# Religious freedom and Church-State separation **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 21, 2013, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-freedom-and-church-state-separation/661574 "2013-06-21T18:09:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Mnemnosyne](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mnemnosyne/32/3347_2.png) [@Mnemnosyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mnemnosyne)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2013, 8:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-freedom-and-church-state-separation/661574/121 "2013-06-25T08:54:49Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Note that I specified a special ed student… if a principal is approached by a special ed teacher who says “John is really doing much better this year, learning a lot and having a great experience actually interacting with the other students, might even be possible to mainstream him in a few years… but he is still completely attached to his hat. If we put down our foot about that it will set him down months or more”, should the principal’s only choice be to either (a) make an exception for John, meaning that he then also has to make an exception for every student in the school, or (b) NOT make an assumption and potentially cripple John’s education and socialization? > > My point being that your position (I _think_ you’re the one espousing this position, might be responding to the wrong person here) a position of “well, either the law SHOULD be the law, in which case there should be no exceptions, or we allow at least one exception, in which case it should NOT be the law” is way over-absolutist. The vast vast majority of laws have one or more exceptions, and that’s reasonable and beneficial, because that’s how the real world works. I think this particular example may be a poor one for me personally because of unrelated biases. The special ed’s student’s condition may indeed count as a demonstrable need, rather than something based purely on belief, so if that is the case, despite my personal answer, an exception can be made because of actual demonstrable need. It is only exceptions purely based on belief rather than anything that can be shown to be true that I would remove without any exceptions. I do not feel that one person’s choice of beliefs should give them special treatment or an advantage over others. Actual needs can be measured and demonstrated. Making exceptions based on belief means, to me, that the government is legitimizing the belief by giving it special consideration. > [@Grumman](#): > > They’re _all_ fake. There is a legitimate argument for allowing a group like the Amish to handle their own aged care - that they are an organisation that has demonstrated they are stable enough to be trusted to do so - but that has nothing to do with whatever ridiculous corpse god they believe in. A hippy commune that proves itself capable of the same thing should be given the same exception. This is actually an argument that seems reasonable to me, because it’s based on actual things that can be demonstrated rather than belief. If a group of people, religious or otherwise, argue that they can demonstrate themselves to be stable enough and trustworthy enough that a ‘general good’ law doesn’t need to be applied to them, I can see a reasonable argument for giving them an exemption, based purely on their ability to not need the law’s help in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2013, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-freedom-and-church-state-separation/661574/122 "2013-06-25T11:58:02Z")
> [@Mnemnosyne](#): > > This is actually an argument that seems reasonable to me, because it’s based on actual things that can be demonstrated rather than belief. If a group of people, religious or otherwise, argue that they can demonstrate themselves to be stable enough and trustworthy enough that a ‘general good’ law doesn’t need to be applied to them, I can see a reasonable argument for giving them an exemption, based purely on their ability to not need the law’s help in the first place. Yeah - various groups can “opt out of” Social Security. State and municipal workers, teachers, etc. Should be no insurmountable hurdle for a religious group applying to do the same. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2013, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-freedom-and-church-state-separation/661574/123 "2013-06-25T13:44:50Z")
> [@Cyros](#): > > There is a difference between “I must be exempt because God says so!” (and this applies to me and others like me because of our beliefs) and “This law needlessly restricts the practice of my belief and thus should be modified or nullified” (and this would apply to everyone). > > I have no issue with the second formulation. It is the first that is problematic. Of course, but obviously we need to trend very heftily towards the former. > [@marcmcroy](#): > > Wait ..lets go back to the beginning… > I am Man, born of the Creator.In the middle of the forest. All i know is my being..and I adhere to the natural law. As in experience I feel a connection to the creator and give thanks for the water, the fruit, the life I have. I am truly free in thought and actions. Grew to adulthood and journeyed toward a light . That light was society. being in society, their law told me not to eat the fruit that the creator so freely gave me. nor the fish and all sorts of restrictions. I am a freeman right who can tell me otherwise I knew the laws of my creator first and it seemed