>For better or worse, that's how the most powerful law in our land is framed. And, while you might not like it
You have misunderstood me almost entirely I fear.
I am perfectly fine with religion providing exemptions, what concerns me is that privacy seems to have been effectively dismissed here, in favour of a religious exemption argument. That is fine for the people involved, but I do not think it sets any sort of useful precedent for the rest of us. Atheist, Buddhist, or other non-Christian students presumably still have to fight to opt-out of this system, but now Christian students (clearly the majority) are effectively exempt.
> After all, what's to stop people from establishing a religion founded on certain beliefs of privacy?
Well, a few things. First off, religions invented or employed to take advantage of religious exemptions tend to be poorly received. A few people have tried to wear spaghetti strainers in their DMV photos as "religious headgear", and generally I believe they eventually win the right to do so, but they have to go through lengthy and draining fights just to gain access to the same exemptions that more mainstream religions would receive automatically (when was the last time a Jewish person had to fight to defend the legitimacy of Judaism in order to wear headgear in an official government photo?)
Secondly, even were the process of inventing religions to gain access to religious exemptions streamlined, this ignores the possibility that the individual already is religious, and religious in such a way that claiming an additional religious affiliation is out of the question for them.
Thirdly (and very related to my second point, to the extent that it probably doesn't require individual mention), it ignores the possibility that the student is opposed to religion, and wishes to obtain the same consideration that Christians are being afforded, but has a moral opposition to lying about one's religious beliefs. Telling that student to lie, invent and "adopt" a religion, and then only then enjoy the same protection, is I think unreasonable.
There is a very easy solution to my uneasiness however that still allows students to make the (very easy) religious exemption case: Allow everybody, no matter their "claimed" religion (whether genuinely held or not), to take advantage of exemptions that would or could be afforded to other religious students. If Christian students are permitted to exempt from anything, non-Christian students should also be permitted to exempt from the same thing, without having to find a non-Christian basis for doing so.
Stated more clearly, nobody seeking religious exemption should be expected to claim affiliation with that, or any, religion.
If that were the case, both in the letter of the law and in practice, then my uneasiness would be entirely calmed.
EDIT: if "religious exemptions" were handed out with the same stated standards for conscientious objection from the US Selective Service, the result would be quite similar to what I earlier proposed and I would be entirely satisfied.
The part I quite like: "Beliefs which qualify a registrant for CO status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical" -- http://www.sss.gov/FSconsobj.htm
The majority decision for Gillette v. United States 401 U.S. 437 (1971) is not one that I particularly like, however its broadening of eligibility beyond strictly religious beliefs is quite good, and I think very relevant.
> I am perfectly fine with religion providing exemptions, what concerns me is that privacy seems to have been effectively dismissed here, in favour of a religious exemption argument.
No, I understood you perfectly. What you seem to think is that privacy should have played a more important role, despite their being nothing in our countries history to suggest otherwise.
> privacy seems to have been effectively dismissed here
No, it hasn't. This is wrong from every angle.
First, it has not been dismissed here. It's apart of the case.
Second, it's not even the strongest point to stand on. Our constitution does not protected against privacy, but religion.
Thirdly, this is not special to this case. It did not start here. It started with the foundation of our country.
You then proceed to make some arguments that basically say you can start your own religion if this matters to you, you might already be religious (and I assume where your religion does not believe in protecting your privacy), and that someone might lie about being a Christian to afford them the same rights (ignoring the part about creating or establishing your own religion).
> The majority decision for Gillette v. United States 401 U.S. 437 (1971) is not one that I particularly like, however its broadening of eligibility beyond strictly religious beliefs is quite good, and I think very relevant.
Religion is merely a coded set of beliefs. That you would be okay with this ruling but against religion being used is... well, hypocritical. They are tantamount to the same thing. In either case, belief is being held above privacy. Heck, even this ruling understands this similarity.
Regardless, your point basically amounts to: I don't like that the girl used religion first and privacy second while ignoring law and the girl involved.
And yet, with all you say, you completely ignore the fact that privacy still would not be the first issue.
In the end, I think you are just hiding your real stance: you are against religion regardless of what it does. Your "being disappointed about a belief structure being above privacy in this case" is a lie.
You have misunderstood me almost entirely I fear.
I am perfectly fine with religion providing exemptions, what concerns me is that privacy seems to have been effectively dismissed here, in favour of a religious exemption argument. That is fine for the people involved, but I do not think it sets any sort of useful precedent for the rest of us. Atheist, Buddhist, or other non-Christian students presumably still have to fight to opt-out of this system, but now Christian students (clearly the majority) are effectively exempt.
> After all, what's to stop people from establishing a religion founded on certain beliefs of privacy?
Well, a few things. First off, religions invented or employed to take advantage of religious exemptions tend to be poorly received. A few people have tried to wear spaghetti strainers in their DMV photos as "religious headgear", and generally I believe they eventually win the right to do so, but they have to go through lengthy and draining fights just to gain access to the same exemptions that more mainstream religions would receive automatically (when was the last time a Jewish person had to fight to defend the legitimacy of Judaism in order to wear headgear in an official government photo?)
Secondly, even were the process of inventing religions to gain access to religious exemptions streamlined, this ignores the possibility that the individual already is religious, and religious in such a way that claiming an additional religious affiliation is out of the question for them.
Thirdly (and very related to my second point, to the extent that it probably doesn't require individual mention), it ignores the possibility that the student is opposed to religion, and wishes to obtain the same consideration that Christians are being afforded, but has a moral opposition to lying about one's religious beliefs. Telling that student to lie, invent and "adopt" a religion, and then only then enjoy the same protection, is I think unreasonable.
There is a very easy solution to my uneasiness however that still allows students to make the (very easy) religious exemption case: Allow everybody, no matter their "claimed" religion (whether genuinely held or not), to take advantage of exemptions that would or could be afforded to other religious students. If Christian students are permitted to exempt from anything, non-Christian students should also be permitted to exempt from the same thing, without having to find a non-Christian basis for doing so.
Stated more clearly, nobody seeking religious exemption should be expected to claim affiliation with that, or any, religion.
If that were the case, both in the letter of the law and in practice, then my uneasiness would be entirely calmed.
EDIT: if "religious exemptions" were handed out with the same stated standards for conscientious objection from the US Selective Service, the result would be quite similar to what I earlier proposed and I would be entirely satisfied.
The part I quite like: "Beliefs which qualify a registrant for CO status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical" -- http://www.sss.gov/FSconsobj.htm
The majority decision for Gillette v. United States 401 U.S. 437 (1971) is not one that I particularly like, however its broadening of eligibility beyond strictly religious beliefs is quite good, and I think very relevant.