For Better or For Worse?

I’ve never been a religious person. Even being raised Catholic, the church never interested me. While I would not say that I oppose it, I have always felt a sense of indifference to it. Even at times when I’ve felt the desire to be part of a religious community, I am simply incapable of convincing myself of a higher power in the universe. Still, I would argue that religion is generally a source of good in the world.

Despite the history of various religious institutions being sources of conflict and bigotry, I argue that the desire to remain relevant has liberalized certain churches. As examples of this, I would point to sweeping reforms under Vatican II, as well as Pope Francis’s rhetoric of acceptance towards divorcees and members of the LGBT community. If society continues to move along a socially progressive trajectory, then global religions will have to continue evolving and developing with the times. This, in a sense, will support and reflect goodness in the world.

Furthermore, religious organizations are a huge source of goodwill today. Across many faiths, there is an ever-increasing presence of religious organizations in humanitarian affairs. Whether it be for children’s rights, global hunger, or human trafficking, faith-based institutions are perhaps more ready than ever to help alleviate global crises. Although this is not necessarily a new phenomena, the degree to which transnational networks aid such organizations has definitely increased under globalization. Either way, they doin’ ‘aight.

applause gid

Even going back into the 20th century, faith-based groups were extremely active in democratic processes around the globe. Consider, for instance, the Catholic church’s role in democratizing Poland and vouching for human rights. Toft et al described the role of religious institutions in democratization processes, and the numbers are quite promising. Even so, the ability of a religion to drive democracy can be hindered or aided by its relations with the state. So, the degree to which we can expect this trend to continue depends on the ways which undemocratic states interact with religions within their borders.

This is not to say, however, that religions can’t be anti-democratic. As Toft et al also point out, there are indeed cases in which religious actors were either supportive of autocrats, or completely indifferent to their regimes. This can mostly be traced to mechanisms of autocracy which serve to pacify religious authorities so as to preserve the status quo. This is also not to say that religious states – even democratic ones – are necessarily sources of good as well. Considering the treatment of Arab Palestinians under Israeli democracy, as well as the extremist interpretation of Islam under the Saudi monarchy, there are definitely instances in which religious actors can do more harm than good. Even so, I argue that the good being done by transnational religious organizations outweigh the instances of religious wrongdoing.

opinion gif

In sum, even as a non-believer, I still hold that religion is doing significant good in the world. This is not to discount the history of atrocities that have been committed in the name of any singular religion. Rather, in this day and age, religion does significantly more good than bad. This is tied to the increase in “politically assertive religion,” as described by Toft et al. In the future, we shall see the direction in which religious authorities seek to drive their followers. Having considered the last few decades of religious involvement, I would argue that the future is bright on this front.

bye gif

The Father, The Son, and the Holy Market

In many ways, religion is kind of like a market. By that I don’t mean the place where you go for groceries – although you can find bread and wine in some of them – but rather the system in which different churches have to compete for relevance and followers in their respective region or country. This, like any other market, varies drastically by geography. While there are conditions that allow Catholicism to flourish in Latin America, such is definitely not the case in Asia or the Middle East. In today’s blog, I’ll be describing this national market of spirituality – what we’ll call “religious economy” – in one specific country: Chile.

Now I know you were probably expecting me to do Argentina, but I decided to change it up a little bit by jumping across the Andes into my other favorite country. Let’s start with the basics. According to the CIA World Factbook, the country is about 67% catholic, 14% protestant, 1% Jehovah’s Witness, with the rest being unspecified. This is not too surprising, seeing as most of Latin America is still strongly Catholic.

With regard to church-state relations, a report from the State Department noted that, “The Constitution provides for freedom of religion, and other laws and policies contributed to the generally free practice of religion. The law at all levels protects this right in full against abuse, either by governmental or private actors.” In other words, church and state are legally separated. Even so, this report notes that the Catholic church tends to enjoy a “privileged status” because many public officials are Catholic. However, the government still prohibits religious discrimination under a legal statute from 1999.

