Just a question here:

Does a blanket doctrine of separation of church and state supersede individual rights? Say, the right to medication?

here is another question? (just some thoughts) i wonder how many women are opposed to say, the use of contraceptives (i mean medication, i mean contraceptives), as opposed to say, the religious leaders who are? i mean, are all the women really opposed to them?

i mean, lord have mercy

There is a right to medication?

They do pay for it. It is an insurance program.

I am not now nor have I ever been a fan of employer based health insurance but the conservatives and tea party will not give it up so, really, should you be commenting on it?

They pay for SOME of it yes, but if the company that provides the insurance doesn't want to cover procedures that are against its religious beliefs, there is a Constitutional protection that says they do not have to. It is the first amendment. I don't see how you don't throw that amendment away if you force them to pay for things they do not want to.

BTW, Obama's latest plan would have them not pay for it, he again MANDATES everyone else pay for it by forcing insurance companies to cover it "for free".

Who gave him this power anyway btw? I know liberals like him to have this power, but do they REALLY want the next Republican president to wield the same power? I mean, we could have a president, following Obama's precedent, who could mandate gun ownership. Seriously.. I mean, think of the costs the federal government incurs protecting it's citizens. We could save a lot of money if we just mandated everyone own a m-16 and a .45 ACP.. It's just funny how people never think of what the next guy will do with the power you trust the current guy with.

I looked there and did not see that bit. Could you point that out please?

It only says Congress shall make no law regarding religion. Too bad that that is not freedom from Religion, which many of the Founders would have wanted.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Now, where is that part about separation of church and state? Is that right next to the abortion clause?

So you are officially a FAUX LIBERTARIAN! Individual rights mean shit to you! Got it!

One funny mixed up dude!

Its really too bad that Jefferson's thoughts, of all Churches being, basically, U.U.s by 1850, did not come true.

Nobody prohibited anybody from exercising their religion! Catholics are free to be catholics and pray to the virgin mary and talk of the evils of birth control till the cows come home.

Separation of Church and State means the government is neutral and will not get involved in petty theological squabbles (certainly a noted magical constitutional scholar such as yourself should know that).

It is fine if you want to preach against birth control but don't expect the government to back you up if your "flock" wants to get a little without worry of creating the need of an abortion.

There is a name for FAUX LIBERTARIANS, I call them TEA BAGGERS!

Of course you back up your arguments by calling people liars who walk around with shit in their hair while shopping for underwear in Kmart (a sound argument, WTF, you used to at least be funny)

Except they have to pay for contraception under comrade Obama...



There is no such clause called "Separation of church and state" in the Constitution. The first amendment prohibits a theocracy and also protects the rights of people to practice their religion. That is what is called a sound interpretation of the Constitution based on what is actually written in it, not what someone wishes were in it.



The "flock" is allowed to do whatever they wish, but we are not talking about the flock are we?



Actually, I think my opinion is more in line with libertarianism than yours. Yours is the belief of a soft tyranny when you wish to force churches to go against their own teachings. You wish to restrain religion, whereas I wish to only restrain government. Tell me why that is fake libertarianism in your baffling mind again?



Well, you are a liar. You posted that I said stuff I didn't say, and when I called you out on it, you were exposed. How does it feel to be known a bald faced liar?



Definitely have to go to Kmart..

so if i am of a religion that does not believe in using contraceptives and i start a company, hiring a diverse group of people (some may be religious, some may not be). and through my company i offer health insurance that would cover contraceptives...i will say no to the contraceptives for others, because i don't believe in using them myself?

Well, that is a bit outside the scope of this argument because we are not talking about individuals here. We are talking about churches and their enterprises. However, I would say any employer is allowed to offer whatever insurance he/she wants, or even NO insurance. If an employee does not like it, they are free to work elsewhere.

I for one do not understand the Catholic churches opposition to contraception, in fact, I find it rather goofy, but I also find a lot of beliefs of Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Protestants and etc. a bit whacky too. But it isn't up to me to dictate what their religious doctrines should be. What's next? Should we force Muslims to eat pork because by choosing to not eat pork they are affecting interstate commerce?

No it is not outside the scope of this argument. It is what this argument is all about!