Abortion

[BilliardsBall]

This is what I don't quite understand. Why would avoiding laws based on religious belief 1. mean that we are a religious nation (rather than merely a nation with lawmakers who are religious ... very different), or 2. that we are trying to prevent an atheist nation?

I would think that reading what the father wrote outside the Constitution would convince you of their hearts and intent.

Or the fact that the superstars of the Revolution were deists while most of the framers and signers were VERY devout Christians--running Bible societies, pastoring churches, witnessing the gospel.

 

[leibowde84]

I would think that reading what the father wrote outside the Constitution would convince you of their hearts and intent.

Or the fact that the superstars of the Revolution were deists while most of the framers and signers were VERY devout Christians--running Bible societies, pastoring churches, witnessing the gospel.

None of this means that we are a Christian Nation though. We were merely a nation that, at that time, was majority Christian (just like the rest of the anglo saxon world). I would say that the fact that they went to the trouble of including the establishment clause would show that, even though they were majority Christian, they didn't want this to become a Christian Nation with laws based on religious belief.4

 

[Darkstorn]

I don't know why you people feel you need to argue with everything every Christian says.

"You people?!" I'm not arguing you because you're Christian, i couldn't care about it less in fact: I'm attacking your argument. You specifically. Not your faith. I asked you to provide content for your empty unsubstantiated claim and you respond with this drivel?!

You claim there's an actual review going on where people go around religious texts seeing if a law conforms to one; And then change it if it does. There is no such review. Some laws DIRECTLY touch religion, in a non-unconstitutional way.

If any given law promotes or precludes religious practice, it is unconstitutional. Can we agree on this?

So you don't agree with freedom of religion? DO also take into account that several religious groups have exemptions in law because of their religion: One particular church gets to legally brew Ayahuasca.

Here's where your misconception arises: You think the law is actually reviewed in light of religion; It's not. It's just law. That doesn't mean that some laws don't directly apply to religion in general, or in some cases to individual religions on an individual basis. There is no evidence whatsoever that laws do not touch religion in SOME way in the first place, which makes your entire argument a nonsensical exercise in semantic futility.

There is freedom of religion, and there are ALLOWANCES to religions. It's unconstitutional to discriminate religions. Technically not when you only give them more.

That being said: If you think laws that promote or preclude religious practice are unconstitutional, that means everything extra they allow Christians should be revoked, right?

/E: I guess you also think that not allowing abortion on religious grounds is unconstitutional?

 

[BilliardsBall]

None of this means that we are a Christian Nation though. We were merely a nation that, at that time, was majority Christian (just like the rest of the anglo saxon world). I would say that the fact that they went to the trouble of including the establishment clause would show that, even though they were majority Christian, they didn't want this to become a Christian Nation with laws based on religious belief.4

That's untrue. Clearly, reading the actual words of the framers in correspondence outside the documents, they were not afraid of being a Christian nation, rather, of being a monarch's nation with a totalitarian religious leader.

 

[BilliardsBall]

"You people?!" I'm not arguing you because you're Christian, i couldn't care about it less in fact: I'm attacking your argument. You specifically. Not your faith. I asked you to provide content for your empty unsubstantiated claim and you respond with this drivel?!

You claim there's an actual review going on where people go around religious texts seeing if a law conforms to one; And then change it if it does. There is no such review. Some laws DIRECTLY touch religion, in a non-unconstitutional way.



So you don't agree with freedom of religion? DO also take into account that several religious groups have exemptions in law because of their religion: One particular church gets to legally brew Ayahuasca.

Here's where your misconception arises: You think the law is actually reviewed in light of religion; It's not. It's just law. That doesn't mean that some laws don't directly apply to religion in general, or in some cases to individual religions on an individual basis. There is no evidence whatsoever that laws do not touch religion in SOME way in the first place, which makes your entire argument a nonsensical exercise in semantic futility.

There is freedom of religion, and there are ALLOWANCES to religions. It's unconstitutional to discriminate religions. Technically not when you only give them more.

That being said: If you think laws that promote or preclude religious practice are unconstitutional, that means everything extra they allow Christians should be revoked, right?

/E: I guess you also think that not allowing abortion on religious grounds is unconstitutional?

Wow, are we missing the forest for the trees. I never claimed there is a review board for all laws re: religion. I did mention (rightly) that any law that disobeys the amendment as discussed is scrutinized.

This sentence has multiple negatives in it: "I guess you also think that not allowing abortion on religious grounds is unconstitutional?" Do you want to redefine it for our discussion?

 

[columbus]

That's untrue. Clearly, reading the actual words of the framers in correspondence outside the documents, they were not afraid of being a Christian nation, rather, of being a monarch's nation with a totalitarian religious leader.

It would be more accurate to say that the Founding Fathers took Christian domination for granted. When they said "shall not establish" and stuff, they were talking about different Christian sects. The possibility that Hindus, Pagans, Muslims and such (much less atheists) would ever matter politically never entered their minds.
We have taken their world view to levels they never imagined. Black people are now considered within the "All Men are Created Equal " thing, which clearly wasn't what they meant. Women are as well, clearly not what they intended.
In some respects, the USA is now ethically better than the Founding Fathers could even imagine.

