Conversion therapy has such a high rate of failure and such a high rate of child abuse that it is usually illegal. Religion may be good for society in that it MIGHT promote members behaving in a moral way, and promote respect those of other philosophical ideas. Having the government flying specific religious flags, teaching specific religious ideas in school, using religious ideas as justification for controlling women's bodies, fomenting hate against those who ARE LGBTQ, etc. are EVILS that religion tends to perpetrate. If you have a religion, fine. But that does not give you the right to impose your various opinions on others through the power of government.
religion can be good for society as long as everyone is happy believing what they believe and do not want to force their religion on others via laws
I mostly agree. But I definitely disagree that abortion is about controlling women's bodies. It is about denying someone to have a life.
that is the point, we should not use the bible to make laws https://www.politicususa.com/2010/05/07/theocrat-sarah-palin.html "Palin appeared on “The O’Rielly Factor”, during which she doubled down on her theocratic vision of America by claiming that the Founders intended for our laws to be based on the bible and the ten commandments."
They served a great purpose. More than 2,000 years ago. But they are not binding upon us today unless reaffirmed in the New Testament. Just as the Justinian Code is valuable for historical reasons today but in no way legally binding.
yes, I agree, religion was some of our first attempts at government.... now we have secular governments
No, it absolute IS about controlling the woman's body. There are circumstances where the woman's life will be seriously impacted, in health, in life, etc. At least as importantly, not everybody holds your belief system concerning embryos. Imposing your belief system on others can not be tolerated.
So? Having values always is going to involve some level of imposition of them on someone one way or the other.
You're clearly free to hold the religion you want to hold. But, the tenets of your religion or that of others have no place in government of the people. Western governance divided religion from government well before America existed. Our founders believed in that direction as they expressed in our constitution.
The first amendment merely forbids having a national religion or church. It in no way bars religion from government.
What about the embryos flushed daily at IVF facilities? What about the "snowflake babies" gradually rotting in cryogenic storage? The problem here is that you have ZERO respect for women who are pregnant. You have decided that they do not have healthcare issues that are worth considering and do not have religious views that align with you, thus you can demand control of their bodies.
That's obvious nonsense. When the SC made decisions on Lawrence v Texas and Obergefell v Hodges arguments made did not include religious arguments, because religion has no general standing that would allow for that. If religion were allowed in the courtroom, there is NO QUESTION that it would lead to an establishment of religion by government.
Nonsense. They have the exact same potential as any other embryo. You want to consider some embryos as important, but those reasons can not help but apply to all fertilized human eggs. In an IVF facility, the engineers there select which embryos will have a chance to live and which will be flushed down the drain. You want LAWS against women making the EXACT SAME decision for their own bodies and lives.
OK, but I'd just point out that the cases I mentioned demonstrate how the constitution is applied by the SC. Clearly, there were lots of Christians who were dead set against same sex couples being allowed the same marriage rights granted to opposite sex couples. Yet, that had no standing in court.
