A conflict between The Satanic Temple and musician and Christian activist Sean Feucht is poised to escalate as the Temple prepares to host its first Let Us Burn concert in the Indiana State Capitol on Sept. 28 at noon.
The concert is meant to offer an alternative to Feucht’s Christian-themed Let Us Worship concerts being held at or around state capitols.
Shortly after announcing the Let Us Burn concert, the Temple received a cease-and-desist letter from Feucht’s lawyers demanding it stop using the tour logo in promoting the event, citing trademark infringement.
“Your use of the “Let Us Burn” and its corresponding logo is a violation and infringement of the Ministry’s duly registered trademarks, as “Let Us Burn” is a confusingly similar mark,” read the letter from Feucht’s lawyer.
In a statement on Monday, he said, “You know you’re doing something good for the Kingdom of God when your opponent is literally Satan.”
Your tax-deductible gift helps our journalists report the truth and hold Christian leaders and organizations accountable. Give a gift of $30 or more to The Roys Report this month, and you will receive a copy of “Baptistland: A Memoir of Abuse, Betrayal, and Transformation” by Christa Brown. To donate, haga clic aquí.
Feucht also protested the concert in spiritual terms.
“The devil always tries to counterfeit the authentic,” he tweeted in mid-June.
For the past three years, Feucht has been touring the country, putting on concerts and rallies, often in public spaces. Those concerts began as protests to COVID lockdown rules known as “Let Us Worship,” but they’ve since taken on a more Christian nationalist tone. This past spring, Feucht teamed up with the right-wing youth organization Turning Point USA to launch a Kingdom to the Capitol tour of statehouses.
The first event was held March 17 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
The latest events were held outside Oregon’s and Idaho’s statehouses.
In a July interview with The Washington Times, Feucht said that it is essential for Christians to step outside the four walls of the church and bring worship to every state capitol.
“We believe this is a season for revival for our nation,” the tour’s website reads.
All of the tour events were held outside, with the exception of the May 7 Indianapolis concert, which was hosted within Indiana’s statehouse. Feucht’s “Let Us Worship” concert ran 90 minutes and was attended by Indiana Lt. Gov. Suzanne Crouch. During the concert, Feucht said a blessing over Crouch.
Following the event, members of The Satanic Temple, a nontheistic 501(c)(3) religious organization known for its political activism, took notice.
Riley Phoebus, head of the Indiana Congregation of The Satanic Temple, sent an inquiry to Tracy Jones, the state’s director of events, asking to schedule its own concert event inside the capitol.
“That stage is as much ours as it is his,” said Phoebus. The application was rejected because, as Jones’ email response read, the “type of event was not permitted.” Phoebus responded by “demanding equal opportunity to do what Sean did,” she said in an interview. The state did not budge.
Then the Temple’s lawyers stepped in.
“Feucht’s public performance in this public facility removes all doubt that ceremonious activity is a historically permissible use of the facility,” their demand letter read.
The state acquiesced, and the Satanic Temple’s event, which will include music and ritual, was confirmed for Sept. 28 at noon inside the Indiana Statehouse.
“We are not asking for special treatment; we are just asking for equivalent representation,” said Phoebus.
Music will be provided by Satanic Planet, the organization’s band. TST co-founder and spokesperson Lucien Greaves is the frontman for the band. Greaves said the event will bring the message of pluralism to counter Feucht’s self-proclaimed attempt to “hijack” state capitols.
“(Satanic Planet’s) purpose was to be a band like any other,” Greaves added, “However, after becoming aware of what Feucht was doing, we felt perfectly poised to assert” this message.
“We intend to play as many locations as Sean Feucht played, on the same terms that Feucht played them, to whatever extent our fundraising will allow,” Greaves said. They can’t sell tickets.
Un online fundraiser has earned to date 74% of its $15,000 goal.
The Indiana concert will be the first in the Temple’s own capitol tour, which was named Let Us Burn in direct response to Feucht’s mission, Let Us Worship.
The tour is what Phoebus called “an inversion of what Feucht is doing.” He wants to bring Biblical concepts back into government, she explained, and the Temple is looking to “support religious pluralism,” freedom of expression and a government free from religion.
The tour will go on as branded, Greaves said. The response from the Temple’s lawyer to the cease-and-desist letter was: “We are not impressed.”
Meanwhile, Feucht continues his own Kingdom to the Capitol tour through August.
Heather Greene is a contributor to Religion News Service.
Spanish 
English 
7 Respuestas
It’s freedom of religion (Or whatever Satanism is) If you don’t like it then don’t attend. This applies to either group.
This should be a wake-up call to Christians trying to work religion back into government properties and the 10 commandments back into school rooms. Christianity is not the only religion that will be making use of these venues…
Yeah, but that doesn’t seem to dawn on the dominionist/christian nationalist types… I listen and read them sometimes and not a one of them seems to consider what other people, not like them, are thinking…nor do they (the dominionists) ever seem to consider that people not like them (a majority of the USA) might push back or not like being pushed around and have to do things they don’t want to, etc (ex. listen to a teacher give a rote prayer in school) It’s almost as if the dominionist/christian nationalist think they are aren’t dealing with real people with equally passionate beliefs. (maybe they’ve dehumanized the Other so many times that this flawed thinking is so easily arrived at)
What jumps out for me, alongside the constitutional issues raised, is the chosen countering strategy involving language.
So we have Sean using particular language in his project, where that language characterises persons who are outsiders to that project. So what Sean has to say about those inside and outwith this/his project.
Instead of challenging the ideological/theological thinking informing Sean and his project, those outside the project have chosen to accept his designation of them, in saying “Let us burn”. Which countering strategy draws attention to the ideology and life-choices and spirituality of the outsiders, and draws the immediate attention of a general audience away from the proselytizing language and psychology and social psychology relied on by Sean.
Sean then, in part, falls back on a commercial law argument, in order to do interference on this strategy adopted by his opponents. As if he recognises the strength of that strategy. So a real test of the “Satan at work” polemic which Sean appears to rely on.
Bottom line, Sean seems to have work to do, to convince a general audience that his opponents here represent a Satan they should turn away from. He there puts at risk the generality of Christianity that also makes use of the God-Satan binary, but in a manner differing from Sean’s use of that binary.
I mean, Sean’s a grifter, and grifter’s gonna grift. he’s just in it for the money and the fame.
I’ve always gotten a “Troll Farm” vibe from the Satanic Temple. Like they’re primarily trolling people and watching the fun. Overreaction is funny.
They also remind me of the Discordian Society of 1960s-70s San Francisco, an occult group that did not take themselves seriously. Claimed to worship the goddess of discord, revered Emperor Norton as a saint, and did some magnificent media trolling, too. Like the “Rule of 23”, where they took the number 23 at random and puffed it up as having some Great Occult Significance, as well as being the code number/recognition sign of The Illuminati. (Isn’t there a Psalm with that number? Wooooooooo.) And tried to see how many would fall for it.
I am totally confused between the two logos…
(Not really, and neither will anyone with a lick of sense, Christian or otherwise)
If the dispute ever goes to court, which seems unlikely, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Temple wins by claiming their version of the logo is satirical in nature.