Reynolds v. United States 98 U.S. 145 (1879) – The Question of Polygamy

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…  Amendment I, U.S. Constitution 

 “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”   ~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, 1802 

 By: Christa Lasher  

Reynolds has the prestigious position of being the first case in the U.S. Supreme Court’s history involving either the Establishment Clause (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…) or the Free Exercise Clause (…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…).   Reynolds was the first Free Exercise case heard by the Supreme Court who would not agree to hear an Establishment case until 1947 with Everson v. Board of Education.  After Reynolds, the Court did not consider another Free Exercise case until 1940 with Cantwell v. Connecticut.  (That is not to say that lower courts did not hear and adjudicate other Establishment or Free Exercise cases.  In fact, they did.  The Supreme Court simply did not choose to hear any until about 60 years after Reynolds.)  Up until 1940, Reynolds was the only precedent involving religion decided by the Supreme Court.  The decision in that case still has effect today.  

Joseph Smith

I will spend very little time discussing the history surrounding this case and instead defer to Sarah Barringer Gordon’s The Mormon Question (2002) which carefully and thoroughly outlines not only the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as they journeyed from New York to the Utah Territory but also of the reaction to and debate about Mormonism and polygamy.  A brief survey of the highlights will do.  Joseph Smith, while living in upstate New York, claimed to have been guided by an angel to golden plates which he translated into the Book of Mormon in 1830.  He quickly attracted a good number of disciples who followed him through Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois.  In 1843, he received the “Revelation on Celestial Marriage,” (see LDS Doctrine and Covenant 132) which remained a secret held by Joseph Smith and his intimate circle for almost a decade after.  During the intervening years, Mormons met with discrimination and violence wherever they went.  In 1844, Smith was murdered by a mob that attacked the jail where he was being held awaiting trial.  Following his 

Mormon Temple

 death, faithful Mormons migrated to what would become the Utah Territory in 1847 with Brigham Young at the lead.  In 1850, Congress organized the Utah Territory, and two years later, the church acknowledged and read aloud the “Revelation on Celestial Marriage.”  After years of intense debate (polygamy was rhetorically connected to slavery, so states’ rights became an issue in the debate over polygamy as well), Congress passed the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act of 1862.  In order to challenge this act, and the federal government’s right to interfere with local government (at the time, the federal government had little significant control over the states and other local governments), the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints (LDS) decided to get a member convicted of polygamy and appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court.  George Reynolds was a perfect candidate for this test case, for he was both a dedicated Mormon and yet of only modest standing within the Church.  In 1878, the Court heard the case, and in 1879, it handed down its decision. 

Chief Justice Waite wrote the decision of the Court, with no dissenting and only one concurring opinion.  He identified six questions before the Court, the first four of which were technical issues such as improperly excusing jurors or improperly admitting evidence.  The fifth question interests us here: “Should the accused have been acquitted if he married the second time, because he believed it to be his religious duty?”  The first four questions were dismissed – the court below had not acted improperly.  On this question about the exercise of religion Chief Justice Waite spent proportionally more time than any other question. 

This was the first time the Court adjudicated the significance of the First Amendment’s religion clauses, and so first, they set about defining religion.  Here, they used Thomas Jefferson’s understanding – the Jeffersonian interpretation of the wall of separation – to determine what religion and freedom of religion meant.  Quoting Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, the court determined that religion – at least that part of it which was to be protected – sat in the realm of opinion.  The letter, the Court stated, “may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured.  Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.”  That is, belief is protected absolutely according this decision, but action is not.  Reynolds may believe whatever he wishes about the importance of polygamy, but that did not mean he could necessarily act upon that belief.  The Court had then to tackle the issue of polygamy itself. 

Chief Justice Waite traced the history of marriage – monogamy versus polygamy – within Europe, declaring polygamy to be “almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people.”  Polygamy had virtually always been a disagreeable and punishable offence in all European societies and their descendents.  Moreover, it was not just a “sacred obligation” but also a “civil contract” which could be regulated by law.   

Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties…  In fact, according that monogamous or polygamous marriages are allowed, do we find the principles on which the government of the people… rests.    

Marriage, according to this reading, is the base of the entire society.  From the marriage comes every other social relationship and institution, all the way up to the government.  Depending upon the type of marriage allowed the government is formed accordingly.  Polygamous marriage, the Court, and the larger culture, “fetters the people in stationary despotism.”  Only monogamous marriage could form the society necessary to support a democratic government.   

Still, was the government not required to give Reynolds – and the Mormons – an exemption because of religious belief?  No—certainly not.  “This would be introducing a new element into criminal law.”  After all, as the Court already determined, law may interfere with the practice of religion.  Suppose, the government asked, someone believed human sacrifice was a religious necessity?  Or the practice of sati?  Could these practices – central as they may be – be exempted from criminal law?  Absolutely not, according to Chief Justice Waite, “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.”  Law had to be the final authority.  The Free Exercise Clause, according to Reynolds, does not allow religion to exempt a citizen from criminal law.    

Reynolds was, and in certain cases, still is good law, according to the Supreme Court.  Until 1940 in Cantwell v. Connecticut, Reynolds was the only decision on Free Exercise, and the rule of law was this: Belief is protected absolutely by the First Amendment.  The government could not dictate to people their beliefs, nor make belief a prerequisite for benefits given to citizens, nor outlaw or punish citizens for their beliefs.  However, practice is not so absolutely protected.  A generally applicable law was constitutional even if it impinged upon a citizen’s free exercise. 

