I very much enjoyed reading about the "Apostles of O'Neill," as it raises some profound questions which go to the heart of the first amendment:

Brian O'Neill Jr., 20, and his roommates moved in August and promptly held pool parties so loud the university and police were called.

This is where your classic town-gown dispute gets weird. The $2.4 million house that J. Brian O'Neill Sr. bought for his son is allowed only six unrelated residents under zoning laws. But if it's a residence for a "religious community," the number jumps to 15.

The solution? The Apostles of O'Neill. That's the name the young men used Oct. 2 when they filed paperwork to incorporate as a nonprofit religious organization. In an e-mail statement, the group says that it has donated to charities and that its mission is "to be active and positive members of our community."

The neighbors call it blasphemy and a possible precedent-setting threat to property values. It has impressed some of the young men's parents, including one who called it "ingenious" and another who said they were defending American property rights in the face of fuddy-duddy Georgetowners. And it has registered little reaction from the Catholic university, which says it doesn't consider the Apostles its business.

While nothing could be more transparently phony than a group of drunken kids forming a religion to wiggle around the zoning laws, the fact is, religions do get around the zoning laws, and some religious institutions contain people you wouldn't want living next door.

Take the Saudi madrassa in my neighborhood. (To quote Henny Youngman, "Please!") Aside from numerous problems with noise and traffic, neighbors have been seriously and justifiably concerned about terrorism, the place ran a jihad training camp, the FBI visited the place searching for a child molester reported under Megan's Law to be residing there, they ran an unlicensed restaurant, halal butcher shop and school, violated the terms of a covenant with the neighbors, and in spite of all this, they were granted numerous "special exceptions" under the zoning ordinance.

Unlike the drunken young "Apostles," no one would question the religious sincerity of the Saudi madrassa. Nor could they legally. The First Amendment works that way. Religion is largely undefinable, and any attempt to define what is and what is not a legitimate religions runs afoul of one of our most precious freedoms.

While the courts have applied a sort of "I know it when I see it" test (one case I read about ruled that a prisoner's claim of "relgious worship" of an empty tuna fish can was not religion), in many cases this is not so easy. If the young "Apostles" got serious, they could do a little research (or hire a scholar) and write up a long screed which they could call a holy book.... (Come to think of it, I have one stashed somewhere, nearly book length, hand written by someone who sincerely believed every word was prophecy, and in beautiful calligraphy. But it is not for sale!) And they could file that as part of their charter, naming priests, officers, directors, and who the hell would have the right to say it was not legitimate?

And come to think of it, what about the "religion" of Tom Cruise and many movie stars? I dare not name its name, lest I be sued as "scientophobic" or something.

Marx took a lot of flak for saying religion is the opiate of the masses, but in so doing he was not merely supplying a justification for his own substitute drug. He was also making an observation about religion which many others have made in many places and times. I've heard the same thing from people who believe not so much in religion, but in the need for religion. But is it an opiate? Opiates are addictive drugs, but they're certainly not the most dangerous drugs.

I'm getting off topic, but I'm thinking maybe Marx's rhetoric was a bit limited by his place and times.

For starters, aren't some drugs more dangerous than opiates?

If my neighborhood had a choice of voting between the Apostles and the madrassa, bad as the Apostles are, I think they'd win.

(As long as the balloting was conducted in secret....)

MORE: Speaking of odd religions, I encountered many during my years in the San Francisco Bay Area. Three stand out right now:

(To judge or not to judge, that is the question.)

AFTERTHOUGHT: Why is the "Wiccan religion" seen by many as crossing a certain line? Is it because the religious sincerity of its practitioners in doubt? Or because their beliefs are diasapproved by the majority?

If a Wicca can be stifled by the majority, why not Salafism?