George Washington and American Jews

Touro-Synagogue

On August 18, 2019, Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island had its 72nd annual reading of George Washington’s letter to this Jewish congregation.  The speaker that day was Jed Rakoff, a United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York.

The New York Review of Books is running an excerpt of Rakoff’s speech.  Here is a taste of Washington’s Legacy for American Jews: ‘To Bigotry No Sanction.’“:

George Washington’s letter of August 1790 (sixteen months after he became president) responding to a letter from Moses Seixas, Warden of the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island, is rightly celebrated as one of the definitive statements of religious freedom under the new US Constitution. Washington’s assertion that “the Government of the United States… gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance” made clear that our nation’s first president would not permit the power of the new government to become an instrument of religious intolerance….

But is it still true? There may be cause to worry. Two years ago, in August 2017, neo-Nazi marchers, some of them carrying Nazi flags, descended on Charlottesville, Virginia, chanting “Jews will not replace us.” Some of these neo-Nazi demonstrators, carrying semi-automatic rifles, surrounded a local synagogue and posted messages online threatening to burn the temple down. Finally, James Alex Fields Jr.—a confessed Hitler admirer—intentionally drove his car into a crowd of counter-demonstrators, killing a young woman, Heather Heyer, and injuring twenty-eight others.

Then, last October, an expressly anti-Semitic mass murderer entered the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, killing eleven members of the congregation and wounding several others. This, the single most violent anti-Semitic incident in US history, was followed, just a few months ago, by a synagogue shooting near San Diego, California, that left one Jew dead and several others injured.

Needless to say, Jews have not been the only victims of the acts of domestic terrorism that have become all too common in our country. Black and Hispanic people, and others, have suffered much worse, as recent events in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, so horribly attest. But that a violent hatred of Jews is once again rearing its ugly head in certain quarters is difficult to deny. Although in America, in contrast to anti-Semitism in many other parts of the world, this hatred and accompanying violence is mostly the work of small fringe groups of political extremists, it is apparent that such attacks are increasing in both number and ferocity. American Jews, so fortunate in so many ways, need to be more alert to these threats, both to others and to ourselves.

I do not wish to seem an alarmist, and all of this must be put in perspective. Despite the recent increase in anti-Semitism in the US, we Jews owe the overwhelming majority of our fellow Americans a huge debt, both for according us what Washington called our “natural rights,” and for increasingly welcoming us into the life of the American Republic without obliging us to abandon our traditions and beliefs. As Washington envisaged in his letter, Americans have in so many ways become “a great and a happy people,” Jewish Americans not least among them. But just as eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, so we cannot be sure that such happiness will continue if we do not acknowledge, and confront, the growing dangers we face.

Unlike the Moses Seixas of May 1790, who feared to give offense, we must be like the Moses Seixas of August 1790, who asserted our rights, as Americans and Jews, to lead our daily lives free of fear.

Read the entire piece here.

5 “Must-Read” Books on Anti-Semitism in America

FordThese recommendations come from Brandeis University’s Jonathan Sarna, one of the foremost authorities on American Judaism.  (Back in 2012, I reviewed Sarna’s excellent book When General Grant Expelled the Jews).

Antisemitism in America
By Leonard Dinnerstein

And the Dead Shall Rise: The Murder of Mary Phagan and the Lynching of Leo Frank 
By Steve Oney

Henry Ford and the Jews: The Mass Production of Hate
By Neil Baldwin

The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton 
By Jerome Karabel

The Temple Bombing 
By Melissa Fay Greene

Read Sarna’s annotations on these titles at the Brandeis University website.

George Washington to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island, 18 August 1790

TouroSynagogue_02

In August 1790, President George Washington, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, and others traveled to Rhode Island.  On August 18, they stopped at the Touro Synagogue in Newport.  Later in the day, Washington wrote this letter to the congregation:

Gentlemen.

