On September 4th, 2020, more than 100 protestors assembled on the North Shore of Kauai, Hawaii around a home being rented by the Love Has Won religious group. According to Honolulu Civil Beat, an investigative news site that covers the state of Hawaii, the demonstration included: three small fires set to the beach, a shouting match between members and protestors, physical damage to the windows on the religious group’s car, and damage to the house’s windows. The Garden Island Newspaper reports that a firework was even shot into the house. HCB reports it is unclear at this time whether it was the protestors, or the religious members, who inflicted these damages onto the property. Eventually, Kauai police and the National Guard sealed off the surrounding parts of the North Shore with roadblocks, blocking more protestors from joining the active demonstration.
Based on testimonies taken from individuals at the site of the demonstration, the protest was assembled in hopes of pressuring Love Has Won to leave the island and return back to their original base, Crestone, Colorado. Local Hawaiians find the religion to be more like a cult, showing heavy concern for the basis the religion is built upon. The Garden Island Newspaper writes, “Protesters have found the group’s ideology to be predatory of vulnerable populations, vulgar and offensive in its appropriation of Hawaiian culture, with the group’s leader claiming to be the Hawaiian goddess of fire, Pele”. HCB notes there is a video of the religious group’s leader, a woman referred to as “Mom”, torturing a cat in front of an audience of other members. However, when questioned on the foundation of the religion, member Ryan Kramer describes the religion as, “A group based on the ascension of the planet. We focus on astrology, on weather patterns, mainly medicine… Our main form of work is the Gaia’s whole healing essentials. We offer other types of healing modalities” (Honolulu Civil Beat). The Love Has Won website itself is vague, causing further opacity in regards to what the religion is built upon. TGI reports that three days after the protests, the 11 members of Love Has Won were given a police escort to the airport, as they decided to head back to Colorado.
With a presidential election coming up, the topic of religious freedom is more relevant than ever, putting emphasis on this case. The issue at stake is whether or not Love Has Won’s free exercise of religion, as given in the first amendment (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ”) is being infringed on. As we know, religious freedom is a right of Americans; this is not something that all countries possess. It is our right as citizens of this country to adhere to and follow whichever religion we please, with certain caveats. However, this topic is not black and white, as things get tricky when the well-being of other living creatures is involved. This being said, my feelings on this case are very mixed. On one hand, I feel as though Love Has Won has the right to organize and practice their religion, even if they are more similar to a cult than they are a religion. Due to the vagueness of their official website, I am still wholly unclear on the founding principles of the religion, so I am unsure if their practices actually include hurting living beings, as one website suggested. If that is truly the case, then I think that there should be some official regulations put into place in order to protect the vulnerable population that they are taking advantage of. On the other hand, Americans also have the right to assemble and protest against what they do not believe in. Thus, I also feel as though the residents of Kauai have the right to protest a new religious group moving into their town, but only on the basis that the religion was potentially exploiting the vulnerable, and appropriating their native Hawaiian culture. If Love Has Won was unproblematic and the locals were solely protesting the arrival of a new religious group in their town, that would be completely different, and I would side more with Love Has Won.
I look forward to reading your viewpoint on the topic, in order to further mine. Thanks!
12 comments:
I think that removing the Love Has Won church from the island would introduce an questionable precedent of the government determining what is considered a legitimate religion that is protected under the first amendment. Therefore, I don't believe that the protesters' desire for the church to be exiled should be taken up by the state. However, the Hawaiian citizens absolutely have the right to protest the practices of the church that they believe to be inappropriate, disrespectful, and even immoral and should, in my opinion, continue to do so in an effort to educate the people of the Love Has Won church on the implications of their cultural appropriation.
Although I do not agree with the ideals and beliefs of Love Has Won, I believe that they do have the right to exercise their religion, as established in the First Amendment. They have the right to believe in the torture of animals, or living beings, and the other problematic values they uphold and practice. However, in actually executing these beliefs is when it becomes a problem, especially because Trump established animal cruelty as a federal crime in November of 2019. Their beliefs being executed affects the well-being and lives of innocent animals. On the other hand, they voluntarily left the island, but if the government had forcibly made them leave, then that would violate the Free Exercise clause, not including the harm they’ve done to living animals.
While I do think it is important for religious freedom to be maintained and Love Has Won should not be removed from the island solely based on the opinions of the residents of the island, restrictions clearly need to be put into place. If main leaders, or any members for that matter, torture animals and claim it is a part of their religious practice, this does not fall under the protection of the First Amendment. This could lead to the torture of other living beings, including humans in other religions, if this is allowed, and punishments need to be enforced. For this reason, I do think Love Has Won should face repercussions. However, this is not to say that the religion as a whole is bad and if their practices are modified or it is found that this is an isolated event by one individual, then the entire group should not be condemned. While I believe that cultural appropriation is unacceptable and should absolutely be spoken about, that is not justification to remove the group from the island, because ultimately Love Has Won is not responsible for the reactions and opinions of others.
While I would usually agree that Love Has Won has the right to freely exercise their religion and should not be forced off the island by the government, I do not think they have the right to legally continue many of their practices- ex, animal cruelty. Not all religious practices can be exercised using the First Amendment as justification if it is detrimental to society. Therefore, they are not having their rights infringed upon.
