Halakha Challenge: Three Kentucky Women Argue Abortion Law “Imposed Sectarian Theology on Jews.”

Among the slew of challenges to state abortion laws after the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a newly filed action in Kentucky may be one of the most creative. The complaint by three Jewish women from Louisville seeks to block the state trigger law on the basis that it violates their religious rights since they do not believe that life begins at fertilization under Jewish law, or Halakha. I am highly skeptical of the religious claims, which have also been made in other states.

The complaint below states “Judaism has never defined life beginning at conception” and “millenia of commentary from Jewish scholars has reaffirmed Judaism’s commitment to reproductive rights.”

Kentucky defines “an unborn child” as beginning when an egg is fertilized and abortion is prohibited once fetal cardiac activity is detected at roughly six weeks. There are exceptions to prevent a pregnant woman’s death or a “substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.”

Two similar lawsuits are pending in Florida and Indiana on the grounds that it violates the religious freedom for Jewish people.

The women are citing Halakha that defines a human life at birth rather than conception. It flips the script on past religious based arguments against abortion and say that Kentucky “has imposed sectarian theology on Jews.”

The complaint (below) is also different in that these women insist that they want to become pregnant but must use in vitro fertilization, in which a human egg is fertilized with sperm in a laboratory and then implanted in the uterus.

Given the definition of a human life, they argue that, once fertilized, they could not destroy the eggs under the abortion law.

Lisa Sobel, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, is the mother of one child through IVF. She also argues that, if there are problems in the pregnancy, she would not be able to secure an abortion in the state.

Plaintiff Jessica Kalb is still paying to store nine frozen embryos for possible future use for a pregnancy. The third plaintiff, Sarah Baron, is the mother of two who is considering an IVF procedure.

The religious challenge under Kentucky’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act is based on the mandate that the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s freedom of religion” unless it proves clear and convincing evidence of a compelling governmental interest and uses the least restrictive means to further that interest.

The claim, in my view, is facially weak.  Having a more protective law on the issue of human life is not a cognizable violation under the law. While advocates reference past such pro-life challenges on religious grounds, those challenges were not successful. Dobbs was based on the view that the Constitution does not contain a right to abortion, not that such a right is barred under the religious clauses.

The Plaintiffs have a more credible claim based on vagueness. The law is not a model of legislative drafting. Two of five counts in the complaint rely on vagueness and the lack of clarity. However, a court could easily adopt a logical interpretation that the destruction of a fertilized egg outside of the womb is not an abortion. The law states that the crime is tied to an actual pregnancy (emphasis added):

No person may knowingly:

1. Administer to, prescribe for, procure for, or sell to any pregnant woman any medicine, drug, or other substance with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of an unborn human being; or

2. Use or employ any instrument or procedure upon a pregnant woman with the specific intent of causing.

The law defines “pregnant” to mean “the human female reproductive condition of having a living unborn human being within her body throughout the entire embryonic and fetal stages of the unborn child from fertilization to full gestation and childbirth.”

It is true that the act defines “unborn human being” as “an individual living member of the species homo sapiens throughout the entire embryonic and fetal stages of the unborn child from fertilization to full gestation and childbirth.” However, the criminal provision itself refers to an actual pregnancy within the body of a woman.

I do not share the view that the law, despite its poor drafting, makes “IVF … legally dangerous if not impossible.” More importantly, I do not think that most courts would take that view throughout a trial and appellate process. The portrayal of the law as a “theocratic” measure will be hard to maintain in such litigation.

70 thoughts on “Halakha Challenge: Three Kentucky Women Argue Abortion Law “Imposed Sectarian Theology on Jews.””

  1. Although this case is an interesting one for those who appreciate religious law, and I too give it points for creativity, ultimately, the complaint misrepresents halakah. And halakah is subject to intrepretation. The restrictive school of halakah, for example, concludes that only when the fetus is threatening the mother’s life is there a place for abortion. In all other cases, abortion is prohibited. So, this is yet another reason to be skeptical of this complaint’s religious claims.

