Black Mass: Free Speech or Hate Speech?
Oklahoma city found itself at the center of religious turmoil when the local Satanist group known as Dakhma of Angra Mainyu announced that they would be hosting their very own Black Mass at the Civil Center in town.
Open to the public, it has already sold out for the September 21 performance. We must ask ourselves whether this Black Mass constitutes free speech or hate speech?
Let us first understand what a Black Mass is. It constitutes a mockery of the Catholic mass itself, black robes and exorcising a believer of the Holy Spirit before finally destroying a consecrated host.
While repugnant to some, it might be considered just another performance. Regardless of whether the members of Dakhma of Angra Mainyu believe they are summoning Satan himself (if they believe in such a being), the whole ordeal boils down to free expression. Namely the freedom to offend, or simply to express one’s own thoughts and feelings in whatever way one sees fit as long as nobody is physically or emotionally hurt.
Although, from the petition to ban the performance, I would say about 80,000 people have taken this to heart.
Archbishop Paul Coakley also expressed his concerns about the event taking place.
“I remain concerned about the dark powers that this Satanic worship invites into our community and the spiritual danger that this poses to all who are involved in it, directly or indirectly,” he said.
Allegedly, a consecrated host had been stolen and was intended to be used during the ceremony, but was shortly returned after.
There are types of speech which are not covered under the Free Speech clause. Hate speech is one of them, but like the Westboro Baptist Church, the form of speech presented by the Satanist group may not constitute as such.
Is this not just another form of religious expression? Maybe even artistic expression? If mockery and ridicule of ideas and even religions is not allowed, what kind of stagnation will we enter?
Earlier this year, a Harvard Black Mass was also cancelled. Granted, it is a university. But, isn’t the whole point of universities to foster varying viewpoints and modes of thought? Even those that are less popular?
Seeing as the place rented by Adam Daniels and his group is government-owned, they might just have to let it take place, as Daniels has rented, paid and agreed to follow city ordinances.
It seems that the religious seem to think that any other faith or group that wishes to express themselves in a manner contrary to their beliefs ought to be halted–even when they put up the Ten Commandments on government-owned property but cringe at Satanists also displaying their own statue and monument.
Exactly when does religious (or non-religious) discrimination apply? Is it when LaVeyan Satanists wish to express themselves through a theatrical performance? Or is it when they wish to call attention to the hypocritical attitudes concerning the Establishment Clause in our country?
Bottom line is: if you curtail speech because it is offensive and if you exclude one group from putting up their own display and representing their own system of beliefs, then either you ban all religious displays, or you make it so that all forms of expression and all faiths can be visible, regardless of how other faiths might feel about it.
“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” -François-Marie Arouet (Voltaire).