separate church and state- abortion

[catra]

so, i have a question. does the idea of separating church and state apply to abortion? for example, say a state tried to create a law banning abortion at some point during the pregnancy, and part of that law’s reasoning was because abortion is a “sin” (i mean a sin in christianity). would that be allowed? 

 

i’ve seen pro-lifers cite moral reasons for being against abortion, which is fine, but when do those moral values cross the line? can they even come into play without being objective enough to make laws?

[Alawyn-Aebt]

27 minutes ago, catra said:

so, i have a question. does the idea of separating church and state apply to abortion?

I assume so, I would not see why not.

18 minutes ago, catra said:

but when do those moral values cross the line? can they even come into play without being objective enough to make laws?

Moral arguments are fine, the entire debate is mostly a morality-legality based one, but because of church-state separation those moral arguments cannot be based on religious reasons, that would overstep the strict line between the two.

One can cite moral reasons, but because of the church-state division it would stand to reason they could not be connected with the Divine Command Ethical Theory or the Civil Religion Ethical Theory. Kantian Deontological Ethical Theory (Possibly some Feminist Ethical Theories, such as Ethics of Care Theory could also be used, but those have ethical issues elsewhere and are fairly easy to argue against) would be the strongest moral base to argue against abortions, as Kant in many ways found how to justify Biblical moral arguments from a non-Biblical source. However, calling abortion a 'sin' by law or even used in the debate surrounding the morality-legality of abortion should not be allowed because of the separation between church and state.

[Karst]

The issue is that religious beliefs tend to be very deeply intertwined with a person's ethical values.  You can't make a law banning something solely because your religion considers it a sin (at least, not in a democracy), but you're free to vote for laws that line up with your religion's ideas on right and wrong.

And if we try to make the case that any religious involvement in politics is wrong, we find ourselves arguing against people and movements that we consider praiseworthy as well as against the bigots.  Martin Luther King Jr. was a Baptist minister, for example.

[Yeast]

The US constitution says the government can't impose a state religion. I don't think "separation" is part of the text. OK. I've never read the entire constitution but the statement that "all men are created equal" does not equate to "women are equal to men". The abortion debate centers around women's reproductive rights. OK. They have the right to vote now. They might not have the right to decide how they reproduce in the future.  The government is Christian for better or worse. It demonstrates this by outlawing polygamy which ironically was a feature of the only truly American Christian sect, Mormonism. Further irony involves the fact many old testament figures were polygamous. Obviously where the Mormons got the idea. The only time the state I exist in seems to merit national attention is when we do something really stupid. The last incident was when a bakery refused to create a gay wedding cake based on its religious convictions.

 

Wait a minute. I don't believe one can find "abortion" anywhere in the bible. This makes this a moral argument not a strictly religious one. OK. Is it a sin terminating the life of a potential human being while casting legions of fully formed people into the slaughter of war? Holy wars no less. I'll join the anti abortion sect the moment they oppose war. Until then they prostitute themselves to the environment they exist in to spread their message - the world needs more Christian soldiers. American preferably. You ladies are just along for the ride.

 

This is all so insane.   

[Puck]

Well, the thing is that "Separation of Church and State" was never intended to mean separation of christian morals from state.

 

At the time of that idea being created, England had one church that it made everyone subscribe to (Anglican). A lot of those who came to America initially came wanting to be able to practice different kinds of christianity. When America was first being started, though, there were many who wanted to make it so that the Anglican church was the official church of the nation. People like Thomas Jefferson fought against that, wanting people to be able to follow whatever religion seemed right, not what the government dictated.

 

That being said, Thomas Jefferson and his ilk always believed in strong christian morals as the backbone of America. It wasn't that church couldn't decide the morals of people who then wrote laws/voted/whatever, it was supposed to be that one's government didn't decide one's religion.

 

Remember that past empires would do things like kill people of certain religions (see the romans killing christians, everyone killing the jews, christian nations killing muslims....). So really, it was an attempt to stop that from happening. Though I don't think murder was really the concern so much as general ostracization by a government that was meant to be protecting those people.

