Assignment 4
RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION 258 I . erica 's church and state problem - and what we should do a
N 2005). O/;ided by God, Am bQ.i t Feldman, · IF""ar siraus and Giroux. nex1 door· City law vs. houses of worship New v
New York: ~· , 2016) The mosque . . d . I . •Ork r11t. L w (December 20, · d I t . Religion & pubflc e ucat,on n mul//cu/tura/ Am , <i Foderaro, . . B ,ween church an s a e. enc;, N•,
Fraser, J.W. (19991· e . , · York: SI. Martin's Press. . nderstandlng antl·Mus/lm sentrment rn the West. www.gallup.com/po1v1~
Gallup (2016). /s/arnophobla.i~ .antl•muslim•sentiment·West.aspx. . . , islamophobia•understand g (2004). Race, nation, and religion rn the Americas , OXford and N
Goldschmidt, H., and McAhster, E.A. !!II Y(II:
Oxford University Press. ) B th feeling threatened, American Muslims and Jews loin hand Goodstein, L. (December 6, 2016 . o s. Ne,
York Times. . Christian America: The myth of the rellglous founding. New Yori(· ,,_._ Green , SK (2015). /nventrng a . v'-"d
University Press. ffe b law New York: New York University Press. Haney Lopez, I. 11996l • W~ y n j E Hudson D L and Thomas, 0 . (2003). TheFirstAmendmenr ;,,~ Haynes, c .c ., Chal1ain, SAm., erg_:imenso i c,;;,er Alex~drl~ VA: AACD; Nashville, TN : First Amendment Cente
A /detromtheFirst env, . , . N Yi k O B r. gu F th/ kers· A history of American secularism. ew or : wl ooks, Holt and Comru~
Jacoby, S. ( 2004>· reffie ldnE c · (Eds.) (2009). The role of re/lg/on In 21st·cenrury public schools. N.;,·'::.1.
Jones, S.P., and She ,e , • · '"'
Jo:~'.~.~ 2~06). The raclallzation of religion In the United States. Equity and Excellence In Educafon, J9(JJ.
Klv!:,1~:o13). Living In the shadow of the cross: Understanding and resisting the power and PIM/eged Christian hegemony. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society.
Uchtblau, E. (November 15, 2016). Attacks against Muslim Americans fueled rise in hate crime, F.B.I. "fl. New York Times.
uua A. (October 19, 2016). Twiner' s antl·semitlsm problem . The New Yorker. Loe-.:en, J.W. (1995). Ues my reacher told me: Everything your America n history textbook got wrong. No,
Yorf<: New Press, distri buted by Norton . Long, C.N. (2000). Religious freedom and Ind/an rights: The case of Oregon v. Smith. Lawrence, KA Unive<!.ly
Press of Kansas. Mann, c.c . (2005) . 1491: New revelations of the Americas before Columbus, 1st edition . New Yorf<: KnoJj. Mai1<oe, L. (November 14, 2016). Jewish•Muslim alliance formed against anti·semitism, lslamophoblaRelgo,
News Service . http://rellgionnews.com/2016/ 11 /14/jewish-muslim•alliance-formed•agalnst•anti•seml.is'l> lslamophobla/.
Mendoza, S. (April 25, 2017). California's Muslims stand up for action against Trump's policies. "''" mlddleeasleye.neVnews/califomlas•muslims•stand•action•agalnst-1rumps•p□licies·2090326735.
Moore, D.L. (2007). Overcoming religlous 11/fferacy: A cultural studies approach to the study of ref/gi;, • secondary educaYon. New York: Palgrave.
Murrey, B.T. (2008). Religious liberty in America : The First Amendment in historical and contempin,r perspective. Amhers1, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.
Patel, E. (2007). Acts of faith: The struggle o/ an American Muslim, the struggle for the soul of a geneiall>t Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
::;el, E. 12012). Sacred ground: Plurallsm, prejudice, and the promise of America . Boston , MA: Beacon Press el, E., with Scorer, T. (2012) . Embracing Interfaith cooperation: Eboo Patel on coming togethertocha,1.Jl
P th
e world: A S•sesslon study. Denver, CO: Morehouse Education Res ources. o~k, M. (November 14, 2016). Antl·Muslim hate crimes surged last year fueled by hateful campaign.SPIC F 0~~~ Pove,iy Law Center. www.splcenter.org/2016/ 11 / 14/Antl•Mu;llm Hate Crimes Surged Last Yea\
Pro~:,: , S: ~:leful Campaign_ Sou1he'.n Poverty Law Center.him. . NC· U . I tt) (2006). Anaaonof re/lg1ons: The politics of plural/sm /n multirellglous Amenca. Cha()ei~
s· · nivers Y ot North Carolina Press ,ngh, J. (2003) The racial' r 1 · se<W' or whtte and Chris1lan rza ion° mlnorltized religious Identity: Constructing sacred sites at the Inter . and Pacfflc Amerl supremacy. In lwamura, J.N. and Spickard, P. (Eds.) Revealing the sacred In~
S1edman,c , 12012).F':,'~~~~~fOG. New.York: Routledge. Press Takaki, A. (1993),A different . wan alhe,st found common ground with the re//gious . Boston, MA: BeaCO'l . Tanenbaum Center 12012) ;irror: A history of multicultural America , Boston , MA: Little, Brown and eom;:
differences. By Adams · M e//grons rn my neighborhood: Teaching curiosity and respect about re;, ·~ winders1andlng. ' ., Bode, P. and Hardman, R. New York: Tanenbaum Center for lnterre 1g
lher, K. (November 17 201 S :li,ams, D.K. (2012) God' ). lslamophobla Is an American tradition HNN History News Nenvorll Pr!S'
ills, D.W. (2002). Christ' Slown party: The making of the Christian righ/ New York: Oxford University UI Unlvers'ity f ,an ry In the United s · Notre oarne, 0 Notre Dame Press. rates: A historical survey and Interpretation.
AMERICA'S CHANGING RELIGIOUS LANDSCAPE I 259
45 America's Changing Religious Landscape
Pew Research Center
Cl · tian share of the U.S. population is decl i n ing, wh ile the n um ber of U.S.
The ,rJS . h . cl 1· . . . d. I ho
d o n ot ide ntify w it any o r ganize re 1g1o n 1s growing, accor 1ng to a n adII ts w
· ,,ew su r vey by the Pew Research Center. M o reover, these changes are ta king ex1ens1ve . I . ·lace across the re ligious landscape,. affectin? a l r.e?1~ns of the. country and man y
pd aphic groups. While th e drop 1n C h nst1an a ffd1at10n 1s pam cu larly pronounced emogr . . among young adults, it is occurring am ong Ame n cans of all ages. The same trends ~re seen among wh ites, black s and Latinos ; among both college g raduat es a nd adults w ith onl)' a high school educat ion; a nd amo n g women as well as men. (Explor e th e data with ou r in teracti ve database tool.)
To be sure, the United States remains home to mor e Chr isti ans than any o ther country i n the world, and a la rge majority o f Ame r icans- roughl y seven -in-ten--<:ontin ue to id entify with some branch o f t he Ch r istian faith. But the major new sur vey of more than 35,000 Am ericans by the Pew Resear ch Center finds that the percentage of a du lts (ages 18 and older) who describe themsel ves as Chr isti ans has d rop ped by nea rl y eight percentage points in j11st seven years , from 78.4% in 2007 to 70.6% in 20 14. Over the same pe riod , the percentage of Am ericans who are re ligiously u naffiliated--<lescribing themselves a< atheist,
Changing U.S. Religious La ndscape
Between 2007 and 201 4, the Christian share of the population fell from 78.4% ro 70.6%, driven mainly by dee/mes among mainline Protestants and Catholics. The unaffiliated expenenced the mos/ growth, and the share of Americans who belong to nan-Christian faiths also increased.
26 Change
23·.:% ~< ::::% ~:aan;;,l~~:~~:o.'.~.~.~~'.... ~:: 20 8 Calhollc ...................... -3. t
18.1 16.1
14.7 Mainline Protestant........ -3.4
4 . 7 ~ 5.9 Non-Chrts~an fatths • +t.2
2007 2014
'nco<1es Jews M i "'rose shale rt.'trv,"' ms, Buddhists, Hindus, olhel wor1d rei gloos and Ol!l<f fai111s. Those woo ~d net ans•1" Illa relglous ~ question, as •!Ii as i,a,;,s
P0DUladoos did not change slgnnicantly, ncluding the NstoncaJy black Protesla11 lri~ . M0'11lons and 01ner5, are not shOY,11. Sou~e: 2014 Rellgi
ous l.an<lscape Study, conducted June 4-Sept. 30, 2014
'u
C
UGIOUS OPPRESSION . . 260 I RE ,. h . ,,ped more than six po ints, fro m 16.1 % to 22 8 · ' 1lar - as JU I ' . f . I I I . ' % . "nothi ng 111 part1c1 . . .. ith non-Chr1s1ia11 alt 1s a so 1as 111ched up .. ·
agnostic or . vho 1dent1,f w G I I b , rising d h
hare of Americans ' . 2007 to 5 9% in 20 14. rowt 1 1as een cspeciall An t cs . from 4 7% 1n · b Y grea1 I 2 percentage points, . . lb 't from a very low asc. · g Muslims and Hi ndus, a hei f ihc population has been driven mai nly b)' de 1. amon Ch ·stian s are o I 1. . c 1nes The drop in 1hc n ' d Catholics. Each of those arge re 1g1ous traditions h
among mainline Protes;a~\~r;; 1
percentage poi nts si nce 2007 . The evangelical Proiesia: shrunk by approximaie Y. I has dipped, but at a slower ra re, fa ll ing by about
f I U 5 population a so one share o t ,e · · . , point s111cc 2oo7. · · l' k I US I · percentage . b d 1. Ame rican Ch r1st1ans- 1 c t 1e . . popu ation as a whole-
E ihcir num ers cc me, N H ' . I . vcn as . . 11 , d ethnically diverse. on- 1span1c w 11tes now account f b mmg more rac1a ) an . . I C I 1. or are eco f 1. I Proiesrnnts mainline Protestants ant at 10 1cs than ihey did II r shares o evangc ica · ' I f II I · · sma e · 1 . I .
1 His panics have grown as a s 1arc o a t irce rchg1ous groun.
)•ears ear ier w 11 e I 1 · ( f . ,. sevc_n 1
. ' . ·t·cs now make up 4 1% of Cat 10 1cs up rom 35% 111 2007) 24% Racial and ct ,me mmo rt I f . 1· I' . '
' ' 1 .
11 , ts (up from 19%) and 14% o main 111e rotcstants (up from 9%)
of cvangc ica rotestan I , . . A \ . . I . . . rriagc also appea rs to be on t 1c rise. mong I mencans who hare
Re 1g1ous 1ntcrma . I I . . • d ·nee 2010 nea r! )' fou r-1 11-ten (39%) repo rt t mt t 1ey are in rcltgiousli· gotten marne s1 ,
Chrlsllans Decline 81 Share of U.S. Populallons; Other Fallhs and the Unafflllated Are Growing
2007 2014
"' "' Chrl1Uan 78.4 70.6
Proleslanl 51.3 46.5
Evan~ /ical 26.3 25.4 Alllnlme 18.1 14.7 H~IOl1Cdl~ /J/,ck 6.9 6.5
Catholic 23.9 20.8 Orthodox Chnstian 0.6 0.5 Mormoo 1.7 1.6 Jehovah'sWrtness 0.7 0.8 0th~ Chnsllan 0.3 0.4
Non,Chrl1Uan l1llhs 4.7 5.9 J"'1sh 1.7 1.9 Muslim 0.4 0.9 Bod"11~
0.7 0.7 Hindu
0th~ wood rdl~ons" 0.4 0.7
Oiherlailhs" <0.3 0.3
UnaHIU1led 1.2 1.5
Alheisl 16.1 22.8
AilroSlc 1.6 3.1
!lolling ~ P"11cular 2.4 4.0 Oon'lknowJrefuied 12.1 15.8
II.I DJ
-7.8 -48 --0.9 -J.4
-J..1
+1.2
+O.S
+03
+03 +I.I ti.I +1 .6 +37 -01
100.0 0 0 ·n.·ctwii,·,...,,, . 10. - • ~--~- d
011 ~s: blank cens Indicate lh;t the difference llelWeen 2007 and 2014 ~ wi!/ill Ill mYO' "Jl< •-..,,~, ... M, ' in,_.,.. N.. -, • • c~ ~ UdesSins •
· /.i, rei'Ou. Nath, """1cans ,.r,,~ Bal-a ~. Taos~. Jalns and a varieiy 0101/ler wo,~ religions. The 'olher fai1!1S' cate901'/ ~ Saict· 1014 Rdi!QJl ~ ' nd ' nwnber ol olher ron-CMS11an /ailhs. i'<lcno~~"'""- s~~-Olrl1Jctz<1Jure 4 s ........
·· - •· · 'Pl JO, 2014. Rgures may no1 add 10 1001 and nested figures may nol add 10 ...,...
AMERICA'S CHANGING RELIGIOUS LANDSCAPE I 261
. , compared with 19 % among t hose who got married before 1960. T he mixed marriages'. ge aJ>pears to be linked wi th the g rowth of the religiously unaffilia ted . . · re rn1ar n a . . .
rise tn 10 N, rly one-in-five peop le su rveyed who got marri ed since 20 IO are eithe r la11o n ca I · d Cl · · popu · ff' li'ated respon d ents w 10 ma rne a 1r1st1an spouse or Christians who
. • sly una 1 • . reltgiou ffiliate d spouse. By co ntrast, JUS t 5% of people who got married befo re marr ied an_ una .
60 f't thi s profile. . . . . 19 ~ y Us religio us groups a re ag111g, the unaffi liated are comparatively While man . . · A · · h f h ' hi ff·1·
I erring you nger, on average, over ti me. s a ristng co art o 1g y una 1 1- )'oung-:-lal nc ~als reaches adul thood, the median age of un affilia ted adults has dropp ed to
d Mt cn n1 ' . . ace d f 0111 38 in 2007 and far lower than the general (adu lt) population's median 36 own r f · 1 · I' d I · h · ' f 46 By contrast, the me d ian age o ma111 tne rotestant a u ts 111 t e new survey 1s age O f · n 50 in 2007) and t he median age of Cath oli c adul ts is 49 (u p fr om 45 seven 52 (up ror ' yea rs earlier). . . . .
Because the U.S. census d oes not_ ask Americans ~bout their rel1g1o n,_ there are no_ otfi- . I vernme nt statistics on the rel1g1ous composition of the U.S. publtc. Some Christta n
~ia g~inations and o ther religious bodies keep their own roll s, but they use widely dif- 1:::~g criteria fo r membership. T he Religious Landsca pe Studi es were designed to fill the gap ....
A NOTE ON DEFINI NG RELIGI OUS AFFILIATION AND THE STUDY'S TERMINOLOGY
In this study, respon dents' religious affiliation (also sometimes referred to as " religious indentity") is base d o n self reports. Catholics, for instance, are defi ned as all respondents who say they are Cat hol ics, regar dless of thei r specific belie fs and whether or not they at1end Mass regularl y.
The terms "unaffi liated" and " religious 'nones"' are used interchangeably throug hou t 1his report. This grou p includes self- ident ified atheists and agnostics as well as those who describe their rel igion as " nothing in particular."
The unaffiliated are gene ra ll y less re ligiously o bservant than people who id entify with rehgton. But not all religious " no nes" are nonbelieve rs. In fact, many people who are unaf- filiated w th 1· · b 1· · . . r a re 1g1o n e 1eve 111 God, pray at least occasionally and thin k of themselves ? spimual people. Forthco ming reports will describe the Re ligio us Landsca pe Stu dy's
111 ~ings abou t the re li gious beliefs and practices of "nones" and other groups. Flm more details o n the exac t q uestions used to measure rel igious iden tity see the survey
lop me. '
78~ 2r°r• there were 227 mi lli o n adu lts in the Uni ted States, and a little more tha n
the 0 ° t lel ni- o r ro ughl y 178 mi ll ion-ident ified as Christians. Between 2007 and 20 14, vera size of th U S d I I · · • 245 mill' · e · · a u t popu atlon grew by about 18 m11l10 n peo pl e, to nea rl y
or ap t~ n. Bu t the s ha re of ad u lts w ho ident ify as Christians fell to just under 71 % ' Proximately 173 ·11 · . ' subgrou . I . 1111 1011 Americans, a net decline of abo ut 5 mi lli on. Of the major
ps Wtt 1111 Ame ric C l · · · · 1· p · I · enced th . an 1r1st1an 1t y, matn 1ne ro testantism appears to ,ave expen - rnain li iieelfreateSt drop in absolute numbers. In 2007, there wer e an estimated 41 million
rotestant d I · h . a <lccline of 5
· . 1
. a u ts tn t e Unned States. As of 2014, there are rough ly 36 million, has remain d n;i hon. 13y cont rast, t he size of the historically black Protestant tradition i'rotesrantse rt~tively stable in recent years, at nearl y 16 million adults. And evangelical grown in ~b wl 11 c declining slightly as a percentage of the U.S. public, probably have
The ne·w so Ute n'.tmbers as the overall U.S. population has continued to expand. h surve>• incl ' J I · 1· I · · ave a total f b tca:e~ t 1at c rnrches tn the cvange 1ca Pro testant traditio n now
0 a out 62 mtllton ad ul t adher ents. That is an increase of roughly 2 million
a
L
EUGIOUS OPPRESSION . . 262 I A Ca tho lics appear to be d ecli ni ng both as
. 1· Protestants, . d ' a perce . 2007 Like main ine . b I t numbers. T he new survey 111 1cates there n1. since · . nd 1n a sou e hi 3 .11. f areabo
f ihe popularion a . h U 5 today roug y 111 1 10 11 ewe r than in 2007 u1 ageo 1 . d lts in 1 e · · ' f I And
5 1 million Catho ic a u b decreasing as a share o ti e U.S. pu blic f . '
who have een I b I . I or sel'er~ unlike Protestants, . h f tli e population ias ee n re an ve y stable over th I decades, the Catholics arbe
O f religiously unaffili ated ad ults has increased by e ong
h'le the num er o I 56 ·1 1· 1· roughly term. Mea nw 1 , Tl e now approximate y 1111 1011 re 1giously un ff'J• I. . ce 2007 iere ar II d 1· . " a I lated 19 mil 10n sin d. h' p-sometimes ca e re 1g1ous no nes"-is mor
I . h U 5 an t 1s grou 1. I e nurner adu ts int e · ·• h 1. r mai nl ine Protestants, accor, 111g to t 1c new survey I d •
h 'ther Cat o 1cs o 1• I 1 · n eed ous t an ei econd in size only to evange 1ca 'rotestants amon . ' the unaffiliated are now s g ma1or religious groups in t he U.S.
FACTORS BEHIND THE CHANGES IN AMERICANS' RELIGIOUS IDENTIFICATION
One of the most im portant factors in the declinin_g share of Christians and the gro111h of the "nones" is generational replacement. As d,e Millennial genera non enters ad ulthood, iu members display much lower levels of religious aff1hat1on, 111cluding less connection lliili Christian churches, than older generations .. ..
In addition, people in older generations are increasingly disavowing association 11;m organized religion. About a third of older Millennials (adults currentl y in their late llls and early 30s) now say they have no re ligion, up nin e percentage points among th~ cohort since 2007, when the same group was between ages 18 and 26. Nearly a quarter of Generation Xers now say they have no particu lar religion o r describe th emselves as atheiru or agnostics, up four points in seven years. Baby Boomers also have become slightl)· but noticeably more likely to identi fy as rel igious "nones" in recent years. . As the shifting religious profiles of these generational cohorts suggest, switching religion 1s a common occurrence in the United States. If all Protestan ts were treated as a single reli• g1ous group, t_hen fully 34% of American ad ults curre ntly have a religious identity differem from the one 111 wluch they were raised. If switching among the three Protestant tradirions (e.g., from_ mainline Protestantism to the evangelical tradi tio n, or from evangelicalism to a histoncally black Protestant denomination) is added to the ro ta!, then the share of Americans who curren tl y have a different reli gion than they did in ch il dhood rises tom,
Unaffiliated Make Up Growing Share Across Generallons
% ol each ieneraoon Chai Identifies CUITelll r~igion as ath~~. agnostic or nothing In particular
Sdent generation (b.1928-1945) BabyBoomm (b. 1948-1964) Generalion X lb 1965-1980) Ode!!illerv;aJs (b.19Bi-1989) You/lierMllenriaJs (b. l990-igg6)
2007
14 19 25 rva
2014 Cbar.~t
11 +1
17 ;J
23 11
34 +9
36 n'l
By a wide mar · · . switch' gin, reltgious " n " h r . Ul
I' . ing than any other ones ave experienced larger gains through re igw reh1g1ou_s faith and now id grofyup. _Nearl y one-in-five U.S. adults ( 18%) were raised in J or er dire · enu w1th 1 · . d · 1b1
Ctlon: 9% of Am . no re 1g1on. Some switch ing also has occurre lfl_ encan ad ult h ffi l' uo~ s say t ey were raised with no religious a 113
... AMERICA'S CHANGING RELIGIOUS LANDSCAPE I 263
I If f them (4.3 % of all U.S. adults) now identify with so me religion. Bu t for and alrn°st ,a I
0 0
has J'oined a religion after having been raised unaffiliated, there are more Person w
1 1 · · " " ft h · b el'er)' I who have become re 1g1ous nones a er aving een ra ised in some fou r peo p e · f · h h f h ff' · · 1han h' 1.4 rati o is a n 1m po rranr acto r 1n t e growt o t e una 1hated population .
I . . n T is . . . I d re '.~1~ Other h igh ligh ts in t his r eport inc u e:
Ch ·srian share of the popu lat ion is declining and the religiously una ffilia ted share • Therowr~g in all four major geograph ic r_e gion s of the country. Religious "nones" now
is g . te 19% o f the adult popu lanon 111 the South (up from 13% in 2007), 22% of cons ti tu · f I 6 01. ) 25 n1. f h I · ·
l lati o n in the Mid west (up ro m ro , ,o o t e popu anon 1n the Northeast
the popt . . h f rn I 6% ) and 28 % o f the populanon 1n t e West (up from 2 1 %). In the West, the
(ulp _roisly una f,filiat ed a re mo re numerous than Catho lics (23%), evangel icals (22%) re 1g1ot
d every other religious g roup. ~;hires continue to be more likely than both blacks and H ispanics to identi fy as re li -
• giously unaffiliated; 24% of whites say they have no religion, compared w ith 20% of Hispanics an d 18% of blacks. . . . . . .
• The percentage of college graduates who 1dennfy wnh Chnst1a111ry has declined by nine percentage points since 2007 (from 73 % to 64%). Religious "nones" now con- stitute 24% o f all college g raduates (up from 17%) and 22% of those w ith less than a college degree (up from 16%) .
• More than a quarter of m en (27%) now describe themse lves as religiously unaffi liated, up from 20% in 2007. Nearly one-in-five women (19 %) now descri be themselves as religiously un affi liated, up from 13% in 2007 ....
• As the ra nks of th e religiously unaffiliated continue to grow, they also d escribe them- selves in increasingly secular terms. In 2007, 25 % of the " nones" called themse lves atheists or agnostics; 39% identified their rel igion as "nothing in particular" and also said that religion is "not too " or "not at al l" important in their lives; and 36% identi- fied their religion as "nothing in particular " wh ile neverthe less saying that rel igi on is either "very impo rtant" or "somewhat important" in thei r lives. The new survey fin ds that th:, athe~st a~d agnostic s,~are of the '.'~ones" _has grown 10 31 % . Those identify- ing as nothing 1n particular and describing religion as u111mportant in their lives conc_mue ~? ac~ounr for 39% of al l "nones." But the share identify ing as " nothing in pamcular while also aff1 rmmg that religio n is either "very" o r "somewhat" important to them has fallen to 30 % of all " nones."
' Wh ile the mainline Protestant shar e of the population is significantl y sm all er today than 11
was 111 2007, th e evangelical Protestant share o f the population has remained com- pAaranvely Slab le (ticking downward sl ightly from 26.3% to 25 .4% of the population)
s a res ult evangel' J • I . . · In
2007 ' ica s now co nstitute a c ear ma1omy (55 % ) of al l U.S. Protestants.
• Th h 'roughly half o f Proresranrs (51 %) id entified w ith evangel ical churches .. . . froe s
4 a 7 r~1. o_f th e public identifyi ng wirh religions other than Christian ity has grown
m · " 0 111 JOO? to 5 9% · JOJ4 G · (who - · m - . a1ns were most pronounced among M t1slims accounted for O 49{ f d . h ..
0.9% in JO : 0 0 res pon ems 111 t e 2007 Re l1g1ous Landscape Srudy and Rough! - ! ~) and Hindus (0.4% in 2007 vs. 0.7% in 2014). and t\voy ohned-in-seven participants in the new survey (15%) were born outside the U.S.
-t 1r s of I · · . . . . ' than one-i . t iose immigrants are Chnsnans, includtng 39% who are Catholic. More Hindus a ndten immigrants identi fy with a non-Christian faith, such as Islam or H induism. 77% of~- J"ws continue to be rhe most h igh ly educared religious trad itions. Fully U.S. adult;~ ~~ are college graduates, as are 59% of Jews (compared with 27% of all Jews and 36% 0~se groups also have above-av_ernge househo ld incomes. Fully 44% of with 19% f h Hindus say their annual family income exceeds S 100,000, compared 0 t e public overall . . ..
•
0 0 C)
I
264 I RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION
Notes
. f mat·,on on religion and the US. Census, see Appendix 3 in the 2007 Religious L 1 For more ,nor • andsc., St d 'A Bnef History of Religion and the U.S. Census. . Pe
u y, t le that there were 227 million adults In the U.S. in 2007 comes from the U.S. Censu B 2 The es ,ma • th t th s urea ,
46
National Intercensal Es11mates (2000--2010). The estimate a ere were nearly 245 m1lhon adults ,n us US . 2014 comes from Pew Research Center extrap olations of the U.S. Census Bureau's est ~e . ,n . ,mates ~ the monthly postcensal resident population.
Examples of Christian Privilege
Sam Killermann
Fo llowing is a list of privileges gra nted to peo pl e in the U.S . (and many western nations) for being Christian. If you identi fy as Christi an, there's a good chance you've never thought about these things.
I. You can expect to have ti me off work to celebrate r eligio us holidays. 2. Music and television programs pertaining to your religion's holidays are readily acc~ible. 3. It is easy to fi nd stores th at carry items that enabl e you to practice yo ur faith and
celebrate religious holidays.
4. You aren't pressured to celebrate ho lidays fro m another fa ith that may conflict 11ith your religious values.
5. Holidays celebrating your faith are so widely suppo rted you can often fo rget th~· are limited to your faith (e.g. wish someone a "Merry Christmas" o r "Happy Easter' without considering their faith).
6. You can worship freely, without fear of violence o r threats. 7. A bumper sticker supporting your religion won't likely lead to your car being vandalized. 8. You can practice you r religious custo ms without being questioned, mocked, or in_hibued. 9, If you are being tried in court, you can assume that the jury of "your peers" will share
your faith and not hold that against you in weighing decisions. . . IO. When swearing an oath, you will place your hand on a religious scripture perraimng to your faith.
l 1. Positive references to your faith are seen dozens a time a day by everyone, regardless of their faith. 12
· Politic!ans responsible for your governance are probably members of your faiih: 13 · Pohtictans can make decisi ons citing your faith withou t being labeled as herencs or extremists.
14. It is easy for you t f' d f . h . . I · · movies bookl. 0 in yo ur a1t accurately depicted m te ev1s1on, ' and other media.
15. You can reason bl h . d r underscaocl· · f a Y assume t at anyone yo u encounter will have a ecen Ing O your beliefs
l6. You can travel t · · · · . . ·11 be accepted, saf d .
0 any part of the country and know your r eligion WI
y0~' afn· hyou will have access to religious spaces to practice you r fai th. ct (e.g, 17
· r aa can be a f d fi · ng aspe peo I n aspect o your identity without being a e m p e won't
th ink of you as their "Christian" friend).
CHRISTIANITY IN PUBLIC SCHOOLING AND IN THE LA RGER SOCIETY
y,ou can be poli te, gentle, or peace ful, and not be considered an "e • ,, h I 8. . xcepuon to r ose practicing you r faith. . .
Fund raising to support congregattons of your fa1rh will nor be in vesrigated _ 19. . . b h . as poten tia ll y threatening or terro rist e _av1or. . 0 Constru ction of spaces of wo rship will nor likely be haired due to you r faith. 2
· Yo u are never asked to speak on behalf of all the members of your fai th .... ;~: Without specia l effort, your child re n will have a multitude of teachers who share your
fait h. 23. With ou t special effort, your children will have a multitude of fri ends who share your
faith. 24. Disclosing your faith to an adoption agency wi ll not likely prevenr you from being
able ro adopt children.
zs. In the event of a divorce, the judge won't immedi ately grant custody of your children to you r ex because of your faith ....
26. You can complain about your religion being unde r attack wirhour it being perceived as an attack on another religion.
27. You can dismiss the idea that identifying with yo ur faith bears certai n privileges.
47
Christian Privilege and the Promotion of "Secular" and Not-So "Secular" Mainline Christianity in Public Schooling and in the Larger Society
Warren J. Blumenfeld
THE "FACES " OF (RELIGIOUS] OPPRESSION
Many oven for ms o f oppression are obvious when a dominant religious group ty rann_izes a subordinated group as in the mass slaughter of Jews and other stigmatized mmo_m_1es i N · ' . • d M t· s du ri ng the Chnsnan n azi Germany and the merciless k1 llmg of Jews an us Im . "C d " ' • rent especially to mem· rusa es. Other forms of religious oppression are not as appa ' I/ . bers f d · . . . II I refers to strucru ra systemic
0 om1nant groups. Oppression m its fu est sense a so . " .
1 co · . • 1 <l ocracies and [1 ts causes nS t ra
1 nts imposed on groups even within const1tut1 ona em ' . d I ·
are b dd . . d b I · the assumptions un er ymg . em e ed in unquestioned norms, habits, an sym O s, '.n h I " Young places in
st itutional rules and the collective consequences of followmg t ose ru es. "f ces" of
th f fi hing categories or a ese 0
rms of o ppression and privilege under ive overarc_ . d · le ce The fol- Power1 . . . . . I I imperialism, an v10 n · . I . essness, expl01tanon, margmahzat1on, cu tura t of Christian privilege owing sections adapt Young's taxonomy to investigate the c~nc~~ I me] a nd
religious oppression in the United States [see selection 7 10 1 is vo u ·
265
)
\.
<
266 I RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION
POWERLESSNESS
. d have less access ro social power than members of dominant Subordinate groups ff I f . . groupq . h d ·s·on-making processes that a ect t 1e course o thei r lives or th o engage 111 t e ec1 1 . d I I at nan, h f the.,r existence "[T]he powerless arc situate so t lat t icy must take
O
d e t e terms o · I d ., ' r ers aod I h the right to give them . . . and they rare)' comman respect [sec select' rare y ave ion 7 in this volumeJ. . .
Historical (ot11tdatio11s of rcligio11s _powerless11ess III the colo111al_ period. The spiritual beliefs and identity that were foundanonal to the Nattve peoples ong1nall y inhabitin lh ,·ast territori es now known as the United States were violently confronted with theadg·
1 · · N I \ . Tl l' 'I . f ieni of Christian European expans10111sm to . Ort 1 f men ca. 1e I gn ~ls, or example, who l1n
England for Massachusetts in 1620 behev 1 e 1 d .,rhat thly \~ere a d~vmely '~hhosen people, and
soon established "a bib lical commo nwea t 1 cons, . ere superio r to eathen,""infidei' Native peoples. Massachusetts Puritans crafted their own form of Ch ri stianity in which "the church and the state were ro support and protect each other."
Over the decades after the Puritans first landed on the shores of North America, other Christian, primarily Protestant "settlers''. from Europe included Presbyterians, Method~15, Lutherans, Dutch Reformed, Congregattonahst Puritans, and Bapnsts. In their attemp~
10 assure religious freedom for themselves, under the leadership of William Penn, Quak 1 ~
founded the colony of Pennsylvania, and Roman Catholics founded Mary land in the 1640s. In the following decades, however, Protestants established political power in Maryland,and in 1704, Protestant legislators passed anti -Catholic legislation unequivocall y titled "An Aci to Prevent the Growth of Papery within T his Province" banishing Jesuits from the tmi10~:
The pattern of Protestant domination and powerless subordinated religious group; continued from the colonial period throughou t U.S. h isto ry. As recently as the middle- 20th century, shortly after the U.S.'s entry into Wo rld War 11, the government, in a mass re location effort, interned over l l 2,OOO Japanese Americnns, many of them lluddhis1, in concenrration camps located far from their homes. Many of t hese incarcerated Japanese were U.S. citizens, born and living in this country for years. Officials used governmenr policy to confiscate the homes, stores, and other property of the pol itica lly powerless Japanese Buddhists and to suspend their rights.
EXPLOITATION
Young views the "face" of exploitation as "a steady process of the transfer of the resul 11
ol the labo_r of one social group to benefit ano ther" ....
Relrgrous i 11 stificatio11s (or exploitation. In colonial America, as private farms grew lari;1t
f nd
farmers needed more cheap laborers to cultivate the land and tend the crops, man)' whiie . a
n
downers turned increasingly to the slave trade for their labor. Race and religion wm lnternvmed as jusrifications for slavery in the Americas where " heathen " black Africans
11 ' 1 ' 1 stolen from their h I d d h · 1· s Thcf
.
0
me an s an forced into slavery for the remainder of t e,r ive · were earned by sla h · . , f God '1h1 "A I" h " . ve s
1 PS, some of which were named the "Jesus," the' Grace
O 'h
1 nge,
1 e Llber"-•" and th "J · " • • • · · board to
1 P
av h .,, e usnce, many wah Chnsuan m1msters on , ersee t e Passage I f p . f sbverJ, C n· b · n act, rotestam church es o ffered scriptural justificauons or · boli·
0 n,ucts etween b'bl' I · • . . for a
lion split p I
ica Jusuf1cat1ons for slavery and biblical arguments d ,·n many rotestant · . 1· I ing ro
the 1840s congreganons. The issue of slavery became a 1g Hn 311
among members f Th B • . · · a sep;t! Southern Baptist C
O e apttst General Convention, to organize
13111
,
the Southern Ba . onCvention on a pro-slavery plank. One-hundred and fifty ~earsppo~ Ptlst onventi ff' · ll . • f r 11s su
a_nd collusion With the . . on ° 1c1a y apologized to African Ameri cans . 0
. of cii~ rights initiatives of h 1'n9S
t itutton of slavery, and also apologized for its reiecnon
t e 5Os and 196Os,
CHRISTIANITY IN PUBLIC SCHOOLING AND IN THE LARGER SOCIETY I 267
The expansion of the republic and movement west was _in part justified by "Manifest . "· the belief thar God intended the U.S. to extend its holdings and power ac o•s Destmy . . . d ' 'b f ' . ' r ~ h l
\ merica over nanve ln 1an tn es ram east to west. The doctrine of "Manifest Nort d An I S . . "Th ' . " Destiny" also assume . go- axon supenorn y. ,_s cont1nem, a congressman declared, "was intended by Providence as a vast theatre on which to work om the grand experiment f 'R ublican government, under the auspices of the Anglo-Saxon race." 0
ep f I bi ' . h . . . During the ear ly years o t 1e new repu 1c, '.v1t its mcreasmg popu lation and desire
for land, political leaders: such as George Wash111gton and Thom_as Jefferson, advocated rhat Indian lands be obtamed through treanes and purchase. Pres1d~n_t Jefferson in 1803
t a letter ro then Tennessee pohncal leader, Andrew Jackson, adv1s1ng him to convince wro e ,, h
1 dians to sell their "use less fores ts rot e U.S. govern ment and become fa rmers. Jefferson
;d other government leaders o~edooke~ t_hc fact that this sty_le of individualized far ming was contrary to Indian commu111tanan sp1nrual/cu ltural tradll!ons.
