Religion Today

Thursday, November 12, 2015

Thanksgiving at Plymouth: The Christmas Substitute (or, You Can’t Stop a Good Party)

November 11, 2015 
The celebration of Thanksgiving as a national holiday in late November was not enacted until the 1870s. The official reason was to commemorate the landing at Plymouth of the nation’s Puritan forefathers and foremothers. The holiday’s national designation stemmed from two forces. The first was the unceasing will of author Sarah Josepha Hale, who spent 40 years of her adult life campaigning for the declaration of Thanksgiving as a national holiday.
The second was the Civil War and its aftermath. Thanksgiving celebrates the American nation and the country’s citizens’ unity within it and subordination to it. So, it is not surprising that Abraham Lincoln issued the first national proclamation for its observance and that his successors, encouraged by Hale, instituted the national date of a Thursday in late November.
Before the establishment of Thanksgiving as a national holiday, states held their own observances on a variety of dates under different names. As the location of the Pilgrims’ landing, Massachusetts commemorated the first arrival of the Puritans on the Mayflower at the site of Plymouth Rock, which they identified as Dec. 22.
In the town of Plymouth itself, public celebrations began to take place in 1798, and accounts of celebrations over the next 25 years appear in the Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, vol. 17. 
Plymouth’s observances contained three main parts: a religious ceremony that included a procession around the town and a sermon or “oration”; a large dinner followed by the drinking of numerous toasts to leaders past and present; and a festive ball filled with dancing and merriment. This last item is usually accompanied by thanks to the town’s women for organizing such an enjoyable evening.
Toasts feature prominently in the local news reports, which often list them. The dinner of 1798 features 29 separate toasts. Unsurprisingly, later reports reveal worries about public drunkenness.
Plymouth’s annual observance of the “Pilgrim Anniversary” took place just three days before the traditional date of Christmas, Dec. 25. True to their Puritan heritage, most people in Massachusetts during the 18th and early 19th centuries did not celebrate Christmas.
On Dec. 25, shops were open for their normal hours, children attended school, and daily life continued as normal. Merrymakers were often prosecuted for disturbing the peace. Massachusetts continued this treatment of Christmas until well after the Civil War.
Puritans disliked Christmas intensely. It was not a biblically ordained celebration. Nowhere in Scripture appears any encouragement for a celebration of Jesus’ birth. When the Reformation took place, many Protestants saw Christmas (and Easter) as part of Catholicism’s “pagan corruption” of Christianity and removed them. American Puritans held to this view long after most other Protestants abandoned it.
Perhaps more importantly, Puritans disapproved of the rowdiness, drunkenness and inappropriate actions that accompanied Christmas celebrations of the time. They believed the celebration of the Savior’s birth, who was God’s Son, should not be a time for encouraging irreligious behavior.
From the 1880s onward, despite changing attitudes in Massachusetts, American Christmas stories and poems decry and ridicule this dour Puritan denial of Christmas and its celebratory joy and festivities.
The stories usually imply and even state outright that the rejection of joyous activity on Christmas day is typical of daily life in New England: No one ever smiles; children are quiet and subdued; there is no pleasure in living; happiness is never expressed.
Such tales overlook the festivities of the Pilgrim festivals just three days before. Celebrating the foundation of America as a nation, these revelries were secular (despite occasional religious overtones). So drunkenness, and loud and exciting activities like dancing, did not offend religious sensibilities, because they did not take place on a religious holiday.
The people of Plymouth did not shun merriment; they didn’t even shun it in late December. They simply avoided associating it with a day that their Puritan heritage linked to “pagan worship.” In many ways, they exemplify what happened in Boston and other Massachusetts towns and cities. And, it should be noted, they engaged in the much despised activities that caused their Puritan forefathers to reject Christmas.
Plymouth’s early celebrations of what later became Thanksgiving, then, gave them a day of celebration that they could enjoy at the same time the rest of the country was celebrating Christmas. Their secular observance of the nation’s founding provided a substitute for Christmas religious festivities.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Commanding Morality

