3 ms·

> Courts have pretty much ignored trying to define religion and instead treat any strongly held moral-based belief as a religion This is not correct. The cour

> Courts have pretty much ignored trying to define religion and instead treat any strongly held moral-based belief as a religion This is not correct. The courts have indeed ruled on criteria that defines what is and is not a religious belief. Here's one such case: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/380/163/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/380/163/

efitz 4y ago
Read Seeger (the decision you linked to). Here's an analysis [1]. The decision is specifically about expansion of "religion" to not require belief in a supreme being. Seeger supports my position. Again, they're not trying to define what is a religion, they're trying to set criteria for what falls under the 1st amendment. From the legal analysis linked below: "The Court rejected a distinction between beliefs derived externally (that is, from a religious tradition) and internally (that is, from purely personal beliefs). In Seeger the Court moved definitively away from requiring theistic belief — that is, belief in a Supreme Being — as a necessary condition for a belief to be religious under the First Amendment." And further, in 1970, Welsh v. US went even farther: "In Welsh the Court made explicit its rejection of a distinction between personal belief and affiliation with, or practice of, a recognized religious tradition." [1] https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/240/united-states-v-seeger https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/240/united-stat...
- linuxftw 4y ago
  This case might appear to support your position, but other cases do not. My intent was to show that the courts have indeed ruled on what is and isn't a religious belief generally, which is contrary to your position. In any case, beliefs have to be religious in nature, not personal or based on reason or 'science' or what have you.
  - efitz 4y ago
    That is literally the opposite of what the supreme court ruled.

efitz 4y ago

Read Seeger (the decision you linked to). Here's an analysis [1]. The decision is specifically about expansion of "religion" to not require belief in a supreme being. Seeger supports my position. Again, they're not trying to define what is a religion, they're trying to set criteria for what falls under the 1st amendment. From the legal analysis linked below: "The Court rejected a distinction between beliefs derived externally (that is, from a religious tradition) and internally (that is, from purely personal beliefs). In Seeger the Court moved definitively away from requiring theistic belief — that is, belief in a Supreme Being — as a necessary condition for a belief to be religious under the First Amendment." And further, in 1970, Welsh v. US went even farther: "In Welsh the Court made explicit its rejection of a distinction between personal belief and affiliation with, or practice of, a recognized religious tradition." [1] https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/240/united-states-v-seeger https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/240/united-stat...

linuxftw 4y ago
This case might appear to support your position, but other cases do not. My intent was to show that the courts have indeed ruled on what is and isn't a religious belief generally, which is contrary to your position. In any case, beliefs have to be religious in nature, not personal or based on reason or 'science' or what have you.
- efitz 4y ago
  That is literally the opposite of what the supreme court ruled.