The Righteousness of Destroying Satanic Altars

The satanic altar that was beheaded by devout Christian, Michael Cassidy.

It has been fascinating to watch a nation get riled up over Michael Cassidy's decision to behead the satanic shrine in a state capital. It's a moment in which self-professed Christians have been forced to choose where their loyalties lie. For those whose morality is merely that of the State (and its legal system), they see only that a law was broken and thus they object. Some cling to a (rather modern) understanding of the First Amendment, and declare that the acceptance of Christian displays requires a tolerance of unchristian displays, including satanic ones. Thus they join with the first group, in favoring legalities over morality.

Truly though, I would argue that such people cannot believe what they say they believe. The desired inaction by those who claim to believe in the transcendent is baffling. How can one believe in a God who is goodness itself and who therefore cannot tolerate evil (sin), and then decide that displays in worship of evil ought to exist? To be indifferent to such displays is at least indicative of a lack of zeal for truth and goodness.

It is one thing to fear consequence, or to judge in prudence that the cost of such an action might be too great on a personal level, but it is another to refuse to assert that the act itself is moral. Any law that prevents the destruction of satanic altars is an unjust, immoral law. The worship of evil is itself an act of evil (at risk of being redundant), and thus it is right to stop it.

We can argue on constitutionalities, but the Constitution is not my God. It is not from whence goodness and righteousness come. Likewise, we can argue about the American Founders, but even if they had been in favor of satanic altars (they weren’t), they are not my idols. On this point, it does seem worthwhile to at least mention that those Founders believed that morality came from religion, and they sought a religious people. They did not believe that an immoral nation could stand. While they prevented the government from establishing a specific religion, they did so in an attempt to create an environment of tolerance for all of the different sects of Christianity.

What we have lost, at minimum, is the understanding that we should wish for a moral nation—largely because we can no longer assert what that is. By having a complete indifference to all religions, the state ultimately lands at an indifference to morality itself. And that is how one gets a satanic altar in a state capital building. Gregory XVI would have referred to it as an “indifference to evil”.

Christians serve their rulers and obey laws — but not when those laws directly contradict the ultimate Ruler. They obey worldly leaders out of duty and respect for God. “Christian soldiers,” says St. Augustine, “served an infidel emperor. When the issue of Christ was raised, they acknowledged no one but the One who is in Heaven. They distinguished the eternal Lord from the temporal lord, but were also subject to the temporal lord for the sake of the eternal Lord.”

Then there is the ludicrous claim that it is unChristian for Cassidy to act, as if to be a Christian is to be passive, impotent, or cowardly. Certainly it has been commonly asserted in the modern age, but that was not the Christian of antiquity. Moreover, the desire to have a morally neutral government is a very modern notion.

It has resulted in an establishment that considers the destruction of satanic altars to be more egregious than killing the unborn. No clearer contrast could be made of the morality of the modern elitist class.