February 14, 2019

In a 72-20 vote the Arkansas House voted today on a bill that will almost totally ban abortion in the state in the event the US Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade.

Arkansas Senate Passed Abortion Bill Last Week

As we reported last week this bill, SB149 passed the Arkansas Senate last week, spearheaded by State Senator Jason Rapert. The story struggled to gain media attention, having been overshadowed by Rapert’s dust up with a heavy metal band flier.

Arkansas Times reports the bill only had one Republican House member oppose the bill, saying that id didn’t provide exceptions for cases of rape, incest, or in instances of severe fetal deformity.

“When it hits your own family it takes on a totally different meaning,” said Rep. Dan Douglas, noting his personal experiences with a niece who had to face such a decision. “There’s something called humanity and stopping suffering. This bill goes too far.”

“Who are we to sit in judgment of their decision, or their God above!” Douglas added.

Planned Parenthood of Great Plains Arkansas Tweeted Coverage of the Deliberation and Vote

SB149, if enacted by the overturning of Roe, would also ban any method of birth control administered after the point at which a pregnancy can be scientifically detected. The law makes providing an abortion, except in emergency situations to save the life of the mother, a felony punishable by a fine up to $100,000 and a prison sentence of up to 10 years.

The bill will now be returned to the state Senate, and then go to the Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson’s desk for his signature.

January 28, 2019

Attorneys for the State of Arkansas have asked for a temporary stay of proceedings in the legal challenge to Stanley J. Rapert’s (R-Conway) 10 Commandments monument on the Arkansas Capitol grounds. Arkansas Times reports:

“The motion from attorneys representing the state say the case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court presents the question “whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in [previous U.S. Supreme Court cases from 1971, 2005 and 2014], or some other test.”

State Claims Bladensburg Cross Appeal Could Affect Arkansas Case

In October of 2017 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that a 30-foot cross monument in Prince George’s County, Maryland was unconstitutional. A subsequent appeal attempt before the entire 4th Circuit in March of 2018 also failed when the court (in an 8-6 ruling) denied a rehearing of the case. Then, this past November the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) agreed to hear a final appeal to the case. Last week SCOTUS announced that oral arguments in the Bladensburg case are scheduled for February 27th.

In the new move from Arkansas, the state’s attorney’s claims that the Bladensburg case’s central issue “is the constitutionality of a passive display that incorporates religious symbolism,” arguing that a SCOTUS ruling on the constitutionality of the Maryland cross monument “is likely to simplify and clarify the legal standard that controls the disposition of the principal claims” and that the Arkansas case should be halted until SCOTUS renders a verdict.

Rapert Says His Monument isn’t ‘Religious’

I think this is where things get fun. In the original bill that Arkansas passed to erect Pastor Rapert’s monument they tried to weasel around the 10 commandments being decidedly religious iconography by inserting language to simply insist that they aren’t.

“(3) The Ten Commandments represent a philosophy of government 32 held by many of the founders of this nation and by many Arkansans and other 33 Americans today, that God has ordained civil government and has delegated 34 limited authority to civil government, that God has limited the authority of civil government, and that God has endowed people with certain unalienable 36 rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;”

Let’s ignore the bit about how just mentioning god so many times kind of ignores that it does endorse theistic religion over non-theistic religion and non-religion for the time being. It’s significant, but taken in concert with Rapert’s other statements about the monument it sets up a very Schrodinger’s cat like proposition because Rapert has repeatedly asserted that the monument is not religious and is instead meant to honor “the historical foundations of law”.

And again in his press release on the monument’s reinstallation in May:

“The sole reason we donated this monument to the State of Arkansas is because the Ten Commandments are an important component to the foundation of the laws and legal system of the United States of America and of the State of Arkansas.”-Jason Rapert

Again and again, Rapert continues to justify his monument by asserting that it is not a religious monument. How then, one must wonder, does a case involving a privately donated religious monument have any bearing on the Arkansas 10 Commandments? If Arkansas is admitting the religiosity of the monument then it would seem, to me, to hurt their case instead of help it.

On Friday the judge in the Arkansas Case said she won’t rule on the request to stay proceedings until lawyers for the plaintiffs have had time to respond in writing.

December 17, 2018

As you may recall, the FFRF and ACLU were the first to file lawsuits against the Arkansas 10 Commandments monument; TST filed their competing claim as an intervenor in their lawsuits on the grounds that TST has a similar complaint and that the State discriminated against their Baphomet monument. While FFRF and the ACLU were arguing about the unconstitutionality of the 10 Commandments monument absent competing religious views in the same public forum, TST’s remedy would involve the permanent installation of their Baphomet monument to offer a pluralistic counterpoint to the already existing statue. All of this is because the 10 Commandments monument was railroaded through the Arkansas legislature at the behest of Arkansas State Senator Stanley “Jason” Rapert.

