Three years ago, a horned figure of Baphomet stood inside the Iowa State Capitol alongside
Christmas trees, a nativity scene, menorahs and other seasonal displays. The state had approved The Satanic Temple of Iowa’s installation under rules that opened the rotunda to outside groups. Gov. Kim Reynolds disliked it, but defended the principle behind its presence: “In a free society, the best response to objectionable speech is more speech.”
One man, however, decided a hammer would be a more effective response. He would later enter the rotunda and destroy the statue.
The incident has blossomed into a federal religious-freedom case with potentially tremendous consequences. On August 13, The Satanic Temple and a Satanic minister from Iowa named Mortimer Adramelech sued the Iowa Department of Administrative Services, its current director Mark Campbell, and its former director Adam Steen. They allege Iowa rejected their 2024 and 2025 holiday events because officials disapproved of their religion, then delayed a 2026 application.
The lawsuit has not been decided. At this stage, those are the plaintiffs’ allegations, not judicial findings. But the case puts an unusually sharp question before the state: if government opens a public space to religious expression, how much room does it have to decide which religions belong there?
From Baphomet to Krampus
The dispute began in December 2023, when The Satanic Temple received permission for its Baphomet display in the Capitol rotunda. The installation drew protests and prayer gatherings. On December 14, a Mississippi man decided he had had enough. He entered the rotunda and damaged the statue beyond repair. While he was initially charged with a hate crime, he was later permitted to plead guilty to a reduced charge of third-degree criminal mischief.
Then came the group's next confrontation with the state.
On July 12, 2024, The Satanic Temple applied to hold a four-day public reading of John Milton's Paradise Lost at the Capitol. Two weeks later, on July 26, the Iowa Department of Administrative Services suddenly revised its rules for events at the Capitol complex. Among the changes, organizations would generally be restricted to one event per calendar year, and multi-day events would no longer be permitted.
Officials applied the new rules to The Satanic Temple's pending application. The group could hold a one-day Paradise Lost event, but doing so would consume its sole event for the year and prevent it from returning for its planned December holiday gathering. The Satanic Temple withdrew the application for the Milton reading in order to save its allotted event for December.
Former DAS Director Adam Steen has since publicly linked these policy changes to the controversy over Satanic events at the Capitol. Speaking in October 2025, Steen said, “I’m also the guy that changed the policy to make sure that we weren’t going to lose a ‘free speech’ argument.” At a campaign appearance the following May, Steen described state officials as realizing after the Baphomet controversy that the existing policy left them “exposed,” and said the department subsequently changed its rules.
So, Milton discarded, the Satanists applied to host a one-day holiday event on December 14, 2024. According to the federal complaint, its plans included crafts like coloring pages and make-and-take ornaments, as well a religious ritual, the singing of Satanic carols, and a Krampus costume contest. Krampus, a horned figure from Central European folklore, is traditionally portrayed as punishing misbehaving children during the Christmas season.
State administrators requested more details about the program. The congregation supplied song lyrics, coloring pages, ornament information, costume photographs and a description of the ritual. Four days later, Director Steen denied the application under a Capitol rule barring obscene material and gratuitous violence or gore.
Steen later informed the group that the presence of minors, combined with Krampus costumes featuring sticks that could potentially be used as weapons, made the event harmful to children, according to correspondence quoted in the complaint. The Satanists clarified that the sticks were props and that they had no plans to strike children with them, and even went so far as to offer to remove the costume contest entirely. No dice.
Iowa did deny some other groups seeking to hold events on the the same December 14 date in 2024, including a Mennonite youth group and a Christmas chorale. The complaint says those applications missed the Capitol’s 30-day deadline. The Satanic Temple’s application was timely, and the stated reason for its rejection was very different.
What Was Iowa Protecting?
Before the new federal lawsuit was filed, Iowa officials defended the 2024 decision as a child-safety issue rather than a ban on Satanism. Gov. Reynolds later claimed that the proposed event specifically targeted children and would have been harmful to minors. The Capitol is visited by school groups and families, and its rules allow administrators to reject events that threaten public health, safety or welfare.
That is the strongest version of Iowa’s argument. Equal access does not mean every proposed activity must be approved, and the state can enforce neutral safety rules against religious and secular groups alike.
By then, Iowa had denied another application from the group. The congregation applied again in September 2025 to hold another December holiday event in the rotunda. After corresponding with organizers and requesting event details. On November 24, the state once again denied their request to hold an event. This time, the complaint says, the message didn't cite any particular reason for the denial.
So, the Satanists applied yet again in March 2026 to hold a holiday event in the rotunda on December 12 of this year. This time, Iowa officials did eventually placed the event on the Capitol calendar and sent an agreement in July. The Satanic Temple signed and returned it, but says it still lacked final approval for the event when their lawsuit was filed.
Iowa Reverses the One-Event Rule
By then, one of the restrictions at the center of the earlier dispute had disappeared.
The one-event-per-year policy had consequences beyond The Satanic Temple. In 2025, it disrupted Music Under the Stars, a summer concert series that had been held on the Capitol grounds for nearly eight decades. The Capitol Planning Commission subsequently recommended changing the policy.
Then the Iowa Legislature stepped in.
In April 2026, Gov. Reynolds signed HF 2671, legislation prohibiting the Department of Administrative Services from approving or denying an application based on the number of events an individual or organization has already requested or held at the Capitol complex. The bill passed the Senate unanimously, 46-0, and the House approved the amended version 92-0.
