Don't Tread On My Cross.

       Last evening I enjoyed a really interesting discussion about several cases coming before the Supreme court, one, the Hobby Lobby complaint over the Affordable Care Act's requirement of covering some birth control measures. This one will come before the court this week, the other is Elane Photography vs New Mexico. The state fined Elane Photo for refusing to photograph a wedding because it was between gays. The case hinges on whether or not Elane can discriminate or if they did.
       The first one, Hobby Lobby claims strong religious objections and wants to be excused from the law because of the intense religious beliefs of its owners. But it means that employees who do not necessarily agree with all of those beliefs will be forced to do without coverage. Here's the thing though, Hobby Lobby is not a religion, nor owned by one. It is a for profit enterprise.
       There's a great, but minority, push in this country to force religious beliefs on the government. It's showing up in states like Texas and a number of other states. Laws are being passed to force organizations like Planned Parenthood to close down. On the other hand, like the Hobby Lobby case, they want to stop government from imposing rules and laws deemed to be against their religious beliefs. The question is, can they and should have it both ways?
       Should government stay strictly out of anything related to religion? Should religion have unfettered access to lawmaking in the Government? Or should there be a decision made one way or the other? The Constitution required a separation of church and state. So perhaps government can't impose its will on any religion or religious person, but then government should not be allowed to pass laws brought by religious thinking as in the attacks on Planned Parenthood.
       Should the government be purely secular? Is that even possible? Can the government stay strictly out of religious matters and people's business? How would you go about keeping religious thinking out of government?
       People can debate the issues, they can and will argue for each side, but there needs to be a set of compromises on the subject. We know Congress is incapable of doing that. The question is, will the Supreme Court step up to the job and fairly and in consideration of the Constitution, create a fair and honest decision? Is the Supreme Court up to that task? We'll see.