October 28, 2015
It is a tenet of Christian belief that the moral values that God commanded are “good.” By this I do not mean to say that they are a “good job” or that they were “done well” or that God should receive a gold star for creating them.
No, I mean that, according to Christian belief, God’s ethics represent the highest form of the virtue "goodness" possible. They are the epitome of moral values; it is impossible for a better moral system to exist.
Of course, in the modern world we disagree with specific moral rules and no longer practice some of them, such as the rules about slavery and divorce. Indeed, fewer than half of the Ten Commandments are encoded in United States law. But, as a theological claim, if God is good, then the moral rules He proclaimed must be good. And, since God is by definition perfect, then the morality He proclaimed also must be perfectly good.
From this viewpoint, it is interesting to ask this question: Is God’s morality good because He commanded it, or did He command it because it was good? This is a difficult question, and different forms of Christianity have answered in different ways. It is so difficult that many forms of Christianity have refused to address it. It is a conundrum for all monotheistic religions, including Judaism and Islam.
The conundrum is this: While all Christian and monotheistic believers happily affirm that God and His ethics are good, the possible answers to the question require the affirmation of a second point, and that point is less willingly accepted. Indeed, there are two possible points, one for each answer to the question, and both are uncomfortable for monotheists.
If God’s morality is good because He commanded it, then that means that whatever He commanded would have been equally good. He could have commanded anything, and it would have been just as good. God could have decreed that Wednesday was the holy day instead of the Sabbath. And that would be good. He could have decreed that murder or theft were good.
Our ethical and moral sense, therefore, comes from God’s commands. If He had commanded something else, then Christian moral sensibilities would be different. It is rather uncomfortable to think that Christian morality was open to all possibilities before God uttered His commands, and that He arbitrarily chose to declare some actions good and some actions evil.
The alternative answer to our question resolves this problem, but only by creating another one. If God commanded Christian morality because it was good, that means that each rule in it has an essence of goodness. Due to its inherent nature, then, and not because God said it, each command is good in and of itself. When all moral rules are taken together, that means there is a standard of goodness that is independent of God. The standard did not come from God, because then it would evidence the problem of arbitrariness and actually be the answer discussed above. Instead, this moral standard exists apart from God, and existed before God commanded the Jewish and Christian moral rules.
The problem this causes for Christianity, or for any monotheism, is that it creates something ultimate that is not God. It also implies that God is not omnipotent in the area of morality, but consults the standard to ensure the goodness of His moral rules. To be sure, the goodness standard is not a second god, and so does not require the conclusion of polytheism. But, it does mean that God is not alone and that He did not create goodness, but instead followed a pre-existing standard of inherent good.
Of course, this theological conundrum has no impact on the specific character of Christianity’s moral rules. Its ethical demands remain the same whichever answer one takes, and even if one chooses not to address the question. For, in the end, Christianity believes, God’s morality requires obedience, not understanding.
Thanks to James Rachel’s “The Elements of Moral Philosophy” (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1986). For information, see the section on Divine Command Theory.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Ancient Readers

October 14, 2015
When people read the Bible, the works of Homer or any other ancient text, they link themselves to the people who read these works millennia ago. “We have read the same text,” they may think, “so, we are alike.” This happens particularly within religions; modern Christians who read the Bible, for instance, often imagine themselves to be like the ancient Christians who read the same Bible.
But, nothing could be further from the truth. In the ancient world, reading was a different kind of activity from what it is today. The difference in reading indicates a difference in character in three ways.
First, in ancient Mediterranean cultures, the ability to read marked someone as elite, as an influential member of society. Not many people in countries such as Egypt, Palestine, Rome or Greece could read more than a few special words. Reading required learning, which required time. Few members of agricultural societies had the leisure to attend school rather than working for the food and other materials that enabled them and their families to survive.
Although there is some debate over the exact numbers, only 2-7 percent of adult males in antiquity could read. Almost no women could read. Since ancient Judaism emphasized reading’s importance, perhaps a percentage point or two more of their men could read, but probably only in the cities.
Second, in antiquity, people did not read books; they read scrolls. Scrolls were heavy, awkward rolls of parchment or leather, which required manual dexterity to be read. Readers looked at one column at a time, perpendicular to the scroll’s length. To read a new column, one had to take up the finished column onto a roll at one end of the scroll while letting out a new column from the roll at the other end. The new-fangled notion of a codex, or book, with pages bound together on one side, did not become popular until the end of the fourth century -- almost the Middle Ages.
Third, people always read out loud. They did not read silently, as we are taught today in school. St. Augustine, fourth century, tells of his astonishment upon discovering that St. Ambrose, the bishop of Milan, not only read without sound but without moving his lips. Apparently, Ambrose became hoarse quite easily from speaking. So, he developed a technique of reading that did not strain his voice.
To read, then, was to perform the text, even when one was alone. The meaning of the text resided not on the page, but in the performed, spoken words. This performance required choices, even interpretation, for writing during antiquity had not yet developed ways of representing all elements of the language.
As late as the fifth century, for example, Greek was written in a continuous form with no breaks between the words. Nor did it yet indicate accents and breathing marks. A reader had to know by memory the possible spoken words represented by the incomplete written code. So, the task of a Greek reader was to decipher the written text and render it into speech so that it could be understood. Identifying different locations for word breaks, as well as supplying different required accents and breathings, could change both the sound and the meaning of the words being read.
Semitic languages like Hebrew and Aramaic developed the practice of word separation many centuries before the Greeks. The problem facing these languages was that writing represented the consonants but not the vowels. Readers had to know every possible oral combination of vowels that could be placed with a particular set of consonants to make valid, spoken words.
Readers had to choose the right vowels to give the right meaning. For instance, take the two consonants R and N. One could supply vowels to make the present tense “run” or the past tense “ran.” The letters also could stand for the boy’s name “Ron” or the girl’s name “Erin.”
This requirement of decoding the written text into spoken language means that the complete text existed only while the reader performed it. To be sure, someone could try to remember it. But, if a reader returned to study the written text a few days later, he or she would have to perform it again, and that person may not perform it the same way as he or she did the first time.
So, what makes ancient readers different from today’s readers is that modern readers believe the text to be solid and unchangeable. Ancient readers knew it wasn’t.
This uncertainty led groups of rabbis known as Masoretes to create a set of signs to represent vowels and accents for Hebrew and Aramaic in the ninth century. At that time, the Masoretes used them to identify the words in the biblical text and, thus, to fix its meaning. This aimed to guide future readers so that they would no longer know the uncertainty of the reading experience, which had been common in antiquity.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Morality: The Face of Public Christianity

