Religion is exempt from some laws and not others

[McCulloch]

Many countries share with the USA certain constitutional rights and freedoms. These usually include freedom of religion and freedom from various forms of unfair discrimination. What happens or what should happen when these freedoms come into conflict?

• Should a religion that would discriminate against a person of a certain racial group be protected in its discriminatory practices by constitutional law?
• Is a religion that does not allow women to hold certain positions simply because they are women in violation of any laws?
• Would the religious practice of polygamy or arson hold up against a court challenge?

What principles should one use to determine which laws can be broken in the name of religious freedom (discrimination against women for instance) and which ones cannot (polygamy for example)?

[jcrawford]

Moderator Intervention

As per the rules, please provide evidence for the assertions you make.

Communists, atheists and secular Jews force women to get abortions without their fully informed religious consent.

This assertion has been made repeatedly with no evidence offered in support. Especially as it could be construed as an inflammatory statement, it behooves the person making this statement to provide evidence that this actually occurs.

It's a historical fact that the Chinese Communist Party instituted a one child per family policy 30 or 40 years ago, and have forced millions upon millions of women to abort a second or third baby. It's called planned parenthood.

As for women giving their religious consent for atheists and secular Jews in America to practice abortions on them, there is no evidence in writing that they have consented to anything.

It's all done in medical secrecy with no public accounting of silent and devious abortion practices.

[micatala]

Moderator response

Thank you for your effort to provide evidence.

[micatala]

I think it is worth recalling the OP.

Many countries share with the USA certain constitutional rights and freedoms. These usually include freedom of religion and freedom from various forms of unfair discrimination. What happens or what should happen when these freedoms come into conflict?
Should a religion that would discriminate against a person of a certain racial group be protected in its discriminatory practices by constitutional law?
Is a religion that does not allow women to hold certain positions simply because they are women in violation of any laws?
Would the religious practice of polygamy or arson hold up against a court challenge?
What principles should one use to determine which laws can be broken in the name of religious freedom (discrimination against women for instance) and which ones cannot (polygamy for example)?

I think the underlying assumption in the OP and throughout the thread is that we are talking about countries where there is a tradition of guaranteed rights and freedoms. It is certainly debatable whether China falls into the category of such countries. We certainly could consider such countries, but it would not be valid to draw unwarranted conclusions and parallels between a place like China and what happens in Canada or the U.S. Certainly Canada and the U.S. have never had anything like the government instituted policy you cite in the last several generations.

As for women giving their religious consent for atheists and secular Jews in America to practice abortions on them, there is no evidence in writing that they have consented to anything.

I would say two things.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, such consent is usually a private matter between doctor and patient.

Secondly, to support your claim, you need to provide evidence that the abortions are being done without consent. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You seem to be concluding that because there is not public written evidence of the individual consents being given, that the evidence does not exist. THis is fallacious.

In addition, there is substantial evidence in the form of policy statements, laws governing the legal profession, etc., that such consent forms are a part of the process. YOu would have to show that all of these laws and policies are routinely ignored to support your claim.

I still don't see that you have any evidence to support your assertion, at least in the context of the U.S. and Canada.

[jcrawford]

I think the underlying assumption in the OP and throughout the thread is that we are talking about countries where there is a tradition of guaranteed rights and freedoms. It is certainly debatable whether China falls into the category of such countries. We certainly could consider such countries, but it would not be valid to draw unwarranted conclusions and parallels between a place like China and what happens in Canada or the U.S. Certainly Canada and the U.S. have never had anything like the government instituted policy you cite in the last several generations.

While that is true, more or less, many women have stated that they had no choice but to get an abortion because their economic circumstances forced them to, so it is a recognized policy of the US to allow women to abort in order to keep the poor population down. This may seem reasonable in atheistic and secular eyes, but there should be exemptions for Jews, Christians and Muslims whose religions teached them to be fruitful and multiply even in the desert.

As for women giving their religious consent for atheists and secular Jews in America to practice abortions on them, there is no evidence in writing that they have consented to anything.

