“Repeal & Replace” RFRA. It’s become a law that displaces fact & logic with superstition and belief.
Making such distinctions has been characteristic of theological reasoning and debate for nearly a millennium. This distinction has been part of the American abortion debate since the birth control decisions of the early 1960s, a decade before Roe-Wade was decided. The need to make this distinction always arose from religious/moral concerns about birth control, not scientific/ethical concerns.
So, yes, I do hold those five judges responsible to a higher standard of reasoning than their majority opinion displays. Catholics should not be proud of their performance.
1 Like
Lifetime appointments and Moore’s Law do not mix. Virtually all pols were born and raised in the era of movable type and it is killing America.
Exactly, because you know that at least half of them are lying about it because they have to. It does damage right out of the gate.
I personally am for universal spiritualism and rampant godlessness. The Golden Rule is absolute, of course.
It’s nice that empirical fact is no longer relevant in Supreme Court cases. That makes everything so much simpler.
It means nothing when there is an addiction to suffering inherently carrying an escape from rationality. Just look at Crusader Alito’s face. He’s starting to look like Brando in Apocalypse Now, cwazy.
1 Like
It is a low level known as dogma or belief which results in adherence to a massive onslaught of subjectivity (hell.) Many are never able to take the advice of so many wise sages to verify perceptions for ourselves. Organized religion is little more than cult behavior with multitudes signing on to belief. Blame the awesomeness of the world and universe for our constantly seeking to understand the ineffable, I guess.
1 Like
It figures that one of the rare times that someone actually knows what’s in the ruling before spouting off about it, he’s accused of “not get[ting] it.”
Well, not only that, but look at how often introducing such zygotes to a woman’s uterus fail to result in a pregnancy because they don’t implant. The doctors don’t consider the woman pregnant until there is implantation.
2 Likes
I would agree that the country has moved too far to the right. However, there is an essential contradiction within your own post. You noted that Clinton managed to get things passed and Carter did not. The “perfect” policy is no good if it doesn’t get enacted. The politician with “perfect” principles is of no use if he is rejected at the polls.
Before Bill Clinton was elected, it was looking as if the Republicans had a near-permanent lock on the presidency. And the triangulation you condemn was a large part of the reason that the Democrats were able to emerge from the political wilderness. And if that hadn’t happened, Barack Obama would never have become president.
1 Like
Don’t hold your breath. Even Communists poll higher than atheists.
1 Like
Read this important article on how the Religious Right is using “religious freedom” to impose theirs on the rest of us.
Although it is an irrational belief, unsupported by science or theology, the Supreme Court majority demonstrates a religious belief that for-profit corporations can and do hold religious beliefs (depending on the legal ownership structure).
The RFRA therefore allows the Supreme Court majority the right to exercise its religious belief that it can determine which for-profit corporations hold religious beliefs and that it can determine which of those religious beliefs may be granted superiority over Federal law.
Because, the last thing the Supreme Court majority would want to see is any government action that favors or disfavors any particular religion.
He really went to a psychic in an attempt to contact his empathy?
Harry R. Sohl, plaintiff
vs.
United States Transportation Security Agency, defendant
Is it odd that religious ideologues choose to ignore science? No, of course not, as by dint of being swayed by religious dogma, one must ignore science, and many many other fact-based things. Abominable!
HUH? Clinton did not appoint any of these vandals on the court and the decision they are citing was not intended for this twisting.
1 Like
The RFRA did NOT impose Religious Freedom on corporations. That is the sole invention of this Supreme Court. That is the primary problem with the Hobby Lobby ruling; it superimposes all human rights upon legal constructs which exist to remove liability from individuals.
The RFRA is heavily flawed, but it is a product of the 80s and 90s. This has nothing to do with the Clintons, and everything to do with the politics of the US, 1940-2000.
Put away the faux outrage. Feel free to vote for someone else in the primaries, but when it is Hillary Clinton versus some antediluvian toad like Santorum or Cruz or Christie, voting for guaranteed regression to third-world-country status instead of for occasional minor nods to political realities is a foolish choice.
1 Like
It least it is worthy of veneration. Thousands of people can try and test the recipes for themselves, and draw their own conclusions in their own taste tests. This is democratization at it’s finest. The most people who try and like the recipes will spread it’s legend through the grapevine and it’s propagation will spread and spread. This is the OPPOSITE of authoritarianism. I wish I could open any drawer in any hotel room and find a wonderful recipe book instead of Gideon’s bible–which has to be on the list of the world’s worst pornography, ever. I mean, Lot sleeping with his daughters? Eeeww.
“I think RFRA was a very unfortunate law because it enshrined a legal shield for [religious] people even if they had irrational beliefs,” said Sara Rosenbaum"
Let’s imagine that the RFRA instead said that all religious beliefs so protected must be backed by scientific evidence. What religious beliefs survive that test??? None, obviously, or they wouldn’t be “religious beliefs”.
Maybe push it back to “must not be in direct contradiction to scientific evidence” would be a good compromise, but the Christofascists would not allow that to pass because they can see the progression of science removing all justification for their most cherished “beliefs” in the past century and change. We should push for it, but I can’t see such a clause passing muster in the medieval superstitious House any time soon.