In the latest chapter of a post-Roe v. Wade world, three Jewish women have filed a lawsuit challenging Kentucky’s sweeping abortion ban on the basis of Jewish religious teachings. The suit argues that a ban on abortions infringes on their rights by violating their sincerely held religious beliefs.
The plaintiffs accuse state lawmakers of “imposing sectarian theology” by passing a law that banned nearly all abortions.
Kentucky’s attorney general, Daniel Cameron, who is specifically named in the lawsuit, says he plans to fight the case. “The General Assembly has made it clear that Kentucky will protect unborn life and these laws are an important part of the commonwealth,” Cameron said.
Violating Jewish Beliefs?
Jewish religious teachings differ markedly from those of many Christian denominations on the question of abortion.
The lawsuit lays out the reasoning behind the challenge, explaining:
“Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs have been infringed: they are Jewish and Jewish law (“halacha”) asked and answered the question of fetal personhood thousands of years ago and rabbis, commentators and Jewish legal scholars have repeatedly confirmed these answers in the intervening millenia. While a fetus is deserving of some level of respect under halacha, the birth giver takes precedence. Jews have never believed that life begins at conception.”
Attorneys for the three women note that when confronting the question of when human life begins is far from a settled matter. They argue that this “is a religious and philosophical question without universal beliefs across different religions.”
“Judaism has never defined life beginning at conception,” the lawsuit points out. “Millenia of commentary from Jewish scholars has reaffirmed Judaism’s commitment to reproductive rights.”
“Under Jewish law, a fetus does not become a human being or child until birth,” it concludes.
One of the three women named in the suit is Lisa Sobel. “As a mom, as a woman, this directly affects me, it affects my health care,” she told reporters. “And then it’s a personal affront to my personal religious views, on top of it. As somebody who is a person of faith, that’s just wrong to me.”
In Vitro in Doubt
The lawsuit raises another interesting question, this one concerning the process of in vitro fertilization (IVF). The suit argues that Kentucky’s law also infringes on the rights of people seeking IVF treatment to conceive a child.
Here’s a quick rundown:
IVF often results in more viable embryos than a couple needs. Normally, these extra embryos are discarded once a pregnancy is successfully achieved.
But because the Kentucky law defines law as beginning when egg meets sperm (the process of which creates an embryo), these extra embryos could now be considered human beings.
If they are discarded, the state could potentially argue it constitutes an act of homicide.
As the suit argues, Kentucky law “forces plaintiffs to spend exorbitant fees to keep their embryos frozen indefinitely or face potential felony charges.”
Will a Religious Challenge Work?
Well, that's the big question many are wondering. Because many of the most restrictive state laws have their basis in Christian religious beliefs, could Jewish beliefs constitute an effective challenge?
This latest lawsuit in Kentucky follows similar suits filed in states like Indiana and Florida by Jewish women who argue that if states recognize one religious interpretation of abortion policy, they should recognize others, too.
Those cases are still pending.
What is your reaction?
Religion is a personal matter. When religious beliefs are codified into law, we start down the slippery slope towards a theocracy. This country was founded with the protection from church interference in our lives firmly established in the Constitution. The efforts of theists to sabotage that protection have been fought for decades, with "small victories & big defeats", to borrow a phrase from Joan Baez... We need to figure out whether or not this is still something like a democracy. If that is truly a failed experiment, and those who want their religious beliefs codified into law are going to be the new dictators in Washington, then the rest of us need to know so we can make arrangements to leave. This is not the country or government my father served to protect, nor that my brothers served to protect. If the majority does, in a LEGAL election, determine that America is to become a Christian governed, Christian controlled nation, then it is time for me to take my family and seek freedom from oppression elsewhere. I left Christian churches because of their cruel and perverse practice of vehemently shoving their beliefs down others' throats and enforcing those efforts by beating others' into submission with their "holy" book that is a constant source of confusion due to the inability of "scholars" to agree on what any given passage actually means. I said all that to say this: Based on observation over time, the people pushing for the elimination of abortion are not doing so because of any alleged "sanctity of life" issue. If they truly believed in the sanctity of life, there would be no opposition to medicare for all, or the elimination of capital punishment, or a whole host of other matters that they oppose for various and sundry "reasons". All of these issues that they claim are the result of devotion to their god and the desire to bring the love of that god to the masses can actually be boiled down to one base desire, that being the desire to exercise power and control over all the "lesser" beings on the planet. I am adamantly opposed to their purpose. This country is being destroyed by children who want to be king of the sand box. If you succeed, I hope you enjoy the sand in your shorts.
