Rationalia Abortion Thread (A New Start)

[JimC]

Most modern democracies have built in constraints, for example common law in Britain. The US constitution is not the only safeguard to political decisions that impinge on human rights...

And these days with religion on the wane in the west, there is virtually no chance of a single religion achieving the sort of majority that would let it dominate the political landscape. Islamic countries, sure, but they aren't democracies in any case...

[pErvinalia]

This idea that something isn't a "democracy" if it has a constitution and/or bill of rights is retarded. Seth shows the same 'understanding' of democracy as he does of socialism.

[pErvinalia]

From the Oxford Dictionary:


dem|oc¦racy.


[dɪˈmɒkrəsi]





NOUN



1.a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives:
"a system of parliamentary democracy"

synonyms: representative government · elective government ·


constitutional government · popular government · self-government · government by the people · autonomy · republic · commonwealth

[Forty Two]

Secularism allows for freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion so in that respect it is entirely compatible with the First Amendment

Nonsense. There is no free exercise of religion if there is a competing right to suppress that free exercise of religion by those who claim a right to be free from the exercise of religion. That is most certainly NOT compatible with the First Amendment.

The only place in which anyone has any reasonable expectation that they will be free from religious expression is within the confines of official government actions. Anywhere else, including the public square, there is no right, much less any reasonable expectation that one will be free from the free exercise of religion by others.

Well, right, but there is no "competing right to suppress free exercise of religion." Individuals have no right to suppress other's free exercise of religion, except on their own property or in their own homes, businesses, etc. I.e., I don't have to allow Muslims to to pray 5 times per day at work and I don't have to allow Pastafarians to wear a colander on their head in my house or at my store.

Government may restrict free exercise in furtherance of a neutrally applied law or regulation. I.e., it may be a sacrament to sacrifice pigs on an alter, but the city/state can regulate the slaughter of animals, and even prohibit it. The fact that it limits the exercise of religion is not a bar to that.

In terms of government action, a secular government means one that is neutral when it comes to religion, neither advancing nor disparaging religion.

What the Constitution and all the precedents mandate is protection of the free exercise of religion by anyone, almost anywhere (there are of course exceptions based not on the content of the religious expression but on the time, place and manner of that exercise) at almost any time. The duty of those who do not wish to participate in such exercises, or who do not wish to be confronted with such expressions is very clear: They are to either tolerate the enjoyment and exercise of religious freedom by others and mind their own business, or they must go elsewhere or otherwise control their own sensory input if they find that exercise to be intolerably offensive.

This is true in the case of private individuals. However, this does not mean that a city council may set up religious observances, for example.

Nowhere is anyone given authority to suppress the free exercise of (otherwise peaceable) religious expression in the public square by non-government individuals merely to satisfy their tastes or desire to be free FROM religion.

Is there anyone who suggests that individuals have the right to make other people stop expressing their religions in the public square? Who is advancing this supposed right?

Freedom FROM religion generally means the right to be free from government sponsored or endorsed religion. I.e. I have a right to be free from my government advancing religion in general or a religion. Freedom from religion does not mean that I have the right to be free from a street preacher standing on a soapbox and proclaiming the word of God, Allah, Yahweh or Odin.

[Forty Two]

Nope. Christ changed the rules with his sacrifice, which was the entire point of his life and death. When he died and was resurrected (according to Christianity) all those old laws were repealed and new ones put in place.

Jesus repealed the Ten Commandments? Nice!

Well, repealed and reenacted in part anyway...

That must be why Christians seek to put the 10 Commandments up in schools and courthouses in the original, Exodus 21, form, and not the "reenacted" form of the New Testament.... weird, eh? Christians advancing outdated and repealed 10 Commandments?

Christians are neither infallible

That's bloody obvious. LOL. However, if, indeed, it is a common or widely held view of Christians that the 10 Commandments of Exodus were repealed, and partially reenacted in the New Testament by Jesus, then it would seem to be a rather glaring and obvious error for them and their leaders - pastors and other religious leaders - to so often and consistently champion the placement of 10 Commandments displays in courthouses, schools and government buildings. Talk about fallible. You even get Christians advancing the 10 Commandments as foundational to US law and government. They've been repealed for 2000 years, but they're foundational to US law and government?

nor free of sin.

Another bloody obvious statement. Christians not free of sin? What a shocker!

Their political actions with respect to Ten Commandment displays likely have more to do with resisting the oppression of secularists and Atheists upon their right to freely exercise their religion than anything else.

Yes, they claim a right to have the government advance their religion through the construction of monuments to their religious beliefs, on government property, at government expense, because they think the free exercise of their religion includes using the machinery of government to advance their religion.

