My letter to Prolife Christians about the HHS Mandate


Dear Pro-life Christians Against the HHS Mandate,

The Supreme Court has already decided that there cannot be a religious exception to a law that applies to all persons equally. They’ve already decided that while the Congress can’t legislate that you agree with abortion in your mind — they certainly have the power to legislate that you agree with abortion with your actions.

You might not remember it — but it was back in the 19th century when the LDS were deprived of their 1st Amendment right to freely practice their religion by the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act.  You probably don’t recall because you were too busy celebrating with the rest of the country that those pagan, polygamous Mormons “got theirs” for daring to insist that God wanted them to love more than one spouse at a time.

The church of jesus christ of latter day saints challenged it on the grounds that passing an anti-polygamy law is unconstitutional because consenting adults entering plural marriages was a matter of the religious practice and duty of a Mormon’s faith.

While the Supreme Court said it recognized that under the 1st Amendment, Congress could not pass a law prohibiting the free exercise of religionit argued that a law prohibiting polygamy doesn’t fall under that prohibition.  And they said that although the constitution didn’t expressly define “religion”, they quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson in support of drawing a hard distinction between religion as a matter of belief/the mind and one’s actions that might flow from religious belief.

It was their opinion that while a matter of belief lies solely between a man and his God — the legislative powers of the state can reach actions [just not opinions] — despite the fact that beliefs inform action, and all action is predicated upon a corresponding belief.

The court argued that if polygamy was allowed, someone might eventually argue that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion [plural marriages vs. murder — talk about “apples to apples”]:

So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed.  Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief?

To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.  Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

A criminal intent is generally an element of crime, but every man is presumed to intend the necessary and legitimate consequences of what he knowingly does.  Here, the accused knew he had been once married, and that his first wife was living.  He also knew that his second marriage was forbidden by law.  When, therefore, he married the second time, he is presumed to have intended to break the law.  And the breaking of the law is the crime.  Every act necessary to constitute the crime was knowingly done, and the crime was therefore knowingly committed.  Ignorance of a fact may sometimes be taken as evidence of a want of criminal intent, but not ignorance of the law.  The only defense of the accused in this case is his belief that the law ought not to have been enacted.  It matters not that his belief was a part of his professed religion; it was still belief, and belief only.

[Reynolds v. United States]:

What all this means is — that as soon as the Supreme Court decided that those who believe in practicing polygamy could no more be exempt from an anti-polygamy law than those who may wish to practice human sacrifice as part of their religious belief would be bound by laws against murder:

  • religion as a matter of belief and religion as a matter of practice was legally dichotomized
  • the state was given jurisdiction over your religion as a matter of action
  • you lost your case against a mandate that employers provide contraceptive and abortive birth control as a part of the Affordable Health Care Act.
I’m sorry — but I hear the world’s tiniest violin playing, “My heart bleeds for you” whenever I hear Pro-life Christians complaining about how a healthcare mandate for employers to cover contraception and abortive procedures:  “trashes their freedom of religious expression.”You’ve allowed the State already to declare its power to demarcate religion into the realm of “belief” and the “mind” [rather than a function of “practice” and of the “physical”] way back in the 1890’s.   Sorry — but this is a battle you’ve already lost when the Supreme Court upheld the right of the State to imprison LDS church leaders, confiscate their property, and terminate the church’s corporate charter — all because of the Mormon’s freely exercising their religion.

When all the other Christians sat back and applauded as the State passed laws prohibiting the free exercise of the Mormon religion — simply because of their hatred of men and women having plural spouses — the fate over this comparatively light matter of employers covering birth control in their health care plans was settled.

Sincerely,
A Mormon tired of hearing your whining

Next Article by Justin:  Lukewarm = Good for nothing

Previous Article by Justin:  The Unity of God

Advertisements

3 Comments

  1. As an aside: Please know — that I don’t think the government has the power to force religious people to provide contraceptive and abortive procedures in health insurance plans for their employees, either. I don’t even think that the State has the power to force anyone to have (or to provide to others) health insurance in the first place. I’m an anarchist.

    Likewise — I don’t think the State had the power to force Mr. Reynolds to be monogamous when [as a part of his religious practice] two women desired to be his wife, and he their husband. Because I don’t even think the State has the right to “license” marriage in the first place. A “license” is legal permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal. Marriage isn’t “otherwise illegal”.

    The point is — this matter has already been decided. If the State was willing to break apart Mormon families in the 1880’s — then I can guarantee that the Prolife Christians will lose this fight over the comparatively lighter matter of employers having to cover birth control in their health insurance plans. The State was already allowed to declare its power to demarcate religion into the realm of “belief” and the “mind” [rather than a function of “practice” and of the “physical”] way back in the 1890’s.

    It’s just that this is a battle that’s already been lost way back when the Supreme Court upheld the right of the State to imprison LDS church leaders, confiscate their property, and terminate the church’s corporate charter — all because Mormons were freely exercising their religious beliefs.

    Welcome to our world.

  2. To quote:

    The first argument the administration makes […] is that Americans lose their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion when they form a corporation and engage in commerce. A person’s Christianity, the administration argues, cannot be carried out through activities he engages in through an incorporated business. […] [A corporation] is a for-profit, secular entity and by definition does not exercise religion,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Stuart Delery. […]

    The second argument the administration makes to justify forcing Christians to act against their faith is more sweeping. Here the administration argues it can force a person to act against his religion so long as the coercion is done under the authority of a law that is neutral and generally applicable — in other words, as long as the law was not written specifically to persecute Christians as Christians, the government can use that law to persecute Christians.

    It’s funny — that last part sounds exactly like the first sentence I wrote in this letter:

    The Supreme Court has already decided that there cannot be a religious exception to a law that applies to all persons equally.

    Get ready pro-lifers — you’re fixing to go the way of the Mormon polygamist.


Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s