Condemnation of Protest Evoked by Places of Worship

TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 23 Dec 2024

Anthony Judge | Laetus in Praesens – TRANSCEND Media Service

Implications for academies, think tanks, laboratories, arenas and bodies cultivating patterns of belief.

Introduction

16 Dec 2024 – The Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan has announced a series of measures to crack down on protests, following antisemitic attacks in Melbourne. As a part of those measures, the government of Victoria (Australia) has stated that it would consider legislating safe zones to block protests outside places of worship. (Victoria to ban face masks and certain flags at protests in response to antisemitic attacks, SBS News, 17 December 2024; Laws on masks, places of worship being considered to stop protesters spreading hate, The Age, 15 December 2024; Australian state proposes ban on protests at places of worship to fight rising antisemitism, AP News, 17 December 2024).

A relevant comment from “down under” has been made by Binoy Kampmark (The Strawman of Antisemitism: banning protests against Israel down under, Global Research, 19 December 2024). This cites a joint study by three Australian universities surveying 75 mosques which found that 58.2% had experienced violence between 2014 and 2019.

The Australian initiative is consistent with legislative measures against protest in a number of countries:

Of particular interest in the case of the new Australian initiative is the question it raises as to how “places of worship” are to be defined in light of the variety of possible understandings of “worship”. As defined by Wikipedia:

Worship is an act of religious devotion usually directed towards a deity or God. For many, worship is not about an emotion, it is more about a recognition of a God. An act of worship may be performed individually, in an informal or formal group, or by a designated leader.

An obvious concern in formulating those legislative measures is how the definition of worship applies in the case of so-called “atheist churches” (Jacqui Frost, Church without God: How secular congregations fill a need for some nonreligious Americans, The Conversation, 19 January 2024; Brian Wheeler, What happens at an atheist church? BBC News, 4 February 2013; What are atheist churches? The Week, 21 May 2018). The latter notes that the number of “godless congregations” is growing across the Western world.

The matter is far from trivial in that a number of religions continue to encourage very strong measures against unbelievers (or infidels), namely those accused of unbelief in the central tenets of a religion. Each religion may well appropriate an understanding of “worship” to its own practices — deprecating the practices of others as dangerously misguided, if not inherently “evil”. Historically this has resulted in a systematic pattern of harassment and violence instigated by religions against those framed as heretics — readily reminiscent of those currently held to be “terrorists”. In modern literature, the term infidel includes in its scope atheists, polytheists, animists, heathens, and pagans. A willingness to identify other religious people as infidels corresponds to a preference for orthodoxy over pluralism. Such doctrinal beliefs are not subject to sanction by legislative measures notable for their promotion of freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

Religions have long engaged in violence against those worshipping otherwise, and more specifically against their places of worship. India, for example, continues to be witness to acts of violence perpetrated by Hindus against Muslims, and by Muslims against Hindus. Christianity is remarkable for encouraging and ensuring the destruction of the places of worship of other faiths — and resisting their construction. The process of “church planting” by Christians merits comparison with the protest evoked by proposals for mosque construction by Muslims.

Of particular interest with respect to the deprecation of one form of worship from the perspective of another is the degree to which any narrowly defined form of worship may well be displaced from a religious focus to some other focus entirely — then “worshipped” quite otherwise. The term “worship” may well be used to describe it, and the focused cultivation of that activity may be recognized by others as a form of worship — and possibly deprecated as such. From a more fundamental perspective, any form of worship — as practiced by others — may be perceived as a misleading indulgence in misplaced concreteness, readily deprecated as idolatry.

Whereas attention may be given to “interfaith worship”, it remains unclear what “faiths” are included or excluded from the processes envisaged — or the varieties of worship which might be appreciated in interfaith worship spaces. Examples include those envisaged by the Australian Consultation on Liturgy (Guidelines for Multi-Faith Worship, Catholic Australia) and the scouting community (A Guide to Running Inclusive Interfaith Services, Gamehaven, July 2023). Despite the initiative of the Parliament of the World’s Religions to engender a Global Ethic, no effort seems to have been made to recognize the variety of forms of worship that such an ethic could imply — an ecology of worship.

