Suppose for the sake of argument that the general category of "religion" did not exist,
and the beliefs and activities which comprise religion were considered in isolation rather
than within the framework of religion.
Imagine that these aspects of religion had to be described in terms other than "religious".
Without making use of the distinction between religion and that which is not religion, how
might we instead distinguish beliefs currently classified as religious?
Most obviously, almost all such beliefs pertain to the existence and nature of proposed supernatural
entities, such as deities, spirits, souls, blessings, curses, and afterlives.
These beliefs also tend to make various statements about the origins of humanity, our purpose
in the world, and the general meaning of life.
They frequently feature the claim that certain texts are of a divine origin and possibly
free of any errors.
They often allege that there are laws and moral imperatives which have been put in place
by a higher power.
Crucially, these beliefs are usually based in faith - a justification based on the simple
fact that the person holding the belief believes it, without consideration for any evidence
that may have a bearing on its actual truth.
Another common feature of these beliefs is that they can be very important to the people
who hold them, sometimes so important that people are afraid they'll be tortured forever
if they do something wrong or endorse an improper belief.
While this is only a rough and incomplete overview of the features of beliefs considered
religious, it does encompass the major aspects of religion: its claims about the supernatural,
its statements of ultimate purpose, its devotion to certain writings, its rules and moral guidance,
its basis in faith, and its attribution of cosmic significance to one's beliefs and actions.
Suppose now that the overarching category of religion is introduced anew, encompassing
these beliefs, and manifesting as derivative concepts such as "religious bigotry", "anti-religious
prejudice", and "respect for religion".
Because these beliefs often pertain to one's moral responsibilities, purpose in life, and
the fate one will supposedly face for all eternity, beliefs classified as religious
are frequently considered to possess great significance beyond that of other beliefs.
But is this special treatment unique to religion actually warranted?
If someone fears that they may actually face eternal torture for not believing in God,
getting a divorce, or masturbating, this is a personal issue for them to work through.
It doesn't obligate the rest of us to treat them any differently for holding this belief
- aside from, perhaps, offering sympathy and counseling services.
Likewise, one's endorsement of a certain moral framework is not fundamentally different from
other moral proposals merely because this particular morality is allegedly divine in
origin.
It doesn't need to be seen as something above or apart from moralities that aren't based
on supernatural claims, and it merits no unique deference simply because of its incorporation
of the divine.
And those claims about the nature and existence of supernatural things are still only claims
like any other - no extra leeway is necessary just because claims about the supernatural
happen to be *about the supernatural*.
Similarly, if someone cites faith itself as a basis for a belief, this justification should
hardly be exempted from the appropriate scrutiny just because it falls under the category of
religion.
A belief that's supported by nothing more than someone's choice to hold that belief
is certainly not deserving of any additional respect, and calling it religious doesn't
change that.
All too often, the reference to one's "deeply held religious beliefs" is meant to serve
as a conversation stopper - they've played the religion card, and the rest of us have
to shut up and leave them alone.
It's as though the mere fact that they believe something that's considered religious is the
only excuse they need.
But it shouldn't matter how strongly a belief is held, and it shouldn't matter that this
belief falls under religion.
There are many things both religious and non-religious that people believe very strongly, but the
strength with which they believe is not a defense or a justification of the belief itself.
When objections to the Mormon Church's involvement in passing Proposition 8 are characterized
as "bigotry", and Catholics in Illinois claim that they're "not being tolerated" because
their state-funded adoption services are required to treat gay couples equally, the dissolution
of the concept of religion helps us to see these statements for what they really are.
These religions, while shielding themselves behind claims of religious discrimination,
actually just want to be free from following the law and even free from criticism itself.
Why?
Because they believe they should be, and that's that.
They think that's all they need to say - and sometimes, it is.
The label of religion and the inordinate respect afforded to it has given them the opportunity
to claim that they're being discriminated against because of their religion, when in
fact they're being criticized for their bad ideas and required to follow the same laws
as everyone else.
In this way, accusations of prejudice against religion can function as a way of trying to
silence those who have simply treated religious beliefs like any other beliefs, and found
them lacking.
The unwarranted belief in the supernatural or the moral authority of certain questionable
books is worthy of critique whether we call this religion or not, and depicting this as
some kind of discrimination against religion means demanding that such claims be granted
a privileged status, protecting them from the open debate to which non-religious beliefs
are subject.
In reality, religion isn't being criticized because it's religious.
It's being criticized because it's wrong.