Questions about the power of precedent
The Government broke a lot of new ground along its path to punish Big Tobacco for the last 40 years. The powers the government claimed for itself to regulate, and ultimately prosecute, Big Tobacco didn’t fade away once Philip Morris and Co. were finally brought to heel. The Government used the easily demonized Big Tobacco to increase its power, and now they use those formerly “emergency” powers to regulate and control all kinds of businesses these days. This is the power of precedent in our legal system.
Based on this observation, I have a question about the way several headlines from the last couple of week will eventually tie in together, and I was hoping for some input.
The Catholic Church is officially opposed to the use of birth control. It has opposed birth control for decades now. But under the secular rule of the government, it is now being ordered to provide people with something which it regards as a sin.
So the Catholic church opposes gay marriage, as well. What is going to happen when gay people come to the Catholic church asking to be married and the church turns them away? Will they be allowed to sue, and force the church to sanction something it believes is a sin? Will the birth control issue be used in much the same manner as the regulation and prosecution of Big Tobacco, a series of actions which ultimately left the Federal Government with new powers over other industries, as well?
Do you think the same thing could eventually be said about assisted suicide and/or murder? Suicide, to a Catholic, is the unpardonable sin, and to murder violates one of their 10 Commandments. But under Obamacare, where the elderly may just be given a pain pill rather than treatment (Obama’s own words), will the Catholic Church be forced to assist in the termination of people who are no longer economically viable as tax payers to the government which controls their healthcare?
Is it conceivable that the Federal Government will use the Catholic Church, an easily demonized organization, to increase its power over religious institutions, ultimately giving it the power to regulate other religions and faiths once it has dealt with the Catholic Church?
Latest posts by Mike McGowan (Posts)
- From one single father to the next - July 20, 2012
- Why isn’t anyone talking about the man - February 13, 2012
- Questions about the power of precedent - February 8, 2012
- Suffer not the Innocent to find relief - February 2, 2012
- Romney v. Newt: How the GOP and the conservative media killed the TEA Party - January 31, 2012
Print This Post
Catholicism is both church and employer in this tale. The birth control law doesn’t in any way prohibit the church in its mission as a religious institution. It only involves their practice as an employer. They are not now and have never been exempted from labor laws. To support this requirement respects the 1st amendment more than your position.Besides this requirement is being practiced in one form or another in over half the governments of the 50 states. If it goes to trial and/or appeals, your side will lose. This whole kerfuffle is a political straw dog intended to cloud more important issues in this election year..
Not entirely accurate. The Church is exempt from many requirements for regular employers. See Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, the recent USSC decision where the High Court voted 9-0 to allow churches to practice discrimination in their hiring procedures.