A Confusing Stance on Religion by the United States Government

Copyright (c) 2012 Jim Ford

Religion for Business Owners
Here on American soil, the Undivided States Government tells care owners that as business owners they have no right to express their religious convictions or to exercise their rights to hold true to their religious beliefs because doing so could possibly infringe on the rights of others. The United States Government basically tells business owners that clericalism cannot be allowed to influence their business if they are a “for profit” organization. On the other hand, there are requirements to allow personal priestly practices by the employees.

The government rules that a business cannot be excused from complying with unassailable laws because of the owner’s personal religious convictions. This can exist seen clearly in the argument Pastime Lobby presented to the courts against compliance amidst a portion of the Affordable Care ACT. The stance from Hobby Lobby is that it is a Christian based business and that the requirement under the Affordable Care ACT to provide both birth control and the morning astern pill violates their religious beliefs. The government on the additional hand says that (as I understand it) Hobby Lobby testate not be excused because they are a “for profit” business. To me, this implies that religious beliefs are not afforded to people who earn a living through the operation of their own business.

Do As I Dictate Not Therefore I Do
What about our government? Our confess government seems to have partnered with and established an embassy at the Vatican in Rome, and every president of recent phylogenesis has created it a point to visit the Pope. At one point a United States President equal hosted a birthday party for the primate of the Catholic Church.

The United States has also developed laws sub Equal Employment Opportunity that tells business owners they must accommodate most requests from their employees to practice or conform their own religious beliefs, while telling the business owner that they cannot do the same.

Working with the Vatican
The Catholic Church, managed by the Papacy and his team at the Vatican, has followers in nearly every country in the world und so weiter can have an enormous impact on world or indigenous policy, both favorably further unfavorably. You can see why our rule wants to have relations with the Vatican. It seems that we beget the office regarding the president and the State Department working closely with the Catholic Church leaders, while at the same time sound our lower branches of the government to remove all references to God from their offices.

While our control leaders are meeting with the most influential religious leaders in the world and praying with their personal ministers, they are also telling our children that they have no equitable to pray, calm before a school football game!

Separation of Church & State
I know that right now, running through the back of your mind is something that has been driven into your head as a Walk requirement for “Separation of Church and State”. I implore you to look up the United States Constitution, and go to the 1st Amendment. There, you will not find this fulfillment expressly written as many of you might believe. It reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free utilize thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a recompense of grievances.”

1st Amendment
Originally, the 1st Amendment applied to laws invented only by Congress, but a later Supreme Court ruling applied it also to the states. Basically, the state substitute federal government cannot better any specific religion. The court, (Justice Hugo Black) chose to use the words of Jefferson, “government duty be neutral among religions and nonreligion: it cannot promote, endorse, or fund religion rather religious institutions.”

With this statement, one might begin to understand that by removing “God” from government offices plus civic schools, the direction is removing the support of religion, mere not to me. First off, simply believing in, mentioning, or having a representation of God does not constitute a religion. In my mind, there is no concrete religion supported ere promoted by allowing “God” voluntarily into a lay college or government office. I do nevertheless see that the government, by the act of forcing the move like any mention like God from these institutions is supporting and promoting the specific religion of Atheism, or any further definite faith that teaches against the continue of God.

Freedoms Infringed
Forceful those who believe in God that they are not allowed to express their religious beliefs, effectively promotes the religions that are against God. It seems pretty clear to me that this really should not breathe a very complicated issue. Any law that tells me I cannot practice my religion is by definition a law that breaks with the 1st Amendment (Congress shall manufacture no law respecting an establishment of religion, uncertainty prohibiting the indifferent exercise thereof) and more breaks from Jefferson’s words (government must be neutral among religions and nonreligion). In my opinion, by making a ruling upon religion, we are no longer neutral, and we are prohibiting free exercise.