Religious Belief

a broadened conception aligns with and clarifies what is protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

If you know me, you know I hate the Orwellian practice of manipulating language to achieve cynical political ends. With that acknowledgement, I’m going to attempt to make a case that establishing a broader definition of religious belief will help us make sense of some complex issues going forward. There is a clear and obvious shortcoming of the common usage of “religious” that fails to properly classify rigidly dogmatic beliefs if they don’t explicitly pertain to metaphysical phenomena or to a specific organized religion. This commonly used but excessively narrow construction doesn’t align with the legal description of what constitutes religious belief in the U.S., so to add clarity to my future analysis of this topic and better align with U.S. law, I propose a slight modification to the commonly understood definition of the term “religious belief”.

What makes a belief religious? For a functional American definition, I think it is most appropriate to start with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This is going to be a long quote from the EEOC handbook on religious discrimination, but I think it is important enough to include in its entirety:

Title VII defines “religion” to include “all aspects of religious observance and practice as well as belief,” not just practices that are mandated or prohibited by a tenet of the individual’s faith.[18]  Religion includes not only traditional, organized religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, and Buddhism, but also religious beliefs that are new, uncommon, not part of a formal church or sect, only subscribed to by a small number of people, or that seem illogical or unreasonable to others.[19]  Further, a person’s religious beliefs “need not be confined in either source or content to traditional or parochial concepts of religion.”[20]  A belief is “religious” for Title VII purposes if it is “religious” in the person’s “own scheme of things,” i.e., it is a “sincere and meaningful” belief that “occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by . . . God.”[21]  The Supreme Court has made it clear that it is not a court’s role to determine the reasonableness of an individual’s religious beliefs, and that “religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection.”[22]  An employee’s belief, observance, or practice can be “religious” under Title VII even if the employee is affiliated with a religious group that does not espouse or recognize that individual’s belief, observance, or practice, or if few – or no – other people adhere to it.[23]   

Religious beliefs include theistic beliefs as well as non-theistic “moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.”[24]  Although courts generally resolve doubts about particular beliefs in favor of finding that they are religious,[25] beliefs are not protected merely because they are strongly held.  Rather, religion typically concerns “ultimate ideas” about “life, purpose, and death.”[26] 

Courts have looked for certain features to determine if an individual’s beliefs can be considered religious.  As one court explained: “‘First, a religion addresses fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters.  Second, a religion is comprehensive in nature; it consists of a belief-system as opposed to an isolated teaching.  Third, a religion often can be recognized by the presence of certain formal and external signs.’”[27]

Social, political, or economic philosophies, as well as mere personal preferences, are not religious beliefs protected by Title VII.[28]  However, overlap between a religious and political view does not place it outside the scope of Title VII’s religion protections, as long as that view is part of a comprehensive religious belief system and is not simply an “isolated teaching.”[29]  Religious observances or practices include, for example, attending worship services, praying, wearing religious garb or symbols, displaying religious objects, adhering to certain dietary rules, proselytizing or other forms of religious expression, and refraining from certain activities.  Determining whether a practice is religious turns not on the nature of the activity, but on the employee’s motivation.  The same practice might be engaged in by one person for religious reasons and by another person for purely secular reasons.[30]  Whether  the practice is religious is therefore a situational, case-by-case inquiry, focusing not on what the activity is but on whether the employee’s participation in the activity is pursuant to a religious belief.[31]  For example, one employee might observe certain dietary restrictions for religious reasons while another employee adheres to the very same dietary restrictions but for secular (e.g., health or environmental) reasons.[32]  In that instance, the same practice in one case might be subject to reasonable accommodation under Title VII because an employee engages in the practice for religious reasons, and in another case might not be subject to reasonable accommodation because the practice is engaged in for secular reasons.[33]  However, EEOC and courts must exercise a “light touch” in making this determination.[34]

