A case for the traditional view of religion

[_Darth J]

Universal legal acceptance of Mormonism as a legitimate religion may be, as advocates of the Mormon lifestyle triumphantly insist, inevitable in the United States. Several states and the federal government now recognize Mormonism as a religion within the purview of the First Amendment. Mormon politicians like Orrin Hatch, Harry Reid, and Mitt Romney, as well as Mormon celebrities such as Donnie Osmond, Gladys Knight, and Orson Scott Card, have worked effectively with the militant public relations and door-to-door advocacy of the LDS Church to convince many people in the United States that Mormonism deserves to be considered a religion in the same way that Christianity, Judaism, or Islam are religions. The campaign for Mormonism to be viewed as a legitimate religion has successfully framed itself as a quest for free exercise of religion as provided by the First Amendment, justice and equality in the face of relentless persecution of modern Mormons' ancestors over a century and a half ago — which makes it difficult (and rather dangerous) to resist.

Not content to bring their ideas to the free marketplace of ideas in the public square, Mormons frequently seek to impose their definition of religion on society through the courts, where lawyers representing Mormon interests use courtroom tactics and sophistry and the Socratic method to convince unelected, unaccountable tyrants in black robes to force the public to accept Mormonism as an actual religion through the Machiavellian device of case law jurisprudence. Just look at some of the examples where Mormons have resorted to the courts to establish that their lifestyle should be considered equal to the traditional definition of religion:

Corp. of the Presiding Bishop v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1987)
Franco v. LDS Church, 2001 UT 25, 21 P.3d 198
Federal lawsuit by LDS Church intimidates city council in Texas to reverse vote against allowing construction of LDS chapel

In fact, in their zealous crusade through the courts to legitimize their lifestyle as a religion deserving legal protection, Mormons have even engaged the services of leftist, anti-Christian groups such as the ACLU.

Some may feel that the militant marketing efforts Mormons use to promote the alleged legitimacy of their lifestyle, together with Mormon politicians and celebrities in the public spotlight, and the increasing trend in the court system toward recognizing Mormonism as a religion, show that the battle is over. Many who oppose the legal recognition of Mormonism as a religion have struggled to justify their opposition — not only to others, but to themselves. Religious reservations, for instance, don’t translate well into discussions with non-believers. (“The Bible says God is not a human being from another planet” works for most believing religious people, but carries no weight with secular outsiders.) Inarticulate opposition to the Mormon lifestyle can easily be caricatured — even demonized — as irrational prejudice.

And the cultural and academic elites arguing for "religious equality” have argued eloquently, using the popular media with great skill. Accordingly, tongue-tied resistance to legal recognition of a so-called Mormon religion has tended to crumble — even among some otherwise believing Christians, and particularly among religious youths, who tend to view such issues in terms of basic human decency and compassion, rather than dispassionate logic, when evaluating value judgments that pertain to intimate interpersonal relationships.

Fortunately, however, there are a great many books that methodically present a concise, calm, lucid case for the proposition that legal recognition should be limited to religion as religion has been universally defined for millennia. The authors of such books aren't frontier rubes, driven by hatred. Rather, they include people with degrees in theology from accredited divinity schools, sociologists, legal scholars, philosophers, and even people trained in hard science. They appeal to neither religion nor revelation, though they worry about the future of religious freedom if belief systems like Mormonism becomes the legal norm, and they express no hostility to Mormons. In fact, their case is fundamentally a philosophical argument, informed by social science, for a particular view of religion — the “transcendantal view,” as they call it — rather than against Mormon beliefs.

Religion is a uniquely comprehensive belief. It involves a union of hearts and minds, but also—and distinctively—a spiritual union made possible by belief in a first cause deity who exists outside of time and space. As the faith by which a believer and a transcendental, supernatural God commune also makes new spiritual life, so religion itself is inherently extended and enriched by faith and calls for all-encompassing commitment that is permanent and exclusive to one, and only one, transfinite God. In short, religion unites a person and a deity holistically—emotionally and spiritually, in acts of transcendental faith and in the enlightenment such faith brings forth—for the whole of life.

Religion is the fundamental building block of all human belief. The government does not create religion. Religion is a natural institution that predates government. Society as a whole, not merely any given set of believers, benefits from religion. This is because religion helps to channel transcendental faith into a stable institution that provides for orderly worship and the conversion of the next generation.

This understanding of religion as the union of man and a transcendental, first cause God is shared by the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim traditions; by ancient Greek and Roman thinkers untouched by these religions; and by various Enlightenment philosophers. It is affirmed by both common and civil law and by ancient Greek and Roman law. Far from having been intended to exclude Mormon beliefs, religion as the worship of a transcendental, first cause God arose in many places, over several centuries, in which Mormonism was nowhere on the radar. Indeed, it arose in cultures that had no concept of Mormonism and in some that fully accepted the deification of their kings and even took it for granted.