MARGINALIZATION
Margi nal ization is the "face" of oppression whereby entire categories of people-in the following examples, non-Protestant Ch ristians-are restricted from meaningful involve- ment in the soci al li fe of the community and nation, and th us subjected to acu te economic deprivation and even annihilation. Young defines marginals as "people the system of labor cannot or will not use" [see selection 7 in th is vo lume].
Margi11alizatio11 i11 the schools and society. The media constitute a major societal and institutional means of transmitting religious norms and beliefs, while maintaining the marginalization o f the "other." Beaman describes the marginalization of new religious movements, "cults," Muslims, and indigenous Native peoples (2003, 315):
New religious movements attract media attention for apocalyptic views and actions, and remain "cults" in public discourse . Muslims are the subject of biased media re pons that seem to result in attacks on mosques and anti-Muslim sentiment. Aboriginals, for whom daily li fe and the physical wo rld are inseparable from spirin,ality, are con- structed as " problematic" because of their demands for equality and restitution.
Schools are another instit utional means by which social no rms are maintained and reproduced. Norms of C hristian privilege and marginalization of members of other faith communitie s and non-believers in the schools are conveyed by curri cular ma- te'.ia\s (curricula r hegemony), which focus upon heroes, holidays, traditions, accom- phshments, and importance of a European-heritage, Chri stian experience_. Students who are Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Jewish, and of other faiths, and non-bchevers, fo r example, see few, if any, peop le who look like them , who believe as they bel_ievc, or who adher e to the cultura l expressions that they adhere ro introduced a
nd discussed
in their classroom lessons. . . .
In_ addition, the school calendar is organized to meet the needs of ChnSnan fanh c~i":; munities, while marginalizing others Examples include Jewish students who are compe e to ' . . .. · f h · "High Holy Days" request an excuse from school to attend rehg1ous services or t e,r . . on a
nd between Rosh Hashanah and Yorn Kippur, which usually fall during th\b~g~nmng
of th
e academic )'ear. In addition Jehovah's Witnesses, who do not celebrate
6
° 1 ays- re\ig· ' . . b d from the o servance ious or o therwise-must also seek perm1ss1on to e excuse . . f
of h~lid~ys in school. Uehovah's Witnesses, wh ile a Christian deno~~t~:~n a;;iv~I:;~ marginalized Within Christianity, and not accorded the same degree ? . n as members of other so-called "mainstream" Christian fa, th commumties.)
268 I RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION
I. d ts facu lt)• and staff often are not accorded the opponunity to h Mus 1m stu en , • / ( ) • I ave a"(
ampus to perform the sa at prayer, as rcqu1rec by the Fiv P"ll .. , prayer space on c Id h. h I I · · • e I ars f I A • oint involved a 17-year-o 1g sc 100 Jllntor 1n Ohio who b o Is am. case m P . . I I Was arr d
by school administrators from praying 111 an empty c assroon1 at unch and before a e ft I S hours T hough a 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case ruled unconstinit"
1 nd
a er c as · bl . 1 1 b · 1ona an d I ry Pra)•ers or Bible readings at pu 1c sc 100 s, su sequent ru linos de I d Y manao I
1 .. • "' care ih
constitutionality of many fo rms of persona re 1g_1ous exp ression on school calllpuses
I
e chis case the Council on American-lslam1c Relanons (CA IR) stepped in on the sn d · ~
' I d. · · 1· 1 en11 behalf, and convinced the schoo 1smc1 to reverse its po icy.
CULTURAL IMPERIALISM
Young states chat " lc]ultural imperialism involves the universalizacion of a dom· I d . bl" h h " inan1 group's experiences and cu ture, an 11s esca IS ment a t e norm [see selectio n 7 in ihis
volume].
Christia11 c11lt11ral imperialism a11d privilege. The manifestatio ns o f Christian priv"I . . . - 1. as cultural imperialism are numerous. First, the federal and school calenda rs arc schedulld around Christian holidays and celebrations. In fact, the Christian holiday of Christma1 has been declared a 11atio11al holidar in which most businesses and government offices au closed and services suspended.
Society marks time through a Christian lens. Even the language we use in reference 10
the mainstream calendar reflects Christian assumptions. Not long ago we heard and read of the coming of the "21st Century," and the dawning of "The new millennium." Let us nor forge~ however, that the year 2000 is calculated with reference to the birth of Jesus, and it is, 1her~ fo re, the beginn ing of the next Christia11 millennium. In fact, the dictionary definition of "millennium" notes "the thousand rears mentioned in Revelation 20 during which holinei.; is to prevail and Christ is to reign on earth." This fact is apparent when someone mentions the dare followed b)• "in the yea r of our Lord, Jesus Christ." The century markers e.c. (before Christ) and A.D. (a11110 D0111i11i) are clearly Christian in origin. Therefore, the year 2000 ~ 011e important milepost, though, for many religious traditions, it also marks a heiglmmng of their invisibility. Even recent attempts to decenter Christian hegemonr in the marking of time b)' replacing B.c. with B. C.E. (before the common era) and A.D. with C.E. (common era), do not in aetualit)• affect the marking of time before and after a "common" (Christian) er~
. The worb~e~k is structured to allow Christians the opporrunit)' to worship on Su_ndJ)l without conf11cring wnh their Monday to Frida)' work schedules. For most of our h1Srorr, st
ace and local "Blue Laws" restrict sales, business operations, recreational acriviries, aod gover.nmemal services on Sundal', the Sabbath for most Christi an denominations. "Blue Laws date back to colonial times when Sunday church attendance was mandatory. In 18
~ 6 • a_Jewish man named Abraham Wolf was convicted in Pen nsylva nia of the "crime'
of having _ done and performed worldly employment o n the Lord's day" (Sunday). He appealed hrs sentence but lost
In the schools child ·h · . k esponsi· bT ' ren or t err parents or caretakers of other fai ths must ta er . 1
~ty ;a r~qu~st accommodations from school officials either to be excused from ongo;"g ~
00 act1vines or to be absent to practice their religious traditions. For example, a Mus im
emencary school stud · I h h ol hbrarJ or 10 . . h ent
1 n centra Iowa requested permission to attend t e sc O • holf remain in er classroom i h d • . · I Mushm
month of Ra d . . or t e uranon of her lunch period during t 1e' hool ma an in which it h • • r The SC ' however had . was er pracnce to fast from sunrise to sunse · f
111
~ ' a
1 vn1tl!II policr d · h · the ca e during their lu h b k man anng t at students must be present 111 Olhet
of the student nee _rea ds.hAfter repeated discussions with the school principal, tdhe ~ g rhe onvince im to all h d h I ce unn monch of Ram d h. ow er aug ter to go to an a ternate spa 3
an IV tie th
e 5rudent's classmates were at lunch.
CHRISTIANllY IN PUBLIC SCHOOLING AND IN ~E LARGER SOCIETY I 269
0 her examples of Christian cu ltural imperialism are numerous· th . t . I Ch . b d" . . . e promonon
of music, especial y nstmas, )' ra 10 sta11ons, and . Ch ristmas specials played on TV throughout November and December each year; Christmas decorations (often hung ac taxpayer expense) . in_ the
1 pu
1 _bdlic sdquare t_hroughou'. the United Stare ; and the widespread
ai•ailability of C,hmnan 10 1 ay ecorat10ns, greenng cards, food, and other items during Ch •stian (and Easter) holiday easons.
;~rther examples of Christian cultural im perialism include the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance or " In God We Trust" _on U.S. cu rrency and A
1111 11 it Coeptis (He
!God] (or Providence) has favo red our undert~kmgs) on the G'.eat Seal of the United States and printed on the back of the one-dolla r bill, or the teaching of "lntelligem Design." The phrase "unde r God" was added to the school Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 dtirmg the Cold War in reaction to what many saw as a godless Soviet Union attemptmg to impose its economic and political system throughout the world. The phrase "In God We Trust" was added to U.S. coins during the American Civil War b)' Abraham Lincoln, and
10 paper
currency in the 1950s du ring the Cold War.
Dewlt11ralizatio11 a11d schoo/i11g of native peoples. In an attempt to add furt her dimen- sions and elaborations of Young's concept of cultu ral impe rialism, I employ Spring's dis- cussions of "cultural genocide" ddined as "the attempt to destroy other cultures" through forced acquiescence and assimilation to majority rule and Christian cultura l and religious standards. This cultural genocide wor ks through the process of "deculn1ralization," which Joel Spring (2004) describes as an educational process chat destroys a people's culture and replaces it wi th a new culture.
An example of "culn1ral genocide" and "deculturalization" can be seen in the case of Christian European American domination over Native American Indians, whom European Americans viewed as "uncivilized,""godless heathens,""barbanans," and "devil worshipers."
White Ch ristian European Americans deculturalized indigenous peoples through many 111eans: confiscation of land, forced relocJrion, undermining of their languages, cultures, and identities, forced conversion to Christianity, and forced removal of Native children to Christian day schools and off-reservation boarding schools fa r away from their people.
The fi rst of many off-reservation Indian boarding schools was established in Carlisle, Pennsylvania in 1879 and run primarily by white Christian teachers, administered by Richard Pratt, a former cavalry commander in the Indian Territories. Ac the school, Indian children we re stripped of their culture: the males' hair was cur short, they were forced co wear Western-style clothing, they were prohibited from conver ing in their native languages and English was com- pulsory, all their culn1ral and spiritual symbols were destroyed, and Christianity was imposed.
"Civilizing" Indians became a euphemism for Christian conversion_ Christian mis- sionaries throughout the United States worked vigorously co convert Indians. A mid-I 9•h century missionary wroce : "As tribes and natio nals the Indians must perish and live only as men, [and should] fall in with Christian civilization chat is destined to cover the earth."
VIOLENCE
~ number of groups live with the constant fear of random and un provoked S~Scematic " 1 ?lence directed against them simply on account of their social identities. T~e mcent of
thhis Xenophobic (fear and hatred of anyone or anything seeming "foreign") violence is to arm hum ·1· d • .
1 iate, an destroy the "other." h
P. Duri ng colonial times religious dissension was violently repressed. For examp~e,_ 1 e ilgrirns" d ' . • h h d banished Quaker m1ss10n-. Warne Out of town" a Sephard ic Jew1s mere ant, an I
arie~. later, as Q uakers kept coming the Puritans enacted harsher penalties, for cbxamp e, cutting ff h • ' I h h their tongues Then ecween 1 ° t err ears, or using hot irons to bore ho est roug ·
6S9 to 1661 p • h II ws on Boston Common. , urirans executed four Quakers on c e ga o
270 RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION . .
. I Violence against Mu sh ms, Sikhs, Hindus d I ( /1g1011s v,o ence. 00 Tl , an Je~ Recent examp cs O re e Seprember 11 , 2 1. 1e Council on i\ . 1 h United Stares sine . I I h 111enc,
has escalated in I e Am an Musl un civil am rnm an rig ts organi1.arion . h n I • (CAlR) an enc . I . . , in I e1, Islamic Re anons ' 1 f 1 522 civil rights v10 at1 ons against An1e ncan M I I r lisred a rota o , . 1 us lllJs 2005 annua repor h rimes This was a 49% increase in total inciden f '
h. h vtolenr are c · rs rom I I 4 of w re were eluded incidents of vio lence, as well as harassrn . , before The report in ent and 1usr one l ear · I ding "unreasonable arrests, detent1ons, searches/s d · ry rrearmenr, me u I e1zures, 1scnmmaro ,, Th CAIR eport included an incident 111 w 11ch a Musli m woman we and derennons. e y :'uslim women wear in p ublic) was taking her baby for aannlgk a In ·ab (the garment man '"' I wa . I d driving a rruck nearly ran them over. T 1c woman cried our th in a stroller, an a man d d "I Id ' I b a1,
I k II d my baby I " and rhe man respon e , r wou n t iave een a big los , "You a most I e ., . I · · s. N I ar[er of all reported civ il nghrs v10 at1011s aga111st American Musi ear y one-qu 1ms
• 1 arranted arrests and searches. Law enforcement agencies routinely "profiil. invo ve unw . . . . . . . e Muslims of apparent Middle Eastern henrage in _airports o r simply whde driving in their
f r interrogation and invasive and aggressive searches. In addmon, govern ment~ ca rs o · d ' ·d I , I agencies, such as rhe IRS and FBI, continue to _enter in 1v1 ua s_ 1omes and mosques and make unreasonable arrests and detentions. Ant1-Muslim hate crimes also occur on college and university campuses ac ross rhe United States.
Sikhs have been the targets of increasing numbers o f hare crimes as well. Since 2002, rhe Sikh Coalition organization listed 62 hare crimes d irected against Sikh citizens of rhe United States. Many of the attacks committed against Sikhs are classi fied under the category of "perso nal attacks" or assaults as well as vanda lism and arson. One incidenr involved a Sikh srudent at the Un iversiry of North Carolin a who was assaulted by three local teenagers. National attention focuse d on the severe bearing of Rajinder Singh Shalla in New York Ciry, and the fa tal shooting of Sikh gas station owner Balbir Singh Sodhi in Mesa, Arizona. Ir is widely assumed rhar Sikhs are rargered because they wear turban~ which the public imagination equates with terrorism.
Hindus have li kewise been targeted . In June 2003, for example, Saurabh Bhalerao, a 24-year-old Indian graduate srudent srud yi ng in Massachuserrs, was robbed, burned 11irh cigarettes, beaten, sruffed in a truck, and twice stabbed befor e h is assailants dumped him along rhe road. The attackers allegedly misidentifi ed thi s H indu snident for a Muslim because during rhe assault, the perpetrators yelled at him, "Go back ro Iraq."
Each Y_ear the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish social advocacy organization, doru· ments mctdents of anti-Jewish hare crimes. They repo rted over 1 5 00 such incidents in 2004 alone, incl uding verbal and physical assa ult, harassment vanda i'ism pro perry damage, and other acts of hare Tl1es · I d d h b · f ' ' · · d h . . · e me u e t e ur mng o a Holocaust museum 1n Indiana, an I e spray•paint1ng of swastikas and epithets on the walls and driveway of a Jewish communicy· center near Phoenix A ·. Th' I • . S 1• U . . . , n zona. 1s atter 111 c1dent occurred on my campus, Iowa ra. n1 ve rs1ry 111 2005 Am h ' k · M 1·
• . ' . · ong r e swast1 as, t he vanda ls also sp ray-painted ann- us im, racist, misogynist, and homophobic epithets.
"MULTI-FACETED" PRIV !LEGE AND OPPRESSION: IMMIGRATION BATJU.5
The history of the 19th d interactions a v -century anti-immigration battles illustrates rhe intersections an
mong ,oung's f f f · I' non culrural imperialism d . I ive aces o powerlessness, exploitati on, margtna 113 . h'
b d. , an v10 ence by h' I C h • • .. · red w11 SU or 1nared racial( ' d) ' w ic 1 non- n stian religious status mrerac .. I . ize status Th h h · an1'lll exc us1onisr movem . · roug our r e 19th and into rhe 20th centuries, n
anr· · · entsga1nedmome n · h' .. " f rs roan 1 · 1 mm1granr ideolo b 11 1m Wit 111 the United Srates. "Nat1v1st re e .
1 ,
against non-Proresrantgys yhU.S.-born, European-heritage Protestants, directed especial) H1nd M . sue as Irali I · h . J ;\s1an
us, ushms Si'kh d an or ns Catholics Eastern European ews, . '
5 , an Buddh' I ' rhn1c
ists. 11 some cases, non-white, non-Protestant e
1111 RACING REUGION J 271
. . ups were socially cons/met ed as lower "racia l" forms by the mainline d hg1ous gro · ' f' · f I · I · · · · · an re strucmre as a JUStl \Cation or exc us10n, exp 01tat1on, marg111ahzat1on,
protesta nt powel~ m and vio lence. Subsequently, rel igion was itself " racialized." I al 1mperia is ' · M 1· S'kh d ll ddh ' · · cu wr " • · t" curr ents aga inst Asian 1 us 1111, 1 , an u 1st 1mm1grants led S ng nat1v1s . . . tro_ d S Congress to ba r C hinese 1mm1gran ts 111 1882, and also made it illegal
rhe Un_n e ratesarry white or black Ame ricans. T he exclusionist sentiment regarding the Ch inese to m, · c..l b h d ' f ·
for _ h Id b many U.S. ci tizens was su mmarize y t e e 1tor o the newspaper 111 Chi nese e ~ "Th e Chinaman 's life is not our life, his religion is not our religion . . .. He Butte, Montan~ rte" The Immigration Act of 19 17 further proh ibited immigration from belongs not m ~ro~ the "barred zone," including parts of China, India, Siam, Burma, Asian counm es f f h ·
. . 1, ·an Polynesian Isla nds, and parts o Ag arnsran. A<1at1c ,us
51 ' · · f I · d · 1924 · h h N . I O .. • " "st" anri-im1rngrat1on ever cu m1nate 111 Wit r e auona ngms
~ =~ . . . I · h et restrictive quotas of 1m m1grants from Eastem and Southem Europe, that 1s,
Act! '1v,i,c ~atholics and J ews (the latter refer red to as members of the so-called "Hebrew matn l on I 11 · f · . f G B . . d race"). The law, however, permitted arge a ocanons o tmmtgrants rom . : ear . ma,'.n an G in o rder to "protect ou r values ... [as] a \'Vestern Chnst1an c1v1'1zat1on. Jews
ermany · · d · bl b h 19 h . . f' were considered racial as well as reltg1ous ~n _es1ra es y _r e . r century ~c1enu 1c com- mun ity as a lower " racial" type, with essennal immutable b1olog,cal cha racre nsr1cs-~ trend hat increased marked ly into the ea rl y 20th century C.E. Once seen as la rgely a rehg1ous,
: rhn ic or political group, Jews were viewed by "nativists," who valued Am erican racial and religi;u s " purity," as a "mixed race" (a so-called "mongrel " or "bastard race "), a people who had crossed racial barriers by interbreeding wi th black Africans du ring the Jewish Diaspora.
These restrictions o n immigration based on "national o rigins" were not lifted unti l The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. This legislation resulted in dramatic increases in im migration from both Asian and Latin American countries of many religious backgrounds including Islamic, H ind u, Buddhist, Jain, Sikh, Zoroastrian, varying forms of Catholicism, and African, and Afro-Caribbean religious traditions. The 1965 law allowed for 170,000 immi- grants from rhe Eastern Hemisphere and 120,000 from the Western Hemisphere with 20,000 immigrants per Eastern Hemisphere country. Partly as a result of the remo val o f restrictions on immigration that were specifically race-based and implicitly religion-based between I 882 until the I 960s- an effort to create an U.S.-Arnerican culture that was Protestant as well as northern European-the United Stares today stands as rhe most religio usly diverse country in the world. This diversiry poses great challenges as well as opportunities.
48
Racing Religion
Moustafa Bayoumi
late in 1942 w , · · · · d Ah d H ' as world War II raged overseas a Yemem Muslim 1mm1grant name me assan · I ' . w quiet Y appeared one day in front of a US district court 1udge .... Although Hassan
as one of th f, A · Ii · h' f f . e irst rab Muslims to petition for Arnencan narura z.anon, ts case was ar rorn un1qu B · · h c..11· · d · · h' to "fr ~- egmmngin 1790anduntil J952,theNaturali1..ationAct a 1rr11te ot1zens 1p
ee white persons" bur without exactly defining what makes a person white. Thlts, many
(,
272 I REUG IOUS OPPRESSION
. d nt had appeared in front of the courts before H I . rily of Asian esce ' I . f 1 H assan lo peop e, pr1ma " I . b ,
1 w" to borrow a p irase rom an aney Lopez's book f
I I )' were w 11te ) a , h I . o 1h, argue t mt tic . . . I vs had changed over t e years .. . anc 111 1940 langi The 1mm1grauon a, ' . I ,, N 1age was same name. " . d' enous to the Western Hem1sp 1ere. onethcless, certain \s'
dd d to mclude races in 1g d f \ . . . . I . 1 1ans, a e . . 1
Cl. had been exclude rom I mencan citizens 11p since 1878 bernnn111g wnh tie iinese, . \ I . 19 17 . . In .,. . d tie first Chinese Exclusion 1 ct, all( 111 , most 1mmigrni ion f
188? Congress passe 1 f I C II I ' rom . - , f h ta iled with the establishment o w 1at ongress ca ec the "Asiatic 8,. d Asia was urt er cur ' I Id I . I ~re ' ,, Th ·,ng here was that the country s 1ou not a, 11111 peop e who had no ch, Zone. e reason ' . .11 f f I . ,nee
I . • Despite all these changes, 1t was st! ar rom c ear JUSt what race H of natura 1zatton. • . , . . . :!SSJn · II ith Yemen sitting squarely on the Arabian I e111nsula in Asia.
was, espec1a Y w . • I Hassan certainly knew he had a fight ahea_d o_f h11n anc was a,-:are that the battle Would
be about his groi,p membership and not his md,_v,dual qualif1c!t1ons. He understood that the court would want to know if Arabs were while or yellow, European or Asian, Wesiem or Eastern. He probably knew that the court wo uld wonder if Arabs, as a people, could assimilate into the white Christ_ian cultu re of the U_nited States or if they were, by natur,, unsuited to adapt to the republic where they now lived ....
We know that Hassan was aware of the impending questions and the legal histor)' of immigration by the fact that he came to court that day armed with affidavits stating that hu coloring "is typical of the majority of the Arabians from the region from which he com,i, which [in] fact is attributed to the intense heat and the blazi ng sun of that area." Underhu arm were other affidavits, claims by unnamed ethno logists declaring that "the Arabs art remote descendants of and therefore members of the Caucasian or white race, and that [Hassan] is therefore eligible fo r citizenship ." He had done his homework. He had hopt.
Whatever optimism he may have had, however, was soon dashed. H assa n's petition was denied. In his three-page decision dated December 14, 1942, Judge Arthur J. Tmtle straigl11for· wardly started that "Arabs are not white persons within the meaning of the [Nationality] Act' Interestingly, Tunle based his determina ti on of Hassan 's whiteness not principally on the col0< of his skin but primarily on the fact that he was an Arab and Islam is the dominant reli~on among the Arabs. •~\part from the dark skin of the Arabs," explained the judge, "it is well kno.n that the)' are a part of the Mohammedan world and that a wide gulf separates their culnirefrorn th at of the predominately Christian peoples of Europe. It cannot be expected that as a class1hey would_readdy mtermarry with our population and be assimilated into our civilization."
Rehg,on determines race. At least in 1942 it did and so Arabs were not considered whitt peopl~ ~y stanit~ because they were (unassimilable) Musli ms. But by 1944, a mere sevenim mont s ater, th mgs changed radically. At that time, another Arab Muslim would pe1i1ion tht ~ovel rnmBednt for CltlWlship. His name was Mohamed Mohriez and he was "an Arab born in an 1Y, a an Arabia" wh I U · ' H however ,
1 • 1
. ·, 0 came to !le rnted States o n January 15, 1921. Unlike a.1.<;111, , " 0 mez would succeed · I · · · · • ki ·ho ruled in M h · , f 111 11s petition. D1stnct Judge Charles E. Wyzans · , 11
13 1944 1 ) toh rt,elz s al vbour, made a point of explaining in his brief decision (delivered on April
.' a t leg O al \.. II d · . . . mt prmciples of e uali h p_o ltlca ea ersh1p of the U111ted States req ui res its adherence 10 . sary "to prom~te f ty tdlat It espouses. Why? Wyzanski explained th at his decision was nece>· fulf,I rien 1er relations b t\ h U · · d oasto 1 the promise th
I h II e veen t e rnted States and o ther nations an s .
h a we s a treat all d 1· · oduCCS race, t en in Mohriez 1 • . . men as create equal." If in Hassan re 1g1on pr
B , po ltics directly S\ I I · I . · · · ut half a centu f vays ega rac1a determination. P of September 11 A bry a ter the Hassan decision and following the terrorist a«ac
, ra s and M I' h ' d rso S!atc scrutiny and off . I us ims ave again been repea tedly forced to un e . and n b icia state defi · · · bersh1P 01 ecause of th · , d' . muon simply because of their group mem requisite cases, today;ir 111 ivtdua l qualifications. Rem iniscent of the earlier racial prl' race ret· · s post Septemb I I f blr oo d ' ig,on, and conte er state policies also teeter uncom orta d eponations of Arab antMporal_ry politics, and the result has been mass exclusions an
can proper! , b d us 1m men f h . h I arg\11• > e escribed
3 d l'b rom t e United States in a strategy t at,
s e I erate and racist.
RACING REUGION I 273
·f· II • I am ta lking about th e policy known as "specia l registration" a program of Spec1 ,ca ), ' I d I · ' .
cl ·nistrat ion's W,ir on Terror t 1at rew on t 1e history o f the racial prerequisite
I !lush a mi · · Tl I · I . · 1,c f .. i1th ority and ,rs pracuce. . . . 1roug 1 s pec1a reg1strat1on the gove rnment in cs or its a . I ' cas d a religion namely Islam , into a race. T 1c program was formally ended by the
effect, turne , . ' . cl ninistrauon o n April 28, 20 1 1. ... Obama a , . . . ' I d d . v,
1 actly was special reg1strat1on. t was a government man ate system of recordmg
~v 1a1 ex, d II . . I . I U . cl S ,·11ance that require a non-11111111grant ma es Ill t 1e 111te tales over the age of and survel . I f I . b . . ' . I
O were citizens and nanona rom se ect countries to e 111terv1ewed under oath,
sixteen w 1 f · · · · • lted and photographed by a Department o Justice official. Until December 2, 2003, fingerpru , • I . I applied to those already in the country (what the Department of Justice termed "call-in"
I 11s a 50 ' · d · h d · d f f h · I gal re istration). All those who were require to register a to p~ov1 e proo o t eir e status g
3 •111 1·11 the United States, proof of study o r employment (111 the form of school enrollment to rem, . .
forms or employment pay smbs), and proof of_ res1dent1al address (~uch as a lease or utility bill) .. .. Not a single charge of terrons?, was_ lev1e_d as a resu lt of special registration.
Just what was going on here? If sp_ec1al registration was meant to be a _program to net terror- ists, as the government claims, then 11 was clearly a colossal and expensive failure . ... llut the criterion for "closer monitoring" of certain people was based almost exclusively on a single fact: national ori gin ....
Ini tially focused on citizens and nationals from five states (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan , and Syria), the list of targeted nations requiring registration ballooned to t\venty-five countries, some in No rth and East Africa (Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Somalia, Erit rea), others in West Asia (Yemen, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain, Lebanon,J ordan), South Asia (Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan), Southeast 1\!;ia (Indonesia), and East Asia (North Korea). Six of the e countries are listed by the State Department among the seven state sponsors of terrorism. The vast majority of the rest arc all ies of the United States. This fact alone-that the overwhelming number of men who were subject to special registration came from friendly countries-is significant, for it proves that something else other than enemy national ity was operative here ....
One should also note that little unites the disparate group of special registration countries but ihat they are all Muslim majority nations ... . It reinscribed, thro ugh a legal mechanism, the cul- tural assu mption that a terrorist is foreign-born, an alien in the United States and a Muslim, and that _all Muslim men who fit this profile are potentially terrorists. T hrough its legal procedures, special registration was a political and bureaucratic policy that created a race out of a religion.
RACING RELIGION
How do • I 10 u d es specia registration "race" Islam? To begin answering this question, we need racis~ ts~a~d _h?w both_ racia l and religious difference can be exploited in ways that are
10 su Y e_ •nnion. Racism is, of cou rse, a complex social phen omenon that is difficult in his";, u\ 111 Jllst a few words. George Fredrickson, however, offers a useful definition collect· 0.0 -length essay on the topic: racism "exists when one ethnic group or hi storical that it ~v'? dominates, exclud es, or seeks to eliminate another on the basis of differences to re\i _e •eves to be hereditary and unalterable." While racism may at times appear similar
gious clashes F d · k · f · c1· · f I · reason th . . . , re nc son sees them as, m act, quite 1st1nct or t 1e important alwa)'s b at 111 rehg1ously based systems or conflicts, the oppornmities for conversion have is not heen present as a way to defeat one's own marginal status. In a religious conflict, it
w O you ar b h · · h · no esc f e ut w at you believe that is important. Under a racist regime, t ere 1s ape rom wh . . ) \'ilith · b O you are (or are perceived to be by those 111 power , , , .
thousandits road-brush focus o n national origin special registration juridically excluded s of M r ' f · · f us •ms by category and created a vast, new legal geography o susp1c1on or
274 I RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION
B t special regist ration again did more. In requi ring that cit' the US government. · ·· .u suffer through its burdens, special registration collapd 11.cnsafld • als of those counmes
1 1 . . . • sc cu
1 ,_
nanon, . . d ,1. . • nto race .... The reason w 1y t 11s 111 particular is trot1bl . ~ ... hip ethmc,cy an re ,g,on' . . . k I ing is that s '. . h' b d eograph)' of special reg,strauon, It ma c~ c C,cent or inherit b I , cons,denng t e roa g . . d I · I , · l '1 I . .
3 1 fl) of d } h defining crnerion .... An t mt 111 1crna ll 1ty 1as notlung t
1 d !<lam (and gen er t c . • ., .,
11 .
1 o 111th
• . 1. • cc most of the listed nauons arc com,ucrcu a 1cs of the United S enemy nauona ,cy sin . . I ffil ' • • • t.ltci. . h' 10 do with belief or polit,ca a I tauon since tt says nothing ab Nor has It an)'! mg , bl . I I • I . out ta<h
. d' 'd I' . ldi•iew Rather it is only about one s oot re anons up to !slain Th tn
1 11 ua s \\or · • • . b . bl ' I • I • • I d · roug1i h bl d I ·onship legal barriers have een esta 1s 1cc to cxc u e as many i\iusl· t at oo re an , · ' . . I Irn1 ~ 'bl d that fact consequently tllrns Islam tnto a racta category. , . .
possW, I .e1, an a)' be accustomed to thinking of racial definition as being dctc rniincd b h 11 ewe m • . . . . Yt t color of one's skin, what we observe here '.s th~t religion 1n general, and !slain in pan,cu. la r, plays a role in adjudicanng the race of 11nn11grants eeking naturalization
111 the Un,iiJ
States. TI1e va rious immigration acts that constttute the bod)• ~f racial exclusion laws did Oil( explicitly place religion inside a logic of race, but _the ~ou n s did repeatedl y note the religion of an applicant, and that in itself was often a dec1d_111g (1f not the dec1d1ng} f~ctor in derernun- ing the race of rhe petitioner. Although the physical attributes of the ap plicants were ohm discussed, the main question surrou nd mg many of these ca cs was actually about the ab,hcy to assimilate to the dominant, Christian culture ....
The first rime a Syrian is denied naturalization because of his race occurs with Ex pant Dow, in 1914, ... when the court here const rued "free white person" to mean "inhabit• ants of Europe and their descendants." ...
All of the Syrians to come before the court during the racial exclusion era were Christian, and the court often found it important to unde rline this fact in every instance it coul~ "The applicant is a Syrian native of the province of Palest ine, and a Maronite .... 11 IIU)' be said, further, that he was reared a Catholic, and is still of that fait h." . . .
Regrettably, Haney Lopez in his otherwise fine book also fails to accou nt adequmlrfll( the role of politics in rac ial formation. He reaches the conclusion that "the incrcmemal retreat from a 'Whites only' conception of citizenship made the arbitrariness of U.S. naru- ralization law obvious". But there is nothing arbmary about the racial shift from HaSSJ1110 Mohriez, or the creation of Islam as a post-September I I racial category. These are clrar~ political decisions that have calculated consequences. .
... The concept of race incorporates, and arguably partially arose o m of, cultural prqu· dice. Instead of a sustained investigation into the politics of whiteness and the whiteness of politics, what we get from Haney Lopez is an appeal for w hites to "relinquish the priviltSt of Whiteness," thus making it clear that, for him, race making in the law is le,s a S)Wr.l of rational domination by the state than a problem of individual white ident ity (wh1Chht explicitly labels "white race consciousness").
But poHtics matters a great deal, and it always has . ... The point is to r_erngniz: h: !abor ~r mil _unr_est or, e_speciall y for our purpose, wa r aids in producin~ c1t1zensh,~ and tnclus,on, wluch m the history of the United States functions th rough pol1t1cal polle along the definitional axis of race.
One 0
( the most painful examples of race in flux during American history muSI ~ Japanese Internment during World War II. The signing of Executive Orde r 9066 r~ul:hr not only in the internment of over 11 O 000 people of Japanese ancestry, but also'" removal of th · f • . . ' 70 000 of 1htlfl. e protecuons o c1uzensh1p at the stro ke of a pen for over , Race trumped · 1· If ' ' ents pnor
F b nauona tty. you were born in the United States to Ja panese par 9
·Olf to e ruary
18 , l942, for example, you were an American citizen. But on Februar)' 1 ,) were born an enemy alien. . . . .
Special registrati · . . . I I but it 11 1 b . on is not necessarily a nefarious plot to rac1altze s am, b' oU1
ureaucrauc a nd
cultural response to political turmoil. This is not say that religious 'S
PRECEDENTS I 275 I ngc r exists. If we consider the words of deputy undersecretary for de fense L' ,
no O
k' h I • I .. G . , 1cutenam General William Uoy 111, w o c aims t iat my od [1~J a real God," and a Musli m's God . .. ·,dol .. and that the Un1ted States must attack radical lslamists "in the name of J " 1S :&O ' . . . , . I' . CSUS, we find that his statements part1c1pate ~ot 1n rac,a 1z1ng Islam but in older tradi tions of religious prejudice that, sadly, are s_ull w11h us. Moreover, we_ should not exonerate special
•,tration from the charge of being a legal method of rac ial formation even if it docs regL • . . 1
. , 1 subject all Muslims to Its procec ure~ and despite the fact that not every Muslim major-
~; country is included on its list._ In fact, what special registration accomplishes is the duction of a typology of Muslim fo r the War on Terror, and by defining one cype it
~~fors the whole population. What_ it produces is a kind of racial anxiety among Musli~s, non-Muslims from Muslim cou ntnc,, and those who are perceived to be Muslim. Every immigrant male_ in these _groups !nust dis,de_ntify from t~e. Musli m-as-terrorist figure, son1'times officially (as w11h special reg1strat1on} or unoff1c1ally, as political policy and cultural attitudes bleed into each other. Suspicion is coded into law through race.
