Why do religions get a free pass?

seriously asking this. Why do religions get a free pass and inherent advantages over "personal beliefs" in so many laws? Religion is inherently just a personal belief, it's just that a bunch of other people happen to believe the same thing. they're inherently not based on provable facts (hence the whole "faith" thing.)

Why do you get to wear a hat of your choice in an ID photo if you just claim "religion?"

Why does Scientology get tax breaks? Why do parents get to deny blood transfusions that will save the life of their children (especially those too young to truly understand religion or its alternatives)?

If, for example, I choose to walk down the street naked, i'll be charged with public nudity/obscenity. If i can convince a few other people to do it too and say it's due to religious belief, I can have a decent chance of walking away scot (and clothing)-free. If i claim it's just personal belief, authorities will laugh and tell me to pay the fine/jail time. what gives?

edited 25th Oct '11 11:04:24 PM by willyolio

Because your government doesn't want to walk down the slippery slope of religious repression. Or, more likely, they don't want to appear to be doing so, and alienate the religious crowd from giving them their votes.

No. If your religion practices something that's against the law, then you will be arrested regardless of whether or not it's in your religious doctrine.

You can't murder someone and expect that "religious beliefs" will hold any sort of weight in court.

incorrect. tax exemptions are the easiest example. most non-religious organizations cannot claim donations as tax-exempt income and would be charged with tax evasion.

the child-care/blood transfusion is another example. parents have a responsibility to care for their children, anything less and they are charged with child abuse. claim "religion" and suddenly the child abuse is a matter of debate.

edited 25th Oct '11 11:20:05 PM by willyolio

You still can't walk down the street naked and claim religious reasons for it and get off without a charge for public indecency, though. You're basically up in other people's business, then.

The blood transfusion... is a massive gray area. It's kind of micromanaging to get into how a parent cares for their child.

edited 25th Oct '11 11:21:42 PM by AceofSpades

that was my point. by myself, no. but if i just convince a few other people to say the same thing and i could bring it to court. currently i don't know of many religions that promote public nudity, but i could make a case for it if i found one.

after that, i could claim the anti-nudity law inherently violates the bill of rights and thus should be abolished, and make a big legal stink about it.

again, my question for all you nitpickers are: why is this even a possibility regardless of the probability of success?

edited 25th Oct '11 11:28:07 PM by willyolio

-thinks of what would happen if my wat lacked its tax exempt status-

...

D:

THE TEMPLE WOULD NEVER GET BUILT. AND WOULD IT LIVE?!

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

It's not a probability; you could not walk around naked in public in any place besides a nudist colony. Which would likely be pointed out to you at some point. The only thing we're guaranteed is that we have freedom of religion, and that religion is free from the state. Which probably what prompted the tax exemption. But that doesn't give any church group the right to harm you.

It doesn't matter what religion you are; you're still bound by the US laws. And people have been peering into Scientology's crap trying to prove it's a dangerous cult for years now. The problem is that as a group it has a crapload of money and a crapload of lawyers. It's like jumping into a shark infested, highly dedicated to their cause sharks. They're also a very special case in America.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/24o/eight_short_studies_on_excuses/

| DA Page | Sketchbook |

it seems you're having trouble understanding the actual implications of "freedom of religion."

• public nudity does no harm. it's one of the actions that does have a chance of making it through. I'll grant religion doesn't get a free pass over all laws, but still a far greater number than zero, compared to "personal belief."
• established laws can, and have been, challenged for violating the freedom of religion. if you claim a law contradicts your religion, then that law (i.e. the state) is intruding on your religion.

edited 25th Oct '11 11:41:13 PM by willyolio

Public nudity goes under the public indecency laws and has no chance whatsoever of winning a court case. There are also nudist colonies where you can be naked all you want for whatever reason. A court official is likely to point this out, and laugh your case out of court. You would have wasted your time, and ended up with the same punishment as anyone else. (Which, as long as you didn't get violent, is probably a fine of some sort anyway regardless of the reason you were naked.)

You chose a bad example. Also, yes, you could take it to court because we are also guaranteed the right to have our say before a judge. That's why we have judges who preside over traffic tickets. You would still get laughed out.

no, it's a perfectly valid example. public nudity does no harm, and those laws have been challenged before. claiming religion is just one of the routes. women can now walk topless in canada and not be charged with indecency (that was challenged through violation of gender equality, though). Reasonable cases can be made for nudity.

even if you don't like it, use another example. like i said, stop nitpicking. why does religion get any advantage over "persona belief?" you admit that religions DO get legal exemptions that wouldn't fly if a person just said "i didn't feel like it," right?

edited 25th Oct '11 11:48:57 PM by willyolio

Follow the above link for a good answer.

Because religion is an important part of culture. Usually they have no reason to be doing whatever except for religious reasons, and won't be doing it at any other time. They're doing whatever in controlled situations. (Note that I'm thinking along the lines of ceremonies that non Christians might have, as I am unaware of any Christian rituals that go that use generally illegal drugs or anything. Far as I'm aware, Christian churches generally only use the tax exemption.)

So long as they don't disrupt society unduly or bring any kind of harm to individuals and keep their ceremonies to themselves then they're pretty much good to go. The rules are a tad bit different, but with very specific parameters. It's not a damn free for all. It's a very specific exception.

it's an answer, but not a satisfying one.

it's still "I have personal, faith (non-fact-based) belief X that violates law Y." the added line is "this belief was not made exclusively to violate law Y and is shared by many other people."

so, why does that second line turn it into an acceptable excuse?

edited 25th Oct '11 11:52:14 PM by willyolio

Religions get tax exemption because of separation of church and state. So yes, if you established your own church your church's activities would be exempt from taxation. But you and your church still aren't immune to the law, which means if one of your church's doctrines was not wearing clothes in public, and you did it in an area not designated as a nudist colony, you would still face the full force of the law.

edited 25th Oct '11 11:52:38 PM by MrDolomite

nobody was saying 100% immunity to all laws.

edited 25th Oct '11 11:53:10 PM by willyolio

You can say your religion involves smoking peyote all you want; you still can't just smoke it outside with some kids from down the street. It's a very context specific exception. It's not even one hundred percent immunity to the laws from which they're claiming exemption. It's not a free pass; it's an exception with guidelines you still have to obey.

Neither was I?

but i still could never gain that exemption if i claim to have a personal belief. there is no loophole to allow individuals to apply for exemptions to various laws for personal beliefs, but there are for religious beliefs.

edit: also, bad example. smoking with minors may be illegal but is one of the things that's allowed for religious ceremonies for aboriginal cultures, i'm pretty sure.

your wording implied it prior to the edit.

edited 26th Oct '11 12:07:42 AM by willyolio

This is because there are no religions with only one person in it... Those are called "a crazy person's delusions."

Besides, for the most part, so long as you don't violate any of the big laws(including filing your church's tax return), you can create your own religion, with your own rules and the like, and apply for such status anyway. You just have to remember that there is still an awful lot of things that your religion may say is okay but the government will still step in and say "bullshit"(like polygamy)...

edited 26th Oct '11 12:03:51 AM by Swish

that's just circular reasoning. My question is "why are religions allowed exemptions and individuals not?" and your answer is "because they're not religions."

also, the polygamy case is a funny thing: it's actually NOT illegal right now, the lawyers are making a big stink about it because they want it to become illegal (and ignoring the child abuse while they're at it). it's actually the same problem in reverse; they want to make (the majority's) religious belief law. that's a problem for another day, though.

edited 26th Oct '11 12:15:20 AM by willyolio

I read his answer more as "Religions are groups with numbers and there is power in numbers" personally. There's a lot of power in religion because of how large it is. Along with all the money and history invested in it.

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

Because we can make the exception for a law that would be violated anyway (out of religious conviction), while keeping the law for people we think we can still keep from doing it by force of law (without having to allow for any crazy reason, at least not too easily). It isn't circular at all.

| DA Page | Sketchbook |

I don't know where you live... but in the United States(where the whole, separation of church and state bit applies), being in a polygamous marriage is a federal misdemeanor. And some states will charge you with a felony for the practice...

Just because your religion says it's okay, doesn't mean the government won't touch you if you violate the law. It just means the government probably won't attack you for doing just that one thing(like the US government doesn't with the fundamentalist Mormons who practice polygamy). But you start calling attention to yourself, or do other illegal things to compound the situation, the hammer will come down(as it does on the fundamentalist Mormons when they do call attention to themselves)...

edited 26th Oct '11 12:24:30 AM by Swish