The installation, permitted under state rules governing religious displays in the building, has come under debate and criticism of by Iowa and national politicians. Presidential hopeful Ron DeSantis on Tuesday joined a chorus of Republicans calling for its removal while others in the GOP said that, though it is offensive, it is a protected form of free speech....
On his social media, Lucien Greaves, the co-founder of The Satanic Temple, a national network based in Salem, Massachusetts, said the vandalism was a “hate crime.”
“They had their own displays, their own protests, they ‘filled the capitol with prayers,’ they did interviews with media outlets who allowed them to put words in our mouths without seeking comment from us and then they vandalized our display anyways,” Greaves wrote. “And they still play the victim.”
According to Fox News, a man named Michael Cassidy has been arrested and charged with 4th degree criminal mischief. We're told Cassidy ran for Congress in 2022 and I see from Ballotpedia that he got 32.6% of the vote in a Republican primary run-off election.
Fox makes Cassidy sound tight-lipped. He just said the statue was "extremely anti-Christian."
But the Hindustan Times has a much more extensive quotation from Cassidy (I go to India to get my news from Iowa):
"The world may tell Christians to submissively accept the legitimization of Satan, but none of the founders would have considered government sanction of Satanic altars inside Capitol buildings as protected by the First Amendment.... Anti-Christian values have steadily been mainstreamed more and more in recent decades, and Christians have largely acted like the proverbial frog in the boiling pot of water. I saw this blasphemous statue and was outraged. My conscience is held captive to the word of God, not to bureaucratic decree. And so I acted.”
And the Hindustan Times lets us know that Cassidy has traction on X. It displays this:
The legend of Michael Cassidy grows! pic.twitter.com/RVf7GjUv8E
— Lucky (@TheMagaHulk) December 14, 2023
Posts
69 comments:
To me this falls into the category of "Are there no adults left in the room?"
Jeez. You just tell the clowns who want to put a large middle finger up at all of their fellow citizens, "No. Not today. Not during the holiday season celebrating the birth of Christ. Have some fucking respect. And not in our State Capitol. No. You want to play your stupid little game, put it up on your own front yard. It is not welcome here. And...if you want to fight over free speech, bring it on."
“I got to India to get my news from Iowa”
And the legend of Althouse Extreme Christmas Layover was born.
The left has taught me the destruction of statues for reasons is encouraged, even patriotic.
I'm trying to think if a White House maneuver would have been preferable. The Statue could have just disappeared and an extensive investigation carried out by the Capital police, would have failed to identify exactly how the cocaine got there.
Satan likes hate crimes.
There is a partner story to the satanic display.
Toledo IA removed the Nativity Scene from in front of the the Fire House. A single person that was passing through, not a local(living in the county or any contiguous county)The person contacted the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a nonprofit based in Wisconsin, and The Fire Dept caved.
Temujin again brings the reasoned take, because it is indeed a large middle finger up at all of their fellow citizens.
I am not of religious faith, but I have no objection to a Christmas display in public settings, for purely cultural reasons. The American legal system, unable to respond to these issues with reasonable takes, is forced to take the route of "OK, if you're going to fight, nobody gets any dessert!".
I wonder what all those “progressives” who cheered on the vandalizing of statues of dead white men have to say about this. Unfortunately the left has a habit of destroying all the behavioral guard rails that help us maintain a civil society.
From a government standpoint, the Satan display was straightforward 1st Amendment stuff. But from a private citizen standpoint, we have been taught that tearing down statues is also free speech and tearing down statues of bad people (or, in this case, bad deities) is practically a civic duty.
That is, the people complaining are right on the law but, due to their own actions, don't have a leg to stand on.
According to Fox News, a man named Michael Cassidy has been arrested and charged with 4th degree criminal mischief.
666th degree would be more appropriate.
Reminds me to go visit the Festivus Pole in the WI Capital display.
Clever of the Satan guy to claim the vandalism is a “hate crime”….LOL
Oh no. Anyway…
Apparently Christians are oppressors. But Satan is not.
Sheesh.
i THOUGHT we, as a NATION, Wholly supported the destruction of public statues of slave owners?
