Kansas legislators, archbishop take action against satanists and their planned black mass
TOPEKA — A planned satanic black mass at the Kansas capitol has spurred policy changes, allegations of theft and religious debates as state leaders scramble to address First Amendment concerns with blocking satanists from their demonstration.
Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly censured the black mass in a statement March 12 and said participants weren't allowed to demonstrate inside the capitol building.
Catholic organizations circulated petitions and urged legislators to step in.
Rumors swirled among Statehouse circles that the Satanic Grotto's president had stolen materials used in the Catholic sacrament of the Eucharist — an accusation bolstered by an archbishop's lawsuit against the group's leader.
But the satanist group hasn't budged.
Legislative leaders went a step further Tuesday and modified the Capitol's building and grounds policies to change assembly rights for anyone who wants to demonstrate at the Statehouse — not just the Satanic Grotto.
The policy changes add three contingencies to the public's use of common areas in the Statehouse and capitol grounds:
Organizations and individuals will not be permitted to 'meet or gather when participation is limited or restricted on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, handicap, cultural heritage or national origin or ancestry.'
People cannot gather if an individual has made a threat verified by state law enforcement 'against the governor, a member of the Legislature or other public official.'
People cannot gather if a group or member of a group 'has stated explicitly that the meeting or gathering will involve a violation of law.'
The Legislative Coordinating Council, which consists of Republican and Democratic leadership, passed the changes unanimously at a meeting Tuesday following a letter from Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach. The legislative leaders called on the governor to use the Kansas Highway Patrol to prevent the black mass from occurring as scheduled on March 28.
'The Governor's Office is reviewing actions from the Legislative Coordinating Council,' said Grace Hoge, a spokesperson for the governor.
Senate President Ty Masterson acknowledged in a statement that the First Amendment protects assembly and speech, including offensive speech.
'However, the First Amendment does not protect criminal conduct,' he said. 'Recent statements from an organization — which pledged to engage in such conduct — necessitated a thoughtful review of policies to ensure the safety of all those visiting our State Capitol.'
Masterson was referring to alleged criminal conduct in a civil lawsuit against Michael Stewart, the president of the Satanic Grotto. Masterson also said lawmakers sent to the director of the Kansas Bureau of Investigation writings from Satanic Grotto members threatening legislators. It is unclear how current those writings were.
In a 44-page complaint filed Friday in Leavenworth County District Court, Kansas City, Kansas, Archbishop Joseph Naumann alleged that members of the Satanic Grotto, including Stewart and the Grotto's vice president, stole consecrated hosts to use during the black mass. The allegation was based on phone conversations and posts on Reddit linked to Stewart's username, 'xsimon666x.'
In an interview Tuesday, Stewart denied the allegations and added that no one asked what consecration means to him.
'I find it very entertaining that he is convinced that I have Jesus trapped in a cracker and he would take it to court,' Stewart said.
He said his religion contains its own consecration rituals and that the Catholic Church has made 'a lot of assumptions' about his religion. The satanic ritual of a black mass intentionally upends and mocks the ritual of a Catholic mass, often including a consecrated host. The Satanic Grotto is a nonprofit organization and is not affiliated with the recognized religion, the Satanic Temple.
Naumann, who plans at the same time as the planned black mass to preside over a holy hour and Catholic mass at the Assumption Church across the street from the Statehouse, said in the lawsuit the performance of a black mass directly harms the Catholic Church and Catholics across Kansas and the country.
'It is the conviction of the Catholic Church presented in its doctrinal teachings that the Consecrated Hosts and Wine are in fact the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, present under the form of bread and wine,' the lawsuit read.
Catholic teachings outline specific rituals for the handling of sacramental objects. The suit alleges Stewart and his vice president aren't qualified to handle such objects.
Naumann provided no evidence to show that archdiocesan property had been stolen.
Stewart said he 'would think this whole thing was hilarious' if it weren't for the Legislature changing state policy to address a single event.
'I think it's because they're afraid,' Stewart said.
Naumann demanded the lawsuit be resolved through a civil jury trial. An evidentiary hearing is scheduled for Thursday. No criminal charges had been filed against Stewart or other members of the Satanic Grotto as of Tuesday afternoon, according to court records.
