Alabama has officially been named one of America's top destinations… for non-Christians to avoid.
“Religious equality is under attack in Alabama,” declared American Atheists Alison Gill, whose group authored the 2019 State of the Secular States report that ranked the southern state as one of the worst for religious equality due to its laws and policies, alongside states like Kentucky, Arkansas, and Arizona.
American Atheists based their ratings on the amount of separation between church and state. “Some of these states have passed laws to promote false Christian nationalist narratives, allow religious exemptions to civil rights protections, and enshrine particular religious views into the law.”
Abortion bans were also accounted for. Per the report; “The state’s near-total abortion ban forces one particular religious view of reproductive health on every Alabaman woman. Sadly, Alabama schools let students receive credit for outside religious instruction but do not provide comprehensive, scientifically accurate sex education. Alabama lawmakers are more interested in imposing their religious views on citizens than protecting equality for everyone.”
Of course, readers of this blog are well aware that Alabama didn't just rise to such conservative Christian prominence yesterday.
Alabama and Christianity: A Match Made in Heaven
Nearly a decade ago, we wrote about a judge in the town of Bay Minette who decided to allow petty criminals the option of either working off their sentences in jail, paying a fine, or attending church worship services every Sunday for a year, a clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
More recently, the Alabama state legislature has passed laws allowing private adoption agencies to refuse service to the LGBTQ community based on religious beliefs; has fought (and largely failed) to ban same-sex marriage with laws ultimately deemed to be unconstitutional by federal judges, going as far as refusing to air the season premiere of the children's television show "Arthur" because it featured a same-sex marriage scene between two of its characters; and has all but outlawed abortion - even in cases of rape or incest - and threatened doctors who do so with up to 99 years in prison.
Does Alabama Promote Christian Nationalism?
The 2019 State of the Secular States calls this blitz of pro-Christian legislation Christian nationalism. And crucial to that is Alabama’s history of providing religious exemptions.
According to Gill, this has allowed the states to take advantage of offended Christians to do everything from shield faith healers from punishment, impede vaccinations, and even encourage public schools to offer Bible classes. “More often than not,” Gill said, “these Bible classes end up resembling Sunday school rather than public school because schools fail to meet the constitutional requirement to teach them in a secular way.”
The way American Atheists National Field Director Samantha McGuire sees it, the 2019 State of the Secular States report is nothing short of a "roadmap to fight Christian Nationalism and promote religious equality."
As American Atheists pledges to battle Alabama over their abortion bans, religious exemptions to vaccines, and discrimination against gay couples in adoptions, Alabama shows no signs of slowing down. Last year, Governor Kay Ivey signed into law allowing a megachurch to create its own police force that can make arrests on church grounds.
Life in Alabama seems great… so long as you prescribe to a particular set of beliefs. But should states like Alabama be allowed to make Constitutionally-questionable laws that match their Christian beliefs? A whopping 86% of Alabamans identify as Christians - but is that an excuse to write blatantly discriminatory laws?
Respectfully...i hope the ACLU" and similar organizations challenge the Alabama approach in federal court, so ultimately the Supreme Court can strike down all of the prejudiced, biased laws...Peace...Tom B
Ohio has the same laws on their books. And you seem to forget that the US Supreme Court has already ruled that not one of these laws violates any federal law. Which means they are all Constitutional so the ACLU would not stand a chance as they cant overturn a SCOTUS decision
I'd like to see those SCOTUS rulings you speak of. I remain skeptical. I know laws favoring a particular religious position are in fact NOT constitutional, so I challenge the verity of your claim, and challenge you to provide evidence to support it.
Ask and you shall receive
The story at the link you provided talks about how a Kentucky law requiring a women to see an ultrasound before undergoing an abortion is mandatory, and was upheld when challenged. The rationale provided (having the pregnant women have a chance to see before she proceeds is valid), but favoring a particular religious position? It just means that SCOTUS didn't overturn that particular law in Kentucky. It doesn't mean that a similar in another state won't later be struck down later. Although legal precedents are considered, so are the individual merits of each case.
