Encountering Ancestors: a vital part of religion

In recent days, there seems to have been an uptick in the media coverage of Mitt Romney and ceremonies performed in Mormon temples for deceased relatives. As per standard, the articles at Gawker and the Huffington Post assume a kind of odd secularist perspective whereby interaction with ancestors is one the one hand ineffective, but also somehow necessarily creepy, disrespectful and manipulative. 

LDS Vicarious Baptismal font, Atlanta GA temple

Yes, LDS church members who hold temple recommends do in fact perform various ordinances for the deceased, in order that in the post-mortal realm they will have an opportunity to be missionized and thus be eligible for higher levels of spiritual progress and heaven. They claim scriptural precedent for this, as they also do for some of their other distinctive Christian doctrines. Consistent with their essential doctrine of freewill, these are not automatic 'conversions.' Freewill is very important in LDS doctrine, and this is no less true here.

Yet the telling problem here in the articles has little to do with the LDS, although the articles betray a fundamental ignorance of LDS theology in multiple ways. The problem lies in not being aware that interaction with the deceased is a fundamental component of much of religion, whether Catholicism, Hinduism, Judaism, Amerindian religion, Vodou or other traditions. Furthermore, sizable populations of Americans across different traditions already claim to have encountered or interacted with other-than-human persons.

Pew Research, December 2009

In Catholicism, the laity historically has been regularly asked to unite their prayers with the both the priests and the saints, holy men and women who have moved to the heavenly side of the mystical body of Christ after death. In fact the modern process of sainthood in Catholicism and Orthodoxy depends on Church officials holding priesthood powers to 'work between the worlds' in establishing beatific status. In the LDS community, where the intention is that all worthy men should hold High Priesthood keys and anointments, this power works to offer (not compel) ancestors a chance at Exaltation. In Hinduism, regular prayers and offerings are made on behalf of deceased ancestors (across generations, even). In that scenario, the deceased may either influence the birth of future progeny or even reincarnate themselves within the family--thus its a good idea to be on good terms with them!

A Hindu prayer for ancestors during an auspicious festival time

In Judaism, specific beliefs concerning afterlives vary considerably, but it is standard practice to say the Kaddish prayer on the behalf of recently deceased, and in folk Jewish pop culture, as in many traditions, dream visits and interaction with the deceased is quite common and even celebrated, as in the film Fiddler on the Roof. As for Ojibwe funeral hymns, the scholar Michael D. McNally has written eloquently and convincingly about the use of such hymns as a way of keeping the deceased within the bounds of the community as a whole.

Fiddler: Sarah retuning from the Dead in Tevye's fake dream

One of the great enduring themes in religion, whether American or otherwise, is kinship. The maintenance, healing and repair of kinship relationships is course part of our everyday lives with those in this world--why should it not extend beyond it as well?

Review: Hinduism- A Way of Life

As a teacher and scholar of religion and media (and a scholar of ‘World Religions’ pedagogy) I’m always interested in new films, music, or other cultural products that I can use to help teach about religion in the classroom. I recently interlibrary loaned a copy of ‘Hinduism: A Way of Life’ from a nearby library and watched it. Its produced by Shethia Films in India and Gypsy DVD. 

Before it opens, the DVD has two important scenes apart from the copyright notice: 1) a disclaimer suggesting that the facts in the film “have been taken from various sources and the producer does not take responsibility for the authenticity of the narrated facts. The presentation made in this programme is for the pure purpose of creating awareness…[it] is not meant to hurt the sentiments of any religion or society either intentionally or unintentionally.” 2) a certification notice from India’s Central Board of Film Certification that the film has been approved for public display/sale in India with a V/U rating—that is, unrestricted viewing. It is quite likely that the presence of 1) probably assists the film in obtaining 2), since one of the reasons films can be censored in India is for promoting “communal disharmony.”

The film has nine chapters: all with a single narration set against ambient interpretations of Indian classical music: flute, sitar, sarod, tamboura and such. No scholars or attributions of facts are made except for a few obvious sources in the smrti, or inspired epic literature. The chapters are: “Hinduism a philosophy,” “Varnas,” “Four Stages of Life,” “Hindu God,” “Jyotirlinga,” “Vishnu Avatars,” “Temples,” “Jain Religion” and “Kumbh Mela.”

The first chapter makes the case for “2 million gods” being worshipped in India, and a conception of Hinduism (or as the video also calls it: ‘Sanatana Dharma’) as centered around the “three” aims of life: Kama, Dharma, Moksha. The traditional aim of Wealth/Social Power, or “Artha” is not mentioned. Then the 4 varnas, or castes are discussed in a general context of the physico-moral hierarchy of all existence created by karmic cause and effect. There is some discussion of diversification of caste into the myriad of “subcastes” or “jati” and its relationship to the division of labor. There is no discussion of the Dalits. From there the video briefly discusses animal reverence, especially the sacredness of cows. It attributes cow veneration to the 5 gifts of cows to human life: milk, ghee, leather, urine and dung.  The next chapter appears to make the case for universal application of the famous four stages of life, even suggesting the sanyassi as an ideal. It does suggest that older Hindus are among the most participating in sacred pilgrimages.

While suggesting that folk Hinduism is polytheistic early on, a very brief mention of puja as reverence “to God in one of his many manifestations”—a diffused monotheism that the literature seems to suggest is more common among socio-economic elites. Overall, the video suggests a subtle class-based nod to both polytheism and monotheism, but does not attempt to summarize it as “henotheism,” an approach popularized among some scholars.

The next chapter, along with the attention to the 4 Stages, is problematic for me: it adheres to an older textual tradition of defining God as the Trimurti: Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. Quickly the video though breaks this down by saying that most Hindus in practice tend to focus on Vishnu or Shiva—with Shiva’s functions largely encasing Brahma’s. This latter part is where Introductory Hindu pedagogy has been going, as far as I know, with the Trimurti fading in importance—since there is comparatively little ritual devotion to Brahma and that in Hindu devotionalism one of the gods is pretty much always predominant. I was frustrated by the lack of attention to Mahadevi, and the appearance of Goddess almost exclusively in terms of the wife/shakti of Shiva or Vishnu. The film does not cover Goddess devotion per se, even though the literature suggests it's a major part of the lived practice, especially in north/northwestern India. The brief nod to Durga describes her as the collective wrath of the male deities, but also points to her guardian role for the righteous. No mention of the massive Durga festival is made. Nevertheless, it seems reductionist when Vedic/Devi-Mahatmya material also suggests a competing theme of Goddess as the originator and there is a long tradition of literature/commentary on Goddess texts.