The current Capitol agreement sent to The Satanic Temple in July no longer includes the one-event-per-year restriction. Indoor events are still generally limited to a single day, although the DAS director has authority to approve exceptions.
The result is an unusual chronology now facing the federal court. Iowa allowed the Baphomet display in 2023. Officials changed the Capitol's event policies after The Satanic Temple sought to return in 2024. The state rejected Satanic holiday events in both 2024 and 2025. Then lawmakers eliminated one of the new restrictions before the group applied again in 2026.
Iowa’s Religious Freedom Law Enters the Case
The timing gives the lawsuit another dimension. In April 2024, Gov. Reynolds signed Iowa’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA. The law generally bars state and local government from substantially burdening religious exercise unless doing so serves a compelling governmental interest through the least restrictive means available.
The law was enacted to protect religious exercise, and in recent years some argue that the wave of "religious freedom" laws that have been passed in a number of states are being used primarily to pave the way for Christianity to play a larger role in the lives of the public. Now, The Satanic Temple is hoping to utilize that doorway too.
The lawsuit also brings claims under the First Amendment’s protections for speech and religious exercise, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and the Iowa Civil Rights Act. The plaintiffs seek damages for the earlier denials and an injunction requiring nondiscriminatory treatment of future applications. They also want the court to allow the December 2026 event to take place while the case proceeds.
The case arrives with one administrative finding already in the record. In November 2025, the Iowa Office of Civil Rights concluded that the group’s discrimination complaint over the 2024 event warranted further investigation. The federal complaint describes the report as finding probable cause to believe discrimination may have occurred. That was not a final judicial ruling.
As of August 20, however, Iowa officials have not yet filed their substantive response to the new federal lawsuit, so it is not yet clear precisely how the state will defend the challenged decisions in court.
Does Satanism Count as Religion?
For readers who hear “Satanic Temple” and immediately picture devil worship, some clarification is probably in order.
The Satanic Temple describes itself as a nontheistic religious organization. It does not teach that Satan is a literal supernatural being. Instead, it uses Satan as a literary symbol of rebellion against arbitrary authority and organizes its ethics around seven tenets dealing with compassion, justice, bodily autonomy, scientific understanding and individual liberty. It is distinct from the Church of Satan founded by Anton LaVey in the 1960s. Some ministers of the Universal Life Church also hold beliefs aligned with those of the Satanic Temple.
That distinction, however, does not make its imagery less offensive to Christians who understand Satan as the embodiment of evil. The fury over the Baphomet display in Iowa was genuine. Gov. Reynolds called the display “absolutely objectionable,” while others staged protests and prayer gatherings around it.
But distaste for a particular religion, many argue, should have little bearing on its legal treatment. That leaves a hard question for the court: did officials apply neutral rules to the group? Or treat it differently because of its religious viewpoint?
That principle has produced similar disputes elsewhere. When lawmakers have proposed religious chaplains in public schools, the Satanic Temple has sought access for its own ministers. And during a Black Mass controversy at the Kansas Capitol, officials faced another clash between offensive religious expression and access to public space.
Equal Access Gets Uncomfortable
None of that guarantees The Satanic Temple will win. Iowa can argue that administrators enforced legitimate rules for a government building, and a judge will have to assess the record rather than the parties’ descriptions of it. The 2026 application also differs from the previous two because the state has already taken steps toward approval instead of formally rejecting it.
For Universal Life Church ministers, the dispute touches a question that extends far beyond Satanism: when government creates space for religion, what does equal treatment require when the next faith through the door looks nothing like the last one?
The Satanic Temple has asked the court to rule on preliminary relief by November 20 so it has time to prepare for its December 12 event.
Where should a state be allowed to set limits on religious events in a public building, and what evidence should it need to show those limits concern safety rather than the religion involved?
95 comments
-
Pastor Dan
With all due respect, please consider using punctuation when you write. Your 238 word single sentence response is very difficult to read, and therefore difficult to understand.
-
John Casillo
Attorneys for either side will be glad to meet you....hope you guess their cost!
-
David A Foreman
Religious Freedom isn't just for right-wing fundamentalist evangelical (so called) Christians! For all their ranting and raving about religious freedom, that has NEVER been what they want. They want Religious Privilege. And they want it only for themselves!!!
-
Pastor Wm. Dawson
You know people if you were trying to be Christian you wouldn't be worrying about whose seat is at the table you wouldn't worry about what religion is doing because religion is false anyway there is only one way to please God and that's his way which is not a religion besides that it's in the scriptures that Satan is the ruler of the world at this time so he can do whatever he wants to whenever he wants to but all you have to do is do what God says quit worrying about what everybody else does or says or what Satan says and does because there's no way you can control that you just need to buckle down and do what God has in store for you do what he says follow him and nothing else that's all you have to do in this life your life is nothing but a passing shadow a fleeting piece of wind so you really don't have time to worry about anything else you don't know when your time is up and when you're going to pass away so only focus on what you need to focus on and that's the holy Scripture and God that's it it's simple you just don't have to try to change it into what you think it should be just take it for what it says to do and it's so easy people come on
-
Joe R Day
Perhaps some info about what the Satanic Temple advocates:
"The Satanic Temple are a set of ethical and humanist guiding principles rather than rigid religious laws. "1. Compassion: Act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures, guided by reason. "2. Justice: Pursue justice, which should prevail over established laws and institutions. "3. Bodily Autonomy: One's body is inviolable, subject only to one's own will. "4. Freedom: Respect the freedoms of others, including the freedom to offend. "5. Scientific Understanding: Beliefs should align with the best scientific understanding, never distorting facts. "6. Fallibility: Acknowledge personal fallibility and strive to rectify mistakes. "7. Nobility: Emphasize noble action, compassion, and wisdom over rigid dogma.
