what would be an objectively verifiable standard for a court (or anyone else for that matter) to decide what is an authentic "religious" source and or practice/worship? are say naturalist-Buddhist groups not religious because they deny the existence of powerful space aliens (as David Bowie named them) ? how does one decide what is a purely political discourse vs an attempt to define a meaningful existence? how transcendent does an ideal have to be to properly count and who gets to say and by what means? Now that the secular academy has recognized (post election of GWBush and 9/11) that religion is still an important aspect of our common lives worthy of study it is likely that the so called field of religious studies will be dissolved as a distinct discipline because it can't answer basic methodological questions and can only argue from authority. The only related question that should remain is will there be a place for religious believers to be taken on their own terms in the academy, and other secular forums or will they always be explained away by various functional analyses, say anthropological or political?and finally belief is the wider category with religious belief as a subcategory, just acting out of beliefs is not a measure of religiosity.
More information about text formats