[serious] How is the separation of church and state not violated if states are planning to ban abortion based on their religious beliefs?

[serious] How is the separation of church and state not violated if states are planning to ban abortion based on their religious beliefs?

What do you think?

13 Points
Upvote Downvote


Leave a Reply
  1. I think it absolutely is but they just don’t care. hell, a massive minority of Americans probably wouldn’t vote for a candidate if they said they didn’t believe in God. God plays too big a role in people’s lives for it to be completely eliminated from politics

  2. Who specifically says it’s based on religious beliefs in the Government? I’ve just heard of it protecting the sanctity of life. There are nonreligious people who believe a baby in the womb is a life.

  3. It is nearly impossible to 100% separate politics and religion, as proof nearly every president we have had were Protestant Christians, so religion sometimes has an influence on the making of laws but isn’t 100% based on religion

  4. Because nothing about the ban is overtly religious. While many of the supporters of the bans are doing it for religious reasons, the people writing the laws are smart enough not to call upon those religious reasons when creating the laws.

  5. For the sanctity of life/abortion is murder argument…

    Should pregnant women be obligated to apply for ID for the child in utero?

    Should airlines be able to charge pregnant women for two passengers on international flights?

    Should all miscarriages result in a homicide investigation?

  6. It certainly is violated. Most other religions approve of it to varying degrees- at least of therapeutic ones (mother’s life/health at risk, fetal anomalies, rape/incest/trafficking, mother under a certain age). I do not know why some denominations of some religions are so draconian. That obsessed they are with control and purity?

  7. I assumed it to be literal. As in the two entities were to be separate from one another. No mention of religion by congresspeople/statespeople. I have always been confused why people would run for office on their “God fearing/loving” ideals and that they would bring morality to their office, etc. My parochial understanding of what the separation of church and state meant had me wondering how government officials were allowed to so openly run for office based on their religious affiliation

  8. Lawmakers can pass any law they want. They can pass a law banning Christianity or forcing everyone to convert to Christianity (note: just using Christianity as an example, you can insert any religion you’d like).

    It’s up to someone (Person, organization, etc.) to challenge that law, bring it to court, and for the courts to decide.

    The issue is that it has to be proven, beyond a doubt that the law is based on religion.

  9. It of course is violated but conservatives don’t give a shit about anyone else’s rights other than their own. Look at the overwhelming juxtaposition of their positions on vaccines/mask mandates and a woman’s right to make decisions about her own body. They used the phrase “my body my choice” when protesting vaccines and masks with a completely straight face and no hint of hypocrisy or irony. Many of Americas Christians are a joke drenched in hypocrisy. They do not support a real democracy and likely would go back to the days of fuedalism and extreme conservative religious fervour if it meant they could gain authority over people who want to make their own decisions. Just look at how they follow trump, someone who does not follow the principles Jesus taught very well at all. They are a joke and have the integrity of wet toilet paper. Your constitutional right to freedom of religion (including your freedom from having someone else’s religious views imposed upon you) be damned. They just want children of rape and incest to be able to someday have a gun in their hand (maybe even to kill a bunch of people with one), the next most important thing to an American Christian. After 5 years of living in the south, I’m truly sickened and disgusted by American Christians.

  10. So the 1st Amendment just says it will not establish a state religion and it will not prohibit you from practicing your religion. There is no guaranteed separation of church and state…that is an interpretation. Generally religious morality is accepted as appropriate and a good way to live your life. Regardless if you feel like religion is beating up the way you want to live, you can move to a community more in line with your beliefs

  11. That’s one way to frame it.

    Here’s another:

    Take a look at the history of the United States:

    * Slaves weren’t people, until they were.
    * Women weren’t people, until they were.
    * Ls and Gs weren’t people, until they were.
    * Ts weren’t people, until they were (though, we’re still working out the kinks in this one).

    If you consider the long arc of American history, the trend is towards making more ‘things’ considered ‘people’, with the rights that go along with it, and not towards making ‘people’ considered ‘things.’

    Right now, a fetus is considered a ‘thing.’ Even if it could viably live outside the womb. The womb is treated like a magical ur-dimension, vag-of-holding, separate from ours, where a baby isn’t a person until it comes out. And laws passed by Democrats, espeically the Colorado one and the proposed California one, treat what could be a viable baby as such. Biological waste, no different than disposing of a particularly large turd. There’s no wording in those bills mentioning to try and save the baby’s life in the event of viability, and they assume it will be discarded or die in the event of a late-term abortion. That’s abhorrent.

    So, you say it’s based on religion. Fine, that’s your right. I say it’s based on the historical trend to make more things considered as people.

Leave a Reply