hezekiah jones

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Murder is the taking of an innocent human life. . . . Even Hitler would be impressed.

Hitler eh? Tell you what pal, read a statute.

Charles Darwin

Your deer and menstruation reasons don't work for justifying the morality of abortion and then we have the inevitable marginalization of those "nut jobs." I understand and agree that this is not the place to debate abortion. My point was not to do that, but to use abortion as an example of the influence of the CSS. I am not claiming there is a 1-to-1 relationship (i.e., that the CSS necessarily lead to abortion, and abortion arose only from the CSS). I'm sure things are more complex than that.

But the CSS does nicely facilitate the use of very strong ad hominum arguments marginalizing those "nut jobs." No matter that the position relies on frankly absurd what-if's such as people dressing up in deer skins: "Oh-no, abortion must be OK because otherwise we'd have a terrible dilemma on our hands." This is the fruit of the CSS. A position that hasn't a leg to stand on is national law because, of course, the other side has those "nut jobs."

I realize that my abortion example here hinges on how one views abortion ethics. If you think abortion is just fine, then my contention that it is a fruit of the CSS is hardly a knock on the CSS. I can think of other examples, but have no doubt they would be no more better received.

And so we have a curious standoff which perhaps is fitting to end this thread. I have been asked for examples of how the CSS influences are not religiously neutral and are oppressive (murderous in this case). I have given an example, but the example itself you disagree with. Clearly, if you feel abortion is ethical, I can hardly expect you to see the more subtle issues at the foundation of the CSS.

I understand that you view the CSS and abortion as good doctrine leading to good law. But I hope you understand that people like me, quite legitimately, view your position as untenable.

hezekiah jones

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
My point was not to do that, but to use abortion as an example of the influence of the CSS.

I don't know if this is the right forum for that either, but this inference is totally bogus on its face.

The question that you raise is, "What do the religion clauses have to do with abortion jurisprudence?" Until you can address it, the answer is: "Absolutely nothing."

Stephen Maturin

That's incorrect. More to the point, though, abortion wasn't considered "murder" even before Roe v. Wade. Even the centuries-old common law definition of murder didn't encompass abortions. Significantly enough, the common law definition grew up in a country with a state-established Christian church.

Charles Darwin

I think you read my post too fast. I was not claiming the hypothetical drinking law was equivalent to the CSS. I was using it as an analogy of how a law can entail religious claims though the law itself makes not religious claims.

Yes, of course the CSS would prohibit the law.

crazyfingers

Yes laws can involve religious claims and hopefully they would be struck down. CSS does not make any religious claims.

Buffman

Charles Darwin(CD) has not only challenged the religious neutrality of issues decided on CSS grounds, he even challenges the religious neutrality of the CSS title. I think he has an interesting view. However, unless I am privy to his specific definitions of religion, religious, separation, morality and the such, how can I possibly hope to carry on a meaningful and mutually worthwhile discussion about this issue? CD believes that he has provided those definitions. Therefore I, also, must attempt to post around these, for me, still invisible definitions.

I tend to agree with CD. It isn't Church-State Separation. It's Religion and Government separation. However, it is not Ethical/Moral Values and Government separation. It is a "Specific Religion's Dogma and Government separation." That's how I have chosen to define CSS. However, now we would require an agreed definition of "specific religious dogma." (Personally, I consider any belief in the supernatural as a religious dogma.)

CD maintains that this separation is not possible. Again I think he has an interesting point...as far as he takes it. However, I do not think he has taken it far enough. I further think that the posts by ruby-soho and ImGod were on the path that might have aided CD to better appreciate the unique "historical" wisdom behind the words in the 1st Amendment and those found in Art. VI, Item 3, of the U.S. Constitution.

Just go back to the times when it was the tribe's "Head Man" that decided what was right or wrong/good or bad...and when each new Head Man made his own new "laws"...as long as he kept his men-at-arms happy, well trained, and equipped. What has changed? One primary thing. The ratification/ codification of the U.S.Constitution.

What I see in this discussion is the old "Which came first" conundrum....human social inter/intra-actions that promoted survival and economic well-being, or religious faith explanations for the unknown and death (non-survival)?

The first codified laws helped to bring an improvement in survival and economic progress...social stability. (Thou shalt not plunder and pillage thy neighbor's vinyard, but a little kidnapping and raping is permitted under the spoils of war law.) New and improved religious beliefs brought a better means of mind control over the masses that played into the vested interests of the Head Man. New religious beliefs temded to bring little more than better methods of crowd control or increased mortal combat between differing camps of faith beliefers. (More slaves means more power.) Seemingly, membership in the largest faith belief organization offered the better security, survival and economic opportunities. Only initially did Christianity differ in its approach to human survival by convincing potential enlistees that they must lose life to gain eternal life. Technology changed all that and modern scientific methodologies and knowledge have become the greatest threat to continued organized faith belief mind control.

Therefore, without the kind of historical backgound knowledge and practical experiences known to the majority of our supernatural believing fore-fathers, regardless of their individual sect/denominational religious beliefs, one will never appreciate the true unique wisdom embodied in the CSS descriptive phrase of the 1st Amendment.

Lastly, there are over 4,200 religions, churches, denominations, religious bodies, faith groups, tribes, cultures, movements, ultimate concerns, etc. in today's world. Which one is the most ethical/moral and has the direct support of a supernatural god that is supreme over all other man made supernatural entities? (Probably the one with the biggest, best trained and equipped armies or best lethal technology ...or one motivated by religious conditioning to die in oder to gain eternal life. Could that be why certain Christians are working so diligently to convice Americans, and the others of the Christian believing world, that their faith is the only true faith and worth dying for? Or do they simply fear Allah and those nations where Church and State are one?)

http://www.adherents.com/

simian

You miss the point: you have mis-defined murder. With only a strawman definition of murder, you can say whatever you please. Define murder correctly, then you can discuss if abortion is murder (and do it in the correct forum).

You also miss the point that there are quite a number of Christian denominations that support a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy - don't believe me, check out the amicus briefs from Roe v Wade. Check out modern Christianity. Get away from the medieval version of Christianity you seem to believe in.

The fact that people who see women as nothing but walking wombs who deserve whatever may befall them from the "evil" of being a woman are getting excessive press doesn't change the fact that they are promoting a version of Christianity that died decades ago. Oh yes, they will say they "respect" women in their "proper roles" and that women are "blessed" - sure, and slaves are much better off being slaves, you can see they could never take care of themselves.

Good riddance.

Simian

(edited to remove a mild insult aimed at Char Dar.)

enfant terrible

Life's Dominion by Ronald Dworkin. The best treatise on the abortion debate, with which I agree 100%.

While no court case on abortion was decided on 1st Am. grounds (except those dealing with gag rules, but that is free speech issue), the argument that laws prohibiting early abortion amount to both establishment and restriction of free exercise of religion, is indeed the most intellectually consistent argument against such laws.

But this, of course, does not in any way support CD's thesis that CSS is itself not religiously neutral; on the contrary, it only undermines it.

Toto

Life's Dominion