How many of the people here who have condemned the reasoning that created cerem,onial deism as “crap” believe that the reasonaing in Roe v. Wade that said a first-trimester unborn child may be aborted because the state has little compelling interest; a second-trimester abortion must be justified by slightly higher concerns, and so forth?
In other words, I’m trying to understand if you think it’s crap because you like the result, or crap because you think the legal or factual basis for the rule is thin.
I think both start with an end result in mind, and then do a lot of hand-waving to get there. But at least the “ceremonial deism” argument starts with some wording “establishment of religion” that has to be interpreted some way. The fact that it has come to mean “The Lemon Test” seems rather arbitrary. It tries to make as much of a “wall of separation” as is politically palatable.
You should first try to understand that your own view, that a fetus is a fully-fledged human with full rights starting at the moment of conception, is not an obvious fact but your own opinion. There are many other views of the humanity and rights of a fetus, and even of a newborn, in existence that you will not even acknowledge, much less “try to” understand.
The search for a liberal-hypocrisy gotcha continues …
My impression is that the people who are OK with Roe v. Wade don’t claim to be originalists or textualists. Whereas many of the people who do claim to be o’s and t’s are fine with ceremonial deism even though changing the Pledge, for example, was an obvious attempt to establish some religion and reject those commies.
Or, are you saying that Roe v. Wade supporters are reaping what they’ve sown, since there is a result that they don’t agree with due to a broken process where the Justices can make the law? In that case, I assume you’re firmly opposed to ceremonial deism and would work to have the God references struck from the currency and the Pledge.
I was just using Marley23 as my cite. If that information is incorrect, then I agree with you. If Marley23 is correct, it seems like a pretty obvious attempt to establish religion, even if it’s only deism.
Yes, my wording was confusing. When I wrote “some”, it was meant to imply “a small amount”, as in “add in some yellow to that paint”. It wasn’t meant as “a particular, but unnamed” as in “well, there is some extra color in that paint.”
Again, depending on how one interprets “establishment” that may or may not be true. In the original sense, it’s not really possible to “establish” religion, only a particular religion. If one holds to the originalist interpretation, as referenced in the post by RitterSport, then it’s not an establishment.
One can favor abortion rights as a matter of social policy, and yet still acknowledge that the Roe reasoning was highly suspect.
This is an issue where I think it’ s enlightening to see how many of the people that are horrified with the court’s carving out ceremonial deism are perfectly content when the carving knife is used to their benefit.
This is an issue where I think it’s enlightening to see how some people can bring other issues into the debate and try and claim that there’s a connection between the two, in order to dilute the debate because the original topic of discussion can’t really be defended in any way.
Well-poisoning, if not simple obtuseness. Recognition that a democratic government must be kept separate from religion is hardly “hostility towards religion”. :rolleyes:
We’ve already got one guy in this thread trying to confine the discussion to the strict letter of the law while ignoring/dismissing context and non-legal ramifications. We don’t need another.