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.

Most Americans are unaware that under the Massachusetts State Constitution, up until 1813, all taxpayers had to pay taxes to maintain their local Congregational Church and pay the salary of it's minister, regardless of their own religious beliefs. In Maryland, from 1919 to 1954, Roman Catholics were forbidden to hold elective office by the Maryland State Constitution. Neither were ever successfully challenged in Federal court under the 1st Amendment.

quote:

ORIGINAL Article VI, US Constitution
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrandPoobah

Much of your observation, while perhaps somewhat tongue in cheek, I agree with. Clearly the principles that were written in the Bible...and elsewhere...found their way into the legal codes that preceded our own, and murder is almost uniformly "illegal" in almost every country.

The issue, I think, is that we are now venturing into areas that are not commonly found in things like the Magna Carta and similar legal codes. From what I've seen, there is no legal basis for allowing or denying access to birth control beyond religious dogma. That seems to be exclusively the province of the church. Since the issue is not "medical" (as in are there safe methods available) it's clearly something else. Like your child saying Grace privately, I see no reason for the government to be involved...until people are denied "equal rights" because of those beliefs. It's the old saw..."Your right to swing your fist stops somewhere short of my face." Well, now we have a candidate who pretty clearly wants to hit you in the face, and thinks that's not only fine...but his right. I have a problem with that.

quote:

...until people are denied "equal rights" because of those beliefs. It's the old saw..."Your right to swing your fist stops somewhere short of my face." Well, now we have a candidate who pretty clearly wants to hit you in the face, and thinks that's not only fine...but his right. I have a problem with that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

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.
Most Americans are unaware that under the Massachusetts State Constitution, up until 1813, all taxpayers had to pay taxes to maintain their local Congregational Church and pay the salary of it's minister, regardless of their own religious beliefs. In Maryland, from 1919 to 1954, Roman Catholics were forbidden to hold elective office by the Maryland State Constitution. Neither were ever successfully challenged in Federal court under the 1st Amendment.

While the part in red is a nice, scary story, it just ain't true ...
I am not trying to be condescending but, you seem to be intelligent. Have you never read article VI?

quote:

ORIGINAL Article VI, US Constitution
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

In regular English, it says that a state can't make something illegal that the US Constitution makes legal (Freedom of religion). Certainly, your nightmare scenario is a red herring.
Peace and comfort,
Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

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.
Most Americans are unaware that under the Massachusetts State Constitution, up until 1813, all taxpayers had to pay taxes to maintain their local Congregational Church and pay the salary of it's minister, regardless of their own religious beliefs. In Maryland, from 1919 to 1954, Roman Catholics were forbidden to hold elective office by the Maryland State Constitution. Neither were ever successfully challenged in Federal court under the 1st Amendment.

While the part in red is a nice, scary story, it just ain't true ...
I am not trying to be condescending but, you seem to be intelligent. Have you never read article VI?

quote:

ORIGINAL Article VI, US Constitution
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

In regular English, it says that a state can't make something illegal that the US Constitution makes legal (Freedom of religion). Certainly, your nightmare scenario is a red herring.
Peace and comfort,
Michael

I agree that such an action by an individual state would most likely be ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS under Article VI if a case was brought before the SCOTUS (though the present Court and the Right-wing activist judges on it does not inspire my confidence).

However, I also believe that all should be aware of the twisted logic being used by some Americans who have a very different view on the 1st Amendment (Only the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - but not the individual states) and 10th Amendments (i.e. States rights are supreme vs. Federal laws) to threaten our legal system.

I grew up exposed to the "Belly of the Religious Rightist, Christian Reconstructionist, Dominionist and Christian Nationalist beast" and watched my Dad fight them all his life - and feel compelled to warn others that if they are not watchful, the lives they are presently living are in danger.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds

I have suspected for some time that eventually the "Christian Right," will realize that they don't have the votes to get what they want, that they are slowly losing the "culture war," as younger folks say "Who cares about gay marriage, birth control, and abortion," and will dispair. Then they will realize that they have a lot of guns...

Lets face it, a lot of church groups could turn into brown shirts (meaning enforcers, not Nazi's) pretty easily. How many towns in the US could be taken over by the religious right and have their votes coerced if the christian coalition really wanted to? Granted, it still wouldn't affect the big cities, but look at the electoral college map, and see what it could lead to.
I think Heinlein predicted something similar (revolt in 2010?)
I keep hoping to find some way to avoid the second Civil war...

quote:

In god we trust is on the currency. It has always been there

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
By the way; the next internal war won't be a civil war, it'll be a revolution and that's a pretty scary proposition, also.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
By the way; the next internal war won't be a civil war, it'll be a revolution and that's a pretty scary proposition, also.

Remember - from 1860 to 1865 the Confederate States of America lost a Revolution - and the United States of America won a Civil War.

Definitions are often in the "eye of the beholder"...

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrandPoobah

I suspect we may be closer in thought than it first appeared, primarily because our discussion has narrowed the question.

My thought is this. A religion can certainly make choices about birth control. They should be allowed to refuse to spend money providing the coverage for those they employ within the structure of their religion...i.e. priests, nuns, etc, even though (officially) those people probably have "no need" for such products. There is a small question about the prescription of "birth control" meds for women who need them for other reasons, such as hormonal regulation unrelated to BC. In any case, that's seldom the real question...and while important, effects a much smaller group.

The real question arises when churches and "religion" branch out into other things. For example (and the one most commonly used) is the operation of a hospital.

Since the hospital is "open to the public" and cannot (or does not) place any religious restriction upon either the patients who arrive, or the staff that they hire, in my opinion, the church itself has "crossed that boundary." In the US it would be illegal to deny employment to a qualified person based upon many things, one of which is religion. A "Catholic" hospital cannot refuse to hire a "Lutheran" nurse pure because he/she is not Catholic. There are, as I recall, 7 protected classes, although that may have changed since I needed to know that...typically race, gender, ethnicity, etc.

So, at this point, and only because the Church has crossed into the secular world, we have this "problem." Are they allowed to "force" their religious beliefs upon non-members, and in doing so deny them a benefit that is otherwise completely legal?

Sadly the US is miles away from anything remotely resembling Universal Health Care, and (in a much larger picture) I'd love to see that change. However, I think the real question for today is simply "If the church want's to play in the secular world...outside of the religious buildings and worship services...are they allowed to bring the "Church Rules" with them, and enforce them upon non-members? It's clearly not a simple answer, but I really think THAT is the simple question.

Thanks for keeping the conversation civil...it makes the discussion so much easier, even if we simply just disagree.

quote:

The real question arises when churches and "religion" branch out into other things. For example (and the one most commonly used) is the operation of a hospital.

Since the hospital is "open to the public" and cannot (or does not) place any religious restriction upon either the patients who arrive, or the staff that they hire, in my opinion, the church itself has "crossed that boundary." In the US it would be illegal to deny employment to a qualified person based upon many things, one of which is religion. A "Catholic" hospital cannot refuse to hire a "Lutheran" nurse pure because he/she is not Catholic. There are, as I recall, 7 protected classes, although that may have changed since I needed to know that...typically race, gender, ethnicity, etc.

So, at this point, and only because the Church has crossed into the secular world, we have this "problem." Are they allowed to "force" their religious beliefs upon non-members, and in doing so deny them a benefit that is otherwise completely legal?

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrandPoobah

Given what I've read regarding the concept of birth control, and the statements that something like 98% of Catholic women have or do use it, I suspect the Catholic church is nowhere near as monolithic as some would have us believe. That's probably equally true of most any sizable organization.