In a pluralistic society of different beliefs, does the Christian have the right to impose their religious beliefs on those who do not believe?

[buffalo]

Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another . . . in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and State’ . . . That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.[11]

Nope, And states were and have aided there sponsored religions until very recently.

 

[IWantGod]

So you reject the clause against the establishment of religion.

 

[buffalo]

So you reject the clause against the establishment of religion.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

 

[IWantGod]

> So you reject the clause against the establishment of religion.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another . . . in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and State’

Buffalo, do you accept the clause against the establishment of a state religion by government?

"Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another ." . .

Buffalo, do you accept that your government cannot make laws that prefer one religion to another, or laws that aid any particular religion in it’s public expression?

 

[buffalo]

It is simple. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” - full stop

 

[IWantGod]

It is simple. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” - full stop

Buffalo, do you accept the clause against the establishment of a state religion by government?

Buffalo, do you accept that your government cannot make laws that prefer one religion to another, or laws that aid any particular religion in it’s public expression?

 

[MikeInVA]

So you reject the clause against the establishment of religion.

The establishment clause was designed to prevent the government from imposing a religious obligation on citizens. Some of the colonies required their citizens to attend (and I would assume tithe to) the Church of England. The Constitution and its amendments were not anti-church, they are against compulsory participation in a church.
This wall concept has been overblown to imply any relationship between the government and a church, but that was not the intent - our founding fathers saw value in religion and religious institutions, just not in the state controlling the them. During the hurricane season last year, it took special legislation (as I remember) for the federal government to provide disaster assistance to churches because of this supposed wall. The result was that several churches were unable to serve as refugee shelters because they were churches, which benefited nobody.
Some of the questioning in Senate confirmation hearings lately have seemed to impose an anti-religious test that appeared to question anyone who held religious, especially Catholic, beliefs.

 

[vsedriver]

It’s not so much that i don’t want abortion to be outlawed, it just that i don’t see how we could without forcing our religious beliefs about what constitutes a person on the rest of society.

would it make any difference if you believed that abortion should be outlawed because you are imposing your scientific beliefs on what constitutes a person on the rest of society?

 

[IWantGod]

The establishment clause was designed to prevent the government from imposing a religious obligation on citizens. Some of the colonies required their citizens to attend (and I would assume tithe to) the Church of England. The Constitution and its amendments were not anti-church, they are against compulsory participation in a church.
This wall concept has been overblown to imply any relationship between the government and a church, but that was not the intent - our founding fathers saw value in religion and religious institutions, just not in the state controlling the them. During the hurricane season last year, it took special legislation (as I remember) for the federal government to provide disaster assistance to churches because of this supposed wall. The result was that several churches were unable to serve as refugee shelters because they were churches, which benefited nobody.
Some of the questioning in Senate confirmation hearings lately have seemed to impose an anti-religious test that appeared to question anyone who held religious, especially Catholic, beliefs.

"Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another ." . .

 

[MikeInVA]

Here’s the text of the amendment:

“Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

 

[IWantGod]

Self evident practical reality has not revealed the existence of a personal soul that exists from the moment of conception.

We cannot criminalize people with a charge of murder and possibly condemn them to death on the basis of a spiritual belief that we cannot practically prove.

That is unreasonable.

If you were criminalized and condemned to death because some other religion believed in something it could not prove to be true, you would also agree that it is unreasonable.

 

[MikeInVA]

Self evident practical reality has not revealed the existence of a personal soul that exists from the moment of conception.

It’s not just the soul. The small body growing in the womb is a person, with distinct DNA from the mother. It is not an appendage.

 

[Elf01]

Why is murdering a born person wrong?

Why is it different if the person is not born.

To an atheist at least there should be no difference as DNA would be the same before and after birth.

Even if it is religious (which in my view it is not), no religion requires abortion therefore would the most reasonable thing be to choose the most conservative definition of when life begins?

 

[IWantGod]

Without the soul, the physical body is subject to practical law alone. At the moment of conception there is a potentiality for what we ordinarily recognize as a person. Yes, the Dna is there, but we cannot determine value from that alone.To prevent that potentiality cannot easily be recognized as murder because there is nothing there that we ordinarily think of when we think of a person… And so it’s difficult to extend pragmatic values to the moment of conception.

You have to have a certain metaphysical belief to justify the charge of murder for something like abortion. You have to believe that we ought to take a pregnancy to full term. You have to believe that the seed is just as valuable as the tree that grows from it, and in fact the two are identical. That the embryo is just as valuable as the person that grows from it because they are the same thing. And not only that, we would have to believe that values extend objectively beyond our pragmatic and natural desires. We have to believe that our value is given by God. Otherwise there is only practical and emotional necessity, and there is no practical necessity to consider the moment of conception as identical in value to a baby when it is born.

 

[IWantGod]

Why is murdering a born person wrong?

It’s not so much a matter of right or wrong but rather that we have a natural instinct, a natural impulse against killing babies, and this exists in the overwhelming majority. It’s no wonder that new Born’s are protected by society.

 

[MikeInVA]

At the moment of conception there is a potentiality for what we ordinarily recognize as a person.

No, it is a person, just at a very early stage in its life.

and there is no practical necessity to consider the moment of conception as identical in value to a baby when it is born.

Please explain how a person’s value changes over time. Will I become less valuable when I grow old(er) and less capable?

 

[edwest211]

"The U.S. Supreme Court first cited the phrase, “wall of separation between church and state,” in 1947 (Everson v. Board of Educ. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16) from a well-known concept expressed by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.

"While the Supreme Court did rule that a “wall of separation between church and state” exists, they did so based upon seven words from one personal letter rather than from the Constitution. As a result, the Supreme Court created an erroneous precedent, ruling that law could be created from a personal letter instead of the Constitution.

“Even if a letter was a law in the United States, the Supreme Court misinterpreted what Jefferson wrote. It, like most people, make judgments about facts and/or statements by taking a text out of context, thereby redefining the original meaning of the text.”

 

[IWantGod]

No, it is a person, just at a very early stage in its life.

Not according to the church it’s not. A person is both body and soul, and the soul is the most important aspect in that union. Without the soul and God as that which defines the value of a person, a person, insofar as we value that concept, is largely a practical matter. Practically speaking an embryo is potentially what we value because of the end result. The end result is what we identify with. It is that which we identify as a real person.

If an embryo at conception dies, it knows nothing about it, it feels no pain, it does not cry or comprehensibly have a desire to live. it has no emotional states from a practical point of view. It never knew it existed and might as-well have not existed at all, so obviously it is not going to be treated like you and me. Murder in the eyes of the court is essentially a practical matter.

Please explain how a person’s value changes over time. Will I become less valuable when I grow old(er) and less capable?

Accept for psychopaths and people who lack empathy, most people care about elderly people, and we know one day that we will all become elderly so it makes sense that the law protects the elderly.

 

[Elf01]

Not according to the church it’s not.

I thought that we weren’t basing laws on doctrine. God should not come into why murder is against the law.

it knows nothing about it, it feels no pain from a practical point of view

So we can kill someone suffering with dementia provided it’s painless?

Accept for psychopaths and people who lack empathy, elderly people cared about, and we know one day that we will all become elderly so it makes sense that the law protects the elderly.

We have all been unborn once. Luckily we survived in the womb long enough to be born without being murdered.

 

[LittleFlower378]

The best case scenario would be to have a Catholic country where Catholic principles are upheld. This of course would include freedom of religion, where people can worship freely.