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!”
Can you link to a conservative saying that?
I can’t imagine any would, that is an abstraction developed by not-conservatives trying to wrap head around conservative actions. To have a conservative in power say so overtly would fuel the people being oppressed into coordinated resistance and disgust fence sitters into voting against conservatism
I’m a conservative, and I think people should be equal under the law.
What are you seeing that makes it seem otherwise?
Someone seemed to think it was appropriate to vandalize this display specifically.
So because someone targeted a specific thing here, that’s unequal, and the inequality must therefore be a core belief of conservatives generally? Is that the line of reasoning here?
https://apnews.com/article/satanic-temple-display-vandalized-iowa-capitol-199fb41983a3f3a390b7be370214bb64
It is possible for someone to be on the Conservative side of the political spectrum and still be a reasonable person who respects equality. It is not possible for a reasonable person who respects equality to support the Republican party.
The one that vandalised this being released as per the summary for example.
It’s a misdemeanor vandalism charge, odds are he’s a vaguely attractive white guy with no priors so of course they let him go until his hearing, probably without bail. Only way his odds of being released on his own recognizance would have been higher is if he were a pretty, young white girl.
I actually personally know a pretty young white girl who got caught in a drug charge out of state, released on her own recognizance pending hearing, came back home, skipped her hearing, got pulled over for a traffic violation back home, jailed for a bit for being a fugitive until the other state could fetch her, taken back to the other state and then released on her own recognizance pending a hearing again despite having explicitly proved that she was a flight risk.
If you feel that people should be equal under the law, why do you align politically with the parties that don’t recognize trans rights, homosexuality, worker rights, social support, freedom of religion (not just Christianity), voting rights…
You don’t believe people are equal under the law. At best, maybe you believe that groups of people are equal under law, but some groups are more equal than others.
I’ve never heard a conservative person argue that a trans person should be stripped of any rights. Nor that homosexuals should, nor workers, nor people of other religions.
Can you link to a conservative claiming this? Like … one?
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/3758652-here-are-the-gop-senators-who-voted-against-the-same-sex-marriage-bill/
This case right here. He thought that it was okay to vandalize a religious display that was from “the wrong religion”, and he’s getting let off with a slap on the wrist.
And the person letting him off is a conservative, I take it? And this is in comparison to a different arrestee who did the same to another display?
deleted by creator
It’s the quiet part that’s (usually) not said aloud.
Just take a look at the statistics of how i.e. criminal law is applied much more aggressively to conservative out-groups (PoC, poor, etc.) than conservative in-groups (white, wealthy, etc.). Then have a look at who is proposing politics intended to fix that imbalance an who’s talking about “taking a hard(er) stance on crime”.
Another, rather specific example: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8769269/Former-abortion-clinic-worker-recalls-pro-life-women-justify-procedures.html
Once you look our for the pattern, you’ll see it everywhere.
So in your mind is there a conservative in group and out group as regards sex? I just want a starting point before I delve any further.
My comment wasn’t related to sex but more generalized, but, umm - yeah?
People having heterosexual two-person sex (preferably with a single, consistent partner) are the “in-group”.
Everyone else is the out-group.
If anyone ever made i.e. a study to something like police behavior experienced by a “regular” pick-up bar and a gay bar, I’d expect to see some stark differences.
I wasn’t talking about orientation, but about sex, as in male vs female.
There is a long history of right wing politicians cloaking themselves in the rhetoric of the left. You can watch it evolve over it’s history as the leftist talking points have… but the one thing that hasn’t changed since the beginning is the way they behave shows a belief in the aggregation of power. Conservatives support a hierarchy with a lot of executive power at the top and a failure state at the bottom. The left looks to broaden and scatter power horizontally…
It’s part of why complaining that social services and welfare programs are artificially disruptive to a “natural” order and determining and expelling non-citizen underclasses and narrowing the rights to fully participate has existed since the beginning of right wing rhetoric but they never sell it outright as “some people deserve to die poor or to serve in a perpetually subordinate position”. It has always required a grift to get the masses to sign on. It’s also why they tend to pair themselves with the church going crowd. Their base has to believe at some level that inequality is not just natural but justified and that helps when you already have people you veiw as fundamentally inferior.