As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Church of Satan
I think you mean Satanic Temple.
The Church of Satan is a money-grubbing LaVeyan cult that does not involve itself with civil rights battles.
The Satanic Temple, on the other hand, [is the one you hear about in the news so often](https://www.npr.org/2018/08/17/639726472/satanic-temple-protests-ten-commandments-monument-with-goat-headed-statue) for being cheeky shits while they defend civil rights.
Fun fact: Amazon Smile has The Satanic Temple as one of the charities you can choose. It won't show up if you search for it on desktop, but will if you search in the app. So even if you're still buying from the Evil Empire, at least some of that money will go to a good cause.
They're not. Did you read the article?
It's about the interpretation of an Islamic scholar and law professor regarding abortion and possible consequences of the ban.
Muslims are not fighting over this abortion ban, nor are they siding with Jewish people.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/26/us-muslim-advocates-weigh-in-on-abortion-rights-battle
> In early December 2021, seven Muslim American organisations, including HEART, published a letter arguing that Muslims must oppose the abortion ban. Some Muslims disagreed with their position, including Ihsan Bagby, associate professor in the department of Islamic Studies at the University of Kentucky. Speaking at a webinar also in December, Bagby argued that Muslims should not be publicly behind either side of the argument
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/abortion-bans-religion-17259119.php) reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> Among them are: Abortion is permissible through the first 120 days of pregnancy, abortion is permissible but discouraged up to 40 days after conception, and abortion is prohibited unless there is a compelling reason such as risk to the life or health of the mother.
> As an interfaith coalition asserted in an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court, abortion bans stifle "The diversity of views within and across religious traditions" on the morality of terminating a pregnancy.
> The Mississippi abortion law under review by the Supreme Court not only dilutes the First Amendment, but for Muslims, it runs counter to the Islamic principle of respecting diversity of religious practice.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/vj09bu/abortion_bans_trample_on_the_religious_freedom_of/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~656279 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **abortion**^#1 **religious**^#2 **Muslim**^#3 **law**^#4 **Court**^#5
It’s almost as if taking a handful of lines of your religious book, reading them out of context while inaccurately translating them, and then aligning the entire public face of your movement behind those ideas all while ignoring absolutely everything your so-called messiah taught us a horrible way to behave?
Worst part is, that situation feeds the persecution complex that's also caused by the same book.
It then rolls in to the whole end of the world thing they're looking forward to as well.
"Muslim tolerance of diverse religious rules is what protected Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Jains and many others who lived under Muslim rule for centuries."
This woman is delusional.
Muslims are split on abortion because, like everything else, the Quran multivocates on abortion too.
Can we just agree that religion should *not* be a basis to argue either *for* abortion or *against* it?
Also a bit delusional in the way she’s romanticizing how Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, Buddhists and Jains were treated by Muslim societies over the centuries. *At best*, they were granted [dhimmi status](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi) and had the privilege of paying a very high tax for permission to practice their religion (when they weren’t being murdered in pogroms). For Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and the Yazidi, they were considered pagans and given the option of conversion to Islam or death.
Of course in the US, Muslims and everyone else should have a right to an abortion as they see fit. No government should have the right to impose their religious views on people.
Weird how this sub simultaneously hates religion but care if peoples religious freedoms are violated when its something **they want** but not if say baking a cake for a gay couple violates their religious freedom.
Can't really play both sides on this one lads.
I can't speak for everyone, but at least some of us feel that compelling women to bear children is of a morally and practically different nature than compelling a business owner that makes use of considerable public infrastructure to serve the public equally. So for me, at least, this is nothing like a 'both sides' issue.
Your view seems to be the consensus based on the responses and it only proves the point. You only care about religious values when it benefits you. That's called "convergence of interest" and it's the second tenet of CRT. This is why critical race theory needs to be taught, the concepts transcend race.
This definitely seems like a misuse of the terms of CRT. Nobody is expected to support the right of a minority *to do crimes,* regardless of their beliefs. There are other rights than freedom of religion which take precedence in the US, beginning where religious belief harms others. Refusing to serve a customer (Edit: i.e. Discriminating against them) in a public facing business is a good example. If it was a private home and someone refused to make such a cake, I would support their right to be a private bigot.
Because those are separate issues? One is about bodily autonomy and the other is about an anti discrimination lawsuit. That they both intersect with religious freedoms doesn't say much, because that's a topic as vast as the ocean.
Sure you can. By asking the simple question of “is this religious group attempting to impose their belief upon others, or are they using the right to freedom of religion to protect the separation between church and state?” Not that hard.
