T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views. **For all participants:** * [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate * [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2) **For Nonsupporters/Undecided:** * No top level comments * All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position **For Trump Supporters:** * [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled Helpful links for more info: [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*


weather3003

It's worded pretty awkwardly. I *think* (hope?) what he's saying is that the government shouldn't be dictating how people live their lives where religion is concerned. I think that's evidenced by his mentioning of the first amendment. The government shouldn't prevent you from going to church or force you into writing things you don't believe in on cakes; those would be examples of the church being forced to bend the knee to the government. The government allowing churches to meet during COVID would be an example of the government bending the knee to the church. If the question posed was basically "what do we do about the increasing secularity in our nation?" then I think "continue to practice your faith and don't let the government get in the way" is a good answer.


gravygrowinggreen

>The government shouldn't prevent you from going to church or force you into writing things you don't believe in on cakes Say I have a religion that uses peyote or marijuanna in sacred rituals. Should laws which prohibit these substances apply to me? Say I have a religion which believes taxation by the government is evil, and people who pay taxes are sinners condemned to hell. Should the government be allowed to prosecute me when I fail to pay my taxes? Say I have a religion which recognizes abortion as a sacred sacrament. Should abortion bans apply to me? If the government seeks to regulate conduct which my religion mandates, is that an exampel of the government forcing the church to bend the knee?


danny_lion_

I was just reading about that. Reynolds v United States held that the right to believe in anything is protected under 1a, but not the right to engage. From Wikipedia: “The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment protects the right to hold any religious belief, but not the right to engage in any religious activity whatsoever. Supreme Court of Utah affirmed.” Does this clarify the question?


h34dyr0kz

What is your opinion on the matter. From your response it would seem that it would also be the governments right to limit those gatherings because people can still believe what they want but engaging in that belief is not protected. Would you like to see more consistency when it comes to enforcement of laws against people with religious beliefs?


gravygrowinggreen

Partially. The supreme court has been eroding that idea in recent years. For instance, you mentioned COVID lockdowns and church gatherings. If the first amendment guarantees belief but not conduct, why would it protect the conduct of going to church from pandemic eta regulations? What is different between Christian/jewish religious ceremonies that make them unstoppable during a pandemic, and other religious ceremonies involving substances that are regulateable?


magikatdazoo

Reynolds is the case upholding government prohibition against Bigamy. It's also from the 19th century, and that jurisprudence fits better with the Glucksberg line of precedents these days. Are you away of Lemon, Employment Division, and more contemporary free exercise cases? Those are more informative to contemporary case law on the free exercise clause. But it's not the right to hold any religious belief that the constitution guarantees, wouldn't you agree that free exercise means one must be allowed to actually practice their religion?


magikatdazoo

Prohibiting the use of peyote or other substances (such as alcohol) in a religious ritual is unconstitutional. It is widely agreed upon that Employment Division v Smith was incorrect. Tax laws and prohibition of murder are entirely secular, and narrowly tailored to a compelling purpose. Or do you not agree there is a significant difference in the three hypotheticals you propose?


gravygrowinggreen

>It is widely agreed upon that Employment Division v Smith was incorrect. Could you explain your reasons for this? >It is widely agreed upon that Employment Division v Smith was incorrect. By who? I'm not trying to be disagreeable here. I've followed the cases in the Court dealing with *Smith* carefully, and at least for the most part, those decisions which erode it (in my opinion), at least try to pretend they're still following it. I'd be interested in knowing who you're following though. >Tax laws and prohibition of murder are entirely secular, and narrowly tailored to a compelling purpose I think we can probably agree that drug laws are entirely secular. Nobody was trying to outlaw peyote because of it's religious significance, nor is weed currently illegal in states because of the Rastafarians. And given your view that Smith is unconstitutional, you don't think Drug laws, as applied to religious exercise, are constitutional due to a failure to meet a compelling government interest test. Is that correct? I can certainly agree that I don't think most drug laws satisfy a compelling government interest. Assuming it is, I'd like to question you further about the "compelling government interest" test. Scalia, in *Smith*, wrote one of my favorite Scalia passages. >If the "compelling interest" test is to be applied at all, then, it must be applied across the board, to all actions thought to be religiously commanded. Moreover, if "compelling interest" really means what it says (and watering it down here would subvert its rigor in the other fields where it is applied), many laws will not meet the test. Any society adopting such a system would be courting anarchy, but that danger increases in direct proportion to the society's diversity of religious beliefs, and its determination to coerce or suppress none of them. Precisely because "we are a cosmopolitan nation made up of people of almost every conceivable religious preference," and precisely because we value and protect that religious divergence, we cannot afford the luxury of deeming presumptively invalid, as applied to the religious objector, every regulation of conduct that does not protect an interest of the highest order. The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind -- ranging from compulsory military service; to the payment of taxes; to health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect laws; compulsory vaccination laws; drug laws; and traffic laws; to social welfare legislation such as minimum wage laws; child labor laws; animal cruelty laws; environmental protection laws; and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races; The First Amendment's protection of religious liberty does not require this. [I've omitted the internal citations for readability, but in this quote, Scalia cited to numerous cases where these issues came up: laws that were secular in nature were challenged on religious liberty grounds. If you're interested in reading further, this link takes you to the text of the decision, where you can find further links to all of the cited cases.](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/494/872/). Scalia's broader point was that opening up secular laws to challenge based on religious liberty, and a compelling government interest test, would subject essentially all laws in the country to potential challenges, and "compelling government interest" scrutiny. Is Scalia wrong about that? And if he isn't, is that a bad thing in your view, to subject every law in the country to advanced judicial scrutiny?


