Iowans are standing at a pivotal crossroads. The man we choose as governor may hold that office for a decade or more. And though we are working hard to determine where the candidates stand on critical issues, none of us knows the future. The issues of tomorrow are not always clear today. How many of those who voted for Governor Reynolds in 2018 knew that she would have to steer Iowa through COVID-19?
With this in mind, we must also evaluate their instincts and principles by looking at their reactions to issues that arose in their past experience. As Christ taught, “He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.” (Luke 16:10).
This brings us to the question of the Satanic Statue erected in the Iowa Capitol in December of 2023 and approved by Adam Steen, by his own admission, as the Head of Department of Administrative Services.
In his interview with Jacob Hall of the Iowa Standard, he attempted to explain it away. He stated that even though he was aware of the need to change the policy on displays in the Capitol Building, “we didn’t get that changed before the Satanists came in.” He then framed the Satanic Statue as a “free speech issue” and said that other states that have fought similar evil lost in court, resulting in a penalty of “upwards of $50,000” being given to the sponsoring organization. Steen then admits that “…in that arena, I chose not to fight a free speech issue. I approved the Statue.”
Are expenses so high, and lawsuits so fearful, as to be avoided at the price of platforming, normalizing, and surrendering to evil? Can a monetary cost be placed on the damage done by this Satanic display to the children visiting the Capitol Building during those days – especially those on school field trips without their parents? Can the impression that this disgusting idol is endorsed by our government be erased from their minds? Can the precedent that this is “free speech” ever be expunged if braver administrations decide to hold their ground in the future? Can it be any surprise that the Satanists, thus conquering the Capitol unopposed by those entrusted with its defense, came back and are now suing for the right to perform their worship ceremonies within its halls?
If there really was no ability to deny it, why did it need Steen’s approval? He had the option to deny it, or, if he was not brave enough to take that step, he could have at least asked the Governor or the Legislature to step in. He even could have asked Attorney General Bird to search for any path to resist this, perhaps by using the preamble to our Iowa State Constitution as then Representative Brad Sherman suggested. Sadly, Steen surrendered without any meaningful fight. In the end, a veteran from Mississippi destroyed the display and was charged with a felony as a result.
I recognize that the chances of victory in court may not be as bright as they could be, but I also know that our chances of losing are guaranteed when we don’t fight. None of us would want to open any of our state’s treasury into the Satanic Temple’s coffers, but can that really be a justification to open our children’s mind to its filth?
Some will say that his later stand against their ritual, using a new policy, makes up for this failure, but I must question that logic. Standing when you’ve had time to implement new policies and seen the public outcry is easy. Our next governor must stand the first time – not just when it’s easy. Furthermore, if the Satanists had faced resistance at the statue beachhead, they would not have been emboldened to demand a ritual event.
I must respectfully ask the question, are Iowan Republicans really willing to whistle past the statue?
Isaiah G. Lary
Belmond
