Creating a new religion

lazygal

magicbastarder wrote: »

you really have no idea about how religion works.

Au contraire. Sometimes things may change, but that is not really a change, it is just a different method of interpretation.

robindch

Well, I think you should either (a) reinterpret the doctrine to make it relevant to the world of today or (b) return to the roots to find out the real meaning of the doctrine.

Do let us know how you get on.

Peregrinus

kunst nugget wrote: »

Because no religion is named, how is a religion defined in this instance?

Actually, all the posts that come between yours and mine pretty well point to the answer here. It's pretty easy to tell the difference between a religion and a parody of a religion, and in order to do so it's not necessary to "define" a religion. Do you need a definition of religion in order to recognise what the parodies in this thread are parodying? And do you have any doubt that they are parodies? No? Well, there you go.

Words used in legislation, when not specially defined, have their ordinary meaning, coloured by the context in which they are used and the apparent purpose of the legislation. If necessary recourse can be had to an ordinary dictionary, but in fact dictionaries tend not to play a huge role in court decisions about the meaning and scope of legislation.

There can be tricky issues about exactly what is, and what is not, a religion. Most notably, there are court cases from a number of countries about whether, and to what extent, scientology is a religion.

It's conceiveable in theory that a prosecution could be mounted under the Irish blasphemy law and that the prosecution might turn on the question of whether the movement that holds sacred the matter that is abused or insulted is a "religion". But if the prosecution were to relate to a matter held sacred by Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc, that obviously wouldn't be a difficult question. Nor would it be difficult if the matter was said to be held sacred by an obvious parody. It might be difficult if the matter were one held sacred by a true borderline case, like scientology. But as no prosecution will ever be brought, the theoretical question is of no practical interest or relevance, and the fact that it might be difficult to say how this law would apply to scientology is not, to my mind, the key reason for objecting to it.

obplayer

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, all the posts that come between yours and mine pretty well point to the answer here. It's pretty easy to tell the difference between a religion and a parody of a religion, and in order to do so it's not necessary to "define" a religion. Do you need a definition of religion in order to recognise what the parodies in this thread are parodying? And do you have any doubt that they are parodies? No? Well, there you go.

Words used in legislation, when not specially defined, have their ordinary meaning, coloured by the context in which they are used and the apparent purpose of the legislation. If necessary recourse can be had to an ordinary dictionary, but in fact dictionaries tend not to play a huge role in court decisions about the meaning and scope of legislation.

There can be tricky issues about exactly what is, and what is not, a religion. Most notably, there are court cases from a number of countries about whether, and to what extent, scientology is a religion.

It's conceiveable in theory that a prosecution could be mounted under the Irish blasphemy law and that the prosecution might turn on the question of whether the movement that holds sacred the matter that is abused or insulted is a "religion". But if the prosecution were to relate to a matter held sacred by Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc, that obviously wouldn't be a difficult question. Nor would it be difficult if the matter was said to be held sacred by an obvious parody. It might be difficult if the matter were one held sacred by a true borderline case, like scientology. But as no prosecution will ever be brought, the theoretical question is of no practical interest or relevance, and the fact that it might be difficult to say how this law would apply to scientology is not, to my mind, the key reason for objecting to it.

Well the only difference I can see between the parodies and the "real" religions is that more people believe in the "real" religions. Is that sufficient for a court of law?

Peregrinus

obplayer wrote: »

Well the only difference I can see between the parodies and the "real" religions is that more people believe in the "real" religions.

Seriously? That's the only difference that you can see?

So all the people in this thread who have been professing their adherence to various parody religions are no longer atheists or non-religious, as far as you're concerned? They are all adherents of minority religions?

If what you are saying is true, you need to get your sarcasm meter recalibrated. Most people have no difficulty telling the difference.

obplayer

Peregrinus wrote: »

Seriously? That's the only difference that you can see?

So all the people in this thread who have been professing their adherence to various parody religions are no longer atheists or non-religious, as far as you're concerned? They are all adherents of minority religions?