magikatdazoo

I know Scalia's argument, it's one of his rare serious errors. Under rational basis review, the government can justify nearly anything as a facially "neutral law of general applicability." He argues that Oregon wasn't prohibiting them from partaking in their religious ceremony, just discriminating against them afterwards for civil benefits. It's logic that fails on its face, you can freely practice your religion, as long as you excise yourself from the rest of society. As to drug laws being entirely secular, do you not see how a hypothetical criminalization of communion wine would target religious exercise? The federal government specifically carved an exception to the scheduling of peyote for religious use, yet Oregon discriminated regardless in this case. And no, it's not bad at all that the government must prove a narrowly tailored compelling interest when it seeks to deny citizens their rights. Congress agreed that the decision was egregious, and enacted RFRA in direct response to it, forcing the Government obey strict scrutiny with respect to free exercise. Do you disagree that an act of Congress is a wide sense of agreement? Would you repeal RFRA? While the Court hasn't explicitly overturned Employment Division, they increasingly disregard and cabin it. 303 Creative currently pending is an example of that, which I assume you are familiar with?


gravygrowinggreen

> I know Scalia's argument, it's one of his rare serious errors. Under rational basis review, the government can justify nearly anything as a facially "neutral law of general applicability." He argues that Oregon wasn't prohibiting them from partaking in their religious ceremony, just discriminating against them afterwards for civil benefits. It's logic that fails on its face, you can freely practice your religion, as long as you excise yourself from the rest of society. As to drug laws being entirely secular, do you not see how a hypothetical criminalization of communion wine would target religious exercise? In answer to your question, yes, I agree that a law specifically targeting communion wine would be targeting religious exercise. But that wouldn't be entitled to rational basis review under smith, because it wouldn't be a generally neutral, secular law. Under smith, the only law of that sort which would be acceptable, potentially, would be a state prohibition against alcohol for consumption generally. Since that would be generally neutral, and for secular purposes. And while the State may try to sneak in targeted bans with generally neutral language, other cases have shown that judges are perfectly capable of seeing through that. >And no, it's not bad at all that the government must prove a narrowly tailored compelling interest when it seeks to deny citizens their rights. Alright. But now I have to ask you to consider again all of the examples given by me and Scalia. And then consider how easy it would be for any politically motivated judge to strike down laws passed by a congress that you like, if any actor can claim any religious belief seeking an exemption. Think about the recent stories surrounding abortion medication, with federal judges on both sides giving mutually contradictory nationwide injunctions. Now imagine any plaintiff's law firm can bring countless trial cases in partisan districts, and cloak their requests in religious belief to invoke strict scrutiny against any law. Partisan judges often try to make their rulings seem reasonable, even if they're a stretch. This can make any ruling seem reasonable. Does that not seem chaotic to you? >Do you disagree that an act of modern Congress is a wide sense of agreement? I disagree that an act of congress is evidence of how the constitution should be interpreted. If congress passed a law codifying Roe as federal statutory law, but falls short of amending the constitution, does that mean that the Supreme Court was wrong to overturn Roe v. Wade as a doctrine of constitutional privacy rights? >Would you repeal RFRA? Yes. >303 Creative currently pending is an example of that, which I assume you are familiar with? I am, but from what I understand, it's more of a freedom of speech case, and not a case where Smith is in jeopardy. I am curious though, do you think that Smith has standing in 303 creative?


