quote:

I would love to live in a country where people didn't feel that exercising their freedom of religion (or lack thereof) necessitated my inability to freely exercise mine.

quote:

Funny.......on one hand we have cons declaring that there is no separation between church and state and on the other...get extra exercised when government gets involved in churches......like with the recent birth control fight.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SternSkipper

quote:

I would love to live in a country where people didn't feel that exercising their freedom of religion (or lack thereof) necessitated my inability to freely exercise mine.

So we can further presume that if you worked at say a Catholic Hospital and suddenly one day you were told you had to leave because you use birth control, that would be something of an imposition into your specific constitutional freedoms, right? I mean there role is strictly that of an employer. You're not thinking of them as "holy" or spiritual in that transaction, are you?
Cause I really think that if the church pushes this BC matter to the SC, they are FIRST going to have to determine the actual ROLE the church is playing in this transaction and find it is a completely secular one.
As it should be.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Funny.......on one hand we have cons declaring that there is no separation between church and state and on the other...get extra exercised when government gets involved in churches......like with the recent birth control fight.

quote:

You can presume as you wish but, would you rather hear my answer?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SternSkipper

quote:

I would love to live in a country where people didn't feel that exercising their freedom of religion (or lack thereof) necessitated my inability to freely exercise mine.

So we can further presume that if you worked at say a Catholic Hospital and suddenly one day you were told you had to leave because you use birth control, that would be something of an imposition into your specific constitutional freedoms, right? I mean there role is strictly that of an employer. You're not thinking of them as "holy" or spiritual in that transaction, are you?
Cause I really think that if the church pushes this BC matter to the SC, they are FIRST going to have to determine the actual ROLE the church is playing in this transaction and find it is a completely secular one.
As it should be.

quote:

What I have no rights to is to demand that my employer (the church) violate their own tenets by paying for my birth control. I have a right to use it but, I don't have the right to demand that they pay for it. That's entitlement and I have no right to that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: epeterson11

All of you scholars will notice that nowhere does our Bill of rights mention a, “separation of church and state.” Raise your hand if you can tell me from where that phrase originally emanates.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”


This what Santorum said: “The idea that the church can have no influence or involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country. This is the First Amendment. The First Amendment says 'free exercise of religion,' that means bringing everybody, people of faith and no faith into the public square.”

I don’t hear Santoum advocating for a state religion. What Santorum was saying is that religion is part of the composition of the American psyche. Over 80% of Americans identify with a specific religious denomination with over 60% being Christians. It’s indisputable that the foundation of our law is Judeo Christian morality and more specifically the 10 commandments. So while we have no official state religion, Santorum does not want to disenfranchise religious people from access to government and they shouldn’t be anymore than atheists or any other particular group should be. Especially not us kinksters.

Isn't it wrong for an Artificial Legal Entity with no natural rights, only privileges we, The People grant, and WITHOUT A VOTE to tamper with the elections of us REAL PEOPLE?

They don't have a vote, why do you think they should have a voice?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SternSkipper

And this is where your argument goes completely into the weeds in a legal sense. 'The Church' has forgone any rights which distinguish it as a person of faith (which is WHOM the 1st amendment speaks to) in order to enter into the ROLE of employer. From that moment forward 'The Church' enjoys no special distinction, and therefore is obligated to provide what ANY OTHER EMPLOYER IN THE US IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE. It's that simple.
And if anyone's dumb enough to risk the broader scope of the beat down they'll get in the USSC, I wish em God's speed in their fool's errand.
Just one issue with that. 'The Church' knows what a bullshit firmament they stand on which is why they're bringing this matter to the courts in a bible thumper (in 5 of 7 for sure ,borderline in the other two) states. Otherwise, you would see it brought in either New York or Massachusetts where they won't get an easy ruling the constitution will actually be looked at.
But why am I boring you with the legal realities of the issue?

