• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By Kenny Smith  

Is the “mark of the beast” lurking in the Walt Disney logo, Illuminati symbols in Adidas’ footwear, occult signs in McDonald’s Chicken Selects?  Check out the most popular corporate logos and their ties to the occult.  To remove such occult influences, one news caster recommended an exorcism on the Republican party.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0giVL4j8mQ

The Church of Scientology, according Janet Reitman’s new book Inside Scientology: The Story of America’s Most Secretive Religion and Steven Colbert’s 2005 classic “This Week in God.”  Are you a journalist looking for work? Check out Scientology’s new Freedom magazine, which seeks to hire professionals.

A new documentary film, Awake Zion, argues for ancient links between Rasta, Reggae, and Judaism.  Basketball legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is also working on a documentary film, Brothers in Arms, about American troops who liberated Nazi concentration camps.  In researching the film, Abdul-Jabbar plans to visit Israel this month to interview a rabbi whom his own father, who served 761^st Tank Battalion, helped to liberate from Buchenwald.   Fox News commentator Glenn Beck also visited Israel this month to address the Israeli Knesset as part of Beck’s “Restoring Courage,” a movement that will “:unite the world standing with Israel…”  

Another “family values” politician, Robert Mecklenborg, was caught in unfortunate circumstances, arrested for DUI, and with a young female stripper along for the ride, so to speak.  Visithttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6beRRv2CAvo

here to watch arrest video. 

A police officer with an “uncanny knack” for arresting drug dealers, and who was also Jesus blogger,  was himself arrested for selling meth. 

Robin Hardy, director of the 1973 thriller The Wicker Man, visited Glasgow (Scotland) last week to mark the 10^th anniversary of an actual Wicker Man festival inspired by and named after the film, in which a 40 foot willow effigy is built and then burned in a midnight celebration.  

In India, a monkey wedding re-enacting the mythical marriage of the much-loved monkey-deity Hanuman and his bride is deemed illegal by state officials.  

In Iran, Ahmadinejad hints at communication with the Hidden Imam, but faces clerical and popular accusations of practicing sorcery and witchcraft.  

In the French town of Bugarach, which some claim will be the only place on earth to survive the coming Apocalypse, predicted for Dec. 2012, residents are already seeing the arrival end-times-refugees.  

Will the new thriller, The Ledge, in which good-guy atheists face of against bad-guy Christians, bring atheists more fully into the American mainstream?  The American Atheists’ saw their campaign to fly banners (e.g., “Godless America,” “Atheism is Patriotic”) over American cities during the fourth of July weekend largely grounded, as some 80% of pilots refused to fly the plains. As one North Carolina pilot put it, “I’m not going to hell [for] flying those signs!” 

While traditional Neo-Pagan religious practice is grounded in the divinity of nature, Technopagans perform cyber-rituals tapping the divine power of cyberspace through Chaos Magic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ygb_j6iuUQ

Oh, BTW, July 8, 2011, was “World UFO Disclosure Day,” Hope you enjoyed it.

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

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.

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA Today Faith and Reason

The New York Daily Newsis showing an image of what they call an occult shrine in Jared Loughner’s back yard: A terra-cotta plant pot holding a replica of a skull sits, surrounded by shriveled oranges, on a brick ledge with three tall, dirty glass cannisters holding candles beside it.

Signs of the occult, says their story on Loughner, the alleged gunman who killed six people and wounded U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and nine others.

This evaluation is pegged to unnamed “experts.” I’ve hunting now for word of cults that call for messy backyard altars but in the mean time, here’s what a pagan-witch-occultist says.

Star Foster, who blogs on the Pagan pages for a religion/spirituality web site Patheos, will have none of this devil-made-me-do-it speculation. First. she points out some obvious things about the so-called shrine” that looks like any odd pile of junk in an unkempt backyard. Foster muses:

Does a bag of potting soil, a pot of rotten oranges, a fake skull (looks like the plastic kind they sell at Halloween) and some old candles make a shrine?

Not in her book. She goes on to note:

Well, the four elements (earth, air, water and fire) are featured in occult ceremonies, but then occult ceremonies are mindful things. The nook is dirty and unkempt. The candles are shoved to one side, there’s debris and dirt clinging to items (indicating they haven’t been used or handled recently or regularly), and there are utilitarian items like plastic pots and potting soil on the “shrine”. The so-called “ceremonial” candles are plain white novenas that they sell at the dollar store and are used for both religious and utilitarian purposes. I’ve both used them on my altar and as emergency lighting in bad weather. The skull and oranges likely have mundane origins as well. It appears to me that someone set a bowl of oranges with decorative skull here from Halloween and forgot about it, just like they set the utilitarian white candles here and potting soil and never gave them a second thought. I don’t see a shrine. I see the remnants of summer forgotten in deep winter, like you might see in any backyard.

No, maybe not, says Professor of Anthropology William Stuart at the University of Maryland. Foster maybe too dismissive of the possiblity that for Loughner, these symbols could have held meaning far beyond what may be obvious to others.

These kinds of things done by a loaner mashing up images anywhere from The Blair Witch Project to Saturday morning cartoons “could have profound meaning to an individual even if they are religious delusions,” says Stuart.

Still, I’m struck by Foster’s conclusion:

As a Witch, as a Pagan and as an occultist, I see nothing of the occult in this. Only sadness. Mainly sadness because we are so prone to try to paint this murderer in shades of “the other” so we don’t have to contemplate any way he might be similar to us.

Now, that IS a chilling thought. Do we try to peg people who commit evil acts — like opening fire on a cluster of citizens in front of a Tucson Safeway — as crazy, or as belonging to whatever political party or ideology we personally reject? Is this a reflexive way to distance ourselves from madness. That person is no one like me?

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By Alexandra Hudson, Reuters Faith World 

(Reuters Life!) – Along Istanbul’s busy Eminonu waterfront women swathed in dark coats and scarves knotted once under the chin jostle past others clad in vivid colors and head coverings carefully sculpted around the face.

Two decades ago such a polished, pious look scarcely existed in Turkey. But today it has the highest profile exponents in First Lady Hayrunnisa Gul and Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan’s wife Emine, and the brands behind it plan ambitious expansion.

The headscarf remains one of Turkey’s most divisive issues. Everything from the way it is tied and accessorized, to the poise and demeanor of the wearer, is laden with meaning in this majority Muslim but officially secular country of 74 million.

From a simple headcovering, stigmatized in the early days of the Turkish Republic as backward and rural, it has become, in the last decades, a carefully crafted garment and highly marketable commodity, embodying the challenge of a new class of conservative Muslims to Turkey’s secularist elites.

“It was hard to find anything chic for the covered women 10 years ago, but fashion for pious women has made huge progress in the last 6-7 years,” said Alpaslan Akman, an executive in charge of production and marketing at Muslim fashion brand Armine.

Armine is known for its high-impact campaigns. Huge posters have hung in the heart of Istanbul’s bar and nightclub district — the serene models contrasting with the commotion below.

The brand teams colorful scarves with figure-skimming coats, pert collars, big buttons and ruffled sleeves.

A coat typically sells for around 200 Turkish lira ($143.2), while scarves retail for around 50 lira.

“We are much luckier than previous generations, we have more designs and colors of scarves to choose from,” said 30-year-old Filiz Albayrak, a sales assistant in an Istanbul scarf shop.

Around 69 percent of Turkish women cover their heads in some form, with 16 percent using the more concealing and self-consciously stylish “turban” style scarf, which tightly covers the hair and neck, according to a 2007 study.

Getting it to sit right takes much time and effort, and usually requires an under bonnet to first provide a stiff base.

GROWING CONFIDENCE

Turkey’s first lady, who wears a turban, co-hosted Republic Day celebrations with her husband for the first time last month, in a sign of confidence among the pious establishment.

Encountering Hayrunissa Gul in her headscarf in the Presidential Palace was too much for the staunchly secularist military however, who refused to show up.

Mustafa Karaduman, founder of Islamic fashion house Tekbir in 1982 and nicknamed “Allah’s Tailor” in the Turkish media, sees the changes in society and is hopeful of further growth.  “Our work was quite amateur in the first decade. Then in 1992 we organized the very first headscarf fashion show, which brought us global attention. Now Islamic style clothes are on the agenda everywhere around the world,” he said.

To read more of this story and others visit Reuters FaithWorld and for more on this subject, read Religion Nerd article Titillating Islamic Fashions

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By Robert Wielaard, Associated Press via USA Today

BRUSSELS — He calls AIDS a form of “justice” for homosexuals and wants retired pedophile priests to go unpunished. He says women who have an abortion will be greeted in the afterlife by their unborn child crying “Momma!” Archbishop Andre Leonard, 70, was plucked from a sleepy Belgian citadel-town by Pope Benedict XVI in January to energize the country’s Roman Catholic faithful and reverse 30 years of liberalism. The appointment was in line with Benedict’s policy of putting tradition-minded and conservative bishops in important dioceses.

But since taking office, Leonard’s hardline views have added turmoil to a church already mired in an abuse scandal. And, privately, some Vatican officials are expressing concern about an ever-worsening public relations disaster.

The controversy turned into a very public revolt last week when his spokesman resigned, saying he could no longer morally defend Leonard.

“I was his GPS for three months. But it is the driver who has his hands on the wheel. Too often, I had to recalculate the route,” said Juergen Mettepenningen. He called Leonard a “loose cannon who thinks everybody else is wrong.”

