Trumped up Religion

It is with hesitation that I write this article. Anytime someone tries to psychologize or explain the behavior or thought of another group of people, it is dangerous territory. Even historical explanations of contemporary events can be condescending. However, I feel like I am on solid enough ground to attempt an explanation of one interesting finding this election season.

According to polls, in five short years white evangelicals have flip-flopped on whether an elected official who commits an immoral act in their personal life can still behave ethically and fulfill their duties.

White evangelicals are, statistically speaking, more likely to vote for Trump. In a recent poll Trump leads Clinton 55% - 2% among likely white evangelical voters.

The obvious conclusion is the shift in the above graph benefits the 2016 Republican nominee more than the Democratic.

So how did we get to this situation? How did Republicans get such loyalty that they have changed their mind on the value of Presidential candidates personal morality so drastically in five years?

To tell the story we have to go into the history of religion and politics in America.

Kevin M. Kruse has documented a large portion of this history in his book One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America.

For the purposes of this post, he traces a trajectory from the 1930s to the Eisenhower administration till the 1970s of increasing ties between evangelicalism and conservative (Republican) economics.

But that is of course not the whole story. In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that abortion was legal in all 50 states. Segregationists did use this to their advantage and racism was a catalyst, but the average evangelical cared more about the spike in legal abortions (at least eventually).

Morality, especially pro-life and pro-nuclear hetero-normative family values, became another corner stone of the development of conservatism.

No one was more instrumental in coalescing conserve values than Ronald Reagan, President from 1981-1989.

He spoke the language of the evangelicals better and more consistently than virtually any other President in American history. (Note: Possible exceptions, Eisenhower and Carter).

So much so that Falwell and Weyrich, the leaders of the conservative group the Moral Majority, declared in 1989 that the religious right is solidly in place.

The Republican party had solidly coalesced conservative economics, conservative morality, and conservative politics.

The failed campaigns by Pat Robertson and Mike Huckabee showed that America did not actually want a President who was from the religious right.

However, it took the formation of the The Tea Party in 2009 to expose cracks in the unity achieved during the Reagan era. The Tea Party was largely (but not exclusively) libertarian. They were subtly opposed to traditional Reaganesque conservative politics.

For example, Reagan was for amnesty; Trump is not. And Trump got Tea Party support partly because of his immigration policies.

Abortion is still a motivator for Trump supporters, especially as there is currently a Supreme Court seat empty. But personal morality was/is not a central concern for the Tea Party, nor as we see by the graph above is it for the average evangelical in 2016.

This was a relatively quick (and MAYBE unplanned) bait and switch from personal faith and morality a mix of libertarian and conservative policies.

Spotlight on Witchcraft IV: Reflections and Recap

Ritual in Witchcraft:

Witchcraft generally emphasizes ritual. 


Where a Christian book store would focus its inventory on devotional books and books on theology, a store dedicated to Witchcraft typically sells objects, such as wands and potion ingredients, used to perform rituals.  


For those who practice, witchcraft has understandable and repeatable rules . Thus, understanding ritual theory (including what a ritual is and how rituals are created) will help us understand Wicca. 


When discussing what ritual is, we should avoid two pitfalls. The first is claiming that ritual is entirely distinct from everyday activities, while the second (and opposite) is that ritual is virtually identical to everyday activities.

Catherine Bell offers a good way to begin thinking about ritual:

...ritualization is a way of acting that is designed and orchestrated to distinguish and privilege what is being done in comparison to other, usually more quotidian, activities. (Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, pg. 74)

Ritual is ritual by virtue of the intention of people to set the ritual action apart from other activities that they perform in their normal lives. That is, according to Bell, ritual is not a time to commune or access the sacred, but rather ritual creates a sacred time and space. 



According to Bell, ritual structures community through manipulation of bodies; and community structures rituals through beliefs. 


It is the first structuring aspect of ritual that is immediately apparent given that contemporary witchcraft does not (comparatively to other religions) have deep historical ties to its sources. 


