Is GFA Constitutional?

If you don't mind I'd like to pose this question to those of us who live in the USA. This is a serious question and in no way is it meant to stir up controversy or anger, or anything. I really, truly, want to know the answer to the question.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution states that "... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." Ok. So if Obama's government healthcare plan ends up funding abortion... is it Constitutional? I say no, it is not. Based on my 1st Amendment rights, the government cannot take my money, and use it to fund something that is explicitly against my religious beliefs. Obamacare (which is a tax, as concluded by the US Supreme Court) can Constitutionally use my taxpayer money to pay for necessary healthcare... no argument there. I'm specifically talking about abortion.

The thing is, I believe ( and I don't know for sure because we don't know what's in Obamacare -- like Pelosi said, we've got to "pass it so we can find out what's in it" ) that Obamacare is headed inextricably toward government-funded abortion. At that point--assuming it happens--I say Obamacare crosses the line and becomes unconstitutional.

Am I wrong, and if so, why?

Originally posted by sumydid
If you don't mind I'd like to pose this question to those of us who live in the USA. This is a serious question and in no way is it meant to stir up controversy or anger, or anything. I really, truly, want to know the answer to the question.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution states that [b]"... Congress shall make no law respecting an establish acare crosses the line and becomes unconstitutional.

Am I wrong, and if so, why?

[/b]Yes, you're wrong, on two counts.

1. Abortion is Constitutional. It has been ever since Roe v. Wade, 1973; the Court ruled that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion.

2. When you pay taxes, it is no longer your money, and you lose all claim to it, just like what you pay for goods and services is no longer your money. I don't like it either when Corporations take my money for a toaster or something and then throw that money at a politician whose platform I abhor. Then I can only attack the problem from the rear and vote for people who do not believe that Corporations are people and are therefore limited in how much they can give to political candidates.

If you don't like abortion (or any other law, for that matter), then vote for people who have your opinions on it. That's how this country has worked for well over 200 years now.

Originally posted by sumydid
If you don't mind I'd like to pose this question to those of us who live in the USA. This is a serious question and in no way is it meant to stir up controversy or anger, or anything. I really, truly, want to know the answer to the question.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution states that [b]"... Congress shall make no law respecting an establish acare crosses the line and becomes unconstitutional.

Am I wrong, and if so, why?

Well, I dont live in the USA but I can't see why this would violate the First Amendment.

The establishment of religion clause seems to say that no law will be passed which will enforce, encourage or favour one religion over another.

The free exercise clause says that no law will be passed which will interfere with someone's rights to practice their religion.

The free exercise clause is clearly irrelevant from this perspective. A government which simply permits abortion is doing nothing to prevent someone from practising a religion which forbids it.

The former clause would also seem to be irrelevant. Passing a law which permits or enables abortion is not promoting one religion over another. Many religions are vegetarian, so presumably any law passed in support of beef farming is also unconstitutional. The Shakers also prohibited sexual intercourse, so if there are any still knocking around, and living in the US, there had better not be any state funded centres for the treatment of sexual health problems.

In fact, the whole educational system must be unconstitutional, as it teaches any manner of things in absolute contradiction of what many religions believe to be true.

As Suzianne says, the answer to your real concern is a political one.

Originally posted by sumydid
If you don't mind I'd like to pose this question to those of us who live in the USA. This is a serious question and in no way is it meant to stir up controversy or anger, or anything. I really, truly, want to know the answer to the question.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution states that [b]"... Congress shall make no law respecting an establish acare crosses the line and becomes unconstitutional.

Am I wrong, and if so, why?[/b]

If your premise is true. And that it is unconstitutional for the government to fund abortion
because that means that they are using the money from tax payers who's religion doesn't
permit abortion...

Then you could prevent the government from spending any money on anything simply by
creating a religion that doesn't like it.

Your national defence would have to go because of pacifist religions that don't approve of
violence or weapons.

In fact I have a hard time thinking of anything that government does that someone somewhere
doesn't like.

And all they would have to do to stop the government spending money on it would be to form a
religion that opposed it.



Do you think that that is a good idea?