Varieties of worship as variously understood?

Efforts are made by individual religions to distinguish the varieties of worship (as with the Salah of Islam). As might be expected, these typically honour only a particular genre of worship (and ignoring others), as partially indicated by the following:

  • Christianity:
  • Judaism:
  • Islam: recognizes several key forms of worship beyond Salah (ritual prayer):
    • Dhikr: The practice of remembering and repeating the names and attributes of Allah, which can be done individually or collectively, silently or vocally
    • Du’a: Personal supplication and informal prayer that can be performed at any time
    • I’tikaf: A period of spiritual retreat, typically in a mosque, especially during Ramadan
  • Buddhism: has worship practices which vary by tradition but include:
    • Meditation (bhāvanā): Various forms including mindfulness, loving-kindness, and analytical meditation
    • Puja: Ceremonial offerings and devotional practices, particularly common in Mahayana traditions
    • Chanting sutras and mantras, which can be done individually or as part of group ceremonies
  • Hinduism: worship takes many forms under the umbrella term “puja”:
    • Aarti: The ritual waving of lights before deities while chanting hymns
    • Bhajan and kirtan: Devotional singing, often performed communally
    • Meditation and yoga: Considered forms of worship when done with spiritual intent
    • Home shrine worship: Daily offerings and prayers performed at personal altars
  • Sikhism: primary forms of worship include:
    • Kirtan: Communal singing of hymns from the Guru Granth Sahib
    • Ardas: Formal prayer recited at the beginning and end of significant undertakings
    • Seva: Selfless service as a form of worship through actions

Worship recognized and cultivated outside religion

Potentially problematic in distinguishing “places of worship” is the manner in which the process of “worship” is then defined — and what is associated with that understanding in psychosocial terms. This is most evident from its metaphorical use, as indicated by the following examples. These exclude the manner in which Christian authors have developed an extensive literature in which any preoccupation is reframed as an act or opportunity for (Christian) worship — thereby precluding recognition of other understandings of worship. Those so deprecated are then readily framed in terms of idolatry — on which commentary may be indicative of the questionable nature of the worship in question.

The experiential subtleties of what may be understood as “worship” include what may well be recognized as associated with “devotion” to whatever substitutes for deity in that engagement. Again however Christian authors have endeavoured to appropriate any such sense as primarily focused on their preferred deity.

In no particular order:

Places of “worship” and the protest they may evoke?

In addition to churches, mosques, temples, synagogues and the like, the following may be variously understood as places of worship — and so experienced — in the light of the above articulation. In no particular order:

