Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade
Actually, you've gone a bit overboard here. The word used is "prohibt" not "abridged". For example, if I have a religion that condones human sacrifice, I cannot claim freedom of prosecution for murder because my religious rights were prohibited. The law takes precedence.
Religion is matter of "opinion" not "action" in the eyes of the law. Therefore you have the right to your opinion regarding religion but not necessarily any action you desire that stems from those opinions. I can believe, as a matter of religious opinion, I am entitled to multiple wives. But, I cannot engage in the action because it is contrary to U.S. Law (this was actually the SCOTUS case where the distinction was made).
In addition to being flat wrong on your first point (which I've already demonstrated) - I just want to make something absolutely clear: the above is a stupid argument to make, and it's being made for one reason: there is no other recourse but to obfuscate the issue.
There is no discussion in this country about allowing the legitimization of murder on religious grounds. This is a straw man that has no place in this discussion. The fact that anyone would go here is a demonstration of how little they have to offer in the actual discussion of government mandating people to provide other people with birth control.
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." -Thomas Jefferson
Let's please get the discussion away from this sophomoric thought eddy, and back on to the real issue.