Satanic Temple recognised as a ‘church’ by America’s IRS
WASHINGTON D.C: A satanic group has announced they have been granted recognition as a church by the Internal Revenue Service.
In a statement published Thursday, the Massachusetts-based Satanic Temple said that they have received notice from the IRS and that the decision would grant the organization equal legal footing with other religious groups.
“This acknowledgement will help make sure the Satanic Temple has the same access to public spaces as other religious organizations, affirm our standing in court when battling religious discrimination, and enable us to apply for faith-based government grants,” the statement said.
The IRS has not commented on any conferral of status for the group, but guidance published on its website confirms that churches benefit from special tax rules, including automatic exemption from federal income tax.
IRS regulations draw a clear distinction between “churches” and other religious organizations. A church must have certain characteristics, according to IRS requirements, including: a recognized creed and form of worship; distinct ecclesiastical government; formal code of doctrine; ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed courses of study; established places of worship and regular religious services.
Despite its overtly demonic allegiance, the Satanic Temple was founded by professed atheists and articulates a set of secular humanist beliefs. Its satanic imagery appears to many to be a deliberate provocation in response to what the group perceive as interference by religion in the public square.
In a 2013 interview, the group’s spokesman, Douglas Mesner, described their intention to be a “poison pill in the Church-State debate.” They have previously mounted lawsuits to display satanic images and statues on public property alongside traditional Judeo-Christian symbols, such as the Ten Commandments.
In February of 2019, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled against a self-professed member of the Satanic Temple who claimed that a state law on “informed consent” before an abortion violated her religious beliefs.
Mary Doe, as the plaintiff was listed in that case, argued that a booklet distributed to all women seeking abortion in the state was a violation of her religious beliefs and an articulation by the state of an alternative religious creed.
The case focused on the booklet’s statement that “The life of each human being begins at conception. Abortion will terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being.”
The apparent recognition of the IRS comes after members of the Satanic Temple have had to defend themselves against accusations that their “church” is essentially a political stunt. A recent documentary entitled “Hail, Satan?” presented the group as sincere, despite ongoing suggestions that the temple was founded to make a “mockumentary” film and is essentially performance art and political theatre.
Whatever the sincerity of its founders, its conflict with the Catholic Church have been real.
In May 2014, the Satanic Temple was part of an attempt to organize a “black mass” on the campus of Harvard University. A spokesman for the group initially told the media that a consecrated Host would be desecrated during the event, although the temple and the Harvard club hosting the event both later denied this.
Following sustained outcry from Catholics and other religious groups, the event was first moved off campus and eventually cancelled.
Source: Catholic News Agency
I’m not sure what the comparable wording is for gaining the status of a religious organisation in Australia. I do not anticipate ‘satanic’ stunts here. On the other hand it has long appeared to me that the growing public perception that much of the violence of the modern world arises from religious conflict could and should be combatted by adding a rejection of violence to the necessary criteria for such status. Defining an acceptable wording, perhaps including the explicit rejection of past and present violence in the name of our respective faiths, would be a noble ecumenical goal. I would love to see Christian leaders reach out to each other, and then to their Muslim, Jewish and Buddhist counterparts, in an attempt to find a suitable wording to put to the Legislature. This might then strengthen the hand of the authorities when dealing with the accreditation of problematic clergy.
A ‘pluralist’ society acknowledges a diversity of opinion in social and political discourse. Religion should not be coercive in any sense, psychological or physical, though its adherents hold certain beliefs, (and should act in accordance with these). Religion (and society in general) takes a permissive approach to allowing each member of society to ‘find their own way in life’. Behind this permissive approach lies a general sense of trust that the good of society, and humanity as a whole, is served in this way.
The ‘forces of darkness’ are not committed to the good of society. Though some may claim to support them for the mere sake of a comprehensive plurality of opinion, what they are in fact supporting (perhaps without recognising it), is a deceptive, damaging and destructive power, whose (concealed) aim is the denial and eradication of goodness. This must be opposed.