The Satanic Temple Doesn't Understand Religious Liberty

 

If you made it past the headline, then you're already invested in the abortion argument.

One of the overarching themes of the Supreme Court’s recent term was that it was surprisingly liberal on several major issues: upholding gay rights, striking down an abortion restriction, and rejecting the President’s request to be immune from having to turn over his financial records. All of this is true, but that doesn’t make this Court liberal. Rather, despite these rulings, this is still a very conservative court. And one area this has been evident is religious freedom.

Don't you see??? Upholding gay rights, striking down an abortion restriction, and rejecting the President's request to avoid turning over financial records means nothing for the Court's ideological makeup since a few religious liberty cases were decided in favor of Christians! Nevermind that all three of those "liberal" decisions were decided on very tenuous grounds that ignore common law and common sense.

Enter The Satanic Temple. The Satanic Temple is a religion that believes in benevolence and empathy among all people, rejects tyrannical authority, and advocates for common sense and justice. For years now, The Satanic Temple has fought to expand religious liberty notions that the conservative Supreme Court has applied to Christians to apply to its members as well.

Fair enough. Though I think this is little more than a parody religion akin to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I take no issue with "expanding religious liberty" beyond the narrow scope in SCOTUS decisions.

Particularly, The Satanic Temple has fought this battle over abortion. The third tenet of the religion is “One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.” Thus, The Satanic Temple claims that the obstacle course of abortion restrictions that states impose on the procedure should not apply to its members because doing so violates their sincerely-held religious beliefs. As the church’s reproductive rights spokeswoman puts it, “No Christian would tolerate a law that insists state counseling is necessary before someone can be baptized. Our members are justly entitled to religious liberty in order to practice our rituals as well.” (emphasis added)

And here we have the flaw in the underlying premise. Abortion advocates deny the will of the child to live, as does The Satanic Temple. "One's body is inviolable, subject to one's own will alone, except when that one is an unborn child, in which case its will is superseded by the mother's will." With such a convoluted interpretation that deviates from the plain meaning of the critical text, maybe The Satanic Temple really is a religion.

The Satanic Temple is trying to use these laws and this movement to exempt its members from abortion laws. The argument is the same as Hobby Lobby’s, though it’s about state abortion laws rather than federal insurance laws. (emphasis added)

The exact same! One party wants to kill unborn children and the other wants to avoid funding the killing of unborn children. Totes samesies!

In other words, The Satanic Temple is taking the Christian right’s crusade for religious liberty seriously and saying that if it’s good for Christianity, it has to be good for everyone. It’s only a matter of time before the Supreme Court answers the question whether they actually believe in religious liberty for all.

Again, this is where there is a massive disconnect. Employment Division v. Smith was wrongly decided because despite what the SCOTUS declared, an anti-peyote smoking law seems to pretty clearly target the Native American tribes that were smoking peyote as part of religious ceremonies. Who the hell else was really smoking peyote? But peyote smoking does not harm other individuals, so the practice of this activity should not have been restricted. Abortion very clearly harms another party, and it is only through mendacity that someone can argue that is not the case. Should a Molech-worshiping religion be allowed to sacrifice children because of their religious liberty? Should a religion devoted to the Third Reich be allowed to kill Jews because of their religious liberty? It's an asinine argument to say that this is "just like the Christian cases for religious liberty" when a central premise of your argument ignores the infringement of another being's rights.

Many abortion advocates, and likely The Satanic Temple, like to argue that a human fetus is "just a clump of cells" or even a parasite on the mother. Scientific studies show that the relationship between mother and child is actually more symbiotic: when one feels pain, the other does as well, evidenced by a spike in heart rate. A tumor or other cancerous growth may be made of human DNA, but a human fetus is made up of two unique DNA: the mother's and the father's. A human fetus can only grow into a human; it can't become an elephant, or a nematode, or a mushroom. Could a fetus survive outside of the mother prior to the typical 21-week mark of viability? Probably not, but neither could any child younger than 2, an invalid, a severely disabled person, or any number of other human beings of whom we have no issue protecting their life.

