I think we need to reframe this entire Hobby Lobby issue...

[Gravitycollapse]

I think it's everyone's right to believe in whatever they want. Even if what they believe is definitionally the opposite of reason. Most religious belief falls under this opposition to reason as faith exists outside of the bounds of what can and cannot be proven logically.

Thusly, I think it is about time we stop giving credence to the "religious freedom" argument denying women contraception coverage. Instead, we should sit down the leadership for these companies and ask them a simple question:

"Do you possess any observable evidence that your religious beliefs are objectively true?"

When they answer no, and they will have to in order to be correct, we should dismiss the entirety of their claims on the grounds that the observable health needs and rights of women, being real, trump mythology.

I'm tired of the endless jockeying to validate religious faith.

[mike_c]

1. agreed, 100% percent....

eom

[RKP5637]

2. Many sound raving mad, hearing voices, talking to people in the sky, devils beneath them,

fairies fluttering in the sky, voices calling them, raising the dead, persecuting people, tormenting others, clutching a rigged book and reciting phrases, damn, wish they would give us a break with the crazy religious shit. Someone tells me they're religious, my inner reaction, watch out for this one. ... and I excuse myself.

[TheDebbieDee]

3. Here's the deal - noone has the right to own business...

If Hobby Lobby doesnt win their Supreme Court ruling, then the owners can sell their business and stay good with God!

Just like pharmacists can find jobs in other professions if they feel conflicted about passing out birth control.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

24. Well, that's new.

[Bjorn Against]

4. While I agree with the general point you are making, I warn against asking them that question

I hate to disappoint you but they will not admit they have no observable evidence, instead they will give you a long religious spiel that will make you want to bash your head into the wall multiple times.

[Loudly]

5. Well, faith takes over where knowledge leaves off.

Things that used to fall within the realm of faith moved into the realm of knowledge as our understanding of the natural universe grew.

And the whole religious freedom versus contraceptive coverage dichotomy would go away under Medicare for All.

The only reason the Teabagg community may have SCOTUS on their side regarding this issue is because the purchase of private health insurance is involved.

Medicare for All is the antidote for essentially all Teabagg objections regarding health care for the middle class.

[Niceguy1]

6. better way to frame

It is that a for profit corporation isn't a exercise of your religous rights, unlike churches, and non profit organizations.

Religous rights have their place but not in corporate America.

[Gravitycollapse]

8. No, the perfect way to frame it is that religious faith is not backed by any evidence.

[Niceguy1]

11. execpt for that pesky document

Called the constitution the gives the right to free exercise of religion, even in the public square.

[Gravitycollapse]

12. Point to the spot in the US Constitution where it says I can impose my religion on others.

[Niceguy1]

13. I never claimed that

In fact in a post above I agree that hobby lobby is wrong. However defining rights by forcing a ggroup to prove their belief or dismiss it is silly.

[Gravitycollapse]

14. I don't think that's silly at all. For instance, white people don't have the right to own slaves...

Despite historical protests to the contrary, I can say with certainty no such right exists.

[Niceguy1]

17. and what does that have to do with

Believing in a god?


Do you think that a person of faith can be a good dem or progressive?

[Gravitycollapse]

18. It's relevant because it proves that you have to have just cause to exert a right.

And that being in a "group" does not mean you have rights. It might be a legal precursor but it is no guarantee. And those rights must be reasonably justified.

I know plenty of good people who are wrong about many things all the time. One of the most common I encounter is individuals claiming their faith is objectively true. That is an incorrect belief to hold.

[Niceguy1]

19. your right to bot believe is

Just as equal to theirs is to believe....none is morally superior to the other

[Gravitycollapse]

20. But one is objectively more logical.

I don't hold anyone to particularly high esteem if they feel anything they believe is morally superior without having any basis in reality.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. Your esteem is not the basis of law. You'll just have to get used to that fact.

[Gravitycollapse]

25. But logic should be and largely is the basis of law.

Action and consequence, culpability really, is a moralized version of action and reaction. Which is foundational to natural law.

There is nothing logical about a pharmacists claims that he cannot be forced to sell contraception because it is against his religious conviction because he would first have to establish that some sort of substantive harm is befalling him by doing so and "moral offense" does not meet that requirement (or, at least, the practice of considering moral offense actually harmful has drastically fallen out of legal fashion).

These companies have no substance to their argument. No actual harm is befalling them by being forced to offer an insurance plan which covers birth control.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

27. "Logic" could just as easily dictate that war for resources is a virtue and anything that

inhibits reproduction is anathema to natural selection. I'm pretty sure the eugenicists thought they were being logical and septic. So too Mao and his willingness to do away with useless eaters. And you have no objective proof to say they're wrong because they are looking at the exact same data set that you are.

[RKP5637]

21. You hit squarely on the point that irks me with this and similar, they are intent on forcing their

ideas, their beliefs on others. It's the same with much of religion, persecution and forcing beliefs on others, "Onward Christian Soldiers" comes to mind. This country was NOT founded on the belief that others can force their religion on one. Every chance they get, they try to pull the same BS.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

23. There is no "forcing of beliefs"

At no time prior to the contraceptive mandate did Hobby Lobby hold any corporate policy dictating whether or not their employees could practice artificial birth control, nor have they instituted such a policy. If they prevail in their case things will return to as they were prior to the mandate.

[TBF]

32. You need to re-read the establishment clause. nt

[TBF]

31. ^^ This is the crux of the case -

This case is the first time a large for-profit corporation has claimed protection under RFRA. The answer needs to be a resounding "no". No protection for corporation as if they are people. This is why Citizen's United was such a bad case and needs to be over-turned. It opens the door for nonsense like this.

[rurallib]

7. an addendum to your question

"please prove objectively that the bible was written or inspired by a god and prove the existence of that god, please?

I have never thought about this since I was raised catholic and always heard abortion was a sin, but where in the bible does it say abortion is a sin?
No I am not going to look it up, just curious.

[Gravitycollapse]

9. Not certain of that. But I know it is a sin to spill your "seed" on the ground.

[Prophet 451]

28. It doesn't directly

The closest anyone can come is "Before you were formed in the womb, I knew you" (Jeremiah 1:5, which presumes there is something to know prior to that).

That said, there's also a passage which lays out the punishment for murder (death) and the punishment for causing a miscarriage (100 shekels, IIRC), which seems to imply that a zef isn't considered the equal to a born human.

As in a lot of things, the Bible is pretty ambiguous on the subject.

[rurallib]

34. thank you. That answers many questions

Last edited Thu Mar 27, 2014, 12:24 PM - Edit history (1)

edit to add -
heard this question on the Steph Miller show to John Fuigelsang. He gave almost the exact same answer.

[WillowTree]

10. It's a little late for reframing at this juncture.

All the reframing in the world isn't going to change any one of the nine minds that matter now.

[Ikonoklast]

15. That would be outside the scope of the argument.

A better tactic would be to simply ask, "Seeing how your employees also contribute their share, is the money paid for healthcare insurance premiums by Hobby Lobby on behalf of your employees part of their total compensation package, or does it come out of your pocket, like a gift for them?".


They would have to be extremely careful just how they answer that question.

[Initech]

16. It's a direct assault on the first amendment and separation of church and state.

By siding with Hobby Lobby the first amendment will be completely destroyed. We will have no freedom of religion rights if this passes. There is no justification for this. It's a direct attack on our personal freedoms for some bullshit network news talking point.

[SheilaT]

26. Their observable evidence is going to be the Bible.

Religious people who are by no means nut cases sincerely believe that the Bible is the Word of God. Which is why it's not possible to reason with the more fanatical ones, because for them if it's in the Bible, or if they think it's there, then it's true.

The real problem is that no one is forcing anyone to use birth control. Simply paying for someone else's birth control is not truly a violation of their beliefs, because they don't have to use the stuff.

Or as I like to say to the anti-choicers: If you don't believe in abortion then don't have one.

If you don't believe in birth control then don't use it.

But don't think you have any right whatsoever to make me behave as if I were you.

[CBGLuthier]

29. Believe it or not, people do not need proof just to make you happy.

Damn, this is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen.

[avebury]

30. I wish that at least on of the Supreme

Court Justices had asked HL - "If the SC does not find in your favor, will HL shuts it doors to safeguard its religious beliefs? If they say no, then cash trumps religion once again.

[LostOne4Ever]

33. The argument that resonates with me the most

Is that Hobby Lobby is forcing their religious views on their employees.

No one is FORCING the company, or anyone at the company to use contraception, thus no rights are being violated. Conversely, Hobby Lobby is trying to force their morality on their employees by refusing to provide the benefits the employee EARNED!!!

We can link it with vaccinations/surgeries and anit-vaxxerss/christian scientists that way, and ask if a company has a right to refuse to pay an employee if they think said is going to use "The Companies" money wrong. It gives us a ton of different ways to reframe the issue to expose the absurdity of their actual position and show that HL is the real one who is using religion to discriminate.

The more ways we can skewer them the better

Making it look like a battle between real and provable needs of women vs imaginary intangible desires of Hobby Lobby sounds appealing, but I think if pushed wrong would look like an attack on religion itself further feeding the RW X-tian persecution complex.

[el_bryanto]

35. Reframe the whole thing as a a referendum on religion?

How do you think that would play politically?

Bryant