What is the Church of Satanology? Here's its beef with Florida schools
Those are the first words you'll read – in all capital letters – if you visit the Satanology website. You might be asking yourself, what is Satanology? It's a church founded by a former Palm Bay resident and activist, Chaz Stevens, who's out to 'expose religious favoritism in America's schools.'
The Church of Satanology and Perpetual Soiree sent an email to Brevard's school board and superintendent this week, requesting banners for the religion to be placed in five schools.
'What happens when an atheist dares to hang a "Satan Loves the First Amendment" banner on a public school fence?' the Satanology website says. 'If you're Chaz Stevens, all hell breaks loose — and that's the point.'
Here's what we know about The Church of Satanology and Perpetual Soiree and why it's got beef with Florida schools.
By definition, Satanology is the study of the person of Satan, usually as he is depicted through the lens of the Christian Bible.
'Satanology is the study of the person and work of Satan. It's strange that Satan is not understood very well by believers today,' Evidence Unseen, a Christian website, says.
'Christian teachers fluctuate between various extremes: either denying Satan or obsessing over him.'
The Church of Satanology, run by the Ministry of Chaz the Bropostle, is a more political, constitution-based effort than it is an actual religion.
'Welcome to Satanology — our sharp-toothed campaign to expose viewpoint discrimination in public schools, where Christian churches get banners but the Church of Satanology and Perpetual Soirée' gets the boot,' The Church of Satanology website says.
More on Satanology and Florida schools: Founder of Church of Satanology requests banners be hung at 5 Brevard high schools
'In 2023, Chaz challenged Broward County Schools after spotting banners from Calvary Chapel slapped on public property.' Stevens then requested equal space for his banner that said 'Satan loves the First Amendment.'
'The result? The church banners came down, the lawyers came out, and the school board flipped policy overnight,' the Satanology website says.
'But Chaz isn't stopping. This isn't about goat heads and pitchforks — it's about LGBTQ+ kids, secular freedom, and the equal treatment of all beliefs in public spaces.'
A quote from Stevens on the Satanology website says, 'I don't believe in Satan. I believe in fairness.'
The website also calls Satanology 'First Amendment judo,' saying, 'We're using their own rules to make them flinch — and it's working.'
Stevens, a Florida Tech graduate who now lives in Boca Raton, sent a letter to Brevard's school board and superintendent on May 19. He requested his Satanology banners be put up at five Brevard County schools, including Palm Bay Magnet High School, which he said already has a religious banner up on campus.
'Brevard Public Schools did not confirm if such a banner exists,' FLORIDA TODAY reported on May 19. 'Stevens told Florida Today the banner hangs on the school's fence and advertises a church.'
Here are the five schools where Stevens requested banners be put up:
Viera High School
Melbourne High School
Heritage High School
Palm Bay Magnet High School
Rockledge High School.
Almost all of the state statutes dealing with religious expression in public schools work to create a nondiscriminatory environment for students and employees of public schools in Florida.
But one section of the state law that governs religious freedom mentions schools giving equal opportunity to religious and secular groups that choose to use school resources or want to advertise their meetings. And Stevens' church isn't using school resources or advertising meetings, just asking to put up a banner.
Here's what that section of the state statute says:
'A school district shall give a religious group access to the same school facilities for assembling as given to secular groups without discrimination based on the religious content of the group's expression. A group that meets for prayer or other religious speech may advertise or announce its meetings in the same manner and to the same extent that a secular group may advertise or announce its meetings.'
