Should the Supreme Court have the right to "approve" religions?

Question

The Supreme Court currently posesses the ability to rule popular beliefs as religion or cult. Scientology has been passed as a "bona fide" religion, when it was only established about 50 years ago, when its founder Ron L. Hubbard began writing books on his theories. In the meantime, the Pagan beliefs, which have been around longer than Christianity, are still considered cults. Each time they have gone to the Supreme Court arguing their case, they are denied. Should the Supreme Court be able to approve some as true religions while branding others as cults? Wasn't this country established on the idea of freedom of religion?

Answer 1

no it violates the 1st amendment

Answer 2

The Supreme Court is pretty screwed up when it comes to Free Exercise in general thanks to a case known as Employment Division v. Smith. Read Scalia's opinion and O'Connor's dissent. While I normally like Scalia, he really got it wrong on this one. The Court basically said that Free Exercise is not a fundamental right, which in practical terms mean it is not entitled to the Compelling Interest Test unless it is combined with another fundamental right (what is and isn't a fundamental right is complete up to the Court mind you), say Freedom of Association. The Compelling Interest Test is something the Supreme Court made up because, well, who knows? It consists of these four questions as it pertains to Free Exercise. Remember since Smith, they Court can't use this test unless there is another fundamental right involved. 1) Sincerely held religious belief? The Gov. must prove it's not. 2) Is there a burden on the religious belief The claimant must prove this. 3) Is there a compelling state interest? Proven by the state. 4) Less restrictive means of achieving the state objective? State must prove the law is the absolute least restrictive mean available. For the gov. to win, though it doesn't always work out this way, they must prove 1, 3 and 4.

Edit: I just want to clear one thing up. Our ancestors did not come here for religious liberty, they came for religious sanctuary. There's a big difference. During the 1600s and most of the 1700s each state had it's own religion and other religions (meaning Christian denominations) were not accepted. The concept of religious liberty did not come into play until the Revolution.

Answer 3

Yes and no. The Supreme Court has the power to decide which laws are constitutional and enforced. If someone says they are going to start killing people or molesting children or doing something else heinous because that's part of their religion, then yes, the Supreme Court has the power to decide to enforce laws against them anyway and disregard their claims of religious perogative. On the other hand, the Supreme Court does not have the power to enforce a particular religion. Some entity has to be in charge of defining what is and is not a religion, and that job falls on the Supreme Court. We can only hope that the justices will do their jobs fairly and impartially.

Answer 4

The Supreme Court should not have that power. No government agency should. Yes, this country was founded on religious freedom and our ancestors fled here to be rid of religious persecution. Everyone has the freedom of religion and this shouldn't even have to be a subject to discuss. I thought that the Senate had approved Wicca or Pagan religions to be "bona fide". Does this mean that it has to be approved by the Supreme Court to make it so?

Answer 5

You can still believe what you want to believe, and it is not illegal to be a part of a group that the courts consider a cult. As long as your group is not breaking laws, there is nothing they can do to you. The "approval" process is specifically to grant tax exempt status from the IRS. The approval process is in place to keep every one from starting their own "religion" to avoid tax obligations. Whether or not it is right to not grant this status to some well established groups, you are probably right, but a lot of these groups do not have established membership rosters or do not have a central governing body that can report stats to the IRS. Many are just individuals that believe in a certain way of life.

Answer 6

Scientology isn't a bona fide religion. L. Ron Hubbard is not regarded as a prophet or a miracle figure. It is definitely a cult, however.

It is a business, and as such, is definitely subject to law. Until such time as people from all walks of life regard it as a religion, and there is divinity attached to it, Scientologist institutions do not enjoy the separation of church and state.

Answer 7

You've brought up a good question here. I tried to find any information on what you brought up, but could not find it on Google. You are right in that there is a freedom of religion, but from what I understand there is a key defining factor to what is considered a religion. One reason that the laws are as strict is to prevent organizations such as the KKK (who also has requested religious recognition) from being classified as a religious organization. I know that doesn't answer the basic question, but I do agree that there should be set definitions and we need to be careful about just opening this up to any organization that wants to get legal recognition as a religion.

Probably what will have to happen is that the Church of Paganism (not sure what they call themselves) needs to look at what criteria they need to meet in order to fall within the religious jurisdiction. It would be dangerous to change the definitions.

Answer 8

Most of the pagan beliefs in the modern-day US are not truly ancient beliefs. Wicca and other modern forms of pagan belief really can't be said to predate Gerald Gardner by any significant margin. They are at best a "reconstruction" of such beliefs, although how accurate a reconstruction may not be easy to say.

That alone should not affect the merits of pagan claims, but I imagine the age of a religious belief is only one of many things they consider. And I'm not sure that the legal decisions involved are really affirmation that a religion exists, but rather specific rulings related to the judicial matter being decided.

Answer 9

Good question. Somehow seems like they are "establishing a religion" by denying some beliefs are benefited religions. Perhaps they think that in order to qualify for tax exempt status and other benefits that churches enjoy, these churches must have a certain level of organization, with headquarters, hierarchies and buildings that are used for worship. Do Pagans follow these conventions?

Answer 10

The supreme court should not have the right to rule on religion, as far as whether it is 'religion' or cult. If your religion is 'christian' than it is probably a religion, but if however, your religion is not 'Christian' then yours will probably going to be ruled as an 'cult'. Religious freedom? Check out the Puritans. If you did not believe the exact same way as they did, they either killed you or banished you.

Answer 11

Courts can barely judge on law existing and propose on behavior observed. Religious activists always seem to posess all of rights and reasons, while at same make no efforts to help others have their results, and I like the idea, for I have no patience for those too. Am I incorrect? I don´t think so. Let us be man enough as to be righteous or fragrant, with regard none to dealers and trusters of peace and become.
Religions collect favor as album pictures, they must have more support than mafia, and sure collect big time on governments and the supposed help on stupid children and hungry. Work, dude.