Michael Cassidy recently took part in the pious act of beheading a satanic altar in a state capital. In response, some self-proclaimed Christians condemned his decision, thus showing an allegiance to something else entirely.
Wait, what??? That thing was on display in a public building? I guess I shouldn't be surprised given how we are treating young boys and girls these days, but still. . .
As Matt Walsh pointed out the Left cheered when Confederate statues were being destroyed and torn down. Little to no action was taken against them who did this vandalism. Yet, there is this outcry and arrest over the beheading of this Satanic statue.
Turning the other cheek and passivity are not in any way the same reaction to evil. Some of our founding fathers were indeed Deists, such as Jefferson and Washington but they embraced the tenants of Christianity as a necessity to form the moral foundation of this nation. The Constitution allows for religious freedom but only within the framework of what is compatible with Christian beliefs and social norms. There should be no apology or legal grey area with the destruction of the satanic alter. Verbal protests are deaf to who and what is evil. Physical destruction of any form of evil is an absolute. Turn the tables in your Temple of life to insure evil does not survive.
A point not made often enough, or so well - equating that which is legal with that which is moral. Bad idea. Perhaps an inevitable consequence of atheism? Not sure. Certainly a consequence of a deranged idea of the nature of law and what is legal.
Remember: the definition of "legal" always and only amounts to that which has yet to be made illegal.
Does that state capitol have the Ten Commandments or other displays associated with Christianity? I remember when they used “separation of state and religion” to drive out any such, including the Nativity, from the Legal Spaces such as court houses. So how can this display go up? OTOH, I rejoice that they show who they serve and who they are.
"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."
Think you miss the greater part of Catholic teaching on this. Not that condoning satanic displays is a Catholic action, we need to militantly argue against such scandal for the greater good. That part is a given.
However, the idea of the rights of the individual are derived from the truth of conscience, the primordial Christ. The dignity of each person is also sacred. So despite what laws might be in the government slate, this ugly statue still remains a work of art by an individual. We have no right to destroy a work of another person without just cause for such violence. Violence is rarely the right expression for Christians.
Let’s recognize that despite the declaration of the statue as satanic it is a work of human inspiration. Inspiration does not arise from the devil. That is, art is a work of creativity which in a state of grace should reflect the goodness and beauty of Our Creator. In considering this, ugly and boring, sculpture from this perspective we can recognize it as a cry for help from a person failing to receive the grace God gives so generously.
We then need to respond to this beleaguered artist with charity. Considering the religious tone this person expresses it may be best to remain at a distance and use fasting and prayer to intercede with God for the restoration of this lost soul. Reacting with violent destruction of the work this person made is an offense to the dignity of the person.
Truly setting this bad art up in the public forum and especially during Advent is clearly an antagonistic act. Christians have faced much greater acts of persecution than a defiant satanic idol set in public during Advent. We must face such acts with the dignity of the person, despite the antagonistic bearing, as a first priority with charity and the hope for the restoration of a soul as the critical matter. The gravity of the scandal must clearly be considered in that the detriment to others may greatly outweigh the charity owed to the other.
I hope to identify that bad art should not be addressed with violent acts but rather acts of charity in the hope for conversion of the other. I would also judge that the scandal and harm done by exceedingly bad art presented as an offensive act at Advent does not require a violent response. I can understand how offended one could be by this grotesque work. Yet I don’t believe destroying what one claims to be an artistic expression is warranted in this case.
Consider also if the Protestants were justified in destroying Hindu temples? Would you accept it if this man raided a Hindu temple and beheaded an idol inside? How different is this junk art being destroyed from such an aggressive act as done by the British in India?
Wait, what??? That thing was on display in a public building? I guess I shouldn't be surprised given how we are treating young boys and girls these days, but still. . .
As Matt Walsh pointed out the Left cheered when Confederate statues were being destroyed and torn down. Little to no action was taken against them who did this vandalism. Yet, there is this outcry and arrest over the beheading of this Satanic statue.
Turning the other cheek and passivity are not in any way the same reaction to evil. Some of our founding fathers were indeed Deists, such as Jefferson and Washington but they embraced the tenants of Christianity as a necessity to form the moral foundation of this nation. The Constitution allows for religious freedom but only within the framework of what is compatible with Christian beliefs and social norms. There should be no apology or legal grey area with the destruction of the satanic alter. Verbal protests are deaf to who and what is evil. Physical destruction of any form of evil is an absolute. Turn the tables in your Temple of life to insure evil does not survive.
