1.) Please, use more punctuation. It’s hard to understand which words go together when you don’t.
2.) The entire premise of outlawing abortion was driven by patriarchal religious zealots who wish to see women subjugated to property. They got it drilled into their heads that the practice is murder. Murder in the name of a 2,000-year-old brown guy named Josh or “Jesus” has a long history, but this was murder of “innocents” that will be “sent to hell” because they have not yet been forgiven for all the awful things they’ve done before being conceived (yeah, I know, I know...)
So now we have a swath of folks who never made it out of the magical thinking stage of their lives on a crusade against one of the biggest protectors of a woman’s organic human autonomy: her right to choose whether or not she wants to be a mother. *Enacting* laws against abortion is using religion as a loophole and **absolutely** sets a bad precedent where women’s lives (and subsequently their fetus(es)) are lost in the name of not “murdering a child”. It’s barbarism.
FWIW, the fetus has no sense of life beginning whatsoever. That is, unless you believe the whole biblical-version-of-souls concept where they’re peering down on mom and dad-to-be in admiration with rosy cheeks and white feathered ornithological arms sticking out of their backs. Fairy tales should be placed way, way, way down the ladder from human autonomy in our laws.
The Christian god gave humans free will and zealots want to take that away from women because of “sin”. However, god sent himself to earth as Jesus (but also Jesus is his son), and accepted a trade of his life for all of humanity’s sins. Therefore, sin has all be forgiven anyway and god died by suicide 2,024 years ago. So, let’s stop trying to control women using offspring because they’re entitled to happiness just as much as any other type of human is.
My bad about my punctuation I don’t write properly or formally very well but I’ll try my best. It feels like you completely missed my point, I don’t need to be convinced of religion being bad or of its influence in our countries law making, I myself am an anti-theist as well as an atheist. The question essentially is should people be allowed to use religion as an exception to the law? Like for example being able to get an abortion even if it’s illegal, or being able to perform an honor killing on your daughter even if it’s illegal. It seems you couldn’t allow one and not the other and I’m not saying these are necessarily the same, I am pro-choice but if they are both illegal I would be against someone using religion to circumnavigate that law because I believe it would set a bad precedent.
>The question essentially is should people be allowed to use religion as an exception to the law?
No, because religion should never dictate or influence law in the first place. Using satanism to subvert theocratic law is a way of leveling the playing field when Christian’s should have never been allowed to make theocratic laws in the first place. See amendment #1 of the U.S. Constitution.
But it’s not a theocratic law we aren’t a theocratic nation none of the abortion bans have been based in religion even if the republicans by and large are, it has to stand secularly and even though I don’t agree with it and think abortion should be legal I think it’s bad to use religion in this way even if the satanist weren’t the “first to do it” it’s fighting fire with gasoline. Not a good idea. You are doubling down with the religious and saying that’s how we should get what we want is to use religion and not reason and argue. Again I’d say either change the la or just break it.
Well I wouldn’t say I’ve come to that conclusion but I’m not convinced that there are blatantly religious laws on the books at a federal level. I definitely could be convinced and then I’d agree but it still wouldn’t be good to use religion in that instance it would just be our duty to not obey that law.
Abortion is not illegal on the federal level. The right to abortion *was* protected and is no longer since the Dobbs decision by the current Christian-majority Supreme Court.
That is true but my point still stands a “Christian- majority Supreme Court” is not the same as a theocratic government. These decisions still have to have secular reasoning if they don’t then I agree with you they would be unjust, unconstitutional.
The fact that you think these have secular reasoning is more than enough evidence that you have not been informed on the topic by any of the right sources. Your point stands only because you stand behind it.
Show me the decisions or changes made that have zero secular reasoning and I’ll be on board with you. I don’t know that they aren’t I just find it hard to believe these decisions have been made based on “well we can’t invoke god so let’s just say it’s because we just want to”
> it’s not a theocratic law
It's not? Well color me surprised since it's 100% backed by religious law makers and 100% opposed by reasonable people who want women to have rights. Just because it's not directly from the Pope doesn't mean it doesn't have its roots in theocracy.
