Kansas House denounces satanic black mass as ‘despicable, blasphemous and offensive sacrilege'
TOPEKA — Rep. Sean Tarwater prayed Thursday for his House colleagues who support a satanic plot to make a mockery of his faith.
Tarwater, who identified himself as a devout Catholic, said he stayed silent earlier in the week during a committee hearing on House Resolution 6016, which denounces the Satanic Grotto's plans to hold a black mass on March 28 at the Statehouse. Tarwater, R-Stillwell, said he was afraid of what he might say if he spoke up during the hearing.
'I was simply dumbfounded by what I heard from some of those that are on the committee,' Tarwater said. 'My blood was boiling, and I was deeply emotional. It was a terrible afternoon. The excuses that were made to support the black mass were plentiful and were nothing but an attempt to veil support for the mockery of Catholic religion.'
The House approved the resolution Thursday by a voice vote after members debated the balance between respecting First Amendment protections for offensive speech — and their own right to respond.
The Satanic Grotto's plans, which include desecration of a Bible and communion wafers, caused an uproar in the Catholic community. Gov. Laura Kelly demanded the group hold the black mass outside the Capitol, which the group's president agreed to do after initially intending to defy her. Legislative leadership also modified rules designed to limit protests at the Statehouse, and an archbishop filed a civil lawsuit accusing the group of stealing consecrated hosts to use during the black mass.
The House adopted the resolution to make a statement, although it carries no legal weight, that it considers the black mass to be 'a despicable, blasphemous and offensive sacrilege to not only Catholics but all people of goodwill.' Seventy-five members sponsored the resolution, which also calls for 'all Kansans to promote unity, mutual respect and the values that uphold our identity as one nation under God.'
Allegations that the Satanic Grotto has committed a crime are based on assumptions about what the group means when it says the black mass will include the destruction of a communion wafer.
Rep. Silas Miller, D-Wichita, said during Thursday's debate in the House that you can buy communion wafers on Amazon for $7.
'The satanists did this specifically to get your attention, and it worked,' Miller said. 'And sadly, we're still missing the point.'
Tarwater said he could handle being offended and that the resolution wasn't going to stop the satanists: 'It's going to happen, unfortunately.'
He closed his mournful-sounding speech by quoting Bible verse from Luke 23:34.
'What eats at me the most is that I fear for the souls of those that are going to be involved with this black mass, and especially for those that are supporting the black mass in this room and on that committee,' Tarwater said. 'And from my souls and my friends and colleagues, I've been sitting over there and listening and praying for all of you: 'Father, forgive them, for they not know what they do.' '
Rep. Tobias Schlingensiepen, a Topeka Democrat and pastor, said he supported the resolution because it doesn't forbid the Satanic Grotto from protesting.
'I do take exception when a group willfully tries to bait and offend the believers of other faiths in things that are sacred to them,' Schlingensiepen said.
He said he also would denounce the use of Jewish, Muslim or Buddhist symbols 'in order to somehow poke fun at them.'
'That said, I want to make an additional point. As a Christian, I will say this: I personally wish that we took the substance of our faith as seriously as we do the abuse of its symbols,' Schlingensiepen said.
He said the Legislature too often has departed from the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount.
'If you're truly Christian, and I can only speak for my side of or my portion of that spectrum, than to be taking care of the poor, taking care of the marginalized, is a fundamental Christian commitment,' Schlingensiepen said.
Rep. Ken Rahjes, R-Agra, said legislators talk about a lot of subjects, 'and I cannot think of one any better than our faith an our beliefs.'