Also, I don't know what Ohio laws you're comparing this too. It appears you conclude that anything that makes it more difficult for a women to have an abortion falls into this category. You're painting with an awfully big brush, here. I'm fine with pre-abortion counseling, because there are women who have abortions and regret it afterwards. The underlying principle is that you can't legislate morality. It's between people and their personal relationship with God (if they're believers, whatever their creed may be). It's not our job to get in the middle and judge for them. "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Remember that? If you believe it to be a Divine Rule, then in rightfully gets tried and judged in God's court, not Man's. "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and God what is God's". Abortion is an issue that is rightly outside of human jurisdiction--yet we're too proud to acknowledge our hubris, and leave it to God to judge. Each woman will make the choice of what she will or won't do regarding an undesired pregnancy, and she'll--and only she-- will have to face God (if she believes) for the consequences of those actions. We overstep when we try to legislate on behalf of God, as we lack his understanding and his wisdom. If we had it regarding this matter, we would have resolved it long ago. We should reflect upon that fact that since we have not been able to do so, it constitutes a really significant indicator that the issue of abortion significantly exceeds our moral understanding. We cannot judge on this, so we just need to leave it alone, and leave it to God.
Makes no difference, it is REQUIRED and it IS LAW and it WAS upheld as legal and Constitution. There are also bills that clearly state that you CANNOT have an abortion after a set period of time, for example Georgia has one that bans abortions after a 6 week time period and it was upheld as constitutional. In Alabama you cant have one after 8 weeks and that one was upheld as constitutional and 43 other states clearly make abortions illegal after a specific date. Not to mention that in 48 states it is illegal for anyone other then a parent to take a child under 18 to another state for an abortion.
So I am sorry to bust your bubble but there are plenty of laws out there that have been classified as legal and constitutional that put bans on abortions. So why all the fuss about this one?
There is a difference between "not unconstitutional" and "constitutional". When SCOTUS doesn't overturn it, that means that it doesn't violate the United States Constitution. That's not the same thing as saying that it's now part of the Constitution, or aligns with the principles of the Constitution, which is what "Constitutional" means. Personally, I would just avoid those states, period. And I would recommend any expectant mother having the means, and wanting an abortion, should just do the same. The Constitution applies to all Americans, the laws you speak of are local--they do not. You can keep Alabama to yourself, thanks.
No there isnt. either its constitutional and that means its legal, or its not. And sad for you this was ruled Constitutional meaning its perfectly legal for the state to do this
Your understanding of law is lacking. "Constitutional" applies to the whole nation and requires amendment. You're just talking about local law, which can later be repealed by local lawmakers, should the political climate change.
The conservative majority of SCOTUS applauds extreme right-wing christian prejudice. Christian Sharia law has found its foothold in the US.
That doesn't mean their decisions can support it, however.
Mad because they destroyed your fake abortion rights decision? Sorry but the courts CANNOT make a law only Congress can. Thats in Article 1 Section 1 of the Constitution.
And again sorry but the courts cannot "interpret" any law, they must go by what the law says as in Article 3 (powers of the Judiciary) they are not and never have been granted the authority to say the law means what they think. As to do this then if another court comes up and decides that it means something else they could change it. And so on and so forth.
And finally for the Constitution to be changed it MUST be done by a constitutional amendment, not by a decision of the Supreme Court or a letter from a President to his detractors.
If you dont know this then you need to go back to grade school and stay awake this time in civics class.
Respectfully...i hope the ACLU" and similar organizations challenge the Alabama approach in federal court, so ultimately the Supreme Court can strike down all of the prejudiced, biased laws...Peace...Tom B
They did and they lost the case with prejudice meaning the ACLU cant bring the case to any court ever again. Now what are you going to do?
My bible says "Where the spirit of the lord is there is liberty." That has to be liberty for all, or it's not real liberty.
That also includes unborn children
Someone isnt a someone till born. Thats why we dont write out birth certs or names at diagnosis of pregnancy. And a woman has more right to her body then anyone or anything else. There is no such thing as a 100% risk free pregnancy or birth. Complications that can turn fatal can occur at every stage during the development of the fetus.
Let me pose an analogue. Lets say you have kidney failure and both are removed. Now you are in dire need of a new kidney. Because you need one to live, does that mean you should be able to force someone to give up a kidney even though that can also come with risks and complications and potentially lower their quality of life?
When you put an unborn fetus over a living thinking persons right to their own body, you are saying the above is also right and good. That we do not deserve to decide what we do or how we use our body.
And keep in mind in the state in the above topic even a child raped by a parent can be denied abortion, and that children of sexual abuse only have a single year after turning 18 to find the inner will to seek therapy and justice for their years of abuse at the hands of those they should be able to trust in and depend upon most.
