How secularism defies common sense

[4gold]

In the United States of America, our tax dollars are used to pay for abortions, sex-change operations, and boob jobs.

But if a Christian organization wants taxpayer funding to provide faith-based healthcare, THAT's crossing the line?!

Can't we have a system of laws that rewards religious organizations for doing what is right, while prohibiting them from using the government to advance their doctrine or theology on the rest of us?

[ShadowRishi]

Abortions are legal medial procedures provided to those who do not have a religious objection, why should a secular government not pay for them?

Because it is unconstitutional for the federal government to pay for any medical procedure.

Is it? Please, show me the passage in the constitution that says this. Show me the
ruling by the supreme court that backs up this interpretation of said passage in the constitution.

The powers given to the federal government are all enumerated in the Constitution. Since funding health care is not a power enumerated in the Constitution, the federal government does not have that power.

As for what the Supreme Court rules, that would be entirely irrelevant since there is nothing in Article III that gives the Supreme Court the right to interpret the Constitution. Further, Supreme Court rulings are not laws or amendments to the Constitution and they can be overturned by the very same Court.

Unless it affects a legitimate law made by the Legislature.. Then it's fair ball; but lately people have had a rather liberal view on what properly the law affects.

[McCulloch]

The powers given to the federal government are all enumerated in the Constitution. Since funding health care is not a power enumerated in the Constitution, the federal government does not have that power.

As for what the Supreme Court rules, that would be entirely irrelevant since there is nothing in Article III that gives the Supreme Court the right to interpret the Constitution. Further, Supreme Court rulings are not laws or amendments to the Constitution and they can be overturned by the very same Court.

Is that how constitutional law really works in your country? A country's constitution is more than just the words on a document. It is how those words are applied and interpreted. This can even change over time. Is there any evidence or practice that you have observed that your particular interpretation of how your constitution should be applied is how it is actually done in the U.S.A.?

[Goat]

Abortions are legal medial procedures provided to those who do not have a religious objection, why should a secular government not pay for them?

Because it is unconstitutional for the federal government to pay for any medical procedure.

Is it? Please, show me the passage in the constitution that says this. Show me the
ruling by the supreme court that backs up this interpretation of said passage in the constitution.

The powers given to the federal government are all enumerated in the Constitution. Since funding health care is not a power enumerated in the Constitution, the federal government does not have that power.

As for what the Supreme Court rules, that would be entirely irrelevant since there is nothing in Article III that gives the Supreme Court the right to interpret the Constitution. Further, Supreme Court rulings are not laws or amendments to the Constitution and they can be overturned by the very same Court.

Where does it say that if something is not mentioned in the constitution, the feds do not have the right to act on it? Please, show me where that is written.

[Chancellor]

Abortions are legal medial procedures provided to those who do not have a religious objection, why should a secular government not pay for them?

Because it is unconstitutional for the federal government to pay for any medical procedure.

Is it? Please, show me the passage in the constitution that says this. Show me the
ruling by the supreme court that backs up this interpretation of said passage in the constitution.

The powers given to the federal government are all enumerated in the Constitution. Since funding health care is not a power enumerated in the Constitution, the federal government does not have that power.

As for what the Supreme Court rules, that would be entirely irrelevant since there is nothing in Article III that gives the Supreme Court the right to interpret the Constitution. Further, Supreme Court rulings are not laws or amendments to the Constitution and they can be overturned by the very same Court.

Unless it affects a legitimate law made by the Legislature.. Then it's fair ball; but lately people have had a rather liberal view on what properly the law affects.

Well, no, the only legitimate laws made by Congress (the legislature) are those that fall within the bounds of Congress' enumerated powers.

[Chancellor]

Abortions are legal medial procedures provided to those who do not have a religious objection, why should a secular government not pay for them?

Because it is unconstitutional for the federal government to pay for any medical procedure.

Is it? Please, show me the passage in the constitution that says this. Show me the
ruling by the supreme court that backs up this interpretation of said passage in the constitution.

