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!”
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.
As I understand it, she made the TikTok, TST’s legal team threatened her and told her if she read out a retraction online that’d be the end of it, she did and they sued her anyway. Is that wrong or misrepresentative?
You’re right that it’s just one event. But it’s just one event in an ever growing series of actions/words from TST leadership. Surely at some point you have to stop looking at these through the lens of ‘well it was a long time ago and it was just a one off’ and possibly see that these type of things just keep happening. At what point are there enough ‘one offs’ to make you wonder if possibly there’s an issue?
The way I see it from my readings you had a person who had major disagreements and could have simply left and instead kept using the name and refusing to give up control of sites now associated with tst. They said they would do xyz but always tried to almost technically do stuff but then turn around and pull some other shenanigans. I don’t know about the news week but as long as people are taking the satanic housewife or the tax thing (which is related to republican rules which required religions to take the tax break to retain constitutional rights as a religion) im going to throw out whatever is thrown in there. If you want to create a new narrative around the newsweek thing that may work but housewife and taxes are a loadstone at this point on any argument against tst or its leadership.
I think thats a highly selective version of events but ok, let’s say youre right. Is saying you won’t sue someone if they post a retraction and then after they do suing them anyway either merited or a good use of donated money?
Not sure what you mean about Newsweek. What new narrative? I merely linked to it as a resource.
But again, ok, let’s dismiss the satanic housewife thing. Even without that, are you saying that with all the things TST owners have said and done you see no cause for concern?
im fine with TST and how its run atm. They only make money with their merch. They do plenty with ass and the displays and of course the tenets are great. I see no cause for concern that might be the result of highly selective versions which I feel is what I see with posts like yours actually. It lacks a lot of nitty gritty and I have been alive long enough to have to have dealt with people who comply and sabotage concurrently.
Then tell me what I’m wrong about. It should be easy as I’ve linked directly to the website with the various court judgments linked to.
If you feel I’m being selective then please tell me how. I’m totally open to factual correction.
I’m coming from all this from the perspective of someone who was close to joining TST and had a current member (at the time) link to all this stuff. So one of the owners said some antisemitic stuff on a right wing podcaster/online radio hosts show and also expounded on his belief in eugenics that people with an arbitrary level of intelligence shouldn’t be allowed to reproduce. Years later, when thus resurfaced, he said he regretted the antisemitism and I believe he meant it. I’ve never heard any regret expressed for the eugenics though. Maybe I’ve just never seen it.
He also withdrew from a conference of some kind as they banned Augustus Sol Invictus an openly neo-nazi Satanist, citing free speech concerns. At best a weird hill to die on, at worst a Muskish free speech absolutism akin to letting people like Alex Jones back on Twitter.
Other movement leaders relationships with various alt right figures like Milo whatever his last name is.
One of the owners trying to operate some kind of weird Cargo Cult.
Inviting a known transphobe to TST HQ (during Pride month no less!), then refusing to apologize or even try to understand why so many people were so hurt, claiming he didn’t know the guy was a transphobe despite them following each other on Twitter where the guy is openly transphobic, being described by the guy as ‘my friend’ and I believe them appearing on at least one Panel together.
Shutting down Sober Faction despite them (SF) being a court mandated program thus immediately putting people in violation of court orders.
None of that concerns you? Either individually or as a pattern of behavior?
Well one you are not wrong. Your summary just lacks context and no im not going to go about looking through and reading the various sites that give detail on the situation to prove my point. I have done that and I did not keep a ledger of resources and im not going through the time on this again. anyone can believe what they want about the situation but my end conclusion is there is some justification for their actions and this person could have walked away much earlier and it would have not gotten to where it did. I may have done the same in their shoes.
Those are all pretty one side sources heavy on hearsay and light on details and facts.
Then follow through to the court documents - the links are on there.
I already explained to your sock puppet why that’s your responsibility in the argument, not mine.
My sockpuppet? Let’s be adult about this please.
You asked for a source, I’m telling you where they are. I’ve led you to the water, but I can’t make you drink it.