Secularism has traditionally referred to a kind of matrix, within which a variety of religions are tolerated. Thus, the U.S. government is a secular government - it is “separate from religion…not being exclusively allied or against any particular religion” (wiki). But “religion” isn’t neatly defined, and religious beliefs often do conflict with the laws which the government upholds. This has always occurred.
An interesting thing to me lately, though, is governments holding religious teachers and institutions accountable for their claims as if they are selling something. Religious critics have of course always claimed that religious figures and institutions are “selling something”, but they haven’t traditionally acted on this claim. In another thread recently I posted this excerpt from a recent NYT article:
The Angolan presidency blamed the church to some degree for the deaths of 16 people, due to false marketing.
Another NYT article, A Psychic’s Legal Problems Grow, Perhaps Not Unforeseeably, provides evidence of this same trend of holding people accountable for what they claim to sell. Psychics will of course be rejected by many as not truly religious, but they share the trait of promoting belief in claims that can’t be substantiated.
What does this trend (I see it as a trend, but maybe it’s nothing new at all) mean for the future of 1) faith, and 2) noble lies (i.e. “untrue” stories that serve a function)? After all, that is the question at the heart of this whole thing, isn’t it? I assume most religious people would agree that a greedy religious leader, with no interest in spirituality, who runs his religious organization as a business whose sole purpose is to make money, should be held accountable and pay the price (i.e. perhaps some jail time for swindling people). But religious institutions, in order to survive, must make money. And direct donations are the lifeblood of most such institutions. I don’t think they make most of their money selling trinkets, like Virgin Mary statues or prayer beads. Also, psychics are usually protected by the fact that they make so little money and can always claim that their business is a form of entertainment. Is there, then, a limit to how much money they can accept from people, before it becomes obvious that there is a victim, who can make a claim?
If this method for regulating the claims of religious leaders and organizations gains traction, how would religion as currently practiced have to adapt? And would this adaptation be a good thing or a bad thing (or neutral)? Again, what will this mean for the future of faith, or if you believe that religion involves noble lies - say, “belief in heaven creates harmony on earth, therefore it is a good belief to hold, whether or not it is true” (whether the claim that belief in heaven creates harmony on earth is true or not is beside the point here, point being that it is a reasonable claim that can’t be falsified)?