Freedom and Bondage: The Dark Origin of Wonder Woman

My knowledge of Wonder Woman (and by extension, comic books) is severely limited. This is partly due to my overall lack of interest in them both now as well as during my childhood. Although I would occasionally dress up as Spiderman, Zorro and a few times as a cowboy, I did not find having superpowers or being invincible particularly appealing. My childhood ideals ranged from Russian writers like Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, Scandinavian philosophers and filmmakers like Kierkegaard and Bergman to French directors like François Truffaut and Eric Rohmer all of whom were making waves in cinema, literature, and philosophy. There was neither room nor interest for the likes of Star Wars or Lord of the Rings. I am neither proud nor ashamed of my lack of knowledge regarding comics and superheroes but just state it as a case and matter of fact.

Since then, and more so in recent times, I have tried to fill some of my gaps – while others are still sticking out like a sore, if not broken thumb – and yet, Wonder Woman has been the most enigmatic and mysterious character to me. Especially considering that she is held up and lifted as an emblem of the current strand of modern feminism, I wanted to know more about her by getting to know a bit more about her background.

As a result, a night before this year’s celebration of International Women’s Day, I decided to watch Angela Robinson’s movie Professor Marston and the Wonder Women available on Netflix. I chose to watch it for two reasons: one, it was made (written and directed) by a woman, and secondly, as I was curious about the background and origin story of Wonder Woman, it fit my purposes like a glove since it could potentially conceal my “wounded thumb.” All I knew about this character was limited to Patty Jenkins’ movie version, which, to be honest and hype withstanding, I found rather underwhelming both in terms of story as well as filmmaking.

In contrast, Robinson’s film was impressive, especially considering that this young aspiring filmmaker has not made previous feature films before. The acting was also quite good, and there were evident moments and pieces of dialogue that made it clear that the film was not only made by a woman but that it was meant to prop up and support the feminist movement and ideology. Case in point, it starts off with a strong female character, Elizabeth Marston, who initially appears to be more knowledgeable and capable than her husband, the eponymous professor actively teaching at Harvard.

She should be the one to receive a doctorate, but the university refuses to hand them out to talented and deserving women and are even less likely to hire females and give them a permanent teaching post at the time. Elizabeth also seems to be the one in charge of the relationship, wearing the proverbial pants in the marriage. As they are looking for an assistant to help them with research of the newly invented lie detector, the professor’s evidently lust-tinged eyes fall on a gorgeous blond student of his.

His wife is not so thrilled at the beginning and perceptively and intuitively calls him out on this. He defends himself, but only feebly so. Then she agrees and relents, and this gives us the impression that they are in an unorthodox open marriage, meaning each member has the freedom and possibility of dating others outside of the relationship. Yet in a subsequent scene and after she has just declared to her husband that she does not care, she bluntly, blatantly and cruelly confronts the young female student Olive telling her not to even think of having sex with her husband. This disconcerts the sensitive student, and she runs out crying.

This was a first instant where words did not correspond with actions, and the gap and hypocrisy go deeper in another scene. During an unintentionally awry discussion regarding Freud’s term of penis envy, Elizabeth takes this literally and claims that women have no desire of having such a member for themselves. Professor Marston needs to step in to correct his wife that Freud’s statement was not meant as a literal thing but rather as a symbolic quest for power and dominance.

The fact that Elizabeth as a trained psychologist would confuse this and see Freud’s idea merely as women wanting to have and physically acquire the male organ borders on a surprising and unexpected level of ignorance given her position and standing. This put a significant dent into and creates doubts about her supposed and self-proclaimed claim of brilliance and of being ready to receive a doctorate. Other incidents and situations in later scenes of the movie would only serve to support and confirm this suspicion.

Although it may look otherwise, at least at first sight, it is really the man, the professor who is in control of the situation and the relationship. He has received help from his wife to fine-tune the lie detector, and the women, or at least one of them, may have inspired him to come up with the character of Wonder Woman, but most noteworthy, he is the only person out of the three to have accomplished something in his life.

