Constitutional Freedoms and Defining Religion

[cbayer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-ramey/how-to-define-religion_b_3476441.html

Steven RameyAssociate Professor in the Department of Religious Studies, Director of Asian Studies, University of Alabama

Posted: 06/24/2013 7:04 pm

An ongoing court case concerning the constitutionality of a yoga program in Encinitas, Calif., schools resumed today. The plaintiffs assert that the program is inherently religious and, therefore, prohibited by the California Constitution. Their expert witness, a religious studies scholar from Indiana University, testified that the program is clearly religious because it contains elements that connect historically with things that she associates with Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism and that those Hindu, Buddhist, and Taoist components cannot be effectively separated from the physical practices. Such an argument, if it becomes a precedent, could have significant implications (e.g., any reference to Santa Claus is obviously religious because it derives from a commonly recognized Christian figure, Saint Nicholas), something the presiding judge reportedly inferred. Beyond the specific legal issues, this case, along with others that focus on the freedom of and from religion, illustrates the strategic application of the term "religion."

Arguments about what is and is not acceptable in public schools and other governmental setting often reflect a strategic use of the term "religion." The Secular Coalition for America, for example, asserts, "There is no evidence that the yoga activities include any express spiritual content at all," while it opposes the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance recited in schools. Thus, they emphasize belief in God as defining prohibited religious practices, when those practices are enforced by school officials. This definition contrasts with the plaintiff assertions in the Encinitas case that religious content persists, even when references to god(s) are removed. On the opposite side, OneNewsNow.com, a self-identified "Christian news service," accepts the plaintiff's assertions about the yoga program being religious. Elsehwhere, OneNewsNow.com celebrates a Texas law that allows display of religious symbols and Hannukah and Christmas greetings in public schools, while rejecting complaints about the display in schools of the Ten Commandments. This site implies that those elements that fit with their sensibilities remain acceptable, while those elements that come from outside Christianity, like yoga, are not.

People make arguments for strategic reasons, emphasizing the definitions and characterizations that promote the end result that they want, which often is the inclusion of things that they like and appreciate and the exclusion of things that they dislike and fear. Strategic use of the concept "religion" extends beyond court cases involving public schools. Declaring that a particular style of dress or accessory is "religious," whether a turban or a headscarf, gives it a protected status that trumps both uniform requirements and insincere appropriation. Responses to performers using "religious" symbols, whether Selena Gomez's bindi or Madonna's crucifix, assert a special status for those items that allow particular leaders to regulate their use.

Searching for a definitive declaration of what constitutes "religion," in many respects, is a fool's errand. Judges have the difficult decision of what constitutes protected speech and practice and what is prohibited. Their decisions often reflect strategic compromises between definitions of what counts as "religion," such as declaring a nativity display as non-religious because it promotes a holiday spirit and "commercial interests" (Lynch v Donnelly (465 US 668)).

more at link

[Jim__]

1. "Searching for a definitive declaration of what constitutes "religion," ... is a fool's errand."

Probably. But the 1st amendment to the US Constitution seems to make it a necessary one.

[cbayer]

2. The story behind Scientology being deemed a religion is a fascinating one.

Basically if you have the bucks to hire a boatload of attorneys, there is a good chance you will win your case.

Not so much if you are small and relatively poor.