CHURCH & STATE

Recently two problems have occurred to put into question what is the role of church and state. The major problem is a directive by the Dept. of Health & Human Services (HHS) that states that church run secular services like health insurance and employees of hospitals, schools, etc. must provide for contraceptives being paid for by their health plan. Mind you, nothing requires the church to cover such matters within the church. It is said that this is interference of the state upon the church. Is this the first instance in the country where the state has interfered with church based operations? I think not. For example the state made the Mormons give up polygamy. One still finds Mormons and others who disobey the law, and the law keepers often overlook disobeying the law, but it is still against the law and occasionally the state takes action.* This controversy continues, pro and con: http://mediamatters.org/research/201202080008

It also occurs to me that Quakers are pacifists, but they are given no exemption from paying the part of their income tax that goes to the military.**

The prohibition of polygamy seems to me particularly relevant ( "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinion, they may with practices."). The edict by HHS does not interfere with the belief that contraception is bad. It only refers to the action of prohibiting government payment by churches of contraceptives to non-members in secular operatons. The Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church are strongly opposed to providing contraceptives to non-member employees. Often the First Amendment is appealed to,*** to support the Bishops; however, the Mormons also appealed to the First Amendment to justify their permitting polygamy. But it is also possible to object to the HHS edict on the secular basis that one doesn't feel the government should be involved in such things as well as for religious reasons. Some further legal discussions on this matter can be seen at: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/whose-conscience/?nl=opinion&emc=tya1.

The second uproar came from the California where Proposition 8, that prohibits marriage between same sexes, was struck down by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.**** The basis of doing this was that a right was being taken from people who had the right, i.e. same sex marriage was legal in California for awhile. The verdict would not apply to other states, only California.

** http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/27/us/us-sues-quaker-group-over-taxes.html

"In spite of the law, the Mormons continued the practice of polygamy, believing that it was protected by the First Amendment. In 1879, in Reynolds v. United States,^[3] the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Morrill Act, stating: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinion, they may with practices."^[2]"

"Quakers were not permitted to bear arms, appear "arrayed in a warlike manner", join the militia, or pay war taxes." (http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~quakers/quakinfo.htm)

*** http://articles.cnn.com/2004-07-29/justice/hamilton.polygamy_1_polygamy-marriage-argument?_s=PM:LAW

**** http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/07/BA1H1N3T1H.DTL