Why protect religious conscience, over and above other forms of moral
conscience?
Historically, lots of religious intolerance have led to atrocities.
What’s distinctive of religious belief (not merely theistic religions)? Two
characteristics:
There are certain beliefs that are insulated from ordinary standards of
reasons and evidence.
This is trying to cache out “faith”
There are certain obligations that are demanded of a believer.
This is why religion comes in conflict with the law, so the need for
practices
Potential counterexamples:
Not let in enough: Christian apologists willing to argue/defend
Christiantity based on normal standards of evidence.
It’s true there exist intellectualist traditions within religious
thought.
Most believers want their beliefs insulated
These are beliefs that are post-hoc rationalizations
Could say these are not religious hypotheses, although they deployed to
support religion.
Let in too much: secular people have opinions about the meaning of life
that are not subject to reason/evidence. E.g. John Lennon thinks we should
give peace a chance, I’m commanded to not go to war.
Whether you think moral views are insulated from reasons/evidence
depends on deeper metaphysical views.
Naturalistic moral realist: morality is just like science, so it is
answerable to reasons and evidence
Noncognitivist: moral beliefs are actually expressing emotions, so not
applicable to rule 1.
Neither of the distinctive characteristics are related to the standard
arguments for tolerating religion.
Utilitarian and Rawlsian arguments justify protecting liberty of conscience
but would not single out religion.
Extend the practice of appealing for an exemption from a law to all matters of
conscience.
Worrisome that courts will now have to judge whether matters truly are of
conscience.
It’s easier to figure out if 1.) someone is a member of a religion, 2.)
if a religion demands a certain behavior rather than to figure out if a
person is being genuine.
Maybe pragmatic reasons for status quo, but not moral reasons.