The Alabama Supreme Court has ruled that frozen embryos are children, putting the future of in vitro fertilization (IVF) in peril across the state.
But this surprise decision is getting attention not only for its potential restrictions on fertility care access – the logic the justices leaned on to make their ruling is setting off alarm bells, too.
To back their arguments, the court cited the Bible and the “sanctity of unborn life” in a ruling that mentioned "God" no less than 40 times.
Are Embryos People?
The answer, at least according to the Alabama Supreme Court, is yes.
The case comes via three sets of Alabama parents who undertook in vitro fertilization in an effort to get pregnant. As is typical, the embryos were stored frozen in a cryogenic nursery.
In late 2020, a patient wandered into the clinic via an unsecured doorway, made their way to the freezer, picked up several embryos and then dropped them, destroying them.
Plaintiffs sued the medical association, citing gross negligence on the hospital’s part, and alleging that they violated Alabama’s “Wrongful Death of a Minor Act.”
“Wrongfully causing and/or allowing the death of an embryonic human being is no different than causing the death of a human being at any other stage of life,” the lawsuit claimed. “Embryonic human beings are human beings.”
Lower courts said no, a frozen embryo is not a “minor child.” But the Alabama Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that yes, they are.
Supreme Being, Supreme Court
“This Court has long held that unborn children are "children" for purposes of Alabama's Wrongful Death of a Minor Act,” begins the Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling in a recent case regarding the destruction of frozen embryos. But is there “an unwritten exception to that rule for extrauterine children -- that is, unborn children who are located outside of a biological uterus at the time they are killed?”
In the court’s decision, God, the Bible, and religiously-loaded language like “the sanctity of unborn life” are all referenced dozens of times.
Chief Justice Tom Parker wrote:
“The theologically based view of the sanctity of life adopted by the People of Alabama encompasses the following: (1) God made every person in His image; (2) each person therefore has a value that far exceeds the ability of human beings to calculate; and (3) human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself.”
“It is as if the People of Alabama took what was spoken of the prophet Jeremiah and applied it to every unborn person in this state: ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, Before you were born I sanctified you'"
Many people of faith cheered the ruling and its implications:
Moral Principle, or Christian Nationalism?
However, while the court clearly feels that biblical teachings have a role to play in this case, critics are decrying the controversial ruling as a blatant example of Christian nationalism:
Others questioned the logic of the ruling itself:
Still others asked why the same thinking isn't applied to capital punishment:
For their part, fertility services warned that should embryos be deemed people, their clinics would be all but inoperable in the state of Alabama. Fertility doctors would have no choice but to move out of state, lest they be charged with manslaughter or murder for failing to implant an embryo.
And some legal experts say that may be the most likely outcome:
What is your reaction? Should frozen embryos be qualified as living children? And should state Supreme Court justices be citing the Bible in legal rulings?
140 comments
-
Merlin
Religion to determine law must never be used. Which religion? In the Old Testament, slavery is condoned. Do we use that to abolish the 13th Amendment?
-
Elizabeth Jane Erbe Wilcox
Frozen embryos are NOT CHILDREN! How do I know this? I know it having seen the frozen embryos that were created when my daughter and her husband conceived by IVF after attempting to conceive via the usual means. Only a non-sane living, breathing, born human would think that an embryo was a CHILD.
I am grateful, as are thousands, if not millions of others that IVF is available.
See the pictures at this site and see for yourself.
https://advancedfertility.com/fertility-gallery/ivf-embryos/
-
Colleen McAllister
An embryo is not a person, it is a collection of cells that has the potential to become a person. The Bible should have no bearing since using it as a legal reference would establish Judaism and Christianity as our national faith. That is indeed what the Constitution say we may not do.
-
Michael Holland
Viability means the embryo can live "on it own" outside the womb!
-
Colleen McAllister
Which it can't.
-
-
James Grainger
The embryo is frozen and has yet to be implanted in a woman, therefore cannot be considered life??? The embryo does need the nurture of the mother to develop into a viable being
-
Lionheart
Darn it, I’m feeling really bad now that I had an egg 🐣 for my breakfast. 🤷🏼
🦁❤️
-
Stephanie A Willey
(chuckling... ) Good one Lionheart. I had 2 eggs for breakfast, with cheese and ketchup. But somehow I am not feeling bad about it at all.
-
ServantOfJudgement
You get a pass lionheart. My two bits? Spit the egg out if it's red and crunchy. Trust me on that one.
-
-
Ealdormon Piparskeggr Robinson
This reminds me of the song from Monty Python's "The Meaning of Life:" Every Sperm Is Sacred.
Also did a little reading of the medical literature. What are frozen are blastocysts, not embryos. The fertilized eggs are allowed to develop a few days. In a pregnancy, an embryo is actually the form after 3 weeks. The embyo is considered a fetus at about week 10 or 11.
As I read it, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled badly from faulty medical information.
-
Reverend Marika
You deal with this type of insanity by writing a very clear letter to the governor of Alabama advising that you will not be doing business with any company in Alabama and you get all your friends and everyone else you know to do the same. Alabama will become yet another "fly over" state.
-
Bond Wright
Leave Alabama--they are insane.
-
Rev. Klaire ThD, MA
When I was assigned to Redstone arsenal in Huntsville, the joke was "don't get caught trying to smuggle books into the state" and this was in the 80's and 90's. They are no smarter today. Perhaps even less so!
-
-
Matthew Mastrogiovanni
Separation of church and state anyone? This is absolutely insane.
-
Rev. Jim Sutton
"Separation of church and state" does NOT exist. Take the time to read the actual Amendment instead of passing on misinformation ! ! !
-
Michael Hunt
The amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." which is where the notion of a separation between the church and the state comes from. Since congress cannot pass laws that prohibit a person from practicing their religious beliefs, nor can they pass laws that would promote one religion over the other, there exists a separation between the church and the state. Thus concludes this basic civics lesson.
-
-
-
Paul
Complete and utter madness. Is Alabama now an official theocracy? Its Supreme Court should be preventing this not imposing it.
-
Rebecca L Tice
I'm having a hard time trying to justify all this.
Children are hiding in fall out shelters singing Disney songs to keep themselves together.
Children are being murdered in schools and at parades.
Children are being killed by drug addled parents.
Children are marching for thousands of miles to a better life only to be ripped from the arms of their parents to "save" them.
Children are being murdered in their homes by rocket fire.
SHOK.... STOP HURTING OUR KIDS
I make dolls... from now on I am going to tag my dolls as SHOK dolls.... they are to bring a hug into a child's life. They are also a reminder.... STOP HURTING OUR KIDS!!!
If you dont' want abortion... you have to take care of the children who are born.
Jesus loved the little children... all the children of the world... red and yellow, black and white... they are perfect in His sight... Jesus loves the little children of the world....
SHOK = STOP HURTING OUR KIDS1
STOK STOK STOK... Pass it on.... STOK
-
Robert E. Polston
Greetings Brothers and a Sisters, may Peace and Love find each one of you!
I think that the truth is we are all free to live as we wish. We are free to make mistakes, to search for our best path, and to love and care for each other. We have the power to forgive each other and to seek forgiveness for our own mistakes and weaknesses. None of us has a corner on being right or righteous except when we forgive and love each other and then it should be a shared experience.
We certainly find a need to protect each other and care for one another, but that is complicated to achieve in a way we can all understand. Tolerance and forgiveness can be quite hard and the urge to be judge, jury, and executioner is tempting as well as more satisfying than enduring the complication of forgiveness or the command to love one another when we do not agree.
When we invoke God, or we stand in judgement it is always a powerful responsibility and best that we recall that we are children of God and not God himself. Judge not, least ye be judged is the powerful thought we should consider. Making rules to live by is important, but when we start to override natural freedom, we must remember to choose love in our lives, choose carefully so as not to make mistakes, and engage the act of limiting the inalienable right of freedom against others we are truly treading on the razers edge. It seems too easy to want control of others, to impose our will on others, and be hateful toward others while wearing a Pius face and calling it righteous.
Rev. Bob
-
Danny D. Maynard
Not everyone is Christian!
-
Robert E. Polston
Thanks for the reminder, although it is hard to miss that large fact. Everyone can be moral or of value no matter what their belief system! Thanks for sharing!
-
-
shiningwolf9
Very religiously word winded, but, after reading to the end, good point.
-
Robert E. Polston
Thank you, I tried to be value oriented and not sound supersticious or pius, but it is a hard line to walk. It feels a bit like being drunk without having had a drink, but I tried. Thanks again!
-
-
-
John Alex Paxson
Remember the phrase "Separation of Church and State" ??
-
John Alex Paxson
Forgot something ... in this Day and age, we are so divided, that everyone, including the ones that supposedly run our lands, do whatever they please, and manipulate Laws and reason to whatever fits their needs, and we as humanity only look for what pleases ourselves rather than what is good for humanity and our planet (which we are custodians of, not owners) ... God help us if we cannot change.
-
Rev. Jim Sutton
Again, "Separation of Church and State" does NOT exist. Take the time to read the actual Amendment instead of passing on misinformation ! ! !
-
-
Mary E Benoit
Another situation where stupid men try to kill more women. The next thing will be to protect disease, virus and bacteria, god’s creation too and not allow medical intervention. But only women have to rely only on god’s help to save them. Remember, women are not people entitled to life, liberty or the pursuit of independent happiness. Men decide all!
-
Mary E Benoit
Many men believe women do not need menstrual product since the blood flow is controlled like urine. Men must stay out of women’s health care since they have no idea what anything is like. It is nothing but a control issue to deny any women the right to her iwn life, liberty or pursuit of happiness.
-
Rev. Dr. Father JJ
nothing to see here folks, just one more attack from the cristofascist agenda
-
Cyril R. VanKeirsbelk
According to the Bible a person gets their soul with their first breath. Until then it's just a lump of flesh.
People who claim a fetus is a person is going directly AGAINST the Bible. They are trying to abuse their position of authority to force others to be subservient to them. If you are preaching the opposite of the Bible, what does that make you?
-
Russel A. Kester
Cyril, I responded above to your comments to my post and quoted a biblical verse that God knows us before we are even formed in the womb which I interpret to mean we have a soul before our body developed. There are many metaphysical writings which agree with this. And if we accept reincarnation, then it is a necessity. I can understand the cognitive dissonance one might experience in realizing that the feminist trope about a developing baby is a lie and the need to grab on to anything promising relief. But doing so doesn't really work in the long term. Since you don't know when a body is ensouled, simply admit that truth. But if you intend to use religious scriptures, be sure to know them well enough to have a counter argument for those which deny your premise(s).
-
-
Robert Gagnon
A fetus may be arguable as someone becoming a person. An embryo is pre-fetus and little than than the potential to become any form of life. I think it odd that these pro-life radicals seem to think that every embryo must be implanted somewhere or it is a crime. How fortunate for the LGBTQ that the left overs may be thrown their way. Bearded ladies could just drive through and start a 9 month side hustle.
-
Rev. Klaire ThD, MA
If you were intending your comment to be in opposition to the ruling you certainly ended it in a heavy layer of clinical stupidity.
-
White Owl
"An embryo is pre-fetus and little than than the potential to become any form of life."
This is incorrect. At the moment of conception the egg & sperm contribute the DNA to make a complete and unique human DNA strand, at that point it can be only one "form of life" and that is the unique human being.defined by that DNA.
White Owl
-
-
shiningwolf9
My reply to another:
Feb 21, 2024 at 08:10 pm (0 votes) And, yet, people so readily seem to want to dismiss the very fact that, when people started coming to this land, (wasn't america yet, or, the US), there were some coming from different religious backgrounds, not just christianism; and, forgetting the many different First People's religious beliefs. How dare, in this Day and Age, many still want to usurp government leadership, by claiming one particular religious belief of some overthrows/over rides other people's religious views, or non-religious leanings. A government run by one religious view point, cannot, and should not be allowed; and is cause for the majority to rise up in revolt !
-
Mark Hannon
This is so crazy. It makes me think of people doing really stupid things as a result of such a wild ruling. What if the 8 celled fertilized eggs were switched out with 6 day old fertilized dog eggs by some odd QAnon organization? Then they could all be implanted in someone like the "octo-mom" and she can carry them all.
-
Curtis W Miller
So if I live in Alabama, and have 15 embryos stored, I should be able to claim 15 children for state aid, right?
-
Marsha Lynn Goldstein
Seems so.
-
-
Charles Leroy Good II
The embryo is a person. What happens when a woman needs to scrape out her uterus for a medical procedure and one embryo is scraped out. Who is the murderer of this embryo; the doctor, or woman? Is the nurse and attending assistant physician implicated as well, the ambulance drivers that drove the woman to the hospital, the person who check the woman into the hospital, the insurance company who paid for the procedure, the donors who give money to help improve the hospital, the cleaning person that cleaned the room after the procedure. The refuse company that took the embryo away. The people in the waiting room that could have convinced the woman not to have this procedure done and insist the woman take the chance of maybe surviving her ordeal by doing nothing to save her life. The family members mother, father, brothers, sisters, children friends, neighbors all hoping that this woman could survive and continue to live. They are all guilty. All these people are guilty of murder by association according to this court's justification for destroying this embryo, an embryo that was never fertilized, and who according to Christian doctrine is not yet viable. This is why who you vote for matters. If you feel safe putting any female especially one you love in the hands of this legislation then vote for your Republican candidates. They will insure we all end up as legal murders.
-
Mary E Benoit
Many men believe women do not need menstrual product since the blood flow is controlled like urine. Men must stay out of women’s health care since they have no idea what anything is like. It is nothing but a control issue to deny any women the right to her iwn life, liberty or pursuit of happiness.
-
Brooke Nicole Mullins
One of the most frightening things about this ruling, is where it can lead. Will women eventually be legally scrutinized for having a miscarriage? Where does it stop?
-
Robert James Ruhnke
They already are.
-
-
Daniel Gray
And I guess that the people fussing about this seems to ignore the simple fact that 6 years ago you had a woman take frozen fertilized eggs and without the husbands permission (they had divorced) she wanted children and had the eggs implanted and then went after the ex husband for child support after confirming that she was pregnant. And the thing is the courts agreed with her that these were children and as such the ex was on the hook for her medical bills and 18 years worth of child support.
Or the Military soldier that was killed overseas who had some frozen fertilized eggs with his wife placed back in case he didnt come back. The family of the husband fought the widow tooth and nail wanting the eggs destroyed and the courts sided with the widow and claimed that they were "future children"
But I can see why the ones fussing about this dont want to mention this as it would destroy their whole arguments.
-
Scott Smith
Separate the church from the State!
-
P. Keith Benefiel
Genesis 2:7
-
James Riggle-Johnson
This is insane. When will men stop telling woman what is or is not best for them. When will people stop telling other people how to live their lives. If it doesn't hurt someone else then it's none of their business. When does life begin? These people need to stop making things up and listen to medical professionals.
-
Robert Edward Szekely
When will courts cease this insanity of injecting their interpretation of religious dogma into legislation? They are jurists, not theologians!
-
-
Joseph Walter Kasper
Genesis said that "God" breathed life into the clay of Adam. The Soul does not take possession of the body until the first breath. Two souls can not occupy the same body, the mother's. Without breath, the body becomes inert. The time of birth is marked with that first breath. Before then it is merely a clay of atoms in the process of creation and wholly dependent on the mother in a parasitic relationship. The soul makes the body Human not the genetics.
-
Russel A. Kester
Joseph, not so fast my friend. If one believes the Adamic story, then he was different from all other humans as he is the only person God breathed his own breath of life. It didn't say he breathed oxygen into Adam, it says that the breathed life into Adam. There is no mention in scripture that God did the same for Eve. It seems it was unnecessary because Eve was created from Adam's rib and this already contained life. And so it is with the rest of we mortals, we received life from our parents. We are norms as living souls weather we're ever able to take that first breath or not.
-
-
JaZe
Religion is a personal choice, it should never be imposed!! and definitely should stay out of politics. It's getting ridiculous its meddling in personal lives!
-
Russel A. Kester
JaZe, while I believe our laws enshrine the idea that the government should stay out of the church, I don't think it says that the church should stay out of politics. Religion is both personal and public and so is politics. The question is should politics inform our religion or should our religion inform our politics.
-
-
Daniel Gray
So what? Its no different then others claiming the "Separation of Church and State" which is not in the Constitution either. The Constitution was ratified in 1787 and the very first mention of this myth was in 1802 a good fifteen years later in a letter from Jefferson to his Danbury Conn Baptist detractors. The problem the people who misquote this is that to actually change the constitution to read what they want it to say they would have needed a Constitutional Amendment and so far almost 250 years later none have actually been proposed. Now some will say the Supreme Court did this, but the fact of the matter is the Supreme Court cannot say what is in the Constitution or not nor can they interpret it either as Article 3 (powers of the Judiciary) does not give them that authority and never has. So they cant just up and claim that this means what they want it to mean. All they are able to do is to decide IF what is claimed is unconstitutional is actually IN the Constitution or if a law follows what the Constitution says.
Naturally there will be people in this thread screaming that this is not what the constitution says because of all the wrong teachings they have been taught. All they would have to do is actually READ Article 3 of the Constitution and they would see how wrong they are but dont bet on them doing it.
Therefor if its good enough for the US Supreme Court to overstep their constitutional authority and make stuff up, then nobody can whine and cry when a lower state supreme court does the same thing.
-
shiningwolf9
Sorry (not), have read it; you also seem to read what you want, not what is written. I am only assuming here, but, sounds like a republican trying to make words fit ideologies.
-
Rev. Klaire ThD, MA
Shiningwolf9, absolutely agree. 'cherry picking' is much too innocuous of a term for Daniel's literary creation. He appears to be the epitome of the cliche "I did my own research (on the Internet)". Absolutely no professional consultation in his "ejookayshun".
-
Daniel Gray
Nope I stated EXACTLY what happened and how the Constitution REQUIRES it to be changed. Sorry about blowing up your bubble.
And if you two think the Court can interpret anything, then feel free to show what section of Article 3 (powers of the Judiciary) that it states they can do this. Want to bet you wont because you cant.
-
Daniel Gray
Sorry but instead of you two (wolf and Klaire) actually showing where I am wrong, you dont. Instead you go off on tangents and say absolutely noting of import. And BOTH of you still refuse to mention exactly where in the US Constitution Article 3 Powers of the Judiciary, it gives the court the right to interpret anything or just suddenly grant themselves a right that they have never been given. Not to meniton that it violates the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution which clearly states that unless the Constitution specifically grants you a power or authority, then you dont have it and never did.
So c'mon you two man up. give us the chapter and verse of Article 3 where it grants the courts to have this imaginary authority you seem to think that it does.
-
-
Robert James Ruhnke
Ever the false authority on matters you misrepresent with biased factless interpretations, Gray. I’ve noticed you’ve become bolder since one of the new moderators or algorithms for this site has been deleting heated comments directed your way. Your loudest when it comes to women’s bodily autonomy and lgbtq+ rights The way you project your own whiny tone onto others is why I still comment.
"Separation of church and state" is a metaphor paraphrased from Thomas Jefferson and used by others in discussions regarding the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Meaning that what Alabama is doing is unconstitutional. Meaning that Christian nationalists are wanting is a constitution that is interpreted in their favor to be judges, juries, and eventually executioners.
