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!”
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.
The Newsweek article that talks about the lawsuit against the Seattle ex-members:
https://www.newsweek.com/orgies-harassment-fraud-satanic-temple-rocked-accusations-lawsuit-1644042
An article talking about The Satanic Temple suing Newsweek:
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/03/09/most-libel-claims-by-the-satanic-temple-against-newsweek-dismissed-but-not-claim-over-sexual-abuse-allegations/
This is all clearly public and known information, and I don’t know where the confusion lies about what specifically we’re talking about. But if you feel like it, you may read the articles I’ve linked.
I understand how debates and burden of proof works. But really, I’m not out to prove anything, since I don’t know all the details and can’t take a stance that I would feel comfortable formally defending. I have no intention of making grand claims. What I’m giving you is my honest-to-God (honest-to-Satan?) opinion and first impression based on something that probably would have taken you less effort to Google than it took for you to type that comment. And my first impression is basically “wtf that clearly looks like a SLAPP suit, and makes me rethink some other things I’ve read about TST”. My hope is always for someone knowledgeable to jump in if they wish to. The truth is, I’m also lazy, and I have no desire to spend hours digging into every issue just because it looks odd. I don’t owe you that. How you’d like to interpret that is your own burden.
By the way, when it comes to citing sources, I’m under no obligation to place the information into your lap. Yes, the web often makes that easy. But I could just as easily cite a book if one exists. Or just say The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Newsweek Magazine LLC and now it’s your job to look it up.
Edit: speaking of burdens of proof, where is yours that I’m a sock puppet?