Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:christianity is the third biggest threat to this country after climate change and republicans. I find them particularly reprehensible and disgusting.
+1
Anyone trying to force their religious beliefs on me and my family - and my country - is a vile POS.
What are you talking about?
You have freedom of religion. You are not oppressed
Mormons and JW's have a right to recruit new members, as do country clubs and gyms
Sure.. they just don't have a right to form a government that would govern us all - those who don't belong and don't want to belong to their religion. There is this pesky thing: separation of church and state. When government starts enforcing the laws of some specific religion.. what happens to all other citizens who aren't its loyal followers? They lose their freedoms.
What you are referring to is off topic
Nobody is banning or restricting your freedom to practice your religion
A law about abortion has nothing to do with religios freedoms.
Perhaps what you are referring to is the influence of religion in today's American politics. That is very different from having a kaxk of religious freedom.
Religious freedom was curbed in Soviet union. People had to congregate in secret, people were imprisoned for being Sunday school teachers. Secret police tried to crack down on babtisms, you lost your job if it was found out you believed in God
Not off topic at all.
As a Jew, the overturning of Roe v Wade makes if difficult, if not impossible, to access an abortion - something that Judaism commands in certain situations, according to Jewish law.
Under what circumstances are Jews required to obtain an abortion?
Off topic
DP: careful -- this PP is showing a card. You have to get this right, and it will be threading a needle for sure.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
There are two parts to the First Amendment regarding religion: 1) the establishment clause, and 2) the freedom to practice your religion. If your religious "practice" does not 'require' you to get an abortion, PP is suggesting you can't say the abortion is a religious practice, so prohibiting abortion is not prohibiting the free exercise of your religious practices. If you can find a basis for having an abortion required by your religion, you could maybe win that case unless the court likens the religious practice to something like human sacrifice, where the rights of another trumps your right to religious freedom (see also polygamy). The argument against this is that "practice" is understood to be a much broader term, specifically living your life and making your decisions according the the beliefs and tenets of your faith; not protecting only those outwardly tangible rules and actions like going to your place of worship or wearing religious garb.
On the other clause, is a state establishing a religion by prohibiting abortion? Is choosing a particular faith's position on a matter not believed by other religions and imposing it on others who do not share that faith position the same thing as passing a law establishing a religion? This will be difficult; see alleged atheist's statement above. It may very much depend on how the states write these laws. The states' positions in various laws often align with a particular religion; sometimes it is contrary to a particular religion. The question though is when it aligns, is that happenstance (e.g. most religions hold that theft is wrong, and state passes laws that say the same thing), or is the state establishing a religion, and if so which one?
Question: does the State have the right to establish by law the point at which human life begins? If that is a matter of religious belief, then we are in First Amendment territory. If it is a matter of science, then it becomes perhaps more difficult, and that is how the Roe Court tried to address the matter.
The reality is that religions don't really know, and they disagree on their beliefs; similarly, science doesn't really know, and I'm sure you can find papers positing differing opinions, none of which involve when or whether a soul enters a body, but rather issues like, whether independent breath is necessary or whether life begins when technology says so (similarly one might keep a dying body a live a long time with technology, but is the person really alive -- and so on). So if religion and science don't know and can't agree, then on what basis can a state make a law that, of necessity, logically and legally, must be based on a definitive answer to this question? I believe it cannot, and so such decisions must be left to the individual and her conscience and/or her religion, together with her health care provider and that person's best scientific abilities (and this will differ greatly depending on where you live, which further supports the position).
Just some passing thoughts I had while reading this thread.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}