Murder is murder
@David Cox Then why do we put criminals to death?
Then a miscarriage, is manslaughter, I guess, ...or some form of neglectful homicide...
Murder is the unlawful killing of someone if abortion is legal then it is not murder...
Life Begins at First Breath. Men have no rights to control women's decisions.
Amen sister! No penis = no vote on the matter. Even as a person with one, I am ok with that.
Actually, Catherine Ohrin-Greipp, that is not what science says, which explains the Roe vs Wade overturned decision by the Supreme Court. You too need to get your facts straightened up a bit before you speak.
The SCOTUS decision that overturned Roe v. Wade wasn't decided because of what science defines as life or the beginning of life. In Dobbs the majority opinion of the court held that abortion is not a constitutional right because the Constitution does not mention it and its substantive right was not "deeply rooted" in the country's history, and that individual states have the authority to regulate access to abortion. Nothing here to do with science.
Since women canbuse abortion to terminate a mistake... would you support allowing men to likewise opt out of fatherhood? Let's say a woman gets pregnant and wants to keep it... and the man doesn’t want it... shouldn’t he, without the option of aborting it, be about to opt out of responsibility for his mistake
The God of the Bible was a mass murderer, committed infanticide, marveled at ripping open the wombs of pregnant women and smashing little babies against rocks. Yes, such a loving character,
Post your scriptures of the Bible for each statement you made. I can’t find it in my Bible
How about the flood, killing all first born sons, etc. or don't you know your bible?
Loney Burns, she got confused with the Quran or some other book!
Catherine Ohrin-Greipp, you are so misinformed. I read the entire bible several times, never coming across such depictions. Yes, there is violence in the Old Testament, but the God of Israel always tries to decrease violence while still dealing with free will. You may also notice that the Old Testament Israel is taught by God about hygiene and how to respect women (who at the time had no rights) and slaves (prisoners of crime, dept or war). My dear, before you open your mouth again, or set your fingers on typing mode.... get some information straight!
The US is a multi faith country. If one religion is imposed it becomes akin to Islam. And dropping bombs in someone else's country, what is it then? When you cook an omelette are you commiting murder?
If you make an omelette is it murder? If you drop bombs is it murder? If you slaughter millions of animals for bbq is it murder?
No, yes (if it hits someone), and no. By definition murder is the intentional, premeditated killing of a human being. There are other terms for killing animals, but it is not murder.
Rev. B, vegans and vegetarians, such as I, would disagree with you. I'm just making you aware that that is your opinion. In the UK you can go to jail for ill-treating or killing animals. Sadly, it does not extend to animals that are used to producing meat. But even there, the law is trying to make sure they are still not ill-treated - which to me makes no sense.
It is not my opinion; it is the dictionary definition of murder. Don't blame me if you disagree, I didn't write the dictionary.
Plants are living organizms. Killing them and eating them is murder.
JaZe, to me, as a vegetarian, yes: it is murder! That is because you asked.
Jean, well stated truth. Plus, its always laughable to see men gash their teeth about abortion yet refuse to get vasectomies or control their own sperm. Until they can get pregnant, their words mean nothing. Jewish women are right, but most Christians still deny that the God they proclaim to love was a Jew as was his son Jesus. Jesus carried DNA from both parents who were Jews-XY chromosome.
Jean — Religion is not a personal matter —- it’s a tribal matter — 99% of the people believe whatever their tribe, church, parents and/or peers do
Those who form their own beliefs — still use history (no matter how questionable) to formulate what they call their personal beliefs — and when one claims that they got their beliefs directly — and in person — directly from a God — if they’re lucky — they’ll end up in a nuthouse.
And, if you want kids to believe in Holy Ghosts and talking snakes — you’ve got to get them young enough— much before they begin to believe in Santa Clause.
William Dusenberry, on what evidence do you back your claims. I am a Christian, yet do not consider myself religious since I follow no rituals. I study church history and theology yet keep a critical mind. And I don't do what I get told to do. I follow my infirmed conscience and make myself open-minded and teachable. Those who have known me for a few years describe me in these terms. Your description makes no profile for me and many I know. If anything, it makes you a bigoted judgmental hater.
