http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-emily-...45413.html

While there is some validity to some of these questions, 3, 4, & 5 are just silly (Question 7 is not obvious either, but at least it is not silly). And I'm an atheist who believes that gay marriage is a constitutional right (at least as much as any marriage is recognized by the government).

(02-27-2014 01:18 PM)jh Wrote:  While there is some validity to some of these questions, 3, 4, & 5 are just silly (Question 7 is not obvious either, but at least it is not silly). And I'm an atheist who believes that gay marriage is a constitutional right (at least as much as any marriage is recognized by the government).

Well they are all intentionally 'silly' in some sense. But I think even the ones you mention are all relevant to recent proposed legislation or complaints by some on the Christian Right.

Three is really the only one where I can see the argument for some murky gray area...

(02-27-2014 02:10 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(02-27-2014 01:18 PM)jh Wrote:  While there is some validity to some of these questions, 3, 4, & 5 are just silly (Question 7 is not obvious either, but at least it is not silly). And I'm an atheist who believes that gay marriage is a constitutional right (at least as much as any marriage is recognized by the government).

Well they are all intentionally 'silly' in some sense. But I think even the ones you mention are all relevant to recent proposed legislation or complaints by some on the Christian Right.
Three is really the only one where I can see the argument for some murky gray area...

I'm sure some on the Christian Right have made all of these arguments. No matter how crazy the position someone somewhere has agreed with it. That doesn't make it relevant to any kind of productive dialogue. As little use as I have for the Religious Right, I have still less for arguments that blatantly mischaracterize their opponent's positions, and that's what she does in the three questions I called silly.

3. Hobby Lobby has nothing to do with preventing people from using birth control. It's about forcing conscientious objectors to pay for birth control. I have seen nothing to suggest that Hobby Lobby refuses to hire people who use birth control or otherwise discriminates against them in any way.

4. I'm curious where you find an example of the Christian Right attempting to force someone else to pray a Christian prayer. There are numerous examples of them trying to force others to listen to a Christian prayer (which might be objectionable enough in and of itself), but I can't think of a single example where they were trying to force someone to pray along with them. And no, the Pledge of Allegiance is not a prayer.

5. I have no idea what law this purportedly references, but first come up with an anti-bullying statute that doesn't violate the freedom of speech part of the First Amendment (that's what the Phelps's depend on), then we can look at the freedom of religion.

7. Why should the government get to discriminate against views it disagrees with?

Finally, where is her cute question about being forced to take an active role in a ceremony that violates your deeply held religious beliefs? That's probably the biggest active issue right now (Hobby Lobby is a much more limited case) and yet her list is completely silent about it.

3) Conscientious objectors have paid for wars in Iraq in Afghanistan, or hell, all the way back to the World Wars, it's called taxes. And until you can start exempting yourself from paying taxes for things that you conscientiously disagree with, we all just need to realize that we are in this together and that EVERYONE will be stuck paying for something they disagree with, but that's part of the social contract.

4) If you don't think there are conservative christian's trying to force public prayer into school, please watch this political ad in Texas from this year: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohgam2XzO...vbdg-lopKI

Sure, it is a "moment of silence," but I wonder how Dan Branch would feel if there were five moments of silence throughout the day that had to do with "faith and [their] relationship with the almighty." If this moment of silence was about meditation and personal reflection, then great, but it obviously was not.

Or how about Alabama: http://www.11alive.com/news/article/3225...ic-school-

Sure, it is not FORCING the kids to say the prayer along with a teacher, but I don't think we should be putting kids at risk of being bullied or tormented because they don't want to say it along side the teacher, or vice versa. Kids are mean little bastards, and plenty of them feel forced to do things they normally would not like to in order to fit in.

5) Freedom of speech has its limits. That is why their are libel laws, you cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded room, and the ability to prosecute someone who is verbally harassment (i.e. bullying) you. If someone is consistently terrorizing a single student for whatever reason, so much so that they are causing mental, or self-inflicted physical harm, they SHOULD be held accountable for their actions, and many states are moving in that direction (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rebeccas-law...florida/). Yes, you shouldnt be punished for a single act, but repeatedly and intentionally harassing someone verbally can be just as damaging as repeatedly and intentionally physically harming someone.