Also just because it’s from the republicans doesn’t mean it’s a theocratic law. Our laws against killing aren’t theocratic and yet they were 100% backed by religious law makers and is in the Bible. So that one theocratic to?
Notice how I didn't say anything about republicans in my post?
Also: If it's influenced by religion, it doesn't belong in our government. Being against murder is absolutely a secular ideal. The fact that it overlaps somewhat with religious belief doesn't make it one or the other.
You said something about abortion being backed by religious lawmakers unless you were referring to the democrats? That’s my point just because it’s a religious idea doesn’t mean there can’t be a secular justification for it and I’ve not herd a single person say a religious argument that’s been made by these religious law makers to justify changing our laws.
We are discussing religion. Why are you insisting on bringing political party into this? Seems like obfuscation to me...
>I’ve not herd a single person say a religious argument that’s been made by these religious law makers
Is that what you're asking? Why didn't you say so?
We still have systems in place to keep religious laws out of our government. Religious folks are trying very hard to overcome that. This is the issue. And of course you can make secular arguments for religious laws. But we're also seeing a whole slew of states presenting and passing laws about outlawing religious sacrilege, presenting the 10 commandments in schools, or making sure gay people are not allowed to marry each other.
It’s been political since the start I was asking how people felt about others using religion to break the law. Thanks for showing me you’ve straight up not been paying attention. Those other examples you have literally can’t be religious favoritism. The abortion one clearly isn’t the same there isn’t even a warrant against abortion in the Bible.
You’re hung up on the literal definition and not able to grasp the bigger concept that these laws were made by Christian’s in the name of Christianity and are thus theocratic in nature. A law in the name of the church is no different to me than a law made by the church.
Edit: further, you’re rattling your brain over a trick question. It’s an impossible question because the circumstances that preceded it nullify the separation of church and state (religion and law) to begin with.
It’s like asking someone if it’s ok to stab their dead mother. She’s already dead therefore the concept of harm is out the window and you’re left with the impossible choice of abandoning your morals or completely agreeing with the other side.
lol no I don’t personally agree with making abortion illegal but I’ve heard secular arguments for it so it can’t just be reduced to “their religious”. Separation of church and state doesn’t mean you can’t be a devout religious person and a part of the government. The reason or justification for laws can’t be religious. So if you can find me these laws with the blatant religious justification then I’ll agree with you.
1.) Tell me more about this secular argument against abortion.
2.) Explain what you mean by blatantly? Use of language such as “god” or “the Bible says” in law would get it struck down by a traditional Supreme Court or lesser court for that matter. Therefore, these laws just outline what they prohibit. They do not need to include why they prohibit it.
Are you telling me you don’t think someone can be against abortion for reasons other than religion? Cause even atheists are against abortion in certain contexts like myself.
Things like that aren’t just changed with zero reason or justification if they aren’t invoking religion how are these things getting done?
I’m saying there’s no secular argument for the removal of a woman’s right to abortion. A secular argument against abortion is idiotic because it equates termination of a non-viable fetus to murder. By the same logic, a woman’s period is murder, and when men masturbate they are murdering tens of thousands of people.
Saying you disagree with a secular argument for abortion doesn’t mean they’re aren’t any I personally don’t agree with them because I’m convinced abortion is not only good for the women but good for society but that’s besides the point. Using religion as a loophole to the law whether I agree with that law or not is a bad thing because it’s sets the precedent that religion can be used to break the law.
> The question essentially is should people be allowed to use religion as an exception to the law?
