In one of my classes last week, someone asked “how do we tell the difference between religion and a regular belief?” This question gets to the heart of something I’ve thought about a lot – why do we accord special protection to beliefs we deem “religious” but not to other, secular beliefs?

As someone who is not religious, tends to be skeptical of religion in general, but also tries to remain open-minded, I find it frustrating when religious beliefs are given immunity or sanctity above other beliefs. I realize the importance of freedom to believe, and of having state-supported rights to associate based on belief, and of knowing that you will not be persecuted for religion. However, I think that having strictly “religious” freedom might be illogical and underinclusive.

What makes one belief protected and another one not? The fact that a long-standing institution and community share that belief with you? The fact that it involves “God” and is therefore sacred and cannot be touched? Surely, people should be able to believe whatever they want to believe about God, afterlife, and other such “sacred” things – but then why shouldn’t someone also have an equally-protected right to believe in, say, ghosts. I’m sure most people wouldn’t really care if someone believed in ghosts (maybe some people in this class do), but the state wouldn’t give any special protection to that belief, unless it was a religious one. I don’t think this makes sense, and I think that beliefs of all kinds should be protected equally. And that’s not to say that I think there should be immunity based on any belief a person has, however ill-founded, but to the extent that protection is offered for one belief, I think it has to be offered for another.

Some might say that a genuine and absolute belief in purple aliens from outer space is illogical and crazy, and deserves no protection. But how is a belief in a supernatural being for whom there is no scientific evidence any less illogical? If the only thing supporting a belief is faith, how can we make a value judgment of the actual things believed? The only explanation seems to be that we protect certain beliefs because they are shared by huge numbers of people, have been encapsulated and promulgated by institutions, and have lasted over vast historical time spans. These indicia, however, while certainly testaments to endurance and cultural importance, do not actually raise the soundness of such beliefs over that of any others.

I’m not trying to say that religious beliefs shouldn’t be tolerated or respected. I am trying to say that, logically, the protection extended to religious beliefs cannot (at least in my mind) be separated from a sweeping protection of what people believe in general. I understand the historical necessity for protecting religious freedom specifically, but don’t know if this is adequate explanation for strictly religious protection in a

Should freedom of religion be eliminated from the constitution, on the grounds that belief in general should be adequately protected by free speech, etc? Should “freedom of belief” replace it, so that everyone’s belief is afforded equal protection? I’m not really sure – what does everyone else think? I realize this is kind of a drastic idea, and hasn’t been thought through to the fullest, so I’d like to see what other people think.

-- JessicaHallett - 16 Apr 2010