It has been many years since any numerous group of people were advocating directly for the suppression of certain religious groups. However, a recent display took place between Senator Dianne Finestein of California and Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois toward a judicial nominee. This represents a bit of cruel irony, as this nominee is a Roman Catholic.
There was a time when a Catholic would be put out of several segments of the American government and culture. I think it's safe to say that most people thought that this line of thinking had gone away -We had hopes that this line of reasoning died out at least since the Kennedy administration. Unfortunately, the types of questions being asked seem to indicate that this is a cause that continues.
Most American Protestants, having been accustomed to an ethos of toleration for other beliefs, would have found this display very disturbing. The role fo the senators is to discern wether they can execute the decisions needed for the position in question.
I can think of two possibilities so far. The first is the possibility that Finestein and Durbin both seek to cast people of certain religious persuasions out of government. the second is the possiblity that coming from Roman Catholic backgrounds, Finestein and Durbin believe they can ask certain types of questions that those from Protestant background have not. Either way, questions are being asked that are completely out of place in a confirmation hearing. Even as a Protestant, it's disturbing. It begs the question: who will they come after next? If the roles had been reversed and a different set of politicians were asking similar questions of somebody who adheres to a Non-Christian religion, people would rightly be outraged. Let's have some consistency!
Thursday, September 21, 2017
Wednesday, September 20, 2017
Religious Freedom Then and Now
In recent months and years, there has been an increasing amount of attention paid to the issue of religious freedom as certain religious bodies find themselves more and more at odds with real or perceived cultural trends. I think an important question to ask is whether this is the first time in American history that this has occurred.
Of course, the answer to this question will, at least in part, depend on what is meant by "American history." if we include the colonial era, than the answer is definitively "no." Jamestown and the Virginia colony were under Anglican rule just as the mother country was. In New England except for Rhode Island, the government basically amounted to a Puritan theocracy rather than an Anglican one. Colonies founded on religious toleration, notably Rhode Island and Pennsylvania, were the only places of refuge for many groups who deviated from state churches.
After the founding of the Republic, all religious groups were granted equal rights on paper. In reality, the situation was much different. A good illustration of this is the fact that Catholics faced significant prejudice when running for political office. It would be 170 years after the ratification of the United States Constitution that a Catholic would be elected President of the United States. and even then, the idea remained controversial in some circles.
As we examine this, we can clearly see that whether one defines "American History" as beginning with the first colonists landing at Jamestown or if it is defined as beginning with the ratification of the United States Constitution, the phenomenon of certain religious groups being shut out of certain sectors of society due to prejudice is not new in American History. The old idea of a Catholic president taking direct orders from Rome has it's parallel in the idea of people who adhere to certain religious beliefs being unable to uphold certain aspects of the constitution.
As people began to get used to the idea that a Catholic could just as easily be President of the United States as a Protestant, the Catholicism of Catholic candidates for President has become largely irrelevant as a political issue. Perhaps the formula for getting past our current impasse in regards to religious freedom is the reintroduction of certain types of religious people into roles in which they will be defending rights that they themselves likely oppose. As people see this, there is likely to be a softening of attitudes in general. These individuals are more than likely to be seen as real people, rather than as some sort of caricature.
Of course, the answer to this question will, at least in part, depend on what is meant by "American history." if we include the colonial era, than the answer is definitively "no." Jamestown and the Virginia colony were under Anglican rule just as the mother country was. In New England except for Rhode Island, the government basically amounted to a Puritan theocracy rather than an Anglican one. Colonies founded on religious toleration, notably Rhode Island and Pennsylvania, were the only places of refuge for many groups who deviated from state churches.
After the founding of the Republic, all religious groups were granted equal rights on paper. In reality, the situation was much different. A good illustration of this is the fact that Catholics faced significant prejudice when running for political office. It would be 170 years after the ratification of the United States Constitution that a Catholic would be elected President of the United States. and even then, the idea remained controversial in some circles.
As we examine this, we can clearly see that whether one defines "American History" as beginning with the first colonists landing at Jamestown or if it is defined as beginning with the ratification of the United States Constitution, the phenomenon of certain religious groups being shut out of certain sectors of society due to prejudice is not new in American History. The old idea of a Catholic president taking direct orders from Rome has it's parallel in the idea of people who adhere to certain religious beliefs being unable to uphold certain aspects of the constitution.
As people began to get used to the idea that a Catholic could just as easily be President of the United States as a Protestant, the Catholicism of Catholic candidates for President has become largely irrelevant as a political issue. Perhaps the formula for getting past our current impasse in regards to religious freedom is the reintroduction of certain types of religious people into roles in which they will be defending rights that they themselves likely oppose. As people see this, there is likely to be a softening of attitudes in general. These individuals are more than likely to be seen as real people, rather than as some sort of caricature.
Thursday, August 24, 2017
From Salem To Today?