The issue of abortion has always been one that is wrapped up in multiple layers, and the legal one is often the least important. When does life begin? At what point do rights attach to a human being? What characteristics does a human being possess that distinguish it from all other life? These ethical and moral questions are ignored by abortion advocates who focus only agency before shifting to the legality of abortion. And until they are willing to confront these hard questions, they stand on very weak and shallow ground when it comes to religious liberty.

Christianity in the Marketplace: How to think about abortion in America

This post will kick off a potential new series of posts in which I explore the juxtaposition of Christianity and responsible citizenship in the United States of America. Many of the posts will likely be pared down versions of discussions I have had on Facebook or other online fora, edited here for readability and flow.

As Christians, we should strive to live our lives according to God's written, spoken, and revealed (through his son, Jesus) word. I believe that if American citizens, as a whole, lived out the scriptures, much of the so-called problems we face would fall by the wayside. The church as a nation would stand like a city on a hillside, which is what many of the original settlers from Europe hoped for when they moved here for religious freedom.

The founding fathers believed that for the freedom they were establishing to be protected, America needed to be a virtuous nation, and they also largely believed that religious practice inculcated virtue. That being said, America is by no means a Christian nation.  America was not founded as a strictly Christian nation, and I certainly do not believe it resembles anything close to that now. Our country is much too materialistic and focused on the things of this world to be considered Christian (contra Col. 3:2).

Because Jesus came and fulfilled God's promises in the covenantal law, we are not bound to the sin and death that the law reveals. Further, the only command God has ever given to a nation to act a certain way or in accordance with his will was that given to Israel. Jesus's arrival and perfect life on earth, death on the cross, burial, and resurrection not only eliminated all of the ceremonial barriers between God and his people, but also made it possible for us Gentiles to be reconciled to God. Jesus is the great high priest (Heb. 4:14-16), and he enables us to have a personal relationship with our father in heaven. All of that is to say, the Bible first reveals who God is, and then reveals who we are, and finally reveals who we can be if we have faith in Christ our redeemer.

As individual Christians, we are tasked with living out Jesus's two greatest commandments, as instructed in Mark 12:28-34 (see also Mt. 22:34-40 and Lk. 10:25-37). The first (and often overlooked) commandment requires us to love—meaning sacrificially serve—God with all of our heart, mind, soul, and strength. Second, we are to love--sacrificially serve, but can also be read to mean "give the benefit of the doubt" or be charitable--our neighbor as ourselves. When a man in the Gospel of Luke asked Jesus who was his neighbor, Jesus responded with the parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk. 10:25-37), meaning it is not only those with whom we are friendly but also those with whom we would otherwise consider enemies, like the Judahites and Samaritans at the time.

My views on economic or public policy are grounded first in the belief that God is sovereign over all things and that he has placed certain people in positions of authority over the rest of us. That is a difficult reality for me to accept a lot of times, especially when those in power so often act unjustly. But I may advocate for social or governmental change without resisting or defying the authority God has ordained, and so I pay taxes and obey the law to the extent that it does not cause me to violate my conscience. When I deviate from the preferred policy choices of many it is because I do not see how that which is proposed will bring about the desired results. Abortion takes a short view on the sanctity of life that God has created and also denies that he has the power to provide for a woman (or young family) who feels incapable of caring for that child. "Medicare for All" will not lower costs or improve outcomes for the vast majority of people. Gun control does not lower incidents of gun violence and instead infringes on individuals' right to self defense, as well as punish people who have not broken the law. This article will expand specifically on the topic of abortion.

A human baby at 20 weeks, just before the 21-week cutoff for "viability"

The Dehumanizing Effect of Abortion

For starters, I believe that humans—image bearers of God—have an inalienable right to life. Our Creator endows us with this right (among others) because we reflect His image (Gen. 1:27; 1Co. 15:48-49). And because all humans bear the image of God, we do not have the right to unjustly kill another human being (Gen. 9:6 states, "Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind"). The Bible calls such unjust killings—those committed with premeditation, criminal intent, or malice—murder, and it thoroughly condemns it (Ex. 20:13; Mt. 15:19; 1Jo 3:12).  Further, the Mosaic Law prescribes a judgment of death for the taking of another human life (Lev. 24:17). 

