It seems that The Military Religious Freedom Foundation has sent a cease and desist letter to the U.S.
Secretary of the Navy demanding that Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 122 stop using the name “Crusaders.” The Squadron had at alternative times in its history used the name “Werewolves” and “Crusaders.” The MRFF claims that ”Crusaders,” as well as the symbol of a red cross on a white shield used by the Squadron, violates the Establishment Clause. “The most logical purpose of the Crusader moniker is to convey a message of approval of religion.”
I disagree; indeed, I find the position obtuse. There may be many reasons to use the epithet “Crusader,” and in a military context “[t]he most logical purpose” may well be to associate oneself with the fearsome, bellicose spirit of the Crusaders — who, after all, were warriors. I don't find anything "most logical" about the interpretation offered by the MRFF. "Crusader" is used commonly -- and it can have both negative and positive non-religious connotations ("He's a crusader for justice."; "Batman is the caped crusader"; "He's taken this misguided cause on as a kind of crusade.").
But set all that aside. Why is MRFF not upset about the name ”Werewolves”? Doesn’t “Werewolves” violate the Establishment Clause too? Lycanthropy (humans turning into wolves), I think, was a form of spiritual, animistic belief held by the Algonquian Native Americans (see the Wendigo), and I also believe that certain varieties of Wicca believe in something like lycanthropy. Animism generally holds that there is a spiritual power in non-human beings, including wolves. An early expression of pagan belief in werewolves may be located in Book 1 of Ovid’s Metamorphoses, where Ovid tells of King Lycaon, who is turned into a wolf by Zeus when he treats Zeus most inhospitably (“His arms descend, his shoulders sink away/ To multiply his legs for chase of prey./ He grows a wolf, his hoariness remains,/ and the same rage in other members reigns./ His eyes still sparkle in a narr’wer space:/ His jaws retain the grin, and violence of his face.”). And, of course, werewolves are an integral part of that most pagan of holidays, Halloween.
At any rate, given these religious origins and the continuing association of werewolves with paganism, why should MRFF have a special problem with cultural symbols with Christian origins? Let’s do this right, and get werewolves declared unconstitutional too.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
I was delighted to participate yesterday in a terrific program run by the Terence J. Murphy Institute at the University of St. Thomas School of law, and organized by the ever gracious and kind Lisa Schiltz. Judge Richard Sullivan and I spoke at around lunch time, and it was a privilege for me to meet and listen to him. We both offered some thoughts about the theory and practice of punishment today. Our talks were integrated into a larger, very interesting symposium dealing with the problems and possibilities of sentence commutation and the executive pardon power, run by the St. Thomas Law Journal with the masterful organizational touch of Mark Osler.
As is always the case when I am lucky enough to visit my friends at St. Thomas, I was extremely impressed by their generosity, hospitality, intellectual depth, and genuine fellowship. I enjoyed being there.
Two items.
(1) George Wright sends along this new course offered at NYU and taught by former law school dean and current president John Sexton: "Baseball as a Road to God." Here's the description:
Baseball As a Road to God aims to link literature about our national pastime with the study of philosophy and theology. This seminar aims to blend ideas contained in classic baseball novels such as Coover's Universal Baseball Association , Kinsella's Iowa Baseball Confederation , and Malamud's The Natural with those found in such philosophical/theological works as Eliade's Sacred and Profane , Heschel's God in Search of Man , and James' Varieties of Religious Experience . It discusses such themes as the metaphysics of sports, baseball as a civil religion, the nature of sacred time and space, and the ineffability of the divine. Not for the faint-hearted, this course requires students to read over two dozen works of varying lengths in addition to supplemental readings as they might arise. The course also requires weekly papers. As with any serious commitment of one's time, the rewards of taking a seminar such as this can be great.
(2) On a personal note, after the yearly parade and an early night (no smokes, no booze, no women -- coach's orders), my son Thomas's 2d grade little league team, 'The Infernos' (I had nothing to do with that outstanding name), came out swinging on a beautiful opening spring day today. There's nothing like early season baseball.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
I was pleased to participate in a panel at Yale Law School yesterday sponsored by the Catholic Law Students' Association and the St. Thomas More Chapel dealing with the HHS Mandate. I learned a great deal from my co-panelists, Matthew Boudway of Commonweal and Ashley McGuire of the Becket Fund. I thought I could make myself most useful by focusing on the federal legal framework within which the mandate is likely to be assessed, and my comments drew from many of the discussions we've had here (with maybe a little more emphasis on the individual assessment exception to Smith than some might think warranted). And I was pleased at the number of interested folks who attended and the thoughtfulness of the questions.
Thanks to Christian Burset for putting the event together.
