I want to raise this serious question: Should religion be exempt from normal societal ethical standards?
I'm raising this question for several reasons. There is a recent thread where people are arguing about whether religious confessions should be privileged communications. This raises a question about whether the notion of ecclesiastical privilege is good, bad or indifferent for society in general. There is also a question about whether religions ought to be allowed to break up families or other basic social relationships by issuing shunning orders.
Since the U.S. was founded, its government has granted special privileges to religious organizations. State governments have granted much more sweeping privileges. Since the 1940s especially in the U.S., courts have tended to rule that government must keep its hands off religion in general. Most western democracies have similar laws and practices.
I have no gripe about governments leaving religions alone, as long as they behave themselves. But where governments should interfere is where religions overstep the bounds of societal norms as embodied in laws for the protection of people. If a religion teaches that child sacrifice is good, then it should be censured by government because a percentage of believers will act and kill children. That is simple experience with the power of religious belief.
But this post is not just about stopping religions from doing bad things per se. It is also about not allowing government to grant privileges to any special interest groups that are not granted to individual citizens.
I have no problem with government allowing tax exemptions to charitable and nonprofit groups, and so to the extent that a religious group fits the definition of "charitable organization" or "nonprofit group", it should get such exemptions.
I do have a problem with allowing any groups -- lawyer-client privilege excepted -- to be exempt from what individuals are prohibited from doing or are required to do. If laws require individuals to report crime such as child molestation, then that should apply to all individuals, independent of religious affiliation or religious position. The fact that tradition grants privileges such as "ecclesiastical confidentiality" to people employed in certain religious positions is no argument that such tradition should continue.
Individuals are not allowed to libel or slander others; if they do they are subject to punishment. Individuals may not ethically group together and conspire to alienate the affections of family members one from another. Why should individuals who group together and call their group a religion be allowed an exemption? Certain kinds of activities are defined as "hate crimes" and laws exist in some localities that prohibit groups from teaching anything that often leads to hate crimes. Is not institutionalized alienation of affection a gross example of a hate crime?
I invite comments on these ideas. Please think about these issues carefully and add anything you think is relevant.
AlanF