The Constitution Separates Church And State,except For Healthcare

[4588686]

A

Our Founding Fathers separated church from state, but they did not separate God from state; they acknowledged God as the source of our rights, and, in fact, they were careful to place Biblical morality directly into our founding documents and laws, and into our values and culture precisely to help prevent a future of totalitarian or tyrannical rule in America. 

 

Right.  A slave owning collection of oligarchs wanted to ensure that the common people were never subjected to tyranny.  Unless that person was black.  Because then, you know, the slavery.  

[add]

Sadly, no.

I find that hard to believe

[Papist]

Separation of Church and State exists to protect the Church and the State from each other.  Sure, there are plenty of cases of Christians being persecuted by the State, but there's plenty instances of the Church using the State to persecute as well.   Keep 'em separate, and everybody's happy.  Unless your SSPX, or some nutjob branch of Christianity.

 

As for birth control...I dunno.  I know several women who were denied birth control after having babies in Catholic hospitals.  This isn't just about abortion, there are serious health concerns as to why a women might need BCP...cases when the Catholic Church fully supports their usage, and yet they can be such a pain to get at Catholic hospitals, why?

 

Can you provide an example of when the state needed protection from the Church?

[Papist]

I agree with you, but you mean "the premise," not the pretense. 

 

That too.

[StMichael]

No where in the Constitution does it cite that the Church and Sate are separate.

 

What it says is that the government (congress) cannot stop you from worshipping  (prohibiting the free exercise thereof) and it cannot tell you who to worship (shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion).

 

This statement of separation is used to subvert the Constitution.

 

If you own a business are you suddenly not Catholic?

If you work for the Federal Government are you suddenly not Catholic?

 

What is accepted does not mean it is acceptable.

 

Obamacare is another story altogether, and is completely UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

 

 

 

The Obama administration on Friday, settled the dispute

 

The myth of  a Compromise On Birth Control Health Coverage in this “compromise” lie(s) n the phrase “with insurers picking up the tab”.

Is there anyone on the planet who actually believes that private insurance companies will bear the cost of this coverage increment?

It will almost certainly be borne indirectly either by the employer or by the U.S. taxpayer.

 

[Fidei Defensor]

No where in the Constitution does it cite that the Church and Sate are separate.

 

What it says is that the government (congress) cannot stop you from worshipping  (prohibiting the free exercise thereof) and it cannot tell you who to worship (shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion).

 

This statement of separation is used to subvert the Constitution.

 

If you own a business are you suddenly not Catholic?

If you work for the Federal Government are you suddenly not Catholic?

 

What is accepted does not mean it is acceptable.

 

Obamacare is another story altogether, and is completely UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

 

If you're going to interpret strictly based on the actual words, you have no choice but to accept that it refers to freedom of worship — it doesn't refer to belief, to action, to conscience. The word used it worship.

[Groo the Wanderer]

as opposed to interpreting it based on words that are not there?  thats what activist judges do

[Fidei Defensor]

as opposed to interpreting it based on words that are not there?  thats what activist judges do

 

No, but there is more than one interpretation beyond the strictest definition of the words.  That's sort of the job of the third branch of government, the judiciary. Its all presented in the constitution...

[Groo the Wanderer]

No, but there is more than one interpretation beyond the strictest definition of the words.  That's sort of the job of the third branch of government, the judiciary. Its all presented in the constitution...

 

 

nope.  wrong again.  thanks for playing.

[Luigi]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

 

Read the words and understand what they say in plain English.

 

"An establishment of religion" would be a church, a religious congregation, a school/hospital/orphanage run by a church or religious congregation, etc.

 

It is NOT the same thing as "Establishment of (or establishing) a state religion." That concept makes no sense in the context of the phrase that follows, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." If the first clause refers to 'establishing a state church,' then 'prohibiting the free exercise of the state-established church' would be out of the question - if the state cannot establish a church in the first place, why would they even think about prohibiting the free exercise of a non-existent church? 

 

Jefferson was an intelligent, well-educated, articulate person. He knew how to express his thoughts in his native language. If he had wanted to express the concept of 'separation of church and state,' he could have done so, and I (personal opinion here) have no doubt that he would have. When people read (most) other parts of the Constitution, they read the words and understand what they say in plain English. It's mostly on THIS topic (and the second amendment) that people argue their butts off, mostly because they don't like to know what it means. 

[Fidei Defensor]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."[/size]
 
Read the words and understand what they say in plain English.
 
"An establishment of religion" would be a church, a religious congregation, a school/hospital/orphanage run by a church or religious congregation, etc.
 
It is NOT the same thing as "Establishment of (or establishing) a state religion." That concept makes no sense in the context of the phrase that follows, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." If the first clause refers to 'establishing a state church,' then 'prohibiting the free exercise of the state-established church' would be out of the question - if the state cannot establish a church in the first place, why would they even think about prohibiting the free exercise of a non-existent church? 
 
Jefferson was an intelligent, well-educated, articulate person. He knew how to express his thoughts in his native language. If he had wanted to express the concept of 'separation of church and state,' he could have done so, and I (personal opinion here) have no doubt that he would have. When people read (most) other parts of the Constitution, they read the words and understand what they say in plain English. It's mostly on THIS topic (and the second amendment) that people argue their butts off, mostly because they don't like to know what it means.

 
Funny you mention Jefferson — 
 
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

(http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html)

[Luigi]

 
Funny you mention Jefferson — 
 
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

(http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html)

 

Right. Meaning that the government needs to keep its mitts off churches. 

[Fidei Defensor]

Right. Meaning that the government needs to keep its mitts off churches. 

 

Agreed. But the wall blocks both sides and the churches shouldn't try to use the government to enforce their moral views.  The better way is to help people properly form their conscience, not to legislate morality.

[Luigi]

The law should express the will of the people. If the people are moral, their laws will express/enforce morality. 

[Groo the Wanderer]

Agreed. But the wall blocks both sides and the churches shouldn't try to use the government to enforce their moral views.  The better way is to help people properly form their conscience, not to legislate morality.

 

 

doesn't say that.  you are reading your own agenda into what it actually says.   try again.  thanks for playing