I perceive a fallacy in your argument.
The law says no establishment if religion.
If the law is struck solely to comply with religious based belief and view, then the government is in effect establishing religion.
To be successful, the argument must be made on other grounds.
I refuse to use the false term “Separation of church and state”
Today I use the far more accurate term “Protection of church from state”.
???
Telling McCain to get the choke hold off of my religion is a fallacy? Telling McCain that can’t demand Catholics pay for ‘birth control’ is a fallacy?
The government can demand that the option for birth control coverage be offered, but it cannot force anyone to purchase it as part of their coverage.
So I don’t get what you are saying at all..
> To be successful, the argument must be made on other grounds.
How about this one.
Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF!!!!!!!!
This regulation, established by an act of Congress, violates the FREE EXERCISE clause of the First Amendment by forcing religious institutions to pay for something that violates their religious conscience.
Thomas Jefferson said, “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
This is even worse than that, because it compels all of Biblical Christianity, as well as the Catholic Church, to furnish funds for what they consider to be an egregious offense to God.