That's the deal, right? You can have as wacky religious ideas as you want, but you can't rely on religious authority when you advocate for enforcing them on others.
The court is interpreting Article I, Section 36.06 of the Alabama Constitution, which recognizes "the sanctity of unborn life." So discussion of the theological roots and meaning of that concept is relevant to understanding what the provision was intended to convey.
Would a challenge on separation grounds need to demonstrate that the order promotes a specific religion, or simply religion in general? (I get that this is a concurrence and not the decision itself.)
Each assertion of "religion in general" is specific as to the religious background of the person asserting it. Humans as the image of God is specifically biblical in its origin & Christian in its interpretation history here. In fact, I challenge that assumption theologically-but I'm an outlier.
What no one in Alabama seems to realize, starting from this dickhead all the way down, is that the Alabama constitution explicitly forbids this kind of shit.
Er hang on, but doesn't Alabama have the death penalty? Either this God chap is infuriating by one human killing another human or he's totes cool with it... which is it!?!?
Yet one more powerful Christian carefully and lovingly tearing out the "separation of church and state" part of the constitution and throwing it on a fire.
Enraging that Ireland—Ireland!!—has moved away from theocratic restrictions on abortion at the same time that conservative American states have plunged back into them after 50 years of Roe v Wade.
By hanging everything on that one word, "wrongfully," and he gets (and his political allies and coreligionists get) to decide when the destruction of an "image of God" is rightful or wrongful.
"As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways." Ezekiel 33:11
Always relevant in matters of theology and humanism.
My goodness. I'm old enough to remember Roy Moore getting bounced as CJ of the Alabama Supreme Court for violating the establishment clause with his Ten Commandments statue, and now the current CJ is affirming the theological basis of his interpretation of state law...
Signing the Bible as precedential authority is a really bad long-term plan unless you’re prepared for a whole lot of hypocrisy, or a whole lot of awkward conversations about your tyrannical death enthralled government
yep, but he only got bounced because there was a cause of action a citizen could sue over. not at all sure what action could be effective here except voting them out (which probably isn't effective in Alabama).
For judicial pretzel-logic, this decision is on a par with the ones documented in E.P. Evans’ 1906 treatise, "Criminal Prosecution and Capital Punishment of Animals".
I give states like Florida and Texas a hard time, but that is only because I have completely written off insane states like Alabama. Alabama does not even seem like a US state. There is no law there. Just the good old boy system, racism and dodgy religion.
What if the embryo commits a felony? If there’s a power outage and the freezers fail, is the utility company guilty of thousands of murders? I have so many questions.
At this point right wingers have fully abandoned that principle. They believe specifically in co-constitutive church and state. Their entire ideology depends on it actually. That’s why we are calling it “theocratic fascism.”
"The understanding of the Establishment Clause over the past 200+ years is deeply flawed, contrary to its text and utterly ahistoric and you will now all kneel before our God as the Founders (hallowed be their name) intended."
i think that’s actually their position: 1st amendment means the government can’t “regulate” a church, meaning churches can’t be forced to pay taxes, but churches are more than welcome to influence government. it’s a view that went out of style with the Scopes Monkey Trial, but looks like it’s back.
Yep, SCOTUS has been moving the lines here fast in recent years. Basically writing the establishment clause out of the constitution. 1st Am now just means right wingers who wrap their beliefs in Christianity are constitutionally special birthday boys.
Personally I'd love to hear someone cite a specific verse of scripture that makes the use of the state as a cudgel to force non-Christians to become or to behave like Christians sound like something besides obvious and incendiary heresy.
I wish we could make theocratic rationale illegal. Like... this isn't great at ALL.
We will never have a great society when we base decisions on theology rather than data, best practices, expert opinions, and, y'know, what actually works in real life.
I’m super curious (but not curious enough to do the research myself) about how this view evolved in Christianity; Judaism explicitly says “life begins at first breath.”
You're not gonna believe it, but it actually entered evangelical discourse in response to desegregation. Once they couldn't scare their followers with the threat of it, they turned to abortion as a wedge issue, and the train slid downhill from there.
I don’t know how universal it was, but around the 1700s or so life was considered to begin when the fetus began to move (“the quickening”), because that was the sign of ensoulment.
this is a monologue from an RPG right? Because my read on this is that he has appointed himself as God's wrath incarnate and that his duty is to punish sinners?
So…no more hysterectomies in AL? What about men with testicular cancer? Is chemo off the table for everyone bc it might sterilize? Or are we only at the point of concern for the fertilized egg (for now)?
Using the Chief Justice's logic, there should be equal or greater penalties for murder in the state of Alabama, right? Doesn't matter if it's manslaughter, involuntary, or whatnot, right?
Well, I’m glad there is a solid vote against the death penalty on the Alabama Supreme Court.
Wait, I’m getting an update. He is not, in fact, opposed to the death penalty. Because “killing” an embryo is bad, but actually killing a fully formed human is a-ok!
“Each person has a value therefore that far human beings ability to value”. Unless you’re the Ala. workers compensation board, then it’s $238 a week up to 500 weeks ($119,000), subject to limitations.
I'm curious, do appeals courts ever reverse judgements where the majority opinion used sound legal reasoning but the concurrence was faulty? Would it matter if said faulty concurrence was decisive in the outcome of the case (i.e. the fifth vote in a 5-4 ruling)?
Alabama law: "Human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself."
Because the thing is fetuses used to die a lot more because of this god's "intelligent" design until modern medical science made the whole business a lot safer.
So it's a bit odd him being upset about dead fetuses.
Comments
I kinda feel like we need to be really clear about the Christian Nationlism bent here and “theocracy” isn’t sufficient to me.
The lives are insignificant to him. It's the glory that matters. Presumably a criminal has ceased to be a glory, and is therefore expendable.
Always relevant in matters of theology and humanism.
That would be crazy!
And, this is not a North-South thing. Plenty of states that were in the Union or not in the South have assholes like in Alabama.
FECK. I no longer have the plumbing necessary to propegate, but I’ll immolate if that crowd thinks I’ll be an ‘Aunt Lydia.”
JFC!
Second Amendment? Absolute!
First Amendment? Pffft.
With all due respect to the office of Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, fuck him and and his self righteous bullshit.
We will never have a great society when we base decisions on theology rather than data, best practices, expert opinions, and, y'know, what actually works in real life.
I’m super curious (but not curious enough to do the research myself) about how this view evolved in Christianity; Judaism explicitly says “life begins at first breath.”
/s
Tax the churches.
Every last one.
Wait, I’m getting an update. He is not, in fact, opposed to the death penalty. Because “killing” an embryo is bad, but actually killing a fully formed human is a-ok!
At least be consistent with your bullshit
All my reactions to this are blasphemous.
Because the thing is fetuses used to die a lot more because of this god's "intelligent" design until modern medical science made the whole business a lot safer.
So it's a bit odd him being upset about dead fetuses.