  2. Its an interesting article and what it shows is that this law was written by individuals who do not really know much about fetal development.

    So by the law’s definition… if a woman is more than 6 weeks pregnant, where there is some signs of cardiac development, yet no or minimal brain development… if said woman miscarried, it could be considered murder.
    (Albeit good luck showing intent, which would make it manslaughter)

    The other issue is gross fetal malformation. (That’s the medical term)
    You now have end of 1st Trimester or sometime into the second trimester where this can be diagnosed. Essentially a non-viable fetus. But by the definition of the law, which assumes every fertilized egg will eventually becomes a bouncing baby boy/girl/whatever… that’s not the case.

    The other issue. 6 weeks? How do you know?
    Do you do an ultrasound? Do you calculate BPD or CR and estimate?

    There is so much more but unless you’re an OB/GYN MD, or have had experience w fetal development… you may not understand the issue at all.


    1. yet no or minimal brain development…

      The human brain is not fully developed until age 25. So by your “reasoning”, anyone under 25 yrs of age merits decapitation, strangulation, and/or fall prey to a Pro-Abortionist’s whims etc. and boy, are those Pro-Abortionists labile!

      There is so much more but unless you’re an OB/GYN MD, or have had experience w fetal development…

      I’m not a NASA Engineer but I do know that rockets should not blow up immediately after launch, hence they’re tricky things. I’m also not a social worker but I do know that an adult relative beating the snot out of an elderly family member or having their joys with a little child are both a no go.

      OTOH, you did not state how far along you are with regard to brain development, so I’ll cut you some slack and not tell the Pro-Aborts on here that you’re free game. I say this because I do have mercy on the intellectually delayed. I can’t help you with your Home Economics Homework, sorry. Try Svelaz, Dennis or Gigi/ Natacha / Karen N aka she who apparently steals personal identities on-line.

      Oh, one more thing: if “viability” is your metric, then all trauma centers, hospitals, surgical centers and 9/11 Centers/Ambulances should be closed immediately, given that all those whom they serve are not…wait for it… viable. Meh. Maybe the American Red Cross is wasting our time by requiring us to be certified for CPR since anyone who requires cardiac massage / mouth-to-mouth is not viable. See how that works? Maybe you can get an assistance from one of the Left Wing trolls on here who likes to link to a biology textbook online published in 1986 give or take a brain here & there

      Cliff Notes: upon sperm + ovum = fertilization, the result is life. Whether you can measure said life with your auditory canals or optical tract is irrelevant. That is so 1960s. Get with the program as to modern science. Read my comment below about genomics so as to learn more, assuming you have a brain

      snark off

      1. @Estovir,
        Clearly you didn’t understand what I am talking about.
        Whether intentional or not… definitely a snide remark.


    2. End life of a developing brain, body and personality. A full life for the future.

      Sustain life with a deteriorating senile brain and rapidly failing body where the future is death.

      1. @S. Meyer

        You seem to confuse potential with a guarantee of life when there is conception.

        There are gross fetal malformations where the fetus is non-viable. Yet by the definition in the law… the implications of life starting at conception, doesn’t recognize or allow for this. Cystic Mass has no heart or recognizable organs… does this mean that this mass isn’t ‘alive’? (Assuming you define life as cellular respiration.

        Then there’s the issue of timing. Embryos can be sloughed off and this ends as a miscarriage. But by the definition of the law, the woman would be guilty of manslaughter.
        Also consider a woman who stores her eggs, does IVF and they implant 3 or 4 with the hopes of one taking. By the law’s definition, that’s murder of at least 2-3 fertilized embryos.

        Sorry, but for those who claim to be pro-life, there’s an inconsistency in your views. At least those who are pro-choice, their viewpoint is consistent. And then there’s a third group… those who believe its none of their business and that’s a decision that is to be left to the doctor and their patient regardless of their personal belief on abortion. This too is a consistent opinion.


