I am not sure your explanation is actually valid. Is not the American republic the first to grant such exceptions? Then Christians did not realize this in the 1500 years previous. Perhaps the founders favored such exemptions because they were Enlightenment men who wanted different religions to co-exist.

I also do not think that this in any way humane. I am sure that you are well-intentioned, but either a law is good or bad. Laws are instituted for a reason, sometimes good, sometimes bad. If a law is bad, it’s bad for everyone and should be repealed. If a law is good, it should apply to everyone equally.

Michael: I think the wisdom is evident and these exemptions have everything to do with Louis and Stalin. When governments think they can control every little thing about your life, then you’re in trouble. When a religion unites with state power and decides to control every little thing about your life, then you’re still in trouble.

I cannot disagree, but it is not clear to me why not allowing exemptions would be “control[ling] every little thing”. Presumably, we are talking about good laws, or we would want to repeal them. Then why do they suddenly become totalitarian when applied to a particular group?

Michael: I understand the desire to simplify the law in the name of equal rights, but the law governs groups as well as individuals, and it needs to examine each case prudently and without the dogmatism you espouse. Through careful consideration, the courts have decided to recognize the Quaker right to refuse spilling blood in war but not the right of African Muslims to female circumcision, to recognize the right of the Native American church to use peyote but not the right in all cases for Christian Scientists to deny medical care to their children.

The courts are better in this regard than legislative bodies. As I have stated before, Congress mandated in 1974 that states had to pass laws exempting (mostly) Christian Scientists from homicide laws when they deny their children medical treatment – in effect allowing them to make martyrs out of their children. If you want dogmatism, I believe that is dogmatism. And I am sure that the road to this law was paved with good intentions. We all like Quakers – decent, quiet people – and we would not want them to be forced into military service against their convictions. But as soon as we accept the principle, it appears to lead to some horrid things (this is more my concern than simplifying the law), committed against the defenseless. Unlike Christian Scientists, the defenseless do not have a powerful lobby. I also object to religious people having more rights than others, and rights being derived from the beliefs of people.

Also, you are not entirely right about peyote – in fact, the Supreme Court said that Indians DID NOT have the right to use it.

Michael: Nazis and brainwashing!

You yourself talked about schools respecting the way parents want to raise their children. You didn’t mention or mean Nazis, but some people do want to raise their children as Nazis, communists, religious extremists, anything. Should schools then jump through hoops to avoid exposing children to information that may conflict with these ideologies? Or should schools just teach what is necessary and proper, regardless of whether some parents like it or not?

“My sole point was, contrary to your argument, that one does not have the right to violate the law. Exemptions for which the law (unwisely) may allow are still provided for in the law.”

I think you are describing how the law functions while I’m trying to explain how the law got the way it did. Exemptions were created in the Western tradition because Christians recognized that God and the conscience are above the law. Our law is as humane as it is in part because Christians pushed the law to recognize that the state has limits.

“The earlier comment was on the wisdom and morality of such exemptions. I do not think that religious people should have privileges that other people don’t have. That has nothing to do with Louis XIV or Stalin”

I think the wisdom is evident and these exemptions have everything to do with Louis and Stalin. When governments think they can control every little thing about your life, then you’re in trouble. When a religion unites with state power and decides to control every little thing about your life, then you’re still in trouble.

“But it is not a desire for total control, it is a desire for equal rights, for the elimination of privilege. Either a law is necessary and proper, or it is not. Whether it is, or is not, in no way depends on the person to whom the law is applied. If beating one’s wife is an evil that we want to outlaw, it is no less an evil when a Muslim does it, even though his holy book permits him to do it”

I understand the desire to simplify the law in the name of equal rights, but the law governs groups as well as individuals, and it needs to examine each case prudently and without the dogmatism you espouse. Through careful consideration, the courts have decided to recognize the Quaker right to refuse spilling blood in war but not the right of African Muslims to female circumcision, to recognize the right of the Native American church to use peyote but not the right in all cases for Christian Scientists to deny medical care to their children.

“Well, what would your response be to the case of Nadarkhani? Do you think that he was out of line to object to teaching the Koran in public schools in a country that is supposedly 98% Muslim? He was not demanding that the Bible be taught in public schools, but as far as I know, merely that public schools be neutral.”

I don’t know the specifics of his argument concerning public education. There are other ways to educate beside the two choices you offer—religious indoctrination and neutrality. Iran lives under the fantasy that religion and state should be one. Education is the least of its troubles.

“Some parents may want to raise their children as Nazis, that does not mean that schools should aid or abet them in any way. The purpose of schools is to educate children, not to aid parental brainwashing, or brainwashing on behalf of another party, for that matter”

Nazis and brainwashing!

“He thought he was promoting Calvinism by instituting neutrality. Seeing how today, Rhode Island is a very Catholic state, and orthodox Calvinists are basically non-existent, he was not very successful”

If you think that today’s demographics in Rhode Island have anything to do with a 17th century colony, then we’re better off discussing Nazis and brainwashing.

My sole point was, contrary to your argument, that one does not have the right to violate the law. Exemptions for which the law (unwisely) may allow are still provided for in the law. The earlier comment was on the wisdom and morality of such exemptions. I do not think that religious people should have privileges that other people don’t have. That has nothing to do with Louis XIV or Stalin.

Michael: I think your desire to create laws that would be universally applied across the nation would ruin too much freedom. The desire for total control never ends well regardless of who practices it.

But it is not a desire for total control, it is a desire for equal rights, for the elimination of privilege. Either a law is necessary and proper, or it is not. Whether it is, or is not, in no way depends on the person to whom the law is applied. If beating one’s wife is an evil that we want to outlaw, it is no less an evil when a Muslim does it, even though his holy book permits him to do it.

Michael: When you say you don’t “believe that at all,” I don’t know what “that” refers to. I’m going to guess you mean that you believe that the public square can be naked, made neutral.

Well, what would your response be to the case of Nadarkhani? Do you think that he was out of line to object to teaching the Koran in public schools in a country that is supposedly 98% Muslim? He was not demanding that the Bible be taught in public schools, but as far as I know, merely that public schools be neutral. So is what Nadarkhani demanded a neutral public school? If not, what is it?

Michael: The role of religion in the schools is terribly fraught, but I think there’s a lot more that can be done in schools that respects how all parents want to raise their children.

Some parents may want to raise their children as Nazis, that does not mean that schools should aid or abet them in any way. The purpose of schools is to educate children, not to aid parental brainwashing, or brainwashing on behalf of another party, for that matter.

Michael: My point is that when Williams promoted Calvinism he separated church and state. By separating the two, he was not promoting what you call neutrality, he was promoting Calvinism.

He thought he was promoting Calvinism by instituting neutrality. Seeing how today, Rhode Island is a very Catholic state, and orthodox Calvinists are basically non-existent, he was not very successful.

“There is no law that one is permitted to violate, unless the law itself allows it – and then it is not violating the law”

I’m having trouble understanding what you’re trying to argue. Earlier, you were saying that you don’t believe Quakers should be allowed to defy the law. My point was that our legal tradition has incorporated enough Christianity in it to believe that some groups—especially groups whose beliefs many don’t share—have the right to carry on practices that would otherwise be illegal or considered immoral or impractical.

I think your desire to create laws that would be universally applied across the nation would ruin too much freedom. The desire for total control never ends well regardless of who practices it.

“No, I don’t believe that at all. And yet some Christians would very much like to force the Bible on children in public schools. Now, what is not having either? Not atheism. That would be teaching children that there is no god, and assigning them readings from Hitchens and Dawkins. It’s neutrality”

When you say you don’t “believe that at all,” I don’t know what “that” refers to. I’m going to guess you mean that you believe that the public square can be naked, made neutral. The role of religion in the schools is terribly fraught, but I think there’s a lot more that can be done in schools that respects how all parents want to raise their children. Values and character cannot be separated from knowledge.

“I am not sure what your point is. How does this address: “Promoting or privileging Calvinism is doing a disservice to both atheists and people of all other religions.”