September 30, 2015
A non-Christian who read recent newspapers to learn about Christianity might arrive at the following picture. Christianity believes that marriage is between a man and woman, so no marriage between members of the same sex. Christianity believes life begins at conception, so no abortion and no stem cell research. Christianity believes that God created the universe, so evolution should not be taught. Sexual activity belongs in marriage, so no premarital sex.
In this picture, Christianity is about actions that people should or should not do; it is about morality. What is missing from this public Christianity are the religion’s core features. Salvation, Scripture, faith and belief have disappeared from public view. How did this happen?
The story begins in the early 1500s, with the Protestant Reformation. Prior to that, the Christianity of Western Europe was Catholic and centered on community. Based on their doctrinal interpretation of Scripture, Catholicism raised a group of men out of the community to become priests. These priests then mediated between God and the people to bring salvation, forgiveness and blessings from God to the people. The church stood with individuals before God, buffering them in his majestic presence.
Starting in 1517, Martin Luther changed all that. Instead of the church standing with the individual, Luther held that individuals stood alone before God, with only their faith, based on their understanding of Scripture, alongside them.
Despite this theological change, the social reality altered surprisingly little. Individuals still lived in communities and these communities shared a single doctrinal interpretation of Scripture. Individuals did not interpret Scripture on their own, but rather followed their community’s understanding.
Often, these communities were formed around the teachings of influential theologians and leaders. Luther founded the Lutherans; John Calvin founded the Reformed Church and influenced the Puritans; and John Knox organized the Presbyterians. And these are just a few of the communities, the churches, if you will, created from the Reformation.
So, early forms of Protestantism took a similar structure to Catholicism: Each was a community that brought a common interpretation to Scripture which, in turn, led to common social norms (i.e., morality).
The Puritans brought this communally organized Christianity to America, where they established a new community that would help individuals lead moral lives in keeping with the Puritan interpretation of Scripture.
But Luther’s dictum of the individual alone still rang out. When Roger Williams interpreted Scripture for himself in the 1630s, the Massachusetts Puritans expelled him. Williams believed in a radical understanding of Luther’s dictum: The church should be separate from the government so that the church could not use government powers to enforce doctrine and interpretation on individuals.
Williams’ idea become the foundation of America’s religious freedom. By the 1680s, variety was the religious flavor of the era. Formulations of Christian beliefs, called catechisms, proliferated. Puritan preacher Increase Mather thought that “over 500” different catechisms were circulating at the time. Over the next century or more, European immigrants brought in new Protestant denominations and Americans created their own.
By the 1800s, Christians realized all this religious freedom fragmented Christianity and interfered with its ability to accomplish the great deeds needed. So, they banded together into non-denominational organizations to take on moral projects. To accomplish this unity, they overlooked doctrinal features that divided them.
Thus, the great ethical movements of the century were founded: anti-slavery, temperance, women’s suffrage, and missionary projects to evangelize both foreign peoples and the USA’s “unchurched” masses. By the mid-20th century, new non-denominational groups joined with those of a more secular bent in the civil rights and women’s rights movements. The lessons of these movements was that, if the divided Christian populace overlooked matters of doctrine and Scripture interpretation, they could unify on moral issues.
Toward the end of the 20th century, a new alliance of Christians was formed. Since the great moral concerns of slavery and personal civil rights had been resolved (more or less), these groups took up new ones. Thus, the “right to life” movement, for example, took up the cause of the unborn. This brought together an alliance of conservative Protestants, Catholics and Mormons, who were able to overlook their differences on doctrine and Scripture, to unite on what they saw as a great moral concern.
Thus, morality is the great religious unifier, where different religious groups can agree. They may arrive at those moral positions through different doctrinal interpretations of Scripture, even from different versions of Scripture. But, to strengthen their unity, they ignore those differences. The public unity of Christianity, as apparent in American news coverage, comes from morality rather than doctrine.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, September 02, 2015

