For some definitions of “Jew”.
What definition yields fewer in the US.
But the original question was what Jewish law says. SCOTUS doesn’t interpret Jewish law. Jman is correct that there is no single authority on interpreting Jewish law, but if there was a non-secular Jewish state run in accordance with some interpretation of Jewish law, my guess is that abortion would be mostly illegal there except when the mother’s health is seriously at risk.
1 Like
Also way more Jews are not orthodox than jews who are Orthodox.
Everyone needs freedom from religion unless and until the game is rigged in your sects favor, then you just need to be in charge.
It’s all bullshit.
2 Likes
1 Like
Deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and traditions!
1 Like
If we’re talking about religious Jews–as in Jews who identify as having Jewish religious beliefs and not being atheist/agnostic/secular/humanist or some other identity that we presume doesn’t care about Jewish religious law–i think about half of them are identified as Orthodox, although it seems like that label doesn’t have as much meaning outside the US. (But ultra-Orthodox are a minority.). Orthodox Jews would be a clear minority when talking about Jews as an ethnicity.
Freedom of religion means freedom from religion about as much as racial freedom means freedom from black people.
I think there are both women and non hetero corollaries also. Excellent point.
Freedom of religion entails freedom from religious belief or compulsion. I’m not sure what you’re claiming. I assume it cannot be that freedom of religion is consistent with everyone being required to have (at least one) religion.
Freedom of religion should mean that people should have the right to be religious in an openly and public manner (within limits). Freedom of religion does not mean creating a safe space where you can avoid interacting with people who are being religious in an openly and public manner.
To my understanding, freedom from religion has always been understood as freedom from compulsion or state sponsorship, not the creation of safe spaces. However, it gets more complicated when some people demand accommodation (perhaps reasonably), as with the right of Muslims to pray or Jews not to be fed nonkosher or prohibited food (eg, mandatory pork lunches in prison or school), and it starts to get more complex when such accommodations start to offend more general sensibilities, as with polygamy or refusal of medical intervention for minors. Also, does the notion that oaths do not need to be sworn to god involve a “safe space”?
Basically, I’m not really sure what you’re saying, but this is a very well trodden path. The Supreme Court had a lot of thoughtful things to say about freedom of religion back when it was a serious institution.
I think the Jeffersonian metaphor is an excessive version of the concept of separation of church and state. I’m an accomodationist rather than a strict separatist on freedom of religion.
“Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” has been the norm in New York for years now. Is California still doing the “so help you god” bullshit?
I think it’s up to the individual. Both versions are certainly permitted.
I guess I’d have to know the implications with regard to specific acts. I like the idea of prohibition of burkas or even hijabs and sikh knives in schools but would be fine with accommodation absent a compelling state interest. Allowing public funds for religious schools is too much accommodation imo.
As an atheist I prefer the French/Jeffersonian approach but am ok if the state bends to some extent to accommodate, but not to the extent where religious ideas are permitted to justify legal decisions, as with Dobbs or prohibiting euthanasia or enen tolerating In God We Trust on money or in the pledge of allegiance (both innovations from the 1950s).
Well there are some people involved with this that deserve the gallows.
what is the argument against hijabs in schools?