Church of Satan Reverend Obtains Minister’s License in Virginia

In the revamped Satanism Today segment, hosted by the 9sense podcast, Magister David M. Harris interviews Church of Satan Reverend, Lee Crowell, a working attorney and adjunct professor, about his process to obtain a minister’s license from the state of Virginia in order to legally officiate weddings as Church of Satan clergy.

The most interesting parts are Rev. Crowell challenging the legal aspects that have implied definitions of religion (is the Church of Satan a “legitimate” church; do they have communion; do they assemble in physical buildings, etc.?) coupled with the judge’s moral objections. Crowell’s retelling of the process to obtain the license demonstrates his drive and careful machinations through the legal system.

The case is relevant to how marginal religions with unconventional practices such as the Church of Satan—which has no mandatory physical assembly, no official buildings, no ultimate belief in spiritual beings—address the issue of legal precedent. As most legal definitions of religion are based on Christianity-like religions (as it is with most Western nations), then religions that fall outside of that presumed model face the dual problem of first, being legally recognized as a religion, in order to second, obtain the various protections that freedom of religion laws advocate.

If your religion falls outside of the mold, the legal battle is amplified by moral objections to your religion.

Have a listen to the entire segment. It’s worth the time.

Children in New Religions

Mini-Review of Children in New Religions, edited by Susan Palmer and Charlotte Hardman.

This edited book discusses the various issues and concerns surrounding children in New Religious Movements. The book is divided into four parts; the impact of children on NRMs; how children are socialized within the movements; legal concerns; and how children themselves understand their world and surroundings. The introduction nicely summarizes the environment of the articles by emphasizing the tension between popular understandings of NRMs as dangerous cults, the polarizing role of the media and anti-cult movements, and tension between notions of religious freedom versus cult “indoctrination” of children. This quasi-review focuses on solely three articles.

In the first chapter, the article, “Witches,” details the impact of a second generation within Wicca/Neo-Paganism. Helen Berger provides thoughtful insights into the concerns of Wiccan/Neo-Pagan communities as children spark the need for more routinization, sexual conservatism, and legitimization of their religion. As there is no central authority (they are firmly anti-authority), there is no official stance or mandate on procreation or child rearing. The author notes, however, that a growing amount of literature is being produced that reflect the concerns of Wiccan parents.

Berger focuses her article on the initial debate about whether or not to raise children as Wiccan considering that Neo-Paganism is considered to be a spiritual path, freely chosen. Since personal choice is emphasized, parents wish to avoid indoctrination or pressure on their children to participate in magical rituals. Parents attempt a balance between introducing offspring to magic and understanding that certain structures (such as routinization and legitimation) are helpful for children. Routines create organization and a sense of security, while efforts to legitimize Neo-Paganism in the popular arena minimizes discrimination.

Of note is the issue of bifurcation; that Wiccan adults and children lead somewhat double lives at work and school, especially in culturally sensitive areas such as the Bible Belt. Adults compartmentalize their lives successfully, while children cannot as easily lead duplicitous lives. For these reasons, the initial counterculture movement is shifting to discussions on the benefits of routinization.  The strong resistance to routinization comes from the Neo-Pagan aversion to hierarchical systems – routines are psychologically arresting, they discourage personal growth, and inhibit transformation. Routinization is a symbol of hierarchical systems, which goes counter to their notion of an ideal society. This tension between ideals and practicality is unresolved.

Another article in this section focuses on a group of psychotherapists in New York, the Sullivan Institute/Fourth Wall Community. The author, Amy Siskind, a researcher sociologist and ex-member of this group, approaches her study in a socio-historical fashion. A Freudian and psychoanalytic influenced philosophy, this group identified mothers as the source of all anxieties and neuroses in children. The act of parenting can not help but transmit the mother’s jealousies onto the child. The solution is to cease contact from their families, and when children were born, remove children from their mothers as early as possible. Boarding schools, day camps, and living in groups of other children, encouraging sexual promiscuity and denouncing pair-bonding were preferred methods to apply their model. Ultimately this group disbanded because of its unusual, and even borderline criminal practices.

In chapter five, Elizabeth Puttick’s article, “Osho Ko Hsuan School: Educating the ‘New Child’”, discusses the founder of the Rajneesh movements communal schools. Osho understood adults as too firmly set, but that children offered more malleability in terms of molding behaviour. A new commune set up as “a great experiment in Buddhahood” was a practical application of the philosophical theory (91). Its intent was to jar members from their prescribed traditional roles. Gender reversals, where fathers attend to typically more feminine professions, women engage in manual labour, and children are removed from their parents and raised communally are some examples of theory in praxis. As children belonged to the community itself, they were raised communally without the strong bonding between parents and offspring. The ideal is to “release” the children to discover their own natures. They should be free to make their own mistakes, and trust their own intelligence. Because society at large has instilled in humans behaviours deemed harmful, the schools philosophy was to apply their ideal notion of nurturing children’s natural tendencies – no mandatory testing or attendance – in order to foster notions of personal choice.

What most of the chapters have in common is the motivation for the approach to childrearing within these groups; they seek to correct perceived wrongs of the world at large. Adult members identify an issue with the world, a source for social problems. Wicca names patriarchy/hierarchy as the source of the world problems, and instead focuses in matriarchy and the feminine ideals for the betterment of all. The Sullivanian group stands almost in direct contrast, naming the bond of mother/child itself as the source of all mental suffering, and focuses on de-emphasizing that bond in order to create ideal emotionally healthy and politically radical individuals. The Osho group identifies rigid tradition without consciousness, and sets out to instill a sense of freedom and community in the children. Identifying the source of problems in society reveals important premises of their respective worldviews. When such a source is known, it can be corrected. Children, then, are viewed as a practical application of the theoretical because they are seen as blank slates. Raising children according to the new ideal acts as curative and balancing. While the efficacy of such approaches can be argued between groups and the various people that study them, the commonality of social betterment through the second generation is the linkage. Adult members of NRMs choose their mode of religious expression, but the children are somewhat of an experiment to gage success of rejecting the “harmful” status quo in favour of new ideals.

Topics for discussion:

1)  Several of the articles mention the Western obsession with idealizing children as pure and innocent, which contributes to the notion that NRMs are engaged in brainwashing. Are their causes for legitimate concerns in some of these groups?

2) Related to the above, if NRM scholars have a mandate to not harm our informants, how are we defining harm?

3) What would be our responsibility towards the children if harm was proven/suspected? Are there different considerations between adults and children?