Obamacare Violates The Separation Of Church & State?

Obamacare has a provision that Catholic Church organizations employing people like hospitals and schools must provide birth control as part of thier health care benefits. Essentially forcing them to pay for products that are against their religion.

Will the administration decide to strike this requirement from the massive Obamacare law?

The Supremes just had a case where churches were allowed to fire pastors even if it violated current labor law, would they rule the same way on this requirement?

The current administration occupying the executive branch won't strike this requirement - they view it as a reasonable compromise. This is beyond the pale - to require by government decree that the most basic tenants of the faith be violated is a direct violation of the 1st Amendment prohibition that there shall be no law that prohibits the free exercise of religion. To compel a Catholic organization to pay for covering a service which lies in direct conflict with their faith is not something that the federal government is empowered to do.

I wonder if these Catholic Church organizations hire divorced people...

If they have an EIN, they have to abide by the employment laws everyone else must comply with. The recent SC decision is a bad decision, essentially placing religious belief above civil law. You are free to practice whatever religion you like, but that does not allow you to break laws, even if in the name of religion. Example: your neighbor's religion calls for human saccrifice...clearly our society does not allow for that religious expression, right? If churches don't want to abide by employment laws, don't hire anyone. Churches already guilt their followers into providing unpaid labor...I see no reason they should be allowed to employ by their own rules. Basically, if they're paying under an EIN, they should abide by the laws.

By the way, these situations/rulings may potentially serve to legitimize Sharia law...is that what we want as an unexpected consequence of this?

"Religious law" must not be allowed to supercede civil law.

Actually there have been many precedents where religions are allowed to break crimminal laws. During prohibition, Catholic churches could still use sacremental wine and at least one religion is allowed to legally use peyote.

Yet once again distortion and lies to create an "outrage". The order specifically exempts religious institutions from complying with the requirement of providing birth control as part of their insurance coverage for employees working in their church. What the regulation does do is to implement the same requirement that currently 28 states already have in place, that where the religious institution acts as a business, it must do the same as other businesses. The majority of states already enforce this same requirement, and the courts have consistently upheld it's constitutionality.

But hey, why not spread distortions if it creates an "outrage".

PrintSmith wrote: The current administration occupying the executive branch won't strike this requirement - they view it as a reasonable compromise. This is beyond the pale - to require by government decree that the most basic tenants of the faith be violated is a direct violation of the 1st Amendment prohibition that there shall be no law that prohibits the free exercise of religion. To compel a Catholic organization to pay for covering a service which lies in direct conflict with their faith is not something that the federal government is empowered to do.

But Sharia law is not covered under the 1st amendment? Can't have it both ways...

And what tenants of Sharia Law are not now covered by the 1st Amendment? Honor murders perhaps? What else? Certainly you wouldn't say that a restaurant owned by an Islamic family could be required by the general government to serve pork in their restaurant, would you? Or that the kosher requirement of Judaism couldn't be followed because the manner in which the animal was required to be killed was declared by the general government to be inhumane? Or that the general government has the authority to require a Quaker to take up arms? The general government does not have the ability to require one to conduct themselves in a manner that violates their religious conscience. That ability was denied to it, specifically denied to it, by the Constitution.

Npr is reporting tonight that the administration will work with Catholics on a compromise. Although they said most Catholics didn't care about these obamacare requirements.

FredHayek wrote: Npr is reporting tonight that the administration will work with Catholics on a compromise. Although they said most Catholics didn't care about these obamacare requirements.

Looks like the Obama administration willl have to be printing waivers like they have printed money.