Night Strike wrote:Well said bedub. Same goes for atheism and secularism. So the state IS endorsing a religion when people force the government to be secular.
greek, Roe v Wade is NOT law, it's interpretation. There are no laws drafted by the legislature and signed by the president on the books granting abortions.
Wow... so many errors in such a short post.
1. Secularism is not a political model which advocates atheism (or any other view on religion), it's a political model in which the state is neutral on religious issues and in which religious concerns do not feature in governance (seriously, go look this up, it's a serious gap in your knowledge). As such, secular government does not endorse religion (or anything else of a similar nature) by advancing a secular agenda.
Any argument to the contrary would have to be using a completely novel definition of 'secular' that would bear little/no resemblance to the true meaning of the word.
In essence; you're just plain wrong with your first assertion. Literally, completely wrong. To anybody who knows even the first thing about political ideologies your proposition is as ludicrous as trying to say that 2+2=987675875979. Really, it's really that wrong.
2. Roe v Wade is law. Indubitably and indisputably law.
What you're trying to say (and again, your poor knowledge of terminology has hamstrung you) is that RoeVwade is not legislation.
However, unfortunately for your proposition, you live in a common law jurisdiction; in which judicial precedent easily becomes law. It doesn't become statutory law, but it does become a binding source of legal norms (defined by every law professor that you will ever meet, as law).
In other words, you live in a country with multiple sources of law (soft-positivists rejoice!). Just because you like one source more than the other doesn't rob the later of its legitimacy, nor of its status as bona fide law. I mean, you're free to wheedle that RoeVwade isn't legislation all you like, but that doesn't in any way undermine its legitimacy or binding nature.
Once again Nighty, unless we rip up all of our dictionaries and re-write them using only your personal and extremely novel definitions of commonly understood words, your proposition is just plain old wrong. Not just a little bit wrong, but completely and utterly and embarrassingly wrong. Roe V Wade = bona fide Law in every single sense of the word (as understood by the vast majority of lawyers and legal academics in your home jurisdicion). Your statement to the contrary is once again, completely off-base and erroneous in every single conceivable way.
So, to recap, you've been tragically and demonstrably in error on two separate points in a single post... what can you take from this? Personally, I'd recommend that you take a week to read a reputable dictionary; then get some post-it notes, write "I will not cravenly try to contort and re-define language in order to support my own personal political agenda" on them, and stick them all around your monitor so that you'll be spared from making such egregious errors in the future.
Ta-ta, old chap. Have a nice day.
