4 ms·

Religious exemption is a proxy for an exemption of conscience. Which is something you should care about, unless you're perfectly tuned with the social zeitgeist

Religious exemption is a proxy for an exemption of conscience. Which is something you should care about, unless you're perfectly tuned with the social zeitgeist. And it's an excellent proxy since most people's consciences are formed by their religious beliefs (maybe not most HNers, but that's observational bias)

TOMDM 5y ago
I think the person you're replying to is arguing all exemptions of conscience should be ubiquitous. That we shouldn't have to rely on religion to fight that proxy battle for us.
- programmarchy 5y ago
  For military service the term conscientious objector comes to mind which Wikipedia defines as “ [refusal] on the grounds of freedom of thought, conscience, or religion” which seems appropriate to me.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - jobigoud 5y ago
    "Refusal on the ground of freedom of thought" is enough to convey exactly the same without loss of meaning. No need to mention religion, no need for religion-specific exemptions.
- ironmagma 5y ago
  Thinking about it practically… should we need to rely on it? Ideally no. But the reality seems to be, religion is getting us something we otherwise wouldn’t get. So why get rid of the good thing? If anything this is evidence of religion’s value.
  - leeoniya 5y ago
    > If anything this is evidence of religion’s value. that's an odd take. a bit like saying "our founders loved X, so they carved out favorable laws for X, which is evidence that X is good."
    - ironmagma 5y ago
      If religion isn’t necessary to the well functioning of our system, we should expect to see just as many irreligious court challenges to this requirement that succeed. That said, we don’t. Regardless of whether it’s “inherently valuable,” it seems to be valuable here and now, in this system we live in.
alisonkisk 5y ago
It's not though. In a plain chronic, blatant violation of the Constitution, humanism/atheism does not get the same protection as Christianity.

TOMDM 5y ago

I think the person you're replying to is arguing all exemptions of conscience should be ubiquitous. That we shouldn't have to rely on religion to fight that proxy battle for us.

programmarchy 5y ago
For military service the term conscientious objector comes to mind which Wikipedia defines as “ [refusal] on the grounds of freedom of thought, conscience, or religion” which seems appropriate to me.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jobigoud 5y ago
  "Refusal on the ground of freedom of thought" is enough to convey exactly the same without loss of meaning. No need to mention religion, no need for religion-specific exemptions.
ironmagma 5y ago
Thinking about it practically… should we need to rely on it? Ideally no. But the reality seems to be, religion is getting us something we otherwise wouldn’t get. So why get rid of the good thing? If anything this is evidence of religion’s value.
- leeoniya 5y ago
  > If anything this is evidence of religion’s value. that's an odd take. a bit like saying "our founders loved X, so they carved out favorable laws for X, which is evidence that X is good."
  - ironmagma 5y ago
    If religion isn’t necessary to the well functioning of our system, we should expect to see just as many irreligious court challenges to this requirement that succeed. That said, we don’t. Regardless of whether it’s “inherently valuable,” it seems to be valuable here and now, in this system we live in.

alisonkisk 5y ago

It's not though. In a plain chronic, blatant violation of the Constitution, humanism/atheism does not get the same protection as Christianity.