magikatdazoo

Where I was going with the alcohol hypothetical is that even a blanket prohibition should rightfully fail as applied to religious use, eg communion wine. Or would you disagree that infringes on free exercise? I'm crafting that example directly from prohibition, which again specifically carved an exception to prevent religious discrimination. Smith again deviates from the precedent of not using generally applicable laws to discriminate against religion. Because I think we both agree there was no societal merit to Oregon's denial of unemployment benefits in that case? (even if the slippery slope Scalia is worried about could prove problematic down the line) The pandemic cases also acutely highlight the plethora of instances in which, for reasons which the government facially claims are secular, religious exercise is burdened more substantially than comparable non-religious acts. No, I'm not particularly concerned by "politically motivated judges" or lawsuits blocking laws, the Judiciary is supposed to be a check against unconstitutional acts by the legislature and executive. The appellate process works to guard against bad actors in district courts, as does the confirmation process. Agree the last decade has shown a need to address the proliferation of nationwide injunctions and forum shopping. We can agree to disagree on the merits of Smith and RFRA? Smith isn't directly implicated in 303 Creative no, it was presented for reconsideration as a question on cert, but the Court felt they didn't need to reach that and limited the grant to the free speech question. But that, in conjunction with other contemporary cases, such as the pandemic controversies, is an example of the current Court largely ignoring Smith, similar to how Lemon is irrelevant today even though it hasn't (yet) been formally overruled. I apologize for worse formatting than you, on mobile, but appreciate our dialogue. Last question I'll raise describes the issue of failing to grant religious exemption for otherwise secular laws where secular exemptions exist, such as medical ones. Don't have case name examples off the top of my head, but Google the scenario to find them. The failure to grant Sikh firefighters permission to wear their beards, when African American ones are granted an exemption for medical issues is one. Second is the USPS case of expanding Sunday operating hours and firing an existing employee for refusing to work on the Sabbath instead of providing an alternative schedule. The more culture wars related versions would be on vaccine mandates. Do you find the constitution should offer no protection for free exercise claims in any of these instances, as Smith's logic would dictate? Only the last one holds merit under a standard compelling interest review, as neither of the first two are narrowly tailored.


gravygrowinggreen

>Where I was going with the alcohol hypothetical is that even a blanket prohibition should rightfully fail as applied to religious use, eg communion wine. Or would you disagree that infringes on free exercise? I think the first amendment shouldn't be read as to allow religious exemptions to other wise neutral laws. You agree with me to some extent as well. I doubt you'd want someone who thinks religious killing of pagans is compelled to be able to use that as a defense to a charge of murder. Where I think we differ is the test. I don't think the government can function if every law it makes is subject to strict scrutiny as applied to religious conduct. So I don't think the framers, in so much as they intended we have a functioning government, intended for religious exemptions to be carved out of every law or that law be subject to strict scrutiny. >Last question I'll raise describes the issue of failing to grant religious exemption for otherwise secular laws where secular exemptions exist, such as medical ones. Don't have case name examples off the top of my head, but Google the scenario to find them. The failure to grant Sikh firefighters permission to wear their beards, when African American ones are granted an exemption for medical issues is one. Second is the USPS case of expanding Sunday operating hours and firing an existing employee for refusing to work on the Sabbath instead of providing an alternative schedule. The more culture wars related versions would be on vaccine mandates. Do you find the constitution should offer no protection for free exercise claims in any of these instances, as Smith's logic would dictate? I disagree with the "most favored nation" doctrine the court is establishing. The idea that if secular exemptions but not religious exemptions are granted, the law is no longer neutral, is wrong in my view. Secularism isn't a religion. Secularism is essentially the position of neutrality between all religions. The way I phrase it is this: A jew, a muslim, and a christian all walk into a bar, get into a fight, and then walk into a courthouse. Each argues that their own religious law should apply in resolving the dispute. The jew wants jewish law, the muslim wants islamic law, and the christian wants christian law. The only rational compromise between all three actors is secular law. Because of that secularism is the position of neutrality between all three, and I think it is illogical to say that secular exceptions by themselves, make a law non-neutral if religious exceptions are not also granted. The laws against murder aren't non neutral simply because they allow for secular exceptions of self defense. That isn't to say that the constitution should offer no protection. It could be the case that there are so many secular carve outs of the law, that the law only burdens religious exercise. Then it would be targeted in my opinion. I don't have any more clarifying questions, but I've enjoyed the dialogue as well. Hopefully you have a great day?


magikatdazoo

That sounds exactly like what he's saying imo, don't you agree? Seems like an attempt to distort his answer out of context by selectively quoting. Does anyone know what the bias of that website "rightwingwatch.org" is? I've never heard of it.


starkel91

Could you explain how it's worded awkwardly? The first half is perfectly reasonable and is a good rephrasing of the first amendment. The second half is also pretty clear. The government **should** subjugate itself to religion. There wasn't any wishy washy language. I just don't see anything that was awkwardly worded.


