| Author |
|
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Robotmod
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 36362
|
| Posted: 03 July 2014 at 2:55pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Joseph Gauthier wrote:
| A victory for the individual over collective responsibility is a victory for liberty; this is what defines us, how would you not understand? |
|
|
That's my problem in a nutshell. Businesses are not individuals. They are businesses. Started for me when campaign contributions by businesses stopped being capped and could remain entirely anonymous and has continued to this week where a business was granted the rights of an individual.
I also find it highly suspect to argue "to freely exercise their chosen religion" in light of the fact that many on that side of the issue choose to ignore businesses like Hobby Lobby investing in contraception companies. It's hypocritical to defend their "right" in the case before SCOTUS this week while turning a blind eye to their other business practices. If there's such moral outrage enough to take it to the highest court in the land, then that outrage should also extend to all areas of their practice.
At the end of the day, the precedent to allow a company to choose what laws they will or will not support based on religion is a dangerous one to set to me and opens a Pandora's Box full of crazy.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Craig Robinson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 November 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 1756
|
| Posted: 04 July 2014 at 7:31am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
It never ceases to amaze me when the religious Right argues that imposing their doctrine on other people is religious freedom. I thought I had escaped such ridiculous orthodoxy when I left the zealotry of southern Indiana hillfolk in my rear-view. We are also free to have no religion.
Barry Goldwater was absolutely prophetic when he foretold what the Right Wing Christians would to the Republican Party.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 134669
|
| Posted: 04 July 2014 at 9:12am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
We are also free to have no religion.•• The Constitution makes no such guarantee. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…" Since atheism is, by definition, not a religion, atheists do not enjoy the protection of the First Amendment.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Craig Robinson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 November 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 1756
|
| Posted: 04 July 2014 at 9:37am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Are atheists not protected by First Amendment right to free speech? Atheists (and we recovering believers) are free to voice dissent and opposition toward religion and religious institutions. It is not illegal to give voice to your atheism, even if it is not, strictly speaking, "protected" by religious freedom.
Article 6 of the Constitution prohibits religious tests as qualifications for public office. I'd think the right to be atheist falls also under the protection of the 9th Amendment unenumerated rights clause.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Joseph Gauthier
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 11 March 2009
Posts: 1431
|
| Posted: 04 July 2014 at 10:34am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Businesses are not individuals.
Businesses, like all organizations (marriages, labor unions, religious parishes, political parties etc.), are voluntary associations of free individuals. And as the Supreme Court correctly ruled in the Citizens United case, rights are not transmutable; and individuals can not be burdened to forfeit their individual rights simply because they have chosen to organize with other individuals.
Now I understand that many political, as well as practical, implications of this recognition may not sit well with some, but I would expect that even a moments consideration would show the alternative to be far less palatable.
At the end of the day, the precedent to allow a company to choose what laws they will or will not support based on religion is a dangerous one to set to me and opens a Pandora's Box full of crazy.
The 111th Congress should have thought of that before they forced this legislation on an unwilling nation; it's they who opened Pandora's Box.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 134669
|
| Posted: 04 July 2014 at 10:40am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Being protected under freedom of speech is a long way from enjoying the same kinds of protections -- and benefits -- granted to religions.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Joseph Gauthier
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 11 March 2009
Posts: 1431
|
| Posted: 04 July 2014 at 10:44am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
It never ceases to amaze me when the religious Right argues that imposing their doctrine on other people is religious freedom.
I'm not sure if this is simply a random observation, or if it's meant to relate to the topic at hand. Assuming the latter, I'd like to know how the religious right, in this particular case, is, as you say, imposing their doctrine on other people.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Craig Robinson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 November 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 1756
|
| Posted: 04 July 2014 at 11:16am | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
Being protected under freedom of speech is a long way from enjoying the same kinds of protections -- and benefits -- granted to religions.
---
I imagine atheism would be a lot more sexy if it were tax free. I do wonder if anyone has attempted a "church of atheism" to purposefully exploit those benefits?
***
Assuming the latter, I'd like to know how the religious right, in this particular case, is, as you say, imposing their doctrine on other people.
---
If a non-ecumenical employer's religious beliefs do not permit the use of contraception (looking at you, Cult of Mary) and you do not allow women who work for your non-ecumenical business birth control coverage in their insurance benefits simply because of YOUR religious beliefs, that's imposing your doctrine on other people.
####
I'm not sure if this is simply a random observation, or if it's meant to relate to the topic at hand
---
Both are true. This isn't academic for me. I was raised in a backwards-ass time-warp shitheel culture of ignorance where uneducated people used religious doctrine as their metric for every decision. One of my uncles committed suicide because my grandmother believed mental illness was "just" demon possession and refused to give him medical treatment. When the revival tent faith healers couldn't "Praise Jesus" the demon out of him, he gave in to his despair.
While every one of these "victories" for the religious right seems like a plume in your Jesus crown, the rest of us rational people actually think about the consequences.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Joseph Gauthier
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 11 March 2009
Posts: 1431
|
| Posted: 05 July 2014 at 12:08am | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
If a non-ecumenical employer's religious beliefs do not permit the use of contraception (looking at you, Cult of Mary) and you do not allow women who work for your non-ecumenical business birth control coverage in their insurance benefits simply because of YOUR religious beliefs, that's imposing your doctrine on other people.
Do you truly not see the difference between disallowing and not providing? Disallowing would be an imposition, not providing is not. Certainly you must see that prior to the overturning of the mandate, only one party in the system was compelled to action. Do you truly not see where the fulcrum of burden rested? Do you really not see who was imposed upon? Or is it just that you don't want to see? Here's a funny little illustration of the scenario by Sean Davis, in which he boils it down just about as far as it can go:
"Get your politics out of my bedroom!"
"Not a problem. I'm just going to grab my wallet before I leave."
"The wallet stays, bigot."
I also find it curious that you draw a distinction between ecumenical organizations and non-ecumenical organizations. Are you suggesting that one must belong to an organization in order to qualify for full access to the rights and protections that up to now have only, and can only, belong to individuals? I think you must realize that isn't the case- though in fairness I must admit that you're not alone in stumbling into that particular fallacious trap; the current President has done it too, and done so while arguing on his other hand that individuals must forfeit their individual rights simply because they have chosen to organize with other individuals. I hope you've never argued both points, though I can't say I recall you ever having done so.
And as an aside, I don't wear a Jesus crown; like you, I'm an atheist.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Craig Robinson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 November 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 1756
|
| Posted: 05 July 2014 at 6:17am | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
I also find it curious that you draw a distinction between ecumenical organizations and non-ecumenical organizations.
---
I do draw that distinction. Were I to work for a church or a religious organization, I would expect orthodoxy in their expectations and benefits. I have a secondary education degree. Once I graduated, I never even considered looking at parochial schools for a job because many parochial schools consider their teachers members of the clergy and control their out-of-classroom behavior on a basis of doctrine rather than legality.
If you hate monkeys, you probably shouldn't work at a zoo.
+++
Are you suggesting that one must belong to an organization in order to qualify for full access to the rights and protections that up to now have only, and can only, belong to individuals?
----
No. In fact, I think I'm suggesting the opposite: that the organization one belongs to should have no business dictating the private affairs of the individuals who work for or are affiliated with them (so long as those private affairs are legal and not hurting anyone).
I produce a podcast with a friend of mine that is just us goofing on each other and making fun of things that gripe us. It's satire, but it's explicit. The company I work for, though non-ecumenical, compels employees to sign a morality agreement as a condition of employment. I have to take great care to conceal myself from my employer because if the wrong person finds something I say immoral and connects the dots back to me, I can lose my job. Especially since my state is an at-will employment state.
I find that ridiculous. Just as I find a non-ecumenical organization allowing the owner's religious beliefs to impose decisions about their women employee health care. It's quite simply not their business. It's bad enough that we have accountants making healthcare decisions and now we're allowing clergy and bosses to do so?
***
arguing on his other hand that individuals must forfeit their individual rights simply because they have chosen to organize with other individuals. I hope you've never argued both points
---
While what you are describing is the basis of Social Contract based democracy, I am talking about freedom from an organization, not within it.
###
"Get your politics out of my bedroom!"
"Not a problem. I'm just going to grab my wallet before I leave."
"The wallet stays, bigot."
---
This would be a Jim Dandy model were it not for the fact that Republicans are the ones consistently battering down the bedroom door to legislate their sense of morality. They are for small, limited government... unless you are an immigrant, a woman, a black teenager or homosexual.
///
And as an aside, I don't wear a Jesus crown; like you, I'm an atheist.
---
The royal you. And I'm actually not an atheist. Even when I was a Christian, I was predominately a Deist as I found the lack of education and homophobia in the Southern Baptist Church utterly unpalatable. So I'm probably agnostic. I don't believe the Earth is 6,000 years old but I do believe something gave what we call nature a spark. Though I don't subscribe to any single dogmatic creation story, there are parts of most major religions that I find stirring and beautiful on a Humanist level. I like lobster and bacon so what's a guy to do?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 134669
|
| Posted: 05 July 2014 at 7:44am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Though I don't subscribe to any single dogmatic creation story, there are parts of most major religions that I find stirring and beautiful on a Humanist level.••• As long as you pick the parts you like, and ignore the rest.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Craig Robinson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 November 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 1756
|
| Posted: 05 July 2014 at 8:39am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
As long as you pick the parts you like, and ignore the rest.
---
As a general rule, I do try to stick with the "love and be of service to one another" parts and ignore the "stone your neighbor to death for planting soybeans alongside corn" parts. I wouldn't equate it to being a Cafeteria Catholic because I don't practice any religion. I aspire to practice civility, humanity and Reason.
The parts I like I usually hold in high literary esteem (just as I do the virtues found in Tolkien or Asimov), like the Tikkun olam in Judaism, or the devotion to the Pillars of Islam and some of the beautiful passages found in the Quran, Thomas Jefferson's interpretation of the Bible, and the clearly Buddhist influences on AVATAR:THE LAST AIRBENDER. And so forth.
For my own self, I'd say spirituality is a part of the human experience, but not the sum total of it. And what these charlatans conduct is rather far removed from spirituality.
I can see how this might be perceived as wanting it both ways. But I do not see it this way. If there were a Hell, I'd be headed there. I subscribe to the notion that everyone has something to teach you.
Edited by Craig Robinson on 05 July 2014 at 8:43am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