Jean, personally, I don't see abortion as a religious issue. An atheist doctor, friend of mine, became pro-life after assisting at an abortion procedure. He saw with his own eyes the baby trying to flee for its life. He was shocked at what he witnessed. He is an atheist. I would be happy to put you guys in touch. I find this anti-religion talk rather toxic, frankly. He and I just respect each other, even though we have different views. That is why he felt 'safe' sharing that with me.
"The baby trying to flee for its life?" Seriously? A 3 inch fetus can't flee anything. He must have been on drugs. One of my internships was at a Planned Parenthood Clinic, and at no time was any fetus fleeing because you are talking about a blob of tissue. Your friend must have been on a hallucinogen or knows you are gullible. Such a joker.
This is such a tragic story and hopefully more people will open their eyes and save these precious lives!!!!
Ok no it wasnt. The constitution was made supreme law of the land in 1787, the very FIRST mention of this farce was in 1802 a period of 15 years AFTER the law of the Constitution was made supreme. As such there is not way the country could be founded on what you claim. That is historically accurate and as such it completely destroys your whole post as the rest of it depends on people believing your myth.
you answered your own question. Try getting into this liberal extremist college without a poisonous vaccine against you will and you quickly find out that you have no rights to your body and choice when the government is involved!
Well that is not the truth is it? Because clearly "government" was not able to make you get a vaccine but y'all Sure did insist as you have for thousands of years the exercise of control over womens choice and insured in every despicable deceitful way that your beliefs were enforced in others! How is that vaccine dangerous when the disease killed millions around the globe and continues to exert long term disease processes by its infection yet the vaccine has caused a deadly reaction in than a single handful but clearly saved millions! Shameful though that you can't see the danger in guns like you can in a vaccine that is far far safer and proven to be so!
And in this nation and around the globe one religious cult in particular has sought to mission around the world shoving their beliefs and "cultures" into laws, economics and codes and expecting others to follow or go to hell! they have even spent decades planning the takeover of the US Government in order to create "their Kingdom on Earth"! We did not get to this point in history by accident, it was a deliberate plan preached about heavily and pushed and marketed just as all deceptive propaganda campaigns in "wars" have played out over time! We've been at this place in history over and over and if it were an "Islamic" group pulling this over it would never had been allowed to occur the way it has without being labeled and fought as terrorism!
Pay attention folks,
Now we will begin to see how the religious right-wing extremist elements begin to fall apart. They always clamor for religious freedom "this" and religious freedom "that"...
Well, what about other religious views? Huh, should be a very interesting.
And, just in case, if anyone is wondering, a woman should have the right to make her own decisions about pregnancy AKA consent...
Ask yourself, does anyone have the right to use "your" body without "your" consent?..This includes unborn "persons" as well.
If your going to argue in opposition to choice, then please tell us why a person does not have the right to bodily autonomy...
And, For all the anti vaxers out there who mocked "my body my choice" just know that you cannot catch a pregnancy... which is a public health concern..
So, if abortion is a public health concern, then explain how a woman's private choice effects your health and well-being..
If you cannot answer these two simple questions, then I will accept your silence...and blatant hypocrisy concerning this issue...
Minister Wilson, take it as you like. Mother Theresa said, the most ferocious act of war is abortion. Look around!
Thank you for taking the time to respond. However, why should any one care what mother thersa says about bodily autonomy?
Pastor can anyone use your body without your consent?
Can anyone use your mother or father's body without their consent?
If you have any children, can some body use their body without consent?
I and many others are willing to go to war over this issue because if the goverment can force birth then they can force people not to have children as well...
And please, either address my questions or kindly move on, in silence...
Minister Wilson, I have a right to an opinion as well as you.
Yes, you have a right to an opinion... Absolutely
yet when confronted by facts "bodily autonomy" and "consent" you don't change that opinion...
You just "ignore it" and continue on with the same thinking...and same talking points...Why?
And this is mine and others point...either address the issue "bodily autonomy" and "consent" and argue why women should not have this right...
So, please no need to respond by simply ignoring what was asked of you, answer the question or, quietly move on...
Very well spoken, Minister Wilson.
George, Minister Wilson, makes some very good points.
