What do you think they will do. I see this a very thorny matter: especially for Thomas and Barrett. who are absolutists on both religious liberty and on abortion. I don’t think there is an easy resolution: either yield on abortion or exclude some religions from the exercise of religious liberty.
1 Like
No it isn’t.
By your own admission.
Why?
…
Another second poster weighs in on the Talmud. The debate on the issue is extensive, but the resolution based on citations from Genesis is clear.
Interesting how an assertion of Jewish belief is stimulating so much contradiction. Maybe Boebert was right this week when she claimed the opposition to anti-Semitism is a form of opposition to Conservatism?
Traditional conservatism was respectful of religious tradition in its variations.
1 Like
I’m sure you’ll gin up the same fake indignation for the Christian scholars who had claimed that the Bible supported slavery.
Or the Christians who find the whole transgender movement disgusting.
Or Jehovah Witnesses who would rather let their child die than give them a transfusion.
Don’t abuse religion with your fake concerns for something you really don’t understand.
2 Likes
What’s the debate?
The rest of that post is yet another gibberish strawman.
You get so concerned when I ask questions about other’s beliefs but here you go putting a series of beliefs in my mouth. Given what you have accused me of, your first three paragraphs are simply beneath you.
And your final paragraph repeats your pattern of insulting me rather than engaging with what I said. You show no knowledge of Jewish law, so you have no basis for insulting me when I reference it.
1 Like
Your entire is an insult being used to cover your lack of an actual position.
1 Like
Well I may surprise you by saying that I have a rather jaded view of the current court. I suspect that they would decline to hear the case, and if that failed, reason their way to denying the religious claim.
This new standard of ‘history and tradition’ will prove quite handy in that regard.
I thought I explained in the second half of the post your quoted.
The choice between the court is to acknowledge exemptions to abortion laws based on strongly held religious views, which could undermine efforts to restrict abortion, or rule that strongly held religious views only matter when they are based on some religions, not others, violating the Establishment clause of the Constitution.
1 Like
No, it’s an observation about the post.
I have positions. Actual positions.
Always a conspiracy with RW’ers… Always.
1 Like
I saw it, I was giving you a chance to check your premises.
What’s your reason?
Hey WuWei:
I have a question for you as a moderator not as a participant in the discussion at hand.
Is it all right to bring that up? For now I’ll assume it is (feel free to rule me out of bounds).
Is Post 107 in this thread consistent with the Terms of Service. That’s the post that draws an analogy between Jewish religious scholars and slavers.
I have the sense that something that derogatory really is out-of-bounds given an expectation that we should respect each other’s (sometimes) divergent religious beliefs.
I was also troubled by the two posts that said that the assertion of Jewish law was stupid but it was the slavery analogy that just seemed inappropriate.
Please respond as a moderator rather than as a debater.
If you feel a post violates the Terms of Service then Flag it for ruling. One of us moderators will then review it and make a ruling.
2 Likes
How do I flag it?
It says we’re not willing to participate in the killing of the unborn innocent. I’m good with that.
3 Likes
I’m not a moderator. I would suggest you address your moderator questions in the appropriate subforum.