Originally posted by sumydid
If you don't mind I'd like to pose this question to those of us who live in the USA. This is a serious question and in no way is it meant to stir up controversy or anger, or anything. I really, truly, want to know the answer to the question.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution states that [b]"... Congress shall make no law respecting an establish ...[text shortened]... acare crosses the line and becomes unconstitutional.

Am I wrong, and if so, why?

Paul counselled Christians to pay taxes to the Roman government which was licentious,
incestuous, violent and pagan. A Christians concern is simply to pay the tax, not what
the government is prepared to do with it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Paul counselled Christians to pay taxes to the Roman government which was licentious,
incestuous, violent and pagan. A Christians concern is simply to pay the tax, not what
the government is prepared to do with it.

That argument only works for Christians (and then only those that agree with a
particular interpretation of Christianity).

The actual question while asked by a Christian, applies to all religions and is not
Christianity specific.

So do you have a reason that works for all religions, and not just your version of
Christianity?

Originally posted by sumydid
If you don't mind I'd like to pose this question to those of us who live in the USA. This is a serious question and in no way is it meant to stir up controversy or anger, or anything. I really, truly, want to know the answer to the question.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution states that "... Congress shall make no law respecting an establish acare crosses the line and becomes unconstitutional.

Am I wrong, and if so, why?

Using taxpayer money to pay for things you find objectionable does NOT prevent you from practicing your religion, nor inhibit your free exercise thereof. You're free to go to church and proclaim abortion to be immoral 365 days a year. But the government (which does not respect the establishment of your religion) is indifferent to what your religious opinion is.

Originally posted by googlefudge
If your premise is true. And that it is unconstitutional for the government to fund abortion
because that means that they are using the money from tax payers who's religion doesn't
permit abortion...

Then you could prevent the government from spending any money on anything simply by
creating a religion that doesn't like it.

Your national defe ...[text shortened]... ould be to form a
religion that opposed it.



Do you think that that is a good idea?

Your response here is pretty much the argument I would have hit back with but I couldn't muster up the energy to write it out in full (can't justify spending too much time on the likes of sumydid, or RJHinds etc...)

Originally posted by googlefudge
That argument only works for Christians (and then only those that agree with a
particular interpretation of Christianity).

The actual question while asked by a Christian, applies to all religions and is not
Christianity specific.

So do you have a reason that works for all religions, and not just your version of
Christianity?

another epic fail, please read the text, here ill post it again for you, hopefully it will
make an impression this time,

Based on my 1st Amendment rights, the government cannot take my
money, and use it to fund something that is explicitly against my religious
beliefs.

sumydid is a Christian, what other religions profess are irrelevant to his perception
of his first amendment rights, how he views the use of his money and how it affects
his religious beliefs

please do offer an alternative interpretation of Romans chapter 13 and state why its
different from my interpretation and non binding on anyone else but me, your
argument is once again, an irrelevancy to the stated text, that the first amendment
rights encompass a broader spectrum is NOT the issue, the question is specific to
sumydid and his beliefs. No i having nothing to state with regard to non Christians.

Originally posted by googlefudge
If your premise is true. And that it is unconstitutional for the government to fund abortion because that means that they are using the money from tax payers who's religion doesn't permit abortion...

Then you could prevent the government from spending any money on anything simply by creating a religion that doesn't like it.

That's exactly what I was thinking also! So I played it out in my head and decided that in order for a religion to claim unconstitutionality, it would have to be an established, obviously legitimate, religion.

Kind of a grey area there, though. You raise a good point.

So if I'm wrong, then I guess the Catholic Church, who is suing our government under the same premise, will undoubtedly lose their case?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Yes, you're wrong, on two counts.

1. Abortion is Constitutional. It has been ever since Roe v. Wade, 1973; the Court ruled that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion.

2. When you pay taxes, it is no longer your money, and you lose all claim to it, j have your opinions on it. That's how this country has worked for well over 200 years now.[/b]

Gotcha. Yes I know abortion is legal. Not saying it isn't. But let me boil it all down. Are you saying that it's Constitutional for your money to be taken by force, and used to fund things your religious beliefs explicitly condemn? A similar example would be for the government to take $100 from you, and hand it over to an anti-Christian artist who wants to make a statue of Jesus out of fecal matter, or put on display, a bowl of urine with a crucifix soaking in it. Acceptable? Constitutional?

