France becomes first country to explicitly enshrine abortion rights in constitution

[RileyG]

Do you feel it is incumbent upon you to protect others from Gods spiritual consequences? Does God command yo to do so?

No. That’s not my job I will speak out if others are being harmed in the name of “choice” though

 

[NxNW]

No its not. Trying to legislate the killing of the unborn, on the other hand, is an abuse according to the standards of Christian morality, and also the morality of most other religions.

What do religious beliefs have to do with what the law should reflect?

 

[JSRG]

mentions of divinity and mentions of miracles. Seems like if they were types of people who were going to pump the brakes on the separation of church and state simply because someone may use that freedom to do something that's considered "awful" to their religion, they would've done it then.

I feel I should point out that at the time the Constitution was being framed, Thomas Jefferson was in France serving as ambassador. He didn't come back to America until after both the Constitution and the First Amendment had been passed by congress (the First Amendment was passed in September of 1789, he came back to America in November of that year). He can really not be considered a real "framer" of the Constitution or its initial amendments.

 

[The Liturgist]

What do religious beliefs have to do with what the law should reflect?

Since morality derives from God, and it is from God that we get the basics of human morality, such as the prohibitions on murder, adultery, theft, and other things, in those cases where the majority of Christian denominations, and other religions, for instance, Judaism, Zoroastrianism and so on, a just system of laws, such as what we see in Ghana, in West Africa, and in certain other Christian lands such as Ethiopia, Georgia and Armenia, to name a few, and indeed what briefly existed in the United States for a period after racist legislation was overturned but before the moral degradation of the past three decades entered into full swing, is one derived from essentially religious principles.

Indeed even within the past three decades, I would note that Republican legislators and indeed even President George W. Bush, on many occasions very properly have cited Christian morality as the basis for legislation, and this is extremely proper. The atheist idea that religion has nothing to contribute to ethics or civil morality or to the law is a relatively novel idea, and those countries which have most fully embraced this concept, such as Albania during the regime of Enver Hoxha* have also been among the most tyrannical. And of course, Albania is merely the tip of the iceberg as far as unjust atheist regimes go. Indeed such regimes have always made travesties of justice, going back to Revolutionary France (which also offers a stark condemnation of Deist principles applied to government, and I would note that I am no fan of the policies of Thomas Jefferson, aside from the Louisiana Purchase, but even that resulted in some terrible human rights abuses of native Americans, so the fact that the US now benefits from it does not compensate for the harm it caused; I sincerely wish the Federalist Party had remained in power, for although John Adams was a Unitarian, he was still a nominal Christian whose beliefs reflected Christian morality.

It is only when the laws of a country are derived from certain particular perverse religions, for example, the extreme radical forms of Salafi Islam, and in opposition to them, radical Shi’a Islam, or in the case of Nazi Germany, Marcionism (or “Positive Christianity” as Goebbels tried to market it, Marcionism being a heresy that denies that Jesus Christ was the Son of the God of Abraham, and in which the Old Testament is rejected, and instead the God of Abraham and the Hebrews is regarded as a demiurge; many forms of Gnosticism also followed this pattern), combined with neo-Paganism as practiced in the rituals of Himmler’s SS, and irreligion on the part of Hitler himself, that religion can have a destructive influence. I have no doubt that if Scientology ruled a country, which is a laughable thought given their swift decline into irrelevance, the results would be along these lines. But the historic existence of bad religion does not mean that atheism is automatically the right approach, indeed, we can see that this is fallacious owing to the highly repressive nature of governments which have been officially atheist (which France is not, but France is at the moment dominated by a centre-left European nationalist government led by Emmanuel Macron, and such governments have not generally accomplished much, certainly not compared to the center-right approach of Charles de Gaulle or the socialist promotion of French national interests that was the approach of Francois Mitterrand.

*Hoxha was what I would call a devout Atheist, indeed one might call him an Atheist fundamentalist, for he sought to ban religion in Albania, unsuccessfully, but persecuted and executed a huge number of Catholic, Orthodox Christian, Sunni Muslim and Bektashi Sufi quasi-Islamic clergy.

 

[BCP1928]

Since morality derives from God, and it is from God that we get the basics of human morality, such as the prohibitions on murder, adultery, theft, and other things, in those cases where the majority of Christian denominations, and other religions, for instance, Judaism, Zoroastrianism and so on, a just system of laws, such as what we see in Ghana, in West Africa, and in certain other Christian lands such as Ethiopia, Georgia and Armenia, to name a few, and indeed what briefly existed in the United States for a period after racist legislation was overturned but before the moral degradation of the past three decades entered into full swing, is one derived from essentially religious principles.

Indeed even within the past three decades, I would note that Republican legislators and indeed even President George W. Bush, on many occasions very properly have cited Christian morality as the basis for legislation, and this is extremely proper. The atheist idea that religion has nothing to contribute to ethics or civil morality or to the law is a relatively novel idea, and those countries which have most fully embraced this concept, such as Albania during the regime of Enver Hoxha* have also been among the most tyrannical. And of course, Albania is merely the tip of the iceberg as far as unjust atheist regimes go. Indeed such regimes have always made travesties of justice, going back to Revolutionary France (which also offers a stark condemnation of Deist principles applied to government, and I would note that I am no fan of the policies of Thomas Jefferson, aside from the Louisiana Purchase, but even that resulted in some terrible human rights abuses of native Americans, so the fact that the US now benefits from it does not compensate for the harm it caused; I sincerely wish the Federalist Party had remained in power, for although John Adams was a Unitarian, he was still a nominal Christian whose beliefs reflected Christian morality.

It is only when the laws of a country are derived from certain particular perverse religions, for example, the extreme radical forms of Salafi Islam, and in opposition to them, radical Shi’a Islam, or in the case of Nazi Germany, Marcionism (or “Positive Christianity” as Goebbels tried to market it, Marcionism being a heresy that denies that Jesus Christ was the Son of the God of Abraham, and in which the Old Testament is rejected, and instead the God of Abraham and the Hebrews is regarded as a demiurge; many forms of Gnosticism also followed this pattern), combined with neo-Paganism as practiced in the rituals of Himmler’s SS, and irreligion on the part of Hitler himself, that religion can have a destructive influence. I have no doubt that if Scientology ruled a country, which is a laughable thought given their swift decline into irrelevance, the results would be along these lines. But the historic existence of bad religion does not mean that atheism is automatically the right approach, indeed, we can see that this is fallacious owing to the highly repressive nature of governments which have been officially atheist (which France is not, but France is at the moment dominated by a centre-left European nationalist government led by Emmanuel Macron, and such governments have not generally accomplished much, certainly not compared to the center-right approach of Charles de Gaulle or the socialist promotion of French national interests that was the approach of Francois Mitterrand.

*Hoxha was what I would call a devout Atheist, indeed one might call him an Atheist fundamentalist, for he sought to ban religion in Albania, unsuccessfully, but persecuted and executed a huge number of Catholic, Orthodox Christian, Sunni Muslim and Bektashi Sufi quasi-Islamic clergy.

That response misses the point, I think. The laws of a secular state are not moral propositions, merely rules that we agree to follow. They may reflect the moral sentiments of those who craft them (we hope) but in themselves they are not moral propositions.

 

[The Liturgist]

That response misses the point, I think. The laws of a secular state are not moral propositions, merely rules that we agree to follow. They may reflect the moral sentiments of those who craft them (we hope) but in themselves they are not moral propositions.

I never argued they were. Rather my position is that the law of the state, which as far as possible should not be secular, for I am a lifelong antidisestablishmentarian, should be predicated upon the morality of the Christian faith, and this argument takes on even more weight in those cases where most other religions ranging from Mormonism to Sikhism happen to agree with us.

 

[BCP1928]

I never argued they were. Rather my position is that the law of the state, which as far as possible should not be secular, for I am a lifelong antidisestablishmentarian, should be predicated upon the morality of the Christian faith, and this argument takes on even more weight in those cases where most other religions ranging from Mormonism to Sikhism happen to agree with us.

Still, the state has no moral agency of it's own. Only humans have moral agency. Human institutions only reflect that agency.

 

[NxNW]

Since morality derives from God

You're assuming that which you were asked to prove, which negates everything that follows.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I feel I should point out that at the time the Constitution was being framed, Thomas Jefferson was in France serving as ambassador. He didn't come back to America until after both the Constitution and the First Amendment had been passed by congress (the First Amendment was passed in September of 1789, he came back to America in November of that year). He can really not be considered a real "framer" of the Constitution or its initial amendments.

Right, but the assertion I was replying to was suggesting that "if the founding fathers knew what people were gonna do, they would've amended the constitution to repeal the establishment clause in 1A"

My point was that if a guy in a high ranking position, making his own version of the bible that completely removed mentions of divinity, while they were all still around to see it happen, didn't spark that kind of conversation, then chances are they were quite content with the possibility that people may do things that went against their own personal religious views.

If "Hey did you see that Jefferson wrote an alternate bible that says Jesus isn't the son of God?" didn't make them want to change it, chances are the modern day efforts to reign in religious influence wouldn't have phased them.

 

[stevil]

I am disappointed that my country wasn't the first country to do this.

 

[The Liturgist]

You're assuming that which you were asked to prove, which negates everything that follows.

Strawman. You never asked me to prove that morality comes from God.

 

[The Liturgist]

Still, the state has no moral agency of it's own. Only humans have moral agency. Human institutions only reflect that agency.

Well frankly that’s rather obvious except in the case of absolutist monarchies such as the French ancien regime (vis a vis Lous XIV “L’etat cest moi” and indeed perhaps better exemplified by his motto “nec pluribus impar”, or the modern equivalent, the totalitarian dictatorship with a cult of personality replacing religion, such as in North Korea).

