# No law should ever have a religious exemption. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 13, 2012, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-law-should-ever-have-a-religious-exemption/618643 "2012-04-13T07:12:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-law-should-ever-have-a-religious-exemption/618643/1 "2012-04-13T07:12:13Z")
Something I just mentioned in another thread, and a belief I’ve held for a long time, is that all laws that provide exceptions for specific religions are inherently unjust. In short, if you’re willing to make an exception just because someone puts “God says” at the front of their complaint, you obviously don’t think the law is that important (or you’re a dirty stinking theocrat). If you think you shouldn’t have to vaccinate your kids because it goes against your religion, this is not a _more valid_ position than the non-religious belief that you shouldn’t have to vaccinate your kids because vaccines cause autism, or because vampires prefer the taste of vaccinated blood, and should not be treated as such. Ironically, it also encourages religious discrimination. Since such a law is inherently unenforceable if you can just let everyone claim to hold religious beliefs that make them exempt, it encourages the people enforcing the law to arbitrarily decide which religions are and aren’t valid. And it _is_ arbitrary - all religions and all religious beliefs are equally invalid, so allowing someone to opt out of the healthcare mandate if they’re a Christian Scientist but not if they’re a member of some other religion (or if you don’t think they’re _really_ a Christian Scientist) is not fair. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-law-should-ever-have-a-religious-exemption/618643/2 "2012-04-13T07:37:37Z")
Human rights are just as faith based as any of our religious traditions. We hold these truths to be self-evident, which is just a fancy way of saying Hell, no, we can’t prove any of this shit, but its true anyway. The value of tolerance is another civilized act of faith, a generous gesture we make to our fellow citizens, that we will respect choices of conscience to any fair and reasonable degree. If we can find an accommodation that permits the Amish to pursue their consciences with endangering or unduly burdening the rest of us, I think we have an obligation to try to do so. For instance, a religious exemption from military service. Yes, that permits cowardly scoundrels to take advantage of sincere religion, but who wants to serve with such a man anyway? Of course, on public health issues, like vaccination, such accommodations simply aren’t possible. But if fair minded people can arrive at a compromise, why not? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-law-should-ever-have-a-religious-exemption/618643/3 "2012-04-13T08:05:21Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Human rights are just as faith based as any of our religious traditions. No they aren’t. They are at least in part based on human psychology (what we want and how we want to be treated) and the historical evidence of what does and does not lead to tyranny and abuse. Nor do human rights require you to ignore the laws of physics, ignore logic, or physical reality. Nor does it base itself on wholly imaginary & impossible entities. Nor is a claim of how things _should_ work the same as a claim that invisible, undetectable, physically & logically impossible entities _actually exist_. Now, if people claimed that human rights are impossible to violate and if you tried to massacre people the bullets would just bounce off of them, while in the same room a news report shows innocent people being gunned down then you could equate them. > [@elucidator](#): > > The value of tolerance is another civilized act of faith, a generous gesture we make to our fellow citizens, that we will respect choices of conscience to any fair and reasonable degree. No. Tolerance is valuable because we all want to be tolerated, and don’t want to be imprisoned or killed for our beliefs and practices. It’s not an “act of faith”, it’s based on thousands of years of history demonstrating just how destructive intolerance is, and on the present day fact that tolerant societies are more pleasant to live in. There’s no faith involved. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-law-should-ever-have-a-religious-exemption/618643/4 "2012-04-13T08:08:51Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > If we can find an accommodation that permits the Amish to pursue their consciences with endangering or unduly burdening the rest of us, I think we have an obligation to try to do so. > > For instance, a religious exemption from military service. Yes, that permits cowardly scoundrels to take advantage of sincere religion, but who wants to serve with such a man anyway? Of course, on public health issues, like vaccination, such accommodations simply aren’t possible. But if fair minded people can arrive at a compromise, why not? You miss my point. I’m not saying you shouldn’t accommodate the Amish, I’m saying that if you accommodate the Amish you should also accommodate any old hippy commune, even if they’re not religious. As for your second example, I do not consider someone a “cowardly scoundrel” for refusing to be enslaved by their government. Everyone should be free to refuse military service without needing to pretend they have a religious objection - the simple belief that conscription is unethical should be more than enough. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-law-should-ever-have-a-religious-exemption/618643/5 "2012-04-13T08:16:47Z")
We have the first amendment for a reason, and that reason isn’t some fancy-pantsy abstract idealism about what’s the most fairest or just way to run a society. The founders came here from a continent gutted by centuries of religious internecine strife. They’d seen, first hand, what happens when a government tries to dictate religious practices to its population, and they wrote the first amendment to prevent that tide of blood from ever reaching these shores. So, yeah, it’s not fair. It is, however, necessary for a peaceful, stable society. That’s more important than being fair. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 8:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-law-should-ever-have-a-religious-exemption/618643/6 "2012-04-13T08:31:14Z")
I couldn’t agree more. Especially because I’m of quite a spiritual bent, but I have no “religion” in the sense of an organized, legally incorporated Church. I’m not sure why my interpretation of what The Divine wants for me shouldn’t be respected simply because I don’t share a dusty book with thousands of other people. And it’s just as true for atheists - ethical and moral decisions are not the exclusive provenance of religion. So yes, either we should respect “ethical and moral objections,” as well as religious objections (which would indicate that the law isn’t really all that important) or we just scrap the laws. I don’t know the details of conscientious objector laws, but I do know that in my state, at least, a parental waiver for vaccinations must include the word “religion” or “God” on it to be valid.(ETA: Or at least this is what I was told by several school nurses and teachers and principals.) My not-a-church spiritual community at the time tried to draft a position statement on vaccinations to support members in personal choice, using universalist language without the word God (because we also had members who believed in Goddesses, and members who believed in neuter and depersonalized divinity, and atheist members) and it didn’t hold up in any but the Waldorf school. Public schools, including my child’s, rejected it outright. I’m no longer anti-vax, so I don’t want to get into that debate, but it’s an illustration to me of a problem with religious exemption to laws. Giving a religious - but not ethical, moral or I’m-a-free-thinker-dammit - exemption is giving Church members a greater freedom than the rest of us, and that ain’t right. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-law-should-ever-have-a-religious-exemption/618643/7 "2012-04-13T10:28:54Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > I’m not saying you shouldn’t accommodate the Amish, I’m saying that if you accommodate the Amish you should also accommodate any old hippy commune, even if they’re not religious. To a large extent, I think this is already the case. Many of the conscience exemptions apply equally to someone acting out of nonreligious conviction; conscription is one example. Can you give some examples of where conscience exemptions are extended to religious groups but not others? I don’t doubt that they exist, but I think it would help clarify how much of an issue this is and whether or not a constitutional amendment is really needed. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-law-should-ever-have-a-religious-exemption/618643/8 "2012-04-13T10:48:51Z")
> [@furt](#): > > To a large extent, I think this is already the case. Many of the conscience exemptions apply equally to someone acting out of nonreligious conviction; conscription is one example. > > Can you give some examples of where conscience exemptions are extended to religious groups but not others? The exemption given to the Amish for social security specifically requires membership of a religion more than 60 years old. The health insurance mandate has an exception for the same religions. ---
**Author:** ![Strinka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/strinka/32/512_2.png) [@Strinka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strinka)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-law-should-ever-have-a-religious-exemption/618643/9 "2012-04-13T11:07:25Z")
Agreed. A religious exemption either makes a law unenforceable, by allowing anyone to make up a religion on the spot, or it breaks separation of church and state by having the government decide what is and isn’t a valid religion. If a law ought to have a religious exemption, it shouldn’t be a law at all. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-law-should-ever-have-a-religious-exemption/618643/10 "2012-04-13T12:04:47Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > We have the first amendment for a reason, and that reason isn’t some fancy-pantsy abstract idealism about what’s the most fairest or just way to run a society. The founders came here from a continent gutted by centuries of religious internecine strife. They’d seen, first hand, what happens when a government tries to dictate religious practices to its population, and they wrote the first amendment to prevent that tide of blood from ever reaching these shores. > > So, yeah, it’s not fair. It is, however, necessary for a peaceful, stable society. That’s more important than being fair. I would add that the founding fathers also saw what happens when any religion dictates the laws based on their beliefs, hence..separation of church and state. Protecting people from religious laws as well. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-law-should-ever-have-a-religious-exemption/618643/11 "2012-04-13T12:08:02Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > The exemption given to the Amish for social security specifically requires membership of a religion more than 60 years old. The health insurance mandate has an exception for the same religions. So, in light of post #4, I take it that you support the right for nonreligious persons to opt out of SS and the Insurance Mandate? ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-law-should-ever-have-a-religious-exemption/618643/12 "2012-04-13T12:27:06Z")
> [@furt](#): > > So, in light of post #4, I take it that you support the right for nonreligious persons to opt out of SS and the Insurance Mandate? > [@Grumman](#): > > I’m saying that **if** you accommodate the Amish you should also accommodate any old hippy commune, even if they’re not religious. Notice the “if”. There are three possibilities: all religions are subject to a law, no religions are subject to a law, or some religions are subject to a law. My position is that the third option is indefensible. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-law-should-ever-have-a-religious-exemption/618643/13 "2012-04-13T13:15:54Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > Notice the “if”. There are three possibilities: all religions are subject to a law, no religions are subject to a law, or some religions are subject to a law. My position is that the third option is indefensible. So you don’t think we should accomodate the Amish _or_ the commune? Okay; and you think we need a constitutional amendment just so we can force the Amish to register with Social Security and pacifists with selective service? :dubious: I’m trying to figure out what grave and pervasive problem you’re attempting to solve here. Yes, society sometimes allows people with deeply held convictions – religious or otherwise – to opt out of some requirements. In other situations, we don’t: religions which advocate child marriage or animal sacrifice are not protected by law. A deep moral opposition to speed limits is not respected. Other than making happy those with an animus against religion in general (or, I suppose, the Amish in particular), what is the actual, tangible problem are you proposing to solve? ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-law-should-ever-have-a-religious-exemption/618643/14 "2012-04-13T13:45:35Z")
> [@furt](#): > > So you don’t think we should accomodate the Amish _or_ the commune? Okay; and you think we need a constitutional amendment just so we can force the Amish to register with Social Security and pacifists with selective service? :dubious: Have you even been reading the damn thread? 1. I have expressed neither support nor opposition for accommodating both Amish and communes, and explicitly pointed this fact out to you in my previous post. 2. I haven’t even used the words “constitutional amendment” in this thread. 3. I’ve explicitly stated I’m against selective service. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-law-should-ever-have-a-religious-exemption/618643/15 "2012-04-13T13:55:09Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > If we can find an accommodation that permits the Amish to pursue their consciences **with** endangering or unduly burdening the rest of us, I think we have an obligation to try to do so. Didn’t you mean **without**? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-law-should-ever-have-a-religious-exemption/618643/16 "2012-04-13T14:03:26Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > Have you even been reading the damn thread? > > 1. I have expressed neither support nor opposition for accommodating both Amish and communes, and explicitly pointed this fact out to you in my previous post. > > 2. I haven’t even used the words “constitutional amendment” in this thread. > > 3. I’ve explicitly stated I’m against selective service. Well, it would require a constitutional amendment in the US, so even though you haven’t mentioned it, you couldn’t accomplish your proclaimed goal without it. Can you tell us what horrible problem you are trying to correct with your plan? ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-law-should-ever-have-a-religious-exemption/618643/17 "2012-04-13T14:25:32Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > Have you even been reading the damn thread? Yes. > [@](#): > > 1. I have expressed neither support nor opposition for accommodating both Amish and communes, and explicitly pointed this fact out to you in my previous post. Then please do. I’m trying to force you through the logic of your position and take a stand: if you don’t allow the religious exemptions, then either you force people to act against deeply-held convictions, or you make compulsory social-welfare plans like SS and the PPACA unworkable. Given that the Amish (and others) do in fact have a deeply-seated opposition to social security, do you think they should be forced to register against their conscience, or should everyone be allowed to opt-out? Personally, I’d support the latter, but I’m a libertarian, and so oppose compulsory social-welfare plans to begin with. (In part for the very reason that IMO whenever you find that compliance with a law violates the consciences of a significant number of people, it’s probably a bad law. Not always, but very often). > [@](#): > > 1. I haven’t even used the words “constitutional amendment” in this thread. It’s probably going to take that: if you remove the exemptions, you’re going to have a free-exercise case tout suite, and you’re going to have to demonstrate a compelling government interest in forcing the Amish to register with Social Security. IANAL, but I’m skeptical that they’ll find one. ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-law-should-ever-have-a-religious-exemption/618643/18 "2012-04-13T14:29:00Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Well, it would require a constitutional amendment in the US, so even though you haven’t mentioned it, you couldn’t accomplish your proclaimed goal without it. > > Can you tell us what horrible problem you are trying to correct with your plan? Would it? Why? Not all laws have religious exemptions. The 1st Amendment says simple “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”, the current interpretation is that reasonable accommodation should be made, but that is open for interpretation. The lines are currently fairly arbitrary. Some laws and regulations allow almost any objection based on conscience, and some only recognize a limited number. I could see the SC ruling on a challenge to the Social Security exemption requiring 60 years of establishment to be unconstitutional. To me, that requirement is more of a violation of the clear meaning of 1st Amendment than requiring the Amish to pay SS. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-law-should-ever-have-a-religious-exemption/618643/19 "2012-04-13T14:34:13Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > Would it? Why? Not all laws have religious exemptions. The 1st Amendment says simple “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”, “..or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” You left out the more important clause relative to this discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Grrr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grrr/32/146_2.png) [@Grrr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grrr)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-law-should-ever-have-a-religious-exemption/618643/20 "2012-04-13T14:38:16Z")
There’s a quote that says: “The only difference between a cult and a religion is that a cult has no polital power.” [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-law-should-ever-have-a-religious-exemption/618643.md?page=2)