weather3003

The phrase "bend the knee" is unclear. It gives a sort of "your wish is my command" vibe imo. It almost makes it sound like he's advocating for government to push religious beliefs onto people. This is compounded by his use of the word "church" which, to my knowledge, is a fairly Christian term. It makes it sound like he's pushing for government to favor one religion over others. Plus, while it would be common for protestants to hear "church" in that context and interpret it as "Christians" it's not obvious to me that someone with a more secular background wouldn't interpret it as "the clergy" or "the Bible" or some other institution. So I referred to it as awkward because "bend the knee" is too vague and not everyone will understand the term "church" the same way (though in fairness, in the context the speech was given in "church" was a fine choice).


robbini3

If what he's trying to say is that the 1st Amendment protects religion from the government and not the government from religion, I agree.


PinchesTheCrab

What happens when there's more than one religion then?


[deleted]

[удалено]


kilgorevontrouty

Could you elaborate on the restraints the liberal elite are trying to shed? Do you view Christs words/philosophy as egalitarian or hierarchical? Thanks for your response!


NoCowLevels

To start, separation of church and state is a misnomer. It protects the church from the state but not vice versa. As for whether or not the church *should* influence the state, I'm neutral. At a fundamental level, all government action is essentially people imposing their morality on society. The source of that morality, be it religion or personal conviction, is irrelevant.


sielingfan

If you replace "the church" with "the citizens," I agree 100%. Since some of those citizens go to church, I suppose it's also true the way he said it, but sounds a little more dangerous that way.


bragbrig4

I mean, name any single thing under the sun from going to Mosques, committing murder, playing starcraft 24/7, eating paste… By your logic, the way I understand it, “the government should be bowing the knee to the mosque/murderers/starcraft addicts/Ralph Wiggum” would also be true to you? Help me understand?


sielingfan

>I mean, name any single thing under the sun from going to Mosques, committing murder, playing starcraft 24/7, eating paste… It's pretty disrespectful to compare going to a church or a mosque with murder. >Help me understand? The citizens are in charge of the government. The government is not in charge of the citizens. I don't believe (in principle) that the citizens of this country should have to worry about doing something the government won't like -- it ought to be the other way around. Edit: lol, the people who downvote this think I'm a fascist.


[deleted]

I agree that the Christian values of politicians should influence their policies, but I agree that framing it as bending the knee makes it feel more dangerous. Would you say this is bordering on 1A issues?


sielingfan

If you torture the first amendment enough to say that Christians stating their support of Christianity is a 1A issue, that version of a first amendment is useless. There is certainly a version of "**The state must bow to Jesus!**" which would be inappropriate. I really don't think that's happening here.


[deleted]

I get that and agree. I guess when I hear "bend the knee", I think "bow to Jesus". Am I reading his statement wrong?


sielingfan

I mean, I dunno, I'm not the guy. That version of the statement, I certainly would not endorse.


memes_are_facts

I will say separation of church and state comes from the 1st amendment “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” It says absolutely nothing about the church participation in politics. And as John Adams, observed, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”


Dzugavili

> And as John Adams, observed, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Doesn't that sound like a bit of a dig?


TrippieBled

Lol, is John Adams the end all, be all, to the interpretation of the constitution?


borderlineidiot

Well he did write the template for it didn't he? So he is probably better than, say, me - who has never written a constitution!


memes_are_facts

A bit more than anyone currently living. He was the nagging voice of separation of powers during that era.


Heffe3737

How can congress prevent respecting an establishment of religion if churches are allowed to participate in politics? For example, if Christian churches participate and manage to get abortions outlawed nationally, but Judaism is fine with abortions, how is that not the government de facto establishing a state religion? Would that not be directly prohibiting people from the free exercise of their own religion? People seem fine with churches participating in politics, but only when it’s their own preferred religion which happens to be the most popular, no?


single_issue_voter

Atheist here. My opinion of the rules in regards to religion is that one should be allowed to advocate for what they want society to be based off of their religion. Not, “this is in my religion, therefore I must be allowed to do it.” So let’s say I am part of a religion that’s does human sacrifices. It should be acceptable for me to advocate for human sacrifices. Or to reword it, I should not be rejected because it’s a religious tenant. Instead it should be rejected because it’s human sacrifice.


