What constitutes a religion

Joe Carter argues that the Texas Comptroller was wrong to deny tax-exempt status to a Universalist church. Apparently the comptroller has decided that a group cannot be a religion if it doesn't require a belief in a deity.

Joe says:

Simply put, Strayhorn is wrong. In order to prevent abuse of the system, government needs a means of determing what constitutes a legitimate religion. Strayhorn’s "God, gods or supreme being" test, however, is too stringent and stacks the deck in favor of theistic religions.

In the comments he elaborates:

While that is true, the government still has a responsibility to apply the standard fairly. If the government is going to decide that religous organizations are tax-exempt then they shouldn't exclude religions that are clearly "real religions" just because they don't fit into a theistic paradigm.

Joe's discussion is in the context of civil liberties. He believes that the Universalists are being discriminated against on a religious basis. He goes on to say that Christians should stand up for them or we can have no expectation that others will stand up for us.

While I agree with Joe's general point about defending others rights, I think he's put the cart before the horse. Joe states that it's clear that Universalism is a "real religion" but he doesn't explain how he came to this conclusion.

And I've got to say that I'm not at all convinced of his point either. Granted, I've not studied the Universalist church in detail, but I've got to say that in conversations with former Universalists I've always gotten the impression that the Universalists are more like a philosophical society than a religion. (And a society that's not all that keen on actually finding answers to their questions at that.) What exactly about Universalism make it a relgion?

Now let me be clear: I'm not saying that Universalism isn't a relgion. For me this a matter of first impression. I've simply never considered this question before. However, as I look at the issue, I find I'm not convinced of Joe's position. I think we can all agree that belief in a deity is prima facia evidence of the presence of religious beliefs. (But not always evidence of an organized religion.)

Does it follow, however, that the absence of a requirement to believe in a deity is evidence that a religion does not exist? I'm uncertain on this issue; however i must say that my gut feeling on the issue is to say yes.

So, here's my question: If you don't have to believe in a deity to be a religion, what, if anything, do you have to believe in?

Comments

[Joel Fuhrmann]

I used to be a Unitarian Universalist and can fill you in on some of their theological background, though it might bore you. (I've got an entry mentioning your post on my blog btw).

The American Unitarian Association, founded in 1825, by William Ellery Channing, had as its basic doctrine the denial of the doctrine of the Trinity and several other foundational doctrines of orthodox Christianity.

The Universalist Church, which was founded in the United States just a little after 1770, had as its basic doctrine the universal salvation of all souls, later amended to allow for a state of intermediate punishment, like purgatory, to satisfy those who just couldn't fathom the idea of the most egregious of sinners getting in scott-free.

During the nineteenth century, the Universalist Church had a crisis of sorts. It isn't really easy to motivate people with Universalism. There wasn't any theological foundation to build anything on, so in order to motivate the parishioners, they became a very active social-work church, doing many good works, but also becoming very liberal in the process, and slowly abandoning their theology.

The Unitarian Church took a different course, slowly moving toward humanism, and they wound up merging in 1961, having come to the conclusion that there was no practical distinction between the two organizations.

[Marc M.]

It is absurd that one should apply a "deity" standard to a religion. That is completely ethnocentric in its view. I don't think anyone would argue that Buddhism IS a religion, and as a Buddhist, I can tell you that contrary to popular misconception, Buddhists DO NOT worship a deity. There is NO worship of Buddha in Buddhism. Buddhism is simply about "applying the teachings" of the Buddha to ones life. To put it in a Christian context, it would be as if Christianity was ALL about applying the teachings of Christ to ones life, without any worship of Jesus. I know this may be difficult to wrap ones head around, but the only worship in Buddhism, if any exist at all, is a worship of the teachings/ideas of the Buddha. The emphasis on gentle,kind, and tolerant treatment of others, in this life, combined with only a nominal(compared to Christianity/Islam etc.) concern for the afterlife have led many to proclaim that Buddhism is the original Humanism. Please note however that everything I've stated can be generally applied to MOST schools of mainline Buddhism. Just as in Chrisitianity, there are hundreds if not thousands of different schools (denominations) of Buddhism, so things will vary accordingly.

[john enger]

I am writing a paper on what it takes to classify religion a religion. Any and all help I coudl get in helping Me to understand that concept would be greatly appreacted.Thank You, JOHN ENGER