The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court's interpretations of the "separation of church and state" doctrine. Three central concepts were derived from the 1st Amendment which became America's doctrine for church-state separation: no coercion in religious matters, no expectation to support a religion against one's will, and religious liberty encompasses all religions. In sum, citizens are free to embrace or reject a faith, and support for religion—financial or physical—must be voluntary, and all religions are equal in the eyes of the law with no special preference or favoritism. This is violated every day in conservative states who pass judgements and laws that favor conservative Christian views. And target those they’ve deemed “undesirable.” People forced to accept these things under duress and the threat of violence from local populous and state representatives.
Article Six of the United States Constitution provides that "no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States". Prior to the adoption of the Bill of Rights, this was the only mention of religion in the Constitution.
Atheists are certainly free to run for Congress, however, "are prohibited from holding office in 8 states." The states highlighted in an accompanying U.S. map are Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas. Again. These states violate the constitution for superstitious reasons that don’t really matter.
-
Daniel Gray
And nice word salad. I guess you neglected to read the 10th Amendment which completely destroys you. You know the one, the one that says if the Constitution does not SPECIFICALLY grant you that authority, then you dont have it and never did. So since your mythical separation of church and state is not IN the 1st Amendment and never was, care how to say that its there now when it would take a constitutional amendment to put it there? All the 1st says is that there wont be a national religion like in England. Nothing more.
And again before you try and claim the Supreme Court said anything about it, please look through Article 3 and show us chapter and verse where it says they have the right to interpret anything. You wont because you cant that authority was never granted to them
-
Robert James Ruhnke
Yet here I am to rebuttal your obvious DARVO tactics, Gray. You use the word destroy so much I think that little black void your heart and dignity used to be enjoys it.
The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, a part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. It expresses the principle of federalism, also known as states' rights, by stating that the federal government has only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution, and that all other powers not forbidden to the states by the Constitution are reserved to each state, or to the people.
Meaning that when a state adopts laws that are unconstitutional. The feds can and will change get rid of them.
Notice how I copy word for word from the constitution? Yeah. I do that and add some constitutional scholarly knowledge there because it beats your garbage based dogma interpretations. Also.
The purpose of this amendment is to clarify how the federal government's powers should be interpreted and to reaffirm the nature of federalism. Meaning that there should be a balance between federal and state laws, and that state laws should reflect the constitution as it is written. Not as it is interpreted by power mad Christians hell bent on forcing everyone to capitulate to their precarious and superficial whims.
Our forefathers wrote the constitution so it could be updated and changed. So as to reflect the progress our people are making. They weren’t perfect. They were a bunch o pompous land owners who whined about taxes. Yet. They were smart enough to create a document that was open ended enough to be changed as needed. They didn’t fight a war against the British just so religious loonies, no different than the Church of England loonies, such as yourself, could set up a theocracy they tried to get rid of here.
My word salad is just the first course of my word feast. Which is still more intelligent than your “no u” word vomit replies.
-
Daniel Gray
Really? What the 10th actually says ruined is that unless the Constitution SPECIFICALLY says a federal government (or branch thereof) has a power, then they dont have it and never did. Period end of story. So I dont know what Constitution you seems to claim to quote from but not from the US Constitution as it specifically states and I QUOTE (unlike you)
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-10/
10th Amendment
The original text is written as such:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
It does not say and never has said any of the nonsense you posted. Nice try but you have been proved to be telling a lie.
-
-
-
-
Stephanie A Willey
Have you read the 1st amendment? Separation of church and state, if not specifically stated is definitely and certainly legally implied and has been historically inferred.
-
Rev. Jim Sutton
Again, "Separation of church and state" does NOT exist. Take the time to read the actual Amendment instead of passing on misinformation ! ! !
It is NOT implied ! ! !
It CLEARLY says that the U.S. government will NOT choose not establish a national religion. It also CLEARLY states that the U.S. government will NOT SUPPORT one faith/ideology over any other --- in other words, the U.S. government will NOT play favoritism among all the denominations/sects that exist in the U.S.
READ the dn Amendment for yourself instead of relying on the pablum you've been fed. Do your OWN dn research and think for yourself. Don't be a lemming and blindly follow others.
-
Michael Hunt
So by not choosing to establish a national religion, and not supporting one faith over the other, and by not preventing the free practice of religious beliefs, the state has effectively separated themselves from the church. Doing your own research doesn't make you right if you're getting your information from untrustworthy sources.
-
Russel A. Kester
Michael, I don't believe one can logically get a positive statement from three negative statements in the manner you are trying to do. If I say that I am not cooking dinner tonight, and I am not going to cook for one person but not another, and I am not preventing anyone else from cooking dinner doesn't mean I've separated myself from the family.
-
-
-
Daniel Gray
And have you read the 10th Amendment? The one that clearly states that unless that authority has been SPECIFICALLY granted then you dont have it as it does not exist? So you can claim implied all you want but if it isnt in the Constitution then its not legally applicable.
-
Robert James Ruhnke
He has, he’s just using christo nationalist definitions, so if his responses seem like cult speech, that’s why.
-
Daniel Gray
Nope using the law and thats why you are so upset as you cant refute it.
-
Robert James Ruhnke
I don’t refute the law, just your fascist interpretation of it. You gaslighting my position, or any position that doesn’t goose step in line with yours, is pretty telling where your sentiments lie.
-
Daniel Gray
No you are just upset because the stuff you claim is not and never has been in the Constitution and the ONLY way to add it is with a constitutional amendment, something that has never been put up. So stop throwing a tantrum as it only makes you look far more foolish them we already know you are. Oh and name calling is a sure sign that you have nothing to stand on, legally or factually.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Danny D. Maynard
The entire US Federal Court System overweighs any State supreme court, per the US Constitution, Article VI. Paragraph 2 says the following: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
-
Rev'd Andrew
Time to make Alabama a "ward of the court" and ensure they abide by the US Constitution, in particular the 1st Amendment.
-
Daniel Gray
How are you going to do that? Your Separation of Church and state is not and never has been in the Constitution. And since Alabama is not making a "state run" religion, then they are not violating the 1st Amendment. maybe its time for you to go back to school and stay awake during US Government class so you can actually see what is and isnt in the Constitution
-
Michael Hunt
Are they passing a law that restricts the spiritual beliefs of one group while supporting the beliefs of another? Hmmm....
