#Michael Cassidy | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

religion-is-a-mental-illness · 4 months

Text

By: Helen Pluckrose

Published: Jan 5, 2023

On Thursday, December 14, a display belonging to the Satanic Temple of Iowa, which had been erected in the state capitol, was torn down by former military man, congressional candidate and Christian, Michael Cassidy. The goat-headed figure was decapitated and damaged beyond repair. The Satanic Temple, which does not believe in a literal Satan but uses the fallen angel as a symbol of resistance against unjust authority, had successfully applied to have their own display featured in the building alongside others, including a nativity scene.

[ The Satanic Temple of Iowa display (left), and the decapitated statue’s head after being destroyed (right) ]

Defenses of Mr Cassidy’s actions, including his own justifications, have centered around three claims.

Satanism, as advocated by the Satanic Temple, is not a real religion, and so does not qualify for religious protections. Consequently, the statue had no right to be in the Capitol in the first place.

The erection of the statue was not a sincere expression of faith, but a spiteful trolling exercise purely intended to distress Christians. It was a display of prejudice against Christians and targeted harassment of them.

Satanism is, by Christian definition, evil, and Christians have no responsibility to tolerate evil. God’s law takes precedent over the laws of mankind, including the constitution.

These first two arguments can be countered by looking at the ethos of The Satanic Temple which states them as “free will, humanism and anti-authoritarianism” and by the stated purpose of the Baphomet statue:

The claim that Satanism is not a real religion misses two key points. Firstly, freedom of religion includes the right to criticise religion and religious authoritarianism, and organisations for this purpose should therefore be protected as much as pro-religious organisations. Secondly, in a secular society, there is no justification for prioritising deeply held religious beliefs over deeply held non-religious beliefs. While Mr. Cassidy genuinely believes he is standing up for his religious values, it’s unclear why values like religious freedom, pluralism, free will, humanism, anti-authoritarianism, bodily autonomy, acknowledgment of human fallibility, and noble thought and action shouldn’t be equally recognised, even if they aren’t religious in nature.

The Satanic Temple, on the other hand, chose not to emulate Mr. Cassidy’s method of critique by vandalizing the Christian display and decapitating the infant Christ. That would certainly have distressed and harassed Christians. Instead, they simply erected their own display accompanied by an explanation of what it stood for: Religious freedom and religious pluralism. Mr Cassidy’s belief that he was perfectly within his rights to destroy this display exemplifies the very authoritarianism The Satanic Temple seeks to highlight and oppose. Thus, their actions cannot be dismissed as mere trolling. As Lucien Greaves, co-founder of The Satanic Temple, stated in an interview with CNN:

There’s a certain point at which we need some adults in the room to tell people what … liberal, democratic values are; what their value is; why we uphold them; what they’re good for; and they need to stand up for these values or we are going to further degenerate in our polarism towards autocracy.

This is the crux of the matter and why accusations of mere trolling miss the target. When religious critiques are perceived as attacks, they can indeed evoke strong feelings of shock, anger, and hurt. This often leads to the question, “Why can't atheists just leave believers alone?” However, when there is reason to think that religious believers will respond intolerantly to any critique of their religion, it is necessary to make those critiques all the more strongly.

Liberal, secular democracies cannot afford to accommodate extremists’ notions of heresy or blasphemy if they want to remain liberal, secular democracies. It would be easy not to display images of the Prophet Muhammad, for example. It is almost never essential to do so. Nevertheless, while there are believing Muslims who believe they have the moral duty to respond to this with violence and destruction of property, the “right to offend” must be upheld. No concessions can be made to religion (or wokeness or any other ideology that operates similarly) that curtail the freedom of others. There must be a clear line understood to exist by all even if not agreed with by all.

When we can offend religious feelings without anything getting smashed up or burned down, the need to defend that right will decline correspondingly. Ironically, the way to stop people erecting statues of Baphomet lies not in reactions like those of Cassidy, but in nurturing a tolerant society.

