In a CNN town hall on Tuesday, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis addressed a controversial satanic display in the Iowa state capitol building by invoking the name of former President Donald Trump. DeSantis questioned how the display was allowed and mentioned that it was recognized as a religion by the IRS during the Trump administration. This recognition potentially gave the group legal grounds to erect the display. While DeSantis expressed his disagreement with the ruling, he acknowledged that it might have provided the group with a legal leg to stand on.
The display in question was created by The Satanic Temple of Iowa and featured a statue of “Baphomet,” a ram’s head covered in mirrors and propped by a mannequin in red clothing. The co-founder of The Satanic Temple, Lucien Greaves, defended the display as an exercise of religious freedom.
Conservatives in Iowa, including the state’s Republican governor, expressed strong objections to the display and called for it to be stopped. However, the Iowa Department of Administrative Services confirmed that the satanic group met all legal requirements to erect the display, as protected by the First Amendment.
During the Trump presidency in 2019, the IRS granted tax-exempt status to the Salem-Mass.-based Satanic organization, recognizing it as a “non-theistic” religion. This ruling has been a subject of debate and criticism.
In response to DeSantis’ comments, Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung accused the governor of fabricating stories to appeal to a liberal audience and stated that this would be the moment scholars would point to as the downfall of DeSantis’s career.
Governor DeSantis, who has gained support from conservatives, including Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds, expressed his disagreement with the display and suggested fighting legal battles if necessary.
The controversy surrounding the satanic display has ignited discussions about religious freedom, the First Amendment, and the role of government in recognizing non-traditional religions. Critics argue that the display goes against the values of the founding fathers, while others emphasize the importance of protecting freedom of speech and religion.
As the debate continues, it remains to be seen how the legal and cultural implications of this issue will unfold.
