A few days ago, a Satanic Temple in Oklahoma held their controversial Black Mass, which mocks the Catholic Church. The reaction from conservatives has proven that free speech is a one-way street, something that they and no one else have a right to.
I'll begin with a note about a previous diary of mine. My diary "Catholic Church Sues Satanic Temple - What Happened To "Tolerance"?" was an angry criticism of the Catholic Church for the filing of a lawsuit by a Catholic bishop in Oklahoma against the Satanic Temple, seeking to force them to hand over to the Church consecrated Communion wafers that they had obtained.
In the diary, I criticized the Catholic Church for their and the religious rights's hypocrisy of always claiming that we liberals are intolerant of what we disapprove of while suing another religion to end a ritual that they disapprove of.
I also criticized them for claiming to be all about "religious freedom" (such as opposing LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination laws) while suing to prevent the ritual of another religion.
Initially, I argued that they had no claim of ownership over the wafers, because they had voluntarily given them to someone else. Since writing that diary, I have been presented with the argument that the Catholic Church does have legitimate ownership over Communion wafers, and thus, it would not be unreasonable to sue the Satanic Temple. I have heard that it's possible that the wafers were obtained by fraud, which may be theft, and that the Catholic Church does have ownership over what it controls within the church, such as Communion wafers, even if they are then distributed to someone else.
Having considered those arguments, I have decided that they may be correct. Enough doubt has emerged in my support for my argument that there is no ownership of the Church over the wafers that I cannot continue to support it. This is important, because that argument was a big part of my claim that the Church should not have sued the Temple. With the argument gone, the claim and criticism that was supported by it is somewhat undermined (and somewhat sustained by the religious freedom hypocrisy, which you will see is still there).
In saying that I no longer support that argument, I do not mean to claim that I endorse the contrary argument. Just because I no longer stand behind the claim that they have no claim of ownership to the wafers does not mean that I believe they do have a legitimate claim of ownership. My position on the question of ownership is undecided. I'm not sure if they do or don't have a legitimate claim of ownership. I don't know enough of how the wafers were obtained by the Satanic Temple, facts that could assist in reaching a definite conclusion. Those facts are unclear. But it is clear that at least some of my criticism of the Catholic Church for suing the Temple was based on an argument that I can no longer sustain.
For that, I apologize to the Catholic Church.
But that apology should not be taken as far as to validate or endorse what the church or conservatives have done about the Black Mass. Take, for instance, the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property. This is an ultra-conservative Catholic group, so crazy that it blamed the Midwest tornadoes last November on Illinois's legalization of same-sex marriage. TFP called for the Civic Center, a public facility in Oklahoma City that was hosting the Mass (that cannot refuse accommodation based on content), to shut it down. They circulated a petition that gained over 100,000 signatures. It reads:
With my whole heart and soul, I express full, complete and vehement rejection of the satanic "Black Mass" scheduled at the Oklahoma City Civic Center on September 21, 2014. I urge you to cancel this event which offends 1 billion Catholics worldwide, 200,000 Catholics in Oklahoma and countless more God-loving Americans. Sacrilege is simply NOT free speech.
Except for the fact that it is, and always will be. Just because you don't like a certain type of speech doesn't mean that it is not protected. That is the most basic concept of freedom of speech. Anyone who can't understand that needs a crash course in common sense.
It doesn't stop with TFP. Catholic priest and Fox News contributor Jonathan Morris, who I actually don't mind because of his moderation, called for the local government of Oklahoma City to shut the Mass down. From Raw Story:
Morris acknowledged that Satanists had a “political right” to worship, but he said that the city also had a “responsibility to defend the good governance of its people.”
“Anybody who walks into a crowded theater and yells ‘Fire!’” he continued. “Do they have a right to do it? Yes. Free speech? No! Why? Because you’re inciting violence.”
“When you have a group that does this, not just because they want to do their own little worship, but they are provoking anger and hatred among the community, the city can step in and say, ‘That’s not worship, that’s not free speech, that’s mockery, and you’re inciting violence!’”
Fox News host Clayton Morris pointed out that Oklahoma City had already determined that the Satanists had a free speech right to use the Civic Center.
“But what if I want to go and desecrate a Koran out in front of my church?” Father Morris asked. “What if I want to speak pro-Nazi stuff right in front of my church and get people all fired up on a public sidewalk? I think at some point government has to step in the name of free speech.”
1. This falls way short of inciting violence. Mockery is not inciting violence. Anything less than calling for violence is not inciting violence.
2. Even if it were inciting violence, it could not be prohibited unless it incited imminent lawless action. I consider it extremely unlikely that the Mass would compel an attendant to immediately bash the first Christian that they saw.
3. Provoking anger and hatred is constitutionally protected. I think it's a really bad idea to promote hatred (anger on the Internet such as this post that both sides express is different and acceptable), but legally, nothing can be done about it.
4. If you want to desecrate a Qur'an or speak in favor Nazism, you can. It is your constitutional right. If you want to denigrate the Satanic Temple, and mock them, ridicule them, shun them, shame them, criticize them, denounce them and demonize them, you can. It's your constitutional right.
Finally, they seem to be forgetting that there was something that they could do. They could protest the event. And they did. Hundreds of Christians protested the event. And that is their absolute right to do so. I do not wish to take that away at all.
Whenever liberals protest something, like Chick-fil-A, or Phil Robertson's stupid comments, all we ever hear is how it means that we are so intolerant, because in the minds of conservatives, anything less than not being criticized means that you're being persecuted (according to which logic, conservatives are persecuting the Satanic Temple (which they aren't)). (The Family Research Council goes as far as to claim that merely criticizing homophobia on Facebook is intolerant.) But notice how absolutely no liberal has raised an objection to this protest. We understand that protesting is the protesters' right, and that their protest is not indicative of intolerance or wanting to forcibly shut down the Mass. The calling for the government to close the Mass is intolerant, but the protest is not.
My fellow liberals: we are the true defenders of freedom. We are the true defenders of the Constitution. We are the true defenders of justice. The aforementioned view these values as privileges of themselves, not the rights of all. They have no integrity on the issues of freedom and intolerance. On these issues, their opinions matter not in the slightest.