Reynolds was the first case—but case law is not static.  Cantwell v. Connecticut, the next opinion I intend to examine for Religion Nerd, will expand upon Reynolds and apply the First Amendment to the States.

Scientology: a Religion or a ‘Space Opera’?

By:  Heather Abraham

 

In response to Kenny Smith’s article, Gold’s Gym and Scientology in an Age of Authenticity, a Religion Nerd reader inquired as to the “doctrines and beliefs” of Scientology.  In response, I have compiled this brief but, hopefully informative article introducing the basics of Scientology to RN readers; welcome to Scientology 101. 

Founded by L. Ron Hubbard (1911-1986) in 1953, The Church of Scientology has continuously found itself embroiled in a sea of controversy both here in the United States and abroad.  Apart from its ufology connections, Scientology has no apparent religious antecedent and therefore has stood out, even among other new religious movements, as something unique and for some, worrisome.  Scientology’s foundations began in 1950 with the publication of Hubbard’s best selling self-help book Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental Health.  According to George Chryssides in New Religions: A Guide, 

Dianetics offers an analysis of the human self, which Hubbard called the ‘thetan.’  The thetan is distinct from both the mind and the body, and is the true immortal Godlike self. The body consists of matter, energy, space and time, (MEST) all of which lack independent reality and depend on the thetan.   

According to Hubbard’s teachings, the human mind consists of the analytical rational mind and the reactive irrational mind which responds to raw stimuli and stores traces of psychological and emotional trauma called engrams.  These engrams, the result of the countless traumatic events which accumulated over many lifetimes, are stored in the reactive mind and are the source of human anguish, sadness, depression, psychological disorders, anger, and a plethora of destructive human behaviors.  Simply put, engrams prevent humans from reaching their full potential.  In order to rid humans of engrams, Hubbard created a therapy system which allows pre-clear humans to bring engrams into awareness through the  process of auditing in which the pre–clear, over an extensive period of time and through many levels of auditing, rids his or herself of the engrams and eventually becomes clear.   

Auditing sessions are performed by trained auditors, within the Church of Scientology.  Auditors attach an e-meter (electropsychometer) to the pre-clear subject and encourage the pre-clear to recall traumatic experiences. Throughout the process of recalling, the e-meter measures electrical charges in the body and locates areas of stored spiritual distress, thus assisting the pre-clear in releasing the stored engrams.   

The ultimate objective of these auditing sessions is for the pre-clear to extinguish the reactive mind becoming clear and to eventually achieve the tenth level of an operating thetan (OT).  Although there is no charge for these auditing sessions, The Church of Scientology does request an obligatory ‘donation’ which increases as the subject moves from 1^st to 10^th levels of OT.  This process of successfully completing one level and moving to another is referred to in Scientology speak as the Bridge to Total Freedom.  Once a Scientologist reaches the higher OT levels he/she will begin to acquire almost super human abilities.  Those who reach OT level eight and above are considered to be the most brilliant and creative souls on earth.  In Scientology 8-8008, first published in 1952, L. Ron Hubbard describes the fully rehabilitated thetan’s extraordinary abilities.

A thetan who is completely rehabilitated and can do everything a thetan should do, such as move MEST[matter, energy, space, and time] and control others from a distance, or create his own universe… is able to create illusions perceivable by others at will, to handle MEST universe objects without mechanical means and to have and feel no need of bodies or even the MEST universe to keep himself and his friends interested in existence.

Because the teaching material can be dangerous to those who have not achieved appropriate OT levels, Scientology enforces close scrutiny of any who may come in contact with higher level resources.  Accordingly, the higher the OT level the more restricted the teaching material becomes to outsiders.  According to Chryssides,

The OT material is strictly confidential and, it is said, can cause mental or even physical harm if it is divulged to those who are unauthorized to receive it….From official Scientology literature, however, it seems likely that OT material relates to ‘body thetans’- the remains of thetans [souls] who lost their bodies many millions of years ago as a result of a gargantuan explosion.  These beings devoid of their bodies, continue to latch onto the bodies of others, and it is incumbent on those who progress through OT levels to help release them from this situation. 

These body-thetans are said to have been ‘killed’ in a vast explosion instigated by the galactic tyrant Xenu many millions of years ago.  In New Religions: A Guide, Andreas Grunschloss classifies Scientology as a “non apocalyptic Ufology” movement based on the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard.  Religious ufology movements are religions that incorporate

a basic ancient astronauts myth and conceives of earthly human beings primarily as (extraterrestrial) ‘thetans’ who have to access their ‘bridge to freedom’-a belief about the soul that has strong similarities with typical ufological notions of ‘star seeds’ or ‘walk-ins’ who had been planted in this earthly garden for spiritual growth. According to Scientology’s secret mythology, a fierce intergalactic ruler named ‘Xenu’ carried the thetans [souls] to earth.