 

While I receive, with much satisfaction, your Address1 replete with expressions of affection and esteem; I rejoice in the opportunity of assuring you, that I shall always retain a grateful remembrance of the cordial welcome I experienced in my visit to Newport,2 from all classes of Citizens.

The reflection on the days of difficulty and danger which are past is rendered the more sweet, from a consciousness that they are succeeded by days of uncommon prosperity and security. If we have wisdom to make the best use of the advantages with which we are now favored, we cannot fail, under the just administration of a good Government, to become a great and a happy people.

The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my Administration, and fervent wishes for my felicity. May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy.

A President of the United States at a Jewish synagogue.

For more context on this letter and the trip click here.

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, “The Jewish Cemetery at Newport

Touro-Synagogue

The Jewish Cemetery at Newport

How strange it seems! These Hebrews in their graves,
Close by the street of this fair seaport town,
Silent beside the never-silent waves,
At rest in all this moving up and down!

The trees are white with dust, that o’er their sleep
Wave their broad curtains in the south-wind’s breath,
While underneath these leafy tents they keep
The long, mysterious Exodus of Death.

And these sepulchral stones, so old and brown,
That pave with level flags their burial-place,
Seem like the tablets of the Law, thrown down
And broken by Moses at the mountain’s base.

The very names recorded here are strange,
Of foreign accent, and of different climes;
Alvares and Rivera interchange
With Abraham and Jacob of old times.

“Blessed be God! for he created Death!”
The mourners said, “and Death is rest and peace;”
Then added, in the certainty of faith,
“And giveth Life that nevermore shall cease.”

Closed are the portals of their Synagogue,
No Psalms of David now the silence break,
No Rabbi reads the ancient Decalogue,
In the grand dialect the Prophets spake.

Gone are the living, but the dead remain,
And not neglected; for a hand unseen,
Scattering its bounty, like a summer rain,
Still keeps their graves and their remembrance green.

How came they here? What burst of Christian hate,
What persecution, merciless and blind,
Drove o’er the sea — that desert desolate —
These Ishmaels and Hagars of mankind?

They lived in narrow streets and lanes obscure,
Ghetto and Judenstrass, in mirk and mire;
Taught in the school of patience to endure
The life of anguish and the death of fire.

All their lives long, with the unleavened bread,
And bitter herbs of exile and its fears,
The wasting famine of the heart they fed,
And slaked its thirst with marah of their tears.

Anathema maranatha! was the cry,
That rang from town to town, from street to street;
At every gate the accursed Mordecai
Was mocked and jeered, and spurned by Christian feet.

Pride and humiliation hand in hand
Walked with them through the world where’er they went;
Trampled and beaten were they as the sand,
And yet unshaken as the continent.

For in the background figures vague and vast
Of patriarchs and of prophets rose sublime,
And all the great traditions of the Past
They saw reflected in the coming time.

And thus forever with reverted look
The mystic volume of the world they read,
Spelling it backward, like a Hebrew book,
Till life became a Legend of the Dead.

But ah! what once has been shall be no more!
The groaning earth in travail and in pain
Brings forth its races, but does not restore,
And the dead nations never rise again.

Who Owns the Oldest Synagogue Building in the United States?

tourosyn_credit

Touro Synagogue, Newport, R.I.

A federal court just ruled that Congregation Shearith Israel (Manhattan, 1654), the oldest Jewish congregation in America, owns Touro Synagogue (Newport, R.I.), the oldest synagogue building (1763) in America.

Find out more by reading Sharon Otterman’s story at The New York Times.

Here is a taste:

Two Jewish synagogues consider themselves the oldest in the nation, for different reasons. Shearith Israel, founded in Manhattan in 1654, is the oldest congregation, though it is not located in its original building. Touro Synagogue, in Newport, R.I., built in 1763, is the oldest synagogue building.

But now a federal court has ruled that Shearith Israel in New York actually owns the Touro Synagogue building in Newport, the result of twists in a history spanning centuries.

Justice David H. Souter, the retired associate justice of the Supreme Court, wrote the opinion for the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston issued on Wednesday. In it, he overturned a district-court ruling that the congregation that has worshiped for more than 130 years in the Touro Synagogue building, Jeshuat Israel, had control over the building and its objects.

The appeals court instead enforced a series of contracts between the two congregations from the 20th century, in which Jeshuat Israel acknowledged that it was leasing the Newport building. Now, what may be the country’s most historic synagogue building — which George Washington visited in 1790, inspiring an important letter on religious freedom — is officially owned by a group that is based 180 miles away.

The reasons are complicated. When Newport’s Jews faced persecution during the American Revolution, they fled the town and the synagogue building, many for New York. Without a congregation in Newport, Shearith Israel took control of the synagogue, along with the sacred ritual objects with which the congregants fled. Among the objects was a pair of decorative knobs with attached bells made of silver and gold designed to top the shafts around which the Torah scrolls were rolled.

Read the rest here.

 

Who is Henry Marie Brackenridge?

 

HM_Brackenridge_1901Chief Justice John Roberts quoted a Brackenridge speech in the Trinity Lutheran v. Comer majority opinion.

Here is a taste of Ann E. Marimow’s piece at The Washington Post:

The lawmaker Roberts cited was H.M. Brackenridge, a member of the Maryland House of Delegates and leading supporter of what was known as the “Jew Bill” — a measure to remove the state’s requirement that elected officials swear to “a belief in the Christian religion.”

The brief excerpt from Brackenridge’s lengthy speech came at the end of the 15-page majority opinion in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer. The high court found that a preschool operated by a Missouri church should have been eligible for state funding just like other non-religious charitable organizations.

Trinity Lutheran Church in Columbia, Mo., brought the case after the Missouri government excluded the church from a grant program that pays to resurface playgrounds because the state said it could not provide financial assistance directly to a church. In the 7-2 decision, Roberts quoted Brackenridge before concluding that the exclusion of the church “solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution all the same, and cannot stand.”

The son of a Pennsylvania Supreme Court judge, Brackenridge is hardly a household name in Maryland’s political history having served just two terms representing Baltimore. Much of his career was spent in other states, including stints as a judge in Louisiana and Florida, and as a U.S. congressman from Pennsylvania in 1840.

Brackenridge’s 1819 speech was part of broader effort to get rid of a measure that prevented Jews from holding office. Many states in the early nineteenth-century had religious qualifications for office.

According to the Maryland State Archives, Brackenridge argued that Maryland’s requirement violated the First Amendment of the Constitution that at the time only applied to the federal government. The so-called Jew Bill did not pass during Brackenridge’s tenure, when there were only about 150 Jewish people in Maryland. Jews were unable to hold elected office in Maryland until 1826, said Emily Oland Squires, director of research, education and outreach at the Maryland State Archives.

Read the entire piece here.

It is also worth noting here at The Way of Improvement Leads Home that H.M. Brackenridge is the son of Henry Hugh Brackenridge, a Princeton classmate of Philip Vickers Fithian.

Religion and the 1776 Pennsylvania Constitution: A Short Series, Part 7

Mikveh

Sketch of Mikveh Israel’s new synagogue, built in 1782.

I am afraid that this series is no longer “short” (at least by blog standards).  If you want to get up to speed click here for earlier installments.

As we have noted before, the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 was very democratic in nature.  This is what I wrote in Part 1 of this series:

The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 was the most democratic state constitution in the newly established United States.  It had a unicameral legislature and a plural executive.  Power rested in the legislature. While there were other states (Vermont and Georgia) that had unicameral legislatures, the Pennsylvania government was unique because it gave the right to vote and the right to hold office to all males, regardless of wealth or land ownership.  This meant that the one-house legislature was virtually unchecked by a governor or an upper-house.  Members of the legislature had to swear an oath of loyalty to this new government.  Proceedings were open to the public and published in newspapers in both English and German.  This was democracy at work.  Several historians and political scientists have pointed to the influence of Thomas Paine on its framers.

Historians of the American Revolution, especially those from the Neo-Progressive historiographical school, like to point to the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 as an early experiment in democracy.

For example, here is historian Gary Nash:

…the ideas embedded in the radical constitution of 1776 lived on.  Reflecting the full flowering of democratic thought in the Revolutionary Era and standing as a prime example of the revolution within the Revolution, it inspired lawmakers around the world.  Unicameralism, with its insistence that a true democracy should make no distinction between the haves and have-nots as represented in upper and lower legislative houses, spread around the world.  It was acclaimed and implemented in revolutionary France and is how law is made today in Nebraska, Guam, the Virgin Islands, Hong Kong; in all of Australia and Canada’s provinces: in the legislative bodies of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland; in Italy and Spain; and in almost all socialist states.  Most important, the broadening franchise, in which land ownership is not required for first-class citizenship, in time nashbecame the gold standard nationwide and gradually spread aborad as the most important legacy of the sparks from Pennsylvania’s altar of ’76.  Philadelphia’s radical caucus had changed Pennsylvania’s position on independence at a crucial moment in the summer of 1776, and in the process had turned Pennsylvania into a people’s republic. —Gary Nash, “Philadelphia’s Radical Cause That Propelled Pennsylvania to Independence and Democracy,” in Ray Raphael, Alfred Young, and Gary Nash, ed., Revolutionary Founders: Rebels, Radicals, and Reformers in the Making of the Nation.

Nash is correct.  The  Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 was radical.  But what he fails to mention is that for many of these members of the convention this kind of progressive democracy had its limits.

Here is Section 10:

A quorum of the house of representatives shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of members elected; and having met and chosen their speaker, shall each of them before they proceed to business take and subscribe, as well the oath or affirmation of fidelity and allegiance hereinafter directed, as the following oath or affirmation, viz:

I do swear (or affirm) that as a member of this assembly, I will not propose or assent to any bill, vote, or resolution, which stall appear to free injurious to the people; nor do or consent to any act or thing whatever, that shall have a tendency to lessen or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared in the constitution of this state; but will in all things conduct myself as a faithful honest representative and guardian of the people, according to the best of only judgment and abilities.

And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:

I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.

And no further or other religious test shall ever hereafter be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State.

Yes, the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 established a “people’s republic,” but the only people permitted to govern in this “people’s republic” were those who could uphold a belief in the inspiration of the Old and New Testaments.  In other words, the framers only wanted Christians running their commonwealth.

Pennsylvania Jews were not very happy about this.  In 1783, the Council of Censors, a body that met every seven years to suggest amendments to the constitution so that the government would function more efficiently, received a letter from the leaders of Philadelphia’s Mikveh Israel congregation.

Here is a taste of that letter:

That by the tenth section of the Frame of Government of this Commonwealth, it is ordered that each member of the general assembly of representatives of the freemen of Pennsylvania, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe a declaration, which ends in these words, “I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the old and new Testament to be given by divine inspiration,” to which is added an assurance, that “no further or other religious test shall ever hereafter be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this state.”

Your memorialists beg leave to observe, that this clause seems to limit the civil rights of your citizens to one very special article of the creed; whereas by the second paragraph of the declaration of the rights of the inhabitants, it is asserted without any other limitation than the professing the existence of God, in plain words, “that no man who acknowledges the being of a God can be justly deprived or abridged of any civil rights as a citizen on account of his religious sentiments.” But certainly this religious test deprives the Jews of the most eminent rights of freemen, solemnly ascertained to all men who are not professed Atheists.

They asked the Council of Censors to amend the Constitution:

Your memorialists beg further leave to represent, that in the religious books of the Jews, which are or may be in every man’s hands, there are no such doctrines or principles established as are inconsistent with the safety and happiness of the people of Pennsylvania, and that the conduct and behaviour of the Jews in this and the neighbouring States, has always tallied with the great design of the Revolution; that the Jews of Charlestown, New York, New-Port and other posts, occupied by the British troops, have distinguishedly suffered for their attachment to the Revolution principles; and their brethren at St. Eustatius, for the same cause, experienced the most severe resentments of the British commanders. The Jews of Pennsylvania in proportion to the number of their members, can count with any religious society whatsoever, the Whigs among either of them; they have served some of them in the Continental army; some went out in the militia to fight the common enemy; all of them have cheerfully contributed to the support of the militia, and of the government of this State; they have no inconsiderable property in lands and tenements, but particularly in the way of trade, some more, some less, for which they pay taxes; they have, upon every plan formed for public utility, been forward to contribute as much as their circumstances would admit of; and as a nation or a religious society, they stand unimpeached of any matter whatsoever, against the safety and happiness of the people.

And your memorialists humbly pray, that if your honours, from any consideration than the subject of this address, should think proper to call a convention for revising the constitution, you would be pleased to recommend this to the notice of that convention.

In the 18th-century world democracy had its limits.

Stay tuned.  One or two more posts left in this series.

Bonus feature:  We covered the Mikveh Israel letter in a recent episode of the Virtual Office Hours:

 

George Washington on the Difference Between Religious Toleration and Religious Freedom

tourosyn_creditRead George Washington to the Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island, August 18, 1790.

This is an amazing letter for all kinds of reasons, but I am always struck by how Washington makes a clear distinction between religious toleration and religious freedom.

Here is a taste:

The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

The Author’s Corner With Zev Eleff

ZevZev Eleff is  Chief Academic Officer at Touro College, Hebrew Theological in Skokie, Illinois.  This interview is based on his new book Who Rules the Synagogue?: Religious Authority and the Formation of American Judaism (Oxford University Press, 2016).

JF: What led you to write Who Rules the Synagogue

ZE: Long ago, historian Jon Butler called for American religious historians to pay greater attention to the “Catholic model” of historical inquiry. By this, Butler asked the field to consider questions that we normally ask in the realm of Catholic history but rarely do for other religious communities. This provocative essay directed me to ask questions about the role of authority in American Judaism, a research question taken up by Catholic historians but by few others. I hope that my monograph will be a useful model for others in the field of American religion.

JF: What is the argument of Who Rules the Synagogue?

ZE: My book argues that nineteenth century American Judaism underwent important change, in ways that have been heretofore overlooked by scholars. In the first decades, synagogues and other institutions were led by lay leaders. However, by the end of 1800s, it was apparent that rabbis had seized control of the all-important synagogue. Much of this was accomplished through the introduction of religious reforms. My book theorizes that the 1860s represented the most critical period in this transformation and introduced important determinants of change. All related to the Civil War, religious, economic and transatlantic forces brought about a new era of a clergy-led Jewish community in the United States.

JF: Why do we need to read Who Rules the Synagogue?

ZE: I hope that my book introduces important questions that have not yet been taken up by the field. Scholars operating in other subfields may find that other factors led to change. In any case, my sense is that the book’s thesis and many of its rich primary sources will be useful to fellow historians. I really look forward and anticipate a time in the near future when my work will be placed in conversation with other historical studies in the broader field of American religion.

JF: When and why did you decide to become an American historian?

ZE: As an undergraduate at Yeshiva University, I was very fortunate to find several terrific mentors, most notably Prof. Jeffrey Gurock. I wrote my honors thesis (later published in a scholarly journal) under Prof. Gurock and served as his research assistant. Afterward, I conducted my doctoral studies under the wonderful and wise Prof. Jonathan Sarna, as well as leading scholars like Profs. David Hackett Fischer and Jane Kamensky. All of my teachers have pushed me to think more creatively, and with the notion that there is still much room to explore in the field.

JF: What is your next project?

ZE: I am presently working on a project that explores various shifting centers and fissures within the American Jewish community in the 1980s. My major point of focus is the Reform Movement’s decision to accept Patrilineal Descent (as opposed to Jewish status determined by someone’s Jewish mother). This new policy had an important impact upon the middle-of-the-road path in Reform Judaism and in the broader American Jewish community. It also shifted the center of world Jewry from the United States to Israel. Of course, this “‘de-centering” matches similar changes in modern Christian history, as well as the political, social and economic history on American life in the 1980s.

JF: Thanks, Zev!

The Author’s Corner With Rebecca Alpert

Alpert

Rebecca T. Alpert is Senior Associate Dean of Academic Affairs at Temple University.  This interview is based on the forthcoming paperback release of her 2011 book Out of Left Field: Jews and Black Baseball (Oxford University Press).

JF: What led you to write Out of Left Field: Jews and Black Baseball?

RA: I grew up in Brooklyn, New York, an avid Brooklyn Dodgers fan. My mother taught me that the Dodgers were “Jewish” because they were responsible for breaking baseball’s color line, and racial equality is a fundamental Jewish value. As I began to do some research many years later, I discovered that my mother was not the only one who held that belief; many liberal Jews, like other ethnic groups in Brooklyn, believed that their support of Jackie Robinson integrating baseball was a big reason why that happened. (They weren’t entirely wrong; Branch Rickey could never have succeeded at his “Great Experiment” in St. Louis where he worked for many years; in fact, he never even tried.) I wrote an article about that topic entitled “Jackie Robinson: Jewish Icon.” But then I started to wonder, where were the Jews when baseball was segregated? Did they play any role in the Negro Leagues?

JF: In 2 sentences, what is the argument of Out of Left Field: Jews and Black Baseball?

RA: In Out of Left Field I argue that Jews made a unique contribution to mid twentieth century black baseball, in three ways. They played ball–a community of black Jews in Virginia, known as Temple Beth El, had their own team that played against the Negro League teams when they barnstormed through the South; they owned teams—several second generation Eastern European Jews were instrumental in the operation of the Negro Leagues; and they fought to integrate baseball—the Jewish sportswriters at the communist newspaper, The Daily Worker, both reported on Negro League games when other white newspapers ignored them, and led efforts to end segregation as early as the mid-1930s, working alongside the black press.

JF: Why do we need to read Out of Left Field: Jews and Black Baseball?

RA: The book opens up a new perspective on the old question of the relationship between Jews and African Americans. It shows quite pointedly that there is some kernel of truth to the myth of the Black-Jewish alliance in the post-World War II era, but that the story is much more complicated, as illustrated through these case studies of black Jews, Jewish businessmen, and Jewish communists that took place before and during the war.

JF: When and why did you decide to become an American historian?

RAI actually don’t identify as an American historian; I’m a religious studies scholar who works primarily in the area of American Judaism. My interest in American Jewish history began when, as a religion major in college, I decided to spend my junior year in Israel to learn more about my Jewish identity. What I quickly discovered there was that I’m really an American Jew, and so when I went to graduate school I focused my studies on American Judaism. From there I quickly learned I couldn’t understand American Judaism without learning about American religion, and ultimately that I needed to understand American history to really comprehend American religion.

JF: What is your next project?

RA: I am continuing to work in the area of religion and sports, co-editing an anthology, Gods, Games, and Globalization: New Perspectives on Religion and Sports. It will include articles about religious groups of all shapes and sizes that have used sports as a vehicle for inclusion into the mainstream, as a recruitment device, or for developing spiritual and physical fitness. And beyond the “holy trinity” of American sports—baseball, basketball, and football—one finds the traces of transcendence in everything from mixed martial arts to soccer. All told, this collection will reveal the variety of religious experiences within sports on the global stage.

JF: Thanks, Rebecca!