Quote:
if a religious group uses its power to inflict its religious beliefs on others, that's 1) unconstitutional; and 2) uncool.
Maybe yes to 2, but no to 1. It's unconstitutional for the government to infringe on the rights of the people to practice religion freely, or to make laws establishing a national religion. It's not unconstitutional for a bunch of Christians to lobby for policies that conform with their beliefs. It's not unconstitutional for legislators to rely on their religious beliefs to inform the way they view which laws should be passed or not passed. 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.
Now, if Congress got together and passed a law that said, "Wherefore the Christian God says we shall not murder, therefore abortion is illegal," sure, that would be unconstitutional. But that's not what we're talking about here.
Quote:
it's the first clause of the first sentence of the first amendment. you can't force your religious views on me; and i can't keep you from exercising your own religious views.
Well, first, that's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution doesn't prevent citizens from imposing their beliefs. It prevents the government from imposing on the rights of the citizens.
Second, I agree that I can't force you to believe in Christianity. I can't force you to participate in religious ceremonies or rites. I can, however, lobby my Congressman to pass laws that I feel are right, and I can make my decision on whether they are right or not using my religious beliefs.
Citizens are not required to disregard their religious beliefs when considering what laws to support, what politicians to vote for, etc.
Quote:
it's certainly not
current law to have anyone who impedes a lawful abortion from taking on the financial responsibility of raising the child he forces into the world. but making it law would be great! you're arguing against something i'm not stating. if the state kills someone unjustly, civil law absolutely calls for the state to make whole the victim's family. if the state infringes on someone's
lawful right an abortion, then the state (or any actor) should bear the financial responsibility for raising that child. that will stop states cold from trying to force their religious majority views on the entire population.
Well now you're changing your argument. I'm not arguing against something you didn't state. I'm arguing in direct response to what you DID state. Now you're talking about someone making it harder to get a lawful abortion. Before you talked about anyone (including the government) who takes "
direct action or legislative action makes terminating that pregnancy harder than it should be." Those are two very different things, unless you are simply choosing to proceed from the viewpoint that any legislation that restricts abortion is inherently unlawful. Before, you were stating that if the government takes legislative action to make abortion harder than you deem that it should be, then the government should reasonably be required to assume responsibility for the financial burden of raising the child.
Slowguy
(insert pithy phrase here...)