On June 21, a political paper reported on the legal strategies of Jews, Mohammedans, Buddhists, Satanists, unionists, Episcopalians, and Unitarians to, as the paper put it, “fight back” against the survival of children. Although this wickedness is all quite absurd, the presence of Satanists, who have long denied being an actual religion, makes it almost comical. But enough of that. — After reporting on a lawsuit in Missouri, the paper says: “the Missouri case is one of nearly a dozen challenges to abortion restrictions filed by clergy members and practitioners of everything from Judaism to Satanism that are now making their way through state and federal courts — a strategy that aims to restore access to the procedure and chip away at the assumption that all religious people oppose abortion. … In Indiana, a group of Jewish, Muslim and other religious plaintiffs sued over the state’s near-total abortion ban. Their argument: that it violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act signed into law in 2015 by then-Gov. Mike Pence.” The article then quotes Amalia Shifriss, a leader of Hoosier Jews for Choice, as saying, “Even if the Religious Freedom law was intended by Mike Pence to discriminate against people, we thought: ‘Let’s use this for good instead.’ It brings me joy to think how much this must upset him.” Thus can one see the great morality of our Jews — child sacrifice (which they have always supported) brings them joy, because a Christian opposes it.
The article continues: “In Missouri, the plaintiffs argue that because lawmakers put religious language in the text of the abortion ban itself and made explicit religious appeals when voting on it, they violated the Establishment Clause. ‘It took real chutzpah for the legislators to voice their own religious motivations, to wantonly and shamelessly purport to know what God wants or doesn’t want and to enshrine that into law,’ said Rabbi James Bennett of Congregation Shaare Emeth in St. Louis… ‘They’re entitled to their interpretation of when life begins, but they’re not entitled to have the exclusive one.’” Here one sees the spirit of doubt that infests these people: having any certainty about any important issue must be utter “wantonness and shamelessness.”
It continues: “In Florida, clergy representing Reform Judaism, Buddhism, the Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ and the Unitarian Universalist Church sued in state court both to overturn the state’s 15-week abortion ban, and — if that fails — to secure religious exemptions. … In Kentucky, three Jewish women are arguing that the state’s near-total abortion ban violates their belief that life only begins when a baby takes its first breath… ‘To have someone else’s religious belief that an embryo is a human being imposed on me in a way that’s so personal, that prevents me from growing my family, is just rude and un-American,’ Lisa Sobel, the lead plaintiff in that case, said in an interview.” This Talmudism, seen throughout the article, is unworthy of even a rebuttal. —
Next we read: “The Satanic Temple is in federal court challenging abortion bans in Texas, Idaho and Indiana, arguing that the laws infringe upon their congregants’ belief in bodily autonomy and right to practice abortion as a religious ritual.” As said above, it is absurd to the uttermost for Satanists especially — who believe in nothing at all — to claim religious exemptions from any law; and this is, as they sometimes admit, simply a cynical ploy relying on equivocation. Thus one has enough to judge these devil’s servants, even beyond their open worship of child sacrifice. —
Its closing section, dealing with (though not quite really) the citation of Scripture, reads verbatim: “Judges have historically avoided questioning the sincerity of someone’s religious beliefs, but Becket and other groups have filed amicus briefs that do so. To combat these accusations, the challengers point to scripture that lays out a case for abortion rights as well as support from religious leaders for their claims. The Jewish challengers in Kentucky cite religious texts including the Mishnah that say life begins when a baby takes its first breath, not when it is conceived, and if medical issues arise during pregnancy, the pregnant person’s life ‘comes before the life of [the child].’ They also submitted to the court letters from rabbis arguing that current state exemptions for life-threatening medical emergencies aren’t enough, saying Jewish law permits, and in some cases requires, an abortion when there is ‘a risk of poverty, abuse, addiction, or mental illness.’ The case challenging Missouri’s ban cites the United Church of Christ’s vote in 1971 to acknowledge the right to abortion and members’ ‘autonomy to determine what happens to their own bodies,’ as well as the Episcopal Church’s ‘long-standing opposition’ to any government attempt to infringe on reproductive choices. ‘There’s a tendency to see these cases as kind of a clever, legal switcheroo. Like, here’s a way to take these laws that are often thought of as very conservative and use them to protect abortion rights,’ Platt said. ‘But the idea of reproductive rights as a religious liberty issue is absolutely not something that came from lawyers. It’s how faith communities themselves have been talking about their approach to reproductive rights for literally decades.’”
There is something to be said about this, so let us begin. The article claims that the traditions of the Jews (which, incidentally, were condemned by Christ as contradicting Scripture) are a part of Scripture. The contradiction here is quite apparent. It is then claimed that a vote also qualifies as Scripture, because it happened “literally decades” ago. If this is the greatest argumentation of these wise sages, then there is yet hope (though it be little) that at least some courts will deny their opportunistic power grabs. God grant it.
Altlutheraner 