Anti-Satanism Bills and Thought Crimes

It was Republican State Senator Sandy Salmon who introduced Senate File 2210, “An act related to the Satanic displays or Satanic worship on property of the state and its political subdivisions” in Iowa the week before last, though it is unclear who actually authored the text. As similar text simultaneously appeared in Arizona, it looks as though this is a kindergarten attempt at model legislation creation lacking the relative tact of the usual Project Blitz suspects, flagrant and ridiculous as those typically are. I suspect it to be the work of another Christian club for lawmakers modeling themselves off the work of pre-existing organizations like the Congressional Prayer Caucus, just with a whole lot less intelligence. 

The text of the Iowa bill states that “[D]isplays, 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.” 

Clearly, this is in response to The Satanic Temple’s tendency to seek equal access in public forums where Christian Nationalists seek to advertise and proselytize their viewpoints unobstructed by any alternative views. This is blatantly unconstitutional on its face, as it could not more thoroughly contradict the First Amendment, but it goes further. The bill specifies that 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.” 

There are two ways to look at this. First, it seems that the bill is openly subscribing to witch-hunting conspiracy theories that were prevalent in the 1980s and 1990s: the delusion that Satanic cults had organized an international cabal that was regularly engaged in secret sacrificial rituals. But seeing that the bill appears to be a directly motivated effort to outlaw The Satanic Temple specifically, the use of the phrase “ending of a life” as being prohibited in the context of “Satanic practice or worship,” we can reasonably assume this language to be an attempt to render our abortion ritual illegal, bypassing arguments regarding what constitutes “a life.”

And the bill goes on: “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.”

In case you are reading this and you find yourself concerned that this might be some bizarre legal genius masquerading as the most crass stupidity, consider what this text follows, and you will be assured that nothing but raw ineptitude could have created this document. 

Directly preceding this commentary on “good and evil” the bill states 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.”

To anybody with reasonable reading comprehension skills, the text, taken in its entirety, is incoherent. Obviously, one can not simply disregard accusations of elevating their own religious viewpoints over others by simply stating that they are not, and then insisting on codifying their own religious definitions of “good and evil” into law.

Obvious though this may seem, there still seems to be a disturbingly large population for whom the deeper ramifications of this stupidity remain unclear, so it is worth spelling out: the anti-Satanism bills fail not merely because they run afoul of the law, but they run against the very principles of democratic government, well beyond the power and authority invested in our government. A bill such as this would not simply limit the rights of Satanists, but it would outrageously expand the power of lawmakers. The bill does not merely seek to legislate activities that we are involved in, but to define what we believe in the terms provided by Christian Nationalists, while preventing us the opportunity to correct the record by publicly silencing us. We do not believe in Satan as “the personification of evil,” and the bill seeks to legislate our very thoughts on the matter.

In fact, it is not the duty of the government to define abstract notions of “good” and “evil” in a religious context, but to define the lawful and unlawful in a pluralistic context. We prohibit the activity, not the religion, and we even provide exemptions against criminal prosecutions to some religious activities that are otherwise generally prohibited. We do not outlaw thought crimes and leave it to the government to define the iconography of others, regardless of how far removed the government’s interpretation is from those who actually identify with that iconography. To do otherwise is to also allow the government to prohibit whatever activities they wish simply by virtue of having deemed those activities “Satanic.” I think that anybody capable of reading this far can be counted upon to grasp where exactly that would lead…