The Satanic Grotto has changed its plans in response to Kelly's decree and intends to demonstrate outside, as she prescribed, with the expectation that Catholic groups will be there to counter-protest. Stewart initially promised to enter the building, defying the governor in 'a peaceful act of civil disobedience.'
Even with the policy changes, the lawsuit, which Stewart expects will be thrown out, and a statement from legislators condemning the event, Stewart is resolute.
'I will go to the capitol on March 28,' he said.
The House Federal and State Affairs Committee held an impromptu hearing Tuesday on House Resolution 6016, which denounces the planned event as 'a despicable, blasphemous and offensive sacrilege to not only Catholics but all people of goodwill.'
The hearing, which only included testimony from the resolution's supporters, also provoked discussions over legislators' religious beliefs and whether lawmakers were considering First Amendment protections.
Rep. Dan Osman, an Overland Park Democrat, attributed the proponent-only testimony to the fact that the committee met outside of its scheduled time and parties were given less than 24 hours of notice to participate. He wanted to discuss the resolution at a later date, but a majority of committee members voted to advance it.
Osman called the resolution 'shortsighted' because no one knows what will happen on March 28.
Other legislators questioned why they were spending time and resources to give the Satanic Grotto attention. Some supported the resolution as a way to stand up to the planned black mass and what some saw as anti-Catholic bigotry. Others voted against it to avoid treating one religion differently than others.
The resolution is not law and has no legal teeth.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
19 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
A Senate vote this week will test the popularity of DOGE spending cuts
The House has already approved Trump's request on a mostly party line 214-212 vote. The Senate has little time to spare to beat the deadline for the president's signature. Another House vote will be needed if senators amend the legislation, adding more uncertainty to the outcome. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Here's a closer look at this week's debate. Advertisement Public media on the chopping block Trump has asked lawmakers to rescind nearly $1.1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which represents the full amount it's due to receive during the next two budget years. The White House says the public media system is politically biased and an unnecessary expense. The corporation distributes more than two-thirds of the money to more than 1,500 locally operated public television and radio stations, with much of the remainder assigned to National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting System to support national programming. The potential fallout from the cuts for local pubic media stations has generated concerns on both sides of the political aisle. Advertisement Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., said he's worried about how the rescissions will hit radio stations that broadcast to Native Americans in his state. He said the vast majority of their funding comes from the federal government. 'They're not political in nature,' Rounds said of the stations. 'It's the only way of really communicating in the very rural areas of our state, and a lot of other states as well.' Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Ala., said that for the tribal radio stations in her state, 'almost to a number, they're saying that they will go under if public broadcasting funds are no longer available to them.' To justify the spending cuts, the Trump administration and Republican lawmakers have cited certain activities they disagree with to portray a wide range of a program's funding as wasteful. In recent testimony, Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought criticized programming aimed at fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion. He said NPR aired a 2022 program entitled 'What 'Queer Ducks' can teach teenagers about sexuality in the animal kingdom.' He also cited a special town hall that CNN held in 2020 with 'Sesame Street' about combatting racism. Targeting humanitarian aid As part of the package, Trump has asked lawmakers to rescind about $8.3 billion in foreign aid programs that aim to fight famine and disease and promote global stability. Among the targets: — $900 million to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases and strengthen detections systems to prevent wider epidemics. — $800 million for a program that provides emergency shelter, water and sanitation and family reunification for those forced to flee their own country. — $4.15 billion for two programs designed to boost the economies and democratic institutions in developing and strategically important countries. Advertisement — $496 million to provide humanitarian assistance such as food, water and health care for countries hit by natural disasters and conflicts. Some of the health cuts are aimed at a program known as PEPFAR, which President George W. Bush, a Republican, began to combat HIV/AIDS in developing countries. The program is credited with saving 26 million lives and has broad bipartisan support. On PEPFAR, Vought told senators 'these cuts are surgical and specifically preserve life-saving assistance.' But many lawmakers are wary, saying they've seen no details about where specifically the administration will cut. The administration also said some cuts, such as eliminating funding for UNICEF, would encourage international organizations to be more efficient and seek contributions from other nations, 'putting American taxpayers first.' U.S. leaders have often argued that aiding other nations through 'soft power' is not just the right thing to do but also the smart thing. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told Vought there is 'plenty of absolute nonsense masquerading as American aid that shouldn't receive another bit of taxpayer funding,' but he called the administration's attempt to root it out 'unnecessarily chaotic.' 'In critical corners of the globe, instead of creating efficiencies, you've created vacuums for adversaries like China to fill,' McConnell told Vought. Trump weighs in The president has issued a warning on his social media site directly aimed at individual Senate Republicans who may be considering voting against the cuts. He said it was important that all Republicans adhere to the bill and in particular defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. 'Any Republican that votes to allow this monstrosity to continue broadcasting will not have my support or Endorsement,' he said. Advertisement For individual Republicans seeking reelection, the prospect of Trump working to defeat them is reason for pause and could be a sign the package is teetering. Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., opted to announce he would not seek reelection recently after the president called for a primary challenger to the senator when he voted not to advance Trump's massive tax and spending cut bill. Getting around a filibuster Spending bills before the 100-member Senate almost always need some bipartisan buy-in to pass. That's because the bills need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster and advance. But this week's effort is different. Congress set up a process back when Republican Richard Nixon was president for speedily considering a request to claw back previously approved spending authority. Under those procedures, it takes only a simple Senate majority to advance the president's request to a final vote. It's a rarely employed maneuver. In 1992, President George H.W. Bush, a Republican, had some success with his rescissions request, though the final bill included some cuts requested by the president and many that were not. Trump proposed 38 rescissions in 2018, but the package stalled in the Senate. If senators vote to take up the bill, it sets up the potential for 10 hours of debate plus votes on scores of potentially thorny amendments in what is known as a vote-a-rama. Democrats see the president's request as an effort to erode the Senate filibuster. They warn it's absurd to expect them to work with GOP lawmakers on bipartisan spending measures if Republicans turn around a few months later and use their majority to cut the parts they don't like. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer offered a stern warning in a letter to colleagues: 'How Republicans answer this question on rescissions and other forthcoming issues will have grave implications for the Congress, the very role of the legislative branch, and, more importantly, our country,' Schumer said. Advertisement Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., took note of the warning. 'I was disappointed to see the Democrat leader in his recent Dear Colleague letter implicitly threaten to shut down the government,' Thune said. The Trump administration is likening the first rescissions package to a test case and says more could be on the way if Congress goes along.
CBS News
29 minutes ago
- CBS News
New law in New Hampshire allows for public drinking within "social districts"
Cities and towns in New Hampshire will soon get to decide if they want to allow public drinking in designated "social districts" thanks to a new law. Gov. Kelly Ayotte recently signed off on the legislation. The new law takes effect on Sept. 5. "Our state is the best in the nation for economic opportunity because we respect local decision making and give businesses the freedom to grow," Ayotte said in a statement to the Union Leader. "It's common sense that we would give our cities and towns this opportunity to grow their revenue and strengthen local tourism." What is a social district? The law defines a social district as "a defined outdoor area in which a person may consume alcoholic beverages sold by a licensee." The area must be clearly marked with signs telling people where and when they can drink. People can only drink alcohol that they bought from a business or vendor inside the social district. Alcoholic beverages sold for consumption within the social district must be in non-glass cups that say "Drink Responsibly -- Be 21,' the legislation states. Social districts in New Hampshire Illinois, Michigan and Minnesota are some of the other states that allow communities to form social districts for public drinking. Cities and towns that want to create social districts have to hold a public hearing first, and then put it to a vote via ballot question. One Republican lawmaker who backed the bill calls it "true conservative reform" that can help boost downtown economies. "It puts power back in the hands of Granite Staters, supports small businesses, and safeguards public safety — all without raising taxes or imposing one-size-fits-all mandates," State Rep. Bill Boyd, of Merrimack, said in a statement.