If what you are saying is true, you need to get your sarcasm meter recalibrated. Most people have no difficulty telling the difference.

'Most People' is not a legal term. What 'most people' are doing is saying 'well mum and granny believe it so I should' or 'lots of other people believe it so I should take it seriously'. What may be obvious to the 'man in the street' is often not at all obvious to a court of law.
Why else do you think that Scientology is even being considered in the courts as a religion? Read some of it's tenets. Read 'Cults of Unreason' by Dr. Christopher Evans.
http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/books/cults-of-unreason.txt
Do you really think that Scientology would be take as anything other than a parody were it not for the numbers and wealth of it's adherents?

Peregrinus

obplayer wrote: »

'Most People' is not a legal term. What 'most people' are doing is saying 'well mum and granny believe it so I should' or 'lots of other people believe it so I should take it seriously'. What may be obvious to the 'man in the street' is often not at all obvious to a court of law.
Why else do you think that Scientology is even being considered in the courts as a religion? Read some of it's tenets. Read 'Cults of Unreason' by Dr. Christopher Evans.
http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/books/cults-of-unreason.txt
Do you really think that Scientology would be take as anything other than a parody were it not for the numbers and wealth of it's adherents?

Yes, I do. Scientology's claim to be taken seriously rest not primarily on the fact that its adherents are numerous or wealthy, but that it actually does have genuine adherents, whose participation in the movement is not undertaken for the purposes of parody. That is what distinguishes it from, e.g., the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Courts faced with the question of whether a particular movement is a religion or not will invariably start by pointing out that they cannot enquire into theological or philosophical questions. Thus the question of what whether a particular movement's beliefs and values are true or valid is not considered. Instead, courts tend to approach the question in sociological terms - does the movement concerned function, sociologically, as a religion, in the context that is relevant to the law concerned?

For example, just over a year ago the UK Supreme Court had to consider whether the Church of Scientology at 146 Queen Victoria Street, London, was "a place of meeting for religious worship" where a valid ceremony of marriage could be conducted. The judgment makes the point that "there has never been a universal legal definition of religion in English law", and suggests that this is appropriate because of "the different contexts in which the issue may arise, the variety of world religions, developments of new religions and religious practices, and developments in the common understanding of the concept of religion due to cultural changes in society".

Then the judgment refers to an American case which grappled with the issue of what is a religion in 1979. That case (which dealt with whether Transcendental Meditation was a religion) identified a number of considerations which might be helpful:

"The first was that the belief system is concerned with the ultimate questions of human existence: the meaning of life and death, mankind’s role in the universe, the proper moral code of right and wrong. The second was that the belief system is comprehensive in the sense that it provides an all-embracing set of beliefs in answer to the ultimate questions. The third was that there were external signs that the belief system was of a group nature which could be analogised to accepted religions. Such signs might include formal services, ceremonial functions, the existence of clergy, structure and organisation, and attempts at propagation. These indicia were not to be thought of as a final test for a religion. Rather, they were features which recognised religions would typically exhibit."

The UK court thought that approach was useful, but had its own shortcomings. In particular it required that new religions would have to look quite a lot like the old ones before they would be recognised. So, for an example of an alternative approach, they looked to an 1983 Australian case, dealing with Scientology. The approach taken by the Australian court was: First, whether a movement is a religion or not does not depend on the number of adherents it has. But, secondly, a movement is not a religion merely because its own adherents say it is a religion. Their eventual conclusion was:

"“the criteria of religion are twofold: first, belief in a supernatural Being, Thing or Principle; and second, the acceptance of canons of conduct in order to give effect to that belief, though canons of conduct which offend against the ordinary laws are outside the area of any immunity, privilege or right conferred on the grounds of religion.”

After considering these and other cases, the UK Supreme Court suggested the following approach:

"I would describe religion in summary as a spiritual or non-secular belief system, held by a group of adherents, which claims to explain mankind’s place in the universe and relationship with the infinite, and to teach its adherents how they are to live their lives in conformity with the spiritual understanding associated with the belief system. By spiritual or non-secular I mean a belief system which goes beyond that which can be perceived by the senses or ascertained by the application of science. I prefer not to use the word “supernatural” to express this element, because it is a loaded word which can carry a variety of connotations. Such a belief system may or may not involve belief in a supreme being, but it does involve a belief that there is more to be understood about mankind’s nature and relationship to the universe than can be gained from the senses or from science. I emphasise that this is intended to be a description and not a definitive formula."

The court concluded that Scientology was a religion in this sense. You'll note that neither the number nor the wealth of Scientologist adherents featured in their reasoning.

Why, you may ask, is the Church of the Jaffa Cakes (or whatever) not also within this definition? The answer is that it could be, if in fact it did in factual reality function as a belief system seeking to explain humanity's place in the universe, etc, and for teaching people how to live their lives, etc. In reality it exists purely as a parody of other religions, and indeed as a parody of the whole idea of religion as offering valid transcendent beliefs, and a way of living. The Church of the Jaffa Cakes is not a religion for the same reason that Promise and Promiscuity isn't an Austen novel.

Kidchameleon

kunst nugget wrote: »

Let's say I come up with a religion called Scatholicism - so making jokey farting noises or jokes about manure are extraordinarily blasphemous to our religion.

I for one welcome our new Fart overlords

kunst nugget

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, I do. Scientology's claim to be taken seriously rest not primarily on the fact that its adherents are numerous or wealthy, but that it actually does have genuine adherents, whose participation in the movement is not undertaken for the purposes of parody. That is what distinguishes it from, e.g., the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Courts faced with the question of whether a particular movement is a religion or not will invariably start by pointing out that they cannot enquire into theological or philosophical questions. Thus the question of what whether a particular movement's beliefs and values are true or valid is not considered. Instead, courts tend to approach the question in sociological terms - does the movement concerned function, sociologically, as a religion, in the context that is relevant to the law concerned?

For example, just over a year ago the UK Supreme Court had to consider whether the Church of Scientology at 146 Queen Victoria Street, London, was "a place of meeting for religious worship" where a valid ceremony of marriage could be conducted. The judgment makes the point that "there has never been a universal legal definition of religion in English law", and suggests that this is appropriate because of "the different contexts in which the issue may arise, the variety of world religions, developments of new religions and religious practices, and developments in the common understanding of the concept of religion due to cultural changes in society".

Then the judgment refers to an American case which grappled with the issue of what is a religion in 1979. That case (which dealt with whether Transcendental Meditation was a religion) identified a number of considerations which might be helpful:

"The first was that the belief system is concerned with the ultimate questions of human existence: the meaning of life and death, mankind’s role in the universe, the proper moral code of right and wrong. The second was that the belief system is comprehensive in the sense that it provides an all-embracing set of beliefs in answer to the ultimate questions. The third was that there were external signs that the belief system was of a group nature which could be analogised to accepted religions. Such signs might include formal services, ceremonial functions, the existence of clergy, structure and organisation, and attempts at propagation. These indicia were not to be thought of as a final test for a religion. Rather, they were features which recognised religions would typically exhibit."

The UK court thought that approach was useful, but had its own shortcomings. In particular it required that new religions would have to look quite a lot like the old ones before they would be recognised. So, for an example of an alternative approach, they looked to an 1983 Australian case, dealing with Scientology. The approach taken by the Australian court was: First, whether a movement is a religion or not does not depend on the number of adherents it has. But, secondly, a movement is not a religion merely because its own adherents say it is a religion. Their eventual conclusion was:

"“the criteria of religion are twofold: first, belief in a supernatural Being, Thing or Principle; and second, the acceptance of canons of conduct in order to give effect to that belief, though canons of conduct which offend against the ordinary laws are outside the area of any immunity, privilege or right conferred on the grounds of religion.”