This article originally appeared on Florida Today: Church of Satanology, Florida schools face-off. What we know
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump knocks Harvard case judge: ‘Total disaster'
President Trump went on Truth Social Monday to criticize the judge presiding over a long-anticipated hearing over his administration's battle with Harvard University. Harvard is suing the administration over the pause it put on nearly $3 billion of federal research funding, which came after it rejected a list of demanded changes from the White House. 'The Harvard case was just tried in Massachusetts before an Obama appointed Judge. She is a TOTAL DISASTER, which I say even before hearing her Ruling. She has systematically taken over the various Harvard cases, and is an automatic 'loss' for the People of our Country!' the president posted. Federal Judge Allison Burroughs is presiding over the case after previously ruling for Harvard and against the administration after the Department of Homeland Security tried to take away the university's ability to enroll or keep its foreign students. Burroughs has not yet released a ruling from the Monday hearing on the paused federal funding. 'Harvard has $52 Billion Dollars sitting in the Bank, and yet they are anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-America. Much of this money comes from the U.S.A., all to the detriment of other Schools, Colleges, and Institutions, and we are not going to allow this unfair situation to happen any longer. How did this Trump-hating Judge get these cases? When she rules against us, we will IMMEDIATELY appeal, and WIN,' Trump continued. He had previously indicated that some kind of deal with Harvard was near, but there have been no confirmed developments toward any such agreement. The outcome of the funding case could have widespread impact on other higher education institutions, which are watching it closely. The Trump administration argues it can withhold the funding after determining Harvard has violated the civil rights of Jewish students by failing to protect them from antisemitism. Harvard says the federal government is violating its First Amendment and retaliating against the institution.
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Harvard, Trump battle for billions in federal funds as judge weighs next steps
Lawyers for Harvard University and the Trump administration sparred in federal court in Boston on Monday over the administration's decision to slash roughly $2.6 billion in federal research funding for the university – the latest in a series of high-stakes court clashes that have pitted the Trump administration against the nation's oldest university. Harvard sued the Trump administration in April over the funding freeze, which it described in its lawsuit as an unlawful and unconstitutional effort to assert federal "control" over elite academic institutions, according to a filing submitted to U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs. The Trump administration, for its part, has accused Harvard of "fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus," and refusing to comply with demands from a federal antisemitism task force sent to the university earlier this year. Both sides have asked Burroughs, an Obama appointee, to issue a summary judgment by early September, which could allow them to avoid a lengthy trial before the start of the new school year. In court on Monday, Harvard lawyer Steven Lehotsky argued that the funding cuts are an illegal attempt by the Trump administration to coerce the university into complying with the administration's policies and violate the First Amendment and Title VI protections. Lawyers for Harvard have argued that the Trump administration's actions amount to an unconstitutional "pressure campaign" to influence and exert control over its academic programs, which Lehotsky echoed on Monday. He told Burroughs the funding freeze is an attempt by the Trump administration to control the "inner workings" of the university, and one he argued could cause lasting damage. He pointed to earlier claims from Harvard that the administration "fails to explain how the termination of funding for research to treat cancer, support veterans, and improve national security addresses antisemitism." "By accepting federal funds, Harvard agreed to abide by the provisions in Title VI and the relevant agencies' corresponding regulations," lawyers for the university said in filing the lawsuit earlier this year. But Harvard's agreement, they said, does not constitute a "blank check for agencies to impose the government's recent, unrelated demands as a condition of continued funding." Meanwhile, Michael Velchik, a lawyer for the Justice Department, countered that the administration has "every right" to cancel the funding, which they sought to frame as a mere contract issue and one that should be heard in a different court. The Justice Department also reiterated that they see Harvard's actions as violating the administration's order combating antisemitism. "Harvard claims the government is anti-Harvard. I reject that," Velchik said on Monday. "The government is pro-Jewish students at Harvard. The government is pro-Jewish faculty at Harvard." President Donald Trump signaled dissatisfaction with the hearing on Monday – vowing on social media to appeal any ruling against the administration to a higher court. He also took aim at Burroughs. "How did this Trump-hating Judge get these cases?" he said on Truth Social, "When she rules against us, we will IMMEDIATELY appeal, and WIN," Trump further took aim at Harvard, accusing the university of being "anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-America," despite having "$52 billion" sitting in the bank. "Much of this money comes from the U.S.A., all to the detriment of other schools, colleges, and institutions, and we are not going to allow this unfair situation to happen any longer," Trump said. Burroughs ended Monday's hearing by saying she would take the case under advisement, and would issue a ruling after she had sufficient time to weigh the matters presented by the administration and the university. She did not offer a timeframe for when