Even if unborn fetuses were given full rights on par with a born and living child, no one can compel a parent to donate of themselves to that child. Hell thanks to religious protections parents often get away with helping to cause their childs death by denying modern medicine.
Crazy christians like you basically are saying yep you have to have the baby you dont want, but oops now that its born you can just deny it medical aid based on the same faith leading to the childs demise.
Hypocrisy of the so called faithful at its most twisted.
Says who? medical Scxience has clearly shown that a fetus's heartbeat is detectable at 3 weeks and brainwave activity is detectable at 4 to 5 weeks. And guess what they police and law and medical science use to show a person is alive? Heartbeat and Brainwave activity. meaning according to the law and medical science once you can detect either or both of these, then the fetus is alive and a human being.
And lets put you to a test. A man and a woman have relations and a child is created. Now if the woman wants the child and the man does not, how fair exactly is it for the woman to be able to go to court and force the man to pay child support? yet if the man wants the child and the woman does not then according to you she can have an abortion and the man has nothing to say about it. And you say this is fair?
And exactly how do you justify fetal homicide laws that every state in the Union has if the fetus isnt a human then how can it be classified as a homicide?
And one more thing? Since abortion isnt mentioned in the Constitution and neither is the right to privacy, exactly how can it be a law? Last I checked the only people according to the Constitution that can make a law is the US Congress. If the Supreme Court wanted to make this a law then they would have had to have either Congress make it a law or they would have to have had a Constitutional Amendment to put it into the Constitution, neither of which they have done or ever has been done.
Terikson, ignorance is not a good way to go through life but you actually can go to school and correct that.
Why dont you try actually engaging in conversation rather then squawk at me? Ill show you how thats done. None of what you bothered to say actually refuted, or even responded to my points about the right to a womans own body first and foremost. You are trying to as so many do, place the unborn, possble life over the the actual living, thinking, and actual person your wanting to exert control over and remove the personal autonomy of.
Nor did you bother to respond to the very accurate analogue of stripping peoples other rights to their own bodies away. Do you feel donating blood should be mandatory? How about organs, even while alive such as a kidney or lung that we have two of and can though impaired live with giving up one of to save anothers life? After all a living productive member of society is certainly more valued by an economist when dealing with civil suits then an unborn fetus. What if I developed some rare illness and for whatever reason your blood alone could save me, do I have the right to force you to give me your blood?
this is the discussion, try actually responding to what I post rather then ranting at me about your life view based in personal ignorance due to blindly following a man made work of fiction.
Because the simple truth is if we live in a free society, then no one has the right to impose something like mandatory pregnancy, celibacy, or abortion on anyone. What you believe about souls, heaven and hell, god and the devil, or the possible person that fetus could become should never have any control over the actions another chooses to take.
And all one need do is read your first error filled post and then read this one and we will know exactly who is doing the squawking. Say hello to them the next time you pass a mirror
Yeah avoid answering the actual topic once again. Do you think something as simple as donating blood should be mandatory? How about a kidney if it will save anothers life?
Because again the difference in our posts is I am engaging you, however I wont be baited, until you answer the questions I posed first the ones you ask do not deserve an answer.
No one is avoiding anything. You are trying that "trap" trick and I am not going to fall for it. But since you want to try, then tell us exactly what gives you the right to ignore scientific and medical science and laws of the land?
So you write to Mr. Gray that, "Hypocrisy of the so called faithful at its most twisted" and then u call christians crazy, and then u write that Mr. Gray that he should "try actually engaging in conversation rather then squawk." Think about that if u can.
he wont because it shows he is wrong and when you prove it he cant stand it and goes off on a tantrum
Anyone who clings to a concept like creationism is crazy and that is putting it nicely. Anyone that thinks telling a woman her rights are 2ndary to what amounts to a parasite in her body, but doesnt think something like blood donation shouldnt be mandatory is a hypocrite.
His refusal to even explain why they think one is different then the other is refusing to engage in the conversation being had.
The issue with especially christian zealots on these forums time and again is they refuse to set aside blind faith to have a discussion based on logic, science , and reason. Because they cant.
They have to learn to seperate faith from fact and when having an informed discussion can not use concepts like souls, or the will of a creator being to argue their position, which is always deemed invalid in any forum of debate.
So i ask you if we can tell a woman she has to carry an unwanted parasite because its life is more valued. Why cant we say pass laws forcing people to donate organs, blood, bone marrow, even skin tissue for those in dire need of it?
