| |
ReligionAndBeliefs 8 - 01 Aug 2010 - Main.DanKarmel
|
| In one of my classes last week, someone asked “how do we tell the difference between religion and a regular belief?” This question gets to the heart of something I’ve thought about a lot – why do we accord special protection to beliefs we deem “religious” but not to other, secular beliefs?
As someone who is not religious, tends to be skeptical of religion in general, but also tries to remain open-minded, I find it frustrating when religious beliefs are given immunity or sanctity above other beliefs. I realize the importance of freedom to believe, and of having state-supported rights to associate based on belief, and of knowing that you will not be persecuted for religion. However, I think that having strictly “religious” freedom might be illogical and underinclusive. | | On the other hand, I'm not sure how useful it would be to have an expanded, generalized freedom of belief, for the simple reason that, as things stand, I don't think it's possible to make a law controlling what anyone believes. There are no thought police, and you can only be liable if you open your mouth and someone listens. It does seem odd, though, that faith healers and the like do not go to jail for fraud when their followers are injured by false promises of divine intervention. Even the act of collecting tithes for a purpose that doesn't exist - the "glory of god," or whatever - seems to be something the law should prevent. I wonder whether any such cases have succeeded.
-- SamWells - 06 Jul 2010 | |
> > | I think the extra sensitivity afforded to religious beliefs has to do both with the way religious groups are seen and treated from the outside, as well as how religious people view their own religious beliefs.
Externally, religious groups are often discriminated against in a way that ghost-believers, for example, are not. Similarly to other categorizations (e.g. race, sexual orientation), the degree of sensitivity demanded often correlates to the degree of discrimination a given group has experienced.
Internally, religious people often consider their religion to be at the core of their identity in a way that ghost-believers do not. There often is also a sense of immutability to one's religion, and perhaps criticizing someone's inherent characteristics isn't fair game. Some religions believe this explicitly. Orthodox Judaism, for example, believes that once you're Jewish there is nothing you can ever do to change that, even if you claim to forsake Judaism or convert to another religion. It's supposedly an immutable part of your soul.
These two factors play off each other. Because believing in ghosts isn't at the core of someone's identity, they don't wear it on their sleeve and don't form large and influential social groups based around believing in ghosts. That means that external groups probably won't feel threatened by or suspicious of ghost-believers, and there probably won't be discrimination against them.
Of course, simply referring to someone as a "ghost-believer" suggests that they're not involved enough with that belief to warrant referring to it as a religious belief. There are no doubt some religions that believe in ghosts.
-- DanKarmel - 31 Jul 2010 | | |
|
Revision 8 | r8 - 01 Aug 2010 - 00:22:48 - DanKarmel |
Revision 7 | r7 - 06 Jul 2010 - 03:21:22 - SamWells |
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors. All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| |