DES MOINES, Iowa (KCRG) - On Thursday, the Satanic Temple of Iowa announced that their display at the Iowa Capitol had been significantly damaged.
The controversial display, which Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds called “objectionable,” featured a ram’s head covered with mirrors on a mannequin before being damaged.
Organizers say it’s a symbol of their right to religious freedom.
The Satanic Temple of Iowa posted the following message on their Facebook page:
“This morning, we were informed by authorities that the Baphomet statue in our holiday display was destroyed beyond repair. We are proud to continue our holiday display for the next few days that we have been allotted.
We ask that for safety, visitors travel together and use the 7 Tenets as a reminder for empathy, in the knowledge that justice is being pursued the correct way, through legal means.
KCCI has reported that 35-year-old Michael Cassidy of Lauderdale, Mississippi, was charged with Criminal Mischief in the 4th Degree. He has since been released.
Solve et Coagula! Happy Holidays! Hail Satan!”
After hearing about this thing, I’ve decided I’m making myself a Christmas Baphomet decoration for my house.
TST has you covered
I’m this close to slapping a ram skull on a twenty foot skeleton and glittering it up, then coating it with epoxy so the craft herpes stays contained. Maybe attaching it all to a forty foot ham radio tower just for funsies.
This lil guy is the angel on my Yule tree. He’s too heavy for my live tree’s bendy little branches so he’s hanging from the ceiling on fishing line, right above the tree, like he’s flying.
Some of us just can’t Christmas this year.
Solstice celebrations, however…
That’s a misdemeanor. He’ll plead down to something like a fine and maybe some community service, then fundraise the shit out of it - have to pay the lawyer! have to pay the fine! need a giant new American flag for my giant lifted pickup truck! gimme gimme gimme!
They should sue his ass for all the costs of a replacement statue and everything else they can think of.
Jokes on him, that community service is required to be served at the local Satanic Temple. (god I wish I wasn’t making a joke right now)
That could happen. There was a plea deal recently where a woman who was an absolute dick to a fast food employee accepted a lesser sentence that required her to work in food service for a specified time.
You could easily do the same here, and they absolutely should.
Oh, I know it could happen. I also recognize that that sort of sentence would almost require the judge to be either A. Sympathetic to TST, B. A fan of ironic punishments, C. A proponent of putting self-righteous assbags in their place, or D. Not a neo-Christian conservative, or some mix of the above. I don’t exactly hold out hope for that being the case in Iowa, but a man can dream.
That would be glorious legal karma.
“They should sue his ass” Given that it’s TST, they’d probably argue that it was a violation of their constitutional protections under the First Amendment (or some similarly insane legal argument they regularly use to
embezzlefundraise) .Interestingly stupid take you got there bud
Are you completely ignorant about TST’s court cases? Read their legal arguments, you can find them at whatever court they’re filed with. They are completely insane, it’s literally a fundraising grift.
Didn’t they recently try to argue that abortion was a sacred ritual? Completely ignoring that SCOTUS has already ruled that criminal laws are not a violation of religious freedom. (A decision they had to make or else you could found the Church of Posada and legally engage in nuclear terrorism). Literally nobody with a brain would have made that argument, and yet they lied to the public about it’s soundness to fundraise.
Read more about what the satanic temple is about. Then read your own comments again. I’m not even going to waste my time explaining it to your dumb dumb ass…
Because things could not possibly be different than what they claim to be?
I’ll admit it’s been a few years since I cared enough about atheist activism to research organisations to participate in. When I do such research, I try to find if the organisation actually effectively produces results. And that’s just not what I found about TST, the legal ineptitude combined with financial opacity was sufficient red flags but I understand that’s not of concern to you.
Sounds like something a christian would do
Whenever I hear the phrase Criminal Mischief, I always imagine an old cartoon criminal tip toeing around and up to no good.
The black mask around the eyes is a dead giveaway.
That’s how you know that racoons are always up to no good.
Yeah, it’s absurd. Don’t you think that if this guy had vandalized a Christian or Jewish display that he’d get more than “criminal mischief”? This is a hate crime.
That’s also what I envision “hooligans” means.
Too Soon! That poor dustbin!
never heard of football hooligans?
Interesting though it’s just a mischief charge, if I trashed their Jesus garbage you know DAMN well I’m swimming in hate crime charges.
If you did it now, wouldn’t lawyers be able to use thos case to get you the same punishment?
Not anymore friend, a precedent has been set
In Iowa, criminal mischief covers vandalism, and 4th degree criminal mischief means damages between 300-750 dollars. Penalty is up to a year in jail and up to about $2500 in fines if convicted. Since it says he was charged, he wasn’t just let off free, he was released pending hearing aka they aren’t holding him in jail until then.
Alternate source since the one in the post isn’t working for me:
The author did a great job directing people to that alt-reich trash rag. The slant is heavy.
how is this not a hate crime? it was committed because of someone’s membership in a protected class.
Because the Christian hegemony rules with an iron fist in the west. A big part of TST’s existence is about bringing that hypocrisy to light.
Simple, wrong class.
Because the whole point of conservatism and Christian Nationalism is that only the right people are protected by the legal system. Everyone else is beneath the law, denied rights and protections, and subject to retribution without cause and due process.
Conservatives fight to assure those not protected do not gain civil rights.
The white power movement fights to further reduce rights and protections, and narrow the set of those who qualify for them.
Can you link to a conservative saying that?
I can’t imagine any would, that is an abstraction developed by not-conservatives trying to wrap head around conservative actions. To have a conservative in power say so overtly would fuel the people being oppressed into coordinated resistance and disgust fence sitters into voting against conservatism
I’m a conservative, and I think people should be equal under the law.
What are you seeing that makes it seem otherwise?
The one that vandalised this being released as per the summary for example.
It’s a misdemeanor vandalism charge, odds are he’s a vaguely attractive white guy with no priors so of course they let him go until his hearing, probably without bail. Only way his odds of being released on his own recognizance would have been higher is if he were a pretty, young white girl.
I actually personally know a pretty young white girl who got caught in a drug charge out of state, released on her own recognizance pending hearing, came back home, skipped her hearing, got pulled over for a traffic violation back home, jailed for a bit for being a fugitive until the other state could fetch her, taken back to the other state and then released on her own recognizance pending a hearing again despite having explicitly proved that she was a flight risk.
This case right here. He thought that it was okay to vandalize a religious display that was from “the wrong religion”, and he’s getting let off with a slap on the wrist.
And the person letting him off is a conservative, I take it? And this is in comparison to a different arrestee who did the same to another display?
If you feel that people should be equal under the law, why do you align politically with the parties that don’t recognize trans rights, homosexuality, worker rights, social support, freedom of religion (not just Christianity), voting rights…
You don’t believe people are equal under the law. At best, maybe you believe that groups of people are equal under law, but some groups are more equal than others.
I’ve never heard a conservative person argue that a trans person should be stripped of any rights. Nor that homosexuals should, nor workers, nor people of other religions.
Can you link to a conservative claiming this? Like … one?
What are you seeing that makes it seem otherwise?
Satanic display at Iowa Capitol vandalized ‘beyond repair’
Someone seemed to think it was appropriate to vandalize this display specifically.
So because someone targeted a specific thing here, that’s unequal, and the inequality must therefore be a core belief of conservatives generally? Is that the line of reasoning here?
The display is permitted by rules that govern religious installations inside the Capitol but has drawn criticism from many conservatives, including presidential candidate Ron DeSantis. A Facebook posting by The Satanic Temple on Thursday said the display, known as a Baphomet statue, “was destroyed beyond repair,” though part of it remains.
Michael Cassidy, 35, of Lauderdale, Mississippi, was charged with fourth-degree criminal mischief, the Iowa Department of Public Safety said Friday. He was released after his arrest.
Cassidy is a Republican who was defeated by Democrat Keith Jackson in Mississippi State House District 45 in November.
It is possible for someone to be on the Conservative side of the political spectrum and still be a reasonable person who respects equality. It is not possible for a reasonable person who respects equality to support the Republican party.
deleted by creator
It’s the quiet part that’s (usually) not said aloud.