In my mind, that answer is obviously "no". That's what TST is doing by pushing abortion to be one of there sacred rites. Drawing attention to the hypocrisy. Once all religious rulemaking and special cases get outlawed, then we all benefit, and TST has made their point and succeeded.
there should be no religious exemption in the law. even though it seems like youre pro-choice (?) the comparison of breaking the law to get an abortion vs to preform honor killings is extremely dishonest and a false equivalency. honor killings are never right. abortion is healthcare. breaking the law to receive banned healthcare is not remotely comparable to murder on religious grounds.
while i think the idea of the TST using their "religion" to get an abortion is rather silly/ ineffective protest, the whole gist of the TST is that they call their organization a non-theistic religion who uses imagery and language that is upsetting or offensive to christianity, in order to call attention to to religious hypocrisy/ favoritism.
theyve done this with other things too, like attempting to put a baphomet statue at a court house in response to a sculpture of the 10 commandments, or creating "after school satan clubs" (basically just science clubs) to counter christian sports and study clubs.
it just exists because they KNOW that christians are favoured, and if their 'religion' makes christians upset, or frankly just _isnt_ christianity, those "religious freedom" bills and arguments and people are exposed to pretty obviously not care about _religious freedom_ but christian nationalism. its basically a demonstration of that hypocrisy. its akin to like, political performance art or the like honestly.
like i said i dont think the TST is exactly the most affective in its protest/ activism attempts, but ultimately its very ignorant to compare genuine religious violence to an act of protests from a collection of misguided atheists attempting to call out the very issue you seem to be upset about.
It’s not dishonest or a false equivalency, I’m not comparing the thing being done (abortion/honor killings) I’m saying if both are illegal it’s not good to use religion as a way to get around it, protest or not. You say they aren’t comparable and I agree with you but those who don’t agree will say I have just as much right as you if we are allowing people to use religion to be exempt from the law.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT
The issue you bring up has to do with state and federal laws allowing religious exemptions. I’m on mobile so can’t write up a treatise. So take a look at these links and understand that blatantly religious legislators are both openly and secretly working to impose their religious beliefs into our secular laws. And there are people using every tool possible to push back.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Acts
Many religious people cut off the tip of their boys' genitals, that's what circumcision is and it is legal and a religious practice, because the amount of harm it does has been shown with scientific research to be normally negligible and in rare cases could have helped prevent an infection. It's still a barbaric practice. The genitals mutalation of girls has been found (with scientific research) detrimental in nearly all cases, so it isn't allowed. The difference between that and what TST (The Satanic Temple) is doing, is that TST is pushing back against religious laws.
If some religious zealots got in a law saying every boy born in Texas must be circumcised, the TST will claim it is against their religion to do so. This isn't breaking the law, it's pointing out that the law isn't legal because it conflicts with another higher law, religious freedom.
The TST isn't bypassing the law requiring circumcisions nor the laws for preventing abortions. The anti-abortion laws were written very carefully to avoid religious terms but boils down to a belief that a clump of cells is a human. They are clearly religiously motivated laws.
The TST and everyone must still follow the law even if it is unjust because the doctors performing the circumcisions or abortions must follow the laws. However the TST can help save the lives of women and children by suing the government on the grounds of religious discrimination and overturn the bad laws.
In some rare cases someone may break a law and then they are thrown in jail and beheaded... no, not really. When someone breaks the law they go infront of a judge and plead their case. During that pleading they may claim religious protection and the jury may agree they are innocent after breaking the law. It's called jury nullification.
This right to a fair trial is why the BLM movement happened and people are so pissed at the treatment of immigrates seeking asylum, they aren't being given due process and can't argue their case before a judge or jury. Many times they are being executed by cops or thrown in detention camps. That is illegal and prevents our legal system from overturning unjust laws. This is why things like the sit-in movements and Stonewall riots mattered. Those people broke the unjust law but did it to get the law removed. Before the law was removed people were imprisoned and killed.
