1.4: What Makes a Religion Special? (Noah Levin)

4 What Makes a Religion Special?
Noah Levin⁹

Religions and religious beliefs get a privileged place in most societies, particularly special legal considerations in many countries. However, there is a complication in determining which beliefs should earn this special status, as it is difficult to define a religion and lay out clear criteria for what qualifies as one. Even if this can be determined, there is the further difficulty of defending the viewpoint that a religion is more special than a set of beliefs that is “merely” a philosophy or worldview. It is not extremely difficult to determine what makes something a religion in the eyes of the general public (in fact, a popular survey might be the best strategy for deciding which belief systems qualify as religions), but figuring out why certain groups or beliefs are particularly special and worthy of extra consideration is difficult. Indeed, I am going to argue that there is nothing that makes religions and religious beliefs particularly special when compared to other types of belief systems and beliefs. Before the devout among us get insulted, I do not want to denigrate religions and religious beliefs in anyway way; I want to elevate non-religious beliefs to the same status, as the conditions that seem to make religion and religious beliefs receive an exalted status should apply to non-religious beliefs and related systems as well.

In the classic episode of The Simpsons, “Homer the Heretic” (Season 4, Episode 3), Homer stays home one Sunday morning instead of going to church and has such a good time he believes that God is telling him to start his own religion. As expected, wackiness ensues, Homer learns some lessons, and he eventually gives up on his religion. His first Sunday back in church, Homer predictably falls asleep and meets God in a dream where he tells Homer not to feel bad since, “Nine out of ten religions fail in their first year.” A key moment I would like to draw attention to in the episode, though, is where Homer avoids work by calling in from Moe’s Tavern and states, “This is Homer Simpson, I won't be coming in tomorrow. Religious holiday, the, uh, feast of...maximum occupancy.” Since it’s his religion and Homer doesn’t want to go into work the next day, he decides it’s his prerogative to create a religious holiday. Presumably, Homer couldn’t call in and say, “I want to sit around in my bear underwear and drink all day,” without retribution. A religious holiday, however, would be a perfectly acceptable reason to not go into work. But what is it about religions that make us view them (and their respective holidays) in such a special fashion?

In a similar fashion to how we accommodate religions and religious beliefs, I noticed how we go out of our way to allow people a special space to partake in a particular addiction: smoking. Smoking is a habit that negatively impacts one’s own health and those around them and is expensive. It’s unsafe to do it around children (and many states now have laws that prevent its use in particular situations if children are present, like inside of cars) and is almost universally outlawed indoors in Western countries, the United States included. Yet, we designate particular spaces to allow people to indulge in this vice in ways we don’t others. I recently visited an outdoors “family camp” and there were specific areas for people to enjoy cigarettes, but nowhere for people to enjoy other vices, like alcohol or marijuana (both of which are otherwise legal to consume where this camp took place). Surely, whatever reasons apply to the acceptance of tobacco would also apply to alcohol and/or marijuana consumption. Or, the reasons that bar the use of alcohol and marijuana should surely apply to cigarettes as well. With regard to religions, we go out of our way to accommodate their holidays, beliefs, and related actions, but should we do that? It would seem that, for consistency sake, we should either broaden the scope of what accommodate or severely limit the things we do accommodate, and I’d like to argue we should broaden them (for religions and the like, but not for indulging in vices in public spaces).

The fictional holiday “Festivus” was popularized during a 1997 episode of the TV series Seinfeld (though it was created in the 1960’s by the father of one of the show’s writers). It’s a secular “parody” holiday celebrated on December 23^rd and resists consumerism while allowing people to “air their grievances.” If someone were to genuinely believe that Festivus held significant meaning to them and requested the day off for religious reasons, should they be allowed to? If such a person had no other religious beliefs and did not believe it were fit to take Christmas off (similarly to how Jews would want, and be given, Yom Kippur off, while Christians would not), would it be unfair to deny them this request? In similar fashion, adherents to the “Pastafarian” religion (a parody religion based on the worship of the Flying Spaghetti Monster) have claimed the right to wear their religious headgear (a colander) in official government photos, since adherents of religions that require specific headgear are allowed to do so provided it doesn’t interfere with the ability to identify them in the photos. Should we deny them that right? Usually wearing the colander has been allowed, and there are plenty of beaming Pastafarian government identification photos.

I am certain that many religious believers are insulted by both Festivus and Pastafarianism. The intentions of the people that promote these “alternate” viewpoints can be malicious, playful, mocking, or genuine. But so can mainstream religious beliefs. One goal that adherents to these viewpoints have is to start a genuine conversation by asking the question I am asking: What makes a religion deserve special treatment? To begin the discussion, and fight against religious privilege, they have started their own religions (or religious holidays) in an attempt to benefit from the exalted status of religions themselves. What is about the religions that means they should be more revered than a Festivus practitioner or a Pastafarian? If it’s about devotion to the movement and the importance of the holiday or beliefs, then there are certainly fervent supporters of Festivus (Frank Costanza, a character in Seinfeld, relishes enshrining the ability to air his grievances) and Pastafarianism. Is it about the specific nature of the religious beliefs or the history of the holidays? But where would we non-arbitrarily draw the line between what counts as an “exalted” religion and what counts merely as a personal, non-religious belief? Or a religion that is too small to warrant our concern?

I have taken a roundabout way of getting to the meat of this discussion: Should religious beliefs be special? If they are, should we also allow for other, non-religious beliefs to be elevated to the same status? Would allowing people to take Festivus off as a religious holiday denigrate mainstream religious holidays? In some sense, there is nothing to denigrate, as a religious person can always celebrate their holiday and follow their practices (within the law) as they see fit. The issue at hand is whether society and legal systems should recognize certain religious holidays as holding broader significance. Not long ago, there was a big public and legal debate about gay marriage in the United States. The debate was resolved when it was determined that according to a few prevailing legal criteria and interpretations, gay marriage was guaranteed under the constitution. There was, however, another way to go about resolving the issue that was potentially fairer: remove marriage from the legal system. There is something odd in the government taking a role in traditions that have historically been primarily religious or primarily social (as opposed to legal), such as marriage. Because of the social importance of marriage, governments began to recognize, and ultimately grant licenses for, marriages for legal conveniences, like shared property and marital privileges. It would have been just as easy for the government to say that they were no longer going to have anything to do with marriages when the legal question of gay marriage became pressing, and that rather than grant licenses, the government would recognize socially or religiously condoned unions, including but not limited to couples joined in marriage through religious traditions and those taking vows of being unified as a married couple and presenting themselves as such to society at large. The legal traditions would still stand, the government would not have anything to say about what counted as a marriage, and each member could follow their own belief system in how their union would occur and report it to the government if they wanted the benefits (and drawbacks) of the legal notion of marriage. In a similar fashion, the government could change the way it looks at religious holidays and require or allow various entities to permit each individual to choose the special days they find to be of particular personal and spiritual importance. I know plenty of Jedis that would pick May 4^th, and if this day holds deep personal significance, I’m not sure why they should have to feel it has less importance to their lives than Christmas.

There are more privileges that religions are given, however. Religious leaders are allowed special access to areas like prisons and are allowed to keep conversations private if they take place for particular religious reasons in a particular context, similar to attorney-client privilege, spousal privilege, and patient-client privilege. Certain relationships are considered so intimate that privacy must be a guarantee if the relationship is to be productive, and a religious relationship is one of those that enjoys this exalted status. On top of this, religions are also given legal exemptions (they are allowed to discriminate in many ways other groups are not) and people are allowed to claim religious reasons for avoiding things that would otherwise be required, even for safety reasons (like not vaccinating children that attend public schools). But should they be unique? Are these religious beliefs so uniquely strong that, because of connection to a religion, people should be given special privileges to do what most people cannot? If it is the strength of conviction and importance in one’s belief system, then being part of a religion should not be the important requirement.

Religious adherents could be offended by my claims and make the case that the way they believe and the deepness it holds in their lives, coupled with the social and religious traditions that support them, are what make them special. Festivus and Pastafarianism simply can’t be at that same level. It won’t be an essential, integral part of someone’s life to wear a colander to show devotion to the flying spaghetti monster or to air one’s grievances on December 23^rd like it is to take communion, recite The Shema, or pray toward Mecca. There might be something to this, but there is still the problem of where lines will be drawn and which religions will be recognized. It also makes an assumption about the sacredness of holidays for others. I won’t claim that it is impossible to truly embrace Festivus or Pastafarianism since I can’t genuinely know how someone feels, and I certainly know plenty of mainstream religious practitioners that do not believe strongly in any part of their religion yet take advantage of the privileges associated with their “beliefs”.

I maintain that religious holidays and beliefs should hold the exalted status that they do (I have been careful not to say anything to the contrary), but we should also allow other beliefs and viewpoints to achieve the same status. Indeed, much language has begun shifting from “religious exemption” to “personal exemption.” One no longer needs to say, “I require a special food for religious reasons,” and could now simply say, “I do not consume meat for personal reasons,” and be treated the same as a Hindu that abstains from meat. Their convictions can be equally deep, and we should respect them as such. Additionally, the religiously devout among us should not be given special deference for their holidays; if an entirely secular person wishes to make their birthday a special day in their life and worldview, perhaps we should allow for that. In a multi-cultural liberal society where we respect viewpoints other than our own, everyone should be treated equally: either no religious beliefs are treated specially or non-religious beliefs are elevated to the same status. Since we properly recognize a deep, intimate nature to many beliefs that people hold, we ought to appreciate that such beliefs can be based in non-religious worldviews. Religions are, and ought to be, seen as special, but so should many other things.

For Review and Discussion

1. Do you have any personal or religious beliefs that might require others to make special accommodations for you? What are the reasons for this and do people respect your need?

2. Certain religious practices, despite being an integral part of a belief system, have still been banned, most notably animal sacrifice. Should this practice be banned, assuming it really is an integral part of a religion? Why or why not?

3. Do you agree with the author that certain non-religious beliefs should be given the same status as religious beliefs? If so, which beliefs should be elevated? If not, why not?