So, let’s unpack what this means. If religious freedom can give the catholic church a presence in government through elected leadership, then other religions are free to do so as well. Furthermore, if the market-like competition draws support away from Catholicism, then other religions can eventually become part of the political environment of Chile as well – if their political theology is inclined to do so.

But even though Chile is often seen as a shining star of democracy and progress in Latin America, they are not without their own issues. The report I previously noted from the State Department also notes instances of animosity towards Jewish and Muslim communities. Even though they each constitute a very small fraction of the population of Chile, they have still experienced acts of aggression towards them and their faiths.

In discussing Chile, I’m reminded of my brief travels through that beautiful country. One of the things that I am consistently reminded of is the brutal dictatorship that endured under Pinochet, which juxtaposes so strongly against the country’s recent leadership. Consider, for example, the ex-president Michelle Bachelet. A personal hero of mine, Michelle was the first president to be elected to a second term since before the dictatorship, and previously served as the Executive Director of UN Women. After the end of her second term, she was selected to lead the UN Human Rights Commission.

Aside from Michelle’s extremely impressive resumé, there is a more relevant facet of her life to consider: she is a divorced agnostic. In a region as staunchly Catholic as the Southern Cone, the fact that she was elected twice illustrates the way which different faiths – even the lack thereof – are able to be present in Chilean politics.

In sum, the religious economy of Chile is quite diverse and competitive. The democratic success of the country – as outlined by Freedom House – has allowed peoples of all faiths (and even atheists) to ascend to the highest office in the country. This could obviously not be done without the support of many Catholics, which I would argue illustrates the acceptance of peoples of other religions. While Chile does have its issues – as any democracy does – I still argue that it’s on the rise as one of the most egalitarian and liberal state in all of Latin America.

Is he a Rocket Man? Ask the Pope.

In Argentina there is a popular saying at family events that goes something like: “Que no hablemos de religión ni de política.” Roughly translated, religion and politics are always off the table around family. Pope Francis – easily the most famous Argentine in the world – cannot seem to separate the two these days. And while his political impositions tend to usually involve the West, Papa Francisco may find himself in foreign territory should he accept Kim Jong Un’s invitation to visit North Korea.

Kim Jong Un Gif

Considering that North and South Korea are at somewhat of a weird transitional place in relations, Pope Francis would be pressed to say something regarding human rights and violence should a papal visit come to fruition. But if he really does see the two Koreas as “brothers,” is discussing religion and politics appropriate for that family? Let’s take a second to unpack what this entails.

First, we have to consider the church-state relationship within North Korea. As Al Jazeera notes: “North Korea’s constitution guarantees freedom of religion as long as it does not undermine the state, but beyond a handful of state-controlled places of worship, no open religious activity is allowed.” Toft et al would describe this as “conflictual independence,” seeing as religious actors within the country would most likely want to see this relationship revamped to allow for more freedom and toleration. And considering most other communist regimes, this isn’t really surprising.

oprah gid

But on the other hand, North Korea was not always as it is now. I mean, Pyongyang was once “the Jerusalem of the East” because of its large Christian population. So perhaps the church-state relationship there isn’t quite the same as, say, China or Vietnam. And this leads to my second point: the Pope might feel somewhat obliged to accept this invitation for spiritual AND political purposes (yes, I’m looking at you, Pope John Paul II). Surely, Kim Jong Un recognizes this in some part. But as Jeff Hayes argues, states do not have to fear for their sovereignty because of political engagement on the part of transnational religious actors. I would say that if Kim Jong Un did see Pope Francis as some sort of threat to his state’s sovereignty, the invitation would not be on the table.

