In Habits of the Heart, written almost thirty years ago, sociologist Robert Bellah and his co-authors came up with a term to describe a new American religion: “Sheilaism.” The phrase comes from an interview Bellah conducted with a woman called Sheila, who described her religion as follows:
I believe in God. I am not a fanatic. I can’t remember the last time I went to church. My faith has carried me a long way. It’s Sheilaism. Just my own little voice. . . . My own Sheilaism . . . is just to try to love yourself and be gentle with yourself. You know, I guess, take care of each other.
You don’t have to be a sociologist to appreciate how well Sheila’s comments reflect the mindset of millions of Americans. You can dismiss that mindset as empty and self-indulgent, but in the land of postmodern individualism, Sheilaism has powerful rhetorical appeal. It is preached relentlessly in advertising, books, movies, music, TV programs, even presidential politics (“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for”). It is the effective religion of the “Nones”—the rapidly increasing cohort of Americans who claim no formal religious affiliation—and, one imagines, many churched people as well.
Yet Sheilaism is not a constitutionally recognized religion, at least in the Fourth Circuit. That’s one lesson of the recent, fascinating Psychic Sophie case that my colleague Marc DeGirolami describes in a post this week at CLR Forum. In the case, a Virginia fortune teller, “Psychic Sophie,” argued that local licensing and zoning rules violated her First Amendment right to freely exercise her religion. She described her religion this way:
I am very spiritual in nature, yet I do not follow particular religions or practices, and “organized” anythings are not for me. I pretty much go with my inner flow, and that seems to work best.
She didn’t use the phrase, but Psychic Sophie’s religion is Sheilaism. And, as Marc notes, the Fourth Circuit held that this worldview does not constitute a religion for purposes of the First Amendment. For constitutional purposes, the court reasoned, religion means some organizing principle or authority other than oneself. Going with one’s inner flow does not qualify.
That makes a good deal of sense. Sheilaism is a very useful concept in sociology, but it doesn’t really work in constitutional law. Recognizing Sheilaism as a religion for constitutional purposes would create all sorts of problems. We’d have millions of religions in America, each of which could claim a right to free exercise. We’d be courting anarchy.
Or would we? The really interesting thing about the Psychic Sophie case is that it’s so unusual. With so many Sheilaists in America claiming to follow their own paths, surely we should be seeing many more claims for religious exemptions from generally applicable laws. There should be much more friction in American life. But there isn’t. All these free spirits wind up believing pretty much the same things and acting in pretty much the same ways. Perhaps Sheilaism isn’t really about following one’s inner voice, but the voice of the mainstream culture. In which case, Sheilaism isn’t really about individualism, but conformity. Like the guy said, you can have a car painted any color you like—as long as it’s black.
March 1st, 2013 | 12:05 pm
This may be overturned in time. Remember that Justice Kennedy once wrote in an opinion, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
Never dismiss the high court’s willingness to legislate sophistry.
March 1st, 2013 | 1:48 pm
This is a wonderful post. So much to mull over. Now I have to read Bellah’s book, and I don’t have time. Dammit!
That is going to rattle around in my head for a week.
The popular secular humanism of the day steals a base by claiming they stand on neutral ground. They claim that everyone who enters the public square must set their religion aside and make the debate on their terms (as it sounds like Andrew Sullivan was demanding of Doug Wilson).
But modern secular humanism is a radical and particular point of view, that makes dramatic metaphysical claims. Chief among those claims is Sheliaism, which is the assertion that there can be up to 6 or 7 billion one, true Gods (leaving room for Hindus, followers of Roman gods, etc.). In the end, Sheliaism is not different in substance than atheism. What really is the difference between no God, and the claim of 7 billion different one, true Gods?
I don’t have a conclusion here really, but I think the most important battle politically might be to dismantle the base-stealing that a naked public square is somehow neutral ground. Against the context of history, it is radical, radical stuff.
March 1st, 2013 | 4:15 pm
Mark, do you think the Psychic Sophie case goes against the grain of recent conscience rulings? The court’s reasoning that “for constitutional purposes . . . religion means some organizing principle or authority other than oneself” seems to take a more institutionalized view of religion/conscience than courts in other recent religious liberty cases that I’ve read about.
