Another day, another religious and-or political statue destroyed.
This is the age in which we live. In this case, however, the act of vandalism has received national coverage in the mainstream press, since this event was — with good cause — unique and controversial.
The Associated Press headline, for those who who have ignored this media storm: “Former Mississippi House candidate charged after Satanic Temple display is destroyed at Iowa Capitol.” Here is the overture:
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — A Satanic Temple display inside the Iowa Capitol in Des Moines was destroyed, and a former U.S. Navy fighter pilot who was recently defeated in a statehouse election in Mississippi is accused of causing the damage.
The display is permitted by rules that govern religious installations inside the Capitol but has drawn criticism from many conservatives, including presidential candidate Ron DeSantis. A Facebook posting by The Satanic Temple … said the display, known as a Baphomet statue, “was destroyed beyond repair,” though part of it remains.
Michael Cassidy, 35, of Lauderdale, Mississippi, was charged with fourth-degree criminal mischief, the Iowa Department of Public Safety said Friday. He was released after his arrest.
Yes, there are important “equal access” angles attached to this story. If Iowa created a law allowing temporary placement of religious symbols in its facilities, then — once again — the law should apply equally to all groups without “viewpoint discrimination.” Yes, this was the topic of last week’s “Crossroads” podcast here at GetReligion.
There are some angles to this latest Satan worship story that are rather interesting and worthy of further investigation by journalists. Let me list a view:
* The Des Moines Register story about the crime included an important detail about the attacker. Read to the end of this chunk of that story:
The solicitation for donations on GiveSendGo, the contribution platform, said Cassidy "tore down and beheaded a Satanist altar erected in the Iowa State Capitol." It said he "pushed over and decapitated this Satanic statue before he discarded the head in a trash can."
"Out of the millions of Christians in this nation, Cassidy was the first to act in bravery and conviction," it said. "He was not willing to see God reviled, especially in a building where lawmakers are supposed to honor Jesus Christ as King and look to his law for wisdom as they legislate with justice and righteousness."
The Sentinel quoted Cassidy in an interview as saying he destroyed the display to "awaken Christians to the anti-Christian acts promoted by our government." The article said Cassidy surrendered to police officers after the vandalism.
If Cassidy chose to surrender to police (yes, he had to know that the capitol would have more than its share of security cameras), then this could be considered an act of civil disobedience, rather like pouring blood on the steps of an abortion facility or attacking the security systems surrounding a nuclear-weapons facility.
Also, were security agents present to prevent the attack? That’s an interesting angle for follow-up stories.
* Under classic civil-disobedience principles, activists are willing to be arrested — thus accepting a trial in which they can state why they did what they did. The implication is that they accept the consequences. Is Cassidy willing to accept this role?
* This raises another question: How many vandals have surrendered to authorities for beheading or simply attacking statues of St. Mary outside Roman Catholic sanctuaries?
Yes, I understand that it is less controversial for churches to have statues of the Mother of Jesus than it is for capitols to have statues of Satan. Let’s assume, for the moment, that a crime against a religious statue is a crime against a religious statue. #JustSaying
There have been more than a few attacks of this nature — along with other acts of vandalism or even arson at churches, anti-abortion centers, etc. — and I am not aware of these activists surrendering and accepting the consequences of their crimes.
Come to think of it, I haven’t seen national coverage of trials in these cases. Have I missed something?
* Also, it has become rather common in recent years for progressive activists to attack public statues of Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and other American leaders who are now, by many, considered to be evil colonializers.
I would ask the same questions about these attacks that I just asked about the attacks on sacred art at churches — have these activists (a) surrendered to police arrest and-or (b) faced arrest and trials for their crimes? Yes, again, let’s pretend that a crime against a public statue is a crime against a public statue. #JustSaying
At this point, the Satanic Temple publicity office is on a roll — pushing decades-worth of hot buttons about religious groups seeking the right to place religious symbols in or near public institutions.
Let’s end with another dose of that Register report:
The Satanic Temple in its Facebook posting about the attack on the display said the Baphomet idol, a robed effigy with a gilded ram's head holding a ribbon-bedecked pentangle, was the primary target. But on Friday, the display seemed to be mostly disassembled, with the original candles and body of Baphomet strewn about. Christian offerings and a rosary had been placed near the display and a man sat in front of it, praying.
The Iowa Department of Administrative Services, which oversees the Capitol, allowed the display for two weeks under rules that permit religious installations. That time apparently is almost up, and on Facebook, Mortimer Adramelech, identifying himself as a minister of Satan and a council member of the Satanic Temple of Iowa, called on Iowa satanists to gather at the Capitol at 10 a.m. Saturday for "our closing ceremony."
"YOU DO NOT WANT TO MISS THIS!" he wrote, adding, "Dress in your Satanic best and get ready to hail Satan."
This story truly has goat’s legs. Expect sequels.
FIRST IMAGE: Baphomet Statue for sale at Ebay.com