17
Feb 17

IANAL*

Search back through previous entries and you will see that I have long maintained that there are a lot of activities that people engage in that have a religious component (there are more). However, to use one of the great cries of any student of philosophy or religion, "DEFINE YOUR TERMS!"

What is Religion? I mean in a legal and Protected-by-the-first-amendment-sense.
*I am not a lawyer.

Turns out that religion is a lot like pornography, you are supposed to know it when you see it.

In 1890 the US Supreme Court said "“[T]he term ‘religion’ has reference to one’s views of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character, and of obedience to his will.” in Davis v. Benson. However, this definition would change in recognition of non-theistic faiths. In 1961 the Court said that goverment could not aid “those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.” In a footnote the Court clarified that this principle extended to “religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God … Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.” In 1965 when deciding on a conscientious objector status the Court asked whether "a given belief that is sincere and meaningful occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God of one who clearly qualifies for the exemption. Where such beliefs have parallel positions in the lives of their respective holders we cannot say that one is ‘in relation to a Supreme Being’ and the other is not.” Five years later it said individuals could be denied exemption only if “those beliefs are not deeply held and those whose objection to war does not rest at all upon moral, ethical, or religious principle but instead rests solely upon consideration of policy, pragmatism, or expediency.”

However, those rulings were very expansive, making possible - it would seem - religions of one. Thus in 1972, the majority opinion in Wisconsin v. Yoder indicated that the free-exercise clause applied only to “a ‘religious’ belief or practice,” and “the very concept of ordered liberty precludes allowing every person to make his own standards on matters of conduct in which society as a whole has important interests.”

The 1981 case Thomas v. Review Board Chief Justice Warren Burger cautiously stated, “[o]nly beliefs rooted in religion are given special protection to the exercise of religion.”

That is just to name a few cases in which the definition of religion comes into play. Not very helpful. The IRS, on the other hand, has a very clear set of criteria for what constitutes a church.

The IRS criteria are:
a distinct legal existence,
a recognized creed and form of worship,
a definite and distinct ecclesiastical government,
a formal code of doctrine and discipline
a distinct religious history,
a membership not associated with any other church or denomination,
an organization of ordained ministers,
ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed studies,
a literature of its own,
established places of worship,
regular congregations,
regular religious services,
Sunday schools for religious instruction of the young,
school for the preparation of its ministers.

Those criteria can be destroyed by any one with the smallest bit of legal insight. For example the very Pilgrims we venerate in our Thanksgiving plays, the Plymouth Brethren, "oppose formalism in worship and have no liturgy." In fact I would argue that the definitions given here "favor large, well-established, high or formal churches and discriminate against small, new, unconventional, informal or low churches." To the point of being worthless.

This all comes up, of course, because of the so-called War on Religion that certain elements in the US claim is going on. When in reality they feel that there cultural definitions are being tested and they do not like it.

Government, law, and religion are poor bedfellows. Attempting to use the law to give your religious beliefs protection is a bad idea. Any definitions you give to protect yourself short of out right religious tests or oaths of allegiance can be circumvented to allow the very thing you are trying to prevent. Mandating religious tests and oaths of allegiance by a government gives it the power to define faith and its practice. Religion ceases to be about faith, spirituality, morality, or anything else and becomes merely a tool for control.

Then again, those who advocate such are often merely tools themselves.

11
Nov 16

The day the world changed

November 8th changed the world.

In 392.

That was the day Theodosius the First, last emperor of a united Roman Empire) declared Nicene Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. Christianity had already become the official religion with the rise of Constantine in 325. It was Constantine that had facilitated the Nicene Council and attempted to organize the previously fractious Christianity. This was a follow up to previous edicts regarding the official state religion. The difference is that up to this point Theodosius had been one of several competing powers in the Empire. 392 saw his consolidation of power and his unquestioned authority.

What it meant:
Theodosius' main targets were the Arians. The Arians taught that Jesus was divine like God but not of the same substance as God the Creator. Nicene Christianity held that Jesus was of the same substance as God. Its a refined argument but it can be grossly simplified like this: Nicene Christianity teaches that Jesus was always God and always existed, Arianism teaches that Jesus was created in a specific point in time. Overall the "Theodosian Decrees" removed all non-Nicene Christians from church office and abolished the last remaining expressions of Roman religion by making its holidays into workdays, banned blood sacrifices, closed Roman temples, outlawing fortune telling and witchcraft, disbanded the Vestal Virgins, and banned the Olympics. During his reign the Oracle of Delphi was destroyed as was the Alexandrian Serapeum, the "daughter" of the famous Library of Alexandria.

This act also gave rise to what would become the Catholic Church and the creation of a single Bible in Latin (begun in 385 while Theodosius was in power).

Essentially the history of Christianity and thus Europe and everything it touched was shaped by Theodosius.

Theodosius death was also the death of Rome. His empire was split between his two sons to eventually become two empires. This in turn lead eventually to the cultural division between Western and Eastern Christianity and thus to the eventual split between the Catholic and Orthodox churches 600 years later.

State Religions, official and otherwise, are always a bad idea.

23
Oct 14

Everybody is Somebody's Hitler

http://www.al.com/living/index.ssf/2014/10/why_do_people_want_to_protest.html

I was exited when I heard the Dalai Lama was coming to Birmingham, Alabama.  Not only is it good as it may spark discussions on religion and spirituality but its also a boon for the profile of a city that most people only remember as being associated with football and civil rights atrocities.  So when I heard that there would be protests, I was disheartened.  I was sure, given that we do not have a large Communist Chinese Party movement here, that it would be some well meaning but slightly rabid right wing conservative Christian group protesting the welcoming of an idol worshiper.  Shocked was I to learn that such is not the case, in fact the protests come from within Tibetan Buddhism itself.

As the article notes, followers of a being known as Dorje Shugden are protesting the 1996 ban on his worship by the Dalai Lama.  What the article gets wrong, only  slightly, is the identification of Dorje Shugden as a "deity."  This is understandable, given that in the Western world we divide everything into gods or demons, but really at the heart of the issue.  Dorje Shugden was originally seen as an angry or vengeful spirit, who the Dalai Lama describes in the article as an "evil spirit."  Over time Dorje Shugden changed into a more protective spirit, and then into a major enlightened being.  It is hard to draw parallels in the Western faiths, but it would be somewhat as if a group claimed that Pilate was a tool of God's will and later became a major Christian teacher.

Then of course politics comes into play.  With the status of Theocratic Tibet as an occupied dominion of China, any theological differences are seen as paralleling political ones; and the International Shugden Community claims that the are violently persecuted in Tibetan Buddhist communities.

I understand, to a degree, the desire to in force orthodoxy.  It starts as a desire to protect the truth and to protect the less enlightened from the dangers of false teaching.  That is a slippery slope.  If you hold something to be True (bot factual, that is a different thing entirely) then you should also believe that the Truth can stand up on its own, even if falsehood should eclipse it, it will always be the Truth.

It is somewhat arrogant for me to  give the Dalai Lama advice on the path to enlightenment, but then again it is in my nature, but perhaps His Holiness should understand the persecutions of  the Shugden Community in light of those of his own people.  No one gains enlightenment from violence, whether physical or social or economic or otherwise, and to be a perpetrator of such only hurts your own cause.

As Rodney King is misquoted as saying "Can't we all just get along?"