Iowa Republican Wants To Ban Public Displays Of Satanism, Human Sacrifice
Except her bill inadvertently may also ban Christianity.
If there is anything Iowa state Senator Sandy Salmon loves more than a jaunty brooch or conversion therapy, it is her lord and savior, Jesus Christ. And if there is anything she hates more than drag queens and victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse being able to easily get restraining orders put on their abusers, it is Satan.
This, we assume, is why she recently filed a bill that would make it illegal for Satanists to put up displays on public property the same way other religious groups are allowed to put up displays on public property.
The bill, SF 2210, was inspired by an incident this past December in which Michael Cassidy, a failed candidate for Mississippi’s House of Representatives, vandalized a statue of Baphomet placed in the state capitol by the Satanic Temple amidst other varied and sundry religious holiday displays. Cassidy, initially charged with only fourth degree criminal mischief, has since been charged with a hate crime.
“Evidence shows the defendant made statements to law enforcement and the public indicating he destroyed the property because of the victim’s religion,” the Polk County Attorney’s Office said in a statement.
It does show that! Very clearly. His lawyer is reportedly likely to argue that he should be given a pass because the Satanic Temple — which is not precisely a religious organization but rather one that advocates for secularism and freedom from religion — tries to upset people like him on purpose.
Sandy Salmon was also very upset (and deeply confused), and now she’s willing to murder the Constitution in order to get Satan out of the statehouse.
The thing is, the bill itself so deeply stupid and incoherent that I am almost having trouble getting mad about it. Almost.
The state or any political subdivision of the state shall not recognize organizations or individuals who refer to Satan as a deity, worship Satan, or who reference Satan or Satanism as part of the organization’s or individual’s religious practice as an establishment of religion.
I have read this sentence 37 times and it still does not make sense. I’m guessing she doesn’t know what “establishment of religion” means and is trying to make it so that Satanism is not considered a religion for the purposes of the First Amendment, which bars the establishment of religion.
It is also written in a way that I think would actually be more likely to ban Christianity than Satanism, since most “Satanists” do not think Satan is a God or literally engage in “devil worship,” and are in fact just super aggressive atheists. Christians, however, actually do reference Satan as part of their religious practice. Quite regularly in fact.
Displays, symbols, or the practice of Satanic worship shall not be allowed on public property, in public schools, on property owned by public schools, or on any property owned by the state or its political subdivisions.
Actually, the whole point the Satanic Temple is trying to make here is that no religion should be endorsed by the state. They wouldn’t start After School Satan Clubs if schools were not hosting after school Christian programs. The reason they put up that Baphomet statue in the Iowa statehouse was because Christian groups were putting up displays in the Iowa statehouse. So they would be perfectly fine with this, so long as the same rules applied to Christian groups.
Any act of Satanic practice or worship that involves the ending of a life or the shedding of blood, whether the sacrifice be an animal or human, is prohibited.
Oh no, who is going to tell Sandy that human sacrifice is already illegal? Because it’s concerning that she does not know this already.
As for animal sacrifices, I can’t find any evidence of actual Satanists doing that, but Sen. Salmon will surely be disappointed when she hears about Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, the case in which the Supreme Court found that animal sacrifice for religious reasons is protected by the Constitution.
The general assembly finds that the Constitution of the State of Iowa acknowledges the supreme being to whom we owe gratitude for blessings received and upon whom we depend for future blessings.
Well, that is insane and possibly illegal, but go off.
The general assembly finds that there is a wide range of differing views among its citizens regarding which establishment of religion or religions represent the one supreme being upon which we depend. Though a long line of historical evidence exists showing that the values found in the Judeo-Christian faith are fundamental to the foundations and freedoms of the United States of America, the state of Iowa, in accordance with the long-established history, heritage, and tradition of the United States, does not grant favored status to any establishment of religion as the official religion of the state of Iowa.
The state of Iowa is not allowed to have a state religion. It’s not just tradition, it is literally the very first amendment of the Constitution.
The general assembly finds that good and evil exist. The supreme being, upon whom we depend for continued blessings, personifies that which is good. Evil is personified in the creature known as Satan. It is the duty of the government to play an appropriate role in protecting the inhabitant residents of Iowa from evil while encouraging and facilitating good. It is legally and constitutionally inconsistent to afford Satan, who is universally understood to be an enemy of God, religious expression on public property by a state government that depends upon God for continued blessings. Such a legal view violates our state constitution and offends the God upon whom we depend and undermines our well-being.
The Satanic Temple, for the record, was recognized as a church by the IRS in 2019. Satan is only “understood to be an enemy of God” by Christians and Muslims. Satan sort of exists in Judaism, but more as a general idea than as a literal red guy with horns living in a literal place called Hell and loving evil and heavy metal music (and also The Beatles, natch).
Theistic Satanists are a minority to begin with, and most of them are either gnostics or pagans who actually revere adversarial gods from multiple religions. “Diabolists” — “devil-worshipers” or “reverse Christians” who believe in the Christian Bible but choose to worship Satan instead of God — are even more rare, especially if one excludes goth teenagers going through a phase in their sophomore year of high school and Richard Ramirez (though some might say that was the least of his problems). So rare that they don’t even have their own subreddit and I can only find two books on the subject. I feel like I can confidently say that there are more people out there who believe that they are, or that they have given birth to, alien-human hybrids than there are people who literally worship the Christian devil.
Even Baphomet, by the way, is not the literal Christian devil, but rather a deity the Knights Templar were accused of worshiping and which later became a central figure in Thelema, the new religious movement founded by Aleister Crowley.
The general assembly finds that all people have freedom of conscience. The state of Iowa does not recommend Satanic practice in any form; however, the state of Iowa acknowledges that individuals are free under the Constitution of the State of Iowa to practice Satanic worship in their private thoughts and on their private property in ways that do not violate any Iowa law or harm or infringe on others.
Oh, well that is certainly very generous of her, to not become the literal thought police.
Sandy Salmon has created a law for a world that literally does not exist outside of her own imagination, based entirely on her assumptions about the beliefs and practices of a group of people she has not even bothered to Google. Imagine if we all did that? I would be writing this whole thing under the assumption that Sandy Salmon is a cartoon fish living next door to Spongebob Squarepants, and that her proposed bill would apply only to the residents of Bikini Bottom.
I am a gracious person and I try to understand that a lot of Christians just have a very difficult time fully grasping that their religion is not a literal truth for every other person in the world, but this just goes too far. She may as well put out a bill barring trolls from bridges and requiring leprechauns to pay taxes on their pots of gold.
Actually, such bills would be less harmful than this one is, because at least she wouldn’t be violating anyone’s First Amendment rights.
PREVIOUSLY:
>> does not grant favored status to any establishment of religion as the official religion of the state of Iowa. <<
I really think based on this bit that she believes that "establishment of religion" means "an authentic or established religion, a true religion for the purposes of law". If that's true, then that crazy sentence that makes no sense could be rewritten consistent with her intent in this way:
>> The state or any political subdivision of the state shall not recognize organizations or individuals who refer to Satan as a deity, worship Satan, or who reference Satan or Satanism as part of the organization’s or individual’s religious practice as having any religion at all for the purposes of law. <<
I really think that's what's she's trying to say here. Hard to know with such a whackaloon, but it makes more sense than most ways you might interpret it, especially when you see how she uses "establishment of religion" later.
"Religion is like a pair of shoes: Find one that fits for you, but don't make me wear your shoes." - George Carlin