 It does offer a nod to the views in their respective major Puranas that Vishnu and Shiva are each understood as the Supreme Deity. The film offers a brief look at Ganesha/Ganapati repeating the common account of his beheading and subsequent elephant head. Perhaps the most helpful distinction in Vishnu/Shiva devotion is made in the subsequent chapters: Shiva’s ‘incarnationality’ is discussed in terms of the 12 sacred Jyotirlinga in temples of the Indian landscape, while Vishnu is discussed in terms of his avatars and their direct personal role in Hindu heilsgeschichte,  of course emphasizing Rama and Krishna. I tend to make a distinction in class between Shiva as the protean power of opposites or categories in tension (celibacy/sexuality, creation/destruction, lingam/yoni) with a translated selection (‘Pillar of Fire”) from the Shiva Purana. Vishnu I tend to discuss as a salvational figure who enters universal history in times of great danger or stress, coupled with the transmittal of grace through darshan/puja. Of course I talk about Puja in more terms than just Vishnu, and I tend to emphasize the theme of yoga as one form of imitatio dei when it comes to Shiva.

One of Vishnu’s avatars discussed is Shakyamuni Buddha. This could provide an opportunity to discuss incorporation other holy persons as ‘cultural defense’ for Hinduism. It could also serve to introduce criticism of Buddhism by Hindus who see Vishnu’s incarnation as a way of leading people astray with false teachings.

 

The video’s concluding chapters are a study in contrast. The video tries to include Jainism as a Hindu sub-tradition—a process that admittedly still exists in World Religions textbooks but that I find exceptionally problematic.  

While there are of course many intertwining symbolic, linguistic and phenomenological threads between the traditions, the video reduces Jainism to a single expression devoid of its own diversity (at least between the Svetambharas and the Digambaras) and instead hold the exotic tradition of Digambara nakedness and the famous ‘fasting unto death’ (Sallekhana/Santhara) ritual as the apotheosis of the tradition, with the more basic cosmology and ritual devotion ignored. I found this the least useful part. Thankfully there is no attempt to do this with Sikhism.

The video concludes with a rather long chapter on Mela pilgrimages, and especially the Kumbh Mela. This is quite useful in showcasing the immense diversity of audiences and approaches. Although the narration becomes a bit devotional and supplicative of the sadhus there. There are various displays here and throughout the video of yogic feats and demonstrations of material power, especially the three-day Samadhi seclusion of Yogamata Keiko Aikawa. The festival is discussed in terms of the famous ‘mythological’ (that’s the video’s words) competition of the gods and demons over the recovery of the sacred nectar of immortality.

On the whole it's a difficult product to judge, although I don’t think focusing on the four stages of life is very helpful and the failure to adequately address Goddess worship is really discouraging. So is the perfunctory nature of the Jain chapter. The benefit of the DVD is that you can play individual chapters from the chapter menu—after the chapter finishes, it returns to the chapter menu. So segments of the video, like the Mela pilgrimage or the Jyotilingam can be used as short segments within a broader presentation. If I recommend that the library get this, that’s how I’ll use it—not as an integrated product in itself.

Boundaries, Boundaries, Boundaries

One of the occupational hazards found in working and teaching humanities, especially religious studies, is the practice of drawing boundaries. Humans are messy, and so human culture is also messy.  When teaching about religion, its necessary and dangerous to draw boundaries, precisely because religion, like ethnicity and class, works at the center of creating personal and social identity. Its easy to threaten a person's sense of identity by redrawing maps of identity s/he has previously embraced.

Two situations come to mind. Both are students in my World Religions classes at Iowa State. Earlier in the semester one student pulled me aside to talk about Sufism. He asked me whether Sufis were Muslims. I said yes, of course--while there are exceptions, the vast majority of Sufis identify themselves as Muslims. He tried to convince me this was not true---because his family and community were deeply suspicious of Sufis.

After I answered his objections, he told me he was a Muslim and as a Muslim, he had become attracted to Sufism. I explained that some of the most highly regarded Islamic philosophers and theologians, like Abu Hamid al-Ghazali had been Sufis, and that the only traditional judge of a Muslim's core faith ("iman") has been God alone--because in Islam only God truly has total access to a person's heart. Do they have important differences from other Muslims in understanding and applying the Quran and hadith? Sure. So do Ismaili Muslims. Do Muslims argue about who is more authentically Muslim among professing Muslims? Of course they do. That's common to certainly most religious traditions.

Which brings me to my second example. Yesterday I gave a lecture that tends to turn heads--on comparative Christologies (theologies of the Christ) between Catholics/Orthodox, Protestants (John Calvin, really) and the Mormon church. A student who had been giving me some seriously angry looks (and a few comments) during Hinduism and Sikhism challenged Mormon Christology's source of authority to identity themselves as Christian. After class he engaged me further, using arguments that suggested he was an evangelical Protestant. I explained that suspicion over both Mormons and Catholics as "legitimate" Christians had been a long tradition in American religious history. The issue of progressive exaltation in LDS theology and the presence of the Book of Mormon seemed the most troubling to him. He said he would come to my office with Scripture and I invited him to do so.

Protestants, despite repeated attempts to establish social systems based on theocratic principles, have also historically had a deep skepticism of human institutions and claims to authority. As rabbinic Judaism has had not only the written Torah but also the oral Torah tradition, so too have Catholics, Orthodox, and Mormons embraced the idea and practice of apostolic authority as a valid source of Christian knowledge. Mormons understand their church as a Restoration of the primitive Christianity that existed as the early Church--alongside and influenced heavily by Hebrew traditions at the time. The Catholic Church has always drawn not only from Scripture but also the authority passed down from the Apostles, who in turn received their spiritual charge from the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

In embracing the doctrine of "sola scriptura" (Scripture is the only authority), Protestant Christians have had some difficulty dealing with communities that embrace Apostolic authority as a source of knowledge, and also with the primitive Church before the canonization of the New Testament. Before the New Testament's finalizing, many different Christian communities used many different new scriptures, teachings and accounts, as well as a reliance on the Septuagint. There are still churches today, both new and old, that have never accepted the Councils of Nicea or Chaceldon. The LDS Church famously rejects the former as a corruption. Oriental Orthodox churches like the Coptic Christians of Egypt reject the latter. Rejecting these churches as not Christian makes little sense when one takes a historical view. How could the New Testament in the 21st century be used to excommunicate those Christians who lived much closer to Christ in time and culture than anyone since? Disputes over the nature and function of the Trinity (and its constituent personas) contributed to  the break between Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, as well as of course smaller disputes and breakups.