Image Credit: The Satanic Temple

The Satanic Temple has Standing: “Demonstrated Injury-in-fact”

Today’s court ruling states that TST’s claim of unfair treatment by the State of Arkansas is legitimate and that they are allowed to bring their lawsuit along with the ACLU and the FFRF against Arkansas. TST is seeking to either have the 10 Commandments monument taken down (which would satisfy all 3 complaints), or to have the Baphomet monument installed (which would satisfy the TST complaint and demonstrate inclusivity on Arkansas part … so I’m not entirely sure what that would do to the ACLU or FFRF complaints).

From the Ruling: The Baphomet Case has Standing in the ACLU and FFRF Complaint

“For the following reasons, the Court finds that the Satanic Temple has demonstrated Article III standing to bring claims under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Translation: Yes, The Satanic Temple has standing to bring a lawsuit in this case.

“The Court finds that the Satanic Temple has sufficiently demonstrated an equal protection injury-in-fact based upon a denial of an equal opportunity to place the Baphomet Monument on the State Capitol grounds. The Satanic Temple alleges that it is injured as a result of the “special exemptions to the zoning and Arts and Grounds Commission requirements for the Ten Commandments Monument” that were not extended to the Baphomet Monument. It also argues that by “placing the Ten Commandments Monument but refusing to place the Baphomet Monument, the State has engaged in unlawful disparate treatment on the basis of religion.”

Ok this part gets a little complicated. Basically TST has said that because the 10 Commandments monument was approved, and then the rules were changed to prevent a vote on the Baphomet monument under the same rules, that TST wasn’t treated fairly by the State. The court agrees that this is a legitimate complaint. That doesn’t speak to the ACLU and FFRF’s claim regarding the unconstitutionality of the 10 Commandments monument in the first place, but it does say that the court has to hear TST’s side of the story out, and quite possibly Arkansas may be forced to decide whether their public forum is inclusive (in which case the Baphomet monument could be installed), or whether the State’s 10 Commandments monument would come down. I certainly don’t see a third option for Arkansas at any rate.

Questions of Legitimacy

One particularly interesting part of the ruling addresses Secretary of State Mark Martin was “requesting that this Court find that the Satanic Temple does not have standing because the Satanic Temple is a “satirical parody” rather than a religion and because its adherents’ beliefs are not sincerely held”.

I want to address this point in particular because the court found that whether or not Satanism is a ‘real religion’ doesn’t actually affect whether or not TST or its members has standing in the case. However it did find that their claims “are not a sham or frivolous”. Which is to say, that it reaffirmed that Satanism is a recognized religion in several contexts. Further the court stated that TST’s brand of Satanism, despite its differences with the LaVeyan traditions of CoS, was not the same thing as the kind of trolling engaged in by (for a specific example in the document) Pastafarianism.

Again, from the ruling:

“[T]he record before the Court includes sworn affidavits from Ms. Robbins and Mr. Misicko that they are adherents to and practicing members of the Satanic Temple. The record includes information regarding the beliefs of adherents of the Satanic Temple, a description of a schism in Satanism after the death of the man attributed with its founding, Anton LaVey, allegations of the expenditure of funds by the Satanic Temple to create the Baphomet Monument, and attempts by the Satanic Temple to adhere to a legal process to have the Baphomet Monument placed on the State Capitol grounds. There is no evidence before the Court that the proposed intervenors’ actions are not genuinely aimed at procuring favorable government action.”

The court then declined “to conduct the inquiry requested by Mr. Martin at this stage of the proceedings”. The ruling also goes on to say that if the court were to have to make a decision regarding TST’s legitimacy, based on the information it has, that TST and its members “have satisfied their burden at this stage of the litigation to establish standing to bring claims under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.”

All of that means that the court didn’t entirely ignore Secretary of State Martin’s argument that TST is (as many wrongly claim) ‘just a bunch of atheists just trolling Christians’. But it did say that based on what this court has seen, TST has demonstrated its legitimacy and isn’t just out to make a frivolous or spurious claim. Basically, the court implied that Arkansas is free to make that argument over the course of case at their own peril. 

What Does This New Ruling Mean?

We may yet see Baphomet on the Arkansas Capitol grounds, for one thing. It will come down to whether or not the courts decide the 10 Commandments should come down or that Baphomet should go up. It also seems to suggest that Arkansas may be in a bit of trouble for changing the rules on TST mid-application no matter what the fate of the monuments are. So this will be an exciting case to watch going forward.

When TST held their Rally for Religious Liberty at the Arkansas capitol this summer, Senator Rapert was emphatic that “It will be a very cold day in hell before we are ever forced to put up a permanent monument on the state capitol grounds that’s as offensive as this …“. If that’s true, with this ruling hell just got a few degrees cooler and Rapert should start considering the wider ramifications of climate change. The ruling is by no means an indication of where the courts will finally fall on the continuing Saga of Rapert’s personal crusade to inject Christianity further into public discourse (a quest, I must reiterate, that only seems to serve the financial and aspirational goals of Rapert himself). But what it does do is say that when the courts discuss the fate of Arkansas’ capitol lawn TST will have a seat at the table and have their voice heard.