Leonard’s views — and the way he delivers them so stridently — are riling the Catholic base, but they dovetail with church teachings that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered” and that women who abort babies are sinners.  Also, the Vatican admits it has no tolerance for pedophiles, but rarely subjects elderly pedophile priests to full canonical trials, instead telling them to live out their years in prayer and penance.

Bert Claerhout, editor of Church and Life, a Catholic weekly, says he has been receiving “fierce” letters of complaint from readers — and doesn’t believe Leonard’s views have suddenly come to the attention of the Vatican.  “The pope knew very well what he did when he appointed Leonard. He wanted someone to bring a conservative view to the church here,” Claerhout said in an interview.

Two of Belgium’s 10 bishops have publicly challenged Leonard. Unusually, Belgian Premier Yves Leterme, a Catholic, also condemned him. Last week, a man ran up to the archbishop during a service at Brussels’ main cathedral and shoved a cherry pie in his face.

Leonard last week published a five-page response to his critics, but refused to back off from his view that AIDS is punishment for a promiscuous lifestyle. Writing on his archdiocese’s website, he drew parallels with people who continue to smoke despite seeing clear health warnings on cigarette packs.

Leonard took charge of the Belgian church just as a long-simmering sexual abuse scandal began to surface. In April, the then-Bishop of Bruges, Roger Vangheluwe, retired and admitted that for years he had abused a nephew. In June, police raided Leonard’s offices looking for clues. There is no suggestion Leonard is involved in a coverup, but his subsequent defense of retired pedophile priests couldn’t have come at a more sensitive time.

“If they are no longer priests, have no more (church) responsibilities, I doubt that taking some kind of vengeance … is a humane solution,” he said on Belgian public television in October.

“Do they really want a priest, aged 85, to be put in stocks and publicly humiliated? I think most victims don’t want that.”

Read more of this article at USA Today

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

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,  Amnesty International   

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 an unusual issue to encounter in a small southern American town. FGM is most commonly practiced in various African nations, the Middle East, and Asia but 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.  

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 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.”   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?     (Warning: The following video is graphic in nature)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T87gNMD50HI

Sources:

•  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/

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By Josh Lupo

Many of us are now probably familiar with Roman Polanski’s rape accusation.  In 1977, a Los Angeles County Court convicted Polanski of having “unlawful sex with a minor.”  Reading the words from the trial transcripts of his victim, then 13 year-old Samantha Geimer, one learns that Polanski gave the girl a Quaalude and offered her champagne before engaging in sexual intercourse with her.  According to her testimony, she repeatedly told him no and resisted his sexual advances.  Towards the end of his lengthy and highly publicized trial, which to this day has not officially ended, Polanski fled to Europe.  He has remained in Europe for more than  thirty years and recently faced the possibility of returning to the U.S. for trial after being re-arrested in Switzerland, though the Swiss have refused to extradite him (Click here for an overview of events).

Flash forward thirty years after the crime to a fascinating turn of events in the Polanski case; new twists that are especially fascinating for those interested in the relationship between religion and secularism.   In 1997, Geimer publicly forgave Polanski.  This event has caused some scholars of religion to reflect on complex questions: Does forgiveness, a nominally “Judeo-Christian” practice, have a place in the  American law system, or in the public sphere?  Or is this too simple a reduction?  Some might argue that  forgiveness is a universal practice, one practiced across many different cultures.  In either case, there seems to be a strong aversion to substituting punishment with forgiveness in the U.S. (with perhaps the exception of a presidential pardon). Our laws, in general, center around a retributive form of justice, one in which criminals have to “pay” for their crime with their time, labor, or life. Forgiveness flies in the face of this kind of justice. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myvervOSRZo

Public reaction to Polanski and his victim’s forgiveness has been mixed to say the least with many Hollywood celebrities taking a supportive stance in favor of Polanski.  During the 2003 Oscars, for example, he received a standing ovation from the audience when he won the Best Director award for The Pianist.  Some feminists have reacted differently, but with equal vigor (Check out the reaction at feministing). Many of the supporters of his arrest claim that he has been able to evade facing the consequences of his crimes because of his celebrity status.  These supporters claim that if we do not seek to punish him to the fullest extent of the law then we are, as a society, authorizing his crime.  They argue that it begins to look like rape is permissible as long as you can make a good movie.  How can we as a society allow this? 

Samantha Geimer

In a more sympathetic portrayal of Polanski’s life, the film Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired describes Polanski’s struggle for survival after his mother was killed in the Holocaust and later, after the Manson family murdered his wife, Sharon Tate, in 1969. This story might lead one to think that while Polanski committed a terrible crime, it is reasonable to feel sympathy for him. 

Clearly there are many different views on the way justice should look in the Polanski case.  But let us turn back to Geimer’s forgiveness to get a clearer picture of the justice she is offering.  Geimer fought to have the case dropped after Polanski’s re-arrest in Switzerland.  It appears she has moved on since forgiving Polanski back in 1994 and wants everyone else to do so as well.  Perhaps her forgiveness is not “pure,” in the sense that she has not extended a sympathetic embrace to him, but I think most would be hard pressed to find a pure form of forgiveness.  In either case, Geimer’s attempt to have the charges dropped should make us reconsider whether forgiveness should have a place in the law.  If both the victim and the perpetrator are ready to move on, why should the law stand in their way?

To begin to answer this question, we can turn to theorists of forgiveness.  The subject of forgiveness has attracted some of the most important 20^th century philosophers of religion, including Jacques Derrida and John Milbank. These thinkers have either sought to find a way to fit the concept of forgiveness into our nominally secular, retributive system of justice (in the case of Derrida), or to advocate an alternative system of Christian justice based completely on reconciliation and forgiveness (in the case of John Milbank). Both of these positions advocate a theological alternative to our current secular, retributive, system of justice.  But both also assume that justice is, in essence, either forgiveness of or payment for wrongdoings.  But is this always the case?  Can justice look different than either retribution or forgiveness?

If we return to the case at hand we find a helpful starting point for such an alternative. Geimer has claimed that she has “moved on” from this incident and would rather not continue to be dogged by the press. Perhaps it is not so much that she has “forgiven” Polanski, as it is that the pain of the memory has faded and she would now like to focus on other aspects of her life.  Since Geimer has also tried to prevent Polanski from having to return to America to face a re-trial, we might also wonder whether justice is retributive in this case.  We must then ask the question: What if there is no clear way of achieving justice in the Polanski case?  I would propose that what the Polanski case demonstrates is that justice cannot be tied exclusively to a secular or theological perspective, and indeed, sometimes will remain opaque to both.  Like the theorists of forgiveness, those involved in the Polanski case remain ultimately unable to say what justice truly is.  I would argue, then, that to give an account of justice requires both a theological and secular vocabulary.  The recognition that justice often transcends both makes clear the need for greater reflection on justice within our culture, including both theological and the secular perspectives.

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By Heather Abraham

Teo and I arose early, quickly exited our hotel in the Latin district of Paris and followed the enticing aroma of fresh baked bread to the nearest bakery.  Purchasing delectable ham and cheese pastries to consumer later, we briskly walked along the Seine enjoying the crispness of the morning air.  Our destination: the Louvre, our mission: the temporary Roads to Arabia exhibit housed in the Napoleon wing of the Louvre.

Teo

Twenty-five minutes later we crossed Pont Neuf and entered the Louvre courtyard through an enormous arched gateway.  Surrounded by the magnificence of the courtyard and standing just a few feet from the famous Louvre pyramid, Teo & I enjoyed our breakfast while standing in line waiting for the 9AM opening of the museum.  The majestic surroundings reminded us of the daunting challenge the museum presents to those attempting to see her treasures.  Although this was not our first visit to the Louvre, we were keenly aware that we had only seen a fraction of her treasures and today’s visit would end with our planning another trip in the future.

Entering the museum through the pyramid, we headed to the Napoleon wing and entered the Roads to Arabia exhibit. Marketed as a pre-Islamic exhibition of ancient artifacts from the Arabian Peninsula, the exhibit proved to be both a walk through ancient Arabia and an introduction to early and pre-modern Islamic Art.

Most of the 300 plus artifacts in the exhibit have never been on display to a domestic or international audience and represent a myriad of cultures and civilizations from the pre-Islamic Arabian Peninsula. It is interesting to note the collection’s debut outside of Saudi Arabia, as representations of the human form are understood as blasphemous according to the strict Wahhabi brand of Islam enforced throughout Saudi Arabia since the rise of the Saud family at the beginning of the 20^th century.

Many of the artifacts represent pre-Islamic Arabian Peninsula civilizations beginning with the 4^th millennia BCE.   Moving through the exhibit one is confronted with various civilizations which once thrived throughout the Arabian Peninsula.  Each civilization/period is introduced with large photographic representations of Arabia’s diverse landscapes and detailed explanations written in Arabic, French, and English.

The artifacts themselves are arranged in dimly lit cases and displays which are arranged sparingly throughout the darkened rooms of the Napoleon wing.   Photographs are strictly prohibited and a multitude of guards are on constant vigil against those attempting to sneak a photo.   Clay bowls, figurines, funeral steles, massive stone statues of Lihyanite kings, stunning objects of colorful glass, silver utensils, and intricate gold jewelry represented the talented artisans and cultures of pre-Islamic Arabia.