For example, though veganism is not a religion, courts seem willing to entertain vegans’ conscience claims on the grounds that their convictions closely resemble religious beliefs or other ethical convictions. Here’s one relevant case where the court “found it plausible that [an] employee could hold to veganism with a sincerity equivalent to traditional religious views.” Are there divergent trends in this area in different courts, with some courts prioritizing individual conscience and others prioritizing an authority outside the individual?
March 1st, 2013 | 6:35 pm
Check my math, but I think the answer is 7 billion.
March 2nd, 2013 | 10:20 am
Anna, yes, there are diverging trends in the caselaw. There’s no categorical test for what qualifies as a religion for First Amendment purposes. Courts have different approaches and the Supreme Court hasn’t conclusively resolved the question. But, typically, people claiming a “religion” can point to some outside source or objective set of principles to which they adhere. Even veganism is a set of beliefs and dietary practices that exists outside the mind of the particular vegan. Psychic Sophie asserted that she didn’t subscribe to any outside source–she just went with her inner flow. It was that radically subjective definition of religion that the court rejected as unworkable.
March 2nd, 2013 | 2:49 pm
I hope the idea here is not that all those who identify with some religious tradition—any at all—are somehow superior to all those who identify with none. I am sure there are many among the “nones” who can articulate a religious, philosophical, or moral position more knowledgeably than many who call themselves Catholics, Evangelicals, Muslims, etc. I think there is no reason for any particular individual who identifies himself or herself by a specific religious affiliation to be smug when it comes to others who are classified among the “nones.” I am reminded of the old public-service announcements that urged people to go to the church or synagogue of their choice, as if it really made no difference what religion you belonged to, just so long as you chose one. The court’s decision seems correct to me, but that does not mean that a “none” may not have deeply held “religious” positions and a highly developed conscience. It is one of the ironies of First Amendment freedom of religion that those with religious positions that make no sense have their freedoms more securely guaranteed than “nones” who can make a rational, compelling argument for their positions of conscience.
March 3rd, 2013 | 5:52 pm
Anna and Mark, here is an Ohio district court decision from December of last year involving a hospital that fired a customer service representative, who in turn claimed that she was fired because of her religion — veganism — when she refused to be vaccinated for the flu (animal products in the vaccine). http://www.employmentandlaborinsider.com/Blog.1.4.13.chenzira%5B1%5D.pdf
The hospital moved to dismiss the employee’s complaint (based on Title VII), but the court denied the motion because of the deferential standard to the plaintiff. The opinion relies not only on the traditionally religious grounding which the plaintiff gave to veganism, but also, as Mark notes above, on the fact that she is “not alone.” The court said:
“The Court finds it plausible that Plaintiff could subscribe to veganism with a sincerity equating that of traditional religious views. The Sixth Circuit’s decision in Spies in no way bars such conclusion. In Spies, the Court found that a Buddhist inmate’s dietary request was adequately met by the provision of a vegetarian diet, as the inmate himself conceded that a more restrictive vegan diet was not a religious requirement of his faith. 173 F.3d 398, 407. The Court’s conclusion is further bolstered by Plaintiff’s citation to essays and Biblical excerpts. Although the Code makes it clear that it is not necessary that a religious group espouse a belief before it can qualify as religious, 29 C.F.R. 1605.1, the fact here that Plaintiff is not alone in articulating her view lends credence to her position. Accordingly, at this early stage of the litigation, the Court finds it inappropriate to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for religious discrimination based on her adherence to veganism.”
March 3rd, 2013 | 7:01 pm
Thanks for clarifying that, Mark and Mark! It’ll be interesting to see how the case law develops.
March 3rd, 2013 | 8:26 pm
How do we square these sentiments with the demand by for-profit private employers that their consciences should not be coerced by legislation they object to on religious grounds, as in the HHS rulings?
March 3rd, 2013 | 8:30 pm
Yikes, sorry Anna. I see that you raised the very case I did in your earlier comment. Sorry for missing that. Marc
March 4th, 2013 | 11:02 am
[...] You Are Not a Religion Mark Movsesian, First Things [...]
March 7th, 2013 | 10:55 am
Even without the Constitutional question her claim is ridiculous. Being a religion protected by the first amendment doesn’t exempt one from all laws and regulations. Churches still have to follow zoning laws, building codes, health codes, etc.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact