Religious right on the wrong side
There are two issues the religious right has wrong, marriage and birth control.
In an article in the Tribune Chronicle, there was a story about an argument in the Oklahoma courts from the religious right about marriage being for procreation and not personal relationships.
Does this mean that women past their child-bearing years should be denied a marriage license because they can no longer procreate? Should they be banned from having any sex? What about people who are sterile; should everyone have to take a fertility test before getting a marriage license? Old people shouldn’t marry? With this logic it is no wonder some people say that a child conceived in rape is a gift from God and should not be aborted. It also figures in on the religious rights belief that birth control should be banned.
The religious right has a problem with what God gave everyone: free will. Some people believe that they are the ones to exercise free will and to do it on you and others. Free will, they believe, is a privilege to be acquired after their approval. Unfortunately the Supreme Court of the United States does sit in a position to do just that. The recent decision due out on religious freedom and the employer having a right to exercise their free will over yours may become something we will have to live with for a while.
However, there will be anarchy if they rule in favor of the employer because it won’t stop there. Any law in the United States will have been given the get out of doing card by anyone not just corporations simply by expressing the words “it’s against my religion.” Don’t want to pay taxes??Against my religion. Don’t want to obey a court order??Government is against my religion. Want to kill someone? Hey, it’s my religious right to do so and it’s in the Bible to stone people or kill them.
You can’t just rule on this because you don’t like a law and want to see it hurt or repealed. You also can’t rule on it because your religious belief tells you what this law is providing, birth control, is wrong. That’s not what the court is for. Let’s hope there are at least five justices that understand that.
Preaching against an action is one thing; using the freedom of religion clause to get out of your civil responsibilities is quite another.
There is a balance between individual freedom and the freedom of a group to repress individual freedoms. Should the court rule in favor of the employer in this case, then tyranny will become ramped in the United States.
Leif P. Damstoft