Last week, there was a commotion when a school district in my neck approved a “after school Satan club.”
A friend called me during this controversy and before the school district changed its mind, to discuss the matter. He said that a prominent conservative group in our community was divided over whether a Satan club is protected under the First Amendment and whether it should be publicly opposed. Although this after-school Satan club may be a moot point, it is important to address the troubling reality.
American conservatives have been so shaped and influenced by libertarian arguments in favor of absolute personal freedom, that they now wonder if Satanism is a part of the U.S. Constitution. This obvious ground must be reclaimed.
The case law regarding the issue of Satanism being a protected religion is sparse. While it is not a binding precedent, an illustration case from mid-1990s by the Federal Court in the Northern District of Ohio provides a great summary of the confusion American constitutional law regarding religion.
Carpenter is a case in which a prisoner was denied access while being held. The court ultimately decides the case on other grounds but it goes into great detail regarding the contours and meaning of religious freedom. The court begins its analysis by acknowledging that “Determining what is religious or what constitutes religion is a very delicate undertaking especially when the claimed religious’ beliefs fall outside of what is commonly considered to be mainstream religion.” However, the court also knows that it cannot be a “blanket privilege to create any set beliefs that would allow one to behave however he likes and claim it to be protected religion. The court is caught between religious relativism, and the anarchy that could result from allowing that relativism to occur.
The Carpentercase’s most fascinating part is the court’s admitted shift in its understanding of religion. Because the Constitution doesn’t define religion, the court “must look to case law for guidance.” It begins by noting that an early Supreme Court precedent “defined religious belief in traditional theistic terms.” This should be the end of the analysis for the originalist. However, the court states that over time, the standard has expanded to include non-orthodox religions and belief systems that are not theistic.
We have made a mistake here. We are unable to determine the boundaries of what constitutes religion once the old understanding of religion was lost with the ratification of the Constitution. We resort to allowing courts the ability to create tests and rules. According to the Supreme Court, it is important that we ask courts to create tests and rules when deciding whether a non-traditional religious belief is protected under the First Amendment.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals proposed three indicia for determining whether the above criterion was met. Federal courts love multi-prong tests involving “indicia”: “First, a religious belief addresses fundamental and ultimate questions that have to do with complex and unanswerable issues. A religion is holistic in nature. It consists of a belief system and not a single teaching. A religion is often recognized by certain formal and exterior signs.” This is another example of the court’s narrow, meaningless view of religion. The First Amendment protects religion that has some rituals or signs that accompany it.
Two important concepts are needed to discredit the notion that Satanism is covered by the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. First, anti-blasphemy legislation was always upheld compatible with freedom of religion. According to the Harvard Law Review “The blackletter rule” was clear. Constitutional liberty allowed for the freedom to express views on religion but not the right to commit blasphemy. Federal courts have upheld anti-blasphemy laws in the United States throughout history and into the 20th century. It is not clear that anti-blasphemy legislation violates the First Amendment.
Here is where religious claims’ actual content matters. Simply looking at the Church of Satan’s website or Wikipedia page (for which I deliberately chose not to link), will show you that Satanic sect views ridicule Christ and revile God. The practice of “Satanism”, as it is called, is blasphemous. It should be punished and not protected by law.
Because Satanism is a blasphemous practice, it historically doesn’t deserve First Amendment protection. This leads to the question discussed in the Carpentercase: What is religion under First Amendment? The Constitution’s text provides very little guidance. The Constitution says that Congress may not prohibit the free exercise and enjoyment of religion. However, the Fourteenth Amendment based incorporation doctrine extends this protection to state governments. The Constitution does not define religion.
Originalism suggests that a legal document “ought be given the original public significance that it would have at the time it became law.” This position is not controversial: A law’s text means what it meant when it was passed. Or else, we could pass laws that mean something completely different from what the legislators intended. Understanding the original meaning of words is crucial.
Samuel Johnson’s 1768 Dictionary of the English Language defines religion as “Virtue” which is based on reverence of God and the expectation of future rewards or punishments. The fulfillment of our Creator’s duties to us, the human species, was and is religion.
Therefore, it makes sense that First Amendment protections were limited to Christian denominations in early jurisprudence. It is also understandable that courts have consistently held that anti-blasphemy legislation does not negate First Amendment rights. As America becomes more religiously diverse, it makes sense to question how far First Amendment protection should be extended to religion. It may be possible to include major monotheistic faiths in the definition of religion if it is founded on honoring God and reverencing Him. If one accepts that Hinduism is a worship of multiple deities, then even polytheistic religions like Hinduism can fit the definition. These are reasonable questions.
No matter how far you want to expand the definition of religion to include Satanism, it is not possible. Satan is the one who rejected God and said ” Non Serviam” to refuse God his due. Satanism is the antithesis of religion. It is blasphemy to practice. Satanism should not be protected by the First Amendment or any other law in the United States.
Sign up today
Receive weekly emails to your inbox
Our founders set out to create a better union. This goal is not supported by the acceptance or promotion of Satanism among children. Conservatives should be comfortable talking about these issues, and expressing basic truths without censorship. Combining overemphasis of individual liberty with the desire to live in harmony with an increasingly insane world is dangerous. These are not things Conservatives can afford to ignore.
The argument that America was founded as a Christian nation is not valid. It all depends on what one means by “Christian nation.” However, it is clear that America’s founding was a Christian nation that had limited tolerance for non Christian religions and no tolerance for anti-Christian blasphemy. The Founders would have been horrified to see a Satanic club pop up in a school for children. There would have been no legal tolerance. This is our inherited tradition.
Satanism is not protected by the Constitution. It is not allowed in the public square and it is certainly not permitted in schools. The Constitution of the Founders will be irreparably damaged if it tries to protect such evil and horrendous things as Satanic cults within public schools. Conservatives don’t have to abandon our constitutional tradition. We just need to stand up for it. This is a good place to begin.
