Please keep the answers factual.
What exactly does the first amendment mean by “religion”?
Can I declare myself a member of a religion of my own creation?
How does tax-exempt status work?
If a certain state passes a law asserting religious freedom, are they required to respect my religion’s dictates?
A belief system that makes definite statements about the ultimate nature and existence of the supernatural.
What is and is not a “religion” has been addressed by the US Supreme Court in various cases, but no exact definition exists. Per the IRS guide:
By that standard I guess atheism is a religion but agnosticism is not. The former makes a definitive statement and the latter does not. It seems to me both or neither should be.
Neither are.
Dude, “the supernatural” is not the preferred nomenclature. As one scholar has pointed out, the term “presupposes an ontological division expressly denied by many of our sources.” But not all religions are dualistic like that, with a “non-magical” natural world and a “magical” supernatural world.
A religion is a popular Deity based superstition.
Nope. Not all religions are monotheistic (“Deity based [sic]”).
Also, how would you define “superstition”?
Religion in the US is usually thought of in an “I know it when I see it” way, which generally means the Western Christian church model. The closer your created religion mimics that, the more likely you are to convince them that you are sincere (as per the IRS definition above, which seems to also be judged in an “I know it when I see it” way).
ETA: It’s interesting from a historical point of view to see how the contemporary condemnations of ‘religion’ use essentially the same value frameworks that Christians of generations past forged to condemn Pagans, Catholics (in the case of Protestants), folk religions etc. Like we have this category of “superstition” that we have judged to be bad on its face.
I’m an atheist, what “defitinite statement” am I making?
Exactly right. It’s right there in the word: “Superstition” from “superstes,” survivals, remnants, rests, i.e. of the old, bad, eeeeeeevil pre-Christian religion(s).
Didn’t the word religio mean superstition in Latin? Of course, that has no relevance to its meaning in English, I’m all too cognizant of the etymological fallacy. I just think it tips us the wink as to what, when all is said and done and the captains and the kings depart, religion actually is: organized superstition.
Perhaps if we stuck tothe OP’s premise and answer legally, whats required for you to be recognized as a religion for tax and other purposes.
I don’t have an answer - but debating what “religon” is is outside the spirit of the OP.
Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position. Bill Mayer
Yes—please! Remember, we’re in GQ here!
The OP’s questions are the kind of thing it’s the Supreme Court’s job to answer. All the first amendment itself says about it is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Religion just gives people an excuse for commiting atrocities. How many bombings have been done in the name of various religions?
It depends.
What does the law in your hypothetical situation say?
The actual federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act says, in essence, that the government is permitted to substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if the government demonstrates that the application of the burden to the person is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. The state versions of the laws are largely identical.
So if a person feels that obeying some other law passed by the state or the federal government would “substantially burden” his exercise of religion, he may challenge that law as it’s applied to him. The burden of proof would be on him to show the substantial burden, and the sincerity of the religious exercise at issue. The burden would then shift to the government to show that the law furthered a compelling government interest and it was the least restrictive way of doing so.
So if this is the law you’re talking about, then no: they wouldn’t be required to respect your religion’s dictates, unless you first showed that their law, regulation, or practice substantially burdened your religious dictates and that those dictates were sincerely held, and then THEY showed that their law, regulation, or practice was the least restrictive means of furthering some compelling, legitimate governmental interest.
Well… first of all, remember that the First Amendment isn’t the only piece on the board. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is a statute, a law of the United States, passed by Congress. (Interestingly, it was passed as a reaction to a Supreme Court decision that limited First Amendment protection against laws of general applicability: Employment Division v. Smith).
Secondly, the Supreme Court has answered some key questions about the federal law. In City of Boerne v. Flores the Court held that Congress exceeded their authority when they purported to apply the RFRA to both the states and the federal government. In Hobby Lobby v. Burwell, the Court ruled that the RFRA applies to both corporations and natural people, because the Dictionary Act (another law of the United States) says that whenever a law says “person” it refers to both natural people and corporations, and they further held that the RFRA protected a company from having to offer paid contraception insurance if that coverage burdened their religious exercise.
Moderator Note
boffking, religious jabs are not permitted in GQ, and your response in no way answers the OP. No warning issued, but do not do this again.
George
SCOTUS held in the link provided by dofe that secular humanism is a “religious belief.” Secular humanism is, of course, a belief that there is no God (atheism).