First let me state that as a matter of constitutional interpretation, it shouldn't even be a debate that religious invocations at public events, public religious monuments, and inclusions of religious mottos like "In God We Trust" or "One Nation, Under God" are improper establishments of religion. The assertion of religious liberties under Hobby Lobby are dubious but not quite as clear violations, though I disagree with that decision. The Colorado cake case is even more ambiguous, though the implications of allowing that assertion of religion quickly leads to no blacks at the diner counter. I'm not blithe about the impact of actions of state on individual religious beliefs, but that we keep having to fight on the basics shows how much Christianity remains a dominant force in America, and not the besieged entity its adherents often claim. Heck, we recently had a court refuse to let a Muslim man on death row have his spiritual leader attend to him, even though it is common practice for Christian priests to do so.
This documentary explores the Satanic Temple, a non-theist religion that has as one of its points of action to assert separation of church and state not just by pointing out that a current practice is an establishment of religion but testing the equal treatment of religion by presenting their own invocations or monuments to stand on public grounds wherever a Christian one is offered. The documentary, by keeping focused purely on the Temple, may undersell how much atheist and humanist groups also contribute to this battle, but they do provide a valuable contrast. It definitely seems the case that they are more effective at playing with the media environment.
While the bulk of the film focuses on this public first amendment campaign, it does hit on some other interesting aspects that maybe could use more development. It draws back on the history, helpfully contrasting the satanic panic of the 80s/90s against the recent revelations of a long-term coverup by the Catholic church of sexual assault. As always, the religious right's condemnation of satanism was projection of their own sins. There's also the concept that by creating the Temple as a religion, it may lend itself more to community than amorphous atheist identity. That said, as much as I might long for an atheist equivalent to faith communities, I am not sure I'd fit well among crowd drawn to the Temple. Finally, it briefly tackles the contradiction of basing a religion around the concept of Satan as rebel against false authority with the need to have some form of authority within the Temple to retain a coherent value system and avoid confluence with darker aspects. All in all quite engaging.
Maybe adding random documentary things on interesting topics, even though they are not contemplated as films or have any assertion of quality, is a bad idea. This is an educational video pairing boring narration with stock footage. It is a pure F in terms of artistic merit. While the information is fine, I'm sure, it has to be considered bad even as an informational device. Better to watch the Explained by Vox segment on Netflix that covers the topic, or some other random doc that played the film festival I worked with a number of years ago (I'm not going to look up the title because I can't imagine it has any distribution).
On a tangent, can I talk about how much I hate the phrase "recreational marijuana?" Like, even the most recreational use is probably self-medicating, and I imagine a significant proportion of "recreational" purchases are actually basically over-the-counter purchase with a medical purpose contemplated. Getting a medical license when recreational is available is a bit like going to the doctor for a prescription for ibuprofen...expensive and needlessly complicated.