Speaker says all exemptions must be equal

By: Brock Sisney

Posted: 11/19/09

Jon Mahoney presented his lecture "Liberalism and Religious Equality" that debates religious and non-religious exemptions in law and policy last Friday.
"Each citizen is entitled to equal treatment by the state and its official policies, and this entitlement to equal treatment is a non-negotiable requirement of justice," Mahoney said, as his central argument's guiding principle.
Mahoney is an associate professor in philosophy at Kansas State University who earned his doctorate from State University of New York in Binghamton. At KSU, he specializes in social and political philosophy, ethics and philosophy of law.
Mahoney explored egalitarian liberalism, with his overriding thesis that egalitarian liberals should not favor religious values over non-religious values when citizens pursue exemption from law or policy, and that states should not put religious values up on a special legal pedestal.
"Liberalism and Religious Equality," which was sponsored by the PSU Philosophical Society, had four main components. The first component provided a summary of core egalitarian liberal values, the second looked at a Supreme Court case pertaining to exemption on religious grounds, the third made the point that religious values do have intrinsic merit while still making the argument against religious exemptions, and the fourth and final section considered alternatives and Mahoney restated his thesis.
Mahoney's summary of egalitarian liberal values highlighted individual autonomy, equality, freedom and equality for each citizen secured by the state, political authority must be justified to the persons under it, reason should be the basis for what states defend and that all citizens are entitled to freedom from oppression. He said all sides generally agree upon these principles and that disagreement comes from their practice.
The 1972 case Wisconsin v. Yoder provided the Old Order Amish a religious-based exemption from state policy, and this exemption does not apply to non-Amish citizens. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-1 in favor of the Old Order Amish.
The majority opinion stated that precedent favors the Amish. The Amish ground their claim for exemption in their literal interpretation of the Bible and that Amish educational practices are consistent with the state's interest to secure access to education for each citizen.
According to Mahoney, the dissenting opinion should have been followed because the court's decision favors the rights of groups over individuals. The dissenting opinion expressed the belief the state has a compelling interest to enforce certain basic rights to children, like the right of access to education. Mahoney added to the dissenting opinion with his own take.
"Majority affirms a parent's right to religious freedom at the expense of a child's right to equal opportunity, and this clearly misapplies the conception of liberty expressed in (John) Rawls' familiar liberty principle, 'Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal, basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others," Mahoney said.
Mahoney dismissed the argument backing the Wisconsin v. Yoder decision made by fellow liberal Martha Nussbaum, author of "Liberty of Conscience."
"We should reject Nussbaum's claim because moral equality is the foundational moral norm for liberalism," Mahoney said. "Egalitarian liberals should insist that religious freedom is something each is entitled to on the basis of equality, a secular political norm."
Mahoney argued that intrinsic merit is not enough to justify an exemption claim and there are no compelling reasons to treat religious values as special cases.
The 1987 Smith v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County case before the State Supreme Court of Alabama was cited as one of the pratfalls when courts define religious belief. The court made the argument that secular humanism constitutes a religious belief because it "makes a statement about supernatural existence."
"According to the Supreme Court of Alabama, it would follow that an atheist has a religious conviction simply because she denies the existence of a supernatural being," Mahoney said. "It is worth pointing out an ironic consequence that would follow if this became the legal standard for what counts as a religion in American law. Namely, an atheist would now be entitled to make religious-based exemption claims on First Amendment grounds."
Mahoney summarized his paper on how there should be a debate about limiting state power when this power conflicts with the beliefs of a citizen and it is the conflict, not the beliefs, that should be important. Mahoney finished his lecture with the disclaimer that not all liberals believe that religious values do not have intrinsic value.
After Mahoney's lecture, James McBain, associate professor in the social science department and part of the PSU Philosophical Society, dismissed the audience for a 10-minute break before Mahoney addressed questions at the Q & A session.
Christopher Landwehr, junior in geography, said he did not attend the lecture for extra credit, but found himself attracted to the subject matter.
"I learned about the Wisconsin v. Yoder case," Landwehr said. "The debates were very interesting. As a layman, I don't think about this stuff everyday, but I had no trouble keeping up."
Spencer McGlothin, senior in art, said he attended the talk because he thought it would be interesting to hear Mahoney.
"I was right on board," McGlothin said. "I enjoy the topic. I agree that religious exemptions should be no more special than non-religious exemptions. I didn't know about Rawls and egalitarian liberalism."