In a couple of interesting posts Eugene Volokh has taken issue with an argument by Clayton Cramer (here and here) and Eric Rasmusen (here) “that elimination of preferential treatment for Christianity — the provision of equal treatment to other religions, or to the nonreligious — is somehow hostility to Christianity.” (Cramer’s argument is here, Rasmusen’s here.)
In the first post linked above Eugene asked:
How … is it a manifestation of “broad hostility to Christianity” for the Court to hold that atheists have the same rights as Christians? What vision of Christianity, and of the proper role of Christianity in the country, would see a constitutional principle of equal rights for all religions, and for the irreligious, as “hostile” to Christianity?
I agree with Eugene, but what strikes me as especially interesting, and surprising, is the degree to which Cramer’s and Rasmusen’s arguments resemble the claim of the racial preferentialists that strict colorblind neutrality, i.e., treating every individual without regard to race, is hostile to and discriminates against minorities.
All religions are not equal – take the splodydopes, for example.
If we’re going this route, time to remove tax exemptions.
That should raise some revenue.