“II — THE MODERN DEFINITION OF RELIGION
It seems unavoidable, from Seeger, Welsh,
and Torcaso, that the Theistic formulation presumed to be
applicable in the late nineteenth century cases is no longer
sustainable. Under the modern view, "religion"
is not confined to the relationship of man with his Creator, either
as a matter of law or as a matter of theology. Even theologians of
traditionally recognized faiths have moved away from a strictly
Theistic approach in explaining their own religions.[31]
Such movement, when coupled with the growth in the United States, of
many Eastern and non-traditional belief systems, suggests that the
older, limited definition would deny "religious"
identification to faiths now adhered to by millions of Americans. The
Court's more recent cases reject such a result.
If the old definition has been repudiated,
however, the new definition remains not yet fully formed. It would
appear to be properly described as a definition by analogy. The
Seeger court advertently declined to distinguish beliefs
holding "parallel positions in the lives of their respective
holders."[32]
Presumably beliefs holding the same important position for members of
one of the new religions as the traditional faith holds for more
orthodox believers are entitled to the same treatment as the
traditional beliefs. The tax exemption cases referred to in Torcaso
also rely primarily on the common elements present in the new
challenged groups — the Ethical Society and the Fellowship of
Humanity — as well as in the older unchallenged groups and
churches. In like fashion, Judge Wright reasoned by analogy in
crediting the prima facie claim made out for Scientology in Founding Church of Scientology, supra.[33]
The modern approach thus looks to the familiar religions as models in
order to ascertain, by comparison, whether the new set of ideas or
beliefs is confronting the same concerns, or serving the same
purposes, as unquestioned and accepted "religions."
But it is one thing to conclude "by analogy"
that a particular group or cluster of ideas is religious; it is quite
another to explain exactly what indicia are to be looked to in making
such an analogy and justifying it. There appear to be three
useful indicia that are basic to our traditional religions and that
are themselves related to the values that undergird the first
amendment.
The first and most important of these indicia is
the nature of the ideas in question. This means that a court must, at
least to a degree, examine the content of the supposed religion,
not to determine its truth or falsity, or whether it is schismatic or
orthodox, but to determine whether the subject matter it comprehends
is consistent with the assertion that it is, or is not, a
religion.[34]
Thus the court was able to remark in Founding Church of
Scientology:
It might be possible to show that a self-proclaimed religion was merely a commercial enterprise, without the underlying theories of man's nature or his place in the Universe which characterize recognized religions.[35]
Similarly, one of the conscientious objectors
whose appeal was coupled with Seeger, submitted a long
memorandum, noted by the Court, in which he defined religion
as the "sum and essence of one's basic attitudes to the
fundamental problems of human existence."[36]
Expectation that religious ideas should address
fundamental questions is in some ways comparable to the reasoning of
the Protestant theologian Dr. Paul Tillich, who expressed his view on
the essence of religion
in the phrase "ultimate concern."[37]
Tillich perceived religion
as intimately connected to concepts that are of the greatest depth
and utmost importance. His thoughts have been influential both with
courts and commentators.[38]
Nor is it difficult to see why this philosophy would prove attractive
in the American constitutional framework. One's views, be they
orthodox or novel, on the deeper and more imponderable questions —
the meaning of life and death, man's role in the Universe, the proper
moral code of right and wrong — are those likely to be the most
"intensely personal"[39]
and important to the believer. They are his ultimate concerns. As
such, they are to be carefully guarded from governmental
interference, and never converted into official government doctrine.
The first amendment demonstrates a specific solicitude for religion
because religious ideas are in many ways more important than other
ideas. New and different ways of meeting those concerns are entitled
to the same sort of treatment as the traditional forms.
Thus, the "ultimate" nature of the ideas
presented is the most important and convincing evidence that they
should be treated as religious.[40]
Certain isolated answers to "ultimate" questions,
however, are not necessarily "religious" answers, because
they lack the element of comprehensiveness, the second of the three
indicia. A religion
is not generally confined to one question or one moral teaching; it
has a broader scope. It lays claim to an ultimate and comprehensive
"truth." Thus the so-called "Big Bang" theory, an
astronomical interpretation of the creation of the universe, may be
said to answer an "ultimate" question, but it is not, by
itself, a "religious" idea. Likewise, moral or patriotic
views are not by themselves "religious," but if they are
pressed as divine law or a part of a comprehensive belief-system that
presents them as "truth," they might well rise to the
religious level.
The component of comprehensiveness is particularly
relevant in the context of state education. A science course may
touch on many ultimate concerns,[41]
but it is unlikely to proffer a systematic series of answers to them
that might begin to resemble a religion.
St. Thomas Aquinas once defined theology by asserting,
... this science commands all the other sciences as the ruling science... This science uses for its service all the other sciences, as though its vassals, ....[42]
The teaching of isolated theories that might be
thought to address "ultimate" questions is not the teaching
of such a "ruling science." When these theories are
combined into a comprehensive belief system, however, the result may
well become such a "ruling science" that overflows into
other academic disciplines as the guiding idea of the student's
pursuits. It is just such a "ruling science" that the
establishment clause guards against.
A third element to consider in ascertaining
whether a set of ideas should be classified as a religion
is any formal, external, or surface signs that may be analogized to
accepted religions. Such signs might include formal services,
ceremonial functions, the existence of clergy, structure and
organization, efforts at propagation, observation of holidays and
other similar manifestations associated with the traditional
religions. Of course, a religion
may exist without any of these signs,[43]
so they are not determinative, at least by their absence, in
resolving a question of definition. But they can be helpful in
supporting a conclusion of religious status given the important role
such ceremonies play in religious life.[44] These formal signs of religion
were found to be persuasive proofs of religious character for tax
exemption purposes in Washington Ethical Society and
Fellowship of Humanity, discussed supra. They are noted
as well in Founding Church of Scientology supra. Thus, even if it is true that a
religion
can exist without rituals and structure, they may nonetheless be
useful signs that a group or belief system is religious.
Although these indicia will be helpful, they
should not be thought of as a final "test" for religion.
Defining religion
is a sensitive and important legal duty.[45]
Flexibility and careful consideration of each belief system are
needed. Still, it is important to have some objective guidelines in
order to avoid ad hoc justice.”
Source:
Malnak v. Yogi, 592 F. 2d 197 - Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 1979
Comment: Perhaps some useful hints here in assisting AAs clarify their own distinction between what constitutes a 'formal religious' perspective and what might be termed a more inclusive 'spiritual' orientation, the latter being entirely consistent with fundamental AA principles
Cheers
The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
Comment: Perhaps some useful hints here in assisting AAs clarify their own distinction between what constitutes a 'formal religious' perspective and what might be termed a more inclusive 'spiritual' orientation, the latter being entirely consistent with fundamental AA principles
Cheers
The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
