By Therese von Weissenberg
Every once in a while, when I need to add some enrichment, I entertain myself by creating fictional societies and/or religions and mashing them with their surroundings to see what interesting situations could hypothetically occur. And lately as I stalk the halls of the library while studying at midnight I have been considering how one would go about creating a religion that would be worthy of consideration to be registered as a religion but comes into conflict with the state’s bureaucratic definition of a religion.
During our Religion and Sociology lectures, more specifically the lecture on religion and state, the preparation for the lecture included section seven from chapter two of the “Act on the Freedom of Religion” according to Finnish law(453/2003), regarding the qualifications needed to register as a religious community. And for fun I went and read the rest of chapter two, just to see what it would take to get legally registered as a religious community. A lot of it simply has to do with bureaucratic rulings that apply in similar ways to many non-profit organisations, membership, payments, executive committee and so on. So for my challenge I told myself I could not get my made up religion rejected on any kind of basis that could apply to non-religious non-profit groups as well, the rejection had to be based on sincere religious elements that nonetheless create conflict with the state’s bureaucratic definition of religion. This restricts me to the two elements mentioned in section 7, creed and an element of something sacred.
I have decided to exploit a small little detail in section ten: community by-laws. The first thing the community by law needs me to clarify, is the name of the religious community. My conflict, found at last.
“The community by-laws shall state:
1) the name of the religious community and the municipality in Finland in which it has it’s registered office;”
My religion is according to our faith and creed one that has no name, and shall never be named, not even nicknamed, the fact that it is unnamed, and the continuous unnamedness of it is sacred, and violating that would be blaspheming. You may not refer to the religion by the same moniker on the same day. No official records or texts may write down something that might be used as a way to refer to the religion in a consistent way. This in accordance with our belief of the universe as an ever-changing entity and respect of that by acknowledging the impermanence of all things by refusing to name the religion.
By all other accounts my fellow members and I should qualify, we have submitted a creed, we have clarified what we hold as sacred, we have more than twenty members(twenty and a half!), we have clarified our charter, we seek no financial profit, we have an executive committee, we have a clear account of our membership registration, we’re champs at human rights, and all other community by-laws are stated.
But sections seven and ten put us in conflict. Our most sacred element is directly in conflict with the first part of section ten. Everything else is in order, but a small little detail balloons into the blockade that will keep us from recognition by the state.
Essi Mäkelä in her paper on the “‘Impartial Sources’ and the Registration of
Religious Communities in Finland” discusses certain cases that have been rejected from being registered as religious communities, inter alia, the La Sociedad del Amor de Dios, or SAD, a group based on the belief of god’s love, largely the Christian god, but can also be interpreted as a universal god found in many religions, like Islam, and while I will not comment on the results of the applications, nor the general ideology of the group, the rejections that were involved are more interesting when analysing the case of my religion. To summarize, the SAD were rejected because they failed to, in the eyes of the state’s board, properly connect their religious doctrine to a sacred text or set of written down directions. Despite citing various works, including the bible, freemasonry and ‘other’(not named) texts. Mäkelä reflects in the text that the SAD bases their faith on a specific set of verses in the bible but fails to name the specifics to the board.
So a, by the state, perceived ambiguity concerning the religious text led to up to three rejections. Even though the SAD by all other accounts apparently would have qualified. The need for clarity within the bureaucratic system of the state thus held the SAD back from acceptance.
Because states are bureaucratic legal entities, usually, they more or less need everything to be gently corseted into similar frameworks for the state to be able to properly process them. So a legal definition is needed to create any kind of functioning system between religions and the state. But any kind of definition brings with it the risk of exclusion. And legal definitions paired with a religious group’s ideals or rules that by virtue of sacredness become inflexible, like my group, bring with it the addition of technicalities becoming far bigger deals than anyone intended for, hindering the freedom part, of freedom or religion.
The SAD was willing to, for at least three times, revise their application. But in the case of my made-up religion, revision is not an option, the internal doctrine states we under no circumstances may name our religion.
The inevitable rejection thus would be born of a clash with a fundamental working of the bureaucratic state, since names play an important role in tracking and documentation among other things. The case of my religion reflects how limited definitions born from the technical needs within the state affect a topic like religion, where a multitude of deeply rooted beliefs or doctrine, when evolved outside of the state’s systems, highlight the weaknesses of rigid bureaucratic definitions.
References:
Act on the Freedom of Religion (Chapter 2). 453/2003; amendments up to 463/2017 included.https://www.finlex.fi/api/media/statute-foreign-language-translation/688468/mainPdf/main.pdf?timestamp=2003-06-05T21%3A00%3A00.000Z/https://www.finlex.fi/en/legislation/translations/2003/eng/453 .
Mäkelä, Essi Eleonoora. 2018. “‘Impartial Sources’ and the Registration of Religious Communities in Finland.” Journal for the Academic Study of Religion 31 (1): 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1558/jasr.35224.
