Interesting Territory

http://2politicaljunkies.blogspot.com/2012/01/state-v-church-trib-style.html

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"

Of all the First Amendment right, the freedom of religion is my favorite, well second favorite to debate. Speech is my favorite, simply because it is the root of all the others.

We are covering the First Amendment in class, so I have been doing some thinking about the freedom of/from/for religion in this country, and I have reached a conclusion that might be a bit radical.  By even hearing cases about religion, is the Supreme Court stepping close to the establishment of religion?  Some may say no, I contend that recognition is pretty close. I think, the framers of the Constitution wanted religion completely out of the equation. There very thought of the Supreme Court hearing a case about religion, may well have made the framers sick. 

 But back to reality, the Supreme Court is dealing with religion.  What I feel is a bit tedious about this whole affair is the notion that we are debating whether churches can deny coverage of an abortion on their health care. If we are separating state from church, why is there a debate?  Churches are independent agencies that govern themselves, are they not?  Their health care plans are their matter.

If my understanding is correct, why is the case being argued under the 1st Amendment?  Would it not be more effective for the plaintiff to sue under a different premise? Yes the 1st Amendment will receive the most notice, but there is bound to be a better way to approach this to reach the same outcome.

What do you think?  Am I totally nut?  Write me a comment and we can start a debate.  We welcome any and all comments.  Leave them here or at our facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Fair-To-Partly-Moderate/364790690213698)