Religious Exemption

In this way, it seems clear that the debate over religious exemptions is a really difficult one. It is true that in theory, one’s individual, extensive practice of religion is not harmful, nor does it burden others too much. However, one could argue that a major issue in granting exemptions is that it undermines the law, before which we should all be treated as equal, and this without exception . Barry highlights that the “the law serves a public purpose”, as “its essence is the protection of some interests at the expense of others when they come into conflict” . Thus, the impact it has on people logically depends on their interests. Therefore, it can be said that if exemptions are justified, maybe the law itself is not. Indeed, why would
Fisher writes that “religious groups may exert oppressive and coercive power on individuals” , that “they often sacrifice individual rights to religious autonomy” , and that “they are shelter for intolerance” . It is also the view of Dwyer, who focuses on the very interesting case of children submitted to the will of religious parents. He denounces the negative effect of religious exemptions concerning vaccination and education. Dwyer makes a particularly good point in claiming that exemptions are, in this case, abusing the rights of children, denying them protection regarding gender equality, medical care, education, denying them the rights and protection that children of non-religious or non-practicing individuals have . This is a very good illustration of how religious exemptions can in fact increase inequality and rights to opportunity. This concerns also women, who may suffer from sexist, repressive, discriminatory and retrograde religious principles . Minow highlights the interesting case of a woman who was fired from the Catholic school she worked for because of her pregnancy. This was justified by the idea that “mothers of young children should not work outside the home”. When the state allowed the dismissal,
On both sides, arguments for and against religious exemptions are interestingly quite similar, although reversed. Clearly religious exemptions are more or less acceptable depending on each country’s history and values. In this way, the case of a republican state like France, which has strong historical values of laïcité, is not the same as Anglo-Saxon countries, in which religion holds a much more central place, especially in the public sphere. Nevertheless, it is obvious that positive discrimination cannot possibly be a good solution, especially as laws are not nearly as repressive on religions as what some scholars have argued. Positive discrimination would not uphold minorities to the same level as the majority, but rather deepen differences, communitarianism and difficulties to integrate and form a unified nation. The main issue with exempting members of religious groups is, however, that we are no longer all equals before the law, which is yet the main principle of democracy. Even though we are not all impacted the same way by laws, no one is consciously discriminated, and seizing opportunities while maintaining a balance between one’s personal and professional life thus depends on no one else but