I would say two things.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, such consent is usually a private matter between doctor and patient.

Consent has been transferred from the mother and father to the mother and doctor without the father's consent. This might not be so bad in cases of single people but to destroy the intimate privacy, bonds and consent of marriage is a religious abomination, to say the least.

Secondly, to support your claim, you need to provide evidence that the abortions are being done without consent.

We know for a fact that no religious consent or identification is required by secular law.

You seem to be concluding that because there is not public written evidence of the individual consents being given, that the evidence does not exist. THis is fallacious.

It's a perfectly valid assumption since in medical and police investigations into murder and suicide, only a suicide note presented as evidence for public examination would be accepted as indisputable proof of the motive for one's own premeditated death.

In addition, there is substantial evidence in the form of policy statements, laws governing the legal profession, etc., that such consent forms are a part of the process. YOu would have to show that all of these laws and policies are routinely ignored to support your claim.

There have been known public investigations into NYS abortion clinics and practices during the past 30 years, as far as I know. That's why I'm calling on AG Eliot Spitzer to so now now before he becomes the next governor of NYS. If he doesn't then the next AG may be Andrew Cuomo and we will have to call on him to conduct a public investigation of the atheistic and secular practices going on in NYS abortion clinics against Catholic and Protestant women.

I still don't see that you have any evidence to support your assertion, at least in the context of the U.S. and Canada.

I don't have any evidence for the existence of God or spiritual realities, either.

[micatala]

micatala wrote:
I think the underlying assumption in the OP and throughout the thread is that we are talking about countries where there is a tradition of guaranteed rights and freedoms. It is certainly debatable whether China falls into the category of such countries. We certainly could consider such countries, but it would not be valid to draw unwarranted conclusions and parallels between a place like China and what happens in Canada or the U.S. Certainly Canada and the U.S. have never had anything like the government instituted policy you cite in the last several generations.

While that is true, more or less, many women have stated that they had no choice but to get an abortion because their economic circumstances forced them to, so it is a recognized policy of the US to allow women to abort in order to keep the poor population down.

The first statement, that many women feel they have not choice because of economic circumstances, I think is true and I have certainly heard testimony to this effect.

The conclusion you claim does not follow, however. It is possible that the effect of allowing poor women to have abortions would be that the percentage of poor people would decline. This is assuming poor people have abortions at greater rates than those that are not poor. I would certainly be interested in what the data says about this.

However, it is incorrect to say that this is an intentional effect based on a 'recognized policy' unless we actually have evidence to back up the claim.

The government now allows us to drive 75 mph, rather than 55 mph. More deaths have occurred because of this change. Following your logic, the government changed the speed limit in order to kill off people who drive, especially people who like to drive as fast as the speed limit allows.

Clearly this logic is fallacious.

Consent has been transferred from the mother and father to the mother and doctor without the father's consent. This might not be so bad in cases of single people but to destroy the intimate privacy, bonds and consent of marriage is a religious abomination, to say the least.

When did this 'transfer' occur historically do you think?

I would say this is an issue that is not trivial. However, I do not accept without evidence that a high percentage of abortions to married women occur without the knowledge or consent of the husband.

Do you have any data indicating what percentage of, if any, abortions to married women take place without the knowledge or consent of the husband?

My assumption would be that in marriages where there is a good relationship between the spouses, that this would be a mutual decision. Yes, I think it is fair to say the women could have an abortion without the knowledge or consent of the spouse, but this is different than saying it happens routinely.

In this case, if there is a difference of opinion between the wife and the husband, the issue is whose rights get priority. YOu are confusing the issue by bringing the doctor into it, as he or she would not be involved at all were it not for the initiative taken by the woman.

We know for a fact that no religious consent or identification is required by secular law.

I don't believe this is the case. How is consent different than religious consent in your view?

There have been known public investigations into NYS abortion clinics and practices during the past 30 years, as far as I know.

Granting that there have been no such investigations, this still does not mean informed consent has not been practiced. You are again arguing that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Now, I would be supportive of the government monitoring doctors, and investigating claims the informed consent has not been practiced. I would assume that such monitoring in fact does occur. Do have you have any evidence that it is not? Again, being unaware of it is not evidence that it is not occurring.



At any rate, we do seem to be getting a bit off-topic. The thread is meant to address when should exemptions to law be granted on a religious basis. I don't see that you have explicitly indicated any laws that we are or should be granting exemptions to on a religious basis. Are you arguing that woman who are part of certain religious groups should not have a right to abortions? This is different than the question you raise about marital rights of the husband. Please explicitly say which laws you would argue exemptions for and on what basis.

[jcrawford]

]Consent has been transferred from the mother and father to the mother and doctor without the father's consent. This might not be so bad in cases of single people but to destroy the intimate privacy, bonds and consent of marriage is a religious abomination, to say the least.

When did this 'transfer' occur historically do you think?

With the feminist writings during the late sixties and early seventies, and the 1973 RvW SCOTUS decision, of course.

I would say this is an issue that is not trivial. However, I do not accept without evidence that a high percentage of abortions to married women occur without the knowledge or consent of the husband.

The point is whether any abortions within marriage should occur without mutual knowledge and consent, unless the couple have agreed to an 'open marriage' in which either may sexually do as they please. Does the wife who aborts on her own have any right to protest if hubby is having an adulterous affair 'without her knowledge?'

Do you have any data indicating what percentage of, if any, abortions to married women take place without the knowledge or consent of the husband?

No, there are racial and religious statistics and breakdowns on abortions by groups if you google for them, but I never saw any regarding consent agreements or the religious identification of the abortion providers.

My assumption would be that in marriages where there is a good relationship between the spouses, that this would be a mutual decision.

Depends on who caused the pregnancy.

Yes, I think it is fair to say the women could have an abortion without the knowledge or consent of the spouse, but this is different than saying it happens routinely.

I don't know of any publicized cases where the husband went to court to force his wife to carry their baby to term.

In this case, if there is a difference of opinion between the wife and the husband, the issue is whose rights get priority. YOu are confusing the issue by bringing the doctor into it, as he or she would not be involved at all were it not for the initiative taken by the woman.

Sorry. The "issue" wouldn't be legally aborted at all if medical doctors had no prior secular right to kill the "issue" in the first place. Woman have the right to buy property these days. Doesn't mean that a doctor has to sell his house if he's not moving.

We know for a fact that no religious consent or identification is required by secular law.

I don't believe this is the case. How is consent different than religious consent in your view?

Religious consent would be specified as such, specifically.

There have been known public investigations into NYS abortion clinics and practices during the past 30 years, as far as I know.

Granting that there have been no such investigations, this still does not mean informed consent has not been practiced.

(My typo above. It should read "no known public investigations.")

There is no way to prove it though, without some written evidence. Besides, what is meant by, and contained in, an "informed" consent? Does the woman explicitly consent to someone of a different religion or no religion at all, practicing his abortion skills on her?

You are again arguing that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Nothing wrong with that in a court of law.

Now, I would be supportive of the government monitoring doctors, and investigating claims the informed consent has not been practiced. I would assume that such monitoring in fact does occur. Do have you have any evidence that it is not? Again, being unaware of it is not evidence that it is not occurring.

Of course, I don't have any documention in the form of audio-video tapes, photographs or even personal testimonies. That's the job of the Attorney General to investigate upon hearing of such complaints.

[McCulloch]

While that is true, more or less, many women have stated that they had no choice but to get an abortion because their economic circumstances forced them to, so it is a recognized policy of the US to allow women to abort in order to keep the poor population down. This may seem reasonable in atheistic and secular eyes, but there should be exemptions for Jews, Christians and Muslims whose religions teached them to be fruitful and multiply even in the desert.

But there is. Any Jewish, Christian or Muslim woman who is pregnant can simply not seek an abortion. If she feels tempted to seek an abortion by economic circumstances, she can reach out to her religious community, which will, I am sure, non-judgementally help her to carry the pregnancy to term.

Consent has been transferred from the mother and father to the mother and doctor without the father's consent. This might not be so bad in cases of single people but to destroy the intimate privacy, bonds and consent of marriage is a religious abomination, to say the least.

Perhaps so. But who is it that is destroying the intimate privacy? If the woman believes that her husband, father or other male's consent is required, then she will seek it. If she does not, then she and her husband, if he is of like mind to you, do not share the same religious beliefs. Do you believe that marriage should be a reason to force the husband's religious practices on the wife?

[micatala]

Quote:
I don't believe this is the case. How is consent different than religious consent in your view?

Religious consent would be specified as such, specifically.

Does putting the word 'religious' actually meaning anything, or does it just make the sentence one word longer?

Quote:
In this case, if there is a difference of opinion between the wife and the husband, the issue is whose rights get priority. YOu are confusing the issue by bringing the doctor into it, as he or she would not be involved at all were it not for the initiative taken by the woman.

Sorry. The "issue" wouldn't be legally aborted at all if medical doctors had no prior secular right to kill the "issue" in the first place.

I have to say, I don't have a lot of patience for trying to get around the issue of what rights the woman should have by throwing the doctor into it. This is merely a subterfuge that is used by the anti-abortion folks because they think it is politically easier to argue against the doctors than it is to argue against women. Doctors are a smaller group, and it is easier to infringe on the rights of the women when you are not arguing directly against them.

[jcrawford]

While that is true, more or less, many women have stated that they had no choice but to get an abortion because their economic circumstances forced them to, so it is a recognized policy of the US to allow women to abort in order to keep the poor population down. This may seem reasonable in atheistic and secular eyes, but there should be exemptions for Jews, Christians and Muslims whose religions teached them to be fruitful and multiply even in the desert.

But there is. Any Jewish, Christian or Muslim woman who is pregnant can simply not seek an abortion. If she feels tempted to seek an abortion by economic circumstances, she can reach out to her religious community, which will, I am sure, non-judgementally help her to carry the pregnancy to term.

Beautiful. This expert advice and information should be part of the written consent form which the government requires every woman to sign before she gets an abortion from an atheist or secular Jew.

Consent has been transferred from the mother and father to the mother and doctor without the father's consent. This might not be so bad in cases of single people but to destroy the intimate privacy, bonds and consent of marriage is a religious abomination, to say the least.

Perhaps so. But who is it that is destroying the intimate privacy?

The atheist and secular abortionist, just like a male adulterer.

If the woman believes that her husband, father or other male's consent is required, then she will seek it.

Her private and personal beliefs play no part in her decision if she is advised and informed that her partner's consent is required by law.

If she does not, then she and her husband, if he is of like mind to you, do not share the same religious beliefs.

That's irrelevent to the social contract of marriage which atheists and seccies seem bent on distorting if not destroying altogther. However, civil unions and domestic partnerships are also created, structured and bounded by laws which determine the legal obligations, duties and reponsibilities of each 'couple.'

Do you believe that marriage should be a reason to force the husband's religious practices on the wife?

No more than I believe atheism and secularism should be tools in the hands of corrupt politicians for the sole purpose of destroying religious institutions like marriage.

[micatala]

Do you believe that marriage should be a reason to force the husband's religious practices on the wife?

No more than I believe atheism and secularism should be tools in the hands of corrupt politicians for the sole purpose of destroying religious institutions like marriage.

Well, then we will await your evidence that corrupt politicians are using atheism and secularism for the sole purpose of destroying religious institutions like marriage.

Based on your previous statements, I am assuming you don't believe that atheism and secularism should be used by anyone to destroy religion or marriage. Correct me if I am wrong.

GIven this, I'm glad it seems we agree that marriage does not negate a woman's right to freely practice her religion.


by the way, I was wondering . . . .

Does putting the word 'religious' actually meaning anything, or does it just make the sentence one word longer?