We need to keep improving on their high ideals. The next group of human beings I think need to have the benefit is the unborn.
Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is new, if you compare hundreds of years of existence of most modern countries during which they did not allow abortion to the few decades and sometimes years in which it has been allowed.

During most of those "hundreds of years of existence", women's rights were curtailed in all sorts of ways.

 

[columbus]

During most of those "hundreds of years of existence", women's rights were curtailed in all sorts of ways.

So
You just changed the subject from @Thanda response to what you said to something else.
The right to kill your progeny is very new, in terms of history and ethics. That is what you are dodging.
Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So
You just changed the subject from @Thanda response to what you said to something else.
The right to kill your progeny is very new, in terms of history and ethics. That is what you are dodging.
Tom

Any rights of women are very new, historically speaking.

We don't have to go back that far to be in an era where women had no say in their medical care at all: doctors would confer with their female patients' husbands or fathers rather than her, and leave it up to those men to decide her care.

It's disingenuous to cite this in support if the idea that allowing women to choose abortion is a new right. Allowing women ANY right to have a say in their medical care is new, and when it happened, the right of a woman to choose abortion came as part of it.

Abortion itself is ancient. In the US, abortion was only illegal for about 100 years (varying a bit from state to state - roughly 1880s to 1973).

 

[columbus]

In the US, abortion was only illegal for about 100 years (varying a bit from state to state - roughly 1880s to 1973).

You're still dodging and dissembling. The USA had no abortion rights before 1973. That's new.
Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're still dodging and dissembling. The USA had no abortion rights before 1973. That's new.
Tom

Abortion was legal in the US until it was made illegal at the state level, generally in the mid-to-late 1800s, depending on the state.

Roe v. Wade was based on the Due Process clause of th 14th Amendment, which was adopted in 1868. This means that abortion rights in the US were constitutionally protected from at least that date, even if it took a court challenge for the right to be enforced.

BTW: call me a liar again and this conversation is done.

 

[columbus]

Abortion was legal in the US until it was made illegal at the state level,

That does not mean it was a right.

Feticide is a new right created by SCOTUS with the RoevWade decision. It could just as easily be removed by granting some rights to the unborn. It's happened before, like when black people got rights that "regular folks" didn't want them to have. Because abolition of slavery interfered with their property rights.

BTW: call me a liar again and this conversation is done.

It would not surprise me at all if you decided that. @1robin put me on ignore.
Tom

 

[BilliardsBall]

It would be more accurate to say that the Founding Fathers took Christian domination for granted. When they said "shall not establish" and stuff, they were talking about different Christian sects. The possibility that Hindus, Pagans, Muslims and such (much less atheists) would ever matter politically never entered their minds.
We have taken their world view to levels they never imagined. Black people are now considered within the "All Men are Created Equal " thing, which clearly wasn't what they meant. Women are as well, clearly not what they intended.
In some respects, the USA is now ethically better than the Founding Fathers could even imagine.

We need to keep improving on their high ideals. The next group of human beings I think need to have the benefit is the unborn.
Tom

Amen, brother.

 

[Thanda]

During most of those "hundreds of years of existence", women's rights were curtailed in all sorts of ways.

Does that invalidate my point?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Does that invalidate my point?

Yes, it does. You don't have a history of people opposing abortion; you have a history of people suppressing women's rights... something that hopefully even you can agree shouldn't be considered an example to follow.

 

[leibowde84]

That's untrue. Clearly, reading the actual words of the framers in correspondence outside the documents, they were not afraid of being a Christian nation, rather, of being a monarch's nation with a totalitarian religious leader.

Even assuming you are right on this, the establishment clause is still in place and prevents us from establishing a national religion. Thus, we cannot be a Christian Nation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's untrue. Clearly, reading the actual words of the framers in correspondence outside the documents, they were not afraid of being a Christian nation, rather, of being a monarch's nation with a totalitarian religious leader.

They were trying to protect religious freedom by ensuring that no religion or denomination got power and influence over the government.

... because the biggest threat to religious freedom is other religion.

 

[Thanda]

Yes, it does. You don't have a history of people opposing abortion; you have a history of people suppressing women's rights... something that hopefully even you can agree shouldn't be considered an example to follow.

What, in your opinion, qualifies as a right?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Even assuming you are right on this, the establishment clause is still in place and prevents us from establishing a national religion. Thus, we cannot be a Christian Nation.

We cannot officially be a Christian nation, yes. I'll settle for unofficially--once we get there.

 

[BilliardsBall]

They were trying to protect religious freedom by ensuring that no religion or denomination got power and influence over the government.

... because the biggest threat to religious freedom is other religion.

I would say the biggest threat is atheism and immorality, not Christian and deist founders trying to stave off yet another monarchial totalitarian regime.