Hubbard referred to these “astronaut myths” as space operas; actual historical events involving extraterrestrial civilizations throughout the galaxy.  Interestingly, Scientology has recently instituted a vague stance on the role ufology plays within their tradition.   In a 2009 interview with Martin Bashir, Tommy Davis, Director of Scientology’s Celebrity Center International in Los Angeles, refused to either acknowledge or disavow the existence of the Xenu myth as part of Scientology’s advanced teachings.  Bashir, respectful throughout the interview, pushed Davis for an explanation—causing Davis to angrily walk off the stage in mid interview.  Although Hubbard’s writings on Xenu have been disseminated to the public via the internet and court records, an official Scientology position has not yet been offered.  A quick search for Xenu on http://www.scientology.org/ resulted in a “your search yielded no results” response. 

Although most people are familiar with the Church of Scientology through its association with Hollywood stars such as Tom Cruise, John Travolta, and Kirstie Alley.  Scientology attracts a diverse group of adherents from the world over.  It is estimated that in the United States members of the Church of Scientology number between 50,000-100,00.  According to Scientology’s official website (www.scientology.org) their movement is rapidly expanding across the globe. 

Since the establishment of the first Church of Scientology in 1954, the religion has grown to span the globe. Today, more than 8,500 Scientology Churches, Missions, related organizations and affiliated groups minister the religion to millions of parishioners in 165 countries. And those numbers are constantly growing. In fact, they are growing more now than at any time in the religion’s history.  Scientology’s rapid emergence within the world’s changing religious community has led many to ask what kind of religion it is, how it compares with other faiths and in what ways it is unique.  As the only major worldwide religious movement to emerge in the 20th century, Scientology generates immense public interest.

I look forward to following this unique and intriguing new religious movement with RN readers and I hope that this brief albeit complex narrative provides a foundation for future explorations in Scientology events and controversies to come.

See complimentary article by Kenny Smith entitled Gold’s Gym and Scientology in an Age of Authenticity in archives or at: http://wp.me/pRtFA-8X

• Official Scientology website:  http://www.scientology.org/
• Video of Tommy Davis –http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUiUyVqOuJI
• Full Interview Martin Bashir and Tommy Davis (45 min) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLG3teVnszQ
• Auditing video from Scientology – http://www.youhtube.com/watch?v=01lljemjh9o

Identity: Religion, Ethnicity, Language…..?

By:  Heather Abraham

  

This past Sunday, Teo and I attended the 5^th annual Atlanta Arab Festival.  Sponsored by the Alif Institute and the Arab American Women’s Society of Georgia, the festival afforded attendees a wonderful mélange of Arabic food from Morocco, Syria, Israel, Palestine, and Lebanon as well as Arabic music, arts and crafts, games, shopping at a charming souk, and several exhibits focusing on past and present Arab intellectual achievements and Arab history in the United States.  

Helen & Widad with Religion Nerd

After having a fabulous lunch of Moroccan and Palestinian fare, Teo and I wondered around the festival talking to the many festival goers and organizers.  We spent some time at the dessert booth relishing in the decadent array of Arabic sweets and talking to Helen and Widad—members of the Arab American Women’s Society of Georgia which was responsible for the fabulous assortment of popular Arabic sweets.   I was particularly taken with the homemade basbousa, a semolina cake soaked in sweet syrup and kissed with a delicate essence of rose water.   

You may be wondering why I am writing about this festival and what it has to do with religion? Well bear with me and let’s enjoy the rest of the tour before getting to the serious stuff.  After dessert (I bought some basbousa to go), Teo and I went to see the exhibits located inside of the Alif Institute building.  Upon entering, we immediately encountered wall posters listing prominent American-Arabs such as Salma Hayek, Ralph Nadar, Tony Shalhoub, George Mitchell, John Sununu, Spencer Abraham, Helen Thomas, Marlo Thomas, Bobby Rahal, Paul Anka, Paula Abdul, and Shakira.   The exhibition also provided a historical tour of Arab achievements in science, math, and technology, along with examples of the fine Arabic artwork from various countries.  Beautiful glassware from Iraq, Eastern Orthodox Christian Icons from Lebanon, and inlaid furniture from Syria were prominently on display.  One of the most poignant exhibits honored the four generations of the Najjar family who had proudly served in the U.S. military.  Aside from the exhibits, the Alif Institute provided a range of learning activities for children and adults.  

During the tour of the exhibit, as I spoke to many of the attendees, it occurred to me that in celebrating Arab history and culture, this festival had managed to transcend the religious  conflict that so often grasps our attention on the nightly news.  I was surrounded by Muslim, Christian, and secular Arabs who had put aside their religious differences to celebrate their cultural/ethnic identity.  Americans are often unaware of the religious and ethnic diversity that exists in the Arab world but fortunately, the Alif Institute did an amazing job organizing and presenting this diversity to festival goers, Arab and non-Arab alike.  According to the festival program, the Alif Institute determines Arab identity according to spoken language—not ethnicity.   

Arabs are diverse peoples who live in 22 nations:  Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco,, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. The word “Arab” embraces more than 300 million multiethnic and multiracial Arabic-speaking peoples living in these countries.  In addition to language, Arabs are unified by cultural and historical roots traceable to Abraham and Shem, the eldest of Noah’s three sons, as well as the great Semitic migrations originating from the Arabian Peninsula that led to the rise of the Assyrians, Arameans, and Canaanites.  

