Today's Judge Narragansett moment? Hobby Lobby at Supreme Court?

Posted by $ jbrenner 11 years, 11 months ago to News
97 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

I know that today was supposed to be the day of the Hobby Lobby case before the Supreme Court. This is an important case for Gulch citizens regardless of their views on Christianity because

1) the religious freedom rights in the Constitution include those to practice no religion at all;

2) it shows just how far government will go in its persecution of citizens (i.e. Gulchers are likely next. This is no different than what happened to Rearden.);

3) the government and particularly the Supreme Court might be "forced" to confront its contradictions regarding nObamaCare;

4) a loss in this case could be easily compared to AS's Anti-Life chapter; and

5) this is one of the more important structural pillars in the Constitution.

A loss in this case is likely to undermine any moral authority that the looters have left to enforce any law. The distinction between right and wrong may get so blurred that normally good people will have no reason anymore to trust in the rule of law. This could be a major acceleration of the destruction of the US. It's going to be a bumpy ride.

What news have you heard?
What opinions do you have?
I saw some threads from before I arrived in the Gulch from LetsShrug and Khalling.

All Comments

  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    didn't think you were intending anything -it's my own deal. To your last statement-that is Man. Period
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think that faith can be based on both logic and evidence. Jesus of Nazareth existed, this is established historical fact. Accounts recount various miracles that were performed - turning water to wine, turning a few loaves and fishes into enough to feed a large crowd, bringing a man dead for several days back to life, and most importantly, suffering the most horrific death and himself coming back from the dead. There are documents that are relatively contemporaneous - considering the technology and time (dead sea scrolls) that support many of these items. There is a Shroud of Turin, that captures an image of a horrifically brutalized human, scourged, and with a "crown of thorns" that defies explanation as it can only be visualized as a 3D image not possible to be painted or printed on the cloth in any known manner, and certainly not of the time. Based on this evidence the most logical conclusion is that Jesus was the Christ and son of God. From that acceptance, the logic of Jesus was to love your neighbor, and treat them as you would be treated, and not to judge lest you be judged in return.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 11 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'll have to think about the usage of that term. I certainly did not intend to imply any collectivist thoughts to it. To me, it represents human actions that are different from animal actions, such as designing or building something for the satisfaction of the good that it represents.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    again, you would need to define your use of the word faith for me to respond. Here is the definition I use, philosophically: a belief that is not based on logic or evidence. I'll take it farther: no amount of logic or new facts will sway the believer.
    If you mean confidence, then we will have to move to a more philosophical definition we both agree on. We can agree on a definition, I have no doubt (faith). But once we agree on a definition, I have faith that you will find much dissonance with Objectivist epistemology.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by airfredd22 11 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Re: khalling,

    With all due respect, I find your reasoning to be well thought out in many ways and always look forward to your posts. While I don't always agree with everything you write, I'm sure it causes many of us to consider various positions you take.

    In the above comment you state that "faith is the opposite of reason." That I find puzzling and would appreciate if you could expand on your conclusion. I find that reason helps me have faith.

    Fred Speckmann
    commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Unfortunately, there's a lot of those. Too much money to be had, with very little work.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 11 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If Objectivism were governed that way, then we would have no disagreements on my end.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 11 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I've been called twice within about a 2-year period. One of those times I was kicked out of one jury quickly enough that they tried to put me on another, which ironically enough was a second medical malpractice case within the same day.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    but I do think you can quantify it this way. With absolute certainty, assuming the world is turning, people will do amazing things that benefit all of mankind. one thing that is a big pet peeve of mine is use of the word humanity. I cannot stand that word. were neanderthals part of humanity? It implies some other worldly humanness to human beings. Man is human. no need for the collectivist kitchen sink to be thrown in. It's a lousy category in my opinion.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 11 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Of course, the believe in Man. It may not be completely reasonable, as it is not possible to quantify it or to be sure of the events tomorrow, except in a statistical sense. So, some elements of "believe" or "faith" are present, but not in anything supernatural.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Try pointing with the sole of your foot - that'll really get you in good with the middle-easterners - NOT!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You've been called 3 times? Wow. I've been a registered voter for 32 years and never have been called. Curious. But as an engineer, I doubt that I'd be left on a jury panel.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ LibertyPhysics 11 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You are confusing the philosophy of Objectivism as a whole with the political system espoused by Objectivism. Yes, Rand believed in reason as a tool of cognition and had issues with belief in the supernatural. My Christian friends tell me she misunderstood some things.

    Nevertheless, the politics of Objectivism requires only that the initiation of force and fraud be forbidden. More generally, Objectivism espouses free market capitalism and very limited government as the best way to organize society. Objectivism is not like Sharia Law. A society based on Objectivist principals would not and could not have a thought police who's job it was to make sure individuals shared one, and only one, metaphysics. In fact, an Objectivist society might resemble the period in our own history when government was small and economic growth and innovation was the norm.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by RevJay4 11 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Well, two new words to my vocabulary to get along with the regime. They'll probably require a language from the middle east, though. I can always grunt and point, or something.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Boborobdos 11 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    As they donate money to political action committees that are set up to specifically skirt the law and still get advertising on the air to support who they want.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Boborobdos 11 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Nope. Providers can still be chosen by the patient. They will be self employed or part of organizations. Doctors and other health care professionals won't be getting paychecks from Uncle Sam.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by airfredd22 11 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Re: jbrenner,

    One of us may be misreading the others comment re:faith and objectivism.

    My point is that the two can co-exist just fine. Christianity deal with how to treat another person and Ayn Rand's philosophy deals very much with economic freedoms and by extension justice. There may be a slight difference between the two in the help one man is willing to offer another. Ayn Rand states that no man should be forced to give to another and Jesus taught that man should be willing to do so for his own sake.
    To be willing to share what one has, a loaf of bread or their abundant knowledge will benefit Therefore Christianity and objectivism can function side by side.

    Fred Speckmann
    commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 11 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Loser pays is the most important part. I have been called to jury duty three times. As a biomedical engineering professor, I was disqualified from serving twice - for TWO medical malpractice cases. Out of fourteen (seven engineers, a nurse, and six others), you can guess correctly that the six others were those chosen. What kind of jury of one's peers was that for the doctor?!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by RevJay4 11 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Those who would still allude to FDR as a saint are ignorant of history and his life. Lots of them out there.
    Like you, I think this assault on our country will end, and it won't be pretty. I think the attack on the 2nd Amendment will escalate in the near future and light the fuse which will result in the unraveling of our nation. All the rest of the issues are a smokescreen for what is going on behind the scenes re: the gun control battle. Maybe, its just me.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You might want to learn this a well - ya lublu vas (sounds like yellow-blue bus). That's "I love you" - might come in handy!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 11 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That's why I said at the beginning of this thread that it was going to be a bumpy ride.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Notperfect 11 years, 10 months ago
    As was told from the beginning "birth pangs". We are all in their sights. There is no Constitution and has not been one for many years. Who is this Supreme Court? I still here people today jump all over others for calling F.D.R. anything other than a saint. This will end I guarantee that and it will not be pretty. I have read many posts here in the Gulch and you are all wise in your own right. History has repeated itself many times and all here know this. Prepare yourself even more.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo