This case is now at the Supreme Court. Hobby Lobby is a business owned by a Christian family. The family objects to the parts of Obamacare that require them to provide free contraception, especially certain kinds of contraception that can work after conception - a violation of the family's religious beliefs.

Hobby Lobby isn't forbidding their employees from purchasing contraception or abortion on their own dime - the family doesn't want to be forced by law to provide that which violates their religious beliefs.

To the liberals here, what is your argument? The Constitution explicitly says that family has the right to practice their religion. Nowhere does the Constitution say that anyone has the right to free contraception. Case closed, right?

What's the debate? I get that liberal ideology supports free contraception everywhere, but how does the Constitution not end the debate?

doesn't the fact that the case is at the Supreme Court answer your question as to what some think of various "rights", the Constitution and other things ?

The Constitution is outdated and religion is for people who can't think for themselves and need to be told what to do by a bearded guy in the clouds and therefore can't make informed decisions on anything...we all have the right to have sex with whoever and whatever we want whenever and wherever we want(didn't make this up, I heard it in an AIDS testing commercial on the radio recently) and free contraception, abortificents and sex reassignment surgery is essential in maintaining that right...not complicated...no debate...this is progress

doesn't the fact that the case is at the Supreme Court answer your question as to what some think of various "rights", the Constitution and other things ?

The Constitution is outdated and religion is for people who can't think for themselves and need to be told what to do by a bearded guy in the clouds and therefore can't make informed decisions on anything...we all have the right to have sex with whoever and whatever we want whenever and wherever we want(didn't make this up, I heard it in an AIDS testing commercial on the radio recently) and free contraception, abortificents and sex reassignment surgery is essential in maintaining that right...not complicated...no debate...this is progress

I don't disagree, I just want to hear one of them say it. I want one of them to say, "well, I agree that the constitution guarantees the freedom of religion, however, I feel the Constitution doesn't apply because _____________________".

Just my opinion but scott is off base.

The views seem to be " practice your religion, but dont put your values on someone else. Don't discriminate someone else, etc.
The law is the law. If an employee at AC Moore or Michaels crafts is being provided birth control, hobby lobby employees should as well.

Seems pretty simple ? No?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I haven't been following this closely, as things have been a bit hectic lately, but I heard this article cited this morning.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/hobby-lobby-supreme-court-obamacare

take the source for what it is, but IF Hobby Lobby covered some forms of contraception before the ACA, doesn't it seem mildly hypocritical now to be against it purely on religious beliefs?

:rotfl:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just my opinion but scott is off base.

The views seem to be " practice your religion, but dont put your values on someone else. Don't discriminate someone else, etc.
The law is the law. If an employee at AC Moore or Michaels crafts is being provided birth control, hobby lobby employees should as well.

Seems pretty simple ? No?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"The views seem to be " practice your religion, but dont put your values on someone else"

You could not be more wrong. It is Obamacare, and the liberals who support the contraception mandate, who are forcing their views on the Christian business, not the other way around.

The Christian business owners are NOT telling their employees what to do. They are not telling their employees that they cannot purchase contraception on their own. It is the liberals here, who want to force the Christian business owners to abandon what they believe and purchase that which violates their beliefs.

Pretty simple, no? I'm not sure how you can fail to see that, if you can put yourself in the shoes of the Christian business owner for a second. All he wants to do is operate his business, and do it in a way that doesn't force him to abandon his religion.

"practice your religion, but dont put your values on someone else"

Wrong again. The Christian business owner is in no way putting his values on anyone else. He is asking to be left alone. He isn't trying to convert his employees to Christianity, he isn't trying to teach his employees that contraception is immoral. It is the pro-contraception crowd that is forcing their beliefs upon the Christian business owner.

"The law is the law" Not if it's unconstitutional, it's not. Nebe, at one point in our nation's history, slavery was the law of the land. There are bad laws which deserve to be thrown out. In this country, we are not forbidden from challenging laws. Not yet anyway...

"If an employee at AC Moore or Michaels crafts is being provided birth control, hobby lobby employees should as well. "

What? Every business is required to follow the practices of every other business? So if I open an art studio and pay my cashier $100,00 a year, that means you are required to do the same?

If Hobby Lobby employees are envious of the perks at Ac Moore or Michaels, then lucky for them, they are free to pursue employment there. No one is forcing these people to work at Hobby Lobby.

Constitution, shmonstitution...

I haven't been following this closely, as things have been a bit hectic lately, but I heard this article cited this morning.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/hobby-lobby-supreme-court-obamacare

take the source for what it is, but IF Hobby Lobby covered some forms of contraception before the ACA, doesn't it seem mildly hypocritical now to be against it purely on religious beliefs?

From what I heard, Hobby Lobby is specifically objecting to being forced to provide the kinds of contraception that can take effect after conception. That can be considered to be an abortificant, pardon my spelling. I don't think they are objecting to condoms...they are objecting specifically to things that could potentially be used after conception.

Furthermore, I don't know that the timing matters. Maybe they just converted to Christianity. I don't know that there is a statute of limitations on claiming tht your constitutional rights are currently being violated.

They aren't objecting to all kinds of contraception. But Obama, naturaly (since Obama is the most rabidly pro-abortion president we will ever have) had to take it to unimaginable levels.

:rotfl:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not exactly, if you bothered to, you know, get the facts from the other side.

Nebe, the Bill Of Rights applies to everyone, even those you happen to disagree with. It's that simple. Whatever these people want, they can get. They cannot force their employer to provide it for them. Christians cannot be forced to pay for what is tantamount to an abortion.

Just because you happen to like the concept of free contraception, doesn't mean you can throw out the constitution to achieve it.

you are not wrong Jim.

and when slavery was legal, the slave owners were not wrong either ;)

you are not wrong Jim.

and when slavery was legal, the slave owners were not wrong either ;)

You're implying that there is no such thing as an immoral law. In my opinion, you would be wrong about that.

Slave owners were not breaking the laws at the time. Most people would not agree with you, that they "were not wrong".

Rockhound's article says that, in accordance with their beliefs, Hobby Lobby pays far higher than minimum wage. Good for them...

If an employee at AC Moore or Michaels crafts is being provided birth control, hobby lobby employees should as well.

Seems pretty simple ? No?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If an employee at Hobby Lobby is not being provided certain types of birth control, AC Moore or Michaels Crafts employees should not as well.

Seems pretty simple? No?

When Bush was president, I recall hearing a fair amount of liberal uproar about the concern of trading "freedom for security". Lots of liberals were concerned about that, and it was an important discussion to have. But those same folks are now rallying around the idea of trading freedom for consequence-free fornication. We've sure come a long way under this administration, what a great cultural leap forward.

How long, O Lord?

If an employee at Hobby Lobby is not being provided certain types of birth control, AC Moore or Michaels Crafts employees should not as well.

Seems pretty simple? No?

So the rights of the 13,000 employees must be mandated by the bosses, huh? No one is MAKING the hobby lobby family use the contraception, just to allow their employees to obtain it under their healthcare.

So it is either the business applying their morals/beliefs to 13,000 employees or the ACA doing it to the owners..


it is not a simple argument either way....

So the rights of the 13,000 employees must be mandated by the bosses, huh? No one is MAKING the hobby lobby family use the contraception, just to allow their employees to obtain it under their healthcare.

So it is either the business applying their morals/beliefs to 13,000 employees or the ACA doing it to the owners..


it is not a simple argument either way....

"So the rights of the 13,000 employees must be mandated by the bosses, huh?"

How do you think it works? Do employees get to determine their own wages and benefits, and I missed that announcement? Bosses make the rules.

"just to allow their employees to obtain it under their healthcare. "

Who pays for most of the healthcare costs? The owners of the company. Come on, I think you know this...

"either the business applying their morals/beliefs to 13,000 employees"

Absolutely wrong. The business owners are not forcing their personal beliefs onto their employees. The employees, in this case, are free to do whatever they want, they are free to buy whatever they want, they are free to fornicate however they want. The owners simply want to be left out of it. If the employees want to sleep around, why does the employer have to pay for the safety gear? If I ride motorcycles in my free time, does my employer have to give me a free helmet?

"it is not a simple argument either way"

If you pretend we don't have a Constitution, I suppose it's a complicated argument. If you concede that we have a Constitution and a Bill Of Rights therein, it gets very simple, very quickly. How do you get around that?

Rockhound, please tell me, how is the business owner trying to force his beliefs onto his employees? The business owner doesn't want to personally pay the bill for that which violates his religion, but the employees are free to do as they wish with their own money. The only thing forced upon the employee, is the respobsibility for paying for certain kinds of contraception.

From what I heard, Hobby Lobby is specifically objecting to being forced to provide the kinds of contraception that can take effect after conception. That can be considered to be an abortificant, pardon my spelling. I don't think they are objecting to condoms...they are objecting specifically to things that could potentially be used after conception.



I believe that you are correct but I think the medical view is that it is not abortificant (haven't heard that word before) but rather that it somehow prevents the egg and sperm from bonding (for lack of a better term). Perhaps there is a period of time when the sperm and egg can "bond" after intercourse (like the 24 hour window within which you can take the pill)????

So the rights of the 13,000 employees must be mandated by the bosses, huh?

Yes and no. Depends on which and what kind of "rights." Workplace rights (distinguished from government regulations) are mutually agreed on contractual rights. If Hobby Lobby and its employees have not contractually agreed on free contraceptives, then no such "right" exists. Constitutional rights do not include guarantees of employer provided free contraceptives, so there are no such rights. Government prescribed rights are imposed. In this case, the Federal Government has imposed neither a right, nor a law, but a regulation that certain employers must provide insurance that covers an array of contraceptives. So, in this case, no "right" per se has been granted or created, but rather a limitation and prescription on what certain employers must provide under penalty of fines. And since there is no constitutional enumeration which gives the Federal Government the power to force private business to provide any type of health insurance, nor any right, actually, to create regulatory agencies that have the plenary power, de facto or other wise, to create any regulations, and since there are not only the vast residuum of rights held in the Constitution by the people if those rights are not granted to the Federal Government, and, even beyond that, their is in the Constitution a specific right to the practice of freedom of religion that shall not be abridged by government, so because of all that their is an apparent dispute between actual constitutional rights and a prescribed government regulation, so the matter has been taken to the Supreme Court. How that will end is not certain. How it should, at least on an original constitutional basis, should not be in much dispute. But original constitutional basis has been, as Spence might say, "normalized" to be whatever five Judges prefer. So, if five Justices say the regulation is OK, case closed.

That we have gone so far toward destroying those rights we possessed which were once beyond the reach of government is troubling enough. But to continue to do so on such a trifling matter of who must pay for contraception is a reflection on how far We the People have accepted that politicians, who are not only supposed to be our servants but are no more capable nor more intelligent than We, are allowed to run our lives even in such trivial matters.

Apparently, We cannot see the danger of giving them the power to do so because we are either blinded by ideology, or somehow have become so very stupid. So stupid to believe that it ends here, or so hopeful that more "rights" will be given to us which are more substantial than the "right" to free contraceptives. The natural progression in a progressive ideology would be the right to more important free stuff--food (well, food stamps ARE multiplying), housing, clothing, transportation, recreation, and health care, for everybody, not just the poor. If that's what we're hoping for, we are not only stupid, but a hopeless, greedy, and incompetent herd of human sheep.

No one is MAKING the hobby lobby family use the contraception, just to allow their employees to obtain it under their healthcare.

But it is not THEIR health insurance. It is insurance that the government has mandated that Hobby Lobby must provide or pay a penalty. The employees only are covered under that insurance provided through Hobby Lobby. If they were to leave Hobby Lobby, they would no longer have THAT insurance. It is not THEIR'S. If they want their own insurance, one which they owned and would have no matter where or whether they worked, they would have to contract and pay for it on their own.

So it is either the business applying their morals/beliefs to 13,000 employees or the ACA doing it to the owners..


it is not a simple argument either way....

That was the point of my response to Nebe. It was the reverse parallel to his "Seems pretty simple? No?" constsruction. He just had a one-sided simplicity. I merely provided the flip side. Either way, the construction is stupid. And this whole debate on whether something that is so available and not expensive has to be included in all insurance policies (or any for that matter) is ridiculous. What the hell have we come to?

I don't know how it could be explained any simpler.

It's not the employer who is wrong, but the government, for forcing the employer to pay for something they shouldn't.
If an employee wants a "morning after pill", let them pay for it themselves!

Heck,. maybe they won't be covered by the health plan under Obama-scare?

Naw, we all know that anything that promotes sexual deviance and promiscuity (particularly with children) will be covered and promoted by Obamacare. How else will they perpetuate the voter base?

I do like the motorcycle helmet comparison. That's pure gold!

I don't like the idea that a for profit corporation has religious beliefs which trump federal law. So if my corporation is run by Scientologists will they deny me my mental health medication? :devil2: :hihi:

But really, best line I read in a comment to an article on the topic. I'll paraphrase...

But this company has no problem selling cheap Chinese crap made by women nearly enslaved and given forced abortions...what hypocrites.

Great point anonymous.

-spence

Spence, corporations are people! You don't remember?

Didn't we go to college with Corperation? man what a party animal..






And that is the reason why hobby lobby should not be exempt from this.. hobby lobby practices no religion.

I don't like the idea that a for profit corporation has religious beliefs which trump federal law. So if my corporation is run by Scientologists will they deny me my mental health medication? :devil2: :hihi:

But really, best line I read in a comment to an article on the topic. I'll paraphrase...

But this company has no problem selling cheap Chinese crap made by women nearly enslaved and given forced abortions...what hypocrites.

Great point anonymous.

-spence

"I don't like the idea that a for profit corporation has religious beliefs which trump federal law"

You don't have to like it. That's the thing about the constitution, it applies even when you don't like it.

I don't like it whan an artist makes a painting of Jesus covered in feces, but his right to do that is guaranteed by the freedom of speech. Same for flag-burners.

I don't like it when the Westboro Baptist Church stages rallies at military funerals. But their right to do that is guaranteed by the freedom of assembly.

I don't like anything that Rachael Maddow says. But her right to say stupid and hateful things is guaranteed by the freedom of the press.

I don't like it when people send itiotic requests to congressmen. But their right to do that is guaranteed by the right to petition for redress of grievances.

You may not like a Christian business choosing not to pay for their employees to fornicate. LIKE IT OR NOT, their right to do that is guaranteed by the freedom of religion.

Fortunately for us, your personal preferences are not a litmus test for when the constitution applies and when it doesn't. The constutution doesn't only apply when it serves your Bolshevik agenda.

Here's more good news. Not one of the Hobby Lobby employees is forced to work there. They can work elsewhere.

"what hypocrites"...

Let's see the proof that the specific warehouse from which Hobby Lobby buys their stuff, has brutal labor practices. Until you show that proof, your smear is nothing more than ideologically-driven speculation. No one is interested. Figures that your favorite quote of all of this, is a baseless smear. What a shocker.

Finally, mental disease is a legitimate illness recognized by the AMA. Recreational sex is a purely voluntary activity that some people choose to engage in. If one wants safety devices associated with their chosen hobbies, why the f*ck can't they pay for it themselves. I like to SCUBA dive, so can I ask my employer for a free dive computer? Try telling me the difference...

You have a very vivid obsession with sex with it comes to issues of contraception and homosexuality.

As for proof, I've never been in an HL store and don't even know if there's one in the area. That being said, I'd be willing to wager they sell Chinese products...this isn't rocket science.

-spence

You have a very vivid obsession with sex with it comes to issues of contraception and homosexuality.

As for proof, I've never been in an HL store and don't even know if there's one in the area. That being said, I'd be willing to wager they sell Chinese products...this isn't rocket science.

-spence

"You have a very vivid obsession with sex with it comes to issues of contraception and homosexuality."

More stupid, baseless insults.

I get concerned when your hero decides he can ignore the parts of the constitution he doesn't happen to like. In this case, it has to do with recreational sex. That's not my obsession, that's the specific wrecking ball Obama is taking to the constitution in this case.

I'm obsessed with homosexuality? Hardly.

"I'd be willing to wager they sell Chinese products...this isn't rocket science."

Having trouble with comprehension today? I didn't say they didn't sell Chinese products. What I said was, (1) that doesn't mean the factory they use is exploitative, and (2) it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The constitution applies to all Americans, even those who sell goods made in China.

I didn't say they didn't sell Chinese products. What I said was, (1) that doesn't mean the factory they use is exploitative, and (2) it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The constitution applies to all Americans, even those who sell goods made in China.
The number one line in their charter - even before value for customers!

Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with biblical principles.

Do you think the country of China in ANY WAY reinforces biblical principals?

-spence

Do you think the country of China in ANY WAY reinforces biblical principals?

-spence

No I don't. But HL isn't limiting itself to associating with Christians. They have 13,000 employees, many of whom are not Christian.

Again, maybe you can focus on the only thing that matters here...the constitution. Instead of telling us what jerks the people at HL are, please tell me why they don't deserve the same constitutional protections that you enjoy? Try to limit your answer to that topic...

Spence, corporations are people! You don't remember?

Corporations are an association of people who work together as people and hire people to produce goods and services for people. It is the people of the corporation who are responsible for the corporations policies. There is no such thing as a corporation not comprised of people. It is people who will suffer the penalties imposed on corporations, and people who will enjoy the profits or bear the losses incurred by their corporation.

Didn't we go to college with Corperation? man what a party animal..

You may have gone to college with some of the people who make up various corporations. If they were Hobby Lobby people, they might not have been party animals.

And that is the reason why hobby lobby should not be exempt from this.. hobby lobby practices no religion.

The PEOPLE who own and run the company do practice a religion. It is their decision to set policy for the company. And those policies reflect on those people, and is a product of who those people are. There is no such thing as a corporate policy which is instituted by non-persons.

BTW, have you ever gone to college or party with a government, or a mom-and-pop store, or a glass-blowing business?

The number one line in their charter - even before value for customers!



Do you think the country of China in ANY WAY reinforces biblical principals?

-spence

As Jim in CT says, Hobby Lobby is not limiting itself to associating only with Christians--neither as employees or customers, nor even with only Christian manufacturers. That would be nearly impossible since all the materials that comprise the products they sell come from diverse and unknown sources. Nor could they actually sell those products without using currencies which are produced by secular agencies which do not reinforce, or operate on, Christian principles.

The owners of Hobby Lobby can only hold themselves responsible for "Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with biblical principles."

Even Christ himself, in his teaching, had to use resources which were produced by non-Christians. He did not prohibit others from doing the same, but required only that they personally led their life according to his teaching.

Even Christ himself, in his teaching, had to use resources which were produced by non-Christians. He did not prohibit others from doing the same, but required only that they personally led their life according to his teaching.
By that logic, what substantial burden is there on Hobby Lobby to comply with Federal law? The company is using resources (i.e. employees) which may not share the same religious convictions. Then...According to Jesus Christ, as long as the owners of the Hobby Lobby lead their life according to his teaching everything should be all hunky dory…

-spence

By that logic, what substantial burden is there on Hobby Lobby to comply with Federal law?

The original burden is in the passing of a law. The supreme law is supposed to be the Constitution. If we accept that the Constitution grants the Federal Government the power in all cases to tell individuals and private businesses what they must do, and in detail how they must do it under a penalty for noncompliance, whether that be a tax or imprisonment or death, then we accept that the Federal Government is supreme. That it has an unlimited power to destroy. And if we accept that, then there is no need for a constitution which purports to limit the power of government and holds the individual as sovereign. The progressive system of government has long ago begun the process of transforming our government into this kind of all-powerful leviathan. And if we accept that, we accept total subjugation to it, and are totally at its mercy. These current laws and regulations that are being passed in the name of providing for our welfare are the final touches to the process. That a majority of us are stupid enough to accept its "gifts" forces the rest of us, against our will and conscience, to comply with tyranny. And we are so apparently powerless that there is, as you put it, "no substantial burden" for the government to comply with its own law. It makes law and changes it at will. Why is there any substantial burden on us individuals to comply with such tyranny except by force, by threat of destruction.

The company is using resources (i.e. employees) which may not share the same religious convictions. Then...According to Jesus Christ, as long as the owners of the Hobby Lobby lead their life according to his teaching everything should be all hunky dory…

-spence

The owners of Hobby Lobby are providing a means for people who wish to participate with them in their enterprise and be compensated for their work, which helps the employees to have the things they wish to have. They are not forced to share in the enterprise, nor forced to worship or live as the owners do. How should it be that the employees should be able to force the owners to bend to their will? Is there some sort of suicide pact which must be signed in order to hire employees? If the compensation is not enough, the would be employee need not take the job. If the employer wishes to provide health insurance, must that insurance have clauses which violate the principles by which they personally live? If employees wish to have an assisted suicide, must the employers be compelled to provide the means to do so if it is against their conscience?

Those things employers create including what they provide in compensation are done in respect to who they are and what they believe? Those things are a reflection and a result of who they are. The resources they use are mostly out of their ability to control and not a result or reflection of who they personally are. They don't create or control the lives of the employees. They don't create the coin of the realm. They don't create the products which they sell. If the products they choose to sell are useful and beneficial, that is a reflection on who they are. If those products are harmful and against the principles by which they live, that is also a reflection of who they are.

Jesus Christ, I assume, would approve of them living their life and operating their business in a way which reflects his teachings. If they sold, or provided, in a way which is counter to his teaching, he would probably disapprove.

By that logic, what substantial burden is there on Hobby Lobby to comply with Federal law? The company is using resources (i.e. employees) which may not share the same religious convictions. Then...According to Jesus Christ, as long as the owners of the Hobby Lobby lead their life according to his teaching everything should be all hunky dory…

-spence

"By that logic, what substantial burden is there on Hobby Lobby to comply with Federal law?"

Of course they have to obey the law. But Congress, and the Courts, must make sure that the laws do not violate the Constitution.

"The company is using resources (i.e. employees) which may not share the same religious convictions."

Correct, the company does not require employees to share their religious views. Hence, the employees are free to fornicate all they want, and get as many abortions as they want. The employees, the way I read the Constitution, are not allowed to force the owners to pay for their choice to engage in recreational sex.

"According to Jesus Christ, as long as the owners of the Hobby Lobby lead their life according to his teaching everything should be all hunky dory"

More simple-minded, petty mockery of that which you disagree with.

Spence, corporations are people! You don't remember?

Didn't we go to college with Corperation? man what a party animal..






And that is the reason why hobby lobby should not be exempt from this.. hobby lobby practices no religion.

That is actually a point that adresses the constitutionality of the issue, instead of attacking the character of the owners. I respect that.

Unfortunately for you, your assumption that there is no correlation between corporations and the people who own them, has been settled by the Supreme Court, and not in your favor. In the recent and famous "Citizens United" case, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations, like people, have a first amendment right to free speech, and can exercise that right in the form of campaign contributions.

If business owners, via the companies they own, have the right to free speech...by what logic would they not also have the right to freedom of religion?

Spence or Nebe, please answer this question...

If Obamacare provides free contraception to those who choose to engage in recreational sex...why everyone aho chooses to engage in a recreational pursuit, get the associated safety gear free as well?

If I ride a motorcycle, why can't I get a free helmet?
If I SCUBA dive, why can't I get a free dive computer?

Why do only fornicators get free stuff associated with their chosen 'hobby'?

Spence or Nebe, please answer this question...

If Obamacare provides free contraception to those who choose to engage in recreational sex...why everyone aho chooses to engage in a recreational pursuit, get the associated safety gear free as well?

If I ride a motorcycle, why can't I get a free helmet?
If I SCUBA dive, why can't I get a free dive computer?

Why do only fornicators get free stuff associated with their chosen 'hobby'?

This entire topic is titillating to you isn't it :hihi:

-spence

This entire topic is titillating to you isn't it :hihi:

-spence

What answer do I have to give to your question, to get you to answer my question?

If people who choose to sleep around get free contraception from Obamacare, why don't people who choose to ride motorcycles get free helmets from Obamacare?

Please answer the question. Or admit that you cannot.

What answer do I have to give to your question, to get you to answer my question?

If people who choose to sleep around get free contraception from Obamacare, why don't people who choose to ride motorcycles get free helmets from Obamacare?

Please answer the question. Or admit that you cannot.

There you go. Off the rails.

How does wanting contraception covered under insurance relate to sleeping around?

Did you use contraception when you were dating your now wife? Were you sleeping around? I wasn't then. I don't think my wife was. Her contraception was covered by her insurance.

This is ignoring the fact that there can be medical reasons to take contraception.

There you go. Off the rails.

How does wanting contraception covered under insurance relate to sleeping around?

Did you use contraception when you were dating your now wife? Were you sleeping around? I wasn't then. I don't think my wife was. Her contraception was covered by her insurance.

This is ignoring the fact that there can be medical reasons to take contraception.

"How does wanting contraception covered under insurance relate to sleeping around?"

I assume that if someone isn't engaging in recreational sex, they have no need for contraception. I also don't like people who want someone else to pay for the tools involved for consequence-free sex. If you want to have consequence-free sex, you have that right, just please leave me, and my wallet, out of it.

"Did you use contraception when you were dating your now wife? "

I did. I paid for it myself.

"Were you sleeping around?"

Maybe you could call it that. I was certainly fornicating, which was my choice, and I didn't see that it was anyone else's responsibility to be involved. It was between the 2 of us. My language is not a complimentary way of describing it, I'll admit.

"Her contraception was covered by her insurance"

But her employer was not forced by law to provide it for free. Apples and oranges.

"This is ignoring the fact that there can be medical reasons to take contraception"

That's true. I don't know what Hobby Lobby's position is on that. The Catholic Church, for example, is not opposed to contraception that's prescribed for medical conditions. Maybe (I'm purely speculating) HL's plan provides for contraception when there is a ned. In any event, HL's concern is with the abortificants, and there is almost never a legitimate medical need for an abortion.

I think I tried to answer your questions. Maybe you can answer one of mine...regardless of how you personally feel about this, how do you get past the constitution?

As I said, the constitution allows many people to do things that I find morally repugnant, like holding a non-violent Klan rally. It makes me sick that anyone would listen to the Klan. But I would not be in favor of a law that made it illegal to listen to them.

Personal ideology has no absolutely place whatsoever in the discussion of whether or not someone has a constitutional right to do something.

This is ignoring the fact that there can be medical reasons to take contraception.

Ultimately, there can be "medical reasons" for regulating everything we do. Including wearing helmets when motorcycle riding.

Ignoring that fact by including a select list of items which must be insured makes it appear that there is an agenda beyond "health" reasons for including contraception and not everything else. Even more so when so much of the other things not included are far more expensive than contraceptives. If we don't include daily meals of adequate nutritional value, proper housing and clothing, restful bedding, physically refurbishing vacations and pastimes, etc. as part of an adequate health insurance policy, why include contraception? And if we believe that individuals must provide for their own of the above, why not individuals providing their own contraceptives?

How about this plan? Since just about everything we do affects our health, instead of being compensated with a paycheck for work, how about we are provided with an insurance plan which covers all available expenses we are capable of accruing? Everything we purchase will be paid for with our insurance card. We must all work at some employment, either in businesses created by others, or those created by ourselves, or by being independent contractors. We must be able to prove, on a yearly basis (or some lesser interval), that we are productively employed, and, if so, will be issued by federal government authorities the overall insurance card. How diversified our opportunities are will depend on the initiative of entrepreneurs, for whatever personal reason, to provide them. If a social crisis occurs because there are not enough inventers to provide us with basic needs or diverse needs for recreation and emotional well being, government selected experts who have been educated with abilities to create new games and ideas for society to enjoy will do so. And the compulsory schools will be able to determine the aptitudes of students for entrepreneurship, etc. So if not enough businesses are created, those who have the aptitudes will be ordered to create them or relinquish their insurance cards.

I think I tried to answer your questions. Maybe you can answer one of mine...regardless of how you personally feel about this, how do you get past the constitution?


You see it as the government restricting Hobby Lobby's religious beliefs. I see it as Hobby Lobby imposing their religious beliefs on their employees. Reproductive issues should be covered by healthcare, IMHO. Period. I also see it as HIGHLY hypocritical that they covered it before the ACA, but don't cover it now, by splitting hairs with 'aborticant's? was the term.

I truly believe, they disagree with the law politically, and are using this as an excuse. Maybe it is financially motivated, as I think there are a large number of companies looking for excuses to cut benefits and doing so under the guise of the the ACA.

I still commend them for paying above minimum wage.

You see it as the government restricting Hobby Lobby's religious beliefs. I see it as Hobby Lobby imposing their religious beliefs on their employees.

Ahhh . . . the "I see it" . . . "you see it" argument. That'll get us . . . nowhere. That's why a Constitution and its form of government was created. So that we could see it differently but still cooperate as a society/country. As Jim says, how you see it does not answer his question to you regarding the Constitution. Of course, from what I gather by all the various posts on the political thread site, "liberals" or "progressives" either don't particularly care about the Constitution, or claim to not understand it and leave it up to various parts of the Federal Government to tell them what the Constitution "means." And, besides, as Spence would say, that's all academic. What Uncle Sam (Uncle Same?) says is what is, and must be obeyed. Although it can be bitched about if "conservatives" are in charge.

Reproductive issues should be covered by healthcare, IMHO. Period. I also see it as HIGHLY hypocritical that they covered it before the ACA, but don't cover it now, by splitting hairs with 'aborticant's? was the term.

Why, other than your opinion, should contraceptives be covered and not other "reproductive issues"? Just about everything we do affects our "reproductive" health. Including far more expensive things such as those in my post above which included a "plan" to cover it all.

I truly believe, they disagree with the law politically, and are using this as an excuse. Maybe it is financially motivated, as I think there are a large number of companies looking for excuses to cut benefits and doing so under the guise of the the ACA.

Companies only provide "benefits" if it benefits them to so provide. There is a rather fixed amount they are willing or able to expend on labor in order to competitively achieve their goals. That amount does not differ whether it is in benefits or cash. Benefits are an attractive method of compensation both to the employer and employee if they can be relieved of payroll taxes. There is no reason for a company to "cut benefits" if they have to be replaced with tax loaded compensation. The overall compensation, with or without benefits, is the total package the employee and employer agree on. If the overall compensation makes the company uncompetitive it must be adjusted or all, including the employees, lose their job. If the ACA adds to the fiscal burden of companies, it would be reasonable for them to resist it. If it doesn't, there is no advantage for them to resist it or "cut benefits."

I still commend them for paying above minimum wage.

I'm sure they appreciate your commendation. What do you think of my above "insurance plan"?

You see it as the government restricting Hobby Lobby's religious beliefs. I see it as Hobby Lobby imposing their religious beliefs on their employees. Reproductive issues should be covered by healthcare, IMHO. Period. I also see it as HIGHLY hypocritical that they covered it before the ACA, but don't cover it now, by splitting hairs with 'aborticant's? was the term.

I truly believe, they disagree with the law politically, and are using this as an excuse. Maybe it is financially motivated, as I think there are a large number of companies looking for excuses to cut benefits and doing so under the guise of the the ACA.

I still commend them for paying above minimum wage.

"I see it as Hobby Lobby imposing their religious beliefs on their employees."

I don't see how anyone can claim that. Is HL doing anything to try and change the beliefs of their employees?

"Reproductive issues should be covered by healthcare, IMHO. Period"

And if enough people believe that, we can amend the constitution to reflect that. Until then, the feds do not get to ignore the parts of the constitution that they don't happen to like.

Why should reproductive issues be covered by healthcare, but not motorcycle helmets, which are more expensive?

"I also see it as HIGHLY hypocritical that they covered it before the ACA"

I don't think that matters. Choosing to voluntarily do somehting is one thing, being forced by law is something else. I choose to give money to the Catholic Church. If Obama tried to pass a law requiring everyone to donate money to the Catholic Church, I would oppose that law on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. Does that make me a hypocrite? I don't think so. I don't care if they win this case, and the next day, open an abortion clinic at every store. What they are objecting to, is the government trying to force them to do something which is very likely unconstitutional.

"I truly believe, they disagree with the law politically, and are using this as an excuse. "

Maybe. But if the law they are challenging is unconstitutional, there motives do not matter, do they?

One last time. I get that you sympathize with what the feds are doing here, and that you are dubious as to HL's intentions.. But please tell me why it's not unconstitutional to demand that they abandon their religious beliefs, specifically pertaining to the freedom of religion?

Ignoring that fact by including a select list of items which must be insured makes it appear that there is an agenda beyond "health" reasons for including contraception and not everything else. .

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!

This is a way to throw a few goodies to people who tend to vote Democrat, and once again, to increase dependency on the feds...

This is a way to throw a few goodies to people who tend to vote Democrat, and once again, to increase dependency on the feds...

Yes, this is what his agenda has been since day one. He is not a Leader
serving the good of the entire nation, just anybody and anything that
helps his own "what's good for him "agenda.

I love it, the master plan to rig elections through free abortives.

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAUAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAH

The people are MINE!

-spence

That is a problem they'll never overcome - the lack of compassion and empathy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I truly believe, they disagree with the law politically, and are using this as an excuse. Maybe it is financially motivated, as I think there are a large number of companies looking for excuses to cut benefits and doing so under the guise of the the ACA.

I still commend them for paying above minimum wage.

Incredibly dismissive . It couldn't be because of religious beliefs because that's all BS. Right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I love it, the master plan to rig elections through free abortives.

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAUAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAH

The people are MINE!

-spence

It's over guys. Spence has uttered the magic word:

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAUAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAH

Can't argue with that. Discussion over. Case closed.

Nah . . . that's all he's got . . . nothing . . . just the bleating of sheeple.

That is a problem they'll never overcome - the lack of compassion and empathy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, the progressive lack of compassion and empathy for those who hold religious beliefs is stunning.

That is a problem they'll never overcome - the lack of compassion and empathy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No Paul. What you don't understand, is that you cannot throw out the Constitution, even for reasons you sympathize with.

I love the liberal notion that you are morally superior just by virtue of declaring yourself a liberal.

Paul, who has more sympathy for the family that owns HL. Me or you? Just curious.

Constitution, shmonstitution.

It's over guys. Spence has uttered the magic word:

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAUAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAH

Can't argue with that. Discussion over. Case closed.

Nah . . . that's all he's got . . . nothing . . . just the bleating of sheeple.
No, the magic word is "Moot."

You're taking my evil laugh out of context.

-spence

No Paul. What you don't understand, is that you cannot throw out the Constitution, even for reasons you sympathize with.

I love the liberal notion that you are morally superior just by virtue of declaring yourself a liberal.

Paul, who has more sympathy for the family that owns HL. Me or you? Just curious.

Constitution, shmonstitution.
I like how you're trying to parrot Detbuch like a toddler parrots their older brother...it's cute.

Just wait till the ACA goes before the Supreme Court and they find it unconstitutional. That will sure reinforce your argument...

Oops.

-spence

No Paul. What you don't understand, is that you cannot throw out the Constitution, even for reasons you sympathize with.

I love the liberal notion that you are morally superior just by virtue of declaring yourself a liberal.

Paul, who has more sympathy for the family that owns HL. Me or you? Just curious.

Constitution, shmonstitution.
I certainly don't think I'm morally superior to anyone bc of some label. It is more based on the action of others. When I see people with the belief that when some people do something to help people less fortunate than themselves it is only so they will vote for that party, I do consider myself morally superior to them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, the progressive lack of compassion and empathy for those who hold religious beliefs is stunning.

The statement had nothing to with religious beliefs but rather the laughable feeling that doing something is to "increase dependency on the Feds"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, the magic word is "Moot."

You're taking my evil laugh out of context.

-spence

I got the attempt to "Moot." But it was an exaggerated spin into the context of absurdity. So I normalized its unreality into more believable messaging--granted, the normalization was as Mootly absurd as your original . . . but just as feebly provocative.

I like how you're trying to parrot Detbuch like a toddler parrots their older brother...it's cute.

You might see it that way, as usual, by skimming the surface of things and avoiding the underlying principles. Jim doesn't have the same approach to the Constitution as I do. He is more accepting than I to the bending of its principles, especially in matters of charity. I think he once alluded to being influenced more by his Catholicism. He also, being a good soldier, accepts with finality what SCOTUS decides. I don't believe those decisions must stand if they are faulty. Again, you revert to the tactic of ridicule when you have nothing substantial to say. It becomes you, or you become it . . . either way, it works.

Just wait till the ACA goes before the Supreme Court and they find it unconstitutional. That will sure reinforce your argument...

Oops.

-spence

If this was supposed to be "parroting" me, your analogy fails yet again. In the thread which discussed the ACA being decided by the Court, I said that I did not know which way it would go, and that it might well be upheld . . . Ooops! . . . back at ya.

If this was supposed to be "parroting" me, your analogy fails yet again. In the thread which discussed the ACA being decided by the Court, I said that I did not know which way it would go, and that it might well be upheld . . . Ooops!

So where's the constutional argument? Theoretical or applied?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is Rastafarianism(sp) considered a religion? If so, is pot smoking allowed under the law? How about Santeria and animal sacrifices? There must be case law on that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is Rastafarianism(sp) considered a religion? If so, is pot smoking allowed under the law? How about Santeria and animal sacrifices? There must be case law on that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Or peyote and native Americans...

The statement had nothing to with religious beliefs but rather the laughable feeling that doing something is to "increase dependency on the Feds"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But my statement did have something to do with progressivism and religion. To achieve the transformation of the American regime that was instituted by the Founders constitutional republic, Progressives had/have to eliminate the People's attachment to basic constitutional principles and various cultural traits and institutions, including religion. Those things stood/stand in the way of the authoritarian regime Progressives see as a necessary and historical imperative. Old "norms" had to be "normalized" into a homogenous acceptance of rule by elite experts. Old notions such as self reliance, or individual sovereignty, or state's sovereignty, or God and family being more important than government, or unalienable rights, or certain exclusive rights of association, or even the limitation of the central government to a small list of enumerated powers, had to be phased out. In essence, the central government actually must have supreme power over all aspects of our lives.

So my statement did have something to do with progressivism and religion, and has implications of much more. And I, in no way, meant to disparage your laughable feeling.

So where's the constutional argument? Theoretical or applied?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Constitutional argument about what?

Is Rastafarianism(sp) considered a religion? If so, is pot smoking allowed under the law? How about Santeria and animal sacrifices? There must be case law on that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What has that got to do with the Constitution? The Constitution does not define what is or is not a religion. The Constitution neither encourages nor prohibits pot. It doesn't prohibit animal sacrifices. It leaves those matters to the States. There is probably case law in the legal tomes of various States. Some cases may have, for various reasons, reached the SCOTUS.

What's your point?

I asked a few simple questions. If you don't want to answer, then don't answer.

Thanks

I like how you're trying to parrot Detbuch like a toddler parrots their older brother...it's cute.

Just wait till the ACA goes before the Supreme Court and they find it unconstitutional. That will sure reinforce your argument...

Oops.

-spence

"Oops."

Hobby Lobby is before the Supreme Court right now, their case hasn't been decided yet. You "oops" seems a wee bit premature.

The ACA was declared constitutional. Obama accomplished this, by convincing the Court that it is a "tax", despite telling us repeatedly that it is not a tax. Gotta like that consietency. Say one thing to one audience, say the exact opposite to anotheraudience, and hope that no one notices.

Spence, as I have said, I like the idea of Obamacare, so don't for one second think you nailed me in a gotcha! moment. No one gets to decide whether they will be born healthy or born sick, therefore it seems just to me, that we all share in some kind of shared risk pool of some sort. But, as always, we need to do it within the confines of the constitution.

The Supreme Court may well rule against HL. That doesn't mean HL was wrong. The Supreme Court is not infallible. They upheld slavery not all that long ago, and more recently, some of your ilk refused to accept the Court's decision regarding the 2000 election.

Spence, for all your posts on this thread, for all your insults, I see you continue to cowardly dodge the only issue that matters - why is HL wrong when they say that their constitutional rights are being violated? What's the matter, The Huffington Post hasn't told you how to respond to that point yet, so you just lob insults while you're waiting?

Why can't you answer the only question that matters on this issue? Can't you show a tiny shred of intellectual honesty?

The statement had nothing to with religious beliefs but rather the laughable feeling that doing something is to "increase dependency on the Feds"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Right. It's "laughable" that politicians would give financial benefits to a constituency, in order to secure future votes? That never happens? Politicians never try to buy votes?

I certainly don't think I'm morally superior to anyone bc of some label. It is more based on the action of others. When I see people with the belief that when some people do something to help people less fortunate than themselves it is only so they will vote for that party, I do consider myself morally superior to them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"When I see people with the belief that when some people do something to help people less fortunate than themselves "

Oh, please. Sandra Fluke was a student at the Georgetown University School Of Law, and she needs me to pay for her condoms? She's "less fortunate" than we are?

This isn't about charity, because there is no "needs test" to qualify for teh free contraception - under the ACA, everyone gets free contraception, not just poor people.

You are suggesting that if i opose handing out free contraception to everyone (including billionaires), that it's because I have no sympathy for those who deserve sympathy?

Wrong. My opposition to this has nothing to do with lack of sympathy. It has everything to do with the constitution.

We're not talking about giving food to starving kids here. Let's put this debate in the proper context.

Is Rastafarianism(sp) considered a religion? If so, is pot smoking allowed under the law? How about Santeria and animal sacrifices? There must be case law on that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Good questions. i don't know the answers. There are limits, for example, we can't allow a religion to perform human sacrifices, because that would violate the victim's right to life. Last time I read the constitution, I didn't see any mention of the right to free condoms. I did, however, read about freedom of religion.

If enough people are sick of the freedom of religion, we can change the constitution to reflect that. Until then, the constitution is what it says it is.

We'll see how the court decides. Could go either way.

I asked a few simple questions. If you don't want to answer, then don't answer.

Thanks

I thought I answered your questions in terms of what was relevant to me in order to get to the point . . . if there was one. Rather than going through a lawyerese courtroom catechism of "simple questions" which were supposed to lead me to a gotcha moment, I preferred to get to a relevant point pronto. The point being the constitutional argument about which this post revolves.

But, OK. If you want simple answers to "simple questions,":

"Is Rastafarianism(sp) considered a religion?"
I don't know if Rastafarianism is a religion. Don't care.

"If so, is pot smoking allowed under the law?"
Under which law? Various States have different laws. Don't care, personally, about marijuana use. But as far as a constitutional matter, I believe there should not be absolute restrictions of it. Certainly, the Federal Government has the power, constitutionally, to "regulate" (that is a loaded and progressively misconstrued legal word) interstate commerce. But the "regulation" should be moderated to its original meaning, and it should only apply to actual INTER State commerce, not that which is purely State or local. And individual rights should not be trampled by the whim or prejudice of judges or legislatures.

How about Santeria and animal sacrifices?
I don't know if any States allow those. I don't, personally, like animal sacrifices.

"There must be case law on that?"
I don't know. As you infer, there probably is. At what level--local, State, or Federal, I don't know, nor know what decisions were made and if they contradicted others or were resolved at SCOTUS.

But case law can be, not merely precedent, but can be bad case law ergo bad precedent.

I've answered your simple questions, can you answer mine?

Do you think bad case law should be reversed?

Do you think the Constitution should be "interpreted" in its original sense, or should be molded, rewritten, to "reflect" the present, and if the latter, should that be done by SCOTUS decisions or by amendment?

Do you believe the Federal Government should be unlimited in its power?

Thanks - If it's not relevant to you then just ignore the question. I don't think I have ever spent time (like you seem to constantly do) asking multiply questions to come to some "gotcha moment"

I have no interest in going down the rats hole of debating constitutional law with you. For one you know more than me and for two any time anyone gets in a debate with you it seems to last so long everyone else seems to get so bored the thread just dies.

Thanks - If it's not relevant to you then just ignore the question. I don't think I have ever spent time (like you seem to constantly do) asking multiply questions to come to some "gotcha moment"

I have no interest in going down the rats hole of debating constitutional law with you. For one you know more than me and for two any time anyone gets in a debate with you it seems to last so long everyone else seems to get so bored the thread just dies.

The Constitution was not meant to be an abstruse legal document which only lawyers and judges could understand or "know about." It was meant to be the basic governmental blueprint for how the nation, comprised of the unified States, was to be governed. And it intentionally imposed upon the central government prescribed duties to which it was supposed to be limited. The purpose was to guarantee, if followed, that the individual, YOU, had sovereign, unalienable rights which could not be trampled as had been done by the oppressive governments of the past.

I don't have some great secretive knowledge about the Constitution that you do not have access to with a little effort. That knowledge should have been taught to all of us in our formative education. Unfortunately, that is not done well, and what is done and the way it is done is too "boring" for young minds more interested in games and gonads.

But to be disinterested in your mature years as to how your government is supposed to operate, especially how it impacts your freedom to aspire and achieve your goals, and especially in light of the differences you have with others who may wish to impose their versions on you . . . to lack interest in understanding that very basic governmental foundation of the society you live in is, in my opinion, irresponsible. Not only to yourself, but to the rest of society, your children, your neighbors, your countrymen, who all depend on each other to protect our rights as individuals, or families, or groups of whatever kind.

Without the understanding of the Constitution, we fall victim to the prescriptions of the "experts" who wish to herd us into their version of how we should lead our lives. We, as a people, though we may have disagreements on personal issues, must either stand together in protecting those basic rights granted to us by our Constitution, or lose them. If we accept the government's power to deny someone else a fundamental right because we don't agree with that person's use of his right, then we must accept government's power to deny ourselves the same fundamental right. To be so blind as to think that it won't do so because we and the government happen to agree on the issue, regardless of the right, is an invitation for future government to deny our right on grounds of difference of opinion.

The Constitution is not a prescription to govern by opinion. It is a fundamental law which guarantees individuals the right to have personal opinions and to act on them so long as they don't deny others the same. It is a restriction against government by opinion, and it is the foundation for the rule of law.

It is not difficult for you, if you wish, to come to an understanding of the Constitution, and what it means for you personally, and for society in general. You can easily "know" what I do about it, if you wish. I was disinterested when I was young and when life was too interesting to be "bored" with what didn't seem to be important. I have lived long enough to understand that what is more important than my personal pleasures, per se, is my freedoms to pursue them.
And it was not difficult to learn about and understand the Constitution. I would recommend Hillsdale's free online courses on the Constitution as an easy and enjoyable start.

I happen to like you, Paul, and I think that if a person like you who believes in a moral basis for your life were to come to an understanding of the moral and legal foundation of our society, it would benefit not only you, but the rest of us as well. I would be glad to stand with you and say, as Voltaire was reputed to say "I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Thanks ..... any time anyone gets in a debate with you it seems to last so long everyone else seems to get so bored the thread just dies.

seems like it most often ends with someone running out of talking points and dodges and resulting to insults after being asked a few simple question to help clarify his belief on what is truly at the heart of the debate which might help come to some common understanding...one can declare "normalized reality", but if you don't define what normal is, reality is what to make up as you go along and see fit....the Constitutional questions aren't that complicated or even a "rats hole" and to ignore them as they are the "ONE" thing that is supposed to bind us all, and continue to argue about Constitutional issues without explaining whether or not you believe the Constitution applies them is to "debate" without any purpose avoiding what is at the heart of the debate ...and then we complain that the country is divided:love:

the Constitutional questions aren't that complicated or even a "rats hole" and to ignore them as they are the "ONE" thing that is supposed to bind us all,

Except, apparently, when the Constitutional protections interfere with Obama's agenda, in which case, they can apparently be ignored. And if you dare to question that, you are a racist (for hating Obama) and declaring war on women (for not supporting their reproductive health). Must be nice when you declare that any dissent from your position, is necessarily rooted in multiple forms of hate.

What is the status of this case? Any ETA on a decision? Haven't heard anything in awhile...

Except, apparently, when the Constitutional protections interfere with Obama's agenda, in which case, they can apparently be ignored. And if you dare to question that, you are a racist (for hating Obama) and declaring war on women (for not supporting their reproductive health). Must be nice when you declare that any dissent from your position, is necessarily rooted in multiple forms of hate.

What is the status of this case? Any ETA on a decision? Haven't heard anything in awhile...

I wouldn't be too optimistic about the decision. There are four almost guaranteed progressive (anti-constitutional) votes against Lobby Hobby's religious grounds. So one "swing" vote could break your heart. As religion loses its importance in the increasingly secular view in the culture of the West, that part of the First Amendment will more often lose its protection of religious people's once guaranteed rights. The same thing will be happening to the rest of the First Amendment as well as the Second, and the rest of what remains of the Bill of Rights and of the entire Constitution. That's why being a "little bit" unfaithful to the Constitution's structure and original intent, is actually just another crack in its wall of separation between liberty and tyranny. When you favor the Federal Government to take control of something it was not constitutionally granted the power to do, even if it would seem to be "charitable" or "fair," you let the foot of precedent in the door to the whole structure, and its strength begins to crumble, unless repaired, and will continue to do so as the rush of new precedent driven footsteps pour in and overpower the Constitution and replace its guaranteed rights with those granted by invasive government.

I wouldn't be too optimistic about the decision. There are four almost guaranteed progressive (anti-constitutional) votes against Lobby Hobby's religious grounds. So one "swing" vote could break your heart. As religion loses its importance in the increasingly secular view in the culture of the West, that part of the First Amendment will more often lose its protection of religious people's once guaranteed rights. The same thing will be happening to the rest of the First Amendment as well as the Second, and the rest of what remains of the Bill of Rights and of the entire Constitution. That's why being a "little bit" unfaithful to the Constitution's structure and original intent, is actually just another crack in its wall of separation between liberty and tyranny. When you favor the Federal Government to take control of something it was not constitutionally granted the power to do, even if it would seem to be "charitable" or "fair," you let the foot of precedent in the door to the whole structure, and its strength begins to crumble, unless repaired, and will continue to do so as the rush of new precedent driven footsteps pour in and overpower the Constitution and replace its guaranteed rights with those granted by invasive government.

I have no certainty that the case will go the way that it clearly should. I just don't understand why it's not 9-0 in favor of HL. I do think they will win 5-4, but I am no means certain of it. And even a 5-4 victory for HL means that there are 4 Supreme Court justices who don't have even a basic understanding of the Constitution.

Do you know when a decision is expected?

Well this is interesting.

http://www.salon.com/2014/04/01/hobby_lobby_retirement_plan_invests_heavily_in_con traception_manufacturers/?source=newsletter
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

crickets...

Well this is interesting.

http://www.salon.com/2014/04/01/hobby_lobby_retirement_plan_invests_heavily_in_con traception_manufacturers/?source=newsletter
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Good lord...

First, the article begins with the notion that HL has "qualms with basic medical care " That tells you what you need to know about the author's point of view. So if I don't feel responsible for paying for Sandra Fluke's rubbers, then I don't support basic medical care!

When they offer 401(k)s to employees, they are supposed to check the business practices of every single company whose stocked is owned by every single mutual fund they offer.

Nebe, there's this pesky constitution again. Even if I concede that HL's owners are hypocrites, the constitution even applies to hypocrites. It doesn't matter.

This is a naked attempt to blame the person asking the question (like they did with Joe The Plumber), rather than dealing with the constitutionality of HL's question.

I don't care if HL has condom machines in the bathroom. If so, that's their choice. Choosing to do something, and being forced by the feds to do something, are not the same thing. I chose to give $$ to the Catholic Church. If Obama passed a law forcing all of us to give $$ to the Catholic Church, I would oppose such a law on constitutional grounds. I guess, to the deep thinkers at Salon magazine, that makes me a hypocrite? Hardly.

crickets...

How's this...

The Constitution applies to all of us, even to business owners who are despised by the editors of Salon magazine.

Nebe, instead of tryng to prove that the HL owners are hyopocritical jerks, try telling me why the Constitution doesn't apply to them.

Their 401k investments have no bearing on the case before the supreme court, but it sure as heck makes them look very hypocritical.

You are correct the constitution applies to everybody even hypocrits, and this shouldn't make any bit of difference with the supreme court's ruling. But this may end up hurting their business in the long run


This wasn't just a salon.com article...it was also in the Washington Post, Forbes and other papers as well. I was reading one article that said that their 401k investments are somewhere in the vicinity of 75% with companies that produce different types of contraceptives.

There was another Salon article last week about how the owners of the Hobby Lobby are notorious for trying to inject their values into government.

This whole thing is a stunt.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There was another Salon article last week about how the owners of the Hobby Lobby are notorious for trying to inject their values into government.

This whole thing is a stunt.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"the owners of the Hobby Lobby are notorious for trying to inject their values into government."

Oh My God! Are you saying that these citizens have the audacity to express their personal opinions to their duly elected representatives?! Can we send them to the showers?

Spence, when teachers unions donate huge $$ to Democrats, aren't they trying to "inject their values into government"?

Come on...

"This whole thing (freedom of religion, and by extension, the constitution) is a stunt"

Their 401k investments have no bearing on the case before the supreme court, but it sure as heck makes them look very hypocritical.

You are correct the constitution applies to everybody even hypocrits, and this shouldn't make any bit of difference with the supreme court's ruling. But this may end up hurting their business in the long run


This wasn't just a salon.com article...it was also in the Washington Post, Forbes and other papers as well. I was reading one article that said that their 401k investments are somewhere in the vicinity of 75% with companies that produce different types of contraceptives.

I interpreted the news as 75% of the funds that are in the 401(k), have some exposure to those companies. If that's true (and I'm not saying it is), I'm not sure I see much of a scandal.

As I have said...I choose to give a lot of $$ to the Catholic Church. If Obama passed a law forcing people to give $$ to the Catholic Church, I would oppose that law as being unconstitutional. Doe sthat make me a hypocrite? Not in my opinion. If I endorse somehtnig personally (say, contraception), that's not the same thing as saying I support the government's right to mandate it.

I thought liberals were in favor of 'choice'. I'm pretty sure I heard that somewhere. Why can't the HL owners 'choose' not to provide free contraception?

Why can't the HL owners 'choose' not to provide free contraception?

Because they are forcing their values on their employees and are in turn removing the choices that they can make. simple.

The mutual fund managers choose which securities to invest in. I would assume most mutual funds would include pharmaceutical stock which would be very beneficial, financially, to the mutual fund's investors, and would be wise choices for the managers to make. The investors don't get to decide what the prospectus of the portfolio is, or to customize with their choice of securities. The investors are trading with the mutual fund, not the individual companies that make up the portfolio. The Salon article could also have found other products that various companies in the portfolios manufactured which were not contraceptive related but also against personal values of HL owners. It would probably not be possible for them to invest in any mutual funds if all the products which were produced by the companies which make up the portfolios had to be morally pure to the HL owners.

And, the pharmaceutical companies that create abortifacients also produce many life saving products. Can the companies be separated from their good and evil products. Should HL also bar the life saving drugs from their health insurance plans because the companies also produce abortifacients?

Should the HL owners prohibit themselves from using the various "wonder" drugs available to help with heart, cholesterol, blood pressure, cancer, etc. etc., or the topical ointments for skin problems, etc., etc., because the companies also produce abortifacients. Now if the HL owners themselves used the abortion pills they don't want to provide, THAT would be the hypocrisy, the lying, the "stunt," that should be their downfall.

The HL owners cannot control what the rest of the world does, nor what all the companies which make those things we live by produce. It would be virtually impossible for the HL'rs to exist in society if they had to abstain from every necessity, or useful items, if those things had to be pure of touch by something or someone who or which was disapproved by their religion. Even the government is comprised of individuals or regulations that run counter to their belief. Render unto Caesar what it Caesar's and unto God what is God's.

And that is the real question here. That is why Jim keeps bringing up the Constitution rather than personal opinion of right and wrong. The problem began here, not with HL owners desire to refuse the providing of certain insurance, but with the government mandating that they must. It is not only about what is Caesar's and what is God's, it is about fundamental unalienable rights, and if we actually have them. And if the HL owners are consistent, they would support the right of Muslims and of atheists, or believers in Gaea, or pantheists, of agnostics, or centrists, or "liberals," or "conservatives," or even devil worshippers, to refuse to offer government dictated insurance.

If we grant the Federal Government the power to mandate that we buy a particular product or be penalized if we don't, then we give it the precedent to do so with any product. If we do so, we give the government absolute power over our lives. That is, ultimately, what the passage of the ACA, and resistance to it, is about.

Because they are forcing their values on their employees and are in turn removing the choices that they can make. simple.

If you asked me to give you $15,000 dollars and I refused to do so, would I be "forcing" my values on you and removing choices you can make?

Are the employees of HL so totally dependent on the company that it determines the values they live by and the choices they make?

If the government "forces" LH to give you something and it refuses to do so, what value has LH "forced" on you and what choices has LH removed from you?

Does LH have any say in the matter? Or is it only about what the employees want or what the government wants?

Should LH even exist as a private entity, or should it merely be a government mandated service to employees and customers?

Does LH have any say in the matter? Or is it only about what the employees want or what the government wants?

Should LH even exist as a private entity, or should it merely be a government mandated service to employees and customers?

remarkable how this "forcing values" on others is such a one way street with some:uhuh:

“Everything not forbidden is compulsory,” or will be soon enough under our “liberal” regime.

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/374115/print

Because they are forcing their values on their employees and are in turn removing the choices that they can make. simple.

Please explain how the store's owners are forcing their values on anyone. Be specific. And good luck, because you cannot succeed.

One. Last. Time. The owners are not trying to convert their employees to Christianity, the employers are not trying to convince their employees not to use condoms with the wages provided by the owners.

The more I think of it the better off we are here. Anyone ever been in a Hobby Lobby? We as a society don't want these people reproducing...trust me.....:)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

remarkable how this "forcing values" on others is such a one way street with some:uhuh:

“Everything not forbidden is compulsory,” or will be soon enough under our “liberal” regime.

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/374115/print

Yes, another beautifully written article. As well as pointing out the Orwellian transformation, it calls to mind how over time, as was pointed out in an older post, we have had an attitude adjustment which reverses what our grandparents understood, that the government was our servant, and we the masters. It used to be understood that what was forbidden was government intrusion beyond what the sovereign People consented to. What was compulsory was the government's duty to act only within the limitations the People granted to it. Now, we have been conditioned to automatically assume what is forbidden is not applied to government action, but is restriction government imposes on us. And what is compulsory now is not what the government is limited to do, but what We The People are required by government to do. As you have often said, it's upside down. The author traces the path to reversal eloquently in a logical way. The Article is another well-crafted, rational, creative, open minded piece that "conservatives" are not reputed, by some here, to be capable of. It, seems, as Jim in CT likes to say, irrefutable. So will probably elicit the "crickets" Nebe thought would be the response to his screechy "liberal" hit piece article.

This wasn't just a salon.com article...it was also in the Washington Post, Forbes and other papers as well. I was reading one article that said that their 401k investments are somewhere in the vicinity of 75% with companies that produce different types of contraceptives.

And worse, most of the drugs they're now opposing they openly covered before the ACA was passed. You might wonder if the Citizens United case laid the groundwork for this suit to even happen.

Not to mention that their religious argument isn't even backed by science.

The more I read about this case the less chance is has of passing.

-spence

Their 401k investments have no bearing on the case before the supreme court, but it sure as heck makes them look very hypocritical.

This wasn't just a salon.com article...it was also in the Washington Post, Forbes and other papers as well. I was reading one article that said that their 401k investments are somewhere in the vicinity of 75% with companies that produce different types of contraceptives.

since we(spence) yawns and discredits sources on a regular basis here...I'd just note that the Forbes article was written by Rick Ungar who describes himself as "I write from the left on politics and policy" and references the Mother Jones article as the premise for his article and continues from there, the Washington Post article by Gail Sullivan also references the Mother Jones article to launch her article and WOW...this is a shocker but the salon.com article also references the Mother Jones article to launch that article...head bone connected to the tail bone......and so since we all know that Mother Jones is ...well....biased just a tad???? can we play Spence's game and discount this as useless info from left wing neocommie rags? :) don't see it in any mainstream...oh wait...the dailykos.com ...has it too...geez

=detbuch;1037743

And that is the real question here. That is why Jim keeps bringing up the Constitution rather than personal opinion of right and wrong. The problem began here, not with HL owners desire to refuse the providing of certain insurance, but with the government mandating that they must.

If we grant the Federal Government the power to mandate that we buy a particular product or be penalized if we don't, then we give it the precedent to do so with any product. If we do so, we give the government absolute power over our lives. That is, ultimately, what the passage of the ACA, and resistance to it, is about.[/QUOTE]



seems to be the preferred mode of argument "personal opinion" for the likely more educated and holders of superior judgment crowd..."it would appear based on what I've read(at Mother Jones)" are paramount... Constitutional questions completely ignored...

this was great...

Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
Just my opinion but scott is off base.

The views seem to be " practice your religion, but dont put your values on someone else. Don't discriminate someone else, etc.
The law is the law. If an employee at AC Moore or Michaels crafts is being provided birth control, hobby lobby employees should as well.

Seems pretty simple ? No?[QUOTE


simple...no...maybe..which law? (the one which Obama seems to change continually as he sees fit in true "law is the law" fashion) can we substitute "birth control" with other things and have the simple "law is the law" still apply ?? if we included(mandated) and/or AC Moore and Michaels offered more mandated drugs and surgeries and treatments that Hobby Lobby could then be forced to provide because the "law is the law" we might actually be able to make "these people", the Hobby Lobby employees and their offspring more acceptable to Piscator through the miracles of modern medicine....geez...no wonder healthcare is so expensive....simple...no??? probably "off base"...I know....:buds:

Fox news had it.....:hee:

Fox news had it.....:hee:

then it's definitely a lie:rotf2:

interesting reactions to the Supreme Court yesterday on another Constitutional issue, seems the same folks who are happy to continually expand the purview of the federal government, many of whom have become extraordinarily wealthy as a result of their time as "public servants", are somehow shocked and surprised that they can't keep the money out of politics :smash:

Hobby Lobby...or...."Lobby Hobby" ...should simply point out that the president has not followed his own "law is the law" since day 1....randomly granting waivers and moving deadlines(sidenote...Syria has missed every deadline since the redline, I no longer understand what a deadline is other than it's completely arbitrary)...regress...choosing to enforce or not enforce "laws is the laws"....my 4th graders are studying government and the Constitution and they understand that this and these are not the powers granted the executive but the brightest among us don't seem to have an issue with it...Mother Jones should do an investigation

=detbuch;1037743
if we included(mandated) and/or AC Moore and Michaels offered more mandated drugs and surgeries and treatments that Hobby Lobby could then be forced to provide because the "law is the law" we might actually be able to make "these people", the Hobby Lobby employees and their offspring more acceptable to Piscator through the miracles of modern medicine....geez...no wonder healthcare is so expensive....simple...no??? probably "off base"...I know....:buds:

Ha ha ha, my post was to include some humor in this thread...

Switching gears...my wife works for one of the largest companies in the world, they mandated this year that all prescription drugs covered under their plan must be bought through CVS and CVS only. No more Walgreens.

Also, my company doesn't include coverage for rubbers...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We are arguing inside the fog of transition. It is a sort of parallel to the fog of war. Things, or issues, are not clearly understood or defined. Foe is often perceived to be friend, or vice versa. With the best of intention, we kill that or who would save us. Because we see through the fictional "truth" of the fluid moment rather than the stable truth of principles and fundamentals, we see through a glass darkly.

There is no argument among those "in the know," the generals outside the pitch of battle, what the battle is about and who the enemy is. Those in the obscure heat of combat are merely following orders. So they follow the party line or the generals' commands, and often destroy each other.

There is no longer a debate, among "those who know" that we are in transition, that we are being transformed from a constitutional republic to a "progressive" authoritarian State. And the true battle is between those who wish to transform us and those who wish to resist and maintain the constitutional order. Most of the rest of us are enlisted as the grunts who provide the fodder for political war.

The leaders of transformation welcome the fog, in fact create it by not defining the ultimate mission. They did define it long ago, but the grunts were still attached to "outdated" notions of individual freedoms and constitutional protections against the very government that would supposedly free them from the tyranny of the wealthy class. Initial victories were gained, but eventually turned back and progressive government lost some of the freedom it had gained to "free" the people, and had to go underground. It no longer could clearly define its mission, but had to undermine the basis for the supposedly outdated constitutional order by co-opting it. Progressive government re-emerged more strongly by convincing the grunts that it was actually operating constitutionally. This tactic propelled it into dominance, and it has constantly gained ground against the old order, to the point that its grunts no longer question it. They accept that "history" has changed and "progressed" to a point that we no longer need to fear government, that it is the benefactor not the oppressor, that it, and it alone is our protector against a ruling class who would steal every penny we own and subject us to the slavery of supporting the 1% that robs us of wealth, dignity, and true "effective" freedom.

It is no longer necessary for the most part that progressive government even pretend to follow the Constitution, not only has it re-written it by judicial fiat, but their grunts no longer consider it a factor. So it is understandable that when a Hobby Lobby, or a baker, or photographer resists government mandate on personal individual, or even constitutional, grounds, the progressive grunts "see" that as "forcing" their values on others, but do not see government mandates as forcing its dictates on individuals. For them, government is not forcing, it has become the legitimate arbiter and decider of law, ethics, purpose, and method of existence. It is not a power of force, it is a creative power. It creates our reality. Reality cannot be forced, it just is.

Those who oppose this, "see" that government is to serve the ends of the people rather than people serving the ends of government . . . that individuals are the creators, and that government serves their freedom to create. They are not as much in need of grunts as their opponents since they are the acting grunts. They wish to convince the opposing grunts to join them . . . to understand that "grunts" are the true power. That in a truly liberal society, the grunts run the show. The show is about them, not about a ruling party or power, progressive or otherwise. But that to rule, as a united people, they must have a common ground acceptable to all on which to govern themselves. They understand that system of government has already been created by individual forbears who created a limited government to protect all against the real or possible tyranny of an overly powerful or all-powerful ruling class.

So there is an intellectual and political battle fought in the fog of thrown out bombs and fragments posed as issues and mandates which supposedly create fairness, equality, and freedom, but which actually deny those to some in favor of others, and eventually ensnare even those who were once favored into the same vortex of losing their "rights." There is the confusion that these are LAWS and are legitimately imposed by a beneficent government which is an irresistible force of history and should be obeyed because those who resist are antiquated, anti-historical, laughable retrogrades who do not understand the transformational purpose of government. These backward types, supposedly, do not understand that progressive government, the type of government that history has created, does not force, it creates. And it is legitimate because history, not individuals, not the People, not some supernatural or mystical or unknowable force, is the true creator.

And through that fog, the other side argues that history is entirely the reflective product of people, not that people are a product of history. This side argues that history is a record of human events. Without humanity, there is no history, and if humans wished, they could stop writing history, or, as many do, rewrite it. History is more imperfect than individuals since it is a second generation product created by individuals. We cannot be ruled by historical force, since we create the history which has no force beyond our recognition. And so, this side sees progressive government not as an historical imperative that must be obeyed, but as the rule of men who impose their will on others. That progressive government actually does FORCE the dictates of some people on other people. And this side does not see resistance to that force as forcing their values on others, but as preserving their own.

So long as there is no common basis for government there can be no resolution for what government is. That progressives are about transforming our society and its system of government is not in question. They have openly avowed to doing so. Their tactics may have been untruthful, but in war all is "fair." And the political fog of debate that has been created is the transitional one we are in. The discussions we have here pass by each other in parallel but opposite directions. The ends and the means are different, and cannot be reconciled. As in most wars, only victory will decide, not argument or compromise. Compromise is always temporary since it does not allow the fundamental differences to be fully satisfied, and the fight will eventually resurface until somebody "wins" with a total victory.

And that's what the ACA and the myriad of federal regulations which are outside the scope of the original Constitution are about. Even in using it's bogus "constitutional" power to mandate what we must buy, it was not necessary to force the majority of people who have medical insurance to undergo higher costs and deductibles as well as limiting their choices, all in order to provide insurance for the uninsured (actually to FORCE the uninsured to get insurance). All of the progressive anti-constitutional mandates eventually assure total victory of progressive government over constitutional government.

And so, in the meantime, we grunts are reduced by political fog to arguing about health plans, and who invested in what, and who are hypocrites, and who is forcing who, and who should have insurance, and who should pay for it, and what should be in insurance plans, and should they provide contraceptives for everyone (really!?! most people can't afford them?), and a myriad of trifling tidbits, and the obfuscation hides the ultimate objectives.

Which grunts are destroying each other in this fog of war with friendly fire is debatable. If you wish to preserve your individual and unalienable rights beyond the reach of government, but, in order to claim victory for your progressive side, you destroy those rights of others, you are destroying the protection of your own. And if, in the pursuit of your personal happiness, as a "conservative" you choose to fight for the right to do so beyond the reach of government, by accomplishing that you destroy the rights of others and government to impose on you, or, as well, to impose on those who fight against you.

One side fights for everyone's unalienable right not to be unlimitedly imposed on by government, the other fights for the government's "right" to impose without restriction on their "enemy," and so gains the government the right to impose without limitation on all, including on themselves. The fog of political war obscures who the enemy really is.

Ha ha ha, my post was to include some humor in this thread...

Also, my company doesn't include coverage for rubbers...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought it was pretty funny...no penis enlargements then probably huh?...too bad...because then since the law is the law other companies that do what your's does could be forced to provide enlarged penises for everyone if your's provided them under certain logic...pretty simple...no? ....pretty funny...yes:)

We are arguing inside ..................... to impose on you.

yeah..I don't think Paul is gonna make it through all of that :rotf2:

I thought it was pretty funny...no penis enlargements then probably huh?...too bad...because then since the law is the law other companies that do what your's does could be forced to provide enlarged penises for everyone if your's provided them under certain logic...pretty simple...no? ....pretty funny...yes:)

I work with a bunch of #^&#^&#^&#^&s anyway
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I work with a bunch of #^&#^&#^&#^&s anyway
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
We are arguing inside ..................... to impose on you.



yeah..I don't think Paul is gonna make it through all of that :rotf2:

Thanks for reduction to essentials. The same old arguments carried over from other threads about who's forcing whom, and hypocrisy, and the righteous necessity of providing contraceptives (or rubbers, as Jim calls them), or who's forcing whom, or stunts, or who's forcing whom, and did I mention the debate about who's forcing who? . . . . the fog got to me and I rambled and pontificated. I guess that signals the end of the thread. Good night.

Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
We are arguing inside ..................... to impose on you.


Thanks for reduction to essentials. The same old arguments carried over from other threads about who's forcing whom, and hypocrisy, and the righteous necessity of providing contraceptives (or rubbers, as Jim calls them), or who's forcing whom, or stunts, or who's forcing whom, and did I mention the debate about who's forcing who? . . . . the fog got to me and I rambled and pontificated. I guess that signals the end of the thread. Good night.

you are right, there's serious chasm in the views regarding the "rules of the game"....if a batter strolls to the plate today in one of the MLB games and watched three pitches go down the middle of the plate and then stands there after being called out by the umpire and objects saying that he ought(has a right to) to have 4 strikes and the umpire because he's also felt that way for sometime agrees and the catcher argues and points out that the rules clearly state 3 strikes and the pitcher joins him at the plate with the manager who has the rule book in his hand but fans who are rooting for the batter crowd around in a threatening fashion and the reporters begin reporting that the catcher and pitcher and manager are obstructing the game and are probably doing so because of their hate for the batter and the opposing team and when the batter and umpire are asked to clarify if they believe the game should be played under MLB rules they refuse to answer the "got cha" question.......well....that's pretty much where we're at...

Williamson has had some very good articles recently, you should check out his archive if you've not already done so...

he recently referred to Antithought,
As Orwell put it, using “language as an instrument for concealing or preventing thought.” "a phrase or expression that is intended to prevent understanding rather than to enable it. Antithought includes elements of the linguistic meme, question-begging, and attempts to change the subject." http://www.nationalreview.com/article/374060/antithought-kevin-d-williamson

and also described the competing views this way in another article...

"Progressives like to talk about what government ought to do; conservatives are inclined to immure that conversation within an architecture of skepticism about what government can do. The paraphrase of Immanuel Kant — ought implies can — is fundamental to the conservative view of government. James Madison famously observed that “if men were angels, no government would be necessary.” But he also understood that men do not become angels once they win elections, become police, or are appointed to positions of power. Our constitutional order strikes an elegant balance between policing the non-angels outside of government and constraining the non-angels within government, setting the ambitions of the three branches against one another and subdividing the legislative branch against itself. The founding generation, being more philosophically sophisticated and biblically literate than our own generation, understood something that often eludes us: Angels are in short supply, but all the devils are here, and our best chance of surviving the avarice and cruelty that exists at least potentially in every human heart is to set our appetites in opposition.

Adam Smith’s formula for prosperity — “peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice” — is the very modest ambition that conservatives aim for. Limited government is the tool by which government can be made to do good without necessarily being good, or being composed of good men.

The progressive state, on the other hand, is a state infused with moral purpose. If politics is to be a jihad, then the state must be invested with extraordinary power to achieve its moral mission. There is no way to invest the state with extraordinary power without also investing those powers in the men who hold its offices and staff its bureaucracies, which hold ever more nearly absolute power over our property and our lives. (And given that the Obama administration has made a policy of assassinating U.S. citizens without legal process, we might as well call that power “absolute.”) But if those elective offices and regulatory fortresses are to be staffed with men who are corrupt and corruptible, then the progressive vision of the morality-infused state must falter.

And they — we — are all corruptible.

When a conservative suffers from a moral failing, it is taken as an indictment of conservatism itself, even though conservatism in the Anglo–Protestant tradition is founded upon the expectation that moral failing is universal. In that sense, every Scott DesJarlais tells conservatives what we already know: that man is a fallen creature, and that, contra the Obamacare regime, there are no exemptions to be handed out from that condition, no waivers from human nature. The progressive view, on the other hand, is that our politics and our institutions could be channels of moral action and reliably ethical arbiters of such ill-defined standards as “fairness” and “social justice,” if only we put the right people in power.

But there are no right people."



seems to me that for the most part religious minded choose to have faith in what they believe is a perfect being and are hoping for a miracle :uhuh:

seems to me that for the most part the secular minded choose to have faith in imperfect beings and are expecting miracles :uhuh:

the founders understood that these are natural human conditions and made accommodations but as Spence likes to say..."it's all moot"...if we can't agree on the number of strikes that the batter is allowed despite what is written in the rat hole of MLB rules

Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post

or who's forcing whom, or stunts, or who's forcing whom, and did I mention the debate about who's forcing who? . . . .

I don't think there's much of a debate with regard to 'force'...we can't force each other to do anything(without the assistance of government)...in each of these cases, it is about government force and with the approval of some if it suits their agenda and ideology... Hobby Lobby isn't forcing it's employees to purchase insurance or even the insurance that they sponsor, they could purchase it elsewhere, maybe Obamacare if they find the Hobby Lobby insurance inadequate, the federal government is forcing the employee to purchase insurance or pay a penalty and then forcing Hobby Lobby to provide certain things in their insurance, the Bigot Baker wasn't forcing the couple to do or purchase anything, they were free to go elsewhere to purchase what they wanted, it was government force directed by the couple to force the Baker to comply with their wishes....I see the same people consistently arguing for government force to forward their agenda and ideology with no real basis for their argument other than to imply 'because we're smarter than you"...that's a problem because the Constitution spells out in very simple terms our protections against this government force :uhuh: