The Constitution Separates Church And State,except For Healthcare

[Fidei Defensor]

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.

[add]

.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?

[Fidei Defensor]

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?

[StMichael]

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?

 

[Socrates]

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).

[add]

Really? Even if it supports grave evil?

 

the statement translates to :  obey the state in earthly matters, obey God in religion, morals, i think

[Fidei Defensor]

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.

[add]

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

 

[Socrates]

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."

[add]

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.

 

[add]

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

 

[add]

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?

[Fidei Defensor]

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.

[add]

Thanks for your medical opinion, Doctor.

 

:heart: U 2

 

Edited February 8, 2013 by add

[StMichael]

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?