Is there a BIGGER slave owner in the Universe, that Satan?
He should plead guilty as this is not really in doubt. Accept the consequences of your actions. That principle has been lost, or rather, selectively remembered of late.
I thought I read something a few years back where it was OK to remove "offensive" statues. As I recall as a number were taken down and in some cases destroyed crowds cheered. Some learned folks even tweeted out how to more quickly topple them. All the while "law and order" stood by and watched.
I guess "others" are now also playing by these "new rules".
Not saying it is right or wrong, just that you can't take offense when everyone starts playing by the new rules.
"You know that sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace"
“They had their own displays, their own protests, they ‘filled the capitol with prayers,’ they did interviews with media outlets who allowed them to put words in our mouths without seeking comment from us and then they vandalized our display anyways. And they still play the victim.”
For years, I listened to Mark Levin go on about tyranny, but how it actually works is nothing like he describes. I mean, I just saw the anti-Cancel Culture people BECOME the new post-Oct. 7 Cancel Culture, and Levin never said or led me to think that was likely to happen. We were on the same side, before. But then - viola! - the right's values change, overnight. And that's how tyranny REALLY happens: It's Hitler's surprise attacks on all of his neighbors, even after signing a non-aggression pact. Nobody's ready for it because it's a stab to the back. And they still play the victim,...which they also claimed to be against.
Jersey Fled said...
"Apparently Christians are oppressors. But Satan is not."
None of it's real, so you're just annoying antagonists. The Hatfields and McCoys over mythology
No its a sign of a fallen people, when israel started worshiping idols
I thought tearing down statues was just the latest fad started by the left.
Please allow me to ruin your day, Althouse, by observing that this blog post was succinct perfection.
No you side with a genocidal terrorist group a branch office of al queda remember them
I think they're religious hypocrites. They don't sincerely wish to honor Satan and all his works. The statue was erected not for reverence but to mock other people's religious beliefs. I bet a lot of the people who put that statue up have never murdered a single person. Many of them are probably vegetarians.....I myself am a sincere follower of Mammon. That's my form of Devil worship. However, I don't go around banging my chest and telling everybody how greedy I am. I quietly go about the pursuit of money and don't let my greed interfere with other people's religious beliefs. True Devil idolaters have more important things to do than putting up statues, especially this time of the year.
Leftwing progressives are generally offended by anything linked to morals.
like the 10 commandments.
William - 100%
The statue might as well be a middle finger.
Temujin - indeed.
A festivus pole is just funny. Nothing evil about it... it's comedy and we all need to laugh more.
The baby Jesus would approve, I'm sure.
I shouted out
Who let Slow Joe reign free?
When after all
It was you and me
Mark is a pole sitter? Who woulda thunk it!
I won't be shedding any tears for the destruction of liberal statues (double whammy of being satanic) . That ship has long sailed.
My statues good. Your statues bad. That's always been the name of the game and the fact that we managed a detente for a became irrelevant when the libs restarted the war.
If the constitution really truly makes no distinction, really truly provides no immune system to the body politic from subversive and destructive peoples, then its ultimately not worth the paper it's written on. As we have been seeing play out slowly in real time as judges from around the world but granted the correct papers, declare a millennia of Anglo Saxon common law and codified on behalf of its people actually doesn't mean what everyone subject to it perfectly well understood it to mean.
So, Professor, if your "you have to allow all" exhibits is true, can I hang a noose? Are there not some limits to this endless insanity?
William said...I think they're religious hypocrites. They don't sincerely wish to honor Satan and all his works.
Exactly. It's not a religious idol, nobody worships Baphomet. They're just being jerks. They have a right to be jerks, but they are still just jerks.
"So, Professor, if your "you have to allow all" exhibits is true, can I hang a noose? Are there not some limits to this endless insanity?"
The material in quotes is not a quote from me.
My third point in the post contains 2 links to past posts of mind. Please read them and you will understand why your characterization of what I think is quite wrong.
Note: I taught a course in Religion and the Constitution for 15 years.
The relevant case law is discussed at those earlier posts. I don't redo the explanation every time I post on the topic.
"posts of mind" = past posts of mine
sorry...
Destroying things seems to be a fairly satanic act, so they should be happy.
It is so hard to care.
Mob action or vandalism is the wrong way to influence public spaces. That principle gets ignored when the Progressives are doing the vandalism. It gets so tedious.
Destroying statues feels like freedom of speech at the Ivy League. It all seems to depend on context. How else can we invoke freedom of speech when someone calls for the destruction of Israel, but mixing up pronouns is hate speech that simply can't be tolerated.
Chucko the Brown-nosed Reindeer?
I get the impression that Bahomet is being cynically used by the "Satanists" (who are simply wanting to poke the Christian Iowans in the eye), and also by the Iowa Republican (looking for name recognition in his next primary). Must be wondering "what's a demon have to do to be treated non-ironically in America? Also enough to give me some sympathy for the...
"According to Fox News, a man named Michael Cassidy has been arrested and charged with 4th degree criminal mischief."
Mr.Cassidy should issue a statement that he thought it was a statue of Thomas Jefferson. And that he was sorry if any slave holding devil worshipers were offended.
I think there is a fundamental confusion here.
Satanism isn't "another religion" or "freedom of religion" in the same way say Christianity to Judaism to Islam is.
Satanism is an intra-Christian belief that the figurehead of evil is that which should be celebrated and worshipped. I don't like to use the word Anti-Christian, but I think that's the best way to put it.
It's not the same as 'another religion' and should not be treated that way. Consider a statue of another relgion - Islam, Judaism, etc. - that is actually anti-thetical from within that religion and ask if it remains the same.
My whole adult life I would have responded as Althouse did: If you allow one, it's difficult to excluded others.
I've since learned from the Left that there are no universal rules. Might makes right. Demographics is destiny. There are still enough Christians to impose their will over these "Satanists." So it must be.
Satanism is not a religion. It's speicifically anti-Christian blasphemy. It's no different from me saying Nazism is a religion so I get to hang a swastika banner in the State Capitol. Or 2002 Anne Coulterism is a religion so I get to dip a Koran in pig blood and set that up as a display in the State Capitol. In neither case would I get permission to set up such a display.
Just as every cop is a criminal
And all the sinners saints
As heads is tails
Just call me Lucifer
'Cause I'm in need of some restraint
So if you meet me
Have some courtesy
Have some sympathy, and some taste
Use all your well-learned politnesse
Or I'll lay your soul to waste, mm yeah
I live in Iowa. There is a Nativity scene on display in the Capitol Building, along with a Christmas tree and other Christmas decorations, some religious. The Iowa Legislature's current policy is to allow all displays or no displays. That is why the Satanic display was allowed. I would prefer that government buildings not have displays of any religion, but if you are going to allow them for one religion, then you are going to have to allow them for all. Or else you are going to face a lawsuit that you are certainly going to lose. My county has a Nativity scene on display on the courthouse lawn, but the county has a written policy allowing other displays as well. I guess we don't have enough Satanists around where I live who want to put up their own display on the courthouse lawn.
WHen the 1st Admendment was passed it meant something concrete. Patrick Henry and others didnt want an established religion aka a "Church of the United States" along the lines of "The Church of England".
The states however continued to have established churches. The Congressional Church was the "Established Church" of Mass for example until well into the 1840s.
Federal judges after WW II, thought up the concept of "The separation of church and state" and then used that to strike down local and state laws mandating school prayer. (leading George bush to clownishly state that while floating on his raft to be rescued by a USA submarine, his thought went to Mom, home, and the separation of church and state)
Ever since since then the caselaw regarding religion and the Government has been a complete mess because its built on political desires of the Federal judges. Its completely untehtered to what the founding fathers originally thought it meant.
This santanic "religion" is just an latest example of the absurdity. For some reason an appeals judge rule back in the 90s that "Christmas" can be a Federal holiday and doesn't violate the separation of church and state, so thankfully we've been spared that. No doubt the 3 leftist on the SCOTUS disagree.
Iman, I just think a location for the airing of grievances makes total sense at the Capitol.
Just think how much trouble it would have saved on January 6 if they just erected a giant Festivus pole on the National Mall?