7) Not sure how you are interpreting this question in such a way. In fact, I feel like the whole point of the government staying out of ALL religions and not allowing public funds to be used on ANY religion is so that what you are suggesting does not happen. If public funds can be used to help support a Christian school, they should be able to help support a Muslim school, Jewish school, and all the way down to the Flying Spaghetti Monster school. Because who is able to say that we, at the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, have a less important religion than those of the Catholic Church? That our beliefs are any less valid? Or, for a perfect example of why you should try to keep government out of all religions, let's look at Oklahoma, where there will now be a Satanist statue right next to a statue of the 10 Commandments at the State Capitol (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/20...4481905/).

And finally, to the argument of being forced to take an active role in a ceremony that violates your deeply held religious beliefs, I have yet to see a news article that shows that priests are being forced to serve over a gay marriage. So until that is the case, I'm not sure what this refers to.

(02-28-2014 07:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  3) Conscientious objectors have paid for wars in Iraq in Afghanistan, or hell, all the way back to the World Wars, it's called taxes. And until you can start exempting yourself from paying taxes for things that you conscientiously disagree with, we all just need to realize that we are in this together and that EVERYONE will be stuck paying for something they disagree with, but that's part of the social contract.

You are correct that it is all but impossible for a taxpayer to object to how their tax payments are spent. But being forced to pay money to a private company for its services is not a tax.

And I think you and I have very different ideas about what the social contract says.

Quote:4) If you don't think there are conservative christian's trying to force public prayer into school, please watch this political ad in Texas from this year: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohgam2XzO...vbdg-lopKI
Sure, it is a "moment of silence," but I wonder how Dan Branch would feel if there were five moments of silence throughout the day that had to do with "faith and [their] relationship with the almighty." If this moment of silence was about meditation and personal reflection, then great, but it obviously was not.
Or how about Alabama: http://www.11alive.com/news/article/3225...ic-school-
Sure, it is not FORCING the kids to say the prayer along with a teacher, but I don't think we should be putting kids at risk of being bullied or tormented because they don't want to say it along side the teacher, or vice versa. Kids are mean little bastards, and plenty of them feel forced to do things they normally would not like to in order to fit in.

A moment of silence is not even close to forcing someone to pray. Nor is a prayer broadcast over the PA system before a football game (although that might well be unconstitutional in and of itself). The Alabama proposal is much closer (for the teacher, not the student), and in the unlikely event the bill actually passes it will be interesting to see how the Court deals with it, but technically the teacher is just reading a transcript. In fact, the Alabama proposal is close enough that I will temper my critique of her Question 4. I still think it's misleading and unproductive, but not necessarily silly (assuming she was aware of the Alabama bill or something similar).

Quote:5) Freedom of speech has its limits. That is why their are libel laws, you cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded room, and the ability to prosecute someone who is verbally harassment (i.e. bullying) you. If someone is consistently terrorizing a single student for whatever reason, so much so that they are causing mental, or self-inflicted physical harm, they SHOULD be held accountable for their actions, and many states are moving in that direction (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rebeccas-law...florida/). Yes, you shouldnt be punished for a single act, but repeatedly and intentionally harassing someone verbally can be just as damaging as repeatedly and intentionally physically harming someone.

I hope you are never in a crowded room when there is a fire. You forgot about the "falsely" and the "causing a panic" part of the quote.

When those anti-bullying laws pass First Amendment scrutiny for infringing on the freedom of speech, then the religious liberty implications can be discussed. But they are typically far too broad and prohibit far too much protected speech to pass muster.

And I really don't know what religion has to do with this, or the bullying issue in general. This is about the Rebecca from the Rebecca's law:

Quote:Court papers allege the older girl began harassing Sedwick over a boy both girls had dated. The affidavits filed by a police investigator also indicate the younger girl and Sedwick were once close friends, but that the 14-year-old may have convinced the younger girl to turn on Sedwick, even getting her to beat up her former best friend.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rebecca-sedw...book-post/

Quote:7) Not sure how you are interpreting this question in such a way. In fact, I feel like the whole point of the government staying out of ALL religions and not allowing public funds to be used on ANY religion is so that what you are suggesting does not happen. If public funds can be used to help support a Christian school, they should be able to help support a Muslim school, Jewish school, and all the way down to the Flying Spaghetti Monster school. Because who is able to say that we, at the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, have a less important religion than those of the Catholic Church? That our beliefs are any less valid? Or, for a perfect example of why you should try to keep government out of all religions, let's look at Oklahoma, where there will now be a Satanist statue right next to a statue of the 10 Commandments at the State Capitol (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/20...4481905/).

