LadyJazzer wrote: And yes, Secular Humanists ARE anti-war... A major reason why I like them. (Ever hear about "turning the other cheek?")
And 98% of so-called Catholics believe in, and USE birth-control/contraception...[/i] Who knew?!?!? That's the nice thing about Catholicism...It's like a cafeteria...Today you can be outraged about something you were doing yesterday...And tomorrow, what you're outraged about today, you can go back to doing tomorrow....
How conveeeeeeenient....
If that's the case... then it looks like those 98% haven't had any trouble getting and/or affording contraception... who knew?!?!? So what's the problem?
LadyJazzer wrote: Good for you, you are anti-contraception. Now, are you anti-ALL contraception, or only anti-some contraception? Then you would necessarily condemn the contraception that would have happened outside your own (presumably) 100% church-compliant household. (Do you eat seafood?... I hear that's "an abomination", (Lev 11:10). Correct?
The laws of my faith say that all artificial forms of contraception are not allowed to be used for the purpose of interfering with the creation of new life. I do happen to believe, regardless of one's faith, that using contraception removes one from being in a state of grace with their Creator. That is not to say that I haven't chosen to remove myself from His grace at various times in my life, or even that I am not now in such a state. That is not what is being spoken of here. What is being spoken of is the ability of this government to compel me to enter into that state to comply with the secular law.
I may choose at any time to violate any laws I wish. I can choose to speed, I can choose to rob, rape or murder, I can choose to use contraception. No one is arguing that freedom to choose for one's self their own behavior is in any way at issue here. What is at issue is the ability of this government to compel one to violate the law. This government has no more authority to compel me to violate my church's laws than it does to compel me to violate its own laws. I am free to violate either of them, or both of them, if I wish. Not without penalty in either instance, but I am free to violate them nonetheless. This government does not have the authority to compel me to violate either of them. It doesn't have the authority to compel me to rape, rob or murder for its benefit in violation of the laws of my faith any more than it has the authority to compel me to purchase contraception or sterilization for another for its benefit in violation of the laws of my faith. Congress shall pass no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, remember?
Other nations may have that right to compel their citizens to comply with their laws regardless of the laws of their religion, but the general government of this union does not. China's government may be able to require one to violate their religious conscious and submit instead to the state laws, but this one does not - the framers saw to that. Here the religious laws must be tolerated and accommodated by the secular government as equal to its own - here the secular laws may not prevent the free exercise of religion.
PrintSmith wrote: [Other nations may have that right to compel their citizens to comply with their laws regardless of the laws of their religion, but the general government of this union does not. China's government may be able to require one to violate their religious conscious and submit instead to the state laws, but this one does not - the framers saw to that. Here the religious laws must be tolerated and accommodated by the secular government as equal to its own - here the secular laws may not prevent the free exercise of religion.
Does this apply to ALL religious laws, or just Christian laws? Must we make Sharia law equal to our secular laws? when you post the word "religion" you seem to imply that it is only Christian.....that is NOT what our founders meant.
I would say that the general government is as forbidden to compel a Muslim to violate the laws of Islam as they are to compel a Catholic to violate the laws of the Church. And now that you think the trap has been properly set and sprung, let's see what it is you really wanted to say before laying out the bait.
I simply asked the question......I disagree with you because I think country trumps religion when it comes to laws. And watch your word usage, there is a difference between a nation compelling you to violate your religious laws and a nation saying you cannot violate it's laws in the name of religion. I believe this is a case of the latter.....the Catholic Church cannot run a business and be exempted from national laws that govern businesses because of it's religious beliefs. Now the Church itself is a different thing, it isn't a "business" under the law, and wouldn't have to make contraception coverage available.
Bottom line.....no one is forcing the Church to "promote" contraception.....
Not here archer. In China, in Great Britain, in Mexico that may be true. But here, in this union, Congress is expressly prohibited from passing any law which prohibits the free exercise of religion - individually or collectively. Requiring a Catholic, whether that Catholic employs others, is self employed, or is the employee of a company, to pay for contraception violates the laws of the union itself because the general Congress is prohibited from passing a law, any law, even a law which will promote the general welfare of the union, which prohibits the free exercise of religion.