It's not a sincere religious display. It's an anti-religious troll. Imagine some fundamentalist group erecting a display of unbelievers in Hell. That would at least be sincere. I doubt it would be allowed.
deepelemblues: "Satanism is not a religion. It's speicifically anti-Christian blasphemy. It's no different from me saying Nazism is a religion so I get to hang a swastika banner in the State Capitol. Or 2002 Anne Coulterism is a religion so I get to dip a Koran in pig blood and set that up as a display in the State Capitol. In neither case would I get permission to set up such a display."
Correct. By the satanists own admission.
But those are the kinds of irrefutable facts and nuance either purposefully glossed over or ignorantly overlooked by a typical Althouse blog LLR-democratical "legal beagle hot-shot" "lawyer" like lonejustice.
"Baby on a cold gray slab" to celebrate liberal progress. Woman... womb in a room to celebrate the female... feminine commodity. Girls with masculine augmentation, boys with carved feminine attributes, and a forward-looking nod to conflation of sex, gender, and social fitness. Pride and prejudice on parade.
If it's okay to tear down and destroy all the other statues that have been targeted over the last few years, why should we care that one more is destroyed? Welcome to the new rules.
Next up, a statue of L Ron Hubbard.
Satan would definitely approve of this action.
Mazo Jeff said...
“So, Professor, if your ‘you have to allow all’ exhibits is true, can I hang a noose? Are there not some limits to this endless insanity?”
If that’s too much, how about a garage pull instead?
I have no regard whatsoever for these "satanists," but we don't get to decide what is a valid religion. We don't get to decide that satanism isn't a real religion because it doesn't resemble the more traditional ones that "we" adhere to, especially when satanism easily falls under the definition of religion in most every dictionary. We don't get to decide whether these people truly worship Satan or are just waving middle fingers. And we shouldn't get to decide which "religions" get to be represented in the state house and which don't.
We all say here, every time the Left steps on unpopular beliefs and speech, that the First Amendment is useless if it doesn't pass the real test of protecting unpopular beliefs. Come on, be consistent.
All the hoo-hah about this is irrelevant anyway, IMO, since the elephant in the room here is that there shouldn't be any displays referential to any spiritual belief system in the building that represents the center of government.
Sauce, goose, gander. And a loud Munz "HA,HA!"
I, for one, await the installation of a statue of Mohammed & Allah to celebrate the Muslim faith. The race to tear it down between Christians & Muslims would be epic.
"We don't get to decide that satanism isn't a real religion because it doesn't resemble the more traditional ones that "we" adhere to"
Sort of. But I think there can be differentiation between real religions and fake religions. The latter are meant as a kind of critique but aren't actually representing actual beliefs. Like the Flying Spaghetti Monster kind of thing, no one genuinely believes it, but it's used to critique belief in a divinity.
I don't think there's a good way to use this assessment, but a really good one is would a person be willing to die for their expressed belief. There are genuine pagan beliefs out there finding resergence, but I don't think these satanists are actually among them.
And religions are defined all the time by the government in terms of non-profit. People who don't know anything about a topic can think there's no way to define it, but those who study religions can find helpful ways of categorization for the purpose of government civil recognition.
We warned you all about this when it started.
First they'd come for Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln statues, but it wouldn't stop there. We knew soon enough they'd end up coming for the Devil.
It was all a slippery slope.
Question for the lawyers - Is this technically a hate crime?
Stuck around Des Moines
When I saw it was time for a change
I thought tearing down statues was a good thing. When did that change?
He should be charged and tried. Though I wouldn't feel badly if a little jury nullification occurred.
They keep destroying statues of supporters of the Confederacy!
I love the fact that there's such a thing as The Satanic Temple of Iowa.
mccullough - Good one!
AS an atheist, it's not up to me to determine the realness of a religion or the sincerity of the faith of those who claim to belong, so I generally don't bother. (I sure as hell can judge actions by intentions as I understand them, and/or consequences as I perceive them, and often do.)
As a simple humaneanderthal I can generally determine when someone is just being a dick.
Crack, I like anyone who shouts "viola!" But I do have a suspicion that that is not what you meant.
Post a Comment