Posted on 10/01/2007 1:21:03 PM PDT by processing please hold
Obviously the case is frivolous and has no weight. We know that human life exists in the womb. We know that abortifacients kill human life. The Just are right to ignore the wicked demands of sin. Those who love Jesus are dutifully bound to refuse extortion payment to what is premeditated murder. Funding contraception is a mortal violation of God's Law.
*****Why do churches have employees anyway?*****
Churches are big businesses: e.g., their employees are custodians, music directors, cooks, housekeepers, bookkeepers.
Churches also own and run hospitals, and schools. Need I point out who the employees are in these institutions?
Wrong! You sound like a troll. NY State is trying to force the Catholic Church to pay for abortifacients and eventully for abortion itself. Don’t kid yourself.
Not too many surprises here, although I do see a few big ones: most notably North Carolina (!) West Virginia (!!!) and even libertarian-trending New Hampshire.
Interesting how the ACLU nuts who scream bloody murder about keeping religion out of government seem to make no such demand about keeping government out of religion.
“Additionally, I see a lot of people on this thread demanding help from the government and that surprises me. That’s a socialist mantra. I think we should be making goverenment smaller. The government should giving money to all organizations and let them run on their own. We’re very giving people and we can decide what charities and programs deserve our donations. But, if they get money from the government, they have to follow so many rules and they can’t preach religion (not with government money or support anyway). That’s the the purpose of the establishment clause (see the religious libery act in Virginia which prompted the establishment clause).”
I have to agree with you on this. Even if Government reduced taxes and let non-profit organizations take care of the charitable work, the members of a church could afford to donate more to the church, then the church might be able to build buildings large enough for their needs. In that case the churches would not need to use government buildings and we would not need to have this discussion.
“Would said wician and atheist now have a lawsuit against the church for discrimination?”
They would certainly try.
My understanding was that faith based charities were subject to the law, but a Church itself is not.
Is that accurate?
“And, fifty years ago lots of Christians considered it to be a lack of faith in God to have health insurance. Ain’t that something to think about.”
The times have definitely changed... At least partly, I think, because parents can now be considered criminally negligable if they allow a suffering child to become crippled or die because they didn’t believe in medicine. Polio was thought to be eradicated until recently Amish children started getting it because their parents chose not to get them vaccinated.
Certain people have always expected God to do everything for them, instead of making any effort to take responcibility for their own lives. God is there to provide support and love, not welfare, and I think more people realize that today than did fifty years ago.
You misunderstood. People got medical care for their children just fine. They just didn’t think medical insurance was necessary.
But gay groups can meet there and preach their agenda, feminists can preach theirs, atheists can preach theirs, but the Christian agenda is silenced. That is not freedom of religion, that is censorship.
I also see this as a result of all the conservatives on the bench being Catholics. No offense, but Catholic conservatives are different than Protestant ones. We need some non-Catholic conservative voices there, not to substitute their values for the Constitution, but to to approach it from a different mindset. “Catholic Guilt” sometimes plays out similar to “Jewicide”.
“I also see this as a result of all the conservatives on the bench
being Catholics.”
I don’t know if that’s really an operative factor (or not).
My suspicion is that there was some sort of factor of the cases
sent up to the USSC that just didn’t present itself as a good “test case”
for review.
It’s amazing the reasons (real or manufactured) that judges can
bring up in order to ignore or intervene in a case.
But I am disappointed that the current cases weren’t taken on for review.
Even if the conservatives on the court (some of Catholic faith)
had a hand in declining to review...
I’m still happy to have those judges of Catholic faith/background
on the bench...
rather than some of the MUCH UGLIER alternatives.
Just my opinion.
Isn’t this basicly a civil rights issue? The library shouldn’t be able to deny access to any law abiding body that wants to use their public facilities. That isn’t open to debate and this certainly is not something states can opt to deny any group.
Oh my...you actually think allowing an organization equal access to a public building would constitute "propping up" religion? I think you need to dial down the drama queen act a bit.
We are commanded to do otherwise:
"Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching."--Hebrews 10:25
Maybe there are some bad church leaders, but disobeying one of God's clear instructions surely isn't the answer to the problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.