Yeah, this is why this isn't an entirely valid argument.
First off, there's nothing in any of the Abrahamic religions that favor abortion. Secondly, there's no prescriptive religious order, so it's not like you are required by God to get an abortion.
You can't just say that your religion allows you to do something, therefore you can do it.
Compare that to religious accommodation laws where a Christian (who had a day of rest on Saturday, rather than Sunday) was denied unemployment benefits because she couldn't find a job that would give her that schedule, therefore the state revoked her benefits and argued that she wasn't willing to work.
There's a huge difference. You don't have a religious obligation to kill your children.
Finally, as you point out, even if there is a certain religious obligation, it doesn't get to ignore criminal standards.
The religious argument is just a smoke screen so the pro-choice side can hide behind the first amendment. The crux of the argument is at this: at what point do you have a right to life? The fact that a person who assaults a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarry can be charged with murder indicates that its before birth.
Personally, I think the answer is actually: Marriage is the asserted obligation that both parents will seek to raise children to adulthood regardless of the circumstances of the conception of the child. Pre-marital sex must be banned as to prevent the deaths of children, so that children must only be conceived by parties prepared to deliver them alive and well into adulthood.
Of course, that collapses the idea that we can't ban pre-marital sex.
Because we need one common set of morals to continue to function as a society.
Sometimes we must make compromises to be able to survive and prosper. I'm willing to trade unhindered religious freedom, to have some societal stability and common laws.
Otherwise we will have laws written and court decisions decided on whatever religious teachings or morality that whoever is in authority decides to apply at that time.
Religious freedom is not inconsistent with one religion receiving special privileges. There are countries with religious freedom that have a state church.
Which ones do you have in mind? I could see a state church in name only not compromising religious freedom, but I'm skeptical of implementing it in a meaningful way without compromise religious freedom.
England, Denmark and the other Scandinavian countries.
Of course, those state churches are nothing to write home about. But I do think that 'religious freedom' has been spun as granting equal status to all religions, which it traditionally has not been.
If we go back to historical times, Cromwellian England had a state church without infringing on the religious liberties of other protestants or Jews.
those state churches are nothing to write home about
That's kind of an understatement.
But I do think that 'religious freedom' has been spun as granting equal status to all religions, which it traditionally has not been.
I wouldn't say it's been spun. It just took time for the contradiction of having a state religion within a liberal society to be resolved. Liberal ideology provided the justification for attacking the idea, legally or culturally.
I wouldn't say it's been spun. It just took time for the contradiction of having a state religion within a liberal society to be resolved.
Agreed, but does 'freedom of religion' necessitate a 'liberal society'? Its germs can be found even in Augustine. Toleration was also fairly common in the post-Reformation era. This is freedom of conscience, and in some cases even freedom of religion, but without the religion having the same legal standing.
Actually, now that I think about it. What's even the standing here? How do they even have grounds to sue. If you're not even pregnant, you have been prevented from having an abortion. If you are pregnant, you're classifying your child as "articulable damages".
That's the trick with which Rehnquist attempted to reject the Roe vs. Wade case.
Jane Roe had already given birth, so she would not have standing, and no case would be possible because a case would longer than the period for a pregnancy.
Regardless of Roe vs. Wade being a terrible decision, that also would have been a bad precedent allowing governments to freely violate actual rights.
So I guess there's no law banning human sacrifice then? If we're killing babies on religious grounds, I mean, that's a pretty damned textbook case of it.
They already do this or what else would you call those abortion centers but a satanic temple? Heck, the satanic temple PROMISED to provide "health care" by providing means to still abort.
A reminder: It is religiously demanded for muslims to slaughter infidels, and wholly permissible to infiltrate and sabotage Christian strongholds.
Yeah, this is why this isn't an entirely valid argument.
First off, there's nothing in any of the Abrahamic religions that favor abortion. Secondly, there's no prescriptive religious order, so it's not like you are required by God to get an abortion.
You can't just say that your religion allows you to do something, therefore you can do it.
Compare that to religious accommodation laws where a Christian (who had a day of rest on Saturday, rather than Sunday) was denied unemployment benefits because she couldn't find a job that would give her that schedule, therefore the state revoked her benefits and argued that she wasn't willing to work.
There's a huge difference. You don't have a religious obligation to kill your children.
Finally, as you point out, even if there is a certain religious obligation, it doesn't get to ignore criminal standards.
The religious argument is just a smoke screen so the pro-choice side can hide behind the first amendment. The crux of the argument is at this: at what point do you have a right to life? The fact that a person who assaults a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarry can be charged with murder indicates that its before birth.
Personally, I think the answer is actually: Marriage is the asserted obligation that both parents will seek to raise children to adulthood regardless of the circumstances of the conception of the child. Pre-marital sex must be banned as to prevent the deaths of children, so that children must only be conceived by parties prepared to deliver them alive and well into adulthood.
Of course, that collapses the idea that we can't ban pre-marital sex.
Child sacrifice is the most holy sacrament in Democracy.
Baal enci aga
That's a weird glitch in Google translate. It's complete gibberish in Latin. "Baal is king" would normally be Baal rex est.
Apparently I'm not very good at Qtarding.
This country was founded on Christian ideals and morals, the morals or traditions of any other religion is irrelevant.
And I say that as an agnostic not really religious person.
How do you square that with the liberal tenant of religious freedom? This is one of those ways that liberalism is at odds with preserving traditions.
Because we need one common set of morals to continue to function as a society.
Sometimes we must make compromises to be able to survive and prosper. I'm willing to trade unhindered religious freedom, to have some societal stability and common laws.
Otherwise we will have laws written and court decisions decided on whatever religious teachings or morality that whoever is in authority decides to apply at that time.
Exactly. You have to behave illiberally to preserve morals and traditions.
At times yes.
Religious freedom is not inconsistent with one religion receiving special privileges. There are countries with religious freedom that have a state church.
Which ones do you have in mind? I could see a state church in name only not compromising religious freedom, but I'm skeptical of implementing it in a meaningful way without compromise religious freedom.
England, Denmark and the other Scandinavian countries.
Of course, those state churches are nothing to write home about. But I do think that 'religious freedom' has been spun as granting equal status to all religions, which it traditionally has not been.
If we go back to historical times, Cromwellian England had a state church without infringing on the religious liberties of other protestants or Jews.
That's kind of an understatement.
I wouldn't say it's been spun. It just took time for the contradiction of having a state religion within a liberal society to be resolved. Liberal ideology provided the justification for attacking the idea, legally or culturally.
Agreed, but does 'freedom of religion' necessitate a 'liberal society'? Its germs can be found even in Augustine. Toleration was also fairly common in the post-Reformation era. This is freedom of conscience, and in some cases even freedom of religion, but without the religion having the same legal standing.
No, but liberal ideology creates a pressure point for religious freedom.
Actually, now that I think about it. What's even the standing here? How do they even have grounds to sue. If you're not even pregnant, you have been prevented from having an abortion. If you are pregnant, you're classifying your child as "articulable damages".
Standing is a cudgel to be used against you. Not for you.
Ah yes, I forgot.
That's the trick with which Rehnquist attempted to reject the Roe vs. Wade case.
Jane Roe had already given birth, so she would not have standing, and no case would be possible because a case would longer than the period for a pregnancy.
Regardless of Roe vs. Wade being a terrible decision, that also would have been a bad precedent allowing governments to freely violate actual rights.
Up to a point, I'd say there was standing because she already had the imposition of the law imposed on her by the state.
This one is definitely going to the Supreme Court lol
Let's see if the SC cares about the First Amendment.
It won't, because it was based on a state law.
It will go to the Indiana Supreme Court, which I'm confident will also make the correct decision.
time to stone to death adulterers ?
So I guess there's no law banning human sacrifice then? If we're killing babies on religious grounds, I mean, that's a pretty damned textbook case of it.
They already do this or what else would you call those abortion centers but a satanic temple? Heck, the satanic temple PROMISED to provide "health care" by providing means to still abort.
Or plain old animal sacrifice.
It's absurd and will be overturned.