I’m putting this here, although arguably it could be in Great Debates, because the focus is on Legislation, and while it is news, I don’t think it belongs in MPSIMS.
First, the article that caught my attention:
The lawsuit filed by the Congregation L’Dor Va-Dor of Boynton Beach contends the law that takes effect July 1 violates Jewish teachings, which state abortion “is required if necessary to protect the health, mental or physical well-being of the woman” and for other reasons.
Is the statement of intent behind the challenge (for those who don’t want to click the link or the onebox isn’t loading).
Now, we’ve had other solid posters in threads touching on abortion and religious law bring up the different treatment of a fetus v pregnant woman v child under Jewish law previously, but this is the first time I’m seeing it used to actively challenge some of the religious underpinnings of most anti-abortion law.
I found it interesting, but likely doomed to ultimate failure as I strongly suspect that various courts are in favor of finding even a freshly conceived fetus as a person, even to the point of a miscarriage being a legal risk (IE your religious freedom doesn’t let you kill ‘people’), but at least it’s nice to see the hyper-pointed use of so-called Religious Freedom as a tool against quasi-Christian legal dominance.
Hey be careful, you’ll summon WW from his deep slumber!
But yes, I do find many self-proclaimed Christians only find the Judeo- portion useful for purposes of claiming a much longer backstory and therefore religious pre-eminence and ignore the fact the religious (and legal to the extent it was different in early Jewish culture) interpretation has a history entirely separate from their own assumptions.
But that’s a fight more suited for the Pit.
More recently, the religious freedom group has become increasingly militant about how things that offend them should be able to be shunned, regardless of political norms, and normally only start shouting unfair when so-called ‘joke’ religious like Pastafarianism or Satanists demand equal treatment under their own proposed laws.
I think it’s high time that a lot of the underpinnings of certain laws, including abortion, and especially various vice laws get a good hard look at the their religious roots.
The federal government (and several states) passed various Religious Freedom Restoration Acts in response, but while those require something of a higher standard, none of them let you just say “law X is against my religion”.
Note that Smith and the resultant backlash increasing rights was not about a Christian religion.
Good luck with that! I have often thought the same thing, that the basis of many of our laws are coming from religious doctrine. If one were truly, in a purely logical sense, interested in separating church from state then laws based on religious doctrine should be eliminated, yah?
I’m bumping my own thread because of this recent Reuters article -
In this case, it wasn’t a major change as the ban was already under another block while waiting for existing lawsuits to play out. But it tickles me in that this challenge was once again under Indiana’s own religious freedom law. I would very much like to see one or more of these Religious Freedom law judgements to point to the elephant in the room: that they only ever seem to be legislated by and for various Christian denominations.
I am actually waiting to see various challenges brought by Islamic faithful about any number of violations of their faith in order to operate in this nation. It should be… enlightening.
I’m very surprised about this as well. It’s an intriguing approach, forcing the courts to choose between announcing that the state establishes Christianity as the official religion, versus following the letter of the law while going against the intent.
I think the key point for this particular case comes from the following quote from the article though:
When the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in February, the justices sidestepped whether the law violated Smith’s free exercise of religion. Instead, the court said it would look at the dispute through the lens of free speech and decide whether applying the public accommodations law “to compel an artist to speak or stay silent” violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.
So while it was originally framed as a religious freedom case, apparently it’s being treated as a First Amendment one for the SCOTUS. Although I also hope it fails, as even in that sense, it feels like a blanked right to discriminate. I mean, if free speech trumps all else, then if I think my expression is being restricted by selling business to White People / Christians / etc, then I can rightfully refuse to do business with all of the above, right? And while the person in the case about is self-employed, I should have the right to force my employer to respect my free speech rights (if I have state protections and not a work-at-will state)?
Yes, that one. I suppose there should be a thread for that case, since it’s built on nothing (the graphic designer hasn’t even hung up her shingle yet to provide wedding website design), but that won’t stop SCOTUS from agreeing with her.
Claims of religious liberty were undeniably used as an excuse for racial discrimination. If the analogy holds between racial discrimination and declining to provide services for a gay wedding, then there is no debate to be had. We cannot “both sides” opposition to Jim Crow.
However, the right analogy is crucial here, and correct distinctions are critical. In order to justify racial violence and oppression, white people in America and Europe essentially invented a novel theology, baptizing white supremacy. It was racism in search of an ethic. Sexual ethics, by contrast, are named and addressed in religious scriptures in specific terms. Unlike white supremacy, religious teaching regarding sex, including prohibitions on extramarital and premarital sex, pornography, lust and same-sex sexual activity have been part of the Christian faith from its earliest days. This is not an aberrant view rooted in bigotry but a sincere belief that flows from ancient texts and teaching shared by believers all over the world.
There’s the menu bible at its lowest. Pick only the courses that serve your beliefs. It works. It has worked since before the country was a country. It needs to end now, and not merely for some beliefs but for all.