Pope Bobby I of the Church of a Beer and a Bump

Last updated on: July 1, 2014 at 8:10 pm by Fred Clark

Pope Bobby I of the Church of a Beer and a Bump 2014-07-01T20:10:13-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

As a general rule, the courts do not want to get entangled in questions of religious sincerity. That is neither their area of expertise nor an area — usually — in which they have any jurisdiction. Judges will go to great lengths to avoid any argument that requires them to evaluate the measure of religious devotion held by those making free exercise claims.

We saw this in the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in Hosanna Tabor, which had to do with the application of the “ministerial exception” to workplace laws. The court’s unanimous ruling basically said (I’m paraphrasing): Ohelzno! You are not going to trap us into ruling on who is or who is not a legitimate “minister!”

Unfortunately, such evaluations of religious sincerity are sometimes unavoidable because they are part of the statute the courts are being asked to consider.

Think of conscientious objector status in the draft. At the beginning of the Vietnam War, CO status was mostly limited to religious claims — to those who had a long-standing and sincere religious commitment to pacifism. A life-long Quaker or Mennonite who could demonstrate the genuineness of their religious commitment could be granted CO status. But someone whose religious conversion to Quakerism occurred on the same day they got their letter from Selective Service would likely be denied.

The law on CO status has changed a bit since then. One no longer needs to be a member of a historic peace church, nor to believe in a Supreme Being, in order to qualify as a conscientious objector. But the status is still only granted to those whose convictions are “deeply felt.”

And thus, like it or not, the courts are thus sometimes in a position where they’re required to judge a person’s depth of feeling.

Or think back to the brief, strange period of Prohibition. The 18th Amendment prohibited “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors.” Wine was — for more than a dozen years — unconstitutional.

But the Volstead Act — the set of laws enacting the 18th Amendment — provided an exemption for the use of such “intoxicating liquors” in religious rituals. The sacramental wine used by Catholic and Episcopalian* churches was therefore deemed legal, but only because the courts determined that their religious rituals were legitimate — that their purported religious devotion was sincere and genuine. The courts were, again, unavoidably required to make such judgments between legitimate and illegitimate religious practices and between sincere and insincere religious claims.

As those examples show, this usually happens whenever religious exemptions are carved out of otherwise generally applicable laws. Such exemptions are a kind of privilege, and thus invite chicanery. Don’t like Prohibition? Declare yourself Pope Bobby I of the Church of a Beer and a Bump. Now instead of prohibiting your daily postprandial custom, the Volstead Act actually compels the government to “ensure an ample supply” of legal alcohol for your “religious rituals.”

Alas for Pope Bobby, and for his ordained bartender, such religious claims can and will be challenged by legal officials. Pope Bobby will end up in court and some judge — like it or not — will have to make a ruling based on some evaluation of the sincerity of his religious claims and whether they are truly and genuinely “deeply felt.”

This is true whenever the law allows for a religious exemption. Unless the courts figure out a way to punt (as in Hosanna Tabor), such exemptions invariably entangle them in the subjective business of evaluating religious sincerity.

Such evaluations are a murky, messy business. The courts have a few tools for measuring such things, but none of them is definitive. A long-standing tradition seems to have a stronger claim to legitimacy, but new converts and new religions often have a more zealous and earnest devotion. Logical consistency and consistent behavior seem to indicate a strength of commitment and sincerity, yet many religions also insist that “there is none righteous, no not one,” and the lack of such consistency can’t be taken as proof of religious insincerity.

Thus, as a general rule, I think the courts are right to avoid questions of religious sincerity whenever and wherever possible. Even, sometimes, when the hypocrisy and insincerity of an abruptly discovered, brand-new “religious conviction” seems both glaringly obvious and legally significant.

As it happens, religious exemptions to generally applicable laws are kind of in the news just now. And, as it happens, Pope Bobby I and the Church of a Beer and a Bump just had a very good day in court.

– – – – – – – – – – – –

* Corrected. Thanks, Rev. Ref.

class warfare

church & state

they are coming for your birth control

Previous Post

July 1, 2014

Sex-ed for the religious right: Conception does not occur at ejaculation

Next Post

July 1, 2014 John Courtney Murray is still dead

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What nation captured Jerusalem and took Daniel captive?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Egypt Babylonia Assyria Persia