Hail Satan Rocks City Hall

Audience attending a government meeting in a conference room

The meeting began with “Dear dark father” and ended with “Hail Satan.”

Story Snapshot

Ottumwa’s new invocation policy opened the microphone to all belief systems.
Former council member Matt Dalbey delivered a scheduled invocation that closed with “Hail Satan”.
The city said it cannot screen prayer content or discriminate by faith.
The Supreme Court’s framework on legislative prayer limits viewpoint-based exclusions.

A planned invocation, not a stunt from the back row

Ottumwa’s City Council approved a new invocation policy in January that invited residents from any belief system to open meetings with prayer. The resolution barred officials from reviewing or editing content beforehand, and it aimed to respect organized faiths, unorganized traditions, and the lack of belief. On October 6, former council member and Ottumwa resident Matt Dalbey took his turn under that policy. He delivered a brief invocation that included “Dear dark father,” called on “reasoning with agnosticism,” and ended, “Hail Satan”.

The mayor had placed the invocation at the top of the agenda, as the policy requires. The meeting room stirred as Dalbey spoke, but the invocation proceeded within allotted time. After he finished, emotions spilled into public comment and council chatter. Some attendees called it a curse. Others demanded stronger guardrails. The invocation, however, matched the city’s written rules for open participation. Reporting tied his slot to the policy adopted by a 4-1 vote earlier in the year.

What the city said and why that matters

City officials posted that they cannot discriminate against a denomination, do not pre-screen remarks, and do not endorse the content of invocations. That stance follows the design of the policy, which rejected prior review to avoid picking winners and losers among faiths. The city pointed to neutrality, not approval. That approach aligns with how many councils try to avoid lawsuits: open the forum, set neutral time limits, and step back from content policing.

That legal posture leans on the Supreme Court’s framework for legislative prayer. In Town of Greece, the Court upheld opening prayers tied to tradition while warning against targeting or excluding disfavored faiths. Federal appeals courts have echoed that government may not screen out minority viewpoints just because they offend or shock. The Ninth Circuit stressed this neutrality in a case involving The Satanic Temple and the City of Scottsdale.

The constitutional line: history, neutrality, and local control

Legislative prayer survives because it is rooted in American history, but courts draw a line at discriminatory administration. Cities may keep prayer, use a volunteer list, and invite local voices. They may not reject a speaker only due to faith identity or viewpoint. Recent litigation shows how tight that line can be. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit allowed Boston’s council to keep its custom while rejecting specific claims from The Satanic Temple under its facts, underscoring that the details of selection rules matter.

Ottumwa chose an open, first-come process with no content review, which removes selection bias but invites controversy. That trade-off is the point: neutrality protects all viewpoints in the forum, even those most residents dislike. The alternative is discretion that can drift into favoritism. Many conservatives support clear rules, equal treatment, and local accountability. That means keep the prayer tradition, write neutral gates, and enforce decorum evenly, not use taste tests to decide who prays.

What comes next for Ottumwa

The council can reaffirm the policy, tighten neutral time and conduct rules, or replace the prayer with a moment of silence. Each option carries costs. Keep the policy, and more minority-faith invocations will likely follow. Switch to selection by invitation, and the city risks claims of bias if discretion lacks objective criteria. End spoken prayer, and the council avoids future fights but gives up a tradition many residents value.

If you look at the whole video, the woman which interrupted the mayor, is the only one that did not stand up for the invocation.

She is council member Cara Galloway and is actually the one that warned weeks earlier (I suspect she is a secularist), a “nondiscriminatory”…

— GvonT (@Vons700) October 8, 2026

Practical steps can cool the rhetoric while honoring both faith and freedom. First, publish a clear, neutral sign-up process and calendar. Second, adopt standard decorum rules that apply to every invocation, including time, profanity bans, and no direct attacks on attendees. Third, follow the city’s disclaimer at every meeting: the council does not endorse the speaker’s theology. These tools protect the custom and the Constitution at the same time.