First, putting up monuments is different than allowing groups to use government facilities (although I actually like Oklahoma's solution--if you want to donate a FSM statue I say go for it). Prohibiting religious groups from using public facilities on the same terms as secular groups discriminates against the religious groups. The government is supposed to remain neutral.

Quote:And finally, to the argument of being forced to take an active role in a ceremony that violates your deeply held religious beliefs, I have yet to see a news article that shows that priests are being forced to serve over a gay marriage. So until that is the case, I'm not sure what this refers to.

Priests aren't the only people who participate in a wedding, and weddings aren't the only things people can object to.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/us/wei....html?_r=0

I am going to ignore that most of those responses didn't actually respond to the argument, but rather a smaller portion of the argument and details that, when looked at individually do not support in the strongest way possible, my argument.

Instead I will try and keep it very simple. The main argument in the article makes the case that you shouldn't be able to hide behind your religion as an excuse to discriminate or harass someone with impunity, or that the government should avoid spending money (not disallowing religious groups from using public areas/facilities) with respect to one religion, regardless of if it is the only one to ask for funds, to promote that religion over others (e.g. funding a school or building a monument).

(03-01-2014 11:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I am going to ignore that most of those responses didn't actually respond to the argument, but rather a smaller portion of the argument and details that, when looked at individually do not support in the strongest way possible, my argument.
Instead I will try and keep it very simple. The main argument in the article makes the case that you shouldn't be able to hide behind your religion as an excuse to discriminate or harass someone with impunity, or that the government should avoid spending money (not disallowing religious groups from using public areas/facilities) with respect to one religion, regardless of if it is the only one to ask for funds, to promote that religion over others (e.g. funding a school or building a monument).

Any argument is built by smaller parts and details. When enough of those smaller parts and details are revealed to be unsound, the entire argument is called into question. The way the author makes her argument is, in large part, by mischaracterizing the positions of her opponents. It's easy to make positions that virtually no one holds appear unreasonable. It is much harder to actually engage with the positions that your opponent actually holds.

Taking the easy way out is not an acceptable mode of argument.

(03-01-2014 12:17 PM)jh Wrote:  Any argument is built by smaller parts and details. When enough of those smaller parts and details are revealed to be unsound, the entire argument is called into question. The way the author makes her argument is, in large part, by mischaracterizing the positions of her opponents. It's easy to make positions that virtually no one holds appear unreasonable. It is much harder to actually engage with the positions that your opponent actually holds.

Taking the easy way out is not an acceptable mode of argument.

[Sorry for the delay in revisting this, had a lot going on the past few weeks.]

Again, you are taking a tongue in cheek list meant to get people thinking about the issues very literally and responding like it was being argued before the supreme court. I think that's as problematic an argument strategy as you are arguing the original article was.

But I'll address some of the points you made, because, honestly I think you're being disingenuous.

Regarding 3), obviously the (b) part is overstated in a literal sense. But I think it's basically on target. Many religions have objections to certain medical procedures. We can't take all of them out of standard basic coverage. Should we take out blood transfusions too? Circumcision? Now if you are going to argue that the employer based system is part of the problem, I'll agree with you there.

(03-01-2014 12:17 PM)jh Wrote:  4. I'm curious where you find an example of the Christian Right attempting to force someone else to pray a Christian prayer. There are numerous examples of them trying to force others to listen to a Christian prayer (which might be objectionable enough in and of itself), but I can't think of a single example where they were trying to force someone to pray along with them. And no, the Pledge of Allegiance is not a prayer.

Really, are you serious? Reagan made a big deal about putting prayer in schools. There was an article just last week about a *public* school in Louisiana pushing Christianity on a Buddhist student and the principal telling the parents if they don't like it they should move somewhere else. ANY public school prayer is objectionable. "Non-denominational Judeo-Christian" doesn't cut it. Nor does allowing kids to be silent during it. (And if you really doubt many conservatives think we should FORCE explicitly Christian prayer in public schools, you haven't talked to a lot of conservatives...)

If you want to score debate points by saying that you can't find an example of a child literally being forced to say a Christian prayer in a public school, fine.