The power delegated to Congress to regulate interstate commerce does not give it the power to pass laws regulating commerce which are not in compliance with the rest of the Constitution. The Constitution says, quite clearly, that Congress shall pass no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. If the law prohibits the free exercise of religion, which compelling someone by law to violate the laws of their religion clearly does, then Congress may not pass that law and be in compliance with the Constitution. The general Congress is prohibited to pass a law which denies the free exercise of any religion to anyone in the union. It is not allowed to pass a law regulating any business which denies to anyone in that business the free exercise of their religion. It doesn't matter if the only person being denied the free exercise of their religion is the owner of the business - Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion - period, punct, end of the sentence and of the matter. If the law denies the free exercise of religion it is not allowed to be a law at all because - wait for it - Congress is prohibited from passing that law by the very same Constitution that says it has the power to pass laws at all. If you are attempting to compel someone through the law to violate the laws of their religion your are not allowing them the free exercise of their religion. It doesn't matter if the person you are attempting to compel is the owner of a business, it is still denying to them the free exercise of their religion. It doesn't matter how many people will benefit by denying them the free exercise of their religion, Congress is still prohibited from denying the free expression of their religion to them.
"Why is Santorum so against contraception? Because there’s a line in Genesis about not spilling your seed. A random brainfart from some desert dweller 3,000 years ago, before people knew about germs or atoms or round planets, and it gets written down and passed down and in 2012 people like Rick Santorum are still too R-word to see that, and that’s why some woman in Akron, Ohio might not get birth control."
CinnamonGirl wrote: "Why is Santorum so against contraception? Because there’s a line in Genesis about not spilling your seed. A random brainfart from some desert dweller 3,000 years ago, before people knew about germs or atoms or round planets, and it gets written down and passed down and in 2012 people like Rick Santorum are still too R-word to see that, and that’s why some woman in Akron, Ohio might not get birth control."
~~~~Bill Maher
Better to let others believe you are an ignorant fool than to speak and remove all doubt. Bill Maher is either ignorant or a bigot, and which one of them happens to be the case is not something I will concern myself with. Ignorance regarding the Catholic faith is something that can be addressed if one wishes to leave their ignorance behind. One need not become a Catholic to understand the Catholic Canon, regardless of whether they choose to follow it or not. Bigotry, on the other hand, is a character flaw. It is illiberal, intolerant, and contains the exact same narrow-mindedness of which Maher, and "progressives" in general, seems to proclaim himself to stand against. One need not adopt the same faith as Santorum, but our very Constitution requires that the secular laws tolerate and accommodate that faith - Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Artificial contraception is a elective choice one makes for themselves. It is not a right, it is not an entitlement - it is a voluntary choice which one makes and for which they themselves are wholly responsible for providing. There are medical indications for which the same prescription may be used to treat a medical condition and since such is the case it makes sense that it should be treated as every other prescriptive drug that is used to treat a medical condition is treated. Requiring that everyone else help you pay for your elective choices, however, is not something that either the legislative, executive or judicial branches of the general government are allowed to compel when doing so would cause one to violate their conscience or the laws of their faith. Doing so denies to that person the free exercise of their religion and the federal government is expressly prohibited from denying that right to them. It may not compel an Amish to take up arms in the defense of the union, and it may not compel others to participate in the act of placing them in a state of separation from the Grace of their Creator. An Amish may decide to take up arms, and one may decide to separate themselves from the Grace of their Creator, but the general government is not empowered to compel either to do so under any circumstances.
But, but, but, Colorado is one of the 28 states that requires it...with no exemptions or refusals allowed. Since you're a "citizen of Colorado" (and not, allegedly, the U.S.), it sux to be you...
I guess you'd better move to somewhere where you can enjoy "the free exercise of your religion" (when 98% of the others of your same religion don't give a flip...)
