The recent controversy surrounding the planned Black Mass at the Kansas State Capitol has sparked heated debate about the limits of religious freedom. While many find the Satanic Grotto’s event deeply offensive, it raises an essential question: Should the government have the power to determine which religious expressions are permissible?
The Constitutional Right to Religious Freedom
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
This foundational principle protects all religious beliefs—whether mainstream or minority, widely accepted or controversial. The same legal protections that allow churches, mosques, and synagogues to practice their faith also extend to groups like The Satanic Grotto, no matter how uncomfortable that may make some people.
The Kansas State Capitol, as a government building, serves as a public forum where groups can gather for peaceful assembly, including religious ceremonies. If the government were to selectively deny certain faith-based groups access to public spaces while granting it to others, it would risk engaging in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.
Who Gets to Decide?
The pushback against the Black Mass comes primarily from Catholic and Christian groups who see the ritual as deeply sacrilegious. These objections are understandable, as religious beliefs are deeply personal and meaningful. However, the broader issue is whether a government body should be empowered to regulate which religious beliefs are acceptable.
If a state official were to block the Black Mass on the grounds of its content, what precedent does that set? Could the same argument be used in the future to restrict Islamic prayer services, Buddhist meditations, or even certain Christian ceremonies that are deemed controversial by a future administration? When we give the government the power to decide which beliefs are permissible, we open the door to the potential suppression of all beliefs.
The Slippery Slope of Censorship
The same First Amendment protections that shield Christians from persecution in a secularizing world also protect less mainstream faiths. Many of the same religious groups protesting the Black Mass today have, at times in history, been persecuted for their own beliefs.
If the government starts picking winners and losers in the religious marketplace, it won’t stop at Satanists. History has shown that once authorities begin censoring one group, others soon follow.
The Real Test of Religious Liberty
True religious liberty means defending the rights of all faiths—even those we personally oppose. It is easy to support freedom for beliefs we share; the real test of a free society is whether we extend that right to those we don’t.
The Black Mass controversy is an opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to the First Amendment, even in difficult cases. If we truly believe in religious liberty, we must recognize that allowing government to censor one group’s beliefs ultimately puts everyone’s rights at risk.
The question isn’t whether we agree with the Satanic Grotto’s beliefs—it’s whether we believe the government should have the power to determine which religious beliefs are acceptable at all. And if history has taught us anything, the answer to that should be a resounding no.
