lisarea

Well, I'm not a lawyer, but I do flip people off in traffic sometimes, and I've never heard of anything remotely like this.

Are you seriously saying that you can effectively shoot down pending legislation merely by casting its proponents as religiously motivated, as though the mere accusation of religion is enough repel legislative action?

Please show me a single instance in which the separation clause has been cited as a defense of keeping abortion legal. Or anything else, for that matter, aside from clear government endorsement issues like Ten Commandments plaques and the like.

On the larger issue, though, you've admitted that you don't see how a government cannot endorse some religious belief or another.

Respectfully, you're wrong. Simply because you are so fervent in your own belief, you can't understand how any worldview might fail to incorporate these things that you hold so dear. While I respect that, I can assure you that I hold no religious beliefs whatsoever, and I personally endorse the concept of CSS because I can see that, if applied as written, it is a fair and reasonable way to ensure that everyone's right to think for themselves is protected.

I'm sorry that you don't feel that way, but again, I think you're mistaken, and your claim that a government cannot be religiously neutral sort of makes the whole argument moot, as far as I'm concerned.

lisarea

You understand that the issue they're discussing is TAXPAYER-FUNDED health facilities that are refusing to provide healthcare to indigent people based on religious tenets?

It's not an issue of the legality of abortion at all. It's an issue of religious facilities receiving taxpayer funding and then refusing to comply with the same federal mandates that secular organizations are compelled to.

Big difference.

Charles Darwin

I'm not making the case as strongly as you are making it out, but yes, there is no question that effectively casting your opponent as having religious motivations is a powerful argument in this environment. And it draws attention away from their legitimate arguments to boot. The ACLU, Planned Parenthood, etc. don't make these accusations because they couldn't think of anything else to say.



That is an interesting claim you make. Depending on how you define "religion" it might make for an interesting discussion thread. But my contention here is not that all people are religious, but rather that the CSS entails non trivial religious claims.



Well that is certainly not my main point, and I'm not dogmatic on the issue. I *suspect* government's cannot be so neutral, but I could be wrong.

Charles Darwin

The article is about access to abortion, not the legality of abortion. The abortion issue has all sorts of facets and spins to it. My point was that it was practically trivial for me to find an example of folks using the religion label to brand their opponents. Look at this paragraph from the article:


Notice how Murphy is careful to pigeonhole her opponents in the first sentence. Even at their best they are religious fanatics opposing our "rights." It is "religion" vs "rights." Guess which side wins?

Charles Darwin

I find two problems with your claim:

1) It fails on its own criterion. The CSS entails the assumption that the matters of state and of religion are distinct and separate. Simply put, matters of state are public, matters of religion are private. There are broad and sweeping religious assumptions and implications here. Notice I'm not making a value judgement regarding CSS; I'm merely claiming it entails religion. As such, you are imposing your religion on me, and have violated your golden rule.

2) It is religious. You cannot defend your claim that the golden rule should apply to me without resorting to a higher authority. Furthermore, what right do you have to impose your religion on me?

scumble

He didn't say it had to apply to you. He said "my ethics".

What you seem to be actually talking about is the religious influence on government by way of people of particular beliefs participating. I don't think anyone is denying this. The main point is that they can't make a law that subsidised the Episcopal Church, for example. The government cannot provide money to promote religion, couldn't make college education free for Baptists or something like that.

The whole point is to stop organised religion taking control of the law.

You seem to be saying that CSS is a religion, which is being imposed on everyone?

hezekiah jones

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
... yes, there is no question that effectively casting your opponent as having religious motivations is a powerful argument in this environment.

The abortion opponents ARE religiously motivated. They don't need to be "cast" as such. They "cast" themselves as such.

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
And it draws attention away from their legitimate arguments to boot.

The specious religious and emotional arguments of abortion opponents draw attention away from the legitimate legal and political arguments? Yes, they do.

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
The ACLU, Planned Parenthood, etc. don't make these accusations because they couldn't think of anything else to say.

They can think of a lot of other things to say, and they do. The Constitution, privacy, caselaw, reproductive freedom, etc. NOT religion. Your example is quote mining at its worst.

crazyfingers

State the broad and sweeping religious assumptions. Don't say that they exist and not name them please.

Demonstrate that I have a religion and that I am imposing it on you by demanding that the church and state remain separate. Again, you need to back up our claims. Simply making them is not an argument.

How does my statement that when religious people make religious laws they will violate the rights of others constitute a statement about a god as you originally claimed? I believe that your argument is constantly shifting and I will not continue to aim at a moving target.

Demonstrate that the golen rule requires a higher authority. Don't simply make claims without backing them up please.

Vylo

Charles, CSS does not take preference towards any religion, but once again, humans have a habit to desire the explotation and oppression of others different from them, and atheists are not immune to this trait. I think perhaps what you have been showing more then anything is that while the claim should be religiously unbiased, it has in some cases, twisted to fit the atheist agenda.

hezekiah jones

Originally posted by Vylo
I think perhaps what you have been showing more then anything is that while the claim should be religiously unbiased, it has in some cases, twisted to fit the atheist agenda.

What is the "atheist agenda"?