  • Sacred sites and the land may be especially valued in ways in complete contrast to more conventional understanding of “worship” and where it may be appropriately practiced. This is notably the case for the Aboriginal peoples of Australia. However they may be held to be worshipped through alternative understanding, it is clear that they can evoke protest — especially when their location is held to impede development (or has to be protected from such development)
  • Arenas where thousands may gather can be recognized as evoking a form of worship — whether for sports, entertainment, or their stars. On a much smaller scale this may be evident in the engagement with fitness in gymnasia. Protest is most evident in the case of discontented supporters of competing football teams, or perceived deficiencies in the ticketing process.
  • Military bases, given the manner in which the military may be worshipped, these indeed could be recognized as places of worship — especially given the cultivation of worship therein in anticipation of confrontation with an enemy framed as “evil”. Weapons and vehicles (aircraft, tanks, etc) may be ‘worshipped’ by the teams which operate them — an attitude cultivated to ensure their most effective operation. Such bases have long been a focus of ban-the-bomb and related protests, typically deemed a threat to national security.
  • Laboratories, can evoke considerable devotion by those effectively worshipping the advancement of knowledge or the development of technology for the safeguarding or destruction of human life (as with weapons of mass destruction). Laboratories may evoke protest for that reason, as exemplified by the actions of animal rights movements, especially anti-vivisectionists.
  • Factories, as environments for long-term employment by staff devoted to their work, can be recognized as places of a particular kind of worship — notably defined by technical excellence. Protests with that focus typically take the form of strikes in the quest for higher wages or better working conditions — or with request to their pollution of the environment.
  • Fashion shows can be recognized as contexts in which the latest developments of design are exhibited — widely “worshipped” by those eager to adopt the latest fashions. Protests there may be made by the models exploited there, or by those concerned with the exploitation of those in developing countries from which materials are sourced.
  • Museums / Memorials / Art galleries: As exhibited there, art in its various forms may be variously “worshipped”. The art exhibited may well evoke protest as exemplifying the disparity between the exceptional monetary value attached to exhibits in contrast with the impoverished conditions of those elsewhere — or to make a political point, as in the case of “climate change”. Protests may focus on those exhibits held to celebrate problematic individuals, as with those associated with slavery or other forms of abuse.
  • Law courts can be recognized as environments in which the law is “worshipped” in some manner — where the devotion to justice is held to be assiduously cultivated. They tend (as with prisons) to be a focus for protest in the case of controversial cases, whether in favour of the defendant or in quest of more radical treatment such that justice may be served.
  • Theatre / Opera: Such contexts may well be recognized as “places of worship”, most notably the Bayreuth Festival Theatre where the works of Richard Wagner are celebrated. These may evoke protests due to the manner in which they are held to celebrate racial stereotypes, for example.
  • Natural parks / Gardens: These can be recognized as places where nature can be variously worshipped. This is exemplified by the sacred gardens associated with temples of particular faiths, most notably in India. Protests against the faith in question may result in their desecration
  • Cults may offer a place — a “space” — in which unconventional forms of worship are cultivated, as with the rituals of many secret societies — exemplified by Freemasons, Scientologists and Wiccans, at different extremes.. These may evoke protests focused on the extent to which they are deemed sat antic or exploitative or their members.
  • Banks and associated financial institutions may be framed as places in which money worship is assiduously practiced. These may evoke protest, as was exemplified by the Occupy Movement in 2011. Christians accord particular significance to the gospel account of the violent cleansing of the temple instigated by Jesus — which would now prove problematic for envisaged legislative measures against protest.
  • Hospitals and health clinics: These environments can be recognized as places where life is worshipped — often at any cost — whether by practitioners, patients or their relatives. The pro-life movement is renowned for the protests such environments evoke when they offer facilities for abortion.

Somewhat ironical, given current controversies regarding the nature of “worship” (both in the light of deprecation of idolatry and sexual abuse where worship is practiced), are the early rituals of sacred prostitution in places of worship — a controversial matter of continuing study (Emily Whitmore, Sex in the Religion: Sacred prostitutes to Vestal Virgins, Academia; Mary Beard, The Sexual Status of Vestal Virgins, The Journal of Roman Studies, 70, 1980). The irony is all the greater in that search engines now offer references to relevant homophones resulting from predictable misspellings of “worship”.

From a functional and systemic perpective, reference is readily made to “Vestal Virgins” and “Sacred Cows” in “places of worship”. The term “sacred cow” appears more frequently in business and policy contexts, while “vestal virgin” tends to appear in academic or cultural criticism. Both terms share the implication of excessive reverence and protection of practices or principles that should perhaps be open to challenge and change.

Of ironic relevance to any condemnation of protest in relation to places of worship (as conventionally understood) has been recent documentation of the remarkable extent of unconstrained sexual abuse within those contexts — and the manner in which any protest has been systematically suppressed by authorities with protection of the perpetrators (Study reveals prevalence of child sexual abuse in religious settings, Phys.org, 5 August 2024; Geoff McMaster, Researchers reveal patterns of sexual abuse in religious settings, Phys.org, 6 August 2020; Dylan Stefanich, Religiosity as a Predictor of Attitudes Towards Pedophilia, Psyche, 1, 2022; Amber Fraley, Why is pedophilia and sexual abuse so rampant in houses of worship? Medium, 12 June 2023).

