The short legal answer is the first amendment. I could just leave it there.

Still, there are good reasons why religious freedom developed. I can't go into all of them here, but here's one for example. If somebody just doesn't want to do something, or thinks it's wrong but with finite consequences, then there are still good chances such a person will capitulate.

On the other hand, if somebody believes in an eternal soul, and that a certain course of action will damage their soul (or another's) forever, then they're very likely to simply disobey the (far less important) earthly power telling them to take that course of action. Having a lot of people in society feeling that it is absolutely imperative that they disobey the government creates chaos, as European history from the 1500s to the 1800s amply demonstrates. So it makes sense for purely practical reasons to have the religious exceptions.

Of course there are also actual ethical arguments for why it's the _right_ thing to do -- having a policy of forcing people to make those choices being bad per se, etc. -- but those are all both more complicated and more dependent on one's belief system about a number of things. (For example, in the extreme where one doesn't believe the individual matters at all as a unit of concern in political calculus, the arguments will carry no weight whatever). Some but not all of these arguments _would_ also suggest it to be a bad thing (though perhaps not always AS bad) to force a secular person to violate his moral code.

Not that it's really relevant, but this touches on what I think is one of the more important (and also silly) mistakes of a lot of the "new atheists" in respect of history and its interpretation. It's common to hear the claim that religion was one of the primary causes of violence, bloodshed, and disorder in old Europe, and to see this used as an argument against religion. The premise is true in a certain sense, but a more nuanced statement would be that the oppression of religious practice of one group by another group (religious or not) was the cause, so that (in particular) the very policies that (some/a minority) of these new atheists are urging with this argument would recreate the conditions for the violence and disorder they bemoan.

But that's just an interesting aside.

I meant to remove the parenthetical "though not perhaps alwalys AS bad," and in fact thought I had. It's probably true, but I haven't really done that analysis carefully, and as I say, don't really want to get into those arguments in the first place right now.

Good enough. I don't buy it, but I understand. To me it just sounds like religious arrogance i.e. "my morality is more inviolate than yours because my eternal soul is attached to it." As a secular person with strong morals of my own, I take special exception to this attitude. I do strongly believe in religious freedom. Imposed secularity is abhorrent: people need to wise up on their own terms (if you'll pardon the YJ filter). But denying Catholics exemptions on special moral grounds is not persecution. They are free to practice their faith.

I disagree re: what you've said about belief making disobedience more likely. The previously quoted statistics are a sufficient example as to why. Religious people talk a good game, and many live their whole lives by this code, but when the shit hits the fan, when IT (whatever it may be) happens to them, they don't act any differently than the rest of us. Civil disobedience is definitely an option that they can and should consider. I'm always of the belief that such things evoke change, and that changes over time yield progress (though not necessarily in the direction the disobeyer's had hoped).

I agree it would be too far out of depth to broach the other issues you've touched on, but in my somewhat limited experience Atheists who seriously argue against religion rarely use the historical crimes of the faithful as a tool. They simply don't care, except as it relates to the present. They're far more focused on burden of proof and logical arguments.

www.atheist-experience.com/
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

YJ,

"But denying Catholics exemptions on special moral grounds is not persecution. They are free to practice their faith."

No, they're not. Practicing their faith entails not giving money to support abortion. If they practice their faith, they will face legal consequences.

"I disagree re: what you've said about belief making disobedience more likely."

That's impossible, because I didn't say anything about it.

"but in my somewhat limited experience Atheists who seriously argue against religion rarely use the historical crimes of the faithful as a tool. They simply don't care, except as it relates to the present. They're far more focused on burden of proof and logical arguments."

You have been fortunate in your atheist acquaintances. I have known both kinds. As I said, though, I wouldn't venture to estimate statistics. The remark was just an aside about those who do make such arguments, however rare or common they may be.

"That's impossible, because I didn't say anything about it." (Quoting myself)

I think I misinterpreted you, sorry. To your actual point -- OK, disagree as you will. I don't think the statistics you mention are relevant to this question, either, though. The 20% of Catholic women who have abortion are already choosing to violate their religion's dictates (or don't agree with them), without any legal pressure to do so at all. That says nothing about how steadily those who DO take those dictates seriously would adhere to them in the face of legal recourse. Undoubtedly, that's a spectrum. I think history shows well enough that oppressed religious do cause serious issues. Perhaps the oppressed secular do, as well. Needless to say, I oppose the oppression of either.

"'I disagree re: what you've said about belief making disobedience more likely.'

That's impossible, because I didn't say anything about it."

"if somebody believes in an eternal soul, and that a certain course of action will damage their soul (or another's) forever, then they're very likely to simply disobey the (far less important) earthly power telling them to take that course of action."

Indeed. See above.

"If they practice their faith, they will face legal consequences."

I think this is the heart of what we're coming down to. I don't think that the first amendments, "no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is meant to be interpreted so that no law may be passed unless it carries exemptions for those clauses that are against the beliefs of ANY religion. When I read it I just see, "you can go to church and shit." But I guess that's why those brilliant framers left it vague, eh?

Anyways, the government at large has seen it your way, for now, and I've already said I'm OK with that decision, for now, and it appears we've reached a pretty good mutual understanding on the rest of it.

Always a pleasure :)

btw you should watch the atheist experience. I think you'd actually enjoy it.

Oh fine, cross-post and make me look silly.

@semck - the pill and abortions are free to all UK woman who want to avail themselves of these serves. The general population pay through their taxes. Should the UK's 4.2 million Catholics stop paying taxes or the proportion of them which the calculate goes to such things. If so could everyone who disagrees with war either on religious grounds or other grounds withhold the proportion of taxes that is squandered on defence?

Maniac,

I already addressed that above. It is a different situation, as I explained.

You address the point in part. I was merely seeking clarification. Do you think Catholics should pay taxes which fund free abortions (almost on demand) and universal provision of contraception? A simple yes or no helps me clarify your position.

I think I will chime in on Maniac's question regarding withholding taxes on defense spending in religious pacifism grounds. My answer is a conditional yes. If the military is engaged in a war overseas, then the religious pacifists (are there actually any other type, pacifism is a belief that violence is wrong and it doesn't need a god to be a religion) should be able to withhold taxes computed as going towards the active overseas aggression.

Actually, Draug, there are LOTS of nonreligious pacifists. Just because a person holds a strong moral belief doesn't mean it qualifies as a religion. Pacifists don't worship nonviolence, and they certainly aren't protected by the first amendment's religious clause.

I disagree also with your greater point. Just because one is a pacifist doesn't mean they get a tax break. Again, there's LOTS of shit I disagree with (including overseas aggression) on which I don't think it's reasonable to say I shouldn't have to pay taxes. This is all part of living in a republic, you gotta pay for stuff you don't like sometimes, but you get a say in what the laws are.

The problem with your stance draugnar is where does it stop, can I reduce my taxes which form part of keeping a monarchy, could I reduce my taxes if I don't have children and think the world is overpopulated and giving child benefit is immoral? And what if I don't really care if we are invading a third world country, but can save a bob or two if I say it is immoral and against my religion. (We followers of the speghitti flying monster have never liked violence).

The issue here is Catholic employers (like a Jesuit hospital or a parish, not just a member of the Church) being forced to provide an insurance which covers abortion and contraception. It's not that tax money is spent on these things, it's that church money or the money of a religious order is.

It really is that simple. Just don't make Catholic institutions pay for abortions. That doesn't mean abortion is now illegal. It just means the people involved in the pregnancy are going to pay for ending it. Not too outrageous of a situation if you ask me.

Pope Y A H W E H

Maniac,

I'm not a Catholic, and a mere outsider and dilettante at Catholic theology, so I can't really weigh in on whether they "should" pay taxes under those circumstances. What I can say is that it's a distinct question from whether they should pay directly for abortions or for insurance that covers abortions; and that it's a separate legal issue (for Zelman v. Simmons-Harris type reasons, although that was an establishment clause case).