Listening to local NPR this morning, I learned that there are some rabbis here in Idaho who are opposed to the local abortion laws based on freedom of religion. Their stance, as I understood it, is that not only does Judaism not prohibit abortion, but it demands it if the mother’s health or life is at risk. Thus they claim that the laws prohibiting abortion in Idaho are a governmental imposition of a narrow view of christianity and thus a violation of their religious beliefs and practices.
Is this a real thing?
I know there are jewish folks here and I’m hoping for further input and clarification
Yes, it’s a real thing. In Judaism, the life of the mother is paramount:
The National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW) has been a progressive supporter of abortion access and reproductive freedom. Since its founding, NCJW has been a leader in the reproductive health and rights movement so that every person can make “moral and faith-informed decisions about their body, health, and family.”
I would love for an abortion-related separation of church and state lawsuit to wend its way up to the Supreme Court! The current court is increasing the deference to religion every chance it gets, so it would be great to see the pretzels they would have to bend themselves into on this subject.
I have no doubt they would come down on the anti-abortion side, of course.
The current court is increasing the deference to religion Fundamentalist Christianity and only Fundamentalist Christianity every chance it gets, so it would be great to see the pretzels they would have to bend themselves into on this subject. completely expected that they would give no thought whatsoever to any other religious tradition or to non-religious POVs.
IOW the originalist / textualist POV amounts to: "The Founding Fathers believed ‘religion’ meant ‘Fundamentalist Christianty’, I Justice [whoever] believe it, and that settles it. For everyone else in the country. Period.
IMO that’s what’s gonna happen. No pretzels needed or even mentioned. At least not by the majority = RW opinion. The dissent(s) if any will raise those arguments and be laughed off the stage and forgotten.
Well, they probably wouldn’t say that part out loud. Most likely, they’d just say that the state had secular grounds for banning abortion, and therefore freedom of religion is completely irrelevant.
I started a discussion on this almost exactly two years ago!
Many similar arguments as we’re seeing, how the “judeo” in Judeo-Christian arguments are almost always more of a cultural appropriation or unwilling assimilation attempt. One thing I brought up there, that hasn’t been mentioned here yet was a niggle in the Indiana lawsuit:
Specifically, that the state had enacted in 2015 Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, where they specified business and government couldn’t put a burden on the the person’s religious belief unless against compelling governmental interest. IE, it was a law passed so that various religiously affiliated businesses (Hobby Lobby and ilk) shouldn’t be forced to comply with all and sundry protections against their feelings.
Now, yes, fully as mentioned in both threads, this is the sort of thing where what they MEAN is that of course Christians of certain carefully vetted and approved sects should have freedom and screw the others, or that of course they [ read Christian conservative white men in general ] are the ones that can dictate what morals are worthy of being enforced by “compelling governmental interest” - but no one at this point is going to be surprised by the hypocrisy.
I feel like I remember a Florida court rejecting one of these lawsuits by basically saying, “yes well, this clearly isn’t central to Jewish belief so it doesn’t count” but I can’t find it.
Please let me know if you find it, although being Florida, I wouldn’t be surprised. It would be an interesting precedent since so much of our current “Christian” claims to various accommodation (vaccines, mask-weaking, arguably gender issues) would almost all be similarly defined as “isn’t central” to a non-biased review.
Of course, I don’t think anyone in this thread thinks for a moment that the Florida courts, or the current SCOTUS could be considered non-biased on such issues. Since quoting the New Testament has become a valid basis for making civil legislation decisions in recent years…
Since it was last active 18 months ago and only drew 12 total posts, you have no reason to remember! I’ll just say the usual, great minds think alike, and so do ours.
I could see Mormons being included, given that institutional Mormonism is probably supportive of the “religious” principles that conservative/fundamentalist Christians want to build into the law - anti-abortion, zero tolerance or rights for the LGBTQ community, no need for anti-discrimination laws that try to give a fair shake to oppressed groups, etc.
Some Mormons have been quite successful in the US political sphere - Mitt Romney being a visible example, but there may be more Mormons working behind the scenes than a lot of people realize. Roger Porter is an example - he’s held many influential positions and taught/shaped the views of many people who have held positions of power. And Roger’s son held a significant role that I no longer recall in the Trump administration, but due to details I no longer recall, he had to resign in disgrace. I felt bad for Roger, who as far as I could tell (he was my professor years ago) is a decent human being.