As I moved through the exhibit, I become aware of moving toward an intended (and delicately constructed) understanding that the true purpose of the Arabian Peninsula was yet to come:  the birthplace of Islam.  Turning a corner and entering another darkened room, visitors are presented with a large display of Islamic headstones, each inscribed with praises to Allah and or Muhammad in beautiful Arabic script.  The inscriptions, moving and beautifully carved into glistening stone, are representative of the evolving Arabic art of calligraphy dating from the 10^th to 16^th centuries.  Moving past the headstones, the largest and perhaps the most compelling Islamic artifact came into view—a magnificent 16^th century door that once graced the Ka’ba in Mecca.  The door, standing roughly fifteen feet high, was commissioned by Ottoman Sultan Murad IV (1623-1640) and placed on the Ka’ba in 1636.  Made of wood overlaid in carved silver leaf, the door is an outstanding example of Islamic craftsmanship.  The idea that this door had been witness to centuries of Hajj pilgrimage ritual and history was quite thrilling for this Nerd!

The last, and perhaps the most telling, objects in the collection are of the personal belongings of King Abdulaziz (1876-1953), the founder of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.  The coat and sword of King Abdulaziz are displayed near a larger than life photo of the King sitting in a semi relaxed state; his penetrating gaze, staring directly at the observer, somewhat unsettling and aggressive—a necessary tool for a new and contested ruler.

Most unsettling, for me, was the narrative selected to describe Abdulaziz as a great mediator, natural and peaceful leader, and unifier of the Arabian peoples and the nonsensical description of Wahhabi Islam as the “middle path” or “middle way”—representative of peaceful Islam. The inclusion of this re-writing of Saudi history, clearly defined the exhibition as an attempt by the Saudi government (royal family) to promote Saudi Arabia as a regional leader of the Arab world, the religious center for Muslims the world over, and THE authority of Islam.

It is worth noting that these artifacts are controversial within Saudi Arabia (some religious leaders calling for their destruction) because they represent the pre-Islamic period of “Jahiliya” or ignorance and yet the Saudi government is utilizing these artifacts in an attempt to cultivate a new and improved international persona for the country and the Saud family.   It is also worth noting that for many Muslims, Saudi Wahhabism is understood as a relatively recent and radical branch of Islam which has, due to the immense wealth of the oil rich Saudi’s, contributed to the spread of a radical (Saudi) brand of Islam throughout the Islamic world and has threatened established Islamic traditions.

Although deeply disappointed at the blatant propaganda embedded in the exhibition, I believe that the historical artifacts, up to but not including the modern Saud family, hold immense historical value and are well worth seeing.  The Roads to Arabia artifacts will next be on display in Spain and will be making the trip across the Atlantic to Washington, D.C. sometime early next year.

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

 By Kate Daley-Bailey

Renowned American Religion scholar, Catherine L. Albanese, opens her now classic text, America: Religions and Religion, with the following statement:

There is a story that both Buddhists and some Muslims claim as their own and like to use as a teaching device. It is about an elephant and a group of blind men who have never before encountered one. Each of the men felt the elephant, took note of his sensations, and later described the experience. Some, who had felt the head of the animal, claimed that an elephant was like a pot. Others, who had felt an ear, claimed that an elephant was like a harvest basket used to separate grain. Still others had touched a tusk, and they announced that an elephant was part of a plow, while finally, another group that had patted the trunk thought an elephant was a plow, whole and complete. The moral of the story, of course, goes beyond elephants to the secrets of the universe and of life. Each individual tries to fathom these secrets from a place of personal darkness. Each describes the portion experienced, and none can speak about the whole. The lesson is to accept the fact of human limitation with humility and the fact of cosmic complexity with awe. Nobody will ever know the whole story, because the vastness that surrounds us far exceeds our senses or our ability to understand.

I would venture to take Albanese’s claim further… as I have come across this story used in Hindu traditions as well.  

Many viewers of a recent Bayer commercial maybe surprised by a similar illustration used to describe a woman’s relationship with her knowledge about her birth control product.  I recently became aware of this commercial when a few astute students of mine passed on the information about Bayer’s latest commercial which appears to invoke a revised version of this ancient story. The commercial begins with a few blindfolded young women encountering a rhinoceros which is located in the middle of the scene. Each woman touches and inspects a different part of the rhino and makes an assumption based upon their limited experience. I find it fascinating that these are not old blind sages but rather young, slender, fashionable, blindfolded American women. The story is changed again by the act of the women taking off their blindfolds to discover a rhinoceros in all of its glory. The scene then shifts to a lab where “scientists” are researching and testing their product. The commercial ends with one of the young women from the rhinoceros scene picking up her birth control at her local pharmacy.  (See link below to view the video at Bayer).

The religion nerd in me was excited and enthralled by the unusual morphing and appropriation of this story to advertise birth control. Despite the surface interest I have in this commercial, I was also drawn deeper into questioning the message being sent in the commercial as well as the demographic Bayer is attempting to reach with this commercial.

Concern one—The Message: As one of my friends pointed out to me, the ancient story which this commercial is invoking actually seems to nullify the argument they are trying to make. The moral of the ancient story implies that human knowledge is by nature limited. This ancient story is meant to warn students against hubris, against a false pride. Many religious cultures have similar warnings against trying to know all, to step outside the bounds of human knowledge, etc. The temple to Apollo at Delphi, Plutarch tells us, read “know thyself” which was not necessarily encouraging ancient Greeks to “find their inner-child” but rather to always be aware of one’s place in this world, a place that was under that of the gods. The “moral” of the Bayer commercial seems to be that we have the ability now to take off our “blindfolds” to see the full picture before us.  I agree that all people should attempt to know as much as possible about the medications they are taking, and any risks that are associated with them.  I just wonder if this analogy, whose original message was meant to emphasize humanity’s lack of complete knowledge, was the best fit for the purposes of this commercial whose message’s seems to be that human’s can take off their metaphorical “blindfolds” to see the whole truth.  

Concern two—The Demographic: I wonder which demographic Bayer is aiming at with this commercial. The women in the commercial represent young and stylish women from multiple ethnic backgrounds. Is Bayer hoping to target young, educated, professional women that are vaguely familiar with this tale? If that is their goal… women who are familiar with this story, via their religious and cultural background or simply by taking a world religions course, might find the appropriation interesting but also problematic. If Bayer’s target audience is women who are not familiar with this story, viewers may think this an unusual analogy.  Some YouTube viewers have posted comments in the vein of “what does a rhinoceros have to do with birth control?” Despite my critique, I do think the imagery is visually stunning and Bayer has probably won some points with viewers due the commercial’s unusual opening scene.

Concern three—The Commercial History of Bayer: Bayer is a giant prescription drug distributor which has in recent years come under attack of several lawsuits from women taking their birth control product Yaz.  Some of these young women have claimed that taking Yaz caused them to have strokes. Considering these lawsuits, Bayer might be trying, through commercials such as the one we are examining, to encourage young women who are taking their product to be more informed about the possible side effects of taking any birth control product. The main motivation behind this commercial may have less to do with selling their product and more to do with their advertising department doing damage control, in regard to the publicity these aforementioned lawsuits are getting from the media.

All that being said, it was pretty thrilling to have students bring this commercial to my attention. Advertising departments seem to be taking cues from the greatest and most successful marketing programs in history, religions.

• Bayer Commercial:  httpv://www.bayerforwomen.com/index.html?WT.mc_id=BWS119535&WT.srch=1 

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

 By J.F. Sullivan

On Monday, June 14^th, lightning struck and burned a 62-foot statue of Jesus in Monroe, Ohio.  The statue was nicknamed “Touchdown Jesus” because of its raised arms.

So is the lightning-wielding Olympian God Zeus finally getting some payback after the destruction of his own statue by Christians in the fifth century BCE?  Or, is this a statement from some other  god—unhappy with monotheistic dominance?  Perhaps the trinity isn’t as all-for-one and one-for-all as we were led to believe.  Has anyone questioned the spiritus sancti?  Suspicions are rising as apparently, this is not the first time a statue of Jesus has fallen victim to lightning.  According to the Washington Post’s Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn,

In 2008, lightning singed the fingers and eyebrows of Christ the Redeemer, the 130-foot Jesus statue that stands over Rio de Janeiro. In 2007, a bolt blasted the 33-foot Jesus statue at Mother Cabrini Shrine in Golden, Colo. One of Jesus’s arms fell off.

Apparently Jesus is not the only target. Meacham and Quinn also report that saints, angels and the Virgin Mary have all fallen victim to lightning strikes.  Clearly something, or perhaps someone, is out to get the Christians.  It is even possible that America is to blame, since our own Lady Liberty has been struck several times herself.

Is the joke over?  Has this gone far enough?  Natural disasters and events like lightning occur all the time, but in recent years, groups and individuals of various religious traditions have been quick to blame natural disasters upon divine retribution for misbehavior and general decadence.  At last count the gays were winning hands down as the go-to cause for the world’s natural disasters.  The Aceh province tidal wave, Katrina, the Haiti earthquake, and even the Iceland volcano have all been blamed on various targets of God’s retributive justice. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8u-_kKxBWU

!

So what about ‘Touchdown Jesus’?  The pundits are conspicuously silent about this event. 

Apparently no one wants to read anything into it, but why not?  Worldwide roughly 10,000 people are killed each year by lightning; this seems a significant enough figure to warrant some blame flinging.  After all, if earthquakes, hurricanes, tidal waves, and volcanoes all get to be blamed on the actions of different groups or nations, why not lightning?  Do we really want to piss lightning off by not blaming someone for it?

What happens when we give supernatural import to natural events?  Are these different religious interpretations geared for the faithful?  I would say no.  It is no coincidence that the accused culprits are the latest target of those pointing the finger.  Now, thanks to said disaster, the individual or group can wag their finger and say “SEE!!” 