 

Also remember that there are many morals that christians preach that we follow that we all probably agree are good things, such as not killing people, not stealing, not lusting after someone else's wife...

 

So, to many christians, abortion-related concerns aren't concerns just of their religion, but that they think any person should follow. Yes, they cite christian doctrine, but that's because they honestly believe that that doctrine decides what is right/wrong in this world.

 

I personally very much agree their should be a line. But I think it's helpful to remember that when you are talking with someone who takes the bible that seriously, you aren't debating with them as to whether their book should decide how all people act, you are legitimately challenging their entire worldview that they may have based their identity and entire life on.

 

But of course, that's just how I've seen things and I cannot speak for any christians as I am not one.

[Sally]

The supposed separation between religion and state in America is illusive -- in fact, all that is stated in the Constitution is that the federal government can't decree a specific state religion.  The individual states with strong fundamentalist Christian majorities do indeed frame some laws with religious morality in mind.  The legislation generally doesn't state those Christian views as such because the legislators don't want their constitutionality to be possibly challenged, but everyone knows that that is what they intend. 

 

 

 

 

[Skycaptain]

All churches should have no involvement in state legislation, period. This doesn't just apply to abortion law, but all legislature. 

[SithLord]

As others have mentioned, technically it doesn't matter since a law banning abortion would be voted on people using religion as a motivator but there's no way to prevent people from expressing their religious beliefs through voting. The government can't have a law that says "In Christianity, abortion is a sin, therefore abortion is illegal" but it can say "abortion is illegal". I just fucking wish people would understand the difference when it comes to pushing their religion on other people. 

[starweb]

8 hours ago, Ardoise said:

The issue is that religious beliefs tend to be very deeply intertwined with a person's ethical values.  You can't make a law banning something solely because your religion considers it a sin (at least, not in a democracy), but you're free to vote for laws that line up with your religion's ideas on right and wrong.

And if we try to make the case that any religious involvement in politics is wrong, we find ourselves arguing against people and movements that we consider praiseworthy as well as against the bigots.  Martin Luther King Jr. was a Baptist minister, for example.

 

We should keep in mind that during the Civil Rights era, it was African-American Churches, mostly in the south, that was the focal points for change. There was a reason they burned black churches during that time. They were the heart of the community and major meeting places. Liberal Christians were at the forefront and back in those days,  and there were Christians on both sides of the slavery movement. Many famous abolitionists were Christians.



[InDefenseOfPOMO]

On 5/22/2019 at 6:57 AM, starweb said:

There was a reason they burned black churches during that time. They were the heart of the community and major meeting places.

 

I never made that connection.

 

It is true: you learn something new every day (it helps if you read a lot, though).

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

On 5/21/2019 at 10:06 PM, catra said:

so, i have a question. does the idea of separating church and state apply to abortion? for example, say a state tried to create a law banning abortion at some point during the pregnancy, and part of that law’s reasoning was because abortion is a “sin” (i mean a sin in christianity). would that be allowed? 

 

i’ve seen pro-lifers cite moral reasons for being against abortion, which is fine, but when do those moral values cross the line? can they even come into play without being objective enough to make laws?

 

“Politics is who gets what, when, how.” -- Harold Lasswell

 

It seems to me that the chronology--the culture war strategy and the Southern Strategy (all attributable to Richard Nixon, I believe); Roe vs. Wade; the founding of the Moral Majority; Ronald Reagan being elected; etc.--says that the abortion controversy has been entirely about power and control.

 

Do conservatives really want abortion abolished like slavery? Or do they prolong the controversy and have no intention of ever resolving it, because it keeps them in power?

 

If it was a moral issue it would be getting closer to being resolved.

 

If it was a religious issue it would be addressed within private religious organizations.

 

It has never gotten closer to being resolved, and it has been almost entirely a public debate.

 

If the issue is life, women's health, women's freedom, etc., both sides fail miserably. There are far more effective ways to protect life, improve women's health, expand freedom, etc. than fighting an extremely divisive, never ending culture war.