Pretty broad right? I think there is a clear opening for confusion and subjective interpretation here on one specific front though. It is this area that I propose a modest supplement to clarify the distinction between religious and secular beliefs where such a distinction is otherwise ambiguous. Here it goes: Any strongly held belief that is not empirically falsifiable, is a religious belief. Of course, there are also religious beliefs that are empirically falsifiable, and these instances are already covered adequately in the above quoted passage. I just want to broaden the definition to necessarily include all strongly held belief that isn’t empirically falsifiable to obviate the widely held assumption that many of such beliefs are secular. Too broad you say? Why? Why does what constitutes a religious belief need to be narrowly tailored? Narrowing the definition would only serve to reduce religious liberty. As an American, I can’t think of a rational reason to do so. I can think of a lot of anti-American reasons to do so however. Perhaps this is why there seems to be a push to constrain religious belief to be necessarily metaphysical or limited in some other way.

The useful thing about this definition is that it provides a clean functional delineation between religious and secular belief. In so doing, it helps make it clear that a lot of mediocre establishment scientists who like to consider themselves completely secular, are really just religious ideologues. It also allows us to appropriately classify certain ostensibly secular dogmatic political belief systems more appropriately as religions. Finally, it suggests that devout belief in the idea of America is necessarily religious. The source of these beliefs can be a traditional religion, such as Christianity, or, in the absence of traditional religious belief, I argue Americanism can be considered a religion in its own right. It would be folly to fail to recognize that American values were established by a population that was, at the time, predominantly Christian. The way the Constitution is written, however, makes it abundantly clear that you don’t have to be a Christian to be an American. Given this conception, I believe ideological Americans without traditional religious beliefs can be said to be religious, even if they are, for example, atheists. They can also be said to be fundamentally American, without being Christian. I think this is important to articulate, because many American Christians seem to be very skeptical that individuals who aren’t Christian can be truly American. I hope that this construction explains how this is not the case, and that this assumption itself is anti-American. Atheists can be Americans, Jews can be Americans, Muslims can be Americans etc. Conversely, there are those who profess to be Christians who are demonstrably anti-American. I think a rational argument can be made that all true Christians are true Americans (at least any Christians that are also U.S. citizens), but I’ll let a Christian make that argument.

So for anyone who is still with me I’ll expand on what I mean by any strongly held belief that is not empirically falsifiable. Basically, anything that you believe very strongly, that you hold in your head that governs your understanding of the world that can’t be constructed as a research question is a religious belief. In the case of Americanism, the idea that natural rights are inalienable in one such belief. In contrast, a utilitarian belief that respect for individual liberty and laws reflecting such result in higher standards of living and reduced aggregate human suffering is a secular belief. The latter can be turned into a research question, even if a difficult one to answer, while the former can’t. This distinction is highly valuable to facilitate effective communication. In order to have productive discussion, it is probably important to keep in mind whether you are talking about religious beliefs, secular beliefs, or some combination thereof.

A lot of what I will discuss at The Radical American Mind will make use of this broadened conception of religious belief. I’m going to attempt to make the case that as a U.S. citizen, you’re either American, or you’re anti-American. There are religious beliefs that are anti-American and there are secular beliefs that are anti-American. As I proceed to attack anti-American beliefs, this distinction will facilitate ratiocination under threat of bad faith efforts to malign my motivations. It will also help me organize my attacks in an effort to defeat certain motte and bailey rhetorical strategies. I am not interested in attacking individuals, I am interested in attacking anti-American ideas. The people that hold these ideas may feel attacked, but that can’t be avoided. These anti-American ideas and the individuals they control pose an existential threat to my preferred way of life (the American way of life). I will be operating WAY outside the Overton window, or perhaps I am trying to re-frame the Overton window altogether. If that sounds intriguing, stay tuned!

(Additional thought 1: Expanding the definition of religious belief also contracts the definition of secular belief in this context. This stands to be beneficial in government institutions required to adhere to a policy of secularism as required by the constitution. Unfortunately, as it stands religious beliefs masquerading as secular beliefs, such as critical theory, have been able to propagate in the school system unchallenged while prayer is excluded. This is anti-American. I know if you’re Christian you think school prayer is probably a good thing, but if you can agree that it is inappropriate given the ostensible separation of church and state that we understand and expect in our public institutions, then you have the moral high ground in demanding that things like critical theory be excluded from school curriculum on the same grounds)