-
Daniel Gray
And how are they doing that? NO religion says its ok to kill children. Now if you are making that claim the provide us with the name of the religion.
-
Michael Hunt
No one was arguing that any religion says it's okay to kill children; you're inserting that to move the goal posts and twist the discussion.
They are using the Bible as their basis of belief that embryos are children. There's plenty of religions that don't believe that, Satanists for one, and I believe many Eastern religions as well.
If you are using the Christian Bible to justify the legal ruling, you are respecting an establishment of Christian religion which is unconstitutional.
-
Daniel Gray
So? And how is this any different then in Utah where they make their laws based on the Book of Mormon. yet I dont see you having a fit about that.
Oh and in the Newdow cases (US Supreme Court) they specifically stated that unless a specific deity was mentioned, then its not unconstitutional. And why are you so upset that they quoted the Bible? if you would have read the whole bill you would have seen they also quoted from the Islamic bible and the writings of Vishnu. Which under the Newdow decisions makes it perfectly legal
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Kevin Venteicher
frozen embryos you would think would be damaged not natural no more like farrow too finishung houses everything on planet produce att high rate hi everyone minister kevin j venteicher
-
Daniel Gray
sorry not really. Women have had frozen embryos implanted and have given birth to healthy normal children. That alone proves the fallacy of your misconception
-
-
Nicholas J Page
I'm not going to comment about this because I really don't know if the frozen embryos are alive or not has cryogenict been proven by medics and scientists that this treatment actually works.??
-
Robert Edward Szekely
Embryos do not meet all the scientific criteria for life. They are cell clusters with the potential to develop into full living beings.
-
Russel A. Kester
Robert, I find your understanding of what scientists use as criteria for life to be questionable. A single-celled ameba is a living thing. See below:
Some things consist of only one cell. They are called unicellular organisms. One of the simplest living things, an amoeba, is made of only one cell. Amoebas (sometimes spelled amebas or amoebae) are too small to be seen without a microscope, but they are commonly found in ponds and lakes. https://www.mrsd.org › libPDF Amoeba
-
-
-
Michael Sciulli
From minster mike say to everyone one put energy in fallowing bible don’t worry about things our Lord Jesus Christ has plans for all of us God bless everyone
-
shiningwolf9
No thank you; not into christianisms ideologies.
-
Brien
Sorry Mike, I don't believe in that fictional book. I don't even find it to be a good read. I certainly do not want to be ruled by your fictional ideology as I believe it is one of the most evil weapons that MAN has ever created.
-
-
Russel A. Kester
This article asks us to consider two questions. Should fertilized embryos not yet implanted be considered as living children is the first one. Yes, they should. They are living cells and they have their own unique DNA. They were created by two parents which does make them children.
The second question was if the courts should consider the Bible in their decision. Again, the answer in this case is yes. The reason is that in deciding what the people or legislators intended when making a law includes all germain materials used when making the law. Here the court identified Christian Scripture as on of the source documents the people had in mind when making the law; therefore, including it in their decision was correct because it helped the Court determination the mind of the people, their intentions, and the purposes for which they made the law(s) regarding the state statutes covering the wrongful death of a minor.
-
shiningwolf9
And, yet, people so readily seem to want to dismiss the very fact that, when people started coming to this land, (wasn't america yet, or, the US), there were some coming from different religious backgrounds, not just christianism; and, forgetting the many different First People's religious beliefs. How dare, in this Day and Age, many still want to usurp government leadership, by claiming one particular religious belief of some overthrows/over rides other people's religious views, or non-religious leanings. A government run by one religious view point, cannot, and should not be allowed; and is cause for the majority to rise up in revolt !
-
Robert Edward Szekely
"Christianism" - I think I'm going to adopt that term for the philosophy under girding the intellectually deficient and morally bereft justices of the Alabama Supreme Court in rendering this decision. It's political or business agenda wrapping itself in distorted pseudo-theological justification which vaguely resembles a purported religion occasionally identified by some as "Christianity".
Allow me to add that the above statements in fact do not constitute even the remotest semblance of persecution of the true and sincere followers of teachings of he who was originally known as Yeshua bar Yosef, more commonly referred to as Jesus Christ, but rather, only shed necessary scrutiny on the hypocrites who ("too loudly and publicly") profess to be Christians by their misguided actions.
-
Russel A. Kester
Shiningwolf, your argument is a red herring and fails to address the specific questions we were asked to consider. It might be an argument for a different article or question but has no bearing that I can tell to this one.
-
Kathleen Baker
Separation of church and state. But if you want to include religious beliefs you have to take all that exist in the US under consideration. - The Talmud and the Old Testament specifically say life comes upon taking the first breath
-
Russel A. Kester
Kathleen, if a specific law was created based on the Koran, Talmud, or some other religious writing, them the law would look to those documents to understand the intent of its authors and the legislature. In this case, it seems that only the Christian Bible was germain. I don't think that the separation of church and state means what many think it does. Judeo-Christian values have been codified into not only our laws but also into the English laws we inherited from Great Britain.
-
-
-
-
Cyril R. VanKeirsbelk
No first breath, no soul, not a person. This is basic. The Bible does not consider DNA, living cells or anything else. It's the first breath that matters. No first breath, not a person, not murder. Read the Bible, it's not just for waving around in the air.
No, the courts should NOT consider the Bible in their rulings. We live in a Constitutional Republic, not a theocracy. We can either respect every religion in the law or no religion. We decided on no religion. If you want to live in a theocracy may I recommend Iran? If you take away anyone's right to worship as they choose, they can take away your right to worship as you choose. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
-
Russel A. Kester
Cyril, I generally do not quote the Christian Bible, but since you mentioned it first:
"Jeremiah 1:4-5 KJV Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."
Therefore, the biblical writers didn't need to refer to all of those scientific items.
I, however, referenced things that science minded persons should consider in these determinations. I also wrote of the source materials the courts may and do consider in determining the mind of the people when a law is written. Your response was basically that you didn't care what the will of the people is if you don't like a law, just ignore it you say. But ignoring the people's will is not democracy or even a republic, it's tyranny.
Since the question was about the Christian Bible and not the Koran, your comment about living in Iran is nonsensical. You might have suggested Poland as the closest we have in a Western, Christianized country.
As you said, we do not live in a theocracy. But neither does that mean that our laws cannot be informed by scripture in understanding our laws both historical and present. Since you seemed to have agreed that the law, as written, is based on Judeo-Christian values, your response seems unpersuasive.