In fact, like Operation TIPS (Terrorist Information and Prevention System} (which asked us to spy on our neighbours), special registration is best understood as a form of political theatre. It allows a new bureaucracy (homeland ecuricy} to parade 11self as being hard at work. The public is both the cast and the audience in this play. While it is acted out, we are propelled into livi ng in an increasingly militarized and surveyed society. And when government actions impact Muslim populations so visibly, the public understands what is politically acceptable (even if critically prosecutable) behavor. Meanwhile, the government bu reaucracy can mobilize statistics and bodies to prove that it is cleansing the country of a terrorist threat, all at the expense of Musli ms in the Un11cd States.
What was particular!)• disheartening, however, was the academic silence around spe- cial registration while it proceeded apace. \'i'ithout outspoken crittque, special registration continued to race Muslims and to bind whitenes.s m the Unned States with political exigency and with notions of culture and Christianity. However, as Arendt says, "Neither violence nor power is a narural phenomenon . . . they belong to the political realm of human affairs whose essentially human quality is guaranteed by man's faculty of action, the ability to begin some- thing new." From the beginning of its inception, special regisuation, in its continuation of this country's past of racial for mation and rul~ through racial ways of thinking, was in fact begging us to begin something new.
49
Precedents
The Destruction of the European Jews
Raul Hi/berg
Anti-Jewish policies and actions did not have their beginning in 1933. For many cen- ~nes, and in many countries the Jews had been victims of destructive action. · · · The lrS
t ant i-Jewish policy started in t he fourth century after Christ in Rome. Early in the
I RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION . . . 276
. f C nstantine the Ch ns t1an Chu rch gained po, . d · the reign o
O ' h' • d I ver 1n r urth century, urmg I tate religion. From t ts per10 , t 1e sta te carried
o . . t)' became ties h 1· Cl I 'b ou1 Rome and Chnstiant I ruries the Cat o 1c Htrc 1 presrn ed th e meas
' F I e next twe ve cen ' I k I Cl . . urcs Church policy. or t 1 . to the J ews. Un i e t 1e p re- 1r1 st1an Romans i ·h
b t ken with respect . . Cl I . . cl ' ' o th at were to e a r . nd fait h the Chnsu a n rnrc 1 111s1ste on accepra claimed no monopoly on re 1g1on a ' nee
of Ch ristian docmne.. f Ch . tian policy towa rd J ewry, it is essential to realize that th c derstandrng o ns k f d' · · e ,or an un . t so much for the sa e o aggran 1z111g its power (theje
h h ued conversion no . . I . 11, C urc purs f . b ) bur because of the conv1c t1 0 11 t iat 11 was the dutyoftru h I va)·sbeen ewm num er' 11 !If. Z I e ave a ' b 1. from the doom of ete rna 1e ire. ea ousness in the pursuit b 1·evers to save un e ievers . I I Cl . . 1· . e
1 . . d. at ion of the depth of fan 1. T 1e 1 nst1an re 1g1011 was 1101 one of conversion was an 111 ic Tl I . . I. . b I the tru e religion, the only one. 1ose w 10 were not rn 11s fold were of many re 1g1ons, u C l · · ·
• · · error T he Jews could not accept 1r1st1a111ty. ei ther ignorant or 10 • . J d d I · ·
I I ly Stages of the Christian faith , many ews regar e C 1rtst1ans as mem. 11 t 1e ve ry ear . d h · bers of a Jewish sect. The first Christ ians, after all, sttl l .observe t_ e J ~\\'.1sh law. They had merely added a few nonessential practices, such as bap tism, to their religious life. But their view was changed abruptly when Christ was elevated to Godhood. T he Jews have only one God. This God is indivisible. He is a jealous God and ad mits .of no oth:r gods. He is not Christ and Christ is not He. Christianity and Judaism have since been irreconcilable. An accept~nce of Christianity has si nce signified a n ab.andonmen t of Judaism. .
In anti qui ty and in the Middl e Ages, Jews did not aban don J uda ism li ghtl y. With patience and persistence the Church attempted lo convert obstinate J ewr y, and fo r twelre hundred yea rs the theological argument was fought without inte rruption . T he Jews wm not convin ced. Gradually the Church began to back its words with force .... Step br step, but with ever widening effect, the Church adopted " defe nsive" measures against iu passive victims. Christ ian s were "pro tected" fro m th e "h armful" conse quences of inter- co urse with Jews by rigid laws against in termarriage, by prohibitions of discussions about religio us issues, by laws against domicile in common abodes. The Chu rch "protected' iu Christians fro m the "harmful " Jewish teachings by burning th e Talmud and by barring Jews from public office.
. E.xp11/sio11 is the second anti-Jewish poli cy in history. In its origi n, this policy presented Itself only as an alternativc~moreover, as an alternative that was left to the Jews. But long afte.r the sepa'.ation of church and state, long after t he state had ceased to carry out church policy, expulsion and exclusion remained the goal of anti-Je wish activity.
The expulsion and exclusion policy was adopted by the Nazis and remai ned the goal of all ant1-Jcw1sh activi ty t'I 1941 Th · · · · J · h h'sron· 1 . un
1 • at year marks a turning point 111 anti- ew1 s 1 •· n 1941 the NaZ1S fou nd themselves in the midst of a total war. Several millionjewswer, 111 carcerated 111 ghetto E · · . h' I Je111 t h AI . . s. migration was impossible. A last-minute project to s 1p tie 0
t e ncan island of M d I d f II · bl " I d to be "sol d" • 3 agascar 1a a en through. The "Jewish pro em ia ve 10 some other wa)' A h. • I . • " erg1d
1·11 Na,·1 · d Tl ' · t t 15 crucia tune, the idea of a "t erritorial soluuon em . L llllil s 1e " · · I · n
Europe • • ·b temtona solution," or "t he fina l so lution of the J ewish quesuon 1 ' as It ecame known env· d h d h h E anJe111
were to be kill d Th· ' .1sage t e eat of European Jewry. T e urope e . IS was the third . J ' h r . .
To summarize Si h f ant1- ewrs po icy 111 history. ,ish policies: conversio nee t
1 e. ounh century a fter Christ there have been three anti-Jell
I f, 11
, expu s1011 and ·1 ·t · I auve to tie 1rst and the h' d ' amrr 11 at,on, The second appeared as an a tern Th ' t ir emerged as I .
e <lesrructi on of th E ' an a ternattve to th e second. an unprecedented event • eh . uropean Jews between 1933 and 1945 appears to us nowasb. hke · h d tn istory Indeed · · d. . · not 1nS
It a ever happe d b 1· , 111 as 1111ensions a nd total conf1gurat1on, .
11 . ,
ne e ore As I . fi nu tO• · a resu t of a n organized undertaking, ive
PRECEDENTS I 277
Table 49.1 Canonical and Nazi Anti-Jewish Measures
---- Canonical Law Nazi Measure
_..--; --rn~·a::o:e :an:::d:.:o~f::_se_x_ua-:;1-::in:::te:rc::o:::u:rs:::e-;:b:;etw:::ee:;:n~L-;a:::w~fo;;;r-;;th;;;e~P;;;ro::;:le;;:c-;;:tio;;;n:-;o:;-f ;;:Ge:;:nm;;:;an°B;;;lo:;:o:;;-d~an;;;d~H;;;o:;;:no;;;r,--- Proh1bitlon ofJ~1::Sa Synod 01 Elvira, 306 Septem ber 15, 1935
Chrisoans an . , 'not permitted to eat together, Synod of Jews barred from dining cars (Transport Minister to Interior Jews and Chnsuans Minister, December 30, 1939)
EMra , 306
d 10 hold public office, Synod of Glenmont, Law for the Re-estab li shment of the Professional Civ il Jews not al lowe Service, Ap ril 7, 1933 . .. 535
· · · 1 · the streets during Decree authorizing local auth orities to ba r Jews from the 1 permitted to show themse ves ,n streets on certain days (i.e .. Nazi holidays), December 3, t;~:r;i Week, 3d Synod of Orleans, 53B t 938 I the Talmud and other books, 12th Synod of Toledo, Book burnings In Nazi Genmany ... Burn ing o ,,
681 . .. Jews obliged 10 pay taxes for support of the Church to fhe same exfent as Chri stians, Synod of Gero na, 107B . • •
J ws not permitted to be plaintiffs, or witnesses against C~ristians In the Courfs, 3d Lateran Counci l. 11 79, Canon 26 .. Toe marking of Jewish clo thes with a badge. 4th Lateran Council, 1215, Ca non 68 (Copied from the legislation by Caliph Omar 111634-6441, who had decreed that Ch nS11ans wear blue belts and Jews, yellow belts)
Construction of new synagogues prohlblled, Council of Oxforu, 1222
ChrisUans not permitted to attend Jewish ceremonies, Synod ol llenna, 1267 . . .
Compulsory ghettos, Synod of Breslau, 1267
Christlans not permitted to sell or rent real estafe to Jews, Synod of Olen. 1279 ...
Jews not penmitted to act as agents In the conclusion of contracts, especially marriage contracts, between Christians, Council of Basel, 1434, Sesslo XIX
Jews not penmltted to obta in academic degrees Council of Basel, 1434, Sesslo XIX '
The · sozialausglelchsabgabe- wh ich provided that Jews pay a special inco me tax In lieu of donabons for Party purposes imposed on Nazis, December 24, 1940
Proposal by the Party Chancellery that Jews not be penm,tted to Institute civil suits, September 9, 1942 (Bormann to Justice Ministry, September 9, 1942) ..
Decree of September 1, 1941 (Jews must !wear theJ yellow star of David)
DestrucU on of synagogues In entire Reich, November 10, 1938 (Heydrich to Goring, November 11, 19381
Friendly relatio ns with Jews prohibited, October 24, 1941 (Gestapo di rective)
!Compulsory ghettosJ by order by Heydrlch, September 21 , 1939
Decree providing for compulsory sale of Jewish real estate, December 3. 193B ...
Decree of Ju ly 6, 1938, providing for liquidatlon of Jewish real estate agencies, brokerage age ncies, and marriage agencies catering to non✓ews
Law against Overcrowding of German Schools and Universities, April 25, 1933
people were kill e d in th e short space of a few years. T he o peration was over be fore anyo ne could g.rasp its enormity, let a lone its impli cations for the future.
Yet , if we a na lyze this singularly massive upheaval, we discover that most of w hat hap- pened in th I h · d · <l 'd ose twe ve years ha d a lready happened before. T e Nazi estruc t1on process h no t co.me o ut of a void ; it was the culmination of a cyclical trend. O ne may observe ~~ tr~nd. 111 the three successive goals of a nti-Jewis h ad ministrators. The missionaries of
I n st
ianny had said in effect: Yo u have 110 right to live among 11s as Jews. The secula r ru ers who f II d · · T h G ~, • 0 owe had proclaimed: You have 110 right t o live among 11S. e erman "az1s at last d d
Th ecre e : Yo11 have no right to live. of ese P~ogressively more drastic ooals brought in their wake a slow and steady growth
ant1-Jew1 h · " · h h d · the J . s actton and anti-Jewish thinking. The process began Wit t e attempt to. nve int ews into Christia n ity. The development wa s continued in order to fo rce the v1cttms 0
exile It r· · · d h Th G N . th d ' · was tmshed when the J ews were driven to thetr eat s. e erman azts, en, 1d not d ' tscard the past; they built upon it . . , ,
111111
I'
278 I RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION
h . ' fi of the histo ri cal precedents will most easily be understo d . T e s1gm 1cance d . . o 1n ih d . . • sphere The destruction of the J ews was an a n11n1strative process d e a mm1strat1ve • . . f . I . . , an 1he
'h'I · ofJewr)' required the 1mplementat1on o systematic ac 1111nistrative anm I at1on . h. I d . mcasurei in successive steps. There arc not many :vays mdw ITC ,h _a mo e rf1f1' society can, in shon
d k'ill a large number of people living 111 its m1 st. 1s 1s an e 1ciency proble f h or er, . d d' ffi I . . m o I e greatest dimensions, one which poses uncounte 1 1cu tics and innumerable obstacles_ v t ·1n rev iewing the documentary record of the destrnrnon of the Jews one
1 ·s I
,e ' . d . . . ' a mos1 immediately impressed with the fact that the German a m1111strat1on knew whai ii . doing. With an unfailing sense of direction and with an uncanny path-finding abilit)',~~ German bureaucracy found the sh on est road to the ftna l goal. ... Necessity is said
10 Ii(
ihe mother of invention, _but _if precedents have al_ready been formed , if a guide has already been constructed, 111vent1on 1s no longer a necessity. The German bureaucracy could draw upon such precedents and follow such a guide, for the German bureaucrats could dip inio a vast reservoir of administrative experience, a reservoir that church and state had filled in fifteen hundred years of destructive activity.
In the course of its attempt to convert the J ews, the Catholic Church had taken many measures against the Jewish population. These measures were designed to " protect" th, Christian community from Jewish teachings and, not incidentally, to weaken the Jein in their "obstinacy." It is characteristic tha t as soon as Christianity became the stale reli~on of Rome, in the fourth century A.D., Jewish equality of citizenship was ended. "The Church and the Christian sta te, concilium decisions and imperial laws, henceforth worked hand in hand to persecute the Jews." Although most of these enactments did not cover al l of Catholic Europe from the moment of their conception, t hey became precedents for the Nazi era. Table 49.1 compares the basic anti-Jewish measures of the Catholic Church and the modern counterparts enac ted by the Nazi regi me.
50
Maps-History of Anti-Semitism
Sir Martin Gilbert
The maps are shown on the following pages.
MAPS-HISTORY OF ANTI-SEMITISM I 279
TWO THOUSAND YEARS OF JEWISH LIFE IN EUROPE
This map shows the age of the principal European Jew,sh communi!1~s in 1939. 11 was the Jewish commun1 t1es shown here_ their cul ture, their customs , and their deep local roots · which the Nazis sought utlerly lo destroy 1n the second world wa r
Mos1 ol l he Jew1shcommun1t,cs ol Europe had come mtoh1stenc e hundreds of yea rs before the foun ding Ol lhe States ot which they were l o become a part. Othe rs had subsequently been destroyed by 81
P1..1 ls1ori and persecuho n m the midd le ages• but h~d !her. bee n rclounded a second, a th ird , and even a
0 urth hme. The Jews a t Germany had ahendy
been hv1n9 contmuously 1n d1tteren1 parts al ~ermanv lor more than l ,500yca,s when the German
mp 1 re was established in 1870, the year of German
unity \Jnder Bismarck,
0 ~ J 200 I"=,......,
0 •tn 100
- The •ge, by 1939, of lhe Jew, sh commurn \les of Europe.
- · - · The Europeanfron11ers of 1937.
<
280 I RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION
E ro e flourished from Roman times. Jewish settlements
throul~1°U\tas~ects of Jewish town hfe , fro m trnde Early local records show
I ere d expulsion. This ma p gives 19 ex.amples
and prosperity lo pcrs~cut•o~1:~nmg Jews before 1600, By 1937 there w_ere of contemporary retr 5 :~ towns and villages with Jewish c~ mmurnt1es. more t han 35,000 u,o ~o ean frontiers of t hat year. The Nazis made It This Tap ~hfi~ th~;~o /rive !he Jews f rom thei r long - establ ished homes, ~~~u~l~~e;~0 ~
5 e:~h of the towns shown h ere.
1S61 . Tallin. J ews who had lived ,n the lo~ n 1or at least 200 years, expelled. They were not allowed to returnun
111 the town w a s an ne,.ed by Russ,a in 1710.
1'89. Minsk . Jews obtain !he lease of all custort1s dues
HOAD. worms The k>cal Jews send a 1'! tler to Pa lestine asking for venhcalton of a rumour lhal the Messiah had come. . p
571 AO. A loca l document records t hal the five hundred Jewish c11\zens in the lawn and neighbourhood were forced to chose between baptism and expulsion.
1173 . Wroclaw,k . Local coins discovered with Hebrew 1nscrip\1ons.
1J87, Priemys l. Loe.a\ records men I ion a Jewish community in the IOYln,
1117. Jewish houses at1acked during a loc al rebellion.
139 AO. Local records reveal a Jewish fa mily ownmgland out- side the clty walls, and bemg protected by special order of
._1h_e_E_m_pe_ro_r_L_ou_1,_1_he_P1.:.ou:.:s.:. . ..J"-! ~~~~~n~~s~:~h!~~~~r~~lion of lhe synagogue"by act of 140 ec. A Greek Inscription 1221, Munich A Jew appears In
COurl as t1w1tnessdurlng a trial.
1181. Strubou,g, Jews flee the !own to avoid persecution from the crusaders, but return soon afterwards.
God ". It was soon rebu ilt. records the arrival of Jews '-----------N'1L.fr::om:::._:E~g:'.:yp:.:I.:... ____ _
1090. f>rague . A Christian scribe mentions Jewish citizens.
1204. Vienna . The ex:ist ence of a synagogue is recorded.
142 BC , Rhodes. A Roman l decree announces the renewa o f a pact of friendship between the Roman Senate and the Jewish nation.
p
PERSECUTION, EXPULSION AND REFUGE, 1050AD • 1650
h nd,ed years between t050 AO and 1650 In the s•; w~re freque ntly uprooted .tram their !he Jew d driven out al the lands 1n which they ho;~!~~~nd tmded for many generations, even ha es This map shows some of the lor crntur1 ~nd a few of the towns In which the ~~~s ~~ob:~it their hves and liveli hood. In t~ese same towns, lour hundred years later, thctr descendants were to be upr~oted a gam, when the Nalls sought the ir total ehm1natlon from European life and culture
Notth
Su
MAPS-HISTORY OF ANTI-SEMITISM I 281
.. Some of !he areas lrom wh ich the Jews were ex pelled, often w11h grea t violence and cruelty, between 1050 AD and 1650
® Some of the towns ,n wh,ch Jews loond refuge from persecution; !owns 1n which they we re 10 grow and flourish , but from wh ich, m the Nazi era, they we re depor ted to death camps , or murdered m mass-execution sites
a
282 I RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION
THE PERSECUTION OF THE JEWS OF GERMANY IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS OF NAZI RULE 1933 - 1938
9 Marth till , First anti- Jew ish nots 1n Berlin . 1 Apri11t33. All Jewish shops tn Bcrhn boycotted. 10 May 1933, In Berlin the NaZIS hold a public burnin g of books wnHen by Jewish and other authors. Octot>.r 1933. AU hospitals m Berlin declared" free· ol Jew ish doctors . These doctors could find no other hospit al work.
Horth Su
lOJanua r)' 1933. Httler b Chancellor of German ecomes 1he arrested, 111-trealcd, a~d ~nvJew s 15 Septemhr t93S The N lured . Laws make the Je.ws se urembe,g ci tizens, and lead to the'o~d cl ass driven from pubhc and p" 1 ein_g life. ro ess1ona1
9 November 1938. 191 5 na on fire throughout G/ gogues set 2,000 Jews mu rdered r:,t~Y Over 15 Nove mb er t9J8 All G c amps dosed to G crma~ Jewi:~~~1~~~~~s
Among the many indignities forced upon the Jews was a revi\lal of th e medieval practice ?' making all Jews wear a yellow Star of David" on their clothln<J.
----'*--,-v,7771T,¥I. 1/1
MAPS-HISTORY OF ANTI -SEMITISM I 283
GERMAN OFFICIAL PLANS FOR THE "FINAL SOLUTION", 20 JANUARY 1942
c=J The number of Jews men t ioned at the i1h:i,P·i131tiMtJ,RI. country by country and area by area, for eventual deportat ion, and subsequen t death . More than 14 m1 lllon people were thus marked ou t for death .
In December 1941 Co nference th , a mont h belote the Wan had already'ca;:1rst Nazl ex.termina t ion ca:; e ~~scf°nsible 1or t hen~~~~rat ion, at Chelmno, thro~go~ let P~isoners-of -w:~rd;f,of Jew~, Gypsies, ' T corridors mark , · er passing I o the docto r' the e_d To the showers' and !hge truck wh,~h wa;•~l •rs were forced in to a ~h:;~~h~r,~:~· killed :it~~: P.".!~~~~.~r, B een murdered 1~"c~ \han 360,000 Jews had Y
(() -., 1 .,. c.i.,.,, ttn e mno alone.
One o f the macabre I at 11st of the Jews subm1t~edu~~sl hof ~e numerical Con ference was the fa ct thut n er annsee given for the Jews of E . o igure was note that Estonia was ~~~e~a~f ~~e~r a f~11e1 was true ; the 1,000 Estonian Jews who ha~ ~~~:I~~~:~ ~erman rule i~ October 1941 before the Wanu~ds•••r•cdodu, rmg the t hree months
n erence.
The Wannsee Conference also specified the number of Jews In unconqu~r~d COUlltries for eventual destruction, Including 330 000 from Britain, 18,000 from Switzer land 6 000 fro Spa in and 4,000 from Ireland . • ' m
284 \ RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION
)
9 d 1945 sii million Between 193d lan ocent Jewish civilians. ~ea~r:,~a;n ;h~ldren and babies· were mu rdered in Naz i -controlled Europe , 1is art of a deliberate policy to destroy a
fraces of Jewish hfe and culti!re. As m~rny as two million of these were killed in their own !owns and villages, some conf 1nc_d in ghettoes where death by slow slarvatrnn was a deliberate Nazi policy, others taken to be shot at mass-murder sites near . . where they lived. The remaining four m1111on Jews were foreed from their homes. and taken by train to distant concen1rat1on camps, where they were murdered by being worked to death, starYed to death, beaten !o death. shot , or gassed.
Nor t h s ..
THE CONCENTRATION CAMPS
\,\ \ l
',-,)
' ' ; '
var.1
'-, J _ ... , _
LITHUA NIA r' ) - ,,."I \ ,.. I I..J
' ( ( t;" ~Slutthof (' .... , ~ I
,,,--•, + +R b .. J \_.,,_,...;-.,' \ U SSR J Ne uengamme a vens ru; mmm:!I ·, ... ,
Berg~ • Be lun + Sa chsentusen r-· mnmcm ~ ' . \ · ;,. i..-' \._ ~ P O l A N D \
' ,/ Mlttelbau Dora + Gros s "- mmm I ~ !.\ + Rosen ---. \. ~ /
\ ,.,. : Bu chenwald /.,..-H I\._~ ... ' lt·!tfflit!Hn[~mmm:I ,. ~\_{\ G (RMAN Y c:..,. ~\.-......_ ;1 · ~ /
..... \ ., Flossen berg ~ t Cl' ..... \ ~~ P l.1s zow mm' N.itzweiler '"; '"\. fcHo
5 ~',., ,._,..., -, ... \
t-r Da<ha, t- ,:,--,{- ' -., 0 V: ~~A ' ·- -- ,' /,.,\,., ,,,,, f R A N C [,.r-.;.. -·'h.Y'-...l • ... _..., -~: Maul hause~ ~\... _,- ,. ""
1
-: : .- ... ._ ~\. '~~ { , . l f" _.r·- \.AU ST R \ A J H U N G A R y / , ,
,; ~,../\ ,.i"-.J I -...._, _ _ .,.... . .,, .. J\ f ..,.,.\ \ ·,\ '·\ ....... - .... .... · ........ i"' ..
RUMAN1A
/ i(; ~ Jasenova c 1-A_m_ o_n_g_t_he_ h_u_n_d-re_d_s o- f-th- o-us-,-,d.l...,s .L..... &Gos ~ - . of non •Jews sen t by the Nazis to
~ lm c nt concentration camp in which more than 2 million people were murdered between 1941 an d 194~, incl~ding Jews, Gypsies, arid Sovie! pnsoners-of-wa,.
■ ~,a:J::s ~el up solely lor the murder ~ ~~~~~~!mps in which Jews and
slarved, 1~~~;!J~~~o forced la~our, cond,tions of th · m~rdered 1n
• cruelty. Most 0
{ 1 ~0 rst imaginable
satelh1e ~ tabou ese camps had e 1t1,,.,~c..lh<, 111, r camps nearby.
l concentration camps we,e anti• .q V ~ Jm iSle Na zis, Jehovah's W11nesses,
homosexuals, the mentally 111, and the chromcally sick. In addition, more than 250,000 Gypsies were murdered, ma New attempt to eliminate Gypsies as well as Jews from the map ol Europe.
~ ~OOmll~s 0 l00Am
In many o f Ille camps shown here so-called "medical" e:,cpenments were earned out, w1thoul anaesthetics, solelv 10 satisfy the curiosity and sadism ol the doctors . Hundreds of otherwise heallhy"patients" were tortu,ed and murdered during these experiments.
MAPS-HISTORY OF ANTI-SEMITISM \ 285
/
NO N -JEWISH VICTIMS Of - Twemy- slxof many thousands of Naz,
NAZI RULE reprisal and murder actions against
L----=--=---_-_-_-___ .;_.; ______ -: ___ -:_-: ___ -: ___ -: _______ :-_:-_-::~----... ~;i, unarmed non-Jews, wi l h the approximate number m urdered In each m assacre. 11
occupied lands, the Nazis ca med out ~ ~ Countrie s in each of which more th an a In 3 c-scale reprlsals a gains t complet ely 1 m illion non- Jewish c1v1lians di ed as a larg 1 and unarmed civ il ians, whenever a '. result of deliberat e Nall brutahty i~~o~tGerman sol dier was killed by par t isans , ,l'---,---,- -----,,- - ~r 2ven when Germ~n prope.rty was attack ed . l In m ass-murder act ions agamst non -Jews,. •• they also m assacr ed 4 m,ff,on .una ~~e d Soviet prisoners- of -war , 1 m,~lion ~0~1et c,v,ll a ns,
e than 1 million Polis h c 1v1h ans , and rtm,Jhon Yugoslav civilians . In May 1940, at two villages near D unkirk, a to tal of 170 _dis,11m e<1 Bri tish prisoners-of -war were murdered m cold blood. \n June 1944, at three villages near Caen, 70 disarmed Canadian prisoners• o f - w ar were likewise murdered , by German S.S. troops
()'"', . ( D
em J:tS
'
In each of the ac t ions shown here unarmed men ~
0
0 ::~ :nd chil~r~n. almost all n~n-Jews, were'
M an s th e vi.ctims o f Nazi hatred and vengeance . of ril~eo~ t~~se~lled \':ere beaten to death b y blows POUred o~er\he~naed t~ d~ath alter petrol had been •live or st . nd ignited while they wete st ,// murdered ~t~~~ nake_d and then shot. Those ten years
01 Sura included 50 children under
were WO age . A t M ikulino, all those kllled A1deatin;en patients In a m ental hospital. In the 70 Jews w:r~ves 1~ Rome, 253 Catholics and shopkeepers ~trd ered, among the m m any
q::i ' u ant s, lawyers and peddlers. -•·
1'"<-·1~ 11111
cmi:1111 cRm 0 200 ~ •
An est imated 32,000 German civ1hans were executed between 1933 and 1945 for so - called -political" offences. Those kllled Included Conservatives, Socialists, Communists, Cathohcs , Protestants, w riters, journalists an d • t eachers. All over Europe, non - Jews who were discovered sheltenng Jews were also shot
11111
286 I RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION
THE DEPORTATION OF JEWS FROM HOLLAND, BELGIUM FRANCE, ITALY AND GREECE ,
Driven from their homes and d~pnved of t he_ir possess ions, more lhan four m11Hon of the six mlllion Jews of Europe who were murdered by the News were sent in catt le trucks to Nazi death camps In the east. Up to a thousand people were fo1ced into each traln , deprived of food or water, and shunted eastwards. Many died during the Journey . On arrival at !he death camps , 1he ma jority, weakened, sick and bewildered, were senl straight to the gas• chambers.
This map show ol the deportat~o~ol~~r~f the longest Europe and !he Balk eys, from western the lourneys shown ~ns. As a resul t of ma Jews peris~~ed~ore than
(ti iw..,i,~ c.,t&.,1u11
® Some of the principal towns fro were deport ed from the countrl mwhhichJews
es s owri he1e + Some of the deportation centre 1 ·
Jews were con fined before dcpo 5 /1a~ i: lch
// M ain depor tation rou tes mos \l / belween July 1942 and A~g usl {9~:raling
~ Death camps,
) ·"'/ ',
('/ / ; (
; I , I
I
' •-, '
mmml~ ,· ' -... ,, ,,l_"
~ \ \ .... ., "'"'\ .,,,~_..,l. \ , '
,,
~ iu+oon
I --- European frontiers of 1937]
MAPS-HISTORY OF ANTI-SEMITISM I 287
{_
288 I RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION
JEWISH REVOLTS 1942-1945 (X. Ghettoes in which Jews ro
revolt against the German:~ ~~1 ~n dates . Many of those who were able to escape to the revolted and to Jo in Jewish , Polish
0 ~;0d~,
par t isan groups. 0\11 et
Despite the overwhelming military strength of the German forces, many Jews, ~hlle w.eakenod by hunger and terrorised by Nazi brutahly, neverthe- less rose In revolt agalnsl their fate , not only In many o1 the Ghettoes in which they were forcibly conl1ned , but even in the concentration amps themse lves , snatching from t he very gates of death the slender posslbihty of survival .
.. "'-. Death ca 11ps In which !he J ? ' revolted, with date of the re~;~,
almost e-very Instance, those who In
This map shows twenty of the Ghe ttoes and fi ve of the death camps In wh ich Jews joined together and sought, often almost unarm ed, to strike back al their tormen10,s. These twe nty - five uprisings are among the most noble and courageous episodes not on ly of Jewish, but of world history .
O miru so
80
B ialystok
™*
~ CHELMNO
lll!ilD!IIDIIIJ
TREBLINKA m.rmmm
* Lublin IU·fo Mi'lfOI
Tarnow (i 4St4JI, in■ 'l!ffi
~:~~~~~~~ere later caught and
PONARY ll1:mllll
ICilJ1i1~rfiml)
Lutsk ifi•l◄MUl·MiiiJ
·* Tuchin l►i ■WII Mh49 * Kremenetz: il!Oh ifrllffl
THE RIGHTEOUS AMONG THE NATIONS 1939 - 1945
• Fro ntiers o f 1937
Numbers of ' righteous gen tiles' honoured up to 1990 by th e State o f Israel for ha vin g hetped m d1vldual Jews to e scape deporta tion and death b etween 1939 and 1945 .
0 200 ml/a. r •r;;;km
GREAT BRITAIN
Al/antic
Ocoan
~~a~9 August 1953 the Ism.ell Parliament passed to making It the duty of the State of Israel
sa:~ 9 j ;~~~he work ~one by non·Jews In
of honour hves dunng ttie w ar. An expression Jowlsh was awarded In ttie name of the family ::h10d to every non-Jew i sh person or E\lldenc:e of : nsk~ their lives to save Jews, from one of thuch action has 10 come Initially evidence is those who was act ually saved: the eighteen i'udgeen exdamlned by a committee of
0 s an experts.
~ ~ "''
MAPS-HISTORY OF ANTI-SEMITISM I 289
C,
One of the awards for Norway was a co llective o ne for th e members o f the Norwegian Resistance m ovement, all of whom helped Jews to escaoe. The Damsh awards include one which was made to the King In honour of the Danish nation.
At the national Holocaust memoriaJ, known as "Yed Vashem •, 1n Jenisalem, an •avenue of the righteous· was begun 1962, where each non·Jew who ls honoured plants a tree, or hos a tree planted in his or her name. This map shows ttie number of •righteous gentiles" honoured between 1962, when the first tree was planted, and 31 December 1990; the total numbef is 861 1.
290 I RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION
O 200,n,IIS
j;; ~-'"
p ;;v,,, ~ - Approximate Jewish death-loll ~ country-by- country. '
·- ·- · European frontiers of 1937 !i>M.,,.,.c;.. ~,11111 .
WORKING IT OUT I 291
51 working it Out
Diana Eck
f he places we most commonly encounter re ligious difference in America today Oneh
O v~rkplacc. What religious attire may one wear? A cross? Yarmulke? H ead scarf?
1s I e ' · · ' w,h f · 1 · · d I d b
; Where and when is 1t appropriate to pray. w at ac1 1t1es o emp oyers nee to Tur an. d h d · I ' R 1· . d "ff . . "de and what policies o t ey n ee to 1111p emenr. e 1g1ous 1 erence 1s a question prov_iusc' for theological schools and religious institutions but increas ingly for businesses no~ )corporations, offices and factories. Th ese are the places where " w e the people" most ~;equently meet, and how we manage our encounters here might be_ fa r mo re important than how we cope with imagmary encounters en the realm of theologies and beltefs.
The most common workplace issue have traditionally concerned wo r king on the Sabbath, which is Saturday for J e w s and Seventh-Day Adventists. Consider the case of a computer operato r at a hospital in Fort Smith, Arkansas. Although he is a Seventh- Day Adventist an d asked not to work on Saturdays, he was placed on call on Saturdays. When he refused to make himself available on hi s Sabbath, the hospital fired him. Title V II of che Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits d iscrimination o n the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex. In interp re ting the act in relation to the religious practices of work- ers, the employer must try to make "reasonable accommodation" of religious practice, at least as long as it does not impose an "undue hardship" on the e mployer. In this case, the court ruled that the hospital was in violation of the Civil Rights Act. But just what constitutes "reasonable accommodation" a nd " undu e hardship" is the thorny issue as each case comes fo rward.
In_ the past ten years the Equ a l Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which considers_ workplace complain ts that may violate the Civil Rights Act, has reported a 31 percent rise 111 complaints of religious discrimination in the workplace. Th is is nor su rpris- mg_ give_n the num ber of new immigrants in the workfo rce and the range of questions ~heir amre, their holidays, and their religious life bring to the workplace environment. We
ave already looked at the in civility a nd prejudice Muslim women wearing the hijab may encounter But so t " · · ·1· 1·d h I d d. · · · I .
199 · me 1mes cnc1v1 ttys I es up t e sea e towar cscrcmcnanon. For examp e,
:"n I 6 ~ose Hamid, a twelve-year veteran flight attendant with U.S. Air, became increas- g Y seri ous abo t h f · h · h k f • • t ' u er a1t 111 t e wa e o som e health problems and made the dec1s1on
0 Wear a head f H r· d not f 1 • scar • e r erst ay at work, sh e was ordered to take it off because it was
partor1eunif f fl " h · leave R f orm O a 1g t attendant, and when she refused s he was put on unpaid is,re; os~I iled a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. What the ~~~na ef accommodation in Rose's case? Rose had modeled different ways in which reason °;i5 ° her uniform would be duplicated in her scarf, and some would argue that it Was: ~-fccommodation would mean allowing some flexibility in the uniform as lo ng as and he~: 1 Y recogmzable. But U.S. Air moved Rose to a job that did not require a uni form
Hair e put her ou t of public visibility . ... Kohli, ,:t' ~eards have also raised workplace issues. In 1987 a Sikh immigrant, Prabhjot Was turne~ dad managed a pharmaceutical company in India before coming to the U.S ., dated be d ~;vn fo_r a Job at Domino's Pizza in Baltimore because of his religiously man- got a be a~;, Domino's wants clean-shaven people,» he recalls being told, "and you've a busin/r d In_ this case, wearing the baseball cap was not enough. For Domino's it was
ss ects1an: people prefer to be served pizza by clean-shaven employees. The case
1111
', 1_
I RE UGIOUS OPPRESSION 29
2 I . Commission and was resolved only after at\ I
I d Human Re attons d . b d I. Veve. went to the Mary an 00 I pizza chain droppe its no- car po icy. In Caiiforn· )•ear lawsuit. In January
20 1 . _tic •as removed from his job at Chevron company beca ia,
. h Bh . a mac unist," f f . I I . H " b I Use Manjit Sing aua, d d the shaving o acia 1a1r. 1s care might pr . ents man ate . Cl event
new safety requirem . . , I hen he wore a respirator. 1cvron moved him h . an airnght sea w . I . II I . to a him from avmg . espirator and promise< to re1nsta 11111 as a inach· .
• b hat did not require a r I I . tn1s1 different JO
1 I d I the could safely use. Fort 1e courts, t 11s was "rcasonabl if a respirator were deve ope t ,a e
accommodation." h h not all choose to keep a neatly trimmed beard, consideri s e Muslim men, t oug , d" . . . ng om . l"gious observance. A 1scnminat1O11 case went to court in Ne . .t t of their customary re i d f h . I ~ 1
par b f the Newark police force sue or t e ng 1t to wear a beard fo Jersey where mcm crs O d r I' 1 · C. r N I . . 1 I 999 rul ing (Fratemal Or er o o 1cc v. 1ty o e,vark) the U.S rel1g1 ous reasons. n a . b f I N k 1· f '
f A I I Id the right of Mu sl11n mem ers o t 1e cwar po ice orce to weai Court o ppea s up ie . . . I k I . . b d h • b • " we have seen from the Sikh experience ,_owever, wor p ace dec1510111 ear son t e JO . n, . . b d . f on beards have varied. And so too with Muslim men. A us river. o r ~ New York transit
now wear a beard but an employee of one of the maior airlines cannot company can ' · d I · · · Praye r in the workplace is another issue that has ga1ne comp ex1ty w11h the new
· · rar ·ion. A Christian group might gather at 7 : 15 to pray together before wo,k. imm1g . f . I h I . . . . A B ddhist meditation group might spend part o its unc 1o ur 111 s1tt111g pracuce. In t~e spring of 1998 I received a CAI R bulletin with information on three simila, cases of workplace prayer accommodation in manufacturing plants arou nd Nash1·ille, Whirlpool Corporation reportedly had refu se d to allow Muslim em ployees to offer obligatory prayers on the job. One Muslim employee quit, an d the others continued 10 perform their obligatory midday prayer secretly during bathroom breaks. When CAIR intervened, contacted the managers, an d began a dialogue, together they envisioned a solution: the Muslim employees could perhaps customize th ei r coffee breaks so that they cou ld fit an Islamic prayer schedule. Today, Muslim o rganizations, including CAIR, are taking the initiative in providing th e kin d of information that might head off the endless round of discrimination cases. T hey have published a booklet called An E111p/oyer's Guide to Islamic Religious Practices, detailing what employers might need to know about th e obligations of Muslim wo rkers.
Employers today are encountering workplace issues most of us have never even thought about. For examp le, where do Muslim cab drivers who work the airport routes pray during the long days in line at the airport? In Minneapol is, at last word, they stand outside in aloi, according to Salina Khan of USA Today. She wrote, on June 25, 1999,
Taxi driver farhad Nezami rolls out his prayer rug, removes his shoes and ra ises his hands to begm the early afternoon prayer. Nezami's not worshipping in a mosque. He's standing in a lot near the Minneapolis-St. Paul Internatio nal Airport that aboul 3oo Muslim cab drivers turn into a makeshift prayer hall several times a day. Thiy pray
th ere 111 rain, snow and sleet because the Metropolitan Airports Commission his
repeatedly denied their request for a room for fou r years.
B T~e case is not clear-cut, and it probably falls more in the realm of civility tha n legaliq•.
q~~/nver hha nd
ied a similar case differently. A hundred Muslim cab drivers there put rhif •on tot e Denver Air h • d J"II. Llo)•do the Ch · 1 - S . port aut onty an received a positive response. 1 ran ris tan c,ence Mon ·10 d " d I sheltel to its internati I .
1 'reporte , When the city of Denver move a g ass
ona airport this \ · t · · M I I O
pray 10 Allah it did I vin er, giving us im cabbies a warm pace t h. , not mere y show gov d . . . The mo1·e 1gh lighted the g . . . ernmenr goo will toward a religious mmonty. k ,
I. . rowmg w11lmgness f Am · • f h · war efl re 1g1ous needs." 0 encan employers to provide or t etr
,. SEE YOU IN COURT I 293
d 11 vel the Whi te House has addressed the complexity that our new religious At the fe be ra el t t~ th e workplace. In 1997 it released C11ideli11es 011 Religious Exercise bas roug 1 .
texture . '. Expression in the Federal Workplace. They provide a pat hway through some a11d Rebgious erally following o ne principle: "Agencies s hall not restrict personal re-
h . sues gen ' of t e is ' . 1 by employees in the Federal workplace except where the employee's . s express101 b I , . . h ff. . . . lig1011 • ion is outweighed y t 1e governments interest 111 t e e 1c1ent pro v1s1on interest_in exp:ess o r where th e expression intrudes upon the legitimate rights of other of public services tes the appearance, to a reasonable observer, of an official endorsement empl~y~es ?,r tea xample, employees can keep a Bible or Koran in their desk and read of rehgio:- tr ~ mployees can s pea k about religi on with other emp loyees, just as they it during k reba s. ports o r po litics. Employees may di splay religious message on items o f
spea a out s . . h · may . h me exte nt as they are permmed to display ot er messages. A supervisor clotbrng to t e sa ,cemen t about an Easter musical service on a bu lletin board or can invite
Post an annou, . • d. · f · can k daughter's bat mitzvah as long as there 1s no 111 1cat1on o expectatio n co wor ers to a bl h. k f I · h" · - h I e will attend. There is a ver ita e t 1c et o examp es 111 t 1s n1ne-page that t e emp oye . k I
It ·1s the firs t herald of a new day 111 the wor p ace. document.
51 (CONT INUED)
See You in Court
Diana Eck
The Ameri can Constitution g uarantees that there will be " no establishment" ofreligion_ and that the "free exercise" of religion will be protected. As we have seen, these twin principles have guided church-state relations in the United States for the past two hundred years. But the issues have become increasingly complex in a multireligious America, where the church in questio n may now be the mosque, the Buddhist temple, the Hindu temple, or the Sikh gurdwara. Every religious tradition has its own questions. Can a Muslim schoo lteacher w_ear her head covering on the job as a public school teacher? Can a Sikh student wear the kirpan , the symbolic k nife required of all initiated Sikhs, to school, or a Sikh worker wear 3
tmban on a hard-hat job, in app arent violation of safety regulations? Should _a creche be di splayed in the C hristmas season on public property? Can the sancti'.y of Nan~e lands be protected from road build ing? Should the taking of peyote by Na;1ve Americ~n_s. be protected as the fre e exercise of religion? Can a city council pass an ordmance prohibmng the ·f·
sacn ice o f animals by the adherents of the Santerfa faith? . . These difficult questions make clear that one vital arena of America's new pluraltsm ts
th e courts. Since about 1960 church-state issues in America have been increasingly
on court agendas. Just as the "~hurch" is not a single entity in multireligious America, the "st " · . . · d th f ate is multiple too with zoning boards city councils, state governments, an e r:deral _government. At all ,levels, courts hear di;putes and offer interpretations of laws and
g;latio_ns and the constitutional principles that undergird them. . I" he Ftrst Amendment principles of nonestablishment of religion and the free exercise o f
re 1g1on sometimes almost seem to be in tension : the free exercise of religion calling for the Protection of religious groups, while the nonestablishment of religion proh ibiting any such
294 I RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION
h " establishment" side, a landmark Supreme Court de .. special treatment. On tfeE noon v Board of Ed11catio11 (1947) in which a school bc1s1_on
d · the case o vers · d • using was ma e m led to be accessible to sill ents going to parochial s h · n New Jersey was ru I I f' I h c oo\s
program 1 , d . . was clearly and narrow y t e met: t c busing progr · Th S reme Court s ecis10n , . d I .1
. am was e up .
1 bl b ft" that should not be de111e to c 11 c.lren si mply becaus h .
"generally ava1 a e ene I I . I I e I e11 a . . 1. • s school. While the court ,as consistent y ru ec.l against stat destination was a re ig1ou f' . . ' e sup-
f . ligious schools in this case, the bene 11111 quesuon was not to the scho 1 port O private re ' [T]I 1.: · \ d . o~ h h' \d Justice Black wrote " ,e , 1rst f men ment requires the state I , . but to t e c 1 ren. ' . .
1 • , _ d . . o"'
neutral in its relations with groups of religiou s be 1evers an 11011-behevers; It does not . the state to be their adversary. State power 1s no more to be used so as to hand·,
require d d I . f I . d .. cap religions than it is to favor them. " The exten e og1c o t 11s ec1s1?n was that reli~ous communities should have "equal access" to those benef'.ts th_at arc available to nonreligious communities. In other words, if a high school gymnasnun 111 Bethesda, Maryland, can lit used by the Girl Scouts or the Garden Club, its use cannot be denied to a Hindu tempi, community for its annual fall D1wah festival.
In "free exercise" cases, the Sherbert v. Verner decision in 1963 set a precedent thai guided religious liberty cases for thirty years. In South Carolina, Adell Sherbert, a Sevemh- Day Adventist, was fired from her job because she refused to accept a schedule requiring her to work on Saturday, her Sabbath, and was then refused state unemployment compen• sation. In her case, the Supreme Court articulated three questions to guide its dec ision: Has the religious freedom of a person been infringed or burdened by some government action, If so, is there a "compelling state interest" that would nonetheless justify the governmem action? Finally, is there any other way the gove rnment interest can be satisfied withou1 restricting religious liberty? In sum, religious liberty is the rule; any exception to the rule can be justified only by a "compelling state interest." This form of reasoning came to be called the "balancing test"-balancing state interest against the religious freedom of 1h, individual.
In the Sherbert case, the court ruled that there was no state in terest compelling enough to warram t~e burden placed_upon Sherbert's religious freedom. Similarly, when an Amish com~unity 111 Wisconsin insisted on withdrawing its children from public sc hools after the eighth grade and the State of Wisconsin insisted the chilc.lren com ply with compulso~· education laws, the Supreme Court appl ied the three-pronged test and ruled that the reli· g1ous freedom of the Amis! tw · h d h , · · I d . . 1 ou eig e t estate s interest 1n four years' more compu so~· e ucanon _ (\V1sco11si11 v. Yoder, 1972).
Bcg111n111g in the 1980s h · ., th f f I SI ' owever, a senes of Supreme Court ruli ngs gradually weakenco
e orce o t ie ierbert balan . d . h . tio I f cing test an , in t e view of many weakened the cons111u·
na guarantee o the free e · f I' · ' b' questions b h I' . x_ercise O re 1g1on. These rulings began to raise disrur mg Jndia1t Ce,: ~ut pt e re tgious rights of minorities. In the case of Lyng v. The Northwest
e ery rotectweAssocia( (198S) I . · ' right to preserve • 1 h .
1011 , t 1e issue was whether the Native Amencans through Forest 5
111 ~ct ti eidr sacred sites outweighed the government's right to build roads
erv1ce an The 'n k K '\d' a logging road throu h h j uro , arok, and Totowa Indians argued that bu1 ,ng A lower court ac ted~ t e and wou}d have "devastating effects" on their religious wars. Service appealed 10 1~ ptvent
the foresr Service from building the road, but the Forllt Forest Service, saying, e upreme Court. In this case, the Supreme Court supported tht
Incidental effects of t' . . government pro h ' h . . I rat· ice certain religions b h. grams w tc may make 1t more d1fficu t to P.
contrary to their ret'- • ut wb ich have no tendency to coerce individuals into acnog com 11· • igi ous eliefs [d ] · • f rd a
. pe mg Justification for i O not require government to bring orwa . wish that 1t Were otherwise ts otherwise lawful actions .. - . However much we mish;
' government simply could not operate if it were requi re
SEE YOU IN COURT I 295
' t'izen's religious needs and desires .... Whatever rights the Indians · fy eve ry c1 , to sans h ,se of the area, however, those rights do not divest the government of
have tot el . d n,ay_ se what is after al l, irs Ian . its right to u '
b I tipped precipitously in favor of the government, whose policies, just
H the a ance . . ere, romised Native religwus practice. incidentall y, cdomp one of the issues in this and other cases is whether the government
F the In ians, f . . I d . or . h d I he ld religious importance o preserving part1cu ar sacre sites recognizes; ~ He;;i :nd Navajo case (Wilson v. Block , 1983) questioned whether a ski undism rbe b. b .1 011 a sacred mountain . The court ruled that the Forest Service had ou ld e u1 t ' ' . . area _ c . d h eligious ri ghts of the Indians because it had not demed them access
t 1nfr1nge I e r · h h f h no • B t the Nava1·o and H opi argued that the mountain , t e ome o t e the mountain. u . • I c.l I
to . d' · messengers-would be d esecrated by its comme rc1a eve opmenr. Kachmas- ,vine · I ' d d h
d to give littl e w eight to th e fact t hat the Nanve peop es cons, ere t e The court seeme . • · I h I · be inherently sacred, the very locus of the Divine, and not s1mp y t e pace
mountain ro f · I' · I · f h where they pray to the Divine. H e re, the very narure o Nanve re 1g1ous c aims or t e
· f the land seemed ro be undermined, or perhaps not even understooc.l, by the sanctity o court's reasoni ng. . . . . . .
These and other cases led many to see an increasingly restncnve interpretation ?f the scope of religious freedom by the Supreme Court. In each case, the government did not have 10 demonstrate a "com pelling inrerest" in order to restrict religious freedom. And in each case, the government did not have to alter its basic procedures to accommodate a specific religious claim. For example, an Abnaki Indi an asked that his d~ughter, Lmle Bird of th e Snow, be exempt from having ro have a Social Security number in order to receive the benefits from t he Aid to Families with Dependent Children program (Bowen v. Roy, 1986). The fathe r insisted that to assign a number to his daught er would "rob her of her spirit" and interfere with her spiritual growth by making her a number, regulated by the federal government. T he court ruled that the First Amendment could not be interp reted ro require rhe government ro airer its procedures in this way. Little Bird of the Snow would have to have a Social Security number.
Altering government procedures to accommodate various religious practices was also at Stake in the case of Goldman v. Weinberger (1986). Dr. Go ldman, an Orthodox Jewish psychiatrist serving in the U.S. Air Fo rce, insisted on his right to wear his yarmulke on duty m th~ hospiral, even though Air Force regulations prohibited a uniformed officer from weanng a head coverin g inside. The Ai r Force insisted that its code of military discipline r~quires that it not be continually making exceptions. The court said it would defer to the Air Force's judgmen t in this matter, which was to say: no yarmulkes.
Fri day prayer for a Muslim prisoner was decided alo ng similar lines in the case of O'Lone v. Estate 0 ( Shabazz ( l 987). Here, a Muslim prison inmate wanted to return from the work gang at noon for Friday prayers with other Muslims. He was ntrned down because officials insisted that · t \d · · · · d h · c.l b . . 1 wou requi re extra pnson secunry at the work site an t e gate 111 or er to
1 nng h_im back, and the court upheld the prison system's refusal to alter prison practices.
hn drnakmg this ruling, the court also said that a restrictive instinttion like the prison system a security cl c.l · · I · h Wou ld nee s an regul ations chat would necessarily mean chat consmuttona ng ts Th
110 : be as broad as those of ordinary citizens.
cul _ese inc_reasingly restrictive interpretations of the guarantees of the First Amendment cas m;~ated tn the controversial 1990 Supreme Court decision about peyote use. In th is tw e mployme111 Division Department of H11man Reso11rccs of Oregon v. Smith, 1990) 0 members f h · ' · · · · h em . . 0 t e Nattve American church ingested peyote, as 1s commo n tn t e cer·
onial life of th h h · · b f " . d " Th e c Urch anc.l were subsequently fired from t e1r JO s or m1scon ucr. e S!ate of O ? · h h d b regon demed them unemployment compensauon because t ey a een
1111
l
l
296 I RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION .
h. h was classified as an illegal drug. The Supreme C df h seofpeyore,w ic d " II 1· b oun dismisse or r e u . . . g rhar the srate ha a genera Y app 1ca le" law aga·
upheld Oregon's dw st
on, argumf ally rarget rhe Native Am erican church or any thnst The law did not spec1 1c Id b . . bl ot er
drug use. . . s ro such Jaws wou e 1mpracnca e, according 10
h d carving out excepnon . d I . I t e
group, an. J srice Antonin Scalia argue t 1at to require t 1e government t 5-4 · nl)' of the court. u . II 1· bl 0
maJO " 11. rate interest" in enforcing genera Y app tea e laws would b demonstrate a compe mg s e "courting anarchy." f d h ' I
. h d . . thus reversed many years o cou rt prece em, w tc 1 presumed that The Smit emion . . • · · I . . f d Id be the rule with any in fringement requmng t 1c demonst ration religious ree om wou , d I f h f
II . re 1·nterest Many critics insiste t 1at or t e court to re use to apply th• of a compe mg sta . " . I d . ' b I . r "generally appl icable laws would serious Y amage the first-amendment a ancmg test o . . . . . protection of religiou_s freedo'.11. The Smith dec1s_1011, cnt1cs argued, would be esp~ci~lly hard on minoril)' religions, since generally applicable laws are passed by the maiori~•. Freedom of religion, on the other hand, is not subject to ma j?ri ~y rule. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was precisely ro limit the power of the ma1 om y 1n areas of fu nda mental rights, such as the freedom of conscience and speech.
The Santeria Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye in Hialeah, Florida, was a minori~· group in danger of losing its freedom of religious practice due to its unpopular and wideli· misunderstood practice of animal sacrifice. An estimated fifty thousand practitioners of the Afro-Caribbean Santeria religion now live in South Florida, and their ceremonial life includes the sacrifice of chickens, pigeons, or other small animals to the orisha, their gods. The case that came to the Supreme Court (Church of the Lukumi Baba/11 Aye v. Cit)' of Hialeah, 1993) began in 1987 when Ernesto Pichardo, a priest of the Santeria religion, purchased a building and a former used car lot to o pen a place of worship. The city council of Hialeah met to consider th e matter, and many voices hostil e to Sante rfa were raised. The council passed three ordinances that effectively prohibited an imal sacrifice within the city limits. As the city attorney explai ned, "This community will not to lerate religious practices which are abhorrent to its citizens."
. _Ernesto Pichardo and his community protested, insisting that the o rdinances spe· c_1f
1 ~ally targeted Santerfa, as they did no t prohibit rh e ki lling of animals within city
lim JtS for secular reasons bur only fo r rel igio us ones and o nly, seemingly, for tho se of the Santerfa religion. Indeed, the ordi nances specifically excluded Jewish kosher slaughter prarnces. Animals cou ld be killed in butcher shops and restaurants but not in th
e rehgious context of Santerfa. Many quipped that th e Chu rch o f Lukumi Babalu Are was being pe rsecuted for killing a few chickens with a prayer whi le Frank Perdue and Colonel Sanders k'II f h d . ' C
I tens o t ousan s wttho ur one. The question befo re the Supreme
ourt was whether the thr d. · · al I h . ee or rnances passed by rhe city co unci l were consrnunon or w let er they VIOia ted ti · · · h)· ·f· II 1 . . le consmunonal rights of the practition ers of Santena spec1 1ca y eg1slat1ng ag · h · 1· · I k
dow h d' ainsr t eir re 1g1ous practices. T he i'udges unanimous Y st ruc n t c or I nances st t' h h II b t
specifically · d ' ha ing t at t ey were not general ly app licable laws at a u "Although haime at t e Santerfa religion. As Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote,
r e pracuce of an imal ·f· · · b liefs need not b b sacn ice may seem abhorrent to some ' religious e
e accepta le logical · ' . d ro merit First Ame d ' . ' constsrenr, or comprehensible to others in or er
Th S , n menr prorecuon. "' e antena case was an eas . ot
enact laws that su I' . Y one, resnng on the principle rhat "government may n Justice David Sou/press re
1 _gio~s belief or practice," However many people, including
d · • er, were still disqu· d b h ' f h Smith eciston. By this rim I . I . iere a our t e merits and th e precedent o t e
introduced in Congr:;s ;gis .a7n called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act had bee( felt had been eroded wirhrech1seSy to restore the religious freedom many people in public Ii e
t e m1th de · · Th· . I •Tbe ctsion . 1s act, passed in 1995, stated s1mp Y,
II SEE YOU IN COURT I 297
b den a person's free exercise of religion , even if the burden results nt cannot ur d · · I f I 11 · governme I ap pl icabil ity, unl ess the bur en 1s cssent1a to urt 1er a compe 1ng
from a rule of _ge nera nd is the least restricti ve means of furthering that interest. " In nral 1nrereSc a h b h. · · I Th I . I . governme . d I balancing rest of the S er ert case, t 1s nme in aw. e eg1s an on . ·nsnrure r ,e . . b .
effect, 11
rei I d onstirucion al by the Supreme Court 111 1997, 111 part ecause it was was eventually ru e un~ reesta blish a form of judicial reasoning. This, the court believed,
le islative maneuver r . . . a g arive of the 1ud1c1a ry. . , was the prerogf 1. • s freedom lie ar the h eart of some of Americas most hotly con-Q ·ons O re 1g1ou . • h d · ueS
t l h ar e one site o f the encounter and disputation t at are en em1c
d es T e courts . . h I d reste cas · I 1·s m They represent the d1ff1cult places where we t e peop e o
A ·ca's new p ura J • • I , \ . • to men bl esolve o ur differences on our own. Cases 111vo v111g f men ca s
to be a e to r d · not seem _ . ·r·es have graduall y made their way into the court system an into
religi ous communi 1 · · If · I f h newer I •ii · ss to rake advantage of access to the courts 1s 1tse a s1gna o t e case law. T ,e w1 tngne
Americanization process. · h h I d h S' kh n California's Livingstone School Distri ct, for 111stance, t e sc oo s an t e 1 .. com- I . · d rand-off on the questi on of wh ether th ree young Khalsa-1n 1n ated
mumry arri ve at a s h b 1· k . . I d Id be Permitted to attend school wearing t e sym o 1c •1 rpa11 , a ceremonia sru enrs wou f h d · b II · · · d
h · of t he five sacred symbols of the Sikh ait an 1s worn y a tn1nare da gger t at 1s one d d h · k · S'kh I 1994 classmates of a n eleven-year-old Sikh youngster ha spotte 1s 1rpa11 1
h s. h.n I · 1·d up on th e playground and reported this to the teacher. From the srand- w en 1s s 1m s 1 • • • • h h J
· r of rl,e school policy prohibited carrytng weapons, 111clud1ng knives, o n t e sc oo porn ' dh . 'bl' h k ' p premises. From th e standpoint of the Sikh you ~gsre_r an .. 1s rwo s1 111gs, t e ir an was parr of their religious life, a symbol of their h1srnnc_ w1ll111gness to stand up for 1usuce, and being req uir ed to take it off amounted to an 1n fnngemenr of their religious freedom. The U.S. District court barr ed rhe three yo ungsters from wearing the kirpa11, and _rhe~r parents kept them home from school. Bur when the case ca~e to the r:1imh U.S . C1rcu1t Cm1rt of Appeals, rhe court overturned the ruling and requi red the L1~1ngstone Sch_ool District to make "a ll r easonable efforts" ro accommodate the religious beliefs and pracnces of the three Sikh youngsters. According ro the ruling, as long as the kirpans are small, sewn in the sheath, and n ot a th reat to rhe safety of other students, the Sikh sn1dents must be allowed to wear them to school. H ere, the courts were an avenue fo r workmg out a genuine dilemma that schools had not before encou ntered.
In New Jersey the lndo-American Cul rural Society also fou nd the court system necessary in order to resolve a commu ni ty dis pute having ro do with its annual festi val of Navaratri, the "Nine Nigh ts" of rhe Goddess, obs erved on a se ries of weekend nights on the grounds of the Raritan Convention Center in Edison . This fall festival attracted as many as rwelve thousand celebrants, and though it was arguably well out of earshot of resid~ntial areas, a group of citizens tried to block the festival. A 1995 meeting with the Town ship Council of Edison revealed a level of overt prejudice that was shocking to the represenrari_ves of th_e i nd
o-~merican Cultural Society. The ch air of the society wrote to the township council following the meeting,
We wonder if th ere is any awareness in Edison of freedoms of assembly and _religio~. We are immigrants to a d emocracy that provided rhe model for the consmunon lndta ado_pted less than fifty years ago. We wonder how rhe folk who inspired our struggle against colonialism can arbitrarily dismiss our rights,
_The council passed an ordinance aimed at restricting the hours of the feSriva l, per-:tt: for the festival were delayed, and the Indo-American Cultu~a; Socie:Y res~onded y eek1ng an injunction against what it considered the townships unfair ordmance,
1 ..)
298 I RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION
II . J I of 1996 a district judge upheld the rights of the Ind A Evenrua y, in u Y ' • 1 . f I •
0 • llleri I S · But all this required th e wd mgness o t 1e H indus
10 us h Can Cultura oc1ery. . dh z J A d N e t e co
R fl cting on the whole affair, Vivo . • nan , a ew Jersey hum . Un ~=-ec ¾~ ad,·ocate, wrote,
As a New Jersey State Civil Rights Commissioner, I have, since my immig . . ' . c· ·1 R" h ration in 1963 at the height of the American 1v1 1g ts movement, personally struggl d
equity. I can report that the courts seem to be the onl)' venue available to _resolve ,'.ex[~r communal conflicts . While advocacy groups fo r a wide spectrum of social issue . g
f I. · f d d . h d · s ex~t the onus of resolving issues o re 1g1ous ree o m an rig ts, an m this case th ' · f 1· · d · I " h " e more complex conflanon o re 1g1ous an rac1a ot erness, seems to rest onl)• on h
" hh b " d 10st who are wronged and whose rig ts ave een compromise .
Anand went on to report that during the entire struggl e of the Indian com munity . New Jersey not a single religious group or com munity leader reached out to support
1
("
Inda-American Cultural Society in its well-publicized case. "In our democrac)• there _e b. d 1s a paucity of institutions to stud y, educate, ar mate, an promote the credence of the
religious 'other.' Yet for a democracy to flourish, it is imperative that both individua ls and groups be enabled to recogniw that their own sto ries may be fou nd in the stories and lirci of fe llow citizens who may appear dissimilar to themselves."
52
Native American Religious Liberty
Five Hundred Years After Columbus
Walter R. Echo-Hawk
HISTORICAL SUPPRESSION OF NATIVE RELIGION
ChriSropher Columbus's baggage included Europe's long heritage of religious intolerance. I~ 1492 S?ain-fresh from centuries of religious crusades against the infidels fo r possession of~;>
places 111
the Middle East- ... the Spanish Inquisition was in full force and effect. The _JG g ex~elled the Je~vs from Spain on August 2, and, on January 4, military unification as a ChrisnJrl naaon was achieved with the Moorish defeat, which led to the expulsion of the Moslems.
t~ 12 ~ct~ber 1492, Columbus wrote this about the native inhabitants he encountered on 15 arrival In the Western Hemisphere:
NATIVE AMERICAN RE LIGIOUS LIBERTY I 299
They ought to be good servants an_d of good intelligence .... J believe that they would easily be made Clm stia ns _because tt seemed to me that they ha<l no religion. Our Lord pleasing, J will carry off six of them at my departure to Your Highnesses, in or<ler that they may learn to speak.
Old World attitudes of religio us intolerance became_ ingrnined in the United States govern- . Indian policies from the very incepnon of tl11s nauon .... A basic goal of federal
ments h" " I d .. Ch · .. . Indian policy was to convert tf l e. f sapvaged n Jtansk int~
1 dr'.suan cmzens and separate them
from their traditional ,~ays o 1. e: . :est ent a~ sons n 1an removal policy was justified . h name of convernng and c1vtl1Z1ng the Indians. During this removal period, Supreme ~o:ir~ decisions that upheld the government';, raking _o f Indian lands ~n~ the reduction of
ibal sovereignty from independent nanon to domestic dependent na11on status under dis- :~very and conques t principles of internanonal law '.eferred to Indians as "heathen" savages.
Christian missionaries, hired as government Indian agents, were an integral part of fed. I Indian policy fo r over one hundred years. The government placed entire reservations
er~ Indian nations und er the administrati ve co ntrol of different denominations to convert :~e Indians and separate them from their traditions. A number of federal laws, srill on the books today, authorize the sec retar y of the interior to give Indian lands to missionary religious groups fo r "religious o r educational work among the Indians," 25 U.S.C. 348. In Quick Bear v. Leupp , 210 U.S. 50, 8 1-82 (1908), the Supreme Court upheld the 1'.se of federal funds to establish a Catholic school on the Rosebud Indian Reservanon despite a clai m that this government support of religion violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amend ment.
De.spite the government's goal to suppla nt tribal culture with Christianity, 1'.'any Indians clung to their beliefs and practi ces even after they we re confined on reservanons. Chief Walking Buffalo's remarks show defiant na ti ve resistance to government-enforced proselyti zarion :
Yo u whites assumed we were savages. You didn 't understand our pra_yc rs. You didn' t try to understand. When we sang our praises to the sun or moon or wind, you sa 1d _wc were worshipping idols. Witham understa nding, yo u conde mned us as losr souls Just because our fo rm o f worship was different than you rs. .
We saw the G reat Spirit's work in almost everything: sun, moon, trees, wind, and mounrai ns. Sometimes we approached him through these things. Was that so bad? ~ think we have a true belief in the supreme bei ng, a stronger fai th than that of moS t ~ h
I d. 1· · I se to nanire and natures t e whites who have called us pagans . ... n 1ans 1ving c 0 ruler are nor liv ing in darkness.
C . . b b lligerent toward Indian onsequently in th e 1890s federal authormes ecame more e I
. . ' ' II d · II the Ghost Dance, a re tgton. In that decade, United States troops were ca e 111 10 que_ . .
1 1890 "d I · · · • · d d t ass1mtla11on poltc1es. n , Wt e Y practiced triba l religion that 1mpe e governmen ' d w, d d h h. ere massacre at woun e more t an one hundred Lakota Ghost Dance wars ipers w · d • Oki homa
Knee, South Dakota. In 1892 Pawnee Ghost Dance leaders were arr~e in I" -:n and In the same year the BIA [Bu:eau of Indian Affairs] outlawed the Sun adnce re _ 1~1 bl; by ba d h ' 1 d "I d" offenses" and ma e pums a nne ot er ceremoni es that were dee are n tan h I f military interven• withh Jd· f • • d , • · nt facing t c t ireat
0 . o 1ng o rations o r thirty ays 1mpnsonme · . . 1
Ghost Dance and took tlon, arrest, and starvation many In dians stopped pracncing tic Other rituals underground. '
J (J i} -5
r
300 I REUGIOUS OPPRESSION
F I •ernmenr rules supp ressing tribal religions continued well into th I lo9rOm4a r~:'BIA promulgated regulations for its Court of Indian Offenses .e 1
1 90_0,
n ' . . I d d . ' inc ud1 "offenses" rhat banned Indian religious ea ers an ceremonies: ng
Th e "sun dance" and all other similar dances and so -called religious ce . . . . ' . rernon1 shall be considered "I ndi an offenses," and any Indian found guilty of being _es,
ff I II b • I a Pan1c1. pant in any one o r more of these o enses s 1a . . . e pun1s 1ed ....
The usual practices of so-called "medic in e men " shall be conside red "I d' offenses" ... and whenever it shall be proven ... he shall be adjudged guil ty of an i"d'.an
· . h II b f' d . h n ian offense, and upon conv1 ct1on ... s a econ 1ne 1n t e agency guardhouse ....
Even th ough chis ban was lifted in 1934, serious government infringements on n •. religious f'.eedom conrin_ued inro th e 1970s. Tribes witness_ed governmental suppressi:~1~; their religious pracnces 1n numerous ways: arrests of t radmonal Indians fo r possessio f tribal sacred objects such as eagle_ feat hers; crimina l prosecmions fo r rhe religious us: ~f peyote; demal of access to sacred sites located on federal lands; actual destruction of sacred sires; and interfere nce wirh religious ceremonies ar sacred si res ....
The treatment of native worship by the Supreme Court in the recent Lyng and Smith decisions, ana lyzed be low, is especially troubling when considered in the conrexr of the above history. Given the Ion~ histo ry of governmenr suppression of tribal religions, it~ highly doubtful that these umque and irrep laceable indigenous religions can continue
10 survive without any American lega l protection.
THE LYNG DECISION: NEED FOR FEDERAL SACRED SITES LEGISLATION
Worship at sa_c~ed sites is a basic attribute of religion itself. Since the inception of the ma1or_ world _reltg1ons, control over holy places in th e Middle East has always been of deep
1 nrernat1onal concern. Beginning arou nd A.D. 1000, the Ch ri stian world engaged in
a number of military/religious crusades, spann ing several centuries, to wrest control of its holy places from the non-Christian world. Following the Crusades Christian nations resorted to numerous treaties with countri es in control of rhe Holy Land co preservesamd Sites a
nd protect freedom of wors hi p there. T he Crimean Wa r berween France and Russia
was fought over control of Christian holy places.
M.:we_ver, when most Americans think of holy places they chink on ly of well-kno 11
~
H 1 1 e EaS
t ern Sites familiar to the J udea-Ch ristian tra<lirion, suc h as the Chu rch of th1
0
Y Sepulcher (Grave of Ch · t) dB ·1· f h · · , <l B hi h m· M . h . . ns an as1 1ca o t e Nattv1ry 111 Jerusalem an er e e ' ecca, _t _ e Wailing Wall; or Mount Sinai ....
