First, we have the legal decision to declare no 35 foot buffer zone around abortion clinics because it infringes on freedom of speech.
Then we have the legal decision to allow an employer’s religious belief to determine employee healthcare coverage in the name of freedom of religion.
Note the term ‘freedom’. What does it mean?
For the addled judges and supporters of these terrible rulings who use this term in its legal sense, meaning liberty, let me suggest that you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
How do I know?
Well, consider this full page ad bought and paid for by the recently victorious Hobby Lobby.
This ad demonstrates that these other freedoms – expression and religion – were really just a convenient cover for the kind of freedom needed to impose one’s religious beliefs on others without their consent. You know, the non-liberty kind of liberty favoured by tyrants of all pious and non pious stripes.
Freedom in the Hobby Lobby’s parlance and upheld by the highest court in the land means freedom to cherry pick quotations and revise history not because it’s true but because it is believed to properly represent the business owners’ historical revisions.
It means the freedom to misrepresent history in order to aid the addled judges to assume the separation of church and state was a mistake that they can now correct, to aid a government to act freely on behalf of the religious belief of some rich business owners for the state to sponsor their religious imposition wherever in in whatever way they believe best suits them. Impositions like religious indoctrination through public education.
This is what ‘freedom’ actually means for the religious who really care about a particular kind of equivalent freedom, another way to achieve equivalent freedom for all, meaning an equivalency that privileges a particular religious imposition so that ‘liberty’ can be enhanced for the few by limiting the liberty of the many.
And the five Catholic man majority on SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) went along with this legal doublespeak charade.
Can’t wait for sharia to make its publicly funded debut. Good times for all those other principled Hobby Lobby wannabes, eh? (Check out The Young Turks video for a 12 minute rundown of the insanity of this ruling.)
Shame on these judges.
tildeb
Questionable Motives 
I would think that this recent decision is enough of a red flag that the process by which judges are appointed to the Supreme Court should be at least revisited, if not revised. I was aware that the judges are appointed by the president and are lifetime appointments, but I was reading through the Wikipedia page under the appointment and confirmation section when I came across this rather alarming sentence “Because the Constitution sets no qualifications for service as a justice, a president may nominate anyone to serve, subject to Senate confirmation.”. I know that the appointments are subject to confirmation by the senate which, in theory, should prevent any Joe Blow political crony from becoming a Supreme Court Justice but it’s still a disturbing thought nonetheless.
I’ve always found it rather odd that someone would care what kind of contraceptive an employee would use to prevent pregnancy, nor how they could even consider it any of their business. I guess paying to provide health insurance for employees feels that it gives them that right (or privilege). Can’t wait for chapter 2 (and 3 and 4 and 5) of this tragedy to play out…..
Comment by Ashley — July 7, 2014 @ 9:21 am |
Well, we’ll be sure to let SCOTUS know that some Canadian amateur musician believes the United States of America needs to “revisit” its Constitutional form of government ASAP.
Arrogant freaking moron.
Comment by av8torbob — July 7, 2014 @ 10:28 am |
Well, we’ll be sure to let SCOTUS know that some Canadian amateur musician believes the United States of America needs to…
Ad Hominem
Comment by Cedric Katesby — July 8, 2014 @ 2:31 am
Warm fuzzies back at you, Bob.
If you’re wondering why I care (far be it for you to even formulate a good question), it’s because like many Canadians my family lives on both sides of the border so I am very familiar with the US and its constitutional form of government. In addition, it seems you might be unaware I’ve studied your form of government – and US history – with university courses and have read a great deal of material by the founders. I am a Lincoln aficionado and have a respectable first edition collection by Sandberg. I have family living in many states north and south, from Boston to Hollywood, and they have for centuries. My family roots in the US are as deep as anyone’s. Some have been and are now in the US military so I keep abreast of foreign policy because it matters in the real lives of real people I care about. The US isn’t just some monolithic idea to me but a country I understand from many points of reference… especially its evolution away from its founders secular enlightenment principles and towards a revisionist theological caricature of a liberal democracy.
In this sense, rulings by SCOTUS are personal if they affect my family, Bob, so you can go fuck yourself if you think otherwise. My interest is not arrogant and my knowledge it’s not based on ignorance; it’s based on caring and caring enough to become knowledgeable. You might want to try this approach for a change, Bob.
