Little Sisters of the Poor Aiding in the Religious Right Wing's Agenda for a Theocratic Government

originally posted by: beezzer
The big question is; does government have the right to provide the privilege to religions to practice their faith?

In 1990, Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Employment Division v. Smith, concluding that the First Amendment "does not require" the government to grant "religious exemptions" from generally applicable laws or civic obligations. The case was brought by two men in Oregon who sued the state for denying them unemployment benefits after they were fired from their jobs for ingesting peyote, which they said they did because of their Native American religious beliefs.

"[T]he right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability," Scalia wrote in the 6-3 majority decision, going on to aggressively argue that such exemptions could be a slippery slope to lawlessness and that "[a]ny society adopting such a system would be courting anarchy."

"The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind," he wrote, "ranging from compulsory military service, to the payment of taxes, to health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, compulsory vaccination laws, drug laws, and traffic laws; to social welfare legislation such as minimum wage laws, child labor laws, animal cruelty laws, environmental protection laws, and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races."

talkingpointsmemo.com...

a reply to: beezzer
gee, you want it to be hands off for militant islamic religions who wish to behead you for not wearing acceptable attire?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: beezzer

Tell that to Anthony Scalia!

You know where that came from?

Obamacare. There was no lawsuit for Hobby Lobby until Obamacare came along and told everyone they had to provide coverage and what exactly had to be in it.

The government created this entire can of worms.

Now, I understand that secularists don't see the trouble with the state being supreme to everything, but it does mightily infringe on freedom of religion.

You can't be free to practice your faith or live its principles if the government passes a law that requires you to do otherwise.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: beezzer
gee, you want it to be hands off for militant islamic religions who wish to behead you for not wearing acceptable attire?

And that is the attitude from the left. Treat Christianity the same as ISIS.

Well, they probably treat ISIS better, but that's another issue.

So you are for government granting privilege to religions to practice their faith.

Good to know.

Yeah, that's why the First Amendment is there ...

Every opinion and belief is NOT religious belief, as has been pointed out time and time and time again.

The First Amendment is to protect religious practices ... not to create special interest groups that don't have to obey the laws of the land.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: beezzer

Tell that to Anthony Scalia!

You know where that came from?

Obamacare. There was no lawsuit for Hobby Lobby until Obamacare came along and told everyone they had to provide coverage and what exactly had to be in it.

The government created this entire can of worms.

Now, I understand that secularists don't see the trouble with the state being supreme to everything, but it does mightily infringe on freedom of religion.

You can't be free to practice your faith or live its principles if the government passes a law that requires you to do otherwise.

Obamacare affected Justice Scalia's opinions in 1990?

Jesus.

No one, anywhere, at any time in this discussion has ever said that Christians should be treated the same as ISIS.

When does rampant exaggeration cross the line into untruth?

a reply to: ketsuko
the mistake that was made when obamacare was written wasn't that it included birth control. it was that they congress turned it over to the healthcare industry to write I think! and well, what does the healthcare industry know about what is legal and illegal when it extends out of the healthcare field?

I don't think that the gov't should be madating every person to buy health insurance, which I would like to point out doesn't guarentee anyone is going to be able afford adequate healthcare matter of fact it could conceivably be an obstacle for some!
I don't think that the federal gov't should be mandating what is included in that healthcare, after all before obamacare was brought into the picture, it was part of the state gov't's job.
But well, if a women is mandated to buy it, then in my opinion birth control shouldn't be left out of that insurance without a better reason that some people have a religious objection to it. what the heck some people have a religious objection to blood tranfusions also, don't hear anyone complaining about that one!!!

a reply to: windword

That's what *YOU* think !!

a reply to: beezzer
I'm for the government stepping in if any particular religious group tramples on the basic rights of those that don't follow their religious views! yes!!!

There's no reason that health insurance plans shouldn't include provisions for birth control.

These religious institutions are providing INSURANCE, how the employee uses it is THEIR CHOICE.

Of course, it's okay for the government to overreach and protect "the nuns."

I thought you guys were in favor of personal freedom again?

EXCEPT when it comes to birth control and ... other controversial topics.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: windword

Must I repeat myself?

Government has no right to dictate to religion.

Religion has no right to determine which laws it will follow and which it won't.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: windword

That's what *YOU* think !!

What a meaningless comment. We're all posting what WE THINK.

Are you opposed to us being able to post what we think?

Would you like to see more protections installed so no one feels like their religious feelings (not tenets of their faith, not rites, prayer, rituals or practices) aren't being trampled on by someone?

Talk about politically correct!

a reply to: ketsuko

This really has nothing to do with Obamacare. Birth control is a public health issue, see TITLE X, that the government has an invested interest in and duty to address.

The government has a duty to enforce it's interest in a way that exerts the least amount of burden on the individual, as dictated in the Religious Freedom and restoration Act.

a reply to: xuenchen

That's what *YOU* think !!

Nope. It's an historical FACT!

and to think that us lowly people in the country are thankful if whatever our bosses offer us is affordable!!! I wonder how many of those lowly people would decide to refuse a good deal from their boss for an insurance plan simply because it included birth control coverage???

I don't think any true Christians are trying to set up a theocracy, but if you look at the recent steps the vatican has made to "unite" all the world's religions, that might explain what is behind it.


Alexis de Tocqueville, (1805-1859) the French social philosopher visited America to discover the reasons for our incredible success.  "Democracy in America" (1838)

"Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things.

In France, I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country.

Religion in America...must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief.

I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion -- for who can search the human heart? But I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society.

In the United States, the sovereign authority is religious...there is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility and of its conformity to human nature than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.

In the United States, the influence of religion is not confined to the manners, but it extends to the intelligence of the people...

Christianity, therefore, reigns without obstacle, by universal consent...

I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her harbors...; in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution.

Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power.

America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great. 

The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law as well as the surest pledge of freedom.

The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other

Christianity is the companion of liberty in all its conflicts -- the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims."

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
--John Adams

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: windword

Must I repeat myself?

Government has no right to dictate to religion.

Religion has no right to determine which laws it will follow and which it won't.

Unless those laws are written indirect opposition to the tenets of the religion.

a reply to: beezzer

What if the tenet of a religion is to behead non-Christians? You okay with that exception?

What if the tenet was to marry 9 year old girls off to 50 year old men?

a reply to: beezzer
please explain to me how an insurance policy that includes birth control in it is against a religious tenet? and well after you do that please explain to me why it is okay for employees to be basically force (through economic necessity) to purchase whatever plan their boss offers (which may include birth control coverage) and yet be so wrong for a business, or non profit to do so when it comes to the plans they offer their employees?
just who's rights does the constitution protect? individuals, or businesses and non profit organizations?