Can Belief in ETs constitute a religion?

[Denver]

I posted this question first in the Social Issues forum, but got no response, so maybe it is more appropriate in the religion area:

I am wondering if a decent case can be made that:

1) A belief in Extraterrestrials vising Earth is a religious belief.
2) Therefore, a city ordinance declaring that #1 is true, is promoting a religious belief.

The case in point is the Denver Extraterrestrial Affairs Commission ballot initiative, to be voted on by the public Nov 2: Full Text PDF

My argument goes as follows:

The initiative states, for one thing:

The people of the City and counter of Denver hereby declare that: The presence of extraterrestrial intelligent beings and extraterrestrial vehicles on Earth, and within the Earth's atmosphere, has been confirmed by credible evidence...

A belief in Extraterrestrials covers a lot of ground. As I search the internet on this topic, I find that its proponents not only include a belief in other galactic civilizations, but also include spiritual beliefs, such as higher states of being and of consciousness wrapped up with the whole ET thing. The term “New Age” seems to be the common category for this belief system. The author of this initiative even sells new age items on his web site, such as a credit-card-type object which he claims reduces the stress of the possessor.

Given these new-age entanglements, and products reminiscent of those sold by televangelists, and the requirement to believe in something (extraterrestrials) for which there is no proof, puts this ET belief system more in the realm of a religious faith, than of a general issue for the public welfare.

Everyone has a right to his or her own beliefs, their own faith, and to free speech. But is it even legal for the proponents of such a belief system to use Denver and its resources as a platform to amplify the credibility of those beliefs? Is it legal to implement this initiative, so as to make this law, which establishes this system of belief, as part of our government?

 

[hgc]

Sometimes the definition of "religion" gets murky, kind of like the definition of "art."

 

[Darat]

I think in the UK for purposes of things like employment law such a belief would be protected as a 'philosophical belief' under "Religion and Belief Regulations 2003".

 

[MontagK505]

My libertarian demons are screaming in my ear: “It's not the function of a government body to determine the validity of the existence of ET's.”

Any belief system not based on verifiable evidence can be a religion.

 

[drkitten]

My libertarian demons are screaming in my ear: “It's not the function of a government body to determine the validity of the existence of ET's.”

Any belief system not based on verifiable evidence can be a religion.

Perhaps in your opinion, but the courts tend to use a narrower definition, and it's the courts' opinion that would control in this case.

I don't think the proposed initiative would be viewed as a "religious" belief; simply stating that ETs exist is no more "religious" than saying that rocky extra-solar planets exist or that dragons don't. It's a simple declarative statement about what is and isn't.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Yes. Scientology.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

Yes. Scientology.

Also Raëlism and Heaven's gate.

Might correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't mormonism mention something about spacce travel?

 

[Marduk]

Also Raëlism and Heaven's gate.

You left out the "Aetherius Society"
The original ufo cult and imo the best, Rael (Claude Vorilhon) was only 9 when they formed and Marshall Applewhite was still in the US Army doing his national service
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aetherius_Society

Might correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't mormonism mention something about space travel?

Brigham Young believed the moon was occupied by a race of beings similar to Humans (but taller) who dressed like Quakers, they also hold that there are Aliens (male and female) on countless worlds (but no reports on how they dress)

 

[Denver]

Thanks for those comparison's to other religions (some of which I'm going to have to look up).

I don't think the proposed initiative would be viewed as a "religious" belief; simply stating that ETs exist is no more "religious" than saying that rocky extra-solar planets exist or that dragons don't. It's a simple declarative statement about what is and isn't.

Yeah that is the trick: where is the line drawn, particularly in a state ordinance, between the normal purpose of an ordinance (which seems to be changing laws and funding projects) and declaring that the people of the city believe a certain unproven thing? The most revealing counter I thought could be made was to compare it to a religion.

 

[drkitten]

Yeah that is the trick: where is the line drawn, particularly in a state ordinance, between the normal purpose of an ordinance (which seems to be changing laws and funding projects) and declaring that the people of the city believe a certain unproven thing?

It's not drawn between those things.

Nothing under US law would prevent a local ordinance from declaring that leprechauns exist.

The problem becomes when the unproven beliefs amount to an establishment of religion as opposed to mere superstition.

There's no clear-cut simple statement in US law defining religion, but US vs. Seeger provides something you might think about.

"The test of religious belief [...]is whether it is a sincere and meaningful belief occupying in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God."

The Kitzmiller v. Dover case involved an extensive discussion of this subject as well (as you can imagine).

Q. I'd like to shift gears, and we've talked about intelligent design. Now let's talk about what makes the subject religion or religious.

In your report that you've submitted here, you identified three characteristics or qualities where you equate with religion or religious. The first of those is a devotion to an ultimate in importance and explanatory power.

[...]
Q. Another of your definitions of "religious" is as a reference to a mystery that unfolds the ordinary world but is not fully accessible to the senses of those of us in that ordinary world.

[...]

Q. A third definition of religion you articulate in your report is Western cultural theism or a belief in a God who is good, powerful, and intelligent. At the risk of belaboring the point, does Pandas shed any light on whether intelligent design meets this definition of religion?

A simple belief in Mr. Spock and Zaphod Beeblebrox wouldn't be religious; Mr. Spock is just a guy, albeit a smart one with funny looking eyebrows. Now, if you want to ascribe quasi-deific status to Q, someone might want to call that a religion, but that's a different belief stacked atop the mere belief in aliens.

Or to put it another way, believing in witches isn't a religious belief, either. Ask Hermione Granger or Samantha Stevens. But the kind of witches that the villagers of Salem believed in were a religious belief, as is the practice of the hippy chick who smells faintly of patchouli and worships Athena and the Horned One down at the bead-and-tarot shop.

 

[slingblade]

ET Corn Gods.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Don't forget Benjamin Creme's Neo-Theosophy, in which the ET's are part of the Brotherhood of The Ascended Masters.

Unless one has actually built a religious sect which actually involves ET's, a belief in ET's in and of itself is not religious, it is simply unsupported by evidence.

GB

 

[leon_heller]

I grew up in West London and often used to visit the Aetherius Society's HQ in Fulham Road and look in the window for amusement. I see from their web site that it is still there.

 

[Denver]

It's not drawn between those things.

Nothing under US law would prevent a local ordinance from declaring that leprechauns exist.

The problem becomes when the unproven beliefs amount to an establishment of religion as opposed to mere superstition.

There's no clear-cut simple statement in US law defining religion, but US vs. Seeger provides something you might think about.

"The test of religious belief [...]is whether it is a sincere and meaningful belief occupying in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God."

While I think we can site examples of this being true in many cases for ET proponents, I don't think the initiative goes quite that far. So in that sense, I think you 're right.

The Kitzmiller v. Dover case involved an extensive discussion of this subject as well (as you can imagine).

I recently watched the 2007 Nova episode on that trial, and I recall one of the big points the prosecution felt it had to make, was that the Intelligent Design adoption by the school was actually Creationism that had been deliberately disguised by the defendants.

The ballot initiative does not mention religion, or God, but I wonder if I found enough rewordings from previous documents by the author, if that would support a similar legal argument? The realms are not identical, but I think they both do involve civil liberties - at least, if a sufficient connection to religion can be made.

I should mention I have little doubt this will be defeated in the polls. But, it would be nice to get a few authorities, such as the ACLU, to line up against it anyway: the author continues to pull stuff like this in the city.

 

[drkitten]

The ballot initiative does not mention religion, or God, but I wonder if I found enough rewordings from previous documents by the author, if that would support a similar legal argument?

Probably not. The plaintiffs were able to establish (in Kitzmiller) that everyone involved in the case, including not only the sponsors, but also the textbook authors and the general public, thought about this issue as a religious one; the active deception ("cdesign proponentists") helped as well. Basically, the plaintiffs said that ID was a trojan horse for religion and the latest instantiation of a long-standing religious debate; since this was actually true, this was an easy and convincing thing to say.

You'd have a much harder time showing that the general public thinks of aliens in religious terms. The City of Denver simply gets one expert -- like me, for example -- up on the stand to tell everyone about Zaphod Beeblebrox and War of the Worlds, shows a few clips from classic Star Trek, and subpoenas George Lucas to tell the judge about the (lack of) religious significance in Chewbacca or the cantina musicians. Even better, they show a few clips from Cosmos (as written and presented by the notoriously irreligious Carl Sagan) about space aliens.

The realms are not identical, but I think they both do involve civil liberties - at least, if a sufficient connection to religion can be made.

I should mention I have little doubt this will be defeated in the polls. But, it would be nice to get a few authorities, such as the ACLU, to line up against it anyway: the author continues to pull stuff like this in the city.

Actually, the ACLU would probably take the other side of the case. You're right that it does involve civil liberties; specifically, the initiative author's civil right to petition the authorities for whatever the hell he wants, even if it's total nonsense. You may not like the nonsense, but you have no right and no authority to prevent him from speaking freely about it.

 

[Denver]

I hadn't considered they would rise to the other side of the case, though I do support the author's right to petition, and that's really isn't my argument with it anyways. But, I've sent the question off to them, and we'll see what they say (if anything).

 

[Atheist Girl]

People believe a wide variety of things about extra-terrestrials, and a wide variety of things about religion.. one of the primary definitions of Religion that first comes to my mind would be "a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny" and I use this to primarily define the term in my own mind as well.

People often say, though, that you can "make" anything into a religion. Heck some people even call Atheism or non-theism a religion depending on how the "practitioners" act/speak/respond... but I still come back to the above definition of what constitutes a religion in a more traditional sense.

Yeah people can get religious about things, but that doesn't make everything a religion.

I guess it would depend on what an individual believed at the end of the day, and I'd have to consider it on a case by case basis. On the whole, with little information? I'd say a belief in extra-terrestrials is a far cry from a religion.

Where it gets dicey for me is where you mention "also include spiritual beliefs" which sort of tilts the table obviously, and again it needs to be considered as a unique case. But as per the actual title of the thread, I don't think a declaration about the existence of ETs = religion in and of itself, no. If there's more to it though, that's when things change.