What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

How Religious Freedom Became A Rightwing Assault On The Rule Of Law

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
103,150
Reaction score
31,697
Points
2,250
Location
Canis Latrans

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
103,150
Reaction score
31,697
Points
2,250
Location
Canis Latrans
A human fetus is protected under the same rights as any other human being since a fetus is just a stage of human development like infant, toddler, child, teenager, adult and senior.

But then I know you are smart enough and don't need to be told that!

There is no getting to old age with going through all those other stages of development first.
I see no mention of it in the Constitution. In fact, birth seems to be the basis of citizenship and therefore rights. Abortion isn’t mentioned nor are any rights prior to birth.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
103,150
Reaction score
31,697
Points
2,250
Location
Canis Latrans
Christians saying homosexuality is a sin. It clearly is to them. Tell me they are not shut down and fired or cancelled because of their need to spread a message.
Where are they being prevented from saying it? These rights by the way do not apply to some one else’s private property. There was a small religious group with flyers and signs in the public square of our university a few a few ago, talking about homosexuality being a sin. No one stopped them.
 

toobfreak

Tungsten/Glass Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
57,731
Reaction score
47,269
Points
3,615
Location
On The Way Home To Earth
I see no mention of it in the Constitution.
90% of what the government does isn't found in the constitution.

In fact, birth seems to be the basis of citizenship and therefore rights.
That is a good point. BIRTH IS the condition by which many rights are delineated, but then, in the 18th century, I don't imagine there were many abortions or abortion centers; once you became pregnant, birth was pretty much a given unless something went wrong. Still, being that a fetus having grown out of the zygote stage to begin to form human characteristics, heartbeat, brainwaves and all, does it really need spelled out in black and white that this is a prenatal human being with certain rights?

Maybe not the same or all the rights of a thinking, talking person, but more than a block of cheese. Since the fetus cannot speak for him or herself, then it is continent upon humanity to decide and how we will be judged by how we treat our own kind.

As such then, it follows that with getting pregnant comes responsibility, one should not get pregnant casually as the joining of two people to create new life is special, and if one cannot carry the child to full term responsibly for good reason, at the very least, the decision to abort should be made before the fetal stage in all cases possible--- what, 15-16 weeks? I don't see what the problem is with that; if a woman wants indiscriminate sex with no responsibilities or restrictions, she ought to consider birth control up to including getting a hysterectomy or similar permanent sterilization.
 

Dogmaphobe

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2014
Messages
26,542
Reaction score
23,267
Points
2,445
Location
Or uh gun
The turd believes the freedom to practice your religion is a "privilege."


.......and that preventing somebody from living is a right.

It's all narcissism when it gets down to it. If they want to mind fuck a toddler into being a tranny, it's their right. If they want to kill a baby in the womb, it's their right. If they want to cancel anybody who does not goosestep alongside them with the same stupid identity politics, it's their right. It's all about them, them, them.

It's never about the right of another person to even live, the right of a child to the innocence of childhood or the right of anybody to disagree with them. It is all about them and absolutely nobody else.
 

Lastamender

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
38,432
Reaction score
31,589
Points
2,900
Where are they being prevented from saying it? These rights by the way do not apply to some one else’s private property. There was a small religious group with flyers and signs in the public square of our university a few a few ago, talking about homosexuality being a sin. No one stopped them.
In the media. Remember the message?
 

Rust_Cohle

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
1,909
Reaction score
1,857
Points
1,938
Location
Louisiana
They know how to use their supposed religion (wink wink) as a political weapon.

Hell, it's been happening in the Middle East forever.
You mean the same folks you want to bring over here unchecked and when we object you call us Islamaphobes?
 

scruffy

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2022
Messages
9,993
Reaction score
7,842
Points
1,918
From the link, from the book, yep, the author is right, every time I walk outside, there are police cars at my neighbors arresting parents for killing their children in the name of god.

Yeah right. Sure, leftard. You fuckers lie so much you can't even keep track of your lies anymore.


This is well funded, christian conservative right wing, assaults. It must be stopped.

Yawn.

You'll let me know when a Bible thumper tries to murder your kid

Or sit down on a freeway, or loot a CVS.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
103,150
Reaction score
31,697
Points
2,250
Location
Canis Latrans
90% of what the government does isn't found in the constitution.


