Today's Judge Narragansett moment? Hobby Lobby at Supreme Court?
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.
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.
To assure freedom for the employees health care needs to be take OUT of the hands of corporations and put back with the individual. Yes, that means corporations will deduct more for employee pay so the employee can choose health care, but that's only paperwork.
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
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.
Your statement, "One cannot have any faith whatsoever if one is a strict objectivist.," is the most absurd I've ever read.
I am an admirer of Ayn Rand, her books and her philosophy. I am also an objectivist who has great faith in Christianity. They are not mutually exclusive. I realize that opinion is anecdotal and not empirical, but I suspect that there are many Christians that are also objectivist.
Ayn Rand never belittled Christianity or people of faith or any other faith. she stated that she did not believe but respected people that did. Respect is the word that needs to be included in any debate on these subjects.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
That's not to say that I believe that Objectivism is incompatible with religious belief, but AR certainly espoused that thought.
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
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.
Why not remove health care from the employee employer relationship and go with a single health payer system like so many other countries have done?
countries with national healthcare. NO THANKS.
I've heard a lot of talk saying that SCOTUS will side with Hobby Lobby so that they can symbolically walk back their commitment to Obamacare.
I say that it will be the exact opposite: SCOTUS will side AGAINST Hobby Lobby so that they can symbolically walk back their commitment to Citizens United.
I have zero faith in our federal government any longer - zero.
I EXPECT to be disappointed, that way, at least I won't also be surprised.
I'd like to be wrong, but don't think I will be.
There are many misunderstandings of the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Below is a partial clarification of that ruling as published in Wikipedia that can be found at the following link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Un...
In short, Supreme Court ruling of Citizen United The Court, however, upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements (BCRA §201 and §311). The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.[5]
This ruling was frequently interpreted as permitting corporations and unions to donate to political campaigns,[23] or else removing limits on how much a donor can contribute to a campaign.[24] However, these claims are incorrect, as the ruling did not affect the 1907 Tillman Act's ban on corporate campaign donations (as the Court noted explicitly in its decision[25]), nor the prohibition on foreign corporate donations to American campaigns,[
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
Posted by airfredd22 0 minutes ago
Re: Boborobdos,
There are many misunderstandings of the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Below is a partial clarification of that ruling as published in Wikipedia that can be found at the following link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Un......
In short, Supreme Court ruling of Citizen United The Court, however, upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements (BCRA §201 and §311). The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.[5]
This ruling was frequently interpreted as permitting corporations and unions to donate to political campaigns,[23] or else removing limits on how much a donor can contribute to a campaign.[24] However, these claims are incorrect, as the ruling did not affect the 1907 Tillman Act's ban on corporate campaign donations (as the Court noted explicitly in its decision[25]), nor the prohibition on foreign corporate donations to American campaigns,[
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
2. The CU decision codified non-union entities with the same rights that unions have had for decades. Unions have supported socialists and now that anti-socialists have similar rights, they feel threatened.
American workers or the Chinese?
Judge N had something called "integrity", a quality sorely lacking with THIS Supreme Court.
As I understand it, that's patently untrue. Hobby Lobby has agreed to cover 16 of the 20 items required; all 16 of them are pre-conception items.
The four they don't want to cover are post-conception items that prevent implantation. If you prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, you're killing something. Regardless of whether one views a fertilized egg as a human being, it is, by definition, alive.
That killing is what they are objecting to.
Again, from what I've picked up in the various media outlets, it sure seems like the Hobby Lobby owners are making a huge compromise.
Part of me almost hopes that if they lose, they simply close their doors and walk away.
I believe that is the wrong argument overall. The argument should have been that government cannot dictate religious belief, regardless of what that belief is. Thus, this mandate has the potential of violating existing and future religious belief and therefore is prima facie unconstitutional.
Ohhhh, they get to put their religious "when life begins" into the equation.
I have to congratulate them on having the guts to draw a line in the sand and not back down from the challenge, and I hope they win - not only because I agree with their position but because a loss here spells the death-knell for the First Amendment and the Constitution as a whole. As soon as government interests are more important than an individuals' ability to pursue happiness according to the dictates of their own conscience, we are looking at the downfall of our Nation. And that is not hyperbole, I'm afraid.
You might want to include "tovarish" the Russian word for comrade, as well.
Besides: freedom of association includes freedom not to associate. Employment, like any form of association, is voluntary.
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.
However, the requirement to also provide anything other than honest pay for an honest days work is in my opinion unconstitutional, but also immoral on the part of our government.
Insurance pools can be created in a free market manner that would benefit every worker that desires to join such a group and pay for it with pretax dollars just like companies do now. If this were done in such a manner, then each employee could choose his insurance company and what coverage they desired.
These legal requirements were instituted by corrupt politicians in order to gain control over the private business structures for the sole purpose of being able to extract political contributions at the least and outright bribes at the worst.
Solutions for these types of problems are simple if we returned to true free market principles. Ask any honest economist.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
In general, what we term "healthcare insurance" long ago stopped being insurance for most of us. It turned into pre-paid healthcare, generally at a low and fixed cost for the receiver. This encouraged over use by the covered individual. The explosion of lawsuits over just about anything encouraged defensive medical practices which resulted in more tests and procedures than needed. Couple that with onerous processes for medicine and medical product certifications/approvals and the entire system has been "engineered" to drive up costs.
The only way to reduce the costs is to unwind government interference, allow competition, and initiate "loser pays" to tortious lawsuits. IMHO.
The phrase, “Separation of Church and State come from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in around 1804 or 1805. In that letter he stated "A separation of church and state must be maintained." That was needed in order to prevent the government from establishing a national church like they had in England and that is all it amounts to! That statement does not exist in the Constitution and to infer that is does is stretching it.