Are we not owners of our own body, George? Shouldn’t little boys be asked to have their foreskins removed, when they are old enough to make intelligent decisions?
I wonder how many boys would refuse if they were old enough to make their own decisions?
Fortunately, pregnant females are old enough. 🤷🏼
Lionheart, you bring up two separate issues. Circumcision is healthy: it prevents penile cancer. It does reduce sensitivity, but it makes sexual intercourse easier. I know because I am circumcised. Abortion.... no comment. Sorry.
It isn’t generally healthy for an average of 100 little boys dying each year, resulting from circumcision, George.
I’m not a huge proponent of abortion, unless considered necessary by the mother, or the pregnant child’s mother.
Minister Wilson, I agree women have a God-given right to do as they wish with their own bodies, but not with someone else's bodies. The fetus is not their body. Do a scientific search before going any further. I am not going to waste my time debating with you. I'm higher than that... humbly yours :-)
I appreciate your response...however, exalted or higher, as you put it, you may be you continue to miss the point...
Can I use your body without your consent?
Can anybody use a woman's body without her consent?
Now, apply that to your wife, daughter, mother etc..
Can anyone use their bodies without consent?
I know you understand the English language, yet you seem to be suffering with some form of cognitive dissonance...
Now, anybody includes fetuses as well...
I am sorry for your difficulties understanding basic human dignity and bodily autonomy...
I do not do sarcasm so
And please think before you write. Address why women lose control over their bodily autonomy based on a pregnancy, what grounding do you have...?
No one can use your body without consent, right?
Does not the soul have a choice? It does and often chooses to say no, I m not taking on this life, another opportunity will come.
The Bible indicates that a fetus is not considered a separate life until born and breath enters into it. It is a woman's right to choose what happens until then.
FYI I am a Christian, Evangelical, Baptist by practice.
Colleen McAllister, your claim is not backed by any evidence, here is mine:
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born, I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” - Jeremiah 1:5
This is also NOT a Christian issue, but one based on science. Many atheist doctors agree life begins at conception. I personally know one of them.
What is your conception day, Pastor George? Surely that's the day you celebrate the beginning of your life and not your birthday...
Comment removed by user.
It seems certain 'groups' hold that life is so special that it has to be preserved no matter the effect on the mother. A baby must be born. And then....they suddenly lose interest in that life, they have no desire to see that it has ready, available, affordable health care, nutrition and schooling.
In fact they really don't care about that baby until it either has committed a crime for which that group believes it should be executed or until it turns 18 at which point they are all in favor of giving that baby a gun...no matter the consequences. In fact they claim it's a right for that baby to have a gun but not birth control and/or sex education.
Nope, those people that claim to want to save lives only want to do it inside of a woman's body. Once that baby escapes the womb it's on its own (so to speak) and is no longer a concern of those people. It has nothing to do with saving lives or souls and is all about power and control. Pretty sure their jebus of the cross would be really disappointed, if not downright angry for the way those 'groups' have used, twisted and harnessed his words. They preach the word of god and jebus...they just don't bother to practice it
Fantastic for them......good luck ladies!
The people who were gullible enought to elect Trump have already put us on a slippery slope by allowing the installation of unqualified justices to the SCOTUS. That was our last bullwark for our Constitution and our democracy. I know I am whistling in the wind with this but it is going to be proven Trump is a Russian Agent, either through pure greed or the fact that they have something so horrible on him that even he could not stand the shame.
Canadian Yankee, Trump is Protestant and Putin is Orthodox. Both are nut cases, and both are observant believers. That would be interesting indeed!
Personally, I always felt that the last guy didn't have any real faith, that he was faking it to pander. Whenever facing a question on religion, he always looked like a deer in the headlights. Maybe it is just me. I can't say much about Putin himself but I have read that the Russian Orthodoxy is vastly different from anything similar in the US.
Rev. B, I agree entirely with you about Trump. Asd far as Putin, the problem is that people in the West do not understand the Russian mentality. They now have a system of oligarchy, which is a gradual return to monarchy. Czar is the Russian for Cesar. Russia is believed to be the Third Rome, after the Byzantine Empire - same philosophy that was followed by Hitler and his Third Reich, after the Sacred Rimam Empire of Northern Europe. Cesar is supposed to also act as head of the Church in matters of administration, the same as the Commonwealth (British) monarch and the Anglican Church. Just as the Lutheran Church viewed Hitler as head of the Church, so the Russians view Putin as head of the Russian Orthodox Church, now in schism with Eastern Orthodoxy. Russian Orthodoxy was birthed in Kiev, and the recent schism with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Istanbul was over the fact that he recognized the newly formed Ukrainian Orthodox Church. The rest is recent history. So, as you see, their political views are quite different from the way we do things in the West. ULC would never survive in Russia!
A foetus is just that until the child or children are born and take their first breath's Its a woman's body and the decision on what to do with the child is up to her providing she is mentally aware of what she's doing Personal view I don't agree with abortion and detest the a word.Unless the child is seriously I'll or disabled then its up to the mother whether to keep the birth going.
Nicholas J Page, that is the same as racial lynching. You are discriminating and endorsing killing on the basis of disability.
It is not "the same as racial lynching" because lychning someone does not matter what color their skin is.
You continue to side step the issue, does a woman have control over her own body or not?
If a "person" born or unborn wants to use someone's body they must have consent...
You seem to be stuck...
All closely held religious beliefs are NOT created equal ...
Real (legitimate) Southern Baptists still believe that the “Holy Ghost” is the third part of the Trinity — not the “Holy Spirit” (that only Roman Catholics - who got rid of the “Ghost” because it resembled “Casper the Ghost” that the faithful used to put on their dashboards).
Giving up the Ghost — is what drove Mel Gibson away from the Southern Baptists and to become a LDS’er — unless I’ve got him confused with what’s his name.
But, in any event, those capable of actually believing in ghosts - holy or not — are currently DJT’s base — and are playing a major role in turning the USA into a fascist state.
What nonsense are you venting? I was a Southern Baptist, and I have never heard such silliness. Holy Spirit vs Holy Ghost; New vs Old English! Second, Mel Gibson is a traditionalist Catholic following Sedevacantism... What nonsense are you blurting out? Check your facts before you speak!
I always thought that the term "holy ghost" began as a way to address children to help them understand the concept.
As a former Catholic, I cannot be trusted to give an unbiased opinion.
However, since the Pope has visited Canada to apologize for thousands of raped and murdered native children buried in unmarked graves, and the US is facing the same story in the Catholic and protestant native schools, who cares what the Catholics think about composting bodies?
Certainly not I and I.
While Ruth was alive, they couldn't do it. Ruth continually made the justices aware of Jewish law. Ruth was no longer there to speak for us. Very sad. Religion in our highest court is devastating to me. America is no longer free to all humans.
Robin Cohen, I am trying to understand. Would you elaborate if that is OK?
In striking down Roe, the Court's 'originalists' commented that the Constitution today should follow the values common to the public at the time of its framing... directly contravening the 1st Amendment.
When was the last time anyone asked your date of conception?
crstans vs all others katholics vs all crstans all crstans vs each other one final crstan flavor wins and will rule the country and then; crstan vs the world world explodes end of world
Those that point fingers and complain about all that is wrong are a dime-a-dozen. Where are those who will seek out and find solutions, and take action to assure each of our issues are addressed. Matters such as abortion can best be dealt with at the local and state levels... not the federal government. As a constitutional republic (not a democracy) we, the people should be voting and dictating our laws... and that must began locally, at the grassroots level. We do not need, nor should we abide by dictatorial rule.
No local or govt politician should be making any decisions on women's healthcare, especially males. That's called practicing medicine without a license and warrants class action lawsuits. Men should just control their sperm, get vasectomies or they should be mandated.
We are human beings, first and foremost, and we all have a say in matters of life and death. In the process of creating a child there are three lives directly involved. In nature, males deliver the sperm, females carry the eggs, and a child is created upon fertilization. Abortion is an affront to the natural order of human life. Right or wrong (which are merely opinions), life is a bi+ch... and then you die. Make the best of it. You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here.
The problem with this post is that these women have to PROVE its part of their religion and so far they have failed in every attempt in trying to do so, just like the Satanists failed when their same claim was thrown out of a US District court with prejudice meaning that they cant ever file a case like this again. I fully expect the same results with this farce.
Then how do all these "christian" claims ever have any merit...They "christians" cannot proved any more prove than anyone else...
So, what is the real farce?
Then there's the Inquisition, but let's avoid that one murderous period.