        1. .”You seem to confuse potential with a guarantee of life when there is conception.”

          Ian, the only one who seems confused is you. What did I say that isn’t true? Yes, both the human inside and outside the womb can die at any time. So? The baby in the womb has more potential than the old senile person soon to be dead. There are no guarantees of life. Anyone can die at any time.

          You talk about IVF, so what? Does that justify killing a viable baby by ripping apart its legs and arms and sucking out its brain? Neither of those outliers helps move the discussion forward. I think the public at large is mostly in agreement regarding those issues. Neither moves the discourse to a better place.

          By the way, like you, I haven’t defined my position. If one chooses to support abortion, one should recognize they are killing a human life. If one wants to deny abortion, one should recognize the potential harm to the mother in favor of permitting the baby to survive.

          The issue exists in the blog today because of the Dobbs decision. That didn’t change the arguments. It placed the decision in the hands of the individual states, which today doesn’t abolish abortion or the killing of a viable child in the womb.

        2. Um, that third group you mentioned? THOSE are the people who are actually Pro-Choice. The group you actually labeled as such is actually Pro-Abortion.

  3. “It’s the [homicide], stupid!”

    – James Carville

    “As the years roll by, your child will get better and better at taking care of himself. At around age 10 or 11, he’ll be able to stay home alone, for instance, for short periods and with clear instructions.”

    – babycenter.com

    Human beings require complete protection and nurturing, inside and outside of the womb, until at least the age of ten.

    Because a human being is in the earliest stage of development does not mean he is subject to arbitrary termination.

    Liberals have manifestly violated the Constitution and Federal Law since 1860.

    Liberals have manifestly violated Natural Law on human reproduction since 1973.

    Homicide is human kill, or the crime of killing a human being.

    Homi or human life begins after 24 hours of fertilization.

    Abortion is homicide.

    That one does not like a law, does not abrogate that law.

    1. Yes, Pro-Choice is the religious (“ethical”) sanction of homicide, and murder after six weeks where baby meets granny in state, if not in process, a wicked solution, which is, apparently, subject to “prosecutorial discretion” of human rites performed for social, redistributive, clinical, political, and fair weather causes. Demos-cracy dies in darkness.

        1. Cells are multiplying, the fetus needs things to grow, just like all living things, so a fetus is alive.

          Just admit that you are AOK with ending life to not inconvenience people. It’s OK, we all know, you’re not fooling anyone.

          1. Poor Anon.
            Clearly you’re intentionally not recognizing the difference between cellular respiration and fetal development.
            Your kidney is alive when you consider cellular respiration.

    2. … says the misogynist who believes that women shouldn’t have the right to vote and who doesn’t want poor women and children to be able to access nutrition through WIC.

  4. The plaintiffs have Jewish DNA, allegedly, but that is the extent of their connection with Jewish law. There are multiple Orthodox Jewish websites that address the issue of abortion. Suffice it to say that Judaism opposes abortion on demand. It recognizes the fetus as being alive after 40 days (just short of 6 weeks), which happens to be a very strong match with modern medical research. Abortion is required in the very rare case of a threat to the mother’s life; otherwise, abortion is almost always prohibited. The statements of the plaintiffs to the contrary have no foundation in Jewish law, but rather in woke ideology.

    1. It’s not a fetus at 6 weeks, it’s still an embryo.
      It’s alive all along. The unfertilized egg and sperm were also alive.

      Just as there are various kinds of Christianity, and various kinds of Hinduism, and various kinds of Islam, and …., there are various kinds of Judaism, and the plaintiffs’ beliefs do have a foundation in their religion.

      1. @Anon…
        Define life.
        Is it merely just cellular respiration? Does that mean its alive?
        There is some truth to that, but I believe there’s the context of a living being, more than just a clump of cells.

