The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

[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/bri...-sues-wisconsin-company-says-english-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.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

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.

It could be. Our experience was in the mid '00's. It was really enough to give one pause, though. You don't want to be the only butter side up person when the butter side downs start looking for reasons why the crops failed. That mentality is still buried in humans, and not deeply either. Skin color and religion are the two things that seem to really bring it out.

 

[unofan]

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

Linked from Drudge.

Litigation is always commenced over things like this. The Wisconsin company is not special in that regard. An article quoting a blogger from known crackpot Judicial Watch is hardly going to make me believe the EEOC is being overzealous.

 

[unofan]

It could be. Our experience was in the mid '00's. It was really enough to give one pause, though. You don't want to be the only batter side up person when the batter side down's start looking for reasons why the crops failed. That mentality is still buried in humans, and not deeply either. Skin color and religion are the two things that seem to really bring it out.

I like how he responded to your comment about atheists with "gay couples" as though there's no such thing as gay Christians.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

It could be. Our experience was in the mid '00's. It was really enough to give one pause, though. You don't want to be the only batter side up person when the batter side down's start looking for reasons why the crops failed. That mentality is still buried in humans, and not deeply either. Skin color and religion are the two things that seem to really bring it out.

Many things bring it out, those are just two that are among the most noticeable. Really, it can be virtually anything that is a difference among people.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Most people experience alienation and menace at times, whether atheist, Christian, or whatever.

I'm not talking about anomie, I'm talking about the tangible feeling of being prejudged as an automatic threat to the community.

To actually see that sort of high school crowd bully mentality among adults was shocking to me. I'm sure gays and minorites and Muslims would say, "pfft -- yeah dude, welcome to our world."

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I like how he responded to your comment about atheists with "gay couples" as though there's no such thing as gay Christians.

I did not find anything in Bob's response objectionable, and I think he was being quite open and sincere and I appreciated it.

It is difficult to have real talks about these things because they touch deep emotions. Let's all give each other a break and not jump too hard (not calling you out, here, just saying in general).

Having a serious and civil talk about religion is probably the hardest thing to do on the internet.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I'm not talking about anomie, I'm talking about the tangible feeling of being prejudged as an automatic threat to the community.

To actually see that sort of high school crowd bully mentality among adults was shocking to me. I'm sure gays and minorites and Muslims would say, "pfft -- yeah dude, welcome to our world."

As am I. Don't assume such feelings and experiences are as limited as you seem to. There's plenty of ugliness to go around in this world, sad to say.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I did not find anything in Bob's response objectionable, and I think he was being quite open and sincere and I appreciated it.

It is difficult to have real talks about these things because they touch deep emotions. Let's all give each other a break and not jump too hard (not calling you out, here, just saying in general).

Having a serious and civil talk about religion is probably the hardest thing to do on the internet.

Unofan has a long history of imagining things about me. Don't worry, nothing he says has any traction with me.


Unofan, there are of course gay Christians. And straight Christians. And gay atheists. Maybe not atheist Christians, though there's probably someone out there that defines themself as such. Keep up the Don Quixote imitation though, if you like.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Many things bring it out, those are just two that are among the most noticeable. Really, it can be virtually anything that is a difference among people.

Still, but those seem to be the perennial league leaders. There aren't many genocides over eye color (although I take your point that somewhere, sometime there must have been one).

Religion makes sense -- it's about the meaning of everything, so if you're going to pick a beach to die on that's the best there is. I don't think this is a fault in religion, I think both the potential for exclusion even to the point of violence and religion are coming from the same place in the psyche. In fact, because religion is coming out of the same place, it is uniquely well-placed to detoxify it, which is I think why in many religions there is a tradition of great peacemakers.

 

[unofan]

I did not find anything in Bob's response objectionable, and I think he was being quite open and sincere and I appreciated it.

It is difficult to have real talks about these things because they touch deep emotions. Let's all give each other a break and not jump too hard (not calling you out, here, just saying in general).

Having a serious and civil talk about religion is probably the hardest thing to do on the internet.

If you have the power to bring serious discussion out of Bob, more power to you. Those of us who didn't take a multi-year break have seen this dog and pony show numerous times. Then again, he's put me on ignore for an invented slight against his wife that archived evidence proves I never made, so I'm hardly unbiased in believing he has a martyr complex.