If there were some charity so critically important to the future of democracy that it can’t be allowed to disappear, and yet so fragile in its finances that it couldn’t survive without the special tax privileges, then let Congress stand up and appropriate them a direct subsidy, so we can have elections about it.
Beliefs contradicted by provable evidence should not be considered the same as those not supported by provable evidence. In fact, Alito’s Church teaches that beliefs clearly proven wrong no longer deserve belief, since the truth of the matter is at hand.
I believe (facts not yet being in evidence) that Alito’s majority opinion purposely confused the difference in kind between these beliefs in order to get the outcome wanted. I also believe that the other four Catholics in the majority knowingly abetted this perversion of reasoning to force a “sincerity” precedent. By doing so, they did injustice to all present and future Americans, and to the reputation of the religion that some of them flaunt.
And by making a Catholic decision about all birth control out of Hobby Lobby et al., the Five Supremes have abused science and religion in general, and Catholicism in particular. But these are only collateral harms.
The specific injustice done to American women was purposeful. The outrageous damage to all present and future Americans by making mistaken sincerity and for-profit corporate identity Constitutional principles was the intent of the majority decision.
Despite Alito’s specious reasoning, scientists and religionists can tolerably co-exist (even within the same person), when both species mutually understand the aims, methods, strengths/weaknesses and authority limit of each discipline.
Relevant to the Hobby Lobby decision and Catholic teaching: 1) verifiably true knowledge is important to religious understanding and paramount to scientific understanding; 2) belief can’t contradict relevant knowledge in understanding;3) knowing outweighs belief in understanding; 4) belief is properly limited to what is not yet known or to what can’t be known.
PS. Catholic rationale for opposition to all artificial birth control is differently based than their rationale opposing abortion. The opposition to general birth control is perhaps uniquely Catholic, which makes the 7/1/14 “clarification” of the 6/30/14 Hobby Lobby decision so dismaying in its practical effect and Constitutionality.
That’s a deliberately foolish question of false equivalency. Since a petri dish could never independently support the full-term development of the fertilized egg, a petri dish can never be considered pregnant.
If you wish to forge mutual understandings with “religious zealots”, you can’t do it presenting yourself as an “irreligious zealot.”
I would love to see Dennis Hopper as The Five Supreme’s public spokesperson. I’m sure his performances would have perfectly represented their performances on the bench.
There is also a good article in Politico’s magazine about how Paul Weyrich persuaded evangelicals to adopt the “Catholic” pro-life movement nearly a decade after it began, as a “respectable” cover for the racially-motivated Christian/home schools movement.
In the first place, there’s a HUGE difference between the vast majority of Catholics and the relative handful of them who are priests–which is why, although the bishops oppose birth control, most modern Catholic families have no more than a couple-three kids.
In the second place, Scalia, Thomas et al. didn’t side with Hobby Lobby because they’re Catholics. They did it because they’re a-holes.
So, if I own a company and, hypothetically, I don’t believe in God (which I do), does that mean I can forbid my employees not to attend church? Does that sound valid to you? What a bunch of idiots we’ve got on the Supreme Court, but I think most of us already realize that.