Olive basically resigns herself to becoming a live-in domestic partner / homemaker who would engage in regular threesomes and sexual acts of bondage, while his wife, despite having so much potential, ends up as a stenographer to support this unorthodox family. Professor Marston may have lost his position at Harvard due to his extracurricular activities in his private life, but in the film, it is he who comes up with the Wonder Woman idea. In fact, not only is it another man, the creator of Superman, who helps him realize this dream, but his own wife discourages him from the get-go. When he tells her of his initiative of making a feminine comic superhero, she scoffs at him and dismisses his idea, and given perfect hindsight, we can all realize how wrong she is.

But I have two concerns here that the movie does not demonstrate or delve into. One is about the abuse of authority; the second is the dubitative message and legacy given to young and impressionable children via the character and actions of Wonder Woman. As said before, Professor Marston constantly ends up getting his own way, and he might have sneakily managed to follow and exercise his own theory of DISC theory, which stands for dominance, inducement, submission, and compliance.

He effectively uses his theory both on his wife as well as his new-found mistress, and none of them seem to fully realize this as they merely buy into and comply with his schemes and suggestions. He may appear submissive and compliant to their desires, but it is he who induces and dominates the two women that are part of his life. I am not so sure that the filmmaker realizes these tendencies herself.

Be it as it may, in the end both accept and encourage this three-way relationship. Yet the married couple of psychologists should know better and must be aware that they are taking advantage of a young impressionable woman. Their victim Olive is a young student who has had her fair share of trauma. Her mother has left her, and her aunt, a famous and rich feminist, wants to have nothing to do with her and prefers to continue with her own life and career; her aunt does not to tarnish her reputation as a feminist and refuses to help or support her niece in need. As a result, Olive grows up in a convent and is emotionally vulnerable and susceptible. Although she may think she is strong and independent, she is easily swayed and controlled by this experienced, knowledgeable, and manipulative couple she meets at the university.

Not having any parental guidance, she is easy prey. They are much older than she is, and she is their student who looks up to both, more so to the female counterpart whom she falls in love with. Elizabeth is most likely a representation and projection of Olive’s own missing mother. Yet Olive is indignantly refused and rejected by Elizabeth on various occasions, while Elizabeth always ends up giving in both to her own as well as her husband’s desires. At first, Elizabeth denies her own sexual attraction towards Olive and women in general and later she kicks Olive out of their home only to accept her back in after her dying husband pleads with her.

Yet none of this makes their combined blatant abuse of authority acceptable; in fact, their actions toward Olive are reprehensible and unethical. Not so much the act itself, their choice of having an unorthodox family, which I disagree with personally as a matter of taste and opinion, but the fact that they abuse their position of authority to satisfy their own sexual needs and desires with a vulnerable young woman. That should not be glorified, much less in our day and age, but unfortunately the filmmaker chooses to side with them and presents them as rebellious heroes to follow and emulate.

And the same applies to the legacy of Wonder Woman. She was born, it turns out, not as a liberating symbol of female empowerment but out of the lusty eyes of an unscrupulous man. It is during an experimental bondage session that he is most inspired. He dresses his Wonder Woman the same way he has seen and experienced Olive - sexually suggestive with a whip in hand. This dominatrix is seen, held up and glorified as a sign of female empowerment, but is, in fact, a sexual object, a sexually charged fetish of one man’s imagination.

It is furthermore disconcerting that the comic has so many references to sexual acts of bondage. In this twisted imagination, freedom becomes bondage and bondage freedom. The full spread of the Disc theory ranging from domination to submission, inducement to compliance is being applied to all of us, and we do not even realize this.

