I think the person you're replying to is arguing all exemptions of conscience should be ubiquitous.

That we shouldn't have to rely on religion to fight that proxy battle for us.

For military service the term conscientious objector comes to mind which Wikipedia defines as “ [refusal] on the grounds of freedom of thought, conscience, or religion” which seems appropriate to me.

"Refusal on the ground of freedom of thought" is enough to convey exactly the same without loss of meaning. No need to mention religion, no need for religion-specific exemptions.

Thinking about it practically… should we need to rely on it? Ideally no. But the reality seems to be, religion is getting us something we otherwise wouldn’t get. So why get rid of the good thing? If anything this is evidence of religion’s value.

> If anything this is evidence of religion’s value.

that's an odd take. a bit like saying "our founders loved X, so they carved out favorable laws for X, which is evidence that X is good."

If religion isn’t necessary to the well functioning of our system, we should expect to see just as many irreligious court challenges to this requirement that succeed. That said, we don’t. Regardless of whether it’s “inherently valuable,” it seems to be valuable here and now, in this system we live in.