Obama has given waiver rights to all Muslims in the country. No Muslim is required to take part in the Obamacare program, presumably for religous reasons. Ok, so why are Christians left out of the waiver (other than the obvious fact that the program would go broke)?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Paul counselled Christians to pay taxes to the Roman government which was licentious,
incestuous, violent and pagan. A Christians concern is simply to pay the tax, not what
the government is prepared to do with it.

I understand that, and in a broader context, I accept it and will abide by the laws of the land. However, I'm simply wondering from a strictly legal perspective, if Christians will have a legitimate case for unconstitutionality once Obamacare funded abortion becomes a reality.

Originally posted by sumydid
Gotcha. Yes I know abortion is legal. Not saying it isn't. But let me boil it all down. Are you saying that it's Constitutional for your money to be taken by force, and used to fund things your religious beliefs explicitly condemn? A similar example would be for the government to take $100 from you, and hand it over to an anti-Christian artist who wants ...[text shortened]... ristians left out of the waiver (other than the obvious fact that the program would go broke)?

No, I'm getting tired of this argument. I hear it all the time on conservative talk-radio. It is NOT *your* money any longer once you pay your taxes. Not any more than the money you pay to Sony for your flat screen TV should be used only for political contributions to only politicians of your choice. Would you say you have a voice in how Sony spends its money since you bought their product and therefore it is your money? No, you wouldn't. Likewise, you have no say in how the Federal Government spends the money you pay them to satisfy your tax debt either. It is NOT *your* money once you spend it, no matter what you're spending it on.

In your example, I would just have to take that and watch it happen, but I would not like it, and my argument against it is that that is a horrible way to spend money meant for the arts. That's simply not art, it's obscenity, and blasphemous. I support the arts, and I generally support the National Endowment for the Arts. But for someone to receive grant money to trash my religion in such an amoral way is simply a bad choice of how to spend that money because it is NOT art, and I would protest on those grounds. I couldn't use the argument that it is unconstitutional because they are using MY money, because it is NOT *my* money.

The best I can do in this situation is to vote for people who I would trust to spend that money wisely. That's why I don't vote for conservatives. I don't want money I worked hard for to end up in some fat cat's pocket.

Obama has given waiver rights to all Muslims in the country. No Muslim is required to take part in the Obamacare program, presumably for religous reasons. Ok, so why are Christians left out of the waiver (other than the obvious fact that the program would go broke)?

I don't know if this is true, I haven't heard anything like this. If this were true, then it sounds like unequal treatment under the law, which IS unconstitutional.

Originally posted by sumydid
That's exactly what I was thinking also! So I played it out in my head and decided that in order for a religion to claim unconstitutionality, it would have to be an established, obviously legitimate, religion.

Kind of a grey area there, though. You raise a good point.

So if I'm wrong, then I guess the Catholic Church, who is suing our government under the same premise, will undoubtedly lose their case?

Ah. But now you are violating the constitution by legally recognising and discriminating
for or against specific religions.

How do you determine which religions are 'established, obviously legitimate' religions?

And the Catholic's are going to loose unless the courts decide to just ignore the constitution
and simply do what their ultra conservative republican backers want them to do...

Cos that never happens right.

Originally posted by sumydid
I understand that, and in a broader context, I accept it and will abide by the laws of the land. However, I'm simply wondering from a strictly legal perspective, if Christians will have a legitimate case for unconstitutionality once Obamacare funded abortion becomes a reality.

Oh and BTW.

It is illegal in the USA for the state to fund abortions.

Period.

They have doubly triply quadruply banned it.

Because they pass a law banning the state/federal funding abortions ever few years every
time there is a republican freak out about it.

Those laws would have to be overturned before the state can fund abortion services.

Which 'Obamacare' does not do.

If you are under the mistaken impression that Obama's weak assed healthcare bill provided
funding for abortion services then you have been misled by the conservative media/politicians
who have lied about it from day one.

To the extent that those of us in the rest of the world that pay attention to the USA have trouble
believing quite how blatantly ludicrously your politicians have lied.
Particularly if they plan on having a civil relationship with us, Because the rights talk about our having
'death panels' and other such crap... (Stephen Hawking would like to point out that he DOES in fact live
in the UK and credits the NHS with keeping him alive this long... Contrary to what your politicians have
claimed.) ...Is really quite offensive.