As C.S. Lewis once famously wrote, the name Christians seems to have emerged at Antioch and is addressed in the New Testament (Acts 11:16). Lewis notes that its 'objective' sense refers to anyone embracing the teachings of the Apostles. If this is true, it is certainly odd, perhaps even ironic,  then that centuries upon centuries later the term has often used by some Christians (some evangelical Protestants to be exact) to police those who openly embrace Apostolic authority out of the Christian tradition. Like trying to use the Quran to police those who draw themselves nearer to God in their hearts, it tells us far more about those doing such policing than the communities supposedly in question. As far as the Roman Catholics and Mormons are concerned--they focus on Christocentrism, which seems to me to far more workable way of distinguishing Christians from others.

Community Centers and their Discontents

Its no surprise that as midterm elections in the United States are coming closer, that religion is again becoming a major fault line, mostly in terms of how to "treat" Muslims. For the past several years, an organization called the Cordoba Initiative has been making plans to create an interfaith presence in a Muslim context near the infamous site of the World Trade Center, a neighborhood where the president of this organization has been an imam (a prayer leader) for about 25 years. But's its not just New York City. Incidents of protest and vandalism have been reported elsewhere when concerning expansions or constructions of Islamic centers are on the political radar screen. In a rather notorious case, a white supremacist terrorist admitted to firebombing an Islamic center in Tennessee, receiving a lengthy Federal prison term.

As a rabbi pointed out on the Huffington Post recently, there's a great deal of confusion over claiming space as sacred. The claim is often repeated by detractors that Cordoba House would be built over the WTC site. In fact, its about two blocks away--a three-minute walk, near a strip joint and a porn shop. Like most of that part of Manhattan, it sustained a fair amount of damage in the September 11th attacks. Where do the boundaries of that space begin and end--and who owns them? Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus and people of many other religious traditions all died in the WTC attacks. Boundaries about religion are always in contention and always subject to policing by interested parties. They shift too, depending on the political winds.

In this case, Islam is being used as a type of political shorthand for both 'foreign' and 'unAmerican.' This collective xenophobia can be broken down into several assumptions. Perhaps most importantly to this ethos, Islam is defined as completely alien to legitimate American culture, both in terms of history and any contemporary contribution. Of course scholars of American religious history have come to a different conclusion, identifying at least 20-25% of antebellum slaves as Muslims. As my own research as demonstrated, Islam has been a significant religious contributor to jazz music, both inside and outside of the United States. As a "foreign" element, it isn't necessary to be factually correct about it, any more than its important to be factually correct about Lord Hanuman in Hinduism.

Conversely, Islam is understood as not being able to be authentically practiced in the United States, since by definition it allegedly authorizes heinous acts without reprisal. Other common features tend to be predicated on these assumptions. For example, if Islam can be defined as foreign, even to the concept of religion itself, then it need not receive First Amendment protection as a religion. Foreignness is ambiguity---whether a religion, a nationality, or a "cult." The pink elephant in the room here of course is race. Islam is not biologically inherited--at least no more so than any other common religious tradition. But discussions of Islam in public media rarely, if ever center on any images other than angry, oppressive brown males of some kind. NPR's recent coverage of female prayer leaders in China is a noteworthy exception.

In the most extreme examples of this ideology, the boundary policing has assumed a conspiratorial air, in which rhetorical codes associated with U.S. President Barack Obama become woven into Islam. Connecting with many in the Birther community who think Mr. Obama is a foreigner secretly practicing Islam or having been raised as a Muslim (despite all evidence to the contrary), these reactionary activists work to inspire fear and paranoia, working a powerful mix of racism, imagery, and violence that looks very much like the Al-Qaeda propaganda videos they decry. It remains to be seen whether these tendrils of hate will persist in the public eye after the U.S. primary elections.

Turning Towards the Haitian Struggle

As you can see, I've taken some time off from blogging. Almost a year. Since last April I concentrated on finishing my PhD, with a dissertation titled Approaching the Sacred Grove: The Orphic Impulse in Pagan Religious Music. I've also taken up the Review Editor slot at The Pomegranate: The International Journal of Pagan Studies. Alongside my regular teaching responsibilities at Iowa State, I took an extra teaching opportunity at GrandView University in Des Moines, a small liberal arts college based in the evangelical Lutheran tradition. Part of the reason I took this additional teaching course is because my new daughter, Jasmine Marie, was born last November, and a new baby always takes some additional start-up funds, so to speaks.

As I was getting my courses underway for the term, the news of Haiti's earthquake came through and threw me for quite a loop. Haiti and Haitian religion, especially Vodou, has been an interest of mine for years. I even took a great course with Michael Largey, a Vodou scholar and ethnomusicologist at Michigan State on music and cultural nationalism. Ever since its inception as the first state in the Western Hemisphere born of a successful slave revolt, Haiti's legacy of colonialism has replicated itself in deeply entrenched socioeconomic problems, exacerbated by its treatment at the hands of many other countries. In many areas near Port-Au-Prince, and elsewhere, what was a very difficult situation has become much more so, and yet as always the Haitian people make do and endure, especially in the face of limited government ability.

The battle between Vodou and other forms of religion in Haiti have always been legendary. American conservative evangelicals like Pat Robertson behaved in a stereotypical manner, condemning Haiti's plight as the result of "devil worship." On the ground itself, Vodouisants and Evangelical Christians are both struggling to make sense of recent events and competing tooth and nail for very limited resources. Of course common misunderstandings about Vodou don't help. This natural disaster seems to come at a time when man Vodou congregations (or families of initiates) are banding together in a federation to protect their own interests. There has been some very good coverage of Vodou rituals, myths and symbols as a result of this, especially on American Public Media's Speaking Of Faith.

As an immigrant religion, there are prominent (if often hidden) Vodou communities in most large American cities. American Vodou already suffered a serious blow with the devastation of Hurricane Katrina to New Orleans, but one hopes that misguided fears over "devil worship' won't result in harassment for Vodouisants living in the U.S. after the earthquake.

When "Freedom Of Religion" Isn't

MSNBC is reporting on an issue that, like many issues in religion and culture, seems cut and dried to people of different perspectives and attitudes, but in fact is neither simple nor recent. The issue concerns an alleged head-on conflict between religious organizations and lesbigay people. Convention wisdom has these two groups of people at odds, as if religious people can all be lumped into "bigoted" and gay people into "secular." But as a fair amount of scholarship, music and film has shown, that is just not true. Many religious people are very welcoming toward same-sex relationships and orientations, and many gay people and lesbians are quite religious.

If that were the only issue at hand, this would a be merely a matter of citing some counterexamples and condemning the soundbite attitudes of popular news reporting. But there is a far deeper history here, one that finds many contemporary Protestant groups on the receiving end of a legal issue Protestantism once helped define.

