You are the one that nailed it. That applies to all law. We are talking about the Constitution here.

I just got through doing two courses of Constitutional Law and that’s right there in the text book:

“In General: Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).

(b) Exception: Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person–

(1) Is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and

(2) Is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

That is the above test for testing the constitutionality of a statute and Plan B flunks with flying colors. I think what they say about this test is that it is hard to prove in theory and fatal in practice (or something like that). In other words, it’s hard for the government to prove constitutionality. We are talking about an enumerated right. You don’t fool around with those.

The legislature’s statute may pass the first test but it does not pass the second part of the test because it’s not the least restrictive. As Chris Powell has smartly written in one of his columns, the legislature may have mandated that the police take rape victims to a public hospital. That would have avoided the constitutional question but of course the legislature wanted to confront the church. That was the intent of the law – not to help out rape victims in any real way.

All of the Catholic hospitals in the state have a public hospital nearby so there is no reason to burden the faith-based hospitals with the dilemma of following the law or their church teachings.

If the mater can be avoided than it must be avoided. If the Catholics have the money to challenge it will be voided eventually either in appellate court or the SC if the former gets its wrong.

I am sure Don can cite the proper precedent for that. I am too lazy to look it up and I am going to bed.

(Besides I already sold my text book).

The only thing McCommas convinces me of is that he’d like to be the equivalent of an imerious Chris Saysl

Better stay away from him. He’s more convincing than Ann.

Can’t understand separation of church and state without understanding Barbara, very likely the daughter of Catholics who learned to repress their religious feelings because they were put upon by the grand sons and grand daughters of Cotton Mather. Catholics who came to New England in the great migrations hid their religion, and their sons and daughters have been hiding it ever since. JFK is a case in point. By the way, they also lie to pollsters. The kind of separation of church and state beloved of some liberals (Ghengis is right about the connection between religion and the anti-slavery movement; John Brown was liberal and religious) is quite simply impossible. Religion — the real deal — lays claim to the WHOLE man, the political part of him too. To understand the real connection between religion and faith, you have to put away the fables of post 19th century jerks, and learn to think out of the box.

Clearly you’ve spent -0- time serving in any public office much-less on a land use board.

They’re not.

I did zoning for ages and while most seem oblivious to it; there’s laws against putting churches through the nit-picky stuff.

FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION PROTECTED.

In General: Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).

(b) Exception: Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person–

(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and

(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

The key word is “compelling” and that’s a tough one to get by a judge after jerking a church around.

I can’t recall ever insisting on a site-plan for any commercial interests tent sale by the way.

28,000 zoning cases alone in the US in a typical year; despite the 1st and the Religious Freedom Act signed by Clinton in August of 2000.

Nonsense as silly as demanding a site plan (3500 – $5000) for a Methodist Church to place a tent on their property for two weeks.[/quote]

Please site the 28,000 stat and explain how this minor zoning incident (a tent in front of a church) is somehow a liberal conspiracy against religion as opposed to a local municipal zoning board doing its job just as they would if a retail outlet wanted to have a tent sale..

28,000 zoning cases alone in the US in a typical year; despite the 1st and the Religious Freedom Act signed by Clinton in August of 2000.

Nonsense as silly as demanding a site plan (3500 – $5000) for a Methodist Church to place a tent on their property for two weeks.

Thanks for the compliment.

— Sean

— Not the other way around.

Plan B is a case in point.

Why is it that liberals are so hostile to people of faith particularly Catholics? You speak of tolerance so how about a little of such for Catholics? Why is it that you liberals hate everyone that is not exactly like you?

It’s always the same thing with you folks. Diversity of thought must be stamped out till its dead. You can’t stand someone being pro-life or conservative Republican or even a person who is Black supporting the WRONG Party.

I think religious folks, of whom I am not one, are in fact very tolerant. Much more so that the typical liberal. I find religious folks typically comfortable with themselves, they know who they are, what they believe and are comfortable with people un-like themselves.

I think what drives you liberals up the wall is the fact that these people are impossible to brainwash.

Liberals are upset about their very existence on the planet even if they are a tiny powerless minority.

Again, Plan B is a case in point. Denise Merrill just can’t stand people walking around thinking that contraception is wrong. You want everyone to think exactly like she does and she is using government to force it on people.

I don’t happen to think contraception is wrong and I don’t think that the Morning After pill or Plan B or even that Abortion Pill is murder.

Yet somehow I am able to live with the knowledge that some do think Plan B is murder and I am able to accept that a Catholic pharmacist might not want to carry these pills in their privately owned store. There used to be something called “free will” in this country. Do you remember those days?

Yet here comes the Catholic-Bashers writing clever laws forcing Catholics to chose between their Faith and their means of making a living.

You got it all backwards buddy.

The First Amendment states

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.[/quote]

This is insane. Hearing an adult use this line of reasoning does drive me up the wall.

Do me a favor brainbox and list for all to see the ways in which “liberals” have infringed on the rights of individuals to freely practice their religion in the private sector. Plan B of course would not count here because the Catholic hospitals take state dollars, just like schools, and courthouses.

“I have heard it said that there are two parts of the USA – East of the Hudson River and West of the Hudson River”

I will stay out of the religious aspects of this discussion, but also say your comment here is remarkably correct. The center of the universe does not run through myopic Connecticut, or New England.

No question we who live here, live in a very beautiful and very historically blessed part of the country. However it would do a world of good for a lot of Connecticut and New England residents to spend some time out of state, or area. There is a huge world beyond New England.

In my case anyway, the thin air of the Rocky Mountains does wonders for clearing one’s mind, and giving me at least, the ability to see what is clearly in front of my eyes.

It took me forever to figure out what a “township” was. I’m still not 100% clear on how it relates to boroughs, counties and so on.

As for Rudy, I’m not a big fan of his, either. But he has a lot of supporters in CT, especially in Fairfield County. Check out this map to see where his money is coming from in CT. BTW, he pulled in more $ from CT than anyone but Dodd and Obama during the last quarter.