 

It is politics. The U.S. Constitution may separate church and state, but it does not separate religion and politics.

 

How can religion and politics be separated without denying human and civil rights?

 

Anybody in liberal democracy who thinks that religion-derived morality should be eradicated from politics is looking in the wrong place. If they are serious about establishing a secular utopia, they would probably do better within a dictatorship.

[gisiebob]

our nation being rooted in christian values is simply a matter of progeny. if the people of the formation of the united states brought with them the history and culture of any other religion, that which where they had come from had used to oppress and coalesce authority, then they would have formed a state from that religion's values.

 but today is there any religion that is not held within an American body?

we started out a chritian people, absolutely, but today we are a people of multitude. and the navigation of our laws should reflect that.

 

or

am I in a stealth christian country and filthy non-believers such as myself (not to mention people who practice the WRONG religions) should GTFO

?

[Nick2]

If someone does not want an abortion for whatever reason then don't have one.  If you belong to a religious group that says abortion is wrong then don't have one or find another group.  But for religious groups to force their beliefs on all the rest of us is wrong.  Women should be able to decide for themselves...that is the bottom line.

 

Still think that the way religion is influencing voting, laws, etc. they should loose their tax exempt status.

[Alawyn-Aebt]

7 hours ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

Anybody in liberal democracy who thinks that religion-derived morality should be eradicated from politics is looking in the wrong place. If they are serious about establishing a secular utopia, they would probably do better within a dictatorship.

The problem with religion-derived morality is that not only does it lead to issues like this, it is also usually a weaker argument. Dispelling the Kantian ethical view on abortion is much harder than dispelling a religious-based view, despite the fact they reach the same conclusions. Now dispelling is not the same as changing their mind, but it can be one step in the road to a real change in thinking. If people took more interest in debating others, or had more interest in philosophy in general, people may realize how many religion-based morality arguments do not stand up against attacking arguments.

Personally I think a secular utopia would be great but I am practical so people can maintain their own religions as long as their beliefs do not interfere with me, and I will not interfere with their beliefs. People can, in religious contexts, believe what they they want to, as long as their actions do not interfere with others. But if they manifest those beliefs in a way that harms society then that is instantly problematic.

[Sally]

15 hours ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

Do conservatives really want abortion abolished 

Yes, religious conservatives do.  They are doing it bit by bit, without having to overturn Roe v. Wade.  They have no need for it to be a perpetual "issue".  

[Zagadka]

Abortion is tricky because it is a very personal question with very subjective views.

 

I absolutely believe a lot of anti-abortion people when they say they legitimately view it as murder, and a lot of the left doesn't understand that point of view. It is even more subjective than being pissed at a drug company for gouging people on insulin, for conservatives. It is a fundamental misunderstanding that can't be bridged by reason; it is simply either murder of a lifeform or forcing someone to devote their entire lives to a clump of cells. Either way, a life is lost.

 

I'm hopefully obviously pro-choice, but you have to listen to the other side either way. We on the left get really pissed about murder all the time.

[Sally]

I'm an odd leftist: I do consider abortion murder but I am absolutely in favor of allowing women to make the decision.  My personal opinion should not prohibit a woman's choice regarding her own body.  

[Zagadka]

I certainly agree that there is a lot of sexism involved. Women are just assumed to have a sole function while men have almost no responsibility in the matter (while millions are diverted to provide more Viagra).

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

14 hours ago, Aebt said:

Personally I think a secular utopia would be great but I am practical so people can maintain their own religions as long as their beliefs do not interfere with me, and I will not interfere with their beliefs. People can, in religious contexts, believe what they they want to, as long as their actions do not interfere with others. But if they manifest those beliefs in a way that harms society then that is instantly problematic.

 

My point was that it is almost impossible to separate religion from politics, and that doing so would mean compromising free speech and other things essential to liberal democracy.

 

State institutions and formal religious institutions can be kept separate. But removing religion from the entire political process--fund raising, donations, scholarship, media, voting, etc. would be almost impossible in liberal democracy.

 

If politics completely free of religion is a goal, it would be more feasible in a dictatorship.