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!”
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.
No links to articles. This comment chain sounds like a sock puppet account talking to itself.
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.
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?
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.
Read their court cases. 100 percent a funding grift, add to the fact that they don’t disclose finances.
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?
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
Sure, guilt by association is tenuous at best. Thats why I was at at pains to stress I don’t think TST is infiltrated by the alt-right. The links are (to me) troublesome but more indicative of a lack of judgement on TST owners part than outright malice. Putting someone who was a name and friends with bigger names in the manosphere/alt-right in such an influential position is (again, to me) concerning. The alt-right are/were fairly cultish and I think at the very least, Stevens needed a LOT more time to be ‘deprogrammed’ (if that’s the right word) before reaching that level of influence.
I never attended a rally (I’m not American which is where TST are biggest) but I have chatted online with numerous TST and ex-TST people and all of them without fail are good people who believe in the 7 tenets and try to do good things. I’m just not sure how much good you can do as a member of an org when the ownership of that company/religion do and say (to put the best possible spin on it) things that seem to directly countermand those tenets.
I hope TST owners take this chance to legally pursue the person who’s vandalised their display. That would show two things - that they see the possibility of making a noise about the hypocrisy of xtians who live in a country with freedom of religion and also that they’re more interested in pursuing a legal course that might achieve a lot more than suing a few ex-members for absolutely zero reason and zero gain.