Just take a look at the statistics of how i.e. criminal law is applied much more aggressively to conservative out-groups (PoC, poor, etc.) than conservative in-groups (white, wealthy, etc.). Then have a look at who is proposing politics intended to fix that imbalance an who’s talking about “taking a hard(er) stance on crime”.
Another, rather specific example: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8769269/Former-abortion-clinic-worker-recalls-pro-life-women-justify-procedures.html
Once you look our for the pattern, you’ll see it everywhere.
criminal law is applied much more aggressively to conservative out-groups (PoC, poor, etc.) than conservative in-groups (white, wealthy, etc.).
So in your mind is there a conservative in group and out group as regards sex? I just want a starting point before I delve any further.
My comment wasn’t related to sex but more generalized, but, umm - yeah?
People having heterosexual two-person sex (preferably with a single, consistent partner) are the “in-group”.
Everyone else is the out-group.
If anyone ever made i.e. a study to something like police behavior experienced by a “regular” pick-up bar and a gay bar, I’d expect to see some stark differences.
I wasn’t talking about orientation, but about sex, as in male vs female.
There is a long history of right wing politicians cloaking themselves in the rhetoric of the left. You can watch it evolve over it’s history as the leftist talking points have… but the one thing that hasn’t changed since the beginning is the way they behave shows a belief in the aggregation of power. Conservatives support a hierarchy with a lot of executive power at the top and a failure state at the bottom. The left looks to broaden and scatter power horizontally…
It’s part of why complaining that social services and welfare programs are artificially disruptive to a “natural” order and determining and expelling non-citizen underclasses and narrowing the rights to fully participate has existed since the beginning of right wing rhetoric but they never sell it outright as “some people deserve to die poor or to serve in a perpetually subordinate position”. It has always required a grift to get the masses to sign on. It’s also why they tend to pair themselves with the church going crowd. Their base has to believe at some level that inequality is not just natural but justified and that helps when you already have people you veiw as fundamentally inferior.
These kinds of behaviors are really hammering home that Christians are just nazis with training wheels huh?
Perhaps they were simply trying to uphold the separation of church and state. Maybe the thing that caused the attack was “a church display at the state capitol”
It was parked in a handicapped space. Perhaps they towed it.
–Walter Sobchek
Nope. There’s displays from multiple religions at the state capitol.
Here’s an opportunity for TST leadership to prove they’re willing to sue more than just traumatised ex-members. I wonder if they’ll take it.
What are you talking about? Aren’t these the ones that sue to allow all religions fair representation or none at all? There is another church of satan you may be confusing them with.
TST are in the process of suing several ex-members after these ex members left TST after some old antisemitic statements made by one if its owners resurfaced.
They’re also suing an ex member who made a tiktok video about the ex members.
There’s a lot more to these stories. Search Newsweek for more.
They didn’t leave, they were kicked out, and they hijacked and vandalized their chapter’s Facebook page to retaliate. That’s what they’re being sued over.
That’s what TST’s legal team claimed, sure, but so far after several tries, they’ve failed to prove any of that in court and have lost at every stage. It feels like they’re just continuing to sue to out of vindictiveness. Their legal arguments are bizarre to the point they were advised by a judge they’d do better representing themselves than taking advice from their current legal team.
There were two FB Groups, one of which was handed back to TST by the defendants after FB, (not the Courts, this was before legal action) asked them to. That was the official chapter Page. The second FB Page didn’t have (as far as I’m aware) any named link to TST at all. I can’t recall exactly what it was called, something like ‘Evergreen Memes For Satanists’.
Is this really the best legal use for all the donations people make? Chasing a group of people for no substantive reason?
You know how I know you’re full of shit?
You cannot just keep suing someone over the same problem after you lose. If you “lose at every stage”, you lose pretty fucking quickly! Stop lying on the internet.
You really need to go read the legal pages on the plaintiffs website I linked to above, it’ll outline it all for you. I concede that, not being American, I might get the terminology wrong, but the basics are correct. They’ve (TST) brought numerous claims and appeals, all of which have failed so far.
I like how your position rn is “bro just read the court documents” and everyone still hates you.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
If people feel the need to argue that an organization representing actual freedom are a bunch of fraudulent dicks, then maybe we need more organizations that aregue for actual freedom. Maybe they could be started by all the assholes whining about them being fraudulent dicks.
If people feel the need to argue that an organization representing actual freedom are a bunch of fraudulent dicks,…
If this organisation represent actual freedom, then why are they suing people for no good reason I can see? Why do their leaders not want to go on conferences where neo-nazi’s are banned because of free speech concerns but also ban their branding being used by their members at BLM protests?
Maybe they could be started by all the assholes whining about them being fraudulent dicks
Already have been ;) the 6 year old Org I’m a member of welcomed our new USA Order just last month after they disaffiliated from TST.
Wait wtf, they are also suing Newsweek for publishing an article on them.
Awhile back on my local subreddit, I read about some shady shit the local TST chapter was up to, seemingly in line with what was described in that Newsweek article. I didn’t read too much into it at the time, since it was just one anecdote. Now all these clearly SLAPP suits make me wonder if the whole TST is shady. I hope not, because I like the work they’re doing. But you never know with people.
In my own experience, the vast majority if ordinary TST members are good people, but the leadership is highly (and repeatedly) problematic. Certainly too problematic for me to be a member. Too many alt-right links, too many concerning actions.
What are the alt right links? That would be odd considering how pro-abortion TST is, but the alt-right has never been known for making sense.
As I’m sure you’re aware, it’s strange and laughable that people are accusing us of working together.
The hostility of this community seems to mirror some of the stuff that the ex-members were talking about. Personally I don’t think it’s a winning strategy, but then again I’m the one on the receiving end of it, so I would say that. At this point it’s difficult for me to walk away with a positive impression of TST going forward.
I realize JAQ-ing off is a thing, but I don’t think I’m doing that. This is genuinely the first time I’m encountering the stuff you’re talking about, and my first impression was “wtf, that’s clearly SLAPP”. I could have found a kinder way of saying that. But at the same time, people seem way more interested in discrediting the two of us, than engaging with the issue.
That may just be the nature of the community. It’s certainly not winning me over.
What are the alt right links?
One is one of the TST’s owners (used to be? Still is? Not sure) a friend of a guy called Shane Bugbee who’s a mid-level figure in the alt-right movement. Bugbee claims to have inspired the idea of TST but is now a member of CoS I believe. Bugbee wanted to publish the right-wing book ‘Might Is Right’ and one of the current TST owners offered to do the artwork for it. I think that project fell through through though.
Another is the association between Milo Yiannopoulos and TST’s (current or past, not sure which) Director of Ministry. They were apparently friends up to 2016 and they are, also apparently, not friends any more when Stevens, who used to be part of the manosphere up until joining TST, says they stopped seeing each other.
That didn’t stop one of the owners of TST stating that a protest by TST Satanists at the planned inclusion of Yiannopoulos at a Cal Poly campus event was not official and:
The Satanic Temple was not in any way involved in this, nor would we be,” said Greaves. “The Satanic Temple are firm advocates for free speech and, while we may not agree with the speaker in question on some issues…we would never move to have him censored from speaking. We are mortified to have our name falsely attached to this and hope it can be corrected immediately
TST owners sent that clarification to Breitbart (organisers of Yiannopoulos speaking event I believe), that well know progressive, equality loving publication.
Seems like the concerns of ordinary TST members were a distant second in TST’s owners list of priorities.
Greg Stevens also edited a book by alt-right manosphere writer Mike Cernovich in the dim dead ancient times of 2015 (aka 8 years ago).
Maybe he’s suddenly not friends with him anymore either.
I’m definitely not suggesting that TST owners are part of the alt-right, that would be a weird thing for such a pro-abortion group to be a part of, but these not-very-old links do bother me. At the very least I would’ve thought they would’ve not put Stevens into such a very prominent role where he has influence over so many people. You don’t go from manosphere alt-right to ultra-progressive at the snap of your fingers. It takes time to get over shit like that.
As I’m sure you’re aware, it’s strange and laughable that people are accusing us of working together.
I do get it. A lot of TST members (who as I’ve already said are on the whole decent people) have sunk a lot of time and effort into TST. It’s only natural for them to hit back.
Thank you very much for the detailed reply.
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that so many familiar names keep showing up, as large portions of the “new atheist movement” have been co-opted by the alt right.
I try to avoid judging people merely for having friends, since I have a few friends myself who are wrapped up in the alt-right. They are important to me for reasons that have nothing to do with politics, and I think it’s important to find even a little common ground, despite our differences. At least, I prefer it over loudly rejecting people.
On the other hand, there’s a difference between having a friend, and offering to do artwork for an right wing book. I haven’t read that particular book, but the Wikipedia summary on it seems pretty messed up, looks like there’s plenty of white supremacism and “women as property” sort of stuff.
I do get it. A lot of TST members (who as I’ve already said are on the whole decent people) have sunk a lot of time and effort into TST. It’s only natural for them to hit back.
That does make sense, and I’m trying (and probably failing) to not take the comments on here too personally. My experience going to a TST rally was the people I met were really kind, decent people.
No links to articles. This comment chain sounds like a sock puppet account talking to itself.
Read their court cases. 100 percent a funding grift, add to the fact that they don’t disclose finances.
Sock puppets are smarter than those 2.
TST had every chance to set the record straight, but the only statement I found from them was a long post on Reddit from their lawyer saying he hopes the ex-members keep bleeding money.
A lot of anger there, and I mean I get having anger and emotions when it comes to legal battles. But since he’s a lawyer representing the organization I’d hope for a more professional response.
I haven’t seen any explanation of why the things the ex-members and Newsweek said constitute defamation. In the US, defamation is usually difficult to prove, as speech is protected by the 1st amendment. Often you have to show that the defendant is lying in order to win a defamation suit. I haven’t seen a statement from TST to that effect, just that the statements didn’t properly represent the religion (which seemingly did not make for a strong argument in court).
I’m a relatively neutral party here. You could even argue that I’m biased towards TST. I’ve donated money to TST before. The stated values of TST are very much in line with my own. I’m hesitant about continuing to support an organization without a clear explanation of why they are getting wrapped up in lawsuits that don’t seem to have anything to do with the organization’s purpose or values. For now I’m keeping a skeptical mind. I realize am organization like TST attracts controversy and haters basically by design. But right now it seems like there’s a lot of smoke (again, there were some specific creepy things brought up in my local subreddit), and TST could clear the air if they choose to do so.
Yes, I’m not a very smart person. I’ve learned that many times throughout my life. If someone out there wants to dumb things down for me, I would really appreciate it. Otherwise, I will continue to be happy when I see news like the satanic holiday displays, since there is no other group doing this kind of work. And I will keep my eye out for other news about whether or not the smoke is not substantive, and whether the lawsuits were justified.
It’s stuff you can easily Google if you feel like it. I’m just some guy with a passing interest in TST, and do like the work they are doing in general.
That’s not how debate works. If you make a grand claim, it’s not incumbent on me to validate it. That’s your burden.
Hardly, I just didn’t have time to link the articles until now. Here’s the Newsweek article if you’d like to read it, here’s an interview with the person who posted the TikTok video and here’s the website of the people in the Newsweek article which is a bit of a rabbit hole but has links to all the court actions and results so far (TST are still suing them, despite losing every stage so far).
You don’t have to take anything I say as true and you’re under no obligation to care either way and certainly, if you can find any, I’m sure TST leadership have their version of events, but I do think more people need to be aware that the leadership of TST are, in my opinion, problematic.
that satanic housewife stuff has been going for years now and I never saw much merit to it in the sense of the leadership being bad. Feels more like just repeated harping on it.
Those are all pretty one side sources heavy on hearsay and light on details and facts.
TST is slightly less of loser con artists than the Church of Satan… slightly.
If you actually look at the legal cases they file, it’s either piggybacking on FFRF, or completely unhinged legal arguments that every serious person knows is absurd and is merely fundraising from their gullible audience.
That’s really disappointing. I guess I’m the gullible one since I thought TST was doing good work. FFRF seems like a great organization. Never heard anything bad about them. I still remember the talk Dan Barker gave at my college like 10 years ago.
These evangelicals are doing a wonderful job of showing the Satanic Temple to be reasonable adults. Every time a loony loses their mind over this, more people compare the two and realize who the baddies actually are.
You overestimate people, don’t forget Trump had enough voters to win in 2016 🤮
Not really, but the system was rigged to make him win. If popular votes decided elections, there would never be a republican president
They won in 2004, because John Kerry really was that boring.
Prior to that the last election they won by majority was 1988. Though to be fair Clinton only got 43% of the vote in 1992.
You’re forgetting to mention that Daddy Bush got only 37% and Ross Perot got 18. Clinton won the popular vote. Bush Jr did not in 2000 and he made it to the popular vote by the skin of his teeth in 2004.
John Kerry really was that boring.
Kerry didn’t campaign to end the war in Iraq. He campaigned as being more competent than Bush. He tried to convince voters that he could handle the war better. The left didn’t want the war handled better, we wanted it to end. That’s why there was no excitement around Kerry. He was just more of the same with a slightly different package.
If popular votes decided elections then yes, how large of a margin Dems win CA by would be the deciding factor instead of a footnote.
It reminds me of the whole “keeping a level head while someone loses their shit on you, to demonstrably prove they’re the asshole”, but writ large.
I feel that destroying it has garnered more attention for TST than they would have received had it been left alone.
That’s the point.
The
church of SatanSatanic Temple doesn’t care about idol worship.But one religion REALLY REALLY DOES.
The church of Satan and the Satanic temple are two very different organisations.
Ah you’re right! I got them confused. Thanks!
Given that one of their goals is to highlight unfair treatment on religious basis, I’m sure they are delighted that someone illustrated their point.
Understanding that requires intelligence, something I would never accuse them of
deleted by creator
just useful for challenging Christianity politically
That’s exactly what they’re going for, yes.
wtf is this “both sides” shit? How are satanists ridiculous?
BoTh SiDeS lol
The ST don’t actually believe in Satan btw, real Satanists do. There’s no evidence Satan exists and it’s ridiculous to actually believe in Satan. Christians believe Satan is real too.
I dunno seems pretty useful to me.
No hate(crime) like christian love.
I like how he knows that the founding fathers didn’t really mean what they said about the first amendment and all that. I hope the temple sues.
Kurtz: Are my methods unsound?
Willard: I don’t see any method at all, sir.
Kurtz: I expected someone like you. What did you expect? Are you an assassin?
Willard: I’m a soldier.
Kurtz: You’re neither. You’re an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill.– Apocalypse Now, 1979
Whats the analogy here? Kurtz is insane.
shocked they actually arrested him. will be even more shocked if he gets anything close to the punishment he earned
A 4th degree misdemeanor is nothing! I doubt if someone messed up a Jesus Nativity set they would get that
Idk, a precedent has been set now. Lawyers could just refer back to this case, no?
What is the precedent? “Unlike crimes against any other religion, hate crimes against satanism is not a hate crime”?
I keep seeing this precedent argument and this is exactly what I think every time.
If anything I see someone TRYING to use this case as a precedent to swerve hate crime charges and it gets used to declare Satanism not a recognized religion.
Seems like America has basically said:
“hate crimes against religious iconography isn’t a hate crime”
It’s a huge can of worms that they opened, and basically shit all over everything people fought against in WWII.
Pretty sure it also just wiped out a few US fundamental freedoms too.
So, either this goes up the chain to punish the guy appropriate, or the USA is in for some real heated bullshit in the near future.
Burning down a church with nobody in it is a hate crime. Where is the line? Is it destruction of real property? Is it a monetary threshold? I don’t know the answer, but it is definitely a huge can of worms.
good for you
KCCI has reported that 35-year-old Michael Cassidy of Lauderdale, Mississippi, was charged with Criminal Mischief in the 4th Degree. He has since been released.
What a special snowflake, that one. Bless his heart.