        Note that there’s a gross fetal malformation where the fetus has been diagnosed as ‘anencephalus’. You can google it.
        Its a non viable fetus.
        Yet by the definition within the law… to terminate the pregnancy… it would be murder albeit, you would do so for the health/safety of the mother.
        (Note: In the past before ultrasound, this wasn’t diagnosed until after birth, where the infant was left to die on its own if it were alive at birth.)


        1. “Is it merely just cellular respiration? Does that mean its alive?”

          Yes that’s what alive means for a cell or a collection of cells, such as the cells that comprise an organ, blood, etc.

          As a contrast, it’s not capable of maintaining organismal homeostasis.

          1. As a contrast, it’s not capable of maintaining organismal homeostasis.

            stick to gay porn. you’re over your head when it comes to this subject. just saying

    2. @Surak

      Uhm no. You clearly don’t know anything about ‘modern medicine’ or fetal development.
      Free clue… you can have a man who’s injured in a car accident. He shows no sign of higher brain activity yet his heart is beating and his body continues to function.
      There’s this thing called brain dead where legally the doctors can take someone off of life support and declare the person dead.

      Now if a lack of brain activity is used to determine life… pray tell how long during the gestation period where the fetus has enough development to have what is considered a functioning brain?

      That kind of blows away this whole idea that life begins at conception, and that abortion should not be allowed when there’s a detectable heart ‘beat’.

      Note: I’m not saying pro-life/pro-choice, but just clarifying the absurdity of some of the comments and beliefs that are being made by many individuals. And why you are entitled to hold your opinions, they should at least be consistent w the facts.


    3. Agreed, and even prior to 40 days it is prohibited merely as a means of birth control. The only question, which is a matter of dispute by Torah scholars across the centuries, is whether or not “pre-40 days” there is an expansion of possible leniencies beyond the “threat to the mother’s life” standard.

      I realize that the legal nature of halachah allows for disagreements—amongst people who know what they are talking about—but these challenges are typically advocated by Jewish leftists disingenuously dressing up their arguments in religious garb.

  5. Lively discussion today. Extremely entertaining. Just about the best reading I do all day. Hysterical and funny also. Keep it up everyone.

  6. Pro-aborts are stuck in the prehistoric times when it comes to understanding science.

    In days long past, scientists described organs, tissues and cells based on morphology (shape and size) and function. These relied on “gross” specimens. In the mid XXth Century, antibodies were declaired to be proteins, and thus were labeled for identifying cells based on the expression of proteins found to be associated with a particular cell type. These came to be known as immunohistochemistry, immunofluorescence, & flow cytometry, all based on the usage of antibodoies that enabled precise characterization of cells and their functional states. These also were perfected after Roe v Wade, 1973.

    Pro-Aborts are science denialists.

    Not surprisingly, our cells know far more about us than we about them. The Human Genome Project (1990s) revolutionized our understanding of human DNA. This was followed by the monumental
    ENCODE (Encylopedia of DNA elements) Project which supplanted previous understandings, much of it wrong, of genetics. Science is always growing, maturing, evolving. Pro-Aborts do not seek to grow, mature nor evolve in understanding science.

    Most recently, for the last 5-10 years, laboratory science has evolved into new cell technologies known as genomics.

    The Myeloid Cell Compartment-Cell by Cell
    The ongoing revolution in genomics allowing for single-cell resolution assessment of whole transcriptomes
    (1, 2), genomes (3, 4), and epigenomes (5–7) is currently reshaping our understanding
    of cellular constituents in every organ and cellular system
    . In particular, single-cell transcriptomics
    by single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) allows for an unprecedented level of precision
    when describing cells (8). Moreover, and in contrast to all other previous single-cell technologies,
    scRNA-seq can be applied in a completely unbiased fashion (9). This unique opportunity allows
    us to completely revise our understanding of all cellular components and their functionality in
    every organ and tissue and under any condition

    Bassler K, et al. The Myeloid Cell Compartment-Cell by Cell. Annu Rev Immunol. 2019 Apr 26;37:269-293. doi: 10.1146/annurev-immunol-042718-041728.

