Heaven’s Gate and the Infringement of Religious Freedoms
Introduction
How much religious freedom do we want? The United States Constitution guarantees religious freedom to all citizens. However, since the establishment of this freedom, there have been continuous debates and modifications. Despite this independence, there have been times when the government felt it necessary to infringe upon religious freedom for various reasons. The question is, at which point it is okay for the government to become involved in religious affairs for the sake of safety and protection?
The Heaven’s Gate religious group is one group in particular that has aroused much controversy in terms of the extent of religious freedom. In 1997, members of this group partook in an infamous mass suicide, claiming thirty-nine lives. There has been an extensive debate as to whether or not the government should have intervened in this group’s practice due to the violence and danger that it obviously posed to its members. However, through the acknowledgment of personal prejudices, an evaluation of coercion, the breadth of violence, legalities, and ethics revolving around this group’s violence, it can be concluded that government involvement in the religious practice of Heaven’s Gate would have been an inappropriate limitation of religious freedom. It would have been legally and morally unjust for the government to prevent the believers of Heaven’s Gate from making independent decisions.
History
The Heaven’s Gate religious group was started by Marshall H. Applewhite and Bonnie Nettles in the United States in 1972. These two individuals met each other and believed that they were the two witnesses mentioned in the Bible who preceded the end of time. ...
... middle of paper ...
...norms, many did not understand them and quickly wrote off their beliefs and practices as “crazy” and “dangerous”, causing many to encourage the government’s intervention. Nevertheless, when dealing with such important issues, a decision cannot be made based on personal prejudices alone. After evaluating the willingness of the members to participate, their personal desires to end their lives, the containment of violence, legalities, as well as ethics, the conclusion can be drawn that while many did not agree with the practices of Heaven’s Gate and the initial reaction of many would be to save the thirty-nine lives that were lost, the government should not have stopped their mass suicide in 1997 and should have allowed the members the freedom to make their own decisions regarding religion in order to honor the guarantee of religious freedom and to avoid moral harm.
Religion is a part of society that is so closely bound to the rest of one’s life it becomes hard to distinguish what part of religion is actually being portrayed through themselves, or what is being portrayed through their culture and the rest of their society. In Holy Terrors, Bruce Lincoln states that religion is used as a justifiable mean of supporting violence and war throughout time (Lincoln 2). This becomes truly visible in times such as the practice of Jihad, the Reformation, and 9/11. The purpose of this essay is to show that as long as religion is bound to a political and cultural aspect of a community, religious war and destruction will always occur throughout the world. A historical methodology will be deployed in order to gain
In 1939, President Franklin D. Roosevelt recognized the place that religion holds in democracy. “Religion, by teaching man his relationship to God, gives the individual a sense of his own dignity and teaches him to respect himself by respecting his neighbor's. Democracy, the practice of self-government, is a covenant among free men to respect the rights and liberties of their fellows. International good faith, a sister of democracy, springs from the will of civilized nations of men to respect the rights and liberties of other nations of men. In a modern civilization, all three—religion, democracy and international good faith—complement and support each other” (Franklin D. Roosevelt: State of the Union message). This statement supported the idea that religion is associated with a well functioning government. However, in the case of Everson v. Board of Education it was stated that, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach” (Hugo Black). This case occurred after Roosevelt’s presidency, and left a significant impact on the American government, as it made clear that religion had no place in the government (Hugo Black). In recent years, a larger disconnect between the church and the American court systems has been created with the nationwide
The Heaven’s Gate Cult is one of thousands of millennial cults and UFO- based cults throughout the world. It has existed for over 22 years now. The cult was lead by a man named Marshall Applewhite and a woman named Bonnie Nettles. They were referred to as “Do” and “Ti” by the cult. These were said to be their spiritual names. Bonnie met Marshall as a patient in a psychiatric hospital where she worked as a nurse.
The Heaven’s Gate Cult was founded in the early 1970’s by Marshall Applewhite and Bonnie Nettles. Applewhite was recovering, under the care of his nurse Ms. Nettles, when he claimed to have has a near death experience. Applewhite claimed that he and Nettles were the two witnesses spoken of in the Book of Revelation. And they were to prepare the worlds inhabitants for recycling.