However, not everyone throughout church history has taken the position that abortion is murder.  There's evidence that the early church through St. Augustine believed in delayed ensoulment, in which the soul does not attach to the developing child until a certain point after conception. Thomas Aquinas and others also believed that life did not begin until "quickening", or the time a baby's movements in the womb are felt by the mother. Thus, they did not see abortion prior to quickening as murder (though Aquinas still believed it was a violation of natural law). 

Though I unequivocally believe that abortion is the intentional taking of an innocent human life, and therefore a sin, Jesus’s death on the cross provides grace to cover the sin of any woman (or family) that would sacrifice the life of a child for personal or health reasons. Because grace covers the individual sin, however, does not mean that as a society we should advocate for the wholesale murder of human life. Sadly, that is a stance that we see all too often in our increasingly postmodern, post-Christian culture. Teen Vogue, a fashion magazine that targets teenage girls markets itself as the "young person's guide to saving the world," presumably while selling ad space for $3,000 outfits and handbags. But because of their far-reaching influence and social credit, they can push the Overton Window on abortion by publishing straw-man articles like "5 Abortion Myths and the Truth About Them". Noticeably absent from the list is any attempt to mythicize the accusation that abortion is murder. Instead, to downplay the loss of life and reframe the issue, we see the abortion advocates claim that abortion is "reproductive justice" (ironically, as it involves the termination of reproduction); a human baby is "a fetus"; and an embryo that contains human DNA and can only develop into a human being is "a parasite". The United States Senate couldn't even get half a dozen Democrats to vote to protect the babies that are born alive despite a failed abortion!

"Fetus" literally means "unborn offspring", yet the pro-abortion side uses the term to sound more medical or scientific than "unborn child".

A Los Angeles Times article from almost 30 years ago details a study of "mainstream media" and its reporting on the abortion debate. Even back then, the media landscape skewed heavily in favor of pro-abortion over pro-life positions, even when it came to labeling the two sides. And by controlling the language used in the debate, or rather, allowing the pro-abortion side's preferred language to prevail, the cemented the shift toward a larger support for abortion rather than against it:

Because the media have generally, if implicitly, accepted the abortion-rights view that there is no human life to be "helped" before birth. That's why the media use the term "fetus" (the preferred term of abortion-rights advocates), rather than "baby" or "unborn child" or "pre-born child" (as abortion opponents prefer). Editors say "fetus" is medically correct, value-free and non-emotional. A "fetus" does not become a "baby" until it's born.

By dehumanizing the living being growing and developing inside the mother's womb, the pro-abortion side has taken a great leap toward normalizing its preferred method of taking life. It further reframed the immorality of abortion when it stopped talking about whose rights were at stake (mother vs. child) and started a conversation about whose choice it should be (woman vs. government). By changing the language, they have changed society's entire moral value system. According to abortion advocates, this is not a question about life, but a question of privacy.

The Legal Thin Ice that Abortion Rests On

What is ironic about American support for abortion is that even its constitutional basis is suspect. When the pro-life side argues that a human child in utero deserves the same right to life as any other human being, the argument is grounded in the fundamental right to life. This right is embodied in the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta, and the Mosaic Law, just to name a few historic sources. The right to life is fundamental because without it, no other rights could spring forth. If we do not protect the sanctity of life, then how can we protect anything else?

