Because our notions of self-governance steer us in the general direction of the belief that the majority’s will governs us. Most people want these types of privileges to be extended to religious beliefs. It’s not a good idea because it’s the law, in other words: it’s the law because it’s an idea that enjoys widespread support and the law should reflect such widespread support.
Again, that’s a purely instrumental explanation. Is the majority right or wrong about wanting this to be the law? If right, why?
I’m a little baffled at how you don’t seem to get a fairly basic question.
No, I know. It was originally supposed to be a rhetorical question, the answer to which was clearly “yes, religion is privileged.” That’s directed at jtgain, who disagrees with both of us. You disagree with me, I think, about the next step.
It’s a two-part thing - one, is it true that the religious are privileged; and then two, in a case like the Abercrombie one, does that privilege appeal to our sense of reason? It seems to me that “it’s OK if you think your god requires it” is a pretty bright line, as these things go. I just don’t know that if we explore the rationale behind why we’re drawing that line exactly, we get that clear of an explanation.
It’s weird, and hard for me to rationalize, that all beliefs that fit this unwieldy definition of “religious,” however inconsistent they are with each other, and however impossible it is for all of them to be true, are all special and important. I suspect, though I don’t know, that the majority of people who are OK with this rule are primarily OK with it because in practice, it privileges Christianity most of all.