Questionable categorization of devotion and worship

Any legislative measures envisaged are confronted by a number of unresolved challenges in categorizing places of worship. Whilst legislation may make provision for a variety of conventional forms of worship as practiced in churches, temples, mosques and synagogues, this takes little account of the extent to which primacy may be given to a particular religion and therefore to its privileged places of worship — as is the case in many jurisdictions. That consideration may encourage worship to be categorized in hierarchical terms with that of the most favoured at the top.

Any hierarchical approach could pose particular difficulties in relation to those engaged in other forms of worship as indicated above — given the relative consideration it may be appropriate to give to them: military bases vs banks, hospital vs laboratories, etc. The challenge could be usefully recognized as deriving from the relative importance accorded to the variety of human preoccupations evoking devotion if not worship — a matter on which there is little consensus, as with that of the relative significance of the main religions.

Distinguishing the forms of devotion and worship against which protest might be inappropriately made can then be understood as a far more fundamental challenge of the relative classification of human preoccupations — which may itself evoke some form of protest against it (Functional Classification in an Integrative Matrix of Human Preoccupations, 1982). Given the potentially problematic manner in which preoccupations may be configured, other approaches merit consideration (Interactive Polyhedral Configuration of Preoccupations, 2023; Visualizing the Coherent Configuration of Incommensurable Cognitive Modalities, 2024). Any such configuration raises questions as to how particular forms of worship and devotion are to be distinguished as more “fundamental” — with others deemed to be “secondary” (if not to their practitioners), or even “illegitimate”. Curiously this could be understood as a design challenge of “worship architecture”.

Precluding secondary and inappropriate forms of devotion, theologians and others tend to frame any such configuration through a mysterious understanding of “confluence” in defiance of experiential reality (Teilhard de Chardin, The Confluence of Religions, Theology Today, 27, 1970, 1; Todd E. Johnson, Wisdom at the Confluence of Worship, Theology, and the Arts, Fuller Studio; W. Jardine Grisbrooke, Compenetration of Rites and Confluence of Worship: Ecumenical Perspectives, Studia Liturgica, 26, 1996, 2; Bimala Candra Datta, Sri Ramakrishna Tirthas: Confluence of Devotion and Service, Ramakrishna Vivekananda Institute of Research and Culture, 1980).

Legislative assemblies as places of worship evoking protest — worthy of condemnation?

The strategic initiatives of legislative assemblies are increasingly a focus of popular protest against which they see themselves righteously obliged to elaborate measures for their prohibition. Curiously in the light of the above argument — and surprisingly — such assemblies could well be held to be “places of worship”. In the case of Australia, for example, both houses of the Federal Parliament are required by standing orders to commence their daily proceedings with a recitation of the Lord’s Prayer of Christianity (Prayers in the Senate: abolition, retention or change?; Why is the Lord’s Prayer read at the beginning of each day in the House of Representatives and Senate if Australia is a secular nation? Parliamentary Education Office). Any oath of government office typically invokes the Christian deity.

Curiously also, the leader of the country may be variously nicknamed as “God” — whether visibly seated in the assembly as prime minister, or absent from it as president. The pattern is especially evident in France (Emmanuel Macron mocked after comparing himself to two Gods in bizarre speech, Express, 25 May 2022). Those elected to such roles, if especially religious, may frame their task as a “soldier of God”. Prayer may be a feature of cabinet meetings, or as a prelude to them (George W. Bush – Faith in the White House; Prayer in Bush Administration, The Forerunner, 1 March 1989).

A degree of controversy has been associated, for example, with Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison as a devout Pentacostalist, especially following his secretive appropriation of five ministerial portfolios (Philip C. Almond, Five aspects of Pentecostalism that shed light on Scott Morrison’s politics, The Conversation, 23 May 2019). Suspicions in that regard were notably exacerbated by the commitment of Pentacostalists to societal dominance under the Seven Mountainn Mandate (Steve Davies, Australia’s Pentecostal Extreme World Makeover Exposed, The AIM Network, 13 February 2020; Fernando Mora-Ciangherotti, The Widening, Deepening, and Lengthening of the Seven Mountains Mandate (7MM) Network: the role of network apostolic leadership Religions, 15, 2024, 11).

Biblical deprecation of worship of a sacred calf, calls for comparison with contemporary reference to a “sacred cow” in legislative discourse (Katherine V.W. Stone, Arbitration — From Sacred Cow to Golden Calf: three phases in the history of the Federal Arbitration Act, Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, 23, 2023, 113; Tracy Mitrano, Sacred Cows and Golden Calves: free trade, technology and citizenship, Inside Higher Ed; Important Insights about Sacred Cows Gleaned from the Golden Calf, Lifeway Research, 9 November 2017; ). A sacred cow implies an unspoken agreement or consensus among political actors that certain topics, practices, or individuals are off-limits to criticism or reform (Sacred Cow, Political Dictionary). Opposing political parties readily deprecate the agenda of the other in terms of a “sacred cow” — whilst potentially worshipping their own “golden calf”.

If legislative assemblies invite recognition as places of worship, of relevance is the considerable debate recently evoked by incidences of sexual harassment of those who might well be understood as performing a temple function corresponding to that of the Vestal Virgins of Ancient Rome (One in three parliamentary staffers say they have faced sexual harassment, SBS News, 30 November 2021; Hannah Moore, Bombshell parliament workplace report detailing sex assault allegations ‘not surprising’, News.com, 10 November 2024). Such harassment contrasts with the high esteem in which the Vestal Virgins were historically held (Inge Kroppenberg, Law, Religion, and Constitution of the Vestal Virgins, Law and Literature, 22, 2010, 3). Rather than “golden calf”, and as with “golden globes“, there is the supreme irony of the implication that it is “golden calves” which are thereby worshipped (Heather Creekmore, Worshipping Calves: what the Old Testament can teach us about body image, Compared to Who? 9 March 2020; Contrasting clusters of operational meaning of “ass”, 2003).

There is a particular irony in the case of the Parliament of the State of Victoria which (as noted above) may well formulate legislation with regard to prohibition of protest in the vicinity of places of worship. Despite controversy in that regard, that Parliament is also required to commence its proceedings with the Lord’s Prayer (Angus Tonkin, Prayer in Parliamentary Proceedings, Parliament of Victoria, 3, 2024, March; Should Australian parliaments axe the Lord’s Prayer? In Victoria it’s up for debate, The Guardian, 17 January 2024). That parliament has however been obliged to recognize formally the need for protection of its own personnel from harassment by its own members within its own services (Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill 2024, Parliament of Victoria, 18 July 2024).

Enabling “salvation” nationally and globally via places of worship?

Whilst clearly not held to be places of worship in a conventional sense, there is a degree of merit to the argument that the dedication and devotion evoked in some by the proceedings of such places could be seen as a contemporary collective quest for “national salvation” — even “global salvation” — however this might be understood in secular terms. The rhetoric of politicians may well imply this — if not explicitly — a prospect readily encouraged in those who pray for some such outcome, as claimed by some presidents and prime ministers (White House Prayer for Our Nation 1998-2025; Prayer for the Salvation of the World, Catholic News Agency).

It is therefore profoundly curious that the quest for “salvation” articulated by conventional religions should be only too evidently associated with conflict between their adherents — exemplified by the politics of such religions with regard to the places of worship of other conventional religions. “Our Way — Or No Way!” From that perspective any purported quest for “global salvation” merits particular examination through the manner in which other “unconventional” forms of worship (as indicated above) are deprecated or ignored — as with their “places of worship”. As with conventional religions, such distinctive forms of dedication and devotion exhibit a degree of mutual suspicion and deprecation — contrary to any token quests for “interdisciplinarity” and the like.

It is especially intriguing to recognize legislative assemblies as being effectively places of worship in quest of “national salvation” — a quest undermined by the highly problematic dynamics between political parties accusing each other of focusing on “sacred cows”, whether or not this extends to effectively worshipping “sacred calves”. This dynamic is reproduced within the United Nations and its Specialized Agencies — appropriately recognized in their own right as “places of worship” in quest of “global salvation” (Jodok Troy, Salvation by Legitimation in the United Nations, SSRN Electronic Journal, 2017).

Glibly employed, it is far from clear what “salvation” is then understood to signify. From the argument above, there is the implication that it lies at the confluence of inter-faith, inter-disciplinary, inter-cultural, and inter-national discourse — all of which are fundamentally challenged individually, irrespective of any assumptions regarding their collective “salvatory” or “redemptive” function, or how it might be comprehended and communicated. There is an implication that national and international institutions could focus their devotion on resolution of the multitude of global problems now framed as a polycrisis. Anticipation of that possibility is framed by some in terms of a singularity, itself variously to be understood and called into question (Emerging Memetic Singularity in the Global Knowledge Society, 2009; Comprehension of Singularity through 4-fold Complementarity, 2024).

In a period in which “end times” are variously envisaged, of particular relevance to any consideration of global salvation are the contrasting interpretations of biblical prophecies regarding the salvation of the nations, notably as to whether this will exclude the gentiles and pagans (Isaiah M. Gillette, Salvation of the Nations in Isaiah, NEXUS: the liberty journal of interdisciplinary studies, 1 2024, 2; Jaap Dekker, Salvation for Israel and the Nations: Disputing the Interpretation of Isaiah 25:6-8 as an Announcement of Doom, Bulletin for Biblical Research, 31, 2021, 2; J. Severino Croatto, The ‘Nations’ in the Salvific Oracles of Isaiah, Vetus Testamentum, 55, 2005, 2).

References

Susan C. Karant-Nunn (Ed). Varieties of Devotion in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. Brepols, 2003

Stephen R. Prothero. God is Not One: the eight rival religions that run the world. HarperOne, 2011 [summary]

Aaron Segal and Samuel Lebens (Eds.). The Philosophy of Worship: Divine and Human Aspects. Cambridge University Press, 2025 [contents]

Charles Taliaferro. On Divine Dedication: Philosophical Theology with Jeremy Taylor. Christian Philosophy: Conceptions, Continuations, and Challenges, 2018. [abstract]

Nicholas Rescher. The Strife of Systems: An Essay on the Grounds and Implications of Philosophical Diversity. University of Pittsburgh Press, 1985

_________________________________________________

Anthony Judge is a member of the TRANSCEND Network for Peace Development Environment and mainly known for his career at the Union of International Associations (UIA), where he has been Director of Communications and Research, as well as Assistant Secretary-General. He was responsible at the UIA for the development of interlinked databases and for publications based on those databases, mainly the Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential, the Yearbook of International Organizations, and the International Congress Calendar. Judge has also personally authored a collection of over 1,600 documents of relevance to governance and strategy-making. All these papers are freely available on his personal website Laetus in Praesens. Now retired from the UIA, he is continuing his research within the context of an initiative called Union of Imaginable Associations. Judge is an Australian born in Egypt, a thinker, an author, and lives in Brussels. His TMS articles may be accessed HERE. (Wikipedia)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Go to Original – laetusinpraesens.org


Tags: , ,

Share this article:


DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

There are no comments so far.

Join the discussion!

We welcome debate and dissent, but personal — ad hominem — attacks (on authors, other users or any individual), abuse and defamatory language will not be tolerated. Nor will we tolerate attempts to deliberately disrupt discussions. We aim to maintain an inviting space to focus on intelligent interactions and debates.

8 × = 32

Note: we try to save your comment in your browser when there are technical problems. Still, for long comments we recommend that you copy them somewhere else as a backup before you submit them.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Read more

Click here to go to the current weekly digest or pick another article:

TRANSCEND MEMBERS: