The only thing I would like to add to this dialogue at this point is to say that as a Software Engineer, I have to deal with logic all the time in my job. I can see the logic in the Catholic Church’s claim. Part of their faith is that contraception is a sin, abhorrent to their faith, whether we agree with that or not. So in the execution of their faith, they must teach this tenet and practice it not only in their individual lives but in the positions and offices of their faith.

So here’s the problem, government is forcing them to go against their faith by asking them to separate their faith from the responsibilities as an employer for their faith based organizations. As you can imagine, asking one to “turn off” their faith is a paradox that only those who feign faith can seemingly do. Therefore, the government is putting the church at odds with its own beliefs, making them chose between being faithful and being an employer.

As we saw in past cases, the government can pass laws that supersede religious rule or law but this has to be held to a high standard. As in the case with the two Jehovah’s Witnesses, a seemingly just law was found too restrictive against the practice of one’s religion. Therefore, it was struck down.

This is relevant and similar to this case. By mandating at the Federal level no less, that a Catholic Church must provide insurance coverage to their employees for things the church holds as a matter of deep belief in opposition to, places the church in a position that they must choose to end their ability to employ people and thus the services they render in the name of their faith or concede and act contrary to their faith thereby destroying their ability to practice their faith with integrity. This is the very thing that is not allowed by the Constitution. This isn’t a conscience clause, this is forcing the church to actively go against their faith, forcing them to accept contraception.

Furthermore, it is not necessary for such a mandate to be in place, which in itself places further undue angst against the church as what should be a matter of agreement between employer and employee, now has become the government forcing the employer to agree to things they would not agree to otherwise.

This is so wrong on so many levels and is completely at odds with personal liberty and liberty of the church to practice their own faith and against liberty of free market to determine conditions by which employer and employee agree on employment.

This is just wrong.

BTW – are you aware that the Democrats took the House and Senate majorities in 2006? They held those majorities through Jan 2011? So for the first 2 years of Obama’s Presidency, Democrats had all 3 points of power.

So instead of blaming Republicans, why not hold your elected representatives and the President I presume you voted for accountable for getting things done?

Deficit spending is important to get us out of recession? Our National debt is $5 Trillion more than it was when Bush left office, if these policies and progressive ideas are good ideas, are you seriously telling me $5 Trillion in new debt isn’t enough?

I think you need to seriously let go of the blame others attitude and take responsibility for yourself and task your elected representatives to do the same.

What I meant was that the Reynolds test is accepted by no one when applied this VERY different area of first amendment protections. Which it isn’t.

What you are referencing is an entirely different type of behavior and regulation. Only vaguely applicable in this case. My central point is still the same, that what constitutes “social duties” or “good order” is not is being discussed here. Again, if such a protection existed there would be no need for there to be the Bush era conscience clause protections in place now. You are entitled to your opinion that upon balancing this particular aspect of religious liberty and this particular government regulation that it ought to be a subject to constitutional protections…but it is not and continues to not be. I am not denying that this is a potential constitutional issue (the entire federalization of health care is), but to claim that this is clearly a violation of some well established sector of constitutional protection is bogus. And, when you do look at this you have to compare apples and apples. A religious institution is being forced to pay for something that they religiously opposed to. There is no direct religious action or direct restriction to religious action involved.

Jim, you and I can disagree about where to draw the liberty line and where to draw the government interest line. There may be cases where I think liberty is more important where you think that the government interest is important and vice versa. In either case, these are small disagreements in the grand scheme of our largely shared values system, but these things made out be large schisms in our society. That’s the rhetoric that raises money and wins elections. Its important to have intelligent disagreements about these things, but assuming that the other side of the disagreement has a fundamentally flawed or perverted understanding of fundamental american values is exactly what makes our politics the way it is today.

