Concur and acknowledge the

Aunt Sam — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:47:20 +0000

Concur and acknowledge the award is well deserved.

Well put, BJ. Yes, once

Ramona — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 12:11:51 +0000

Well put, BJ. Yes, once they're outside the church confines they can no longer dictate to the rest of the world. They hate that.

The argument loses steam when it comes out that their policies do, in fact, cover contraceptives. The difference is there will no longer be a co-pay. So what's the big fuss about? Big government? Obamacare? Uppity women?

None of the above. It's all about power and pandering in order to give the Right a win in November.

The First Amendment is just one more weapon in their battle to overturn Gay marriage and Roe v Wade.

I believe that once a

Richard Day — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:42:35 +0000

In reply to First, a brief review is

Yeah. I hereby render unto Beetlejuice the Dayly Legal Analytic Line of the Day Award for this here Dagblog Site, given to all of him from all of me!

Now email this line to every Catholic in this nation!

First, a brief review is

Beetlejuice — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 18:17:38 +0000

In reply to Obama, Catholics and The New Old War

First, a brief review is necessary.

Secular (adj) - of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred.

- officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion.

- refers to the declining influence of religion and religious values within a given culture.

Non-secular - a society is one where religion is experienced in many everyday events of civic life, and where it is part of the government.

There's very few definitions for the term non-secular per Google's imprint of my preferences on the subject. I'm quite sure someone else would get a plethora of definitions to my paltry few hits.

The Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights pretty much indicate the US is a secular nation. The 1st Amendment goes so far as to make a distinct line of separation between the religious activity and government declaring one is free to practice their religion in whatever manner they see fit without fear the government would intrude. It's the cornerstone of our freedoms.

However, there is a droning claim of government interference in people practicing their religious beliefs by the government.

Really !?!?!?!?!

I believe the 1st Amendment isn't being breached by the government ... they're not stepping into the Church and dictating how one should or should not worship the deity of their choice. They are honoring their commitment and steering their policies away from conflict with respect to the religious clause in the 1st Amendment.

The issue is where non-secular entities, such as religious groups, have set-up shop outside the confines of the 1st Amendment and staked claims on secular grounds where government policies do come in conflict with religion and their beliefs. Hospitals are the prime example.

Religion is free to practice their beliefs without fearing the government will step in and dictate what they can or cannot profess ... so long as they stay within the confines of the Church. Once they step outside the doors of their spiritual sanctuary, all bets are off. The 1st Amendment only protects their freedom to practice their religious beliefs within the confines of their Holies of Holies ... not on the public street. Because out on the street there are others of different faiths who have a different set of morale ethics. And if one is allowed to move into the public square, all the rest would demand the same for their beliefs too. So the government has a responsibility to all religions not the promote one over the other.

What I beg to differ with the religious zealots claiming the government is pushing their political agenda on them disrespecting their faith and trampling on their 1st Amendment rights is when did a hospital become a religious sanctuary protected by the 1st Amendment? Just because a specific religious entity provides financial support to an institution doesn't mean the mantle of the 1st Amendment covers it as well.

I believe that once a religion steps beyond the doors of their sanctuary and enters into a secular activity, they have no choice but to follow the policies the government has set forth for such an activity. If such policies are against their religious beliefs, then it should be a no-brainer it's an activity they should not participate in. And if the activity they've been engaged in comes under policies changes in conflict with their beliefs, they have no choice but to withdraw their presence from the activity.

It would be wrong to expect the government to give religious participation in secular activities a free pass because of the 1st Amendment ... the amendment is very specific about one's right to practice one's faith - it's silent about other life activities related to the practice of one's religion.

dagblog - Comments for "Obama, Catholics and The New Old War"

Concur and acknowledge the

Well put, BJ. Yes, once

I believe that once a

First, a brief review is