AsheedMidrarwz
Rookie
- Dec 28, 2012
- 971
- 62
- 0
- Banned
- #121
Simple: they cannot tell us what to believe in matters of faith, nor "respect" any religion when making laws.
For example, let's say we mandate that all health insurance policies fund birth control. Then a religion says "Hey; we ain't paying for that since we think it's a sin." If the Congress then gives that church a pass, the law is respecting an establishment of THAT religion, in this case, Catholics. Now Catholics are endorsed, while religions that reject entitely medical interventions into what they believe is God's will, get kicked to the side of the road.
So, I think it's unambiguous that exempting any religion from any part of our laws is patently unconstitutional, as would be mandating that we must all abide by the rules of Baptists, Shi'a Muslims, Mormons, 7th Days, etc, etc.
Let folks practice (or not practice) anthing they wish within the confines of the laws which, BTW, must be the same for us all, via a vis the "equal protection" clause.
You're full of shit. The law is unconstitutional by forcing people to do something against their religion. Govt is not he authority here. People are.
The law cannot even (shouldn't) consider religion. Just make the laws the society needs, while letting religious folks believe what they wish. BUT ALL ARE GOVERNED BY AND EQUALLY TREATED UNDER LAW ... or should be.
You're not getting it. Religion is not the intruder here. Govt is. The law passed by congress intrudes on a citizen's religious freedom and rights. The Constitution tells us the limits of govt, not the limits of the people. You're confused.
Last edited: