Well, separation of church and state was nice while it lasted

[roguenuke]

As I said, grey areas.

So you would agree that after 16 weeks is the traditional moral moral cut off point where people agreed that it stopped being in the mother's hands a became an issue for society to also have a say, an issue of Law?

No. You said that Jefferson would have been having a cow about me using him to promote/condone abortions, allowing them to be legal in the US.

No. Again, that was determined by the person and doctor of the time. Just don't tell anyone that they kicked, hide your belly, and no one knows whether it happened. But even quickening was just an arbitrary point and not the law everywhere.

Morals are subjective. There is no moral absolutes.

 

[roguenuke]

Who is telling you any of those things?

What you are being told is we all, born and unborn, are endowed by our creator with an inalienable right to life.

And that isn't true. Rights are made up by man, whatever we decide they are, hence the need for a Constitution that can be changed. You have no evidence to support your claims of any creator.

If rights were inalienable, then why could, can so many be killed for various "crimes"?

 

[ataraxia]

Really?

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-

You are aware that the same man who wrote that is the same man who coined the phase separation of church and state, right?

That is the document that founded this whole thing.

Jefferson hated CHURCH not God.

Jefferson’s creator God was not a god that was involved in human affairs or helpful in considering policy decisions.

"They [the Christian clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion."
-Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

“Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without a rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck.”
-Thomas Jefferson

 

[nvflash]

They were running from the Church of England. That's to say, the government deciding not only what flavor of religion everyone was going to practice, but also that they were GOING TO PRACTICE by force of law if need be.

What Jeffersons words allowed for was each person adhering to whatever flavor of religion they chose, which was to include not adhering to one at all.

And yes, I know religion and church aren't the same thing. I said as much and even explained the difference.

Show me were Jefferson, the Constitution, or the Supreme Court has ever said " The Separation of Religion and State"?

I'll wait.

 

[nvflash]

If rights were inalienable, then why could, can so many be killed for various "crimes"?

Their right to life was forfeit for their actions.

What action did the baby commit in the womb to forfeit it's right to life?

 

[TangoNoCash]

The idea that the unborn are humans isn’t new or based on the bible.

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The state clearly doesn’t consider them human. You can’t even use the carpool lane!

 

[WisconIndependent]

The idea that the unborn are humans isn’t new or based on the bible.

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

NO, and many religions do not see zygotes or embryos as human babies either. And the fact is that people in most religions today in this country are not pro-life, but pro-birth. After the child is born they do not care what becomes of them, violating the very tenants of their own religions.

 

[roguenuke]

Their right to life was forfeit for their actions.

What action did the baby commit in the womb to forfeit it's right to life?

Not always. Many have been killed just simply for being there, or for beliefs of others, such as thinking that homosexuality is wrong, should be punished by death.

No one, no being has the right to survive off another without permission, put them in any danger.

 

[roguenuke]

The state clearly doesn’t consider them human. You can’t even use the carpool lane!

I'd say more relevantly, the state does not consider them a person, and persons have rights. Simply being human has nothing to do with rights.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

The idea that the unborn are humans isn’t new or based on the bible.

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

genuinely curious

Have people been saying that the embryos are members of some other species?

 

[Deuce]

So if I kill a one day old baby in his crib, that's murder right?

But if some doctor does a c section the day before and slaps the baby over the head with a club, that's a woman's right to chose?

Are you married? Does your wife know that this is how you think women work?

 

[Deuce]

genuinely curious

Have people been saying that the embryos are members of some other species?

You're not genuinely curious about this, why are you lying?

 

[holbritter]

God can change God's laws if he wants to.

So you are admitting that we can change any law of man we don't like, right?

Then they are not God's laws, no matter what qualifying statements are made by the people who made them.

Anyone can claim God told them to make this law, and it can still become law.

Wait, what?

 

[bullseyelqcs]

Show me were Jefferson, the Constitution, or the Supreme Court has ever said " The Separation of Religion and State"?

I'll wait.

It's cute that you think you made a point here.

See, what you are missing is that Jefferson foresaw people like you asking that very question. At the time, organized religion, such that they were trying to avoid, was the purview of the church. By separating the entity of the church from the state, it by design also would prevent thier dogma (religion) from being pressed upon society as well. Separating religion from the state would actually still inadvertently allow for the government to demand that everyone at least make thier way to a church, albeit it one of thier choosing.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

You're not genuinely curious about this, why are you lying?

your telepathy helmet is busted af


I deduce from your snark that this is not something people have actually said.

