Man Charged With Hate Crime for Destroying Satan Statue in Iowa Capitol

0
732

Michael Cassidy is a former politician and veteran who made national headlines in mid-December when he decapitated the statue of Satan that was placed in the Iowa Capitol Building. He’s now charged with a hate crime for that act.

Local reports indicate that Cassidy has been charged with a fourth-degree misdemeanor in violation of the hate crime statute.

Documents in court show that a former candidate for the Iowa State Senate is now charged with a hate crime after damaging a Satanic temple display at the Iowa Capitol beyond repair. This occurred back in December.

Michael Cassidy was charged with criminal mischief in the fourth degree. He ran as a Republican for a Mississippi House of Representatives seat.

In new court documents, he is accused of violating a part of Iowa’s hate crimes statute.

It seems absurd to call destroying a satan statue a hate crime. But here we are. If the Founding Fathers were still alive, they would have beaten down that statue with a bat. This raises the question of whether religious liberty requires the protection and recognition of “religions”, which are not religions.

Even those who put the statue up admit that they do not believe in Satan and are only doing so to abuse the religious freedom laws.


The group responsible for the display claimed that they did not believe in Satan but that the display was just a symbol to show their right to freedom of religion.

As a non-moral relativist, satanism, to me, is a troll played on Christians. I don’t feel any obligation to make fun of them or pretend that anything they do is a religious act. Libertarians may wince, but I do not believe that the country is in danger by using common sense when it comes to this issue.

What is Cassidy’s future? The maximum penalty is one year in jail and fines of up to several thousand dollars. It is important to note that Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds can pardon anyone who is convicted by a state court, excluding treason or impeachment. It is not clear if she can pardon someone preemptively, like a president. Will she join the fray after describing the statue as “objectionable”?

The whole ordeal has been a sham. This statute should never have been permitted in the first instance. It is also important to note the leniency shown towards those who destroy statues of Thomas Jefferson or similar figures. Is it true that we are a nation that lets people get away with destroying art, but charges them with hate crimes when they damage a satan statue made from tin foil and goat’s heads? I guess we are.