Life actually can be quantified in the legal sense. Economist do it all the time, and an adult with skills and a use to society is always more valued then well a non person that does not yet exist beyond a possible birth into a possibly functional person.
So that means a womans life is def more valuable then the unborns.
And you cant prove a thing because your position is based on the fantasies of men who couldnt even fathom the basics of nature or the universe we live in.
And I challenge you to disprove it before you continue to run your mouth and show how biased and ignorant you are.
The very phrase "unborn children" is a specious construct of propaganda. Science refutes the claim that a human life begins at the moment of conception. The very fact that miscarriages (spontaneous abortions) occur blows a hole right through that allegation. It's also a bit disingenuous, I'm afraid. It's 2020, not 120 AD.
Sorry but no, and I can prove it in one simple sentence. When a woman is pregnant, what exactly does she give birth to? An animal or a rock or a bucket of water? No she gives birth to a human child. As such it is a child or a fetus no matter what you may think and if you want to try and sicprove it, then feel free. I am sure that medical experts as well as scientific experts will have a rather nice laugh at your foolish post.
Your understanding of biology is lacking here. A woman doesn't give birth to a child at the moment of conception--a lot of things have to occur before that happens. You're ignoring all the intermediate steps like the zygote, the blastocyst - they are just clumps of cells, that if the process proceeds according to plan, will ultimately form a human being. It is not yet a human being at that stage of development, however. It is still an embryo at this point. An embryo is not a person, actually as all other warm-blooded creatures have embryos as well. You pull that out of the womb, and it cannot sustain itself. It has yet to develop any characteristics remotely resembling a human being. That's like calling a blueprint or a concrete foundation a house. There is a difference between "potential" and "actual". If you actually checked with any of those medical or scientific experts you cite, they would support these statements, I guarantee you. It's not a fetus until eight weeks after conception. You're spouting religious dogma, and trying to claim it's scientific fact. Calling my post "foolish" isn't going to change that, sorry.
My understanding is based on medical science. Now if you can prove a pregnant woman can give birth to a fish or a dog or something other then a human being, then please show your proof. Until then its clearly you who needs a refresher course in human biology
It appears that you didn't even bother to read the content of my post, nor do you display an understanding of medical science. You just use the words, without demonstrating that you grasp their meaning. You can take your strawman and burn it next mayday, thank you.
I did and it does not make any more sense the 5th time I read it then the first. Again if you can prove that a human can give birth to anything other then a human, please do so. Otherwise admit that you were wrong and go on your merry way
From what I read they seem to be doing what the people in the state wants. Need more info before I can say one way or the other. The judge offering to let someone pay a fine, go to jail or attend church in my opinion is fine. The person has a choice. What's wrong with that? Banning late term abortion etc is a state right and the people in the state has the right to vote on the issue in their state. Same with the LGBT issue. Again if the people in the state vote for these things then so be it. They have that right. As I said still need more info.
No state nor the federal gov have the right to reduce someone to less then free or have control over their own body. Imagine if suddenly your state gov said blood,bone marrow, spinal fluid, and sperm donation was now mandatory? What about organs that we have two of? Should someone in dire need be able to force the donation of a kidney or lung?
Because when people say the unborn fetus has more right to the womans body then the woman, thats the same thing. Its funny how a state that depends on the electoral college to not be subject to actual majority rule has someone like you saying well if that is what the state wants as a majority then the outliers dont deserve a say.
Why should a state with a few million residents have as much influence as a state with 10 times the numbers, after all it shouldnt be handfuls of ignorant farmers dictating the laws of a massive modern nation
Rural regions that are barely populated, and often well under the average education level of the nation want to be able to left alone to live as they like, but then also want to be able to push their BS onto the nation as a whole, typical hypocrisy of the fascist far right..
Funny that you should go on your rant the way you did you just proved my point. You think that you have more rights than the "Ignorant farmer in a rural area". I will tell you why they have as much right as you do to decide things. First I was talking about the state. Not federal so your argument about the electoral college has nothing at all to do with the laws of a state. Second this country and every state has its own constitution that the people of that state voted in. Hence state laws VS Fed laws. But since you brought up the Electoral college it just shows you how well thought out our forefathers were. Because why should two states that have the bulk of the population such as California and NY be able to elect top Government officials. That state that has only a few million people should have a say in the national politics is that not fair? Now would you not agree that these states that are so populated and educated be able to decide for the rest of America what we should and should not be allowed to do as a person. Why should they have any say after all they are rural and uneducated. Kinda sounds like you are the fascist to me. And yes that is the typical hypocrisy of the communist socialist left. Now back to the issue at hand. If you don't like the laws of that state it is simple. 1. Either change the law if you have the Majority which in this country it is how the state system works. Or move out of the state to one that mirrors what you think is right. I fully agree that a woman or anyone else has the right to have control over your body. Hence why I disagree with universal health care that gives the government control over me which I don't want. That said once you conceive a child there is more than one person now that needs to be considered. Why is it that if someone kills a pregnant woman they are charged with killing both the woman and the unborn child. Why are men still made to pay child support. If it is the womans choice and the male has no say so why should he pay for the child. This issue is one that divides the country and most likely always will. You have the choice today not to get pregnant in the first place so why not be RESPONSIBLE and not get pregnant if you don't want a child, If people did the responsible thing then this would not even be an issue....
One can easily counter your main point simply by asking why the man didnt get a vasectomy,a very simple in and out procedure that can then allow the man to avoid making children until he is certain he has the right partner and then can use another non invasive procedure to collect his sperm and then use medical science to have conception when wanted exactly rather then hoping and having by happenstance.
Also try learning how to write as walls of text such as yours are considered a rant rather then a statement. They dont even need to be grammatically accurate, just wall o text equals rant on the net.
You argue the same BS point and then want to slam people for their belief system. YOU have the right not to have sex and make a baby. Or again as I said earlier use Birth control. I guess in your mind you think that the unborn baby is not alive until Birth. Religion has nothing to do with this process. Never mind the fact that the baby has a heartbeat and it moves. Why should the male get a vasectomy, he is doing what comes natural and the woman is the one who has the RIGHT to say NO. As I said before it really boils down to accepting responsibility for ones actions. Now if there is a question of rape, incest etc. that is a different story. You want to blame the man for having sex with a willing partner? Both should accept the responsibility of their actions in my opinion. But if he has no say so then he should not be held responsible. I also noticed you did not address the other issues I brought up but that's ok, I know its hard to refute a statement that you know is right. I see you felt that another person who posted also did not meet your grammatical acceptance. Maybe I did rant a bit, Much like you did in your post.
Uhm no my post does not qualify as a rant because I didnt wall of text which ion the internet in forums and texting is deemed ranting. Just by the way you write as one long string of words with no breaks for paragraphs means everything you right is a rant.
Do try to actually understand the etiquette and accepted norms of text based communication k;).
Um sorry but the courts have already ruled you have no right over your own body or parts therein from. In every state of the Union there are what is called "fetal homicide" laws thus giving the right of a fetus the same rights as someone who has been born if they are in an accident and the death is caused by an accident. Sort of blows your claim of this being a mass of tissue all the heck and back now dont it? And then we come to the African American woman who had a part of her body removed and the doctors then use that part to make all kinds of medicine. The family sued and they lost https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2565785/ so while you may believe you have the right of ownership to your body, the law says different
I think that instead of building a wall between the US and Mexico, which need to build walls around fundamentalist Christian states (like Alabama) to seal them off from the rest of the United States. They apparently think that the Constitution doesn't apply to them. ;)
U r certainly a leftist arent u? Just so u know. I am here. Thanks to the UL Church, I was lucky enough to marry my beautiful Christian daughter to my wonderful Christian son in law.
I am a grass roots right wing Christian. So is my entire family. I love what AL is doing. God bless America. God bless Alabama. I thank God for our forefathers who fought multiple wars to give us this great country where we have freedom of speech, the 2nd amendment , and the ability to protect what is our birthright (freedom).
Be careful not to stereotype and polarize your arguments. All the truth lies in the greys, not in the black and whites. You are welcome to have Alabama: I don't believe that Jesus would want to live there, though. You speak of freedom, yet you support laws that take it away from others. You know that there are Americans who are not Christians? They are still Americans, though--and they still have the same rights as other Americans. I think you need to stop and give some serious thought to that. America is not a theocracy. It's a republic.
I don't care what they do in Alabama. I'm not going there. I've been known to drive through it , and fly over it. ItlfbI ever stop for gas or lunch or whatever I don't have a problem with ac to ing like a Christian, but don't often leave Texas anymore, which is plenty big for me.
