What is Religion?

Then your definition of religion is 'severely' limited to strictly 'a God', the 'God variant' otherwise its drowning in religion!

 

The state does can not consider a fetus a citizen under law since law applies after a BC is drawn up.

My personal position on the matter is not relevant, what is relevant is the state is making law with religious entailment which does matter.

The state has the legitimate authority with regard to its regulated entities a fetus is not regulated (or was not) and should not be regulated, however the ability for women to acquire hospital services for their needs is or can be regulated.

For women its a 'private' decision couched in her religion, some pro some con.

The extent the governemnt can 'legitimately' get involved is to assure professional medical services for all needs.

Instead the government 'legalized' the act of abortion, which causes the country to argue against each other while the magicians right hand is slipping something under the radar.

Same thing with turning it over to the states, neither do they have a legitimate authority to rule for or against abortion, only assure proper medical services to meet the needs of people.

Caveat; unless you are a 'slave' with no rights, only 'government granted' privileges.



The punchline: Right this way!

Law in this country has turned into an 'abortion'!

 

anything that science cannot process

[secular]Religions are 'worldviews' that are expressed not only in beliefs but also in narratives and symbols. More than this, religions orient action, and any genuine religious tradition necessarily is concerned with normative behavior, whether ethical or religious in character.

Religion as Orienting Worldview - Wiley Online Library
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com › doi › pdf

Not only can the findings of cognitive science and related areas inform us about the nature of religion; scientific discoveries also prove to be important for any religious synthesis that attempts to construct a worldview for the twenty-first century. [emphasis added]

 

All governments are quasi-religious to some degree in emulating forms that have been effective in bringing people together in religious communities. We have the flag salute, the national anthem (hand over heart), songs like "God bless America", patriotic histories, and norms of sacrifice for country. Nationalism is more intense about this, an directs the sense of sacred to the national community in-group against the "others". I'd consider those to be secular religions, or quasi-religions and they have much in common with the theistic kind as mechanisms of mobilization and control. As for secular humanism and ethical culture being religions, they have all the ingredients of theistic religions except God,and are obviously striving to achieve some of the same benefits. I would sure hope they are protected as religions, because they are the functional equivalents.

Religious in the theistic sense. If we consider flag salutes and pledges of allegiance "sanctification" we could consider those to be exceptions. Obviously the theistic kinds were those the Founding Fathers had in mind, and in recent decades the Court has become more broad-minded in protecting non-theistic ones.

 

What?

 

By "the state", are you talking about the federal or state government(s)? The federal government has only delegated powers, although those include implied powers connected to the exercise of its express powers over such things as interstate commerce (broadly interpreted). The states, however, have general "police powers" to regulate in the interest of public health, ssfety, welfare and morals.

In my state of Oklahoma, the state prohibits abortion after fertilization (i.e., before a woman even technically becomes pregnant. My state regulates our lives in many ways the federal government doesn't, and "conservatives" think this is fine and dandy cuz it's usually in their favor.

Whatever they "shouldn't" or "shouldn't" do, what they will do depends on the disposition of the courts, state and federal, when citizens bring cases to them, and with the ability of the federal government to step in to protect the woman's interests or not. You seem a little fuzzy about what the rights are and who is responsible for enforcing them, cuz without enforcement rights are just words.


The punchline: Right this way![/QUOTE]
Do you really believe this? You were going on awhile ago about your "inherent' rights, and now you give us George Carlin telling us it's just a lot of hot air. So which is it? I think Carlin has a point when it comes to those "inherent" rights, and the "natural and inalienable" ones we see in the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those were in vogue in the eighteenth century when the author and signers of the Declaration of Independence were ready to go to the mat with the British. But hey had effect mainly as rhetoric justifying their cause and rallying cries for mobilizing revolutionary action,so they weren't exactly empty. People believed in them and acted on them. A guy wrote in to my home town newspaper complaining that his right to the pursuit of happiness was restricted by the Oklahoma law against smoking pot. Other letter writers soon set him straight. The Declaration of Independence still makes stirring Fourth of July rhetoric, and is part of our national heritage, but we can't take those rights to court.

Let's consider some related definitions of a legal right that are more realistic in terms of the chances of having them vindicated:'
An interest that the law protects; an enforceable claim; a privilege that is created or recognized by law Legal Right
a claim recognized and delimited by law for the purpose of securing it.Definition of LEGAL RIGHT
Both of those are pretty general but they have in common that a legal right is a claim to something that will actually be recognized, protected and enforced by "the law". "The law", from an enforcement standpoint, means the government, especially including the courts. My point is that rights are just rhetoric unless the government, especially courts recognize and enforce them, and in the process "delimit" them. Rhetoric can be useful in stirring people up and making claims in court, but until govenment, specifically courts, recognize them and give effect to them, they are mainly words, gripes, and persuasion.

 

I'm claiming that it is notoriously untrustworthy in doing so.

 

Newsflash: The Referendum doesn't exist at the federal level. It's a populist idea that came into vogue in some of the western states such as mine in the late 19th century. Our Founding Fathers had no use for it. They thought direct, Athenian style democracy was a terrible idea that could lead to mob rule by ignorant masses stirred up by demagogues, and by-passed the deliberative processes needed for sound public policy decisions.. Instead, they gave us indirect representative democracy or a republic, hemmed in by separation of powers, checks and balances, a bill of rights, and powerful national courts to interpret them. Letting policies and rights be defined by popular referendum is terrible idea, because the majority are generally uninformed on such matters and can't be trusted to respect the rights of others. Minorities and gays would be dead meat! Ross Perot proposed a version of this when he was running for president via television & the internet. A proposal for a law would flash on the screen, and voters would send in their responses. Fortunately he didn't make it to the White House and the idea died with him. You seem to think you're living in some kind of tyranny, but I think it could be much worse if the country were run the way you seem to think it should be run.

 

both/either

theres a problem in dodge!

Exercise of your morals which is your value based personal self governing behavior falls under religion then it also falls under religion if the government does the same;

In United States constitutional law, the police power is the capacity of the states to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants.

Police power (United States constitutional law) - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Police_power_(United_S...

The state has granted to themselves the authority to regulate behavior and enforce its moral standards upon you, doesnt that sound a wee bit like the establishment of a religion?

Religion influences morals and values through multiple pathways. It shapes the way people think about and respond to the world, fosters habits such as church attendance and prayer, and provides a web of social connections.Jun 16, 2021

Faith still shapes morals and values even after people are ...
https://theconversation.com › faith-still-shapes-morals-a...

It seems the government created another conflict of interest whereas religion the sum of your beliefs and moral judgments have become also magically become the governments hence the establishment of religion.

How to convert your rights to privileges (and usurp them) 101.

I dont recall the government asking the people if they could do that, do you?

 

Yes total seperation of the people from the government they are FORCED to live under.

How is that worse than our present corrupt kleptocacy mob rule?

Attorneys with crystal balls.

3 departments of the SAME corporation, does not imply seperation of 'outcomes'

Yes the Just Us club, more koolaide

skillfully converted to "Bill of Privileges", see the 14th amendment.

Yes the meaning of the contract is determined by one party and one party only, our kleptocratic government!
Who needs the people any longer!
What a racket!

We defined the original, of course those were the days before the spawning of kleptocracies.

Pure speculation, I doubt it.

 

And by making every strong personal conviction religious if acted upon and forbidding all government interference at any level improper, ShyOne takes us to a moral quandry in which all government action at any level, for or against, is wrong, but can't seem to bring herself to pro-choice. What to do?

 

But then you deny Buddhism, Taoism, humanism, ethical culture, etc., protection as religions under the First Amendment and other laws. And they are in most respects full religions.

 

Your views are too "out there' to make it worthwhile to continue discussing these issues with you. You seem to hold a paranoid view of government, a garbled view of it (e.g., the Fourteenth Amendment converted the Bill of Rights into a Bill of Privileges (instead of making states honor its rights), it's all crooked, kleptocratic, run by (gasp) lawyers .etc. Science is bunk , and we can't trust the CDC. The Daily Mail tells us so. And you offer us instead some kind of individualistic religious absolutism based on private personal convictions put into action and expressed through populist referenda. In my opinion such a scheme would be laughably unworkable. I can't say it's been fun or educational, but it does make me aware of what's out there. You scare me far more than the government.