... on the First Amendment Right to Freedom of Religion
Since each of you has been weighing in so fiercely about freedom of religion as you choose how to interpret the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it becomes clear that you could use a short Constitutional history refresher.
The people who came to this continent originally came in search of religious freedom. Specifically, the governments of their countries of origin made practice of their religions very difficult or impossible. This was true for English Catholics, Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Puritans, Lutherans, Quakers, Jews, Mennonites, Amish, Calvinists, Muslims, Presbyterians, and many more.
You, Rick, of all people, should know about this. The history of Pennsylvania is filled with stories of refuge for people in many of these groups. Look around, man.
Having all this oppression so fresh in their minds, the original Framers understood only too well that to form another religious state was a bad idea, most especially for people who were not of the prevailing religion.
In this same spirit, the Framers spelled out very carefully that all people were absolutely free to practice their own religions without government interference, so long as their practice did not hurt someone else. (That is why you cannot legally have a deadly exorcism today.)
They explored the idea of and codified strong separation between church and state. Two hundred years later, the U.S. government is still not a religion-based government, contrary to what you are telling people lately (and may actually believe, though I think this is more likely your cynical attempts to attract fearful followers).
Never did the Framers want for any religion to impose its values on other people. Freedom to worship, or not, was and still is the standard.
Here is the key: imposing your religion, or no religion, on others is not the standard
That's why today, after a long and rugged journey, we don't tolerate feeding men to lions, drowning virgins, crushing witches, destroying Native American ceremonial sites, bombing mosques. We still haven't quite conceded that taking sacred lake Onondaga and using it as a chemical dump was bad in a religious way. Expressions of religious intolerance, though, are pretty much legally disallowed in the modern era in this country.
By the way, it is especially noteworthy that your sudden interest in the First Amendment has to do with women's reproductive health. Is forming policy about women's reproductive health part of your religious expression? No? Then this is not a First Amendment issue. Period.
Your desire to form policy about women't reproductive health has to do with your personal belief system. This desire is OK. No one is forcing you to change your personal belief system. This desire will not and must not become law, because it is your personal religious belief. Otherwise you would have to be prepared to also allow other religions' practices as law, which you might not personally like.
Another thing: after all this history, if you are still interested in being part of a Catholic or Christian government that wishes to oppress non-Catholics and non-Christians, I have destinations for each of you, as time travelers, to imagine.
Rick, why don't you travel back in time and place to Spain during the Inquisition in the late 15th century. There you can, with Isabella and Ferdinand's blessing, obliterate Jews and Muslims to your heart's content.
Ann Marie, you would have been an effective envoy for the Vatican's campaigns in any number of regions: China, Japan, India, colonial Africa, South and Central America, Alaska. You would have been good at dispatching those pesky Maya, Aztec, Toltec, and Inca leaders and converting whole belief systems.
Sarah, why don't you travel back to Salem in the 17th century as a Puritan. You can torture and hang men AND women of other religions until you collapse in a fit of ecstasy. You get to battle the devil at the same time.
PS: There is just a ton of stuff on line about the First Amendment, freedom of religion, and the separation of church and state. Every bit of it has nothing to do with the lies you are promoting in fighting insurance for basic women's health care.
Put another way: mind your own business.