The secular principles of freedom of belief and religious pluralism are embedded in the US constitution, reflecting America’s origins as a haven for those fleeing religious persecution in England. The Satanic Temple has been recognized as a religious entity, granting it the freedom to uphold these principles. Mr Cassidy may argue that “obscure declarations by bureaucrats carry little weight with our Creator,” but his belief in a particular creator cannot be imposed upon all Americans. That is precisely what the US’ founding principle of secularism was intended to prevent.

Mr Cassidy does not accept that his actions were unconstitutional. Jon Dunwell, the Republican serving as a member of the Iowa house of representatives disagrees, tweeting:

My Observations and Response as an Iowan, State Representative, and Pastor. My response as a follower of Christ…

Bravo, sir. Why is it that Mr Dunwell, a Christian pastor, was able to separate his Christian faith from his duty as an American citizen to uphold the principles of freedom of belief and speech, while Mr. Cassidy was not? In contrast, Mr Cassidy said, “I saw this blasphemous statue and was outraged. My conscience is held captive to the word of God, not to bureaucratic decree. And so I acted.”

That brings us to the last justification, which is the dangerous attitude that the Satanic Temple aimed to highlight and oppose. No liberal democracy can afford to tolerate individuals taking a stance of “You can’t believe or express that because it is evil according to my religion.” This is authoritarian fundamentalism. It’s imperative that we reach a consensus among religious believers (and the “woke”) agreeing that regardless of how strongly we believe in our ideology or its perceived righteousness, we cannot impose these beliefs on others.

This is genuinely difficult for well-intentioned true believers. If you doubt this, I encourage you to imagine that the beliefs that inspired Mr Cassidy’s act of vandalism were true. Imagine that a statue of Baphomet really could lead people to embrace evil and damn their immortal souls to eternal torment. This is not a minor matter! Imagine what you might do if you saw a blind person about to walk off a cliff, who denies the existence of the cliff and insists on continuing his walk. Would it make sense to you to respect his right to disbelief and watch him fall to his death, or would you feel compelled to forcibly restrain him, believing that he would later thank you for saving his life? To a devout religious believer, Hell is every bit as real as that cliff, and respecting people’s right to send themselves there is not acting in their best interests at all.

However, while the motives for authoritarianism can often be good, they cannot be tolerated. Liberal democracy cannot survive it.

Each kind of authoritarian truly believes him or herself to be acting in the best interests of everybody else. However, they quickly recognize the problem when another group exercises similar control. For example, Mr Cassidy would likely not appreciate a well-intentioned Muslim informing him that he is being prevented from claiming God to have a son for the sake of his eternal wellbeing, or that mandatory classes to detoxify his masculinity were for his own good because patriarchy hurts men too. No matter how strongly we believe our own ideology to be right or how terrible the consequences of being wrong, we cannot impose it on others.

It is essential to impress upon devout and sincere believers that, regardless of their convictions, they cannot destroy other people’s things or remove legally erected displays that critique their faith from public spaces. But how is this to be achieved? It is far from ideal to imprison people who are otherwise law-abiding and conscientious. Moreover, this approach is unlikely to deter others who hold deeply ingrained ideological beliefs. Cassidy is already being idolized as a saint, hero, and martyr. A growing body of iconography portrays him as Saint Michael, the Demon-Slayer, embarking on his crusade to destroy a tin statue, and celebrating his courage, bravery, patriotism and determination. Large sums of money have been raised, and prominent figures including Charlie Kirk, Matt Walsh and Ron DeSantis have contributed.

I do not doubt that these people genuinely believe Cassidy’s actions were stunning and brave. However, anybody who cares for America’s founding principles should recognise the concerns about Christian fundamentalism and authoritarian activism, especially when a presidential candidate says:

Satan has no place in our society and should not be recognized as a “religion” by the federal government. I’ll chip in to contribute to this veteran's legal defense fund. Good prevails over evil—that’s the American spirit.