King James and his Bible

King James grew up as a king, and doubly so. After Queen Elizabeth executed his mother, Mary Queen of Scots, when he was just 1 year old, he became King James VI of Scotland and the intended heir to the English throne after Elizabeth’s death. He was raised by a team of Scottish Presbyterian ministers under the control of his regent but, upon his ascension to the English crown in 1603, having become King James I of England, he seemed suddenly more attuned to English religious politics than Scottish beliefs.
Less than a year after his arrival in England, he officially launched the translation project that would become the King James Bible at a conference in Hampton Court Palace. The complex’s status as a favorite dwelling of King Henry the VIII, the founder of the English church, would not have been lost on the attendees.
The new translation was intended to be a unifying factor, not between Scotland and England, but between the warring factions of the Church of England. For the oversight of the project, James favored the establishment bishops, but a third or more of the 48 “Translators” (as they were known) had Puritan beliefs. Most were connected with Cambridge University, a hotbed of Puritan theology at the time.
The most popular Bible among English Christians at the time was the Geneva Bible, which Puritan scholars had composed in Geneva during their exile from the persecution of Queen Mary (“Bloody Mary”) in the 1550s. Its popularity had soared at the end of the 16th century because the Bishops Bible of 1568, the church’s official Bible, had met with derision. As Adam Nicolson observes, it was “pompous, obscure and often laughable.” Instead of the well-known phrase “Caste thy bread upon the waters,” for instance, it gave “Lay thy bread upon wet faces.”
But James could not simply follow the people’s choice, for the Geneva Bible contained extensive interpretive footnotes, many of which were anti-monarchical, denying that kings and queens had the right to rule. Given that, in 1598, James had written a ringing defense of the “divine right of kings” to govern in his “True Law of Free Monarchies,” this was an anathema.
The new Bible translation would draw upon the best of these two works, while going back to the best Hebrew and Greek manuscripts then available. It would undergo several stages of review to ensure both accuracy and understandability. It would be both a pulpit Bible and a people’s Bible: pleasant to read aloud and to oneself.
The new translation did not immediately gain acceptance when it was published in 1611. As when bibles such as the Greek Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate and many modern translations had been introduced, people preferred the versions with which they were familiar. But, within a few decades, it had replaced the Bishops Bible and surpassed the Geneva Bible.
The King James Version (KJV) was brought across the Atlantic and became America’s Bible, both for English churches that came here and the churches that originated here, such as the Mormons. Indeed, since copyright did not exist at the time, American printers copied and reprinted the book without compunction -- often introducing mistakes along the way.
Errors in typesetting were not unusual. In 1631, a British printer accidently left out the “not” in Exodus 20:14, thereby rendering one of the Ten Commandments as “Thou shalt commit adultery.” (They were later fined and lost their printing license.)
The King James Version was the dominant English-language Bible for 350 years and had no significant rivals until the Revised Standard Version appeared in the 1950s. Since then, many new translations have been published, but the KJV remains the most popular book in the English language.
Note: This article drew from the books of Adam Nicolson, “God’s Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible,” and of Philip C. Stine, “Four Hundred Years on the Best Seller List.”

Labels: , , , , , , ,

It's OK to Pray in Your School

The school year is arriving again. This seems like a good moment to revisit that continually confused and confusing issue, prayer in schools. There is a great deal of misinformation and misunderstanding of what kind of prayer is permitted in the public schools of the United States of America. So let me take this column to review what is and what is not allowed with regard to prayer in public schools.

What kind of prayer is allowed in a public school?

Everyone and anyone who goes to a school may pray there. "Everyone," that means students, teachers, staff and administrators, may offer a private prayer to the divine at anytime they choose. "Anyone," that means any person of any religious faith, be they Methodist, Baptist, Catholic, or Mormon, or Native American. It also includes members of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Wicca. Even Pagans and Neo-Pagans can pray, as can members of any religion or worshippers of any god or goddess I have not mentioned. Thus praying in the schools is permitted to everyone there, as long as it is private and personal, and does not interrupt legitimate school activities.

It is also OK for students of like beliefs to join together to pray, whether informally ("let's meet at the west door before the bell") or more formally in a religious club of voluntary membership. This club may meet on school property, such as in a classroom, at times when clubs are usually allowed to meet. The only exception to this is if the school has banned clubs altogether. The rule of thumb is that religious clubs must be treated the same as other clubs.

Similarly, it is permitted for teachers, staff, and even administrators to join together voluntarily to pray. Again, this may occur in formal or informal settings.

What kind of prayer is not allowed in a public school?

It is not OK to pray in a school in way that would knowingly or unknowingly coerce anyone of a different belief to join in. Thus teachers, principals and others in a position of authority should not use that position to persuade, require, expect, or intimidate students or others under their supervision to take part in prayer that they otherwise would not. Schools are inherently hierarchical and those who are higher in the hierarchy should do nothing that would seem to exercise that position to make those below them pray.

Similarly, prayer should not be part of public school functions. Although this rule can be a bit vague, the main principle is clear. A general prayer offered in a manner designed to be inclusive of all present, whatever religion they adhere to and articulating generally positive sentiments agreeable to them, is sometimes acceptable, if not done too frequently. Graduation ceremonies can usually include this kind of prayer. Prayers that adhere to a single doctrinal line or reflect a non-inclusive theology do not belong at school functions, even if said by a student. These general prayers should not be ended with a religion-specific phrase, such as, “In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.”

In general, prayer should not be conducted in such a way to exclude or stigmatize those who do not participate in or follow a particular religion.

Finally, participation in prayer should not be used as a basis to reward or promote those who take part or to withhold such rewards from people who do not. Favoritism should not be shown to members of the same faith and discrimination should not take place against members of different religions. Administrators should takes pains to ensure that even the appearance of favoritism does not arise.

These rules, both positive and negative, are designed to ensure every individual's freedom to believe and worship as they choose, and to prevent the power of the state (as exercised by the school and its employees) from interfering with that right. Those who do not follow such rules may be exercising what they see as their own religious freedom, but they will be doing it at the expense of the religious freedom of others. It is the balance of everyone’s religious freedom that the rules aim to maintain.

Labels: ,

Friday, August 07, 2015

Triumph of Abrahamic Monotheism?

Just a couple years ago, the world’s population reached 7 billion. This took place through a centuries-long process of growth and migration -- the same process that formed the distribution of the world’s religions as we now know them today. The current result of that process is somewhat surprising in that more than half of the world’s people follow one of just two religions: Christianity and Islam. These two monotheistic religions comprise the two largest religions in the world.
Christianity and Islam both trace their origins back to the Jewish Patriarch Abraham. The biblical book of Genesis tells how, during the second millennium B.C., Abraham and his household of 80 people followed a god known as Yahweh. Abraham’s family grew into the People of Israel, who formed Judaism, the earliest monotheistic religion, and worshipped Yahweh only. Later, in the first millennium A.D., both Christianity and Islam drew upon Judaism to create new religions worshipping this same God.
Christianity migrated as it expanded. After its origins in the first century in Palestine, it became the religion of the Roman Empire. That established Christianity in the lands around the Mediterranean Sea and then brought it into Europe. When the European nations began colonizing other continents in the mid-second millennium A.D., they carried their religion with them, with the result that the population of three continents became almost entirely Christian: North America, South America and Australia. Christianity also has become the largest religion in the southern half of Africa.
After its origins near the coast of the Red Sea in the seventh century, Islam quickly moved into the Middle East and the northern half of Africa. From there it went east, colonizing the Indian sub-continent and moving farther east into Malaysia and Indonesia, which today constitutes the most populous Muslim nation.
Today, Christianity comprises just under a third of the world’s population, around 2.3 billion. Slightly less than a quarter of the world’s population follow Islam, roughly 1.6 billion.
If we look at a map of the world showing where members of these Abrahamic religions reside in comparison to those of Eastern religions, the impact is even more striking. Christianity or Islam dominate every continent except Asia­ -- and even there Russia and the Middle East belong to the Abrahamic side. About 13 percent of the world’s land area is occupied by members of Eastern religions, while almost 87 percent is dominated by Christianity or Islam.
Of course, this land area view is somewhat misleading, because Asia is home to two of the world’s most densely populated, large countries, India and China. At more than 1.2 billion people each, these two countries contain more than a third of the world’s population between them.
India is in fact home to the world’s third largest religion, Hinduism, which counts about a billion adherents and roughly 14 percent of the world’s population. Asia is home to most of the world’s Buddhists, but guesses about their population are highly uncertain and range around 300 million-350 million.
This is where we reach the limits of our ability to count more precisely, however. Hinduism may be the third largest religion, but it is smaller than the number of people around the world who follow no religion at all. About 16 percent of the world’s population do not attach themselves to any religion. These range from committed atheists to agnostics and secularists to people who check “none of the above” on surveys of religious belonging.
We should not forget communism’s work to stamp out religious belief in China, Russia and other countries, nor the rise of secular and scientific worldviews in Europe, the Americas, and elsewhere. The ability to perform a more accurate count might lower each religion’s population a few percentage points. But it would not in the end change the general picture.
Is this a triumph of monotheism? I would not characterize it as such because there is no unity. Islam and Christianity are highly suspicious of each other. Within each religion, large groups do not even recognize other groups as belonging under the same religious umbrella. Evangelical Christians do not recognize the Mormons as Christians even though they are called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Don’t forget that Protestant Christianity was formed through the rejection of the validity of the Catholic Church. In Islam, there is ongoing Sunni questioning of Shiite and Sufi forms of that religion.
So, rather than a single, large monotheistic religious umbrella, monotheism is simply a category that contains numerous, squabbling members. Indeed, the world’s largest Christian nation, the United States, also is the home to the world’s largest variety of Christianities, all of whom would rather remain separate than join together.
Note: Numbers in this essay are based on information found at and For a dynamic graphic illustrating the growth and movement of world religions, go to
Flesher is a professor in the University of Wyoming’s Religious Studies Department. Past columns and more information about the program can be found on the Web at To comment on this column, visit

color coded map of religions
Members of the Abrahamic religions of Christianity and Islam together dominate more than 80 percent of the Earth’s land area. (Dbachmann, Wikimedia Commons)

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

A Tale of Two Tours

mportant religious buildings, such as synagogues, mosques, temples or cathedrals, derive their significance from their members’ activities in the building. Believers may gather there for worship; they may make personal pilgrimages to it; they may believe that their god dwells there. In other words, the building’s fame and attraction comes from its role as a place of religious activity for its religion’s adherents.
So, what about tourists, people who travel away from their homes to visit important places? Tourists who visit religious sites, as opposed to pilgrims, do not come to worship and rarely belong to the religion associated with the site. They come to a cathedral or a temple because it is famous. They wish to see it and learn more about it; they rarely want to participate in the religious activities held there.
So, how does a place of religious importance treat tourists?
Some religious places allow in no one not belonging to the religion. That was true with the ancient Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, and it remains true for the Muslim holy city of Mecca.
Other places give the tourists a tour. The character of that tour reveals what the religion, or at least the religious officials who run the site, think is important for visitors to learn.
Take Westminster Abbey in London, for instance, the church linked to the British Houses of Parliament. Thousands of people visit it every day. Its tour is a well-oiled business that describes the building’s history and its place in British history. Highly trained guides lead groups around the entire, large building.
The guides are experts in the church’s history and in its relationship to the government and the monarchs. They know the significance of every tomb, memorial and monument, and can provide key information about everyone buried in the church, from king or queen to poet, playwright or scientist. They can explain the purposes of every side chapel and cloister.
Buildings as old as Westminster require ongoing upkeep, and the wear and tear of the many daily visitors just adds to the building’s deterioration. To pay for the building’s maintenance, the church has numerous money-raising ventures, from entrance fees to the bookshop and the gift shop, to say nothing of the café. In this, the Abbey is just like the many palaces, castles, manor houses and other historical buildings throughout Britain.
Between the historical presentation and the fundraising, Westminster’s ongoing role as a place of worship is nearly invisible. Tourists often fail to realize that three to seven worship services take place daily, including at least one celebration of the Eucharist.
The Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake City provides a completely different presentation.
Tourists can keep their wallets in their pockets because there is nothing to buy: no food, no souvenirs, no books and no entrance fees.
The tour guides are quite different. Instead of trained, older professionals, the guides for Temple Square are college-age missionaries. They know the Square, from the Temple itself to the Tabernacle and other buildings, but are not extensively versed in its history. Indeed, being able to give detailed historical information is not their job, and they sometimes simply tell questioners they cannot answer a question. The tourists’ curiosity about the past may be better satisfied by the short videos viewed on the tour.
The tour guides at Temple Square make up in faith and friendliness what they lack in historical knowledge. Their task is to provide an understanding of the Mormon religion, the place of the Temple in that religion and, perhaps most importantly, to give a sense of the vital immediacy of their beliefs in their own daily lives. There is no “hard sell,” but the tour guides mention their faith when relevant, and the tour itself ends comfortably in a contemplative room before a large statue of Jesus Christ, with the two guides each giving a minute or so of “witness” about their religion.
The treatment of tourists at these two religious sites could not be more different. At Westminster Abbey, the guide delivers a historical message of English/British continuity and importance, religious and otherwise, to which the visitors will always remain outsiders. At the Mormon Temple, by contrast, the guides deliver a personal message, one that links the founding of Salt Lake and its Temple to the guides themselves and, through them, the offer is made to the visiting outsiders that they can become insiders, too.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Religious Freedom, Gay Marriage and the Hobby Lobby Decision

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 27 declared gay marriage legal in all 50 states. Most Americans agree with this decision. However, a significant minority of Americans believe their religion teaches that homosexuality is morally wrong. They fear the legalization of gay marriage will lead to discrimination against them, requiring some of them to participate in gay activities against their conscience.
Their fears are not unfounded. Just a week after the Supreme Court decision, an Oregon court fined a bakery owned by an evangelical Christian couple $135,000 for refusing to supply a cake for a lesbian wedding. Cases like these have led to calls among conservative Americans for a “religious freedom” exemption that would allow employees and businesses to deny service to gays.
More cases like this are occurring, and Christian business owners have publicly stated they deny service to gays. Several state legislatures are considering bills to allow religious-based discrimination.
Can there be a right to deny service to people on the basis of religious beliefs?
In the short term, there will be lots of debate, passing of laws, boycotts and court cases. But if we look 10 years down the road, when the dust begins to settle, the answer will probably be yes, but not in the way religious adherents now hope for.
Current legal decisions and precedents suggest that the right of “religious refusal” of service (to coin a term) will not apply to individual employees. It will be restricted to a limited class of businesses. This limited class will consist only of businesses owned by families or individuals. The reason for this is the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision in June 2014.
The Hobby Lobby corporation is owned by a family of evangelical Christians. They challenged the Obamacare law asking to set aside the requirement to provide contraception as part of their company-sponsored health care package, claiming contraception was against their religious beliefs. The Supreme Court decided in their favor, thus setting the owners’ religious beliefs ahead of their employees’ standing before the law.
That decision set two important legal precedents. First, with regard to family-owned companies, when the owning family’s religious beliefs conflict with their employees’ legal rights, the family’s religious beliefs prevail. Second, the employees are subordinate to the religious-based policies set by the family (or individual) who owns the company. That is, the business determines the policy concerning the refusal or granting of service to gays on a religious basis, and the employees must carry it out. The employees’ moral or religious beliefs are irrelevant.
Consider the employees’ situation in light of the debate over the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) passed in March 2015. Indiana’s RFRA law was written to permit “anti-gay discrimination” against customers on the basis of religious belief. After protests by individuals and big business, the legislature rewrote the law to prevent such discrimination. Perhaps the most important factor in the legislators’ reversal was that companies from Apple to the NBA, from Subaru to Eli Lily, warned Indiana they would boycott the state otherwise.
The involvement of America’s leading companies in the Indiana fracas revealed that most have formulated gay-friendly policies because they understand that gays and their supporters comprise a significant part of their consumer and worker base. If an employee at one of these companies refused service on the basis of personal religious beliefs, he or she would be fired.
The Hobby Lobby decision indicates that the only companies who could gain the right to engage in religious refusal of service to same-sex individuals or couples would be those to which religious behavior can be attributed. Since companies in and of themselves are not religious entities (they do not pray, worship, take communion, attend Mass or “get saved,” for instance), most cannot meet any criteria of religious belief or adherence. How could the “religion” of a public company owned by hundreds or thousands of stockholders be determined?
That is why the Hobby Lobby decision grants only private companies owned by individuals or families --who can have religious beliefs and behave in a religious manner -- a right of religious refusal over their employees. Only these businesses can decide to have a company policy of religious refusal and require their employees to implement it.
Of course there is another type of institution that has religious beliefs and practices. It is not a business but a religious organization: churches, mosques, synagogues and so on. These organizations will be allowed to make policies concerning religious refusal or granting of services to gays. And, again, their employees will have to follow those policies.
So, a decade or more down the road, current law points to a situation in which there will be no religious freedom for individual employees that will allow them to refuse or grant service to same-sex individuals independent of company policy. The right of religious action will be limited to a small class of companies and institutions, and their policies will require their employees practice religious refusal or not. While on the job, employees will lack the right to act in accord with their own religious beliefs.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, May 28, 2015

What the Gay Marriage Vote Reveals about Catholic Attitudes in Ireland

Last week, Ireland voted overwhelmingly to legalize gay marriage. The vote was 62 percent to 38 percent, with all but one district voting in favor. Rural as well as urban districts, senior citizens as well as young people voted for legalization.
Most United States’ news reports celebrated the vote’s positive side, the gay community’s happiness, and the way the vote unified nearly all sectors of Irish society.
But there is a darker side. Since Ireland is 84 percent Catholic, the vote is seen as an overwhelming rejection of the Catholic Church. This is not surprising. In the last 30 years, weekly Mass attendance in Ireland has dropped from nearly 90 percent to less than 20 percent.
Why this sudden change? It is largely due to the revelation of three horrific practices of the church. As each one came to light, Irish Catholics at first disbelieved but gradually accepted that the church had failed them.
First is the priestly sex-abuse scandal in which a few priests raped and molested hundreds, even thousands, of children over decades. While the acts of these priests were bad enough, church officials in Ireland, as in the United States, failed to halt these crimes. Instead, they covered up the deeds and moved the perpetrators to new places. Rather than removing these criminals, the church enabled them.
Second are the revelations of the church-run state orphanages and reformatories, where rather than being loved and cherished, children routinely were beaten, abused and raped. The Irish government’s 2009 Ryan Report found that thousands of children in these institutions, run by nuns and monks, were often terrorized. According to the report, “ritualized beatings were routine” in girls’ facilities, and rape and molestation were “endemic” in boys’ facilities.
The Irish church and religious orders have refused to assist in investigations, have denied the revelations and shown no remorse or contrition.
Third are the facilities for unmarried mothers. Since the late 1700s, unmarried mothers were sent to so-called “Magdalene” laundries, where they worked as unpaid laborers cleaning clothes. Sometimes they spent their entire lives in the institutions. The last laundry was not closed until 1996.
There also were mother-baby institutional homes around Ireland. Both types of institutions were rife with abuse, beatings and a lack of human decency. Hunger and filth were rampant, and the nuns regularly treated their charges in a degrading fashion.
Furthermore, since 1993, authorities have uncovered more than 4,000 bodies in unmarked graves, including 800 in a sewer near the home in Tuam, that were disposed of by these homes and laundries. The lack of human decency indicated by such treatment and the continuing refusal of religious institutions to provide any information about them has angered the Irish people immensely.
These practices by the Catholic Church in Ireland that have come to light have robbed the church of its moral authority in the eyes of its parishioners. So it is not surprising its teachings about homosexuality were ignored in the vote on gay marriage.
But there is a silver lining. Archbishop Diarmuid Martin of Dublin observed after the vote, “We (the church) have to stop and have a reality check … I ask myself, most of these young people who voted yes are products of our Catholic school system for 12 years. I’m saying there’s a big challenge there to see how we get across the message of the church.”
Actually the Catholic Church got its message across just fine. In Ireland, the church runs more than 85 percent of the schools, and in those schools it teaches about Christ’s love, that all people are equal before God, and that all sins can be forgiven. For decades it has taught its students the principles of how to be good, how to love “your neighbor” and how to follow a moral and upright life.
The Irish took the principles of love and equality before God and applied them to the question of gay marriage. The Catholic attitudes they learned in school helped them decide that gays should be allowed to marry, just like everyone else.
This attitude of equal treatment for all people, including gays, is not unique to Irish Catholics. Catholics in many parts of the world are in favor of gay marriage. In America, polls since 2010 have shown that a majority of Catholics accept gay marriage, more than any other Christian group. And, as Frank Bruni pointed out in his New York Times essay of May 27, 2015, many Catholic countries already have adopted gay marriage, including Spain, Portugal, France, Uruguay, Brazil and Argentina.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

Religion in Wyoming and the West: The Religious Landscape Survey

The Pew Research Center for Religion and the Public Life has just released a new survey about the religious identity of Americans. The researchers interviewed more than 35,000 people so that they were able to provide results not just for the United States as a whole, but also for each state. This is the first time that a scientific study of Wyoming’s religious character has taken place.
The big story for Wyoming is that the state has a large percentage of people without religious affiliation. More than a quarter of the population, 26 percent, checked the box labeled “none of the above” when asked what religion they belonged to.
Before looking more closely at Wyoming, it is worth a moment to take a look at the United States overall and the Western region generally. The national headlines from this study will be that the number of “nones” has grown 7 percent since this study was first done in 2007. Across the nation, the percentage of the religiously unaffiliated has increased from 16 percent in 2007 to 23 percent in 2014. The West has the highest percent of unaffiliated of any of the four regions of the country at 28 percent.
Although America is growing more secular, this should not arouse panic among the religious. If 23 percent are unaffiliated, that means about 77 percent or more have a religious affiliation. Even the data from Vermont, which has the highest number of nones at 37 percent, show that 61 percent of the population is religious and 54 percent follow a form of Christianity.
In this light, the data show that 66 percent of Wyoming’s people adhere to Christianity and about 4 percent follow other religions, with Buddhism being the most numerous (7 percent did not answer this question). So, even though a quarter of Wyoming’s population claims no religious affiliation, 70 percent do. That’s well over two-thirds.
Wyoming’s religious character stands out when we look at it in the context of the other Western states. Wyoming’s percentage of nones is lower than the average for the West, 26 percent vs. 28 percent. Indeed, it is third lowest in the West, with only New Mexico (21 percent) and Utah (22 percent) being lower. But that is still a high number, for no state in the Midwestern or Southern regions has a higher percentage of religiously unaffiliated people.
More significantly, Wyoming has the highest Protestant population in the West. It has the highest number of mainline Protestants (16 percent, tied with Idaho) and the third highest number of Evangelical Protestants (26 percent). At a total of 43 percent, this puts it far ahead of all but Montana, Colorado and Oregon, which are only a couple of points behind.
If you picture the United States map, you will realize that Montana, Wyoming and Colorado make a north-south line and, just to the east of them, are North and South Dakota, Nebraska and Kansas. These Midwestern states, like the rest of the Midwest region, have a high percentage of Protestants, ranging from 49 percent to 57 percent. So, the Protestant character of Wyoming and these other two Western states derives from Midwestern influence.
By contrast, Wyoming’s Catholic population is certainly not following the lead of Western states like California or the Southwestern states. In those states, the Catholic population ranges from 21 percent to 34 percent, while Wyoming comes in at just 14 percent. That is well below the national average percentage of Catholics per state. Indeed, it is lower than any state in the Midwest or Northeast regions.
Interestingly, Wyoming is more influenced by Mormonism. At 9 percent, Wyoming has the third highest Mormon population in the West (after Utah and Idaho) and, indeed, in the entire USA.
So, Wyoming’s religious character is overwhelmingly Christian (66 percent) and solidly Protestant (43 percent). Its Evangelical Protestants make up the largest religiously defined group (27 percent).
This is closely followed, however, by those who identify with no religious tradition or organization (26 percent). Only 6 percent of these registered as atheist or agnostic; the other 20 percent selected “nothing in particular.” And, although the number of Mormons in Wyoming ranked third highest in the nation (9 percent), that was still outnumbered by the Catholics (14 percent), even though the state ranked among the lowest in the nation in that category.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,