Ok Wilson, explain please if this is part of their religion then why was this never mentioned before until now? I have spoken to at least 16 different Rabbi's with a combined experience of over 225 years when you add all the time they have been Rabbi's together, and not ONE of them can show in the Torah where it says abortion is part of their religion. Not ONE of them can show that this was ever mentioned in their religion and not ONE of them can show where this was ever said to be part of their religion. And the death knell to this is not ONE of them can show where the term abortion or even the act of an abortion was listed anywhere in their books or scared texts or their laws. Same goes for Satanists. What they are doing is trying to use this as a last ditch effort and they are losing each time they try it.
Now for christian claims...I DARE you to show historical and valid data where any race in the world at present has it in their sacred texts that it is ok to kill a child. And yes I said child as the last time I looked I have yet to see a human woman giving birth to anything other then a human being.. If you can prove that this is wrong, feel free to show us when and where it happened. Otherwise please keep your opinions to yourself.
"I DARE you to show historical and valid data where any race in the world at present has it [in their sacred texts] that it is ok to kill a child."
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to [death] with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
Leviticus 20:9 ESV For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to [death]; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him.
Exodus 21:17 “Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to [death].
Isaiah 13:16 Their [infants will be dashed in pieces before their eyes]; their houses will be plundered and their wives ravished.
Numbers 31:17-18 Now therefore, [kill] every male among the [little ones], and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.
Etc, etc, etc
There you go...
Now, these women are claiming religious grounds just like the Bakers, Website designer, Hobby Lobby....So, should not these women's claims be given just as much respects as the others?
I could do this all day; however it is a real shame someone has to...
Do people still say "pwned"? :D
Nice try Wilson, but major fail. I said show where ANY religion has said its ok to get or have an abortion. You failed miserably as all of the instances are of people already born! Do try again and this time show WHERE any religion says that you should kill a child in the womb. Oh wait...you cant. so run along.
Once again, you miss the point...
The are fundamental differences for when some view life as "beginning"
For these women scriptures claim that life is not a fertilized egg...case in point..
And no where in the christian bible does it say thou shalt not bake a wedding cake for gay couples, or thou shalt not build transgendered peoples a website either...
So, if you claim that your "pro-life" sentiment is religiously inspired then it must be that you plainly ignore all the "killings" of children your words...in your bible...
Secondly, it does not matter what the bible says, it matters how individuals interpret it right...(websites, wedding cakes, etc...)
Keep spinning it wilson, I have repeatedly asked you to show me just ONE religion that allows abortions or has abortions as part of their religion and you keep running around in circles claiming I am missing the point and yet refuse to answer the challenge.
So either answer the challenge or just admit that there isnt any religion that has abortion as part of their religion. Stop spouting nonsense and just answer the challenge. I wont hold my breath waiting as you cant and you know it, so why continue with the smokescreen and mirrors?
Jewish religion, obviously like these women are claiming..
But no religion states thou shall not kill a fetus in thine womb...
So, please show us where "any" religion says thou shall stay-ist pregnant for God has commanded it...
I am not the one spinning your just choosing to remain confused...
Then they as well as the thread poster are lying. Just because you have a belief does not make it a part of any recognized religion.
Sure as soon as you can show me where abortion is part of any religion.
Sure, they are lying just as much as (website designers, bakers, Hobby Lobby, etc) because they believe certain actions violate their religiously held believes...
And again, No one needs to show you where abortion is permitted in the bible because the bible does not show one way or the other...
It is their interpretation of their scripture for when life begins...Just like, people claiming they cannot do "this" or cannot do "that" because it violates their religious views...
So, "abortion" need not be part of any religion because that is not the claim in the article it is when life begins...
Now, do you understand...?
No Wilson its YOU who does not understand. I have repeatedly asked you to show me one religion that advocates or states that abortion is part of their religion and you have tried a lot of smoke and mirrors but have YET to show this. And I dont see why not if it is as easy and you imply it to be. but feel free on continuing your myths as the only damage that is being done is to your reputation when you make a claim and then do everything in your power not to have to prove it
The fact that the State of Israel not only allows but pays for abortions is evidence enough that a religion, and its adherents, support abortion.