natural. Now the authorities have a whole new set of rules to follow. Unnatural requests and truly against my natural laws I am sovreign with my creator . Correct? And yes, you should know where i am going with this Ooh, lemme guess - the funny farm? > [@CJJ](#): > > I must say that as I continued to follow this thread, I was reminded more and more of Emerson’s famous observation “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” > > It seems as though folks have pressed the “no exceptions” policy as a way to counter every possible objection. Ultimately, IMO, these things need to be decided on a case-by-case basis and with an appreciation for practicality, and ISTM the legal system has been designed to do just that (granted, imperfectly at times). > > Take the Amish sect exemption to SS as an example. Pressing the “no exceptions” policy seems to lead to two extremely unpalatable solutions: (1) picking a protracted and unpleasant fight with a small but sympathetic minority who’s participation in SS wouldn’t make a whit of difference, or (2) destroying SS as a viable program. While many conservatives might love (2), I just don’t think adherence to a foolish consistency is worth forcing what would be a Sophie’s choice for many Americans. Take the compromise and deal with it. > > And before the usual suspects pipe in with their “well what about X group…” scenarios, I’ll reiterate that these would need to be determined individually on a case-by-case basis. If enough exceptions pile up, I’ll concede the original law would need to be revisited. However I’m not convinced that “enough” = “one”. I can see the sense in this, but disagree on two grounds: [ol] [li]I feel like this opens a big fat door for groups to abuse the system, based on religion. And religion is essentially say-so - you can’t “prove” I’m not a member of religion X, you can’t prove that religion Y is baloney, and we certainly can’t have the government deciding “religion Z isn’t a real religion” (else we have situations where an obvious cult gets a free pass on account of political clou-_[oh wait](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology)_[/li][li]…I really just don’t like the idea that people are getting special privileges because of their irrationality. [/li][/ol] ---
**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2013, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-freedom-and-church-state-separation/661574/124 "2013-06-25T17:21:41Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > I can see the sense in this, but disagree on two grounds: > > I feel like this opens a big fat door for groups to abuse the system, based on religion. And religion is essentially say-so - you can’t “prove” I’m not a member of religion X, you can’t prove that religion Y is baloney, and we certainly can’t have the government deciding “religion Z isn’t a real religion” (else we have situations where an obvious cult gets a free pass on account of political clou-_[oh wait](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology)_ Again, I just don’t think it’s that hard to sort the wheat from the chaff here. And certainly the courts have a right to determine if X is a religion or not–else how can you say if First Amendment rights apply at all? For example, courts routinely determine if X constitutes “persons, houses, papers, and effects” for the purposes of applying Fourth Amendment rights; why can’t they do the same thing with religion? > [@](#): > > …I really just don’t like the idea that people are getting special privileges because of their irrationality. I don’t like it either, but I’m willing to accept that what I consider “irrational” may not match what others think. I think it’s irrational to drive a car without airbags, and even though they’ve been mandatory on new vehicles since 1998, I’m willing to grant the special privilege of disabling them because someone believes it’s safer. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2013, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-freedom-and-church-state-separation/661574/125 "2013-06-25T18:26:56Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > No. Laws that target certain religions shouldn’t exist, but you seem to be taking some bizarre twist to that by saying that if any particular religion disagrees with a particular law, that law has to go, even if it was not designed to effect that particular religion. You misunderstand me. I did not say what you’re claiming I said. I said that if we eliminated most of the laws in question, there would be no conflicts with the 1st Amendment guarantee of religious freedom. I did not say that the laws should be eliminated based on that reason. A libertarian government, with specific limited powers, would bring enormous benefits. The absence of intrusions against religious freedom would be one among those many benefits. The notion that government should not play any role in determining what ordinary people do or don’t wear is something that the deeply religious and entirely non-religious should be able to agree on. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2013, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-freedom-and-church-state-separation/661574/126 "2013-06-25T23:32:50Z")
> [@marcmcroy](#): > > And yes, you should know where i am going with this Off the deep end? You are making even less sense in this thread than the other one you’ve been posting in. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-freedom-and-church-state-separation/661574/127 "2013-06-27T06:52:02Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > I feel like this opens a big fat door for groups to abuse the system, based on religion. And religion is essentially say-so - you can’t “prove” I’m not a member of religion X, you can’t prove that religion Y is baloney, and we certainly can’t have the government deciding “religion Z isn’t a real religion” (else we have situations where an obvious cult gets a free pass on account of political clou-_[oh wait](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology)_ This is an issue the courts have had to deal with. Nobody has ever suggested that any claim to a religious belief must automatically be accepted. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > I really just don’t like the idea that people are getting special privileges because of their irrationality. Then amend the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-freedom-and-church-state-separation/661574/128 "2013-06-27T14:47:57Z")
[quote=“Budget\_Player\_Cadet, post:123, topic:661574”] [li]\*\*I feel like this opens a big fat door for groups to abuse the system, based on religion. And religion is essentially say-so - you can’t “prove” I’m not a member of religion \*\*X, you can’t prove that religion Y is baloney, and we certainly can’t have the government deciding “religion Z isn’t a real religion” (else we have situations where an obvious cult gets a free pass on account of political clou-_[oh wait](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology)_[/li][/QUOTE] You’re talking as if this is a recent change in government policy. It’s been the way it’s been none for generations if not centuries and what you’re talking about doesn’t happen. No one has ever suggested that every claim of religious belief has to be automatically accepted and it isn’t. If what your suggesting was the case, every business would declare they were “a church” and not have to pay taxes. Hell, that would mean everyone, not just members of the Native American Party, could declare “our religion lets us use narcotics”. The real world doesn’t work that way. > [@](#): > > I really just don’t like the idea that people are getting special privileges because of their irrationality. Then I’d recommend either amending the constitution or move to Turkey. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-freedom-and-church-state-separation/661574/129 "2013-06-27T14:58:34Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Hell, that would mean everyone, not just members of the Native American Party, could declare “our religion lets us use narcotics”. :dubious: I am an atheist. My religion lets me use narcotics. ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-freedom-and-church-state-separation/661574/130 "2013-06-27T15:27:57Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > If what your suggesting was the case, every business would declare they were “a church” and not have to pay taxes. That’s assuming everyone is dishonest. What we have instead are dishonest people who take advantage of it, leaving honest people holding the bag. Look at the Bakkers and the other teleministries raking in the dough tax free ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-freedom-and-church-state-separation/661574/131 "2013-06-27T15:48:31Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > If what your suggesting was the case, every business would declare they were “a church” and not have to pay taxes. I thought churches didn’t have to pay tax because they were classed as a non-profit and non-profits don’t pay tax. Is this incorrect? ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-freedom-and-church-state-separation/661574/132 "2013-06-27T18:44:07Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Racist bullshit. Please learn about Islam before stupidly claiming that hijabs are meant “signify…their second class status”. It wasn’t and it doesn’t. In fact many Muslim feminists make a point of wearing one. Islam’s tradition is no different than the Orthodox Jewish tradition requiring women to cover their hair. For that matter, Muslim men also have dress codes that they are expected to follow. Islam is not dependant on race. Please learn about the meaning of words before spraying them around so ignorantly. If you honestly think that religious dress codes and religion-based cultural behaviours have nothing to do with the status of women then I suspect you must know nothing about the major Abrahamic faiths. They are all inherently misogynist. Some enlightened sections make the right noises of course and regular schisms give a glimmer of hope but…until such time as women have equal status, opportunity and freedoms within religions then I think us outsiders should be free and vocal in pointing out the obvious. They are inherently bigoted and discriminatory institutions and I don’t think that an enlightened modern society should give them a free pass. As for face coverings? Wherever the law demands your face be uncovered (banks, courts of law etc) then it should be uncovered. No religious exemption at all. Other than that…do what the hell you want. Is that racist? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-freedom-and-church-state-separation/661574/133 "2013-06-27T20:41:39Z")
> [@Cyros](#): > > I thought churches didn’t have to pay tax because they were classed as a non-profit and non-profits don’t pay tax. Is this incorrect? No, you’re entirely correct, though some people seem to have trouble understanding the explanation. > [@Novelty Bobble](#): > > If you honestly think that religious dress codes and religion-based cultural behaviours have nothing to do with the status of women then I suspect you must know nothing about the major Abrahamic faiths. > They are all inherently misogynist. Some enlightened sections make the right noises of course and regular schisms give a glimmer of hope but…until such time as women have equal status, opportunity and freedoms within religions then I think us outsiders should be free and vocal in pointing out the obvious. They are inherently bigoted and discriminatory institutions and I don’t think that an enlightened modern society should give them a free pass. This is correct in regards to Islam, not to Christianity or Judaism. I suppose one could argue it’s correct in regards to Mormonism, though not to as great an extent as Islam. ---
**Author:** ![Kinthalis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kinthalis/32/16084_2.png) [@Kinthalis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kinthalis)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-freedom-and-church-state-separation/661574/134 "2013-06-27T20:51:21Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > No, you’re entirely correct, though some people seem to have trouble understanding the explanation. > This is correct in regards to Islam, not to Christianity or Judaism. I suppose one could argue it’s correct in regards to Mormonism, though not to as great an extent as Islam. Pretty sure I’ve met Christians with rather backwards attitudes about women’s place in society. Not sure if it’s common enough that you could identify a particular Christian sect with those beliefs though. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-freedom-and-church-state-separation/661574/135 "2013-06-27T22:14:59Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > This is correct in regards to Islam, not to Christianity or Judaism. I suppose one could argue it’s correct in regards to Mormonism, though not to as great an extent as Islam. What proportion of the top positions in Christian, Jewish or Islamic sects _are_ occupied or _can_ be occupied by women? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-freedom-and-church-state-separation/661574/136 "2013-06-27T23:16:19Z")
In the three Christian churches I know best (ELCA, EC, and UMC) it’s 100%. Among Jews, I think it’s close to 100% outside Orthodox circles. Among Muslims, I’d guess close to 0%. However that’s not really relevant to your claim. You said Abrahamic religious are “inherently misogynist”. It’s not misogynist to have a position where only men are allowed; no one accuses the NBA, NHL, and NFL of being misogynist, just as no-one says that women’s colleges are misandrist. In discussing Islamic misogyny, I’d instead point to folks like [Muhammad al Arifi](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klSe0GY4jqE). ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-freedom-and-church-state-separation/661574/137 "2013-06-28T05:01:24Z")
> [@Cyros](#): > > I thought churches didn’t have to pay tax because they were classed as a non-profit and non-profits don’t pay tax. Is this incorrect? Do non-profits pay property tax on land and buildings they own? Churches don’t. In addition there is a “parsonage exemption” on religious ministers’ housing costs. ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 10:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-freedom-and-church-state-separation/661574/138 "2013-06-28T10:36:49Z")
> [@fumster](#): > > Do non-profits pay property tax on land and buildings they own? Churches don’t. In addition there is a “parsonage exemption” on religious ministers’ housing costs. Ok, if true, I oppose these exemptions. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-freedom-and-church-state-separation/661574/139 "2013-06-28T17:28:28Z")
> [@fumster](#): > > Do non-profits pay property tax on land and buildings they own? Churches don’t. In addition there is a “parsonage exemption” on religious ministers’ housing costs. I’m sure it varies by state, but in California all non-profits are exempt from property tax. ---
**Author:** ![Independence](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e274bd/32.png) [@Independence](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Independence)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-freedom-and-church-state-separation/661574/140 "2013-06-28T21:22:19Z")
IF the government would reduce in size and stay out of people’s business more, there would be less opportunity for it to violate church/state separation. For example, in the case of marriage… The government has no business deciding what constitutes a family and what “pairing” of adults is deserving of a certain tax status. Marriage should be a personal/family decision and the gov should have nothing to do with it. Each individual should be treated autonomously and separately in the eyes of the law and the tax man. If the government neither recognizes or denies any form of marriage and provides no special privileges to married individuals over singles, then it has no chance of favoring one over the other or discriminating! PEOPLE! Stop inviting the government and bureaucracy into your lives by ASKING the government for things (like marriage licenses). Realize that rights are not “gifts from the government”… The gov either respects your rights or it gets thumped in the face. I say it’s time for a thumping. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-freedom-and-church-state-separation/661574.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-freedom-and-church-state-separation/661574.md?page=8)