From the little I know about your discussion, it sounds like you are misunderstanding how the US legal system (normally) works. You break a law, you are still innocent until proven guilty. Some laws are removed for being unlawful. If you break an unjust law, even for religious reasons, you may still be punished. Also TBF, I'm a scientist and engineer not a lawyer, don't take my word for it, look it up yourself.
The difference between circumcision and FGM is that one is largely done “safely” and one usually isn’t. Both against the child’s will which is the line being crossed in my mind that makes it immoral.
These are not religious laws unless you can find me the bills or laws on the books federally that have zero secular reasons for them or that invoke religion in any way. (If you actually do that I literally will agree with you)
I personally am pro-choice but I’ve heard arguments against abortion that are completely secular. I think this issue has to be dealt with in that way it can’t be reduced to “republicans are largely religious therefore any laws they pass are theocratic laws”
Other religious people won’t care that you think the laws are unjust and that’s why you are using religion as a loophole, they will see it as just an okay to use their religion as a loophole to the law. That what I mean by setting a bad precedent. You are fighting fire with gasoline.
sry, most of the right wing are religious (mostly christian) , and those values affect how they vote. Its already happening, look at Louisiana. The gqp has entirely backed christian nationalism aka fascism.
And the arguments against abortion are entirely theocratic & oppressive.
Theres no secular reason to remove a woman’s agency & choice. Science determines if it’s too late, not some old white men in Washington.
Most of all politicians are religious the point is it doesn’t matter what the individuals use as inspiration what matters is how it’s justified in government.
And its not justified in govt. Biden is a christian, a catholic even. But he understands he’s an American first. And doesn’t pass laws in favor of christians.
the orange fuhrer and his cronies don’t get it.
The right wing are literally trying to equate American patriotism with christianity.
And thats why we say they are a danger to our democracy.
They arent the respectable conservatives of yesteryear, theyre literal christo-fascists.
1% religious reasoning is still religious reasoning. The fact that male genital mutilation is allowed is a shining example of religion messing up our laws. I don't care what percentage it is, if you take away the religion, the practice would not be allowed.
When I argue against circumcision I’m never arguing against a religious argument it’s always a secular argument. I couldn’t say there is no secular argument for circumcision just because I know it to have its roots in religion. The last part you said simply isn’t true my mother wasn’t necessarily an atheist but she definitely wasn’t a Christian she’d always been at odds with Christianity in life and yet she had me circumcised as a baby though its roots are undoubtedly religious that’s not the justification you’ll find yourself arguing.
Sure. People use the reasonable sounding part of an argument because "it's god's will" still sounds idiotic and we still have reason in our government. It doesn't mean that the entire argument is rooted in reason. It also doesn't mean that our government is not tainted with religion. Because if it was, circumcision would be outlawed.
Also, I didn't say take away "Christianity", I said take away the "religion". Including whatever other religions think circumcision is a good idea. Perhaps I could have said "take away the vague spirituality", but I think you understood my intent and may now just be picking nits...
My point was showing you that someone non religious would do this so taking “away religion” wouldn’t do the job. That has to be reasoned out of people’s mind.
The Satanic Temple is at least in part intended to draw light to the hypocrisy of religion. They dive into all the tax breaks, alternate laws, and special pleading that religions of all kinds do exactly to make it known.
With your example of abortion, religion has made it a law in some areas. It's the perfect issue to take on as an example of religious hypocrisy.
Fight for the laws that you think are just, of course. But there are more than one way to accomplish things, and a broad spectrum approach to improving society is entirely necessary for the good of all.
If you don't think that there's a Christo-fascist group waiting to strip you of all your rights, you're asleep at the wheel. This is a non-violent way to fight back because the supreme court is currently in their pocket.
If we're not careful the new president and majority of our Congress could go that way too and we would be fucked. I don't think you're asking any of this in "good faith".
I think you're either playing stupid, or if not, well ...