What can be done to address this rising fundamentalist problem in the US without becoming harshly punitive or encouraging people to seek martyrdom or hero status by attacking contentious statues? America’s status as the first country founded as a secular, liberal democracy with strong principles of freedom of belief and speech is something believers in all religions and none have a vested interest in protecting. Since this issue is predominantly emerging on the Right, it would be most effective to speak to conservative moral foundations in order to de-escalate it.

Firstly, Christian leaders could engage on a more structured educational programme to reach those of their flock who are inclined to simplistic, literal fundamentalism. Representative Dunwell exemplified this approach when he pointed out that a statue “has no real power” in itself. It is neither dangerous nor in need of beheading. Dunwell and other Christians who defend the right of statues to exist in public spaces have not abandoned their belief in evil and damnation. Rather, they have a more sophisticated theology where battling Satan is not about physically attacking inanimate objects, but about opposing real-world evil and personal failings through faith, forgiveness, and love for one’s enemies, as taught in Matthew 5:43. Mr DeSantis may believe it is the American spirit to take the law into one’s own hands to make good prevail over evil. Christian theologians, however, refer to the Sermon on the Mount to urge Christians to leave judgment in the hands of God and preserve their own moral character.

For if according to the Law we begin all of us to render evil for evil, we shall all become evil, since they that do hurt abound. But if according to Christ we resist not evil, though they that are evil be not amended, yet they that are good remain good. ~John Chrysostom

The Lord then, the Physician of souls, teaches His disciples to endure with patience the sicknesses of those for whose spiritual health they should provide. For all wickedness comes of a sickness of the mind; nothing is more innocent than he who is sound and of perfect health in virtue. ~Augustine of Hippo

Secondly, schools could enhance their curriculum by offering more classes on the US Constitution, the responsibilities of US citizenship, and the history of the nation's founding as a secular, liberal democracy. It's important to understand the religious persecution that originally fostered strong support for religious freedom and freedom of speech. As a UK citizen who regards the US as a gold standard for such freedoms—at least in principle—it is deeply alarming to see conservatives, who can usually be depended on to try to conserve foundational principles, advocating for a revolution of thought on religious freedom and free expression.

Is the American spirit about making good triumph over evil, or is it about protecting the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? If great swathes of people on both the Left and the Right fail to respect America’s founding principles and constitution, can they survive? Or will the US spiral into another Civil War based on conflicting concepts of “good?”

Thirdly, people of all faiths and none could avoid resorting to histrionic hyperbole either in support of Saint Michael the Demon-Slayer or against him. The man is being made ridiculous with the gushing adulation and creation of images of him in medieval armour or on stained glass windows. He is neither an angel nor a demon. He is a man who became upset by a statue and knocked its head off. The first actions of authorities should be to check in on an ex-military man who has acted so impulsively and destructively. If he has seen military action, he could have had a trauma response that made him temporarily unable to tell the difference between a genuine danger and an aluminium goat’s head. The responsible, proportionate, and compassionate response to his actions would be to insist he undergo a psychiatric evaluation, receive counselling and/or religious guidance if necessary, and require him to pay for the damage to the statue and undertake a commitment not to destroy any more property with a suspended sentence.

The worst possible thing to do, unless we want more people with strong ideological convictions about which concept of good needs to be made to prevail over which concept of evil destroying other people’s property, is to reward and gloridy such behaviour with hyperbolic language and symbolism of heroes, saints, martyrs, demons, etc. Instead, we should view this as an instance of failed impulse control and take proportionate steps to ensure that the perpetrator of the anti-social act is not a danger to others, himself, or property.

By far the best deterrent against anybody else thinking of emulating him and becoming a saint, hero, or martyr is to avoid elevating Mr Cassidy to such a status. We should instead regard him with compassion as someone who experienced a loss of self-control due to fear of a danger which did not, in fact, exist, and who now needs to pay for the damage he caused and take personal responsibility to ensure this does not happen again.

This is not a sexy picture that any idealistic young person (but particularly a conservative) would want to emulate. It has the added advantage of being an accurate picture.