Comment by tildeb — July 7, 2014 @ 10:53 am |
tildeb,
Just to be clear, my “arrogant moron” comment was not directed at you but at Ashley, who believes the U.S. needs to “revisit” the way it picks SCOTUS judges.
But thanks for your heartfelt and thoughtful reply.
Comment by av8torbob — July 7, 2014 @ 12:17 pm |
Let’s see, tildeb … I guess we’re comparing credentials now so, since you wanted me to “formulate a question,” here you go:
I come from an American family. That family has a military legacy on both sides that includes West Point and Annapolis graduates back to the Civil War and the Battle of Lake Erie. I served 8 years in the military myself and have sons who are respectively: Army Captain, SF; Army 2nd Lt, Ranger; USMC LCpl, Scout Sniper Team; and 4-yr Army ROTC Scholarship. Do my credentials “win” or does the fact that I am a U.S. citizen who: 1) is ACTUALLY directly affected by SCOTUS rulings (instead of tangentially or remotely affected), 2) will suffer a direct, negative impact from foreign policy decisions that affect my boys, and 3) pays taxes in the U.S. (minor detail) … trump your “I know some folks,” am “very familiar with” and, have a “first addition” (sic) 🙂 collection of books qualifications? Just wondering.
You can do whatever you want to do to yourself, but don’t you dare try to equate your interest in issues like these with mine … or any other American for that matter.
Comment by av8torbob — July 7, 2014 @ 2:33 pm |
“but don’t you dare try to equate your interest in issues like these with mine ” You see tildeb? Your interest in matters such as these that directly affect YOUR family members is nowhere near equivalent to av8torbob’s interest in matters such as these that directly affect HIS family members. How dare you!!!!! If I had to guess, I would say he didn’t read your statement entirely because if he had, he would have noticed that you said “I have family living in many states north and south, from Boston to Hollywood” and this “rulings by SCOTUS are personal if they affect my family” and not that you have “just some folks that you know”.
Also, not exactly sure where he got the idea that you’re “comparing credentials” or how this decision is going to affect foreign policy either for that matter.
I keep telling him – ADD. He needs to get checked out.
Comment by Ashley — July 7, 2014 @ 3:13 pm
Thanks for the correction. As for the point I was making, you brought up the idea that others should keep out of the US’ business so I explained that it was very much the personal business of many people even outside the country. You assume that means this business must be equivalent. I made no such claim… merely that it does affect others. You seem to have (once again) missed the point in your rush to condemn.
Comment by tildeb — July 7, 2014 @ 3:54 pm
Av8torbob,
Alas for you, you poor soul, you tend to draw unsupported conclusions based on your (usually very poor) understanding of a concept or really, of the English language in general. I don’t believe I ever said that I think that the US needs to revisit its constitutional form of government. Sit down, pull your head out of your stupid, ignorant ass, learn how to read and interpret the English language and take a fucking chill pill while you’re at it. I said that the process by which Justices are appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States should be revisited or revised. This ruling now would appear to open the door for anyone or any corporation to use any religious belief they want to impose restrictions or mandatory requirements on it’s employees. For example, what if a corporation, owned and operated by devout Muslims decided that women should be not be considered as potential employees because of their deeply held beliefs? To deny them that privilege, while allowing this current ruling to stand is nothing short of blatant hypocrisy. Unfortunately for you and people like you, your stupidity and short sightedness won’t let you see that far. I am a Canadian and I weep for your nation.
I too would like to second tildeb’s comments and invite you heartily to go fuck yourself.
P.S. Seriously, what the fuck is it with you and your fascination of my declaring myself an “amateur musician”? I asked you about this earlier and I really think you should follow up on it – ADD and/or ADHD. They’re real things. You might have one or both of them.
Comment by Ashley — July 7, 2014 @ 12:09 pm |
Ron brought this up, and it deserves repeating:
“Hobby Lobby employees should now legally press their God-fearing employer to pay them daily—just as the good book commands:
“‘Do not hold back the wages of a hired worker overnight.” Leviticus 19:13 (NIV)
“Don’t take advantage of a hired person who is poor and needy, whether he’s your fellow citizen or a foreigner who lives in your city. Pay his wages that same day before the sun sets, because he is poor and his livelihood depends on it. Otherwise, he may cry out to the LORD against you, and you will incur guilt.” Deut. 24:14-15 (ISV)
Comment by john zande — July 7, 2014 @ 12:34 pm |
I suspect the honestly held religious convictions of a corporation begin and end at none. As for the owners, I also suspect their honestly held religious convictions in their business are greatly affected by their business’ profit and loss statement.
