[cdad]

Why?



I am sure stoning some one is against the law no matter what religion they are from. Settling disputes in court, or by an approved arbitrator is the way we all have to go, if we chose to, but physical harm is against the law.

So far it has been kept on lower levels like arbitration. But as we all known we all need to keep an eye on things as they progress.

I am more concerned with Christians who deny birth control to women than I am about stoning, but I do know of Americans who have killed because their religion gives them that right, or so they have alleged, but thank god they ended up in jail for murder.

Orato: Texas Father Main Suspect in Murder Cab Driver Murders Two Daughter in Possible Honour Killing

I think we should be vigilante for anyone who breaks the law regardless of religion.

By deny as far as birth control do you mean asking the person to pay for it? Or are you talking about an outright ban?

I was speaking to the context of law as you didn't seem to be aware of how it has crept its way into american law. Of course we all have to be mindful of illegal acts around us and bring the perps to justice.

[talaniman]

If I remember correctly employer heath insurance is paid for by contributions from the employer, and the employee, and benefits are paid by insurance companies who set policy standard, not churches. I also know that churches get group rates and participate in a larger group to get better rates.

Now if the church can tell what benefits the policy holder gets, then the employee should have the option of not buy their insurance, and take cash instead of a benefit, which would be fair of any employee, and let the consumer decide. I dare say that employees will be looking around for the employers who have the better benefits, pay, and working conditions.

That's what its all about choices made by consumers, and working people, and has little to do with the right of religion. I don't think churches should make rules for companies, plain and simple, and the states agree because they have already made laws to prevent such policy. At least 34 so far and more are considering it.

Many churches have opted to underwrite their own insurance, but have a hard time finding an insurance company to go along with their rules. So I guess the janitor, or the clerk will be asking for more money to buy their own health insurance that meets their needs, not the churches.

Churches are tax exempt, but are their employees? I haven't checked, but I doubt it. But churches pay for a policy, they don't pay for a benefit of the policy.

[Wondergirl]

Not that it matters one way or the other, but my church body, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, cuts through all this and has its own plan that covers all of its church and parochial workers. Concordia Health Plan - Concordia Plan Services

[talaniman]

Not that it matters one way or the other, but my church body, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, cuts through all this and has its own plan that covers all of its church and parochial workers. Concordia Health Plan - Concordia Plan Services

That's what most church health plans look like, not unlike private sector plans. I fail to see what religiou freedom has to do with health insurance since churches neither pay for the benefits, nor despenses them.

I was speaking to the context of law as you didn't seem to be aware of how it has crept its way into american law. Of course we all have to be mindful of illegal acts around us and bring the perps to justice.

Why can't Islamic law be as American as Catholic or Christian laws? Isn't that a basic tenant of American laws, the right of free practice of any religion you choose?

Being none of the above they all look alike to me, one no better, or worse than the other. Frankly it's the people who practice whatever that turn me off... or on! Agood person, is a good person. And a bad one is just BAD! Right?

[TUT317]

got it backwards . The law cannot violate the free exercise clause . If a law is crafted that violates that provision it is an unconstitutional law.

Unless the government can show a compelling interest.

Tom, you left that bit out.



Tut

[Wondergirl]

Unless the government can show a compelling interest.

And that "compelling interest" is?

[tomder55]

I've read the 1st amendment many times and can't find that compelling interest clause.

[TUT317]

And that "compelling interest" is?

Hi Wondergirl. Long time no chat.

According to Wikipeda compelling interest in bound up in a legal application allowing the government to regulate a given matter. Religion being just one example. Obviously there are others.

It seems to me compelling government interest can be interpreted in different ways depending on the time and your history seems to show this. Sometimes compelling interest was interpreted in a narrow fashion; sometimes broadly.

I guess the obvious point is that a limited number of religious practices are not acceptable if they are in fact a criminal act. The overwhelming majority are not.

Tut

[TUT317]

I've read the 1st amendment many times and can't find that compelling interest clause.

