system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Religious exemptions should not exist in US law or government regulation.

My argument boils down to a few simple points:

* Unless any religion can be claimed, including ones as outlandish as Scientology and Pastafarianism, or as rare as Zoroastrianism, then it is respecting an establishment of religion, ie only the religions the government recognizes as legitimate.

* It establishes religion over irreligion. An atheist person or a secular organization cannot make use of these exceptions.

* It devalues the laws or regulations religions are excempt from. Either something is necessary or it is not.

* It causes more harm than good. Several states allow for parents to kill their kids through neglect, as long as that neglect is rooted in religion.

This isn't the most well thought out post, but I can't think of any benefit of religious exemption that promotes the general welfare or equality.
gpt
1) Freedom of Religion is literally part of the Bill of Rights. The Government has a duty to protect the right of the citizens to practice religion freely - though also a duty to not endorse any particular religion. 

2) Almost all religious exceptions, also include Philosophical objections. Atheists can often also hop on the "religious exemption bandwagon" if they want to. These laws often don't exclude atheism. 

3) The government cannot promote or endorse any particular religion, but it can acknowledge that religions exist. "Christianity exists" is not a statement which violates the separation of church and state.