posted
Would a "human life" amendment affect things other than abortion? If we grant embryos full human rights, how does that affect a pregnant woman's control over her body (completely ignoring the abortion issue for this discussion)?
Would women be prevented from taking medications that haven't been proven safe for embryos/fetuses? Would failure to take enough folic acid be child abuse?
As a side note, Christians who want to abolish the separation of church and state should keep in mind that the it protects them as well. There is no guarantee that Christians will forever be the majority in this country.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would make some out of womb pregnancy procedures such as in-vitro fertilization more difficult. It would also make genetic screening for debilitating hereditary diseases illegal.
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: As a side note, Christians who want to abolish the separation of church and state should keep in mind that the it protects them as well. There is no guarantee that Christians will forever be the majority in this country.
I think it's reasonable to assume that, for the foreseeable future, either Christians will be the majority, or the majority will be nonreligious. However, that shouldn't be a relief to most Christians, given that the denomination in power could very easily change. (And historically, that hasn't been very pretty.)
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"There is no guarantee that Christians will forever be the majority in this country."
"However, that shouldn't be a relief to most Christians, given that the denomination in power could very easily change. (And historically, that hasn't been very pretty.) "
Both of those comments are historically unfounded. Now, although I believe the Constitution was inspired by God that doesn't mean I believe this nation's founding doctrines are Christian specific. That said, I think that U.S. history and even current demographics holds that Christians (be they Catholic, Protestant, or even "heretical" Mormon) will be a majority for a very long time - perhaps a couple more hundreds of years if it ever changes at all.
That is why the seperation of Church and State argument "it protects the Christian religions too" comes off as rhetorical falsehood. The only ones that have challenged Christian hedgomony in the recent generation are the secularists. They have proven much more of a threat to Christian rights and power than any religious denomination. Coming from a minority religion myself I am concerned about too much theological intrusion in American politics, but that hasn't been in play since the 19th Century. The best argument that secularists can make is by proving that seperation of Church and State already has been a protection. Somehow I don't see that argument easily made and historically don't see the argument having any actual facts.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you misunderstood my post, Occasional. By "denomination", I meant the various Christian denominations. I don't think that any one Christian denomination will necessarily hold sway in the coming, say, 100 years in the US. And historically, the fights between various Christian denominations have been pretty vicious.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: They have proven much more of a threat to Christian rights and power than any religious denomination.
Power I'll give you. But what "Christian right" have secularists threatened?
Near as I can from reading the Constitution, you have no "Christian rights" guaranteed by the federal government other than the right to be Christian.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it is less of a political matter than a social one that many Christians are concerned about.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: - "There is no guarantee that Christians will forever be the majority in this country."
"However, that shouldn't be a relief to most Christians, given that the denomination in power could very easily change. (And historically, that hasn't been very pretty.) "
Both of those comments are historically unfounded.
No they aren't. The establishment clause in the constitution was originally sponsored by small Christian denominations, including Baptists specifically because of religious discrimination Baptists had experienced. If you look at USA history you will find Anti-Baptist sentiments, anti-catholicism, anti-quakerism, anti-Mormonism and so forth.
Mormons were much stronger supporters of the establishment clause back when their leaders were being jailed and lands seized because of their religious practices. One of the most recent supreme court cases involving the establishment clause was based on a suit brought by Catholic and Mormon families living in a majority Baptist part of Texas. I've noticed that even Baptists who live in Utah where they are a minority are much more supportive of the separation of church and state than Baptists who live in the Bible belt.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I recall a case back in '91 or so that Orrin Hatch (Utah Senator) was active in protecting the rights of African religions to sacrifice animals.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
pooka, I'm not sure if you are referring to my comment regarding Mormons support for the establishment clause or not. If so, I should amend my comment to indicate that it was in reference to the opinions I've heard expressed by many (but certainly not all) Mormons regarding issues of prayer at public events, the ACLU, statement by Mitt Romney and a variety of church and state issues. It was not by any means intended to indicate a change in the official church position or every church member.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The ACLU? I'm not sure what that's shorthand for. I know that it's the American Civil Liberties Union. But...?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The ACLU is famous in many Christian communities as being the beast of the apocalypse
I don't think that assertion is entirely justified myself, though I disagree with a bit of what the ACLU does regarding church and state.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: The ACLU? I'm not sure what that's shorthand for. I know that it's the American Civil Liberties Union. But...?