That android poltergeist was really acting up in my above comment. I don't have a clue as to what that first set of jumbled consonants was supposed to indicate, but then it made the word acting into three words, and added an o. It's always best to proofread before submitting comments on this blog.
That's why there is a 1st Amendment and a Federal Court System.
This topic goes round and round because it misses the point. The false construct of Rightwing "Christianity" and what Alabama represents isn't of Christ.
Christ's teachings were not to judge, not to pray publicly, not to serve mammon, not to hate but to love ... it didn't include guns, anti-gay beliefs or abortion that rightwingers pretend is "loving Jesus." These churches don't pay taxes as Jesus instructed: they HATE Jesus and his do-gooder love-thy-neighbor, seek the Truth doctrine. Rightwing Christianity is a sheepskin. It's basically straight-up Judaism, the Pharisee's teachings, which is why they go on about the Ten Commandments but never the Beatitudes or anything Christ actually laid down. This man-made Rightwing doctrine is a vast exercise in blasphemous deception.
By ceding the name of Christ to these phonies, America lost it's way. Jesus didn't come to condemn sinners but to save them ... He came to condemn the hypocrites.
John R -
I'll agree with you on all but one point. It's not "straight-up Judaism", but corrupted Judaism. What the Pharisees taught, Jesus rejected. Jesus' ministry was as a Rabbi ("Yeshua" in Hebrew, "Joshua" in English. "Jesus" was his Greek appellation, and the Bible already had its Joshua). He lived and died as a Jew. His teachings outlived him, and they still hold valid, regardless of what rubric you assign to Him. But it was at His crucifixion that the focus changed in many minds from following Jesus' teachings and the example He set, to Jesus worship, i.e,. Christianity. Remember that in the context of the times, he was sentenced to death for sedition against the Roman empire, because Judas Iscariot set him up. During Jesus' life, his disciples were Jews who looked to him as a warrior king in the line of David who was going to free them from Roman oppression during their lifetimes.
What kind of church is this exactly if u have a problem with a Christian state trying to hold onto its identity, at a time when Christians are under lethal assault all over the world and Western tradition and values are attacked constantly? It sounds like you side with athiests? Do u prefer a no rules society where drag queens read to/indoctrinate young children, full term abortion is legalized, trans men are allowed into bathrooms with your daughters, and free speech and thought are slowly taken away from everyone? Alabama seems like one of the few states on the right path
John Daly -
Christians have not been a persecuted minority since before 1st-century Rome. You exaggerate. What is being challenged is not reasonable Christianity, e.g., assimilated Protestantism, but aggressive evangelical fundamentalism, which has been trying to push the country into a theocratic direction of their interpretation of Christianity as the "only true and correct" one. I have no problem with anyone's creed, as long as it doesn't try to take away any of my freedom's including my freedom of choice. Christianity doesn't have the right to force its values upon non-Christians. I'm sorry if you feel that constitutes "lethal assault". Peaceful co-existence between sects and even creeds is possible, if mutual and reciprocal respect and tolerance is practiced. But religious hegemony? Whether it be Christian Fundamentalism or Radical Islam, both are wrong, and have no place in a Democratic Republic like the United States of America. If you don't believe in abortion, then you don't have one. If you disagree with gay marriage, don't marry a member of the same sex as your own. You haven't the right to have your religious dogma institutionalized into law, because then you're forcing Christian values on non-Christians, thus taking away their religious freedom, and their freedom of choice. You are not someone else's moral arbiter. So what ever happened to "Judge not lest ye be judged" or "You note the mote in your neighbor's eye, but not the beam in your own?" These arguments echo the ones used in the early twentieth century against women's and black rights, all being justified by the Bible.
I said nothing about the 1st century. I am talking about right now. Christians are under lethal assault throughout the middle east, throughout africa, and throughout china, just to name a few places. In the US no one is trying to kill us (because they cant), but the left is always trying to harm us anyway they can. Not trying to be a moral arbiter. I could care less about gays in general. Drag queens talking to my grand kids, entirely different. Full term abortion? U ok with that? The only way to keep our country strong is to nurture and protect strong families. I can see that u and I will agree on basically nothing so I will stop here.
The family unit is an archaic and failed social aspect to our modern civilization. In general people are terrible at raising children, as is seen time and again for example with zealots like the anti vaxxers, the flat earthers, the creationists, and so on, using their own children as subjects to teach delusion to.
