Interview with TST’s Lucien Greaves
Salem, Mass. – The Satanic Temple announced on August 22 that it would be pursuing a lawsuit against the City of Boston for its alleged viewpoint discrimination and a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment in denying the temple’s request to fly its flag outside city hall.
TST is a non-theistic religious movement based in Salem. They don’t howl at the moon, post up at crossroads, or trade in souls—their theology is more similar to civil-libertarianism. “We advocate for secularism and equal access in the public square, where we insist on having religious representation to uphold pluralism and democratic norms,” said spokesperson Lucien Greaves.
The temple’s exploits have included challenging the installation of religious iconography on public land, combating corporal punishment in public schools, and opening free clinics offering abortion services in New Mexico, West Virginia, and Maine. “These aren’t just little culture war pranks to, you know, stick a thumb in the eye of our opposition or whatever. But we truly feel that the values of pluralism and diversity and government viewpoint neutrality are worth upholding and educating people on the value of,” said Greaves.
On May 2, 2022, the Supreme Court came to a decision in a similar suit following Boston’s denial to fly the colors of Camp Constitution, a religious organization seeking to “enhance the understanding of the country’s Judeo-Christian moral heritage.” In Shurtleff v. Boston, the court ruled unanimously that the flagpole should be considered a public forum because the city had exercised almost no control over the 284 flags flown over the program’s lifetime, and no records of denials had existed; therefore, the pole could not be considered government speech.
“While the historical practice of flag flying at government buildings favors Boston, the city’s lack of meaningful involvement in the selection of flags or the crafting of their messages leads us to classify the flag raisings as private, not government, speech—though nothing prevents Boston from changing its policies going forward,” reads the majority opinion of the court.
On May 3, 2022, 24 hours after the SCOTUS ruling, the Satanic Temple submitted an application to fly its flag for Satanic Appreciation Week, but was denied by the City’s Property Management Department due to flag raisings being placed on hold, per TST’s complaint.
Then on August 10, 2022, the Boston City Council unanimously passed an ordinance codifying that the ceremonies would only be initiated by mayoral proclamation or city council resolution. Flag ceremonies cannot be sponsored, feature speaking programs by, or use flags provided by any third party, and are now considered “an expression of the City’s official sentiments.”
Greaves says TST requested documents explaining how the city evaluates which groups it elects to endorse, to no avail. “Without any actual metrics, are we just at a point where Boston is simply saying, ‘well, we as the government reserve the right to pick and choose between which religious voices we’ll allow?’”
Greaves worries there is a double standard set in place by flying a Christian flag then changing the policy before other religious groups might take advantage as well. “When you get a ruling like Shurtleff, it’s usually translated to the general public as Christians win a battle to fly a Christian flag. It reinforces this idea that we’re in a Christian nation where a specific viewpoint gets elevated privilege and elevated status, and other religions are second class,” he said.
“That’s not what the ruling says, and it’s not what the Constitution allows for. On paper, these things are far more rational, but the overall impression people get is that these religious liberty claims are for a specific religion only, and we think it’s important that people understand otherwise.”
The City has motioned for TST’s case to be dismissed. They argue that the new flag ordinance is compliant with the SCOTUS ruling and that flying the Camp Constitution’s flag was a court-ordered remedy, not as official government speech or as the expressed preference of one denomination over another. Additionally, the City alleges that the way TST’s request for documents was denied was because the City was not accepting applications once it shut down the old flag-flying scheme.
TST has maintained their suit and alleges that if Boston was powerless to deny a Christian group then it would violate the establishment clause to continue denying the Temple.
Still, Greaves shared he does not have high hopes for the Satanic Temple’s prospect in court. He believes that that TST is on the correct side of the Shurtleff ruling and that if they were to lose the case, “It will be an issue of some desperate contortion of technicality, some asinine denial of our standing, rather than a straight repudiation of the Shurtleff precedent,” he said. He hopes that the suit will still be able to direct attention and educate the public on the value of equal access to the public square and viewpoint neutrality. “I think even if people feel like it’s offensive to have a satanic flag flying, most likely have no idea what our actual values and practices are, and that’s fine. They should be proud when they see even a flag they disagree with in a public forum, knowing that we have the liberty to do so.”
This article was produced for HorizonMass, the independent, student-driven, news outlet of the Boston Institute for Nonprofit Journalism and is syndicated by BINJ’s MassWire news service.