Trad1t1onal Native A · 1· • h o~ beaur·f I db . mencan re igious sites-some of whi ch rank among t e m 1
u an rearhtak1ng I d 1 . . . f · 1an1 roles in r ·b I r . . narura won ers eft tn America-serve a vanecy o 1mpor in truly rt da re igido_n, which should be readily understandable co most people. Howerlf,
un erstan 1ng and p 1 · N . . . y ha1·1 to confront and d.f b . ro ecnng . anve American ho ly places, society ma b because native s modi Y asic values first implanted in this hemisphere by Col um dus,f
acre Sites are n I . . d b dly 1 · ficult for a culrur . h . arura , nor man-made, sttes .... It ts un ou '.e . hi "religious do · e wn,, an tnherenr fear of "wilderness" and a fundamental beltef in 1 mtnatton of hu . f
3
111r1 can be sacred. . . . mans over a111mals to envision that certain aspects
O n
NATIVE AMERICAN AEUG1ous LIBERTY I 301
[HJowever, federal agen~ies such as the Forest Service and rhe National Park Service epearedly destroyed irreplaceable nattve sacred sires The courcs have cons· I have r ' . . f . · 1srenr y nwilling co fin d any prorecttons or Indians under rhe First Amendment
0 been u I . . r any
The struggle in th e courts cu m1nared m 1988, when the Su preme Cou r I d srarure. . .d h . . r rue . L ng rhac Indians stand omst e c e purview of the First Amendment enti rely when ir ,n y to protecting tribal religious areas on federal lands for worship purposes. co~ne~yng, a sharpl y divid ed Court denied First Amendment protection ro tribal worship
sacred sire in northern Californ ia rhar would ad mmedly be destroyed by a proposed ~~;est Se rvice logging road. Th e frightening aspect _of the Courr's refusal ro protect wor- h. at rhis ancie nc holy area was that the Court w,rhhe ld protection, knowing that "the s IP f I ,. . . .
th rear to rhe efficacy o at east some re 1g1ous practices ts extremely grave." ... In short, government may destroy an entire Indian religion under Lyng wirh consrirurional
impunity, unless it also goes funher and punishes the Indians or forces them to violate their re ligion. The Court reached rh1s result by an unprecedented narrow construction of the Free Exercise Clause. Ir held char Free Exercise protection arise 011/y in those rare instances when government punishes a person for practicing religion or coerces one into violating his religion. Because it is hard ro imagine rare instances in wh ich rhar will happen, rhe Cou rr's narrow interpretation renders rh e Free Exercise Clause a vi rtual nullity. This crabbed reading of the Bill of Rights is one char should deeply concern all citizens who cherish religious freedom principles, because, under Lyng, United Scares law guarantees less religious freedom than most other democracies and some nondemocratic nations.
As to the Indians in Lyng, the Coui't di sclaimed judicial responsibility ro safeguard reli- gious freedom from government infringement, staring rha c any protection fo r them "is for the legislatures and other inscirurions." Former J usrice Brennan's disse nt noted the "cruelly su rreal result" produced by the majority deci sion:
[GJovernmental action char will virtua lly destroy a rel igion is nevertheless deemed nor co "burd en" that religion.
As a result of Lyng, there are no legal safeguards for native worship at sacred sires under the United Stares Consrirmion and laws, laying bare a basic attribu re of religion itself. This legal anomaly has frightening im plications for remaining tribal religions struggling ro survive ....
From a policy scandpoinr, no religious group should be stripped of First Amendment protections in a democratic society so chat its ability ro worship is made wholly dependent on administrative whim. This is especially true for unpo pular or des pised minority reli- gious groups, such as American Indians who have suffered a long history of government religious suppression. '
. The failure of American law to protect holy places illustrates a large r failu re of law to incorporate indigenous needs into a legal system otherwise intended to protect all citizens. Cenai nly, if this country contained holy ground considered important co the Judeo-Chrisrian traditton? American law and social policy would undoubted ly accord stringent prorecttons. Because tmporranr Judeo-Cluistian sites are located in other nations, it is underSrandable thar, as American law developed in the United Stares it never addressed this aspect of religious :reedon,. Thus, when native religious practirione:s-who are th e only ones with religious ties eo h_oly ground located in this country-petitioned the courts, they found rhar the_ law was ill ~uipped to Protect their religious liberty. However, if the purpose of law is ro fairly protect
~~fu nd
an,ental interests of our diverse and pluralistic society, then tt muSr someday address tgenous needs, so that all basic human rights are fairly and equally protected. . ..
0 .;j ,?
302 I RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION
53
Religious Freedom Advocates Are Divided Over How to Address LGBT Rights
Kelsey Dallas
Major players in the ongoing battle over religim1s freedom and LGBT rights are discussin • e rights LGBT protections and leg1slanon needed to balance those com . g consc,enc , peting
interests. .
Faith leaders and LGBT activists are_n't the only ones 1s sea rch of co_nsensus since ihe Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage. They are responding to in-fighting within tht community of scholars, lawyers and policymakers who once worked together as religiou; freedom advocates.
"We all think ... the view that non-discrimination protections must crowd out every other value is wrong, but we have different visions of the right," said Robin Frm,.,1 Wilson, director of the family law and policy program at the University of Illinois Colleg! of Law and one of the meeting's organizers.
Wilson is a leader of what has been labe lled the "Fairness for All" camp, workini with lawmakers across the country to enact laws, like the Utah Compromise, tha1 balance sexua l orientation and gender identity, or SOGI, anti-d iscrimination lawswitn exemptions to protect the conscience rights of faith communities and religious busin1% owners.
The other side, populated by prom inent scholars and traditional marriage supponm like Robert George of Princeton University and Russell Moo re of the Southern Bapriit Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commiss ion , rejects SOGI protections, calling for stronger religious freedom laws rathe r than Fairness for All legislatio n.
The latter group of religious leaders recently outlined their arguments in a public lemr titled "Preserve Freedom, Reject Coercion (http://www.colsonce nter.org/freedom)." · · ·
It was the most public acknowledgment yet of the gridlock that's taken hold in co~pr~ mise efforts that have involved LGBT activists, national corporations, religiou_sly affihaitd colleges, small-business owners and other groups with a stake in the LGBT rights. l
Conflict is inevitable, especially when SOGI law supporters and detractors can ma e meaningful arguments to support their view, said Tim Schultz, president of
th c
1 ~ Amendment Partnership.
But he, like other religious freedom advocates, is hoping to keep war at bay. · · ·
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM TODAY
Inllr ecent years, the tone and politics of religious freedom debates has changed ~r~:: ca y. Conscience ri h . . . h R 1· ·ous Free R
. g ts were once a premier b1pamsan cause-t e e igi e; of estorat1on Act of 1993 f II h I • b th hous C b e t ree votes shy of passing unanimous Y m O • I bels of ongress- lit has n b . • I d' is1ve a b . . ow ecorne a pamsan litmus test that earn es t 1e iv 1got and sinner.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ADVOCATES ARE DIVIDED OVER How TO ADDRESS LGBT RIGHTS I 303
G Vl·ng tension sterns from man y sou rces, including the nature of m d' ro, . f f . e 1a coverage, . bo)'COtts and the inter erence o nanonal advocacy group in local polit' d
busrness h •cs, accor -. Schultz and or ers.
ingf;r exam ple, controversy erupted in 2015 when Indiana passed a law offering typical I
vcl RFRA protections and also expandmg on them .... Critics took to news si tes state- e I d · d h ' . I media pages and bogs to ecry It, an t e governors of states like Connecticut and soc1a d • • · I I
New York banned a m1n1 strat1ve trave to t 1e st~te.
National businesses threatened boycotts, upping the stakes of the debate in Indiana and . dizing future efforts to craft conscience rights protecr,ons .... 1eopar . f d . d'
The risk of business inter erence an negative me ,a cove rage has increased interest in Fairness for All legislation, simila_r to whar passed the Utah Legislature in 2015. However, those behind the Utah Comp ro ,rnse say eve n a more balanced approach isn't immune from high-profile scru tin y. . .
"As we went through the process (of drafting the bill) , people on the LGBT rights 'de would have to check with organizations like the Human Rights Campaign and the
~CLU . And at the same tim e, we were running it by religious freedom scholars and attor- neys inside and outside of the state," said Utah State Sen. Stuart Adams ....
Passed in March 2015, Utah's law protected members of the LGBT community from discrimination in housing and employme nt, whi le also ensuring the rights of fai th groups and gove rnment officials with deeply held religious beliefs. It su_cceeded with the support of the dominant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other religious sta keholders in the state , as well as representatives of local and national LGBT righ ts groups.
STUMBLING BLOCK
Adams now partners with Wilson to educate lawmakers and commu~ity leaders abom the Utah Compromise, corr ecting false perceptions and combarring the mcreasmgly polarized political climate . ...
Ryan Anderson, a senio r fellow at the Heritage Foundation who signed the December letter, is one of the most prominent SOGI critics. He disagrees with the logic of Fairness for All legislation, arguing that now is not the time to turn sexual orientation and gender identity into protected categories under the law. . d' . I
Instead, po licymake rs should prioritize passing laws that ensure the rights of tra itiona marriage supporters, Anderson said. . . . b I' f ·
Even when SOGI laws include religious exemptions, as Utah's did, they caS t
e ie 111 traditional marriage in a negative light Anderson said. . F
• ' . . . • f I to hire house or serve a1rness for All legislation defines d1scnmmanons as a re usa . ' d people fron1 the LGBT community or participate in a same-sex weddmg ceremony, an then exempts the actions of some religious groups. . " h ·
1
d "Th I ·11 II v the exemption, e sa , e concern here is that over time the rue Wt swa O\ f
1
. • • . , ' . . e-outs or re 1g1ous citing a 2014 Washington, D.C., City Council dec1s1on to remove carv
schools from a previously passed SOGI law. . h they can point to Recent research shows religious objectors fare better 111 court wF. enA dment
fa'th b · · d f · st the irst men · 1
- ased exemptions to statutory protections mStea O JU 1
. 1
. I dscape of SOGI W·t I d d h t the eg1s auve an
1 son, the Illinois law professor, acknow e ge t a lawss · · k 0 meumes put religious freedom at ns • · · ·
-
304 I RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION
H wever Wilson and Schultz both said a spotty SOG I record in th e past s\i Id 0 ' k ou ll 't the brakes on future Fairness for All wor • • • • Pllt
DEEPER ENGAGEMENT
The arguments for both sides have develop ed over more than a decade of studi· I d. f d . . b k tng oca\ state and fede ral laws, atten mg con erences an wmmg oo s and papers. And h .'
viewpoints continue to evolve. . . . t e11
As they've worked to draw others into their camps, religious liberty experts ha . . d h ·d· d h. ve tned to pass on rh1 s same measure approac , prov1 1ng context an 1story rather tha b .
n a nef stump speech ....
!he l'Jationa\ Association of Ev~ngelicals and the Council fo r Chri stian Colleges & Umversmes _s~w the value of exp\ormg efforts to balance LGBT nondiscriminat ion meas- ures and religious liberty .. ..
"The goal was to solicit input from and the wisdom of th ese leaders. We wamed to hear their thoughts and concerns and offer support," said Shapri LoMaglio, CCCU's vi president for government and external relations. . . . ci
ON THE HORIZON
Few people wou ld have predicted that Utah would emerge as a groundbreaker in Fairn ess for All legislation. In addition to public urging by leaders of the LOS Church, policymakers were pushed to add ress the divisive issue because of the rapid spread of nondiscrimination ordinances at the mun icipal level, which had created confusion for statewi de business . . ..
This si tuation is becoming more common across the country, as LGBT rights advocates move the needle in their favour at the local level, Sc haerr said.
"Most opponents of Fairness for All legislatio n ignore th e reality that t he LGBT com· mumty has succe_eded and continues to succeed in enacting strong LGBT protections in large and small Cities throughout the nation ," he sa id.
T_hese SOGI statutes often pass with out reli gious exemptions, Wilson said. Addi!ionally, they create discrepan cies from city to city that are hard for business owners to sort out.
Anor h er reason for the recent surge in interest in SOGI laws and Fairness for Al l legi;•
lation is th
e_ election of Donald Trump. Some argue that he and a Rep ublican-concro\kd Congress well be able t 1· · f d . .
o reassert re 1g1ous ree om as a core priority .. .. In the face o f g O · I · · • . h 'd of che So r wmg po artzat1on, rehgcous freedom scholars on bot SI e GI debate said they' · d k · · · · n B h . re commctte to eepcng the lcnes o f commun ccatton ope ·
1 C ot . camps find common ground in mutual dissatisfaction with the recent UI 0 mm1ss1on on Civil p · h 6 . . . d d SOG . , cg ts report a out confli ct between relcgcous free om an . protections. Commissi ·d d . h . • hts paint·
in bi k . oners si e wit LGBT protections o ver conscience n g • \a ea_ picture of efforts to find compromise.
nen~r TWhclsobn, thhe report was as frust rating as the December letter from SOGI opp-0" · ey ot re1ec1 th e · f
"If p I f notton o peaceful coexistence. h~ eop e rom the d I f d d . the ot "
deserves no . eep e t an eep right descend on a state and both say . the middle get dprotectdcon,
th is isn't going to work,» she said. "The reasonable people en rowne out.»
54 FROM PEARL HARBOR TO 9/11 I 305
From Pearl Harbor to 9/11
Lessons from the Internment of Japanese American Buddhists
Duncan RyOken Williams
Buddhist priests, classified by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as potentially the most dange rous Japanese aliens, were among the fi rst grou ps arrested by government offi- cials following the bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 194 I. ... Unlike Japanese American Christian priests and ministers, Bu dd hist priests were closely associated with Japan and thus with potentially subversive act ivity . ... This perception that Bu ddhists (i n contrast to Christians) were more Japanese than American was held not only by the FB I and the Wartime Relocation Authority (WRA) but also by the public at la rge, including some members of the Japanese American community. The history of Japanese Ameri can Buddhism during World War 11 , in fact, centers on this question of id e111iry, both et hnic and religious.
The first Japanese Buddhist priests arri ved in Hawaii and the U.S. mainland in the 1890s to minister to the first-gene ration issei. Most issei were Budd hists who had initially immigrated to Hawaii to work on plantations and to the mainland as contrac t laborers for railroad, lumber, mining, and cannery companies as well as on farms. In 1900, the Japanese immigrant population had risen to 24,326, most of them transient men. In 1930, however, th e Japanese American population had grown to 138,834 and increasingly was composed of fami li es with stable jobs and even small businesses. By the eve o f the war, Buddh is t templ es functioned as both religious and community centers in all areas where Japanese Ame ricans were concentrated, especially in Californ ia .. . . The FBl's decisio n to target Buddhist priests can be traced pri marily to the conflation o f Buddhism wi th state Shimo, which emphasized worship of the emperor as a deity and loyalty to the Japanese imperial empire. Not unti l the postwar period would Americans see Ja panese Buddhism as a distinct tradi tion.
Newspaper editors an d members of Congress accused all Japanese, including Japanese Am erican children, o f being loyal 10 the Japanese government and called for their re moval from _ the West Coast. After their priests were taken away to "enemy aH~n" camps, the remam ing members of Bu ddhist temples tried their best to conti nue religious services as ;ve11 as commun ity affairs. For example, the wives of priests an~ nonordamed temple eaders took on duries th at priests previously had performed exclusively. . .
By February 1942 the U.S. government set in motion the large-scale mcarcerauon of ~he broader Japanes: American community. On February 19, 1942, Presid~nt Roosevelt issued Executive O rder 9066 wh ich ultimately led to the designation of restricted military zones on the West Coast and the subsequen t removal of all persons of Jap~nese anceS!~ frorn
th ose areas. In the ensu ing months, the atmosphere in the communcry was one 0 anxiety •
'. uncertainty, and fear. . . . Ch • t" nit while Durmg this period o f war hysteria some Buddhists converted to ns ia Yf, .
othe b ' I J anese cultural am acts m rs urned Japanese-language books and other persona ap h"\ • It eously :n attempt to destroy, literally and symbolically, their Japanese~ess w I e/;~e:;arents emon
st rating their Americanness. Mary Nagatomi, for examp e, remem er
RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION .
306 I sed for the family bath to burn everyth ing i h he wood stove u f . d. . I J n t e
telling her to go to 1 . ,, • including her avorite tra 11tona apanese doll . h "M de ,n Japan on ,1, I b set
household w11 a . 6 Id not bring 1hc111se ves to urn was a set of Buddh· . h f mil)' mem ers cou . . k. 1st The one 11em t e a . d ft r wrapping the scriptures 111 1111000 cloth pla .
I . I I father burie a e d . I I f I , c1ng sutras, w uc 1 t ie k b d using a backhoe to ,g a 10 e or t 1cm on the fa ·1. . I r,ce-crac er ox, an . IC 1·r . . m1)
them m a meta . 6 ried somewhere in centra a I orn1a, a stl ent testim Th acred texts remain u . I Id ony farm. ese ~ ddh . .d i°t)' of one family, tesnmony t 1at cou not be coinpl et I· to the enduring Bu 1st I en ' . . e )
bl . d despite the seeming necessity of doing so.
o iterate
· · · . B ddhists faced a crisis of identity and faith as they end ured a harsh Japanese Amencan LI • • f I d I I
. h . ent camps and the real11tes o t 1e esert 1ea1, couped with the J ourney to t e mternm I d w r h. I
I d I I were prisoners in their own an . wit 111 t l e camps, surrounded b)· know e ge t iat t 1ey . f I · b · b b d . d armed guards arose the quest1on o w 1at 1t means to e s1multaneousl)· ar e w1 re an ~ . . di . , American and Buddhist. What ,s an American Bud 11st • " ,, .
Buddhist life in the camps revolved around the barrack churches, which held reli, gious services and education classes (in some cases in mess halls and recreation buildings), especially on Sundays. According to th_e Reverend Arthur Take111ow, a young_ man during the internment period, Buddhist teachmgs such as those on suffering and patience helped alleviate the pain and confusion that many residents faced: "Understanding the basic tenm of Buddhism orients people to understand the reality of life, that th ings don't go the way we want them to go. This becomes dukklia, suffering and pain. To be able to accept a situation as it is means we cou ld tolerate it more."
In this way, Buddhism not on!)' provided a spiritual refuge for internees but also smed the social function of maintain ing family and communal cohesion through ancestral and life-cycle ritua ls and traditional Japanese festival s and ceremonies.
Whi le Buddhism was, in this sense, a repository of Japanese tradi tions, it was also forced to operate in the context of an Americanization program promoted by the WRA. This program was organized to assimilate the Japanese and allow them to demonma1, loyahy_ to _the United States. According to the /11 vestigatio 11 of U11-A111erica11 Propagand.i Actw1t1es III the United States (1943) prepared by the Subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives Spedal Com mittee on Un-American Activities, camp administratm should promote recrea11onal activities such as baseball and basketball as well as encourag, ~~~~nees to i?in groups such _as the Boy and Girl Scouts a nd the YMCNYWCA. Being
111st obviously was not listed as a method of demonstrating loyalr)', but Buddh~t groups made their own attempts at Americanization.
In May 1944 the nan f h I · · · · C -as h f ' ie O I e argest Buddhist orga111zat1on tn the Topaz amp 11 \ aAmnged. rom the Buddhist Mission of North America (Bi'v!NA) to the Buddhist Churches 0 erica (BCA) to give ti · · Tl mp exp · h le orgarnza11on a more Christian-sounding name. 1e ca
erience, owever only I d . ·or to th e wa r Tl ' .k acce erate an assimilation process that had al ready begun P11
· 1e swas11 a syinb I f d . . mple equipment prior t h . 0 ' 0 ten use on Buddhist templ e stationery or on te b·
0 t e internment d. d · II)' ) the dharma wh I B . . , isappeare and was replaced almost uni versa d Buddhist Soldie;;.: · · 8 Jd~ngmg_ga_thas as hymns, including Dorothy Hunt's "Onwat Buddhism. They d:d· · uh 'sts wnhtn the camp created a new medium for Ameticaniuog · 1
1 so, owever 111 h d. · while simu taneously dem . ' a way t at honored their Buddhist tra 111ons . 0 nstrat,ng lo I h . f 1he
coinmunny, having stud· d h ya ty to t e Untted States The young members O • medium to maintain B~dedht. e Bduddhist "Junior Catechism ,; for example, used a Christi~ called h p tst I en111y M f ' h ·ght"' 1 e rotestantization of B d . · any o these elements constitute w at mi
As Buddhists 311 u dh1sm .. . , speakin, · • empted to find a pl · . E giish-
g nisei also worked . ace in mamstream American societ)', the 11 to gain a pl f . bl. pheti
ace or American Buddhism in the pu IC s
FROM PEARL HARBOR TO 9/ 11 307
. d closely related ca mpaigns to remember the lives and sacrifices made 1he)' organize_ nv~rvicernen who had served in the I 00th/442nd in Europe or as transla- by the inan)'
1 ° 1 isei s gatherers in the Pacific T heater's M ili tary Intelligence Service. A war
d inte igence I d B f B dell . . h I tors an d , 1 Budd hist, Tad Hi rota, e a or u mm campaign to ave t 1e and ei ou cl · b · B d · · veteran ' .. II nize Buddhists in the arme services y creating a estgnauon on ff1c1a Y recog , I d I h rr· · I f P f arn1Y O . World War II, the military ia on y t ree o 1c1a pr e ercnccs: or
dog rags. (~ii;'n~ tholic and H fo r H ebrew.) ... After some deliberation, a compromise Protestant, d .
0 r94; that designated X to be used 011 dog tags for anyone not of the existing
was reache_ 111
eferences. Furtherm o re, an additional dog tag could be supplied by the three r~hghious lpr templ e that would positiv ely identify his religi o n. The Nat ional Young
ld1er s c urc 1 or · d f B ddh . b I b so . C d. ating Council s ubsequentl y campatgne or a u tst sym o to e Buddhist oor ,n, I . f ..
h I dstones of Buddhist veterans at nationa cemeteries. A ter pe11t1ons were laced on t e 1ea d J · · ·b h P S of Defense Louis Johnson the a rmy agree ate tn 1949 to 1nscr1 e t e sent to ecretary , ' . f . h h .
ddl • blem" for American soldiers of the Buddh ist ait . T ese two campaigns "Bu 11st em . ddh . important legacy of the camps, testing both Japanese American Bu est
represent an ' . , . dd . . .. loyalty to America and America s loyalty to Its Bu hcst c111zens.
\0hile the long histo ry of the Japanese American Buddhist experience obviously holds lessons for more recent Asian American immigrant Bud dhist groups, one wonders if the war and incarceration experience cannot also inform and illumi nate th e recent unfolding of a "new religious America," as Diana Eck puts it. In parti cular, one wonders wh ether the targeting and harassment of Muslim Americans, Arab Americans, and those who may look like those who were responsible for the 9/11 anacks (such as Sikhs and other south Asians) parallels the Japanese American experience following Pearl Harbor.
According t o th e Council on American-Islamic Relations, which was tracking anti- Muslim incid en ts long before 9/ 1 I, cases of discrimination and attacks have soa red si nce that event. Ethnic and religious profi ling at a irports and workplaces as well as physical violence (including t he shooting of Balbir Singh Sodhi, a Si kh gas sta tion owner in Mesa, Arizona) recall the hate c rimes and discrimination faced by Japanese Amer icans after Pearl Harbor. J ust as Japanese Amer ican Bu ddhi st temples were vandalized and a_ncient Buddhist symbols, such as the swastikas (manji) that hung at templ e doors, were ridd led with shotgun fire by angry white neighbors, one saw an angry mob of three hu_nd'.ed peop le c hanting "U.S.A., U.S.A." and marching on a mosque in Bridgeview, Illmois, right after 9/ 11. Whether it was the vanda lizi ng of a Muslim bookstore in Alexand · y- · · ii 1
rm, 1rgcn1a, o n September 12, o r someone shooting into a Da as-area mosque, 1 ie _lslamic Center of Irving, Islamic sy mbols quickl y became targets for those caught
up 1p war hysteri a. "Visible religion," whet he r in dress o r looks, combined with ethnic
prlo ding has once again proved to be a fa cto r in how American religi ous pluralism and to etance a re defined .
in Jtt ~s hundreds of Buddhist priests were picked up by the FBI and hysterical claims were P:s/9~ at Buddhist bells were goi ng 10 send Morse code message to the J apanese navy, t_he ",
11 period has see n tts share of indiscriminate arrests of thousands of young Musltm
•neiny alien " II · · d f ha, s as we as the targeting of Muslim charitable orgamzat,ons accuse o , ing terror 1· k .
Am . . 1st tn s. Many have developed the same kind of loyalty strategtes as Japanese encans did f II · I h h Am · ' ·I 1· Cou .1 ° owmg 'earl Harbor: calls by organizations sue as t e ertcan 1v us 1111
the v"ci _ 10
cooperate with the FBI and support the president or drives to donate blood for somet~tirns of the World Trade Cen ter. While the rush to conversion, a strategy followed by but al ap
5 anese American Buddhists, is not an option for many Muslims, not only Muslims
so tkhs d ff cl . I \m . h flying Arn . an tn us have sought ways of demonstraung Joya ty to J erica, sue as . . . encan flags or toning down reli gious or ethnic differences.
- 308 I RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION
h . s since Pearl Harbor, America has chan ged dra111atica\ly for J In t e sixty year 1 , · \ ., .
11 . apan ....
. 1 J 2000 White House ceremony, resit cnt u1 Clinton best '"' Americans. n a une \ • owed th I T ,, I ighest award the Medal of Honor, o n twe nt)'-two I s1an American War e
m1 itaJq s :se American, veterans of the 442nd Regimental Combat Unit and the vlOetOer. ans. apan . (D H ·· i , I d 1h B I. h as Senator Darnel Inoue - awa11 , were 1onorc for their v I .
Th. action clear!)' signaled that Japanese Americans arc no onger seen as f . atta 10n, sue • I a or 1n I
war. 1s . . f I I . I fi • ore1g 0 • J a ese American and Buddhist occupation o sue 1 11g 1-pro de public p .. ers . ... ap n . . . , I" . . . I J
1 . . . os1t1on
1 demonstrates a significant shift m Americas re 1g1ous, socia , an po 1t1cal life, ... While the camp experience appears to have acce leratcJ these t_yµes of post-war
assimilationist tendencies-wanting_to 1
beflo'.1\a~i ro _a pptar ~~ya::--a lingering suspicion of mass incarceration and the derna o civ1 I ert1cs o; l us 1111 Americans remains strong among Japanese Americans, esµec 1ally after the FB I brought 111 five thousand men primarily of Arab and south Asian descent, for questioning 1n the domestic "w on t~rro r." Within two and a half weeks of 9/1 1, two New York Ti111es articles, "War:; Terrorism Stirs Memory of Int ernment" and "Recal ling Internment and Saying 'Never Again,'" chronicled what many Japanese Americans felt was a special resµonsibility
10 guard against et hnic scapegoating. Proclaiming that "we need to do ever)•thing that we wi sh good Ameri cans had done 59 years ago," the executive director of the San Francisco Japanese American Cu ltural and Community Cente r, Paul Osaki, was one of many community leaders speaking out against vio lence and discrimination against Musl im Americans. On September 19, Japanese American leaders coordi nated an unprecedented gathering of ethnic and religious leaders, including those from the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, the American Muslim Cou nci l, and the Council on American -Isla mic Relations, to meet at the National Japan ese American Memorial in Washington, D.C., and call fo r law enforcement officers and oth ers to adequately address hate violence against religious and et hnic minorities.
Many Japanese Americans took on the conflicted identity of being a Japanese American Buddh ist in the crucible of war. One wonders if 9/1 J will also tum ollt to be similarly significant for Muslim Americans as they struggle with Americanization and resistance 1o it in their ethnic and religious identity formatio n.
55
A Somali Influx Unsettles Latino Meatpackers
Kirk Semple
Gran_d Island, Ncb.-Like many workers at the meatpacking plant here, Raul_~· Garcian,,: M A . . h f S I unm1gra exican- mtncan, as watched with some discomfort as hundreds o oma I Id bf hav_e moved to town in the past couple of years, many of them to fill jobs once he Launo work_ers taken away in immigration raids. b ll owed
Mr. Garcia has been particularly troubled by t he Somalis' demand that they e ~ said, special breaks fo r prayers that are obligatory for devout Muslims. The breaks, e
A SOMALI INFLUX UNSETTLES LATINO MEATPACKERS
Id inconvenience everyone else. "The Latino is ve ry humble" said 1\·lr G • 73
h wou d b BS U S , , ~ . arc1a, , w
0 I •orked at the plant, owne )' J . . A. Inc., s111ce 1994. "But they are a .. h ms" . k "Tl l"k I U . rrogam, e .d f the Somali wor ·ers. icy act I e t 1e n1ted States owes them " sa1 o h . ·
Mr. Garcia was among more, t an 1,000 Launo and other workers who protested a decision last month by the plant s _managemem to cut the_ir work day-and their pay- by 15 minutes to give_ scores of Son'.ali workers time for even111g prayers. After several days of strikes and disrupuons, the pl_am s ma nagement aban_doned th e plan. But the dispute peeled back a la ye r of civil ity 111 tl11s southern Nebraska city of 47,000, revealing slow-burning racial and ethnic te nsionsdiat hav~ been an unexpected aftermath of the enforcement raids at workplaces by federal 1111migrat1on authorn1es.
Grand Island is among a half dozen or so cities where discord has arisen with the rival of Somali workers, many of whom were recrui ted by employers from elsewhere in :,~c United States after immigration raids sharply reduced their Latino work forces. The
Somalis are by an d large in this country legally as political refugees and therefore are not singled out by immigration authorities.
In some of these places, including Grand Island, this newest wave of immigrant workers has had the effect of un ifying the other ethnic populations against the Somalis and has also diverted some of the longstanding hostility toward L1tino immigrants among some native-born residents. "Every wave of immigrants has had to struggle to get assimilated," said Margaret Hornady, th e mayor of Grand Island and a longtime resident of Nebraska. "Right now, it's so volatile."
The federal immigration crackdown has hit meat- and poultry-packing plants particu- larly hard, with more than 2,000 immigrant workers in at least nine places detained since 2006 in major raids, most on imm igration violations. Struggling to fi ll the gru eling low- wage jobs that attract fe w American wor kers, the plants have placed advertisements in immigram newspapers and circulated niers in immigrant neighborhoods.
Some compan ies, li ke Swift & Company, which owned the plant in Grand Island unti l being bought up by the Brazilian conglomerate JBS last yea r, have made a particular pitch for Somalis because of thei r legal status. Tens of thousands of Somali refugees Ocemg civil war have settled in the United States since the 199Os, with the largest concentration in Minnesota. But th e compani es are learning that in trying to solve one problem they have created another.
Early last month, about 220 Somali Muslims walked off the job at a JBS meatpackin_g plant in Greeley, Colo., saying the company had prevented them from observing their prayer schedu le. (More than J 00 of the workers were later fired.) Days later, a poultry company in Minnesota agreed to allow Muslim workers prayer breaks and the right to refuse handling pork products, settli ng a lawsuit filed by nine Somali workers. In AuguSt, the management of a Tyson chicken plant in Shelbyville, Tenn. , designated a Mushm holy day as a paid holiday, acceding to a demand by Somali workers. The plant had ongmally agreed to substitute the Muslim holy day fo r Labor Day, but reinstated Labor Day after a barrage of criticism from non-Muslims.
0
N° · · ·d · · · · I · b Muslim workers have more at1onw1 e, employment d1scrim111at1on comp amts Y ' . h
1998 th
an doubled in the past decade, to 607 in th e 2007 fiscal year, from 285 . 111. \/ which fiscal )'ear, according to the federal Eq11al E111ploy111e11t Opport11tuty Comh111155c'·0 .,' R" ht has • · s mali workers. T e ivi ig s sent representatives to Grand Island to interview O I I A f d I" · n and says t 1at emp oyers ct
O 1964 forbids employers to discriminate base on re igio t"ons
mu " • B the act offers some excep i , . st
reasonably accommodate" rel igious practices. ut d h" ., the company's 1n cl_uding instances when adjustments would cause "undue har s ip on
business interests.
309
310 I RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION
. h e extend well beyond the wa ll s of t he plant. Scratch b The new tensions er d. f <l • ' enea h I d' f nd there is resentment, tsco m ort an mistrust everywh t Grand Is an s sur ace a . d I . . . ere,
50111 . b een the white communtty an t 1c various 1111n11grant com .. e residents say- etw . . l' k I , . • <l I n1una 1 ci,
I Id ·mmigrant commun1t1es, 1 et 1e <-attnos, an t 1c newer ones , between t 1e o er 1
. I I , narne1 . I. d ti e Sudanese ano th er refugee com11111n1t y t 1at las grown here i I the So ma 1s an
1 '
1 . d I S n recen
1 db tween the Somalis who arc largely Mus 1111, an t 1c udanese, who are I years; an e ' ' argely
Christian. . , d t 'd In dozens of interviews here, white, L:
1 anno an
1 _ o t 1er fres1 efnts
1
secmed l11ostly be"il, dered, if not downright suspicious, oft 1cf s
1 o 1 ma ,
1 s·, very
1
_ _ cw ob w 10111 speak English. , 1 kind of admire all the effort they make to O ow t iat re 1g1011, . Ill someri111es )'OU have10
adapt to the workplace," said Fidenc10 Sandoval, a plant _ wo rke.r born 111 lvlexico who hai become an American citizen. "A new culture comes 111 w11h their d emands and says, 'Th~ is what we want.' T his is kind of new for me."
i,~; their part, the Somalis say th ey feel aggrieved and no t particu larly welcom e. 'A lot of people loo k at you wei rd-they judge you," said Abdisamad Jama, 22, a Sornali who moved to Grand Island two years ago to work as an imerpreter at t he plant and no"· freelances. "Or sometim es they will say, 'Go back to your country.'"
Found ed in the mid- 19th century by German immigran ts, G rand Island graduallr became more diverse in th e mid- and late-20th century with th e arrival of Latino worker~ mainly Mexicans. T he Latinos came at first to work in the agricultural fields; later arri
1 ·~
1 found em ploy ment in the meatpacking plant. Refugees fro m Laos and, in the pasr few years, Sudan fol lowed, and many of them also found work in t he plant, which is now the ci ty's largest employer, with about 2,700 workers.
In Decembe r 2006, in an event that would deeply affect the city and alter its uneasy balance of ethnicities, immigration autho rities raided the plant and took awa y more than 200 illegal Latino workers. Another 200 or so workers q uit soon afterward. The raid was one of six swee ps by federa l agents at plants owned by Swift, gutting the company of about 1,200 workers in one day and fo rcing th e plants to slow th eir operations.
Many of the Somalis who eventually arrived to fill those jobs were practicing Musl ims and their fa ith obliges them to pray at five fixed times every day. In Grand Island, the workers wou ld grab prayer time whenever they co uld , dttring scheduled rest periods oron restroom breaks. But during the holy mo nth of Ramadan , Muslims fast in daylight ho~~ and break their fast in a ritualistic ceremo ny at sundow n. A more formal accomrnodanon of their needs was necessary, the Somali workers said.