I do not disagree with any of these 'tenets' and I wonder why all the hoorah? In my Opinion, this is just a 'mental illness' among those who are so afraid of a make-believe, supernatural entity, that no one has seen in thousands of years, that they howl when someone who believes differently is allowed to have a 'display' in a government building...
I don't think that I will ever understand that type of attitude/belief...
-
Patricia Ann Gross
JRD,
I wondered the same things. The principles are very tame and in alignment with Christian thought, so my question is more to why in the world would they pick a name like the Satanic Temple?
-
-
Rev. Lindsay
It's pretty ridiculous to even give any time to debate this. This is basically worshiping a false image of Satan that looks more like an animal than a person but what they're praying to isn't God but a piece of wood or stone hoping that will give them evil power. Idolatry like this isn't religion which must require doing for other. Look at James 1;27 - Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. This means real religion starts with helping the hurting. Worshipping a piece of wood or stone and dabbling in the occult doesn't come close to being a religion in any form.
-
Rev. BH
Rev. L. Worshipping before a wooden cross or stone statue of some saint is different how?
-
Rev. Lindsay
I wouldn't know. I don't worship stone saints or wooden crosses.
-
-
-
Rev. Dr. Travis McMillan
Just my two satoshis on this one:
When it comes to matters of the church, that's you, me, an organization, whatever. We can be exclusive if we want.
I've left groups behind over nonsense like what I will describe shortly. I'm my own solo church these days.
The things I do not require from anyone and they are as follows as granted by the First Amendment to the Constitution:
Permission from anyone to practice within reason.
Consent from anyone to practice within reason
and Approval. I operate without any of those three.
...I also don't require a big ol honkin' statue of The Allfather at the capitol building...in any state. I don't request The Nine Noble Virtues, The Seven Principles of Hermeticism (though displaying that alongside The Ten Commandments might actually deepen some people's understanding of their religious texts...just...sayin...) or Mjolnir to be displayed publicly.
As a minister, if I feel a couple may be incompatible or even toxic for each other, I can decline to officiate the marriage if I so desire. The State can not compel me, fine me or anything of the sort. The couple can find a minister that will marry them. The State also can not tell me who I can instruct in ceremonial practices and who I can not. I decide that. Within my walls, within my being, I am not property so they can take a nice long walk off of a very short fjord with that opinion and then we shall speak.
On public land, I expect nothing other than my right to act in accordance with my religious, spiritual and ethical principles. I will do that, regardless. Within. Reason. Spare me the paranoia, I won't even bother with it.
The Satanic Temple and the State seem to have missed some things and they're playing dangerous games with, not religious freedoms...but the protections of them.
Both of them need to knock it off before someone not involved gets hurt and they cause a massive storm they aren't equipped to stop.
Some of us are just a little more than beyond policy at this point...one way or the other.
-
Rev. Miche'al Yosef Dixon
FYI Mjolnir and the corpse of Thor are in the Neithland museum of natural history. They Found his tomb in 1990s proving 1) He did exist but as human. 2) Mjolnir is a normal designed Norse war hammer flat round end like modern hammer, and pointed spike on other end. The biggest question it gave scientist is why it's made of steel 1200 years ahead of it's time, that's why it seem mystics ripping through copper/Bronze armor like hot knife through butter. 3) DNA test show Thor and corpse of Perseus (of Greek Myth found his tomb also) in Turkey museum of natural history has the same father 1300 years apart from each other. Another head scratcher for scientist. Ranks up there with scientist still cannot explain Duck bill platypus and how bumblebees fly.
-
-
Cam Kirmser
The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law," etc., etc., etc.
The Tenth Amendment gives the state authority to make laws that do not conflict with the dictates of the Constitution.
So, since Iowa is not Congress, I would say that state is fully within its authority to deny Satanism a place.
-
Patricia Ann Gross
Kam,
The Tenth Amendment only gives states authority to things that are not delegated to the United States through the Constitution, therefore a state cannot deny anyone something that the first amendment specifically grants them.
-
Cam Kirmser
I don't see how repeating, in essence, what I posted accomplishes anything.
What is it the state is denying that the First Amendment specifically grants?
Of course, I'm leaving out the protections granted by the Second Amendment that are ignored by the states on a regular basis.
-
Patricia Ann Gross
Cam,
The lawsuit is alledging religious freedom.
-
Cam Kirmser
Could you point out where CONGRESS is restricting religious freedom?
Read the First Amendment sometime. It says, "CONGRESS shall make no law..."
-
Patricia Ann Gross
Cam,
Congress isn't. Iowa is. That's against the 10th Amendment, that you and I have both quoted. States cannot infringe on what Federal Government has provided.
-
Cam Kirmser
The Tenth Amendment clearly states;
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The First Amendment defines a prohibition directly targeted at Congress, the federal government. Therefore, religion is NOT a power delegated to the United States and nowhere does the First Amendment prohibit laws on religion to the States.
So, no infringement.
-
Patricia Ann Gross
Cam,
You are not making any sense. 'Congress is part of the Federal Government. You really need to go back to Civics Class.
All that the 10th Amendment is saying is that whatever is not federal law (enacted by Congress or the Constitution) is up to the states to decide. Free speech, a free press, and freedom of religion is guaranteed by the Constitution, so states do not have the rights to take that away. So if Congress cannot make such a law, neither can the states. It all runs downhill.