39 minutes ago
States sue Trump administration over $6 billion+ education funding pause
About two dozen state attorneys general and Democratic governors sued the Trump administration on Monday for withholding more than $6 billion in federal funds for several education programs nationwide. "This is plainly against the law," North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson told ABC News in an exclusive interview ahead of the lawsuit. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court of Rhode Island. It includes the attorney general of the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, and Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear. "It's against the Constitution," Jackson explained, adding, "It's against the Impoundment Act. From a legal standpoint, this is not a hard case." The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 says Congress must consider and review executive branch withholdings of budget authority, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. The law requires the president to report any withholdings promptly to Congress. Federal aid for schools is typically allocated each year on July 1, but aid was paused on June 30 in an ongoing programmatic review of education funding, according to a Department of Education memo sent to Congress obtained by ABC News. "If the courts don't act promptly, the consequences will be dire," Jackson warned, arguing that districts face immediate harm as the school year approaches. Jackson said the funding review also broke the constitutional separation of powers as the executive branch unilaterally halted congressionally authorized money for programs that serve millions of America's students. The Department of Education referred questions to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which told ABC News many of the programs "grossly misused" government funds to promote a "radical leftwing agenda." The Impoundment Control Act specifically states OMB should specify the duration of proposed partial-year deferrals. However, in a statement to ABC News, an OMB spokesman said no decisions have yet been made. Even though no funding has been cut, Jackson condemned the administration, contending the effect of the pause is going to be massive and could result in North Carolina firing about 1,000 educators. He said workforce training, teacher preparation, suicide prevention and after-school programs could all be shuttered. "Everybody knows when it comes to juvenile crime, you want a safe place for teenagers to be able to go, to be able to keep them out of trouble," Jackson told ABC News. "Nobody thinks that eliminating after-school programs across the entire country is a good idea." The pause has so far included Title II-A grants for effective educator instruction, Title IV-B grants for after-school programming, Title IV-A grants for student support, Title III-A funding for English Language Acquisition, Title I-C funding for Migrant Education and grants for adult education, according to the department's memo to Congress. Parents groups, nonprofits, and education advocates decrying the review are also expected to mount lawsuits against the administration, according to sources familiar. "This is one of those moments where something really big and potentially really damaging could be getting ready to occur," Jackson said. "I'm going to do everything that I can to stop it," he added. "It would be great if parents across the country lent their voices to this cause. I think everybody needs to hear from them." The funding pause comes as the administration has threatened to dismantle the Department of Education, reduced nearly half the agency's staff and made cuts to grants and programs that run afoul of its priorities. Jackson and state education leaders around the country believe vulnerable students will bear the brunt of any delayed funding. Alabama, California, and Washington state's education chiefs slammed the review, saying they haven't been given a timetable on when it might be completed. OMB has not said when it will make a decision. Alabama State Superintendent of Education Eric Mackey said this will affect students with the "greatest need" as the stalled funding meets his state's ongoing educator shortage. "The loss of funding for those rural, poor, high poverty school districts, is just going to be, you know, more fuel for the fire that makes it more difficult to educate children in those communities," Mackey told ABC News. The National Education Association, the country's largest labor union that represents teachers and other education professionals, estimates Alabama could lose about $100 million if the funds aren't reinstated, Washington would be out $150 million, and more than $900 million in funding remains halted in California by the administration. "It is a huge threat to our districts, many of whom don't have the reserves to cover the balance here," California State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond told ABC News. "They built their budgets based on the expectation that federal funds would flow, as they have for many years, and so it creates threats for local districts that they may have to lay staff off. It raises threats for us as a state agency that provides technical assistance to many districts. You know, how will we continue to fund these positions?" he said. Both California and Washington state's attorneys general joined the lawsuit. The education programs likely can't withstand a review that stretches into the school year, state education leaders say. "If we don't have assurances that the money is going to be there [by September], school districts will have already started cutting programs," Washington State Superintendent of Public Instruction Chris Reykdal told ABC News. "We will start our school year under the belief that we're going to go at least a year without these funds," he said. Meanwhile, as districts in Alabama return to school within three weeks, Mackey warned some programs may be eliminated for years to come. "Let's say we get eight, nine months down the road, and we're still in this pause situation and the funds haven't come. Then, I think as we begin to budget for the 2026-2027 school year then you're going to see a lot of programs cut," Mackey said. "People, as long as they can, will hold out. But if they see that this is kind of a permanent thing, that that funding is just not going to be consistent, then they are going to have to go with the more conservative approach," he added.
