The Constitution Separates Church And State,except For Healthcare

[Fidei Defensor]

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

 

What, pray tell, is my agenda?

[add]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57556442/u.s-birth-rate-lowest-since-1920-blame-the-economy/

There is no real need for free birth control, Judging by the current birth rate in America.

Births are a asset, not a Curse Edited February 4, 2013 by add

[Fidei Defensor]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57556442/u.s-birth-rate-lowest-since-1920-blame-the-economy/

There is no real need for free birth control, Judging by the current birth rate in America.

Births are a asset, not a Curse

 

Whether or not a couple wants a child is their choice, not ours. Free will is the darndest thing.

[add]

Whether or not a couple wants a child is their choice, not ours. Free will is the darndest thing.

So is free birth control the Darndest thing.
Obviously couple's are having no problem obtaining birth control in America.

Do as you please, just don't send the bill to my church and expect me to Financially support Abortionists Edited February 4, 2013 by add

[Fidei Defensor]

So is free birth control the Darndest thing.
Obviously couple's are having no problem obtaining birth control in America.

Do as you please, just don't send the bill to my church and expect me to Financially support Abortionists

 

Preventing conception is not the same as abortion.  While both are immoral, i'd rather conception be prevented than having the life ended after the fact.

[StMichael]

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

 

The 110th Congress, led by Nancy Pelosi, in fact has made a law that prohibits the free exercise thereof. If you own a business, even though you are not a religious institution, you must go against your religion to comply with the law. If you are a religious institution, as the law stands, you must go against your teachings or withdraw from participating in services outside of the Church (hospitals, adoption, etc.).

 

Funny thing, does anyone know of one religion that states their god approves contraception, killing of the unborn, etc.?

 

Regardless, the "collective" which is what we have been becoming as a nation for the last 100 years, is now forced to participate in the matters against their faith.

 

Funny thing about this Constitution, the very first amendment addresses religion, protects it, knowing full well that a moral center was needed to protect the liberty of this nation.

 

And lets quote Mr. Jefferson, a few times:

 

 

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by

Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event." -1781

 

"The Constitution has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary." -1808

 

 

"That the Supreme Ruler of the universe may have our country under His special care, will be among the latest of my prayers." -1809

 

 

Preventing conception is not the same as abortion.  While both are immoral, i'd rather conception be prevented than having the life ended after the fact.

 

[Era Might]

Did Thomas Jefferson use contraception?

[add]

Preventing conception is not the same as abortion.  While both are immoral, i'd rather conception be prevented than having the life ended after the fact.

 

two wrongs don't make a right, my dear

and it is still an infringement on my rights to force me  to contribute in any way  to " in your words" immoral acts", as i have previously stated, birth control is widely available and affordable by all given the current birthrate. 

 

if anything there should be anti-birth control available.  ha-ha

 

.

Edited February 4, 2013 by add

[Fidei Defensor]

two wrongs don't make a right, my dear

and it is still an infringement on my rights to force me  to contribute in any way  to " in your words" immoral acts", as i have previously stated, birth control is widely available and affordable by all given the current birthrate. 

 

if anything there should be anti-birth control available.  ha-ha

 

.

 

You should probably take a look at all the immoral things your money supports and then complain to me again about how this is so important.

[ardillacid]

You should probably take a look at all the immoral things your money supports and then complain to me again about how this is so important.

 

lol

[add]

You should probably take a look at all the immoral things your money supports and then complain to me again about how this is so important.

 

such as?

[StMichael]

If he did, he did not legislate it so that he received it as part of a federal government program.

 

Did Thomas Jefferson use contraception?

 

Edited February 5, 2013 by StMichael

[Socrates]

However, the moment the state favors one religious belief over others, this establishes a religion insomuch as it puts one set of beliefs over the others.

 

Insisting on equal coverage and including contraceptives does not impede worship in any way.  Don't like them, don't use them. They aren't making you buy them.  And if a religious group is so concerned about that, they ought to be looking at their employees who want to use contraceptives and stop putting the blame on equal coverage under law.

 

 

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.

 

Donny, you're out of your element.

 

If you read the actual words of the first amendment, you'd note that the word "worship" is not used.

 

What the establishment clause of the first amendment actually says is: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

 

The free exercise of religion includes more than simply freedom of worship (even Stalinist Russia in theory guaranteed "freedom of worship," if you could find a church to worship in) but includes the freedom to practice the tenets of one's faith without interference from the government.

 

(Great article from Cardinal George on the free exercise of religion, as opposed to mere freedom of worship.)

 

Free exercise of religion includes the right to run one's life and business obeying the moral tenets of one's faith - such as not being forced to pay for insurance to pay for things that violate the moral precepts of one's faith.

It's the reason Quakers and others whose religion teaches strict pacifism are exempt from the draft.

 

 

This dictatorial and unconstitutional mandate does not just raise theoretical issues, but creates very real problems for very real persons and institutions.  Catholic schools including Christendom College, the University of Dallas, and Franciscan University at Steubenville are fighting against this mandate which forces them to violate the religious beliefs they are founded on.  Having been involved with Christendom for many years, I can tell you for a fact that none of its employees nor students want to have contraception covered by its insurance plans.

 

Such colleges and other Catholic institutions have been freely and peacefully exercising their religion for many decades on this matter - and there is absolutely no pressing need for the federal government to dictate them to violate their conscience.

 

If you're so against the "imposition of morals"  by law in this case it's the HHS imposing its "morality" (that contraception is good, and it is wrong for employers and schools to deny insurance for it) on Catholic and other religious institutions.

 

You've got everything back-assward here.

[Fidei Defensor]

Donny, you're out of your element.

 

If you read the actual words of the first amendment, you'd note that the word "worship" is not used.

 

What the establishment clause of the first amendment actually says is: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

 

The free exercise of religion includes more than simply freedom of worship (even Stalinist Russia in theory guaranteed "freedom of worship," if you could find a church to worship in) but includes the freedom to practice the tenets of one's faith without interference from the government.

 

(Great article from Cardinal George on the free exercise of religion, as opposed to mere freedom of worship.)

 

Free exercise of religion includes the right to run one's life and business obeying the moral tenets of one's faith - such as not being forced to pay for insurance to pay for things that violate the moral precepts of one's faith.

It's the reason Quakers and others whose religion teaches strict pacifism are exempt from the draft.

 

 

This dictatorial and unconstitutional mandate does not just raise theoretical issues, but creates very real problems for very real persons and institutions.  Catholic schools including Christendom College, the University of Dallas, and Franciscan University at Steubenville are fighting against this mandate which forces them to violate the religious beliefs they are founded on.  Having been involved with Christendom for many years, I can tell you for a fact that none of its employees nor students want to have contraception covered by its insurance plans.

 

Such colleges and other Catholic institutions have been freely and peacefully exercising their religion for many decades on this matter - and there is absolutely no pressing need for the federal government to dictate them to violate their conscience.

 

If you're so against the "imposition of morals"  by law in this case it's the HHS imposing its "morality" (that contraception is good, and it is wrong for employers and schools to deny insurance for it) on Catholic and other religious institutions.

 

You've got everything back-assward here.

 

You could have stopped at the part about getting the wrong wording. Everything I said based on that was in error. Point conceded to you.

such as?

 

Like anything tax money supports that you disagree with or oppose. I'm sure you could make your own list.

[Socrates]

 The Treaty of Tripoli, as signed by John Adams:

 

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.)