-
Robert Edward Szekely
The argument that our law is based on Judeo-Christian values is a myth. The basis of our laws pre-date Abrahamic monotheisms, going back further to 4th century BC Greece, where can be found the 147 Delphic Maxims at the Temple of Apollo, which includes prohibitions against murder and coveting, while espousing following the law and living a life of honesty, generosity, kindness, justice, et al.
-
Russel A. Kester
Robert, Interesting. I don't think I'd call it a myth. If I made a moral pronouncement and quoted the Christian Bible as my source would one be justified in saying that I was quoting from the Delphic maxims? Especially if I knew nothing of the Delphic maxims? Or would one rightly conclude that I based my reasoning in Judeo-Christian values in the Bible some of which might have been themselves derived from other sources including the Delphic maxims?
-
-
-
-
Robert James Ruhnke
Religion needs to keep its dirty claws out of the medical community. If you leave an egg on its own it will die. Same goes for the fetus. You’re not a science minded person. You’re religious fanatic in need of a dire reality check, Kester. Just because you believe an egg is the equivalent of a human being, doesn’t make it so.
-
Daniel Gray
then explain just how an embryo always comes out when its born as a HUMAN child.
-
Michael Hunt
An embryo doesn't come out when a child is born, a child does...
-
Robert Edward Szekely
Only an embryo from a fertilized human egg. An embryo from a fertilized chicken egg will bring forth a baby chick.
-
Robert Edward Szekely
Remember, not all embryos come to term. There are miscarriages.
-
-
Russel A. Kester
Robert, your response didn't have one scientific fact. Clearly, your argument isn't based on science, it's based on your animosity toward religion, perhaps, specifically toward Christianity. And your denial of the moral right of a living, human zygote to be born doesn't make it nonhuman.
-
-
Robert Edward Szekely
I think the premises on which you base your arguments are flawed. The two criterion of living cells with unique DNA does not meet all the scientific criteria to qualify as a living being. Other criteria include the ability to respire, grow, excrete, reproduce, metabolize, move, and be responsive to the environment. Secondly, what is the foundation for the assumption that the original law which was being interpreted was biblically based? As I have indicated elsewhere in this forum, the argument that American law is based on Judeo-Christian monotheistic traditions is an incorrect assumption, as our legal system's pedigree actually dates back to pre-biblical Greece. On close examination, many of our fundamental underlying legal principles are actually anti-Biblical, especially when viewed in light of the Old Testament. For example, our legal system criminalizes Hammurabic Lex Talionis ("eye-for-eye" personal vendettas). It is a crime to take virginal war brides by force after conquering a country and killing the men and children.
-
-
James Thomas Mann III
I will simply say as I will always say; All are welcome to come to our ministry. If you turn them away, please, send them to us.
-
Paul
Do you have an opinion on the subject at hand?
-
James Thomas Mann III
Your point? My opinion and my posts are always based on what I feel is most important. It is not by works but by grace are ye saved. In a complicated world where we are assaulted by division on all sides I truly try to be in the world but not of it. When you decide who the sinners are…. send them to me.
-
Robert Edward Szekely
Nice platitudes.
-
James Thomas Mann III
At the risk of sounding trite or flat maybe even dull… send all you reject to me. Without sin, what is the need for us? A final platitude (note the use of singular here). There is not one among you that is righteous; No not one.☮️🫶😎😇
-
James Thomas Mann III
Besides, I don’t think anyone else has even read this thread
-
Russel A. Kester
Not true, James. Others do. But there didn't seem to be a reason to butt in.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mary Haviland
Thank God that one state did the right thing, and ruled the right way. They know when life begins and ilthat is at conception. At no time in a civilized civilization and haveurdering other people been acceptable. And the unborn and the fetuses should not be an exception. Life is life. And at no time is murdering a living person acceptable, and the fetuses are by every definition of a living organized considered life. So they should have the same recognition and protections as any other human should have. I hope other states will follow suite.
-
Cyril R. VanKeirsbelk
Laws that force anyone to obey a religion that is not their own are a violation of the 1st Amendment. Alabama is forcing people to follow a religion other than Christianity. Because in Christianity it's not a baby/child/person until it takes it's first breath. This is only according to the Bible, so if you are not a Christian it's not relevant to you.
It's the soul that is important, not the flesh. Knowing this, if you consider the passages that anti-choice activists use it is clear that the Bible does not oppose abortion because without the breath of life it is nothing.
Genesis 2:7 Exodus 21:22-25 Numbers 5:11-31 Deuteronomy 28:18,53 Job 33:4 Ezekiel 37:1-28
-
ServantOfJudgement
That might not be true Cyril John the Baptist jumped in his mother's womb when the pregnant Mary entered the same room. Not only does that imply consciousness, it implies that babies in the womb may be much more aware of things than we think they are.
If you want to say a human isn't a human till it's born, fine. I wouldn't point to the bible to defend your position. It says otherwise.
-
Robert Edward Szekely
You forgot to preface your statement with, "It is written that....". For a moment, I thought you were there, based on the way you wrote it! :)
-
Russel A. Kester
LOL. Robert, I confess my guilt to having done the same as SOJ when I'm writing. Doing so would make it seem as if we were eye witnesses. But, if one believes that scripture is factual would one then be justified in leaving out the "it is written" part. For example, I might say, "Light is both a particle and a wave." even though I am not a physicist and am merely regurgitating what I've read in books and believe it to be factually true. Does my justified belief allow me to forego the "it is written" preamble to my statement?
-
-
-
-
Robert Edward Szekely
Making statements where you couch beliefs as though they are facts is misleading and disingenuous. It makes everything you put forward untrustworthy.
-
Robert Edward Szekely
The scientific definition of living is the ability to respire, grow, excrete, reproduce, metabolize, move, and be responsive to the environment. Embryos do not meet all of these criteria. Therefore, the argument you put forth is invalid.
-
Russel A. Kester
Robert, according to your above reasoning toddlers are not living because they are incapable of reproduction. In case you want to now argument that they have the potential to reproduce if allowed to finish developing, then you must acknowledge the same potential in embryos. As far as I know embryos meet all of your other criteria in uterus with possible exception of responding to one's environment. But don't get hung up on the ability to respond to one's environment. Coma victims are unable to respond to their environment but they are still living beings.
-
-
-
Mary E Benoit
Many men believe women do not need menstrual product since the blood flow is controlled like urine. Men must stay out of women’s health care since they have no idea what anything is like. It is nothing but a control issue to deny any women the right to her iwn life, liberty or pursuit of happiness.