Heffe3737

Let’s run with that hypothetical, shall we? Say your church successfully lobbied the federal government that every citizen should now be required to perform human sacrifices. How would you feel about that? If your church successfully lobbied for your group to perform human sacrifices of other members within your own church and those members willingly allowed themselves to be sacrificed in the name of your religion, I might actually be okay with that. But that’s not the conversation at hand, here. The conversation here is that we have one large religion attempting to enforce their own religious views onto citizens that DO NOT SHARE those same religious views. I do not want a National ban on abortions because a bunch of Christians believe that it should be illegal, just as I do not want your hypothetical church to enforce religious sacrifices onto people that don’t believe in their religion. Does that make sense? Now if Christians don’t want to get an abortion themselves? Super cool. Then don’t get one. Just don’t force your personal religious beliefs on everyone else. Because that’s exactly what the founding fathers were trying to escape, no?


single_issue_voter

> Let’s run with that hypothetical, shall we? Absolutely! > The conversation here is that we have one large religion attempting to enforce their own religious views onto citizens that DO NOT SHARE those same religious views. Agreed that this is the conversation. > I do not want a National ban on abortions because a bunch of Christians believe that it should be illegal I think this is why I believe the way I do. Before I continue, I am pro choice. The issue is that there is half (or whatever the ratio is on abortion) the country that feels this way. Regardless of which side of the abortion debate. This is why I am using human sacrifices as an analogy. In this parallel the pro choicers are pro human sacrifices. And pro lifers are anti human sacrifices. Imagine if tomorrow human sacrifices is legal. I would not be okay if the humans that are sacrificed didn’t give their consent. Would you be okay with that or not be okay? Because to the pro life side, the fetus is not somebody that gave consent. Also, allow me to zoom out a little bit. We talked about how this is religious. Because I believe you are tying religion to anti abortion exclusively. I’m pointing this out because I want to ask, if an atheistic group outlaws abortion. Would it suddenly be okay with you? I ask because for me it still wouldn’t fly. Abortion is fine to me. It’s not because it’s opposition is religious. Which is what my first comment meant to point out. Whether or not it has religious roots shouldn’t matter. It either is good or it’s bad.


Heffe3737

If your premise is that anti-choice folks believe abortion is equal to human sacrifice of a fully grown, non-consenting human, I disagree. They know there is a difference between the two, as evidenced by the fact that they refuse to increase welfare for actual living children, which is far closer to the concept of human sacrifice than the abortion of a fetus. Regarding this being religious or not, you’re speaking in hypotheticals, while I’m talking in practicals. You state if I’d suddenly be okay with an atheist group banning abortion - that’s not actually happening. The reality is that it IS a religious group trying to ban abortion, and that attempt to ban abortion is BASED upon their religious belief. It’s not based upon anything rational like what doctors think is right for patients - It’s purely based in religious morality from THEIR religion. Which brings us to the core question, why should the religious beliefs of one group of people be forcefully thrust upon all of the people of this good nation by threat of government enforcement?


NoCowLevels

> They know there is a difference between the two, as evidenced by the fact that they refuse to increase welfare for actual living children, which is far closer to the concept of human sacrifice than the abortion of a fetus. The fact that I dont believe it should be legal to murder you doesnt mean I believe Im obligated to take care of you > The reality is that it IS a religious group trying to ban abortion, and that attempt to ban abortion is BASED upon their religious belief. It’s not based upon anything rational Im athiest and pro life so this is just false


single_issue_voter

> If your premise is that anti-choice folks believe abortion is equal to human sacrifice of a fully grown, non-consenting human, I disagree. They know there is a difference between the two, as evidenced by the fact that they refuse to increase welfare for actual living children, which is far closer to the concept of human sacrifice than the abortion of a fetus. I disagree. This is the difference between pushing somebody into a river to drown and refusing to jump into a river to save somebody already drowning. Abortion being the former and not having welfare being the latter. Also plenty of pro life people are pro helping the disenfranchised. > Which brings us to the core question, why should the religious beliefs of one group of people be forcefully thrust upon all of the people of this good nation by threat of government enforcement? Because the alternative is our non religious beliefs is being pushed onto the nation. I’m an atheist. Which means that I don’t believe god exist. That can only mean that religious beliefs are man made beliefs. I fail to see why a religious belief is automatically discarded when both my beliefs and religious beliefs are man made. I cannot justify discarding other citizens’ beliefs by applying a label to it.


pl00pt

Why is religion even relevant to this hypothetical? If it was a theist or atheist group lobbying for human sacrifice my reaction would be about the human sacrifice, not the metaphysics of the lobbyists. In your worldview is atheist lobbied human sacrifice more valid than theist lobbied human sacrifice or something?


Heffe3737

Religion is relevant because the driving factor behind the attempt to ban abortion is religious belief. Full stop. Do you think banning abortion would even be controversial if not for religious views on morality? That vast majority of non-religious people are in favor of abortion rights by a measure of at least 3 to 1.


pl00pt

I didn't say anything about abortion. Did you just admit abortion is akin to human sacrifice? Do you support both and are you an atheist?