Nonetheless insofar as a non-absolutist regime reflects the agency of its archons, whether democratic or oligarchic, it behoves them to ensure that its laws are consistent with divine morality lest they be judged for making the state a stumbling block for its subjects.

 

[The Liturgist]

I am disappointed that my country wasn't the first country to do this.

Many Kiwis such as my most pious friend @Carl Emerson would disagree with you on that. In addition I believe the NZ constitution is flawed insofar as a bicameral aystem with a Maori-elected senate would be more fair, and would reduce the tendency of the descendants of the European population to impose their values on the indigenous population, which is much larger and more substantial than in Australia, although given the Christian piety of the aboriginals and the extent to which they have been grossly mistreated even in recent years I would be inclined to support a similar arrangement over there.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Many Kiwis such as my most pious friend @Carl Emerson would disagree with you on that. In addition I believe the NZ constitution is flawed insofar as a bicameral aystem with a Maori-elected senate would be more fair, and would reduce the tendency of the descendants of the European population to impose their values on the indigenous population, which is much larger and more substantial than in Australia, although given the Christian piety of the aboriginals and the extent to which they have been grossly mistreated even in recent years I would be inclined to support a similar arrangement over there.

Paul claimed the title of the worst of sinners... I am not sure piety is something to be grasped.

I can comment on the thread topic - France despite the predominance of Roman Catholicism is known to be one of the countries most opposed to the Christian gospel. Probably second to Japan.

So this move is not surprising.

When a Government supports the murder of ones own developing offspring, we as 'humanity' have lost our way.

But we know that Satan's plan is to put the case to God that humans are no better than animals, and is doing a pretty convincing job of it.

If we deny God, we also deny the Godly aspects of ourselves and this bizarre mess results.

Freedom must be one of the most misused terms in modern parlance.

Moral anarchy needs to be free of accountability and consequence to survive I guess.

Maranatha.

 

[stevil]

Many Kiwis such as my most pious friend @Carl Emerson would disagree with you on that.

Given that the goal is for countries to recognise the diversity and freedom of and from religion of the governed population, it is not preferable to have pious governors forcing their own specific religious beliefs upon the population.

In addition I believe the NZ constitution is flawed insofar as a bicameral aystem with a Maori-elected senate would be more fair, and would reduce the tendency of the descendants of the European population to impose their values on the indigenous population, which is much larger and more substantial than in Australia,

We aren't a Republic, so we don't have a Senate. We do, however have parliamentary seats reserved for Maori representation.
There are some very significant differences between the Maori people and the Aborigines of Australia.
Aborigines came to Australia about 50,000 years ago. They are the oldest indigenous race outside of Africa. (Native Americans arrived in America 30,000 years ago)
Maoris came to New Zealand about 1,350 years ago. The first European visit to New Zealand happened in 1642 (380 years ago, less than 1,000 years after the Maori arrived). So, as you can see, the native Maori came to NZ much, much later than the Aboriginies and the native Americans came to their lands.
Whereas the European settlers of early America slaughtered the native Americans, Britain simply colonised Australia and signed a Treaty (Treaty of Waitangi) with the Maoris of New Zealand.
Given the shear numbers of Europeans pouring into Australia and New Zealand, and given their much advanced technology and academia, they quickly took over control of the countries and the natives became minorities.

Anyway, this is all an interesting and complex distraction from the actual topic.

although given the Christian piety of the aboriginals

The colonisers forced their language and religious beliefs onto the natives, and in the process destroying the cultural beliefs and traditions.



Anyway, back to the topic.
A very proud NZ claim to fame is to be the first country to give women the vote.
Some not so proud things, NZ were very slow to legalise gay marriage, very slow to legalise abortion and have not yet enshrined the right to abortion into its constitution. We are slowly gaining social progress as we remove old fashioned and out dated Christian values from our laws. In my opinion, no where near fast enough.

 

[NxNW]

Strawman. You never asked me to prove that morality comes from God.

Well, you're making that assumption which is the major supporting point for that which I asked you to prove.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Given that the goal is for countries to recognise the diversity and freedom of and from religion of the governed population

Is this an official UN principle?

We seem to be light years away from it...

 

[Carl Emerson]

Given that the goal is for countries to recognise the diversity and freedom of and from religion of the governed population, it is not preferable to have pious governors forcing their own specific religious beliefs upon the population.

In NZ's case the Maori leaders perceives the God of Christianity was the same as the High God 'Io' who they already worshiped. For that reason 90% came to faith.

 

[stevil]

Is this an official UN principle?

We seem to be light years away from it...

NZ is a secular country.

 

[stevil]

In NZ's case the Maori leaders perceives the God of Christianity was the same as the High God 'Io' who they already worshiped. For that reason 90% came to faith.

They were tricked by the Colonialists.
Really they should have insisted that England worship lo