-
Cam Kirmser
Gee, guess all those Constitutional Law classes were wrong. Some guy on the internet knows something they don't.
You seem to have a grasp on the words of the Tenth Amendment, but not so much it's meaning.
What part of "Congress shall make no law" do you not understand?
"CONGRESS" is not the states. Congress is the FEDERAL government, not the state governments.
If your claim was right, explain why the Tenth Amendment says, "nor prohibited by it to the States."
The First Amendment does not say, "The states may make no law," it specifically says, "Congress." It is a prohibition to Congress, not the states. The First Amendment defines restrictions on the FEDERAL government.
You do know what "federal" means, right?
-
Patricia Ann Gross
Cam,
First of all, I'm not a guy (but often I'm mistakenly referred to as one, so you aren't the first), nor did I ever go to law school, but since you did, I did some research on my own and you are right, because EVERY state has made laws reflecting many of the first and second amendment rights, but most of them are either further explaining the rights, some put guardrails around them (like yelling "fire" in a crowded building or limiting the sale of weapons of mass destruction to individuals not associated with law enforcement or the military.) These are "common sense" types of laws, usually enacted in response to horrific incidents where there was massive injury or loss of life, and most have made it all the way to the Supreme Court.
States rights have also been challenged significantly in court, most notably Brown v. Board of Education (a human/civil rights issue) and interstate traffic laws, which have had mixed results and still cause significant confusion for people on long-distance road trips, as speed limits (even alcohol limits, as well as gun-carry laws) vary from state to state. Simply crossing the line in some cases can be breaking the law.
While "common sense" laws reflect on the public good, it will be interesting to see where religious freedom laws land with the Supreme Court rulings, as so far they have had a mixed outcome, depending on the Court's makeup as we saw with Roe. v. Wade.
The bottom line is, that most states have upheld the same first amendment rights, some with stronger language, and some with guardrails, so there is a huge consensus within this country that the freedom of speach, press, religion and assembly are afforded everyone.
-
Cam Kirmser
First off, apologies for the "guy" thing; force of habit.
You mention the First and Secomnd Amendments. They are very different things.
The First Amendment specifically calls out Congress. Congress is prohibited from making such laws as the First proscribes.
The Second Amendment is more broad. It specifies no one. It directly states, "shall not be infringed." Not "Congress shall not infringe," not "states shall not infringe," but "shall not infringe" in general. So, not only is Congress prohibited from infringing, so are states. However, the Second is abused regularly by states and Congress.
One is quite free to cry out, "Fire!," in a crowded building, but there had better be a fire. This is not a "guardrail," it is facing the consequences of one's acts.
"Common sense" laws is a meaningless phrase created by the left in an attempt to show their superiority, to make a claim that anyone in opposition is clearly not sensible. But, by default, the left is very sensible, of course.
They use this phrase to look down their elitist noses at the unwashed masses, letting them know not to worry their little minds; just accept what their betters have decided and go about their little lives, leaving the big decisions to their democraat masters.
Interstate travel is, as stated in the Constitution, under federal purview; intrastate is the States'. Are there differences? Sure, because we are a Federal Republic, not a democracy. We are a collection of sovereign states who agreed to get together under a federal government - a strictly controlled federal government.
States are well within their 10th Amendment authority to accept the First Amendment as is; that's not the point. The point is, the Amendment dictates a prohibition to Congress, not to the States. But, if a state chooses to accept the burden, they can do so; it's simply not forced on them.
-
Patricia Ann Gross
Cam,
What's with you? Once again, you are continuing to argue after being told you won the argument.
-
Cam Kirmser
Not that I'm trying to "win" anything, that wasn't terribly clear.
But, fine, I'm done, then.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Peter Bradford Simmons
We are not judge, jury OR executioner. You don't get to say your rights should be protected while infringing on the freedoms of others to worship however they choose. Cancel Culture is the real plague. IT is the bare minimum register for human decency. Go to your church. Erect your crosses, but if an inverted one is next to it, why the outrage? Does this country not belong to EVERY citizen? Well... of course it doesn't. But this issue is a human rights violation, not a theological debate or your next self-righteous soapbox. Step down. Embrace your shadow rather than morning the larger one you let your invisible masters Lord over you while claiming women are equal to men and having the most sacred parts of you gatekept by the corruption of the Patriarchy. Spare us the "holy anger", and let your Lilithian Righteous Indignation and indomitability, RISE Goddesses - Peter Bradford Simmons. [Kairos Koaching] www.aetherisportal.com
-
Reverend Paula Copp
Nothing like Christians to make life miserable for everyone else…
-
James Trenton Smith
...as miserable as Muslims...? The truth is that you have no clue how miserable it truly is out from under the Protective Umbrella of the Christian Patriarchy. The only reason you get to speak is because a good Christian Man will not permit another man to make you shut up. The only reason you get to show your face and freely move about Santa Rosa, California is because of the blood spilled by Christian Men to beat back the darkness that they bring. So when the day comes to pick a side... go over to them and be as free, safe, and happy as THEY permit. The will you know...
-
-
Keith Allen Steele Eash
To defend Allajh as the same God as what the Jews worship is simply insane. One. Allah is the moon God that Abraham once worshiped. The Muslims call him the God of Abraham. NotbthevGod of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
“ It does not teach that Satan is a literal supernatural being. Instead, it uses Satan as a literary symbol of rebellion against arbitrary authority and organizes its ethics around seven tenets dealing with compassion, justice, bodily autonomy, scientific understanding and individual liberty.”
