The Devil And Daniel Webster
His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI’s recent French visit has drummed up quite a bit of media coverage, effectively overshadowing another story from France which emerged over the past fortnight concerning a very different Church.
The Church of Scientology, who have faced various legal wrangles in the past, is set to be tried for organised fraud in the coming months. There is a history of disputes with the organisation in (though certainly not unique to) France, which refuses to view it as a religion, and categorises it as a purely commercial operation.
The episode got me thinking on the intricate relationship between law and faith in our society, where our civil codes and religious beliefs can be traced back to the same book. This can be observed no matter which civilization or book you choose. So it seems we have two ideals, born from the same place, but evolving in different ways – intricate hardly does it justice. Religion makes a daily appearance in court, God is called upon to play witness to every statement, but it begs the question of what happens when the two entities meet head-on – when religion is forced into the dock.
The Devil and Daniel Webster is a short story detailing such an occasion – Webster, an accomplished lawyer, agrees to take the defence of Mr. Stone, a local farmer who has sold his soul to the devil.
But cases like this are by no means limited to the realms of fiction, as can be seen from the very real life case of Mayo V Satan (US 1971) which saw Gerard Mayo claiming that Satan had deliberately placed obstacles in his path that caused his downfall. The case ended on a technicality, as there was no instruction given on how to serve notice of the legal proceedings to Satan.
Other remarkable cases include Luigi Cascioli, an Italian who brought a lawsuit against the Catholic Church; the case revolved around the idea that the Church would need to offer evidence of Christ’s existence – in 2006 it was granted hearing in the European Court of Human Rights, and shortly thereafter was closed, as Cascioli seemingly lost interest in pursuing it any further.
Even more recently, Nebraska State Senator Ernie Chambers brought a case against God, citing floods, plagues and various catastrophes as reason to sue. Chambers made the claim in order to draw attention to the increasing trend of frivolous lawsuits appearing in the American courts.
While such cases are evidently being used as ways to highlight particular issues, there are also more sobering examples, such as the Scopes Trial or Dover Case, which dealt with the still ongoing US furore over natural selection theories being taught in school.
While the Church of Scientology has received full recognition as a religion in several countries, it has been rejected in many more. It is a pertinent question at this time – what defines a religion? In a setting where liberalism and acceptance of all faiths are encouraged from an early age – who should decide which belief is relevant, who should choose where the line is drawn between religious and civil rights?
It would be hypocritical of a state founded on religion to not allow openings for new and varied belief systems, but the decision making council is always going to be subject to prejudice. In the same breath, an open-door policy is an invitation to misuse.
Religions have generally found acceptance through numbers, and with the Church of Scientology claiming membership of over 8 million worldwide, it will become more difficult for countries like our own to ignore or deny their claim to hold the status of an recognised religion. To me it seems that by accepting emerging faith-systems in a secular or multifaith society, there needs to be a tangible, corporeal element to them, however contradictory that may be.
Wednesday, September 17th, 2008 and is filed under Other Religions/denominations, Thoughts & Questions, Views on News.
Responses are currently closed
LMaher Says:
What makes a society “multi-faith”? How many non-conforming people does a country need to achieve multi-faith status?
Israel is as Jewish as the US is Christian yet Israel is a declared “Jewish” state but the US is not a declared Christian one. Ireland is more Catholic than Israel is Jewish – is Ireland a legally “Christian” state? Egypt has a larger Christian minority by far than Ireland’s non-Christian minority – is Egypt considered to be a multi-faith nation because of her Coptic population?
I’m not certain that people generally really accept all religions in our secular western societies. There tends to be a certain acceptance of what can be called “generic Christianity” and the social gospel but there is little toleration for a serious Catholic Christianity committed to evangelization, reverent liturgy, and respect for the natural law.
If you don’t believe me try going to your pastor and ask him for a solemn Mass with the full ceremonies (far easier to do today than in 1962 but still more rare), a sermon explaining the natural law, and outreach to bring the fullness of Catholic truth to our non-Catholic neighbors in the manner of the Legion of Mary.
Good luck.
October 12th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Dave Says:
Thanks for your response Lmaher.
Apologies if the context was unclear, but I meant the term as a loose-fitting way to describe our society, not as rigid legally binding State Religion terminology.
By multi-faith society, I simply refer to places were various religions are openly practiced by people. Ireland would be one example, England another – even though England has an official state religion.
In Ireland, our constitution gives us Religious Liberty – the freedom to practice any religion, the freedom of conscience, and the guarantee that the state will not discriminate on the grounds of religion.
Popular opinion, however, is a very different thing. And of course, freedom of conscience, whether granted by Church authority or by State authority (or both) will inevitably mean that there will be contradiction between people, and therefore you will find that there may be ‘certain acceptance’ of one belief, and ‘little toleration’ of another.
With regards to your last paragraph, are you suggesting that the pastor would be disinclined to give a solemn Mass, or that the congregation would be loathe to hear it?
All the best,
Dave
October 14th, 2008 at 10:21 am