In the many years (and miles) of travel I’ve engaged in in this life, I’ve read, studied, and analyzed.  I’ve tried to put myself in others’ shoes and sought to follow the “do unto others” philosophy to the best of my ability.

I’m no saint, mind you, and I would never claim to be.

I also found, quite early in my life, that religion wasn’t for me and that I was, at heart, an atheist.  Having said that, I don’t begrudge anyone having strong feelings for their religion.  If it makes your day that much brighter to follow your particular faith, then more power to you.  I can respect your faith, can you respect my lack of it?

You see, this goes to one of the things that irks me -to the point of making my blood boil- most about religions: The seeming need to thrust your idea of religion on others.

See, though I have no religion, I don’t go around demanding others follow my ideas.

Yet there are those who do this, often with gusto, in the public arena.  One prominent example is the issue of abortion.  A thorny issue, I grant you, but one where the religious have tried to foist their ideals on others.

Enter the Satanic Temple.

Now, I know what you’re thinking: Satanic Temple?!  They’re evil, right?

Actually, not really.  This Wikipedia article on them offers a great summation of their philosophy and goals, all of which I’m all in favor of.

From the article, their stated mission is “to encourage benevolence and empathy among all people” …The Satanic Temple has utilized satire, theatrical ploys, humor and direct legal action in their public campaigns to generate attention and prompt people to reevaluate fears and perceptions, and to highlight religious hypocrisy and encroachment on religious freedom.)

In the case of Missouri’s restrictive anti-abortion laws, which are very skewed toward pushing religious ideals, they appear to be about to win in court using the very same tools the religious have used to argue their point.

From jezebel.com and written by Aimee Lutkin…

Satanic Temple suit may crush restrictive anti-abortion laws in Missouri

From the article (sorry for spoiling things):

The case states that in 2015, Mary Doe was forced to wait 72 hours, listen to a fetal heartbeat, and accept a brochure that states life begins at conception before she was allowed to have an abortion. These are all acts, the suit argues, that go against Doe’s religious beliefs as a member of the Satanic Temple. Those beliefs include a conviction that a “nonviable fetus is not a separate human being but is part of her body and that abortion of a nonviable fetus does not terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being,” according to NBC News, which she told her doctors in St. Louis.

Furthermore, the plaintiff says that the rules imposed on abortion seekers by the state of Missouri “does not advance a compelling governmental interest or is unduly restrictive of Doe’s exercise of religion.”

Using religious “rights”, in the plaintiff’s case with the Satanic Temple, is, IMHO, ingenious and, as I wrote in the headline, the very definition of the old cliche of “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander”.

And you know what?  Wonderful.

According to the article, the state has already pulled back on some of their ideas and, it would appear (again based on the article), the Satanic Temple is on the verge of scoring a win here.

I strongly believe that those who are very religious should be able to follow their paths.

But we cannot allow those paths to block others from theirs.