Religion is a particular state of mind. It covers beliefs (faith), convictions and even concepts or principles that humans find note-worthy, worship-worthy or love-worthy. I attempted to demonstrate that different people define ‘religion’ very differently from each other (and from my above definition), providing example of a school librarian who only considered several sects of Christianity as ‘religion’ (not even covering all of Christianity) and classifying all else as ‘mythology’. As there is no provision in our society for ‘protection from discrimination on the grounds of mythology’, should everyone define the term as narrowly (or according to their own particular liking), this would effectively place many ‘religions’ outside of legal protection….
C.G. Jung’s definition of ‘religion’ (which I happen to like because it is clear, concise and can be workable in both a personal and a legal context – as well as being a definition I think most people could accept), is as follow:
Religion appears to me to be a peculiar attitude of the mind which could be formulated in accordance with the original use of the word religio, which means a careful consideration and observation of certain dynamic factors that are conceived as “powers”: spirits, demons, gods, laws, ideas, ideals, or whatever name man has given to such factors in his world as he has found powerful, dangerous, or helpful enough to be taken into careful consideration, or grand, beautiful, and meaningful enough to be devoutly worshiped and loved.
This definition would effectively eliminate the problem which I cited in the ‘librarian’ example – and more.
This definition of religion limits it to a peculiar attitude of the mind: not the practices or ritualswhich accompany it.
As such, whereever freedom of religion was guaranteed, a person could believe, admit and openly discuss all aspects of their religion freely, without regard to how ‘offensive’ this may be to other religions or to some members of the society. However, since religion is limited (by definition) to a state of mind – not actions – one could not claim protection under ‘freedom of religion’ laws for taking action which would contravene the laws of the land that person would happen to be living in. In my never-humble-opinion, drawing a very firm line between ‘beliefs/thoughts/ideas’ and expressing them freely (protected) and actions (not protected) is very, very important.
All actions which contravene the laws of the land – no matter how much rooted in or motivated by ‘religion’ – ought not enjoy any protection under ‘freedom of religion’.
Example:
Human sacrifice is an integral part of many bona fide religions. From ancient Egypt and other parts of Africa, to China and Japan, to Europe, and the Americas – human sacrifice was an integral part of many religious rituals. If actions based on religious belief were to be protected under ‘freedom of religion’, any person claiming to subscribe to any one of these religions could commit ritual murder without fear of prosecution or any kind of legal action. The murderer would be protected under ‘freedom of religion’.
I particularly selected human sacrifice for my example because it is so extreme. Yet, it is a well documented part of many religious rituals! If there is a blanket protection for actions based on religious belief, even such extreme acts as ritualized murder would be protected.
In no way am I proposing that this ought to be so. To the contrary. I am demonstrating in as strong terms as I can think of that ‘freedom of religion’ must not be allowed to excuse acts which are in breech of secular laws. OK, so the ‘religious practice’in question need not be as drastic as human sacrifice: it could be polygamy, ritual rape, paedophilia (child-brides), ritual cannibalism, genital mutilation (male and female) – the list could go on for pages…
The particulars of the practice are really not important. The key is that freedom of religion ought to protect one from discrimination based on thoughts, belief, ideas – but must not in any way protect behaviour which contravenes the secular laws of the land.
We must protect everyone’s right to believe and hold ideas freely and openly. At the same time, we must not allow cries of ‘this is part of my religion’ to protect illegal behaviour: this would only lead to the hijacking of religions by criminal minded people or those who wish to oppress -or worse.
It would be wrong of us to allow religions to be abused in this manner.
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 
January 10, 2009 at 10:15
“Such is the nature of reality, that anyone can experience
that which is least understood.” TDL
For many years, (1932-1958) Carl Jung and Professor
W. Pauli, Nobel laureate-physics, discussed the nature
of reality. Their letters were published under title, “atom
and archetype.”
The final conclusions about “acausal reality” concerns
the nature of number as the most primal archetype of
order in the human mind. In other words – number is
pre-existent to consciousness. As Jung said, “it is here
that the most fruitful field of further investigation might
be found.
Quotes: “man has need of the word, but in essence
number is sacred.” Jung….
“our primary mathematical intuitions can be
arranged before we become conscious of them.” Pauli….
Other details in google search, under: “numomathematics”
Xanthippa says:
Sounds like Jung and Pauli (and I am guessing here – I only read Jung’s less esoteric, more directly psychiatry-related works) might have been re-tracing the path of the Pythagoreans…
January 24, 2010 at 17:29
Wow, you�re so much more technologically inclined than I am. But I do so appreciate this website and the info it has provided me… and hope to take some time this week to read more. Love your blog!
Xanthippa syas:
Thank you!
February 19, 2010 at 15:39
[…] and does not, mean February 19, 2010 — xanthippa One term misused in debates about ‘religion’ almost as often as the term ‘atheist’ is the term […]
June 21, 2010 at 10:39
I cannot agree with your definition of religion. Since I am Catholic, I will use my understanding of it to explain my position. At the core of Catholicism, is the belief that there are some things that, with regards to morality, are objectively wrong- wrong in every time, place, and situation. I believe that you yourself would assent to this, since you already have identified objective moral truths (human sacrifice, polygamy, ritual rape, paedophilia (child-brides), ritual cannibalism, genital mutilation).
Now, it is not enough to believe that human sacrifice is wrong, rather, one must also behave in accordance with that belief. If one does not have the freedom to act in accordance with that belief, of what value is the belief? None. It is nothing but an illusion of freedom which the state allows to placate the people.
The crux of the issue, however, lies in the contradiction between the constitutionally granted “freedom of religion” and the secular law- a contradiction that is only truly resolved if religious belief and secular law both conform to objective moral truth. You seem to assume, though, that secular law is ipso facto closer to objective moral truth and therefore has primacy, but that is a false (and sometimes dangerous) assumption. Our laws were not created in a vacuum, but created by people who drew from their religious beliefs, cultural backgrounds, and own understanding of morality. There is nothing to suggest that they inherently knew better and we should accept their moral code a priori.
Xanthippa says:
Aha!
Thank you for bringing up this most excellent point!!!
You have just raised a question which I really think is important, yet one which I did not adequately explain my views on. In order explain clearly, I’ll try to be extremely ‘streamlined’:
The setting: religious beliefs not only ‘permit’, but ‘command’ behaviour from their practitioners which is contrary to the secular laws of the land.
Question: which takes precedence? The right of the religious people to behave in accordance with their beliefs and commit illegal acts (thus exercising freedom of religion) OR the laws of the land which make certain actions illegal?
I fully agree that secular laws were not created in a vacuum. Moral or otherwise.
However, I do not propose in any way, shape or form that secular laws are somehow ‘morally’ superior to religious laws. Here, we could have a number of discussions, but I will only address the limited scope that lead to the point I was making in that post, because I fear I’ll go off on tangents…
It is not prudent to ‘legislate morality’.
Ever.
The laws which govern our land must never ever intrude into this area, precisely because what constitutes ‘moral behaviour’ varies greatly among the segments of our population. Accepting the very premise that a government – any governmtn – has authority over ‘moral choices’ of its citizens and ought to be capable of enforcing particular ‘moral’ behaviours on the population inevitably leads to oppression of the worst kind.
The role of secular laws is not to ‘define morality’ but rather to be a set of inviolable ‘negative rights’ inherrent to each citizen. By ‘negative rights’, I mean ‘rights’ NOT TO have stuff done to you. Like, say, the right not to be randomly killed. Or not to have a healthy bit of your body amputated before you are old enough to consent to it…
So, how to reconcile – for example (since this is what I’ve been dealing with in my posts last week) – the right of a parent to exercise their freedom of religion and circumcising their child with the child’s right to bodily integrity? Does the right of the child not to have a healthy body part amputated outweigh the parents’ religious belief that that particular body part must be cut off?
Now, let me get back to the point I was making:
Secular laws are not ‘morally superior’ to religious laws. They were NOT handed down, carved in stone and imposed onto a people.
Rather, secular laws in ANY society are the result of negotiations among various segments of the population. Instead of some ‘vacuum’, secular laws are a compromise of where the lines of ‘minimum interference’ of one person with another lie. THAT is the reason why the secular laws must take precedence: they are an AGREEMENT among all us citizens as to how we conduct ourselves.
Precisely because the secular laws are not ‘set in stone’, they will change and evolve along with the society. That is why, even though we cannot tolerate physical actions which violkate this ‘citizens contract’ we have with each other, we must tolerate all religious beliefs and their expression. WIthin the laws, yes.
But by ensuring freedom of speech for everyone, people have the ability to influence the continuously evolving laws. If they hold specific religious beliefs, they can exercise their freedoms to affect change in public opinion, which will lead to change in laws.
That is why ensuring freedom of religion to believe and speak out about things which are currently illegal is not an empty right, even if the actual act they would like to act upon is still forbidden by law!
Let me use an example: some religions believe that in order to assist their spiritual journey, they ought to consume mind-altering narcotics. Currently, this act is against the law. But, because they have the freedom to continue to hold their beliefs and speak them, they could normalize the idea so that laws banning it may be struck down. Then, once the act is no longer against the law, they must be free to practice it.
The difference I am drawing is between obeying the law and working to change it and defying the law….
Freedom to believe and say whatever one wants ensures the ablitiy for our secular laws to evolve to reflect the changes in our society. But the reason that ‘religious freedom’ may not ‘trump’ them, permitting people to break the secular laws because they think their religion permits them to do so is precisely because the secular laws are a negotiated agreement among the citizens of a specific country on how to interact with each other!
You cannot have a contract where some people uphold it while others do not feel bound by it.
Secular laws are that contract…..
I hope that clarifies why I refuse to accept ‘religious belief’ as a valid reason for a person to break secular laws. If we do not expect our citizens to obey the secular laws – we do not have a society!
June 29, 2010 at 21:28
[…] 29, 2010 — xanthippa Recently, a post I had made a long time ago where I was looking at the definitions and nature of religion received a comment which raised a very important point. It was something that I had attempted to […]