Take the issue of Reynolds v. United States, for example. Though the circumstances are different, Reynolds established a precedent that free exercise of religion cannot all be guaranteed if it was "subversive of good order." The actions of Love Has Won fall under lawless behavior and therefor is subversive of good order, such as the torture of live animals and appropriation of Hawaiian culture. The act of allowing Love Has Won to continue these practices creates a slippery slope of what religious groups can be allowed to do by simply using the First Amendment as justification.
This case raises brings many mixed emotions to the table concerning religion and the right to freely exercise as states in the first amendment. Obviously, when a religion raises havoc among citizens in a state, concern is going to develop and the people who reside around that religion is going to have some push back. However, just because a religion has colliding views with the majority in the state, does not give the government power to relocate that religious group or prohibit their existence. As long as no laws are broken, (which in this case animal abuse laws were broken and there should be consequences for those), then a religion should be able to openly share their opinions, even if they are deemed offensive or unjust. I also side with the Love Has Won religion. When you start monitoring where religious groups can exist, you start violating constitutional rights.
The issue of Love Has Won being a cult is irrelevant to the issue of protestors causing property damage, setting fires, and verbally accosting members of the religion. While the alleged video of the leader of the religion torturing a cat is extremely concerning, it is not grounds to try to scare them away from their homes; until it is proven that they are a malicious organization or the protestors can bring this to court in a more peaceful way, there will be no grounds upon which to have such a violent reaction to their presence. If we're thinking about the first amendment in terms of protecting minority groups, it's easy to see a scenario where a religious majority, let's take catholicism, targets a religious minority, eg. Islam, and pushes that minority group out of their homes by saying that they're a cult. Love Has One being a malicious organization has to be proven in some way other than distaste and hearsay by the protestors objecting to their presence.
I think that as long as Love Has Won has not violated any laws, that they technically have the right to practice their religion in Hawaii. They can be branded a cult just the same as the Church of Cannabis can disregarded by the public as a serious religion all together. It doesn't much matter whether these organizations are good or bad or even make sense, if they manage to meet the parameters of what constitutes a religion; because if they do, then by law, they must be regarded as such. If the issue with the cat proves to be true, then I do see some reason to call into question the legitimacy of the organization given that there are felony animal abuse laws in every state. It seems to me that, in most cases, a Church's right to practice their religion ends where the law begins. The issue with the protesters in this instance is also problematic because the constitution applies to them the same as it does to Love Has Won. The first amendment states that people have a right to peacefully assemble, not violently assemble. If they were destroying property, assaulting Church members and firing off fireworks into the organizations building, then they should be arrested and appropriately charged according to the law. Having said this, I understand where the protesters are coming from. They have a community and way of life that they do not want to be altered by some foreign, financial religious organization. This is a reasonable concern and to that problem I would ask where is there protection from having their communities invaded by unwelcome foreigners?
This case is interesting as it brings into the fold Reynolds v. United States which determined that certain religious practices can be forbidden by the government. I would need to know more about how Love Has Won is "predatory of vulnerable populations" to decide whether such ambiguous behavior is acceptable, but torturing animals is a violation of federal law that crosses the line. I would like to add that being "vulgar and offensive in appropriation of Hawaiian culture" is a clear-cut freedom of speech issue; regardless of whether Love Has Won is a religious group, anyone is allowed to act in that manner.
I agree that the Love Has Won movement should be forced to leave Kawaii. It seems as if a large amount of residents are concerned over the “cult-like” organization, who have historically appropriated Hawaiian culture and are documented of instances of animal cruelty. Asides from the attitudes of the native Hawaiian, constitutionally, I am not confident in the group's protection of the free exercise clause. I question the sincerity of the group, as their mission statement is vague. Although the government cannot determine religious belief, they can restrict religious action. Because of the group’s problematic history, the Hawaiian government may have a compelling interest to expunge the group.
I find this case to be very intriguing, especially since the incident has happened recently. I think that if the religious group has not done anything harmful or has violated any laws, then they should be able to assemble and practice their own religion. As we’ve discussed in class, the government is not able to determine what qualifies as a valid religion and what does not. Through a Constitutional lens, I believe that the group has the right to practice their religion as it is stated in the First Amendment. However, since their website is so vague and that the case has occurred recently, I think we might have to wait to find out more information about the religious group and what they are participating in. This information will heavily impact many of our views on this case, but as of right now I do believe that they have the right to practice their religion.
Constitutionally, the group has the right to practice their religion. However I think that stops when they are causing harm and the post talks about how this religion is 'vulgar and offensive' to Hawaiian culture. Madison and Jefferson both note that religious freedom is constrained by disturbing peace and order, which is certainly the case here. However, I do not think that government should be able to remove the group from the island, but they should be able to constrain any illegal practices such as torturing cats.
With the information presented, I think that constitutionally the Love Has Won group has the right to stay where they are and exercise their religion. regardless of whether or not people of Hawaii or the state believe this religion is cult like or not even a real religion, they do not have the authority to determine the legitimacy of Love Has Won. As of right now, if this group is not practicing violence or illegal activity that the state has a compelling interest to stop, there is virtually no argument to say they should be forced to leave. If, in the future, it is revealed that this group is in fact inciting violence and torture against animals or live beings, I do not think the Love Has Won group should be able to continue practicing their religion in that manner. However, for the time being, their have the right to remain where they are and exercise their guaranteed right to freedom of religion.
Post a Comment