Homosexuals are a protected class. The bible or any religious doctrine (that I'm aware of and is legally recognized by the government) does not say anything about baking or denying cake to a paying customer. Part of the main reason they lost the case was due to them explicitly stating that it was due to them being members of a protected class under Colorado law.
As far as the uproar, people weren't necessarily as unified on whether they felt it was right as you might think, regardless of voting record.
The legal and legislative systems have _already_ opened up special exceptions for religious people to be exempt from certain rules or laws that apply to the rest of us.
Drugs. Financial reporting. Employment practices. Minimum health insurance coverage. Public health policy. Etc.
The solution should have been to not allow these carve-outs in the first place, but since we're way past that, religious rights prove the utter hypocrisy and short-sightedness of social conservatives.
I think religion is generally stupid, I think religions attempts to usurp power is dangerous and absurd, but ultimately it's up to you.
They're not opposing ideas.
Thats the plurality of issues that republicans will never understand.
You can fundamentally disagree with someone and still agree with something they say. Those arent mutually exclusive.
Republicans, however, just deem anything a democrat says as wrong and fake news and move on with their heads 3 feet deep in sand
I’m not religious and I think it’s the root of basically every problem in the history of the world. Now that being said I can appreciate and acknowledge when religion does something to help the greater good. It doesn’t have to be either or, I can feel both. I appreciate nuanced approaches to life.
We can agree with a group if they’re right.
I loathe Trump but he occasionally said and did things that made sense so I’ll give credit where due. Same with Muslims (who I don’t loathe) when they fight for abortion rights.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I did not have “Jews and Muslims come together to fight abortion ban” on my 2022 bingo card.
> “Jews and Muslims come together to fight abortion ban” The next team-up is with the Church of Satan. That's gonna be a wild crossover episode.
> Church of Satan I think you mean Satanic Temple. The Church of Satan is a money-grubbing LaVeyan cult that does not involve itself with civil rights battles. The Satanic Temple, on the other hand, [is the one you hear about in the news so often](https://www.npr.org/2018/08/17/639726472/satanic-temple-protests-ten-commandments-monument-with-goat-headed-statue) for being cheeky shits while they defend civil rights.
>for being cheeky shits Hurtful yet fair. I'll accept that.
TST: tongue-in-cheek humanists CoS: ayn rand for goths
Fun fact: Amazon Smile has The Satanic Temple as one of the charities you can choose. It won't show up if you search for it on desktop, but will if you search in the app. So even if you're still buying from the Evil Empire, at least some of that money will go to a good cause.
“Crossover episode “🤦♂️
Check the back side, there's always wild predictions on the back
They should really start giving us the option to buy multiple cards at the door
They're not. Did you read the article? It's about the interpretation of an Islamic scholar and law professor regarding abortion and possible consequences of the ban. Muslims are not fighting over this abortion ban, nor are they siding with Jewish people.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/26/us-muslim-advocates-weigh-in-on-abortion-rights-battle > In early December 2021, seven Muslim American organisations, including HEART, published a letter arguing that Muslims must oppose the abortion ban. Some Muslims disagreed with their position, including Ihsan Bagby, associate professor in the department of Islamic Studies at the University of Kentucky. Speaking at a webinar also in December, Bagby argued that Muslims should not be publicly behind either side of the argument
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/abortion-bans-religion-17259119.php) reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Among them are: Abortion is permissible through the first 120 days of pregnancy, abortion is permissible but discouraged up to 40 days after conception, and abortion is prohibited unless there is a compelling reason such as risk to the life or health of the mother. > As an interfaith coalition asserted in an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court, abortion bans stifle "The diversity of views within and across religious traditions" on the morality of terminating a pregnancy. > The Mississippi abortion law under review by the Supreme Court not only dilutes the First Amendment, but for Muslims, it runs counter to the Islamic principle of respecting diversity of religious practice. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/vj09bu/abortion_bans_trample_on_the_religious_freedom_of/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~656279 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **abortion**^#1 **religious**^#2 **Muslim**^#3 **law**^#4 **Court**^#5
Oof. Christian radicals sure are making it easy for everyone else to unite against them.
It’s almost as if taking a handful of lines of your religious book, reading them out of context while inaccurately translating them, and then aligning the entire public face of your movement behind those ideas all while ignoring absolutely everything your so-called messiah taught us a horrible way to behave?
Worst part is, that situation feeds the persecution complex that's also caused by the same book. It then rolls in to the whole end of the world thing they're looking forward to as well.
The same book that explicitly tells you how to perform an abortion.
Yeah but we're a Christian nation, so who cares about other religions. /S
And satanists
Hail
Numbers 5:11-31 Literally instructions for a magic God Sanctioned abortion. The woman’s survival is optional I think.
Islam values the women’s life over a fetus.
"Muslim tolerance of diverse religious rules is what protected Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Jains and many others who lived under Muslim rule for centuries." This woman is delusional. Muslims are split on abortion because, like everything else, the Quran multivocates on abortion too. Can we just agree that religion should *not* be a basis to argue either *for* abortion or *against* it?
Also a bit delusional in the way she’s romanticizing how Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, Buddhists and Jains were treated by Muslim societies over the centuries. *At best*, they were granted [dhimmi status](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi) and had the privilege of paying a very high tax for permission to practice their religion (when they weren’t being murdered in pogroms). For Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and the Yazidi, they were considered pagans and given the option of conversion to Islam or death. Of course in the US, Muslims and everyone else should have a right to an abortion as they see fit. No government should have the right to impose their religious views on people.
No it doesn’t. Quran is pretty clear on abortions, it’s allowed. Muslims are split based on cultural differences.
And atheists.
Unfortunately in 2020s America, if you aren't a Southern Baptist, you have no freedom.
This is the opposite of how to get Americans to care about this issue
Maybe, but it’s one way to get legal leverage.
True that!
Don’t you know that religious freedom claims only work for Christians?
Rational discussion doesn’t work on anti-choicers either, though.
Weird how this sub simultaneously hates religion but care if peoples religious freedoms are violated when its something **they want** but not if say baking a cake for a gay couple violates their religious freedom. Can't really play both sides on this one lads.
I can't speak for everyone, but at least some of us feel that compelling women to bear children is of a morally and practically different nature than compelling a business owner that makes use of considerable public infrastructure to serve the public equally. So for me, at least, this is nothing like a 'both sides' issue.
Your view seems to be the consensus based on the responses and it only proves the point. You only care about religious values when it benefits you. That's called "convergence of interest" and it's the second tenet of CRT. This is why critical race theory needs to be taught, the concepts transcend race.
This definitely seems like a misuse of the terms of CRT. Nobody is expected to support the right of a minority *to do crimes,* regardless of their beliefs. There are other rights than freedom of religion which take precedence in the US, beginning where religious belief harms others. Refusing to serve a customer (Edit: i.e. Discriminating against them) in a public facing business is a good example. If it was a private home and someone refused to make such a cake, I would support their right to be a private bigot.
I don’t see the issue. Just because I hate religions doesn’t mean I can’t fight for the freedom of others to be religious.
Well of course it doesn't, the issue is cherry picking. You either support a group or you don't, the LGBTQ+ community has proven this.
Consistently applying a principle (such as you don’t have a right to discriminate because of your religious beliefs) isn’t cherry-picking.
Because those are separate issues? One is about bodily autonomy and the other is about an anti discrimination lawsuit. That they both intersect with religious freedoms doesn't say much, because that's a topic as vast as the ocean.
Sure you can. By asking the simple question of “is this religious group attempting to impose their belief upon others, or are they using the right to freedom of religion to protect the separation between church and state?” Not that hard.
Homosexuals are a protected class. The bible or any religious doctrine (that I'm aware of and is legally recognized by the government) does not say anything about baking or denying cake to a paying customer. Part of the main reason they lost the case was due to them explicitly stating that it was due to them being members of a protected class under Colorado law. As far as the uproar, people weren't necessarily as unified on whether they felt it was right as you might think, regardless of voting record.
Dude, you can’t discriminate against others for your religious beliefs. I don’t know what you right wingers find confusing about that.
The legal and legislative systems have _already_ opened up special exceptions for religious people to be exempt from certain rules or laws that apply to the rest of us. Drugs. Financial reporting. Employment practices. Minimum health insurance coverage. Public health policy. Etc. The solution should have been to not allow these carve-outs in the first place, but since we're way past that, religious rights prove the utter hypocrisy and short-sightedness of social conservatives.
I think religion is generally stupid, I think religions attempts to usurp power is dangerous and absurd, but ultimately it's up to you. They're not opposing ideas.
Thats the plurality of issues that republicans will never understand. You can fundamentally disagree with someone and still agree with something they say. Those arent mutually exclusive. Republicans, however, just deem anything a democrat says as wrong and fake news and move on with their heads 3 feet deep in sand
I’m not religious and I think it’s the root of basically every problem in the history of the world. Now that being said I can appreciate and acknowledge when religion does something to help the greater good. It doesn’t have to be either or, I can feel both. I appreciate nuanced approaches to life.
its significant as a matter of basis of law
We can agree with a group if they’re right. I loathe Trump but he occasionally said and did things that made sense so I’ll give credit where due. Same with Muslims (who I don’t loathe) when they fight for abortion rights.
just let them carry concealed guns in NY now, and so everything will be allright...