Unfortunately, this natural disaster blame game may be just another chapter in the ongoing trend of public religious individuals and institutions exchanging theological discussions for political discussions.  And as we have seen in recent years, the game of politics is not known for fairness, truth, accuracy, logic, or depth.  Therefore public political blaming by religious individuals and groups should be treated with the same skepticism and scrutiny as the politician who absolutely swears they “didn’t do it” or that email I just received from an exiled Nigerian Finance Minister.  While religious interpretation of life and the universe is an essential part of any religious institution, by substituting theological concerns for political concerns, theodicy is simply reduced to idiocy.

While it’s likely that the Monroe, Ohio Jesus statue was struck because it was a fiberglass cast built around a metal skeleton, it is far more interesting to imagine some divine retribution from the former king of the Gods.  So as long as we’re making things up and no one has yet come forward to assign religiously significant blame… I blame Zeus! 

• Read Jon Meacham’s and Sally Quinn’ s  article at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2010/06/15/AR2010061505135.html?wprss=rss_religion
• Video of the “Touch Down Jesus” after it was struck:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDya5ObTFtI

  

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By Heather Abraham

While working out in my neighborhood gym last week I was unfortunate enough to overhear a conversation between several gym members who had been watching the multiple televisions on display, most of which were tuned into channels covering the clash between the Israeli army and Turkish nationals aboard a relief flotilla attempting to run Israel’s blockade of Gaza.  Discussing the situation, these men concluded that this was just another “Muslim attempt to threaten Israel” and that “Turks were anti-Semitic by nature of their religion.”  Wow! 

This encounter reminded me of another conversation that occurred several months ago, when my husband and I attended a dinner party where he happily reconnected with old friends from Turkey.  During the evening, I found myself in conversation with a Jewish American woman whose family had emigrated from Turkey just after World War II.  As she was narrating her family’s history, another guest inquired as to why her family had left Turkey given that Jews have historically been well received in Muslim Turkey.  To my dismay, she responded that although Turkish Jews were not harmed during World War II, they were harassed and accounted for just in case Germany invaded Turkey.  Although several Turks questioned and argued against the accuracy of this statement, the women appeared to be firm in her beliefs.  Needless to say, I was astounded by her statements and more than a little troubled.  This may be how entertaining urban legends begin but in this period of religious dissension, I think that we need to look at the facts, be responsible, and refrain from creating or adding to existing disinformation.  

Truth be told, Turkish Jews were not harassed, treated badly, nor did they live in fear of their own government.  It is true that Turks, regardless of religious affiliation, were concerned that Nazi Germany may turn its attention southward toward Istanbul, as it would not be the first nation to covet the strategic land that spans the two continents of Europe and Asia.  World War II was a time of horrific battles and crimes against humanity but the story of Turkey and its Turkish Jews is one of bravery and is the story of the conviction of a nation to protect all of its citizens from the Nazi war machine, regardless of religious background, even if it meant putting the lives of their diplomats on the line to do so.  

Although our culture is well versed on the horrifying events of World War II, the story of the Turkish Jews is one that has unfortunately slipped into obscurity.  In this time of religious discord, I believe it is important to remember that it has not always been so and that, contrary to popular media portrayals, religious differences do not, for the vast majority, signify hatred, distrust, or the negation of humanity.  Although the vast majority of Turks are Muslims, Jews have for centuries lived and practiced their religion in the Ottoman Empire and Turkey without fear of discrimination or harm and during WWII, the Republic of Turkey went to great lengths to protect their Jewish citizens from the Nazi’s final solution.  

During World War II, Turkish Jews living abroad were protected by their Turkish citizenship and a highly concerned Turkish diplomatic machine which worked tirelessly to protect its Jewish citizens; often times rescuing them from European nations occupied or controlled by Nazi Germany.  Stanford J. Shaw, Professor of Turkish History- UCLA, encapsulates the efforts of the Turkish Republic to save its Jewish citizens during WWII.    

While six million Jews were being exterminated by the Nazis, the rescue of some 15,000 Turkish Jews from France, and even of some 100,000 Jews from Eastern Europe might well be considered as relatively insignificant in comparison. It was, however, very significant to the people who were rescued, and above all it showed that, as had been the case for more than five centuries, Turks and Jews continued to help each other in times of great crises.    

Turkish diplomats in Europe, especially in Nazi controlled France, did not sit idly by and allow their Jewish citizens to be subject to Nazi persecution but made tremendous efforts to ensure their safety; protesting the arrests and persecution of Turkish citizens by reinforcing official Turkish policy which argued that as 

Turkey made no distinction among its citizens of different religions, and that under treaties maintained between Turkey and Germany, the latter therefore had no right to distinguish between Muslim and Jewish Turks.                                                                                                                                               

Victoria Barrett

As longs as a Jew could prove Turkish citizenship, they were officially not subject to European anti-Semitic legislation but were under the protection of the Turkish government.  Unfortunately, thousands of Jews, in embracing their new European identity, had let their Turkish citizenship lapse.  Turkish diplomats worked around the clock with Ankara to process the thousands of requests by Jews to reestablish their Turkish citizenship.  In many cases, they were issued a temporary Certificates of Irregular Turkish Citizenship which kept the Nazi authorities temporarily at bay.  Knowing that their diplomatic arguments would only, at best, delay the inevitable, Turkish authorities moved decisively and determinedly to ensure the safety of their citizens.  Turkish officials removed many Turkish Jews from occupied Europe on organized train caravans which plodded dangerously through Nazi occupied territory as it made its way to the safety of the Turkish border.  

In 2001, documentary film maker and director Victoria Barrett’s film Desperate Hours debuted on PBS. Barrett’s film explores Turkish and Jewish history primarily focusing on the period surrounding WWII and tells of individual and collective efforts of Jews, Muslims, and Christians living in Turkey and working to rescue Jews from certain death in Europe’s concentration camps.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UO4XE_XsDps

Jews and Turks have long enjoyed a complex and primarily peaceful history.  This most recent crack in Israeli-Turkish relations does not negate the bond that has existed between Jews and Turks throughout the centuries beginning with the Ottoman period and moving through the establishment and flourishing of the Turkish Republic.  Turkey has been a friend and ally to Israel and in 1949 was the first Muslim nation to officially recognize the State of Israel.  Encouraged by the media, we often mistake current events as reflections of historical relationships.  This could not be further from the truth.  

Although Turkey and Israel have a solid historical relationship, there are ultra religious conservatives in both Turkey and Israel that are working to inflame the situation for their own political/theological agendas.  The dangers of allowing religious beliefs to dictate political policy are numerous and yet both countries too often appear to be bowing to the pressures of the ultra conservative minority.  Blanket statements labeling Turks as “anti-Semitic by nature of their religion” are not only historically inaccurate but such statements propagate religious and political discord.

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By Ashley Gnat  

Since written, Hearst Corporation announced 7 June, 2010 that Helen Thomas has retired “effective immediately.”  

Recently Helen Thomas was asked to comment on Israel.  Her response was to “tell them to get the hell out of Palestine.”  She followed up this statement with: “remember, these people [Palestinians] are occupied and it’s their land, it’s not German, it’s not Poland.” When asked what the Jews living in Palestine should do, Helen suggests that they “go home, … Poland, Germany… and America, and everywhere else.” 

Already, Helen Thomas’ agent has dropped her and former Bush administration White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer is suggesting that she should lose her column with the Hearst News Corporation as well as her seat in the White House Press Room.  

Thomas with President Kennedy

Before we go into details of the out lash against Ms. Thomas, let’s think exactly about what she means and her background in the pressroom.  If you have admired Helen from afar (as I will admit I have, and thus reveal my bias), then it would not be a stretch to sell you on the admittedly general statement that Ms. Thomas’ questions have the reputation of reminding everyone that we are in two wars and to remind us of our ethical duties to those we occupy as well as our troops.   The same is true of her questions and comments regarding the Israeli occupation of Palestine: when Ari Fleischer was Press Secretary, she notably reminded him that there were two sides to the conflict during the second Palestinian uprising that began in September 2000, a reminder that stemmed from then-President Bush having met with Israeli officials but only peripherally talking to supporters of the Palestinians.  

Keeping this in mind, Helen’s comment doesn’t seem menacing.  She could be referring to a specific, recent event in Palestine: the recent surge in Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.  If this is the case, she is speaking to a particular set of Jews: those living in what Palestinians see as illegal settlements in Palestinian land. 

Yet in the age of soundbite clips and taking things out of context, this juicy moment of political vulnerability will not go unnoticed.  In an interview with CNN’s Don Lemon, Fleischer compared Thomas’ comments to those suggesting that all blacks should go back to Africa.  However, later in the interview, Fleischer said 

but this is so different.  This is in a unique category.  And if people can say this and get a basic pass at it, and put out a statement later, as she did, calling for tolerance, when she herself engaged in one of the most intolerant statements anyone can make, people should not sit by silently.   

Fleischer

While I find the contradiction pleasantly ironic (it’s like this other thing, but it’s unique), I am able to chalk it up to interview gitters.  

I would only like to point out that in order for Ms. Thomas’ statements to be anything like suggesting that all blacks should go back to Africa, the situation would need to look something like this: North America is desperately over populated; in an attempt to relieve some strain on struggling cities, the United States government has decided to build American settlements inside the Canadian border and has displaced nearly two million Canadians; Americans approve of this venture because politicians have been explaining that Manifest Destiny gives them right to the entirety of the North American continent; Canadians are outraged at the removal of their land, the land they have lived on with their families and fellow countrymen longer than family tales will go back; by a mixture of dumb luck and politics, the majority of settlers are black.  In this situation, then yes, Helen’s comments would be similar enough to the present situation in Palestine to bring up the comparison of suggesting that blacks should go back to Africa.  Of what use is this comparison? 