You can view a copy of the full 30-page(!!) ruling for yourself below.

August 24, 2018

Preparing for The Satanic Temple’s Arkansas Rally

The bulletproof vest looked even more unnatural when I tried to wear a shirt over it, though wearing it openly seemed to defeat the purpose. I assumed that anybody taking note of the armor would just opt for a head shot… Nonetheless, I knew that if I didn’t wear the vest, I would feel very irritated with myself if I ended up spending my dying moments bleeding on the ground from a shot to the torso. The vest would only be vindicated in the event of gunfire, which I felt was still a fairly low, though not negligible, risk. Without any gunplay, the bulletproofing would likely be interpreted as dramatically theatrical or overly-paranoid, but to my security team there was little question that I should forgo fashion for safety.

When I put a coat on, the vest seemed to look as inconspicuous as it could… at least, it was fairly inconspicuous in the lighting inside the air bnb I was sharing with a security team whose main purpose was to keep me alive and unmaimed during my visit to Little Rock. In the full light of the sun, however, the velcro strips and straps made it all but impossible to mistake the visible front of the vest for a mere black shirt as I had hoped.

Ingress and Egress Amidst Threats

We parked a block away from the rally with a view directly ahead of the Capitol steps where the event would take place. We decided, sensibly, that we (me and the bodyguards assigned to me) would only walk to the staging area at the time in which I would deliver my speech. We weren’t parked long before we saw our first gun. From our vantage point we had a pretty good view of people walking toward the rally, and ahead of us a man in a green polo shirt, khaki pants, and a baseball cap parked his pickup truck, got out, tucked a walkie talkie in one pocket and checked his side-arm under his shirt before slowly making his way indirectly toward the rally.

The truck with Baphomet pulled up before the Capitol steps then slowly backed up and began to turn around so that the monument might face the waiting crowd. Some men stood directly in the truck’s path, apparently hoping to prevent it from taking its intended place. Unfazed, some people from our team cleared the path by “blindly” walking backward directly into the small human wall, forcing them aside, while guiding the truck.

Guns weren’t allowed on the Capitol itself, but just across the street from the steps, a mere yards away, guns were fully permitted, and it seems everybody reported seeing some. While one of our speakers — a Christian minister — was delivering his speech in defense of Church-State separation, a man in a ski mask with a sharpened stick approached him shouting hysterically. The cops led him away.

When I began my walk up the street to take the podium, we noticed some men in black shadowing us from across the street. They too were armed, and they too had walkie talkies. They seemed prepared to take some type of immediate action, and for a moment we stopped and looked directly at them, at which point they actually took cover behind the edifice of a stone slab. I had to take the stage knowing that those guys were to my back.

The threats we had received were from white supremacists, and when I looked upon the crowd I saw, toward the back, a small group of ignorant slobs holding up Christian and Confederate flags. Addressing the assembled crowd, I drew attention to the “flabby old men who fashion themselves the ‘master race’,” noting that they were neither impressive in their physical or intellectual capabilities, though I speculated that their mommies found them handsome — pathetic and frightened little boys that they apparently are.

A Facebook commenter later claimed that he had witnessed suspicious armed men “siting in” on me, and reported it to the police, whereupon they intervened. We’re filing a public records request to see what reports and/or arrests might have been generated from the events of the rally.

A team from Vice was filming the entire rally, and they too encountered suspicious armed men whom they drove away by turning the attention of the camera upon them.

I left the stage and Security led me quickly toward a car that was parked in the opposite direction from where we had arrived. This seemed to confuse the armed fellows in black who appeared prepared to intercept me had we returned the way we came. One of them waved at us upon realizing we were on an alternative route. We were even followed by pickup truck for a short while, leading us to drive erratically along a convoluted route before finally making it back to the temporary headquarters.

Most news reports took no note of any armed or suspicious characters. Some outlets even wrongly reported the man with the ski mask and sharpened stick to be a Satanist, even though he was quite clearly screaming in outrage against what he saw as an affront to Jesus, and even though he was openly threatening a speaker at our own rally.

Everyone’s a Critic

Most every news report also insisted that our rally for Religious Freedom was, in fact, a protest against the 10 Commandments. Puzzlingly, some journalists did this even while quoting directly from my speech in which I said, “This is not a protest against the 10 Commandments. This is not a protest of Satanists against Christians. This is not a protest of secularists against believers. This is a rally for reason in the face of prejudice, progress in the face of decline, liberty in the face of rising theocracy, and toleration in the face of infantile tribalisms. This is an opportunity for us to stand together, whatever our differences amongst ourselves, and stand up for the principles that allow for a free exchange of ideas and the free exercise of religious convictions.”

The day after, HLN News had me on for what was intended to be a 15 minute segment, but only ended up lasting about 2. The host was interested in a narrative in which we, The Satanic Temple, were tastelessly assaulting the deeply-held beliefs of others, insisting upon no religious iconography anywhere ever. She wasn’t interested in the story once I corrected her and began to explain that we were defending pluralism, government viewpoint neutrality, and real Religious Freedom. She idiotically impugned the idea that we were motivated by our own deeply-held beliefs, rather than a childish sense of whimsically pranksterism. After trekking out into an armed and hostile crowd, in over 100 degree weather, carting along a 2-ton bronze monument, flanked by a security team in the hopes of preserving my life, that type of asshole interview is still what I can expect from most major outlets. Meanwhile, the evangelical minister senator responsible for the 10 Commandments monument can sit in his air-conditioned office while the taxpayers support his unconstitutional legal battle waged through the Attorney General’s office, all while himself propagating the notion that we are not an authentic religious movement.

It did not take long before I caught wind of even more perplexing criticisms. It was brought to my attention that there was a minor uproar involving my having “fat shamed” the neo-Nazis when I addressed them prior to my speech. In fact, I had referred to them as “flabby,” which doesn’t necessarily denote that they are overweight, but certainly out of shape. As I explained to one person: if I encounter an adult who is 4 feet tall, I’m certainly not inclined to mock them as “undersized,” nor am I likely to put much thought at all into the discrepancy in our heights. However, if this 4 foot tall person is to claim that they are in fact a towering giant and superior to me, and most the rest of the world, because of it, I am probably going to confront their delusion. Similarly, the neo-nazis are both stupid and visibly physically underwhelming. It is their claims to “master race” status, not either of those conditions in and of themselves, that make the neo-nazis physical and intellectual capabilities fair game for criticism.

News reports seemed unable or unwilling to understand the meaning of the rally, though it was clearly and explicitly spelled out. Conservative outlets are largely holding fast to the notion that we are disparaging Christians, fully ignoring that we even had Christian ministers as speakers. Conspiracy theorists see the rally, of course, as evidence for every unrelated asinine thing they believe… while on the side of our “supporters,” we apparently have some population that feels it goes too far to insult the physical condition of Nazis.

I’m told the rally was a success.

August 16, 2018

Today in Little Rock, AR The Satanic Temple (TST) has organized a “Rally for Religious Liberty” in defense of pluralism near the Arkansas State Capitol 10 commandments monument.

A Rally for All Religious Rights, Not One Religion’s Privilege

The rally comes as TST is attempting to enjoin the lawsuits brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Freedom From Religion Foundation in opposition to recently erected 10 commandments monument As stated by TST co-founder and spokesperson Lucien Greaves on the event’s Facebook page:

“Freedom of Religion means that the government must not be allowed to endorse one religion over another or inhibit any religious voices from access to public forums in favor of another. By installing a Ten Commandments monument on their capitol grounds while rejecting other privately donated monuments of religious significance, the Arkansas State government has flagrantly violated a founding Constitutional principle, for which we call upon the people to rally with us to defend.” 

As reported this morning by Arkansas Times the list of speakers include a Christian Criminal Justice scholar, a progressive Christian minister, a founding member of the Arkansas Society for Freethinkers, and TST-Santa Cruz Chapter Head Sadie Satanas.

List of Speakers

Tonya Hartwick Burt is a resident of Guy, Arkansas and will be graduating from Colorado Christian University in December with a degree in Criminal Justice. She is a true example of the resurrection power of Christ Jesus. She was dead in her sins and now experiences freedom in Christ. She serves as Auxiliary member alongside her husband in Gideon Internationals.

Chad Jones is a Conway-based minister with Arkansas Progressive Christians (APC). APC is a Christian organization that seeks to show Christ’s love to all people. APC fights back against bigotry, prejudice and discrimination that may occur in the name of the Christian faith.

Sadie Satanas is current Co-Chapter Head of the Satanic Temple Santa Cruz, TST’s sole California chapter. As a transgender female, activist and sex worker, she is committed to the quest for religious pluralism and equality in our country. Sadie strongly believes all faiths deserve equal footing in the United States and is dedicated to fighting for the rights of others as well as her own.

Leewood Thomas was a founding member of the Arkansas Society of Freethinkers (ASF) and served as its first Vice-President in the mid 1990’s. Lewood served as media liaison for ASF for many years. More recently, he founded the Saline Atheist & Skeptic Society which has applied for its own “Wall of Separation” monument for the Capitol grounds not long after the 10 Commandments bill passed.

In the state’s release of event details Arkansas State Senator Jason Rapert (R-Conway) couldn’t resist getting in what I’m sure he thought was a clever defense of his point of view, stating:

“No matter what these extremists may claim, it will be a very cold day in hell before an offensive statue will be forced upon us to be permanently erected on the grounds of the Arkansas State Capitol. Our Supreme Court ruled in the 2009 U.S. Supreme Court decision Pleasant Grove v. Summum that no group can force a government body to do such a thing.”

That, of course, is the rub though isn’t it. There already is an offensive statue that has been forced upon the non-religious and minority religious citizens of Arkansas. Mr. Rapert saw fit to foist it on them as part of a majority that is unconcerned with the rights of minorities. A position that Rapert has clearly expressed in the past.

