Devil’s Advocate: Should The Satanic Temple Get a Spot in School?

In 2019, the Saucon Valley School District in Pennsylvania allowed a local chapter of the Good News Club, an evangelical Christian organization, to hold after-school meetings at one of its elementary schools. This Christian group’s meetings, which promote religious teachings to children, have been allowed in public schools across the United States in the past. However, when The Satanic Temple, a non-theistic religious group, requested permission to also hold after-school meetings, the school district denied the request. The Satanic Temple claimed that its beliefs were being discriminated against, as the district had allowed another religious group to meet on school grounds. The group contended that this violated the Equal Access Act, which ensures that religious groups have the same rights as other student groups to access public school facilities for extracurricular activities, so long as those activities do not disrupt the educational environment. The district argued that The Satanic Temple was not an official religious organization in the same vein as more traditional religious groups and that allowing the group to meet on school property would lead to disruption, controversy, or backlash from the community. The case raised a crucial issue: does the refusal to grant access to The Satanic Temple violate the religious equal access principle protected by the Constitution?

At the core of this case is a debate surrounding the balance between the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment. The Free Exercise Clause protects individuals' right to practice their religion freely, while the Establishment Clause prohibits the government from establishing an official religion or favoring one religious group over another. The Satanic Temple argued that the school district’s refusal to allow them access to its facilities violated the Free Exercise Clause because it was denying them equal treatment based on their religious beliefs. On the other hand, the district’s concern about potential disruption points to the Establishment Clause, which seeks to prevent the government from endorsing or favoring any particular religion. The question, then, is whether allowing The Satanic Temple to use public school facilities would be considered an endorsement of their beliefs, thereby violating the separation of church and state, or if denying them access would constitute discrimination and a violation of their right to religious freedom. This case highlights the tension between the two important constitutional principles of religious equality and the separation of church and state. This creates an unequal situation where one religious group is granted access while another is not because of the nature of its beliefs.If The Satanic Temple prevails, it will send a message that public institutions must treat all religious groups equally, regardless of how controversial or unconventional their beliefs may be. Conversely, if the district’s actions are upheld, it could set a dangerous precedent where religious discrimination based on the perceived popularity or acceptability of beliefs becomes normalized in public schools. 

This case also underscores a broader issue in the interpretation of religious freedom the ongoing struggle to apply constitutional principles to new and diverse religious movements. While the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, it doesn’t provide a clear roadmap for how to deal with fringe or unconventional belief systems. A relevant precedent is Reynolds v. United States (1878), which involved the prosecution of polygamy in the context of religious practices. Although the Court ruled that certain practices (such as polygamy) could be prohibited under the government’s interest in regulating social order, it simultaneously affirmed that religious beliefs themselves are protected by the First Amendment, even if practices stemming from those beliefs might be limited. This case provides some insight into the broader scope of how the Court has balanced religious freedom with societal interests. Moreover, Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), which reinforced the principle of religious freedom in public spaces, established that religious groups cannot be discriminated against on the basis of their beliefs when seeking to practice freely. This case, in particular, highlights the importance of treating all religious groups equally, which could be crucial for interpreting the situation of The Satanic Temple.

In my opinion, The Satanic Temple should be granted the same rights as any other religious group under the Equal Access Act. While I understand the district’s concerns about community backlash, the principle of religious equality is paramount. Allowing the Good News Club to meet while denying access to The Satanic Temple is a clear violation of religious freedom. We shouldn’t have a system where the government discriminates against certain belief systems simply because they are unpopular. The First Amendment guarantees religious freedom for all, and public schools should serve as a model of how we can respect that diversity without favoring one religion over another.

https://www.aclu.org/cases/the-satanic-temple-v-saucon-valley-school-district
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_School_Satan
https://thesatanictemple.com/blogs/news/2024-recap-after-school-satan-club?srsltid=AfmBOorjCD4hDkzmGlNNRC6FW9tdw_fdW7IDKi3driPPR23Z4whjNQSU
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/pennsylvania-school-district-agrees-to-pay-200000-after-discriminatory-decision-to-block-after-school-satan-club-from-school-facilities