It is after this analogy that Ari Fleischer’s response gets more interesting.  

Hearst should not continue to employ her.  Even the signal that should be sent if they gave her a two week suspension, would be very powerful about telling people what is right and what is wrong and how far people should go to express their political views.  It is abhorrent to say that any ethnic group, racial group, or religious group should have to leave to go home where they came from.  It’s a terrible thing to say. 

Before Helen Thomas is punished too harshly and condemned to the opinion that she told any ethnic group, racial group, or religious group where to go or where to stay, think about what she could have meant: that group of people who is living in contested settlements in Palestine should go home.  Thomas reveals her position about the state of Israel when she suggests where they should go, but her expression when she made the suggestion reveals her sentiment: to her, it doesn’t matter where they go, just don’t go there.  

However Fleischer’s comments leave no room for interpretation: he is concerned about what should happen to Helen Thomas’ career, but he is more concerned that it tells “people what is right and what is wrong and how far people should go to express their political views.”  Scholars more versed with American law will be able to describe how this statement does or does not conflict with freedom of speech and freedom of the press, but my message is more simple: in the current age, we tend to focus more on religion, and are more offended by statements of religion, than anything else.  Thomas’ comments seem to have in mind a political crisis, not a religious group.  As scholars of religion, we are often expanding the category of religion and using what we have learned to instruct us on other things.  Yet in this instance, I think we should leave religion well enough alone.  This seems to be an example of a political criticism of Israel more than the condemnation of all Jews.  

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has become a religious and political conflict over the years, but comments about such a conflict can remain either religious or political and must not necessarily do both at the same time.

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By Heather Abraham

Last week’s numerous news reports and articles concerning France’s attempt to ban the wearing of certain modes of Islamic “veiling” in public is more than just the latest example of Western anti- Islamic sentiment.  As John Sullivan wrote in his Religion Nerd article of yesterday entitled The Muslims are Coming, this 

anti-Muslim sentiment has fallen in with the same “we’re losing the country” mentality that led to the [U.S.] Arizona anti-immigration laws. The issue at the heart of these challenges is identity.  (http://wp.me/pTCyD-eW )

I agree with John that identity is at the heart of the matter; the identity of the immigrants as well as the identity of the adoptive parent nation.  The veil, Islam’s most controversial symbol, is not the primary issue but has come to symbolize the clash between western secular society and the determined attempt of Muslims to push back against secular cultures that are uncomfortable with public and political displays of religious devotion.  Let’s face it, the veil makes many of us uncomfortable; especially for those from secular societies.   

Today, the veil, in all its forms, represents Muslim identity and solidarity.  In many western countries the veil identifies the wearer as the other, separate and not equal in the eyes of frightened westerners who fear for their homogeneous cultural and secular identity.  For Europe, these others are seen as a threat to their cultural, political, and secular identity and many European countries including, the Netherlands, France, Belgium, and Germany have miserably failed (if not refused) to assimilate their Muslim populations and are now paying a heavy price.  

Germany for example, home to the largest population of Muslim Turks outside of Turkey, denied its Turkish “workers” any semblance of belonging for generations.  In the years following the catastrophic events of WWII, Germany was in desperate need of able bodied male workers and extended an open invitation to Turkish citizens to come to Germany as guest workers and help rebuild the German infrastructure and economy.  Tens of thousands of mostly rural Turks flooded into Germany attracted by the promise of economic prosperity.  Generations later, the children and grandchildren of these guest workers were still denied German citizenship and full citizen rights.  Like immigrants in the United States today, Germany’s Turks faced opposition and anti-immigrant attitudes for decades.  It was only recently, in 2000, that Germany finally began the process of assimilating their ethnic Turkish population by allowing children born in Germany to become German citizens as long as one parent was a legal resident for a minimum of eight years.   

For forty years, Germany denied German born Turks and their Turkish parents citizenship; keeping the German Turks in a liminal state for decades.   Not fully accepted as Turkish by the Turks nor fully accepted by their country of birth, many of these “German Turks” embraced an exaggerated sense of Muslim identity; the only stable identity available to them.   In failing to assimilate their Muslim populations, many European nations have created a divisive atmosphere of suspicion and fear.  

Veiling, more specifically, the burqa is an extreme version of a cultural practice which has been embraced by some Muslims as a symbol of defiance to western domination and secularism.  As an American, I am uncomfortable with any country targeting a specific group or limiting personal freedom but I can understand the security concerns that the burqa presents.  Throughout Europe and the Middle East, there have been more than a few instances where criminals have used the burqa to elude authorities and god forbid that a burqa wearing woman get behind the wheel of a car.  Contrary to popular belief, the burqa is a garment worn by few Islamic women and is a relatively new and radicalized addition to the various modes of Islamic veiling.  Although the majority of Muslim women do not practice any form of veiling, the veil has become the symbol of resistance of those who reject secularism and a feared if not hated symbol to those who fear radical Islamic political power.  

Sadly and most ironically, it is the women who have to wear or should I say endure this strangely shapeless mode of clothing that not only disguises one’s individuality but additionally dehumanizes the wearer.  How many times have I used the term burqa and yet never mentioned the woman beneath it?  Food for thought, the primary issue at hand is identity and yet the burqa obliterates any personal identity of the wearer who, nameless and faceless, becomes an anonymous casualty in a politicized clash of cultures.  

This brings me to the questions of the day:  Do we really need to construct reasons to hate one another in order to feel comfortable with our own identity and how much of our own identity rests with our placement or categorization of the other?

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By:  J.F. Sullivan

When Religion Nerd suggested a possible follow up article to FatwaPhobia   (http://wp.me/pTCyD-eW ) focusing on the reactive viral phenomenon “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day,” I was not feeling particularly motivated.  This idea about drawing Muhammad in an effort to protest Comedy Central’s decision to censor that episode of South Park felt a bit strange to me.  While I agree that Islam should be subject to both the same satire, as well as critical scholarship as every other religious tradition, it felt like something different to go out and intentionally attack the prohibition about depicting Muhammad.  After all, the issue was not ultimately with Islam, it was about freedom of expression and censorship.  The issue in that case was not that a radical Islamist group threatened the creators of South Park; it was that Comedy Central caved-in to it.  In the end, “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day,” seemed like something both retaliatory and anti-Islamic vs. solidarity in opposition to censorship.

The creators of “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day,” have since discontinued the call after the movement went from a Facebook gag to a viral phenomenon. (See LA Times article below) What is intriguing is how rapidly the idea spread and inevitably got out of control.  Whether intentional or not, “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day” plugged into an already existing anti-Muslim sensibility in America that has been smoldering after its initial wave following 9/11.  Even though we have mostly moved on from the initial shock of the attacks, the anti-Muslim sentiment has fallen in with the same “we’re losing the country” mentality that led to the Arizona anti-immigration laws. The issue at the heart of these challenges is identity.  For many people, America is a heterosexual, white Christian male.  When that image begins to change, people begin to react in opposition to that change, while others embrace it.  An additional difficulty arises when those who support the changes tend to also not resemble the dominant image while many that resist the change do.  The result is an increasingly polarized conflict that is drawn along many of the same lines of identity: ethnic, racial, religious, economic, cultural.

Two additional events this week have shown the light on this growing anti-Muslim sensibility and its roots in identity conflict.  The first was the plan to build a mosque and Islamic center in the area around Ground Zero.  Obviously this met with some significant public opposition, encapsulated by this quote,

This is an insult,’ said one of the more than 150 people at the meeting. ‘This is demeaning. This is humiliating that you would build a shrine to the very ideology that inspired the attacks on 9/11. (See Ray Sanchez article below)

The second development was the deployment of New York Bus ads from Pamela Geller and the Stop the Islamization of America Group (http://sioaonline.com/). 

What is happening amidst all of this is a growing reaction to diversity and religious pluralism.  Fueled by continual fear from 9/11 and coupled with the changing face of America, there are those who are not responding well.  In this way, anything that is seen to support the continued diversity and pluralism of America is suspect.  We now have an African-American president that is suspected of being a Muslim and a socialist, as well as a foreigner.  The entire birther movement seems to be rooted in the fear that the President is a foreigner.  This nascent xenophobia is fueled by reports about changing demographics, the most frightening being the suggestion that by 2050, most of the world will be Muslim.  To get a sense of how significant this concern is, take a look at the following video clip. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU

This is not just an American problem, it is happening all over Europe as mostly homogeneous populations interact with growing immigrant populations and the institutions and cultural differences that come with them.  Look no further than France’s burqa disputes and Switzerland’s minaret legislation for evidence.  Indeed the entire Danish cartoon and Theo Van Gogh incidents that inspired the recent South Park debacle likely originated as a reaction to Muslim immigration into Europe.

Diversity and pluralism are a fact.  And as Europe and America continue to attract immigrants, the issues raised by changing population demographics are not going to change.  What we can change is how we respond to these new developments.  The current way of coexisting, tolerance and multiculturalism, may no longer be effective.  Recognizing difference and tolerating those unlike you works as long as the tolerant group remains in the majority, once that starts to change, friction and factionalism is often the result.  What we may need to do then is seek out a new way to engage diversity and pluralism that doesn’t threaten identity or status and allows for a looser way of coexisting that does not require clearly defined lines of identity that split us along ethno-racial, religious, cultural and economic lines and offers a more cosmopolitan approach.  If indeed the world is changing and all of our identity lines are moving and becoming less and less stable, now is the time to start revising our thinking about identity, history, culture, religion, and society and seeing if we can do more than simply tolerate diversity and pluralism and start appreciating and even participating in line-crossing and identity breaking activities that will allow us to thrive as a global society. 

Further Reading

• LA Times article – Creators of ‘Everybody Draw Muhammad Day’ Drop Gag After Everybody Gets Angry :  http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/04/creators-of-everybody-draw-muhammad-day-abandon-effort-after-it-becomes-controversial.html
• Ray Sanchez article: http://abcnews.go.com/US/bus-ads-offer-protection-muslims-leaving-islam/US/mosque-plan-clears-hurdle-protests/story?id=10747570]
• Pamela Geller’s ‘Leaving Islam?’ Bus Ads Cause Controversy  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/26/pamela-gellers-leaving-is_n_591112.html
• Stop Islamization of America Website – http://sioaonline.com/

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By:  Scott R. Grubman

In my last article I discussed the religious composition of the Supreme Court, both historically and in the present day.  Since I wrote that article, President Obama has nominated current Solicitor General Elena Kagan to replace the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.  If Kagan is confirmed by the Senate, she will be the eighth Jewish Justice and the third Jewish member of the current Court.  Significantly, Kagan’s confirmation would bring with it something that has never occurred in the history of this country – a “Protestant-less” Court.  Assuming Kagan is confirmed, the Court will soon be comprised of six Catholics and three Jews, religious groups that make up only around twenty four and two percent of the country’s population, respectively.   

But before one focuses too much on the religious composition of the Court, it is important to examine whether the personal religious affiliations of the Justices really even matter when it comes to the most important aspect of a Justice’s job – ruling on cases before the Court.  Although there are undoubtedly countless methods that might be utilized to determine the correlation between a Justice’s personal religious affiliation and the way in which that Justice might rule on cases before the Court, this article will focus on two hot-button areas of the law that are so intertwined with religious belief that it is often hard, if not impossible, to separate the two—abortion and the death penalty. 

Abortion:

According to the group Catholic Answers, “[t]he Catholic Church has always condemned abortion as a grave evil.”  A 1984 Time Magazine article noted that “[o]pposition to abortion is one of the clearest and oldest moral preachings of the Roman Catholic Church,” dating back to the first century.  It is important to note that, although the Catholic Church hierarchy, including the current Pope Benedict XVI, has always espoused strong opposition to abortion, there are some Catholic theological authorities that permit abortion in certain situations.  For example, many scholars refer to fifteenth century Saint Antoninus as a “pro-choice bishop.”  This title, however, seems misplaced, at least by today’s understanding of what it means to be “pro-choice.”  Even St. Antoninus was against abortion in all but one very limited situation—he believed that in situations where the embryo had not yet been infused with a soul (which he regarded as occurring at forty days for males and eighty days for females), it was legitimate to abort the embryo if that was necessary to save the mother’s life.

It is more difficult to ascertain the “Jewish view” on abortion.  This is largely because, unlike the Catholic Church, there is no centralized Jewish hierarchy or supreme authority.  Not only are there many different sects of Judaism, but views on topics such as abortion vary widely even within an individual sect.  Generally, however, modern-day Orthodox Judaism opposes abortion except where it is absolutely necessary to save a mother’s life.  In modern-day Conservative Judaism, the Rabbinical Assembly Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, which sets halakhic (religious law) policy for the Conservative movement as a whole, takes the view that abortion is justifiable if continuation of the pregnancy might cause the woman severe physical or psychological harm, or when the fetus is judged by competent medical opinion as severely defective.  The Union for Reform Judaism, an umbrella organization which provides direction and leadership to Reform Jews, takes a more pro-choice view when it comes to abortion—not only does Reform Judaism permit abortion where it is necessary for the life or health of the mother, but it is also permissible in cases of rape or incest; where it is determined through genetic testing that the child will have a disease that will cause death or severe disability; or where the parents believe that the impending birth would be an impossible situation for them, among other circumstances.

So how have the Court’s current Justices ruled in cases dealing with abortion?  During his confirmation hearings, Chief Justice John Roberts, a Catholic, stated that Roe v. Wade was the “settled law of the land,” and that nothing in his personal views would prevent him from fully and faithfully applying that decision.  Since joining the Court in 2005, Roberts has cast a vote in only one significant abortion case.  In that case, Gonzales v. Carhart (2007), Roberts joined four other Justices in upholding the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, a federal statute prohibiting a form of late-term abortion.  Although Justice Clarence Thomas, another Catholic, filed a concurring opinion in Gonzales advocating for reversal of Roe v. Wade, Chief Justice Roberts declined to join that opinion.  Interestingly, all five Justices in the Gonzales majority were Catholic (Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas and Alito), whereas all of the dissenting Justices were either Jewish (Ginsburg and Breyer) or Protestant (Souter).

Another of the Court’s Catholic members, Justice Antonin Scalia, has taken what some call an “anti-abortion” stance in several cases.  For instance, in a dissenting opinion in the landmark abortion case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), a case in which the majority of the Court upheld the central holding if Roe v. Wade, Justice Scalia argued that there is no right to abortion in the Constitution and that it should be left up to the states whether to permit or ban abortions.  Scalia has called for the reversal of Roe in several cases.  In one of those cases, Stenberg v. Carhart, where the Court struck down a state statute banning partial-birth abortion because it did not allow an exception for the health of the mother, Justice Scalia dissented, noting that “[t]he method of killing a human child . . . proscribed by this statute is so horrible that the most clinical description of it evokes a shudder of revulsion.”  Scalia joined his fellow Catholic Justices in upholding the constitutionality of the federal partial-birth abortion law at issue in Gonzales, which like the state law at issue in Stenberg did not contain an exception for the health of the mother.

Another member of the all-Catholic Gonzales majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy, drew some criticism during his nomination process in 1987 for citing Roe v. Wade favorably in a case that he decided as a lower court judge.  Despite his stated support for Roe, Justice Kennedy has made it clear that certain restrictions may permissibly be placed on the availability of abortions.  In Hodgson v. Minnesota (1990), for instance, Justice Kennedy joined four other Justices in upholding a state law requiring notice to both parents before a minor could undergo an abortion.  It was significant to Kennedy that the law at issue contained a judicial bypass provision allowing the parental notification to be bypassed when a court found it necessary.  A couple of years later in Casey, however, to the surprise of many legal scholars, Justice Kennedy joined the controlling plurality opinion reaffirming the central holding of Roe v. Wade.  In 2007, Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in Gonzales, upholding the federal partial-birth abortion statute.

Like Justice Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas has stated in several cases his belief that the Constitution is silent on the issue of abortion.  In 1992, Thomas joined Scalia and the other dissenters in Casey, which expressed the belief that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled.  Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion in Gonzales, stating his belief that the partial-birth abortion statute suffered no constitutional infirmities.  In his confirmation hearings, Justice Samuel Alito stated that he would look at the issue of abortion with an open mind but refused to state how he would rule on Roe v. Wade if that issue were to come up before the Court.  In his only significant abortion case as a Supreme Court Justice, Alito joined the majority in Gonzales upholding the federal partial-birth abortion law.  Interestingly, although he was not on the Supreme Court in 1992 when the Court reaffirmed the central holding of Roe v. Wade in its Casey decision, then-Judge Alito was a member of the three-judge panel that heard that case in the court of appeals.  Alito dissented in that case, espousing positions which were later overruled by the Supreme Court in Casey.  

Finally, although she has not had the opportunity to rule on any abortion cases since becoming a Supreme Court Justice in 2009, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, as an appeals court judge, upheld the Bush administration’s implementation of the “Mexico City Policy,” which stated that the United States would no longer contribute to organizations which performed or actively promoted abortion as a method of family planning in other nations.  Then-Judge Sotomayor held that the government was free to favor the anti-abortion position if it so chose.  After nominating Sotomayor to the Court, however, President Obama stated that Sotomayor supported a woman’s right to an abortion and would affirm the holding of Roe v. Wade.   During her confirmation hearings, Sotomayor expressed her opinion that Roe was “settled law.” 

Both of the Court’s current Jewish Justices—Ginsburg and Breyer—have generally ruled in favor of abortion rights.  In a 2009 interview for the New York Times, Justice Ginsburg stated in regards to abortion that “the basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman.”  Ginsburg was raised in a Conservative synagogue.  Justice Breyer, on the other hand, was raised in the Reform tradition.

Death Penalty:

Like abortion, the Catholic Church strongly opposes the death penalty in nearly all cases.  However, there are several Catholic theologians who have approved of the death penalty in some circumstances.  Thomas Aquinas, for instance, accepted the death penalty as a necessary deterrent and prevention method, but not as a means of vengeance.  Similarly, the Council of Trent’s sixteenth century Roman Catechism advocated for imposition of the death penalty in certain circumstances.  More recently, Pope John Paul II suggested that capital punishment should be avoided unless it is the only way to defend society from the offender in question.  In one letter, Pope John Paul II said that punishment “ought not to go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society.”  The Pope went on state that, because of “steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”  This view has been restated by the most recent edition of the Catechism.  The current Pope, Benedict XVI, also opposes the death penalty.

When it comes to the Supreme Court’s death penalty jurisprudence, the Court’s Catholic majority has been somewhat inconsistent.  While Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas have consistently upheld the death penalty from a variety of constitutional attacks, Justice Kennedy has generally voted to restrict the use of the death penalty.  Although Justice Alito has not had much of an opportunity to express his death penalty views since joining the Supreme Court, he issued numerous rulings as an appeals court judge indicating his support for capital punishment.  Justice Sotomayor has indicated that while she is personally opposed to the death penalty, she does not believe that the practice of capital punishment is unconstitutional. 

Although the Jewish attitude towards the death penalty, for the same reasons mentioned above, is less cohesive than in Catholicism, Judaism generally approves of the death penalty in theory, but establishes such a high standard of proof that, in practice, capital punishment is rarely, if ever, authorized.  The twelfth century Jewish scholar Maimonides, for example, argued that executing a defendant on anything less than absolute certainty would lead to a slippery slope of decreasing proofs of burden.  Maimonides stated that “it is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent person to death.”  Both of the Court’s Jewish Justices have generally voted to restrict imposition of the death penalty.  This, of course, does not mean that the Justices have done so based on their Jewish upbringings.  Instead, it is likely that their opposition to capital punishment is more correlated to their left-leaning political ideology than their religion (although some would argue that one’s religion informs that person’s political ideology). 

Conclusion:

Although much can be said about how a Justice’s religious affiliation affects his or her rulings in cases before the Court, at least in the areas of abortion and the death penalty, it appears that there is no direct correlation between the two.  Instead, it would appear that a Justice’s political ideology (particularly whether that Justice was nominated by a Republican or Democratic President) is a better indicator of how that Justice will rule on these issues, although this is not always the case (many forget that Justice Stevens, hailed by most to be the Court’s most liberal Justice, was nominated by Republican President Gerald Ford).  It will take some years to see whether the soon-to-be Protestant-less Supreme Court differs materially from the historically Protestant-majority Court.

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By: Scott R. Grubman    

Depending on how you define the term, anywhere between sixty-five to around seventy percent of United States Supreme Court Justices, both past and present, identified themselves as “Protestant.”  Of the various Protestant sects, the Episcopalians claim the highest number of Justices—thirty-five former Justices, or approximately one-third of all current and former Justices—followed by the Presbyterians at nineteen.  By contrast, there have only been twelve Catholic Justices on the High Court, which is just a little over ten percent of past and present Justices.  The first Catholic Justice was Roger B. Taney, who was nominated Chief Justice by President Andrew Jackson in 1836.  The most recent Catholic Justice is Sonia Sotomayor, who was nominated by President Barack Obama in May 2009.  Additionally, there have been seven Jewish Justices—the first one coming in 1916 with the nomination of Louis Brandeis by President Woodrow Wilson (it is reported that, in 1853, President Millard Fillmore offered to appoint Louisiana Senator Judah Benjamin, who would later become the Secretary of State for the Confederacy, to the Court.  Benjamin declined the offer, a practice not uncommon in that period), and the most recent one coming with the addition of Justice Stephen Breyer by President Bill Clinton in 1994 (in fact, both of President Clinton’s nominees to the Supreme Court were Jewish—Justice Breyer and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg).  Pentecostals, Mormons, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus are among the major world religions and denominations that have yet to be represented on the Court.  Further, there has never been a self-identified atheist on the Court, although Justice Benjamin Cardozo, born and raised in the Jewish tradition, began to identify himself as agnostic later in life. 

Although the Supreme Court was majority-Protestant for most of its history, this is no longer the case.  In the late 1990s, when Justice Clarence Thomas left the Episcopal Church to return to Catholicism, the tradition in which he was raised, the Court, for the first time in history, lost its Protestant majority.  And with the more recent additions of Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Samuel Alito and Sotomayor (all Catholic), the Court is now, for the first time in its history, majority Catholic.  The current Court is comprised of six Catholics (Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Sotomayor), two Jews (Breyer and Ginsburg), and only one Protestant (Stevens).  With Justice Stevens’ recent announcement that he will leave the Court after the current term expires, the Court is facing a possibility that it has never come close to facing before—the possibility of a “Protestant-less” Supreme Court.  In light of this impending possibility, many have called on President Obama to replace Justice Stevens with a fellow Protestant, thereby creating a so-called “Protestant seat,” to go along with the “African American seat” and the “Jewish seat” already in existence.  

Justice Stevens’ impending retirement has brought to the forefront the debate over whether a potential nominee’s religious affiliation should be something that the President takes into consideration in determining who to nominate to the Court.  For example, Cynthia Rigby, the W.C. Brown Professor of Theology at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary in Austin, Texas, has been quoted as saying that religious affiliation should be one of the many factors the president takes into consideration in choosing a Supreme Court Justice, along with gender, race, and demographic origin.  On the other side of the debate are individuals like Matthew Wilson, an associate professor of political science at Southern Methodist University, who do not believe that religion should play any role in the selection process.  Not surprisingly, President Obama has not indicated whether he will take religion or any other demographical category into account when choosing Stevens’ replacement.  Instead, the President has said that he will choose a candidate with 

an independent mind, a record of excellence and integrity, [and] a fierce dedication to the rule of law and a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people. 

Since Justice Stevens announced his retirement early last month, a “short-list” of potential replacements has emerged.  It is important to note that this list is not an official list and may not include all of the potential candidates being considered by President Obama.  At any rate, it is widely believed that the list contains nine names.  After some research, I was able to identify three of these potential nominees as Jewish, one as Catholic, and two as Protestant.  However, I was not able to identify the religious affiliation of the three other potential nominees.  Based on this information, though, there is a significant chance that Justice Stevens will be replaced with a non-Protestant, thereby creating a “Protestant-less” Supreme Court for the first time in American history.  This is particularly striking considering that, according to a survey conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life in 2007, slightly over fifty percent of Americans identify themselves as Protestant, compared to the less than twenty-four percent that identify themselves as Catholic and the less than two percent that identify themselves as Jewish.  

Regardless of who the President chooses to replace Justice Stevens, it is clear that the religious composition of the Court (over sixty-six percent Catholic, twenty-two percent Jewish, and only eleven percent Protestant) is in no way representative of the religious composition of the American public at large.  The question remains, however, whether this really matters.  After all, the Supreme Court, unlike the Congress, was not designed to be representative of the people.   Instead, it was designed to function as a co-branch of government independent of the other two branches.  Given this, should it matter that the religious composition of the Court is extremely skewed compared to the religious composition of Americans in general?  In order to answer this question, it may be necessary to first examine whether the personal religious affiliations of the individual Justices play any role in how those Justices rule in cases before the Court.  In the second installment of this article, I will attempt to answer this question by focusing on two issues that are so entwined with religion that it is difficult to separate the two—abortion and the death penalty. 

FURTHER READING: 

• Dan Gilgoff, A Supreme Court without Protestants?, available online at http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/03/supreme.court.protestants/index.html.
• Religious Affiliation of the U.S. Supreme Court, available online at http://www.adherents.com/adh_sc.html.  It is important to keep in mind that this article was written in 2006, before Justice David Souter (a Protestant) retired and was replaced by Justice Sotomayor (a Catholic).
• U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, Report: Religious Affiliation (2007), available online at http://religions.pewforum.org/reports.

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By:   Scott Grubman

On April 28, 2010, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Salazar v. Buono, No. 08-472.  The plaintiff in Salazar, Frank Buono, claimed that the “Mojave Cross,” a Latin cross placed on federal land in the Mojave National Preserve by members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) in 1934, violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.  Buono sought an injunction (an injunction is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as “[a] court order commanding or preventing an action”) requiring the government to remove the cross.  The trial court granted Buono’s request for an injunction, finding that the cross on federal land “conveyed an impression of governmental endorsement of religion,” therefore violating the Establishment Clause, which prohibits such an endorsement.  On appeal, the Ninth circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.  While the government’s appeal from the trial court’s ruling was pending, however, Congress passed the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, which directed the Secretary of the Interior to transfer the cross and the land on which it stands to the VFW in exchange for privately owned land elsewhere in the Preserve.  According to Buono, this transfer was an invalid attempt to get around the trial court’s ruling that the cross was unconstitutional—because the Establishment Clause only prohibits actions by the government and not private citizens, by transferring the cross to a private organization, the constitutional issue became moot.  The government, on the other hand, argued that transferring the cross to a private organization was a way to comply with the trial court’s injunction by removing the constitutional problem.  Buono went back to the trial court seeking to stop the land transfer authorized by Congress.  Concluding that the transfer was an invalid attempt to keep the cross on display, the trial court granted Buono’s motion and blocked the government from implementing the land-transfer statute.  The Ninth Circuit once again affirmed.

By a margin of 5-4, however, the Supreme Court reversed the granting of the second injunction.   The plurality opinion (a plurality opinion is an opinion lacking enough votes to constitute a majority, but receiving more votes than any other opinion) focused on the context in which the land-transfer statute was enacted and the reasons for its passage.  The Court noted that private citizens placed the cross to commemorate American servicemen who had died in World War I.  It went on to say that “[a]lthough certainly a Christian symbol, the cross was not emplaced . . . to promote a Christian message.”  The plurality noted that the cross had stood in the same location for nearly seven decades before the land-transfer statute was enacted and, by that time, “the cross and the cause it commemorated had become entwined in the public consciousness,” and that Congress had even designated the cross as a national memorial.  The Court discussed the dilemma facing the government after the trial court issued its first injunction—“[i]t could not maintain the cross without violating the injunction, but it could not remove the cross without conveying disrespect for those the cross was seen as honoring.”  It held that nothing in the trial court’s original injunction prevented the government from enacting the land-transfer statute.  Deferring to Congress’ judgment, the Court discussed “Congress’s prerogative to balance opposing interest and its institutional competence to do so.”  It went on to hold that “the land-transfer statute embodie[d] Congress’s legislative judgment that this dispute is best resolved through a framework and policy of accommodation.” 

At this juncture it is important to note what the Court in Salazar did not do.  The Court did not say that the trial court was powerless to prevent the government from implementing the land-transfer statute.  What the Court did say, however, is that the trial court went about doing so the wrong way—instead of simply granting the injunction because of its suspicion of an illegal governmental purpose, which is what the trial court did, it should have inquired into the effect that knowledge of the land transfer would have on any perceived governmental endorsement of religion.  Further, and of particular importance, the Court in Salazar did not say whether maintenance of the Mojave Cross on federal land was constitutional under the Establishment Clause—that issue was not before the Court.  However, the Court did indicate its possible disagreement with the plaintiff’s position, noting that “[t]he goal of avoiding governmental endorsement does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm . . . . The Constitution does not oblige government to avoid any public acknowledgment of religion’s role in society.”  This segment of the plurality’s opinion might come into play in a future case where the constitutionality of a religious symbol on federal lands is brought directly into question.  It is important to note, however, that only three Justices—Kennedy, Roberts, and Alito—signed on to this portion of the opinion.  

Mojave Cross (google Images)

Dissenting, Justice Stevens first took issue with the plurality’s suggestion that the Mojave Cross did not have a Christian-specific message, stating that “[a] Latin cross necessarily symbolizes one of the most important tenants upon which believers in a benevolent Creator, as well as nonbelievers, are known to differ.”  As to whether Congress’ land-transfer statute violated the first injunction issued by the trial court requiring the government to remove the cross, Justice Stevens said that it did.  He noted that the initial injunction barred the government from “permitting the display of” the cross and that the land-transfer statute, in direct contradiction of this order, permitted the display of the cross.  Justice Stevens stated that, because the federal government owned the land at issue, the transfer statute would require the government to take an affirmative act designed to keep the cross in place.  He also went on to discuss why, in his opinion, the display of the cross on federal land would violate the Establishment Clause by endorsing a specific religious message.  In a separate dissenting opinion, Justice Breyer held that, assuming that the cross on federal lands violated the Establishment Clause, so did the statute permitting its transfer to a private organization.  

As already mentioned, the Court’s opinion in Salazar was nowhere near as significant or groundbreaking as it might seem at first glance.  In fact, it was entirely procedural, and failed to put forth a substantive ruling on the constitutionality of the cross on federal land.  However, the different opinions in Salazar lend some insight into how the individual Justices would rule should this constitutional question—the legality of a religious symbol on federal land—come directly before the Court in a future case.  For now, the case will go back to the trial court for a more detailed analysis as to whether the land-transfer statute violated the court’s original injunction requiring removal of the cross.  

Liberty Legal Institute “Don’t Tear Me Down” Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeuBB_mOFIA

Further Reading:   

• L.A. Times article covering Salazar:  http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-cross-20100429,0,4660088.story
• The full text of the Court’s opinion in Salazar can be accessed online at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/30642133/Salazar-v-Buono-No-08-472
• Full citation:  Salazar v. Buono, No. 08-472, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 3674 (April 28, 2010).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeuBB_mOFIA

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

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 article introducing the basics of Scientology to ReligionNerd 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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01lljemjh9o

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 ninth 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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUiUyVqOuJI

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.

• 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.youhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01lljemjh9o

  

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

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.

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

 By: Kenny Smith

The ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus is said to have taught that, “you cannot step into the same river twice,” because a river (like everything in the physical world) is continually changing and hence never the same. The implication of this insight for the study of religion can be profound: religions are also constantly changing, developing, becoming something new, and, to some degree, one can never step twice into the same church, synagogue, mosque, or temple, or religious tradition.

It is especially difficult for Westerners to think in these terms about religion.  Religions tend to have a great deal invested in the view that they represent unchanging truths, and so pointing to evidence of historical change may well be interpreted as an assault. Protestant ideas about a coming Rapture in which faithful Christians are plucked up and out of a hostile secular society, for example, are relatively new, arising in the late 19^th century.  Though many Rapturists read this theology back into the Bible and conclude that such teachings can be traced to the days of Jesus of Nazareth.  Also, as a culture, for the past three centuries or so we have tended to imagine the religious landscape in terms of distinct, walled-off religious institutions, such as “Christianity,” “Islam,” Buddhism,” “Judaism,” and so forth.  Taken together, these factors lead us to expect unchanging and uniform religious traditions where none in fact exist.   

Take, for example, what we call “Christianity.” There are currently some 2.5 billion Christians worldwide. About 1.1 billion are Catholic, 800-900 million are Eastern Orthodox, and 500-600 million are Protestant.  There are enormous theological differences separating these three branches (to say nothing of the many differences in language, culture, ethnicity, economics, politics, and history). For many Catholics and Protestants, it is Jesus’ death that makes salvation possible.  In this view, he is thought to have “paid the price” for all human sin, thus wiping away even the “original sins” of Adam and Eve.  In many Eastern Orthodox Christianities, however, notions of “original sin,” which first emerged in the 4^th century in Western Europe, never caught on.  Eastern Orthodox traditions tend to place much greater emphasis upon the birth of Jesus, in which God is thought to have taken physical form, and thus seriously “upgraded” human nature in important ways.

Catholics and Protestants, of course, differ profoundly as well.  In traditional Catholic teachings, the ideal (if not the only) path to God is through the religious institution that God Himself created and ordained, the Catholic (or “universal”) church, whereas for most Protestants one can go directly to God for forgiveness, atonement, understanding the Bible, knowing  how best to live, rather than relying upon an institution.  This may seem superficial, but it’s actually a very important difference about where religious authority (to determine what the Bible says, how to relate to God, how to live, how society should be structured, etc.) resides.  There is of course a great deal of diversity within each of these three branches.  Protestantism, for instance, is comprised of virtually thousands of denominations, Lutherans, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Pentecostals, being some of the largest and most well-known.  The concept Protestant” (like “river”) may lead us to expect a unity of belief and practice, but there are in fact enormously important differences here as well, differences so profound that one kind of Protestant might have serious doubts about whether other kinds are really Christian at all!  In many Pentecostal churches, for instance, one cannot be certain that one is “saved” (going to heaven after this life) unless one displays the “charismata,” (“gifts of the Holy Spirit”) such as publicly speaking in tongues (usually in a church setting). The very loud, frenetic, highly emotional, and seemingly out of control behaviors associated with this religious experience, however, would for many other Protestants be regarded as a sign of mental illness, or even demonic influence, certainly not the salvific power of the divine.

Within Baptist denominations, one debate that has been going on for centuries involves fundamental notions about God’s power and human free will.  Some (often called Predestinationists) argue that, because God is in full control of everything that happens, he must have already determined, from the very beginnings of time, who will be saved and who will be damned.  Others, however, argue that because God is infinitely good, he would surely leave human beings free to decide for themselves, rather than determining in advance everyone’s fate.  My purpose here is not to resolve such disputes, but only to point out why one kind of Protestant might fail to recognize other kinds as not properly Christian.       

At this point, some may want to argue that, if we think on a very general level, we will find things that are universal to all forms of Christianity, such as the belief that the Bible is the world of God, or that Jesus is the son of God.  But even these generalizations do not really hold up.  There are Christian groups, now and in past centuries, that did not see the Bible in this way, that look(ed) to other religious books and teachings, and had very different views of Jesus, for instance, seeing Jesus as primarily a moral teacher rather than a sacrificial victim whose blood “washed sin away.”  Typically, attempts to find a clear unity within “Christianity: (or any religious tradition, for that matter) dissolve utterly when we push on them just a bit and look into the ways different Christian groups have thought about their tradition.  This realization, which has lead scholars to think in terms of Christianities, can be overwhelming to those within the popular culture, and students new to the study of religion, who are not expecting it.  

But intra-religious diversity can also play out in other ways as well.  In an article for the New York Times, Kirk Johnson notes that, while Hutaree militia members in Adrian, Michigan (recently arrested for allegedly plotting an attack on local police officers), “were best known by their neighbors for their active use of guns and their increasingly heated talk about fighting back violently against the

government… their biggest and most surprising adversary was practically next door: the local branch of the Michigan Militia.”  While both groups “wear fatigues or camouflage, train in the woods with heavy weaponry and believe in threats to liberty from Washington… [the] Michigan Militia, which in past years had links to extremist groups with neo-Nazi flavorings, has moderated over the years, according to members and experts who track the organizations.  Meanwhile, the Hutaree (pronounced Hu-TAR-ay)… was going in the other direction, with increasing talk of violence.”  Apparently, these differences became so pronounced that when Hutaree members were fleeing arrest and asked Michigan Militia members for assistance, they were refused and turned in to the Michigan State Police, who passed the information on to the FBI.  Such an unexpected turn of events suggests that even far-right Christian militias are not monolithic structures.  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/us/01michigan.html?hp

Let me take this argument one step further.  The data above suggests that various Christian militias may differ considerably in fundamental ways.  It may also be the case that there is considerable diversity within individual militias.  The Michigan Militia, for instance, contains one member who “converted to Islam in the late 1990s after a soul-searching separation from the Lutheran faith he had grown up with, and that he believed that he was the only Muslim in the militia.”     Frankly, when I read this I was stunned: surely, I thought, the world of Christian Militias was limited to Christians, or at least excluded Muslims.  Apparently not, at least in this case. It’s difficult to imagine an instance that more clearly illustrates the highly diverse, and hence unpredictable, nature of our times.  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/us/01michigan.html?hp