Um sorry Andrew but whoever told you that is lying to you. Direct from the Israeli Embassy in Washington DC, and I quote "Israeli women can have an abortion only after undergoing an approval hearing with doctors and a social worker. And then it depends on what personal health insurance coverage they have Clalit-Leumit, Maccabi and Meuhedet) regardless of age, pre-existing condition(s) or state of health. The plans provide identical basic baskets of services, as required by law, but availability of services may differ by location." At NO time does Israel law say that they will pay for abortions. Now refute the Israeli Embassy if you want to try.
It's strange that you would look to the Israeli Embassy for information rather than the Israeli Ministry of Health. First off, you speak of "health insurance coverage" which is erroneous since Israel has universal healthcare that covers every Israeli, and that universal coverage includes abortions. Second, the "approval hearing" is outdated information. On June 27, in response to the SCOTUS decision on RvW, the Israeli Health Minister Nitzan Horowitz moved to change the policy on abortion access in Israel. By overwhelming majority the parliamentary committee approved a new policy that will grant women access to abortion pills through Israel’s universal health system and will exempt women from appearing before a special committee, whose approval has been required for decades for the termination of a pregnancy.
The Satanic Temple allows abortions. Their third tenet reads, "One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone" and in line with that tenet they practice a religious abortion ritual.
Nice try tom but no dice. The Satanic temple is not a recognized religion therefor it does not qualify. But do keep trying
The Satanic Temple is recognized as a religion by the IRS and the U.S. government.
Actually the Satanic Temple is a recognized religious organization in the U.S.
Actually it is no such thing. I could find NOTHING in US law that recognizes this as a valid religion
Well, of course you couldn't.
The IRS does not "pass a law" when awarding tax-exempt status to a church. It merely sends the applying church a certificate (or letter) acknowledging that they met the criteria for such and have been granted (or denied) the status.
The criteria an organization must meet before receiving tax-exempt status as a church can be found on a web page posted at irs.gov.
Just because the IRS may think you are a valid religion does not mean you actually are one. its not as easy as sending in papers as you are trying to claim. You have to do the following 1.Distinct legal existence. 2.Recognized creed and form of worship. 3. Definite and distinct ecclesiastical government. 4. Formal code of doctrine and discipline. 5. Distinct religious history. 6. Membership not associated with any other church or denomination. 7. Organization of ordained ministers. 8. Ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed courses of study 9. Literature of its own 10. Established places of worship 11. Regular congregations 12. Regular religious services 13. Sunday schools for the religious instruction of the young 14. Schools for the preparation of its members
And BEFORE you receive any certification to be a recognized church, you MUST complete ALL of these. Sorry to bust your bubble but you are wrong again as usual.
Congratulations!! You found the list!!
If you read all the way to the bottom of that IRS page, they also wrote:
"The IRS generally uses a combination of these characteristics, together with other facts and circumstances, to determine whether an organization is considered a church for federal tax purposes"
So, it does not seem that every point on that list is required to be met by the IRS.
Now I'm not a member of the Satanic Temple, but it certainly seems possible that they could have (and obviously did) meet enough of those requirements to receive that specific status from the IRS.
When you say: "Just because the IRS may think you are a valid religion does not mean you actually are one."
I'm hoping you will provide us with a list of all the "valid religions." As well as the name of the person/organization that decides which religions are valid or not.
Congrats Asa, you fell into your own trap with your eyes wide open. Article 1 Section 7of the US Constitution clearly states and I quote "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills." meaning very clearly that if the House has the sole authority to start a bill for new taxes, then they also have the sole authority to decide on who pays taxes. And considering that the Constitution itself say that the ONLY people who can make a law or regulation or give the weight of law to anything is the Congress (Section 1 Legislative Vesting Clause
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Which means the IRS has no legal nor constitutional authority to decide who does and does not pay taxes. Nice try but you have been busted yet again for not telling the truth
Yes, Mr. Gray, "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."
If you do any research at all you can easily discover the various Tax Acts that the U.S. Congress has passed since the creation of this country.
Pertinent to our discussion, The Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894 required an income tax division to be operated and maintained within the Bureau of Internal Revenue. This same Wilson-Gorman Act also stipulated that “nothing herein contained shall apply to… corporations, companies, or associations organized and conducted solely for charitable, religious, or educational purposes, including fraternal beneficiary associations.”
As a result, most churches and certain other religious organizations don't need to apply for recognition of tax exemption, unless they specifically request an IRS ruling.
