Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

The Constitution Separates Church And State,except For Healthcare


add

Recommended Posts

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.

Unless my SSPX what? :|

Link to comment
Share on other sites


As for birth control...I dunno. I know several women who were denied birth control after having babies in Catholic hospitals. ?

Your making that up, aren't you
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fidei Defensor

Religious freedom is freedom. And it is the Government that is attempting to take away freedom, not the other way around. Individuals still have the right to buy birth control and get abortions. And employers have the right not to pay for them in violation of their conscience.

 

Yes, it is taking away freedom. The law is not a buffet. Either there is equal coverage or there isn't.  The religious groups have all the freedom of speech they can muster to try and dissuade their employees from choosing to use contraception.  Contraception, in and of itself, is not a religious belief or a form of worship.  Forcing every insurance plan to cover contraception is equal coverage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forcing every insurance plan to cover contraception is equal coverage.

It is also tyranny, but you know, glory to the State and whatnot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fidei Defensor

It is also tyranny, but you know, glory to the State and whatnot.

 

It's covered as a medication, as are all the other prescription medications.  I'm not debating the morality of using it, I'm simply saying that it ought to be covered by everyone because we don't legislate specific faith-based moralities in the United States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it is taking away freedom. The law is not a buffet. Either there is equal coverage or there isn't.  The religious groups have all the freedom of speech they can muster to try and dissuade their employees from choosing to use contraception.  Contraception, in and of itself, is not a religious belief or a form of worship.  Forcing every insurance plan to cover contraception is equal coverage.

no one is denying  Contraception, the objection is forcing a religious organization to pay for Contraception, including the morning after pill and sterilizations.

 

Contraception is readily available if you want or choose to use it. 

 

the sanctity of life is my religious belief or a form of worship, starting from the moment of conception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's covered as a medication, as are all the other prescription medications.  I'm not debating the morality of using it, I'm simply saying that it ought to be covered by everyone because we don't legislate specific faith-based moralities in the United States.

I am not talking about the immorality of using it either. It is tyranny to force one person to provide it to another person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the free birth control part of the Obama healthcare is not yet in play, how does one explain the all time birth rate in the US?   Our birth rate, last year was lower that China, a country that has a very strict one child policy. 

Obviously, access to birth control is not an economical problem in the US or the birth rate would not be at the lowest point in history it has ever been.
  This indisputable fact begs the question; “What is the real agenda behind the HHS mandate”?

 

BIRTHRATE_zps9490296a.jpg

 

Could it be too finally and once in for all invalidate religious liberty, as well know it?


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. 



 

Edited by add
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fidei Defensor

I am not talking about the immorality of using it either. It is tyranny to force one person to provide it to another person.

 
So minimum wage, taxes, speeding laws… you know, stuff that's forced upon us?

As the free birth control part of the Obama healthcare is not yet in play, how does one explain the all time birth rate in the US?   Our birth rate, last year was lower that China, a country that has a very strict one child policy. 
Obviously, access to birth control is not an economical problem in the US or the birth rate would not be at the lowest point in history it has ever been.
  This indisputable fact begs the question; “What is the real agenda behind the HHS mandate”?
 
BIRTHRATE_zps9490296a.jpg
 
Could it be too finally and once in for all invalidate religious liberty, as well know it?

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.

 
The Treaty of Tripoli, as signed by John Adams:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Muslims,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohammedan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Edited by tardis ad astra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So minimum wage, taxes, speeding laws… you know, stuff that's forced upon us?

Yes, including all of that. But especially forcing one person to buy something for another person, and most especially forcing one person to buy something objectively immoral for another person.

It really is kind of simple, when you peel away all the layers of political doubletalk and lies and veiled threats of violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The Treaty of Tripoli, as signed by John Adams:

 



This treaty between the Barbary Coast pirates, Tripoli and the US is beside the point.  Isn’t Libya the land of Muammar Gaddafi and where city of Benghazi is located?

The this treaty may be null and void after what happened over the last ten years.  it's kind of broke!


How does this treaty you speak of diminish the freedom of religion in America?



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fidei Defensor

Yes, including all of that. But especially forcing one person to buy something for another person, and most especially forcing one person to buy something objectively immoral for another person.

It really is kind of simple, when you peel away all the layers of political doubletalk and lies and veiled threats of violence.

 

Granted.

 



This treaty between the Barbary Coast pirates, Tripoli and the US is beside the point.  Isn’t Libya the land of Muammar Gaddafi and where city of Benghazi is located?

The this treaty may be null and void after what happened over the last ten years.  it's kind of broke!


How does this treaty you speak of diminish the freedom of religion in America?



 

 

The treaty itself is not what is important, it's the wording.  The so called Founding Fathers were clear in their denial that the United States was founded based on Christianity. Morality and God? Yes. Christianity specifically? No.  Religious freedom was important to them because they all had their own beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Granted.


The treaty itself is not what is important, it's the wording.


Way to pick and Choose What is relevant and what is not relevant.
You may be confusing the meaning of "separation of Religion" to somehow mean "Denial of. Religion"
BTW: Christianity is a large part of the fundamental foundation founding of America. Deal with it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fidei Defensor

Way to pick and Choose What is relevant and what is not relevant.
You may be confusing the meaning of "separation of Religion" to somehow mean "Denial of. Religion"
BTW: Christianity is a large part of the fundamental foundation founding of America. Deal with it.

 

I'm not denying the importance of religion in the founding of America. What I am saying, however, is that it wasn't founded strictly on Christianity.  The Fathers believed in the importance of freedom to believe in whichever faith or religion one wanted.  They didn't deny God but they did deny that anyone had to follow Christianity alone.  I'm not sure what is so threatening about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...