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!”
Here’s an opportunity for TST leadership to prove they’re willing to sue more than just traumatised ex-members. I wonder if they’ll take it.
What are you talking about? Aren’t these the ones that sue to allow all religions fair representation or none at all? There is another church of satan you may be confusing them with.
TST is slightly less of loser con artists than the Church of Satan… slightly.
If you actually look at the legal cases they file, it’s either piggybacking on FFRF, or completely unhinged legal arguments that every serious person knows is absurd and is merely fundraising from their gullible audience.
That’s really disappointing. I guess I’m the gullible one since I thought TST was doing good work. FFRF seems like a great organization. Never heard anything bad about them. I still remember the talk Dan Barker gave at my college like 10 years ago.
TST are in the process of suing several ex-members after these ex members left TST after some old antisemitic statements made by one if its owners resurfaced.
They’re also suing an ex member who made a tiktok video about the ex members.
There’s a lot more to these stories. Search Newsweek for more.
They didn’t leave, they were kicked out, and they hijacked and vandalized their chapter’s Facebook page to retaliate. That’s what they’re being sued over.
That’s what TST’s legal team claimed, sure, but so far after several tries, they’ve failed to prove any of that in court and have lost at every stage. It feels like they’re just continuing to sue to out of vindictiveness. Their legal arguments are bizarre to the point they were advised by a judge they’d do better representing themselves than taking advice from their current legal team.
There were two FB Groups, one of which was handed back to TST by the defendants after FB, (not the Courts, this was before legal action) asked them to. That was the official chapter Page. The second FB Page didn’t have (as far as I’m aware) any named link to TST at all. I can’t recall exactly what it was called, something like ‘Evergreen Memes For Satanists’.
Is this really the best legal use for all the donations people make? Chasing a group of people for no substantive reason?
You know how I know you’re full of shit?
You cannot just keep suing someone over the same problem after you lose. If you “lose at every stage”, you lose pretty fucking quickly! Stop lying on the internet.
You really need to go read the legal pages on the plaintiffs website I linked to above, it’ll outline it all for you. I concede that, not being American, I might get the terminology wrong, but the basics are correct. They’ve (TST) brought numerous claims and appeals, all of which have failed so far.
I like how your position rn is “bro just read the court documents” and everyone still hates you.
It’s fine - the court documents are right there, accessible to absolutely anyone. If people chose not to read them for whatever reason there’s nothing I can do about that.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
If this organisation represent actual freedom, then why are they suing people for no good reason I can see? Why do their leaders not want to go on conferences where neo-nazi’s are banned because of free speech concerns but also ban their branding being used by their members at BLM protests?
Already have been ;) the 6 year old Org I’m a member of welcomed our new USA Order just last month after they disaffiliated from TST.
Wait wtf, they are also suing Newsweek for publishing an article on them.
Awhile back on my local subreddit, I read about some shady shit the local TST chapter was up to, seemingly in line with what was described in that Newsweek article. I didn’t read too much into it at the time, since it was just one anecdote. Now all these clearly SLAPP suits make me wonder if the whole TST is shady. I hope not, because I like the work they’re doing. But you never know with people.
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?
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.
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?
Read their court cases. 100 percent a funding grift, add to the fact that they don’t disclose finances.
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.