And maybe there’s a possibility that Kim has a legitimate vision for the future that involves the reintegration of Christianity into North Korean society. I’d say that it’s possible that he sees neighboring China and is learning from their current condition as described by Fenggang Yang. As he noted, the Chinese state is facing more resistance from Chinese Christians because of their growing numbers, resources, and political theology. Maybe Kim wants to avoid this, and is looking to Mother Russia for an example of how to align with one religion in order to influence civil society in a way that state-atheism will not allow. As Dunajeva and Koesel described, this would benefit both the Catholic church and the North Korean state. Maybe “Rocket Man” won’t be burning out his fuse up there alone.

Finally, I’d like to hit on one last point: the fact that North Korea’s constitution “guarantees freedom of religion,” with the exception of when it “undermines the state.” Within the context outlined by Fox and Flores, their de facto stance towards religion makes sense. At least in the minds of the North Korean leadership, there seems to always be some sort of national security threat at hand. Furthermore, the religious freedom clause itself contains the qualifier that it cannot threaten the state. So while the current practice seems to view any religious expression as threatening sovereignty, perhaps this is actually changing – and not in the way that the recent nuclear summit is “changing” their nuclear weapons program.

lucille bluth gif

Don’t Cry For Me, Papa Francisco

In “Transnational Religious Actors and International Politics,” Jeff Hayes makes the point that political engagement on the part of religious leaders does not jeopardize a country’s authority. Rather, this can help subvert dictatorial regimes, thus promoting democratic norms. But in his conclusion, he notes the traditional attitude of the Catholic Church as being neutral towards all types of governments. However, today we see the church as more of a promoter of democratic norms. I found this quite interesting, and I thought it worthy of further discussion. This made me think of a story that illustrates this shift.

When I studied in Argentina in 2016, one of professors who had lived through the dictatorships of Argentina in the 1960s shared this story with us about the most famous women in the country. Eva Peron (yes, from the musical Evita, originally played by Patti LuPone on Broadway, and later by Madonna when it was made into a movie) died in 1952 while her husband was still in office. She was basically the Michelle Obama of Argentina, but like, low-key racist and socialist. Either way, she was adored by her people and her passing was truly devastating to the country.

Well she was embalmed and was being kept by her husband until there was a proper monument for her body to be kept permanently. Then, he was exiled form the country by a military coup, and all things related to the Peron family were outlawed. The new military leaders of the government didn’t want to just throw away her body, and one of them low-key fell in love with it, so the other two were like, “yikes, get it out of Argentina.” The story goes that they were friendly with Pope Pius XII and he hid her for them for like 17 years in Milan under a fake name. What’s interesting is that not only did the pope not care that they were killing dissidents and performing other human rights violations, but he actually did them a huge favor. And while there’s still speculation over whether this is true, I imagine it would take an act of congress – or a pope – to get a body to Italy from Argentina to be hidden under a fake name.

What’s even more interesting about this is that during that time, a young Jorge Mario Bergoglio was probably not too far off making his own moves. While he himself has been criticized as not doing anything to counter the dictatorships of Argentina, his time as Pope Francis has shown his tendency for more liberal, democratic norms. I doubt he’ll being hiding any bodies anytime soon.

PopeFrancis gif — *Source: https://gfycat.com/gifs/search/pope+francis*

Haynes, Jeff. 2001. “Transnational Religious Actors and International Politics.” Third World Quarterly 22(2): 143–58.

Have A Seat.

So you’re here, what now? Well let me explain what’s going on. This page is modeled off of one of the most influential and intellectual public forums in American history: the dinner-table parties from Chelsea Handler’s Netflix series, Chelsea. I know that the show’s over now and that season 2 was totally eh compared to season 1, but that’s a discussion for another time. What I mean is that my discussions on here – with myself and not with random b-list celebrities, I might add – will be multifaceted, in-depth, mildly crude, and somewhat funny. Well, that’s the goal anyway. But please, grab a chair, have a seat, drink some wine, and bear with me here.

Laugh loudly, laugh often, and most important, laugh at yourself. – Dame Chelsea Handler

Chelsea gif 1