What is religion?

[Al Touthentop]

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

I don't know about that. You seem to be implying that the only good public discourse is one in which government is involved. As long as no person has coercive authority over another, then public debate about religion is as safe as safe can be. Much safer than when some government official comes in and says, "I'm sorry but your religion is not on our approved list."

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.

Yes! The feds have no authority to even test if a religion is valid. That is up to the states or the people. Whenever the feds have stepped in to try and define religion, and this is no more evident than the tax laws, they have usurped authority from the people.

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't know about that. You seem to be implying that the only good public discourse is one in which government is involved. As long as no person has coercive authority over another, then public debate about religion is as safe as safe can be. Much safer than when some government official comes in and says, "I'm sorry but your religion is not on our approved list."

I'm not thinking of anything so draconian. I just want a definition of what religion actually is when hearing cases concerning religious liberty. If we don't even know what religion is, it's meaningless to talk of "religious freedom".

Yes! The feds have no authority to even test if a religion is valid. That is up to the states or the people. Whenever the feds have stepped in to try and define religion, and this is no more evident than the tax laws, they have usurped authority from the people.

States can't have religious tests, either. That was settled in Torasco vs. Watkins, among other things. It is also explicitly forbidden by the US Constitution, Article VI, Clause 3.

 

[jahel]

I would think simply faith is religion, knowing God is experiencing religion tangibly.
It's not something that can be reduced to dogma because it's essential to experience imo.

“The heart is deceitful above all things, and beyond cure. Who can understand it?”

“And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.”

“Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”

“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.”

“love your neighbor as yourself.”

Love for God leads to tangible action. People who love the one true God will begin to see themselves as less important and will put the needs of others ahead of their own. They will freely sacrifice time, talent, energy, and money to care for those around them who need help, whether spiritually or materially. And they do it not because they feel a need to earn God’s approval or pay him back for what he has done in their lives, but simply because they want to; they feel compelled by their love for the Lord.

This is the essence of true religion.

The pursuit of true religion—a life lived out of thankfulness for what God has done for us in sending Jesus Christ to live perfectly, to die for our sins, and to rise from death to give us the promise of eternal life—brings glory and praise to God. A life lived in relationship with God is what we are called to pursue if we put our faith in Jesus Christ.

A Deeper Look at What the Bible Says about Religion

 

[jayem]

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.

Not exactly. At least not since the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. This is Section 1:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What this essentially means is that the Constitutional rights that Congress cannot abridge, cannot be abridged by any state. Whatever is forbidden to the federal government by the Bill of Rights, is also forbidden to the states. Perhaps a case could be made that Article 6, Clause 2 (the Supremacy Clause) had implied this all along:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

But this wasn't always interpreted strictly. At least for a while, some states had laws recognizing an official state religion. These old establishment laws may still be on the books, but after the 14th Amendment, they are null and void.

 

[ruthiesea]

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

Although I have not read Sullivan I agree with the idea that religious freedom too often means that you are entitled to my religion. When the Puritans came North America it wasn’t, as it is so often touted, for religious freedom, but for their religious freedom. They were intolerant of others, especially Roman Catholics.

 

[ruthiesea]

I'm not thinking of anything so draconian. I just want a definition of what religion actually is when hearing cases concerning religious liberty. If we don't even know what religion is, it's meaningless to talk of "religious freedom".



States can't have religious tests, either. That was settled in Torasco vs. Watkins, among other things. It is also explicitly forbidden by the US Constitution, Article VI, Clause 3.

The problem with the government, on any level, not having a definition for religion is when it comes to laws about discrimination based on religion being illegal (except for some businesses) and taxation. For example, here in Clearwater Scientology own quite a bit of valuable property for which they do not pay taxes. Is Scientology a religion? To some it is and to others it isn’t.

 

[Al Touthentop]

The problem with the government, on any level, not having a definition for religion is when it comes to laws about discrimination based on religion being illegal (except for some businesses) and taxation. For example, here in Clearwater Scientology own quite a bit of valuable property for which they do not pay taxes. Is Scientology a religion? To some it is and to others it isn’t.

I'm fine with any definition that gives the government less taxes.