This language seems to imply that conscience equals religion. While many individuals find that their religion defines their conscience and their moral compass, there are plenty of individuals for whom this is not true. Atheists, agnostics, and even those who are "spiritual but not religious" are examples of people who do have a conscience and do have a sense of morality, yet have no religion.
Is freedom of conscience then dependent on an individual's adherence to a religious group?
All individuals have a right to freedom of conscience, whether religious or not. When we say we stand for all religions, do we stand for those who have beliefs that are starkly different, or directly oppose our own? Do we stand for those who have no belief at all?
For example, will Latter-day Saints uphold laws that allow individuals to responsibly consume alcohol, even when the LDS Church teaches alcohol consumption is morally objectionable (even when done responsibly)? Now for a more drastic example, will Latter-day Saints fight to allow an Episcopalian individual to marry their same-sex partner (which the Episcopalian Church fully supports) even though the LDS Church teaches that same-sex marriage is wrong at a moral level?
Furthermore, why would we need an individual to be Episcopalian in order to protect their freedom of conscience in this particular case? Isn't it enough to have a conviction that your action is good for your own life and that it will not harm anyone (and I am talking marriage here, so if you comment PLEASE do not talk about adoption)? Why is the conscience of a "non-religious" individual not protected--or rather seen as a threat to the conscience of the "religious" individual?
Watch the first few seconds of this video. Again, we equate religion to morality or conscience and we make the grave mistake of believing that those who choose not to be affiliated with a religion are amoral. This is obviously not the case.
The problem here is that we are falling in a language trap, and unfortunately, it is one that we cannot escape from. The U.S. Constitution established on its First Amendment, the "free exercise [of religion]." However, this Amendment makes no mention of conscience. This makes it sound like the Mormon Church is, according to the U.S. Constitution, right--at least when equating religion to conscience.
What does this mean to the non-religious? Are we protecting their freedom of conscience as well? Should the atheists/agnostics/non-religious then become affiliated with a religion that mostly matches their conscience so that their moral convictions and consciousness can be taken as seriously as those affiliated with a religion? If there is no such religion, should they start their own?
Did those who draft the Bill of Rights intend for us to equate religion with conscience? Should we start using the word conscience instead of religion? Is religion an institution or the moral compass of an individual, according to the U.S. Constitution? Should we revise the First Amendment and have it say something like "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of conscience or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?"
This is one thing I do not understand.