The linked wiki piece starts off talking about how a human fetus is legally recognized as a member of the human species.

Since lawmakers felt the need to encode this seemingly obvious fact into law, it seems fair to wonder if there was some reason to do so.
ymmv

 

[WisconIndependent]

The separation of Church and State is not the separation of God and State, no matter how atheist want that to be so.

AND, freedom of religion is not freedom FROM religion.

Religion does not mean CHURCH and it never did, it did not mean CHURCH when Jefferson coined the term Separation of Church and State, that actually appears nowhere in the US Constitution.

I believe in the Separation of Church and State as most Americans do, not the separation of religion and State. No Church can gain any advantage over any other, or "should" be able to under our Constitution, but we both know that has happed plenty in our past, just ask a mormon.

Because some Justice cited his belief in God in a legal ruling is not a Church, he is free to bring his religion with him wherever he goes if that is the bases of his morality so be it. The people of Alabama can seek to overturn this ruling as it only effect the laws of the state of Alabama, but you and I both know that isn't likely to happen.

Someone with standing could appeal this to the Federal court system as a violation of the US Constitution and see where that gets them, I'd be interested to find out.

What you are saying is that religion should run the country as long as you do not call it a church. Sorry, but Jefferson wanted to keep all religion out of the running of the country as he knew from the experience in Europe at the time of what happened before and during the time when the constitution was written. It is why so many people left Europe to come to this country, to get away from the religions who not only were part of the government, but controlled the government and went after those of other religions. It is now happening in this country where we often hear this is a "Christian" country. And the idea that a judge should use his religion as the basis for his decisions, violates everything that this country stands for. Good example is that the Jewish religion does not consider a fetus a living person until they take their first breathe outside the womb. So, should they be able to have an abortion right up to the time of birth as that is their religious right to do so?

 

[Lycanthrope]

The theocrats are running wild now.

Trump allies prepare to infuse ‘Christian nationalism’ in second administration

Spearheading the effort is Russell Vought, president of The Center for Renewing America, part of a conservative consortium preparing for Trump's return to power.

www.politico.com

There is clearly a symbiotic relationship between Christian nationalists and Trump. The former is happy to overlook Trump's personal and professional immorality if it means an opportunity to impose their faith on others via the power of government at a time when persuasion hasn't yielded enough converts. Donald, in turn, is happy to play the "little wine and little cracker" game with these sorts if it means a return to power and grifting.

 

[nvflash]

No. You said that Jefferson would have been having a cow about me using him to promote/condone abortions, allowing them to be legal in the US.

No. Again, that was determined by the person and doctor of the time. Just don't tell anyone that they kicked, hide your belly, and no one knows whether it happened. But even quickening was just an arbitrary point and not the law everywhere.

Morals are subjective. There is no moral absolutes.

You have no moral absolutes.

Doesn't mean the rest of us can't vote to impose them on you, either way, they are the laws, opinions, and rulings of man. When God wants us to know his he will make that clear to us himself. Until then we are bound by the first.

That's the way liberty and democracy go, you have your opinions on what is moral and what should or should not be legal and we have ours. If that comes from our religion or not we are free to vote to impose those laws on you, and you are free to try and change them.

Freedom of speech and religion allows us to proclaim the laws came from God, but because you can still change them, that doesn't amount to a hill of beans as long as we fallowed the proper procedures set forth in the other laws to make a law.

 

[nvflash]

What you are saying is that religion should run the country as long as you do not call it a church. Sorry, but Jefferson wanted to keep all religion out of the running of the country as he knew from the experience in Europe at the time of what happened before and during the time when the constitution was written. It is why so many people left Europe to come to this country, to get away from the religions who not only were part of the government, but controlled the government and went after those of other religions. It is now happening in this country where we often hear this is a "Christian" country. And the idea that a judge should use his religion as the basis for his decisions, violates everything that this country stands for. Good example is that the Jewish religion does not consider a fetus a living person until they take their first breathe outside the womb. So, should they be able to have an abortion right up to the time of birth as that is their religious right to do so?