-
Russel A. Kester
Mary, are you saying society must rid itself of all male gynecologists? If so, then you must also have to agree that female doctors should not have anything to do with men's healthcare "since they have no idea what anything is like." And how about children, should there be separate pediatricians for little boys and girls? And should mothers have no say in the circumcision of her son because it would be "nothing but a control issue?" Perhaps you want to reconsider the implications of your current thinking.
-
-
Geoffrey C. Olive
The buybull is book of fiction and nonsense and should not be used for any way of life that didn’t already exist in humanity! Humans had codes and rules (laws) of behaviour, both good and bad, long before ANY religious books and documents were written. The buybull is not unique and far worse for all its contradictions and made up nonsense like Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden and a talking snake!
-
Robin Anne Hannon
What happened to the separation of church and state? When the founding fathers came over on the Mayflower, they did not want a Theocracy, they wanted a Democracy. If they want to quote the bible, why aren't they following all the kosher laws, or sacrificing animals? Because that's the Old Testament? Then how is it you get to cherry-pick from the Old Testament and then dismiss it because the New Testament supersedes the Old? Even without these arguments, we live in a Constitutional Republic, or we were living in one. This would give the founding fathers nightmares. It is exactly why they broke from the church of England. Freedom of religion does not mean domination of all by it, at least it hasn't in this country.
-
Daniel Gray
No such thing has ever existed in the Constitution. All the 1st says is that the FEDERAL Government cannot make a national religion. nothing more.
And I see it very suspicious and hypocritical for the ones who are now claiming 1st Amendment protection are the same ones that absolutely REFUSED to allow the ones who claimed that right to not serve LBGTQ people were absolutely destroyed in threads from the ones claiming the 1st now, were claiming that these people should not be allowed to have the same rights.
Not saying you, but do you begin to see what a bunch of hypocrites people like that are as it seems they only want to claim the parts of the Constitution when it serves them and then deny the parts when it does not fit their world view.
-
-
Takaya Kovani Sweeney
If people can’t realize this is sterilization of “ The Poors” all over again, well, it’s game over for regular folk if the brains have regressed so far that they can’t tell when they’re being attacked.
This is class warfare by the Royals, yet again.
IVF, Abortion, Theft, Fraud, Murder, Rape are only for THEM…rules are for YOU and you’re only allowed children/or not when they deem it necessary.
They’re working their way BACK towards “The Poors/Serfs” having to ask for permission to get married, leave the land or make any life decisions for themselves.
People don’t want to pay attention though. When you mention things like this, they say you’re exaggerating as if they don’t have eyes to see and ears to hear…I suppose no brain to think either.
-
Russel A. Kester
Takaya, wow! How did you get all of that from an article asking if a fertilized egg should be considered a child under the state's current laws on the wrongful death of a minor?
-
-
Jeana Rae Milton
The way the law is written is the problem! Four things must be proven in order to win a malpractice/negligence/injury law suite. One - there was an agreement contract or business trust for services between the plaintiff and the defendant. Two - is that the standard of care was breached and/or that the same type care wasn't given in this case by the same type of proffessionals (they did something wrong that others would not have done). Three - what they did wrong (breached the standard of care) made a negative differance for the plantiff (did dropping the eggs cuase the plantiff from being able to become pregnant?) And Four - there was a cost/damages becuase of the wrongful doing. All four of these must be proven in order to win a malpratice law suite. It can be very complicated becuase the causation has to be very blatent example: even though the eggs were destroyed, if they had (the eggs) not been destoyed and implanted would the person that was implanted be able to carry the fetus(s) to full term and/or would the embryos continued to grow? In order to win the malpractice case the answer to the causation can't be a guess, you have to prove it would have made a differance. Hope this helps explain the law. I truly hope we can change this law in favor for all people to be protected from negligence and non bias judgement.
-
Kiltedbiker
Looking to bureacrats to be the hallmark of intelligence? Really? They have been writing and voting legislation into law, having it signed by governors, in violation of their oath of office, the very US Constitution that created the government and placed constraints on it. These are the people that you expect to get something correct on the first try? An embryo is human tissue and is the property of the individual from whom it was drawn. It contains the potential for life, but until fertalized, it is not a human life. (I did not finish university as I felt them trying to educate the intelligence out of me).
-
Jeana Rae Milton
No, not "looking to bureacrats to be the hallmark of intelligence!" I'm very sure that wasn't my point! Trying to make a difference by educating what the law is and then working on getting it changed is the point! I agree with your ideology regarding embryos! We can voice ourselves just to be heared or we actually work on change!
I can say for sure, that I believe, one's self interpretation of intelligence is only how smart they think they are. Understanding both sides of a coin (the university) doesn't mean you agree with both sides, it just lets you know there are many differant ways of looking at things in this lifetime, education is non-defensive and its not meant to change opinions or brainwash anyone. Only "We The People" can make change in this lifetime. Wishing you the best!
-
-
Theresa C. Marquess
The entire process of conception and birth is truly a miracle. Being frozen, the embryo is in a state of suspended animation. It cannot become a child until or unless it is implanted into a uterus where it can grow and develop. Fourteen days after conception the embryo's heart is beating. In my mind, that is when it becomes a child.
-
Robert Edward Szekely
A heartbeat alone does not make for a fully sentient being, though.
-
Robert Edward Szekely
Technically, an embryo cannot be in a state of "suspending animation" as it was never "animate" to begin with.
-
-
Jeana Rae Milton
Developemental STAGES of Human Being: The zygote begins its journey down to your uterus over the course of about one week. During this journey, the zygote divides many times, eventually creating two separate structures. One structure eventually becomes the embryo (and later, the fetus) and the other becomes the placenta. brainstem is responsible for many of our body's most vital functions–heart rate, breathing, and blood pressure. Fetal brain activity is largely mature by the end of the second trimester, which is when babies first become able to survive outside the womb.During your second trimester, (between 13–27 weeks gestation) the baby undergoes significant growth and development with the formation of vital organs, bones and features that prepare them for life outside the womb. **Before about week 8 of pregnancy, a doctor may refer to the fetus as an embryo. Cardiac tissue starts to pulse at around 5–6 weeks of pregnancy, registering as a heartbeat on the ultrasound, though the heart has not developed yet. By week 10, the fetal heart has developed fully. The maturation of the fetal lungs, that is to say the adequate production of surfactant in the fetal alveoli, as it is well known reaches to its end about the 35 -36th week of gestation and can be even more closely to the date of delivery, about the 37th week. Choice: Not mine to make for you!
