May 6, 2011
A Paranormalogy Commentary:
Violating the 13th Amendment Paranormal Style
By
Reverend Sherrie James
I had a discussion recently with a colleague. She was talking
about the requirements by many historical sites and inns that
ghosts hunters and paranormal investigators must sign
documentation promising that they will not choose to cleanse,
attempt to cross over, or to assist ghosts in any form in
leaving the premises. Being a minister who does her best to
assist any living or dead human who asks for help, I found that
problematic and rather unethical.
I can understand the sites' points of view though. Many
locations are businesses and exist to make money. If they have
no ghosts, the paranormal teams and individuals will stop
getting evidence. Many people will stop coming to their
locations. A historical site often depends on the number of
visitors and publicity to literally exist. Many locations get
new visitors based solely on the possibility of seeing or making
a contact with a ghost or a spirit. If the ghosts leave, the
historical site suffers. If the site loses one of its biggest
tourist attractions, it may have to close down. These sites may
be attempting to preserve history by preserving their historical
ghosts.
But are these sites actually violating the 13th Amendment of the
Constitution of the United States with this requirement?
This anti-slavery and involuntary service amendment states the
following: "Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary
servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party
shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United
States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation."
I know that some people are rolling their eyes or chuckling at
this point, but I would invite you to actually think about this.
By denying the ghosts assistance and the opportunity to
transition in whatever form that works for them, are these sites
not in fact enslaving certain ghosts? (We will get into the
freedom of religion debate at another time even though it
mirrors this same argument.) In the very least, are these sites
not forcing certain ghosts to remain perpetually as their
servants? I recognize this as a mote point with residual haunts.
A residual haunt is more like a time loop.
No interaction or awareness seems possible or that we can detect
and perceive at this time. Just a repeated and perpetual motion
of action or event occurs. If the ghost involved has total free
will, this also is a mote point in the slavery and involuntary
servitude argument.
Some people believe that many ghosts and spirits can travel
where they wish. They can follow investigators home. They can
hitch rides in cars. These ghosts are free to go wherever they
want and do what they choose within their individual abilities
and limitations. This could include the possibility of the ghost
finding someone on his or her own to help him or her to
transition if he or she needed assistance.
But what of the ghosts who appear to be aware and interactive,
but are unable to go where they want? These ghosts may be
considered to be mentally or metaphysically challenged. They
might be considered to be suffering from an unknown and not
understood phobia that may be similar in ways to agoraphobia
(the fear of open spaces, crowds or uncontrolled social
conditions). What of the ghosts who seem to be attached to
places or to objects almost in an obsessive/compulsive fashion?
These ghosts may want to leave but they cannot or believe that
they cannot. Do these ghosts have any rights? Should these
ghosts be protected under the 13th Amendment?
Before you judge, consider this example: An African-American
slave dies, but remains attached to a historical house for an
unknown reason. She is aware of what is going on around her and
even attempts to interact. She is so sad and visitors often get
EVPs of a female crying out, "Help me!Ó" She would love to be
freed to move on to a better destination but she simply does not
know how. Because of the historical site's requirements of
refusing to allow anyone to assist her, she is forced to do the
current master of the property's bidding, which is to remain.
She is being forced against her will to haunt the site for years
to come and perhaps for all eternity without the possibility of
ever gaining her freedom because she is denied the opportunity
to be offered assistance. In essence, she remains a slave
despite the 13th Amendment. If you were her great-great
granddaughter, would you be OK with that?
Should anyone have a right to deny any human, living or dead,
the right to be helped or to be freed, especially when it is
requested?
Now, consider this: You find yourself in this exact same
condition when you die. Do you think that you should have the
right to transition? What if you cannot figure out how to do
that on your own? Do you think that anyone should have the right
to refuse to allow you to be assisted if you wanted and needed
help? (Sigh.) Ah, but if this situation were merely that
complicatedly simple!
Not everyone feels, believes or thinks the same about ghosts.
Some people do not care about the dead or even believe in the
existence of ghosts. Other people hold various levels of respect
for ghosts and spirits. Certain individuals claim all spirits
are actually demons and should be exorcised. A person may feel
that he or she does not know enough about ghosts to make any
informed decision. For yet others, it must remain only about the
bottom line in order to preserve the site or business for future
generations. Since those who are mediums, those who conduct
cleanings, and/or those who act as exorcists vary so widely in
their methods and in what they believe happens to the ghosts
during their rituals, many owners or directors of sites might be
confused as to what should be allowed to be done in permitting
the ghosts to be assisted. Thus the answer apparently has become
for many locations that it is simpler just to refuse to allow
any assistance at all to be allowed to take place. But again, is
that a violation of the 13th Amendment? So many additional
questions flash into speculative focus when considering this
topic. Should anyone have the right to attempt to force a ghost
to leave against his or her wills? Is that not as bad as forcing
them to stay? In some cases, the owners of the properties may
actually be protecting the ghosts. Would some individuals who
would try to cleans or exorcize the property actually be
enslaving or harming the ghosts by acting against the ghosts'
will to stay? In addition, should the owners or directors be
forced to allow a ritual on their property for which they might
not approve or believe in? What of the property owners' rights?
I do not want to be one of those people who brings up a
complicated issue just to muddy the waters.
Thus I will propose one possible solution. At least once a year,
historical sites and haunted businesses should allow an
Assistance Service for any ghosts on the premises. The owner or
director of the site evaluates the methods to be used during the
service to make sure the rights of the ghosts will be respected
and that any ghost has the invitation to transition but no one
will be forcing him or her to leave. Leaders of the Assistance
Service should rotate yearly between various clergy and
spiritual leaders to allow the possibility of whatever faith
system the ghost or spirit may resonate with to be presented. In
this way, at least once a year, any ghost present has the
possible possibility of transitioning to a better place. This
Assistance Service could be a very positive and even profitable
compromise.
The historical site or business can get free advertising by
publicizing the event as a type of memorial/transition service
and inviting the public to attend. Perhaps past owners of the
property or their descendents could be invited to attend to
offer freedom to whoever may be there. Out of the respect for
the dead, the site also might option to make it a private
service. Then the site could put out a press release about it,
after or before the fact, as positive publicity about how the
site respects the dead. In addition, the reality is that even
with the service, nothing may change. (Well, except for the
perception of the site by people who actually care about the
ethical treatment of ghosts and who do not view them as just
casual entertainment and venues for profitable slavery.) Again,
this Assistance Service should not affect residual haunts. And
again, some ghosts may choose to stay. What is important is that
those ghosts who desire it will have an opportunity to
experience their freedom and to move on, if they so desire.
These sites need to recognize this as a healthy thing because
hurting ghosts can turn into angry ghosts who can attempt to
harm people and potentially get the sites sued. The other thing
is that when a ghost vacates a site, the speculation is that
other ghosts may move in. These new ghosts may be even more
active than the previous spirits, which could prove to be a
moneymaker for the site. The expectation would be that an
Assistance Service and the recognition of the 13th Amendment by
paranormal locations would be a win-win situation for both the
living and the dead.
So are ghosts actually protected under the 13th Amendment? I
have no idea. That is a playful debate for lawyers. What I do
know is that as this new science of
Paranormalogy (a term
that I have coined to describe the study of all aspects of the
paranormal. This includes not only its scientific and
metaphysical components, but the study of the paranormal's
sociological, ethical, and cultural impact) emerges that more
ethical, religious and legal considerations will continue to
arise.