Last year, the Somalis here demanded time off for the Ramadan ceremony. The comp 3 nr
refused, saying it could not affo rd to let so many workers step away from the produe1ion line at one time. Dozens of Somalis qu it, though they eventually retu rned to wo rk, Th~ situation repeated itself last month. Dennis Sydow, th e plant's vice president and gener manager, said a delegation of Somali workers ap proached him o n Sept. 10 abou t allo
11 :ng th
em to take their dinner break at 7:30 p.m., near sundow n, rather than at the normal nme of 8 to 8:30. d
Mr. Sydow rejected the request saying the productio n line would slow to a crawlhJn_ ti S t· ' k ' 1· d t eir le oma ts co-wor ers would unfai rl y have to take up the slack. T he Soma ts sai . co-workers did not offer a lot of support. "Latinos were sometimes saying, ' Don't prl), don't pray,'" said Abdifatah Warsamc 21 .
Af IS · ' · dlun1on b ter I
le omalis went out on strike o n Sept 15 the plant's management an t 1e IO!I roke.r:d a deal the next day that would have ~hifr'ed the dinner break to 7:
45 p.m., c !is.
ehnoug to ~u nd
own 10
satisfy the Somalis. Because of the plant's complex scheduling r~.,,,. t e new dinner bre k Id h
1 •f potenn~
. a \Vou ave also required an earlier end to the s 11 1• cutting the work day by 15 minutes.
A SOMALI INFLUX UNSETTLES LATINO MEATPACKERS I 311 I Counterprotest on Sept. 17, more than 1,000 Latino and Sudanese k
1
. d n a . . . . . , wor crs 1ne I gside white workers 111 opposmon to the concessions to the Somalis Tl .
up a on b k d d . . . , , . . 1e union and th e plant managem_ent ac e own, revcrttng to the o riginal dinner schedule. More h 70 Somalis, includ111g Mr. Warsame, stormed out of the plant and did not retttrn · the
I an r· d ' y either quit o r were ire , Since then , Ramadan has ended and wo rk has ren1rned to normal at the plant, but most
Oll e-ma nagement, the union an d the employees-says the root causes of the distttr every . . . ·
bances have not been fully addressed. A stz~able Somali conttngem remains employed at I facrory-Somah leaders say the nu mber 1s abot11 I 00; the un ion puts the figu re at more
tile 300 making similar disruptions possib le next year. t 1an , '
Xa.wa Ahmed, 48, a Som ali, moved to Grand Island from M innesota last momh to help ganize rhe Somali commun ity. A big part of her work, Ms. Ah med said, will be to help
~:mystify the Som alis who remain. " We're tr ying to make people understand why we do these things, why we practice th is religion, why we live in America," she said . "There's a lot of misunderstanding. "
312
I
RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION
56
Jews in the U.S.
The Rising Costs of Whiteness
Melanie Kaye/Kantrowitz
BEFORE AMERICA NO ONE WAS WHITE
In 1990 1 had retu rn ed ro New York City to do an ti racist wo ~k with other Jews, when
3 friend sent me an essay by James Baldwin. "No one was wlme before he/she came 10
America," Baldwin had written:
Ir rook generations, and a vase amount of coercion, _before chis became a whi re coun- try .... It is probable rhac it is rhe Je_wish commun1ry-or more accmarely, pe rhaps, irs remnants-that in America has paid rhe highest and mosr extraordinary price fo1 becoming whire. For rhe Jews came here from counrri~s where _rhey were nor white, and rhey came here in part because rh ey were nor wh 1re, and mconresrab ly- in ih, eyes of che Black American (and not onl y in chose eyes) American Jews have opted 10 become white ....
Everything I chink abour Je ws, whiteness, racism, and contemporary U.S. society begins wirh rhis passage. Whar does ir mean: je11Js opted to become 11Jhit e. Did we opr? Did it work ? Was ir an illusion ? Could we have opted otherwise? Can we srill?
Rachel Rubin , a college srud enc who's been interning ar J ews for Racial and Economic Justice, where I'm the di rector, casually mentions: when she was eigh r, a cross was burned on her lawn in Athens, Georgia. I remember the house I moved into in Down East ~laine in 1979. On rhe bedroom door someone had painted a swastika in what looked like blood. I think about any cross-country drive I've ever taken, radio droni ng hymn after Christian hymn, 2000 miles of heartland.
On rhe orher hand, I remember rhe lase time I was stopped by cops. It was in San Francisco. I was getting a ride home after a conference on Jews and mulciculruralism. In rhe car 111rh m, were rwo other whire Jews. My heart flew into my chroar, as always, bur rhe y rook a quick look ar the_ thr~e of us and wav~d us on-We're /ooki11g for a car like this, sorry. I remember ~II rhe _scones Ive heard from frtends, people of color, in which a quick look is not fo llowed Ya friendly wave and an apology. Some of these stories are abou t life and dearh.
Ltber~ls and even progressives kneejerk co simplistic racial- blac k/whire-cerms, evade the conrinumg stgnificance of race, and confound it with class. Race becomes an increas· 1ngl>•
1 ~odm plex muddle. Growing numbers of bi- and multiracial chi ldren. Hispanic-nol a
racta I entity but a cult 1;1· · · · N ' . ura mgmsnc category conflating Spain with its fo rm er colonies. 0 one was As1a11 before th · · d'
d I h . ey came to Amertca, etther· the term masks culmres 11•ers1
an po ye roma nc as anyth · E h ' d critical and ful .d . mg urope as to offer; ye t Asian American has emerge as a
power t entity In th d b · s/ der result in la . ·. e aca emy, o ltgacory nods to issues of race/clas gen nguage so speciali zed "t' · • d" hose
most pressured b I b. 1 s mcomprehens1ble to most people, inclu mg 1
there's an awkwa~dt ~~::,~~!es, and students tell me, "When Jews are mentioned in class.
b
JEWS IN THE U.S 313
. J ish in the race/class/gender grid ? Does it belong? Is it irrelevant? Where do ,where ts e 11J f" . > w d swasrikas 1r in.
those crosses an
RACE OR RELIGION?
I . . >" ·1s how rhe question is usually posed, as though this doublet exhausts r re 1g1on.
"Race O . . 1 . . Ch ristians-religiously observant or not-usually operate from th e
h oss1bt mes. 1· · · d. "d I b h h r e Pon sel f-defin ition of Christi anity, a re 1g1on any 1n 1v1 ua can em race c roug co~rn I d from race peoplehood, and culture. belief, decac ie ro und~rsrand rh is detachment as fal se. Do whire Chris tians feel kinship
B I J have corn e . . . . u . -A erican Christians? White slaveowners, for example, wtth their slaves? Wh11e with Africa n_ hm heir black neighbors? Do wh ire Ch ristians feel akin to Christians converted Kla nsrne n wi t
I h · · · II f h. Ch · · . r II over che globe? Doesn't C nsuarnry rea y, or mosr w tie n sr1ans, by colon,,a
1 ~ 1 As ad for those white Christians, does white reall y includeje11Jish? Think of rhe
·rnply 11JJ1te. n h · Ch · · H 1 . Ch · · n evasion of a simple fact: J esus C nst was not, wa~ never, a nsnan. e ssive nstia rna What did he look like, Jesus o f Nazareth, 2000 yea rs ago? Blond, blue-eyed? was afJew. J .. 1·sh ·,s nor a race for Jews come in all races. Though white-identified Jews o=~= , .. . .
k. h ·ssue Jews are a multi racial people. There are Eth1op1an, Indian, Chi nese J ews. rnay s trrt e, ' b . . d h are people of every race who choose Judaism, or were adopted or om into 1r An r ere Yidd. h k. ·
from mi xed parents. The dominant conce~cion of Jewish- Eur~pean, 1 ts -spea ·mg-1s in fact a subset, Ashkenazi. Est imate d ar 8J-9? percent of Jews tn the U.S. today, Ashkenaz1 Jews are rhose whose religious pracnce and diaspora path can be traced rhrou_gh Germany. The huge wave of Jewish immigration from Eastern Europe was Ashkenaz1 (as was c_he earlier much smaller, highly assimi lated community of German Jews, who looked with dread 'upon rhe a rrival of- from t hei r perspective-an impoverished , Yiddish-babbling, superstitious horde). As hkenazi Jews a lso migrated co the far points of the globe-to South America, Australia, Africa, Asia. T hey may be very fair or very dark.
Sephardic J ews are t hose whose mother tongue is/was Ladino Uudeo-Espanol) and whose rel igious practice and diaspora path can be traced at some point through rhe Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portuga l), where the y flouri shed, unghercoized, contributing along with Muslims co Spanish culture, unci l che Inquisition (read : torture) forced conversion or expulsion from Spain of all non-Christians. Sephardim migrated co-and lived for genera- tions and even centuries- in Holland, Germa ny, Italy, France, Greece, the Middle East, and the Americas. Th e first Jews in th e N ew World were Se phardim : 1492 marks nor only Columbus's voyage bur also the expulsion of the Jews from Spain. Some Sephardim con- sider th emselves rhe ariscocracs of the Jews, and look wi th contempt upon rhe Ashkenazi history of ghercoizarion and persecution. They may also be quite fair or quite dar k.
Miu achi Jews are those who lived in rhe Arab world and Turkey (basicall y, what was once the Ottoman Empire), as minorities in Muslim rather t han Christian cultu re. T hei r mother tongue often is/was Judea -Arabic. Mizrachi means "Eastern," commonly tra nslated as "Ori ental," a nd is used by and about Israelis, often interchangeably with Sepha rdim . The Spanish Sepha rdim sometimes resent the blurring of distin ctions between themselves and the Mizrachim, reacting with pride in their history and with Eurocentric bias against non-Europeans, referring to t hemse lves as "true" or "pure" Sephardim. T he confusion between the catego ries is only partly due co Ashkenazi ignorance/arrogance, lum ping all no_n-Ash kenazi together. Partly, it's rhe result of Jewish history: some Jews never left the Middle East, a nd some returned after expulsion from Spain, including to Palestine. Some kept Ladino, some did not. I imagine t here was intermarriage. Mizrachim, tho ugh t hey may also range from fair ro dark, a re usually defi ned as "people of color."
r (
111111
314 I RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION . f h. . d color don't correspond nearly to Jewish
. . tegones o w ttc an . I U S real. The potnt is, ca d . Ashk nazi cultural hegemony-111 t le .. , where the ,
d rrespon 1s e ' · • · I · J k ) a11 ity. (What oes co d . 1 1 where Sephard1/M1zrac 11 cws ma cup about . . b mbers an in srae ' I . I ) . 11\o- dominant Y nu • I . d strongly contest r 11s 1cgc111ony, Jewish wan<le . thirds of the Jewish popu ano~ a~ence eludes conventional categories of race n~tionrilngs
d people whose expert d . . 1
. ' a 1~- have create a _ •en religion. Cataclysm an ass1m1 at1on have dcpl d' ethnicity, geography, language e, Cle
of common knowledge. . I ., our store . I race Yet there is confusion 1erc, anu subtext. Confus'
No Jews are not a sing e . . I ·r ~ I ton ' I ften been racialized, hateu as t we were a race. ct rnic studiei
because we iave so O f · 1· · I f h I b d d cument the process o rac1a 1zat1on, t 1e act t at race is n scholars have a ore to O Ob . J . I . 01
. . 1
b · I · torically specific phenomenon. serving ew1s 1 history Nan" biologica , ut a socio 11 s . k cl I · f . '. ·,
h d ffers an opporrumty to brea own t 11s process o rac1alization Ordover as note , o , ,, k' . , because by leaving Europe, Jews changed our ' race, even as ours 10 pigment remained
the same.
For the Jews came here from co1111tries where they were 1101 white, and they came her, i11 part beca11se they were 1101 white . .. .
Confusion too because to say someone looks Jewish is to say something both abS1Hd Uews look a ~illi~n different ways) and commonsense comrnu_nicative. . .
When I was growing up in Flatbush, Brooklyn, every girl wnh a cerra10 kmd of nos~ sometimes named explicitly as a Jewish nose, sometimes on ly as "too big"-wamed , nose job, and if her parents could pay for it, often she got one. I want to be graphic about the euphemism nose iob, A nose job breaks the nose, bruises the face and eye area like, grotesque beating. It hurts. It takes weeks to heal.
What wa~ wrong with the origina l nose, the Jewish one? Noses were discussed ardently in Flatbush, this or that friend looking forward to her day of transformation. My aunn lavished on me the following exquisite praise: Look at her-a nose like a s/Jiksa (gentile woman). This hurt my feelings, Before I knew what a shiksa was, I knew I wasn'1 it, an~ with that fabulous integrity of children, I wanted to look like who I was. But later I learneJ my nose's value, and would tell gentiles this srory so they'd notice my nose.
A Jewish nose, I conclude, identifies its owner as a Jew. Nose jobs are performed sothit a Jewish woman does nor look like a Jew,
>
Tell me again Jewish is just a religion, Yet Naz_i racial definitions have an "only a religion" response. Even earlier, the lureol
emancipation_ (m Europe) and assimilation (in the U.S.) led Jews ro define Judaism as nll· rowly as possible, as religion only: "a Jew at home a man in the streets" a private mane,, taken care of behind closed doors, like bathing. ' '
Jud~sm, the religion, does provide continu ity and connection to Jews around the~obe. There 1s something powe f I f h • 6 . h con· . r u even or at e1sts a out entering a synagogue across t e tment or the ocean, and hearing the familiar service.
But to be a Jew one need not f II 1· · · · d no! b
O ow re 1g10us practice · one need not belteve in go -even to ecom bb' ( ' . • ·. only one st ~a~~ .1 an element of Judaism of which I am especially fond), Rehgtonol Jews a d rfaJn oh _emgJewish. It is ironic that it is precisely rhis century's depiellOno
n o ew1s 1dent1ry with f d I · ing ~ Yiddish and L d' ' pro oun inguistic and cultural losses-connnu r.,
a mo speakers age and d" h k . . . I h t ison,1 a religion-only n h ie-t at ma es 1mag1nable a Jew1s mess t a iJlll is to forget the c:w, t e_n ~o much else has been lose. But co reducejewis/mess to}rtd0 'Jl Jewishness umil i;~hex
1 .\tvisible swirl of religion, cu lture, language, history chat Uthe
possibility of es~apin \ eig teench century, Emancipation began to offer some Jews_ 10
the European "E t·ghg rom a ltnguistically/culturally/economically isolated ghetto in n 1 tenment" 1, . h ve1C11
• 0 equate Jewishness with religion is to forget 01
JEWS IN THEU S 315
P orary often attenuated version of this Jewish cul tural swirl is passed clown in
he contem ' . d t •1 almost like genetic co e . 1/Je fa 1111 y, ' · I · f . · 1· d h'
f . 11 and subtexr.jew1s 11s o ten tnv1 a 1ze as somet mg you choose, a preference, Co n us10 . I . ' bl . I .d . . . . r coffee. In contrast wit 1 v1s1 e rac1a 1 entity, presumptions of choice-as with like tea ove . . . . ' I . . h
_ re seen as m101m1Z1ng o nes c aim to attention, sympat y, and remedy. As a gayness t: bigotry, I was born like this strategically asserts a kind of victim-status, modeled counter ender an d disability: If you can't help yoursel f, maybe you' re entitled to some 0 11 ra ce, g '
1 Ip from others. • • • . ,e What happens if, instead, I assert my right to choose and not s~ffer for it. To say, /
I my lesbianism and my J ewishness. Choose ro come out, be v1s1ble, embrace both. ,,oose- . 1 could live loveless or sex less or 10 the closer. _I coulcl .. have kept the name Kaye, and never ce at Chr istmas-10 response to the 1nterm1nable What are you domg for ... ? Have
on finished your shopping?"-answer, " I don't celebrate C hristmas. I'm a Jew. " I could i;~uabout my lover's gende r. I could wear skirts uncomfortably. I could bleach my hair a ain, as I did when I was fifteen . I could monitor my speech, weeding o ut the offensive a~cenr as I was taught at City College, along with all the other first and second generation immig~ants' children in the four speech classes required for graduation, to teach us not to sound like ourselves . I could remain silent when queer or anti-Semitic jokes are told, o r when someone says, "You know how th,y are." I cou ld endure the pain in the gut, the hot shame, I could scrunch up much, much smaller.
In the U.S. , Christian, like white, is an unmarked category in need of marking. Christianness, a majoriry, dominant culture, is not about religious practice and belief, any more than Jewishness is. As racism names the system that normalizes, honors, and rewards whiteness, we need a word for what normalizes, honors and rewards Christianity. Jews designate the assumption of C hristiani ty-as-norm, th e erasure of Jews, as a11ti-Se111itic. In fac t, the erasure and marginalization of non-Christians is not just denigrating to J ews. We need a catchier term than Christian hegemony co hel p make visible the cultural war against all non-Chrisrians.
Christian ism? Awkward, stark, and kind of crude-maybe a sign that something's being pushed; sexism once sm1ncled stark and kind of crude. Such a term would help contextual- ize Jewish experience as an experience of marginalit)' shared with other non-Christians. Especially in this time of rising Ch ristian fundamentalism, as school prayer attracts supporr from "moderates," this concexrualiza rion is critical fo r progressive J ews, compelling us to seek allies among Muslims and other religious minorities, f I also want to contextualize Jews in a theoretical framework outside the usual bipolar rame of black/white-to go beyond d ualism; to distinguish race from class, and both from
culrure; to understand whiteness as the gleaming conferral of normality, success, even survival; to acknowledge who owns what and in whose neighborhood; to witness how money does and does not " whiten." '
For;,, the eyes of the Black American (and 11ot only i11 those eyes) American Jews have opted to become white . .. .
i \ 0
begin to break out of a po larity that has no place fo r Jews, I survey the range of color dn t e _United Stares. People of color a unity sought and sometimes forged, include a vast iversny of cul cl ' C h" su . ture an history, forms of oppression and persecution, ontempo rary w 1te
an~rernacists hate them all, but define some as shrewd, evil, inscrutable, sexually exotic, ra p_erverse, and others as intellectually inferior immoral, bestial, violent, and sexually ev~lacious. If it is possible to generalize we can say' that the peoples defined as shrewd and
1 tend t b b ' · ff · II th h O e etter off economically-or at least perceived as better o econom1ca y-
an t ose d f" d · · · I b k e lne as inferior and violent, who tend to rema10 111 arge num ers scuc at
-
REUGIOUS OPPRESSION . 316 I ( d re assumed by the dominant culture to be
ic !adder an a . . • 11 d. St\Jck h b nom of the econom . b d opportunines, systemanca y 1sadvantaged r e o d "ed access to decent JO s an and there), em · J S)'Stem. xcluded by rhe educanona . g fea rsome dark ones are, on the one hand ch
e ds ong rhe creeptn d I 1 , OSe In 01hcr wor , am rhe)' don't deserve, an , on t 1e ot 1er, those (us II . h and hoard money . I d k" . ua y
who explo1r, c eat, 1 a ten to rob and pillage 1ar -wor ing tax-paying 11 h- darkcr) who, not having money,ltfurec f"its as a form of robbery, the women's form· ihe ~lie
I h" ns1ruct we a ' ' .. ,en Christians. n t . ,s co . ' bashing-whether street violence or political moveme
b mugging lmm1granr f p . . n~ are us)' . ;, d C J"f nia's overwhelming passage o ropos1non 187-becom like "English-only an " a 1 or , ,, ei
" al" response to robbeq. . a narur . here Jews fit: we are so good with money. Our "darkness•
It is easier now to see w · d I f · ·1 d I . blty to pass confers protection an a 1ost o pnv, eges. Bue we may not show, an I 11s a I ' . f . . I
d I _ bbing money-hoarding scapegoats or an mcreasing y punicin are the mo e money gru d" d > k" . . Je,,•s Japanese Koreans, Arabs, In 1ans, an I a 1stams-let's face ii· economic system. , , . . 11 · h .
. 1 blamed for economic disaster; for contra ing t e economy or making ,mer opers-are . . • f ·1 f 1· 1· · · money on the backs of the poor; for ra1smg the price o 01 ; or stea mg or e 1minatmg jobs by importing goods or exporri_ng prod_ucn~n- . .
At the same time, those defined as inferior and v1_olent are bl~med for urban cnme and chaos for drugs, for the skyrocke1ing costs and failures of social programs. This blame then j~stifies the oppression and impoverish_ment of those brought_ her~ in chains and 1he peoples indigenous 10 this continent. Add '.n the darker, p_oorer 1mm1gran ts fr?m Larin America and the Caribbean, and recent 1mm1grants from China and Southeast Asia. Media codes like "inner-city crime" and "teen gangs" distort and condense a vast canvas of por- erry, vulnerability, and exploitation into an echoing story of some young men's violem response ID these conditions. Thus those who are significantly endangered come 10 be defined as inherently dangerous.
Thai is, one group is blamed for capital ism's crimes ; the other for capitalism's fallout Do I need to point out who escapes all blame?
When a community is scapegoated, members of that community are most conscious of how they feel humiliated , alienated, and endangered. But the other function of scapegoating is at least as pernicious. It is to protect the problem which scapegoats are drafted to conceal: the vicious sys tem of profit and exploitation, of plenty and scarcity existing side by side.
TH E COST OF WHITENESS
Aryan ideology aside, Jews are often defined as white, though this wipes out the many Je11; who are b)' anyo ' d fi · · j . . ne s e mmon people of color, and neglects the role of context: many ell; who look white m New y. kc· I k • . . . o,d· Is
ft I or 1ty oo quite the opposite in the South and M1dwes1. '"' ica
o en exc ude 1he categoroj · hf d" • h)' th · d Ii . . ·' ew,s rom 1scuss1on or subsume us into white unless we are eir e nmon also pea J f I · . ' '
Th h . Pe O co or, m which case they subsume us as people of co/or. e 1ru1 1s, Jews compli h" J . . I · g
one J h cate t mgs. ew,sh 1s both a distinct category and an over appin • ust as omophobia · d" • f . . ·.
Semitism in th' _ ,s . isnnct rom sexism yet has everything to do with sexism, anu is country 1s d1snnct f · • I ' no1
that a Jew like m If h rom racism yet has everything to do with racism. 1 5 )'Se s ould "co " · Je11;
do argue this becau h 1
~nt as a person of color, th ough I think some11mes I se t e a ternanve b d thee a terna1ive. The prob! . . seems to e erasure. But that means we nee ano
em 1s a pol arr · f h • w ed a more com plex visio f h zanon o w 1te and colo r that excl udes us. ~,e ne . s . n ° t e structure of · h . I · f wh11, upremac,srs. We need racism, one t at attends to the sick og1c 0
a more comple d . . , " x un erstanding of the process of "wh1temng.
ORAL HISTORY OF ADAM FATTAH I 317
57 oral History of Adam Fattah
AmnaAhmad
I. le charm around my neck that said Allah in Arabic, so narurally people I to wear a Jtt 1· I · h I · I I usec I Id identify me as Muslim. The Mus 1111 popu atton at my sc oo 1s a so . schoo wou . . . in my . •r t so it's not very d1ff1cult to point us out. definitel y s1gni ,can ,
· · · ment teacher who used to talk about religion in my class. He used to speak I had a govern · lk . b d . I I d
II I. · ons-though he focused mainly on ta mg a out Ju a1sm, s am, an about how a re igi · · d h d "J d · ""I I " . . • n be considered very similar. H e use to putt e wor s u a1sm, s am, Chnsnamty--<a · · · h h d · h
"Ch · · ' ty" on the board and wme all the characten sttcs t ey a m common, sue as and nSt1ani · h h h d h .d
d I concept of fasting. H e actu ally made sense m t e way e ap proac e t e 1 ea prayer an t 1e I . d · · · h · f l
.k · ne religion ro anoth er and definite y inspire an interest m me in t e topic . ... o i enmg o . full h
While many of my teachers seem to approach the topic of Is_lam respect y, as was_ t e case wiih m)' government class teacher, the administration at my high school has made 1t mconve- nient for me to practice my religion . Unformnately they don't allow sn1dents a place to pray during school. Once I had actually gone to my guidance counselor to set up my schedule for the following term and asked her to switch my last period class, which was gym, w11h my lunch period so that I would have been able to leave school early enough to go to the mosque and pray. My guidance counselor simply wm1ld not allow that. As a result of her obvious indifference, I missed an entire term of going to the mosque on Fridays for Jummah prayer. I viewed myself as being at a huge disadvantage and was really upset about the simation ... .
Sometimes, it seems as though Islamic practices are barely 1olerable for administrators. Every so often I feel like I'm being penalized for putting religion before education. This year especially, I'm taking very difficu lt classes and to rake off for three days because of the Eid is hard because I have to miss three days of very difficult work. I can usually only take off for one day of those three because otherwise I would miss more work than I could possibly make up. I often spend entire weekends just focusing o n making up the work that I miss. That puts me very far behind. The Islamic holiday season becomes very stressful, and stress is something I really don't need in my life right now. Every time I have to take off for a Muslim holiday I end up having to explain to a teacher or fight with a teacher who argues, "There's no NYC Board of Ed law recognizing it as a holiday. You can't take off on Muslim holidays." ...
Every so often, I feel as though it is mo re difficult to be the parent of a Muslim child ihan a Muslim student when dealing with the complications of the world of academia. ~ few years ago, my mother went to a parent-teacher conference for my brother, '. uha°:ad. • • . I remember my mother 's facial expression when she got home and I was ~mediately affected by the clear di scontentment she expressed following the brief visi t. rt mother took the seat in front of Muhammad's math teacher when her rum had come. b le math teacher was being very condescending and she looked down on my mother /~ause she was wearing the veil, which is a key aspect of Islamic culture. She assumed
1~g I
away that my mother didn't speak very good English. She spoke to her in language fit was choppy, with a face that was uninviting to someone who was meeting her fo r the 10
st time. With little concern for making a good first impression on a parent, she seemed
Presume that h I d k' to h my mot er wasn't very well educated. When my mot 1er srarte spea rng er after keeping silent for the first few minutes, it became clear to the teacher that she
318 I RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION
I vas surprised by rh e facr rhar my mother The marh reac ,er , . I was''" had been wrong. f English once she was given a c iance. My llloth h ·i
d d d spoke per ect If . I er as wel l e ucare an 's degrees. She herse 1s a reac 1er and was so ff a h I ' d grce and rwo masrer k I I I a ected bac e or s e . b
1 . I d by a srranger. She new t 1a r s 1c wou d never ap
b h. f 1·ngofbemg e1rre . d d' proach1 y t 1s ee 1 . ates such degradanon an 1srespecr. I don't think 1 r in a way thar commumc db . d ' I d I Would parcn h h 's approach was morivate y pre1u ice 1a not seen it in th have thought t e reac er II I e red
h , hen she returned home tote t 1e story. of my mot er s eyes w . . . .
Id have put roo much cons,deranon into connecn ng my Musl im ide . .
1
1 whou nevedrverse experiences I have had in my life had I not seen it in the eyes onfuh~
wit 1 t e more a . . . t e woman who was prevented from arrendmg school by 1mm1granr parems who didn't know berrer; the woman who went back ro college afrer raising rh ree boys 111to maturity.
57 (CONTINU ED )
Oral History of Hagar Omran
Hodalawam
I identify myself as an Arab American. That's whar I am because I was born here. I'm an_ American, but I'm not like every or her American . I spice up rhe average American by be_mg an Arab Amencan because I have merged borh cultures rogerher. Ir's jusr like adding rainbow sprinkles on va nilla ice cream.
I am Egyptian and so are borh of my parents. Even though I was born and raised here, my parents_ rea lly srick to Egyptian cu lture. We eat a !or of Egyptian food. \Y/e listen 10 Arab,c music and are very family orienred ....
I srarced wearing the hii'ab h I 6 h . d , I w en was a t grader. Ir wasn'r hard for me becausen oesn r rea ly marrer how I I k I' -11 h . were co I d h 11 °0 .-:- m stl t e same person from rhe inside .... Mr friends
makes moe faene l t eyda dw?re hl)ab and rhey made hijab look good, fun, and eas)', Hij,b prou an 1r makes d b 1· Hi jab is n r b d m_e Sfan o ur ecause everyone knows rhar I'm Mus ,m.
I' o a ur en ?n me, rarher ir's a pleasure. man 11th grader m high sch I M h . .
that our holiday . 00 · Y sc ool 1s nice and it's pretty cool. Bur ir's not fair . s are not considered h 1· · ff ·
like rhe Chrisrians ger ff f Ch . government o ,days and we don'r get nme o , 1u~ a big population in A
O • or dnSrmas, and the Jews gee off for Hanukah. Now tharwe'ri
An menca an we are . . 'ghll-orher problem is rh b not a mtnonry anymore, we should ger our n neared equally in rht's ea sence of halal food in schools. So I don't feel char Muslims are
1 . country. ' will never forger rhe d f .. friends said, "It couldn't b:r ~~er September 11th when I went back to school. All of mf way because rhey know me ~ guys . You guys are really good." My friends reacted th~
Bur rhen ir was d'ff , _Y persona!tty and my family wh h' 1 erenr wirh srr f · d Jk v en r ,s_ one guy rhat cam angers a ter Seprember 11th. We got srereorype • 11 ,ou freak, • Ar b e up to me and s ' d « v • ntt)'
n a rerroriscl" I . at , 10u immigrant! Go back ro you r cou · counrry I b · was 1n sho k Th f' . " h' · mf H · was
0 rn and raised h c · e trst thing I said ro him was, T is ts , e was srup fi d ere I'm . ·~1
Arne • e ie that I was abl · not an immigrant and neither am I a terron · ncan H' . e to spe k h 311 · ts reaction was a res I f ~ sue good English and at the facr rhat I arnth u t o tgnor b d ~ ance ecause he automatically assume
MODESTO•AREA ATHEISTS SPEAK UP, SEEK TOLERANCE 319
, ing rhe hijab th at you're an immigrant and you can't speak Engl ish. I really ·r Oll re wear d h' h 1 Y d rand why when one person oes somet 1ng wrong, t e whole Muslim co m- d 't un ers ' . on . d religion gers blamed for tt. munity an hen people assu me rh ings abour me and believe all the stereotypes rhat they
1 h~t w beli eve stereotypes like all Arabs are terrorisrs and all th e girl s that wea r the h~ar. ,ey ressed a nd forced to wear ir. I think all rhese stereotypes are wrong and they hqab afre o p~gnorance. If you inform the public abo ur these wrong assumptions rhey'II come rom · · I h I · · heir minds abou r the Musli m communtry on r 1e w o e. I thtnk rhat M usli ms are change t · · · 11 h I h d ·
d • red correctly here 1n America, especta y r roug 1 t e me ta. not epic · · I . h f h h 0
rory I experienced cleal1ng wit 1 srereotypes was wtr one o my teac ers w o brought . ":t~on called "The Veil." He then asked the class, "What do you guys think abour that?" '"a ca d h 1· . . ' . h All the responses were aroun t e same 1ne: oppression, ~u ppress1on, no womens ng rs, Taliban, sexism, forced, and sympathy. Smee ! .. was rhe only h1Jab1 111 my class my reacher asked
e "What do yo u chink abour ri11S ca rtoo n? I responded by explammg chat what everyone ~i~ks are srereorypes, and rhar none of ir was rrue. I rold them how rhe vei l is supposed to protect women, keep ch em modest, keep rhem focused, help rhem respect themselves and others, and keep rhem pure of heart and soul. Islam values women and ir treats them as jewels to be prorecred. I explai ned to them thar the hijab brings our your personality no t your looks. Women are not supposed to be ta lked ro because of rheir looks or how big thei r boobs are or th eir burr or something. It's supposed ro be abou r your personality. When you wear rhe hijab, it's not like a guy is going to check you our, look you up and down. He's going ro ralk to you because of your personality, nor the way you look. Hijab makes me proud that I'm Musl im and it makes me respect my own body, myself, and ir also makes orher people respect me.
So as you can see I'm nor wei rd and biza rre, even if I'm not rhe nor m. I am different an d un ique. I can do fun things like going to beaches, pools, ice skating, skiing, paintballing, biking, and rollerblading. And, I do swim , believe o r nor, with my hi jab. I have fun because I am a normal human being like you a re, bur I can do ir all while I'm full y covered. I also h_ave a life, a fami ly that loves me, a God rhat cares for me , and a God thar I pray to five times a day. I mean what more can you wane from life when you are loved, know where your nghr parh is ? I wanr ro finish school, get a good education, and get a good career. I want to represe nt rhe Muslim community as intelligenr, educared, and civil ized. I want ro take part in raising the standards o f rhe Muslim Ummah and benefiting rhem.
58
Modesto-Area Atheists Speak Up, Seek Tolerance
Sue Nowicki
It's difficult at t' b . someone wh b t~es emg a person of faith, but it can be even harder to be an atheist,
• • • 0 e teves there is no God.
According t believe in G d O a recent, large-scale Pew Forum report, 92 percent of U.S. residents that athei
0 . or a universal spirit. The Pew report and 50 years of Gallup surveys foun d
srn in the United States has remained stable over the years, coming in at about
' [,
I RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION , , , , 3 20
1 ed with agnosncs, who believe lt lS impossibl r h population when um P e lo 4 percent o t ~
know if God exists. erwhe lming minority, and atlteists say there are
. . . I theists are an ov I k I . sei•, lilt's clear t ,at a
1 . b liefs Several strong y ma -e t 1e pomt that the)' are
. · ns about t 1e1r e · . f noi eral m1sconcept1o d b Those who spoke ... range 111 age rom 20s to 60s and fro satanists, immoral obrl um i'i workers. They'd like fait h groups, especially Christians~ business owners to u~•c0 . ar , o be more tolerant of their views.
Here are excerpts of what they had to say:
· · · h M d sto resident and teacher, 53, traces her atheist roots to her child- Mary Brus ' a o e h. I b 1 I
hood in a Catholic home. "I wenr to catec ism C asses, m gave my mot 1er so much grief, 1 didn't take confirmation in eighth grade. The nuns frightened me. They really made m, afraid of dying. I thought I'd go to hell. " ., . .
Biblical accounts added to her doubts. The stones sounded a lmle too fantastical 10 me" she said. "It didn't seem to go with reality. Over the many years, I've had (religious) fri:nds and have gone to church and tried to pray. It just didn 't work for me. l'm more of a scientist at heart; science works for me."
B~~sh wants people of faith to know: "I'm a good person. Just because you don't hm a belief in God doesn't mean you're not a good person. I'd like a little more tolerance.'
Jason Gale, a 57-year-old business manager, said, "As a child, my mom was reli~ou, so I kind of came along for the ride." But when he was 25, someone told him his religion "was a belief in magic. That caused me to start thinking about removing magical thin~ from my thinking."
Gale fell into agnosticism fo r a while- "someone who says God can neither be pro,eJ or disproved"-but didn't like being a "fence-sitter." So he turned to atheism. " lt is a belief; not something you can prove, but it seems to be better supported by empirical observatioru around you than religion," he said. "In religion, yo u need to have a leap of faith."
Gale said his wife 1s a Christian and returned to church about three years ago after a 20-year hiatus. He suppons her, but admitted "I knew s he believed in God but 1 ner~ thought she'd become active." ' '
He said he "backs way off " h I lk - · · h' B 1 h w en ot 1ers ta emotionally abo ut their faith or 1s. ' e wams people to know ')' -1 , d d . ' m nor an ev1 person because I'm a nonbeliever. I don t tortUtl ogs an cats 1ust because I don't believe in God."
And he gives this advice to bel' . "'K . .. . , H 1 pk like the Peace C D h revers. · • • eep It on the postttve side. e p peo '
orps. ow atJesu 'd · · I · • · D l\ rh• good works a d s sat , v1s1t t 1e sick and the people 111 pmon. o a . . . n stay away from weapons."
_ Susan Robinson, 50 said "I I · · ) things I was told , ' . ' a ways had the feeling from childhood that (rehgiolll
As sh vere not nght." h e matured, Robinson said h "k . - 1 1eJ
ot er churches-Presbyt . s e ept looking for something to believe rn. I exp 0 find a d I enan, Mormon I I id ncrCl go considered t b · even started reading the Koran. cou
"Ve ft O e moral ry o en, there are differe . I
J made a mistake. Let's wipe nt rules for God than for people. Like the flood-I'm sor0i esus was b everyone out e f · Or wheli
F orn, every child up I
xcept or one family and start all over again, . , reac~tomal~ y years, she said .. ~ \I\Vvo yefm old was killed. That's a huge price for a savior r.h .. ll
n. ve re d f ' as a raid t I II . b o 1 • ing terro • a O a poll that sa O e people I was an atheist ecause ,J· friends
1 n st5 out there, and ho ys people view atheists less good than Muslims, ind .,
, osrng fa -1 mosexuals I d b 1e-lo~rt! m, Y members I . · :ea a our things happening to peop ' os,ng marriages."
WHY ARE YOU ATHEISTS SO ANGRY? I 321
. I ·ous but not as fearful. And she'd like to tell be lievers "not to be afraid of I • std ca un ' Id b I d S ,cs , suall y striving to make the wor a etter pace. An please, please kee p . T hey re u . b
atheists, f vernment. Any time God is put into government or someone wants to e I. · n our
O go f II h I " re ,g,o . 1 it's real ly bad news or a t e peop e. treated J,ke a goc'
· · · G d ' er 62 a nd a bu si ness owner, said he r o nly childhood religious experience Peggy Jar in a~dparenrs rook her to a small church in south Modesto.
vhen ,er gr . d . f . was' S d school reacher told a Bible story and aske I there were any quesuons. I
"The un ay ' b - 'd . h d and said, ' H ow did God get here? I was a o ut ) or 6 years old. She sat , raised my an , h II I d · f " 'God has always been here. T at pretty we sett e 11 or me.
· 0 · · · her views Gardiner doesn' t make a scene arou nd believers, she said. " I have a esp1te , .
. I a brother-in-law and when we go ou t, they hke to say a prayer before a meal. I sister an< ' . . . have no problem with bowing my head with them. To be agnosac or athe ist, you have to
be pretty open-minded." She'd like to rell people of faith "that while they all think they have rhe answer, it's not
the only answer . .. . If people would spend as much time trying to improve the world as the)' do proselytizing, w e' d probably have a better world."
Chris Muir is a 5 1-year-old Modestan who works as a part-time secretary. "I grew up in a religious, Mormon household in a little farm town in southeast Idaho.
It was pretty much a n all-Mormon town." When he was 8 years old, " l started having doubts. One of th e things they said is that
when you were baptized, you 'd be receiving the gifts of the Holy Ghost. I believed it, but when I was baptized, I didn ' t feel any different. Then I started finding discrepancies that didn' t fit. By the time I was l4, I' d pretty much d eci ded this was baloney,"
Over the years, he sai d, he's studied "the tenets of other religions. Being a skeptic, I find the flaws in those religions, too. Basically, religion appears to be what people want to believe. If it comforts them and helps them cope in life, I' m not going to try to dissuade them. It might be cruel to take (religion) away from them. It may be a false hope, but it's still hope."
He said he remains on good terms with his devout fami ly but is "quite happy without having to give donations and tithes to maintain the church anymor e." . ,~~ he does have his own beliefs. " I get asked a lot, 'Is there anything you do believe m. ave to say yeah. I believe the world does exist as we see it."
59
Why Are You Atheists So Angry?
Greta Christina
'fhere are . States and ::nou:i, deep-rooted problems with the way religion plays out, in the United Ways-that I o~n the world. There are ways that religion plays out-extremely common and death. lte~a~o abuse, injustice, mistreatment, misery, disempowerment, even violence about them
1 , bes perfect sense to be angry about them. In fact, when people aren't angry
' m affled.
a
0
i 0
322 I RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION
h most of the time .... I mean, it's not like I'm running aro <l I'm a appy person . (l I
di un sm h . d · "Rrrrl Rrrr! Rrrr!" all the tune. 1ar y ever do that.) a1 • mg plates an g01ng · h · i» •
B f a )' people ask "Why are you at e1sts so angry. -without even . ut ar too m n • h I • , I . Cons1d . ht 'b'tlity that we're angry because we ave eg1n mate t 11ngs to be angri• b er-mg t e poss . . "WI ,
1 . a ou
1 .
So I
want to try to answer this questtho~: ..;i arc y~u at 1e1sts so angry?" Or rather since [ don't presume to speak for the at e1sts: 1y am so angry? ,
I'm angry that according to a recent Gallup poll,_ 53 percent of Americans Would
001 vote for an atheist for President-even for a qual1f1e<l candidate from the Voter's own party-solely because of their atheism. _
I'm angry that atheists in the Urnted States are often <le111ed custody of their child h . I . ren, explicitly because oft e1r at 1e1sm. .
I'm angry that it took until 1961 for atheists to be guara~teed the rights to serve 00 ju ries, testify in court, or hold public office 1n every state 111 the country.
I'm angry that atheist soldiers-in the U.S. armed forces-have had atheist rneetin broken up by Christian superior officers, in direct violation of the First Arnendmen~ I'm angry that evangelical Christian groups are being g iven exclusive access to pros, elytize on military bases- again in the U.S . armed forces, again in direct violation of the First Amendment. ...
I'm angry at preachers who tell women in their fl ock to submit to their husbandi because it's the will of God, even when their husbands are beating them within an inch of their li ves.
I'm angry that so many parents and religious leaders terrorize children with vivid, trau- matizing stories of eternal burning and torture, to ensure that they'll be too frighte ned to even question religion ....
I'm angry at priests who rape children and tell them it's God's will. No, angry isn't a strong enough word. I am enraged. I am revolted. I am trembling with fury at the very thought of it.
And I'm enraged that the Catholic Church consciously, deliberately, repeatedl y, for years, acted to protect priests who raped children, and d eliberately acted to keep it a secret I'm enraged that they shuttled child-raping priests from town to town, failed to inform law enforcement officers and in many cases flat-out sronewalled them, delibera1elr dumped the child rapists in remote, impoverished vii !ages .... And I'm angry that, after 9/ 11 happened, peop le of Middle Eastern descent were attacked and their businesses vandalized, because they were Muslims, or becau~e peo- ple assumed they were Muslims even if they weren't, and they blamed all Muslims for the attacks.
And I'm angry that Jerry Falwell blamed 9/1 J on pagans, abortionists, femini 5 r, ga),
and lesbians, the ACLU, and the People For the American Way. I'm angry that th15 th eology of a wrathful god exacting revenge agai nst pagans and abortionists _was a theology held by a powerful, wea lthy, widely-respected religious leader with millions of followers. . . . ·
• I'm angry that almost half of Americans believe in creationism. Not a broad, th
eisnc evolution, "God had a hand in evolution" version of creationism, but a strict, young; Earth, "~od created man in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years creat1on1sm.
I should I ' fy h' . hat we're an r b c an t is one, as people often misunderstand it. When atheists say t "Whal b g. Y a out how many creationists there are in the U S a common response ts, " 're usiness 1s that of l D , · ·,
1
i ,ou - . yours. on t they have the right to believe whatever they wan · Just as intolerant of their beliefs as they are of yours!"
WHY ARE YOU ATHEISTS SO ANGRY? I 323 S let me explain. If creationists are trying to get thei r religious be! ' f h . h
o . b , te s taug t in t e bl. schools-paid for Y everyone s taxes, forced on children whos f •i· d , pu IC . d' . I . f h F. e am, 1es on t hare those beliefs, 111 1rect v10 anon o t e 1_rst Amendment-then it isn't just their own 5
, ss and I have a right to be angry about it. busine ' . d f h . f h '
But if they're ~or trytng to o ~n y o t at-'. t ey re just ?rdinary people trying to get by, working two Jobs to pay the bills, and they re leavmg their school boa rds alone-then I'm not angry at them.
I'm angry for them.
I'm angry that they' re been taught to foar and scorn one of the most profound, powerful uths about the world, and to embrace a lie that Oatly contradicts an overwhelming body of
::,idence. I'm angry tha t they've been taught that loving their god means rejecting the reality f the Universe he supposedly created. I'm angry that they're been taught that scientists-peo-
\ who care so much about the Universe they devote their lives to painstakingly figuring out ~ow it works-are wicked and evil. I' m angry that they're been taught that virtuous religious faith demands that they disconnect themselves from the march of human knowledge.
I'm not angry at them. I'm angry on their behalf ....
• And, in a similar vein: I'm angry that science teachers in the U.S. public schools often don't teach evolu tion, or give it only a cursory mention, even when teaching it is sanctioned and indeed required-because they're afraid of sparking controversy and having to deal with angry fundamentalist parents. Evolution is the foundation of the science of biology-biology literally doesn't make sense without it-and kids who aren't being taught about evolution are being dep rived of one of the most fundamental ways we have of understanding ourselves and the world.
• I'm angry that right•wing Christians in the United States are actively campaigning against anti-bullying laws in elementary and high schools, on the grounds that religious freedom includes the right to harass, threaten, and intimidate gay kids.
• I'm angry that, in public, taxpayer-paid high schools around the country, atheist stu• dents who are trying to organize clubs-something they're legally allowed to do-are routinely getting stonewalled by school administrators. I'm angry that the Secular Student Alliance has to push high school administrators on a regular basis, and in some cases they're even had to be sued, simply to get them to obey the law.
• I'm angry about what happened to Jessica Ahlquist. I'm angry that, in a public, taxpayer-paid high sc hool in Rhode Island, a banner with an official school prayer was prominently posted in the school auditorium-in direct violation of the Consmunon and of clear, well-established legal precedent. I'm angry that when Ahlquist asked her high school to take down the banner, her request was rejected, and she had to go to courr to get her schoo l to comply with the law. And I'm angry that, when she wo~ her lawsuit-in an entirely unsurprising, no-controversial ruling-she was targeted with a barrage of brutal threats, including threats of beating, rape, and death. .
• I'm angry about what happened to Damon Fowler. I'm angry that when he asked. his public, taxpayer-paid high school to stop a school-sponsored prayer .at his graduatton, he Was hounded pilloried and ostracized by his communi ty, publicly dcrn_eanedd by f h
. ' ' . h f · I d death and k1cke out one o 1s own teachers, targeted with t rears o v10 ence an • of his house by his parents. I
• A d [' · Ahl · d Damon Fower are not n m angry that what happened to Jessica quiSt an , d h U . d · I · 'k h' h pernng aroun t c mte tso ated incidents I'm angry that things h e t is are ap I I States, and all aro.und the world. I'm angry that, even when the law clel ar y staftes tt1a~ th · · itizens peop e are o ten ° e government can't endorse religion or force It on its c f' 'd h . 'II be bullied in · ' d • - . - h b they're a ra1 t ey , ttm1 ated to 1ns1st on their legal rig ts • · · ecause h • vorkers their OS!racized, and threatened with violence by their classmates, t etr co-, '
324 I RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION . .
h • families. l'm angry that this doesn't )list ha . f · ds event e1r . . 1.. . PPen mmunities, their rien ' M 1. 5 Buddhists, W1ccans, re 1g1ous minorities of II co Jews I us Im , b . a t atheists: It happens to ' I e people aren't wrong to c afraid. o . ' ry because ties . . d . ·11 . . I . Varieties. And Im ang I 1·es ltke thts ... an sn 111s1st t iat atheists do , ' 1 ople ,ear stor . . b . nt And I'm angry t ,at pe . d I ild stop compb1ntng a out tt, because we h .
d. . · t1on an s 101 . . a,e suffer from 1scnmina 1 an r)' when people blithel y ignore the fact that 1~,1 · nder the law. get g · · ' d I f d d' ,.., protection u I d ·1f people are 111t1m1 atec out o eman 1ng it. . d 't do muc 1 goo . I • " · protect10n oesn . . b 1. •es make arguments against at 1e1sm-and makeaccu. I n rehg1ous e ie, r lk h . I get angry w ie . . 1 r having bothered to ta to any at etsts, or read ani· . . t athe1sts-w1t iou Id b sattons agains h 1 tlie)' trot out the same o crap a out how "athe;,m • · · I get angry w ct o atheist wr1t1ng. . h . I no ·ioy or meaning to li fe and no basis for morali·• . 'hl · hiiosop y, wit 1 . . ,, ts a ni
1 1stl c P h 'f I ent ten minutes 111 the atheist blogosphere, they wouli I · " w en I t 1ey sp . . .
or et ucs ... I I . t vho experience great joy and mea111ng 111 our lives, and are discover count ess at iets s, , intense! ' concerned about right and wrn~g. . . . . .
) h b lt'evers glorif)' religious fa1th-1.e. , bel1ev1ng tn a supern a1ur~ I get angry w en e . . . . Id • 1 d evidence suppo rting that belief-as a positive virtue, a characrer wor w1t1nogoo I b I · · h'
· h k le good and noble. I get angry t 1ey ase t 1e1r entire p 1loso-tra1t t at ma es peop . . . . I f l.f I att ·s at best a hunch· when they ignore or reiect or rauonahze p 1y O I e on w 1 , , , . . .
' d that cont radicts that hunch or calls it into questton. And I get angcy· any evt ence . . . . when they do this ... and then accuse atheists of being close-minded and tgnonng the truth. I get angry when believers say they can know the truth-the greatest trmh of all a_bour rh, nature of the Universe, namely the source of all ex1stence-s1mply by s1tt1ng quietly and listening to their hearts ... and then accuse atheists of being arrogant. And th1! amrud, isn't just arrogant towards atheists. It's arrogant to,~ards people of oth~r rehg1ons who have sat just as quietl y, listened to their hearts with JU St as much smcertty, and come to completely opposite conclusions about God and the soul and the Universe. . And I get angry when believers say that the entire unimaginable hugeness of the Umrme was made specifically for the human race-when atheists, by contrast, say that humarucy is a microscopic dot on a microscopic dot, an infinitesimal eyeblink in the vasmessof time and space-and then, once again, believers accuse atheists of being arrogant. .
I want to take a moment and explain why I get so angry about believers making bad arguments for religion. I get angry because they're not arguing in good fallh,I get angry because they're refusing to see their privilege. I get angry because so_manr of these bad arguments for religion end up perpetuating misinformation and bigor~ against atheists .... 1 get angry when believers treat any criticism of their religion-Le., pointing out rhir their religion is a hypothesis about the world and asking it to stand on its own in the mar~etplace of ideas-as insulting and intol~rant. I get angry when believers accu~ athe t f b · · I " "I hinl ,is s
O emg tnto erant for saying things like "I don't agree with you, t
you re mistaken abo t th " d "Wh . ' ha•l" , u at, an at evidence do you have to support t '' •
1 md ~ngflry
th ~t Ch'.istians in the United States- members of the single moSt power~!
an tn uenttal relt · • h d power" . gious group m t e country in the wealthiest an moSt .
country tn the world t·k b I ' the honl II . -act I e e eaguered victims martyrs being thrown to a over again wh '
I'm a h 'h enever anyone criticizes them or they don't get their way. ··· . ngry t at uge sw th f bl' . arr1as1,
birth control b . a s O pu ic policy in this country-about same-sex m '1)11 . , a Ortton stem-cell h h . . . d • · d ex educan tn schools-are b . b researc , p ys1c1an-ass1ste su1c1 e, s · , ·ork and what is and _ei~g ased, not on evidence of which policies do and don td 11 .J,
tsn t true abo h I • hun I"" or thousands of Ut t e wor d, but on religious texts written :is h years ago and b 1• , h those t~' s ould be interpret d . 'h on e 1evers personal feelings about ow ;11CJ!I
concept of why an/ ' .;it no supporting evidence whatsoever . . . and no apP ev1 ence should be needed. , ..
60
CREATING IDENTITY-SAFE SPACES ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES FOR MUSLIM STUDENTS I 325
creating Identity-Safe Spaces on College campuses for Muslim Students
Na'ilah Suad Nasir and Jasiyah Al-Amin
· · · t nation al political context has brought Islam (as both a practice and an ~w= .. h . • ) · t the media forefront. The events of 9/1 1 and the resulting war 111 Iraq ave identit y in ° . • · f 1· Q I h
k d ewed inter est in the religion of Islam and the life o Mus 1ms. ne on y as spar e ren . I · d • · cl,ai n bookstore to notice an exp losion of books on ls am, terrorism, an to VISlt an y . .
Islamic extremists. Unfortunately, this attention has been la_rgd y negattve, and Muslim unities across the nation are increasingly fearful of d1 scnm111atton and even viol ence.
~~::ontext has made the discussion th at we undertake in this article of the issues faced by Muslim college students at once more difficult and more important.
In thi s brief commentary, we explore some issues that arise for Muslim students on college campuses , drawing on both our own personal experiences and discussions and interviews with Muslim students from a wide range of college campuses ....
We begin with the s tories of two students from differ ent backgrounds and with very different experiences on thei r respective campuses.
RASHID
Rashid is a tall , African-American yo ung man with a ready smile and playful eyes, who carries himself with dignity and humility. In our interview he wore an indigo-blue African-style long dashiki and loose pants. He grew up in a medium-sized Northern Cali fornia city in a family that has struggled through economic and o ther woes. He won a full basketball scho larship to a well-known institution in another (but still liberal) state. Like many students, college was his first experience living out of the state, and the transition, whi le exciting, was a bit ~nsettling. But he adj usted to his new environment well and enjoyed a central role on the a_sketball team and a good relationship with his coach and teammates. Although he was
raised a Ch ristian, he started reading about Islam his freshman year and conve rted during his sop;om~re year. He describes this as the turning point in his life on campus.
ashid's conversion shifted, first and foremost, his relationship with his coach, who was st ;sr~IOUS of Islam. He accused Rashid of becoming a black nationalist, of hating whites, and 0
6 eing racist. After his junior year he asked Rashid not to return to the team. Rashid then ecarne · • , 11 . acttve tn the largely international Muslim student group on campus and declared s anuc stud ' 1· I I . ies as a second major. Here he encountered another obstacle-a non-Mus 1m s am1c-srud· f I
ies pro essor who was openly hostile to him and derogatory about ls am.
FATIMA
Fatirna is a . . . . . less soft-spoken (almost shy) young woman with a bit of hesitancy 111 her v01ce that
ens as sh ' · · h · d e gets more passionate about her topic. At our 111terv1ew s e wore Jeans an
~ C C L
9 i} 0
326 I RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION
. h hi'te scar f over her hai r, pinned under her chin Altli , t hirt wit a w I · ough h
a co ll ege 5'' ea s . F . a grew up in the sam e state w 1erc she attends collcg b :1 h · f m Pakistan anm . , 1
f' e, u11 fat er 1s ro . h ' he Musl im commumty wasn t 1er 1rst priority in ch . n d'ff t region S e says t I b h I oosing a 1 eren · h k it was important, part y ecause er o dest broth er (, I a II although s e new ' d A . . . v io was
co ege,. II d ctive in the Muslim Stu ent ssoc1at1on 1n another state wl already in co ege an a 1en she was choosing a college) told her so. .
. s a Muslim on her liberal college campus has been a posi tive on Sh Her experience a , 'd I f I . I d . e. e
d . s of prejud ice and she sai s 1e ee s mvo ve with both the M 1 .
reporte no instance ' Ab h b f us 1m . d the broader community on camp us. out a mom e ore we spok . comm uni t)' an . . . e wnh
h F • had niade a decision whi ch fo r her was a step m the prarnce of her faith er, at1ma ' f' d ' I -10 wea r hijab. Her biggest problem on campus was 1n mg a p ace to pray and make tuudu (a special way of washi ng up for prayer). She expressed concern about how she is perceived and about stereotypes of "oppressed" fo reign Muslim _wo men:
These two stories illustrate some of the va r1at1on m Muslim students' experiences co ll ege campuses, which have to do both with characteristics of the student (including cl~ race, gender, and rypes of ~uppo'.t needed,\ _and c,~aracteristics of the campuses and thcir surrounding co mmunities (mcludmg how liberal the campus 1s, the presence of Islamic student groups on camp us, and the existence and constitution of th e Islamic studies faculty). However, there are also important convergences m their accounts. Below we consider sever~ core iss ues that these stories ill ustrate (and that others' experiences corroborate).
THE BURDEN DF MANAGING A POTENTIALLY "RISKY" IDENTITY
All of the srudents we tal ked to described (in one way or another) the burde n of constanuy feeling that others were judging them in terms of negative stereorypes about Islam, such as "Muslim terro rist" or "oppressed Muslim woman." Interestingly, this fear has much more 10 do with a perception of potential threat than any actual acts of prejudice or discrimina1ion ....
For the students we interviewed, this threat became particularl y salient in mornenis of P:micing Islam (such as prayi ng while on campus), where they felt vulnerable and highly v1S1ble. Smee Muslim students need to pray five times a day, they constantly have 10 search our places to do so, such as an empty classroom. O ne student noted, "You have 10 find a place to pray, so you look like you are sneaking, then you find a roo m, and people ar1 th
mkmg, what is she doing in th ere?" This student revealed her anxiety that others mar Judge her as sneaky or strange.
AN IDENTITY-THREATENING ENVIRONMENT AND LOWERED ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
This anxiety about the ster . dents' acade · f eorypes that the M us lim identity might trigg er also affects Sill
m,c per ormance Wh'l ril'I we did observe that d · · · · 1 e our sample was not systematic or represenia d,
stu ems who re d d' • . . · cend1 to perform more I . porte more 1scn m1nat1o n and contennon .. poor Y academic I) F · · 1s 10 excellent academi·c d' a y. or Instance, while Fatima a bio logy ma1or,
· stanmg Rah'd lf h· · ' dtin~ returning several y I ' s 1 e t IS umversity several units short of gra ua b ears ater to c I h' h d 001
een actively denigrat d b omp ete ts degree. Most students we talked to a , e ' ut they felt taxed by the need t o constantly manage ocheri
11111 CREATING IDENTITY-SAFE SPACES ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES FOR MUSLIM STUDENTS 1 327
. f them. T his id emiry-management process required energy and time that . ess1ons o . d' 1nipr b en d evoted to their stu 1es. could ha~el . ~ vironmenr also mad e sn1d ents want to d istance themselves emotionally, and
A hosu e en d · d ' · · f h · I . • sometimes resulte m a 1sconnecnon nor JUSt rom t at pamcu ar campus h d1stanc1 ng . 1 I 1· d
sue . b r from school 111 genera . n some cases, Mus 1m Stu ents reported that com mu nity ~ of prej udi ce (at worst) and lack of und erstanding (at best) on the part of the_expe~ien~rs affected rheir academic perfo rmance more directly. For exam ple, Rashid's their pm ess relarionship with the Islamic-studies professo r resulted in his refusal to do
ntennous ' h f I h h · h · co f I readings for rhe course (because e e t t at t ey misrepresented t e Musli m some? t ie) and contri buted to his low grades in the several courses with that professor experience . d .
I needed to take fo r his secon maior. 1hat 1e
AN IDENTITY-SAFE ENVIRONMENT AND WELL-BEING
While academic per formance is cerrai~ly an imporranr effect of a ,~~!coming ca'.'1 pus envi- ronment, students' feelings of well-being are perha ps equally s1gmf1cant. Thar 1s, studenrs should fee l positive about life and grow as people du ring their college years. They s_houl~ feel whole and healthy. Our conversations made it clear that students who found their um - versi ry enviro nmenr sup portive of rheir practice of Islam, who felt that they were accepted as Muslims and as students and who di dn' t feel penalized or ostracized, were able to grow in the practice of their faith at their own pace and with full confidence.
For instance, rwo of the fe male studenrs we inrerviewed (both of whom were raised Muslim) spoke of deciding during their college careers to begin wearing hijab on campus. They repo rted the relief and acceptance they felt at receiving complimenrs on how they looked with the scarf on fro m both M uslims and non-Muslims. The first day Fatima wore hijab on campus, o ne of her professors to ld he r that she looked beauti ful. T his remark made her feel good abo ut th is step in her faith.
CONFLUENCE OF GENDER, RACE , RELIGION , AND CLASS
Our two stories illustrate another importanr point abo ut negotiating Islam on college campuses: Islamic idenrity inreracts with other identities to color both how a student is perceived by others and how he responds to such perceptions. It is significant that Rashid is Muslim, male, Africa n-American, and physically im posing (he is tall and muscular), as he noted in our conversatio n with him. It may also be significant that he is ·a fi rst- generation college student fro m a wo rking-class family since his resources for surviving college are fewe r than those of more affl uent or syste:n-savvy students. We might note th
at the response of the basketball coach to his becomin g Musli m was a largely racialized response- the coach o bjected to what he judged as a black-nationalist political philosophy a nd
feared that Islam would make Rashid too radical regarding race and politics. h We see In Rashid's story that negative reactions to him were compounded by the fact that I e belongs to multiple stigmatized groups. He not only has to negotiate being Muslim on a arfely non-Muslim campus bur also being African-American on a largely white campus, as we I _as a stud ent athlete (which makes him highly visible and subject to scrutiny). He was exphcnly told that he coul dn't be both a black male ath lete and a serious srudenr activist,
11111
328 I RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION
but that he had to choose between the two. Then, once his_ identity as a Muslirn ca to be released from the basketball ream and he turned to his school work rnor _used hi~ encountered resistance from others as he attempted to rake up a "serious-stu:ser~ou1Jy,le
In other work we have named these sers of identities "identity constellati C~t identity. . b I . I . ons to rhe idea rhar people have not 1ust one ut mu np e, sometimes connicting .d . _eaPI\Jre
h · I ·1 bl · d' ff ' 1 cntui~ 11. opportunity to reorganize I ese sers 1s more or ess ava1 a e 1n I erent cont . •ne some environmenrs studenrs arc asked to choose among the various id en tit' exts._ Indeed~
' d I \f . ICS W1thi h constellations, as Rashid's story shows. He (an or 1er f rican-American stude ) I n t ~ 'd I h ff'}' · h h nt~ ta ked ,L the feeling that they must dec1 e w 1et er to a 1 1at e wit t e Muslim o r the Af • "'-"Ut
. f I d . k d I b f I b ncan-Ame · campus commumty. A ema e sn1 ent JO e t 1ar e ores 1e egan wearing hij b h nc..1 on campus didn't speak to her, bur once she began cove ring, the African-A~ '.1 e Muslims
h f d h . k d f encan Stud stopped speaking ro her. Sue orce c 01ces ma e sru ents eel as though they hav . _en~ one aspect of their identities to the detriment of other equally important parts of ehto pru7}~
1 emseh·es.
SMALL COMFORTS ANO ACTS OF KINDNESS
Our final point is a brief one, but it is critically important. When we asked snid ho h d h . . M I' . . h . . ems a ur w at ma er e1r _expe_nences as . us 1ms pos1uve, r ey mvanably mentioned incidentsrlui
seemed to us qune trivial-for Instance, professo rs who acknowledged Ramad h I. d h · .. an or w
0 comp 1mente t em on wearmg h1Jab. One student noted wirh great fondness th -~ din~er and breakfast packets the dining hall provided during Ramadan. These s~:ile~ of kmdness were highl y valued by students and made a huge difference to the'ir se h b h I . . . . nse1 a1 ot t 1ey and th e pracuce of their rel1g1 on belonged on ca mpu s.
Other things that make campuses more identity-safe for Muslim students include:
A strong, diverse, and supportive Muslim student group on campus; Professors who are know_ledgeable about Islam and posi tive towards it (this especially Includes the lslam1c-stu d1es professors, since this program is where students often go m order to learn about themselves and to feel connected and su pported); The presence o: a broader student community that is accepting of Islam and its practictS; Access to physical spaces that facil itate the practice of Islam withom rid icule or judg- ment (for insta nce, having a private place to pray and wash up for prayer); Access to halal meals (foods that don't conta in pork and for which meats are slaugh· tered in a particular way) and the accommodation of the special meal times (befort sunrise and after sundown) during the month of Ramadan.
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
While this anicle has c; d M . nlob.tl P • . . ocuse on us!im students, we'd like to conclude with a more"' ·. erspecnve on the import k f . . d 'd oo~ ( II h . ant wor o suppornng all students' religious pracnces an I en as we as ot er dim · f d'ff · be efio rhe I . . ensions O I erence) on college campuses .... The idea that 11 n arger organrzanon to e h . . , com- munities is refle t d . h ncourage t e development of individuals in their respecme
ce mteexp · fh · h enence o t e students whose stones appear ere. · · ·
61
Guidelines for Christian Allies
Paul Kivel
ft is 1101 upon you to complete the task. Neither are you free to desist from it.
GUIDELINES FOR CHRISTIAN Ai.UES I 329
-RABBI TARFON
• If you are Christia_n or were raised Christian, there are many concrete things you can do to counter Chnsnan hegemony:
• Learn the history of Christianity, its impact on other peoples and the history of the denomination you belong to and/or grew up in.
• Notice the operation of Christian dominance in your everyday life. Consider how Chri stian concepts affect the way you think.
Examine how you may have internal ized judgements about yourself based on Christian teachings. Have you cut yourself off from your bod y, from natural expressions of your sexuality or spir irualiry or from connections ro the natural world? Examine how you may have internalized feelings of superiority or negative judgement of others, especially those from marginalized or non-Christian groups. Understand and acknowledge the benefits you gain from being Christian in the United States.
• Use your privilege to support the struggles of non-Christian peoples throughout the world for land, autonomy, reparations and justice.
• Notice how o rganizational and institutional policies perpetuate Christian hegemony. Ger rogerher with others to change them.
Respect other people's sacred places, rituals, sacred objects and culture; don't assume you can appropriate them.
Work for religious pluralism, and support the separation of church and state. • Analyze public policy through the lens of Christian hegemony_
Avoid assuming other people you meet are Christian-or should be, and challenge missionary programs.
Understand and respect non-Christian religions and cultures on their own terms. Avoid universalizing about religion, or assuming all religions arc essentially the sa me, worship the same god under different names or are comparable to Christianity. .
Avoid excusing hurtful behaviour or policies because of the good intent of thei r perpetrators. Work with others to respectfully hold people accountable for their behaviour.
Embrace diversity and complexity and avoid reducing things roan artificial either/or dynamic.
Begin to practice discussing these topics with other Ch ristians i~ private_ co~ver- satio ns, when rhere are public exhibitions of Christianity and 111 orgamzanonal Settings.
330 I RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION
62
Critical Reflections on the Interfaith Movement
A Social Justice Perspective
Sachi Edwards
: .. Th~re i: a gro"'.i ng mover:ienr to incorporate ~ducatio n _nbom :eligious diversity and mterfa1t h d1a log~e into our higher education curricula an d 1nst1tut1onal prio rities. Thm are va rymg mot1va nons _for tl11S, ho,~'ever. _The · .. . p~1 111ary argument su pporting th~ movement found m ex1st1ng scholarship [whi ch tl11s arttcle focuses on is] . . . the need
1 broaden the discourse on diversity and multicultu ral ism. . . . 0
BROADENING THE DISCOURSE ON DIVERSITY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE
A .. . rea:on for engaging students in interfai th dialogue is th e need to include religious tdenmy mto our di scourse on diversity and social justice . In the United States, education (pa: ticularl y _hig her education) has arrempted to ad dress social inequalities by establishing policies and mmat1ves that seek to foste r di versity o n campus and increase social jus1ic1 fo r disadvantaged groups. Yet, such efforts have no t been made to the same extent for religious mi norities .. . .
CURRENT TRENDS IN INTERFAITH STUDENT PROGRAMMING
· ·: I have identified three general trends in current mo dels o f interfaith sn1dent program· nung based on my own involvement with campus-based interfaith programming
01 · 11 th
e laS t
five years, conve rsations with colleagues doing sim ilar work at other insriruriolll, observanons from relevant presentations at academic conferences a review of the availabk scholarly htera~re on th is topic, and a su rvey o f institutional and o rgan izational websit~ descnbmg their mterfa'th · · · · ( ) · • (b) In· f . h . . .
1 mi11a11 ves: a mrerfa1th comm un ity service programs, mu
ait spintuahty centers, and (c) facilitated d ialogues betw een rel igiously d iverse srudenG,
INTERFAITH COMMUNITY SERVICE PROGRAMS
The predominant for f • f . mpts to create opportu . .
111 r° Inter aith engagement fo und on coll ege camp uses atte hir religious groups thmtieshor
stud ents to have positive interactions with peers fr001
1 °1ch•
roug serv1c · d .. · n • rhetoric surround' h' e p ro1ects an other extra or cocurricular act1v1nes,
1 1 ,
is often used wi~~g th ts ~ode! of interfaith programming, the term "i nterfaith diai°~u 01 together in this fash' t e. c aun . that thro ugh bringing students from differe nt re 1
1 S1 °u
1 1 0n, interfaith d' I . f I d1a og 1
a ogue occurs organi call y. However, orma
CRITICAL REFLECTIONS ON THE INTERFAITH MOVEMENT I 331
is nor emp hasized in these prograr:is (so, I choose not ro label them as dialogues ar all). Ins tead, inter fa ith comnrn111ty serv ice _programs attem pt to help srudenrs buil d in terfaith
I . iiships (th us, presu mably reducing their fea r or bias toward religious others) by re at10 · . ti . I b . , , engaging religiously diverse sru ents_ m co la oranve pro1ects rhat highlight their shared value (rel igious o r o th erwise) of helping others ....
MUL Tl FAITH SPIRITUALITY CENTERS
Another approach ro i nte rfairh programming that is common on college ca mpuses is to create multi faith spirirua lity centers-also calletl interfai th centers, inrerfairh prayer rooms, and meditation rooms, among other names. These centers typica lly host events such as mul rifaith panel discussions, religious festival celebrations, o r inrerfa irh prayers. In this way, campus-based interfaith centers often serve as a space for students to explore their spi ritualit y through learning abour their own and other religious tradi tions. Ar Wellesley College, for instance, the M ultifaith Center (attached to the campus chapel) is home to rheir Religious and Spirinial Life Program. This program is gui ded by a ream of chaplains and religious advisors, as well as a mulrifairh snident council, tha t assists in developi ng campus-wide campaigns to inspire students, sraff, and faculty members to engage in interfaith dialogue and increase rheir appreciation of religious diversity. The emphasis at Wellesley is o n celebrating the traditions o f all religious groups on cam pus, and by doi ng so, educating the campus community about the different religious idenriries that make up their college. Additionally, they staff chaplains from a range o f religious traditions and faci litate oppornmities fo r srud ents to receive pastoral counselling if they so desi re . ...