-
Ari Joseph Bertine
Okay first of all, that's an absurd ruling and someone or someones should be impeached for it.Totally unconstitutional, no separation of church and state whatsoever there. That's a case of the court being corrupt.
Second of all, they didn't even get their own damn religion right. The bible makes it crystal clear that you're not alive until you're born, it says so explicitly. The thing they are trying to quote was in reference to one specific special person being addressed, not all of humanity. There were plenty of thousands of humans that God ordered his people to kill and they were supposedly created in his image as well, as well as their women and the children and infants that God ordered to be slain. Killing babies was not a big deal at all, and that's AFTER being born and alive. And there's more than one mention of terminating pregnancies by God's rules. So what they are ruling there is not at all Biblical, it's just their cherry-picking to get their own ideas promoted.
-
Jeana Rae Milton
I don't believe this is about pro life nor choice! I truly think it boils down to malpactice and legal damages. Read the entry above regarding the malpractice/negligence law information. The talk about embryos is just another "red herring" (something intended to divert attention from the real problem or matter at hand)! It all comes down to money and insurance companies not wanting to pay out on malpractice/negligence claims!
-
Robert Edward Szekely
I would submit that the Alabama Supreme Court has committed legislative malpractice in this instance, and that a Federal Court should be able to overturn their decision.
-
-
Kathleen Baker
Since the Bible says Taking the first breath is when one become human and alive there should be no argument
-
Paul Wallace
If Alabama wishes to go to the Bible of justify this legislation, let them show chapter and verse as to where they arrive at this conclusion. I would offer that the teachings of Jesus differ from the State of Alabama, and the Founding Father's of The United States of America would be on Jesus' side in spit of the fact that they were not Christian, but rather Deists. I give you Matt. 22:20-21, "20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? 21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." Jesus was very clear that the law is the law, and should be followed. However, Jesus never made an effort to change the laws. Why? I submit it was because He had already seen the mess that is the end product of Theocracy. I really don't care how the law comes down, it is my business to obey it.
-
Robert Edward Szekely
So by this action, the Alabama Extreme Court has essentially decided that they're a Theocracy ruled by extremist Christian Nationalists. I would argue that in response, the Federal government should cut off federal aid and benefits for Alabama, and other any state that passes a law with an underlying or overt theological foundation which does not align with existing secular and scientific norms, or which fails to provide equity to to alternate or opposing viewpoints.
For those who have gone beyond the pale, to now argue that not only does life begin at conception, but now that unfertilized ova are human beings, your (inane) personal beliefs should have place in laws, which impact other citizens who do not share those beliefs. You are using the courts to coerce others who do not share your religious views to conform to them. That is not freedom of religion. It is, in fact, religious fascism, as it is promoting a specific religious agenda by force upon those who would not embrace it willingly. Furthermore, the notion is absurd.
Must it become necessary for the federal government to pass a prohibition precluding any state, city or local judiciary from legislation including religious or theological content, with an accompanying penalty of being cut off from all federal benefits, funding, support and subsidiaries?
What Alabama has done is plainly and flatly prejudicial, ignorant and clearly UN-American. It shows utter disregard for all creeds save the once (Christianity) favored by the decision, and a perverted interpretation of the underlying theology at that which can only be seen to support the decision in a pig's eye, at best.
-
Robert Edward Szekely
The first clause in the Bill of Rights states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Though not explicitly stated in the First Amendment, the clause is often interpreted to mean that the Constitution requires the separation of church and state. Roger Williams, founder of Rhode Island, was the first public official to use this metaphor. He opined that an authentic Christian church would be possible only if there was “a wall or hedge of separation” between the “wilderness of the world” and “the garden of the church.” Williams believed that any government involvement in the church would corrupt the church. The most famous use of the metaphor was by Thomas Jefferson in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. In it, Jefferson declared that when the American people adopted the establishment clause they built a “wall of separation between the church and state.” Jefferson had earlier witnessed the turmoil of the American colonists as they struggled to combine governance with religious expression. Some colonies experimented with religious freedom while others strongly supported an established church. One of the decisive battlegrounds for disestablishment was Jefferson’s colony of Virginia, where the Anglican Church had long been the established church. Both Jefferson and fellow Virginian James Madison felt that state support for a particular religion or for any religion was improper. They argued that compelling citizens to support through taxation a faith they did not follow violated their natural right to religious liberty. The two were aided in their fight for disestablishment by the Baptists, Presbyterians, Quakers, and other “dissenting” faiths of Anglican Virginia. During the debates surrounding both its writing and its ratification, many religious groups feared that the Constitution offered an insufficient guarantee of the civil and religious rights of citizens. To help win ratification, Madison proposed a bill of rights that would include religious liberty. In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Court held that the establishment clause is one of the liberties protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, making it applicable to state laws and local ordinances. Since then the Court has attempted to discern the precise nature of the separation of church and state. In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Court established a three-pronged test for laws dealing with religious establishment. To be constitutional a statute must have “a secular legislative purpose,” it must have principal effects that neither advance nor inhibit religion, and it must not foster “an excessive government entanglement with religion.” The Court modified the Lemon test in Agostini v. Felton (1997) by combining the last two elements, leaving a “purpose” prong and a modified “effects” prong. In County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union (1989), a group of justices led by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy in his dissent developed a coercion test: The government does not violate the establishment clause unless it provides direct aid to religion in a way that would tend to establish a state church or involve citizens in religion against their will...[I]n 2022, the Supreme Court marked a change in how it will interpret Establishment Clause cases going forward. In Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the high court declared it had abandoned the Lemon test and instead, will interpret the Establishment Clause in “reference to historical practices and understandings.” In the majority opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that that the lower courts had created a “vice between the Establishment Clause on one side and the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses on the other,” a conflict he associated with the Lemon test. Instead, he viewed the establishment and free exercise clauses as complementary and working together to decrease unnecessary government interference with religion.
Retrieved 2024 02 28 from https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/establishment-clause-separation-of-church-and-state/
-
Russel A. Kester
Robert, very interesting and informative reading. How does it apply to the article in question on determining if fertilized eggs are children under Alabama's laws on the wrongful death of a minor?.
-
The State of Alabama? Haven’t we traveled down this road often, and here we go again! The good government of Alabama cites the Bible to back a legal intrusion. “Cherry-picking” at its finest…didn’t this State, and others, quote specific Bible verses to justify slavery, keeping women from voting for a while, etc? I’m frightened 😵 will I go to prison if the State finds out that I often spill my seed into a sink basin? “You’re being ridiculous David!” Am I?
Funny, good, true, and agree !!!