I feel like it’s a potential grey area, but reading the article, it seems like the line was walked well. I wouldn’t want someone pulling out a “church of Satan” card outta someone’s wallet and giving the death penalty for it, but it looks like that isn’t what was going on here. This seems based on art and writings that indulge in violence and violation of consent. As with Christians,“freedom of religion” shouldn’t be used to excuse glorifying harm to others. (Even if our society often does excuse Christians. Still shouldn’t.)

I’d trust Satanists over any US “Christian”. They are so very un-christian.

I went in expecting this to be obvious religious bias when I read: “The court said the evidence was admissible because it was tied to “future dangerousness,” not used simply to punish his beliefs.”

But nah, Davis is clearly a sack of shit trying to weasel his way out of this by using religion as a shield:

“His writings show a frequent preoccupation and antipathy toward humanity in general, including several instances in which he wishes to enact some level of physical violence on others,” Smith wrote. “Some of his drawings display violent and sexually explicit content, such as a drawing of a crying woman who is bound, gagged, and nearly naked and a drawing of woman with a slashed throat.”

That’s 100% relevant and needs to be presented in any competent case against him when he’s credibly accused of raping and murdering a 15-year-old girl.

I don’t get to say: “Your honor, tax fraud is part of my religious beliefs, so I request that you not admit as evidence my journal where I fantasize about committing tax fraud.”

The death penalty and the people supporting it can go fuck themselves, though.

I’d like to clarify - some people adhere to the 7 tenets of The Satanic Temple, and call themselves Satanists, though they are the pretty much the polar opposite of 'what’s traditionally known as modern Satanism.

Thesatanictemple.com - hail yourself!