The circle that I participated in on Samhain (Oct. 31) had us chant "We are a circle, inside a circle, with no beginning, and never ending." While chanting we physically created this reality, becoming a circle inside of a circle. 

Gallow's Hill, Salem - Samhain 2015

Then we asked for protection from the Guardians of the North, East, South, and West, individually. This can be interpreted as calling on the larger circle (of the earth) for protection of the circle we had just created. (Though I am unsure that the Wiccans participating would agree.)


Only after this did we call on the central deities of Wicca, the Triple Goddess and the Great Horned God.  


Thus, this ritual structures this community by influencing them to physically act out the nature of the cosmos physically reinforcing their metaphysics AND the communities structured this ritual based on their understanding of reality. 


This is a nifty little feed back loop, theory of ritual that makes sense of large portions of the Samhain Sabbat. 


Much more could be said about the rituals of the Wiccans based on ritual theory, including its emphasis on binaries such as inside vs. outside, and male vs. female


Wicca would be a good case study for a scholarly discussion of ritual theory in practice. Particularly how people are creating, recreating, and/or discovering rituals might give us insight into ritual theory. 


This is especially true since Bell states at the beginning of her book that ritual theory both structures ritual and is structured by ritual, in a similar way that ritual structures and is structured by community. 

The Town of Salem:

As someone interested in the history of religion in America, I would be interested in reading a book about the history of contemporary witchcraft in Salem. 

I would be interested to learn how Salem became a central location for modern Wicca and whether/how its history influenced people to become witches. 

There is no direct connection between the people accused of witchcraft centuries ago and contemporary witches. The former were accused of making pacts with the devil and the later worship a God and Goddess not Satan. 

Spotlight on Witchcraft III: The 4 Salems on Oct. 31

While visiting Salem, MA on Oct. 31, I came to the conclusion that there were 4 (mostly) distinct Salems during Halloween/Samhain: 

1. The Salem of the Tourists
2. The Historical Salem 
3. The Salem of the True Believers 
4. The Salem of the Critics. 

The Salem of Non-Witch Tourists

Essex Street on Halloween/Samhain

No-Maj (the American word for Muggles or non-magical people) were by far the largest portion of people in Salem. All of the other Salems were vying for attention/money from them, at least to some degree. And to be fair, I fit most neatly into this group myself. 

These people came for various reasons. Some were just there for the mass party, some wanted to see the tourist attractions in their peak, some may have been legitimately interested in the details of witchcraft. 

The Historical Salem

One of the many museums about the Salem Witch Trials

Historical Salem is one of the main draws for tourists. Here you learn about the politics of the Salem Witch Trials and that an accusation of witchcraft meant being accused of making a pact with Satan. 

(This historical conception of 'witch' is at odds with the contemporary witchcraft that Salem is also known for.) 

While this was generally accurate, there was some commentary that was questionable. For instance, the introduction to the live reenactment of a witch trial at the Witch Dungeon Museum incorrectly represented predestination, a Calvinist concept. 

Predestination is the belief that only some (the elect) will make it to heaven and this was predetermined by God. 


However, in the next sentence she implied that in Salem people believed that engaging in playful divination, such as looking for the face of their future spouse when they dropped an egg into water, would risk their immortal soul. 


They could easily fix this problem by saying that engaging in any fortune telling would be proof that you are not predestined to heaven and you would suffer socially as a result. 

In predestination, only God can save you; he made this determination before you were born. No action can prevent or help you get to heaven, but actions can be evidence of salvation.


(This is nit-picky, but the audience deserves accurate intellectual history, especially when the change would be minimal)

The Salem of True Believers

Witches gathering to walk to Samhain Sabbat

There is the Salem of true believers and this is a great day financially for some of these true believers. They are able to give readings, have seances, sell potions, and etc... 


But their shops function all year round. However, on Samhain, when I entered their shops, it was not typically the owners or proprietors on the floor greeting customers. 