    Indeed, we are revising “our understanding of all cellular components and their functionality” in all aspects of our human body. There is so much trashing of previous paradigms, that the medical sciences is now described as a Tower of Babel. There is much confusion because people are not keeping apace with the evolution of knowledge.

    Everything that occurs from day 1 of fertilization to the birth of baby, demonstrates a plethora of activity at the cellular and genetic levels that are now coming into better focus. We still have a long way to go to understand all of the genomic information being gathered.

    The abortion issue is a medical science issue, and the genetics, biochemistry, physiology and embryology of gestation make it clear. The “blob of tissue” is alive and our surviving until we die are all synthesized the second a sperm fertilizes an ovum. These processes continue until our last heart beat, which is precisely what Pro-Abortionists wish to extinguish. From abortion to euthanasia/mercy-killing, Pro-Aborts are consistent: they seek to master life and not cherish it.

    Understanding the genetics and biochemistry of gestation at the cellular level is humbling and creates a profound respect for life. Naturally this leads to a profound appreciation for the miracle of life, because it truly is astounding.

    1. “Pro-Aborts are science denialists.”

      You are not honest.

      Very few people who are pro-choice are “pro-abortion.” Rather, we do not prefer abortion to birth; we simply believe that the choice should belong to the pregnant woman or girl, not to the state.

      And we are not “science denialists,” nor do you cite anything to the contrary.

      “the second a sperm fertilizes an ovum”

      It doesn’t occur in a second. Fertilization takes the better part of a day.

      “The “blob of tissue” is alive”

      Duh. That a zygote is alive does not make it a person. The majority of zygotes do not even have the biological potential to develop into people, as their DNA is too flawed, so cell division may occur once or twice and then the blastocyst dies before even implanting, or implants and is miscarried not long after, often before the pregnant person is even aware of the pregnancy.

      Agreed that life truly is astounding. But that still doesn’t make it ethically right to force a woman or girl to carry a pregnancy to term against her will.

      1. we do not prefer abortion to birth; we simply believe that the choice should belong to the pregnant woman or girl, not to the state.

        Abortion on demand, sacrifices life of a baby, so mommy can stay on Partner Track. It is up to the people to make the judgement of exactly when life is protected.

        The debate boils down to the sanctity of abortion, or the sanctity of Life.

        1. iowan2,

          I guess you have a shallow view of career women.

          Ok, so since you’re clearly pro-life, let me ask you this…

          If you believe in the sanctity of life, all life, then should it matter if a woman was raped or if there was incest?
          So that if the woman was raped, didn’t immediately do plan b… found out she got pregnant then she shouldn’t be allowed to terminate the pregnancy?

          Now I’m not suggesting that your opinion is right or wrong… just curious about the finer details.


      2. “doesn’t make it ethically right to force a woman or girl man to carry a pregnancy to term Sacrifice their life in defense of our nation against her his will.

      3. From State’s Choice (e.g. one-child) to her Choice (i.e. selective-child, or shared/shift responsibility). Keep women affordable, available, and taxable, and demos-cracy… the “burden” of evidence aborted, cannibalized, and sequestered in darkness.

        There are a few Gosnells, of course. All pro-abortionists do force a woman or girl to carry a pregnancy following “viability” to term against her will. All that has changed is that the threshold of “viability” is open to legal consensus and scientific interpretation, typically from where baby meets granny in state, if not in process. Baby steps.

        That said, there is no mystery in sex and conception. A woman and man have four choices, an equal right to self-defense. The wicked solution is neither a good nor exclusive choice.

      4. Ethics (e.g. Pro-Choice) is a religion of relativity (e.g. diversity [dogma], human rites, political congruence, Mengele mandates, redistributive change).

      5. Fertilization is an evolutionary process that begins with conception that happens with the process of integration of the woman and man’s DNA, which may be aborted by Her Choice. That said, a woman and man offer implied consent with their first choice, and short of elective abortion or an equal right to self-defense, safe sanctuary to their child(ren),

      6. But that still doesn’t make it ethically right to force a woman or girl to carry a pregnancy to term against her will.

        Please explain your opposition to forcing pregnant girls to give birth.

    2. Excellent post. You’re correct that pro-aborts do not cherish human life. I don’t think they really want to master it though, let alone seek or appreciate everything that must happen correctly, in sequence, for that life to reach self-sustainment and autonomy. For until it does, that individual’s life is completely dependent on their “wanting” it. Same goes for the time near the natural end of other’s lives. If ‘they’ don’t want it, don’t want to deal with assisting ‘it’, then ‘no life for you’, regardless of the potential amazing things that life may have contributed or continue to contribute – for everyone’s betterment. It may sound quaint, but human life is a miracle in it’s uniqueness when compared to other mammals and other species. We’re the only life form known to have sentience and what that means.

    1. Yes, a wicked solution (e.g. planned parenthood, planned parent/hood), a final solution, human rites performed for social, redistributive, clinical, political/religious (e.g. Diversity [dogma], Inequity, and Exclusion or DIE), and fair weather (e.g. climate stasis) causes. Keep women and girls affordable, available, and taxable, and the “burden” of evidence, carbon pollutants, aborted, cannibalized, and sequestered?

      That said, there is no mystery in sex and conception, a woman and man have four choices, and an equal right to self-defense. The Pro-Choice ethical religion denies women and men’s dignity and agency, and reduces human life to negotiable commodities, again, and again, and again.

  7. Welcome everyone to the Svelaz/Anonymous dialogue where our two “stars” insist on commenting 100 times on each and every column…all in huge disagreement with the host and the vast majority of people that enjoy the site. It is a sickness of contrariness that makes some (mostly men) take an opposing point of view on all issues as a weak way to differentiate themselves from others in a lame showing of their narcissism (a mostly male trait).

    1. Hullbobby, you’re hilarious. I’m surprised you can’t recognize normal discourse. That “contrariness” is what keeps things interesting. Otherwise this would turn into a very boring echo chamber and Turley would be able to brag about how many millions of views his blog has garnered. Echo chambers are for idle minds, no?

      1. “I’m surprised you can’t recognize normal discourse.”

        Svelaz, you don’t know what normal discourse is. You flood the blog with ignorance, but it is an open blog, so that is your right. Do you bring any facts to the table? No, only error refuted repeatedly. You make those on the left appear stupid. That is your major benefit to the blog.

    1. I’m sure they believe that you legitimately believe that it is AOK to abort your kids. Just as they likely believe that Jeffery Dahmer legitimately believed it was AOK to kidnap, rape, murder, and eat people.

      Simply because you believe something, doesn’t make it legal, ethical, moral, or anything else except a figment of your mind.

  8. It’s interesting that religious liberty is downplayed when “other” religions make claims for exemptions. The Supreme Court has given religious liberty a lot of room to make exceptions, until it involves ‘another’ religion.

    It shouldn’t matter whether certain technicalities make the claims “weak”. Conservative courts always make religious freedom or claims of deeply held religious beliefs the overriding factor on claims of exemption from laws.

    1. Let me guess, among the activities on your approved list of ‘religious’ actions, abortion is just “Honor Killing” before the fact?

    2. Wrong! I’ll give an example. Much of Sharia Law, based on religion, would not be permitted. Do you bother to do your own fact check?

  9. As the wife of an orthodox Rav, I would first require these women to prove that they live by ALL the tenets of Halakha in order to prove that this particular situation affects them as much as all the other restrictions within Halakha. Otherwise, they are merely hypocrits and are using this legal trick. I would wager that they are reform Jews who are left of spectrum.

    1. Baruch Dayan Ha’emet
      You may want to look that one up. While some may not think it appropriate…


  10. In your world professor it seems that only one religion applies when it comes to theocracy. I am not Jewish but I have spoken with a number of Jews who agree that abortion is not prohibited. But let’s go even further and truly understand what these wide ranging probititions on “abortion” will do. It will prohibit life saving procedures when a miscarriage occurs and place the patient under suspicions. It will put certain medications out of reach because they have been labeled abortifacients and leave patients suffering needlessly. It will force women to carry dead fetuses to ter putting the woman’s life at risk. None of these prohibitions are “pro-life” rather they are anti woman and pro death for women. None of this consistent with the values of the Jewish faith.

    1. That seems to be inaccurate. Abortion is prohibited if he fetus is still alive. See the definition of “pregnant”: “iving unborn human being within her body”.

    2. “None of these prohibitions are “pro-life””

      They aren’t because you are making things up. Can you prove any of these things are true? No. Now I understand why your responses seem crazy. Reality has slipped by and you only deal with imagination.

  11. As someone who may (or may not, I haven’t researched my family tree) have some Jewish heritage somewhere in my heritage…Oy vey, can we stop with the kvetching, please?

  12. “seeks to block the state trigger law on the basis that it violates their religious rights since they do not believe that life begins at fertilization under Jewish law, or Halakha. “

    Human sacrifice is illegal no matter what religion is entertained.

    1. “Human sacrifice is illegal no matter what religion is entertained.”

      But you are in favor of sacrificing a young woman’s life to your desire for her to bear children. And you are in favor of sacrificing a young couple’s finances, future, happiness to the vicious notion that a woman is merely chattel of the state.

  13. Halakha doctrine is not a veto on civil law anymore that Catholic abortion doctrine is a veto on civil law. You’d think this would be pretty obvious.

    1. Deeply held religious beliefs are. Christians have made that point abundantly clear when they want to be exempt from civil laws that infringe in their deeply held religious beliefs. What these Jews are asking is no different. Turley is sowing doubt because it involves ‘another’ religious besides Christianity.

      It’s notable when other religions make claims based on their deeply held religious beliefs it’s seen with a skeptical eye, but when it involves Christians it’s not. There seems to be a double standard here.

      1. want to be exempt from civil laws that infringe in their deeply held religious beliefs.

        You need to get specific and give examples.

        You keep arguing from unproven conclusions.

      2. Darren, are you going to delete this person’s effort to get Svelaz to commit suicide?

        Is this the same person who previously encouraged Jeff Silberman to commit suicide?

        The person who posted the 11:44am comment is a deeply sick person.

      3. Laws that infringe on religious beleifs do not require exemption, they require finding the law unconstitutional.

      4. SCOTUS decided in Employment Division v. Smith that the use of Peyote in religious ceremonies did not bar denying unemployment benefits.

        Congress – mostly lead by conservative passed the RFRA in response – basically telling SCOTUS to go F’itself, that the use of Peyote in religious practice was protected by the free excercise clause.

        While it is often true that some conservatives are intolerant of other religions and their practices – especially muslims.
        Nearly all christian conservatives DEFEND the religious freedom of all religions – even ones they constantly attack.
        You do not seem to understand that a person can beleive that Islam is evil, while at the very same time fighting against government discrimination against Muslim religious practice.

        There may be a small number of hypocrites – but very few.
        Evangelicals – both 40 years ago and today see themselves as modern 1st century christians. They Expect those like you to come after them, to try to choke off their religious practice, and to expect to have to suffer, be martyred and jailed for their beleifs.

        And the left is idiotic enough to play into this.

        You are incapable of understanding anything that you do not agree with.
        It is laughable that the left claims diversity while so strongly oppressing those at odds with them.

Leave a Reply

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks
%d bloggers like this: