Opinion: America closer to having state-imposed, religious-based laws
Robert Barr and Rachel Smith, Cincinnati Enquirer, 5/29/2022
EDITORIAL: This article is fraught with logical fallacies:
- It doesn’t define religion and thus facilitates equivocation and sophistry that favors the speaker and his objectives. See:
Government Establishment of Religion, Form #05.038
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/GovEstabReligion.pdf - It falsely and LAZILY PRESUMES that government is NOT a religion. If government has superior or supernatural powers above any single human under any law it enacts, then it is IN FACT a religion. ALL ARE EQUAL under REAL LAW. Any attempt to make the GOVERNMENT and the GOVERNED UNQUAL is the unconstitutional establishment of a state-sponsored religion. See:
Requirement for Equal Protection and Equal Treatment, Form #05.033
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/EqualProtection.pdf - The author is a rabbi within Judaism and therefore the equivalent of a modern day Pharisee. The bible nowhere defines the status of the fetus and the definition he cites is a man-made invention of Pharisees like him, probably from the Talmud. He never showed a Bible verse that defines the fetus in his article because THERE ISN”T ONE. Neither Jesus nor the Bible had anything good to say about the “leaven of the Pharisees” and it was the Pharisees who had Jesus killed. WRONG guy to be writing an article like this if he wants to appeal the Christians or Christian leaders. Only a brain dead liberal with no theology or legal training would believe an article like this or not question its conclusions because they appeal to personal biases. For details, see:
Who Were the Pharisees and Saducees?, Form #05.047
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/WhoWerePharisees.pdf
We allege that it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for EITHER the federal OR the state governments to:
- Enact ANY civil legislation to regulate ANYTHING or ANYONE without the express written consent of those subject to such legislation.
- To REFUSE to acknowledge the requirement for EXPRESS consent of the governed that is the foundation of our system of government according to the Declaration of Independence. To give the constitutionally required reasonable notice, that consent MUST be in writing and the government MUST not permit implied consent, tacit procuration, or sub silentio. See:
Invisible Consent, SEDM - To abuse the civil statutory law to create NEW offices or officers within the government for otherwise PRIVATE people such as “citizen”, “resident”, “person”, etc. See:
Why the Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/StatLawGovt.pdf - To FORCE litigants into a public office by refusing to permit the COMMON LAW and not STATUTORY CIVIL LAW to be the choice of law in any dispute. See:
Choice of Law, Litigation Tool #01.010
https://sedm.org/Litigation/01-General/ChoiceOfLaw.pdf
The above approach is the ONLY way to ensure that the First Amendment is not violated by the GOVERNMENT, or that the government itself does NOT become a religion EITHER. The civil statutes it passes, ironically, behave as RELIGIOUS LAW as described by the author of the article and ought to be JUST as suspect as any attempt by the U.S. Supreme Court to impute the “force of law” to a PRIVATE RIGHT not found in the constitution and which did not come directly from the CREATOR mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. In fact, the CREATOR in the Declaration of Independence FORBADE abortion. See:
Demoncrat Deception, Equivocation, and Hypocrisy About Abortion, SEDM
https://sedm.org/democrat-deception-equivocation-and-hypocrisy-about-abortion/
Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization proposes an alarming erosion of the vital wall that separates church from state – between personally held religious beliefs and our shared government. If the U.S. Supreme Court adopts the draft opinion, the court will be issuing an historic, precedent-breaking opinion based on the religious beliefs held by many of the current justices. Religion will be dictating public policy.
The establishment clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits all levels of government from advancing or inhibiting religion. The Constitution prohibits the government from favoring one religious view over another or favoring religion over non-religion, and yet that is exactly what this proposed opinion will do. This court’s decision would adopt a narrow religious-based definition of when life begins and impose it on everyone in our nation. While some religions believe life begins at conception, others do not. Yet, the court will impose one set of religious beliefs on everyone.
Judaism holds that a fetus is not a separate and independent life from the pregnant person. Moreover, Judaism recognizes that abortion is allowed if the health or life of the pregnant individual is endangered. This includes psychological health as well.
Justice Alito’s opinion recognizes the diversity of “moral” opinions that exist on the issue of abortion, yet it ignores other religious perspectives. The first sentence of the draft opinion states: “Abortion presents a profound moral issue on which Americans hold sharply conflicting views.” Yet, reversing Roe and allowing states to adopt draconian anti-abortion laws means that an extreme religious perspective will become the basis for state laws while other religious perspectives are ignored. The wall between religion and government will have crumbled.
The founders of our nation recognized the importance of religious freedom and protected that with the First Amendment. Their goal was to prevent one religion from imposing its religious beliefs on all citizens. Their goal was to ensure that everyone in our nation was allowed to exercise their religious or moral beliefs freely. They were ensuring that one religion’s perspective would not limit others’ rights and freedoms.
The erosion of the separation of church and state is a dangerous path for our nation. If this opinion becomes final, states will be able to limit or eliminate abortion rights and put people’s lives in danger. But also based on this draft opinion, states will be able to restrict or eliminate other rights that the Roe v. Wade precedent currently protects. These other rights include birth control, marriage and privacy. This draft opinion is moving America closer to having state-imposed religious-based laws. This should frighten all of us.
The separation of church and state allows for diverse moral opinions on the issue of abortion and other personal decisions. This is how it should be. This is what our founders intended.
Robert B. Barr is founding rabbi of Congregation Beth Adam in Loveland. Rachel Smith is board president.