Paul GrahamVerified account

We often say behaviors/groups are "like" religion in various ways. What exactly do people think would go wrong if we applied 1st amendment religious protections to a wider range of such things? In legal terms, what is the key "religion" concept that "cuts nature at its joints"?

Seems to me that people jump too fast into debates on if X is or is not "religious" without first asking what function of the "religious" label is at issue in the debate. That's why I find it more productive to focus on the function of 1st amendment protections.

Religious groups are organized enough to fight back against censorship. Most other beliefs don't have such powerful interest groups. So pragmatically, free speech rights are a negotiated truce with religions which you might benefit from if your belief quacks like a religion.

So would your legal test of what counts as a "religion" be whatever group can get congress to pass a bill including them in an official definition?

Congress or the courts. But yes, it's fundamentally a question of whether they're a sufficiently powerful interest group. Thus, Scientology is a religion and The Book of Dave isn't because of power, not whether the doctrine is sound.