Of course, Arab identity is much more complicated and cannot simply be defined by a common language.  Arabs almost always hold multiple identities at once such as:  Syrian, Israeli, Palestinian, Egyptian, Lebanese, Muslim, Christian, Druze, Shia, Sunni, Catholic, Melkite Catholic, Coptic, Jewish, and secular Arab. Collective identity can be accessed not only through language but via religion, stories, history, tradition, politics, ideology, commemoration of events, or a simple celebration of one identifying factor which temporarily overrides religious, ideological, or political differences.   The Atlanta Arab Festival drew Christian, Muslim, and secular Arabs together to celebrate the rich tapestry of Arab identity and achievements.   I applaud their efforts and look forward to attending next year’s event.   

Teo & Nerd

This brings me to the questions of the day:  As the United States is most probably the most ethnically, racially, religiously, and linguistically diverse country in the world; what factors form our cohesive identity?  Or—is the political and religious divisiveness so prominent in America today emblematic of a lack of unifying factors?

Gold’s Gym & Scientology in an Age of Authenticity

 By:  Kenny Smith

Gold’s Gym and the Church of Scientology have recently featured some very interesting commercial videos on their websites, videos that have also (to some degree) ventured out into the broader culture. The Gold’s videos are shown regularly on the many television screens typically located throughout Gold’s Gyms, over treadmills, stationary-bikes, ski-machines, free-weights, and in locker rooms and rest areas. The Scientology commercials air occasionally on the SyFy cable television network.

Both sets of commercials are extraordinarily upbeat, offering clear paths for reinventing and revitalizing one’s self. At Gold’s, we are told, we can burn off junk food, deserts, beer, and bad habits, add a few years to our life, feel stronger and lighter, gain the respect and admiration of others, look better naked, and increase our sex drive. With Scientology, we can transcend past mistakes, realize our deepest desires, and discover our most authentic selves. For, we are assured,

You are not your name. You’re not your job. You’re not the clothes you wear, or the neighborhood you live in. You’re not your fears, your failures, or your past. You are hope, You are imagination. You are the power to change, to create, and to grow. You are a spirit that will never die, and no matter how beaten down, you will rise again.  Scientology. Know yourself.  Know life. (http://www.scientology.org/#/videos/scientology-commercial-you)

Oddly, though, it is only Gold’s Gym that refers to itself as a community, an institution to which one must commit oneself to receive the desired rewards. Amidst a continual stream of carefully selected images mostly of young, attractive, well-toned women and men engaged in weight lifting, yoga, cycling, running, mountain climbing, boxing, or some other competitive sport, interspersed with inspiring scenes from nature (e.g., two rams colliding on a mountain top), high energy rock music plays in the background and lines of gold script scroll across the screen, announcing:

This is more than a gym. This is a movement. A movement to redefine strength, commit to our goals, to prove we can do anything. This is more than a gym. It’s 44 years of strength, of success, of sweat. This is more than a gym. This is where you get inducted, into the strongest club in the world. KNOW YOUR OWN STRENGTH.

Scientology, on the other hand, while presenting itself as a profound source of self-knowledge and healing, expressly avoids any reference to itself as “a place where you get inducted,” an institution to which one must commit oneself in order to receive the proffered existential goods. This leads to a rather intriguing question: why does Gold’s Gym employ precisely the sort of language that Scientology avoids? Why does the secular commercial gym present itself as a movement, but the religious movement present itself as a highly individualistic endeavor that requires no commitment whatsoever?

The first part of this riddle is fairly easily solved.  It is not difficult to see why Scientology does not emphasize its institutional aspects. These commercials hope to attract potential converts, and also improve Scientology’s public image. Since its emergence in the early 1950s with the highly creative religious efforts of founder L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology has been poorly received by the broader American culture. While Americans (if not human beings generally) tend to react negatively to new religious movements whose myths, behaviors, and modes of social organization differ significantly from those of the dominant culture, the Church’s policy of aggressive retaliation (typically through lawsuits) against those who have publicly criticized it have amplified negative public perceptions.  ( Press button to continue reading)

Christian Legal Society V. Martinez

Good news Religion Nerd readers!  Christa Lasher of Georgia State University has joined RN as a guest blogger.  Christa will be keeping us up to date on U.S. Supreme Court cases involving 1^st amendment issues and will be contributing articles on various traditions she has studied throughout her academic career.  Welcome Christa!  For more information see Christa’s bio at Guest Blogger.     

By:  Christa Lasher

On Monday, April 19^th, the Supreme Court will be hearing Christian Legal Society Chapter v. Martinez.  Here are the facts of the case:  The University of California Hastings College of Law has a nondiscrimination policy which states: 

The College is committed to a policy against legally impermissible, arbitrary or unreasonable discriminatory practices. All groups, including administration, faculty, student governments, College-owned student residence facilities and programs sponsored by the College, are governed by this policy of nondiscrimination. The College’s policy on nondiscrimination is to comply fully with applicable law. 

The University of California, Hastings College of the Law shall not discriminate unlawfully on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, disability, age, sex or sexual orientation. This nondiscrimination policy covers admissions, access and treatment in Hastings sponsored programs and activities. 

If a student organization is to receive funds and be recognized as an official student organization at Hastings College, they must follow this nondiscrimination policy… Something that Christian Legal Society refuses to do.  Christian Legal Society is, as might be obvious from the name, a Christian group.  Its bylaws require voting members and officers to adhere to its Statement of Faith.  This Statement of Faith would act as a violation of the nondiscrimination policy on the basis of religion and sexual orientation.  SLC asked for an exemption from the policy, and Hastings denied that request.  CLS filed a lawsuit in October, 2004 and late last year, the Supreme Court granted certiorari (agreed to hear the case).

CLS is arguing that in denying the exemption, Hastings is violating their right of expressive association and is discriminating based upon viewpoint.  These are First Amendment issues.  Free Speech, Free Exercise, and the Establishment Clause are all implicated in this case.  The question before the Court, then, is whether Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion allow an organization to be exempted from non-discrimination policies.

I see two relevant cases for this decision.  The first is Widmar v. Vincent (1981), which ruled on “equal access.”  That is, the Court held that a public university could not exclude a religious student organization from using the university’s facilities.  This was decided on discrimination based upon speech.  The university could not justify its content-based discrimination; therefore, the religious student organization had a right to “equal access” of the university’s facilities.  The Court ruled in favor of the religious student organization in this case.  The Court could make a similar ruling in this case.

At the same time, though, there’s also Bob Jones University v. US (1982), in which the Court ruled against Bob Jones University for its discriminatory admissions policy.  Bob Jones University (and Goldsboro Christian School) discriminated based on race.  In 1970, the IRS adopted a new policy that would deny tax-exempt status to organizations that practiced racial discrimination.  The Court ruled that religious belief and practice did not exempt them from this policy because preventing racial discrimination was an overriding governmental interest.  The Court could rule against SLC based upon the importance of preventing discrimination based upon religion and/or sexual orientation.

There are certainly other cases that are applicable here, and I cannot guess how the Court will decide.  While the SLC certainly deserves equal access to the university, that doesn’t mean that they are exempt from the nondiscrimination policy.  All the other religious student organizations follow the nondiscrimination policy; SLC is the only one asking for an exemption.  On Monday, the case will be argued.  We should see in a few months how the Court decides.

Here are couple of links that might be helpful:

Letter sent by CLS – http://www.clsnet.org/sites/default/files/CLSvUCHastings_DemandLetter_0.pdf 
Supreme Courts notice granting certiorari – http://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/08-01371qp.pdf   

Pew Research Center article –  http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1550/christian-legal-society-vs-martinez-religion-government-funding

Female Genital Mutilation – Cultural or Religious Practice?

 

By:  Heather Abraham 

“I was genitally mutilated at the age of ten. When the operation began, I put up a big fight. The pain was terrible and unbearable… I was badly cut and lost blood… I was genitally mutilated with a blunt penknife. After the operation, no one was allowed to aid me to walk… Sometimes I had to force myself not to urinate for fear of the terrible pain. I was not given any anesthetic in the operation to reduce my pain, nor any antibiotics to fight against infection. Afterwards, I hemorrhaged and became anemic. This was attributed to witchcraft. I suffered for a long time from acute vaginal infections.”    -Hannah Koroma, Sierra Leone—From Amnesty International http://www.amnestyusa.org/violence-against-women/female-genital-mutilation–fgm/page.do?id=1108439  

According to a March 2010 article in the LaGrange (Georgia) Daily News, a local resident was arrested and charged with the mutilation of her infant daughter’s genitals.    Female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female circumcision, is most commonly practiced in various African nations, the Middle East, and Asia and is an unusual issue to encounter in a small southern American town.  With the increasing influx of immigrants to the United States, cases involving FGM are likely to increase.  In order to meet these challenges and hopefully inhibit the practice of female genital mutilation, in the United States and abroad, we need to explore the phenomena of FGM and the motivations behind this brutal cultural practice.    

What is FGM?   According to the World Health Organization, “female genital mutilation (FGM) comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons. The practice is mostly carried out by traditional circumcisers, who often play other central roles in communities, such as attending childbirths.”  FGM procedures are generally “classified into four major types” which vary in their severity.     

1. Clitoridectomy: partial or total removal of the clitoris (a small, sensitive and erectile part of the female genitals) and, in very rare cases, only the prepuce (the fold of skin surrounding the clitoris).
2. Excision: partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora (the labia are “the lips” that surround the vagina).
3. Infibulation: narrowing of the vaginal opening through the creation of a covering seal. The seal is formed by cutting and repositioning the inner, or outer, labia, with or without removal of the clitoris.
4. Other: all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, e.g. pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterizing the genital area. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/ 

Why do some cultures practice FGM?   Female genital mutilation is a cultural practice believed to reduce the female libido.  In cultures where premarital virginity and marital fidelity are a matter involving the family honor, FGM is a way of controlling and ultimately suppressing female sexuality.   In some cultures FGM is performed shortly after birth and in others it is considered a rite of passage for girls approaching puberty.  For many, FGM is an essential prerequisite for marriage as the clitoris is often viewed as offensive, unclean, or masculine in nature.  By removing the offending protuberance the woman is assigned a culturally constructed “femininity” devoid of sexual power and becomes incapable of experiencing sexual pleasure.    

Is FGM prescribed by religious law?  Contrary to popular belief, FGM is not a practice prescribed in Islam.  It is in fact, a cultural practice that transcends religious affiliation as it is practiced among Christian, Islamic, and Shamanistic communities in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.  Although not prescribed by religious law/tradition—I would argue that religion does play a role in preserving and empowering the practice because many practitioners erroneously believe it to be a religious obligation.  Because religious leaders are silent and do not take an active and public stand against this brutal practice, they share responsibility for the suffering it has caused to countless  

The Elders

 generations of women.  Thankfully, FGM is now receiving  international attention due to an initiative implemented by The Elders, an international group of world leaders who recently implemented the Equality for Women and Girls initiative.  This initiative calls on religious leaders from all traditions to take a stand and bring “an end to the use of religious and traditional practices to justify and entrench discrimination against women and girls.”  http://www.theelders.org/  Among the practices targeted by The Elders are the issues of female genital mutilation, human trafficking, and violence against women, both domestic and external.   