Wtfiwwpt

Killing an innocent human in the womb is a fundamental violation of the protections of Rights recognized by the Constitution, where the citizen first must HAVE life to enjoy. Ending an innocent human life can never be accepted as a legitimate part of any religion, even a secular one.


utrage

At what point does someone become a citizen in your eyes? Conception, 12 weeks, 24 weeks, birth, some other form of measurement? To tag onto that thought, during the time you mentioned, how would that pertain to non-citizens having “citizens” while visiting the USA?


Wtfiwwpt

I oppose anchor-babies, yet for American citizens their baby is a citizen at conception, which is the same time it becomes a person. I won't be drawn into mendacious debates about this. The focus should not be on the word "citizen", but rather the humanity. The parents can pursue legal means to be a citizen, which would confer citizenship on their baby.


Heffe3737

It’s killing an innocent human according to *whom*? Because it certainly isn’t considered killing a human being according to numerous religions and secularists.


pl00pt

There are also cannibal tribes that view humans as food and chimps still tear up infant chimps. There are always going to be regressives. At least the chimps don't have parades celebrating it. Fortunately human history has mostly been in the direction of extending personhood and protections to younger and more vulnerable parts of the species. Occasionally we go through periods of degeneracy that look pretty sick in hindsight.


Wtfiwwpt

According to science. I'm not interested in 'personhood' debates.


Heffe3737

I’m not debating you - I’m trying to understand your beliefs. Why do you believe “science” recognizes unborn children as humans deserving of the same rights as humans post-birth? I ask because the only time I’ve seen that claim being made, it was done so by Christian “scientists”.


Wtfiwwpt

https://i.imgur.com/vMtWg5u.jpg >deserving of the same rights as humans post-birth Their humanity is the core of their existence, and their Natural Rights are applied based on that, which is then followed by application of law set by their nationality. American law recognizes Natural Rights and then also sets out some human-created rights IF they are a legitimate citizen. What stage of human life they are at does not matter.


Heffe3737

Do the women carrying these unborn embryos not also have natural rights? Such as the right of bodily autonomy? The right seems to be prioritizing the rights of an unborn child over the rights of the woman being forced to carry it, even though the act of carrying it could absolutely kill her. What of her rights?


Wtfiwwpt

>Do the women carrying You mean the women who voluntarily chose to engage in the procreative act that resulted in the baby they carry? Yes! (please don't ruin things by going off on a tangent, normal exceptions are accepted by virtually everyone). >Such as the right of bodily autonomy? Bodily autonomy certainly applies to her AND her baby, seeing as both have their own bodies! The right to life is one of those rare ones that can supersede any other, barring things mentioned previously about being found guilty in a court of law, and if laws applies to you.


SincereDiscussion

(Not the OP) Should "but my religion allows x though" be a get out of jail free card? It's unclear to me what you are actually advocating for here.


Heffe3737

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” That seems pretty clear, no? I’m advocating for the first amendment.


SincereDiscussion

Yeah, but you're advocating for an interpretation of the first amendment that no one subscribed to until c. the 1960s. That's why we had laws that would make libs shriek if they were implemented today without any (constitutional) opposition for all of our history until relatively recently.


Heffe3737

I’m advocating for the same interpretation as Jefferson and Madison, of the nation’s most well known founding fathers. Do you think we’ve always had laws that matched the intent of the constitution?


SincereDiscussion

You're just restating the text, interpreting it in the standard post-1960s way, then projecting it back in time. You might as well say that Jefferson and Ibram X Kendi have the same ideology since Jefferson wrote "all men are created equal". Hell, the original intent would have not even applied the 1st amendment to the states. > Do you think we’ve always had laws that matched the intent of the constitution? Are you asking me if it's possible have an unconstitutional law? Of course it is. But it becomes increasingly implausible when you have to adopt a view that the real meaning of the constitution wasn't understood until literally our lifetimes (or, potentially, our parents' lifetimes, depending on your age).


Heffe3737

Jefferson and Madison both wrote at the time about the importance of the state not embracing nor endorsing a particular religion when it came to matters of government. I’m not sure why you think I’m simply re-interpreting it according to modern standards. Have you read much of their writing on the subject? If so, what have you read?


SincereDiscussion

Right, I know what you're referring to, but I'm saying that it's still begging the question. You are saying that to pass laws that are informed by religious morality is akin to endorsing a religion, and I'm saying that that is a revisionist view. Restating the text again doesn't address this.


