Monday, February 20, 2006


In Search of Freedom of Religion

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

The ruling in Massachusetts that all pharmacies must sell the morning after pill violates the First Amendment, "Congress should make no law...prohibiting the free exercise of religion." Virtually, all major religions forbid or strongly disapprove of abortion. There are some exceptions, especially in some Protestant sects. It is the nature of religion that in order to practice a religion on must be able to follow the tenets of their religion during everyday life, not just during the designated time of worship.

In the military people are allowed to be conscientious objectors when their religious beliefs include not killing others even during wartime. Seventh Day Adventists were well known for serving as Medics during the Vietnam War, roles where they served their country, saved lives and killed no one.

Many of the great liberal minds at believe that the government of Massachusetts should be able to force someone to, against their religious beliefs, dispense the morning after pill. Andy Axel doesn't seem to understand the difference between Walmart and the government.
What do you think WalMart would tell a cashier who said that s/he didn't want to work Sundays because of religious values?
The Constitution prohibits the government making laws establishing religion and the free exercise there of. Walmart is a private employer. Of course all this is driven by their hatred of Walmart and religion, so who cares if we trample all over their rights.

Mr. Axel seems to believe one's religion can be judged by whether or not they work in Sunday. "Y'know, if Wal-Mart is such a staunch Christian outfit, why are they open on Sundays? " Of course, you don't have to be Christian to be religious or to be a member of a religion. According to a Thomas R. O'Connor, Associate Professor of Justice Studies' website this is the commonly used legal definition of religion the United States:
the Ballard approach - from U.S. v. Ballard (1944) which said that it doesn't matter how preposterous, true or false, the doctrine is, the true test of what constitutes a religion is the sincerity of its members in miracles or other claims which cannot be proven.
There is no restriction to Christianity.

There is no shortage of instances where expression of religious beliefs has been outlawed, prayer in school, before school ballgames, references to religion in court houses, forbidden Christmas Trees, etc. But now the government of Massachusetts has seen fit to go further by requiring a pharmacy owner to go against their religious belief by requiring them to dispense medication that's sole purpose is to induce a spontaneous abortion. To many religions, this is the moral equivalent of forcing someone to execute someone. Liberals were all over themselves protesting the Tookie Williams execution.

If you cared to notice, I have said nothing about whether a woman has a Constitutional right to abortion. I am simply discussing one's right to refuse to participate in the act. What all this really is about is the radical lefts continued assault on religion, especially Christianity. Without regard to the overall harm to our rights and liberties, the liberal lefts attacks religion at every opportunity and belittles it without rational motives.

In grade school the nuns used to teach us that some day you might be threatened and coerced to abandon your religious beliefs. I always thought I would never see that day in this country. I was wrong.

I do wonder how abortion got to be such an overwhelming issue for feminists and liberals. Just how important is it for a woman to be able to kill her unborn child? Can't she just keep it in her pants like they always tell men in regards to child support, etc.? Are women that poor at controlling their sexual urges? It's sure not the lofty ideals I learned in school.

To go back to the legality of the situation...

Many of the great liberal minds at believe that the government of Massachusetts should be able to force someone to, against their religious beliefs, dispense the morning after pill.

Not really, but if the pharacist doesn't want to follow the laws of Massachussetts and the rules and regulations governing pharmacies as prescribed (no pun intended) by that State's duly elected representatives, they have the freedom to 1) not practice pharmacy in the state of Massachussetts, 2) practice civil disobedience and challenge the charges brought against them, 3) sue the State for restrictions of freedoms and 4) attempt to change the minds of the Massachussetts electorate to vote to change the rules & regulations concerning practicing pharmacy in Mass.

The offended individuals could take their case to civil court based on the 'freedom of religion' clause, but it would be interesting to see how that would play out (I think they'd have to bring the suit in state court first...). Just remember that when liberals try this, we are "legislating from the bench."

If you choose to open your own business and apply for a business license, you sign a contract with the State in which you do business and you accept certain regulations on your particular field for the privilidge of doing business. If you don't like that state's regulations, you can work to change them or Delta is ready when you are.

I don't think those laws will change in Massachussetts, as the States are pretty much the final say on these matters (some notable exceptions, obviously).

The real issue is if the law has been changed on some old-time pharmacists. They have a real case under the 'redress of grievances' clause, because that particular medicine wasn't available when they went into business, but is now, and they may have already invested a significant part of their livlihood in their trade.

They may not change the law, but they may be able to secure a cash award to relocate their business elsewhere.
My point is that the rules, laws, regulations in the state of Massachusetts are, in my opinion, unconstitutional. A state cannot require you to sign away your Constitutional rights in order to do business in that state, period. This would make an interesting court case. I hope someone tests the law.
I understand our differences on this one completely. If a case does come out of this, I hope it is publicized enough to follow it nationally, cause it will be wildly important - not only for matters of morality and legality, but for business as well.
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]