What constitutes a Religion?

Can I found my own, personal religion?  Why not?

If so, does everyone then have to respect what I arbitrarily think is right?

Several religions have been founded very recently:  Mormonism, the Bahá'í Faith, Scientology, Pastafarianism.

In the US, Pastafarianism was ruled not to be a real religion, probably because "real" religions have to be gloomy, with grumpy leaders.

There seem to be no good grounds for calling one set of beliefs a religion while denying that term to other ones.  Certainly date of founding is not a criterion, since some were so recent.  Number of followers may be better, but still not good enough.

The best criterion seems to be the existence of rituals and of clerics.

Then there is also tradition:  when does a tradition become a religion?  How are traditions mixed with religions, and who decides when one becomes the other?

Freedom of Religion in time

The religious wars of Europe were fought between groups adhering to the Catholic form of Christianity and those opposed to the central authority of the Pope.  These wars ended with the adoption of the principle of freedom of religion, which meant that you became free to choose whatever form of Christianity you wanted.

This principle was not at first inclusive of any other religions, but in Europe Christianity was so dominant that the problem was not even generally perceived.

In the 20th century this perception changed:  first because of the persecution of people of Jewish descent (religious or not) by the Nazi regime, then the founding of Scientology, the creation of many sects and cults, and finally the influx of migrants who adhered to some form or other of Islam.

Why are sects and cults sometimes forbidden, why is Scientology a religion in some countries and a forbidden sect in others?

How Free is Religious Freedom?

Can a religion decide on anything whatever?

Can it decide to deny climate change, the theory of evolution, the equality of genders?

Galileo had troubles with the Catholic Church on astronomical facts, though the Church later accepted science.  Still, many religions today hold that their unsubstantiated views are above the facts.  Can this be tolerated?  Do we need to respect such views in the name of freedom of religion?  I think not:  facts come first.

Then there is the principle of separation of Church and State, which now should be called separation of religion and state.  Again a principle coming from Europe and fairly recent.  Can one allow any religion to be above any other?  Can one allow freedom of religion to belief systems that manifestly clash with the law?  The Charter of the French Republic is not compatible with the strict interpretation of any of the main monotheistic religions.  The same is true for most constitutions of European countries.

Freedom of Rituals

It's not very important to the lives of people around you if you believe that some god was behind the Big Bang.  But can you exert physical control on people around you in the name of your religion?  Are you allowed any rituals in the name of religion?

Suppose I create a new religion that requires me to kill at least one human in my life.  Clearly we cannot tolerate such a belief set or grant it freedom of ritual.

Most religions however have rules that oblige its followers to exert physical control over others, especially over their children.  Suppose a religion would require the killing of the first-born girl.  This again would not be acceptable.

But how far can we allow such rituals to go?  Is it acceptable, in the name of freedom of religion, to mutilate children?  There is general civilised agreement against FGM (female genital mutilation), but what about MGM, which circumcision certainly is, if performed on children under the age of consent (which then again raises the question of what the age of consent is).

Can parents force their children to adhere to their own religious beliefs?  I should think that infringes on freedom of religion.  Logically, children should be able to choose whatever belief system as soon as they reach a certain age.

But such a choice is itself forbidden by most religions:  strange that they claim freedom of religion but don't allow it to their own members.

Written Rules

Almost all religions have a "code" in the form of some written set of rules.  Usually this is in the form of a "holy" book.

Some practitioners take these writings literally, some see them as the immutable word of a god, some acknowledge that interpretation and amendments are necessary.

Should we grant freedom of religion to strict believers in these writings?  Is it acceptable to let people follow the directive that apostates must be killed, a rule that appears in the Christian bible, the Judaic torah and the Islamic koran?  Or should we not rather insist that the leaders of these religions openly declare such rules inapplicable and removed from the religion?  While Christianity has not applied the apostasy ruling for centuries, it has nevertheless not removed it from the texts.

Meddling

Freedom of speech:  some time ago (2015) even the Pope sayd that religions have to be treated with respect, so that people's faiths are not insulted or ridiculed.  Sorry dear Francis, I will not insult persons (i.e. curse your mother), but I feel free to riducule ideas.  Should I not feel insulted by those who think atheism or apostasy is a crime?  Does religion not insult my intelligence?  Is religion not some form of blasphemy to a non-believer?

Under no circumstances shall there be put a limit on the examination of ideologies, religions, idea systems, nor on their adaptation to modern society.

"Je suis Charlie".