According to the World Health Organization, “an estimated 100-140 million girls and women worldwide are currently living with the consequences of FGM…and two million girls a year are at risk—approximately 6,000 per day.  FGM is recognized internationally as a violation of the human rights of girls and women. It reflects deep-rooted inequality between the sexes, and constitutes an extreme form of discrimination against women. It is nearly always carried out on minors and is a violation of the rights of children. The practice also violates a person’s rights to health, security and physical integrity, the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to life when the procedure results in death.”  

These sobering statistics should make you pause—at least I hope so—and reflect on the status of women in the 21^st century.  It is easy to assume that the progress of women’s rights in the United States has somehow resonated around the world but the facts belie the dream.  Too many women suffer the indignation of having no control whatsoever over their body, future, or even the well-being of their children.   

This brings me to the question of the day:   Do you believe that religious institutions are obligated to challenge destructive cultural traditions such as FGM?   

•  LaGrange Daily News article:  http://lagrangenews.com/view/full_story/6668960/article-Lawmen–Woman-mutilated-infant-girl-8217-s-genitals
• The Elders: http://www.theelders.org/
• Amnesty International:  http://www.amnestyusa.org/violence-against-women/female-genital-mutilation–fgm/page.do?id=1108439
• World Health Organization:  http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

Rapture

By Heather Abraham aka Religion Nerd  

While lunching with a friend last week our conversation turned to, what else, religion.  My friend related to me an encounter she had with the Left Behind Series which a neighbor had given her in a book exchange.  Having heard about the series but not really knowing what they were about she “grabbed the first one and headed for a long soak in the tub.”  After finishing the first book she had a conversation with the neighbor about the series and was surprised to find that the neighbor understood the books, not as religious fiction but as a prophetic look into the near future.  As a Catholic, my friend had never been exposed to the concept of the rapture and was curious about its origins.  She posed the following questions:  Which branch of Christianity believes in the rapture and where did this teaching come from?   

These are interesting but complex questions that will require a bit of unpacking.  To answer the first part of the question which branch of Christianity believes in the Rapture, we will look at the two primary Christian understandings of the nature of Christ’s return.   

The dispensationalist premillennialists, primarily made up of Evangelicals, believe that Christ will return in two phases, once to resurrect the dead and rapture the living and a second physical return before the inauguration of the millennium.  In contrast, the majority of Christians (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Luther, Calvinist, Anglican, and other non-Evangelical branches) embrace an amillennialist understanding of Christ’s return as one event in which the thousand year reign of Jesus Christ a spiritual one.  Amillennialist understand Christ’s physical return to occur after the millennium and for the Last Judgment during which he will establish his kingdom.     

 The Rapture concept, as held by dispensationalist premillennialists such as Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, authors of the Left Behind series, emerged in the mid 19^th century in the teachings of John Nelson Darby.  Darby, a 19^th century evangelist and co-founder of the Plymouth Brethren, grounded his rapture theory in New Testament

J.N. Darby

scripture, most specifically, in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 in which Paul writes “and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore encourage one another with these words.”  Darby’s rapturist theory, contrary to the teachings of the majority of Christian churches, asserts that Jesus will return secretly, before the period of tribulations and physically remove or “take up” his faithful in the rapture and then return again to physically and publicly inaugurate and rule earth in a one-thousand year reign.  

Darby is also known as the father of dispensationalsim which is a belief that God’s relationship with humanity is divided up into seven historical eras or dispensations.  Each era is governed by a specific covenantal relationship between God and humanity.    These seven dispensations are often understood as:  Innocence, Conscience, Human Government, Promise, Law, Church, and the Millennial Kingdom.  According to Darby and the many who embrace his religious worldview, we are currently in the 6^th dispensation which will end with the second coming of Christ and inauguration of a golden age on earth.   

Darby’s rapturist and dispensationalist theories were first introduced to American Christians during his six lecture tours of the United States from 1859-1877 but became popularly embraced by Evangelicals after they were promoted in the 1909 Scofield Reference Bible.             

After the Rapture

Although foreign to the teachings and beliefs of the majority of Christian traditions, the rapture has become popularized in the United States mainly through the writings of Evangelical authors such as Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye, Jerry Jenkins, and Ernest Angley.   To those who embrace the rapture event as a historical and religious certainty, the origin, evolution and relative newness of the theory is unimportant.  The believers eagerly await the coming of the end times and their pre-tribulation rescue and in the interim; they continue to make many doom eager authors immensely wealthy.

Rise of the Jedi

 

By:  Heather Abraham aka Religion Nerd 

Did you know that Jediism is the fourth largest religion in the UK?  That’s right, adherents to the Jedi religion followed Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism in the 2001 census ranking fourth with 0.79% of the population. The Jedi Knight is not only alive and well in the UK but is also thriving in many other English speaking countries including the United States.  According to the most recent census records, adherents to the Jedi religion number 400,000 in England, 53,000 in New Zealand, 55,000 in Canada and 70,000 in Australia.  In the United States, Jedi Churches have been founded in Maryland, Kentucky, New York, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, and Florida.  

