Religion & Law

Rob seems to me to make or imply two good points: First, the government should protect conscience only where there is some form of "state action" involved.  Second, not every violation of conscience is equally bad (e.g. forcing Muslim cab drivers to take passengers with bottles of wine is not as bad as forcing them to eat pork).

But without in any way saying that we should be unconcerned about other violations of conscience, can't we all agree that forcing someone to kill (or help kill) what he or she THINKS is an innocent human being is to attack the very heart of conscience for every human being? On the model of "conscientious objection" to the military draft, can't we exempt those who THINK they have a duty not to kill, without yet deciding the further important issue of whether we should exempt someone from all government service because he/she is a conscientious anarchist?