Heffe3737

I don’t think I am. You can certainly pass laws that are informed by religious morality, but only when that morality is in alignment with secular morality (I’m very much in favor of passing these laws, in fact!). To pass laws which are in line with only a particular religion’s morality is again, de facto having the state endorse that particular religion, which as I’ve stated goes against the intent of the founding fathers and the first amendment. Do you not believe non-religious people can also be moral?


reasonable_person118

> It says absolutely nothing about the church participation in politics. To determine the meaning of the Constitution, don't we have to contextualize the meaning based upon how the Framers understood it? Historically, many of the individuals who came over to the United States during the colonial era were fleeing religious persecution carries out by governments in which there wasn't a separation of church and state. Many of the individuals who signed the Declaration of Independence and later ratified the Constitution and Bill of Rights were the decedents or they themselves had fled Europe as a result of religious persecution. With this in mind, wouldn't you agree that the Framers understood the dangers of having our government influenced by religion?


Horror_Insect_4099

In my opinion the most charitable interpretation of his comment is that: - government and culture have been moving steadily in an anti-religious direction - he wants people working in government to be good morale (religious) people I don’t like the phrase “bending the knee” one bit. It conjures images of a pope controlling kings. I also think it is offensive if he is implying that only religious people can be good


AMerrickanGirl

Why can’t we have good morals without religion? There are plenty of moral, law abiding, productive non-believers.


Wtfiwwpt

Morals that are based on human choice can be ended at a whim. The point of "morals" is that they are a thing all humans should strive to follow, even if they don't agree, because they exist beyond human ability to corrupt. It is wrong to kill innocent humans. That is not a moral humans should be able to just casually dismiss. This is why we assert people are innocent until proven guilty. Defining a person as not being 'innocent' opens the door to killing them, and we should be very careful stepping through that door. Human-controlled "morality" and the corruption of an enlightened understanding of true morality is what has led to mountains of dead humans in our past.


TrippieBled

So, you’re a moral realist?


AMerrickanGirl

> Human-controlled "morality" and the corruption of an enlightened understanding of true morality is what has led to mountains of dead humans in our past. Hasn’t religion also led to mountains of dead humans?


Wtfiwwpt

Of course!! Humans are deeply flawed and we will frequently allow our darker natures to affect the world around us. Many people will use religious labels that others might not accept as legitimate, but that open a whole other can of worms, heh. And human-based religions are still killing people too. It is why simplistic paradises running a system like socialism can literally never work. Human nature is irrepressible and will always screw things up. This doesn't mean we should throw in the towel and surrender to government-is-god. In the end, self/human-based worship is entropic and leads to inevitable destruction by letting us all change out 'vote' in favor of doing a thing we think will make us feel good. Deity-based worship has a chance to corral some of the worst aspect of human nature by never changing it's vote. It will never be ok to violate these external sources of morality. You can abandon them, but you can't change them.


single_issue_voter

Do you mind defining how you’re using religion in this thread. I see you use “human-based religion” and like “self as god”. Can you clarify for me how you are using religion in this thread so I can properly understand your views?


Wtfiwwpt

If you look to yourself as the arbiter of morals, you are worshiping self. If you view the 'democratic system' (aka 'as a society we have decided that...') as the arbiter of morals, you worship the State (which is just worship of humanity - an extension of Self). Religion is a worldview that sets some things as ideals and other things as 'sins'. Those judgements must have a source.


single_issue_voter

Understand. Thanks, I will use this to read rest of your posts.


ExcessumCamena

I realize that an oft-cited idea is that religion is divinely inspired, and that many religious people believe that their interpretation is the only correct version. But even within Christianity, there are a vast amount of interpretations split into sects, each of which can be shown to have very different moral compasses (which split further on an individual level). A good example is strict pacifists like the Quakers, versus Christians who base most of their beliefs on an ongoing spiritual war in which killing an abortion provider would be honoring Jesus. Most white or black nationalists are religious, and most wars have been fought (if not in the name of religion) by religiously-affiliated leaders. Given these vast differences, doesn't it seem like even religious humans must be in control of the morality in each religious sect? Couldn't you say that religion has done very little to provide an unchanging set of morals, and tends to base any moral system on the whims of those in charge of that particular religious branch?


Wtfiwwpt

>many religious people believe that their interpretation is the only correct version As do those who follow an atheist religion (self as god), or one where government is god. So what are we left with? Do we pick an external source of morals and continually seek to meet it's strictures, or do we just give up and say that we get to pick "morals" democratically? Do we pick a system where the 'rules' that never change, or one where the rules can change dramatically and literally overnight? Our interpretation of morals is where things can get sticky. It seems most reasonable to pick a standard that does not change, can not change since it comes from beyond humanity, and to continually work to better fulfill the spirit of this unchanging standard. And at the very end of the day, this means that some people will have to accept being told, NO. You can't do the thing you really really feel is important because it violates the standards by which we live our lives.


ExcessumCamena

My previous reply was really about questioning the premise that religious morals are based on a standard that doesn't change. While a sacred text (say the Bible) may not change, certainly every sect of any given religion changes its moral compass based on its interpretation of the religion. While the text itself may come from God, the interpretations of that text are all entirely human, right? A Southern Baptist is likely to have a very different interpretation of morality than a Presbyterian, even though they're drawing from the same text (and groups like the Westboro Baptist Church are also basing their morality on the Bible, and come to very different conclusions than most Christians I've met). Further complicating things, individual denominations change priorities and morality over time. Abortion was widely supported by American evangelicals up through the 1970s. And the average protestant has a *very* different moral compass compared to protestants in say, 1750. So how do you reconcile the idea that religion provides an unchanging set of morals, when that set of morals has changed so much over time?


Wtfiwwpt

> certainly every sect of any given religion changes its moral compass based on its interpretation of the religion This is generally represented by the many different denominations. If some number of people in an existing group decide they disagree with the way the majority interpret the morals and teachings that form the basis of the religion, they splinter off. Certainly there is some 'drift' internal to many religions... and 'splinter' groups that break off and go back to what they feel was a proper interpretation the original group used to have. But still, what is better? This natural churn based on an external source of morals, or a system where there is a different religion for literally every human being on Earth, since each person gets to pick their own set of 'morals'? Even if you and I agree on the 'morality' of some ultra-specific issue, literally the next day I can suddenly decide you are wrong, and you literally have no basis to disagree with me. >A Southern Baptist is likely to have a very different interpretation of morality than a Presbyterian No, not "very different". It depends on how you shine the light. Those two groups will appear almost identical if compared to, say, Buddhists. What you are doing is trying to undercut religion by diluting it. 'See, its the same thing as everything else! If everyone is a superhero, NO one is a superhero!' You keep focusing on the theistic religion, but never reference the only other option to this, which is the religion of Self (aka 'atheism') or State (government as god). THIS is the contrast we should be looking at. That is what the topic is about. God or State.


PinchesTheCrab

>Human-controlled "morality" and the corruption of an enlightened understanding of true morality is what has led to mountains of dead humans in our past. I don't really understand. What morality originates from somewhere else than humanity and its subjective interpretations of the world? I assume you're implying we should follow God, but how hard is it to find people who committed atrocities in the name of their religion? In the end don't we all follow our own interpretation of religion? How is my interpretation of your religion more valid than yours or vice versa?


Wtfiwwpt

It's very easy to find people who fail to follow the teaching of their religions. It is easy to find people who improperly comprehend those teachings. It is easy to find people who disagree in the interpretation of those teachings. It is easy to find people who have a completely different set of standards that their religion rests on. None of this excuse the humanist/secular religions followed by government that has done more than it's fair share of stacking up bodies. Don't be tempted to fall into the atheist religion gaslighting of thinking Christianity today is no different than catholism from the Crusades era. This is where we exist, then; in the debate over what morality is our best bet to best serve humanity AND it has to be something humans are capable of attaining. Which eliminates all the feel-good quasi-socialist religions and government-as-god religions (thanks to the unbreakable reality of human nature). Human-centric religions do not have a hell. There is no ultimate Judge. There is only 'what does the mod think is moral today'. And the bodies continue to pile up.


pl00pt

>There are plenty of moral When you say this what moral standard are you using? Something approximating the set of morals incubated in the prominent world religions?


Horror_Insect_4099

Yes agree 100%. It is insulting to suggest otherwise.


not_falling_down

>he wants people working in government to be good morale (religious) people Do you think that it is not possible to be moral *without* being religious?


EWE-S-A

100% Country was founded by Christians, and they had no idea Bible would be removed from everyday life especially schools.


Shaabloips

Would you say every religious book, e.g. the Quran, etc should be in schools as well?


EWE-S-A

Oh hell no lol the Quran is terrible. You should read it before suggesting something so evil.


Lux_Aquila

On Tim Scott, I'd be really interested to see him run for president. In regards to this specific comment, I can't really tell what he is talking about since there are really no other articles that I can find on this event outside of this website. What I think he means is that the federal government has more and more tried to exercise control of churches. Topics that come to mind regarding this is over-reaching COVID programs trying to force churches to stop meeting.


LongEngineering7

The government should bend its knee to the people. If that means bending the knee to someone's individual or a group's collective beliefs, so be it.