My point is that when Williams promoted Calvinism he separated church and state. By separating the two, he was not promoting what you call neutrality, he was promoting Calvinism.

I am not sure what you mean. I can guarantee you that the various governments of the US have orders of magnitude more control over you, than Louis XIV ever did over his subjects. Government is much bigger and way more coercive, at least, on economic matters. No absolutist monarch, not Louis XIV, not Frederick the Great, had as much power, potential and actual, over his people as the modern state. In fact, did you know that one of the first actions of the French revolutionaries, was to centralize the French state even more than under the Bourbons?

Michael: You certainly do have the right to violate the law. The right to follow your conscience in some matters is recognized by our constitution and legal tradition.

There is no law that one is permitted to violate, unless the law itself allows it – and then it is not violating the law.

Michael: That right is considered inalienable, and its acknowledgement is a legacy of Christianity, which preaches that Jesus is Lord, having an authority greater than any state. The law has limits, and those limits must respect the conscience.

Well, I have a conscientious objection against paying taxes. When that is respected, you’ll have a point.

Michael: Christianity produced liberalism and almost all of the Enlightenment values that undergird our Constitution.

One prominent argument is that the Enlightenment is the ‘rise of modern paganism’ – but of course without the pagan religion.

Michael: When Constantine privileged Christianity, he ended infanticide, forcing pagans to follow Christian moral codes they didn’t hold. As Neuhaus liked to argue, there is no such thing as a naked public square. If your goal is to prevent the enshrinement of particular Christian or Calvinist values in law, then argue against those particular values. But to say that no religion can be privileged is to misunderstand how values are created and acted on.

No, I don’t believe that at all. Let me give you one example. Two days ago, the Iranian pastor Nadarkhani was released from prison. What had been his crime? He was arrested when he had complained about the Koran being forced on his children in public schools. Now, it is obvious to you that this is forcing Islam down people’s throats. And yet some Christians would very much like to force the Bible on children in public schools. Now, what is not having either? Not atheism. That would be teaching children that there is no god, and assigning them readings from Hitchens and Dawkins. It’s neutrality.

Michael: On the contrary, the phrase “wall of separation of church and state” was first uttered by the Calvinist Roger Williams who founded Rhode Island as an alternative to the Calvinism of Massachusetts Bay and accepted a variety of other faiths, including Indians, whom he admired, and Quakers, whom he despised. Williams was no liberal. He separated church and state so the church could thrive.

I am not sure what your point is. How does this address: “Promoting or privileging Calvinism is doing a disservice to both atheists and people of all other religions.” I know that Williams believed that an established religion would be bad for religion, but the evidence on that is rather mixed. Religion is doing rather well in most of the Islamic world, despite being established to one extent or another in nearly all countries. On the other hand, there is no Christian country with an established church, where that church flourishes.

“Well, that’s the law, and it has little to do with Stalin or Louis XIV.”

Laws can be written so that they respect and enable communities within the state to govern themselves, or they can be written so that they control everything within the state. Stalin and Louis XIV chose the latter route. Happily, our republican federal system follows the former route.

“I do not have the right to violate the law, when I disagree with it.”

You certainly do have the right to violate the law. The right to follow your conscience in some matters is recognized by our constitution and legal tradition. That right is considered inalienable, and its acknowledgement is a legacy of Christianity, which preaches that Jesus is Lord, having an authority greater than any state. The law has limits, and those limits must respect the conscience.

“Any promotion, advocacy or privileging of religion is ‘violence’ to people who do not believe, or who believe otherwise.”

I’m glad you placed violence in quotation marks, but even so, I think our country has had enough of “wars” on Christmas, women, or whatever. Let’s dial down the rhetoric.

But to your point, I’d say that it’s difficult to separate privileging certain religious beliefs from privileging a religion. When Constantine privileged Christianity, he ended infanticide, forcing pagans to follow Christian moral codes they didn’t hold. Christianity produced liberalism and almost all of the Enlightenment values that undergird our Constitution.

As Neuhaus liked to argue, there is no such thing as a naked public square. If your goal is to prevent the enshrinement of particular Christian or Calvinist values in law, then argue against those particular values. But to say that no religion can be privileged is to misunderstand how values are created and acted on.

“Promoting or privileging Calvinism is doing a disservice to both atheists and people of all other religions”

On the contrary, the phrase “wall of separation of church and state” was first uttered by the Calvinist Roger Williams who founded Rhode Island as an alternative to the Calvinism of Massachusetts Bay and accepted a variety of other faiths, including Indians, whom he admired, and Quakers, whom he despised. Williams was no liberal. He separated church and state so the church could thrive.

Well, that’s the law, and it has little to do with Stalin or Louis XIV. I do not have the right to violate the law, when I disagree with it. For example, I do not want to pay taxes, or refrain from giving people a thrashing when they make a nuisance out of themselves. Yet I do not have a right to do this. If this means absolutism, absolutism is already upon us.

Michael: Atheists tend to focus on the violence Christianity has visited upon others and itself through the state, but atheists tend to ignore the violence the state has done to the religious.

Mostly on itself, you are correct. Any promotion, advocacy or privileging of religion is ‘violence’ to people who do not believe, or who believe otherwise. Promoting or privileging Calvinism is doing a disservice to both atheists and people of all other religions.

What made you think that I am friendly to philosophical objections. After all, I wrote the following: “And if one would extend this to people who object for philosophical reasons, in order to guarantee equal treatment, that would make it very easy for the crafty to avoid it. If every man has to serve, every man has to serve.” This seems to me to be very clear. I am less troubled if religion does not receive special privilege, but I simply do not like privilege in general. I believe in equal treatment for people.

Jerry Beckett: However, it puts you in opposition with…United Nations’ Human Rights Commission

With such members like Kadhafi’s Libya and Saudi Arabia, that Commission sure had a lot of credibility.

Jerry Beckett: “For the enemies of religion cannot leave it alone. They laboriously attempt to smash religion. They cannot smash religion; but they do smash everything else.” …GK Chesterton

Considering the history of religion, this is an ironic point to be making. Who has been smashing whom? Any sign of disbelief or different belief would be answered by burning people at the stake, and now denial of special privileges is a great atrocity?

“And if one would extend this to people who object for philosophical reasons, in order to guarantee equal treatment, that would make it very easy for the crafty to avoid it. If every man has to serve, every man has to serve. I will also point out that such exceptions, when they exist, are benevolences of legislatures, and are not in any way guaranteed by the First Amendment”

In the world you describe, there are only individuals and the state, nothing else in between. What the state requires, everyone must do. The state has certainly had this dream many times—from Stalin to Louis XIV, from the investiture controversy to the Magisterial Reformation. And let’s not forget the Dawes Act, which remade the communalism of native peoples into the individualism you prize.

Atheists tend to focus on the violence Christianity has visited upon others and itself through the state, but atheists tend to ignore the violence the state has done to the religious.

The state is healthier when it is not beholden to a single religion. And Christianity is certainly healthier when it is not tied to the state. Both the state and Christianity are still healthier when they recognize the small communities within them. The state is richer for having Catholics, Quakers, and Mormons, and Christianity is richer for having Romans, Orthodox, and Protestants.

In your wish to demolish Conscientious Objector status for those who do so for religious reasons, consistency forces you (you admit) to deny it for those who seek this “special treatment” for philosophical (that is, non-religious) reasons as well. This is perfectly logical and consistent.

However, it puts you in opposition with – in addition to the U.S. Selective Service System and the U.S. Supreme Court – such international human rights organizations as the United Nations’ Human Rights Commission and Amnesty International (hardly religious groups), both of whom identify conscientious objection to military service (whether for religious or non-religious reasons) as a mainstream human right to be protected.

So your willingness to bulldoze religious privilege leads you to bulldoze what is nationally and internationally recognized as a human right. Fascinating.

“For the enemies of religion cannot leave it alone. They laboriously attempt to smash religion. They cannot smash religion; but they do smash everything else.” …GK Chesterton