Defining 'religion' for the purpose of not establishing 'religion'.

Buongiorno specie al mio preferito!

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

How does Congress/SCOTUS define 'religion', for the purpose of insuring that Congress is not making a law respecting an establishment of religion?

If you search the US Code, you find surprisingly many references to the term 'religion,' as in 'minister of religion.' You even see definitions such as "The term "duly ordained minister of religion" means ...

But curiously, you never see the following: "The term "religion" means ..."

I call this 'the not with a ten foot pole' paradox. Imagine some Congressional staffer starting off a line like that. You would hope it would at least give him pause.

There are a ton of anecdotal quotes of the founding fathers, former SCOTUS Justices, and so on, none of which answers the question; how does Congress/SCOTUS define 'religion' for the purposes of making sure that Congress is not defining religion?

Americans are free to define religion any way they wish, as in, the worship of Tuna fish. Silly, but not prohibited. The question is, is Congress permitted to ever declare "The worship of Tuna fish is/is not a religion?' Is Congress permitted to ever declare, "For the purpose of declaring the worship of Tuna fish as a religion/ not a religion, the definition of "Tuna worship" is defined as ...?" Not even the IRS Code gets out that 10 foot pole.

Then, is Congress permitted to establish any kind of a list of religions, for any purpose? As in, "List of Allowable Religions in America" and an implicit "List of Not Allowable Religions in America?"

Well, instead of lists, can Congress simply define a meta-definition, some list of hurdles that 'R'eligions must jump over before they are considered examples of 'r'eligion? If so, then why haven't they?

Perhaps 'belief in a supernatural being." Would that be limited to 'real' supernatural beings, or could it include 'unreal' supernatural beings as well, like 'The Gods of Football" or "The Gods of the Theatre" or even, Durkheim's "'S'ociety?" (You know, the unseen yet all seeing entity above and beyond all mere local contingencies, that alone can see all and furnish the ...Durkheim's substitute totem for 'God', "Society?")

If limited to 'real' supernatural beings, then how does Congress determine the reality of supernatural beings? Is a God-O-Meter of some kind involved?

There are those who selectively defer to former Justice Joseph Story's admiring reference to the Virginia Bill of Rights, as if it was federal statute, which it is not, and yet when seen in its entirety, it is not much of a secular help at all:

16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our CREATOR, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity, towards each other.

"Forbearance" as in, a failure to enforce.

If it is as simple as looking up the term in Black's Law or any other Dictionary, then it should be a simple matter to simply state that in the US Code: "The term 'religion' shall mean..." Alas, not.

We have set all kinds of precedents so far when it comes to the abuse of the 1st Amendment. For example, if I want to claim protection from what I claim is religion, is it necessary that I actually believe in that religion, or believe that the supernatural being associated with that religion is 'real', before curiously seeking 'protection' from it? (Let me check...atheists, 'No').

Is it necessary that I hold a majority view of religion when I seek protection? (Let me check...atheists, 'No').

Well then, I don't really believe in Thespianism(like atheists don't believe in say Christianity), and I don't really believe the "Gods of the Theatre" are real supernatural beings(like atheists don't believe in God), but just to be safe, let's get that "sacred space" of the theatre crap out of our public schools before someone gets hurt.

I know that makes me sound like a crank fringe crackpot with a minority view of religion(like atheists), but too late, we've established the precedent, and I do not see where Congress is able to rule, for the curious task of prohibiting undefinable religion anywhere in America, that "Thespianism is/is not a religion."

Gods of Football, with its endless Hail Mary's and uniformed acolytes, halls of fame, and regular Sunday services?

Gaien Environmentalism? Why even, and especially, "Social Scientology?" If "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," then where are the prescribed Lists of "These are real religions that those with a minority view of religion may seek 'protection' from, and these 'unreal' religions that only a crank would seek 'protection' from?

The best anyone has ever explained this paradox to me is as follows. "It is not a paradox. Congress may not establish religion, so it must be able to define religion, to make sure that is not defining religion. It can't, so it must, because it can't, otherwise it could."

I have a much better explanation for this paradox. The paradox of having to 'define religion' only comes about when Congress/SCOTUS finds itself in the curious position of prohibiting the free exercise of religion anywhere in America. The paradox goes away when there is no ability to petition the federal government for the curious task of prohibiting the free exercise of religion anywhere in America. If our political bias was towards religious tolerance, not intolerance, then there would be no paradox.

So, from where the present paradox?

It is what we should expect to see in America if its public institutions had somehow been overrun by a particular religion, and that particular religion was actively slamming the successfully pierced 1st Amendment door shut behind itself by turning it on its ear. Is there any hint of such a theocracy in America?

"Society is not at all the illogical or a-logical, inherent and fantastic being which has too often been considered. Quite on the contrary, the collective consciousness is the highest form of psychic life, since it is the consciousness of consciousness. Being placed outside of and above individual and local contingencies, it sees things only in their permanent and essential aspects, which it crystallizes into communicable ideas. At the same time that it sees from above, it sees farther; at every moment of time it embraces all known reality; that is why it alone can furnish the minds with the moulds which are applicable to the totality of things and which make it possible to think of them"

So said Emil Durkheim, the 'still seminal' founding father of modern Social Scientology. It is one of the most honest definitions of "Society" ever disclosed by the Social Scientologists. If you can read that definition and not smell 'religion' about, then I must put you in touch with my brother-in-law, who is an excellent chiropractor, and will be able to help you with all of that bending over backwards. (I always love when sociology texts, aka PolitSci Bibles, refer to Durkheim as 'still seminal' -- as if it was possible to ever lose ones 'seminality.' It is revealing; the Social Scientologists will indeed throw Durkheim under the bus the second it becomes politically advantageous to do so, just like they did Marx.)

An example of a 's'ociety is a group of people who meet once a month to discuss bird migration. That is not what the Social Scientologists mean when they lift their eyes to the skies above and leg lift their clearly a religion political agenda by speaking(in tongues)for "S"ociety.

A century ago, did they succeed in piercing the 1st Amendment, when all this Social Scientology Society=God slight of hand was sweeping the face of the planet? Check your wallet. Were you issued a "Biblical Security" number, and are you carrying a card? Does your kid come home from public school with his "Biblical Studies" books, from his 'Biblical Studies" classes?

Think about it; why would our very own government ever succumb to the sweet siren of a religion that was selling "the state is God?"

Pick up a sociology textbook, aka, a soft science textbook, aka, not a science at all. It is filled with nothing but "Sociologists believe..." from beginning to end. Well, so did the Apostles.

A hundred years ago, they called their religion 'science', and the Social Scientologists succeeded in over-running our 1st Amendment. They have slammed the door shut behind themselves, and have turned religious tolerance into religious intolerance, precisely by 'defining religion.'

Reguarda,
Frediano