Mormon beliefs cannot fulfill this traditional definition of religion. Instead of venerating a first cause God who is beyond the confines of time and space, Mormons believe in a super-powerful human being who evolved to godhood on another planet. Not only is this Mormon Übermensch subject to the physical universe, rather than its originator, he is merely one among many. There is nothing unique or particularly special about this super-powered human, since Mormons posit that such humans exist without number in the universe, and that someday we may become one ourselves. Worship of a mere human being cannot ever fill the role that religion has had in human existence since before the dawn of recorded history.

Redefining religion does not simply expand the existing understanding of religion. It rejects the anthropological truth that religion is based on the incomprehensibility of the universe, the biological fact that our brains may be predisposed to religious belief, and the social reality that people need a God that is above the chaos of existence rather than merely a part of it. Redefining religion to abandon the norm of a transcendental deity who is the first cause of all things would also make other essential characteristics—such as theodicy, monotheism, and mystery—optional.

Redefining religion is also a direct and demonstrable threat to religious freedom because it marginalizes those who affirm religion as belief in an incorporeal, transcendental God who exists outside the confines of the physical universe. This is already evident in Utah and Idaho, among other locations.

In recent decades, religion has been weakened by a revisionist view of religion that is more about an individual's personal beliefs than society's needs. This view reduces religion primarily to emotional bonds or legal privileges. Redefining religion represents the culmination of this revisionism and would leave emotional intensity as the only thing that sets religion apart from other belief systems. However, if religion were just epistemology by appeal to emotion, religious norms would make no sense as a principled matter. There is no reason of principle that requires an emotional epistemology to be internally coherent. Or limited to an actual deity. Or spiritual, much less spiritually exclusive (as opposed to “polytheistic”). Or inherently oriented to social life and shaped by its demands. Believers might live out these norms where temperament or taste motivated them, but there would be no reason of principle for them to do so and no basis for the law to encourage them to do so.

If society were to legally recognize Mormonism, with its worship of a human being from another planet, as a legitimate religion, then what is next? Worshiping your dog as a religion? Worshiping your vacuum cleaner? Worshiping a piece of toast?

That is not to say that we should be bigoted or intolerant towards Mormons, even if we disapprove of their lifestyle. Certainly, Mormons deserve at least some legal protection, such as protection against discrimination in renting or buying places to discuss their belief system, protection against employment discrimination, or certain rights to silently observe government-sanctioned prayer breakfasts and other functions where legitimate, legally-recognized religion is acknowledged. Indeed, we should not necessarily oppose a designation of Mormonism as a "quasi-cultish ideology," allowing Mormons to register their commitment to their belief system. But redefining religion so as to grant the Mormon lifestyle the full legal and constitutional recognition as traditional religion is misguided and wrong. It is pellucidly clear that such efforts are based on a well-meaning but mistaken appeal to equality and compassion, rather than the anthropological and sociological facts about what religion is.

We see from history that the Roman Empire declined and ultimately fell when Constantine and others attempted to redefine the traditional meaning of religion in Roman life. We should not follow in those footsteps.

[_Maksutov]

Wow. Did this come out of Tim LaHaye's behind?

[_Bob Loblaw]

Brilliant.

[_Maksutov]

Well, I'm looking for a "case" here, but all I see is that you don't like the LDS church and don't consider it a religion. Sure, you get your opinion. But to somehow define "legitimate religion" and discriminate against Mormonism (and who knows what other religions/groups you don't like), sorry, no. Violation of First Amendment. Unconstitutional. UnAmerican. Unjust. And stupid.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Some people don't understand parody and satire, I guess.

[_Maksutov]

Some people don't understand parody and satire, I guess.

Surreal times.

[_Darth J]

Well, I'm looking for a "case" here, but all I see is that you don't like the LDS church and don't consider it a religion. Sure, you get your opinion. But to somehow define "legitimate religion" and discriminate against Mormonism (and who knows what other religions/groups you don't like), sorry, no. Violation of First Amendment. Unconstitutional. UnAmerican. Unjust. And stupid.

Well, what if I dress up my message in even more sanctimonious and condescending language? Then would you find it more persuasive?

[_Stormy Waters]

If society were to legally recognize Mormonism, with its worship of a human being from another planet, as a legitimate religion, then what is next? Worshiping your dog as a religion? Worshiping your vacuum cleaner? Worshiping a piece of toast?

I don't know how you do it. Outstanding.

[_gramps]

A wickedly delightful read.

[_Maksutov]

Well, I'm looking for a "case" here, but all I see is that you don't like the LDS church and don't consider it a religion. Sure, you get your opinion. But to somehow define "legitimate religion" and discriminate against Mormonism (and who knows what other religions/groups you don't like), sorry, no. Violation of First Amendment. Unconstitutional. UnAmerican. Unjust. And stupid.

Well, what if I dress up my message in even more sanctimonious and condescending language? Then would you find it more persuasive?

Hmm. Tell me about worldviews and Satan. I like the leftwing conspiracy stuff too. Throw a little Hal Lindsay in there, but leave the Y2K out.

Oh yeah, tell how the Mormons are now controlling the NSA. There's yer secret combinations for ya.