# Why is religious exercise protected over secular exercise? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 30, 2014, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religious-exercise-protected-over-secular-exercise/692026 "2014-06-30T18:57:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religious-exercise-protected-over-secular-exercise/692026/61 "2014-07-02T21:47:24Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > That’s what I mean. What difference do they find between secular beliefs and exercise and religious beliefs and exercise such that the latter are worthy of specific, additional protection, and the former are not? > > As far as your cite, it doesn’t give any actual reasons to separate the two that could not reasonably also apply to secular purposes, aside of course from those that rely on precedent, which are in turn reliant upon no good reason to separate the two that I can see. You’re asking questions on why Congress disagrees with something (secular protection) that doesn’t seem to have ever been debated in Congress. It isn’t like there was a vote on not including secular protections in RFRA. Other than pointing out that the country has a few centuries’ worth of laws and debate on religions protections, there doesn’t seem to be a precise answer to your question: how do you draw a distinction between a position you have on a political issue and another political issue you’ve never thought about before? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religious-exercise-protected-over-secular-exercise/692026/62 "2014-07-02T22:17:29Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > You’re asking questions on why Congress disagrees with something (secular protection) that doesn’t seem to have ever been debated in Congress. It isn’t like there was a vote on not including secular protections in RFRA. > > Other than pointing out that the country has a few centuries’ worth of laws and debate on religions protections, there doesn’t seem to be a precise answer to your question: how do you draw a distinction between a position you have on a political issue and another political issue you’ve never thought about before? But they are thinking about that political issue, in the context of general philosophical exercise protections. Lawmakers seemed to find it easy enough in other situations to look at an oppressed or harmed group and generalise that actual harm to potential harm for others, to the point that wider ranging protections were brought in. To recognise that a specific instance or specific instances of needed protection weren’t only relevant to themselves. Saying that people would have no reason to look at secular protections when looking at religious protections to me seems like someone looking at Ford releasing a car that burst into flames when you turned the ignition key and starting work on a draft bill regulating new standards for Ford cars. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religious-exercise-protected-over-secular-exercise/692026/63 "2014-07-03T01:03:43Z")
If you think lawmakers debated secular protections, go find the evidence for it, then. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 9:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religious-exercise-protected-over-secular-exercise/692026/64 "2014-07-03T09:31:14Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > If you think lawmakers debated secular protections, go find the evidence for it, then. I’m happy not to. If they didn’t, as you say, that seems like a remarkable lack of reasoning, but I’m entirely prepared to accept that’s true of lawmakers. Unfortunately the question then just becomes; why didn’t they? It’s not exactly a huge leap. And perhaps more to the point, if the only reason why secular protections aren’t in there is because they were never considered, should lawmakers be invited to consider them now? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religious-exercise-protected-over-secular-exercise/692026/65 "2014-07-03T12:30:26Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > You mean, why slavery was outlawed for non-whites? And why the Nineteenth Amendment protects women’s right to vote specifically? I don’t know what point you are making. Slavery in the US is outlawed for everyone, not only non-whites, and the Nineteenth Amendment is an example of a protection for a group who suffered historically. Which is what you asked about. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religious-exercise-protected-over-secular-exercise/692026/66 "2014-07-03T12:36:36Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I don’t know what point you are making. Slavery in the US is outlawed for everyone, not only non-whites, and the Nineteenth Amendment is an example of a protection for a group who suffered historically. Which is what you asked about. > > Regards, > Shodan That’s the point. Why aren’t religious protections for everyone, even for atheists? Freedom of Religion covers atheism, so why does this law discount any secular (aka atheist) beliefs? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religious-exercise-protected-over-secular-exercise/692026/67 "2014-07-03T12:40:21Z")
How does one differentiate between a secular belief and a political belief? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religious-exercise-protected-over-secular-exercise/692026/68 "2014-07-03T13:22:17Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > That’s the point. Why aren’t religious protections for everyone, even for atheists? Freedom of Religion covers atheism, so why does this law discount any secular (aka atheist) beliefs? Because the First Amendment gives special protection to the free exercise of religion, and this law is meant to preserve that. If atheists think there is something inherent to atheism that means that they can’t be forced to pay for abortifacients, then they need to petition the government to get a law passed. Just like abolitionists did for slavery and suffragettes did for women voting. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religious-exercise-protected-over-secular-exercise/692026/69 "2014-07-03T13:36:18Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Because presumably you do; why do you disagree with these ideas? To take her claims _seriatim_: _RFRA violates the separation of powers_ No – Congress has bound itself. That’s certainly within its powers to do. I think this is a trivial issue, and also handles: _RFRA violates Article V_ This is certainly not an amendment to the Constitution. All Congress has to do here is modify or repeal the RFRA to change its effect – and by a bare majority in each house, plus the President. No 2/3rds majorities plus 3/4s state concurrence needed. _RFRA isn’t justified by any of Congress’s powers_ No, no matter which way you look at it. If you believe that Congress’ reach is reasonably expanded by the commerce clause hook to the many uses it is put today, this argument dies in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. And even if you are sympathetic to the idea that maybe the commerce clause has been used too much, and want to see more of US v. Lopez’s reasoning, the argument still fails: Congress can bind itself no matter what other powers it has. But… _RFRA violates the Establishment Clause_ There’s some meat on those bones. It’s fair to say that the RFRA provides legal ammunition to the religious that it denies to the atheist or the agnostic. So I admit the argument is at least debatable. But ultimately, I think the Constitution itself is fairly read to provide protection to the religious that the atheist does not get: _Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or **prohibiting the free exercise thereof** _. This constrains the government from creating a religion but also from opposing it. It seems to follow, then, that someone can challenge a law based on his belief that it prohibits the free exercise of his religion. Naturally, what that means is not spelled out, and needs to be developed by statute and case law, and Congress has done so here. In short: I believe that it’s true the RFRA carves out an area for the religious, but I also believe this is permissible under the Free Exercise Clause. But I think it’s at least debatable. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religious-exercise-protected-over-secular-exercise/692026/70 "2014-07-03T14:24:07Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I don’t know what point you are making. Slavery in the US is outlawed for everyone, not only non-whites, and the Nineteenth Amendment is an example of a protection for a group who suffered historically. Which is what you asked about. To expand on \*\*BigT’\*\*s response; You’re quite correct. When lawmakers created the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, they looked out on a country in which a specific group, black people, were being enslaved, oppressed, and disenfranchised, and decided that they needed Constitutional protection. But the text of the amendments doesn’t specify the historically oppressed group; they says that, as you say,\* every\* person born or naturalised in the US is a citizen, and that no-one can be deprived of those rights which are essential to citizens. When lawmakers created the Nineteenth Amendment, they looked out on a country in which a specific group, women, were being disenfranchised, both currently and historically, and decided that they needed Constitutional protection. But the text of the amendment doesn’t specify the historically disenfranchised group; it says that no person may be disenfranchised on the basis of their sex. In both cases, lawmakers saw that there was historic oppression to a specific group - but enacted \*general \*protections. So your reply to me earlier is incorrect; laws aren’t passed just to remedy historical and current injustices, but to protect against injustices which haven’t yet happened to the same degree. To protect against potential injustices; and to protect not just the majority of those deprived of justice at the time, but to protect all who might be deprived of justice. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religious-exercise-protected-over-secular-exercise/692026/71 "2014-07-03T14:26:32Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > How does one differentiate between a secular belief and a political belief? How does one differentiate between a religious belief and a political belief? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religious-exercise-protected-over-secular-exercise/692026/72 "2014-07-03T14:28:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > To take her claims _seriatim_: > > \ This all seems very reasonable, and to be honest I share the same interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause that you set out here. Not that my interpretation means much. Of course to my mind that just means that it’s the Free Exercise Clause that needs changing, but hey. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religious-exercise-protected-over-secular-exercise/692026/73 "2014-07-03T14:30:07Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > Religious belief stems from God almighty. Secular belief stems from lowly men, born in sin and wickedness. Pretty straightforward, really. Just don’t ask to see the God –\> men connection, it gets a little murky around that step. And especially don’t ask for proof of the existence of a god of any kind. It goes wayyyy beyond murky at that point. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religious-exercise-protected-over-secular-exercise/692026/74 "2014-07-03T14:33:35Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > How does one differentiate between a religious belief and a political belief? Easy. If someone follows religious teachings, it is almost certainly a religious belief, regardless of applicability to political issues. So, how do you differentiate between a secular belief and a political belief? (Let me guess: you’re going to answer a question with another question.) ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religious-exercise-protected-over-secular-exercise/692026/75 "2014-07-03T15:11:00Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Easy. If someone follows religious teachings, it is almost certainly a religious belief, regardless of applicability to political issues. > > So, how do you differentiate between a secular belief and a political belief? (Let me guess: you’re going to answer a question with another question.) Curses! My evil question plan is foiled. Seriously, I’d say in that case I suppose you could always see if someone follows philosophical teachings. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religious-exercise-protected-over-secular-exercise/692026/76 "2014-07-03T15:21:19Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Seriously, I’d say in that case I suppose you could always see if someone follows philosophical teachings. Like if someone reads a lot of Sartre? In that case I think you might as well call this an exemption that only applies to college professors. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religious-exercise-protected-over-secular-exercise/692026/77 "2014-07-03T15:39:25Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Like if someone reads a lot of Sartre? > > In that case I think you might as well call this an exemption that only applies to college professors. Like if someone claimed to be a utilitarian, or a nihilist, or, sure, an existentialist because they’ve been reading a lot of Sartre. You seem to be very cavalierly dismissing secular philosophies in general. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religious-exercise-protected-over-secular-exercise/692026/78 "2014-07-03T15:48:49Z")
I’m saying we should minimize the special exemptions to laws based on someone’s strong feelings about an issue. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religious-exercise-protected-over-secular-exercise/692026/79 "2014-07-03T15:50:03Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I’m saying we should minimize the special exemptions to laws based on someone’s strong feelings about an issue. Alright. Bye bye to the Free Exercise Clause and the RFRA, then. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religious-exercise-protected-over-secular-exercise/692026/80 "2014-07-03T16:35:06Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Alright. Bye bye to the Free Exercise Clause and the RFRA, then. Nice distortion. It’s as if I said, “I would like to minimize the number of stray cats,” and you respond that I’m suggesting mass euthanasia. Which is a debate tactic that I object to on secular grounds, so you better stop making crappy arguments in this thread. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religious-exercise-protected-over-secular-exercise/692026.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religious-exercise-protected-over-secular-exercise/692026.md?page=5)