Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [slowguy]
slowguy wrote:
Quote:
you gents can hold whatever position you want. i just disagree with you (specifically you), both on the law (no, a group of people can't enact an unconstitutional statute); and on the ethics (no, it's bad form force your religious tenets on those who don't ascribe to your religion).


Funny how you're so determined to disagree with positions I didn't take. As usual, we reach a point in a discussion in which your personal need to feel self-righteous outweighs your willingness to engage honestly.

First, people "can" enact unconstitutional statutes, although I never made that argument previously. They shouldn't do so, and I have confidence that the system of government we have in place will correct such action through the checks granted by the judiciary. However, what's constitutional and what's not isn't always perfectly clear, which is partly why we have a large judiciary to help rule on those conflicts.

Second, I never endorsed "forcing" religious beliefs on the non-religious. I said that it is perfectly fine to allow your religious beliefs to inform your choices in politicians and your positions on the issues. If you have a problem with that, then you simply don't understand how our system is supposed to work.


i've got too much respect for you to get into a spat of who's really the self-righteous one here, and who inevitably takes threads sideways. let's just remember what you wrote:

slowguy wrote:
it's not fundamentally wrong for any group of people with shared believes to pursue normal democratic processes to implement those beliefs. Religious groups aren't forcing their religious beliefs on the population. They are lobbying their governments to enact laws and policies that conform to their beliefs, just like every other interest group does.


those words sound so benign. but if a religious group "implement(s) those beliefs" thru enacting laws and policies that conform to their beliefs, we are all forced to adhere to those beliefs. religion is not like "every other interest group." as i wrote - and you just are not acknowledging it - the establishment and free exercise clauses protect our population from religion. this is a named peril. just as guns are not like shovels, religion is not like "other interests."

slowguy wrote:
It's no more unconstitutional for religious people to "inflict" their beliefs on the rest of the country in this way than it is for someone who believes in a certain immigration policy or a certain health care policy to "inflict" their ideas on the country using the same mechanisms.


religion is different from other interests. 1A doesn't prohibit a law "respecting a dietary requirement," or "respecting a hair style," rather, " respecting an establishment of religion."

religious folk can't hide behind this thru a degree of separation (electing reps who'll enact the law). you can't parse between individuals lobbying for this versus their state legislators doing it. if a religious group thrusts its beliefs into law via direct election (initiative of referendum), it's still going to be struck down as unconstitutional. regardless of how it's done, no such law can stand.

torcaso v watkins (1961): maryland had a law requiring politicians to state their belief in god in order to be on a ballot. struck down unamimously. the state - or the people in the state - cannot impose their religion on everyone.

engel v vitate (1962): the daily reading of a prayer in school: unconstitutional.

abington township v schempp, and murray v curlett (1963): nope, can't require students on public schools to participate in a curriculum requiring daily bible reading.

and plenty more. so when you maintain it is legal "for religious people to 'inflict' their beliefs on the rest of the country in this way," no.

the court adopted, in many cases subsequent to lemon v kurtzman, a "3-prong test" for such cases, one being whether "govt and religion are excessively entangled." we won't ever see this argued in abortion, because those defending the right to abortion rely on 14A, and the right to privacy doctrine flowing from that. however i believe that there's a 1A violation here as well.

i cannot force you to have an abortion if that violates your 1A rights. keep your baby. but you cannot force me to keep my baby, if that effort to control my behavior flows from your religious beliefs. you wrote that "The Constitution doesn't prevent citizens from imposing their beliefs. It prevents the government from imposing on the rights of the citizens. " the way citizens impose their beliefs is to vote in their own, who enact laws that impose on the rights of the citizens. you won't go to jail if you vote to impose your religion on me. but you're engaged in a fruitless act, because you can't impose your religious view on me, not by direct election, and not thru your elected representative.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Last edited by: Slowman: May 17, 19 8:11

Edit Log:

  • Post edited by Slowman (Empfield) on May 17, 19 7:36
  • Post edited by Slowman (Empfield) on May 17, 19 7:38
  • Post edited by Slowman (Empfield) on May 17, 19 7:40
  • Post edited by Slowman (Empfield) on May 17, 19 7:53
  • Post edited by Slowman (Empfield) on May 17, 19 7:55
  • Post edited by Slowman (Empfield) on May 17, 19 7:56
  • Post edited by Slowman (Empfield) on May 17, 19 8:11