'Do we show love all the time the way it needs to be seen? Probably not,' Rahjes said. 'But I think all of us, at one time or the other, when we've been on this floor this year, have said a little prayer for our colleague who maybe we don't agree with. We may have said, 'Bless their heart,' under our voice.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Noblesville school didn't violate anti-abortion student's rights, court finds
The Seventh Circuit court has upheld that Noblesville High School leaders did not violate a student's rights when they suspended her anti-abortion rights club for not following school policy. In 2022, a student and her parents sued the district, claiming a dispute over posting flyers violated their daughter's First Amendment and Equal Access Act rights. They argue that the decision to veto her flyers and suspend the club was "driven by hostility to her pro-life views." The school maintained it was not discriminating against her beliefs and was instead upholding its policy that student clubs' wall postings remain content-neutral. "The record shows that school officials approved (the student's) club, reasonably accommodated her speech, and suspended the club only for neutral, conduct-related reasons," Judge Nancy Maldonado wrote in the Aug. 14 ruling. Marnie Cooke, a spokesperson for Noblesville Schools, said in a statement that the district was appreciative of the ruling. She said the school supports their students in "forming clubs they're passionate about," which span "a wide range of a wide range of interests, activities, and beliefs." Jordan Butler, a spokesperson for Students for Life of America, was critical of the court decision in a statement, saying it "undermines the First Amendment — an amendment that protects all speech, including pro-life voices." 'I Am the Pro-Life Generation' In 2021, a student gained permission to start a chapter of Students for Life of America at Noblesville High School. The goal of the group's campus clubs is to "change minds of their peers" and advocate for public policy, according to the national organization's website. To advertise the first meeting, the student submitted flyers to school officials for approval. She pulled them from a template the national organization dispersed, which includes blanks to fill in with meeting details and photos of students holding signs saying 'Defund Planned Parenthood' and 'I Am the Pro-Life Generation." According to court filings, school administrators repeatedly told the student to revise the flyer to solely include meeting information. They asked her to omit the photos to comply with the school's content-neutral rule for wall postings. After the student's mother, Lisa Duell, met with leaders to urge the flyer's approval, the school became concerned the club was not entirely student-run, according to court documents. Principal Craig McCaffrey then suspended the chapter as an approved student club after an "attempt at insubordination led by an outside adult advocating with the student.' He said the student could reapply in January 2022. She did, and the club was reinstated. The school and the student reached an agreement to allow the club to continue operating while the lawsuit moved through the courts. Judges: No First Amendment violation In March 2024, Judge Sarah Evans Barker of the Southern District of Indiana ruled in favor of the school district, saying there was no constitutional injury as a result of a policy or decision. Students for Life previously alleged that Barker had a bias in favor of abortion rights in a failed attempt to have her removed from the case. President Ronald Reagan appointed Barker. After the case was appealed to the Seventh District, Judges Frank Easterbrook, Candace Jackson-Akiwumi and Maldonado heard arguments in October 2024. Easterbrook was appointed by Reagan, and the latter two by Joe Biden. In the court's Aug. 14 ruling, they agreed with Barker, writing that the policy and its enforcement do not violate the First Amendment. Schools generally can limit speech that could be construed as their own, which the court said includes the limited public forum that is its walls. It also found that, based on the handling of other political student clubs, the school did not treat the student's club any differently. "The District could reasonably conclude that covering its walls with warring political messages would undermine that order and divert attention from the business of learning," Maldonado wrote. "It passes constitutional muster." The USA TODAY Network - Indiana's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Have a story to tell? Reach Cate Charron by email at ccharron@ on X at @CateCharron or Signal at @ This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: Noblesville High didn't violate anti-abortion student's rights: Court Solve the daily Crossword
Los Angeles Times
4 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
California Republicans push Democrats on transparency, timeline for redistricting
SACRAMENTO — California's push to redraw the state's congressional districts to favor Democrats faced early opposition Tuesday during legislative hearings, a preview of the obstacles ahead for Gov. Gavin Newsom and his allies as they try to convince voters to back the effort. California Democrats entered the redistricting fray after Republicans in Texas moved to reconfigure their political districts to increase by five the number of GOP members of Congress after the 2026 midterm elections, a move that could sway the outcome of the 2026 midterm elections. The proposed map of new districts in California that could go before voters in November could cost as many as five Golden State Republicans their seats in Congress. In Sacramento, Republicans criticized Democrats for trying to scrap the independent redistricting process approved by voters in 2010, a change designed to remove self-serving politics and partisan game-playing. GOP lawmakers argued that the public and legislators had little time to review the maps of the proposed congressional districts and questioned who crafted the new districts and bankrolled the effort. In an attempt to slow down the push by Democrats, California Republicans filed an emergency petition at the California Supreme Court, arguing that Democrats violated the state Constitution by rushing the bills through the legislature. The state Constitution requires lawmakers to introduce non-budget bills 30 days before they are voted on, unless the Legislature waives that rule by a three-fourths majority vote. The bills were introduced Monday through a common process known as 'gut and amend,' where lawmakers strip out the language from an older pending bill and replace it with a new proposal. The lawsuit said that without the Supreme Court's intervention, the state could enact 'significant new legislation that the public has only seen for, at most, a few days,' according to the lawsuit filed by GOP state Sens. Tony Strickland of Huntington Beach and Suzette Martinez Valladares of Acton and Assemblymembers Tri Ta of Westminster and Kathryn Sanchez of Trabuco Canyon. Democrats bristled at the questions about their actions, including grilling by reporters and Republicans about who had drawn the proposed congressional districts that the party wants to put before voters. 'When I go to a restaurant, I don't need to meet the chef,' said Assembly Elections Committee chair Gail Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz). Democrats unveiled their campaign to suspend the independent redistricting commission's work Thursday, proposed maps of the redrawn districts were submitted to state legislative leaders Friday, and the three bills were introduced in the legislature Monday. If passed by a two-thirds vote in both bodies of the legislature and signed by Newsom this week, as expected, the measure will be on the ballot on Nov. 4. On Tuesday, lawmakers listened to hours of testimony and debate, frequently engaging in testy exchanges. After heated arguing and interrupting during an Assembly Elections Committee hearing, Pellerin admonished Assemblymembers Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) and David Tangipa (R-Clovis). 'I would like you both to give me a little time and respect,' Pellerin said near the end of a hearing that lasted about five hours. Tangipa and the committee's vice chair, Assemblywoman Alexandra Macedo (R-Tulare), repeatedly questioned witnesses about issues that the GOP is likely to continue to raise: the speed with which the legislation is being pushed through, the cost of the special election, the limited opportunity for public comment on the maps, who drew the proposed new districts and who is funding the effort. Tangipa voiced concerns that legislators had too little time to review the legislation. 'That's insanity, and that's heartbreaking to the rest of Californians,' Tangipa said. 'How can you say you actually care about the people of California? Berman dismissed the criticism, saying the bill was five pages long. In a Senate elections committee hearing, State Sen. Steve Choi (R-Irvine), the only Republican on the panel, repeatedly pressed Democrats about how the maps had been drawn before they were presented. Tom Willis, Newsom's campaign counsel who appeared as a witness to support the redistricting bills, said the map was 'publicly submitted, and then the legislature reviewed it carefully and made sure that it was legally compliant.' But, Choi asked, who drew the maps in the first place? Willis said he couldn't answer, because he 'wasn't a part of that process.' In response to questions about why California should change their independent redistricting ethos to respond to potential moves by Texas, state Sen. Majority Leader Lena Gonzalez (D-Long Beach) was blunt. 'This is a partisan gerrymander,' she said, to counter the impacts of Trump administration policy decisions, from healthcare cuts to immigration raids, that are disproportionately impacting Californians. 'That's what we're talking about here.' Her comments prompted a GOP operative who is aiding the opposition campaign to the ballot measure to say, 'It made me salivate.' California Common Cause, an ardent supporter of independent redistricting, initially signaled openness to revisiting the state's independent redistricting rules because they would not 'call for unilateral political disarmament in the face of authoritarianism.' But on Tuesday, the group announced its opposition to a state Senate bill. 'it would create significant rollbacks in voter protections,' the group said in a statement, arguing that the legislation would result in reduced in-person voting, less opportunities for underrepresented communities to cast ballots and dampens opportunities for public input. 'These changes to the Elections Code ... would hinder full voter participation, with likely disproportionate harm falling to already underrepresented Californians.'
Fox News
5 minutes ago
- Fox News
The Political Battles Over Redistricting and Mail-In Voting
Texas Democrats have returned after fleeing the state earlier this month to prevent the passage of a new Republican-backed redistricting plan, which could add more GOP House seats in next year's mid-term elections. The fight over redrawing congressional maps in the Lone Star State didn't just spark a national debate over gerrymandering but has also motivated California to retaliate with its own redistricting plan that would favor Democrats. Chuck Devore, a Republican executive with the Texas Public Policy Foundation and former California State Assemblyman, joins the FOX News Rundown to discuss the redistricting battles in Texas and California and how they may impact other states' actions and the 2026 Trump has announced plans to issue an executive order aimed at eliminating mail-in voting to 'bring honesty to the midterms.' His statements have reignited the debate over election integrity. Daron Shaw, a member of the Fox News decision desk and polling team and a professor at the University of Texas at Austin, joins the rundown to discuss how mail-in voting in America compares to other countries, the extent of federal government power over elections, and how the issue has become increasingly partisan. Plus, commentary from the Vice President of the Lexington Institute and Military Analyst, Dr. Rebecca Grant. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit
