The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

[The Sicatoka]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Jesus (well, I think it was Jesus) was right ...

Quit oppressing me with religion.

Couldn't resist that.

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Agreed on Jesus. But people pull out the bigot card so quickly, that often anyone who disagrees with an opinion is a bigot. Which of course devalues when an actual, real died-in-the-wool bigot appears on the scene. Wolf is cried so often that when the actual wolf comes along, a lot of people aren't listening, as they just think it's more over the top PC rubbish.

I believe you are right.

I also think that "died-in-the-wool," when mentioned in connection with a wolf, is the most clever play on words I have seen in a year. I see what you did there.

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

So the same group that is typically against sex education in schools, anti contraceptive and anti choice would also now want to make it harder to place unwanted kids into a loving home?

That makes sense.

There are tons of agencies out there that are happy to work with same sex couples. The Christian agencies that would have such a concern are a small minority. Why would you try to force a Catholic agency to work with them against their will? It's not about placing kids in loving homes. It's about forcing a viewpoint on all.

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Here's my issue with the Supreme Court ruling on the basis of "least intrusiveness." Suppose we had a government that actually cared about a balanced budget (I know, I know, but stay with me), and so, of course, the budget was balanced. I then realize that I have a deeply held, sincere belief that aspirin are against my religion, so I sue to not have to pay for those. Based on this ruling, the government has to say, "Well, crud. We can't force him to pay for that, so we'll just have to do it ourselves." Of course, to keep the budget balanced in light of this new expense, they'll have to go and raise federal tax rates. Under what standard is it less intrusive to raise taxes on millions of people than to simply apply the law equally to all people?

Congrats, religious objectors - you just handed more power over to the federal government. Well done, well done.

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Yes, there is also a slice of America that doesn't agree with the eradication of religion from the U.S., you're correct.

Talk about crying wolf. Other than Daniel Dennett, I have never met nor read a single person who advocates the eradication of religion from the US.

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Here's my issue with the Supreme Court ruling on the basis of "least intrusiveness." Suppose we had a government that actually cared about a balanced budget (I know, I know, but stay with me), and so, of course, the budget was balanced. I then realize that I have a deeply held, sincere believe that aspirin are against my religion, so I sue to not have to pay for those. Based on this ruling, the government has to say, "Well, crud. We can't force him to pay for that, so we'll just have to do it ourselves." Of course, to keep the budget balanced in light of this new expense, they'll have to go and raise federal tax rates. Under what standard is it less intrusive to raise taxes on millions of people than to simply apply the law equally to all people?

Congrats, religious objectors - you just handed more power over to the federal government. Well done, well done.

The obvious flip side is that the government should force health care coverage to pay for everything for free, as why should your aspirin be free or contraception be free, but my annual physical isn't free, or someone's Viagra, or someone's botox, or whatever.

Of course using the balanced budget, which virtually nobody really cares about or seriously pursues, is a very poor example. If the budget were ever remotely balanced, all sorts of government goodies would disappear overnight.

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

There are tons of agencies out there that are happy to work with same sex couples. The Christian agencies that would have such a concern are a small minority. Why would you try to force a Catholic agency to work with them against their will? It's not about placing kids in loving homes. It's about forcing a viewpoint on all.

I'll just throw this out there. When we hosted a foster child, even though the agency we went through was state and ostensibly secular, the administrators and most of the other foster parents looked at us like we had three heads when they figured out we weren't Christian.

The pressure for religious conformity in even theoretically neutral environments like that is VERY strong. My wife and I have a sense of humor about that sort of thing, but it would border on intimidation for most people.

I don't expect you to believe this or really understand it, but being an atheist in this country, particularly this part of the country, means always having to put up with a measure of alienation and at times even of menace. It is not beer and skittles to not conform to the local customs, and for a group of people who are otherwise welcoming many Christians make little or no effort to be in any way solicitous to non-Christians since, naturally, they're meeting a person whose very existence is either evil or a challenge to their worldview.

We all know who'd get thrown to the lions if the floodgates opened, Bob. You're in the vast majority -- show a little noblesse oblige.

[ScoobyDoo]

The problem is its corporate personhood. We have now attached individual freedoms to an entity that only exists on paper. That is toal and complete BS. We are all headed down the rabbit hole.

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Talk about crying wolf. Other than Daniel Dennett, I have never met nor read a single person who advocates the eradication of religion from the US.

There are folks around, though I will agree that few openly advocate it. Most take the gradual course of shunting it to the side and gradually undermining it and quarantining it. I recall seeing a video of a University of Minnesota professor who openly says that he looks forward to the day when Christians are not welcome in society and are basically quarantined and will be viewed as an arcane aspect of American history that is over. He's one of the crowd that sides with folks like Richard Dawkins. I'll even concede that a good number of folks don't understand the logical conclusions of the way they approach the subject.

[The Sicatoka]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

The problem is its corporate personhood. We have now attached individual freedoms to an entity that only exists on paper. That is toal and complete BS. We are all headed down the rabbit hole.

If a corporation didn't have "person" status and only existed on paper, how do you redress grievances against it?

If a corporation was no different from a coffee table or a concept (<-- something that only exists on paper) how do you sue it?

"Personhood" is another double-edged sword. There are times corporations would love to not be a "person", like when they're being sued.

[unofan]

I have the over/under at 36 months before this one hits the Supremes:

Federal Gov’t Sues Wisconsin Company, Says English-Language Requirement is 'Discrimination'
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/brit...glish-language

I say language is a workplace health and safety issue and the business is right in mandating English in their workplace.

PS - Could this affect colleges and their TOEFL requirements?

Language is sometimes a health and safety issue. Plenty of business use it to discriminate even when it's not, however. Which is what the EEOC is saying.

Also, CNS News? Really? What, you couldn't find it on World Net Daily?

[The Sicatoka]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Language is sometimes a health and safety issue. Plenty of business use it to discriminate even when it's not, however. Which is what the EEOC is saying.

Also, CNS News? Really? What, you couldn't find it on World Net Daily?

Truth is truth; litigation has been commenced, no matter the source of the information.

Linked from Drudge.

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Here's my issue with the Supreme Court ruling on the basis of "least intrusiveness." Suppose we had a government that actually cared about a balanced budget (I know, I know, but stay with me), and so, of course, the budget was balanced. I then realize that I have a deeply held, sincere belief that aspirin are against my religion, so I sue to not have to pay for those. Based on this ruling, the government has to say, "Well, crud. We can't force him to pay for that, so we'll just have to do it ourselves." Of course, to keep the budget balanced in light of this new expense, they'll have to go and raise federal tax rates. Under what standard is it less intrusive to raise taxes on millions of people than to simply apply the law equally to all people?

Congrats, religious objectors - you just handed more power over to the federal government. Well done, well done.

John Oliver made a similar point with his buffet analogy last weekend (or whenever his show runs -- TiVo has destroyed my sense of time).

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I'll just throw this out there. When we hosted a foster child, even though the agency we went through was state and ostensibly secular, the administrators and most of the other foster parents looked at us like we had three heads when they figured out we weren't Christian.

The pressure for religious conformity in even theoretically neutral environments like that is VERY strong. My wife and I have a sense of humor about that sort of thing, but it would border on intimidation for most people.

I don't expect you to believe this or really understand it, but being atheist in this country, particularly this part of the country, means always having to put up with a measure of alienation and at times even of menace. It is not beer and skittles to not conform to the local customs, and for a group of people who are otherwise welcoming many Christians make little or no effort to be in any way solicitous to non-Christians since, naturally, they're meeting a person whose very existence is either evil or a challenge to their worldview.

We all know who'd get thrown to the lions if the floodgates opened, Bob. You're in the vast majority -- show a little noblesse oblige.

Having been involved in the foster system for awhile now, my experience is very different. The agency we got licensed with openly courted gay couples and I know other agencies did also. We have several such couples in our training class and we had others in our class who said they went with the agency because they were so supportive of gay couples. Maybe your experience was many years ago when your assertions might have been more accurate? And I'm talking about a relatively conservative state.

Most people experience alienation and menace at times, whether atheist, Christian, or whatever. I'd argue the pendelum has flipped the other way and if anything, an atheist deals with it a lot less than a Christian, recognizing that that would vary a bit by location and situation.

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Also, CNS News? Really? What, you couldn't find it on World Net Daily?

One of my neighbors keeps nailing InfoWars ads on all the telephone polls (yes, we still have telephone polls out there... we are lucky to have running water, laugh all you want).

I can never tell whether that's better or worse then WND. WND is funnier, but about once in every 50 article on InfoWars I find myself nodding in agreement and then being kinda freaked out.