I've heard lots of Mormon's rant about how everything the ACLU does is pure evil. It tends to come up whenever there is an issue about religion in the public school or religious displays on public property or the like.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
When neo-Nazis wanted to march in Skokie, IL, the ACLU defended them. Whenever someone inveighs against town governments that want to have nativity scenes, it is usually the ACLU that is trying to get it banned. Whenever anyone complains because some student said a prayer at the start of the Homecoming football game, it is usually the ACLU trying to deny freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
Sometimes the ACLU picks a just cause to support. But most of the time they just offend all people who are not atheists.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Whenever anyone complains because some student said a prayer at the start of the Homecoming football game, it is usually the ACLU trying to deny freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
You show your biases by how you word things. As I see it, when the ACLU backs a lawsuit against school sponsored prayers at football games, they are defending freedom of religion.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow I agree with both of you. Because Rabbit said "school-sponsored" and Ron just said "student."
The way you word things really does matter a lot. And assumptions based on the way someone else words something reveal a lot about your biases.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wow I agree with both of you. Because Rabbit said "school-sponsored" and Ron just said "student."
We were however both referring to the same incident. The detail are as follows, a Texas school was sued by the families of some Mormon and Catholic students for practices that were viewed as discriminatory. Among the practices in question, the school had a prayer "solemnizing" their football games given by a local minister. In addressing the suit, the school altered the program so that the prayer would be given by a student minister elected by the student body. The supreme court ruled that this still constituted a school sponsored prayer.
Here is an excerpt from the Court's ruling.
quote:In the Court's Majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens writes, "School sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are non-adherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community."
Justice Stevens continues, "The delivery of such a message - over the school's public address system by a speaker representing the student body, under the supervision of school faculty and pursuant to a school policy that explicitly and implicitly encourages public prayer - is not properly characterized as private speech."
Stevens said the court recognizes, "the important role that public worship plays in many communities, as well as the sincere desire to include public prayer as a part of various occasions so as to mark those occasions' significance.'' But he added: "Such religious activity in public schools, as elsewhere, must comport with the First Amendment."
posted
I bet there was lots of praying at that (and other football games) that was not a problem for the ACLU or anyone else. ("Please, God, let me make this field goal" for example.)
Lots of praying that was allowed.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does the ACLU care about the right to bear arms?
That depends on what you mean by that. They don't interpret the Constitution to grant an unqualified right for individuals to bear arms, so, for the more common way that term is used, no. As I understand it, they regard the 2nd amendment to pertain to "well-regulated militias" only.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Does the ACLU care about the right to bear arms?
And are people who are strongly in favor of the second amendment more or less likely to go to the ACLU for legal assistance?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does the ACLU care about the right to bear arms?
That depends on what you mean by that. They don't interpret the Constitution to grant an unqualified right for individuals to bear arms, so, for the more common way that term is used, no. As I understand it, they regard the 2nd amendment to pertain to "well-regulated militias" only.
posted
It just seems like a jump between Congress enacting a law establishing a religion and people having religious observance in their communities. That's just me, though. I am probably biased in seeing the ACLU as tending toward a specific political stripe rather than rigorously defending the constitution.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
People have religious observances in their communities all the time. Many people have them at least weekly. Often more.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:people having religious observance in their communities
The ALCU doesn't have a problem with this, provided the government is not sponsoring this observance.
quote:I am probably biased in seeing the ACLU as tending toward a specific political stripe rather than rigorously defending the constitution.
How much do you actually know about the cases that the ALCU takes on? Do you really think it is enough to make that determination? I'm not amazingly up to date on the cases either, but it's been my impression that the ALCU takes on Free Speech and similar cases from across the political spectrum.
Also, if there's one trend that I really dislike about modern politics, it is this idea that everything falls into one of two sides and that you either belong to one of the other. I see the 1st and 2nd amendments largely the way they do, as being broad and narrow. And, despite what you may think, I have actual reasons for believing this as opposed to it fitting in with whatever side I've chosen in an ideological divide.
---
From my perspective, it seems like the ALCU sometimes go over the line, especially in religion cases, but considering that the people who are trying to push Christianity on everyone else are almost constantly over the line and have gotten their way quite a bit, I think fighting even the small or very questionable battles is understandable.
Ultimately, the ALCU doesn't do much more than bring court cases against what they see as violations of civil rights. They advocate for their point of view but they don't decide anything. That's up to the courts. That's pretty much how our legal system is supposed to work.
The costs of a court battle can be prohibitive and that can add a great deal more weight to their actions (especially when people make decisions before the fact to ward of a law suit), but that's a problem (if you see it as one, which I do) with the legal system as a whole.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