In the United States, its common knowledge that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (as well as the some subsequent amendments) permits "Freedom of Religion" to all. As I have noted before, in the earliest days of the Republic, this was defined in terms primarily of religious "belief" and has remained such ever since. In the early days of the Republic, this distinction between religion and religious belief mattered little, as most public and elite culture was defined in terms of varieties of Protestant Christianity. Certainly the African indigenous religions of slaves throughout the colonial and early national times mattered little. The 20-30% of slaves who were Muslim, while often valued more locally, were also of no religious consequence for the breakaway British elites even as they provided capital for the new American institutions.

Unlike Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy (or even other movements such as Mormonism), Protestant Christianity has revolved around the concept, elucidated and emphasized by Martin Luther himself of Sola Fide ("Justification By Faith"). While it has variants among Protestants, a common theme is that the Christian's sin (or separation from God) is absolved through the death of Christ, the human and divine Incarnation that bridges the gulf of sin between God and humanity. Christ stands in for the sinner, who participates in the redemptive action ("justification") through faith in Christ. This Divine gift of grace is offered free, and cannot be earned through works or labor.


This controversial doctrine has remained a core teaching among Protestants (along with Sola Scriptura and others). The quality and nature of interior belief became the primary mode of distinction among different Protestants, although of course certain actions and church structures were consequences of these different beliefs. Religion itself in the Anglo-American tradition came to be seen as interior and private. Some have called this, appropriately, the religion behind the Constitution.

This did not happen immediately, nor without resistance. Especially when it came to Jews and Catholics in the American context, this definition of religion (as belief) affected them much more. Jewish, Amerindian and Catholic traditions have historically emphasized practice much more than belief. To be a good Jew or Catholic, one must observe the mitzvot, and participate in the sacraments. Nevertheless, by the time of Thomas Jefferson, the reach of law in restricting religion stopped only at the door of thought, and was still very much operative in matters of practice and action. Time and time again, from Mormons in the late 1800's to atheists in 1961, this definition has for the most part prevailed. Exceptions to these rulings have occurred, but most are very recent, such as the Hialeah decision concerning Santeria and animal sacrifice, and the religious use of hallucinogenic tea. Even the distribution of religious literature in certain circumstances has been prohibited by the U.S. Supreme Court, not to mention the wholesale disregard of Native American sacred lands at late as the 1980's.


Thus we have a clear and documented tradition up to the present day in which the legal system of the U.S. has affirmed most any type of belief, while often prohibiting actions interpreting as conflicting with other legal principles. In the case of the article from MSNBC, recent cited examples are all actions, rather than beliefs.

* A Christian photographer was forced by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission to pay $6,637 in attorney's costs after she refused to photograph a gay couple's commitment ceremony.

* A psychologist in Georgia was fired after she declined for religious reasons to counsel a lesbian about her relationship.

* Christian fertility doctors in California who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian patient were barred by the state Supreme Court from invoking their religious beliefs in refusing treatment.

* A Christian student group was not recognized at a University of California law school because it denies membership to anyone practicing sex outside of traditional marriage.


All of these are actions. To the extent that religious action has received less protection in general, and the belief core of Protestantism affirmed as the definition of religion, all of these can be seen as potentially running afoul of Equal-Protection laws. Arguments from the viewpoint of religious liberty are likely to be less and less relevant, since none of the actions are protected as "religion."

The activities and outreach of these Protestant groups is thus being challenged through the very ideological framework promulgated by their progenitors hundreds of years ago. In ways that Jews, Hindus, Catholics, Mormons, and Amerindians have failed to accomplish in seeking legal equality for their religious cultures, gay and lesbian political actvists (wrongly assumed by many to be non-religious) may have finally brought some of those Protestant chickens 'home to roost.'

As a recent popular dystopian film character has noted: "Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony."

Pesach and the rhetoric of "Judeo-Christianity"

Tonight marks the beginning of Passover, or Pesakh in the Jewish tradition. As some friends and colleagues are engaging their Seder meals and retelling the Haggadah, I thought I would keep this in mind while talking about the the recent American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) conducted through Trinity College. This is just the latest in several surveys, including one conducted the Pew Forum for Religion in Public Life. The ARIS was also conducted in 2001 through CUNY.

The ARIS report's conclusions suggest that mainline Protestant populations have fallen, and that evangelical populations have risen, although not enough the keep pace. The percentage of self-identified Christians has fallen to 76 percent from just about 80 percent in the early 1990's. Catholicism has shifted to its early areas of growth, California and the Southwest, rather than the Northeast, which became Catholic largely through 19th century immigration, rather than 16th and 17th century Spanish colonization. Predictably, some media outlets have moved to talk about a 'post-Christian America' or other such things, in my view quite prematurely.

R. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, appears to be concerned not only that the number of openly secular Americans has doubled, but that the Northeast has overtaken the Northwest as the most secular area of the United States, geographically speaking. Mohler notes that the Northwest has never been particularly religious--rather it has been a stronghold of "freethinkers" since well into the 19th century--which is only partially true. In fact, the West has been a hotbed of new religious development for over a century, and demonstrated its share of powerful movers and shakers, such as the Presbyterian minister Mark A. Matthews.

But its Mohler's language that truly gives his inadequate understanding away. "The so-called Judeo-Christian consensus of the last millennium has given way to a post-modern, post-Christian, post-Western cultural crisis which threatens the very heart of our culture." As Jews and Christians both enter into a particularly sacred time of year this week, its helpful to remember one crucial fact.

There has never been a "Judeo-Christian" consensus.

In fact, the use of that term should always prompt our suspicion. It is almost never used by Jewish people writing in public life, and almost exclusively used by evangelical Protestant Christians as a way of glossing over the very real ruptures and divisions within Christianity and certainly with respect to Judaism. Since the middle and late 11th century, there has never been even a Christian consensus, and the many councils of the Church early on suggest a much wider diversity of practice and belief than is commonly assumed. The sacking of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusaders assured that Orthodox and Catholic Christians would remain apart, while the Protestant Reformation assured there would never be full reconciliation or a cultural consensus even within the Western part of the Christian tradition.



When the first Jews came to the Americas via Spain and Mexico, it was under the ever-present threats of the Inquisition, and the only areas of the English colonies that gave them safe haven were the secular colony of Rhode Island and the liberal Anglican colony of South Carolina, both places of early (18th century) synagogue establishment. As the Library of Congress has shown, the full spectrum of political thought can be found in pre-Civil War American Jewry, from Confederates to Unionists. Union General (and later President Grant) issued the infamous Order#11, banning Jews from several states during the War. Only with the personal intervention of President Lincoln was the order rescinded.

Jewish Americans have never made up more than 3-5% of the population, and the current surveys pinpoint a figure around 1.2% The rhetorical value of "Judeo-Christian" sounds impressive, but where is the discussion of the Talmud? The Mishnah? Or Maimonides? Or Rosh Hashanah? Or any aspect of Rabbinic Jewish culture? Its simply not there.

There are occasional exceptions that prove the rule. The most remarkable of them to this day has been Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Letter From Birmingham Jail." King drew upon an immense range of sources, from Jewish philosopher Martin Buber to Augustine and the secular ideologies promoted by President Lincoln to make his case to the Southern Christian ministers to whom he was writing. Yet his amazing Letter, studied in American religion courses to this day, stands out for its genuine acknowledgement of the Jewish tradition as Jewish, rather than as a mere prefix to the Christian message. Meanwhile, Jewish Americans of all persuasions have worked diligently to be represented in mainstream discourse, from the Reform founders of the proto-"United Way" movement in Denver to socialists campaigning for FDR.



It was not always this way. Early Christians were Jewish, and the relationship of the Nazarene movement to the post-Second Temple Jewish culture was hotly debated along many lines. Even Paul, the Pharisee turned Christian, was careful to tread that line in ministering to the Gentiles, as Romans and Galatians demonstrate. The canonical Gospels of the New Testament demonstrate both a concern with the Torah (Matthew) and the larger Greek world (Luke), sometimes to the exclusion of one, and sometimes to the innovative fusion of both (John).

While we take a moment to reflect on Pesach ("Passover") and the heritage of Jewish culture in America, (including those who made matzoh well before there were Rabbis in the U.S.), it behooves the careful thinker to parse the ruptures between religions and traditions as well as possible continuities. Moses Maimonides, who wrote about both ancient Greek and medieval Christian thought, famously suggested in the Guide For The Perplexed that humans are guided by God when thinking carefully and deliberately, and those not committed to reason are those not known by God. Lamenting the end of an era because 3 out of 4 people identify with your religious tradition, instead of 8 out of 10, is neither reasonable nor terribly careful thinking.

Of course, the ARIS numbers count Catholics as Christians too, as I imagine Mohler does as well. That certainly would not have been the case in the American 19th century, but that is a topic for another time.

Proposition 8 and the LDS backlash

The fallout from the 2008 U.S. Presidential election continues. Proposition 8, the ballot initiative to end same-sex marriage in CA, passed by a very narrow margin. A number of voter groups voted overwhelmingly for this measure. This includes both Latino and African-American populations who turned out by a large measure also to vote for Senator Obama's Democratic candidacy. But the passing of Prop. 8 has not ended the issue of same-sex marriage--rather it has inflamed the Lesbigay community in CA and nationwide. In particular the LDS (Mormon) Church has drawn their ire. Some supporters of Prop. 8 thought their battle was over, but like the Lesbigay community after the May 15th Supreme Court of CA decision, it may still be just beginning.

Some background is necessary here. The LDS Church is a 19th century new religious movement based on a Restorationist view of the Christian church. Founded by Joseph Smith, the LDS Church for a time permitted and encouraged plural marriage, specifically the practice of polygyny. The Church was hounded from various places in the East and Joseph Smith himself was killed by an angry lynch mob. Settling in Utah territory, the LDS originally wished to set up its own kingdom, Deseret, but this was not compatible with U.S. visions of Manifest Destiny. After fighting U.S. troops and challenging the government, the LDS Church finally backed down and Utah was admitted as a U.S. state in the late 19th century. This did not stop the public view of Mormons from being very skeptical, and especially the view from Protestant Christians. Different members of Congress were elected to serve from Utah, and sometimes refused a seat by fellow members of Congress, based on their status as a Mormon or a holdover polygynist.

During this election season, the LDS Church, which has comparartively very few members in CA, nonetheless remained the main monetary donor base for the drive to outlaw same-sex marriage. Moreover, many LDS members donated their time and effort to spread the word about the campaign. Allegedly deceptive TV ads were also financed and shown, with major funding attributed to religious advocacy organizations but traceable to the LDS Church, among other sources.



Thus, the LDS Church and its members have now become a main target for the backlash against Prop. 8's passage, both in terms of boycotting, picketing, and sometimes violence. This was prefigured in anti-LDS ads shown before the election.



Since the passage, a number of Prop 8. donors have been targeted for protest. Scott Eckern, director of California Musical Theatre, had to resign his position after being exposed as a donor. Several Mormons have expressed frustration at being targeted, given their history. Likewise, defenders of same-sex marriage see the Utah-based out of state Church as taking away their civil rights, and therefore a legitimate target. Not to mention that the Church, as a 501c3 tax-exempt organization, is supposed to keep its political involvement to a minimum. Vandalism appears to have been on the rise as well.

It is important to mention that the LDS's support of Prop.8 takes place about 30 years after its campaign against the Equal Rights Amendment. And that not all Christian denominations are against same-sex marriage, or the ERA. There are number of reasons the LDS Church may have gotten involved here. Perhaps, after their Presidential candidate got snubbed on Super Tuesday by Mike Huckabee, they wanted to prove their cultural war bonafides, so as to ingratiate themselves among reactionary evangelical Protestants. Perhaps it was a more general way to distance themselves from their polygynist past. Perhaps California's location in the west seemed a bit to close to Deseret, the new Zion, for comfort. For whatever reason, the Lesbigay community, with its quiet patient activists and its radicals alike, seems to be taking this moment to punish them, and is willing to draw upon the cultural baggage that Mormonism carries in order to do so.

We'll have to see what happens. Imagine the racial fury that would accompany an Amendment telling black or latino people they could not longer marry each other, and you have some idea of the outrage. Given the animosity between the gay community and the Religious Right that has existed for years, it seems that there may be a cultural weak point for the Mormons. Just as the "No on Prop 8" detractors underestimated the LDS Church organization and financial capacity, the LDS Church may have underestimated what they have unleashed.

No Sacrament For You!

In the wake of the U.S. election, there appears to remain a sector of the Roman Catholic community that is challenging the votes and political commitments of its parishioners. In some previous elections, especially in 2004, there was a notorious effort by certain localized authorities in the Church to use the power of withholding the Eucharist from politicians who supported political positions at variance with the Church, including Sen. John Kerry, a Catholic who was the Democratic nominee for President that year. This was despite the protests of many experts in Canon Law and theology who claimed refusing the Eucharist was beyond the bounds of acceptability.

Even much earlier in the 2008 race, the same questions arose again over Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City who was running for President on the Republican ticket, but unlike some other candidates, supported the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision to allow legalized abortion nationwide. I'm a bit surprised to find that this issue has continued to be pushed in the Church. Out of South Carolina today, we get word that a priest had admonished his parishioners that if they voted for Sen. Barack Obama for President, they should not receive communion because of their sin in supporting a "the most radical pro-abortion politician ever to serve in the United States Senate or to run for president."

That's a fair bit of hyperbole, to be sure. But it suggests that this issue is not going away. With the recent shift of the country more towards the political left, and the movement of evangelicals to considered larger social issues such as poverty and racism, this may be out of step with where the American electorate is going. One thing is for sure. American Catholics do not like to be ordered to vote a certain way. There is ample evidence that acting dictatorial towards Catholics gets them to do the exact opposite of what you want, at least as far as American Catholics are concerned. American Catholics (and Episcopalians for that matter) have never behaved as their other worldwide counterparts have anyway.

Perhaps most interestingly, actual Roman Catholic theologians (which Bishops are not) are by no means convinced of the absoluteness of the Vatican's position on what they term "pelvic issues," which seem to overshadow far more traditional moral and social gospel concerns for Catholicism. Some of them are speaking out very stridently, and I expect this to continue, should Bishops and priests on the other side continue to make political pronouncements from tax-free pulpits.

The Internal Revenue Service noted that 2004 saw a spike in illegal endorsements coming from tax-exempt entities. And there appears to have already been some investigation of at least one Catholic Church official's criticism of Barack Obama and Rudy Giuliani. One might think that an institution that has undergone such a recent public crisis of moral confidence might not want to interest the IRS to take a closer look as well.

The Political Sermon Season

I've taken a break from writing this blog for the past few weeks. In that time I've moved to Iowa State University and begun my teaching schedule there. I very much enjoy my position and am looking forward to having a great teaching semester. In the meantime, there is no shortage of religious issues at hand in the news, certainly in the U.S political arena.

The recent buzz on the net in terms of religion and politics has been focused on the candidacy of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. After what seems to have been a very short vetting and interview process, she was asked to join the 2008 GOP Presidential candidacy of Senator John McCain. Social conservatives and reactionary evangelicals alike have been quite happy with her appointment, while it seems to have caught many others by surprise. Until 2002, Palin was a member of Wassila Assemblies of God church, well known for its Pentacostalism. During the time she has been governor, she addressed her old church, reminiscing about her time there, as well as asking for prayers for her agenda. While this seems to sit well with Christian fundamentalists, it is important to remember that Pentacostalism is rooted in the experience of the Holy Spirit, rather than a set of doctrines about the content of the Bible. And this can lead to serious disagreements and divisions.

This is all nothing necessarily new. While it may seem strange to some secularists and mainline Protestants, the notion of using prayer to assist in accomplishing political, economic goals is not that uncommon. Palin's interpretation of recent events and public history in Alaska as accomplishing more of God's work is also consistent with other themes seen in conservative and Pentecostal circles. What seems strange in retrospect is her contention that the Iraq War was divinely sanctioned, although when taken in the context of the "War on Terrorism" as a whole and the idea of a clash of civilizations, it too makes some sense, even if it makes me shake my head more than a little bit.



I find the premillenialist language of the pastor unnerving. Pentecostals commonly worship in such as manner as to, in the words of a legendary Jewish occultist (new window), "enflame themselves with prayer." The Book of Acts in the New Testament describes spiritual gifts that can be bestowed upon those who do so, and the gift of the Holy Spirit that arrives is often represented as a flame in classical art. Part of these gifts include the gift of prophecy. (new window) In premillenialist Christianity, the world is, by design, supposed to get much worse as a place to live before Christ can return in bodily form. Certain areas are talked about as places of refuge--and clearly the pastor sees Alaska as one of those spaces. Thus, Palin's audience is training to witness to both native Alaskans and those who will seek refuge in that state as conditions elsewhere deteriorate. Certainly, the older pastor (and church founder) prayed for candidate to achieve office, as well as giving thanks for those Pentecostal spiritual blessings.



The current senior pastor at Palin's Wasilla Assembly of God Church, Rev. Ed Kalnins, has been attracting his own attention. Palin left that church in 2002 for another Pentacostal church, but in 2004, Kalnins made some fiery statements--specifically challenging the salvation status of anyone who voted for John Kerry, the Democratic nominee. Reportedly, Re. Kalnins also equated criticism of President Bush after Hurricane Katrina with criticism of pastors and authority, which would also condemn one to hellfire. The liberal blog Huffington Post has been tracking this, and provided a link to the original media. Unfortunately, Wasilla's online media distribution is down, ostensibly because of the increased internet traffic. Some sermons and transcripts (not these) seem to be available at a different site. One sermon seems to include material that the Anti-Defamantion League is not happy about.

Contrast this, though, if you will, to the political prayers that were the focus of so much media attention earlier in the political campaign, the sermons of Rev. Jeremiah Wright at the Trinity Church of Christ.



Rev. Wright's sermon is known as a "Jeremiad." Its name comes from the Hebrew prophet Jeremiah, who laid blame for Israel's woes at the faithlessness and adultery of its people from its covenant with YHWH. The jeremiad sermon is an extensive American tradition, at least since Jonathan Edwards, brought most to fruition by African-American Protestants. It often includes an indictment of the iniquities of the current culture and suggests that those woes are connected to the lack of moral behavior of its principles (new window). The sacred condemnation of God upon the United States ("God Damn America!") that was played and replayed without context endlessly on 24-hour news networks is also part of this tradition, designed to wake people up to both their religious and social responsibilities.

If there has been a greater season for 'political sermons,' I don't know of one. What impact will they each ultimately have, if any, on candidates Obama and Palin? For those who think it might not matter, you could ask Mitt Romney about that. Certainly Gov. Romney's candidacy was derailed when religious conservatives opted to vote for Gov. Mike Huckabee, not least of which because Mitt Romney is a Mormon.

(Note: The picture for this post is the front cover of John Winthrop's "A Model of Christian Charity," a foundational document in American religious history that gave birth to the American jeremiad. It is commonly known as the "City On A Hill" sermon)

"Good men should combat the believer in divine creation, maddened by an evil doctrine."

The symbol you see beside this paragraph is the official U.S. military headstone designation for an atheist soldier. I've placed it here because CNN is reporting that Army Spc. Jeremy Hall, a two-tour Iraq war veteran and atheist, is suing U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the Department of Defense for illegal religious discrimination. Spc. Hall claims that he was subjected to intense evangelical Christian proselytizing while on duty, and also passed up for promotions based on the view that his lack of visible piety would make him unfit for leadership. His lawsuit is also joined by Michael Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.