As an adult, one may engage in these practices - and I am in no position to criticize what people choose to do in their own private lives - but presenting and including these types of ideas and behaviors in a comic that is predominantly targeted for and read by children is morally irresponsible and unacceptable. I am aware that I will be accused of siding with the unfavorably portrayed judge Josette Frank in the movie, but the sad reality is that she is in the right and he is wrong. And this is not only the family man and parent within me speaking, but I believe it is our moral obligation to do our utmost to protect our children and youth, at least during those impressionable age brackets.

Professor Marston may say he is liberating children and young girls, but in the end, he is captivating and capturing them with sexually suggestive images, and by turn, he is enslaving them. It entails the move from being seen and referred to as a sexual object to becoming a sexual object but remaining an object, nonetheless. Wearing a superhero cap or holding a whip in your hand does not give you superpowers and does not contribute to fulfilling your inherent potential. To have women hold up Wonder Woman as a symbol of freedom and liberty and to use it as a form of female empowerment is the ultimate irony that emerges from this movie.

The Economic History of Religion

In the book The Wealth of Religions: The Political Economy of Believing and Belonging by Rachel M. McCleary and Robert J. Barro, religion is viewed and defined not as a philosophical system of faith and worship but rather as a historical entity with economic ties and connections to respective countries and regions. Religion has certainly played a significant and vital role in history and has had far-reaching consequences on politics, ideology and the economy, and it continues to influence our mindset, our way of thinking and interpreting the world.

This perception is certainly not new, and it has been discussed to some extent in Max Weber’s influential and ground-breaking book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, but it is both helpful and useful to gain a better, wider and more through understanding of religious beliefs as well as how and why they shape and impact world economies as well as current political realities. 

The outcome of this analysis is the inherent hope to overcome enmity and intolerance by focusing on more thorough and less biased knowledge and information while at the same time attain a clearer and more balanced perspective and understanding of the past.

Essentially religion, not unlike science or philosophy, attempts to make sense of the world, yet its focus is less on material aspects but rather on the unseen spiritual world connected to questions of meaning, existence, and death. 

Religion may be better suited for certain questions than others. When it comes to assumptions about the physical world, such as the age and shape of our planet, one ought to naturally turn to science for answers, but other areas that pertain to subjective as opposed to objective issues or phenomena, such as the existence of an afterlife or of spiritual entities are – at least under current standards and methods - outside of the scientific realm and inquiry, and hence, religion could help to fill in the blanks or connect the dots.

However, the history as well as the economics of religion are less interested in the truth or validity of religious concepts, doctrines or dogma, but religion is treated in an objective manner by examining and analyzing its effects and repercussions on other fields and areas, such as its evolution, influences, and development of and by economic, political, and social forces.

Previously, I discussed economist Iannaccone’s analysis of religious movements, particularly radical sects and cults and its relation to the economic club membership model. In a cost and benefit analysis, religion is deemed as valuable in terms of its products and services – the benefits - it can provide to its adherents minus the sacrifices – or costs – this may entail.

One’s choice of and identification with a certain religion would often be influenced and set in terms of overall fears and beliefs of the times. For instance, in the 50s and 60s, there was a growing movement towards rejection or revision of established norms and lifestyles; that could range from the hippie movement with its re-definition of moral and sexual values and fashion to a growing attraction for unorthodox movements and cults, whether it was Jim Jones’s Peoples Temple, Hindu ashrams with Indian gurus, or even membership within the Charles Manson cult. In modern times, discontent and instability has led to the practice and formation of Islamic or far-right terrorism with each feeding, preying and playing upon its members’ anxieties.

In each of the cases, people identify with and embrace services that these movements and religions offer them. In other words, people become consumers of a brand that personally appeals to them, and it may be part of a trend, a by-product or a paradigm of the times, but it is almost always driven and fueled by strong emotions. 

In fact, the more extreme the thoughts, ideas, and actions, the stronger and more daring one’s personal identification with a given marginal group will be, and it will be harder to wean them off from the movement in question or to change their mindset about the group’s actions and practices, no matter how immoral they are or seem to others.

Due to the high cost of associating with aggressive or unorthodox marginal groups, many will turn away and be turned off by them, but a minority will find it even more appealing and will embrace it ever more tightly. In each of these groups, whether it is Osho’s ashram of Rajneeshpuram as depicted in the documentary Wild Wild Country or the way the Manson family dressed and talked, they not only tend to physically and often mentally separate themselves from mainstream communities, they also tend to stand out more distinctly in their habits and customs and establish a closer bond with their fellow members even at the expense of immoral deeds and crime. 

In fact, the acceptance of their fellow members becomes more vital to them than that of other peers, friends or family members, hence turning them into more deeply entrenched members and followers of a given cult or sect.

For our purposes here, I would like to focus on two important aspects that both influenced religion and the economy both in direct and indirect ways, namely interest and property rights as well as literacy and individuality.

Interest and Property Rights

One of the most puzzling aspects of the history of religion has been regarding the matter of Islamic civilization. During the Middle Ages, while the West was shrouded in what is known as the dark ages of history and civilization, especially in relation to science and knowledge, Islam was thriving and flourishing in science. How and why was it that their advancement came to a halt with the West overtaking Muslim countries in terms of economic wealth and development after the Renaissance and more visibly during the Industrial Revolution?

Among the simplest answers to explain Islamic economic stagnation and decline relative to Christian countries was the issue regarding interest and property rights. Interest is a necessity when dealing with commercial and financial transactions, and it is often regulated and controlled by authorities. 

In the West, during Calvin’s lifetime, one was allowed to charge up to five percent interest, which was later, after his death in 1564, raised to ten percent by the Genevan government; anything above that amount was considered excessive and designated as usury and could be banned and punished by the Consistory. As a standard of comparison, credit cards nowadays may charge up to twenty percent, which shows how companies have been given relatively free reign in modern capitalist markets. 

Yet it was from the eleventh to the sixteenth century that Muslim regions excelled in scientific discovery and military prowess. This demonstrates that inherently Islam is not incompatible with nor opposed to advances in the pursuit of knowledge and science. The golden age of Islamic cultures was around the 11^th century during which Muslim scholars referred to, worked with and built upon discoveries of the Greek and Latin texts, especially when it came to the fields of medicine, mathematics, astronomy, and optics.

Nonetheless, the scientific production in Muslim countries came to a standstill partly due to the growth of religious elites that aimed to suppress independent thinking and judgment. In fact, schools shifted away from fostering critical thinking to embracing more passive and less innovative forms of knowledge, such as rote learning and memorization.

As a result, investigation and innovation were hampered as these new measures and methods stifled and stunted curiosity and research. This led to an intellectually rigid system that depended upon given and ready-made interpretations and that underscored the importance of obeying and submitting to the religious authorities. Disobedience in any form and whether justified or not was not only frowned upon but forbidden and prohibited and interpreted as a sinful act of aggression against the divine as well as an attack on universal social harmony.

In contrast, Western Europe was more conducive to the rise of capitalism since individualism was valued and promoted; that led not only to diversification and expansion of knowledge, research, and mass communication but also to a legal system that tended to reflect and inscribe those values, all of which were supported, fostered and propelled by the invention of the printing press.

These movements also had serious repercussions in terms of corporate law and governance. Muslim countries had declined economically since the Industrial Revolution because they were set back by rules and restrictions of inheritance, credit and insurance markets, and contract enforcement, and these regulations would restrain markets and hinder economic growth and development.

In Western Europe, however, legal systems were put in place that allowed and gave room for contracts, the enforcement of contract provisions, and property rights alongside a general absence of restrictions vis-à-vis credit and insurance. Interest within reasonable sets and parameters were not prohibited neither by law nor by the Scriptures, and it was only its more excessive from as usury that was discouraged.

All in all, this created an environment that helped businesses grow and flourish. As such, modern corporations can be considered a Western European concept and invention. In fact, corporations were not recognized in Islam, at least not until 1908. While non-Muslims were permitted to form corporations, this was only allowed under the legal systems of their own country abroad, which led to corporations that were then headquartered in Paris or London and not on Islamic lands.

As Christians and Jews were exempt from stifling local laws, they tended to outperform their Muslim counterparts in those Islamic countries. Since followers of other religions ended up gaining wealth and prosperity on Muslim soil, this was fodder for an underlying resentment against those groups and religions, which may, at least in part, explain why anti-Christian and antisemitic sentiments and movements tended to arise and expand in those given areas.

Moreover, unlike Islam, in Western societies even religion was not immune to social, political and legal changes and challenges; in fact, reforms and revolutions were to occur as a result of them. One notable case of rebellion came during the Reformation in which Martin Luther dissented and disagreed with established doctrine and dogma, and this gave way to the Protestant movement.

Literacy and Individuality

­­While the Catholic church insisted that ultimate authority was and would reside with the Church and its priests, with its highest representative the Pope considered and revered as God’s personal ambassador, Martin Luther would reject those views. In that sense, the Protestant movement was an act of rebellion that led to greater expressions of liberty as well as more freedom and flexibility.

The Protestants encouraged literacy since they wanted each, both male and female adherents to read the Holy Scriptures for themselves and to reach their own conclusions and interpretations; as such, schools were not only established but they were viewed and deemed as compulsory starting from a young age. 

In addition, the relationship with God shifted from the confines and premises of the church - both as a place of worship as well as an institution that would convey, transmit and often filter information - and gave way to a more personal relationship with God and His word via the Bible, which was then written and available in the vernacular and studied not only during service but also at schools and at the comfort of one's home. 

Moreover, Protestant beliefs also fostered traits like work ethic, honesty and thrift, which contributed greatly to the growth of economic prosperity during and after the Industrial Revolution. Protestantism also provided and extolled moral discipline and a psychological compulsion to work hard. In fact, individual intention and responsibility more than good works, compliance and charity, stood at the forefront and core of this religious belief system. Put differently, one was personally accountable not only for one’s actions to oneself and society but to God as well.

While economic failure could be viewed as not fulfilling one’s obligations as devotedly as possible, success and prosperity were considered a sign and blessing from God and fostered the belief that one was chosen and elected by divine providence and would be able to attain salvation in the afterlife. 

This devotion to making money through one’s “calling” - a divine ordinance from God regarding a person’s obligations in the material world - alongside fulfilling one’s vocation would later become more secularized and would be viewed as distinct and independent from religious beliefs and doctrine.

Interestingly, the compulsion to work has rested with us since then. This may come from an inherent aversion to idleness and of being viewed as lazy and unproductive. During Calvin’s times, this was a form of sin because when one was not busy, one had a higher risk of succumbing to temptations, bodily urges and physical pleasures. 

But by constantly working and being on the run, those sins could be left at bay. We have currently swallowed and ingrained those values by stating to ourselves both consciously and unconsciously that time is money and that more time could be spent making more money at the expense of a more balanced and satisfying life.

As a result, we tend to engage in overwork and try to amass more wealth than is necessary for a healthy life. At the same time, we often look down on those who are destitute, poor and living in poverty as we assume that it is due to their personal failings and shortcomings that they are and keep remaining in such a deplorable state. 

However, an analysis of the historical past and a better understanding of religion and its ties with social, political and more specifically economic structures can indeed be helpful to expose those underlying currents, beliefs and misperceptions that may have risen and accumulated over time. 

On Religion, Cults and the Economy: Book Review of The Wealth of Religions

Ever since reading Max Weber’s The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, I have grown very interested in the link between religion and economy. When I received the offer to review the book The Wealth of Religions: The Political Economy of Believing and Belonging by Rachel M. McCleary and Robert J. Barro published by Princeton University Press, I did not waver: I was more than thrilled to accept. This book is not only filled with a wealth of knowledge and information, but it is also very timely and relevant as religion continues to have significant effects and influence on our mindset, lifestyle, and actions as well as political choices and decisions.

In his influential and ground-breaking book, Max Weber claims that religious beliefs encourage and foster certain characteristics, such as work ethic, honesty, and thrift, which then contribute to economic growth. The driving idea is that if people believe that they can improve their chances of a better afterlife and attain salvation, i.e. that they gain access to heaven instead of ending up in hell, they would embrace moral values more willingly and dedicate themselves more fully to work and career. These behaviors are then increased with the belief that idleness is sin and that God is watching and keeping count and score of each person’s thoughts and actions.

Furthermore, since for many believers, economic progress and success in this life signified and meant that they were blessed by God, it propelled them to further action. Not only did they accumulate wealth on Earth, but they assumed that they would be similarly increasing their spiritual worth in heaven. It became a religious duty to follow one’s vocation and to do one’s daily work and tasks, whether as a provider and regulator of the family, in one’s job or in the vicinity of the home.

The second book that is of great importance and influence for the authors of this work is Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations, which looks at the world through an economic lens. This classic book is also in part responsible for the given title here, namely The Wealth of Religions, as religion is used and viewed as an economic item, commodity, and necessity. This also underscores that religion is not so much approached on its beliefs and dogmas, but rather it is analyzed on its effects and influences on wealth and economics.

When analyzing religion, researchers McCleary and Barro break it down into different belief categories: there are those who hold strong and steady religious beliefs, those who score moderately high on religious beliefs, the liminals, who sometimes embrace religion while at other times they do not do so, as well as the nones, who are not necessarily atheists – they may consider themselves spiritual or agnostic - but they do not have a clear association or relationship with a given religion.

In the United States, 70 % define themselves as strong believers, about 10 % never had a religious affiliation while 20% tend to be on the moderate liminal side. In fact, the number of nones is slated to be rising over the next years as most millennials tend to identify as such.

Nonetheless, there are certain trends and tendencies within the moderate groups of believers; for instance, some of them prefer to pick and choose aspects and elements of different religious beliefs, a kind of amalgam or mix and match that is referred to as religion à la carte. This belief system seems closest to my own modus operandi when it comes to religion: I do not fully commit to one religious group but appreciate and value parts of various religions across the board.

For someone like me who finds it difficult to embrace and swallow religious doctrines and ideology wholesale without the opportunity of doubting or questioning them, I find it rather surprising, if not disconcerting that a large majority of people not only embrace religion and its ritual practices but that they do so willingly and unwaveringly by accepting and adopting its imposed restrictions and limitations. This ranges from prescriptions or set rules on lifestyle, be it regarding the regulation of sexual activity, entertainment choices or personal appearance to certain restrictions on food items, such as pork, beef or meat in general to the practice of regularly scheduled prolonged fasting throughout the year.

Moreover, religion may also limit, if not completely ban certain beverages, such as alcohol and coffee. I often ask myself how and how come people accept to forgo such common practices and willingly implement into their daily lives such prohibitions, challenges and sacrifices that come with adhering to a given religion.

The economist Laurence Innacone proposes an interesting theory, which does not merely point to cases or instances of brainwashing, lack of will or simply following the herd or majority, but rather gives a plausible and reasonable explanation of the psychology behind adopting a religion. Surprisingly, if not shockingly, the mechanism and the psychological underpinnings of joining a major world religion and joining a radical sect and cult are not that different from each other. What they all have in common is that religious groups, regardless of ideology, essentially provide services for people to consume.

The stricter the goods, the more distinct the group becomes, and the more closely people shall identify with their own religion. For instance, certain types of clothing and looks, generally referred to as stigmata, make a group distinct and more easily identifiable, such as the Hare Krishna with their unique clothing and hairstyle, the Mormon businessman attire or Muslim women with their veiling. As a result, these religions manage to stand out and unequivocally communicate and profess their religion to others.

This adherence to and acceptance of rules and behaviors are similar to the “club model,” which tends to be inherently exclusive and restrictive; put differently, in order to become a member of and to pertain to a chosen club or religion, one needs to fulfill a number of prerequisites as well as engage and pass certain requirements. In fact, religious groups may endorse and enforce stricter requirements to ensure and ascertain that only a select few and dedicated individuals make the cut and become part of the group, a kind of elite carefully chosen from the crowd that are in turn given the distinction to represent the given religion.

While this process would instill pride and a sense of accomplishment within its chosen and accepted members, it would at the same time effectively discourage any “free riders” or less enthusiastic people from joining the group. In fact, requiring strict adherence and commitment only manage to elevate the religious experience of its members by creating a closer bond among the group and by increasing one’s feeling of separateness in terms of uniqueness, while at the same time providing personal satisfaction and a firm and strong sense of belonging and of being one and in harmony with the group.

Once one has managed to be inside a given group, acceptance by one’s fellow believers becomes paramount and more important than acceptance and approval by outsiders, i.e. those situated outside of the religious group, including family and friends. This was something I noticed in a Mormon church group I once attended at the behest of one of my classmates. People tended to dress and talk similarly, and they used to follow the doctrines of their church very closely, regardless of and immune to what non-affiliated friends or family members thought or may have thought about the issue.

For me, the idea of renouncing coffee seems unbearable and a huge sacrifice, but I was also alarmed about the lack of individuality, diversity, and openness on my first and only experience of their group. A place where everyone dresses, eats and talks the same is not an ideal place in my mind, but it was apparent that the church itself encouraged and fostered not only networking among its members but also dating and marriage within the group itself to enhance and strengthen the bonds with the religion and its doctrines.

Although ideologically different, the process between religious groups and cults and terrorist groups are not that different. Cults tend to physically - and later spiritually - separate individuals from their home and surroundings and undertake what is commonly referred to as brainwashing, a denial and rejection of one’s previous form and existence of life replaced with the full and unquestioning acceptance and adoption of the new lifestyle.

One’s focal point and indeed world have shifted and are now often solely and exclusively focused on the sect or cult itself; the chosen religious group provides and represents shelter, safety and clarity in the member’s mind as well as a promise of social networking, professional and spiritual growth as well as confidence and reassurance. In such cases, one’s religion often turns into an obsession, especially if outside voices and influences, such as access to the Internet, press and other viewpoints are being controlled and manipulated or have been silenced by the religious group.

In a similar vein, the Islamic rebel groups want to attract the most trustworthy and loyal prospective fighters; to identify them while minimizing defections, such radical groups make membership costly and difficult, especially by binding its members to strict religious codes that have no direct bearing on an individual’s fighting abilities. In return, members receive benefits, such as salary, material goods, insurance and medical care as well as support for one’s families, especially after instances of martyrdom.

When we see religion less as a set of philosophical and ideological beliefs but rather as a mixture of political conviction driven by economic need and necessity, we would see more similarities between major world religions and their radical offshoots. In either case, there are certain trade-offs when it comes to religion.

If we see religion as a rational choice, we may weigh the costs and benefits and then reach a decision whether a religion suits us more than others. In other words, we may choose or opt for a religion that brings us the most personal benefits, a kind of conscious utilitarian cost-benefit perspective. This would then work best in places where religion follows the market model and one can freely “shop” according to one’s personal needs and preferences.

However, matters are more complicated due to our surroundings. Some may grow up in families that raise them firmly steeped within a religious background and context while actively attending and participating in religious organizations, such as churches or schools. At the same time, some countries may even have a state religion that exclusively promotes and encourages its own respective brand.

Religious choice and practice are often related to and associated with whether an official state religion has been adopted or not and about 40 % of the world has an official state religion. As a rule, countries with high and low population tend not to have a state religion. When most people in a country belong to one and the same religion, the possibility of adopting it as a state religion is incidentally higher. This is the case in Scandinavian countries, such as Denmark and Sweden as well as in many Muslim countries around the world.

However, having a state religion is not automatically equated with higher religious engagement and participation. For instance, in the previously mentioned Scandinavian countries, religious activities are much lower than in their Muslim counterparts. Part of this is often due to the restrictions and regulations imposed upon the populace. This exists to a less restrictive extent with the existence of Blue Laws in which certain behaviors are discouraged or disallowed, such as the consumption of alcoholic beverages or shop closures during designated times and periods.

In many Muslim countries, in which religion has been tied more closely with political power and control, prohibitions are supported and enforced by the law. That would often lead to a complete ban of perceived secular activities, such as dancing at night clubs or the open and public consumption of alcohol; by reducing the choices and alternatives for entertainment within the populace, the residents will feel obliged to attend religious events and ceremonies.

Since there is a monopoly that is supported and reinforced by the state and there is no open market for religion, hence no other religion to choose from, the available resources and money of the government often go into non-secular education, which benefits that religious brand, hence shaping and modeling future adherents and members.

In the United States, there is no established state religion. Although American colonies used to have their own state religions, this practice was abandoned with the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution. Many Americans are still religious, but the country’s foundations and beliefs have favored the religion market model in which religion, like any other commodity, is allowed to compete with other religions, while education has officially attempted to remain neutral and secular in that regard.

As a result, the US has become an example of religious diversity, in which different sects and factions were given space to compete and to please their members with specific religious brands. Although this may equate religious offerings with selling brands of toothpaste, there is a certain truth to it as religions in the New World tended to be more fluid and flexible compared to more fixed and traditional countries and societies around the world.

According to the secularization hypothesis, an increase in income, education, urbanization, and life expectancy would lead to a decrease in religiousness both on an individual as well as state level. Although there is no clear indication that education reduces religiosity, there is evidence that as a country becomes richer, participation in religious activities as well as engagement in personal prayer tend to decrease.

In fact, economic development has often been tied to religious practices. When societies moved away from agriculture to the greater security of advanced, urbanized economies, religion did not play such an important role in people’s daily lives. This occurred mainly for two reasons. One, with greater economic security, people do not need to turn to supernatural powers and beings for assurance. In agriculture and agricultural societies, farmers are more vulnerable to natural disasters, floods, and droughts that may lead to the destruction of crops and harvests; hence, they would embrace religion for comfort and security. Even in modern times, rural societies tend to be more religious than their urban counterparts.

Secondly, as people lack a diversity of entertainment options, such as cinema, restaurants, night clubs and bars, they would spend their leisure time often in religious programs and activities. In the city, on the other hand, people would often be occupied and choose other preferred forms of spending their time at the expense of religious participation. Also, time becomes a precious commodity in urban areas as there are more commitments, tasks and chores, while in rural societies, people may have a more leisurely-paced lifestyle with fewer options and more time to spare.

Finally, being in a more diverse and active environment in which different nationalities, cultures and religions interact with each other, more flexible and more inclusive viewpoints are often adopted. People in urban settings tend to be more tolerant and accepting of different norms and practices than in rural settings where there is a general lack of opportunity to engage with people from different backgrounds and experiences.

This divide between rural and urban areas may be a decisive factor why the US still embraces religion despite its overall economic advances. It may also be the main reason why the country is segregated and divided on various issues finding itself at an important and decisive crossroad. Part of this may be generational, but another part is related to the growth of ethnic minorities; they are effectively changing the make-up and fabric of the country, and shall, alongside the millennials, affect and influence the outlook of the country.

The Wealth of Religions: The Political Economy of Believing and Belonging by Rachel M. McCleary and Robert J. Barro has been an eye-opening experience for me, while also providing stimulating information and food for thought. There are connections I had not previously seen between economics and religion, but it is important to acknowledge and be aware of this potential link and association. In fact, there are so many more interesting facts and tidbits that I have not been able to discuss here in this review, but I shall follow them up with an article on the history of religion, while trying to shed more light onto the connection between religion, education, and capitalism.