Liberty Exposed: Conservatives Responses to Iowa's Satanic Display

One of the areas in which conservatives fall short in their arguments is the belief that part of the duty of government is to maintain virtue and peace’s public forms. Away from acts of poison or that go against the founding principles of our nation.

This culminated in a controversy that occurred in Iowa's state capital, when a satanic paraphernalia was allowed to be displayed, brought by the members of the Satanic Temple. The display consisted of the "seven fundamental tenets of Satanism, a figure representing the pagan idol Baphomet holding a pentangle, and a ram's head covered in mirrors.

The Reaction

The response of this display has caused many to erupt in outrage. Iowa's state Rep. Brad Sherman called the display “disgusting” and published a letter condemning the display. The purpose of which is “for clarifying legislation to be adopted in accordance with our State Constitution that prohibits satanic displays in our Capitol building and on all state-owned property." Sherman argues that the Iowa Constitution makes it illegal to have a display promoting the adversary. The opening words of the state constitution read as:

“WE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF IOWA, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of those blessings, do ordain and establish a free and independent government, in the name of the State of Iowa.”

According to Brad Sherman, this specifically makes the display by the Satanic temple unconstitutional based on the three provisions outlined in the opening paragraph. “First, there is one Supreme God; second, blessings over this state come from the one Supreme God; and third, we must depend upon the one Supreme God if we want to enjoy continued blessings." Sherman is using whatever argument he can to justify the removal of this satanic display from the state capital. This is a strong attempt. However, there are additional arguments, like those we made, that will justify the legal removal of an obscene display.

Unfortunately, the actions of an individual have caused a new ripple in this particular case. On Friday, Dec. 15, Michael Cassidy, who previously ran for Mississippi’s 3rd District in 2022, destroyed part of the satanic display by knocking off the head of the statue of Baphomet. This is clearly destruction of property, which Cassidy was charged with, and rightly so. However, something being legally wrong is different from being morally wrong. Of course, Cassidy was not justified in the destruction of another person's property and will likely face penalties, including a fine and possible jail time. The appropriate response for Mr. Cassidy would have to have appealed the satanic display using the arguments laid out before in order to lawfully have the display removed, rather than resorting to an intrinsic impulse.

Obscenity Laws

If conservatives win to become effective in dealing with this controversy then it must stand by its own principle and work with its existing laws.. Most conservatives today would call this mealy free speech or an example of religious freedom. This view is not actually conservative. All speech, regardless of its harm, is, in actuality, a libertarian view. Classical conservatives do, in fact, have issues with certain types of speech, quoting not all “speech is free speech.” Laws have existed in the United States for centuries that have had restrictions on what is acceptable to display in a public forum. These were referred to as obscenity laws. The United States of America classifies what is obscene by whether or not it meets three basic requirements.

The material must (1) have a dominant theme in the work considered as a whole that appeals to prurient interest, (2) be patently offensive because it goes beyond contemporary community standards, and (3) be utterly without redeeming social value.

These are the same standards that make it illegal to display graphic or adult content in public places. It seems clear that a Satanic display in the capitol building would also fall under these loose requirements.

This is where the ideas of conservatives and libertarians differ. The libertarian approach would argue that more speech is good speech and would feel terrified by the idea of having any standard enforced by the government. Conservatives recognize that governmental bodies can be used to promote the virtues and good of a society and are partially tasked with promoting them.

Religious Designation

Another argument could be made about whether or not the satanic temple should even ever be recognized as a religion. In the United States, religious institutions are given special rights and privileges that offer particular liberties.  In 1890 the United states described religion as reference to “one's views of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character, and of obedience to his will.” If it can be argued that this satanic group is considered a legitimate religion, then they are granted the same protection clauses. However, one does not have the moral right to promote a fake religion meant to insult Christians. What other purpose is there in taking the adversaries of Christians and elevating them to a position of praise and worship?

In their own words, “most don’t actually believe in Satan and don’t worship him." This begs the question: Can you be classified as a religious group when the spiritual component of your beliefs carries ulterior motives? If a group's existence is purely a mockery of another's, why would that be granted religious status? If the answers are true, then the satanic temple should not be given any legal rights to identify itself as a religion.

Solution

The conservative solution to all of this is to enforce the laws that are already in place that allow the removal of obscene gestures deemed ”utterly without redeeming social value." This is not necessarily the fault of the satanic temple group, but rather the governing body that issued a permit for them to display their works in the Iowa State Capitol.

The true conservative approach to a controversial display, such as the one depicted by the satanic temple in the Iowa capital, is to use the existing obscenity laws to judge whether or not it is acceptable to be showcased to the public. Furthermore, an argument should be made on whether or not this particular group should be allowed to classify themselves as a religion at all.