and this judge is going to find himself in constitutional hot water over it for his meddling.

Honest people admit all religions are made up.

And folklore studies.

For that matter, my PhD dissertation was partly about serious messages in humor.

Maybe I should take a case to court.

It's amazing to me how little the judges really know about the things they rule on, like religion especially. All they really know is that if it isn't Christianity, they don't like it.

Justice Scalia especially.

Isn' t that the definition of religion?

Will they abandon the constitution completely by denying that county sheriffs are the highest public officials in our land?

Will they claim that the US government actually has title to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge?

Will they dismiss my lawsuit trying to remove shape-shifting-alien-lizard-person Obama from office?

Last edited Thu Apr 28, 2016, 05:03 AM - Edit history (1)

Jesus parodied the religion of some rich people. When he compared them to camels, trying to pass through the eye of a needle.

But if parodying religion is not itself religion, as the court assures us? Then Jesus was not making a religious statement. And his religion - Christianity - therefore, is not a real religion. (At least in the eye-of-the needle passage. And perhaps more).

Thank you court, for ruling that elements of Christianity are not real religion.

Last edited Thu Apr 28, 2016, 08:40 AM - Edit history (1)

Note that this particular case for instance, hinges on the assumption that parody cannot be religion. Since I'm an English professor at times, I'm expert in the status and import of parody. And it's well known that parody can be serious in intention.

In the past, Ive worked successfully with the Attourney General of my state, as an advisor on matters of language and semantics. Working directly with the Attny. General, we were able to successfully bring a class action suit against an advertiser using deceptive language to defraud consumers. The case moreover, attracted national attention.

At times it looks like the courts are rigged or biased. But there's still plenty of room for someone with a good argument.

Yes, it is possible.

It's certainly troubling to have judges examining the sincerity of religious beliefs. Consider the alternative, though. A bunch of right-wingers establish the Church of the Holy Selfishness. Its gospel states that God wants each of us to pursue his or her own good. According to them, Ayn Rand was a prophetess. (Because of the power of all the false religions that have sprung up, like Christianity, she had to conceal her message with a secular veneer.)

You can probably see where this is going. If I claim that my religion makes it a sin for me to pay income taxes or Social Security taxes or the like, then the Free Exercise Clause should exempt me from paying them, right? If any federal judge says this isn't a real religion, but just an insincere tax-dodging scheme, will DUers spring to the defense of the wronged congregants, and castigate the oppressive judge?

As long as we grant a special status to religious beliefs, we have to decide what is and is not a religious belief.

Give them the same breaks under the same conditions as other charitable organisations, sure.

Under current law, there are many accommodations for religious beliefs, that go beyond what members of a secular charitable organization are granted.

* The Amish, who have a religious objection to Social Security and who have their own tight-knit community that includes voluntarily taking care of their elderly, are exempt from paying Social Security taxes.

* Air Force personnel on duty are prohibited from wearing any headgear that's not part of the uniform. Orthodox Jewish chaplains are given an exemption to allow them to wear yarmulkes. (I agree with James Madison that there shouldn't BE chaplains in the armed services, but he lost that fight. If the father of the Constitution couldn't get it done, I'd have to say prospects are poor.)

* Native Americans who have traditionally used peyote in religious rites are allowed to continue doing so. Anyone else would be violating the drug laws. If a bunch of college kids decide to start a phony religion so that they can use whatever drugs they claim God ordains, they'll fail.

I, as an agnostic, consider these accommodations reasonable. They are consistent with the goal of religious pluralism. We have no official religion, and we try (to some extent at least) to allow members of minority sects to practice their religion freely.

For any divine being and the mutually exclusive nature of most religions. The judge is in the position of saying one set of unproven myths as 'real' and another, with just as much evidence as 'false'.

What are the criteria for a 'Real' religion? What makes one myth genuine and another phony?

Under current American law, at least, no judge is going to hear evidence of any kind for or against the truth of any religion.

The problematic question for the legal system is, as you state, "What are the criteria for a 'Real' religion?" The answer does not, however, turn on whether the story is true.

The Constitution grants special protections to religious freedom, including freedom for patently inconsistent religions (they can't all be true). The reason for the protection is that, by the eighteenth century, there was already a long and horrible history of civil strife caused by religious differences. The Framers decided that the government should NOT decide which religion was best, but instead should act neutrally while allowing each individual to make his or her own choice. That's a sound pragmatic choice. They also saw it as respecting a fundamental right of all people.

As with so many legal issues, the difficulty comes in drawing lines. What do you do about a bunch of college kids who start an organization, call it a church, and claim the right to use drugs? Respecting all such claims would make phony religions a huge loophole in many laws. Denying all such claims would send sincerely religious people to jail for following their beliefs. (At least one Amish farmer did go to jail rather than pay FICA taxes, before the Social Security law was amended to grant the Amish an exemption.) If you don't like either of those extreme alternatives, then the legal system must distinguish among purported religious beliefs -- not to distinguish the true ones from the false ones, but to decide which ones merit the special protection we give to religious freedom.

I don't like that solution. Nevertheless, the argument for it, which I accept, is that it's better than either of the extreme alternatives

But what am I saying, you're a part of the highest privileged religious group in the country. You'll be fine, I'm sure.

Who gets to decide whether a religion is "real" or not? What if your anti-tax religion started 1000 or 5000 years ago - would that make a difference? What if it had 100,000,000 adherents, or just 5?

They all start off a little shaky.

"How shall we F--- Off! Oh master?"