After considering these and other cases, the UK Supreme Court suggested the following approach:

"I would describe religion in summary as a spiritual or non-secular belief system, held by a group of adherents, which claims to explain mankind’s place in the universe and relationship with the infinite, and to teach its adherents how they are to live their lives in conformity with the spiritual understanding associated with the belief system. By spiritual or non-secular I mean a belief system which goes beyond that which can be perceived by the senses or ascertained by the application of science. I prefer not to use the word “supernatural” to express this element, because it is a loaded word which can carry a variety of connotations. Such a belief system may or may not involve belief in a supreme being, but it does involve a belief that there is more to be understood about mankind’s nature and relationship to the universe than can be gained from the senses or from science. I emphasise that this is intended to be a description and not a definitive formula."

The court concluded that Scientology was a religion in this sense. You'll note that neither the number nor the wealth of Scientologist adherents featured in their reasoning.

Why, you may ask, is the Church of the Jaffa Cakes (or whatever) not also within this definition? The answer is that it could be, if in fact it did in factual reality function as a belief system seeking to explain humanity's place in the universe, etc, and for teaching people how to live their lives, etc. In reality it exists purely as a parody of other religions, and indeed as a parody of the whole idea of religion as offering valid transcendent beliefs, and a way of living. The Church of the Jaffa Cakes is not a religion for the same reason that Promise and Promiscuity isn't an Austen novel.

Thanks for the reply. Exactly what I was after. Obviously, a 'religion' set up on a forum like this is never going to obtain credibility as its origins would be too easy to trace as a parody. Let's say though, for arguments sake, that you were able to convince a hundred people to say that they were members of a religion (not one that sounded as an obvious mockery of pre-existing religions) and briefed them on the basic tenets of faith of your made-up religion so that they were able to tell others. If they publicly state that they are adherents to this faith (when they don't actually believe any of it in private), could you confidently say that you have a religion? After all, if someone states that they are a believer of some religious doctrine, you essentially have to take them at face value, don't you?

Peregrinus

kunst nugget wrote: »

Thanks for the reply. Exactly what I was after. Obviously, a 'religion' set up on a forum like this is never going to obtain credibility as its origins would be too easy to trace as a parody. Let's say though, for arguments sake, that you were able to convince a hundred people to say that they were members of a religion (not one that sounded as an obvious mockery of pre-existing religions) and briefed them on the basic tenets of faith of your made-up religion so that they were able to tell others. If they publicly state that they are adherents to this faith (when they don't actually believe any of it in private), could you confidently say that you have a religion? After all, if someone states that they are a believer of some religious doctrine, you essentially have to take them at face value, don't you?

No, you don't. Evaluating the credibility of witness testimony is meat and drink to the courts; they do it every day. Including testimony about the witness's own state of mind.

The question of whether, e.g. jaffa-cake-ism is a religion for this or that legal purpose is always going to arise in a context. In the recent Scientology case in the UK, the question would never have come before the courts if the Church of Scientology didn't run a fairly active operation in fairl impressive premises at 146 Queen Victoria St. That requires that they have a certain amount of organisation, a certain amount of activity and a certain amount of substance. So the fact that the question came up at all already separates them from the jaffa-cake-ists.

The question comes up fairly often in the US context in what they call the prisoner-free exercise cases. A prisoner asserts that his religious beliefs require him to smoke cannabis/eat caviar/have sex every Friday night/go on a pilgrimage/avoid food cooked in metal pots/whatever, and that prison regulations which prevent him from doing this are an unconstitutional infringement of his right to free exercise of religion. You don't need to own a church building or conduct regular meetings to make that argument; you just need to be in prison. And while those cases don't all turn on the question of whether the belief system concerned is a religion, some of them do. What the courts will do is look for evidence of the existence of the religion. It's not enough that the prisoner says he feels an obligation to smoke dope or go on pilgrimage or whatever; he needs point to a comprehensive and coherent set of teachings which mandates this practice, and a body of people not only professing but actually following thoe teachings, to sustain his claim that this is a genuine religion, and the court needs to be satisfied of the truth of his claim that he adheres to this religion, e.g. by evidence of his connection with/participation in the community of believers in question.

I'm not saying you couldn't create a spoof religion which would pass muster in the courts as a real religion for at least some purposes (and arguably Scientology is exactly that, or at least started out as that). But it would take a lot of time, a lot of effort and a lot of money, not just a bunch of friend who all agree to pretend to the same set of ridiculous beliefs for ****s and giggles.

obplayer

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, you don't. Evaluating the credibility of witness testimony is meat and drink to the courts; they do it every day. Including testimony about the witness's own state of mind.

The question of whether, e.g. jaffa-cake-ism is a religion for this or that legal purpose is always going to arise in a context. In the recent Scientology case in the UK, the question would never have come before the courts if the Church of Scientology didn't run a fairly active operation in fairl impressive premises at 146 Queen Victoria St. That requires that they have a certain amount of organisation, a certain amount of activity and a certain amount of substance. So the fact that the question came up at all already separates them from the jaffa-cake-ists.

The question comes up fairly often in the US context in what they call the prisoner-free exercise cases. A prisoner asserts that his religious beliefs require him to smoke cannabis/eat caviar/have sex every Friday night/go on a pilgrimage/avoid food cooked in metal pots/whatever, and that prison regulations which prevent him from doing this are an unconstitutional infringement of his right to free exercise of religion. You don't need to own a church building or conduct regular meetings to make that argument; you just need to be in prison. And while those cases don't all turn on the question of whether the belief system concerned is a religion, some of them do. What the courts will do is look for evidence of the existence of the religion. It's not enough that the prisoner says he feels an obligation to smoke dope or go on pilgrimage or whatever; he needs point to a comprehensive and coherent set of teachings which mandates this practice, and a body of people not only professing but actually following thoe teachings, to sustain his claim that this is a genuine religion, and the court needs to be satisfied of the truth of his claim that he adheres to this religion, e.g. by evidence of his connection with/participation in the community of believers in question.

I'm not saying you couldn't create a spoof religion which would pass muster in the courts as a real religion for at least some purposes (and arguably Scientology is exactly that, or at least started out as that). But it would take a lot of time, a lot of effort and a lot of money, not just a bunch of friend who all agree to pretend to the same set of ridiculous beliefs for ****s and giggles.

A couple of interesting court cases. This is where it leads.

A church that worships an invisible flying spaghetti monster can now apply to be registered as an official religion in Poland, after a 2013 court ruling was overturned on Tuesday.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/weird-news/pastafarians-rejoice-as-church-of-the-flying-spaghetti-monster-is-granted-permission-to-register-as-a-religion-in-poland-9248689.html`

In their quest to let the government endorse and sponsor mainstream religion, they accidentally granted groups like the Pastafarians a constitutional right to force the government to advertise their beliefs.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/11/atheist_humanist_and_pastafarian_holiday_displays_on_public_land_satanic.html
Also on the court's requiring sincerity of belief, from the same link...

The court’s five conservatives refused to even consider the plaintiffs’ sincerity, simply taking it on faith that their protestations were genuine.

Enjoy. You write things into law at your peril.

YFlyer

Peregrinus wrote: »

Then the judgment refers to an American case which grappled with the issue of what is a religion in 1979. That case (which dealt with whether Transcendental Meditation was a religion) identified a number of considerations which might be helpful:
.

Transcendental meditation is a mental technique. No belief system is required for it to work.

Peregrinus

Not to be nit-picky or anything, but three points:

First, the Polish case was not about whether Pastafarianism is a religion. The Pastafarians wished to register as a religion. (It’ not clear from the report what the consequences of registration would, or what advantage the Pastafarians hoped to derive from it.) Their application was rejected because they had filed it out of time and they were denied an extension of the time limit. What they were challenging in court was the refusal to grant them an extension of time. They won, and got their extension of time.

The report is completely silent about the arguments they put forward or the reasons for the court’s ruling, but it’s must unlikely to have turned on whether pastafarianism is a religion. That question wouldn’t have been considered until they actually put in their application for registration (which presumably they have now done). , If, when that application for registration is considered, pastafarianism is rejected on the grounds that it’s a parody of religion rather than an actual religion, then - if the pastafarians appeal - the question might come before a court. Up to now, the court has only considered the rather dull question of if and when a citizen or a group of citizens dealing with the bureaucracy of the state should be allowed an extension of time to submit an administrative application.

Secondly, as for the Slate article, it’s less than accurate in some of what it says. In particular, it’s not true that in Hobby Lobby the Supreme Court “refused to even consider the plaintiff’s sincerity”. The truth is that, in the Supreme Court, the defendants explictly acknowledged the sincerity of the plaintiff’s beliefs, so there was no argument about that. The Supreme Court didn’t refuse to consider it; they weren’t asked to consider it.

It’s true that one judge, in her judgment, suggested that if the court were asked to consider the sincerity with which an asserted religious belief is held, they should refuse to do so. But she’s one of nine justices, and hers was a dissenting judgment. The majority judgments explicitly say that the courts can consider the sincerity of an asserted religious believe, and that “the pretextual assertion of religious belief in order to obtain an exemption for financial reasons would fail”. And in fact the US courts routinely do assess the sincerity of professed beliefs, and dismiss claims resting on professions which they consider to be insincere. In US v Quaintance, for example, the founding members of the Church of Cognizance claimed to hold that “marijuana is a deity and a sacrament”, but were nevertheless convicted when the court observed that evidence pointed to their marijuana dealings stemming from “commercial or secular motives rather than sincere religious conviction”.

Third, let me make a wider point. I accept that “religion” and “church” are difficult to define, and laws relating to religions and churches will inevitably have to deal with fuzzy borderline cases. But that problem is hardly unique to religion and churches, and this isn’t necessarily a reason for dismissing the idea of legislating about churches and religions. And, if it is, it cuts both ways; if we can’t have legislation to protect freedom of religion, then equally we can’t have legislation to protect freedom from religion. There can’t be any meaningful or effective legal separation of church and state, or any prohibition on the endowment or establishment of religion, if the courts are unable to say whether something is or is not a religion or a church.

So, as you wisely point out, be careful what you wish for!

obplayer

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not to be nit-picky or anything, but three points:

First, the Polish case was not about whether Pastafarianism is a religion. The Pastafarians wished to register as a religion. (It’ not clear from the report what the consequences of registration would, or what advantage the Pastafarians hoped to derive from it.) Their application was rejected because they had filed it out of time and they were denied an extension of the time limit. What they were challenging in court was the refusal to grant them an extension of time. They won, and got their extension of time.

The report is completely silent about the arguments they put forward or the reasons for the court’s ruling, but it’s must unlikely to have turned on whether pastafarianism is a religion. That question wouldn’t have been considered until they actually put in their application for registration (which presumably they have now done). , If, when that application for registration is considered, pastafarianism is rejected on the grounds that it’s a parody of religion rather than an actual religion, then - if the pastafarians appeal - the question might come before a court. Up to now, the court has only considered the rather dull question of if and when a citizen or a group of citizens dealing with the bureaucracy of the state should be allowed an extension of time to submit an administrative application.

Secondly, as for the Slate article, it’s less than accurate in some of what it says. In particular, it’s not true that in Hobby Lobby the Supreme Court “refused to even consider the plaintiff’s sincerity”. The truth is that, in the Supreme Court, the defendants explictly acknowledged the sincerity of the plaintiff’s beliefs, so there was no argument about that. The Supreme Court didn’t refuse to consider it; they weren’t asked to consider it.

It’s true that one judge, in her judgment, suggested that if the court were asked to consider the sincerity with which an asserted religious belief is held, they should refuse to do so. But she’s one of nine justices, and hers was a dissenting judgment. The majority judgments explicitly say that the courts can consider the sincerity of an asserted religious believe, and that “the pretextual assertion of religious belief in order to obtain an exemption for financial reasons would fail”. And in fact the US courts routinely do assess the sincerity of professed beliefs, and dismiss claims resting on professions which they consider to be insincere. In US v Quaintance, for example, the founding members of the Church of Cognizance claimed to hold that “marijuana is a deity and a sacrament”, but were nevertheless convicted when the court observed that evidence pointed to their marijuana dealings stemming from “commercial or secular motives rather than sincere religious conviction”.

Third, let me make a wider point. I accept that “religion” and “church” are difficult to define, and laws relating to religions and churches will inevitably have to deal with fuzzy borderline cases. But that problem is hardly unique to religion and churches, and this isn’t necessarily a reason for dismissing the idea of legislating about churches and religions. And, if it is, it cuts both ways; if we can’t have legislation to protect freedom of religion, then equally we can’t have legislation to protect freedom from religion. There can’t be any meaningful or effective legal separation of church and state, or any prohibition on the endowment or establishment of religion, if the courts are unable to say whether something is or is not a religion or a church.

So, as you wisely point out, be careful what you wish for!

Well the simple answer is to not attempt to define religion at all as some kind of protected species and I do understand that you would almost certainly agree with that.
Of course there is also the slippery slope argument but I don't think we want to go down there.

Peregrinus

obplayer wrote: »

Well the simple answer is to not attempt to define religion at all as some kind of protected species and I do understand that you would almost certainly agree with that.
Of course there is also the slippery slope argument but I don't think we want to go down there.

You're missing my point. If it's impossible to define religion for the purpose of protecting it, then it's also impossible to define religion for the purposes of protecting you from it. A law prohibiting the establishment of religion, or requiring the separation of church and state, is pointless and unenforceable if the courts can't identify something as a religion or as a church.

obplayer

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're missing my point. If it's impossible to define religion for the purpose of protecting it, then it's also impossible to define religion for the purposes of protecting you from it. A law prohibiting the establishment of religion, or requiring the separation of church and state, is pointless and unenforceable if the courts can't identify something as a religion or as a church.

You are missing mine. If religion is not definable then there is no need to protect it or from it. The only need for a protection from religion law is if being part of a religion is somehow defined as different from being in your local gardening club. Once we accept religion is simply an opinion then the rest falls into place.

Peregrinus

obplayer wrote: »

You are missing mine. If religion is not definable then there is no need to protect it or from it. The only need for a protection from religion law is if being part of a religion is somehow defined as different from being in your local gardening club. Once we accept religion is simply an opinion then the rest falls into place.

So you don't think there's any need for, or value in, a constitutional prohibition on the endowment of religion, or a requirement for the separation of church and state? You'd be quite happy for the Roman Catholic Church to become the established church in Ireland, with bishops having representation in the Oireachtas, priests paid by the state and all national schools required to teach the Catholic faith?

obplayer

Peregrinus wrote: »

So you don't think there's any need for, or value in, a constitutional prohibition on the endowment of religion, or a requirement for the separation of church and state? You'd be quite happy for the Roman Catholic Church to become the established church in Ireland, with bishops having representation in the Oireachtas, priests paid by the state and all national schools required to teach the Catholic faith?

No, for now we need such laws, but the aim should be to make laws referencing religion redundant. Remember the thread is about creating a new religion. We should be aiming for where a debate about 'is my religion a real religion' just doesn't happen. I realise we are a long way from this but we should keep this in mind as our aim.

Peregrinus

I have to disagree. Humanity being what it is, I think there will always be a need for both "freedom of religion" laws and "separation of church and state" laws. Religion is an enduring social phenomenon of major signficance, and if laws simply ignore the existence of religion, it won't be the relevance and utility of religion that gets diminished by that.

obplayer

Peregrinus wrote: »

I have to disagree. Humanity being what it is, I think there will always be a need for both "freedom of religion" laws and "separation of church and state" laws. Religion is an enduring social phenomenon of major signficance, and if laws simply ignore the existence of religion, it won't be the relevance and utility of religion that gets diminished by that.

This is my last comment on this. Your statement depends on 'religion' being somehow being treated as different to any other opinion or belief. We know that football club supports will fight each other but we don't define the law to take into account your 'football club belief', we instead enforce the law which applies to everyone else. We know that supporters of political parties can end up fighting one another but we do not in any way define the law to take in to account their feelings about the opposing parties when we enforce the law. We simply enforce the law which also applies to two chess clubs coming to blows over the best opening moves; that is how we should be treating religion.

