By Peter Pinedo
Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Dec 14, 2023 / 18:15 pm
The Satanic Temple display in the Iowa state capitol building is not protected by the First Amendment, a Catholic legal expert told CNA.
Andrea Picciotti-Bayer, a legal analyst for EWTN, told CNA that the display installed at the request of a prominent atheist group is not religious expression but rather about making a mockery of religion.
So, this chud’s claim is that it’s not a valid expression of religion because TST states on their website that they don’t actually believe in the existence of Satan as a spiritual entity. And… so what? According to her, you’re not allowed to express a mockery of religion because it’s so harmful for society. Right… religions are protected from criticism? And the only protected speech is an expression of religion? I don’t think so.
Ha ha. They could hardly ratchet up the hyperbolic paranoia higher. Anyway, I’d say the same about their decades long effort to protect serial child abusers.
Or their attempts to turn the US into a theocracy.
If it’s isn’t a valid expression of religion, then it’s still constitutionally protected speech but Iowa may not be required to allow it in the state capitol building. If they permit a display from one religious group, they have to permit displays from other religious groups, but they (probably) don’t have to permit every single otherwise legal display.
I would argue (to Iowa, this person etc) that a religion doesn’t require belief in supernatural entities to be considered valid - it could just be a philosophy, which would include TST. Some forms of Buddhism would qualify as that, too, being non-theistic - some Buddhists believe in ghosts, devas, and brahmas, but some, particularly in the west, do not. On the other hand I’m sure some Catholics wouldn’t accept that as a valid religion either. I doubt whether it has a solid legal basis though.
But that logic, pulling baby Jesus (and Mary? IDK) out of a nativity scene, and then burning it down isn’t a hate crime.