Recently, Lisa Brown, a state representative in Michigan, gave a speech on the floor of the Michigan House of Representatives in which she pointed out that the Michigan Legislature was in the process of trying to enact legislation that would impose Christian religious beliefs on Jewish people, specifically in regards to the issue of abortion, a subject that is indeed covered under Jewish law.
Despite the argument put forth by Representative Brown, not only was the bill passed by the Michigan House of Representatives, but she was censured and forbiddened to speak further on the bill after she made her initial comments.
You may view and listen to those comments of Michigan State Representative Lisa Brown right here:
Prior to her initial and only permitted talk, Representative Lisa Brown was preceded by another State Representaive from Holland, Michigan who spoke about religious freedom. It was only after that spiel that Representative Brown spoke on the bill before the legislative chamber in which she spoke personally about her own faith. Here is the text of the portion of her speech that addresses the religious aspects of the debate:
I'm Jewish. I keep kosher in my home. I have two sets of dishes. One for meat and one for dairy, and another two sets of dishes on top of that for Passover. Judaism believes that therapeutic abortions, namely abortions performed in order to preserve the life of the mother are not only permissable but mandatory. The stage of pregnancy does not matter. Wherever there is a question of the life of the mother or that of the unborn child, Jewish law rules in favor of preserving the life of the mother. The status of the fetus as human life does not equal that of the mother. I have not asked you to adopt and adhere to my religious beliefs. Why are you asking me to adopt yours?Why do Christians believe it is justifiable to legislatively impose Christian beliefs on Jewish people and other non-Christians, but it is not justifiable to legislate non-Christian beliefs onto Christians?
3 comments:
I would inject here that while the abortion debate is based on "religious grounds" that many Christians might be comfortable with what Ms. Brown describes as Jewish law (phrasing it this way to express my ignorance on said law.). But we've developed this all-or-nothing mentality on any political issue. Frankly, I think if Roe v Wade had resulted in a law that was the same as Ms. Brown described, we might not be fighting the battle at all. But with groups like Planned Parenthood openly lying to girls in order to promote abortions, and protestors more willing to carry a sign and yell than give an example to their kids and talk, we ain't gonna get there from here.
With all due respect, Mr. Martin, you missed Ms. Brown's point. She does NOT desire for her religious view on this topic to become law in Michigan. She was pointing out how the proposed law is based upon a religion and how her own religious beliefs and practices conflict with the proposed law. As a matter of fact, her exact words are, "I have not asked you to adopt and adhere to my religious beliefs. Why are you asking me to adopt yours?"
I have posted here and elsewhere before that when we obliterate the lines which separate government and religion, we not only violate the constitutional prohibitions, we get into very dangerous waters. There are communities in Michigan where Muslims make up a majority. Would Michiganders sit idle and allow such communities to have their city or village councils enact sections of Sharia Law as local ordinances? Of course not!
The First Amendment is NOT necessary to protect those who practice the religion of the majority in this nation. It is those who practice a minority religion who need protection. Nearly all of the Founding Fathers were well-educated men. They had read a LOT of history. One lesson they learned was the co-mingling of religion and politics created a very unhealthy stew. They wanted a new nation where one could practice religion freely or choose to practice no religion. As Thomas Jefferson said over 200 years ago, "It matters not to me if my neighbor believes in one god, no god, or many gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
Dale , chill. I was going along with her. I wasn't accusing her of trying to score points for her religion."Frankly, I think if Roe v Wade had resulted in a law that was the same as Ms. Brown described, we might not be fighting the battle at all." is what I said.
Perhaps you were responding to me on my rep rather than my answer. Read it again and show me where my response trod on anyone's first amendment rights, HOWEVER you might choose to construe them.
Also might be helpful in the future if you looked at a discussion as having more sides than "I agree" and "I missed the point."
Post a Comment