Alabama Supreme Court declares frozen embryos are legally children

[fantome profane]

A frozen fishstick can't become a life so there's that.

Oh ye of little faith. I mean if God can breath into lifeless dust and bring it to life, why not a frozen fishstick? In fact I believe there was a story something like that in the Gospel of Peter.

But more to the point, it is interesting that you use the word "become". Whenever we talk about one thing "becoming" something else, that strongly implies that it is not that thing currently. If someone tells you they are going to "become" a lawyer, that means they are not currently a lawyer. This milk will become cheese, it is not currently cheese, this flour will become bread, it is not currently bread.

If you are saying a frozen embryo can become a life, I take that as acknowledgment that you know a frozen embryo is not currently a life.

 

[fantome profane]

They are not anywhere near as tasty?

Disturbed that you know that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Disturbed that you know that.

Various forms of baby eating are part of the atheist final exam.

 

[We Never Know]

Oh ye of little faith. I mean if God can breath into lifeless dust and bring it to life, why not a frozen fishstick? In fact I believe there was a story something like that in the Gospel of Peter.

But more to the point, it is interesting that you use the word "become". Whenever we talk about one thing "becoming" something else, that strongly implies that it is not that thing currently. If someone tells you they are going to |become" a lawyer, that means they are not currently a lawyer. This milk will become cheese, it is not currently cheese, this flour will become bread, it is not currently bread.

If you are saying a frozen embryo can become a life, I take that as acknowledgment that you know a frozen embryo is not currently a life.

IMO It's alive(all though frozen, not dead) not a life.

 

[F1fan]

Various forms of baby eating are part of the atheist final exam.

Turns out to be scrambled eggs. Gotta say I was tricked by the question.

 

[Revoltingest]

The term is misused to mean that people with religious beliefs (which are usually core beliefs) can't act upon those beliefs in any way as they conduct themselves in government office.

That is a misunderstanding.
It does mean that they can't place their
religious beliefs above the law.
Do you favor Christian Dominionism?

 

[Revoltingest]

No, I don't believe they should be combined, but I don't believe that the people who hold religious beliefs should have to stop being who they are when they work for government either. Their First Amendment rights don't disappear when they clock in.

Should they place the law above their
religious views in their governmental
capacity?

 

[Pogo]

The term is misused to mean that people with religious beliefs (which are usually core beliefs) can't act upon those beliefs in any way as they conduct themselves in government office.

No, it means you cannot let your religious beliefs get in the way of doing your job, it does not mean you can't wear a hijab at work.

Supreme Court rejects appeal from county clerk who wouldn't issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples​

 

[☆Dreamwind☆]

They are not anywhere near as tasty?

I was a happier person before hearing about your penchant for "exotic caviar" you know.

 

[The Hammer]

 

[SkepticThinker]

Then what does it acknowledge other than that they believed in a higher power that created them? That is usually the basis of what people now refer to as religion.

I just explained the difference.

Believing in some higher power, doesn't necessarily mean you follow any particular religion. The Founders themselves were not all of one religious mind - instead you've got a mix of deists, atheists, Protestants, etc.

Again I point to Constitution which specifically doesn't mention any gods or creators or anything, and that contains within the First Amendment wording about the separation of church and state.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Do I need to start posting links to articles about boys who identify as girls sexually assaulting actual girls in the very restroom/locker room that they were allowed to be in? Don't assume that no harm comes of it.

Yes. You said it was a big problem, so yes.

(This isn't the thread for it, though.)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That is not quite right. How they act in regards to their religion is very limited. It is not totally banned.

For example a county clerk cannot refuse to take money from two gay men that wish to get married. She agreed to follow the laws of the land when she took the job. If those laws change that is not an excuse not to follow them. She either had to follow the laws or should have resigned.

And Rosa Parks could have followed the rules and taken a seat in the back of the bus.

@Laniakea, you are so incredibly wrong. First, you should know that Rosa Parks was seated in the seat immediately BEHIND the last seat of the white section. When a white male passengers got on, the driver ordered black people in the front of the non-white section to give up their seats -- not take another, as they were all full -- so that white male could sit down.

Now, why do you think that she should have done that? She was breaking no laws, simply refusing to obey an arbitrary command by a racist boor of a driver. I should be fascinated to hear your answer.

The county clerk, on the other hand, in refusing to issue the marriage license, is definitively breaking the law. The law is that those men were entitled to be married, and her religious beliefs have nothing to say about the matter. Thus, she is taking it upon herself to deny the legal rights of people she just doesn't happen to agree with. Her job, as "CLERK" is to act as the arm of the county, and if she cannot do that, she is clearly unqualified for the position. It is NOT HER PLACE to decide who is and who is not entitled to be married.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No, it means you cannot let your religious beliefs get in the way of doing your job, it does not mean you can't wear a hijab at work.

Supreme Court rejects appeal from county clerk who wouldn't issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples​

It never ceases to amaze me that some people, and in this case @Laniakea, cannot understand that denying a legal right to anyone based on your own private beliefs is exactly the same as presuming that you actually have the right to break the law, to the detriment of others.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

They recognized that we have a Creator, and that our rights come from Him--not government.

Maybe not (also, see below):

• “Religions are all alike – founded upon fables and mythologies.” – Thomas Jefferson
• “The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.” – John Adams
• “In no instance have . . . the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people.” – James Madison
• “Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.” – Benjamin Franklin
• “I beg you be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.” – George Washington

That's the Founders' way of saying we're born with our rights. A lot of them weren't even all that religious (you've got deists and atheists in there).

Again I point to Constitution which specifically doesn't mention any gods or creators or anything, and that contains within the First Amendment wording about the separation of church and state.

I don't think it's a coincidence that a creator is mentioned in the Declaration but not the Constitution. Their purposes were different. The latter was to establish a government, which is secular, and so there not only is no need to mention a creator in the Constitution, it shouldn't be mentioned.

But the Declaration was a rally cry to revolt against a king to a group of mostly Christian colonists, whose Bible contained this:

"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."- Romans 13:1-2

How are you going to convince people that believe that to take up arms or support a revolution? It was clever and necessary to say that the creator approves of a just rebellion if necessary to restore life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

 

[Copernicus]

I don't think it's a coincidence that a creator is mentioned in the Declaration but not the Constitution. Their purposes were different. The latter was to establish a government, which is secular, and so there not only is ne need to mention a creator in the Constitution, it shouldn't be mentioned.

It's also true that the Declaration of Independence was about denying that monarchs like King George III had a divine right to rule. The wording was directly influenced by the English philosopher and political theorist, John Locke. Locke himself was a slightly unorthodox Christian, but he established the religious basis for religious tolerance and the separation of church and state. By using Locke's words, the signers of the Declaration were sticking a thumb in the eye of King George.

John Locke also established the basis for constitutional government, which gave rise to the first constitution--the Articles of Confederation. Our second Constitution, written several years later, was about establishing a stronger federal government to replace the Articles of Confederation. That second constitution was strongly influenced by the Scottish philosopher David Hume, who had a reputation as a religious skeptic, unlike Locke. (See Hume on Religion from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.) That may be one reason why the Declaration mentions God (i.e. "the Creator"), but the Constitution does not. Hume was an early proponent of naturalism, which rejected supernatural explanations as the basis for morality, ethics, and law.