What is and isn't a religion?

[KingsGambit]

I was thinking about the controversy about the Satanists in Oklahoma. It reminded me about how other people have claimed to be part of parody religions just to make snarky legal/procedural arguments (such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster people demanding equal time in the schools, or people trying to get Jedi listed as a religion on the Australian census). Where do we draw the line between what is and isn't a religion? And what about Scientology? I think one could just as accurately describe it as a business (or less charitably and more accurately, a scam).

[Sparko]

I think of religion as an organization with members dedicated to worshiping a higher power (like a deity) - so a parody religion would not be an actual religion because they don't worship any such power or being, they just use their organization to mock those that do.

[JohnnyP]

I think Scientology has tax-exempt status, I don't know if CoS does but I found that an entity called The Satanic Chapel does. I don't know what bearing that has on defining what is a religion.

I think it could be said that Satanists should at least observe tenets of mainstream Satanism in order to even be identified with it, and it seems demanding a monument may violate some of its rules like:

#1 Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.
#2 Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.
#8 Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.

Some Satanists object to the monument because it does seem to violate such principles:

Washington Post

[shunyadragon]

Some faith's like the Jehovah Witnesses claim that they are not a church or religion, but I believe they still claim Tax Exempt Status.

go with the flow the river knows . . .

Frank

[KingsGambit]

Some faith's like the Jehovah Witnesses claim that they are not a church or religion, but I believe they still claim Tax Exempt Status.

go with the flow the river knows . . .

Frank

This reminds me of people who claim that Christianity "isn't a religion, it's a relationship". No, it's a religion.

[shunyadragon]

This reminds me of people who claim that Christianity "isn't a religion, it's a relationship". No, it's a religion.

The word 'religion' is sometimes a scape goat, used as a stone to throw at those who believe differently. It in reality is a simple word that means what people believe or not believe, as individuals, groups, organized and disorganized.

Others at time may want to misuse it for financial gain giving them tax exempt status.

[Cow Poke]

I remember a court case years ago (possibly Wisconsin vs. Yoder?) where a court ruled that humanism is a religion. Some of the rationale, as I recall, was that the Humanist Manifesto II clearly spelled out their "religion". I'll see if I can find my notes on that, because it seemed to have broader implications.

[KingsGambit]

I thought Wisconsin v. Yoder was about whether the Amish could pull their kids out of school. But I'm curious now about this humanism religion thing.

[shunyadragon]

I thought Wisconsin v. Yoder was about whether the Amish could pull their kids out of school. But I'm curious now about this humanism religion thing.

Humanist organizations such as the Unitarian Universalists have been granted Non-profit Organization status regardless of whether one considers them a religion or not, and I feel it is legitimate. The broader definition of religion fits reality better then the more restrictive one, ie Webster's.

[Cow Poke]

I thought Wisconsin v. Yoder was about whether the Amish could pull their kids out of school. But I'm curious now about this humanism religion thing.

Yes, and during the trial, I think one of their objections was secular humanism, and how it was being incorporated into the public school as a religion.... Other court cases that indicated that humanism was a religion were United States Supreme Court case Torcaso v. Watkins, Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, and Peloza v. Capistrano School District.

But, yes, Wisconsin v. Yoder was primarily a home school issue, which I drew on in defense of MY arrest as a home schooler back in the 80's, arguing the difference between "compulsory education" and "compulsory attendance".

[shunyadragon]

Yes, and during the trial, I think one of their objections was secular humanism, and how it was being incorporated into the public school as a religion.... Other court cases that indicated that humanism was a religion were United States Supreme Court case Torcaso v. Watkins, Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, and Peloza v. Capistrano School District.

But, yes, Wisconsin v. Yoder was primarily a home school issue, which I drew on in defense of MY arrest as a home schooler back in the 80's, arguing the difference between "compulsory education" and "compulsory attendance".

Careful, Humanism as a belief as in the Unitarian Universalists is defined as non-theist belief. Since humanism has a wide ambiguous use outside this. Our education system is secular by nature and not humanist by doctrine as non or anti theist.

[Cow Poke]

Careful, Humanism as a belief as in the Unitarian Universalists is defined as non-theist belief. Since humanism has a wide ambiguous use outside this. Our education system is secular by nature and not humanist by doctrine as non or anti theist.

Well, I'd be happy to go into a more detailed discussion, as I've done LOTS of research on this, but very basically.... when humanists want the BENEFIT of being a "religion", they claim they are, but when they don't want the RESTRICTIONS, they claim they are not. They play the "establishment clause" of the First Amendment against the "free exercise" clause.

[shunyadragon]

Well, I'd be happy to go into a more detailed discussion, as I've done LOTS of research on this, but very basically.... when humanists want the BENEFIT of being a "religion", they claim they are, but when they don't want the RESTRICTIONS, they claim they are not. They play the "establishment clause" of the First Amendment against the "free exercise" clause.

I won't debate this issue, because it is hypothetical and anecdotal, and it does not address the issues I presented in the differences between Humanism as belief, and secularism as defined by the present understanding of the Constitution as secularism, and separation of church and state.

[Cow Poke]

I won't debate this issue, because it is hypothetical and anecdotal, and it does not address the issues I presented in the differences between Humanism as belief, and secularism as defined by the present understanding of the Constitution as secularism, and separation of church and state.

Fair enough. And I don't care to debate it either.

[Pinoy]

http://news.yahoo.com/atheist-mega-c...214619648.html