A point not made often enough, or so well - equating that which is legal with that which is moral. Bad idea. Perhaps an inevitable consequence of atheism? Not sure. Certainly a consequence of a deranged idea of the nature of law and what is legal.
Remember: the definition of "legal" always and only amounts to that which has yet to be made illegal.
Thankfully, God doesn't have time for that.
Does that state capitol have the Ten Commandments or other displays associated with Christianity? I remember when they used “separation of state and religion” to drive out any such, including the Nativity, from the Legal Spaces such as court houses. So how can this display go up? OTOH, I rejoice that they show who they serve and who they are.
Wonderful. On its way to my Reps & Senators in D.C. as soon as I finish this comment. I hope all the rest will also forward to D.C.
Matthew 24
9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation, and put you to death; and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake.
10 And then many will fall away,[b] and betray one another, and hate one another.
11 And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray.
12 And because wickedness is multiplied, most men’s love will grow cold.
13 But he who endures to the end will be saved.
Galatians 6
7 Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.
8 For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.
9 And let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart.
10 So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all men, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.
Not gonna hate or condemn Cassidy. If I was to sit judge or jury on his case. He would get fined. As a Christian I am jumping for joy at his action.
Congratulations, Crusader Gal! I've just discovered your Homefront Crusade.
Yes, we live in a culture that, as you say, "considers the destruction of satanic altars to be more egregious than killing the unborn"
The fact is: satanism and abortism go side by side.
Greetings from Brazil (once called Terra Sancta Crucis - Land of the Holy Cross).
Here we are working hard to prevent the legalization of abortion here in Brazil.
Please pray for us.
"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."
Bravo! What an indictment of this den of thieves.
Think you miss the greater part of Catholic teaching on this. Not that condoning satanic displays is a Catholic action, we need to militantly argue against such scandal for the greater good. That part is a given.
However, the idea of the rights of the individual are derived from the truth of conscience, the primordial Christ. The dignity of each person is also sacred. So despite what laws might be in the government slate, this ugly statue still remains a work of art by an individual. We have no right to destroy a work of another person without just cause for such violence. Violence is rarely the right expression for Christians.
Let’s recognize that despite the declaration of the statue as satanic it is a work of human inspiration. Inspiration does not arise from the devil. That is, art is a work of creativity which in a state of grace should reflect the goodness and beauty of Our Creator. In considering this, ugly and boring, sculpture from this perspective we can recognize it as a cry for help from a person failing to receive the grace God gives so generously.
We then need to respond to this beleaguered artist with charity. Considering the religious tone this person expresses it may be best to remain at a distance and use fasting and prayer to intercede with God for the restoration of this lost soul. Reacting with violent destruction of the work this person made is an offense to the dignity of the person.
Truly setting this bad art up in the public forum and especially during Advent is clearly an antagonistic act. Christians have faced much greater acts of persecution than a defiant satanic idol set in public during Advent. We must face such acts with the dignity of the person, despite the antagonistic bearing, as a first priority with charity and the hope for the restoration of a soul as the critical matter. The gravity of the scandal must clearly be considered in that the detriment to others may greatly outweigh the charity owed to the other.
I hope to identify that bad art should not be addressed with violent acts but rather acts of charity in the hope for conversion of the other. I would also judge that the scandal and harm done by exceedingly bad art presented as an offensive act at Advent does not require a violent response. I can understand how offended one could be by this grotesque work. Yet I don’t believe destroying what one claims to be an artistic expression is warranted in this case.
Consider also if the Protestants were justified in destroying Hindu temples? Would you accept it if this man raided a Hindu temple and beheaded an idol inside? How different is this junk art being destroyed from such an aggressive act as done by the British in India?
Everything about this is disappointing.
*mic drop*. You're quickly becoming a favorite cultural observer.
Reminds me of Gideon. And Jesus, too.
Judges 6:27-29 and John 2:14-16, respectively.
Thank you my precious sister in Christ!!
Love you bunches, Sarah!!
It’s fun to hate and destroy those who have a moral code.