I wonder how many xtians on this group that read this particular post they thought to what is being said here. To some degree, meaning I’m sure there are points in their 7 tenants, they agree with the teachings of Jesus. I expect that for the majority of them just like they don’t believe in Satan is being a literal being they also don’t believe in Jesus being the son of God.
What they are against is forcing religion onto other people. And when they see it happening, they simply join in. Because simply protesting does diddly squat. Protesting as a group with your name being the antithesis of their very religion gets that attention.
-
Rev. Miche'al Yosef Dixon
Interesting 🤔 you just said they oppose others forcing their religion on people by forcing their religion on other people.
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
Yeah, pissing off the religiously delusional folk. And it sometimes works. The delusional folks don’t like the presence of Satanists SO MUCH they stop doing whatever crap they were doing. Or someone higher up shuts the whole thing down for them.
So their intent is different. The religious nitwits want to force their religion on everybody else whereas the Satanist just wanna shut down the religious nitwits.
-
-
-
ServantOfJudgement
Id rather have them focus on the blood thirsty, homophobic, antisemitic, anti constitutional anti women, anti freedom, antichrist theocracy of Islam. That's the body of Satan. The arms legs and hands of Satan more than willing to eradicate all thought not of Islam.
I gotta hand it to Allah, the best deceiver, he sure has the bleeding hearts fooled to the point of them defending their own executioner.
Amazing. Almost funny.
-
Michael Hunt
The incredible irony of you calling Allah the deceiver when "Allah" is literally just the Arabic word for the Abrahamic "God" that Christians worship is one of the funniest things I've read in these comments.
https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/is-the-quranic-god-the-same-god-as-the-biblical-god/
-
Rev. Miche'al Yosef Dixon
Actually close, "Allah" is Arabic for Hebrew "Elohim" meaning "Gods" plural both translate as "God" singular. As child learning the scripture I ask Rabbi Barry Weinstein "if Elohim means gods plural why do we translate it god singular?" He went ballistic on me not to ask that "it is what it is!" Later studies I learned Hebrews entered Egypt with two deities a God and Goddess and lift Egypt with only one God. I should sue Egypt government my ancestors slaves for 400 years. Islam is formed in 600s AD by an Arabic former disciple of Christianity. Who in turn was murdered by his daughter-wife and brother to take over and twist what was started.
-
ServantOfJudgement
Absolutely correct Michael Satan desires to be God. That pr.iple is made clear in the Bible and put into practice in Islam.
If we compare the person of God of the bible and the person of Allah of the Quran we quickly and easily see the two are not the same entity. One is an imposter and liar.
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
You’re so cute. Started my Saturday morning with a chuckle.
-
Reverend Paula Copp
Wow! Simply astounding… bless your heart, SoJ
-
Lady Mutt Cat
SOJ: I think the same about the gods of the Old and New Testaments. The former’s nasty desert warrior god can’t possibly be the loving god of the latter.
-
-
Keith Allen Steele Eash
One can argue logically that Satanism is not a religion but an anti religion. Just as Islam is not a religion but also a satanic cult. They both will kill any who tru to leave it. Technically, freemasons are also an Anti religion.
-
Michael Hunt
Yes, you can logically argue that Satanism is an anti-religion, but it ultimately is still a spiritual belief, just as Atheism/Agnosticism. While there are extremists within Islam who would harm those who wanted to leave the religion, the vast majority of Muslims do not kill people who leave the faith and, with the exception of possible extremists, Satanists do not kill those who no longer decide to be Satanists. Freemasons require all members believe in a higher power of some kind so they're not exactly anti-religion.
-
Rev. Miche'al Yosef Dixon
I'm a former High Priest of The Satanic Church they didn't kill me when I left. I realized how stupid I was being, okay I was only in it for drugs and sex, but "Satan" from Hebrew "Enemy", what God wants followers saying, "all heil my Enemy!"
-
-
Lady Mutt Cat
I am proud to be a Master Mason in a co-Masonic order, and we are most definitely NOT anti-religion.
-
-
-
-
Reverend Paula Copp
Let’s have the same rules for everyone, shall we? Then there should be no issue. If the Golden Rule actually exists, then we should really pay attention to it.
-
ServantOfJudgement
Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you applies strictly to Christianity. Not Islam, not satanism not any other religion that ever was or will be. Christianity only.
Only Christians are to do to Christians as they'd have Christians do unto them.
Some people want to be abused and treated horribly. The Golden Rule is strictly a Jesus following rule.
If you ain't got Jesus, you ain't following that rule. Satanists ain't got Jesus. Done.
-
Michael Hunt
Christianity does not own the Golden Rule. We've found similar maxims in ancient Egypt as far back as 2040–1650 BCE. Christians who claim moral superiority are the ones who usually lack morality and global empathy.
In reality, nearly every religion practices some form of the Golden Rule. It's a universal virtue that's likely existed as long as humanity has, even if some groups or leaders have failed to live up to it throughout history.
-
ServantOfJudgement
The golden rule only applies to a people who share a common ideology.
An islamist can not do unto you or me as they'd have done to them.
The moment you try to cross ideology, the rule breaks.
If I do unto a drag queen as I'd have done unto me, the lipstick and chick clothes would come off and he's putting man pants on and washing off the silly face.
When jesus said this, he spoke strictly to his followers.
-
James Riggle-Johnson
Drag queen? Really? You're going to be surprised how many drag queens are Christian.
-
Michael Hunt
That's not what the Golden Rule means at all. It reduces down to, "treat others with kindness and respect, just like you would want to be treated." It doesn't mean forcing your way of life upon someone else. I can still respect someone's ideology and treat them kindly even if I disagree with them, as long as their ideology is not harming others.
