Why does a church you DON’T attend have any say in your life?
“Pro-life” citizens have a First Amendment right to speak their views. “Pro-life” political zealots are forbidden by the First Amendment from enacting THEIR religious dogma into American laws.
Reichsfuhrer-SS Heinrich Himmler’s January 16, 1937, radio speech: he had two future tasks to purify the Third Reich, the elimination of two abominations”: abortion and homosexuality. Abortions were illegal in Nazi Germany; also in several Eastern Europe nations under communism
The Massachusetts 1641 legal code’s top three capital crimes were: idolatry, witchcraft, and blasphemy – based on Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. All but one of the prosecutors for the infamous 1692 Salem “witchcraft” trials were ministers.
Amendment One: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..”
Dictionary definition of “established church”: “a church that is recognized by law, and often financially supported, as the official church of a nation”
Dictionary definition of “no”: “a negative used to express dissent, denial, or refusal, as in response to a question, request, etc….not in any degree, not at all..”
From this a “reasonable person” deduces: no church, can EVER, in America have its dogma put into law. “Pro-life” is religious dogma – putting this into law violates the Constitution. It also violates rights of other religions, and non-religious people to their own “..free exercise thereof..”
The CONTEXT for the Constitution and the 1791 Bill of Rights is found in 1775-1800 state constitutions. The language in them is IN. Amendment One and in Article VI.
Delaware, 1776, article 29: “There shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this State in preference to another;..no clergyman..of any denomination, shall.. [hold] any civil office in this State.” 1791, Article I: “..no man shall..be compelled to attend any religious worship, to contribute to the erection or support of any place of worship, or..maintenance of any ministry, against his own free will and consent..”
North Carolina, 1776, Articles XXXIV: “..no establishment of anyone religious church..in this State, in preference to any other; neither shall any person, ON ANY PRETENSE WHATSOEVER, be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his own faith..nor be obliged to pay, for the purchase of any glebe, or the building of any house of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes is right..”
Is there. ANY. doubt what they meant???????????????????
Eight states forbade ministers holding office in their state. Four states prohibited “religious tests” for office. U.S. Constitution, Article VI: “.. no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public trust under the United States.” The pledge, the appointment of “pro-life” judges is un-Constitutional.
Why does a church you DON’T attend have any say in your life?????????
On December 1, 2021, Justice Thomas asked: “If I were to ask you what constitutional rights protects the right to abortion, is it privacy? Is it autonomy? What could it be?”
His answer is in the intent of Amendment Three; and in the specific words of Amendment Four: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons…against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..”
His answer is in Madison’s 1792 essay on “property’: the “larger and juster meaning” of the term. It embraces every thing toi which a man may attach value and have a right”..in the broader sense it meant that “a man has property, in his opinions..property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person..In a word..he may actually said to have property in his rights.”
His answer is in “Meyer”: the Court said liberty must include “the right of the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life..to marry, establish a home and bring up children..to worship to the dictates of his conscience.”
His answer is in “Katz”: Justice Harlan: the key 4th Amendment issue was whether the government had violated a person’s “reasonable expectations of privacy.”
His answer is in”Poe”: Justice Harlan stated a law making it criminal for married couples to use contraceptives is “an intolerable and unjustifiable invasion of privacy in the conduct of the most intimate concerns of an individual’s personal life.” The Constitution protects not only rights expressly specified..but all “rights “which are fundamental; which belong ..to the citizens of all free governments.'”
His answer is found in “Baird”: Justice Brennan said “if the right to privacy means anything, it is the right of an individual, married or single, to be free from the unwarranted government intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision wether to bear or beget a child,:”
Thomas’ answer is famously, in Justice Brandeis’ “Olmstead” opinion: the most important 4th Amendment point was the spirit behind the Amendment, which was to ensure privacy: “The makers of our Constitution undertook..to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions, and their sensations. They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone – the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men..The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachments. by men of zeal…”
Thomas’s answer is found in Gary Wills’ “A Necessary Evil”: We interpret the [Constitution] in terms of concepts and words..not i the document. Nowhere does the Constitution mention checks, or balances, or separation of powers, or coequal branches [or even branches] of government, or states’ rights [or any rights in the original unamended document].”
The word “sex” is not in the Constitution. Does this mean sex does not exist; or that humans don’t have a fundamental right to exercise that function?
Thomas’ answer is found inChief Justice Marshall”s “Bank of the U.S.”: “A Constitution, from its nature, deals in generals, not in detail. Its framers cannot perceive minute distinctions which arise in the progress of the nation, and therefore confine it to the establishment of broad and general principles.”
On December 1, 2021, Justice Kavanaugh said: “The Constitution is neither pro-life nor pro-choice on abortion,” adding the court should not “pick sides on the most contentious social debate in American life>”
One might ask: why do we have a Supreme Court? In this case, to not pick sides is to allow Mississippi and Texas law become the law of America – for all 331 million people.
Justice Kavanaugh is. VERY WRONG!!! The Constitution DOES “pick sides.” It has stated a religious dogma-based law such as Mississippi or Texas is un-constitutional
On December 1, 2021, Justice Barrett said pregnant women who do not want to raise a young child can put the baby up for adoption. If so, she said, the lack of access to abortions should not have a great impact on their lives and careers.
This statement has to rank among the most ignorant, obtuse, and CRUEL in Supreme Court history. By Barrett’s “logic” – pregnant women are sentenced to devote 9 months carrying a child they don’t want – making them the possession of the state. To say this required duty would have no great impact on women’s lives flies in the faces of millions of real stories of women forced to carry to term – and the devastating impact it DIDF have on them and society.
These Justices’ statements may delight “pro-life” people, frightful to all others. Question one: is this an example of “wisdom” and “constitutional knowledge” we expect of a Supreme Court Justice??? Question two: is this the public smoke screen for a decision made BEFORE the arguments occurred? Question three: is this why Justice Sotomayor stated: “Will this institution survive the stench this creates in the public perception, that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts? Question four: did these three “justices” just disprove what Barrett stated in September; “that we are not just a bunch of partisan hacks’?
We can also suggest Barrett read Justice Brennan’s “Baird: opinion: “..to be free from the unwarranted government intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.”
Everything about abortion and contraceptives boils down to this: Why does a church you. DON’T. attend
have any say in how YOU. run. YOUR. life?????????????
Then there is the Republican/far religious right. DOUBLE. STANDARD. THEY can choose people with pronounced extreme religious views, put them on the Supreme Court [and other courts]. YOU are NOT. allowed to question this – because this “violates the religious rights” of the Justice!!!!!!!!!! YOUR. rights are immaterial. 6 people, all raised in one fundamentalist faith, all screened by reactionary legal and religious groups – have a “right” to decide. YOUR private life, by the tenets of that faith. If YOU. question this – YOU are the bigot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The American “religious right” has fought a 50 year religious war [their own term] to get to this Supreme Court decision. Randall Terry: “Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty..are called by God to conquer this country..don’t want equal time..don’t want pluralism.”
What’s. next??? Outlawing masturbation and vasectomies? [one Supreme Court Justice said, if he could, he would criminalize masturbation]. Requiring organized school prayer? Outlawing gay people? Requiring taxpayer subsidies [even more] of religious schools? Outlawing teaching of evolution? Requiring tithing to churches? Outlawing women working? Counting fetuses in the census? Outlawing contraceptives?
Where. does. it. stop? DOES. it stop?
Maybe never. One major “conservative” thinker said: “abortion…is the focal point for liberalism’s simultaneous assault on self-government, morals, and nature. So, challenging the judicially imposed regime of abortion-on-demand is key to a conservative reformation in politics, in morals, in beliefs.”
“A conservative reformation…? People are too weak. people “need” to be made to do things “for their own good.” Another leading “conservative’ thinker: “..the state, should deliberately and publicly identify, encourage, facilitate, and support the truly worthwhile [including moral virtue], should deliberately and publicly identify, discourage, and hinder the harmful and evil…”
WHO. gets to decide what is “good” and “bad”??? Obviously, it would be the far-right “conservatives”. – the rest of us are not “saved,” not worthy.
This is NOT just about abortion. This is about whether some people will “purify” America – whether. YOU. want them to or not.
Why should a church YOU. DON’T. attend have a say in your life??????i
With Justice For All 