Image Source: Screenshot via Facebook

Immune to this hypocrisy, and unaware of his own gross misunderstanding of how rights work, Rapert went on to say:

“I pledge to all Arkansans that we will defend the will of the Arkansas people and the honor of our great state. It was my honor to sponsor the bill which led to passage of the Arkansas Ten Commandments Monument Act and I hope to help every state in our nation do the same if they wish to do so.”

So that’s Rapert’s plan, like a good little Dominionist he wants to litter every state in the Union with his theocratic nonsense. TST might need a few more Baphomets.

I am told a livestream of the event may be made available. If so this post will be updated.

TST Cofounder Lucien Greaves:

The Satanic Temple-Santa Cruz ChapterHead Sadie Satanas:

August 2, 2018

If you haven’t heard, The Satanic Temple (TST) is planning an Arkansas Rally in Arkansas on August 16th in protest of Jason Rapert’s 10 commandments monument.

This comes on the heels of the ACLU and Arkansas Secretary of State both trying to prevent TST from joining the lawsuit against the 10 Commandments monument as an intervenor as we’ve reported previously. While all that sorts itself out in the court though, I decided to do some digging into the background of the case and it’s turned up some interesting facts that raise even more interesting questions. These questions largely center on State Senator Jason Rapert’s (R-Conway) justifications for the monument, and how the organizations responsible for the monument function.

The American History & Heritage Foundation, Rapert’s ‘Not a Church’ Non-Profit

Arkansas State Seal made for State Senator Jason Rapert. Image Credit: Wikimedia user Sjrapert, used with permission under CC-BY-SA-3.0

A large part of Rapert’s public defense of the monument has been to try and make a legal distinction between his ardently religious views as a Christian minister, and the purported secular ‘historical’ nature of his non-profit The American History and Heritage Foundation (AHHF). Much of his argument rests on Rapert and his Holy Ghost Ministries, Inc (HGM) being entirely separate from the AHHF. This is where things start to get interesting though.

The AHHF is a registered non-profit in the State of Arkansas according the Secretary of State’s website, as is Holy Ghost Ministries. But non-profits, with very few exceptions, are ordinarily required to file with the federal government (so donors can deduct their contributions on their own income taxes). What’s more, non-profits are required to file one of various versions of what is called a form 990, which is just a basic reporting requirement that tells the government how much money people gave them for the year. That way if someone says (for example) ’I give this nonprofit $100,000’, and the non-profit only reports say $70,000 the IRS knows someone is lying. Pretty basic stuff so far, right?

Here’s the thing though. As near as I’ve been able to ascertain from public record searches of the IRS Tax Exempt Organization Search and guidestar.org (a popular non-profit information aggregator) the AHHF has never submitted a form 990, nor do they appear in the IRS Exempt Organization Master list.

Now, this doesn’t necessarily mean anything by itself. IRS rules basically say a non-profit has 3 years to comply with 990 requirements and the AHHF was founded in 2015 so it’s entirely possible they filed an extension for 2017 and don’t need to send that form in until October instead of April. Who knows, right? But it’s still odd because the GoFundMe campaign that was used to raise money for the monument raised a lot of money, far more than the actual cost or replacement cost of the monument. So one would think they’d have wanted to report those contributions.

What About the Holy Ghost Ministries?

Despite being a church, which don’t have to report much of anything, Holy Ghost Ministries does show up in exempt organization searches and is on the IRS charities master list. HGM has also dutifully filed it’s required form 990s every year since at least 2011. Those forms give us a public record of how much money HGM has reported as income going back to 2007.

That’s where things get interesting

The funny thing is, since AHHF doesn’t have any records but HGM does it raises some serious questions about who exactly paid for Arkansas’ 10 Commandments monument. Rapert has been very careful with his words, saying at the monument’s rededication early this year:

“The Replacement Monument is being installed and gifted to the State of Arkansas by the American History & Heritage Foundation, which has fully funded the project with private donations.”

The thing about saying it that way is that AHHF isn’t taking credit for paying for how the monument was funded ‘with private donations’ the AHHF just facilitated raising those funds. So what happens to the excess funds? Where does that money go?

Well no one rightly knows for sure because the AHHF hasn’t submitted any paperwork to the IRS as far as anyone can tell. But one thing about the paperwork we do have access to jumps out at me as being rather interesting.

The GoFundMe campaign for the monument was started in February of 2016, so I can’t help but find it rather suspicious that in 2016, after three consecutive years of reporting absolutely no income, that Holy Ghost Ministries, Inc suddenly reported an income of $133,000 dollars.