The "right" to an abortion, on the other hand, is grounded in a legal quagmire based on a fictional Constitutional provision. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court created a "right" to abortion out of a "right to privacy" that is not based in any Constitutional provision. Of course, the rights held by the people extend beyond those enumerated in the Constitution, but if that were truly the case for abortion than it should have been grounded in the Ninth Amendment and not fabricated through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process clause. The Due Process clause requires states to apply "due process" of the law before they may deprive an individual of life, liberty, or property. This requirement does not mean rights cannot be infringed; it simply means that the State must provide a fair process for implementing the infringement. However, abortion advocates insist that any infringement on having an abortion is too much (see discussion on Planned Parenthood v. Casey below).

The reason that the Court in Roe had to conjure the "right" to an abortion seemingly out of thin air is because it is not a natural right. By its very nature, a natural (or negative) right, such as the right to life or the right to liberty, cannot infringe on another natural right. In declaring a "right" to an abortion, the Supreme Court pits the fundamental right to life against this arbitrarily created right. It gives a person the legal authority to terminate another life, something that has never been recognized in any other natural right. The fact that it has been declared constitutional has nothing to do with its morality, as I have repeatedly stated.

Further decisions by the Supreme Court just added to the confusion. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court took for granted the Roe's conclusion that the "right" to an abortion was found in the due process clause, relying on the judicial principle of stare decisis (to stand by things decided) to leave the decision relatively untouched. Stare decisis, a rule that protects judicial precedent, is not in and of itself a legal argument or justification. It is simply a principle that governs the application of the common law system that our American courts operate under. This principle is the reason that Plessy v. Ferguson remained on the books for 60+ years, and why unjust rulings will not be re-examined. That pro-abortion advocates hinge their entire legal argument on such an untenable position is remarkably telling.

Casey was a Pyrrhic victory for both sides: the pro-abortion side got a "win" but it came with restrictions on abortion under a new framework the Court imposed in the form of its "undue burden" test. The pro-life side lost the case since Roe was not overturned, but the Court largely limited 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions under a "viability" theory--the idea that a baby can live outside a mother's womb after a certain point. Once again, the Court inserted itself into a philosophical or moral argument, designating the point at which personhood (and thus the right to life) begins. (It should also be noted that the trimester framework that any pregnant family is aware of and tends to operate under is the result of the Court's decision.) When the Court divided a pregnancy into three trimester in Roe, it said that the a woman could terminate the pregnancy for essentially any reason up to the start of the second trimester. The third trimester has generally been off limits except to save the life of the mother.

Additional cases since the Casey decision in 1992 have typically expanded on the undue burden test, noting this or that restriction on abortion as too burdensome on a woman's attempt to obtain an abortion. Obtaining parental consent for a minor's abortion was not considered an undue burden in Casey (affirmed in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, although that wasn't the main issue), but spousal or partner consent was found to be an undue burden. Most recently, a Texas law that required abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital was declared an undue burden in  Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016). The underlying implication of the Supreme Court's undue burden test for abortion cases is that the child itself is a burden!

How Should Christians Think About Abortion?

A grown adult should have the authority to make personal choices about his or her life, but we shouldn't act as if that precludes consequences. Abortion advocates say that the government has no business in an individual’s sex life. I agree wholeheartedly! But when the natural consequence of unprotected sex results in human life, it should be the government’s role and responsibility to protect that life.

God gave the Mosaic Law to the Israelites to protect them. Although the Law looks outdated by many of our modern standards, the restrictions on sexual immorality, against certain foods, and for the preservation of life served to enable the Israelites to prosper, were they actually to honor the Lord and live by his commands. Of course, Jesus Christ's death on the cross brought forth a new covenant (Lk. 22:20), and we are no longer bound by the Law. We live by faith that Christ's death reconciles us to God, and we walk by the fruit of the Spirit and not the desires of the flesh (Gal. 5:22-25). A person who walks by faith and in the Spirit "rejoice[s] in the Lord and delight[s] in his salvation" (Ps. 35:9). Because we are saved, obedience to the Lord's will should be our greatest desire. As David wrote in Psalm 19:7-9:

The law of the Lord is perfect,
     refreshing the soul.
The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy,
     making wise the simple.
The precepts of the Lord are right,
     giving joy to the heart.
The commands of the Lord are radiant,
     giving light to the eyes.
The fear of the Lord is pure,
     enduring forever.
The decrees of the Lord are firm,
     and all of them are righteous.

God's laws are perfect, trustworthy, right, radiant, pure, and firm. Jesus is righteousness personified! How could we ever assume that our ways are better than his?! And yet, when it comes to abortion we assume that we know more than God because science has advanced to such a stage that we can see the inner workings of a human embryo and know "that medical evidence tells us fetuses cannot live unsupported, even with a respirator before 21 weeks." Never mind that a human embryo has the DNA of a human; it can only be a human and nothing else. Psalm 139:13 and 16 say, "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. . . . Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be." God revealed the concepts of DNA and human development over three millennia before scientists would even begin to think about them! 

We cite scientific propositions as if they "perfect... trustworthy... right." Did you know that "fetuses under 24 weeks must be pain-free, because at that age the wiring doesn’t exist to send pain signals from nerves around the body to the cortex, the area of the brain where pain is experienced"? Apparently the ability to feel pain is the only thing that makes us human! But scientific discoveries have also revealed that human babies develop a heartbeat by day 23, and a number of scientists and medical professionals agree that human life begins with a single cell: the fertilized egg. The throwaway line about inability to feel pain is irrelevant because no one is arguing that life begins when we feel pain.

The difficulty with making abortion illegal is that it will almost undoubtedly result in criminal punishment for those who obtain or provide an abortion. The last thing a woman who is considering an abortion needs is the threat of prison or the death penalty looming over her. Such women (and their partners or families) need compassion and counsel when considering such drastic measures. The pro-abortion side argues that we overstate the seriousness of abortion, that it's actually safer than giving birth. But notice the subtle shifting of the goalposts in their point: safer for whom?

Even if the physical danger to women who have an abortion is minimal, the psychological and spiritual damage can be devastating. The way we think about life itself is changing, as the abortion industry "introduced a perverse cost-benefit analysis into our collective psyche—which seems to be leaking into other realms as well. The idea that each and every human being has intrinsic value is steadily being replaced by the notion that our human value is mainly utilitarian." How much longer until people in a coma are unpersoned because they can't feel pain? What about those who have severe mental or physical handicaps? As the modern eugenics movement ramps up, will those with certain genetic characteristics (gay? brown-eyed? red-haired?) be cast aside as undesirable? A resounding no, I say! "Children are a heritage from the Lord, offspring a reward from him." (Ps. 127:3)

Spiritually, we are elevating the idol of choice above the will of God. Who are we, the creation, to tell the Creator of all things that something is "unplanned" or unwanted? Rather than trust that God will use this pregnancy to grow us and draw us closer to him, we run from the consequences of our actions like Adam and Eve in the garden (Gen. 3:7-8). If we require strength to make it through nine months of pregnancy, God will grant us strength (Is. 40:29). If we need courage, he will encourage us (Dt. 31:6). Whatever we need, if we remain in him we need only ask and we shall receive (Jn. 15:7).

As Christians, we have a choice to make. We can either stand for the sanctity of human life, walking beside those in pain and helping them realize God's plan for them; or we can follow the ways of the world, asserting that we know what's best and denying the Lord's power to transform our lives.

But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord. (Jos. 24:15)

Debate Comes in Threes: A Primer on Abortion, Climate Change, and Incitement

In the news this week arose three topics in particular that both sides speak about as if there only is one side to the argument. My goal is to address each as succinctly as possible and hopefully show why each topic is not as cut-and-dry as many assume. I admit that I am not immune from speaking in absolutes about these topics, but if we acknowledge the nuances that define the arguments, we can work towards greater liberty for all.

Some people may argue that I have simplified these topics too much. But if an argument cannot be boiled down to a core axiom, then the entire argument falls apart by relying on a faulty premise. If I have misstated the central tenet of any argument, however, please feel free to correct me so that the discussion can be advanced.

FIRST: Abortion

This topic is one ripe for ideological differences, and it all comes down to a philosophical question: when does life begin, or better yet, when is a person a person?

The "pro-life" side provides a spectrum for when life begins, but it's all centered around protection of the unborn fetus. Whether "life begins at conception," life begins when there's a beating heart and other recognizable organs, or using some measure of viability--that is, the point at which a fetus could survive outside the mother--the pro-life side defends the right to life of this thing that cannot speak for itself.

The "pro-choice" side argues on behalf of the woman carrying this fetus to term. They, too, can fall along a spectrum--anywhere from saying the fetus is a part of the woman until birth, to the more extreme view that a fetus is a parasite living off the woman for nine months--but they come together to defend a woman's right to choose what she can do with her own body.

Because there is no empirical way to determine when a human being, fetus or no, obtains personhood--and thus, the rights to life and liberty that come with it--the debate often ends in a stalemate. Neither side is necessarily wrong; it just seems that they are talking past each other.

SECOND: Climate Change

The debate on climate change is a bit more difficult to nail down, mostly because it seems the boundaries of the debate continue to shift. The two sides to this, as I see them, are those who believe that humans have a direct effect on the earth's climate and action must be taken to reduce that effect, and those who think action is unnecessary. The latter includes people who outright deny the existence of humanity's effect on the environment.

But make no mistake: this is a debate about action, and typically, government action. Excluding for the purposes of this discussion those who outright deny climate change--because I'd rather not get into Newton's Third Law--the debate appears to center around a question of degree. (No pun intended!) The earth's climate is changing, but is it changing at a rate or pace that requires drastic action?

The proponents of government intervention argue that it is, and if we want to preserve this earth for future generations we must take steps beyond simple precautions now. They point to changes in temperature, global weather phenomena, increased wildfires and flooding, among other measurable data points as evidence that the situation is getting worse.

Opponents argue that the temperature fluctuations and other phenomena are natural and outside the statistical margin of error, or observational error. In other words, if the earth has been around for millions or billions of years but we've only been taking accurate temperature readings for the last two hundred or so, the sample size is very small and the margin of error is higher.

Complicating this debate is an insistence by proponents that "the science is settled," an interesting way of concluding an argument when science is supposed to be a never-ending search for answers. Because a vast majority of climate scientists (somewhere around 97%) fall on the side of calling for immediate action, many believe the debate should be over. But the debate roars on in other forums--along with the remaining ~3% of scientists--over precisely how much action is needed and how to implement such actions.

THIRD: Incitement

This is by far the area that interests me the most, so I will try my best to remain neutral in describing this debate. Two separate instances this week of a white nationalist, Richard Spencer, being punched by someone because of the message he promotes catapulted this topic into the news.

Free speech proponents argue that no matter Spencer's rhetoric, he should not be subjected to violent reactions. They take to heart Voltaire's directive: "I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it." The principles of free speech embodied in the First Amendment apply to popular and unpopular speech alike.

In contrast, Spencer's opponents say that his ideas are violent and he is the initial aggressor because of his views on white supremacy and nationalism. Because Spencer advocates for the elimination of certain people from American society, he is inciting violence and poses a direct threat to people who belong to those threatened groups. Many point to the rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party in Germany to justify the preemptive strike: if people fought back against Hitler's rhetoric sooner things might not have gone as far as they did.

This debate about incitement--and it's not just the one surrounding Spencer--is particularly interesting because the proponents and opponents can often switch sides depending on the identity of the speaker and his or her message. In 2015 and 2016, the Black Lives Matter movement marched and protested throughout the country. While most of the demonstrations were peaceful, a few erupted into riots. BLM opponents blamed the movement's rhetoric and anti-police sentiments for inciting violence.

CONCLUSION

As a society we face many issues that will divide us morally, ideologically, and politically. When we are absolutely certain there is only one answer to our problems, we must be able to remove the blinders we put on and see things from the other side's perspective. Only after we explore the premises of both our own arguments and our opponents' can we understand how deep the problem runs. At that point, we can work towards a solution that expands everyone's liberty.