FACILITATED INTERFAITH DIALOGUES
Formalized, facilitated interfaith dialogues represent a fi nal version of interfaith pro- gramming found in colleges and universities in the United States. These range from less srrucru red to highly stru ctured, but all bring together students from different rel igious backgrounds ro discuss their respective beliefs, traditions, and/or experiences. A less struc· rured approach ro facilitated interfaith dialogue includ es the types ... such as "pop-up conversations" (creating a space fo r peop le 10 drop in for a brief interfaith conversanon) or "speed faithi ng" (l ike speed-dating, where participants spend a few mi nutes talking one- on-one with each other person in rhe group) events. In dialogues like these, students show up_v?l unrarily and exchange information about themselves to a peer(s) w11h a d1ffe_re~t religious identity. These casual conversations, guided by smdents' own inte_reS ts, rnr'.osi- tles, and colllfort levels, allow students to gain exposure to other religious behefs/tradmons and to as k questions about religion th ey may not feel com fortable doi ng elsewhere. • · ·
A CRITICAL SOCIAL JUSTICE APPROACH
'll~kh ile all of th e approaches to interfai th programming described abo~elcertai~ly seem 1 e p · · h e potenna neganve con· osit1ve steps toward interfait h harmony, t ere are som . .
1 .
1 • ·
seque h . h h gh a cnnca soc1a JUStice nces t at become apparent when analyzmg t em t rou
:l ir
332 I RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION
I The critical social ju stice perspecti ve asse rts that an exami nation of ens. . b .cl . (
1 . . Power
Pri vilege are important in an y dialogue a out I entit y re 1g1ous or otherwise) and f b d. 'd · · · to Pre1 the fu rther marginalization o su o r 1nate I entit y parti cipants. Ma ny of ti . 'en1
. . T h. . I I le inter[ . , initiatives descnbed above fa t! ro do so. rs rs not to say t 1at r l C)' shoul d nor b . _a11, ar all, or chat the )' all must b~ chang~d to strictl y adhere to a c ri tical social jusric; t:lized However, considering ce rtain possible areas of weakness char a critical . I~ nda.
Id I I . . . I . I soc1a 111111 perspective elucidates won 1e p practiti oners wn 1111 t 1c campus in terfaith , re be more mindfu l of the wa ys religiou s min orit y parti cipan ts may be affecr:~,~~en1 initiatives rher pursue. . . . ) the
Discussi ng rel igious ide ntity wirh a critica l social justic e ori entation requ · . f h I . . I · I r · I d I I I res care fut consid eration o r e 11sronca , soc1a , po 111ca , an ega power imbalance be twc
religious groups. Just as White and male hege mony ha ve h in d e r ed peo ple of I en h Ch . . I . I U . d S co or and wo_men, so too _as n s~1a_n 1egemo 11 y 111 t ~e 111cc . ta res caused the social and insti-
runonal oppression o f religious m111om 1es-111clud111g 111rernalized op pression, whereb · subordinate group members view t he mse lves as inferior du e ro t he normal izaf 1
1 the domi nant group. While it ma y be easiest ro think a bout in cidents o f inter ion ° 1
d. · · · d 1· · · .. I . persona 1scnm1_na11o n . w w
1 ar h r e 1g1ous . mdrnorrn ehs as._r 1e . p r11n ary ma nifestation of rel igi ous
oppression, cm1ca r eory rem 1n s us r a r 111v1s1bl e systems conferring un h · I d · " f soug 1
socia ? mrna nce o one group ?ver anoth er is far more p reva len t and deirim ental to marginalized_ groups_ tha n 1nd1v1d ual acts of mean ness . T hu s, a criti cal social jusiic, approach to phtlosoph1cal analyses of religious 1den111y and o pp ression comexiualius experiences of religious identity within the histo rical back drop of Christian cultural domination.
A common opinion about rel igious identity is that indi viduals can c hoose and change that aspect of themse lves at any time. Yet, as many scholars ha ve ex plained, the religion th at one adheres to, is mosr familiar with, and/or is most comfortable with is largely a matter of th e way that individual is socialized. In chat way, religious identity is nor simply about personal choice ... .
This perspective- that religion is largely cultural and chat affil iation with a religious c~ltu re has little to do with one's individu al beliefs-al igns wi th characterizations of reli• g1on put forth by prominent schola rs in th e field of rel igiot1s sllldies. Indeed, Dmkheim (1 912/ 1995_) warned us against defining religion (or religious affili ation, or religiousiden· t1fy) a_ccordmg to beliefs alone, because some religions do nor even espouse a specifirn1 of beliefs. He _adm11ted that 11 may be tempting for t hose fr om religious traditions 1ha1_do emph~srze belief to defin e religion in tha t way, bur wa rns rhat doing so would be reflecme of_ their ? wn biases and preconceptions abou t what religion is in rh e fi rst place. Ech~mg th
is sentiment, S'.1111h suggested that what we think o f as rel igion should be separated mto tw~
th mg~: an historical cumulative tradition, a nd the persona l fai t h of men and wome,n
which rs simtlar to the separation between religion and spir ituality I make above. O~es personal (aah _(or, spiritua li ty) may change over time, even day-co-day. One's socia_lizanon mto an hrSron cal, cumulative t radition (o r religious identi t y) however has imphcanons for culture d Id · h ' ' ' J rn,1J1
an "'.or view t at are separa te fr om belief. After all , even "the mo ern whdo feels a
11d claims that he is nonreligio us still re tains a la rge stoc k of camouflaged rn)ihs
an degenerated ri tual " · · f I . . . C . . s reminiscent o t 1e1r religious culture. . h
ombmmg rhe emph · h' • I . . . . b I w11h I e d . asrs o n tsto n ca 111equ1 ty a nd pol i11 cal po wer 1m a ance . ., un erstandmg that rer · 'd • . · · al socr•
• . tgio us 1 entity 1s culturally and soc iall y con structed, a crinc . . Justice approach call s f • f . h . ·a1iza11on d . or mter a11 practitioners to acknowledge religious soct . h' an examine systemic rel· · rk Wil 10 the int f · h igious oppression. Ap plying chis ap proach ro our wo . .ise
er a1t movement can h I h' k b . can ,ncre equity for d e P us t 111 a o ut how interfaith programmmg ' .
1 ihe
oppresse religious d h · I for 1us opposite. groups, an w en ther e may be the potenna
CRITICAL REFLECTIONS ON THE INTERFAITH MOVEMENT
CRITICAL REFLECTIONS ON THE INTERFAITH MOVEMENT I 333
R fleeting o n rhe interfaith movement in U.S. highe r education froni a c · 1 · I • I . .
e . , n 1ca soc1a 1usr1ce rspectivc raises a number of concerns about how the movement ma)' b 1 . .
pc · · 1·· · · d' · I I f . . . . • e a 1ena11ng or en fur ther 111a rg1na 1z111g 111 1v1c 11a s rom mmonty religious traditi ons w,I - 1
h ev . . . . , . w 11 e r ere are undoubtedlr good 1m':n 110 11s mot1va11 ng most campus interfai th practitioners, and there are surely many pos1t1ve as pects of ex1st111g interfa ith ini tiatives, the re are elements of the movement t hat fai l to add ress key issues related to religious conflict, prejudice, and oppression. lnrer fo nh program_s that overlook C hnstian pri vilege and religious oppression mi ght make parnctpants, pamcularly those from rhe dominant gro up (i .e., Christians), feel gra tified by the ex pc11 ence, bur ma y not make any substanti ve steps towa rd social justice for religious minorities. T hree prima ry critiques of this movement fr om a critical social justice perspective a re (a)_ a lack of explici t examinations of Christian privilege, {b) a tendency to overlook rhe soc10culture nature of religious iden tity, and {c) the frequent exclusion of non-Abrahamic religious groups/individ uals.
RECOGNIZING AN D CHALLENGING CHRISTIAN PRIVILEGE
An essential component of critical theory is the recognition and examination of power and privilege. T ht1s, acknowledging and purposefully challenging Ch ristian privilege is a neces- siry for cri tical social justice oriented interfaith dialogues, just as critica l dialogt1es about race should exami ne Whi te privi lege and critical dialogues about gender should exami ne male privilege. To this poinr, however, the interfait h movement in higher edt1cation has nor prioritized examining Ch ristian privilege. In part, this may be because Christian privi- lege itself is a fairly new concept. In 2002, Clark and her colleagues introduced the idea, relating Christian privi lege to the concepts of Wh ite privilege and male pri vilege made fa mot1s by Peggy Mclnrosh ( 1988, 1998) . They ado pted Mcintosh's ( 1988) famous list of White privileges to relate speci fically to religious identity ....
Howeve r, there a re still many scholars who overlook, are sceptical of, or even de ny the existence of Christ ian privilege. For instance, Kimmel and Ferber's (20 10) l'rivilege: A Reader, which includ ed sections on male, White, heterosexual, and class privi lege, did not add ress Christia n pr ivilege at all. There is a mention of anti-Semitism in one cha pter (Sacks, 20 10), but p rimarily in the context of racial, non-Nordic prejudice ra ther than as a discussion of religious oppression. Others, st1ch as Nelson (20 10), are expressly uncomfortable with the full list of Christian privileges, and assert chat Christians are also oppressed . . . clai ming that C hristians are also marginalized br the med ia and secular public: Still others fla t o ut reject the idea of Christian privilege, suggesting that what some tlunk rs Ch ristian privilege, is really just White privilege. Stewart and L~zano (2009), for example, argued that people of color who are Christian do not benefo from ChnSllan P'.
1 vtlegc because they often do not fit in with Whi te Christian congregati ons, a claim that
disregards the experiences of no n-Chris tians altogether. Tha_t th e legitim acy of Chr istian privilege is d ebated, even by those who are _self-
prodauned social justice scholars, has like ly limited the development of_ a_ ~rr_ncal social justice perspective in ou r discourse about campus-based rntcrfaith . tn matrves. Unfortunately, t his may be preventing rhe interfaith movement from add ressmg the bhig- Otry and . . . . . . · ·ngon the very campuses t ey op pression that religious m111on t1es are expenenct d S . . I c1· t are
O • • • R 1· ,ious an p1mua 1ma e perat1ng fro m. Recen tl y the nat1onw1de Campus e rg . . n·
sur ve f ' I are o f relrg1ous con 1ct ar Y ou nd that religious minorities are more acute Y aw,
334 I RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION
. 1 h Christian students, and experience m_o'.e negative interactions Wit h their schoo s
I an . f m peers with different religious id entiti es . Still m '
d feeli ngs of coercion ro , . I . d .b , ost of an . • gin us higher education r 1ar 1s cscri ed in peer-rev' rhe interfaith programmin · · . . . I b . I 1ewed . d • conferences and on msnrunona we sires c ocs nor direct!)· Journal s, al aca em1c . '. ·r· . I , f I ques, . dd or anal)·ze the religious strati 1cat1on at r 1e root o t 1ese co nflicts d non, a ress, . · an
di fferences in perspective. . . A critical social justice approach to 1nrerfa1rh engagemem contends that without
adequately acknowledging and managing th ~ drastic power imbal ance between differ- ent religi ous groups, educatio~a_l programming th at d ea ls wtth religion and reli gious identity can be damaging to religious mmonry stud ents who may perceive the initiaiiv as hol low attempts ro assuage them, while nor actually addressing th ei r ma rg inali~'. rion. Thus, interfai th programs aiming to be soci al justice oriented shoul d overtly insen activities, lessons, and other curricular or pe dagogical tools d emonstrating the existence of Christian privil ege. Moreover, they should attempt to inspi re positive social action toward rectifying the imbalance and injustice created by the historical and political Christian hegemony in this country. While th ere is a dearth of litera ture (both theo- retical and practical) that discusses how to successfullr pursue or fac ilitate this type of inter fai th dialogue , models of social justice oriented race an d gender dialogu es, such as Intergroup Dialogue, can be ado pted for this purpose. Strategies like ensu ring substan- tial participation by non-Christians, having a Ch ristian and a non-Christian cofacili1a1e the _dialogue,_ and training facilitators to recogn ize manifestatio ns of Ch ristian pril'i lege during the dialogue process can all be used to promote a critical social justice agenda through in terfaith dialogue.
Indeed, rher_e_are so~e ~all eges and universities that are pursuing interfaith engage• ment from a cm1cal social 1ust1ce perspective (or, at least attempting to). Those that are not, however, m~y nor recognize th e ways th eir religious minority participants migh1 be further ma_rgrnahzed through their programs. For exam pl e, if Chr istian partici• pants ar_e_dominat1ng the conversation (in essence, exhibiting their Christian pril'ilege) and facil itators fai l to interve d k f · · · ·
k . ne an ma e space or non-Christian pamc1pan1s 10 spea uninrerrupred religious · · · f 1· d. , m1nom1 es may come away from t he dialogue ee mg 1sregarded and unappre · r d s· ·1 I ·r . . ..
. cia e • 1m1 ar )', 1 C hnsnan pamc1pants suggest that they are oppressed-enh er by cla · h Ch · · h
b. d. . 1m1ng r ar n st1ans are oppressed or by changing I e
su Jeer to 1scuss a different id · f L · h h ' d not • entity or w,11c t er are oppressed-a nd facilitarnrs o step in to ensure that Ch · · · ·1 d d recognized Cl . . nsnan pnvi ege and religious oppression are validate an
· ,.non- mst1an pam cipants · h h · · 1· · s minorities d may interpret r at r c ir op pression as re 1g1ou
oes not matter Of co h I h . . ricipants· rarl e d' . · urse, t e goa s ould not be ro silence Clm snan par·
• 1 r, 1scuss1ons should be f d h I · the
historical conrexr d r re rame to e pall participants recogmze intentions mar puar" r~a iryf~f Christian domination. Failure to do so, despite good
. h ' an inter a1rh progra · k f • f • • · h oni· wn our realizi ng it U f m at n s o re111 orc111g C hnst1an egem · n orrunatel)' whe · . I and
power, good intentions f ' n It comes to conversanons about cu rnre Some interfaith are o ten nor enough. . . program s even cla · I · • · ·1h
a cnnca l social jusr'c . 1m soc1a Justice as a ten er yet still do not align 111 b · • . 1 e perspective on I" . . . ' . !el nngin_g a religiously diverse ro re igion or religious 1d ent1ty ... , !For examp :_
cally disadvantaged f -1. g up of srudenrs together co build houses for economi
wo k am, tes or raise · f ed r toward social justi Th awareness of gun violence is critically in orm
specifically help religiou~e. . ese_ are nor, however, forms of social justice work thar 1s an imp n11 norirres Reco · · h. . rarget As orran t aspect of . . · gmzmg w 1ch form of oppression ro such arr · a crrrrcal social · · menr, inval bi cnnon to religious id . Justice approach to interfaith engage .
ua e for the interfaith entity oppression and Christian privilege specially is movement.
CRITICAL REFLECTIONS ON THE INTERFAITH MOVEMENT I 335
ACKNOWLEDGING AND REFLECTING ON THE SOCIOCULTURAL NATURE OF RELIGIOUS IDENTITY
d i:;nizing and challengini:; privil ege, another important aspect of the critical Beyonl . r~coapproach is acknowledging and reflecting on the socially constructed nature of soc1a JUSI ICC ' f . f h . f . h · , . . . d . . . , H wever in current man1 esra t1 ons o r e inter at t movement, re 1g1ous I en m y 1den
111 >· 0
' I f b 1· f h . d' 'd I 'd ' fi d d . f ken about as a persona set o e 1e s, w ere 111 1v1 ua s are I ent1 1e accor - 1 5 0
tenhs~o own self-chosen religious label. While self-identifica tion is certai n!)' a strong! )' mg tot cir . · · bl h If 'd 'f' . I
Id , I c in critical 1dent1ry paradigms, cane anc se -1 ent1 1cat1on can a so prove he ' a u · d 'd · . F . h I' h I bl iari c when attempnng to ad ress I entity oppression. or Instance, w en , ac e pDrol e~ a Whi te woman born to two White parents, identified herself as Black, critical
0 czo' I b I . I . . d h' d h h lars descried h er chosen identity a e as rac1a appropt1at1on an a 1n ranee to t e
sc O 11 ·ustice efforts of the Black commun it)', T hus, as ex plained above, fro m a critical social soc1a d • 1 · · d b · d
justice perspective, o ne's upbringing and_ i ~n: ity soc1a 1zat1on n~e. s ro e recogmze as a pan of their identity label-whether the 1nd1v1dua_l want~ to admit Ito'. noL
It is for this reaso n that interfaith dialogu e (or 1nrerfatth programmtng 1n general) seek- ing to adopt a critical social justice a pproach should foc us no t on individual belief, but on the societal role of religion characte rized by reli gious domination and subordination. While social justice oriented interfa ith di alogue mar {or may not) share and compare participants, beliefs, traditions, or values, it should certainly ask rudents to re flect on their own reli- gious socialization, how it is shaped br Christian hegemony, and how it affects their lived experiences. Ir is possible that an interfaith dialogue of this sort may no r actually spend any rime at all discussing individual participants' spir itual beliefs or the belie fs espoused by the religious traditi o n with which they were raised. After all, enjoyi ng school closures on you r religious culture' hol idays (or, conversely, having to choose between school and your religious holidars) does nor require you to personally believe anything in particular. In other words, experiences of privilege or oppression often have more to do with the way Christian it)' shapes societal norm s, assumptions, and routines than the specific details of people's spiritual beliefs.
Asking participants ro examine their own religious socialization often means that those who prefer to label themselves as atheist or agnostic will have ro acknowledge the way they ar~ ~ulrurallr affiliated with a religious rradirion-rhat is, acknowledge their sociocultural ~~gious identity. For instance if a participant was raised in a Christian family and in a I tlS!tan social env1ronmenr, and thereby was taught to see the world through a Christian .;n~ he or she should be asked to recognize and learn about their Christian privilege, even ~ t ey no lo1_1ger believe in the tenets of C hristianity and no longer chose to call him- or f ers_~lf a Christian. Similarl y, if a participant was raised as a Muslim, has an entirely Muslim /~ Y, a
nd attended a religious Muslim school all of their lives, he or she should be encour-
;~e t\ reflect on the way their Muslim cultural identity has shaped, and continues to ar~p_e, ife ~~periences, even if he or she has recently adopted a new set of beliefs. Two ent~:: : P~;t;cipants, then, if ~n_e was raised as a Christian and the other as a M~slim, _have ent )' f erenr levels of religious pt1v1lege/oppress1on and, therefore, have ennrely d1ffer- partpe_rspecu~es to offer in an interfaith discussion. An interfaith program focused solely on 1c1pants' d. 'd . . • . how Ch . . In tvi ual beliefs overlooks this reality and nusses an opportumty to examme religiou:'
st !ans_(~ven those who are only Christian by culture) are afforded privileges that
C . . m1normes are nor. . rtt1cally exa . . h . . . . . d . in the . mtntng t e soc1ocultural aspects of rehg1on ts important to o, not Just follow~ry or
111 rhetoric, but in practice as well. Research has shown that even programs
ng th
e overtly critical University of Michigan Intergroup Dialogue model may stray
r:
--
336 I RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION . . . "fl hen fac ilitators and students do not adequately und
. ·al 1·usnce m1ss1on 1 w .d . WI I . I erstand from its soc, . I" ion and religious 1 enn t y. 1en t 11s 1appens it b h . ·cal perspective on re ,g h , ecom~ t e crm . f . h d" 1 gue can unfo rt unately, perpernate t e marginalization f . ible that inter a11 ia O ' 1. d • A . o re[1 poss . . . d f cher embed cheir incern a 1ze oppression. critical social . . · ious mmor111es an ur . b I b IUSl!ct
g 5 to consider how power 1m a a nces ctween religious framework encourages u . . . . I groupi mighr affect the way rel igious _ min?r!nes experience t 1ese prng:ams. So, when progra111s
k . . t explain their religion to others, as speedfa1th1ng events or pop-up
as part1c1pants o . I d . I . con. . • ht do it is important to recognize t 1at O111g so may p ace d1spropori,· versattons m1g , . . onate
ri Participants from lesser-known and lesser-u nde rstood religious traditio pressure o . . . . . . ns 10 t·culate (and sometimes defend) their religion to their peers. H indus, fo r instance . ar, h •
1 . I , ma1
find themselves in a position where they ave to rano na 1ze t 1e concept of reincarn ati or the existence of multiple deities, while their Christian peers are not likely to encou ;' such bewilderment at the idea of a single _li feti me or god. Likewise, :vhen programs or:a: ize educational lectures or panels of religious leaders, they run the mk of leaving audien members exposed co only a single interpretation of a given religion-a risk that threat~ minority religions more _than larger, more commo_n religious grou_ps. That the vast majori~ of Americans arc Clrnsna n makes the d1ve rs1ty w1ch111 the Chnsnan tradition more widelr acknowledged, a privilege chat is not afforded to most minor ity religions whose adherenn are often assumed to hold a singul ar belief system or p_ractice. Fu rthe rmore, when pr~ gra ms are ru n by chaplams and 1n campus chapels (even if t hey are labeled as interfaiihor multifaith spaces), partner with local houses of worship, involve religious ritual (such asan interfaith prayer), or are centered on personal religious exploration, the entire experienct 1s foregrounded in a context of religious belief, and may excl ude t hose who do not believe in a higher power. It is equall y important, however, for at heists and agnostics to engagein 1nrerfa1rh dialogue and to learn about how embedded Christian hegemony is in our sociery, espec,~lly because '.'1any of them may sti ll have a cul tu ral worldview and identi ty rooted in the rel1g1ous cradmon of their upbringing.
To be sure, belief is a big part of the way most people understand religion, despilt ~ome_ofdie foremost authorities on religious stud ies explaining chat religion and reli~olll identity is much more com plex than that. Focusing sole ly on bel ief in an interfaith dialogut makes 11 possible fo r culturally Ch · · I · · · · • .. d I
. ns r, an at 1e1Sts to ignore their Chn suan privilege an t le way they benefit from a system th I" . .. .
I at oppresses re 1g1ous mmorm es by presenting them-
se ves as separate from the dom · I Add' . . . I. . . . . mant cu cure. mo nally 1t centers conversations abou1 re ,g,ous mmormes on their b I' f h h h . ' . .
d I' . e ie s rat er t an c e1r subordmation A d ialogue of this son oes not a ign w11h the pri orities of the cri tical social justice paradigm.
RELIGIOUS IDENTITY JNCLUS ION BEYOND THE DOMINANT ABRAHAMIC TRADITIONS
Another aspect of interfaith ro ra . . . to some religious m· . Pd g mmmg that can be perceived as ho llow or msmcm Ab money stu ems is ch b' · 1 rahamic religions U d . Ch . . . e ias towa rd Ch ristianity or the three dominan
. u a1sm, nsuancty d I I . . J pracuce. Again this m b . , an s am) 1n much of the existing discourse an add . , ay ea result In part f h I k d 1· rt ressmg non-Abra! · . . ' , 0 t e ac of education research an 11eratu to h I ianuc reltgious gro M h · did
e P studenc affairs pr f . I ups. uc of the existing scholarship mien stud · 0 essiona s add · · 'th
. enrs 1s written from a Cl . . ress issues related to religion or spiricuaht)' 11~ mainstream Chriscianit)' Th _lrflisuan _perspective [or a] categorical definition aligned 111ih to sepa f · · em uenual f · h d · d ·ins Cl
. . rate anh and relio;on d fi a,t evelopmenc theory, for instance, which 31 1ns11an p . "' , e mes and des 'b f 0ml
dd . erspecc1ve Uames F I en es students' spiritual development r a ress thi b ow er was n bl . · ) To s Pro lem, Wan f,; h 'ld ' ota Y, a Christian minister and cheologtall · f
' -re 1 and G d · I · e 0 ' 00 man (2009), organized a spec1a ,ssu
CRITICAL REFLECTIONS ON THE INTERFAITH MOVEMENT I 337
. 1
New Directions (or St11de11t Services to help push the field beyond its Christian rhe iour~a However, in this special issue they attend only to Jewish, Muslim, and atheist orienrati~n- ocher religious identiry is rep resented or discussed. In fact, in the introduct ion students, n? 1 issu e che editors list on ly Islam, J udaism, or atheism as nondominant belief the specia ' 1· · ·d · · I I · · f to Non-Ab ra hamic re 1g1ous 1 enm1es are comp etc y m1ssmg rom this model. systems.·· ·Id a student who practices Native Hawaiian religion fit? A Jain? A Taoist? In Where wou d /VI 1 · · I d . f 1 · . · · . . her choice to put J ews an us 1ms 111 t 1e secon tier o re 1g1ous privilege, what explain;g e who do not believe in the God of Abraham at all? Small complicates her own aboJ\ tb
0 \ggesci ng chat Evangelical Christians often face oppression because of their relig-
1110 ed \sty and thus, are at once both privileged and oppressed . Yet, she does not question ,ous I en
1 · · f d · I I · ·1 d/ d d 'ff I arious denom1nat1ons o Ju ai sm o r s am are prl\'I ege oppresse , e rent y . •..
the way v, 1 · · b · · k I d h · f \ b Slowly, academic pub 1cat1ons are . egmmng to ac now e get e existence o non-; ra- h · religious identities. H oweve r, m many cases (not all), t hese acknow ledgments come . a~i; form of a brief comment, much like a footno te, whereas the bulk of the discussion 111 ~ description covers issues pertinent to the th ree main Abrahamic religions primarily. a~so while some religious traditions are recognized (Budhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, and ~ati~e America n religions are most often mentioned) ochers are still largely untouched; for example, J ainism, Taoism, Confucianism, Shinto, Paganism, Wicca, Voodoo, and many others. To be sure, the s maller number of Ameri cans who identify with these religions con- tributes to the lack of data U.S. researche rs are able co p roduce relevant to these identities. Nonetheless, it is necessary to call attention to th e more privileged positions that religious traditions more wel l- known by the general U.S. popu lation enjoy in this count ry so as not to simply pay lip ser vice to religious diversity, but to make a genuine effort to incorporate all religious identities into this discussion.
A critical social justice approach to interfaith dialogue reminds us t hat it is important to include individuals (both participants and facili tators) and perspectives from non- Abrahamic tradi tions-not as a token, in the form of a single participants, but as well represented a nd valued religious groups. At the most basic level, an inte rfaith program tha t only involves or acknowledges Jews, Christ ians, and Muslims is an affront to the very existence of other religious groups. le should come as no surprise, then, chat many smdems fe lt extremely offended when rhe University of Maryland embarked on its Tree of Life mrer fa ith needlepoint project and only inv ited part icipants from the three dominant Abrahamic traditions. Thei r rationale was that t he Tree of Life was a central symbol in Juda,s~, Christian ity, and Islam- neglecting co mention chat the Tree of Life is also a theme in Buddhism, Hindu ism, and virtually a ll indigenous religions.
On a more systemic level, excl uding non-Abrahamic perspectives limits partici pants' ext°sure to different religious trad itions, which may lead co a false sense chat all or most ;~igions share certain ideas and principles foun d primarily in the Abrahamic traditions amonotheism, a sacred text, weekly ri tuals cha t take place in a particu lar holy building, me~ng co~ntless och ers). Perpetuating chis myth reinfo rces t he Abrahamic yardstick as a mer:te of reltgiosicy, o r eve n a d eterminant of what constitutes a religion (as opposed to religii a orm of spmtuality, as some might suggest). Participants from non-Abrahamic that in~s may be forced, then, co justify their tradition as an actual religion- a struggle standp _igen~us peoples, Bu ddhists, and o thers often face. From a critical social justice lenged ~~n;n
1 i is exempla_r of Christian (maybe even Abraha1;1ic) he~e_mo?y shot~ld ?e. chal-
With n Ab nter fa nh d ia logue. Domg so requires subscannal part1c1pauon by md1v1duals to bro~t ~aham ic religious identi ties- not to teach o thers about their traditions, but assenin en t e ~on~ersacion beyond Judea-Christian-Islamic normative themes. Indeed, in thee g a niargi?a lized, misunderstood perspective can be daunting when one is alone, or represe Xt red":'e m inority. For that r eason it is crucial that non-Abrahamic religions are well
nte tn an inter faith discussion ~r event.
338 I RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION
. f ·tli d',aloguc (or o ther interfaith initiati ve) wi th ad ·. ·ngan inter a, ' , cqu,~ Tobesure,orgamz, .d f religious identity gro ups can _bc a difficult task b .
. . . f om aw, er range o . . f ' ' u1 11 par11c1pa11on r \ itmcnt to social 1ust1cc o ten means spending ,nor . . . t no ne theless. I comm I .d . ei1mr ,s 1mportan . . . . t from undcrrepr csen tc( 1 cnuty grm1ps, and an int .. f 'h
d ff crumng part1c1pan s k ,t ,11 an e on re d' ff WI at the crit ical social justice fra mcwo r hel ps us undcrsian·' . o· logue IS no ' ercnt. 1 . . 'd . . . u,1n
ia . I . 1 . 1 iding two or three reli gious 1 entity groups 111 an 1111crfaith d. this case, is t ,at s1mp y inc t . 1· . .· ·I . . ,,. . h t ly combat S)'Ste1111c re 1g1o us opp ressio n ; t 1at ,t 1s also necc.<u,
logue 1s not enoug to ru . I I · b . - 1 . I d . ·oerable wa)' those out s1Cle the t 1rce c on_1111ant A raha m,c reli•;o to inc u e, in a cons, ' , . .
1 d'
1 . ., Iii
h be reasons for limiting 111terfo1t 1 ia oguc to Ju st two or three spec·' Of course, t ere may . I . . . inc f · t nc' when the goal is to address the unique 11stoncal tensions betw•~ groups- or 111s a e, . . . ""
those groups. However,_ pr~grnms attemptmg to_ reduce pr_e1 u_d1ce toward, and pcomo,r inclusion of, religious mmormes more generally, should avoid such a lack of d1ve rsuy.
THE FUTURE OF INTERFAITH ENGAGEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION: A CRITICAL SOCIAL JUSTICE VISION
Despite th e critiques of the interfai th movement I present above, I do see great po1enn~ in campus-based interfaith initiatives as a means for reducing interfaith tension and preju• dice-not o nly on college campuses, but in our society as a wh ole. My ho pe, howmr,i that a critical social justice framework becomes fu rth er embedded into the di scourse an! prnctice of interfa ith work, to ensure that religious minorities are not furthe r marginalizeJ by these programs. This vision for th e future o f in terfaith engagement in U. S. higheredu~· tion includes five specific recommendations, all designed to o rient the interfaith movemen1 toward positive social change.
Fi rst, when an interfaith program endeavors to be social justice oriented, all participan3 (students, staff, and facu lry members alike) should clearly unde rstand, from the start ol the process,_ exactly what that means; in other wo rds, they shou ld expect Christian pri1i· !eg~ and religious oppression to be cent ral themes of their discussions. Second, inte rfaith mm~uves _should help participants understand t he di ffere nce between religious idenricy (ones SOCl?culwal, group id~ntity) and religious/spiritual belief (o ne's individ ual f~thl, anld :,vhy di_scmsi_ng religious ident ity is more important when the end goal is justice f~ re 1g1ous m10onnes Thi rd ·f · J · • • • · .. Id ;
d . . · , 1 soc1a 1ust1ce 1s a stat ed pr1orny pam c1pants shou comm;t
to tscussmg structural po d · d h · • ' f h · . I . . wer ynamics an s anng li ved experiences as members o t tJ soc1ocu ru ral rel1g1ous gro I I • I · I h'I . up, rat ,er t ,an usmg the dia logue to debate spiri wal, theoo9· ca , or P 1 osoph1cal matters F h f ·1 · · h of g 'd' . f . · ourt , aci 1tato rs, coordinators and anyone else ,n c lll1
ui mg an mter aah progr I Id b • • ' · · 'd tit y (and th • . . ~m s , ou e crmcally self-aware of t heir own rehg10 11s 1 (ll-
e1 r associated pnvilege/o .· ) I . . . . . · I J ·,11 power imbala b , . ppress10n ; t 11s 111cl udes bctng fa m1har wit 1 t 1e 11
nces etween relig, . . · " at large Lastly . . ous groups ma111fest both interpersonall y and m sl)Clt,,
· , part1c1pant dcmogra h · · · f • d' · ~~ across multiple (alt! h P tcs 111 inter a1th ini tiatives should renect IH ·
1oug not ne ·1 II 1· · 11> where no one panici . I f cessan Ya ) non-Chris ti an and non-Abrahamic re igio Th. pant is e t to repres h · 1 .. is last recommendat· , . enr t etr re 1g1ous group alone.
berof distinct religious t iodn_is certainly the most difficu lt to follow. Give n the sheer ollll' II ra inons that · (' h d mii!I c? ege campuses), it would be i e_x1st 111 t e world, in the United States, an on I
given event. Additionally b mpo55,ble to have every o ne of them represented at anJ I ca . , ecause fa · · · . · · JIIG d. n get complicated when th ctl!tattng meantngful interaction among part1"r I k1verse group that is also a e group ts too large, trying to construct an approprta!C Y
now the perfect solution tpproh~nately sized can be quite c hallenging. I do not claim t'. I con tempi · 0 t ts pred · h ,uca
ation can help shed m 1 . h tcamem. Perhaps further research and t eor_.._,
ore ig t on ti . . h •e u,111' 11s issue. For now, I simply urge t at 11
I __ 11111
CRITICAL REFLECTIONS ON THE INTEAFAJTH MOVEMENT I 339
. . II d de li berately a bout t he composition of ou r interfaith dialogues (or other inter- nt1ca Yan · · d I ( ) 1· · · · · c . . . • tives) keeping 111 m in t 1at a re 1g1ous m1nom1es may be unfairly burdened
fait h ,mna ' · · · I h · 1· . b k ' the o nl y part1 c1 pa nt wit 1 t cir re 1g1 ous ac grou nd, and (b) individuals with if the y are d · · (DI . 1· . · d. on-Abrahamic religious i ~nt1t1es . iarm1c re _1_g1ons, m 1genous religions, etc.) _o ften
n ldviews a nd expene nccs w ith margmaltzanon that diffe r greatly from religious ha ve wa r . d. · ' . . . s from the Abraha m1c tra mons.
m1non t1 e k . d' ff. I d . Undeniably, social justice wo r 1s 1_ 1cu t, a n . r_equ1res constant re nection and recvalu-
. My intention here is not to reprtman d or r1 d1cule an y of the programs or institutions at1on. I . . I I d I . . . h . d ment io ned throughout t 11s_ aruc e. nst ea , my _goa 1s to _ 111sp1re t ose commme to
• 1 justice ro a nalyze their o wn processes, crmca lly consider how religious minorities soc,: ffec ted by them, and find ways to impro ve the initiatives they are invo lved with as ~::ded. I believe tha t the imerfoith movement in higher education has the ability to shape the futu re of in te rfai th relations tn this co un t ry. Beyond current models, however, we need
3 nationwide para digm shi ft that places our greatest attention on the least recognized and
understood re ligious groups. An inter faith move men t with a critica l social justice approach qui re possibly may turn t he tide of inter faith relations away from violence and intolerance, towa rd acceptance and harmo ny.
'i.! r
D C
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 43
- 45