Now Let’s Be Clear About This

Jason Rapert’s ‘day job’ (such as it is, when he’s not being a Senator) is the Founder & President of Holy Ghost Ministries, Inc, which is an evangelical christian church. He is also, as the State Senator representing Conway, AR, the Lead Sponsor of Act 1231, which codified the establishment of the monument into Arkansas law. On top of that, he’s also the president of the American History & Heritage Foundation. So my question is this:

If the American History & Heritage Foundation is just a “passthrough” fundraising non-profit; and if the resultant funds raised become income for Jason Rapert’s ministry; then is he financially benefiting from his own legislation? Because Section 24 of the Arkansas state senate rules says:

24.05 Use of Influence and Knowledge for Personal Gain A Senator, personally or through others, shall not knowingly: (a) Use the influence or knowledge of his or her office to obtain personal or family financial gain other than that provided by law for the performance of the Senator’s legislative duties. (b) Acquire a financial interest in any business which the Senator has reason to believe may be directly affected to its economic benefit by action taken by the Senate. (c) Perform an act that adversely affects a business when the Senator or his or her family has a financial interest in a competing business. (d) Use or attempt to use his or her official position to secure or create privileges, advantages, or special treatment for the Senator’s benefit or the benefit of the Senator’s family unless the enactment or administration of law benefits the public generally. (e) Use public funds or the time or counsel of public employees, for his or her personal or family gain. (f) Use his or her official position by any means to influence a State agency for personal or family gain by the use of express or implied threat of legislative reprisal. 

So, if his business (Holy Ghost Ministries) financially benefited from monument that was established by his bill that that should at least raise the question of whether he committed any ethics rules violations.

But even MORE interesting is …

Under AR Code § 5-52-101 an AR state official cannot “Solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept any benefit as compensation or consideration for having as a public servant given a decision, opinion, recommendation, or vote favorable to another person“.

Therefore, if he benefited or was compensated in any way from soliciting donations for the monument his bill established then he may well have broken Arkansas law.

And What About the Lawsuits?

When Jason Rapert rededicated the monument in May he said:

“The sole reason that we donated this monument to the state of Arkansas is because the 10 commandments are an important component to the laws and the legal system of the United States of America, and of the state of Arkansas.”

I’ve already written about the extent to which the 10 commandments play a role in the history of jurisprudence, so I won’t rehash that right now. But to me at least, if it is in fact the case that Rapert used his 10 commandments monument act (and the monument itself) as a fundraising initiative for his Holy Ghost Ministries (which the publicly available paperwork certainly seems to suggest), then I would think at least some kind of investigation should be warranted by both the Arkansas Senate and the Arkansas State Police. That’s up to them though.

July 13, 2018

In May the ACLU and the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) filed lawsuits against the State of Arkansas regarding the unconstitutionality of the State’s 10 Commandments monument on the grounds of the Arkansas State Capital. Today, The Satanic Temple (TST) has joined these suits, filing as an intervenor and arguing that they also have standing in the case.

The Lawsuits have been Consolidated

The ACLU and FFRF lawsuits were consolidated into one action last week. This triggered TST’s filing because while they agree with the unconstitutionality of a solitary religious monument on public grounds, TST asserts that they offer a competing remedy: the court ordered erection of TST’s Baphomet Monument.

“We moved to intervene due to our remedy not being addressed by the current lawsuit. Where other organizations have demanded the removal of the Ten Commandments Monument, The Satanic Temple petitioned for the placement of its own monument of Baphomet. It is a fundamental principle in the United States that when one religion is represented in a public forum the government may not then endorse that religion or disparage others. In this case, the State of Arkansas has done both.”-TST legal counsel Stu De Haan

Image Credit: The Satanic Temple

From the filing:

“Movants are well acquainted with the litigation but have an independent theory of relief and an alternative prayer for relief from the Plaintiffs. More particularly, Movants are principally seeking a court order to require Defendants install Movant’s religious monument. Contrast Plaintiffs’ complaint at p. 31 (praying for an order to remove the Ten Commandments Monument) with Proposed Intervenor’s complaint in intervention at p. 9 (praying for an order to immediately place the Baphomet Monument or, alternatively, to remove the Ten Commandments Monument.)”

A Strategy of Inclusion

The reason TST is filing to intervene instead of simply join or support the existing lawsuit is a nontrivial point. While the ACLU and FFRF are arguing that the existence of any religious monument on government property is an endorsement and the monument should come down, TST is arguing instead that the monument could remain and still be constitutional if other monuments of different religions are established to demonstrate religious plurality. Basically, arguing for the removal of the religious monument (an argument that has been a perpetual thorn in the side of theocrats who see it as an attempt to remove religion from the public square) isn’t the only argument there is to make. In plaintiff Erika Robbins’ affidavit filed with the motion she stated:

If my religious beliefs were accommodated, specifically by a court order to either erect the Baphomet monument or remove the Ten Commandments monument, my issue would be resolved. The placement of the Baphomet monument on public grounds would encourage me to visit these public grounds by symbolically acknowledging me and my faith and accepting me as a full citizen of the State.”

Put simply TST’s argument is that the solution can be more religion, not less, which is tantamount to a big ‘be careful what you wish for’ to theocrats who seek to impose only their own religious beliefs on the citizenry while excluding competing beliefs.

What Jason Rapert is Going to Complain About

Arkansas Senator Jason Rapert is going to complain that Lucien Greaves filed under the name Lucien Greaves because that name is known to be a pseudonym. That’s a legally pointless argument and by the way Jason’s real name is Stanley so I’ve never been sure why he thinks he can do it but Lucien can’t. The irony of it has always made me wonder if deep down he suspects that his case might not be very strong. If the best argument he’s got is Greaves uses a nom de plume then he’s in a lot of trouble.

The other argument Stanley likes to make is that the monument isn’t religious. We’ve covered the absurdity of that argument before here when covering the Arkansas monument’s re-installation.

May 23, 2018

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, along with the American Humanist Association, the Arkansas Society of Freethinkers, and several individual Arkansas residents have filed a Lawsuit against Arkansas’ Secretary of State over the state’s now re-installed 10 Commandments monument on Arkansas State Capitol grounds.

The ACLU also separately filed a similar lawsuit on behalf of four Arkansas residents in what amounts to separate paperwork on the same issue.

Flagrant Establishment Clause Issues

The suit as filed minces no words over how egregious the plaintiffs find the monument, calling it “an enormous religious monolith”, a description which probably doesn’t have much to do with legality but it does a great job of portraying the sense of oppression that is felt by non-christians who encounter such government endorsement. It evokes a sense of the structure casting a shadow of dominionism over the state of Arkansas. That imagery is a bit poetic for a legal filing but certainly an appropriate to the plaintiffs’ complaint.

“The State of Arkansas has erected an enormous religious monolith on government property in blatant disregard for the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The new monolith — a six and one-third foot tall Ten Commandments statue — stands prominently on the State Capitol grounds. Civil rights and secular organizations, as well as local citizens, challenge this symbol because it violates their First Amendment rights.” – 10 Commandments Complaint

The Satanic Temple’s Legal Filings Imminent

Image Credit: The Satanic Temple

At the moment The Satanic Temple (TST) has yet to enter the fray, but my understanding is that they will be filing as intervenor in the suit to add their complaint over the rejection of TST’s Baphomet monument.

That will leave Arkansas in a sticky situation where it seems like on one hand they’ll be arguing that the monument is not exclusive because the state has rules that allow other groups to petition to have their own monuments added to the capitol grounds. But at the same time they’ll need to to defend the changing of those same rules to expressly exclude a minority religion’s monument.

Just about everyone has decided that the Liberty Institute will probably be offering their legal services to the defense. It will be interesting to see how they try to construct an argument that claims the 10 Commandments is both somehow not a religious monument (an argument that I’ve already said sounds pretty weak to me), while also claiming that removing the monument would somehow be a violation of the American Heritage and History Foundation’s (AHHF) religious liberty. I don’t know what kind of Schrödingeresque reasoning they plan to use to demonstrate that the 10 Commandments are both religious and not-religious at the same time, but it will be fun to watch them tie themselves into knots trying.

Rapert Tries to Frame the Debate as ‘War’

If you’ve been following this story then you’re no stranger to Arkansas State Senator Stanley  “Jason” Rapert’s use of weaselly arguments that really make you wonder how freedom of expression applies to talking out both sides of your mouth. But his response to the lawsuits reaches new heights of hyperbole. In a post on the AHHF facebook pageRapert refers to the FFRF, ACLU, and other plaintiffs as “several anti-American organizations”before making an appeal to popular opinion fallacy and … frankly being kind of dishonest.

“The sole reason we donated this monument to the State of Arkansas is because the Ten Commandments are an important component to the foundation of the laws and legal system of the United States of America and of the State of Arkansas,” said Senator Jason Rapert

“The sole reason”? Really Jason? Is that why you use the monument in the advertising for your evangelical ministry? Do you think the separation of church and state is just based on which checking account you deposit the money into?

Rapert has done a lot of verbal gymnastics to attempt to justify the alleged secular purpose of the monument, but his actions seem to betray that line of reasoning. It’s as if he seems to say ‘as a private citizen I believe it’s a monument to god, but as a Senator I believe it’s not’. So by way of a compliment I would like to applaud him for taking cognitive dissonance to such an extreme.

April 21, 2018

On Thursday, Arkansas State Senator Stanley “Jason” Rapert (R-Conway) announced the re-installation of the Arkansas State Capitol 10 Commandments monument will take place next week, setting off a flurry of activity among groups like the ACLU and The Satanic Temple (TST), which have both threatened legal action since the monument’s initial approval.

As you may remember the original monument was, rather ceremoniously, destroyed by an avowed Christian named Michael Tate Reed in June of last year within hours of the statue’s unveiling.

The Monument’s Destruction Put Legal Actions on Hold

The destruction of the monument by Mr. Reed stymied plans by organizations like the ACLU and TST to file lawsuits regarding the monument because it presented an issue over whether or not people have legal standing to object to a statue that isn’t physically standing. So everyone involved decided their best course of action was to wait for the monument’s replacement to be erected before the lawyers would start lawyering.