Children should be raised for and nurtured by those actually fit for it, those who pass stringent and regular evaluations to insure they are mentally and emotionally stable. Frankly Id sooner trust rosy the robot to raising children then the vast majority of people.
The world is a finite place, and we can not keep operating on a first come first serve basis for resources until every inch of the Earth and every molecule upon it is claimed by some faction.
Anyone who betrays humanity for their god, which most freely admit to in their daily prayers and devotions, putting their loyalty and love first to god before even their family tells you how twisted those faiths can make the people following it.
Thats very funny.
John Daly -
So have you gone to the countries of which you speak to help your fellow Christians? Jesus would have. I'm not saying that you should support or do anything which your religion tells you is wrong. I'm simply saying that it's not your right to make that decision for others who don't share your faith. That's not an assault on Christianity, just because they don't share and embrace yours. We've really got to get away from this "you're either with us or against us mentality"--it's immature and it's tribal, and I'm sorry, I wouldn't hide behind my religion trying to justify it either. I think that you're degrading what Christianity means for those who actually do try to walk in the steps of Christ. Read your own words and then ask yourself this: "would Jesus have said that?" I doubt it.
BTW, I met an African Mormon from Rhodesia. He struck me as much more Christian than many of these vituperative arguments I see here in favor of taking away choice from the mother. It's between her and God. No one else! Everyone I hear on here arguing in favor of Alabama and these laws claiming it supports Christianity just sounds like a bunch of self-righteous hypocrisy to me. You all who profess to be Christians--where is your Christlike compassion and attempts at understanding? I don't think the Holy Spirit would find a welcome home in any of you.
The United States Constitution and its Amendments is an interpretive document. Officially and legally, these interpretations are made by the courts. Calling out Alabama as the worst state to be in if you are not a Christian is not going to help your anti-Christian agenda. It is a known fact that the United States is built upon Christian principles. All beliefs, however, are accommodated, unlike in other places of the world that your head is lost for no other reason than your Christian beliefs and having the courage not to renounce those beliefs. God bless.
Wilburn Keith Miller -
It is not a fact that the United States is built upon Christian principles. The Founding Fathers were Deists. Show me one document from the founding of our nation that has Jesus' name in it. You can't. If they were Christian principles, wouldn't they have then invoked Jesus' name in the Constitution, the Declaration, and the Bill of Rights? Are you now going to tell me that they were Christians afraid of naming their God in their founding documents?
Your claim is unfounded and specious.
Uhm thats not coruage. Courage is doing whatever it takes to survive terrible persecution even renouncing ones faith if that is what it takes. Too live another day to plot and plan escape, to overcome your oppressors and win your freedom. if your god ask you to die for your faith, that in my book is a terrible god just saying.
And I am an non-dead human
My understanding of the law is perfectly fine thank you as I asked my attorney before posting. Now if you disagree then show where you received your law degree
Will you ever present facts here, or just specious statements you claim to be facts? The very concept of "a Christian State" flies in the fact of the Constitution, as the Constitution was established to create a secular state free from the influence of religion. Religion is a private matter. The God you profess to worship spoke of the "hypocrites" who made a big show of publicly displaying how "religious" they were.
Did Jesus not set an example of compassion and forgiveness? Whores and lepers were worthy, but other of God's children are not? A truly open heart would see otherwise, and leave it to God alone to judge these things.
You think that abortifacients didn't exist in those times? Or miscarriages?
"Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God, that which is God's".
When any religious dogma becomes secular law, we have just given to Caesar that which is God's. It places man judging in God's stead. We have repeatedly proven (and continue to prove) that we lack such wisdom.
And what of other religions? The religious freedom of non-Christians is protected as well: Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikh, Taoists, Baha'i, Wiccans, Atheists, Agnostics...why should they live by a specific Christian denomination's interpretation codified in law? How does that not impinge on their freedom of choice and religious freedom guaranteed by the founding documents of the United States of America?
Pretty soon the Michigan signs will read MICHIGAN, FOR ISLAMISTS ONLY. None of us will have a problem with that will we?
As this plague engulfs Alabama it has treated everyone with equal wrath. What ever your belief is or will be means little since the virus will make the young sick and will cleans the old from the earth. It has always been that way and this time it will not be any different. Glad I have my own Mother. Afterlife2.org
No whats wrong is that the law says you are incorrect and you refuse to listen.