Should the Iowa State Capitol host a holiday statue display from the Satanic Temple?
The Capitol reportedly has a policy of allowing any group to erect a display in the building for two weeks. So, the satanic display, which started December 2, presumably ends December 16. Although I cannot find confirmation, this policy apparently is for holiday displays and not year-round. Oddly, no news account quotes from the official guidelines, nor can I find them on the website of the Iowa Department of Administrative Services, which approves exhibits. Apparently, according to one legislator, permissions for exhibits “do not discriminate on the basis of religion or ideology.”
Critics denouncing the statue display, which includes candles, have strained to find lawful arguments to preclude an exhibit. One Iowa legislator insists that since Iowa’s constitution cites God, hosting a Satan display is illegal. Another legislator, also a cleric, disdains the statue but defends it as free speech.
Nearly all the coverage focuses on the religious angle. But if the Iowa Capitol allows any group to submit exhibits, regardless of “religion or ideology,” then the issue is far more than religious. In their own version of holiday spirit, Nazis can erect a festooned swastika, Communists could erect a festive hammer and sickle, Klansmen could erect the portrayal of a cheery burning cross. Radical activists favorable to Hamas, al Qaeda or any other Islamist groups could exhibit a seasonal homage to their terror. Pro-pedophilia groups could share their own grim holiday advocacy.
I’m curious whether such extremist advocacies have ever tried to display in the Iowa State Capitol and if so, how they were handled. The problem with opening a state building to displays by any organization, governed by free speech principles, is that no cause, no matter how despicable, can be denied. Perhaps it’s better not to open the space at all, and to display only exhibits related directly to the state or to official state holidays, such as a Christmas tree.
Otherwise, it’s hard legally to preclude the Satanic Temple or anybody else. Interestingly, the temple is not genuinely satanic. It rejects the supernatural and sees Satan as “a symbol of the Eternal Rebel in opposition to arbitrary authority, forever defending personal sovereignty.” A banner that’s part of their display proclaims, “Joy to the world, reason has come,” and says, “Happy holidays.” Happy indeed. Their statue has a ram’s head representing Baphomet, “a pagan idol associated with the Knights Templar that was conceived in the 11th century and whose depiction has changed dramatically over time.”
Was Baphomet particularly known for devotion to reason? The Satanic Temple has seven principles, banally starting with, “One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.”
The clerical Iowa legislator, pastor of a non-denominational church, who says the Satan display is unconstitutional, is introducing legislation confirming this point and allowing widespread display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings. He insists:
If we claim to believe in the One Supreme Being, the God of all creation, we cannot claim an exemption from obedience to Him in things relating to civil government. In fact, if we claim Him as our God, then we as legislators and government officials are His ministers. As such we must submit to Him in government as much as any other area of life. Either He is God or He is not.
The counterpoint is from the other clergy Iowa legislator, ordained in the Christian and Missionary Alliance, who tweeted about his reluctant tolerance of the satanic display:
My observation as a follower of Christ, I certainly find a display from the Satanic Temple objectionable. It stands in direct opposition to my faith and would be classified as evil. Not a new experience for me or my family. The Word of God continually warns about the dangers in our world. In fairness, many other religions or nonreligious people have the same perspective about Christianity. My observation as an Iowan and a State Representative, I don’t want the state evaluating and making determinations about religions. I am guided by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
That legislator shared a picture of a creche displayed more prominently in the Capitol Rotunda.
While he sees the satanic display as the price of open access and free speech, his colleague sees the statue as an affront to God that legislators, as “ministers of God,” must not tolerate.
But finding ways for the civil government to host displays or speech from some groups while denying others is almost impossible, constitutionally and practically. The almost carnival-like display by various groups at Christmas time partly results from court rulings over the last five decades largely permitting the display of creches and Christian symbols on government land but only if other symbols, both religious and secular, are permitted. Public spaces then sometimes become a smorgasbord of seasonal bric-a-brac, aesthetically unappealing and spiritually confused.
Placing creches and Christian symbols in public spaces at Christmas time perhaps is an important affirmation of religious freedom and the role of religion in public life. But the price of that display sometimes includes the inclusion of other esoteric if not pernicious groups with few adherents, like the Satanic Temple, which worships neither God nor Satan but “reason.”
Maybe places like the Iowa State Capitol would do better to preclude private exhibits altogether. And maybe Christian witness would be stronger if churches amplified their own outreach at Christmas time, including the display of creches on their properties. Every city and town has churches at its center. The more churches amplify their own work, the more the real Satan will be displeased, and the more the Real Focus of Christmas, who is found in the creche, will be glorified.
Comment by George on December 13, 2023 at 5:26 pm
Go ahead Jennifer. After defending the “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence “ as you did, you can really make a big deal by defending the Christmas “Satanic display”.
Comment by David on December 13, 2023 at 6:38 pm
This is a good reason for government to remain secular and not involve itself with religious acts. Christmas trees, while obviously associated with the holiday, have little if any religious significance other than what might be hung on them. A manger scene or menorah, on the other hand, is definitely religious in nature. People like religious freedom for their religion, but that of others is another matter.
Comment by Lee on December 14, 2023 at 9:34 am
I’ll bet if the Sons of Confederate Veterans erected a display honoring the Confederate soldier including a display of the Confederate battle flag the same liberals who nod their heads in agreement that the Satan display should be allowed on the basis of fairness would raise a deafening outcry that such a display was a symbol of “hate” (it is not, btw) and should not be allowed. This is so ironic since they would be the first to defend the inclusion of symbols of the very originator of hate, the evil one himself.
Comment by George on December 14, 2023 at 1:15 pm
But David, that’s a two way street. The government has no problem with discriminating against Christians. These days if a loving Christian couple wants to adopt or foster a child, they better not mention that the faith which they follow believes God only made two sexes and it is not right to try and change a child’s sex. They are excluded immediately.
What about the FBI investigating conservative Catholic Church members? They say they didn’t but we all know that was a lie. Then they say it’s an on going investigation and can’t talk about it. Our government intrudes into our religious beliefs way too often. Just ask the Colorado baker or the lady wedding planner. Now I’m going on record now saying if they ever allow a satan exhibit to be set up in one of our local government offices, what Jesus did to the money changers won’t hold a candle to what would happen here in my neck of the woods. Now, have a safe and merry Christmas. It’s about the birth of our savior.
Comment by George on December 15, 2023 at 7:55 am
Stop the presses! I just read where a brave and decent man destroyed the Satanic display in the Iowa state capitol. Chalk one up for decency and moral fiber. After very few, if any, were ever charged for destroying statues of great Americans, they will probably throw the book at him. He should be in all our prayers this season.
Comment by leo weishaar on December 15, 2023 at 6:52 pm
the constitution protects religion not ideology. that is separate and has no business in a religious display. further satanism is not a religion because a religion needs a God. satanism has no God.
Comment by John on December 15, 2023 at 8:08 pm
I can’t believe I’m saying this. but I actually agree with Tooley on this one. The only just and fair response to this is either to let the display stand in the capitol or stop hosting such religious displays of any kind altogether. Anything else would be hypocritical. The Iowa clergyman trying to force the removal of the display is giving the Satanic Temple exactly what they want.
Comment by John N Kenyon on December 16, 2023 at 10:21 pm
Hate to admit that I agree with the Beaver on this one, too. There is no agreed upon definition of “religion” at law that solves all or nothing in the public square. Same in the nominal “The Institute of Religion and Democracy.”
Comment by David on December 17, 2023 at 8:23 am
Too many Christians have joined the Cult of Victimization. Prohibitions on public assembly to limit the transmission of airborne disease is not an attack on religion. Conspiracy theories arise regarding investigations that we supposedly all know about. Baking a cake is not a religious act and is incidental to a wedding.
The whole point of public accommodation laws is to force people to serve everyone and not exclude those they do not like for some reason. There were those who claimed a religious right not to serve Blacks when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. The earlier act of 1875 prohibiting discrimination was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1883.
The Satan display was most likely an attempt to show what happens when government dabbles in religion. It is best to keep the “wall of separation” as Jefferson mentioned.
Comment by Star Tripper on December 17, 2023 at 2:18 pm
Lots of angles on heads of pins logic discussed here. Michael Cassidy had the correct Christian response to this display.
Comment by George on December 17, 2023 at 10:03 pm
Like I said David, it’s suppose to be a two way street but only the liberals have the right of way. After over one hundred years, the liberals have found a monument in the far back corner of the Arlington National Cemetery. It is surrounded by the graves of Confederate war dead. It’s being torn down at this very moment. Why don’t they go ahead and dig up the fallen Confederate dead? Pile their bones upon a flatbed and send it south ? If there is a divide in our country (and there is) it’s not just conservative Christians causing it. Why can’t we live our faith everyday and not just be restricted to a church building? These are sad times for believers. When we can’t celebrate the birth of our savior without having satan given equal footing, we have lost our way as a nation.
Comment by John on December 18, 2023 at 6:01 pm
The Satan Temple is not actually run by devil worshippers. It’s run by atheists and secular humanists. They even say as much on their website. Satan isn’t their god, he’s their mascot and the only reason they’ve adopted him is because they want to make Christians squirm. They’re out to prove that religion makes otherwise decent people irrational and violent, and that Christians will hypocritcally defend their own 1st Amendment rights while trampling on the rights of others with glee. And Michael Cassidy just did their work for them. The only way to beat this group is to “turn the other cheek” by ignoring them.