The fact is that forcing a religious group to provide coverage and pay for services that goes against their beliefs *is* preventing the free exercise of their religion. Now the passage I quoted previously, from a real court case BTW (Reynolds v U.S. (98 US 145 [1878])), establishes that not all things can be claimed infringement of religious beliefs, e.g. bigamy. That the state has the right to enforce laws above religious claims when they were in “violation of social duties or subversive of good order”. That “Congress did, in fact, have the power to restrict bigamy in the Utah Territory”.

However, in another case, where two Jehovah’s Witnesses were convicted on breaking a solicitation law, the court struck down the law:

The Court noted that the first freedom is absolute — there can be no restriction whatever on what the people are free to believe. As the Court noted in Reynolds, however, the freedom to act on belief can be regulated. The main difference in this case was not that solicitations for a religious sect could be regulated, but that the secretary of the public welfare council had to agree that a solicitation was for a valid religious purpose. This prior restraint, the Court wrote, was a censorship of religion and was clearly a “denial of liberty” under the 14th Amendment, and hence under the 1st. The prior restraint law was “obnoxious to the Constitution.”

So in this example, a law existed that required prior consent for solicitation. The court struck down the law because it restricted the freedom to carry out their religion, that it denied liberty.

So does the State forcing any religious organization to act contrary to their religion amount to a violation of the Constitution when that act is neither in violation of social duties or subversive to good order or to say that the act does not rise to the level of needing regulation? Yes it is a violation. Because although individuals may need contraception, they don’t need to obtain it from their employer by proxy of their insurance provider. Seeing how a resolution to satisfy both the religious body and the individual employee exists, that is the employer does not provide what they object, and the employee finds alternative provision for the things their employer cannot by faith provide. The only problem here is that the government has once again overreached it’s constitutional authority to mandate such things. It is the government causing the strife and therefore persecuting people of faith by stripping them of their religious liberty.

Now I don’t agree with he Catholic Church on contraception. I do agree with them on their religious freedoms.

But I won’t expect you to agree nor understand liberty. Progressives define liberty in an entirely different way…

That, and the small fact that it is simply NOT within the constitution.

The irony of this statement is simply beautiful. Peradventure you can figure that out.

Technically, you’re correct. It is however in the Amendments to the Constitution. But religious freedom doesn’t allow for religious rule or law to be superior to civil law.

Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.

i.e. No man can claim religious freedom to be a “law unto himself” which would render the government ineffectual and irrelevant.

However, we must test this case, does the need for providing contraception via a private or religious organization’s health care provider constitute or rise to the level of violating social duties or subversive of good order? No, because contraception can be purchased or obtained without difficulty outside the insurance provided by the employer.

Therefore, the government mandate *IS* violating the first amendment.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/tables.pdf

This shows a federal government out of control and drunk with spending…

Obama did not expand entitlements that add to the deficit. You claimed he did.

I could get all full of rage like some on here that you’re trying to put words in my mouth. I could call you nasty names like some have done in this situation. But I’m not full of librul rage so I won’t.

I have not claimed anything of the such. In fact, I’ve not mentioned Obama once in this thread. Matt did. You did. Not me.

The entire conversation is somewhat silly. Presidents don’t define budgets by themselves, nor to they pass tax cuts, or anything else with money by themselves. We have a complicated government. Evaluations done in this way are simplistic and prove nothing.

Considering the fact that I haven’t attributed squat to Obama alone in this thread or to any President, I assume you must be directing this to Matt.

For clarity for you all, I’m tired of *any* government spending beyond what is mandated by the Constitution.

From the link I provided,

So, adding up the numbers we can see how financial costs ($5 trillion), social costs ($3,87 trillion), tax related costs (-not exactly costs but revenues that never took place-, $2,769 trillion), and military costs ($2,391 trillion) are the ones which explain 84% of the total US current debt.

I know facts are hard to work around but perpetuating BDS just makes you look foolish. As a nation, it’s time to get past that and make the hard decisions. We need have real change, radical change, so far it ain’t happened, we’ve only moved closer to the brink.