A religion governs how its followers live; fandom asks nothing of them between matches

The argument

A further argument concerns scope. Religions make demands on conduct. They say what may be eaten and when, how money should be handled, who may be married, how the dead are to be treated, what is owed to a stranger and what must be confessed. The demands reach into the parts of life furthest from the gathering, and failing them is not a lapse of enthusiasm but a wrong. This is why religions have moral vocabularies, authorities competent to apply them, and procedures for repentance. Fandom, opponents point out, demands nothing comparable. It asks for attention, money and feeling, and it asks for them at fixtures. Between them it is silent on how a supporter should treat their family, run a business, spend their time or face their death. There are no fan ethics, no body with standing to say that a supporter has sinned, and nothing to repent of beyond disloyalty to the club itself. A person may be cruel, dishonest or idle in every other respect and remain a supporter in perfectly good standing, which could not be said of a believer in any tradition. The conclusion drawn is that the comparison survives only while attention stays inside the stadium. Widen it to the rest of a life and the two come apart: a religion is an answer to how one should live, and fandom is an activity that a person who has answered that question some other way may also enjoy. Calling it a religion flatters the intensity of the feeling while passing over the absence of everything the feeling is supposed to be about.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Proponents respond that this describes institutional religion rather than religion, and that a great deal of religious life has consisted of ritual and belonging with little pressure on daily conduct. They add that fandom does carry an ethic, thinner but real: loyalty in adversity, respect owed to the dead of the club, obligations to fellow supporters, and the shame attached to following whoever is winning. On this reading the difference is one of degree, and the degree has been set where it produces the desired verdict.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Comprehensive demands on conduct are characteristic of organised religion at its most institutional, not of religion as such, and much religious life has consisted of attendance, festival and inherited belonging with little pressure on private behaviour. [Rejecting P2] Moral vocabularies and governing authorities are features of institutions in general, including states, professions and trades, so their presence cannot be what makes a practice religious. [Rejecting C] The scope test is chosen to deliver the verdict. Applied evenly it denies the name to any tradition without clergy or a code of conduct, which few who use the test would accept.