What is religion?

[FireDragon76]

Reading an op-ed recently about an upcoming Supreme Court case involving employees of religious institutions got me thinking about exactly we mean by "religion":

The Supreme Court will hear 2 major cases about when religious schools can ignore civil rights laws

It occurs to me this will be more pertinent in the future as Christianity declines and other spiritual or religious institutions occupy more prominence. The Founding Fathers had a Protestant background and tend to define religious and secular spaces using categories derived from the Reformation, specifically the Reformed tradition, even the idea of "minister" is a concept derived from the magisterial Protestant tradition.

The latest previous case I could find where the Supreme Court commented on the nature of religion was Torasco vs. Watkins in the early 60's. Justice Black stated that religion can include non-theistic groups such as secular humanists or ethical societies.

Torcaso v. Watkins - Wikipedia

 

[dzheremi]

These are interesting cases. A good friend of mine who is openly atheist worked for a few years at the Catholic school in my home town, first in the computer lab and later as a coordinator of the after-school program (from what I understand, she basically watched over the room and made sure all the kids got picked up by their parents or guardians). She said she was never required to teach anything on religion, and she did not engage the topic with the children. That was in other classes, from what I understand. (And she only stopped working there because she and her husband had a child.)

Is someone like that really a 'minister' by any stretch of the imagination? I don't think so, and I don't think most people would think so either. So to me the question is less "what is religion" but rather "who counts as a representative of a religion." And if I understand the linked articles correctly (thanks for providing those), it's pretty clear that the government has ruled that it is the sole prerogative of the institution in question to decide that. The government can't do it without violating the establishment clause. I'm pretty big on the establishment clause myself (I don't want to live in a theocracy any more than most other people in the west do), so I think this is a good thing.

 

[FireDragon76]

Here's a good analysis I found by a Buddhist psychotherapist, Dr. Ira Helderman, who himself has dealt with the issue of what is, and isn't religious about something like Buddhism:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...itions/201909/the-crusade-against-mindfulness

Advocates for the use of mindfulness and yoga practices in public schools or healthcare alternate their discursive tactics in the above manner to make them more or less attractive depending on the audience. And attractive they certainly have become. In her piece, Brown claims that mindfulness and yoga practices are both “popular and divisive.” They are undoubtedly popular—which is to say that, for the vast majority of people, they are not divisive at all. Yoga and Pilates classes are seemingly something nearly every American can get behind. This includes conservative Christian communities, in which many people follow a worship service by attending a yoga class or using a meditation app on their phone. Many of these folks believe that they are engaged in forms of exercise that are in no way dissonant with their religious identities.

But this may be precisely what is so anxiety-inducing to groups like the ACLJ or Alliance Defending Freedom (another that has supported these lawsuits). These organizations promote the idea that “Christian America” is under siege from all sides—by Harry Potter, secular humanism, and acupuncture. They warn unsuspecting Christians to inoculate themselves from the infection of cultural pollution, to remain hypervigilant against the unwanted “spiritual experiences” some report are produced by even “secularized” mindfulness and yoga practices.

The popularity of mindfulness and yoga may be precisely what makes them so threatening to some of their opponents; to some, anything that competes with Biblical authority can become an “idol.” Lawsuits against the use of yoga and mindfulness practices are just one response to the conviction that “Christian America”is under siege, part of a larger constellation of litigation that includes the defense of wedding cake bakers’ “religious rights” to discriminate against the LGBT community. Religious liberty laws once used to protect religious minorities are now often wielded to suppress their influence over U.S. culture.

Dr. Heldermen really seems to hit the nail on the head in the bolded part. What we are seeing isn't the courts being used to defend religious minorities from persecution, but a powerful religious group attempting to suppress dissenting and alternative perspectives. It's simply a repeat of the Intelligent Design controversies in that respect.

These are interesting cases. A good friend of mine who is openly atheist worked for a few years at the Catholic school in my home town, first in the computer lab and later as a coordinator of the after-school program (from what I understand, she basically watched over the room and made sure all the kids got picked up by their parents or guardians). She said she was never required to teach anything on religion, and she did not engage the topic with the children. That was in other classes, from what I understand. (And she only stopped working there because she and her husband had a child.)

Is someone like that really a 'minister' by any stretch of the imagination? I don't think so, and I don't think most people would think so either. So to me the question is less "what is religion" but rather "who counts as a representative of a religion." And if I understand the linked articles correctly (thanks for providing those), it's pretty clear that the government has ruled that it is the sole prerogative of the institution in question to decide that. The government can't do it without violating the establishment clause. I'm pretty big on the establishment clause myself (I don't want to live in a theocracy any more than most other people in the west do), so I think this is a good thing.

It's clever how the Southern Baptists encouraged ministries to send employees to religious education so they could get past state laws barring discrimination against gay and trans employees.

This just shows again how powerful religious institutions attempt to manipulate laws that were meant to protect minority religions, similar to what Dr. Ira Helderman pointed out in that op-ed in Psychology Today I linked to. Given that the Southern Baptists have been called the "Vatican of the South", it's hard to see how they are being unjustly victimized.

 

[Silmarien]

It occurs to me this will be more pertinent in the future as Christianity declines and other spiritual or religious institutions occupy more prominence. The Founding Fathers had a Protestant background and tend to define religious and secular spaces using categories derived from the Reformation, specifically the Reformed tradition, even the idea of "minister" is a concept derived from the magisterial Protestant tradition.

Why would you expect it to become a more prominent issue because of the existence of other religious traditions? I'd imagine that an Islamic or Hindu school would have identical issues differentiating between teachers involved in religious instruction and those that solely address secular subjects. The only sort of weird situation I can imagine would involve religious versus secular versions of Eastern traditions--a genuine Hindu school compared to a New Age one that incorporates just enough Indian ideas to try to play fast and loose with the ministerial exception.

I think the best option here might be for the ministerial exception to only apply when actual religious education was a job requirement for the position in the first place. Less ambiguity at the beginning, fewer problems. (Of course, then there will be issues about whether religious education was actually necessary for the job, and I'm not sure if that would make for a more or less complicated court case.)

 

[FireDragon76]

Why would you expect it to become a more prominent issue because of the existence of other religious traditions?

As Dr. Helderman briefly points out in that article, Buddhists, for example, aren't used to necessarily thinking of Buddhism as intrinsically religious. Potentially only a small part of Buddhism involves what a Protestant would think of as religion- veneration of the Buddha, or Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, or Buddhist funeral observances. So when the Dalai Lama says Buddhism is a "science of mind", he isn't necessarily being disingenuous.

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm going to have to check out this author, Winnifred Sullivan, a law and religion scholar. Her conclusion that religious freedom is now a slogan for intolerance sounds fascinating to contemplate, and definitely not a perspective that is widely discussed:

https://www.amazon.com/Impossibilit...ligious+Freedom&qid=1576777509&s=books&sr=1-1

 

[Silmarien]

As Dr. Helderman briefly points out in that article, Buddhists, for example, aren't used to necessarily thinking of Buddhism as intrinsically religious. Potentially only a small part of Buddhism involves what a Protestant would think of as religion- veneration of the Buddha, or Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, or Buddhist funeral observances. So when the Dalai Lama says Buddhism is a "science of mind", he isn't necessarily being disingenuous.

Why would this cause problems with the question of civil rights, though? If a Buddhist school doesn't consider itself intrinsically religious, then it cannot make use of the ministerial exception.

 

[FireDragon76]

These are interesting cases. A good friend of mine who is openly atheist worked for a few years at the Catholic school in my home town, first in the computer lab and later as a coordinator of the after-school program (from what I understand, she basically watched over the room and made sure all the kids got picked up by their parents or guardians). She said she was never required to teach anything on religion, and she did not engage the topic with the children. That was in other classes, from what I understand. (And she only stopped working there because she and her husband had a child.)

Is someone like that really a 'minister' by any stretch of the imagination? I don't think so, and I don't think most people would think so either. So to me the question is less "what is religion" but rather "who counts as a representative of a religion." And if I understand the linked articles correctly (thanks for providing those), it's pretty clear that the government has ruled that it is the sole prerogative of the institution in question to decide that. The government can't do it without violating the establishment clause. I'm pretty big on the establishment clause myself (I don't want to live in a theocracy any more than most other people in the west do), so I think this is a good thing.

I could see flooding the courts with religious objections as eventually having a negative effect on public religiosity. Similar to how the European Wars of Religion had a negative impact. People will tired of battling over special privileges for perceived in-groups at the expense of broader human rights.

As Winnifred Sullivan points out in the beginning of her book, "forsaking religious freedom as a legally enforceable right might enable greater equality among persons and greater clarity and self-determination for religious individuals and communities."

An Atheist and “The Impossibility of Religious Freedom”

 

[Halbhh]

Reading an op-ed recently about an upcoming Supreme Court case involving employees of religious institutions got me thinking about exactly we mean by "religion":

The Supreme Court will hear 2 major cases about when religious schools can ignore civil rights laws

It occurs to me this will be more pertinent in the future as Christianity declines and other spiritual or religious institutions occupy more prominence. The Founding Fathers had a Protestant background and tend to define religious and secular spaces using categories derived from the Reformation, specifically the Reformed tradition, even the idea of "minister" is a concept derived from the magisterial Protestant tradition.

The latest previous case I could find where the Supreme Court commented on the nature of religion was Torasco vs. Watkins in the early 60's. Justice Black stated that religion can include non-theistic groups such as secular humanists or ethical societies.

Torcaso v. Watkins - Wikipedia

It was hard to figure out what you are discussing, except indirectly. However, this sentence was interesting to me:
The Founding Fathers had a Protestant background and tend to define religious and secular spaces using categories derived from the Reformation -- this made me wonder about examples, since I enjoy reading some of the stuff they wrote back then, various excerpts, long and short. Just for my own enjoyment, do you have an example of this (maybe a link?). I like to try to get into their heads, to the limited extent we can.

 

[FireDragon76]

It was hard to figure out what you are discussing, except indirectly. However, this sentence was interesting to me:
The Founding Fathers had a Protestant background and tend to define religious and secular spaces using categories derived from the Reformation -- this made me wonder about examples, since I enjoy reading some of the stuff they wrote back then, various excerpts, long and short. Just for my own enjoyment, do you have an example of this (maybe a link?). I like to try to get into their heads, to the limited extent we can.

The Two Kingdoms doctrine was normative for both Lutheran and Reformed protestants prior to the late 19th century, and generally sets the bounds for defining what is specifically religious and what is secular. Things pertaining to the Gospel are intrinsically religious, whereas those that don't are secular.

 

[Silmarien]

As Winnifred Sullivan points out in the beginning of her book, "forsaking religious freedom as a legally enforceable right might enable greater equality among persons and greater clarity and self-determination for religious individuals and communities."

That is not actually what has happened in any state that has actually forsaken religious freedom as a legally enforceable right, though. It isn't as if we didn't have a long history of persecution of religious minorities throughout the world.

I think the American focus on religious freedom is quite constructive. In countries that are less absolutist about it, indigenous groups would not be permitted to use hallucinogens in religious rituals.

 

[FireDragon76]

That is not actually what has happened in any state that has actually forsaken religious freedom as a legally enforceable right, though. It isn't as if we didn't have a long history of persecution of religious minorities throughout the world.

I think the American focus on religious freedom is quite constructive. In countries that are less absolutist about it, indigenous groups would not be permitted to use hallucinogens in religious rituals.

But if I'm following Sullivan correctly, those communities might be better served by focusing on tribal sovereignty or broader rights to consume hallucinogens in general. It is possible that in the future "religious freedom" laws might bring an end to their way of life if it means their children are effectively assimilated into a Christian culture due to the pervasive privileging of Christian constructions of religion.

 

[Silmarien]

But if I'm following Sullivan correctly, those communities might be better served by focusing on tribal sovereignty or broader rights to consume hallucinogens in general. It is possible that in the future "religious freedom" laws might bring an end to their way of life if it means their children are effectively assimilated into a Christian culture due to the pervasive privileging of Christian constructions of religion.

I would be deeply skeptical of using tribal sovereignty as a stand-in for religious liberty. It wouldn't apply to indigenous immigrants from Latin America or other religions who would not have sovereign status in this country. The underlying issue here is freedom for all residents in religious matters, not special privileges for some.

I don't see Christian constructions of religion as being privileged in a meaningful way. Sure, the Christian right might like to think that religious freedom only applies to them, but there's a ton of push-back against that.

 

[zippy2006]

Religious freedom and protection of minority rights are separate issues with separate legislation. They are related, but neither can rely on the other for its welfare.

 

[FireDragon76]

I would be deeply skeptical of using tribal sovereignty as a stand-in for religious liberty. It wouldn't apply to indigenous immigrants from Latin America or other religions who would not have sovereign status in this country. The underlying issue here is freedom for all residents in religious matters, not special privileges for some.

I don't see Christian constructions of religion as being privileged in a meaningful way. Sure, the Christian right might like to think that religious freedom only applies to them, but there's a ton of push-back against that.

My skepticism is that a Christian dominated society can fairly evaluate the beliefs of another religion to be able to judge what is, and is not, religious.

 

[Silmarien]

My skepticism is that a Christian dominated society can fairly evaluate the beliefs of another religion to be able to judge what is, and is not, religious.

Well, it isn't as if there are no examples of modern governments that refuse to make any judgments on what is and is not religious: this is how the French system works, for one, and they've ended up with what certainly appear to be religiously-motivated clothing bans because of it.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Reading an op-ed recently about an upcoming Supreme Court case involving employees of religious institutions got me thinking about exactly we mean by "religion":

We are apparently such poor grammarians now that we don't consider grammar important when reading the constitution. I'm not accusing you of that. Many people however that read the first amendment opine that it is meant to prevent the government from establishing an official religion.

The text of the first amendment is:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That word 'establishment' is a noun, not a verb. What's being said is that the Congress not only cannot establish a religion, it cannot make any law in regards to an already established religion. This leaves the sole authority for determining and establishing religions to the people themselves (the tenth amendment makes it clear that the barring of authority leaves all decisions to the people or the states).

By definition, that also means that the courts can't establish or determine what religion is either since 1) they were not given such power by the constitution and 2) the power was removed from federal consideration by the 1st and 10th amendments.

As an aside I really like Jame's definition of what religion is.

"Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."

 

[FireDragon76]

We are apparently such poor grammarians now that we don't consider grammar important when reading the constitution. I'm not accusing you of that. Many people however that read the first amendment opine that it is meant to prevent the government from establishing an official religion.

The text of the first amendment is:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That word 'establishment' is a noun, not a verb. What's being said is that the Congress not only cannot establish a religion, it cannot make any law in regards to an already established religion. This leaves the sole authority for determining and establishing religions to the people themselves (the tenth amendment makes it clear that the barring of authority leaves all decisions to the people or the states).

By definition, that also means that the courts can't establish or determine what religion is either since 1) they were not given such power by the constitution and 2) the power was removed from federal consideration by the 1st and 10th amendments.

If the courts can't determine what religion is, how can they make any judgments about it that are justified?

 

[Al Touthentop]

If the courts can't determine what religion is, how can they make any judgments about it that are justified?

Great question. They can't by what I'm reading. That they have isn't proof that the constitution grants them this authority, only that they have assumed that authority without explicit grant of power.

Now one might argue that the state courts were not prevented such judgement and I might even agree with that. But since there can be no federal legislative remarks on religion - "no law" is a pretty plain statement - all authority passes to the states or people by the later proclamation of the tenth amendment. Perhaps that includes their courts unless their own constitutions reserve such authority to the people themselves.

 

[FireDragon76]

Great question. They can't by what I'm reading. That they have isn't proof that the constitution grants them this authority, only that they have assumed that authority without explicit grant of power.

Now one might argue that the state courts were not prevented such judgement and I might even agree with that. But since there can be no federal legislative remarks on religion - "no law" is a pretty plain statement - all authority passes to the states or people by the later proclamation of the tenth amendment. Perhaps that includes their courts unless their own constitutions reserve such authority to the people themselves.

If the courts can't define religion... that seems to suggest a bleak future for religious discourse in public.

Also, there's a whole tradition of settled case law that says that it's unlawful for the federal government or states to engage in religious tests... yet it seems like what a "religious test" is, is up in the air if we can't even define what a religion is. In the absence of a definition, it comes down to judges discretion, most of whom are going to be Christians or Jewish.