Yeah the SC will favor Christian Religion whenever it can in any way shape or form. It’s part of why the SC such a joke right now. Unfortunately the joke is on America.
Do you really think this is true? I think this is a broad mischaracterization of reality unless you simply do not want religion to exist at all.
I see a lot of truth to it. This SC overturned Roe vs Wade, which most would have thought inconceivable for a SC to do. That’s not strictly a religious case, but it’s not completely unrelated either.
If “whenever it can” means “in any case where the Christian Religion is involved, it will rule in the Christian religion’s favor”, then no, there will be some where that would be going too far even for this SC. But to rule in the Christian Religion’s favor in most or all cases where such a ruling is not outrageous and maybe some where it is, yes. And in some cases where the corresponding ruling would not be in favor of a different religion, yes.
I think our nation, in every possible way, favors Christianity. Except that it’s not directly funded by the state. That’s the benefit of being the majority.
I was talking with some people about whether it’s fair to have religious exceptions, and I related the time I was discharged from jury duty because serving would prevent me from preparing the seder. And there was some pushback as to “is that an okay way to favor religion?”. But no one has ask that question at all if they are Christian. No jury in the US is going to prevent you from preparing your Christmas or Easter celebrations.
Yes I believe it to be true.
1 Like
I think the SC is less biased than other branches of government.
Folks are just upset about the recent push to make the SC more biased, to win R v W for the Christians. But I’d still say less biased than most of the government, and less biased than it has been historically.
I do wonder what will happen as the US loses its Christian majority. And when other religions (Islam) pick up enough population to get things like public prayer and school funding within certain regions.
Will Conservative Christians ally with minority religions because they have common interests?
Or will they give up some of their own wins to keep Muslims from taking the public space?
(Or none of the above?)
The current court does seem to be enthusiastic when given a chance to elevate religion. Over turn Row is a clear example. And now we have Groff.
** Federal civil rights law requires employers to accommodate their employees’ religious needs unless the request would impose “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” Congress didn’t bother to define “undue hardship,” so 46 years ago the Supreme Court came up with a definition of its own.
An accommodation requiring an employer “to bear more than a de minimis cost” — meaning a small or trifling cost — need not be granted, the court said in Trans World Airlines v. Hardison. In that case, an airline maintenance worker claimed a legal right to avoid Saturday shifts so he could observe the tenets of the Worldwide Church of God, which he had recently joined. Ruling for the airline, the court noted that if one worker got Saturdays off for religion reasons, the burden would fall on other workers who might have nonreligious reasons for wanting to have the weekend off.
“We will not readily construe the statute to require an employer to discriminate against some employees in order to enable others to observe their Sabbath,” the court said.**
Bear in mind, legislation designed to statutorily define undue hardship has been tried many times. None have made it out of Congress. QED, there is no massive public support for a change. Yet, here we go again.
I am not sure the overturning of Roe V Wade shows the SC is biased towards Christianity. They had legal reasons for overturning that decision. Also Christianity is not the only religion opposed to abortion. Was the legal challenge led by people who support Christianity? Absolutely, but this is a democracy so I expect Christians to have a say and a seat at the table.
At least 4 of the Justices have a strong personal religious objection to Abortion and so of the their “legal reasons” they used to justify their rulings are flimsy at best, and in some cases intellectually dishonest or just plain wrong and/or the opposite of how they applied them to other cases.
1 Like
Would you say that religiously unaffiliated people should also be on the Court?
To add to @YankeeTripper ‘s post, the reasoning seems to line up with standard roman catholic doctrine on abortion, which has also become conservative evangelical opinion since the 1980s.
I personally think it’s hard to justify state intervention, especially from self identified conservatives who are supposed to tend towards less state intervention, without some sort of christian theology behind it.
science tells us that it takes a long time for the fetus to acquire the kind of internal experience we associate with personhood. maybe this doesn’t even start until after birth.
in fact, the scientific case is strong enough, i think, that it creates the danger that personhood might effectively be given to babies by the state, similar to when a roman baby wasn’t given rights until its father picked it up. that would be anti-liberal, and against our values, which are rooted in christianity.
but to justify coercion by the state of the mother during pregnancy, especially very early pregnancy, i think you have to start with the prior assumption that god “ensouls” the fetus very early, maybe even at conception, and then conclude science doesn’t give enough evidence to override this assumption.
Absolutely. Get it done. This is a democracy. What’s stopping them?
The way that we pick senators.
US Democracy kind of sucks for lots of reasons I’m sure you know.
I think if we need an argument to define what personhood is than the act we’re trying to justify is already morally questionable.
Tells me voters like people of faith or they don’t dislike them enough to choose someone else.
They just don’t have that much power.
If 60% of people in every region are Christian, then the natural results is a 100% Christian government.
This is a basic and simple failing of our democracy. Not too different from why there is no 3rd party in the US, unlike other countries.
2 Likes
And why gerrymandering is so succesful
1 Like
The Constitution isn’t science. It’s a legal foundation. As SCOTUS says, it doesn’t guarantee the right to an abortion. It also doesn’t prohibit them. Back to the states it goes.
2 Likes
Not necessarily. I can explain why i don’t think a rock is a person, and that doesn’t mean it’s morally questionable.
Before the fetus implants, say, it is so utterly unlike a grown person in form and function that i think the only reason we would think it is a person comes from either theological arguments, or culturally relative prior assumptions that are probably historically rooted in those theological arguments.
I agree that further in pregnancy it looks more like us. But remember we are still interfering with the bodily function of a fully grown person, the woman. For that reason i think that, even then, our readiness to coerce that persons control over her body is also rooted in the pre-liberal theological argument that a woman’s god given place is to give birth. I admit, though, if we want to stay rooted in what we can observe scientifically that there is a stronger argument for state involvement in late term pregnancies.