Wood, James E, Jr. "Religious Human Rights and a Democratic State." Journal of Church and State 4(2004):739. eLibrary. Web. 31 Aug. 2011.
"New of Religious Conflict & Intolerance - 2004-July." Religioustolerance.org. July 2004. Web. 08 Dec. 2011. .
“Separation of Church and State,” is a theory derived from different parts of the constitution; primarily the first and fourteenth amendment. The first amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment or religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....” The first amendment says that there can not be any laws against anyone’s individual religion. How far can we take this though? There are circumstances when you don’t want the government to intervene with your personal beliefs but is it sometimes necessary? What if there was a Satanist who believed in killing all other races. If the government was to punish them, wouldn’t that be suppressing their religious freedom? No. Sometimes different laws override the previous. For example, someone cannot practice their religion if it infringes upon another person’s rights.
The incorporation of the 14th Amendment in regards to Civil Liberties is one of the longest and most important constitutional debates of all time. Though the 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868, the Supreme Court rendered their first interpretation of its scope five years later. The Court supported the Privileges and Immunities Clause by a narrow 5-4 vote. This clause was later thought to be the regular basis of enforcing individual citizen’s rights and civil liberties. The development in understanding and the provision for protection of one such liberty, freedom of religion, has changed throughout the history of the United States. Evidence of this can be seen not only in the role government has played but also through several court cases.
some try to reach their goals through violence, the majority work through political parties within the electoral process. People like Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network are only at fringes. Even if fundamentalism is to encompass such aberrations, such brand of fundamentalism is a characteristic of all (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Judaism) the religions. This paper by citing episodes of fundamentalism in leading religions substantiates the theseis that fundamentalism is not specific to any particular religion. Beginning with Judaism, the bombing of Hotel King David in July 1946 is an incident that starkly explifies the Jewish Fundamentalism.
To open this discussion, I would like to start with the civil liberty of freedom of religion. This liberty was identified in my original Constitution essay through the mentioning of the separation of church and state clause. The reason for my including of this liberty, and my stressing of its importance, is that I feel that the government interprets this liberty in a one sided fashion because of the incorrect interpretation of the already in place separation of church and state clause. I also include it because I believe that recently the attacks upon religion have metastasized and tha...
Congress decided in Employment Division v. Smith. "the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion and the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests."(Religious Freedom, Map of the RFRA). In other words, the government did not have to have a reason to impose laws against religious acts. Thus the purpose of this act was “to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened. ”(Religious Freedom, Map of the RFRA)
On March 26, 1997, in what has become known as one of the most noteworthy mass suicides in history, thirty-nine men and women affiliated with the Heavens Gate cult took their own lives by ingesting a combination of Phenobarbitals mixed with applesauce and alcohol. Each was dressed all black, their faces covered by a purple shroud. Those who wore glasses had them neatly folded next to their bodies, and all had identification papers for the authorities to find. The house was immaculate, tidier than before the victims had moved in. It was as if, in preparing for their death, they were heeding the words of the prophet Isaiah: “Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live.”
Slezak, P. "Gods of the State: Atheism, Enlightenment and Barbarity." Politics and Religion in the New Century: Philosophical Reflections (2009): 20. Web. 20 Oct. 2012.
Religious Fundamentalism is not a modern phenomenon, although, it has received a rise in the late twentieth century. It occurs differently in different parts of the world but arises in societies that are deeply troubled or going through a crisis (Heywood, 2012, p. 282). The rise in Religious Fundamentalism can be linked to the secularization thesis, which implies that victory of reason over religion follows modernization. Also, the moral protest of faiths such as Islam and Christianity can be linked to the rise of Religious Fundamentalism, as they protest the influence of corruption and pretence that infiltrate their beliefs from the spread of secularization (Heywood, 2012, p. 283). Religious Fundamentalists have followed a traditional political thought process, yet, have embraced a militant style of activity which often can turn violent (Heywood, 2012, p. 291).
While it may it be true that laws influenced by religion can seem harmless, such as not being able to buy alcohol on a Sunday, the reverse is also true. For every situation that seems harmless, is another where someone has committed unspeakable acts in the name of their religion. Not only that,