In one shop I asked how they would photograph my aura and the person really did not know. In another shop, the floor person didn't know if the model of a tree with a face in the center was Yggdrasil that was part of a functioning alter. 


Nevertheless, I could easily tell that the altar was set up by someone who was an active practitioner. It was just that the true believers (or at the least more knowledgeable and charismatic practitioners) were in high demand doing readings, seances, and etc...



Again contemporary witches do not make pacts with Satan, which is what being accused of witchcraft in historical Salem meant. 


Thus, the various stores dedicated to the craft and the witches being portrayed in the Witch Dungeon Museum are two very distinct tourist draws.

The Salem of Critics

Deadpool evangelizing for Odin

In Salem there were several Christian protesters who were preaching against witchcraft and the dress and conduct of the tourists. 

One Christian evangelical was counter protested by Deadpool holding a sign saying "Odin is God (Read Mighty Thor #5)"

Previously I had decided to ask a group of Christian evangelists if they felt that they were being disrespecting those being accused of witchcraft in this location centuries ago. (It would be disrespectful for Christians to try to convert Jews outside a holocaust museum.)


Immediately before I asked this question. I witnessed a live historical reenactment of a Salem witch trial that went through a part of Salem and contemporary Christians condemning almost everyone in Salem for one reason or another. The irony was palpable. 


The four men in this group (are women ever street evangelists?) appeared to be between 18-35. Dressed in nice, yet blue collar attire. 


I spent about a minute trying to shout my question to them. Finally the youngest, who appeared to be in his late teens called me over and I was able to shout my question to him. 


What follows is not exact, but a recreation. I am sure, I was not this eloquent given I had a megaphone about a foot away from my left ear. 



Me: Do you find it disrespectful to be here protesting Witchcraft when people accused of being witches were hanged not far from here?

Response: We are being persecuted by witches.

Me: Give me an example.

Response: In the Bible.

Me: O.K. anything after 500 A.D. 

Response: Yeah the Romans

(At this point I didn't want to and couldn't get into an argument about history) 

Me: O.K. how about anything after 1000 A.D.

Response: Are you denying the Bible as history?

Me: No. I just don't think it's relevant to this particular discussion.


At some point in the conversation he compared me to a witch because I was rebelliously asking questions. I repeated my initial question a few times and got the same answers. I told him that this was silly, turned around, and started to walk away. 


Then the guy with the megaphone turns to me and says "You know what's silly, denying Christ as your savior." I turn back around curious and listened to this guy who I can't have a conversation because with he can literally drown out my words with his megaphone.

Religion Critic symbol

Then he calls me a sissy. I assume this was based on how I was dressed. I was wearing a nice looking black overcoat, a white tie with my symbol on it, a nice lavender dress shirt tucked into jeans, and black dress shoes. 


I assume it was the color of my shirt that earned me the insult. But, at this point, I am just amused. A grown adult making fun of how I am dressed to prove a religious point. (Later in the day I heard him make fun of other people, including men who were dressed as women and women who were dressed immodestly.) 


What I do next, was virtually instinct and it simply amused me. I started to mock flirt with him. I said: "Hey big boy what are you doing later," imitating a gay lisp. He continued to make fun of my masculinity and at that point I was completely done and walked away. 


(I want to stress that I deeply respect and believe in many of the tenets associated with Christianity, especially that of love your neighbor. I also respect many Christians. However, I do not respect stupidity and rudeness; I will return silliness with silliness.)

Bottom Line:

These are the four Salems I witnessed. They all interacted with each other and at one point I saw a Christian protesters across the street from Hare Krishnas chanting the Maha Mantra, while people were arguing with the Christian protesters. 


The scene was similar to this.

The main lesson I learned and what I would like everyone to take from this post: 



We can't forget about religious tourism, evangelism, and indigenous religion even if we are simply taking a day trip into the next town. 


Far away places are not inhabited by 'other people,' and our indigenous religions are only familiar to us. If we step back, maybe we can see the strangeness.  