Hey ... here's a fun exercise find a case with similar attributes where the USSC has ruled in favor of 'The Church'. We know that ROUTINELY in recent years virtually all the lower courts ruled against the "religious beliefs" (or so they were expressed as such by the religious entities involved in said suits) in cases where medicines were blocked from patients by order of clergy. in fact there have been MANY wrongful endangerment convictions and even wrongful death convictions upheld in cases such as these.
Is it possible that you interpret the 1st Amendment as what Jefferson extrapolated upon it as opposed to what it intrinsically means?

quote:


Well, you believe that and that's fine. It's okay that you dislike religion or religous entities (churches) but, you seem to be saying: "I want this because it's my right but, I don't care about the rights of others"

quote:

Church can not have it's holy bread and eat it too

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto

As a PK (Preacher's Kid - American Baptist Convention minister), I am well aware of the Religious Right's argument that the 1st Amendment only forbids the U. S. Congress - but not the individual states or counties or townships - from passing laws establishing a specific religion as the only legally allowable religion and/or passing laws making specific religions or atheism illegal.

By this Religious Right interpretation of the 1st Amendment, Alabama (for example) could pass a state law making atheism or Buddhism a crime without violating the U. S. Constitution.

quote:

As a PK (Preacher's Kid - American Baptist Convention minister), I am well aware of the Religious Right's argument that the 1st Amendment only forbids the U. S. Congress - but not the individual states or counties or townships - from passing laws establishing a specific religion as the only legally allowable religion and/or passing laws making specific religions or atheism illegal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

John F. Kennedy said in Houston TX that he believed in an America where the separation of church and state was absolute.

Rick Santorum said he does not believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.


Considering that the founding fathers made it clear that there was to be a separation of church and state, where do you fall in the two statements? When you figure in that all nine Supreme Court Justices have stated there is a wall of separation between church and state in the US, how can Santorum make such a statement that is clearly defying the Constitution of the United States?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrandPoobah

The distinction, which he has made clear, is that he wishes to take specific religious beliefs and make them the law of the land. THAT would constitute a direct threat to "the free exercise thereof" if I'm forced to believe what someone else tells me to believe. Back in the days of Kennedy's campaign, the fear was that the Pope would become, de facto, the President. Kennedy said that wouldn't be the case, and it never came up again during his administration. Santorum, on the other hand, is openly saying it would, or will, be the case if he's elected. If the church (i.e.the Pope) tells him that's what he, as a Catholic, should believe, then he's publicly stated that's what he'd seek as the law of the land.

Therein lies the difference, and the reason people fear for their Constitutional freedoms.

Let's go with this logic, then ...

"Thou shalt not commit murder" Fifth commandment. Should we make murder legal? After all, it's a specific religious belief as spelled out in the (gasp) Bible.

"Thou shalt not steal" Seventh or Eighth commandment, depending upon which version you accept. If you think we should make this one legal, can you give me your address and an inventory of your stuff?

Obviously, I'm being a little silly but to think that our laws are not already influenced (by design) by Judeo Christian values is failing to see the truth.

I am not for an established state religion but the seperation already isn't absolute.

Do I think President Kennedy was a good president? Sure. I think he was the model for just about every democratic president that followed him (Johnson was unlike anyone). I also believe that President Kennedy believed in an absolute seperation of church and state. I also believe he believed that adultery was okay.

Any statement starting with: "I believe ..." is the very crux of the issue. We can't be told what to believe by the state. We also can't be told that our rites of our faith must not be practiced.

Would enacting all of the Ten Commandments (as an example) into law be problematic? Hell yes. I once saw a TV show that mentioned this and one of the characters said: "Well, 'Honor thy father and thy mother' is going to be a problem and, if they charged me with that crime, I'd probably bear false witness."

With the exception of the things in the Ten Commandments which are absolutely items of faith ("I am the Lord thy God ..."), I think we have all of the others covered. Stealing, murder, bearing false witness (perjury). Even a "nod" was given to adultery (in old divorce laws).

I would love to live in a country where people didn't feel that exercising their freedom of religion (or lack thereof) necessitated my inability to freely exercise mine.

I had a school principal once threaten to "punish" my youngest for saying grace over his food. I asked if he was suggesting that other kids pray with him. The answer was: "No". I asked if he was praying, out loud. "No", again.

I was told: "Mr. C _ _ _ _ _ _, if this doesn't stop, we'll have to sit him in a seperate room for lunch." How isn't that " ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof."?

For those that care, it didn't happen. The school was just trying to "scare" us. Also, I want to say that I am no longer a practicing Catholic. I have beliefs but (as near as I can tell) they're mine, alone. You bet your bippy I don't want someone else's beliefs infringing upon mine but I want to be free to exercise my beliefs.



Peace and comfort,



Michael