That is a good point. BIRTH IS the condition by which many rights are delineated, but then, in the 18th century, I don't imagine there were many abortions or abortion centers; once you became pregnant, birth was pretty much a given unless something went wrong. Still, being that a fetus having grown out of the zygote stage to begin to form human characteristics, heartbeat, brainwaves and all, does it really need spelled out in black and white that this is a prenatal human being with certain rights?

In the 18th century abortion wasn’t broadly illegal and women had multiple ways of ending a pregnancy. Life wasn’t considered a life until “quickening” or first breath, certainly not at conception. There was absolutely no concept of individual rights prior to birth in any of their writings.

If you read into an automatic assumption of rights pre birth then why don’t you likewise read into it an automatic assumption of a woman’s rights to make choices about her own body?


Maybe not the same or all the rights of a thinking, talking person, but more than a block of cheese. Since the fetus cannot speak for him or herself, then it is continent upon humanity to decide and how we will be judged by how we treat our own kind.
Good points, but those rights cannot come at the expense of or overrule those rights a person has to their own bodily autonomy.

As such then, it follows that with getting pregnant comes responsibility, one should not get pregnant casually as the joining of two people to create new life is special, and if one cannot carry the child to full term responsibly for good reason, at the very least, the decision to abort should be made before the fetal stage in all cases possible--- what, 15-16 weeks? I don't see what the problem is with that; if a woman wants indiscriminate sex with no responsibilities or restrictions, she ought to consider birth control up to including getting a hysterectomy or similar permanent sterilization.

I think most people would agree to some limits on elective abortion prior to viability such as 16 - 20 weeks. I would.
 

scruffy

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2022
Messages
9,993
Reaction score
7,842
Points
1,918
I think what I said was that they are aware of GENDER Are you so fucking stupid that you do no understad the difference between sexuality and gender identity? I brought up same sex marriage as an example of how some religious have weaponized religion and use it as a means to controll others. That is what this thread is about. Deal with it.

Discrimination against sexual deviancy rarely has anything to do with religion.

Mostly it's just simple human disgust.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
103,150
Reaction score
31,697
Points
2,250
Location
Canis Latrans

toobfreak

Tungsten/Glass Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
57,731
Reaction score
47,269
Points
3,615
Location
On The Way Home To Earth
In the 18th century abortion wasn’t broadly illegal and women had multiple ways of ending a pregnancy. Life wasn’t considered a life until “quickening” or first breath, certainly not at conception. There was absolutely no concept of individual rights prior to birth in any of their writings.

I'll take your word for that, the problem I see here is if we are to base a person's (or fetus's) rights on the modalities of what people thought or did in the 18th century, then isn't that the same argument or basis for justifying slavery as well? So if we cannot justify slavery then or now, then doesn't it becomes all the harder to use 18th century thinking as the basis for weighing human life as well?

Bottom line is that we must go with the best information and knowledge we have now for what we do now.


If you read into an automatic assumption of rights pre birth then why don’t you likewise read into it an automatic assumption of a woman’s rights to make choices about her own body?
Good points, but those rights cannot come at the expense of or overrule those rights a person has to their own bodily autonomy.

I totally get how women feel about the "my body" argument. It is after all her body that the child pretty much grows out of. I just wonder what happened to that argument these past few years when it came to deciding whether to take a vaccination or not-- -- -- turns out now that those who resisted on various grounds getting the shot were right, and the vaccine likely really didn't save a lot of lives nor being unvaccinated COST a lot of lives.

But I still always come back to the fact that it really ISN'T her body, but beyond a point another body/life/person growing inside dependent on her, cohabitating. As such then, while I agree that the woman has rights and say, she alone is not solely responsible for the child, and so her rights and the father's rights AND the child's rights must ALL be considered taken together, it is NOT the exclusive decision by the mother alone.
 

Missouri_Mike

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2012
Messages
21,165
Reaction score
11,858
Points
1,255
Religious freedom has long been a shield. It is this right that all Americans possess, and the words etched into the edifice of the Supreme Court tell us, "Equal justice under law." This right applies equally to all of us. It was supported by a strong separation of church and state, but not anymore.

There is a well-funded powerful network of Christian nationalist organizations and judges that are working to weaponize the First Amendment, to turn the protection of religious freedom enjoyed by all of us into a weapon of Christian privilege for the few. The crusaders' religious freedom challenges are superficially about things like Christian crosses and veterans or playgrounds or private school vouchers or bakeries and gay weddings, but really they're about religious privilege, often literally about privileging religion over non-religion, Christianity over other religions and the right kind of conservative Christians over other Christians. At its most basic level, they are trying to turn religious freedom into a weapon to reclaim and entrench their lost status as the dominant caste in American society.