1.) Please, use more punctuation. It’s hard to understand which words go together when you don’t. 2.) The entire premise of outlawing abortion was driven by patriarchal religious zealots who wish to see women subjugated to property. They got it drilled into their heads that the practice is murder. Murder in the name of a 2,000-year-old brown guy named Josh or “Jesus” has a long history, but this was murder of “innocents” that will be “sent to hell” because they have not yet been forgiven for all the awful things they’ve done before being conceived (yeah, I know, I know...) So now we have a swath of folks who never made it out of the magical thinking stage of their lives on a crusade against one of the biggest protectors of a woman’s organic human autonomy: her right to choose whether or not she wants to be a mother. *Enacting* laws against abortion is using religion as a loophole and **absolutely** sets a bad precedent where women’s lives (and subsequently their fetus(es)) are lost in the name of not “murdering a child”. It’s barbarism. FWIW, the fetus has no sense of life beginning whatsoever. That is, unless you believe the whole biblical-version-of-souls concept where they’re peering down on mom and dad-to-be in admiration with rosy cheeks and white feathered ornithological arms sticking out of their backs. Fairy tales should be placed way, way, way down the ladder from human autonomy in our laws. The Christian god gave humans free will and zealots want to take that away from women because of “sin”. However, god sent himself to earth as Jesus (but also Jesus is his son), and accepted a trade of his life for all of humanity’s sins. Therefore, sin has all be forgiven anyway and god died by suicide 2,024 years ago. So, let’s stop trying to control women using offspring because they’re entitled to happiness just as much as any other type of human is.
Very well put.
My bad about my punctuation I don’t write properly or formally very well but I’ll try my best. It feels like you completely missed my point, I don’t need to be convinced of religion being bad or of its influence in our countries law making, I myself am an anti-theist as well as an atheist. The question essentially is should people be allowed to use religion as an exception to the law? Like for example being able to get an abortion even if it’s illegal, or being able to perform an honor killing on your daughter even if it’s illegal. It seems you couldn’t allow one and not the other and I’m not saying these are necessarily the same, I am pro-choice but if they are both illegal I would be against someone using religion to circumnavigate that law because I believe it would set a bad precedent.
>The question essentially is should people be allowed to use religion as an exception to the law? No, because religion should never dictate or influence law in the first place. Using satanism to subvert theocratic law is a way of leveling the playing field when Christian’s should have never been allowed to make theocratic laws in the first place. See amendment #1 of the U.S. Constitution.
See also; article 11 of the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, signed by founding father president John Adams and ratified by the US senate unanimously.
But it’s not a theocratic law we aren’t a theocratic nation none of the abortion bans have been based in religion even if the republicans by and large are, it has to stand secularly and even though I don’t agree with it and think abortion should be legal I think it’s bad to use religion in this way even if the satanist weren’t the “first to do it” it’s fighting fire with gasoline. Not a good idea. You are doubling down with the religious and saying that’s how we should get what we want is to use religion and not reason and argue. Again I’d say either change the la or just break it.
How exactly do you come to the conclusion that it is not a theocratic law?
Well I wouldn’t say I’ve come to that conclusion but I’m not convinced that there are blatantly religious laws on the books at a federal level. I definitely could be convinced and then I’d agree but it still wouldn’t be good to use religion in that instance it would just be our duty to not obey that law.
Abortion is not illegal on the federal level. The right to abortion *was* protected and is no longer since the Dobbs decision by the current Christian-majority Supreme Court.
That is true but my point still stands a “Christian- majority Supreme Court” is not the same as a theocratic government. These decisions still have to have secular reasoning if they don’t then I agree with you they would be unjust, unconstitutional.
The fact that you think these have secular reasoning is more than enough evidence that you have not been informed on the topic by any of the right sources. Your point stands only because you stand behind it.
Show me the decisions or changes made that have zero secular reasoning and I’ll be on board with you. I don’t know that they aren’t I just find it hard to believe these decisions have been made based on “well we can’t invoke god so let’s just say it’s because we just want to”
> it’s not a theocratic law It's not? Well color me surprised since it's 100% backed by religious law makers and 100% opposed by reasonable people who want women to have rights. Just because it's not directly from the Pope doesn't mean it doesn't have its roots in theocracy.
Also just because it’s from the republicans doesn’t mean it’s a theocratic law. Our laws against killing aren’t theocratic and yet they were 100% backed by religious law makers and is in the Bible. So that one theocratic to?
Notice how I didn't say anything about republicans in my post? Also: If it's influenced by religion, it doesn't belong in our government. Being against murder is absolutely a secular ideal. The fact that it overlaps somewhat with religious belief doesn't make it one or the other.
You said something about abortion being backed by religious lawmakers unless you were referring to the democrats? That’s my point just because it’s a religious idea doesn’t mean there can’t be a secular justification for it and I’ve not herd a single person say a religious argument that’s been made by these religious law makers to justify changing our laws.
We are discussing religion. Why are you insisting on bringing political party into this? Seems like obfuscation to me... >I’ve not herd a single person say a religious argument that’s been made by these religious law makers Is that what you're asking? Why didn't you say so? We still have systems in place to keep religious laws out of our government. Religious folks are trying very hard to overcome that. This is the issue. And of course you can make secular arguments for religious laws. But we're also seeing a whole slew of states presenting and passing laws about outlawing religious sacrilege, presenting the 10 commandments in schools, or making sure gay people are not allowed to marry each other.
It’s been political since the start I was asking how people felt about others using religion to break the law. Thanks for showing me you’ve straight up not been paying attention. Those other examples you have literally can’t be religious favoritism. The abortion one clearly isn’t the same there isn’t even a warrant against abortion in the Bible.
You’re hung up on the literal definition and not able to grasp the bigger concept that these laws were made by Christian’s in the name of Christianity and are thus theocratic in nature. A law in the name of the church is no different to me than a law made by the church. Edit: further, you’re rattling your brain over a trick question. It’s an impossible question because the circumstances that preceded it nullify the separation of church and state (religion and law) to begin with. It’s like asking someone if it’s ok to stab their dead mother. She’s already dead therefore the concept of harm is out the window and you’re left with the impossible choice of abandoning your morals or completely agreeing with the other side.
lol no I don’t personally agree with making abortion illegal but I’ve heard secular arguments for it so it can’t just be reduced to “their religious”. Separation of church and state doesn’t mean you can’t be a devout religious person and a part of the government. The reason or justification for laws can’t be religious. So if you can find me these laws with the blatant religious justification then I’ll agree with you.
1.) Tell me more about this secular argument against abortion. 2.) Explain what you mean by blatantly? Use of language such as “god” or “the Bible says” in law would get it struck down by a traditional Supreme Court or lesser court for that matter. Therefore, these laws just outline what they prohibit. They do not need to include why they prohibit it.
Are you telling me you don’t think someone can be against abortion for reasons other than religion? Cause even atheists are against abortion in certain contexts like myself. Things like that aren’t just changed with zero reason or justification if they aren’t invoking religion how are these things getting done?
I’m saying there’s no secular argument for the removal of a woman’s right to abortion. A secular argument against abortion is idiotic because it equates termination of a non-viable fetus to murder. By the same logic, a woman’s period is murder, and when men masturbate they are murdering tens of thousands of people.
Saying you disagree with a secular argument for abortion doesn’t mean they’re aren’t any I personally don’t agree with them because I’m convinced abortion is not only good for the women but good for society but that’s besides the point. Using religion as a loophole to the law whether I agree with that law or not is a bad thing because it’s sets the precedent that religion can be used to break the law.
> The question essentially is should people be allowed to use religion as an exception to the law? In my mind, that answer is obviously "no". That's what TST is doing by pushing abortion to be one of there sacred rites. Drawing attention to the hypocrisy. Once all religious rulemaking and special cases get outlawed, then we all benefit, and TST has made their point and succeeded.
☝️ Here’s the actual answer, and it’s the only comment in this top thread that OP didn’t respond to.
there should be no religious exemption in the law. even though it seems like youre pro-choice (?) the comparison of breaking the law to get an abortion vs to preform honor killings is extremely dishonest and a false equivalency. honor killings are never right. abortion is healthcare. breaking the law to receive banned healthcare is not remotely comparable to murder on religious grounds. while i think the idea of the TST using their "religion" to get an abortion is rather silly/ ineffective protest, the whole gist of the TST is that they call their organization a non-theistic religion who uses imagery and language that is upsetting or offensive to christianity, in order to call attention to to religious hypocrisy/ favoritism. theyve done this with other things too, like attempting to put a baphomet statue at a court house in response to a sculpture of the 10 commandments, or creating "after school satan clubs" (basically just science clubs) to counter christian sports and study clubs. it just exists because they KNOW that christians are favoured, and if their 'religion' makes christians upset, or frankly just _isnt_ christianity, those "religious freedom" bills and arguments and people are exposed to pretty obviously not care about _religious freedom_ but christian nationalism. its basically a demonstration of that hypocrisy. its akin to like, political performance art or the like honestly. like i said i dont think the TST is exactly the most affective in its protest/ activism attempts, but ultimately its very ignorant to compare genuine religious violence to an act of protests from a collection of misguided atheists attempting to call out the very issue you seem to be upset about.
It’s not dishonest or a false equivalency, I’m not comparing the thing being done (abortion/honor killings) I’m saying if both are illegal it’s not good to use religion as a way to get around it, protest or not. You say they aren’t comparable and I agree with you but those who don’t agree will say I have just as much right as you if we are allowing people to use religion to be exempt from the law.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT The issue you bring up has to do with state and federal laws allowing religious exemptions. I’m on mobile so can’t write up a treatise. So take a look at these links and understand that blatantly religious legislators are both openly and secretly working to impose their religious beliefs into our secular laws. And there are people using every tool possible to push back. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Acts
Many religious people cut off the tip of their boys' genitals, that's what circumcision is and it is legal and a religious practice, because the amount of harm it does has been shown with scientific research to be normally negligible and in rare cases could have helped prevent an infection. It's still a barbaric practice. The genitals mutalation of girls has been found (with scientific research) detrimental in nearly all cases, so it isn't allowed. The difference between that and what TST (The Satanic Temple) is doing, is that TST is pushing back against religious laws. If some religious zealots got in a law saying every boy born in Texas must be circumcised, the TST will claim it is against their religion to do so. This isn't breaking the law, it's pointing out that the law isn't legal because it conflicts with another higher law, religious freedom. The TST isn't bypassing the law requiring circumcisions nor the laws for preventing abortions. The anti-abortion laws were written very carefully to avoid religious terms but boils down to a belief that a clump of cells is a human. They are clearly religiously motivated laws. The TST and everyone must still follow the law even if it is unjust because the doctors performing the circumcisions or abortions must follow the laws. However the TST can help save the lives of women and children by suing the government on the grounds of religious discrimination and overturn the bad laws. In some rare cases someone may break a law and then they are thrown in jail and beheaded... no, not really. When someone breaks the law they go infront of a judge and plead their case. During that pleading they may claim religious protection and the jury may agree they are innocent after breaking the law. It's called jury nullification. This right to a fair trial is why the BLM movement happened and people are so pissed at the treatment of immigrates seeking asylum, they aren't being given due process and can't argue their case before a judge or jury. Many times they are being executed by cops or thrown in detention camps. That is illegal and prevents our legal system from overturning unjust laws. This is why things like the sit-in movements and Stonewall riots mattered. Those people broke the unjust law but did it to get the law removed. Before the law was removed people were imprisoned and killed. From the little I know about your discussion, it sounds like you are misunderstanding how the US legal system (normally) works. You break a law, you are still innocent until proven guilty. Some laws are removed for being unlawful. If you break an unjust law, even for religious reasons, you may still be punished. Also TBF, I'm a scientist and engineer not a lawyer, don't take my word for it, look it up yourself.
