Stopping Satan in Oklahoma

stopping satan in oklahomaThe planned holding of a Satanic Black Mass in the Civic Center, a public building in Oklahoma City, on September 21, represents more than just an exercise of “freedom.”

It is a highly symbolic act that signals the end and breakdown of a consensus. Recently a similar event was planned at Harvard, and failed after much resistance and public prayer.

Is Technology Ruining Your Life? Take A Quick Quiz To Find Out By Clicking Here.

If there is one thing that has characterized our American way of life, it is the existence of a great universal consensus. It is a kind of spiritual glue that holds everything together where we all agree to get along peacefully while each one engages in a constant and ever-elusive search for perfect happiness.


That is one reason why the American governmental model (unlike the European) welcomed religions with open arms—it was a means for everyone to get along and prosper. Even the most inveterate atheists throughout our history have agreed to live by the rules of the consensus.

That is why the American government has an unwritten agreement that establishes what many have called a “civil religion,” one with a set of working rules in which certain things against God are prohibited. Although legally separate, the state maintains a reverence for a vague Judeo-Christian God in whom it trusts and asks for blessings.

This consensus is flawed because it makes religion center upon man and prosperity and not upon God. However, it does presuppose minimum standards of morality that are popularly expressed by the concepts or imagery of God, freedom, the American flag, family, and apple pie. It was this consensus more than law that has kept ordered liberty from descending into unbridled freedom and chaos. It has prevented freedom of expression from decaying into blasphemy and indecency.

As long as one agreed to play by these rules, they were invited on board. All this has changed with the Satanic Black Mass in Oklahoma. Satan enters as the divisive figure that embodies all that is contrary to this avowedly Judeo-Christian consensus, and deliberately breaks all the rules.

By the letter of the law, the Satanists claim a questionable right to “freedom” of religion, but by the spirit of the unwritten consensus, they are trampling this same consensus underfoot with all the fury with which they desecrate and trample upon the hosts used in their Black Masses. In this unwritten gentlemen’s agreement, Satan is not a gentleman but a tyrant who will tolerate no other before him.

The Satanic event symbolically proclaims to the nation that our loosely Christian moral code will no longer be universally accepted and will be attacked with fury. It says that America should no longer get along or go along with any morality. Rather, all restraints must be overthrown, be they religious, economic, sexual or social. In the name of tolerance, all must be permitted…save to those who cling to the old consensus. These must be the target of intolerant rage. These must be shackled with laws that violate their consciences.

That is why so many Americans are protesting against the Satanic Black Mass in Oklahoma. This is not a silly little case of freedom of religion; it is a repudiation of the American consensus. It is a declaration of war.

In the face of this, we cannot return to a flawed gentlemen’s agreement or play by rules that are no longer honored. Rather we must forge new rules based not on man and prosperity, but God alone.

The first rule must be that God exists and we will not tolerate that the Lord Our God be Subscription11publicly reviled. We do this not because such acts disturb the peace but because He is God and deserves our worship. He is God and we must first defend His honor and His law. If we do this, all else will be given unto us. If we fail, the nation will be given over to discord, fragmentation and misfortune since Satan never gives that which he promises.

  • yan

    The problem with your thought, as I see it, is two-fold: 1] you don’t propose a principle that permits us to differentiate between degrees of blasphemy; and 2] you don’t really propose a rule that is enforceable at law

    As to my first concern, you say we ‘will not tolerate that the Lord our God be publicly reviled.’ The Lord our God is publicly reviled every time someone uses His Name in vain. Rock concerts and various art forms are constant sources and purveyors of blasphemy. Should these things be a crime? At present, they are not crimes. If they are not, why should a black mass be made a crime?

    There remains the question of law. Assume for the moment that there is a principle that justifies making blasphemy illegal. In order to actually make it illegal in the United States, you would have to repeal or alter the First Amendment to the Constitution. Your idea, therefore, is not practicable.

    I think the correct approach, under our circumstances of living in a very diverse nation–and this diversity encompasses moral and religious diversity–should be to always attempt to be salt and light; to continue to make reparation for blasphemy of all kinds but especially notorious public blasphemy; and to always attempt to convince others of the truth, even if this means enduring social or legal persecution. If it involves legal persecution, we should be attempting to change the laws providing the basis for that persecution.

    Why, you ask, should we attempt to change laws when we are attacked for speaking, but not attempt to change laws to prevent people from attacking what is most dear to us? Because America gives everyone the chance to express his or her opinion, provided the expression of it does not pose an imminent threat to the life or safety of others. If you don’t like or understand this, then you dislike something very fundamental to the legal and cultural understanding of the United States of America. You are of course entitled to that dislike but you must understand that freedom of expression, so defined, is part of the legal and cultural DNA of the USA; and that a satanic mass, evil as it may be, is well within the confines of that vision of freedom of expression, and certainly freedom of religion.

    The fact that it may violate our social consensus is not sufficient to use the force of law to prevent its occurrence. To say that ‘all this has changed with the satanic black mass in Oklahoma,’ therefore, seems to me to be patently untrue. It is just one more act of blasphemy in a country which allows what you and I call blasphemy, and which also allows what you and I call true religion but which others call blasphemy.

    One man’s blasphemy is another man’s truth. The USA stays out of those arguments, and permits each person to decide for him or herself the ultimate truths by which to live out his or her life on this earth. This is part of freedom and this is furthermore what our Church has taught us is the correct relationship between Church and State in Dignitatis Humanae.