As Seidel notes, 150 years ago the Supreme Court warned that weaponized religious freedom would "permit every citizen to become a law unto himself," so there's much more at stake here than "just" the First Amendment.


"permit every citizen to become a law unto himself"

I guess those "originalists" just conveniently ignored that part of the original intent.
You are witnessing laws that are infringing on freedom. By force.

Religious freedom isn’t a problem until the government can’t enforce its 100 plus genders shit and making everyone at gun point participate in a gay wedding. The left can’t have religious freedom and get its way.

What is happening has nothing to do with religion. It’s about the force. And if religion and individual freedom have to be destroyed in the process… welcome to the left.
 

Lastamender

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
38,432
Reaction score
31,589
Points
2,900

zaangalewa

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
15,628
Reaction score
1,414
Points
140
Religious freedom has long been a shield. It is this right that all Americans possess, and the words etched into the edifice of the Supreme Court tell us, "Equal justice under law." This right applies equally to all of us. It was supported by a strong separation of church and state, but not anymore.

There is a well-funded powerful network of Christian nationalist organizations and judges that are working to weaponize the First Amendment, to turn the protection of religious freedom enjoyed by all of us into a weapon of Christian privilege for the few. The crusaders' religious freedom challenges are superficially about things like Christian crosses and veterans or playgrounds or private school vouchers or bakeries and gay weddings, but really they're about religious privilege, often literally about privileging religion over non-religion, Christianity over other religions and the right kind of conservative Christians over other Christians. At its most basic level, they are trying to turn religious freedom into a weapon to reclaim and entrench their lost status as the dominant caste in American society.

As Seidel notes, 150 years ago the Supreme Court warned that weaponized religious freedom would "permit every citizen to become a law unto himself," so there's much more at stake here than "just" the First Amendment.


"permit every citizen to become a law unto himself"

I guess those "originalists" just conveniently ignored that part of the original intent.

With Christians has this all what you say here nothing to do. It exists not any Christian rule to use weapons for example. And the crusades started because Constantinople asked for help against the Seljuks - a Turkish tribe of Muslims who had conquered Jersusalem and Mekka. The Normans (=Frankonians) who had conquered a short time ago England created this European-Christian defense alliance against the very agressive Muslims. Not the Christians "missioned" the Muslims - the Muslims had overtaken with military power wide areas where once Christians had lived and had started again to do so.

The quesion in context "freedom of religion" - about 1000 years later - in the USA is not any real Christian mission - every Christian has a mission - the question is more why the belief atheism is preferred in the USA and why it is for anti-Christians so easy in the USA to create the wrong impression to be Christians.
 
Last edited:

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
103,150
Reaction score
31,697
Points
2,250
Location
Canis Latrans
The media constantly demonizes them. That is a form of suppression.
The media constantly demonizes leftists, feminists, Democrats, Muslims transgenders etc etc. So what? That is suppression!
 

Dragonlady

Designing Woman
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
40,497
Reaction score
20,445
Points
2,615
Location
Niagara Escarpment
Tolerance, diversity, religious freedom, free speech, and equality have two entirely different meanings for the leftists.
They get them, but differing opinions need to be silenced and shut down. Not going to happen, so deal with it.

The fucking OP posts a link that lies about the R v W decision, then extrapolates.
There is no where in the Constitution that makes abortion a Federal authority, therefore it is a STATE responsibility, period.

Once again, a conservative tells leftists what they think, and gets it completely wrong.

It's not the left that's shutting down differing points of view. Anybody in the Republican Party that doesn't parrot the lie that the election was stolen and Trump lost, has been primaried. It's not the left that's refusing service to "sinners", but only certain kinds of "sinners".
 

zaangalewa

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
15,628
Reaction score
1,414
Points
140
Tolerance, diversity, religious freedom, free speech, and equality have two entirely different meanings for the leftists.
They get them, but differing opinions need to be silenced and shut down. Not going to happen, so deal with it. ,,,

That's unfortunatelly not untrue. But do you do anything else?
 

zaangalewa

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
15,628
Reaction score
1,414
Points
140
The media constantly demonizes leftists, feminists, Democrats, Muslims transgenders etc etc. So what? That is suppression!

A concrete example please.
 

💲 Amazon Deals 💲

Forum List

Top