Comment by tildeb — July 7, 2014 @ 3:47 pm |
Very true…I strongly suspect that, deep down, the owners of HL are just trying to influence their corporate bottom line. I also like the bit about paying wages daily. HL should not be able to pick-and-choose which religious strictures it will adhere to.
Comment by Davey — July 9, 2014 @ 7:54 pm
It’s becoming really depressing seeing all of the hard fought victories for true freedom from religion be completely wiped out by a pair of idiot rulings by religious zealots who have no business being in the Supreme Court. If this type of lunacy is allowed to fester there will be little difference between the laws of the US and Iran.
Comment by foolsmusings — July 7, 2014 @ 5:26 pm |
Well, that’s the battle that has to be fought no matter how we feel about it. Getting the religious folk to realize why they need to support freedom from religion to ensure freedom of religion as passionately as they do their religious beliefs requires both stamina and dedication. I fuel my hope with how younger people seem better able to see why religious privilege is contrary to good public policy… like these rulings are contrary to good and just laws, for example. And the growing number of Nones and atheists under the age of 35 gives me compelling evidence that the work of New Atheists is having the desired effect. There is a tipping point we can reach that will dismantle the power of religious belief before the secular state reinvests its constitutional power in itself and its laws, and we have seen this happen in several European countries already. There is a light at the end of this increasingly dark tunnel. Don’t get diverted.
Comment by tildeb — July 7, 2014 @ 8:11 pm |
Really?
In Iran, they compel your religious expression.
You want my religion forced by law, and imprisonment.
Doesn’t that make your system like the Iranian system you despise?
Wayne
Comment by Wayne — November 2, 2014 @ 6:54 pm |
Wow, you should listen to yourself some time. In no way is someone trying to stifle your religion.
Comment by foolsmusings — November 3, 2014 @ 8:59 pm
I am glad you believe that.
Wayne
Comment by Wayne — November 3, 2014 @ 9:23 pm
Wayne’s greatest strength is not his reading comprehension.
Comment by tildeb — November 3, 2014 @ 10:13 pm
Thank you!
Wayne
Comment by Wayne — November 3, 2014 @ 10:19 pm
Again you attribute ‘motive’ to others, but the negative ‘motive’ is in your words.
The Founders and Framers, again I remind you, they ARE my ancestors, were the product of persecution. Persecution that my family on the Mayflower risked a 50% mortality rate to escape from the tyranny in England.
But, here are your words, “the growing number of Nones and atheists under the age of 35 gives me compelling evidence that the work of New Atheists is having the desired effect. There is a tipping point we can reach that will dismantle the power of religious belief before the secular state reinvests its constitutional power in itself and its laws, and we have seen this happen in several European countries already.”
Your motive is not to protect people from the failures of social experimentation in Europe, but to impose those failures upon US.
I believe your motive is wrong.
Why not let US live in the prosperity we had until the Liberals took over and dismantled our jobs, our morals, our political freedom, and now our religious freedom?
WHY? Why are you so determined to change what worked into something broken?
Wayne
Luvsiesous.com
Comment by Wayne — November 2, 2014 @ 6:50 pm |
Are you just visiting earth on your way back to your home planet?
Comment by Ashley — November 3, 2014 @ 2:22 pm |
I sure hope so. I really do.
Wayne
Comment by Wayne — November 3, 2014 @ 5:33 pm
That makes 2 of us.
Comment by Ashley — November 4, 2014 @ 8:58 am
PS: why is TMobile blocking most of your content as hate speech? They also block any research on guns, unless the research is done by liberals.
Who did you make angry?
And PSS, TMobile has been very slow fixing their censorship, gotta love Liberal abuse of power.
Wayne
Comment by Wayne — November 2, 2014 @ 7:03 pm |
I had no idea. I guess I’m kind of flattered someone would bother to complain!
Comment by tildeb — November 3, 2014 @ 10:12 pm |
I am glad you take it that way.
I am still mad at them. They think porn is okay – I did a light test. But, they censor most sites dealing with guns, some religion, several of your posts ….
Oh well, I hope they get fixed soon.
Wayne
Comment by Wayne — November 3, 2014 @ 10:18 pm