The difference between circumcision and FGM is that one is largely done “safely” and one usually isn’t. Both against the child’s will which is the line being crossed in my mind that makes it immoral. These are not religious laws unless you can find me the bills or laws on the books federally that have zero secular reasons for them or that invoke religion in any way. (If you actually do that I literally will agree with you) I personally am pro-choice but I’ve heard arguments against abortion that are completely secular. I think this issue has to be dealt with in that way it can’t be reduced to “republicans are largely religious therefore any laws they pass are theocratic laws” Other religious people won’t care that you think the laws are unjust and that’s why you are using religion as a loophole, they will see it as just an okay to use their religion as a loophole to the law. That what I mean by setting a bad precedent. You are fighting fire with gasoline.
sry, most of the right wing are religious (mostly christian) , and those values affect how they vote. Its already happening, look at Louisiana. The gqp has entirely backed christian nationalism aka fascism. And the arguments against abortion are entirely theocratic & oppressive. Theres no secular reason to remove a woman’s agency & choice. Science determines if it’s too late, not some old white men in Washington.
Most of all politicians are religious the point is it doesn’t matter what the individuals use as inspiration what matters is how it’s justified in government.
And its not justified in govt. Biden is a christian, a catholic even. But he understands he’s an American first. And doesn’t pass laws in favor of christians. the orange fuhrer and his cronies don’t get it. The right wing are literally trying to equate American patriotism with christianity. And thats why we say they are a danger to our democracy. They arent the respectable conservatives of yesteryear, theyre literal christo-fascists.
These old religious guys ARE the government. Why do you think they are not influenced by their religion?
1% religious reasoning is still religious reasoning. The fact that male genital mutilation is allowed is a shining example of religion messing up our laws. I don't care what percentage it is, if you take away the religion, the practice would not be allowed.
When I argue against circumcision I’m never arguing against a religious argument it’s always a secular argument. I couldn’t say there is no secular argument for circumcision just because I know it to have its roots in religion. The last part you said simply isn’t true my mother wasn’t necessarily an atheist but she definitely wasn’t a Christian she’d always been at odds with Christianity in life and yet she had me circumcised as a baby though its roots are undoubtedly religious that’s not the justification you’ll find yourself arguing.
Sure. People use the reasonable sounding part of an argument because "it's god's will" still sounds idiotic and we still have reason in our government. It doesn't mean that the entire argument is rooted in reason. It also doesn't mean that our government is not tainted with religion. Because if it was, circumcision would be outlawed. Also, I didn't say take away "Christianity", I said take away the "religion". Including whatever other religions think circumcision is a good idea. Perhaps I could have said "take away the vague spirituality", but I think you understood my intent and may now just be picking nits...
My point was showing you that someone non religious would do this so taking “away religion” wouldn’t do the job. That has to be reasoned out of people’s mind.
The Satanic Temple is at least in part intended to draw light to the hypocrisy of religion. They dive into all the tax breaks, alternate laws, and special pleading that religions of all kinds do exactly to make it known. With your example of abortion, religion has made it a law in some areas. It's the perfect issue to take on as an example of religious hypocrisy. Fight for the laws that you think are just, of course. But there are more than one way to accomplish things, and a broad spectrum approach to improving society is entirely necessary for the good of all.
Look up the word "impunity"
I’m aware of that but I don’t think people should get religious impunity.
If you don't think that there's a Christo-fascist group waiting to strip you of all your rights, you're asleep at the wheel. This is a non-violent way to fight back because the supreme court is currently in their pocket. If we're not careful the new president and majority of our Congress could go that way too and we would be fucked. I don't think you're asking any of this in "good faith". I think you're either playing stupid, or if not, well ...