[Seth]

However, if, indeed, it is a common or widely held view of Christians that the 10 Commandments of Exodus were repealed, and partially reenacted in the New Testament by Jesus, then it would seem to be a rather glaring and obvious error for them and their leaders - pastors and other religious leaders - to so often and consistently champion the placement of 10 Commandments displays in courthouses, schools and government buildings. Talk about fallible. You even get Christians advancing the 10 Commandments as foundational to US law and government. They've been repealed for 2000 years, but they're foundational to US law and government?

You missed the "reenacted" part. And most of them are pretty good advice, especially if you believe in God and even if you don't.

Yes, they claim a right to have the government advance their religion through the construction of monuments to their religious beliefs, on government property, at government expense, because they think the free exercise of their religion includes using the machinery of government to advance their religion.

Well, as I carefully explained at length, that is not generally the case. For the most part such displays were NOT constructed with public money, they were donated by various religious groups and installed at their expense. All the government did is authorize the placement on public property.

Yes, in some cases such displays were put in place in the past in what are clearly inappropriate places like courtrooms and courthouses, and where that occurred those displays are being challenged and removed. But in many other cases such displays were put on public property administered by the government (but belonging to the public) that was set aside or authorized for the placement of such monuments and other expressions of free speech not exclusively limited to either religious speech or speech by just one group. Just because it's on public property doesn't make it a government-sanctioned unconstitutional establishment of religion.

[Seth]

Secularism allows for freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion so in that respect it is entirely compatible with the First Amendment

Nonsense. There is no free exercise of religion if there is a competing right to suppress that free exercise of religion by those who claim a right to be free from the exercise of religion. That is most certainly NOT compatible with the First Amendment.

The only place in which anyone has any reasonable expectation that they will be free from religious expression is within the confines of official government actions. Anywhere else, including the public square, there is no right, much less any reasonable expectation that one will be free from the free exercise of religion by others.

Well, right, but there is no "competing right to suppress free exercise of religion." Individuals have no right to suppress other's free exercise of religion, except on their own property or in their own homes, businesses, etc. I.e., I don't have to allow Muslims to to pray 5 times per day at work and I don't have to allow Pastafarians to wear a colander on their head in my house or at my store.

True. But we are talking about public expression.

Government may restrict free exercise in furtherance of a neutrally applied law or regulation. I.e., it may be a sacrament to sacrifice pigs on an alter, but the city/state can regulate the slaughter of animals, and even prohibit it. The fact that it limits the exercise of religion is not a bar to that.

Actually, no it can't, not when the purpose of the slaughter of an animal is part of a religious exercise. That even applies to eagles, which certain Indian tribes can obtain permits to hunt and kill as part of their religious rituals. Yes, there may be some religiously neutral health and safety regulations that apply to all forms of animal sacrifice, but no, the government may not forbid animal sacrifice that is a religious practice.

Nowhere is anyone given authority to suppress the free exercise of (otherwise peaceable) religious expression in the public square by non-government individuals merely to satisfy their tastes or desire to be free FROM religion.

Is there anyone who suggests that individuals have the right to make other people stop expressing their religions in the public square? Who is advancing this supposed right?

The Freedom From Religion Foundation for one.

Freedom FROM religion generally means the right to be free from government sponsored or endorsed religion. I.e. I have a right to be free from my government advancing religion in general or a religion. Freedom from religion does not mean that I have the right to be free from a street preacher standing on a soapbox and proclaiming the word of God, Allah, Yahweh or Odin.

Tell that to the FFRF and Mikey Weinstein.

[Seth]

Most modern democracies have built in constraints, for example common law in Britain. The US constitution is not the only safeguard to political decisions that impinge on human rights...

True, but it's the only one that vests all power in the people and which restrains government to exercising ONLY those powers explicitly granted to it by the People. Every other government I know of (though I could be wrong) vests ultimate authority in the government (or in the case of the UK, the Crown) and limits the constraints that the people can put upon the government to those constraints that the government itself approves of.

That's quite a difference, and an important one to understand.

In the UK, the King of England was an absolute monarch and could do absolutely anything he wanted to do right up until the Magna Carta was forced upon King John at Runnymede in 1215.

The Kings of England remained monarchs for quite a long time after that and despite the Magna Carta and other documents that put limits on royal power, the power still flows from the King down. In the US, the power flows from the people upwards, and the people do not have to beg or ask permission of the government to exercise their rights, nor do they have to ask permission to expand or revoke any or all of the power of government for all such power comes only from them, and only by their consent, which can be withdrawn at any time.

This is not the case with most other forms of government where the power and authority of the government are presumed to be both supreme and plenary as the default condition.