-
James Trenton Smith
Have you ever opposed a religious order that harmed others... ?
-
Lady Mutt Cat
Yes, James. I for one routinely denounce the Christians of the Crusades and of the Witch burnings. Horrible murdering holier than thou types.
-
-
-
Rev. BH
SoJ, you sure have a sleazy way of speaking nonsense. And you seem curiously overconcerned about drag queens. Judge not ... SoJ.
-
James Trenton Smith
Judge for the sake of discernment... not condemnation. We are actually CALLED to Judge... and in the end will Judge even angels. The days of the polite and submissive Christian are coming to an end....
-
Lady Mutt Cat
Oh please. Christians have been murdering others who they call infidels for millennia. “Polite and submissive”? That’s a sick joke.
-
Rev. Miche'al Yosef Dixon
Don't worry if it's the Catholic Church that burns you alive at the stake like Jean de Arc they'll make you a Saint later like her. The current Poop said to a crowd about another Christian leader, "that man needs to be burned at the stake." So the Poop himself who claims himself infallible proves your point on public news world wide.
-
-
-
-
-
Patricia Ann Gross
SOJ,
A simple Google search proves you wrong:
Judaism: What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor: This is the entire Torah (Talmud, Shabat 31a)
Islam: "None of you believe until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself" (Hadith, Bukhari)
Book of Enoch: "Love your neighbors and do not call them sinners" (Enoch 99:6)
Hinduism: "This is the sum of duty: Do not do to others what would cause you pain if done to you" (Mahabharata 5.15.17)
Buddhism: "A state that is not pleasant or delightful to me must be equally so to him" (Samyutta Nikaya 55.7)
Taoism: "Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain; and your neighbor's loss as your own loss (T'ai Shan Kan Ying P'ien)
It goes on to say that while they aren't identical in each religion, the core principle is the same: Treat others as you want to be treated.
-
Rev. Dr. Travis McMillan
You've mentioned all of this ad reductio, ad nauseum and it hasn't changed anything. This is a matter of law and the law applies to all who live under it.
Your misapplication is informing me that your next logical step is to dehumanize anyone who disagrees and advocate for something terrible to happen to them. I've seen the pattern play out.
-
-
-
Kathryn Diane Taft
There is no argument or issue here. This is AMERICA. FREEDOM OF RELIGION means exactly what it says in the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! That means nobody gets to decide which ones are ok and which ones aren't! I'm going with the same thing i always end up saying; GOD IS PERFECT, DOESN'T MAKE MISTAKES SO HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY BELIEVE THAT HIS MOST BELOVED ANGEL IS NOW HIS ENEMY AND AN EVIL CREATURE? Come on, don't be ridiculous, Luci was right. There's a lot of messed up people, somebody has to care for their souls when they die, dontcha think? I'm going to go see if he needs help when i leave the planet. ( I'm sticking my tongue out at you right now, lol) Word to ur moms.....
-
Rev. Miche'al Yosef Dixon
Oh, something else. It mentioned the statue of Baphemet being attacked, that doesn't sound like the Christian that did it actually read his Bible. Jesus not once attacked the icons of other religions, only attacked those that defiled His Father's house. The only three times (once each year same place , same time; the Passover) Jesus attacked anyone that time of His coming. YHWH only twice personally attacked a icon of another deities Dagon's idol and Astroth's idol. Otherwise we are ordered to simply ignore other deities' idols. Acts 19 Apostle Paul actual supported the worship of Artemis (Diana).
-
Dr Dennis Chevalier, MDiv, PhD, DDvin, ULC honorary DD
Dixon, You should re-read those sections and accompanying scripture. Jesus attacks much more.
... And to save time. And arguments. No, I'm not gonna take my very expensive education to task to list-out everything that you should already know when you profess to know everything.
Dr. D
-
Rev. BH
Dr. DC etc. May I ask where your "very expensive education" took place? Is that where you earned all the mysterious titles?
-
Rev. Miche'al Yosef Dixon
Okay I've reread all text of scripture. And I'm right. Jesus attacks nothing and no one that is not within the confines of His Father's House. He never went into some ones house or public place and destroyed another person's property. He told his disciples tell them the Gospel and leave if they reject you "wipe the dirt from your feet." Never approved attacking others or their property. In fact Jesus told the Disciples "those without a sword sell your cloak and buy one." Peter said, "I got one!" Jesus said, "that's nice, now put it away before you cut someone's ear off... Oops too late." Then healed the Chief Pharacees guard's ear. Not the action of a violent man. However upon Jesus next mortal return he will be kicking butt and cutting off heads.
-
-
ServantOfJudgement
Yosef, being a scholar of the bible, you'll know that anything God does or says, Jesus says and does the same.
Knowing that, you'll know that jesus wants all those nasty satanic idols torn down.
Let's not short change our Lord's words and water them down with flowery language of coexistence with putrid evil.
Search out the old testament to discover precisely what Jesus thinks of Baphomet and the like.
It's not the duty or commandment of the Christian to tear them down in someone else's nation, ill throw you that bone. It is our duty to never let them be put up in our nation through.
-
Rev. Miche'al Yosef Dixon
Regardless of our spiritual believes. The first Amendment is so simple my daughter at 8 years old understand exactly what it says and means. She pointed out to me my own error every minister of YHWH and his Son Yeshua the Messiah James 1:27 Pure G2513 religion G2356 and G2532 undefiled G283 before G3844 God G2316 and G2532 the Father G3962 is G2076 this, G3778 To visit G1980 the fatherless G3737 and G2532 widows G5503 in G1722 their G846 affliction, G2347 and to keep G5083 himself G1438 unspotted G784 from G575 the world G2889.
Religion G2356 is defined here. As how the founding fathers used it. Not every nilly-willy form of worship. The 1st amendment says "Congress" shall not make laws for or against "establishment religion" But nothing prevents the people voting to make policy on this subject. But if you allow one you must allow all, even statue of Chinese penis and Virginia gods. But they would violate civil "moral codes" Justice Ruth Ginsberg said, "government is not here to dictate where morals exist."
-
James Trenton Smith
Torn down...
-
-
Keith Allen Steele Eash
In the Old Testament , there are many instances where those who believed in God destroyed pagan altars and idols all the time. Your argument is illogical. Jesus is omnipotent, omniscient, etc so Jesus would approve such destruction.
-
Rev. Miche'al Yosef Dixon
Actually yes and no. YHWH told the Hebrews when that took over the original lands of Isreal to destroy the idols and kill every man, woman, child, dog, cat, donkey, if it lived kill it. After taking over the land and creating a nation the command limited to within those borders. Destroy all idols amongst YHWH's choosen people and land. Along with killing sinners. Homosexuals, witches, idol worshippers, etc. The USA is not YHWH's chosen lands, those lands were forsaken in Jeremiah "YHWH said He divorced Isreal and her Harlot sister Sameria." Then 40 years later "divorced Judea" then land we now call Isreal. Therefore, usa government builds, public lands are not protected by YHWH scriptures to justify vandalism. I'm a minister for YHWH and His Son Yeshua, but I'm also a veteran that took a bullet to protect the First Amendment and All the Constitution.
-
Keith Allen Steele Eash
You make little to no sense.
-
Rev. Miche'al Yosef Dixon
Gee, it's simple. If someone ame on to your property and placed a idol in your house. You'd have every right to kick them out your house and destroy the idol. But equality you don't have the right to do that to them. If they are in a public government owned place you do not have right to attack them are there signs or idols and they don't have the right to attack you or your signs and idols. Although according to the government you nor them own the house and property you are living in you.are only renting it, fail to pay your yearly rent they'll kick you out and rent it to someone else. So, it don't matter the government has God rule over everyone, even Jesus excepted that, "Satan is Prince of this world." "Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and give unto God what is God's".
-
-
-
-
James Trenton Smith
The Satanic Cult of Cannibalistic Pedophiles. They steal, rape, pimp, torture, murder, harvest, and sell children. They use the Law to destroy the Law... as was prophesied. The Constitution is imperfect, because men are imperfect... and this is that example. Even atheists should stand against them... So let there be war...and I prefer to be outnumbered 1000's to 1. It makes the testimony that much greater.
-
Warren Calvin Wall
Sources? Documentation? Evidence of cannibalism? Evidence of pedophilia? Evidence of rape, theft, provisioning of prostitution? You make many accusations against people without proof of such actions. All of these actions are present in mainstream Christianity. Many Christian officials are regularly convicted of these offenses. Priests, pastors, deacons, administrative officials are constantly in the news for these offenses. You know, motes, planks, eyes and such.
-
-
-
Rev. Miche'al Yosef Dixon
"The Satanic Temple describes itself as a nontheistic religious organization. It does not teach that Satan is a literal supernatural being. Instead, it uses Satan as a literary symbol of rebellion against arbitrary authority and organizes its ethics around seven tenets dealing with compassion, justice, bodily autonomy, scientific understanding and individual liberty. It is distinct from the Church of Satan founded by Anton LaVey in the 1960s. Some ministers of the Universal Life Church also hold beliefs aligned with those of the Satanic Temple." I find this interesting as unless the Anton LaVey Church Of Satan has changed since I was a High Priest in mid 1990s the two's doctrines are one and the same. Anton LaVey never taught that "Satan" was an actual person / entity. "The god we worship is ourselves" - Anton LaVey. I shifted to Wicca believing they truly believed in Supernatural deities. Most are no better than Christians says they believe while just going through the motions. Few actually believe yet hypocrites their writings say Father and mother equal and in rites all you hear about is Mother Goddess. As to the issue of the Article: i fought and bleed took bullets to protect everyones right of freedom of "religious exercise thereof" exercise is an action doing something. Therefore an event of doing something in a public place is protected by the constitution amendment i and others put our arses on The line to protect. The Statue thing is statement of speech in advertisement. If Statue of Jesus allowed then Baphemet is allowed and that Chinese god shaped like a penis is allowed. Draw the line on one you draw the line on all and that violation of 1st amendment in itself as it says congress shall not make any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibited the free exercise thereof. It doesn't say however a personal policy by the people couldn't be created. If its truly a demoncracy like the people vote on the policy. Leave congress out of the issue.
-
Najah P Tamargo
Najah Tamargo-USA
Didn't the Founding Fathers come here to establish a country for freedom of religion? I do believe it's in the First Amendment of the Constitution. Any religion should be allowed, whether others like it or not.
-
Keith Allen Steele Eash
Satanic cults are not religion but anti religion. Should not be defended as religion.
-
Lady Mutt Cat
Satanists claim it is their religion. Who are you to judge?
-
Keith Allen Steele Eash
Simply bexause it's anti-God. I won't argue. Bible is clear. Satanic belief is anti-God. I won't argue or defend my statement. The Bible defends it for me. So don't respond because I won't read any responses.
