will have limited success. Given the criteria just outlined, it is clear that not all beliefs will agree to submit. Not surprisingly, the tension between criteria one through four (unleashing belief) and caveat five (imposing conditions on belief), is regularly played out in the courts. In the ongoing battles of our vague, amorphous freedoms, the freedom enshrined in rights and equal rights regularly goes a few rounds with "freedom of belief." Those beliefs that refuse to aggregate in official and large-sized collectives (the World Class religions, or humanism as the official other) remain outside the compensations of the court. Those that refuse to acknowledge "modern" values are technically outside -- though sometimes, and maybe even often, compromises are made (by way of concession to the compulsion of belief). But even those religious beliefs deemed unworthy, on the grounds that they do not sufficiently coincide with Wrde , remain entirely inside the court's absolutely amorphous and unpredictable definition of belief. Sherwood Y. On the freedom of the concepts of religion and belief. The Immanent Frame . 2012. Available at: http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2012/11/13/on-\\... Accessed November 17, 2012. APA citation: Sherwood, Yvonne. (2012). On the freedom of the concepts of religion and belief . Retrieved November 17, 2012, from The Immanent Frame Web site: http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2012/11/13/on-\\... Chicago citation: Sherwood, Yvonne. 2012. On the freedom of the concepts of religion and belief. The Immanent Frame. http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2012/11/13/on-\\... (accessed November 17, 2012). Harvard citation: Sherwood, Y 2012, On the freedom of the concepts of religion and belief , The