Jedi adherents are coming out of their cosmic closets and proudly claiming their commitment to the Jedi way of life.  In April 2009 the BBC reported that the Strathclyde police force had no less than ten members of the Jedi religion.  During an interview with BBC, Chris Herbert, editor for the Jane’s Police Review remarked, “The Force appears to be strong in Strathclyde with their Jedi police officers and staff.  Far from living a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, some members of the noble Jedi order have now chosen Glasgow and its surrounding streets as their home.”    

Before continuing to explore this way cool new religious movement let’s briefly explore the meaning of the term new religious movement (NRM).  In New Religions A Guide, J. Gordon Melton argues, “the ‘new’ in new religions most often refers to the seeker rather than the religion itself.  That is to say, most new religions are presenting old religions in a new context and to a new audience.”   Thus, many new NRM’s are often a complex reimagining of a single or a blending of several existing religious traditions.  However, not all NRM’s arise from existing religious worldviews.  Some movements, like Scientology or Eckankar emerge independently and challenge the very manner in which we define religion.  For some, new religious movements can be construed as “challenging the older religious structures” and thus can be viewed “by many as destructive of the very fabric of society.”  It is important to understand that all religions begin as new religious movements.  Both Christianity and Islam, for example, began as radical new movements whose ideas threatened the existing religious worldview.  Now, let’s get back to the Jedi.                                                                                                                     

What is the Jedi Religion?  Jediism is a non-theistic new religious movement based on the philosophical teachings of the Jedi in George Lucas’ mega hit series, Star Wars.  According to the Temple of The Jedi Force, 

Jediism is a modern religion which was born as the result of the Star Wars mythology.  George Lucas, when he created the Star Wars saga, used various aspects of Taoism, Shintoism, Buddhism, Christianity, Mysticism, and many other religious universal truths as well as a combination of different martial arts and the code of chivalry, in order to create the Jedi and the philosophies behind the Force.  The Jedi are modern versions of the Shao Lin Monk, the European Knight, and the Samurai warrior all mixed together.  The Jedi path has become an inspiration and way of life for many people throughout the world who take on the mantle of the Jedi.  Even though Jediism is a new faith, it is just as real as the ancient faiths and philosophies that it came from….. 

Jedi Creed

Followers of the Jedi religion/philosophy follow the way of the Jedi and live by the Jedi Code.  Like all other religions, established or new, Jediism is complex and extremely diverse.  Having no central authority, each Jedi organization is independent and therefore has differing philosophical and theological beliefs.  For the most part, Jedi organizations are democratic in nature and majority vote is necessary to implement any changes in church structure or doctrine.  Although tremendously diverse, most Jedi organizations profess commitment to the following Jedi Creed.   (Click on the Red Button Below to Read More)  

Home Shrines for American War Dead: Are They Just About remembering?

 

 By:  Kenny Smith, Guest Blogger

In a recent series of photographs and essays for the New York Times Magazine entitled, “The Shrine Down the Hall,” Ashley Gilbertson, Dexter Filkins, and Miki Meek, offer “a look at some of the bedrooms America’s young war dead left behind.” The photograph above, for instance, comes from the childhood home of U.S. Army First Lieutenant Brian N. Bradshaw, age twenty-four, from Steilacoom, Washington, who was killed June 25, 2009, in Kheyl, Afghanistan by a roadside bomb. In all, the article shows nineteen of these “war memorials with neatly made beds.”

Gilbertson began this project in 2007. While his coverage of the war in Iraq has received numerous accolades over the past seven years, “he has stopped photographing combat zones because the American public isn’t responding anymore… [He] is now concentrating on showing the aftereffects of war, including post-traumatic stress disorder… [and] looks at bedrooms as a way of memorializing the lives–rather than the deaths–of young combatants.”  As Gilbertson himself explains, “[y]ou walk into these rooms… and you feel like these are the kids you used to hang out with…. It’s powerful to look at where these kids lived, to see who they were as living, breathing human beings.”

 A number of families have chosen to preserve, virtually untouched, these highly personal spaces, “to which young American service members will never return.” The bedroom of U.S. Army Pfc. Karina Lau, for example,

 has not changed. A stuffed teddy bear and floppy-eared rabbit sit on top of her floral bedspread. Angel figurines and framed family photos line her bookshelf and dresser. The only thing missing is her. Private Lau was killed seven years ago when insurgents shot down her helicopter in Fallujah, Iraq. She was 20 years old. Her mother, Ruth, usually keeps the bedroom door closed and the window shades drawn, but when Mr. Gilbertson came to her home in Livingston, Calif., she opened them up.  

Nor has the bedroom of Pfc. Jack Sweet (Alexandria Bay, N.Y. ), who was killed by a roadside bomb in Jawwalah, Iraq, on Feb. 8, 2008. This practice extends also to items returned to families by the military. “In Private Sweet’s bedroom are two trunks that the Army sent back from Iraq. Next to them is his laundry hamper. The clothes inside, still carrying his scent, have never been washed.”          

 The authors interpret these actions as attempts on the part of family members to “resist” and “wrestle with” what has happened; this is “how they will cope and how they will remember.” No doubt this is the case. Still, this view has trouble explaining why so much personal space, and so many personal possessions, remain intact and untouched, even to the point of clothing, still “carrying the scent” of the person who was killed, remains unwashed. If we think about these sacred spaces as if they really are shrines, what else might we learn about them? More, what might we learn about the larger culture in which they take place, or about the war in which these persons died?