Hi Tom,

It's there, you are just not looking hard enough.

Perhaps I can borrow from Justice Scalia and get around it using a couple of select phrases:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Perhaps I could also find some evidence of absence in there somewhere. Worked for him in Citizens United.

[tomder55]

I've looked for his quote in Citizens United a couple times and haven't found it . Do you have that link ?

[tomder55]

Hi Wondergirl. Long time no chat.

According to Wikipeda compelling interest in bound up in a legal application allowing the government to regulate a given matter. Religion being just one example. Obviously there are others.

It seems to me compelling government interest can be interpreted in different ways depending on the time period and your history seems to show this. Sometimes compelling interest was interpreted in a narrow fashion; sometimes broadly.

I guess the obvious point is that a limited number of religious practices are not acceptable if they are in fact a criminal act. The overwhelming majority are not.

Tut

Yes it's true that human sacrifice or stoning would not be permitted under our laws because they conflict with other people's God given right to life. I won't get into that obvious contradiction in our abortion laws...

[speechlesstx]

I thought I am the government. It's my tax dollars at work doing some of that ministering to the "least among us."

So the government is now the church?

[excon]

So the government is now the church?

Hello again, Steve:

If the politician and/or the government worker wants to THINK they're doing God's work, why shouldn't they? Don't they have religious freedom?

I just happen to think that children should be able to eat a nice breakfast.. It has NOTHING to do with God.

excon

[TUT317]

I've looked for his quote in Citizens United a couple times and haven't found it . Do you have that link ?

Wikipedia 1/4 of the way down under the heading of, 'Concurrences'

Scalia addressing Stevens' dissent... Scalia stated that Stevens' dissent was in splendid isolation from the text of the First Amendment.. It(First Amendment) never shows why 'Freedom of Speech' that was the right of Englishmen did not include the freedom to speak in association with other individuals, including association in the corporate form.

In other words, absence of evidence


Scalia then goes on to say that the First Amendment was written "in terms of speech, not speakers" and that the text offers no foothold for excluding the category of speakers.

In other words there is evidence of absence.

We could debate the merits or otherwise of his statement but that is not the issue here. For the purpose of this exercise we need to recognize that he has hypothesized in relation into the Amendment.

Why can't we hypothesize in a similar fashion when it comes to the Free exercise Clause?


Besides the state has always shown a compelling in these and similar matters./ Sometimes a broad interest sometimes a narrow interest. But the compelling interest is always there.


Tut

[talaniman]

You don't have to be a church to provide for the general welfare of the people.

[speechlesstx]

We aren't saved because we are being responsible for others. We are responsible for others because we are saved.

We are the government in this country. Rome's government was mainly in one person, was a monarchy during Jesus' time.

The composition of the government is irrelevant to Jesus' teachings. He never advocated a secular government perform the functions of the church. In fact He was clear that His concerns were for a spiritual Kingdom which is "not of this world."

God is concerned with matters of the heart. The federal government has no heart. But that's OK, you guys are going to miss the church when the feds take over her ministries.

[speechlesstx]

you don't have to be a church to provide for the general welfare of the people.

Ok. And??

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

If the politician and/or the government worker wants to THINK they're doing God's work, why shouldn't they? Don't they have religious freedom?

I would never have seen you ask that question 5 or 6 years ago. You guys were terrified at the thought of Bush doing God's work.

I just happen to think that children should be able to eat a nice breakfast.. It has NOTHING to do with God.

OK. And you know good and well that those of us on this side of the aisle believe that as well. My tax money providing a government safety net is a good thing... for those who truly need it. Expanding the safety net to include a cradle to grave nanny for "99 percent" so we can all live the life of Julia is a terribly bad idea and has no connection whatsoever to the bible's teachings as the Obamas would like for you to believe. I'm beginning to think you did drink the koolaid.

[talaniman]

Its in the constitution, and its what the government does.

[speechlesstx]

What constitutes the "general welfare?"