Fidei Defensor Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Before you quote John Adams to try to prove that consideration of "religious" morality has no place in American law, you might consider these words of his: ". . .we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." ~ John Adams, 1798 (Read the full letter here.) The question is, then, how we reconcile these apparently contradicting statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted February 5, 2013 Author Share Posted February 5, 2013 .Like anything tax money supports that you disagree with or oppose. I'm sure you could make your own list. I pay taxes and believe what a man once said about it: “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, but give to God what is God’s.†any questions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 I pay taxes and believe what a man once said about it: “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, but give to God what is God’s.†any questions? Really? Even if it supports grave evil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StMichael Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 The only problem here is that Caesar is asking for God's portion. I pay taxes and believe what a man once said about it: “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, but give to God what is God’s.†any questions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 The question is, then, how we reconcile these apparently contradicting statements. They're really not contradictory at all when put in their historical context. The letter you cite was written to the Muslim government of Tripoli to assure them that the U.S. was not engaged in a religious crusade against the Muslims. An "Establishment of Religion" meant specifically an official national church supported by tax money (as the Church of England overseas). America has no official tax-supported religion, yet this does not mean morality (belief regarding right and wrong) has no place in its governance. Most of the founding fathers made statements praising the importance of religion and morality to a free republic. All religion "legislates morality" to some extent. Most of the states had laws regarding things you would regard as "religious morality" (such as contraceptives), but nobody considered such laws "unconstitutional" until late in the 20th century. There is certainly nothing in the Constitution to justify mandates forcing private parties to pay for things which violate their religious conscience. Really? Even if it supports grave evil? This may shock you, but I'm against citizens being forced to pay taxes towards things that are grave evils (such as abortion). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted February 5, 2013 Author Share Posted February 5, 2013 Really? Even if it supports grave evil? the statement translates to : obey the state in earthly matters, obey God in religion, morals, i think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 They're really not contradictory at all when put in their historical context. The letter you cite was written to the Muslim government of Tripoli to assure them that the U.S. was not engaged in a religious crusade against the Muslims. An "Establishment of Religion" meant specifically an official national church supported by tax money (as the Church of England overseas). America has no official tax-supported religion, yet this does not mean morality (belief regarding right and wrong) has no place in its governance. Most of the founding fathers made statements praising the importance of religion and morality to a free republic. All religion "legislates morality" to some extent. Most of the states had laws regarding things you would regard as "religious morality" (such as contraceptives), but nobody considered such laws "unconstitutional" until late in the 20th century. There is certainly nothing in the Constitution to justify mandates forcing private parties to pay for things which violate their religious conscience. This may shock you, but I'm against citizens being forced to pay taxes towards things that are grave evils (such as abortion). Sounds reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted February 5, 2013 Author Share Posted February 5, 2013 Religious and moral freedom is not up for negotiation, “There must be no religious ‘test’ by the government as to whom, and what type of entities, are entitled to a conscience. Government policy under our constitution, history and statutory law has recognized the right of citizens to be free from government compulsion of conscience on such fundamental matters. ~ Marjorie Dannenfelser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 All religion "legislates morality" to some extent. Just a correction for clarification's sake: this sentence was supposed to read: "All law 'legislates morality' to some extent." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted February 7, 2013 Author Share Posted February 7, 2013 Whether or not a couple wants a child is their choice, not ours. Free will is the darndest thing. Birth control isn't medically needed. It is optional based on a life style choice. When it is medically needed due to other factors (such as hormone issues) religious employers provide it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted February 7, 2013 Author Share Posted February 7, 2013 the White House insisted on picking a fight over religious liberty with the introduction of its the Department of Health and Human Services abortion-drug, contraception, sterilization mandate, narrowing religious liberty in America by bureaucratic regulation: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/340112/catholic-bishops-latest-hhs-abortion-drugcontraceptionsterilization-mandate-reg-propos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted February 8, 2013 Author Share Posted February 8, 2013 Using the governments interpretation providing contraceptive's under the guise of medically needed health care, how long will it be before Viagra is added to the list. Viagra, like contraceptive are not medically needed. If one is unethical then they both are. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Using the governments interpretation providing contraceptive's under the guise of medically needed health care, how long will it be before Viagra is added to the list. Viagra, like contraceptive are not medically needed. If one is unethical then they both are. Right? Thanks for your medical opinion, Doctor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted February 8, 2013 Author Share Posted February 8, 2013 (edited) Thanks for your medical opinion, Doctor. :heart: U 2 Edited February 8, 2013 by add Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StMichael Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 The whole point is not to argue over this, but the bigger picture. The Federal government has no authority to manage healthcare of any sort, period. No powers were granted to them by the States or the republic to seize control over any industry, including setting wages. So whether it is the morning after pill or even legislating abstinence, they have no power to do so, as set forth by the Constitution. Using the governments interpretation providing contraceptive's under the guise of medically needed health care, how long will it be before Viagra is added to the list. Viagra, like contraceptive are not medically needed. If one is unethical then they both are. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now