I'd like to point out that just being "in" a religion does not guarantee that the rights you deem to be religiously motivated will be guarded by the state.
I recommend a look at the volume edited by Donald Kraybill, The Amish and the State, which I just read for this very reason. The Amish have won some pertinent concessions from state and fed governments, but while those cases are often cited to support non-participation in certain state or socially required activities on religious grounds (or participation in other activities that challenge state/federal law), somewhere in Kraybill's volume, one author points out that the wording of an opinion of one of the justices from one landmark case (possibly Wisconsin v. Yoder) was very clear in marking the distinguishing factors of Amish religious precedent (it's longevity, namely) as being part of the reason their rights were upheld. His opinion is not law, but it suggests that the Supreme Court decided the way they did in large part because the Amish religion dates back to the 1600s and they have continuously upheld the same principles.
A newly-founded religion will likely not be so easily grandfathered in on Amish coattails without establishing ... not exactly a pedigree or lineage, but a very strongly-anchored faith-based set of beliefs and practices founded on something recognizably historical and not an obvious reaction to gov't overreach.
I see that this is something that's going to need deep and dedicated thought and conversation (akin to a religious version of a Second Continental Congress to hammer out religious, social, cultural, legal details that can stand in a court of law as well as nurture a religious community). A community of practitioners will carry weight that an individual with their own idiosyncratic religion can't.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 2022-11-09 06:18 pm (UTC)I recommend a look at the volume edited by Donald Kraybill, The Amish and the State, which I just read for this very reason. The Amish have won some pertinent concessions from state and fed governments, but while those cases are often cited to support non-participation in certain state or socially required activities on religious grounds (or participation in other activities that challenge state/federal law), somewhere in Kraybill's volume, one author points out that the wording of an opinion of one of the justices from one landmark case (possibly Wisconsin v. Yoder) was very clear in marking the distinguishing factors of Amish religious precedent (it's longevity, namely) as being part of the reason their rights were upheld. His opinion is not law, but it suggests that the Supreme Court decided the way they did in large part because the Amish religion dates back to the 1600s and they have continuously upheld the same principles.
A newly-founded religion will likely not be so easily grandfathered in on Amish coattails without establishing ... not exactly a pedigree or lineage, but a very strongly-anchored faith-based set of beliefs and practices founded on something recognizably historical and not an obvious reaction to gov't overreach.
I see that this is something that's going to need deep and dedicated thought and conversation (akin to a religious version of a Second Continental Congress to hammer out religious, social, cultural, legal details that can stand in a court of law as well as nurture a religious community). A community of practitioners will carry weight that an individual with their own idiosyncratic religion can't.