In the meantime, Rapert’s GoFundMe for repairs … sorry I meant the American History and Heritage Foundation’s GoFundMe (the foundation is not, technically, Mr. Rapert even though it shares a Post Office box with his election campaigns and his Christian Ministry and there’s nothing remotely questionable about that at all apparently) raised plenty of money to replace the statue including large sums from religious organizations like Agape Church (which donated at least $5,500) and and the producers of painstakingly crafted dramatizations of hastily constructed strawman arguments … sorry again, I meant the producers of the “God’s Not Dead” film franchise (who donated $25,000).

It looks like all that money (a grand total of just over $85k at the time of this writing) will be put to good use on legal defense very soon. What’s interesting is that the fate of the monument rests on defeating two very different legal challenges.

The ACLU and TST Legal Strategies are Entirely Different

The ACLU lawsuit will, most likely, claim that any religious monument is by it’s nature exclusionary to citizens who are not a member of that religion and has no business being on government property. The TST claim, is different in that they don’t ask for the 10 Commandments monument to be removed, just that if religious monuments are allowed that their Baphomet monument be included as well. TST’s case is interesting because they were already in the process of seeking approval for the monument when the Arkansas legislature changed the rules regarding how monuments get approved in what certainly appears to be a blatant attempt to exclude TST’s monument from consideration.

Baphomet
Image Credit: The Satanic Temple

State Senator Rapert, however, seems to be relying on the notion that (somehow) the biblical ten commandments are not religious and instead a monument to “the historical foundations of law” … which anyone who ever paid attention in High School civics should be upset about because …

The 10 Commandments Don’t Have Anything to Do with American Law

It shouldn’t be my job to tell you that when it comes to the history of when people started writing down lists of things you shouldn’t do and prescribing punishments for people who do those things the right answer is The Code of Ur-Nammu, which any historian who isn’t just blatantly making things up has to admit predates the 10 Commandments by around 800 years. It also has the added benefit of the actual cuneiform tablets actually being on display at a museum in Turkey while no such remnants of the original Mosaic law tablets have ever been found.

So let’s dispense with this idea that the introduction of these biblical precepts were by any means an innovation in how society dealt with people doing bad things to each other. Rapert’s … sorry again, The American History and Heritage Foundation’s position is that they are not presented in a religious context but instead an homage to the tradition of common law (and only paid for by Christian propagandists and churches). Even given that … of the 10 commandments there are, at best, 3 that have anything to do with actual crimes (murder, theft, and perjury). Of the remaining seven, five are just an alleged deity demanding subservience to arbitrary hierarchy, one has to do with what people do in private, and the last one is an outright condemnation of thought-crime.

That last one, by the way, is about how you shouldn’t want your neighbor’s stuff … and last I checked isn’t wanting cool stuff because you saw someone else with it the entire basis of capitalism? So how is any of this symbolic of America? Your guess is as good as mine.

So, the monument is expected to be put back up at the Arkansas Capital Building on April 26th, and I would expect to see lawsuits filed not long after.

December 12, 2017

The Arkansas 10 Commandments monument is set to be reinstalled on their State Capital grounds next week and The Satanic Temple (as well as several other organizations) have said they will be filing lawsuits soon after calling the state’s refusal of TST’s Baphomet statue application an “unconstitutional (at both the state and federal level) act of government viewpoint discrimination”.

Zero Interest in Public Hearing

Last week the Arkansas Senate Grounds Commission held a public hearing for comments on changes to the 10 commandments structure which was attended by no one. That shouldn’t really be a surprise, they were only discussing the addition of posts to block cars like the one that crashed into the first statute. At best, any criticism brought up in such a meeting would have delayed the installation.

This didn’t stop the monument’s leading advocate, state Senator Jason Rapert, from claiming that utter apathy is equivalent to unanimous consent on his twitter feed, but that too is hardly a surprise.

The ground truth is that Rapert seems to have made a big mess for his state with this whole monument fiasco since the state will be hit by lawsuits from both sides. While The Satanic Temple’s argument is a fight for inclusivity in a public forum, other groups who plan to file suit as well will be arguing that the forum shouldn’t be there in the first place. This really limits Arkansas’ options. They’ll need to argue in one case that the forum is not exclusionary of other viewpoints, while at the same time in the TST case argue the right to be exclusionary.

Rapert, of course, still maintains that the monument is not religious in nature, but a monument to the ‘historical foundations of law’. That’s a smoke screen of course. The monument was funded by religious donations, championed by people with clearly theocratic intentions, and let’s be honest if you really want to make a statue to the historicity of codified law the 10 commandments isn’t even a great example since they post-date Hammurabi’s code by a few hundred years. Such things don’t really matter to Stanley Jason Rapert though in his quest to try and codify religious privilege.

I genuinely don’t see a good way out for them, but they don’t seem willing to budge so to court everyone will go. I have it on good authority we can expect to see multiple lawsuits filed in the case shortly after the start of the new year.

 


Browse Our Archives