she planned to rule on the matter. Still, the judge appeared skeptical during the hearing of some Trump administration claims, including how it could make such wanton cuts to university funding. At one point, Burroughs noted to Velchik that she had doubts about the government's so-called "ad hoc" decisions to cut billions in grant money without providing further evidence, documentation or procedure to "suss out" whether the university or its administrators had taken sufficient steps to combat antisemItism or comply with the guidance handed down by the Trump administration. "The consequences of that in terms of constitutional law are staggering," she told Velchik at one point during the hearing. "I don't think you can justify a contract action based on impermissible suppression of speech." Since Trump took office in January, the administration has targeted the university with investigations from six separate federal agencies. It has also sought to ban Harvard's ability to host international students by attempting to revoke its certification status under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) – a program led by the Department of Homeland Security that allows universities to sponsor international students for U.S. visas. Burroughs in June issued a temporary restraining order blocking the administration from immediately revoking its SEVP credentials, siding with Harvard in ruling that the university would likely suffer "immediate and irreparable harm" if the action was enforced. Harvard, meanwhile, has signaled no plans to stand down in its fight with the Trump administration. "Ultimately, this is about Trump trying to impose his view of the world on everybody else," Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman said in a radio interview earlier this summer discussing the administration's actions.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Columbus Council poised to reject fire truck contract amid Dublin company's worker strike
The Columbus City Council is poised to reject a contract it approved in May with Dublin-based fire-truck manufacturer Sutphen Corp. after the company's workers' union went on strike. The council will consider rescinding its May approval of a contract with Sutphen for a ladder truck at its July 21 meeting. The new ordinance states that the city was never able to agree on a contract with Sutphen that included the conditions the council wanted. The council sought a contract that allowed the city to cancel if a strike delayed delivery of the truck or if the company used non-union, or "scab," workers. Also tonight, the council will consider a contract with Atlantic Emergency Solutions to buy a ladder truck made by Pierce Manufacturing. Columbus would spend a bit more on the new contract: $2,589,077 versus $2,515,613. The difference includes $33,000 to deliver the truck. In the background of this dispute over a single truck, the Columbus Local 67 chapter of the International Association of Fire Fighters has raised concerns that the city needs to replace aging fire trucks. Steven Stein, president of the union, went to the media in April and accused the city of inadequately funding fire trucks for years. The union asked the city to develop an aggressive plan to buy more trucks. Another union, Teamsters Local 284, represents about 85 workers at Sutphen Corp.'s Dublin facility who have gone without a contract since October. The workers went on strike in late May, less than a month after Teamsters Local 284 President Mark Vandak warned the Columbus City Council that labor negotiations were going poorly and a strike was possible. The council, which is made up of nine Democrats, is heavily pro-union and members have attempted to pressure Sutphen to negotiate in good faith with the Teamsters. A spokesperson for the Sutphen Corp. did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Teamsters say Sutphen is punishing them for going to Columbus City Council Vandak told The Dispatch that Sutphen returned to the bargaining table in June with a worse offer than the company presented in October. "When the union asked Sutphen why it withdrew the proposal, company negotiators said it was because the union addressed Columbus City Council about the labor dispute and that cost them business," Vandak said in an emailed statement. "The First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the National Labor Relations Act protect the rights of our members to address our elected officials. Sutphen's conduct is outrageous." Vandak said Local 284 has filed additional unfair labor practice charges against Sutphen, which the National Labor Relations Board is currently investigating. Vandak says the strike in Dublin continues and the unfair labor practice picket line has expanded to Sutphen's Hilliard and Urbana locations. A timeline of the dispute over a fire truck contract The meeting this week is the third time this year that the Columbus City Council has considered this fire truck contract. On May 12, the council considered this contract with Sutphen for the first time. Vandak came to the meeting and asked the council to vote against the contract. He warned that a possible strike could delay delivery of a truck. The council voted 5-4 against the contract. A week later, on May 19, the council unanimously approved a contract as long as city staff was able to negotiate conditions the council was seeking, including provisions allowing them to cancel. City staff was never able to reach an agreement with Sutphen on a contract. On May 28, workers at Sutphen's Dublin facility announced that they were striking. In June, Vandak said that Sutphen continued to delay negotiating and has brought in non-union workers, or "scabs," from its Urbana facility. He said the company has come back to the negotiation table now, but continues to bargain in bad faith. This story will be updated based on Monday evening's Columbus City Council meeting. Government and politics reporter Jordan Laird can be reached at jlaird@ Follow her on X, Instagram and Bluesky at @LairdWrites. This article originally appeared on The Columbus Dispatch: Columbus considers new fire truck vendor due to strike at Sutphen Solve the daily Crossword