The powers given to the federal government are all enumerated in the Constitution. Since funding health care is not a power enumerated in the Constitution, the federal government does not have that power.

As for what the Supreme Court rules, that would be entirely irrelevant since there is nothing in Article III that gives the Supreme Court the right to interpret the Constitution. Further, Supreme Court rulings are not laws or amendments to the Constitution and they can be overturned by the very same Court.

Where does it say that if something is not mentioned in the constitution, the feds do not have the right to act on it? Please, show me where that is written.

The 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

[Chancellor]

The powers given to the federal government are all enumerated in the Constitution. Since funding health care is not a power enumerated in the Constitution, the federal government does not have that power.

As for what the Supreme Court rules, that would be entirely irrelevant since there is nothing in Article III that gives the Supreme Court the right to interpret the Constitution. Further, Supreme Court rulings are not laws or amendments to the Constitution and they can be overturned by the very same Court.

Is that how constitutional law really works in your country? A country's constitution is more than just the words on a document. It is how those words are applied and interpreted. This can even change over time. Is there any evidence or practice that you have observed that your particular interpretation of how your constitution should be applied is how it is actually done in the U.S.A.?

In our country, the Constitution is what established our form of government. So, yes, it's much more than just words on a document, it's the supreme law of the land. And, no, the words are not subject to interpretation - they mean exactly and only what those who signed and ratified the document meant. As for change over time, our Constitution has an amendment process built into it. So, if the people feel something needs to be changed, they can amend the Constitution.

[MikeH]

In the United States of America, our tax dollars are used to pay for abortions, sex-change operations, and boob jobs.

But if a Christian organization wants taxpayer funding to provide faith-based healthcare, THAT's crossing the line?!

Can't we have a system of laws that rewards religious organizations for doing what is right, while prohibiting them from using the government to advance their doctrine or theology on the rest of us?

What is this faith-based health care, and what costs should be paid for these services? People are free to pray for whoever they want, while that person is in the hospital seeing the same doctor that everyody else sees.

[McCulloch]

In our country, the Constitution is what established our form of government. So, yes, it's much more than just words on a document, it's the supreme law of the land. And, no, the words are not subject to interpretation - they mean exactly and only what those who signed and ratified the document meant. As for change over time, our Constitution has an amendment process built into it. So, if the people feel something needs to be changed, they can amend the Constitution.

Is that really how it works?

[ShadowRishi]

In our country, the Constitution is what established our form of government. So, yes, it's much more than just words on a document, it's the supreme law of the land. And, no, the words are not subject to interpretation - they mean exactly and only what those who signed and ratified the document meant. As for change over time, our Constitution has an amendment process built into it. So, if the people feel something needs to be changed, they can amend the Constitution.

Is that really how it works?

No, but it's how it's supposed to be done.

[Confused]

Hope this helps dispell this misconception.

I realize that non-profits receive tax breaks. Tax breaks are indiscriminate towards religion. Every single nonprofit organization, regardless of religious beliefs or nonbeliefs, receive the same tax breaks.

I hope that you understand that this is different than receiving federal tax dollars. Federal tax dollars can be spent on non-medically necessary medical procedures, but they cannot be given to medically necessary medical procedures, if those procedures are given by a non-secular organization.

As far as faith-based initiatives go, I think we're still on hold on that one. The Supreme Court ruled in Hein v Freedom From Religion that FFR did not have standing to sue, but offered a legal guideline that the President can fund faith-based initiatives, but not Congress. It was an odd ruling. We have to take a wait-and-see approach until someone who has the right to sue takes it up.

Despite the court rulings or lackthereof, I have cited other methods that give funds to faith based groups. Family planning, while not seen specifically as a strict faith based initiative, it is a religious institution that does get grants from federal funds. Abstinence is being taught more in AIDS endemic countries than condoms are being distributed. Bush approved such a bill when his appointed Health Care advisor suggested preaching abstinence rather than safe sex measures.