Regarding (5), it sounds like you are opposed to anti-bullying laws on principal, which is a different issue. However, Right-wing Christian groups have lobbied to have sexual orientation specifically removed from those laws. That's what the original article refers to.

Finally regarding (7), I think the point the original author was trying to get across was that many (mostly right-wing) Christians seem to equate Christianity not being seen as the "main" religion over others with them being persecuted. I see this over, and over, and over again. I have relatives that are convinced "Christians" are the most discriminated against group in America. (Well, after the poor, downtrodden, white males.) I'll believe it when I see political candidates arguing about who is the least Christian and most atheist...

Some responses tend to demonize Christians, ignoring that Jewish and Muslim schools and groups (and I'm sure many more, though these are the biggies by number) do the same things.

It also engages in all sorts of hyperbole... Because Reagan was a Christian and wanted to allow prayer back in school doesn't mean the law built around that personal opinion would have mandated any specific prayer whatsoever... and a moment of silence to do with as you see fit isn't endorsement of any religion whatsoever. MOST conservatives would agree with this... even many of those who PERSONALLY want the ability to pray to a Christian God. Certainly there are Christians (and Muslims and Jews and Wiccans) who would prefer that THEIR prayer be repeated by all, but it is only when 'Christian Conservatives' in general are lumped into this category that we can't have a rational discussion.

If you ask me my personal beliefs... I believe in a Christian God. If you ask my political beliefs, I don't think a Christian prayer should be mandated. That would be forcing my views on others. But to deny me and those who feel as I do a 'moment of respectful silence' so that I can pray is forcing other's beliefs on me. This seems absolutely consistent with the founding of our country, because you see ALL SORTS of strong religious beliefs in their private lives... followed by more generic mentions of things like 'Creator' in our founding documents, and then even fewer/virtually no references when it comes to actual policy.

I believe that almost ANY significant moment deserves a moment of reflection. A time to gather your thoughts... to calm your nerves... to clear your mind... to focus on the task or to pray for guidance. I know lots who would choose to pray... but many others would choose to simply gather their thoughts. Even many Christians. MANY Christians believe that God doesn't answer selfish prayers, like 'let me do well on this test'... but that he DOES help those who help themselves by gathering their thoughts. I'm using this as an example. I think too many moments of silence would be disruptive.

It seems that many atheist/agnostics view an open profession of faith (or in some cases, merely answering a question about it in the affirmative) as the equivalent of wanting to force that view on others. Believing in, offering and FORCING are entirely different things. Our founders generally believed in and offered basic Christian doctrine, but they did not force it.

My local city commission meetings begin with an invocation, as I am sure many others do. Going back to September 2013, the local invocation has been delivered by the following parties:

9/3 Pastor of Presbyterian Church
9/17 Chaplain of the Police Department
10/1 Pastor of Calvary Chapel
10/15 Pastor of Christ Church
11/5 Pastor of Lutheran Church
11/19 Chaplain of the Police Department
12/3 Chaplain of the Police Department
12/17 Pastor of Presbyterian Church
1/7 Rabbi of Downtown Jewish Center
1/22 Reverend of First Congregational Church
2/4 Reverend of Greek Orthodox Church
2/18 Pastor of Presbyterian Church
3/4 Pastor of Presbyterian Church
3/18 Reverend of Lutheran Church
4/1 Pastor of Methodist Church

I do not see the point of an invocation at a city commission meeting, but you ought to have diverse religious leaders conduct it if you are going to do it. Why? 1. It's simply respectful to all of the religions and their adherents in your community. 2. There is no suggestion that one religion has more authority or validity in the community and in the decisionmaking processes of the elected officials than the others do.

The list of invokers* above is not as diverse as I would recommend. I was pleasantly surprised by the inclusion of the rabbi and the Greek Orthodox reverend, though, since all of the meetings I have attended have featured a Protestant invoker. FTR, there do not appear to be any Hindu or Buddhist temples in my city, but there are a mosque, an LDS temple, and multiple Catholic churches.

*"Invoker" sounds odd in this context. Invocator? Officiant? Speaker? Blessing Giver? Leader of the Prayer?

I tend to agree with your assessment, Caelligh. I don't really understand the point, but I also don't see the harm, so long as the speakers are diverse and representative of the community. I think even an atheist could come and say something along the lines of hoping for wisdom and civility from the commission without any mention of any kind of higher power. I would also encourage the speakers to be as open and generic and inclusive as possible... and I suspect they generally are out of respect.

I do not want to coerced by any faith into doing something I don't want to do. Likewise, I do not want to be forbidden by any faith from doing something I want to do. By "faith", I include atheism and agnosticism, as well as more widely recognized belief systems.

(04-03-2014 07:26 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I do not want to coerced by any faith into doing something I don't want to do. Likewise, I do not want to be forbidden by any faith from doing something I want to do. By "faith", I include atheism and agnosticism, as well as more widely recognized belief systems.

I suspect this is too broad of a statement. Every law on the books is coercive and/or prohibitory; most laws (at least, the important ones) have some sort of moral motivation; and moral motivation is often inseparable from religious understanding. To cite one of the most famous examples: remember that a great deal of the moral opposition to slavery in the U.K. and the U.S. was motivated by explicitly Christian belief. In theory, abolitionists could have made their case with no religious motivation whatsoever -- but that's not what actually happened. In case after case, the religious nature of their motivation was powerful -- and probably essential to their ability to sustain that motivation over time.* For the most part, they were not modern secular humanists; they were serious Christians -- and specifically, serious Protestants -- rooted in the Bible and in many cases having a personal sense that divine judgment was real, awesome, and imminent. And of course, that movement led to laws that prohibited first the trading in, and then the owning of, slaves -- a clear case of faith being a driving force in prohibiting certain people from doing things they wanted to do. At the legislative stage, every law comes into being from a mix of motives, often different from those of the original advocates and often not even clear to the lawmakers themselves. But it is undeniable that religious conviction was one of most important motives behind the entire movement -- quite possibly the sine qua non.


*I'm not saying that all professed Christians drew this conclusion -- obviously they did not. But the fact that other people drew different conclusion from the same overall religion does not change the fact that the religious motivation of the abolitionists was (1) powerful, (2) sincere, and (3) important.

(04-02-2014 08:43 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Again, you are taking a tongue in cheek list meant to get people thinking about the issues very literally and responding like it was being argued before the supreme court. I think that's as problematic an argument strategy as you are arguing the original article was.

Sorry, regardless of where her tongue is planted, the way to get people thinking about complex issues is not make one side seem absurd by misrepresenting its positions and concerns. The way to get people thinking about an issue is to present the best arguments both sides have and explain why one side is still better.

I also think you are wrong that this is a tongue in cheek list. From the comments:

ndbu Wrote:. . . Sure, the author's little test is an ego-stroker eliciting "Amens" from a supportive choir who scoffs at anyone from a majority religion crying discrimination, but the quiz fails miserably at understanding the reasons why some believe a threat to religious liberty exists (and clearly, it does to some degree when all 9 members of SCOTUS side with "religion" in Hosana-Tabor). Heck, no moderate is going to be convinced by such pieces; it just makes liberals look clueless. Just because a religious group is a majority does not mean that it is immune from first amendment encroachment. I suggest understanding the arguments of the "other side" first; otherwise, we're just batting around straw men.

Emily C. Heath (the author) Wrote:As a Christian whose life is devoted to serving a religious institution, and who has done plenty of research on this topic, your response is exactly the problem I am talking about. Christians are far from persecuted in America. More likely, WE are the perpetrators of religious oppression. And believe me...I don't need the DNC to give me my talking points. I have Jesus for that, and he was pretty clear about respecting your neighbor, even if they differ from you.

Sadly, nowhere in her response does she indicate that she takes herself anything other than seriously.

I'm truly curious how you consider 3(b) to be mostly on target. There is a rather large difference between arguing that you shouldn't have to pay for something deeply objectionable and that no one else should be allowed to do something.

Despite the misleading[*] press coverage, Hobby Lobby is much more about abortion than birth control. Hobby Lobby doesn't want to pay for four, out of an available twenty, methods of birth control included in the ACA. They don't want to pay for those four methods because they believe those methods are abortifacients that result in the death of a human being (while the FDA may disagree, the question of when a human life begins is not one that can be answered by science). Hobby Lobby does not object to birth control qua birth control. They object to abortions qua birth control. While Hobby Lobby probably does want these four methods banned, the reason for the ban would not be because they are birth control but because in Hobby Lobby's view they result in the death of a human being. They have no problem paying for the sixteen other methods of birth control that they believe do no result in the death of a human being.

