Defining “Religion”
Recall our discussion about United States v. Kuch from the first class of the semester. Are the Boo Hoos a bona fide religious group? How do we know? How do we determine what counts as a “religion” for constitutional purposes? The Supreme Court has ventured into this cumbersome question only occasionally, and has never provided a definitive answer. The closest the Court has come to a definition of religion is in two Vietnam-era draft cases that focused on a statutory definition of religion. A third case, Wisconsin v. Yoder, makes a passing reference to the boundaries of the definition of religion. Think about the assumptions and implications of the following:
“Religion [is] the duty which we owe to our Creator, . . . it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity, towards each other.” (Virginia Decl. of Rights, 1776)
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” (First Amendment, 1791)
“The term ‘religion’ has reference to one’s view of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character, and of obedience to his will.” (Davis v. Beason, 1890)
“The essence of religion is belief in a relation to God involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation.” (United States v. Macintosh, 1931)
“Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.” (Torcaso v. Watkins, 1961)
“[T]he test . . . is whether a given belief that is sincere and meaningful occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God” and is “based upon a power or a being, or upon a faith, to which all else is subordinate or upon which all else is ultimately dependent.” (United States v. Seeger, 1965)
Religious beliefs are those that “rest at all upon moral, ethical, or religious principles” and not “solely upon considerations of policy, pragmatism, or expediency.” (Welsh v. United States, 1970)
“Thoreau’s choice was philosophical and personal rather than religious, and such belief does not rise to the demands of the Religion Clauses.” (Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1972)
One of the reasons that the Supreme Court has struggled to define “religion” is that it is difficult to think of any “essential” or “necessary” components of all religions. Consider the following:
• Belief in a Supreme Being
• Belief in transcendent reality
• Account of humanity’s role in the universe (perhaps including life and afterlife)
• Moral code
• Sacred rituals and holy days
• Worship and prayer
• Sacred texts
• Membership in a group that promotes the belief system
Do all religions have all of these components? If not, are there better approaches to the meaning of religion?
United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965)
Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333 (1970)