Emergency Post: A Religion Critic's response to Ferguson

Normally I spend days on the editing process on one of my posts alone. But this will not be nearly as heavily edited. Because of its importance, I want to post it quickly. It is my hope that the questions I ask in this post will be contemplated whether you hear the questions from me or elsewhere. One reasonably might ask what 'A Religion Critic' could possibly contribute to the discussion of Ferguson, but in saying this you would also have to ask what Al Sharpton, a minister, can contribute. Religion has a place in these discussions and religion will be used by all sides. The legacy of MLK Jr. has already been cropping up. The aforementioned Al Sharpton will be having a press conference on the topic of Ferguson in less than an hour from the publishing of this post. If I can't contribute quickly and intelligently to Ferguson, then I am not worth of the title that I have chosen for myself. In short the no indictment and rioting in Ferguson is an event that takes precedence over my project. (I also think of my main project as important for facilitating peace). Sticking to my role as a religion critic I am going to talk about slavery, civil rights, and its relationship to religion in America historically.

According to Mark Noll's The Civil War as a Theological Crisis, the first major theological dispute between Christians over how to read the Bible in America was a direct result of slavery. BOTH sides were Christian, that is they both read the Bible and both typically went to church. The Bible was read by the pro-slavery movement more literally than the abolitionists. The abolitionists started ignoring direct passages that seem to approve of slavery. Instead they focused on the love of Jesus and to love your neighbor, which included slaves. (Yes, you can argue that, in the Bible, slavery did not mean race based slavery, but by and large this was not an argument being made in antebellum America). This dispute was not resolved by theological argument. Rather it was resolved by the North winning the civil war. But, what's the point? Why would I bring this up in a modern day context? The point is even if you are a Bible believing Christian there are important disputes that often cannot always be resolved by looking at the plain text in the Bible. In fact, the pro-slavery movement was more inclined to look at the plain text of the Bible than the abolitionists. Remember this as it applies to current civil rights abuses; two people can both be Bible believing Christians and disagree!

Even more directly David L. Chappell's Stone of Hope deals with the origins of the civil rights movement. Who was it that led the civil right's movements? It wasn't white liberals who trusted in reason and enlightenment ideals to change the world. It was primarily African American ministers and religious leaders who borrowed the prophetic language from the Old Testament who were able to enact change. In short, they found a theology or philosophy that motivated action. Just as importantly the Southern white churches and religious leaders were less active in supporting anti-civil rights legislation and causes than would be expected. Especially considering the religious support of slavery in the antebellum period. One possibility is that there was not nearly as much Biblical support for segregation as there was slavery. The Bible just doesn't command or permit someone to cut themselves off from those who look different than you. In fact there should be a community of believers that doesn't take into account race or position. (Yes, I know the lack of awareness of social distinctions is color blindness, but I am relaying this conception in the context of outright segregation). Thus, the segregationists could not very well rely on the Bible to support their cause.

But what's the bottom line here? We need philosophies or theologies (depending on your preference) that support calls to action. There shouldn't be a large number of philosophies or theologies because unity is also important. But perhaps we can develop or reuse a few good ones, perhaps even prophetic religion. Prophetic religion a la King (and many many' others), was a great rallying point. In any case, one of the most critical questions that we can ask ourselves is: "What philosophies or theologies can we use or develop to help us take actions to end systematic racism and in the long run peace?" Secondly, "What actions should we take?" Of course, the philosophies or theologies we use to call us to action will in part determine which actions we take. But the reverse should also be true. We should judge the philosophies and theologies, in part, on what actions they can feasibly support. At this point, these are the most critical questions I can develop in regards to the no indictment decision in Ferguson and the systematic racism that led to this situation. Riots do not simply happen after a single incident, but the shooting of the unarmed Michael Brown was the straw that broke the camel's back. And this systematic racism is what we need to address with both our questions and our actions. We should also spend time developing further questions. I am A religion critic not THE religion critic. I always hope that others will join in conversation with me and that I will be welcome to join in the conversation with others.