Who Decides: Venerated Faith or Cult Group? September 4, 2019; Paper No.1; Week Two Religion and Law Who Decides: Venerated Faith or Cult Group? A. Introduction The case of Malnak v. Yogi is compelling for many reasons, most chiefly because of the impactful legal questions it raises: who has the right to define a religion; what are the boundaries of the separation of church and state; and, perhaps most provocatively, what exactly constitutes a religion in the eyes of the law? The answers to these questions illuminate the cultural and religious biases that proliferated through the 1970s, remnants of which still remain imbedded within American society today. B. The Looming Threat of Counterculture Studying Malnak v. Yoji within its historical and legal context offers a very different perspective into the intentions and motivations behind the case than the case itself suggests on its face. The case initially reads as a battle undertaken by secular Constitution defenders, insistent on protecting the separation of church and state. However, the reality is far more vitriolic, even discriminatory, than this view. It is important to note that Malnak v. Yogi, while decided in 1979, begin in the late 1960s and early 1970s, a time in which social counterculture was divisive, controversial, and even threatening in the eyes of many middle-aged, white conservatives. Transcendental Meditation was taking the world by storm, with celebrity supporters such as George Harrison, Donovan, Mia Farrow, and other individuals with notable clout. Guru Maharishi Mahesh Yogi led the teachings of Transcendental Meditation, promising his fervent followers that they, too, could reach enlightenment and unleash their untapped creative potential through only two sessions of twentyminutes of meditation per day. Teenagers and young adults from the educated middle class flocked to the movement, drawn in by these promises and by the romanticized exoticism of the eccentric Indian Yogi. As Transcendental Meditation began to permeate deeper into mainstream American culture, the pushback from older American traditionalists began to intensify. Among these traditional, conservative individuals were Alan and Edwina Malnak of Bernardsville, New Jersey. Mr. and Mrs. Malnak learned that Columbia High School, the public school their daughter had attended, was offering an elective course in Transcendental Meditation, and the Malnaks strongly opposed this practice. Speaking to their motivations in bringing the suit, Mrs. Malnak said, “We are Christians,” noting that she and her husband were determined to stop Columbia High School from teaching a “false religion.” Thus, the religious and cultural motivations of the Malnaks spurred the couple to pursue their case. Notably, the Malnaks’ efforts to bring the suit were backed by the Spiritual Counterfeits Projects, an organization founded in the early 1970s by a group of extremist Christians who had called themselves the Jesus People. This group founded the Spiritual Counterfeits Project to answer to their Christian burden and respond to New Age religious “cults,” with the organization’s primary intent set on driving out Eastern “mysticism.” Thus, in the words of Mr. Malnak, the Spiritual Counterfeits Project was “overjoyed” to take on the Malnaks’ case. The suit presented the perfect platform to further publicize the organization’s mission to fiercely battle any ideology perceived as a threat to their own Christian doctrine. C. The Trial In the case of Malnak v. Yogi, the plaintiffs’ contention was that the Transcendental Meditation course offered as an elective at a New Jersey public high school violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, plaintiffs argued that the course’s teachings were in violation of the First Amendment’s establishment clause, which prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” Thus, on such basis, the plaintiffs sought to enjoin the allegedly religious teachings in New Jersey public schools. Interestingly, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and the other defendants argued that the activities of Transcendental Meditation were non-religion in nature. Instead, they submitted, the practices were transformative self-improvement techniques grounded in Eastern philosophy rather than faith-based doctrine. Furthermore, the defendants argued that, in the alternative, if the Transcendental Meditation course was considered religious in nature, the religious effect of the course was not of significance. The United States Court of Appeals was not convinced by the defendants’ arguments. Judge Adams’ concurring opinion emerged as the most powerful precedent from the case. Judge Adams first provided a comprehensive review of case law articulating classic definitions of religion, but stated that their monotheistic leanings failed to extend to “non-traditional beliefs.” Thus, Judge Adams articulated three indicia useful for identifying a “religious belief” as it applies to the First Amendment’s establishment clause: (1) when the nature of the ideas in question deal with “ultimate questions” such as “the meaning of life and death, man’s role in the Universe, the proper moral code of right and wrong”; (2) when the teachings are “comprehensive in nature, laying claim to an ultimate and comprehensive ‘truth’”; and (3) when the teachings are supported by external indicators such as “formal services, ceremonial functions, the existence of clergy, structure and organization, efforts at propagation, observation of holidays and other similar manifestations.” Though not a rigid test, the presence of these factors would help support the idea that a particular doctrine is, in fact, religious in nature. Applying his test, Judge Adams determined that the teachings of Transcendental Meditation did, in fact, constitute a religion in violation of the First Amendment’s establishment clause. He considered the fact that the teachings were derived as a manifestation of Hindu tradition, and that the students were required to attend a two-hour puja ceremony on a Sunday in which the teacher recited chants in Sanskrit and made offerings to a significant figure known as “Guru Dev.” Thus, the Court held that the non-theistic belief system constituted religious practice within a public school system. Furthermore, the teaching of the course failed to pursue an objective, secular purpose, as required under the establishment clause. Thus, the Court enjoined the course’s teachings, awarding the case on behalf of the plaintiffs. D. Christian Fervor for the Separation of Church and State Should the case of Malnak v. Yogi be understood only as a simple desire to keep religion separate from public school teachings? To the contrary, the case was distinctly motivated by religion: Christianity. The extremist Christians that rallied behind the plaintiffs, the Spiritual Counterfeits Project, were explicitly discriminatory against Eastern philosophy, teachings, and spiritualism. The self-righteous and self-affirming platform against “false religions” should be understood as a reflection of white Christian supremacy: in their eyes, their own religious zeal was merely faith exemplified, while Eastern spiritual or philosophical convictions were “cults” that stood to threaten the nation’s moral fiber. Malnak v. Yogi and the controversies surrounding it provide a snapshot of the cultural and generational divides of the era. However, these issues are far from novel. The idea of an exotic “other” threatening “good, white, Christian society,” has been recycled and reintroduced against various groups since the dawn of the American colonies: Native Americans, African Americans, European immigrants, East Asian immigrants, Latin American immigrants, LGBT+ individuals, etc. Any time a culture threatens the singular superiority of the conservative Christian majority, it becomes a target for villainy. This perpetuated toxicity and white supremacy remains the dark underbelly of the American culture. The reality is that value systems—religious values, philosophical values, moral values—are only as respected as the American public’s singular voice will allow. Too often, this voice encapsulates only the conservative Christianized perspective, driven by the desire to silence and control any and all diversity. There exists deep, resounding irony in the fact that extremist Christian individuals paved the way for powerful precedent in the separation of church and state. However, the intentions of the plaintiffs and of the Spiritual Counterfeits Project cannot be lost amidst the narrative: the selfrighteous fervor that Christianity must be protected from the “false religion” of Eastern philosophy. While the holding of Malnak v. Yogi set an important precedent in keeping religious doctrine from seeping malignantly into public school curriculum, it is imperative to keep a critical eye on the power of pervasive white supremacy that spurred the case’s fervent battle.