Peregrinus

obplayer wrote: »

This is my last comment on this. Your statement depends on 'religion' being somehow being treated as different to any other opinion or belief. We know that football club supports will fight each other but we don't define the law to take into account your 'football club belief', we instead enforce the law which applies to everyone else. We know that supporters of political parties can end up fighting one another but we do not in any way define the law to take in to account their feelings about the opposing parties when we enforce the law. We simply enforce the law which also applies to two chess clubs coming to blows over the best opening moves; that is how we should be treating religion.

But we have no law that say that, e.g., employer may not discriminate on the grounds of your support for a particular football club. We have no law which prohibits the state from giving money to football clubs, or putting all the local authority football fields under the control of the GAA.

Are you happy to have no law which says that your employer may not discriminate on the grounds of religious belief, or lack of it? Are you happy to have no law which prevents the state from giving money to churches, or putting all public schools under the control of a particular church?

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

Are you happy to have no law which says that your employer may not discriminate on the grounds of religious belief, or lack of it? Are you happy to have no law which prevents the state from giving money to churches, or putting all public schools under the control of a particular church?

Whatever the law and constitution say, all of the above are regular and normal occurrences in Ireland.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Whatever the law and constitution say, all of the above are regular and normal occurrences in Ireland.

And are you happy with that situation or would you favour laws which would effectively prevent it?

My point is really a response to those (like obplayer) who say that laws protecting freedom of religion are inappropriate or unenforceable because of the difficult of saying what "religion" is. If that is true, then laws designed to provide freedom from religion must be equally inappropriate or unenforceable. Obplayer seems happy with having no such laws, at least as a long-term objective, but I doubt that many on the A&A board would agree.

Hotblack Desiato

Where did I say I was? You pulled a very similar stunt in the feedback thread today, cut it out.

obplayer

Peregrinus wrote: »

But we have no law that say that, e.g., employer may not discriminate on the grounds of your support for a particular football club. We have no law which prohibits the state from giving money to football clubs, or putting all the local authority football fields under the control of the GAA.

Are you happy to have no law which says that your employer may not discriminate on the grounds of religious belief, or lack of it? Are you happy to have no law which prevents the state from giving money to churches, or putting all public schools under the control of a particular church?

Ok one last statement. I refer you to what I said previously, for now we need such laws, the aim is to reach a place where we don't, where religion is treated as an opinion like any other.

Absolam

obplayer wrote: »

Ok one last statement. I refer you to what I said previously, for now we need such laws, the aim is to reach a place where we don't, where religion is treated as an opinion like any other.

That's not necessarily everyone's aim though. Unlikely even to be the aim of any prospective majority group, to be fair. Even if we achieved your aim, it wouldn't mean that laws protecting freedom of religion were inappropriate or unenforceable because of the difficult of saying what "religion" is; they would simply be a variation on laws protecting freedom of opinion (which to some ways of thinking they are now anyway).

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Where did I say I was? You pulled a very similar stunt in the feedback thread today, cut it out.

Where did I say that you were, either? I assume, in fact, that you're not, and my post was intended to point out that whether Ireland does nor have effective legal separation of church and state is not the issue ; the issue here is whether effective legal separation of church and state is even possible. The logic of obplayer's position is that it is not possible, and he (she?) looks forward to a day when that is not a problem because it isn't necessary. I doubt that many others on the A&A board would share obplayer's position. (I doubt that you do.)

JCX BXC

All the religions are a heap of shiiite anyway, making another one wont have much of an effect anyway.

I do not wish to offend anyone following any religion, I am just expressing my own opinion

obplayer

Carnacalla wrote: »

All the religions are a heap of shiiite anyway, making another one wont have much of an effect anyway.

I do not wish to offend anyone following any religion, I am just expressing my own opinion

L Ron Hubbard probably thought it would only make a difference to his bank balance and look what we got.