How about this.Whatever decision this appeals court hands down, we
all accept and move on?I didn't say we had to like it. But
that we should accept it and stop the debate.
How many times have you run this same story over the last few months? Slow news
day since all the far right conspiracies fail apart?
JoeBlow,Your annoyance at the story trumps the rights of the aggrieved?
Annoyance?Where did you get that idea?All I said is let
the courts decide and then accept it and move on. My comment was directed at
those on both sides of the issue.
In the 1990 case of Employment Division v Smith, with respect to citizens being
allowed to ignore federal law on religious grounds, Justice Scalia wrote the
following:"To permit this would be to make the professed
doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to
permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."This whole
birth control issue is completely fake and manufactured by the religious right,
and if it ever does reach the SC, Hobby Lobby et al will lose in a 9-0 decision.
Since this is basically about forcing the Catholic Church to pay for other
people’s birth control, let me offer some prophylactic rejection of the
standard left wing rationalizations: 1) "It's
the law" Actually no it is not - it is a mandate - it is merely how Obama
and Sebelius choose to interpret the law - they can change their interpretation
without going back to Congress. 2) "A church must
obey the law” Yes - except when the law is unconstitutional (or not a
law). This is not about asking a church to conform to simple secular
accounting practices or to even not do something that is otherwise ok with their
religion (i.e. smoke peyote) - it is about forcing people to pay for, or
practice, something that violates their faith - that is as offensive as
government forcing someone to attend, or pay tithing, to an "official"
government church. It is truly ironic that those who screech about the
non-establishment clause of the construction are so incredibly hostile to the
non interference clause.
(cont)so anti-war protestors may dislike a particular war, but they cannot
legally argue that the government has no right to be in the defense business.
The constitution specifically requires the government to stay out of the
enforcing religion business; therefore religious people have the constitution on
their side when it comes to arguments opposing government forcing them to
violate their religion. It is in the governments written job description to NOT
impose religion. Forcing someone to pay for an abortion or contraceptives
against their religion is far more onerous than merely asking someone to
tolerate another person expression of religion. If you cannot stand seeing a
cross on a roadside, simply because it is on public property, even though it
requires nothing more than mere tolerance on your part - then how can you
credibly demand that government use its full force to insist that those who do
not share your religious views, PAY for your personal choices against their will
@Counter Intelligence – “Since this is basically about forcing the
Catholic Church to pay for other people’s birth control.”Sorry, that won’t fly…The Catholic Church and even
organizations run by religious groups have been exempted from the mandate.
What’s at stake here is (in the case of Hobby Lobby) a purely secular
organization wanting an exemption because one guy at the top has a religious
objection. And that is precisely what Scalia’s opinion argued against.The government “forces” people to pay for things all the
time that may cause a religious objection (e.g. Native Americans believe the
environment is sacred but they still paying taxes to build roads, dams,
etc…).But here’s why this is a fake issue – 99% of
the population has used birth control including 98% of Catholics. So who is
really against this?The fact is this is a right wing media pushed
effort aimed at attacking an administration they hate… nothing more.Don’t you guys ever get exhausted by all the drummed up,
The partisan bickering that occurs when God's laws and/or the Constitution
isn't followed is a mystery. Republican/Democrat though they be, I guess
it is nice that there is an appearance of working for the benefit of the
citizens. Irony, the difference between reality and perception, is always
amusing, especially when it is dramatic irony, like reading the
'srguments' here. Without stating the obvious here, this question is
not even a question, if citizens properly understood the Constitution. It is
amusing to see what is stated as an argument.
If it is their choice and their body, shouldn't it also be
their pocketbook?Otherwise it our money and our choice.And the people do not want to fund other's choices.Businesses
do not want to fund other's choices.And churches do not want to
fund other's choices.
@the truth – “If it is their choice and their body, shouldn't
it also be their pocketbook?”I assume you would argue this
same point regarding any other medical treatment covered by insurance that
involves some level of choice, yes? Things like Viagra for example?And where would you draw the line on choice? Would people who eat poorly and
don’t exercise, and then at some point need hundreds of thousands of
dollars of care (which 99% could never afford on their own) fall under your
choice umbrella?Seems to me under your model we either make a large
number of medical interventions a “cash only” business or we turn
insurance into something that would make the Chinese government look benign.