Weinstein and others have long alleged that there is a pervasive pattern of evangelical proselytization in the U.S. military, and CNN has periodically picked up on this story. Just last August, a scandal broke when several generals were found to have appeared in uniform inside the Pentagon for a promotional video by a group called "Christian Embassy." In Hall's recent lawsuit, the allegations of the videotape have again surfaced. All in all, from the Air Force Academy to General William Boykin, there does seem to be some pattern of evangelizing, although it is difficult for an outsider like myself to say how ingrained it is. When I served in the USAF Auxiliary-Civil Air Patrol many years ago, many of my fellow members and the chaplain were evangelicals. I once took our flight chaplain to task for misrepresenting the character of ancient Gnosticism during a pep talk, but that is a another story.

There are a number of intriguing angles to this issue. Clearly, one role of religion here is to help create "docile bodies," in this case a standing army of evangelical soldiers whose behavior and discipline are subject to the all-seeing Panopticon of Jehovah's omniscience and moral judgment. Also, the evangelical Christian nature of most military proselytizing potentially lends a propaganda victory to Al-Qaeda, which has long pushed the idea that the U.S. army is essentially modern "Crusader" force.

More importantly though, this lawsuit (and the accompanying media story) helps us think about what constitutes "atheism" in American culture. Legally and culturally speaking, "religion" is defined as a "set of beliefs." Notice how this is almost exactly equivalent to the notion of devotion expressed in Protestant Christianity. That is no accident. While other religions, like Roman Catholicism, Judaism and Islam emphasize correct practice and action (orthopraxis) over specific beliefs, Protestant Christianity, especially evangelical Protestantism, emphasizes correct belief (orthodoxy). Although radical, certainly some members of the Jewish community have embraced a form of atheism while maintaining the need for ritual action.

The culture of religion and religion of culture in the U.S. has thus been framed in such a way that even dissent against its dominant content (Protestant Christianity) still follows the form (lack of "belief in God" or belief in a "lack of God") established for public discourse. Of course, other characteristics, such as monotheism, are also at work here, since few atheists discuss their disbelief in polytheisms. Atheism in the U.S., generally speaking, is a form of negative or inverse Protestantism, since, like Protestantism, holds that belief is somehow the most fundamental and irreducible characteristic of "religion." This stands in contrast to Secular Humanism, which is generally focused on promoting a common ethical way of life, rather than denying the theistic claims of others.

This is certainly not the only way that atheism has been expressed in worldwide religious arenas. Nor is atheism a modern phenomenon. The ancient Charvakas (Wikipedia has the best link, unfortunately) developed a high degree of skepticism regarding Gods and such. Jainism, a living religion of 8 million people today, has produced some of the strongest anti-theistic critiques ever known, yet it would be inaccurate to call it atheistic in the modern EuroWestern sense, as it is not materialistic or atomistic, in contrast to the U.S military's symbol for atheists.

Although the lawsuit has no chance of challenging or causing Americans to rethink how they view "religion," it nonetheless tests the boundaries of religious and ethical inclusion. Politically speaking, atheists are some of the least trusted people in the United States. In fact, several state Constitutions appear to discriminate against atheists. In 1961, the Supreme Courts's landmark case "Torcaso V. Watkins" nullified these portions of the state Constitutions, but they remain interesting by way of demonstrating the legal and historical climate for religion in this country.

Hinduism Seen Through a Glass-Very Very Darkly

When attempting to keep track of current trends and events in religion, I am constantly reminded of the varying ways that different media sources frame those events. For example, in many newspapers of record across the world, there is no "Religion" section, as you often find in U.S. newspapers. Stories with overtly religious content are often instead covered under News or Culture. In some cases, newspapers that appear on first glance to cover religious stories instead offer a section of devotionals, as does Qatar's web-based edition of its English-language newspaper.

The upshot of this is that while religious events and stories in other countries often are not covered in the U.S. press, there is a category that consistently features such content. Unfortunately, that News Section is called "WEIRD." That's right. In an era where many complain that there is too much political correctness, one has to look long and hard to find coverage of worldwide religious events in mainstream news coverage, unless, like the Burmese protests or the Chinese conflict with Tibet, the event reaches a large critical magnitude.

The "Weird" section of news coverage is often where you will find material relating to Hinduism. Given the open admittance of ignorance that many Americans have concerning religious traditions such as Mormonism or Islam, one can begin to see that there is almost no framework in which to comprehend such a different set of cultural traditions and assumptions. Many Hindus are quite devoted, and see little use for a separation of religion from other everyday concerns. This is certainly not unique to Hinduism, as indigenous religion coverage also ends up in the "Weird" section as well.

There are movements afoot to change some of the cultural illiteracy behind this. Hindu leaders and institutions are asserting themselves in U.S. public discourse in ways unheard of since Swami Vivekananda lectured attendees at the Parliament of World Religions in the 1800's. Nevada Hindu leader and priest Rajan Zed, columnist for the Washington Post's "On Faith," gave a gentle Hindu invocation in the U.S. Senate last year, sparking an outburst from evangelical Christian protesters in attendance. Now Chaplain Zed has organized a series of protests against the film "The Love Guru," a new Mike Myers film suspiciously similar in tone to the 2002 film "The Guru." Other Hindu spiritual leaders have also condemned the film.

Chaplain Zed is not alone either in the interfaith world. The scatological and urinary humor replete in the movie has aroused the ire of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which has condemned the movie, and in doing so won the praise of Zed. Prominent Hinduism scholar, Vasudha Narayanan, has also given some unfavorable comments about the movie's use and lampooning of Hinduism and its cultural symbology. At least in India, the movie may be banned.

When coverage of very real Hindu-Muslim tensions over sacred space are minimized in Western media, and even coverage of Hindu thoughts and opinions about the U.S. Presidential Election are covered under "Weird News" it is small wonder that the most coverage Hinduism gets involves spoof movies from popular comedic actors. Meanwhile, Hindu images have become part and parcel of American culture, from Jimi Hendrix's appropriation of Vishnu's universal form in Axis: Bold As Love to Kali lunchboxes and even Ganesha toilet seats, there is little sense of the way that Hinduism influences the daily lives of 900 million people. Except perhaps, through a taste of (or fear of) the exotic.

Never Underestimate The Power Of Religion To Adapt

I spent much of last week in Mexico. Specifically, in the city of Monterrey, which is the provincial capital of Nuevo Leon state. I was there on family business, and unfortunately my formal reasons for being there kept me quite occupied for the duration of the trip. 

Consequently, I was largely unable to get out and investigate the religious landscape. During my brief sojourns in cars and buses around the city, I noticed a large number of growing Pentecostal churches, a trend Christian demographers have been talking about in Latin America for some time. Of course there were a number of Roman Catholic churches too, but the Pentecostal churches were more ingrained into the urban landscape. 

In the United States, many have come to see business architecture as rather standard and bland. A business has some kind of dark building color, perhaps brick, with an external sign indicating the name of the business. In Monterrey, and in much of Latin America, entrepreneurs are much more economical about their advertising space. While small businesses are often painted in light, distinguishing colors such as yellow and white, the names of businesses, telephone numbers, and even internet addresses are painted on the building itself in rich contrasting colors from wine red to deep blue. The small Pentacostal churches were no different, plunging headlong into the web of advertising and struggle for the public eye, rather than towering above with Romanesque steeples. Perhaps most interestingly, many preferred a rich cobalt blue for their outside walls, while advertising their religious services in white.

Just as the Pentecostal churches were small but far more numerous than I have noticed before in Mexico, I found the local religious television to be equally fascinating and fully integrated into the available technology for use. In the United States, it is very common for cable television systems to carry Protestant Christian networks, such as Trinity Broadcasting Network or others. While a worldwide Roman Catholic network does exist  (EWTN), the Monterrey metropolitan area was instead served by Maria Vision, a charismatic network offering intense devotional programming designed for the Latin American market, complete with a logo featuring the Virgin of Guadelupe.

Instead of watching Protestant ministers deep in prayer or preaching a specific message, the program I ran across was simply a focused, unmoving camera. The object of the camera lens was an instance of the Blessed Sacrament, affixed in a monstrance and pyx as in the unofficial, quasi-liturgical ritual offered in so many Catholic churches at the demands of the laity. 

Telephone numbers for different Latin American countries were displayed on the screen for those to call in their prayers, while a chyron at the bottom flashed different numbers for the devotees in various Latin American countries to text message their prayers into the network. The chyron at the bottom occasionally flashed 'Maria Vision' while a woman and man alternately intoned the 'Hail Mary' prayer in Spanish.

Back in the 1960's, it was very common for secular intellectuals and cultural critics in the United States to predict that religion would soon fade away as science, technology and communication took over as paradigms for human living. If anything, the last 50 years have roundly disproven this "secularization" hypothesis. Rather, the careful study of technology and capitalism reveal that some of their largest and most successful applications have been religious ones. Not only in an area such as the United States of America, but also places with very different relationships with religion and culture, such as the Estados Unidos Mexicanos.

Claiming the Exclusive 'Right' to Appear Religious

In the United States, the state of South Carolina, like many states, offers specialty license places for drivers of automobiles. In some cases, as in Michigan, specialty license plates offer a way to raise funds for social causes the purchasers advocate. In other cases, they also offer ways for the state to raise extra revenue without raising taxes across the entire population. Of course, the catch is that the plates, as official state-issued material, carry the imprimatur of the State, and any entanglements thereof.

While many of the causes aren't too controversial, South Carolina is initiating a specialty plate for Christians. And not really just Christians, but with an eye towards Protestant Christians. In fact, the Lieutenant Governor, Andre Bauer, is willing to put up a fund reserve to finance plate printing, as long as he gets reimbursed from the State. This has become a legal issue, like the placement of the so-called "Ten Commandments" in public and legal spaces. And like these other issues, the State is now being sued by some peoples and organizations to stop this practice. One of the organizations, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, accuses Lt. Gov. Bauer of election-year pandering to fundamentalist voters. For Bauer's part, he suggests that its about freedom of speech, freedom to express one's beliefs, and a cultural push back against secularists.

"People who support Judeo-Christian values are ever under fire now," Bauer said. "It's like they expect folks who are believers just to roll over because they're scared of the ACLU." And, as usual in American political rhetoric, for someone who claims to promote "Judeo-Christian" values, its really all about the Christianity, and has almost nothing to do with Judaism. How can we tell? Simple. There is no corresponding Jewish license plate being offered.

The sample plate above is not South Carolina's but rather a design that was proposed in Florida and ultimately rejected by the legislature there. The South Carolina plate design has not been finalized, but it will include the sentence "I believe." If it follows the Florida design it will use a cross (not a crucifix) and will say nothing about the practice of the sacraments, which is fundamental to both Roman Catholic and Orthodox Catholic practitioners. So once again, as is so common in American religious history, Protestant Christian discourse will be made to stand in for other forms of Christianity, as well as the phantom Judaism of "Judeo-Christian" values.

As one might expect, some actual members of the Jewish community were not to happy to hear about this, including Mark Stern, legal council for the American Jewish Congress, which was planning to bring suit. A federal lawsuit has already been filed by Rev. Barry Lynn and his group Americans United. The suit was filed on behalf of two Christian ministers, a rabbi, the Hindu American Federation, and a humanist pastor in SC. In fact, the Hindu American Federation is framing this issue as an interfaith effort, given the diversity of the plaintiffs. You can read the complaint yourself as well. (PDF)

When trying to understand the "culture war" issues that undegird religion and law in the United States, its helpful to look for some code words. Those on the political right tend to focus on all expressions of (what they see as legitimate) belief as "free expression." Even when an issue is presented that clearly favors one religion over another in the public square, its preferential treatment is due to the community's "heritage." Conversely, when belief and expression arise from minority groups in the public square occurs and is not seen as legitimate, those actions are often deemed part of a 'war against Christianity' or a attack on religion by those who 'hate religion.' For example, even though the Americans United suit is being filed by Jews, Christians, humanists and Hindus (on the political center-left), those facts are invisible--any pushback is framed as from those who are not religious. For example...

Republican House Speaker Bobby Harrell said residents asked for a way to express their beliefs, and legislators responded... "That's what critics always say when they see something they don't like," Harrell said. "I think this has less to do with the First Amendment and more to do with their disdain for religion generally."

On the other hand, there are those, often on the political left, who wish to see all expressions of religiosity removed from the public square, mostly because they see religion as merely a vestige of what others would call superstition. It is still quite politically dangerous to claim one is an atheist--there are more Buddhists, Muslims, or certainly Mormons in the U.S. Congress than open atheists.

The most successful example I have seen of the Federal government allowing religous identification in a respectful and pluralistic way has been the Veterans Administration's handling of religious symbols for burial markers and headstones. Even though the current Administration had been fighting the inclusion of the Wiccan pentacle for some time, the presence of so many different traditions receiving recognition and available use by the Federal government suggests that there are constitutionally-protected ways to allow many different adherents of different religions (including Protestant Christians) to use license plates issued by State governments as a way of identifying themselves without claiming a rhetorically-exclusive 'right to be appear religious'.

Sadly, it appears that neither Americans United or the state of South Carolina has stumbled upon what seems to be an obvious solution.