-
James Gary Russell Jr
Respectfully, using the "Bible", a holy book for one particular religion, cannot justly be used to judge other religions.
-
Lady Mutt Cat
This comment is a perfect example who should not be on a universal religious site. No respect for the beliefs of others.
-
-
-
-
Keith Allen Steele Eash
One can argue logically that Satanism is not a religion but an anti religion. Just as Islam is not a religion but also a satanic cult. They both will kill any who tru to leave it. Technically, freemasons are also an Anti religion.
-
Rev. Dr. Travis McMillan
The Satanic Temple is annoying and performative but they are not the Order of Nine Angles.
However, if you can cite one case where The Satanic Temple attempted to murder someone who was leaving, you may have my attention.
-
-
ServantOfJudgement
What about a religion that is supposed to kill all people who don't follow their religion? Is that one ok?
It's going to be painful to answer that I'll bet. Should you be ok with being killed because you don't want to follow someone else's religion?
Tough huh?
-
Lady Mutt Cat
Not tough at all if you understand the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment gives people the right to believe anything they want, not the freedom to do anything they want. Doesn’t matter whether I find their beliefs distasteful.
-
Keith Graham Ainsworth
As in the crusades?
-
Rev. Dr. Travis McMillan
No, not really.
We also have a second amendment and my religion is clear on that issue. Don't start none, won't be none.
Not uncomfy at all but it doesn't address the topic at hand. At most, this is deflective.
Given what I've seen of The Satanic Temple, I'm not on their side in the least. I wouldn't join them, not interested in them, certainly not threatened by them.
Here's the thing. They're not advocating murder or anything illegal. They're annoying. They're performative. They love to see and hear themselves from what I've been able to observe.
I'm still not buying a ticket. The production isn't great.
They have not taken it to the extreme that was presented here. Also, they are using a system that is now moving goalposts, the very things we spoke out against when it was used on Christians.
We either have rights or we don't. We have agency, reason, maturity and sanity or we do not. Now, since it's on State property, it's either all or none. There's a distinction legally and spiritually speaking. Separation of the two is fine. The State can deny it if the taxpayers say no. They're outnumbered in that respect.
That being said they can set up where they want, do whatever they want in service to their religion (Within. Reason...) and practice it, wear symbols of it, dress in accordance with it. Nothing is stopping them. Where the discomfort is is that the table is now either open to all or none at all. That is of great discomfort when the entire time, only one group has been at that table. Now they have to share and there are people they do not want to sit at that table with. Tough Rocks.
Listen, yeah, some of us are going to have to wake up and realize we kinda share some stuff in common.
If we're going to start moving goalposts because "choose a side" the answer is a flat no. Full stop.
...if you want to continue the mud-slinging, though, I will not stand in your way. I just simply won't participate.
If your ideology has taken you to these extremes, then I argue the evil ones aren't erecting statues...
-
-
Rev. Miche'al Yosef Dixon
James 1:27 Pure G2513 religion G2356 and G2532 undefiled G283 before G3844 God G2316 and G2532 the Father G3962 is G2076 this, G3778 To visit G1980 the fatherless G3737 and G2532 widows G5503 in G1722 their G846 affliction, G2347 and to keep G5083 himself G1438 unspotted G784 from G575 the world G2889.
Religion {G2356} "thrēskeia" is defined here. As how the founding fathers used it. Not every willy nilly form of worship.
-
Keith Allen Steele Eash
As Lincoln said Our Constitution is the Bible of our political faith founded by God. It's not imperfect. It is what God wanted.
-
-
Nicholas J Page
Why would anyone support Satanism or whatever you want to dress it up and scare kids
-
Sir Lionheart
Doesn’t Halloween do that, after all, it’s only a myth, very similar to Fairies, Gods, and Leprechauns etc. Children love dressing up. 🧙♀️
🦁❤️
-
Lady Mutt Cat
Halloween has absolutely nothing to do with Satan. It is an adaptation of a Pagan holiday in which we honor and reconnect with our dead. Satan is the adversarial part of a dualistic religion, which none of the Pagan faiths are.
-
Sir Lionheart
Fair point about Halloween’s origins—I wasn’t suggesting that Halloween is a Satanic holiday. My point was about the status of the supernatural figures involved. Satan, like the gods, fairies and leprechauns I mentioned, is a figure from a religious or folkloric tradition; whether one considers him real is a matter of belief, not established evidence.
And that’s actually why I think the Iowa issue is interesting. In a secular government building, the question shouldn’t be whether officials believe a particular religion’s supernatural claims are true or false. If the state opens a public space to religious expression, it should apply the same rules to all religions—including religions that some people find objectionable. Otherwise, the government ends up deciding which religious beliefs are legitimate, and that’s a rather dangerous road to go down.
🦁❤️
-
-
-
Douglas Robert Spindler
Happens every Sunday in Churches all across America. Christians scare the shit out of kids and women by men.
-
Cam Kirmser
Since Satan is a part of Christian faith, to believe in Satan is to believe in Jesus.
That being the case, why would anyone in their right mind back the loser?
-
Rev. Dr. Travis McMillan
Plenty have asked the same question in the opposite direction.
People don't have the exact experiences you do. You can hardly apply your microcosm to the world any more than I can with my own.
The difference here is I can accept people are different. I can move with people who want to move with me and I don't need anyone who doesn't want to.
Life's a lot easier and a whole lot less complicated when you mind your own business and focus your attention where it needs to be.
-
A moral high ground cannot be retained through censorship. The censorship itself, is an immoral action. We have to practice what we preach... Let them in. A blind herd, is no use to a shepherd.