Has that line between church and state been erased in America? Will it need to now be rebuilt from scratch?
SCOTUS has effectively set up two different sets of laws. One for Christian-only churches and Christian institutions such as the ark theme park or Hobby Lobby and the rest of us. Church schools now get public funding. Contraceptives won't be covered if a religious-minded employer gets the willies over it. There is no more separation.
A lot of the PPP money went to churches. Churches do not have to account to anyone how much money they have or where it goes unless there's obvious fraud. Even then, the IRS seems to not see that or know about it unless it's especially grievous. Churches do not pay taxes, yet get tax money funneled to them, especially now.
The last month has completely reworked the state-church relationship. Previously, the separation gave extensive benefits to churches and some burdens. Churches expanded those benefits massively and argued that any burden is discrimination....Basically, churches argued this: “If you treat us differently in a way we don’t like, it’s discrimination. If you treat us different in a way that benefits us, it’s because the Constitution requires it and we want more.”
And they won. That, my friends, is religious privilege. Churches now get to have their cake (which American taxpayers now have to buy) and eat it too. This is not neutrality (the original rule) or even benevolent neutrality (a liberalized rule)--this is favoritism and it ought to be unconstitutional. It's certainly un-American. Andrew Seidel
Not to mention the two hundred judges appointed to stay on the bench as long as they like who are unfit, unqualified and ideologues. Most are Bible-thumping backwards-thinking fanatics who are loyal to the GOP and Jesus, not impartial deciders on that law and order so many conservatives beat off to yet don't seem to actually understand.
- SamwiseLv 72 months agoFavourite answer
I can see a basis for strong protection of religious beliefs, and allowance for exemption from laws that restrict those beliefs.
I do think that the beliefs protected need to be publicly avowed, prominently. For instance, it seems to me that if the Catholic Church in the United States claims legal immunity from complaints of age discrimination, then that Church is required to declare that it holds a fundamental belief in age discrimination.
Similarly, any institution claiming a religious exemption from requirements to provide contraception coverage for female employees must--whether it's the Little Sisters of the Poor or Hobby Lobby--declare that it regards the reproductive systems of its female employees to be under the control of the institution, not the individual.
Of course, the rest of us would be allowed to exercise our own freedom of belief in choosing whether or not to deal with such an institution.
It does seem to me that the Christian Scientists would have a big advantage in avoiding insurance costs, since the only treatments they would have to cover would be prayers.
- Larry CLv 72 months ago
When was there ever supposed to be a line? Who were the first and second estates? What was thwir functions?
- UserLv 72 months ago
To the contrary
remains at the much stricter level
that began to be established early in the last century
and that has become much stricter during that time.
It has not
and likely will not
return to the much less strict levels seen at the time that the policy was instituted and originally implemented ~200 years ago.
The word of the law
has been used to overpower the (obvious, in historical perspective) intent of the law.
What you are seeing
is the word of two different legal principles
and being decided in favor of legally-guaranteed individual rights
as opposed to legal requirements
(as is almost always the case in U.S. law, or at least as is almost always eventually the case)
In the U.S.
a law mandating some behavior or action
never trumps a law protecting an individual's legally-guaranteed rights
except when public safety is at issue.
You want the individual rights
specifically in the case of religious freedom
to be superseded by laws mandating behavior or action.
You would not want that
if it were one of the legally-protected rights that you enjoy being superseded by legal mandate.
- Anonymous2 months ago
A person can battle attacks against religious freedom using voting, political activism, the rosary and fasting.
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- Anonymous2 months ago
In no way. Christian law has been a staple of the legislatures since the beginning.
The only Constitutional obligation is that there be no Established Religion for all.
- SofiaLv 62 months ago
Such an odd question. No, it has not.
- Simon TLv 72 months ago
It is getting that way.
What we need now is some Muslims or Hindus trying to pull the same BS arguments as the Christians have....
….then all of a sudden those Christians will want separation of Church and State again.
It is like the prayers at the start of sessions of Congress . . .when there is no prayer, all the Christians want to be able to express their individual freedom by having a prayer read. But as soon as someone suggests a Muslim prayer, a Hindu prayer, or something outside Judeo-Christian orthodoxy - - all of a sudden those Christians have a conniption fit about it.
- jon pikeLv 72 months ago
A false premise cannot be accurately answered.
- 2 months ago
the state is made up of people, the people are religious......and you don't get to change anything