I would like to switch gears a little bit from the previous week and discuss something interrelated, but different. We are coming up on to the 325th anniversary of the Salem Witch Trials. One question that this brings to mind is: how is our current situation similar and different from the situations in 1690s Massachusetts?
One obvious similarity is the fact that in Salem, as now, concern over an increasingly secular society have taken root. People are concerned over a decrease in the perceived piety of the culture at large, and are reacting with fear and anger towards this.
Another obvious similarity is the singling out of racial and religious minorities for the ire of those who are concerned about certain social changes occurring in the wider society. In today's situation the bulk of the religious ire is directed towards Muslims, and the bulk of the racial scapegoating is directed towards Hispanics, and often Blacks. In 1692, groups such as Quakers were the targets of religious scapegoating, while Native Americans were at the receiving end of the racial attacks.
Finally, exhaustion from War is a reality of our society today, and it likely was in 1692 Salem. For many years, we have been at war with entities against whom the definition of victory can be very difficult to define. The Puritans of 1692 had a more identifiable allies in French and Native American forces to their north. However the reality of war was an even greater influence on their lives, as that war took place very close to the home-front. There were also many "massacres" that may have had a similar psychological effect on the population as an event such as 9/11.
However, there are many significant differences between 1692 Massachusetts Bay Colony and the present day United States. For one, as mentioned, the people of 1692 Massachusetts had to endure a war being fought very close to the home of the people. In our case, while we have had attacks on the home-front that certainly produced a collective psychological trauma that the people of 17th century Massachusetts may have been able to relate to, the majority of the war related violence has taken place far away from home.
Also, it is worth noting the differing religious ethos of 1692 Salem, and that of present day America. Many people have compared the Puritans to the Religious Right that would emerge throughout the 1970s and 1980s. While there are points of contact in certain matters of piety and rigidity, the Puritan movement comes from a very different stream of thought. Without going into too much detail, the Religious Right usually traces its roots to things such as the Second Great Awakening, the Wesleyan movements, and the German Pietist and Holiness movements. While these groups may appear similar in some ways to Puritans, they grant a much higher role to human agency than Puritanism ever even considered doing
So the question that becomes worth asking is, could we see the type of outbreak of paranoia in modern America as in 17th century Massachusetts? It's possible, but it would look different. For one thing, religious fervor, while still immensely important to the lives of many Americans, doesn't take the same form as it did for the Puritans. Also, there is the well ingrained constitutional protections in place today that didn't exist for 17th century Massachusetts. Finally, people are much more apt to speak out in regards to perceived injustices in society than they were in the 17th Century, making a modern day "which hunt" very difficult to maintain support for. So while there may very well be an increase in societal paranoia, it is very unlikely to develop into anything resembling what occurred in 1692 Salem.
Thursday, August 17, 2017
An uncomfortable parallel
As events this past Saturday continued to transpire, I noticed that the word "terrorism" was being used by more and more people. From my own vantage point this seems pretty accurate, and from what I was able to ascertain from reports, it certainly does fit the definition of terrorism, assuming that I and most observers correctly understand what acts of violence constitute "terrorism" under our legal definitions.
As this (correct, in my view) narrative continued to be assumed, one very important question continued to elude me. It is no secret that when the average American hears the word "terrorism", he or she usually thinks of an act perpetrated by Muslims from the Middle East, rather than domestic acts committed by white Americans. Acknowledging this (and putting aside the question of what President Trump should or should not have said and when), when the media's descriptions of the groups commonly referred to as the "Alt Right" were aired, I couldn't help but notice the parallels between these entities and ISIS. And this begs the question: do the people who join such groups have similar motivations?
I then looked to see if there were any articles online anywhere that discussed the parallels between the Alt-Right and Isis. I found an article from May 18 in New York Magazine by Alice Marwick and Becca Lewis titled "The Online Radicalization We're Not Talking About." The article hits on the parallels between the Alt-Right and ISIS, including the similarity between the types of people the two groups most successfully recruit; namely: young men who are socially isolated and looking for answers.
The point was made abundantly clear on Saturday in Charlotesville when a man who fits this description used his vehicle to commit an ISIS-like attack on a group of people protesting, among other things, in disagreement with his racial ideology. In the coming weeks and months, we are likely to learn more about this individual and his level of isolation, and how and why he came to attach himself to the Alt-Right. (Marwick and Lewis)
The more we learn about this individual and other individuals who involve themselves in the Alt-Right, the parallels with ISIS are likely to become more and more apparent, if they are not already. However, this will raise many important questions about what to do and what not to do in combating these organizations Marwick and Lewis note that "given the similarities between far-right and Islamic radicalization, it’s worth examining the efforts by political scientists and counter-terrorism experts to combat the latter. They recommend staying away from heavy content moderation (which fuels accusations of censorship), and instead crafting and spreading messages that speak to young men’s alienation and disenfranchisement, without using scapegoats." (Marwick and Lewis)
Another important question to ask is the most effective narrative to use when attempting to counter the narrative of the Alt Right or ISIS. It is no secret that many counter-terrorism experts recommend downplaying the Islamic nature of ISIS and other similar groups in order to not dignify them. It is important that we ask how that method transfers to groups such as the Alt-Right. Many have observed that inflammatory rhetoric towards Muslims in the middle east only makes it easier for groups such as ISIS to recruit. It is also not difficult to find inflammatory rhetoric expressed towards those very demographics that the Alt-Right draws from.
It is important to gain a better understanding of how and if the Alt-Right recruits individuals to join their cause. The distinction between the Alt-Right and more established Hate Groups seems fluid at best. However, insomuch as there is a distinction between the two of them, it is important that it does not go unacknowledged, or else phenomena may get conflated which are distinctive. For example, several people have opined on the phenomenon of White Nationalists using Christianity to justify their acts, which supposedly draws a religious parallel with ISIS. While this may very well exist, it is less prominent with "white nationalist" type groups than it is with groups that are identified as "Christian Identity" groups.(splc.org) However, insomuch as there is a religious motivation behind some who embrace white nationalism, it is important that this narrative be countered.
http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/05/the-online-radicalization-were-not-talking-about.html
https://www.splcenter.org/issues/hate-and-extremism
As events this past Saturday continued to transpire, I noticed that the word "terrorism" was being used by more and more people. From my own vantage point this seems pretty accurate, and from what I was able to ascertain from reports, it certainly does fit the definition of terrorism, assuming that I and most observers correctly understand what acts of violence constitute "terrorism" under our legal definitions.
As this (correct, in my view) narrative continued to be assumed, one very important question continued to elude me. It is no secret that when the average American hears the word "terrorism", he or she usually thinks of an act perpetrated by Muslims from the Middle East, rather than domestic acts committed by white Americans. Acknowledging this (and putting aside the question of what President Trump should or should not have said and when), when the media's descriptions of the groups commonly referred to as the "Alt Right" were aired, I couldn't help but notice the parallels between these entities and ISIS. And this begs the question: do the people who join such groups have similar motivations?
I then looked to see if there were any articles online anywhere that discussed the parallels between the Alt-Right and Isis. I found an article from May 18 in New York Magazine by Alice Marwick and Becca Lewis titled "The Online Radicalization We're Not Talking About." The article hits on the parallels between the Alt-Right and ISIS, including the similarity between the types of people the two groups most successfully recruit; namely: young men who are socially isolated and looking for answers.
The point was made abundantly clear on Saturday in Charlotesville when a man who fits this description used his vehicle to commit an ISIS-like attack on a group of people protesting, among other things, in disagreement with his racial ideology. In the coming weeks and months, we are likely to learn more about this individual and his level of isolation, and how and why he came to attach himself to the Alt-Right. (Marwick and Lewis)
The more we learn about this individual and other individuals who involve themselves in the Alt-Right, the parallels with ISIS are likely to become more and more apparent, if they are not already. However, this will raise many important questions about what to do and what not to do in combating these organizations Marwick and Lewis note that "given the similarities between far-right and Islamic radicalization, it’s worth examining the efforts by political scientists and counter-terrorism experts to combat the latter. They recommend staying away from heavy content moderation (which fuels accusations of censorship), and instead crafting and spreading messages that speak to young men’s alienation and disenfranchisement, without using scapegoats." (Marwick and Lewis)
Another important question to ask is the most effective narrative to use when attempting to counter the narrative of the Alt Right or ISIS. It is no secret that many counter-terrorism experts recommend downplaying the Islamic nature of ISIS and other similar groups in order to not dignify them. It is important that we ask how that method transfers to groups such as the Alt-Right. Many have observed that inflammatory rhetoric towards Muslims in the middle east only makes it easier for groups such as ISIS to recruit. It is also not difficult to find inflammatory rhetoric expressed towards those very demographics that the Alt-Right draws from.
It is important to gain a better understanding of how and if the Alt-Right recruits individuals to join their cause. The distinction between the Alt-Right and more established Hate Groups seems fluid at best. However, insomuch as there is a distinction between the two of them, it is important that it does not go unacknowledged, or else phenomena may get conflated which are distinctive. For example, several people have opined on the phenomenon of White Nationalists using Christianity to justify their acts, which supposedly draws a religious parallel with ISIS. While this may very well exist, it is less prominent with "white nationalist" type groups than it is with groups that are identified as "Christian Identity" groups.(splc.org) However, insomuch as there is a religious motivation behind some who embrace white nationalism, it is important that this narrative be countered.
http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/05/the-online-radicalization-were-not-talking-about.html
https://www.splcenter.org/issues/hate-and-extremism
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)