 In the Western sense of the word, shrines (from the Latin scrinium, meaning a box or receptacle) serve as “places or containers of religious presence.” As Paul Cartwright, writing for the Encyclopedia of Religion, explains,

 One of the distinctive features of religion is that its objects do not “exist” in the ordinary sense of the word. Deity, spirit, soul, afterlife, and other familiar categories of religion lie outside the realms of everyday objects in time and space. However, human beings across multiple cultures experience the presence of these religious realities at particular times and places and in relation to material objects. Much of the work of shrines is to provide habitations for sacred presences within the everyday world. As places having a particular shape and materiality, shrines give particular density to complex sets of religious associations, memories, moods, expectations, and communities. Shrines may be seen as sites of condensation of more dispersed religious realities, places where meanings take on specific, tangible, and tactile presence. (p. 8376)

A shrine, then, is a very special kind of sacred space, in which we can experience heightened forms of intimacy and relationship with those who exist only in religious worlds. Bob Orsi defines religion itself in similar terms. Religion, he argues, is best understood not as an intellectual model of reality, but “as a network of relationships between heaven and earth involving humans of all ages and many different sacred figures… I can think of no religious world,” he writes, “that does not offer practitioners opportunities to form deep ties with saints, ancestors, demons, gods, ghosts, and other special beings”(2005).   (Click on Read More Button Below)

Intra-Faith Divisions and the Dangers of Othering

By:  Heather Abraham aka Religion Nerd                                                                                  

Several weeks ago, my husband and I attended a dinner party at a friend’s home.   As always, she was the perfect hostess, bringing together an interesting mix of people and serving a fabulous meal.  After dinner, we gathered in the den for coffee and of course coffee talk.  The conversation was lively and covered many topics throughout the evening.  One specific conversation caught my attention and I wandered away from my group to listen more intently as two Muslim women were discussing the differences between Sunni and Shia Muslims.  Not surprisingly, the two Sunni Muslim women soon determined that Shiites weren’t “really” Muslim and that they were in reality practicing another religion entirely.  Terms like us/them and we/they were peppered throughout the exchange.   

This conversation reminded me of an encounter I had with a neighborhood acquaintance soon after she and her husband returned from 

If only humans could be so open and serene!

vacationing in Italy.  While showing pictures of her vacation, she mentioned that they had stayed in the home of a Christian missionary while visiting Florence.  Curious, I asked if the missionary used Italy as a home base and inquired where she performed her missions.  I was quickly informed that the missionary worked exclusively in Italy.   Since the vast majority of Italians are Christians I found this curious and inquired as to whom she was ministering.   Well, you would have thought I had opened Pandora’s Box! Obviously agitated, the neighbor informed me that most “Italians are Catholics and Catholics don’t teach the truth about Jesus, they aren’t really Christians at all—they worship the Pope and saints.”  She then admonished me for not “knowing” this as I study religion.  Hmm, I don’t know how I missed that important bit of information.  

Although I often write about the importance of interfaith dialogue, these two examples give us an opportunity to explore the phenomena of intra-faith divisions and discuss the dangers inherent in the process of othering.  

In the above examples, it is apparent that each party questioned the validity of a group within their own religious tradition and found them lacking in authenticity.  By extension of this conclusion, the adherents of the branch in question were relegated to the position of the other.  What does it mean to categorize a person or group as the other?  In The Origins of Satan, Elaine Pagels writes of this common yet problematic worldview. 

The social and cultural practice of defining certain people as “others” in relation to one’s own group maybe, of course, as old as humanity itself.  The anthropologist Robert Redfield has argued that the worldview of many peoples consists essentially of two pairs of binary opposition:  human/non-human and we/they.  These two are often correlated, as Jonathan Z. Smith observes, so that “we” equals “human” and “they” equals “nonhuman.”   

Thus when we otherize a group of people, we are in actuality assigning them an identity that is, to one degree or another, inferior to that of our own.  One only has to reflect on the horrors of WWII, Rwanda, or Darfur, to understand the consequences of perceiving the other as less than human.  

This attitude may seem harmless when it is promoted by attractive women at a dinner party or a retired neighborhood grandmother but when embraced and promoted by a religious organization or when it becomes political policy; intra-faith discord, enhanced by the process of othering, can become a powerful and destructive weapon.  Christian, Muslim, and Judaic history are littered with prolonged bloody wars which evolved out of intra-faith conflict and sadly the 21^st century appears to be walking the same bloody path—deeply embedded in this never ending tragedy.  

Binary opposition is also alive and thriving in America’s political system.   One need only to look at the debacle on Capitol Hill to witness the consequences of this limited way of thinking.  Members of Congress, so deeply invested in defeating the other, have lost sight of their primary purpose of constructive governing.  Each side rigid with disdain for what is perceived as the other’s dangerously misinformed ideals and values.  No conflict resolution or compromise in sight, only the same repetitive childish infighting.  Seeing everything in terms of black/white, right/wrong, good/evil, or us/them is not only unproductive and destructive but is also tragically uninspiring. 

This brings me to the questions of the day:  Is it possible to admit theological or political differences without becoming adversarial?  And, why are we so invested in rejecting the validity of any tradition beyond our own?