Nope, Jefferson had no issue with religion, it was church he had issue with.

He had issue with government that proclaimed something to be law biased on church doctrine because that did turely end all debate, the law could henceforth not be changed or challenged because it was "The Word of God" handed down through a man or group of men whatever their reason.

In this case there is still recourse in law to appeal or vacate this ruling, it can be changed.

 

[roguenuke]

You have no moral absolutes.

Doesn't mean the rest of us can't vote to impose them on you, either way, they are the laws, opinions, and rulings of man. When God wants us to know his he will make that clear to us himself. Until then we are bound by the first.

That's the way liberty and democracy go, you have your opinions on what is moral and what should or should not be legal and we have ours. If that comes from our religion or not we are free to vote to impose those laws on you, and you are free to try and change them.

Freedom of speech and religion allows us to proclaim the laws came from God, but because you can still change them, that doesn't amount to a hill of beans as long as we fallowed the proper procedures set forth in the other laws to make a law.

There are no moral absolutes. Morals rely on personal or shared values, which are subjective.

You can vote to impose them on anyone, but that is one reason we have a Constitution, that should be adhered to, which doesn't allow your beliefs to be used against me in our laws.

I've never said you couldn't claim anything comes from god. I'm saying that the freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution have meaning, including that you cannot impose your beliefs on us when it violates our religious views, even if they are really none. You cannot force others to adhere to what you believe your gods' rules are without violating the freedom of religion clause of the Constitution. That means you would need enough votes to overturn that or simply admit that the government is not abiding by the Constitution.

 

[WisconIndependent]

Their right to life was forfeit for their actions.

What action did the baby commit in the womb to forfeit it's right to life?

Sorry, but there is no such thing as a baby in the womb. It is a fetus and calling it a baby is just your way of getting around that fact. Now a judge in Alabama is calling an embryo in a petri dish a baby and did so using in part of making his decision his religion. After getting rid of any kind of abortion and IVF, I will let you guess what the religious right will be coming for after that as they want to control all sexual activity in the nation. So you won't have to guess, birth control starting with IUD's.

 

[nvflash]

Are you married? Does your wife know that this is how you think women work?

What my wife knows or does not know has no bearing on my judgment.

Likely why she is married to someone else now.

 

[WisconIndependent]

Nope, Jefferson had no issue with religion, it was church he had issue with.

He had issue with government that proclaimed something to be law biased on church doctrine because that did turely end all debate, the law could henceforth not be changed or challenged because it was "The Word of God" handed down through a man or group of men whatever their reason.

In this case there is still recourse in law to appeal or vacate this ruling, it can be changed.

Now that is the very opposite of what everyone who has ever read the letter by Jefferson that contains the words a "wall" between church and state has ever determined. Earlier SCOTUS courts, even those ruled by the very conservative justices, never considered what you and present the present, so called conservative justices now on the court, would have ever allowed what is happening as our courts move government move toward religious control of both.

 

[Deuce]

What my wife knows or does not know has no bearing on my judgment.

Of course not. Your judgment was already demonstrated here, I was asking for her sake.

That you think a woman one day before her due date would have a doctor perform a c-section only to kill the baby is... well, yikes. It demonstrates a deep-seated disgust of women.

Here in the real world, that is not a scenario that exists. It takes a sick mind to imagine that it does.

 

[nvflash]

Sorry, but there is no such thing as a baby in the womb. It is a fetus and calling it a baby is just your way of getting around that fact. Now a judge in Alabama is calling an embryo in a petri dish a baby and did so using in part of making his decision his religion. After getting rid of any kind of abortion and IVF, I will let you guess what the religious right will be coming for after that as they want to control all sexual activity in the nation. So you won't have to guess, birth control starting with IUD's.

"Birth" control is abortion.

Contraception is not.

Anyway, I don't think all abortion should be illegal, or that it is all sin, but it is by definition murder in my faith.

However a lot of things are murder in my faith, and my God will judge me based on the circumstances of my actions. So I believe others too will be judged base on circumstances, and my opinions have no bearing on that. Their judgment takes place after they leave this world and my judgment ends with this world.

While I am in this world I will vote and make political decisions based a upon my faith, my moral judgments that come from that faith, and if those become laws or not I am free to do it.