Breaking the Idols - Iowa Style

Surely the story about the religious extremist vandalizing a Satanic Temple display in Iowa State Capitol has not escaped your notice. Iowa, like Nebraska, allows groups to apply for space to put up displays in the public area of the State House. I don't know all of the requirements, but, in accordance with First Amendment principles, Iowa does not exclude displays by religious groups that the majority may disapprove of. There's a school of thought that a government building should have no religious displays in it, but some jurisdictions have compromised and allowed any and all religions to apply for display space. That's where the Satanists come in.

There's an old joke that asks "What do you call a person who believes in (a literal) Satan?" - the answer? "A Christian". Satan is a figure from the sacred books of the Abrahamic religions. He appears by name in the Book of Job, is equated with "The Devil" of the gospels and epistles, and is known as Shaitan in the Quran. The various groups known as Satanists, despite what Christians may think, don't worship, believe in, honor, or otherwise acknowledge the existence of a literal Satan. The Satanic Temple, the group that put up the display in Iowa can be described as a humanist religion. They have "Seven Principles" - the first is "One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason." The other six can be found here on their website. Looked at dispassionately, they sound pretty good! "Satanic" (as well as atheist) groups have often petitioned state and local governments to have their statues or other displays erected alongside Christian displays in order to counter placement of religious imagery. The most well-known of the proposed retorts to government sponsored religion was the Oklahoma Baphomet Statue. Oklahoma had placed a sculpture of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the State Capitol. There were legal challenges based on the First Amendment's establishment clause. Among the challenges was an application by The Satanic Temple to place a 9-foot tall statue of Baphomet next to the Ten Commandments. Eventually the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that no religious statues could be placed on government property and the Ten Commandments monument was moved and the Baphomet statue found another home. 

What The Satanist Temple and similar groups around the country aim to accomplish is not to promote Satanism in public spaces, but to stop the exclusive promotion of Christianity in those same spaces. The thinking is that if government is going to ignore the First Amendment, let's force them to ignore it in favor of all religions - the unpopular ones being most effective at making the point. While some jurisdictions have gone the inclusive route, others have eliminated all religious displays, as well as religious prayers. That's the point. 

The background to the Iowa vandalism isn't any different than similar situations. Iowa allows groups, including religious ones, to apply for display space for a limited time. Around this time of year there is usually a nativity scene. The Satanic Temple applied for, and received approval to place their display in the Capitol. Before the actual destruction of the display, social media was abuzz with complaints about it. Most of these complaints appeared to be ignorant of the fact that the Satanic Temple display was a response to the presence of Christian displays, which had been there every holiday season for several years; the complainers angrily demanding that nativity displays be erected to counter this Devil worship (as they put it) even though they had been. It was characterized as offensive and blasphemous - which was the point. 

Fast forward to Michael Cassidy, a failed state legislative candidate from Mississippi, who traveled to Des Moines in some kind of Old Testament idol-smashing fantasy in order to destroy what he considered a blasphemous image. What's disturbing about this isn't that someone vandalized a temporary display. People break stuff all the time. It's how mainstream the vandal is and how much cheerleading he is receiving from the ranks of Christians. 

Cassidy's initial statement was that his destruction of property was a "peaceful protest". This isn't simply a lack of awareness of his actions, but a deliberate statement. During the BLM protests of 2020, it has been documented that the vast majority of protests did not include violence or property damage. The small percentage that did received recurring coverage in the media and the reproach of right wingers. MAGA oriented commenters would juxtapose an image of rioters looting and burning with the caption "peaceful protest", mocking the protesters' perceived hypocrisy. Apologists for the January 6th insurrection began calling it a peaceful protest. (Sometimes to suggest that no violence actually occurred, other times to point out that they were no worse than BLM protesters 6 months earlier). Trump would call campaign rallies that flouted Covid restrictions as "peaceful protests", playing to his supporters' belief that BLM protests were sanctioned despite the pandemic. Calling destruction of property a "peaceful protest" is clearly a "F You" to anyone who might view his actions in a negative light. 

Cassidy's action itself is not an attack on the First Amendment. It's simply an act of vandalism that is apparently being dealt within the Iowa legal system. He was charged with fourth degree criminal mischief, which could result in a sentence of one year and a fine of $2,560. If he's a first offender I doubt he'll see jail time. He should be treated just like anyone else who has done similar things. The people who defaced Confederate statues faced similar charges, as did the man who used his car to destroy the Ten Commandments monument in Oklahoma a few years ago. Cassidy got his 15 minutes of fame. He's this year's Kyle Rittenhouse without going through the trouble of shooting people. No, what is disturbing is the response. 

Social media isn't the real world, but in many ways it's a reflection of it. In the run up to the 2016 election I saw many posts by rabid Trump supporters, as well as cheerleaders for people like Cliven Bundy. I dismissed a lot of these posts as not representative of the nation as a whole. But after seeing how Trump received more than enough votes to be elected in 2016 and how his brand of the politics of hate reflected in local politics as well as national, I realized that social media is a reliable barometer of how people are thinking in this country. Social media has been full of comments by people who believe that Cassidy was justified in his actions. Their rationale is what's scary, and that there are enough right wing politicians and judges who agree that's scarier. 

Christians have every right to the opinion that Satan is the evil antagonist against God. They even have the right to ignorantly believe that organized Satanism isn't about worshipping a literal Satan. Or that their religion, or their version of their religion is the only true one. What they don't have the right to do is insist that our laws and practices conform to their opinions and beliefs. The initial outcry against the Satanist display in Iowa was ignorant on several counts. It was ignorant of the fact that it was a response to previous and current religious displays, and it was ignorant of what The Temple of Satan really was. After Cassidy's vandalism the justification for his action was mainly based on a misapprehension that The Bible was the governing document of the United States, not the Constitution. A recurring theme was that Satanism either wasn't a "real" religion and should be "allowed" to call itself a religion. This was often based on the mistaken belief by people who understood that Satanism was actually a Humanist organization that a religion must have a god or other supernatural component. Those who thought The Satanic Temple were literal Satan worshippers were of the opinion that Satanism shouldn't be recognized as a "real" religion because "Satan is evil". Others pointed at "liberalism" for promoting evil. All those in support (to be fair, there were a lot of rebuttals and denouncements of Cassidy's actions too) had one thing in common: they believed strongly that they could determine whether a religion was legitimate and even when it was "evil". If that part wasn't bad enough, they further believed that the government should be an arbiter of what is a legitimate religion. Confronted by the clear constitutional stance that the government could do no such thing, they were unmoved, doubling down that the First Amendment didn't apply to what they considered evil. 

If this were just a bunch of amateur constitutional "scholars" I'd be less concerned. But Republican politicians have been more willing lately to push a strictly Christian agenda, and the Supreme Court has been more willing to allow things like public prayer at government sponsored events. Members of Congress have been open about wanting to return the country to overt de jure Christian dominance. A Congresswoman recently declared herself a Christian Nationalist (no, a Christian Nationalist isn't simply a patriot who happens to be a Christian). Like the argument that I made the other day about there being no compromise with abortion opponents because they have no intention of stopping short of a full, no exceptions ban, Christian Nationalists have no intention of compromising on their goal of turning us into a theocracy. A few politicians have weighed in with support for Cassidy, notably Governor DeSantis of Florida, but I'm sure that others will come out of the woodwork. Seeing enough ground level support, "destroying the idols" will be the next campaign slogan. (Look for it to take up some time in the Nebraska legislature's next session - I hope I'm joking)

When they tell you what they're going to do - believe them.