Canadian Court Says Tai Chi Institute Is A Religious Institution

One question that has been covered in this blog is the meaning of the term "religion." I have long cited a dictionary definition:

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

The basic understanding is that it is a set of beliefs and practices involving god or god. In a wider sense, it can be a matter of supernatural forces, such as spirits. Polytheistic religions are not just of the type from in Ancient Greece and Rome. 

The meaning of "religion" would seem to be important when applying various legal tests since "religion" in particular is involved. See, e.g., the First Amendment.  Another situation where it arises -- though related -- is when applying tax breaks and related immunities.  So, e.g., you might have to determine of the Church of Scientology is a religion or something.

An interesting Canadian lawsuit addressed such a question as applied to a Taoist Tai Chi Institute.  Taoism itself is accepted as a religion.  The question is if this specific institution warranted a religious exemption.  And, the definition of religion (with a warning not to apply it is a discriminatory way) is familiar:

As we have seen previously, the two experts in religious sciences agree that a religion is a system of beliefs and practices shared which have in common: a) a conception of the world based on supernatural in a perspective of salvation and establishing the place of the human in the cosmos, b) a moral code in the form of precepts and rules of conduct and c) a worship that integrates assemblies, ceremonies and rites of transition.

This is from the opinion (it is in French, but I used Google Translate). A few paragraphs from the article discussing it is also helpful:

The institute’s branches, now located across the country, have altars dedicated to certain deities, a moral code advocating simplicity, compassion and altruism, and celebrations marking some Chinese holidays, noted the judge, which appears to align them with the religion definition.

Members of major monotheistic faiths such as Judaism and Islam study texts like the Torah and Koran. But Taoists pursue their beliefs through bodily activity such as rituals, meditation — and tai chi, Yergeau quoted the institute’s expert — Canadian professor James Miller of China’s Duke Kunshan University — as saying.

But the cities’ expert, Prof. Frédéric Castel of the University of Quebec at Montreal, argued the institute is not a religion because it lacks a community of worshipers with shared beliefs.

But the judge said there is still a core group who follow Taoism. The institute is no less a religion because a larger number of people are only there for tai chi, he said. Most of those who visit Chartres Cathedral in France, the Blue Mosque in Istanbul or the Saihō-ji temple in Kyoto are tourists who don’t practice those religions, but that doesn’t mean the sites themselves are not religious, said Yergeau.

The summary of what a religion entails is workable though someone might have a religion without worship as spelled out there. If someone has an understanding of God, they need not also have "assemblies, ceremonies and rites of transition."  A belief can be solitary and without rites and ceremonies.  It is likely though that the person will have some sort of rite or ceremony for which the religion plays some sort of role. 

So, I don't really want to carp here -- "religion" is one of those words and  concepts that we have general ideas about without agreeing on every specific.  That sort of thing can be a tedious parlor game.  Suffice to say that the acts practiced at these institutions have enough religious connotations for them to count.  

The article notes the institution was given some other tax exemption, so the battle is somewhat symbolic.  As the judge here noted, the case law is “rather thin on the concept of religion itself” and what defines it.  Yes.  This applies in the United States too.  We generally tend to avoid defining "religion," a term experts in various fields find it hard to parse.  

At times, something seems clearly not a religion, but that happens rarely.  And, if we are honest, even then, the exceptions probably might seem that much different from some of the beliefs most would deem religious (if ridiculous). A somewhat related thing happens when trying to find "sincere" beliefs.  The term has some meaning, surely (blatant fraud should not be allowed), but it is likely best to draw lines some other way.  

(I cited in the past my state's rule that a religion has to have some sort of specific institutional aspects to be allowed to officiate marriages. Some self-ordained minister might not be enough.  There seems no real need for that line -- for instance, you can requiring a training session of state marriage law waived if you had other training -- and it requires favoring certain religions over others that is itself problematic.)

A topical example is vaccinations.  Some cite a "religious" reason not to take them.  People find this unbelievable, especially if they take other vaccines.  But, they cite possible differences, such as this vaccine was developed using fetal cells.  Maybe, they are not being consistent.  Okay.  Start down that road, you probably will go a long way.  Basically, you will demand a rational belief system. Not necessarily an oxymoron, but can be.

If we are going to have "religious" classifications,* the word needs to have some content. Fair enough.  But, the judge's words remain valid: "It is not for the court to judge the depth of the religious conviction of the members or to establish a threshold below which the label of religious institution would be refused,” he said. “To venture down this path would lead the court to interfere with intimate beliefs.”

This is from the article and the opinion probably provides a bit more nuance.  There has to be some "threshold" here.  Still, if a self-declaration is reasonably a match to our rough definition of "religion," it is best to accept it.  The dispute here again seemed symbolic (if they would have received the tax break anyway), but we often can avoid the briar patch anyway.  And, we need to remember that "religion" is not just some traditional view of Christian faith.  

Also: I found this article in a comment I made in the midst of an old debate over allowing more religious exemptions when same sex couples are involved.  It argues sexual orientation should be treated like race and sex.  The overall principle is the same -- evenhanded treatment, not favoring certain beliefs over others since "well obviously racist religious beliefs are wrong!"  

---

* These types of discussions sometimes lead to first question type arguments. On some level, that's fine, but on another re-opening everything is basically (or isn't every time) not the issue. 

The First Amendment as well as modern day human rights law recognizes a special concern for religion.  I realize the Constitution (and maybe modern human rights law) is not always right -- the U.S. Senate, at least the two senator rule, shows this -- but as a matter of practicality and basic principle, that isn't the case here. 

Religion is special to human existence and modern society.  Both prongs -- no establishment and free exercise -- is appropriate.