In more modern times, according to The Tax Reform Act of 1969: “exclusively religious activities of any religious order” are not subject to reporting requirements, although certain religious organizations are required to report activities that are not religious in nature.
Your idea that Congress must pass a law every time it wants to award tax exemption to an individual organization is just plain wrong.
Show us where, in US Law (your words) the Roman Catholic Church is recognized as "a valid religion". It is OBVIOUS that you don't understand the Establishment Clause.
Show me what the "establishment clause" has to do with the price of eggs in china. And before you start spouting off nonsense again, check with ANY catholic Bishop or the Library of Congress and you will see that there were 25,000 Catholics in a colonial population of about 4,500,000 at the time of independence in 1776. And even the Founding fathers (and quite a few of them were Catholic, with Charles Carrol actually signing the Dec of Independence. you really should know history before you try and speak on it
Daniel, the existence of Catholics has no bearing on the recognition by US Law of catholicism as "a valid religion". Of course the the establishment clause has nothing to do with "the price of eggs in China", but it does have EVERYTHING to do with the FACT that the Satanic Temple has equal status with the Roman Catholic Church as an exempt religious organization. Those are the facts.
Well articulated and logical response...
Mr. Gray often has trouble with facts that do not comport with his interpretation of reality, unfortunately...
Good Job Sir...carry on
Minister Wilson, you do realize that these passages are not theologically and morally prescriptive in the New Law and must be put in context, right? The Old Testament was plunging into a culture of violence, human sacrifices and death at large. All that is described (and yes, it is descriptive, not prescriptive) is an attempt to reduce violence. Things were much worse in the surrounding pagan cultures, which is another reason Jehovah says they must not mix with local natives. Yet, we have the story of Ruth and Naomi where all these rules are broken. And God seems to be OK with that.
How do you know what God is okay with?
where did the Pagan cultures come from, is their god different?
Why should anyone care about theological and moral perspectives from a book that makes rules for and condones slavery? Genocide? and Human sacrifice?
Prove your god is real beyond your wishful believes and misguide faith...
Would this college be as supportive of women's right to her body if the students didn't want the mandatory poisonous vaccines?
What does this have to do with vaccines? What aboutism again.
My body, my choice and your right to your body and health.
People "catch" colds, no one "catches" a pregnancy...
I believe we have discussed this before...A public health concern such as COVID-19 is much different from a private choice made between a woman and her doctor...
While some may have an allergic reaction to any vaccination, vaccines have provided a net positive for our society, do you disagree?
The reason I think you and others like you keep rehashing this particular point is because you intuitively know and understand that no one should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy, but you do not have the respect or courtesy to treat others with the same autonomy you expect for yourself...
Some vaccines have . However, now vaccines are poison and money in big pharma's pocket. Corona vaccines are absolute POISON!!!
Please show/link evidence/proof of your claim, other wise it's just dogs barking at dogs
If they're absolute poison, why haven't I died yet? Why hasn't anyone of the people who I know received the vaccine died yet? Maybe because they're not poison? You've been conned by a conspiracy theory, mate.
If I were young enough to conceive, and if I told an Orthodox rabbi that I wanted an abortion, he would NOT automatically say NO. He would PROBABLY say NO, but if my ob/gyn assured him that my health was in serious danger, or that my life was in danger, he would very likely say OK. The other Jewish denominations would be more liberal, but the gold standard is what the Orthodox rabbi would say, and EVEN the Orthodox would make an exception to save the mother's life and sometimes for other reasons such as her health or such as the pregnancy being the product of rape or incest.
This means that barring ALL pregnant women from ALL abortions under ALL circumstances infringes the religious freedom of even Orthodox women.
The Bible itself says that if two men are fighting and accidentally cause a nearby pregnant women to have a miscarriage, the man who caused it is required to PAY for the damage to the pregnancy, as if it were property damage. ONLY if there is health or other physical damage to the WOMAN is he PUNISHED. He is NOT PUNISHED, but only FINED, for causing the miscarriage.
The women making the lawsuit should acknowledge that under most circumstances an Orthodox rabbi would likely say NO, but the LAW forbids abortion EVEN when the Orthodox rabbi would say YES, and this makes it a violation of freedom of religion even in the most extreme case, within Jewish law and custom, and all the more so among the other Jewish denominations.
Comment removed by user.