Is this fair?

If parents can bring up children with Catholic or Buddhist ethics why can't they bring up a child with "Satanic" ones?

Ed Balls. Heh.

Sorry. Maybe I'll have an opinion tomorrow.

😮

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I ask this because in the British House of Commons an MP asked Children's Secretary Ed Balls to support moves by Child Protection Services to remove a child from a household with "Satanic" parents who worshipped the Devil and taught their child that hate and revenge where the most productive way to survive in society.

The CSA removed the child because of fears of its upbringing being damaged by the parents.

Is this fair?

If parents can bring up children with Catholic or Buddhist ethics why can't they bring up a child with "Satanic" ones?

Teaching your children to murder and steal is not right.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I ask this because in the British House of Commons an MP asked Children's Secretary Ed Balls to support moves by Child Protection Services to remove a child from a household with "Satanic" parents who worshipped the Devil and taught their child that hate and revenge where the most productive way to survive in society.

The CSA removed the child because of fears of its upbringing being damaged by the parents.

Is this fair?

If parents can bring up children with Catholic or Buddhist ethics why can't they bring up a child with "Satanic" ones?

I guess one could argue it is not about the label, but about the potential harm on the child (meaning some Satanist cults have a philosophy which is neither harmful to the children nor society, just as other Religions, for example some Christian sects, have beliefs which should be considered harmful).

I don't see it that much more threatening than any other religion.

To be fair, not every one in a Catholic family becomes a Catholic, nor does everyone in a Sihk family become a Sihk.

I think there's more to the story than they were teaching satanism to the child because I agree, it has just as much right as any other religion.

Teaching a child that hate and revenge are productive isn't good but I'm not sure it's enough to qualify for taking away the child.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I ask this because in the British House of Commons an MP asked Children's Secretary Ed Balls to support moves by Child Protection Services to remove a child from a household with "Satanic" parents who worshipped the Devil and taught their child that hate and revenge where the most productive way to survive in society.

The CSA removed the child because of fears of its upbringing being damaged by the parents.

Is this fair?

If parents can bring up children with Catholic or Buddhist ethics why can't they bring up a child with "Satanic" ones?

It depends on the details. Generalizations don't work in this case. Also, Satanism is not a religion, and is a contradiction in terms, just like an organization of anarchists would be a contradiction.

Now some religions like Wicca that are often confused with Satanism, should not be illegal.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It depends on the details. Generalizations don't work in this case. Also, Satanism is not a religion, and is a contradiction in terms, just like an organization of anarchists would be a contradiction.

Now some religions like Wicca that are often confused with Satanism, should not be illegal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism

Satanism isn't necessarily anti-religion or even non-religion. The very words "worship Satan" should have told you that these people were practicing Satanism as a religion.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I ask this because in the British House of Commons an MP asked Children's Secretary Ed Balls to support moves by Child Protection Services to remove a child from a household with "Satanic" parents who worshipped the Devil and taught their child that hate and revenge where the most productive way to survive in society.

The CSA removed the child because of fears of its upbringing being damaged by the parents.

Is this fair?

If parents can bring up children with Catholic or Buddhist ethics why can't they bring up a child with "Satanic" ones?

Heh Heh Hey Bevus he said Balls HuHu Balls 😆

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I ask this because in the British House of Commons an MP asked Children's Secretary Ed Balls to support moves by Child Protection Services to remove a child from a household with "Satanic" parents who worshipped the Devil and taught their child that hate and revenge where the most productive way to survive in society.

The CSA removed the child because of fears of its upbringing being damaged by the parents.

Is this fair?

If parents can bring up children with Catholic or Buddhist ethics why can't they bring up a child with "Satanic" ones?

"Satanism" has to be honestly reconciled with the reality that any ideology that countermands some faiths is called "Satanism". There is no "Satanism" without the absolutes we place on "Christianity". This conundrum doesn't come from a bent knee to satan, any less than it does from an unbent knee to the norm that is subscribed to by most people in the world; "Yahweh". What ever name we give it, be us Egyptian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Christian. Most can't figure things out for themselves or they reach an obvious impass, as can anyone, so they subscribe to the ignorant ideology professed by others to explain what they also can't understand. "God" is little more than the representative of the notion of what we, ourselves, can't understand or easily quantify. There is something that humans so easily resent about the idea of "I don't know"; especially when it's reconciled against the smug and certain ideaology of "I know everything in the face of our shared ignorance!". Most humans beings will side with the professed certainty of this religion or that one, as ascribed to by most of their peers. But, in the end, we're all on our own...even if we want to assert how unalone we really are when the afterlife comes to call. The Pope, the minister, our neighbours, the homeless man on the street and our life partner knows as much about the reality of the next world or it's plausible reality as does the next man. What religion depends on is the willful ignorance and willful acceptance of another human being to become part of the group. This is a sad alternative to reality that governs the reality of all our lives; no matter how self-important or informed we profess ourselves to be because we have funny hats or colourful robes.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism

Satanism isn't necessarily anti-religion or even non-religion. The very words "worship Satan" should have told you that these people were practicing Satanism as a religion.

I see Satanism as a denomination of Christianity, not a religion of it's own. Just like what Wikipedia said "The word (Satanism), in basic context, can refer to the worship of the Christian devil, thus being a Christian denomination". So, if you outlawed Satanism, wouldn't you also have to outlaw Christianity?

No

religion shouldn´t have a place in society

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I see Satanism as a denomination of Christianity, not a religion of it's own. Just like what Wikipedia said "The word (Satanism), in basic context, can refer to the worship of the Christian devil, thus being a Christian denomination".

Still a religion.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, if you outlawed Satanism, wouldn't you also have to outlaw Christianity?

If you killed all terriers would that involve killing all dogs?

Satanism is a religion, but actually isn't a very violent one, considering the others.

The child should not be taken away only on the grounds that his parents worshipped the devil. If they were teaching him to hurt others, then yes he should be taken away.

But nothing can be done if the parent only teaching him to hate, that isn't illegal. In the states members of KKK/neo-nazis teach their kids to hate, but nothing can be done unless they act on their hate.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Still a religion.

If you killed all terriers would that involve killing all dogs?

No, it maybe one of several cults, but not a religion.

But if you got used to killing one type of dog, then why not kill all of them? My point was the slippery slope argument.

Originally posted by occultdestroyer
No

You are only saying that because you are a Christian.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, it maybe one of several cults, but not a religion.

Technically there's minimal difference and Satanism doesn't really have the central authority that a cult typically has.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But if you got used to killing one type of dog, then why not kill all of them? My point was the slippery slope argument.

You realize Slippery Slope is yet another fallacy, right?

Originally posted by cococryspies
[B]Satanism is a religion, but actually isn't a very violent one, considering the others.

That's asinine

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Technically there's minimal difference and Satanism doesn't really have the central authority that a cult typically has.

You realize Slippery Slope is yet another fallacy, right?

If all religions start as cults, then Satanism could one day become a Religion. However, if they don't have the central authority that a cult typically has, then it will never become a religion.

I don't believe that Slippery Slope is a total fallacy.