If a Seventh Day Adventist employer wants an exemption from including blood transfusions in its insurance package and can meet the requirements of RFRA then I have no problem with letting that happen. Given the relative importance of blood transfusions as compared to the four methods of birth control at issue in Hobby Lobby, the government probably will have a much easier time making its case under RFRA and will have a much better chance of winning (not to say they are bound to lose Hobby Lobby). I have absolutely no problem with any employer, regardless of motivation, excluding elective surgeries like circumcisions from coverage.

Employer-provided insurance is certainly part of the problem, one largely the result of the government's meddling in the marketplace in the first place. Any time the person paying (most of the money) for a service and the person consuming a service are different people, there are going to be problems. A bigger problem, however, is the notion that it is the government's job to determine what kind of insurance I should have, or that I should even have any at all.

*** Edited to Add ***
[* Overly simplistic or sloppy are probably a better descriptors. Misleading implies intent on the part of the reporters, and I doubt there is much of an intent to deceive in the vast majority of the coverage.]

I'm interested to hear your opinion on this article on Slate, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p...eedom.html , specifically, the discussion over the ability of Hobby Lobby, a company, to have religious rights, since it is a company and not a person.

(04-08-2014 12:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm interested to hear your opinion on this article on Slate, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p...eedom.html , specifically, the discussion over the ability of Hobby Lobby, a company, to have religious rights, since it is a company and not a person.

Two quick points.

Companies have every other First Amendment right as well as most of the other rights in the Bill of Rights. There is no doubt that for profit corporations have the freedom of speech or of the press, and that was decided long before Citizens United. Why shouldn't a company like Hobby Lobby that can demonstrate a conformance of their business practice and their religious beliefs (close on Sunday, donate profits to charities, etc.) also have free exercise rights?

More importantly, many people, particularly those who side with the government in Hobby Lobby, want and expect for profit corporations to behave morally. On issues like fair trade coffee, conflict diamonds, sweatshops, child labor, people expect corporations to sacrifice their bottom line in service of some type of greater moral good. It seems odd that the one type of moral behavior corporations are not allowed to engage in is religiously motivated behavior.

(04-08-2014 01:17 PM)jh Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 12:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm interested to hear your opinion on this article on Slate, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p...eedom.html , specifically, the discussion over the ability of Hobby Lobby, a company, to have religious rights, since it is a company and not a person.

Two quick points.

Companies have every other First Amendment right as well as most of the other rights in the Bill of Rights. There is no doubt that for profit corporations have the freedom of speech or of the press, and that was decided long before Citizens United. Why shouldn't a company like Hobby Lobby that can demonstrate a conformance of their business practice and their religious beliefs (close on Sunday, donate profits to charities, etc.) also have free exercise rights?

More importantly, many people, particularly those who side with the government in Hobby Lobby, want and expect for profit corporations to behave morally. On issues like fair trade coffee, conflict diamonds, sweatshops, child labor, people expect corporations to sacrifice their bottom line in service of some type of greater moral good. It seems odd that the one type of moral behavior corporations are not allowed to engage in is religiously motivated behavior.

Well for starters, humanistic based morality != religious based morality. But also, I doubt very many people support those examples you provided because they are morally good, but because they believe in the specific outcomes provided by each action. I doubt they support, say, restrictions on conflict diamonds because it is moral, but rather because it helps prevent the brutality associated with them.

Also, I found this part of the article about Anthony Kennedy's question interesting: "Kennedy pointed out, Hobby Lobby’s view that it need not cover birth control would allow 'the employer to put the employee in a disadvantageous position. The employee may not agree with these religious beliefs of the employer.' Kennedy then asked: Do 'the religious beliefs just trump?' " Regardless of how you feel about the ACA and its mandates, why should a for-profit employer be allowed make a decision, based on religious values only, that will potentially burden its employees, especially if some employees don't have the same religious beliefs?

(04-08-2014 01:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Well for starters, humanistic based morality != religious based morality.

They're pretty darn close.

Quote:I doubt they support, say, restrictions on conflict diamonds because it is moral, but rather because it helps prevent the brutality associated with them.

Isn't that part of morality?

Quote:Also, I found this part of the article about Anthony Kennedy's question interesting: "Kennedy pointed out, Hobby Lobby’s view that it need not cover birth control would allow 'the employer to put the employee in a disadvantageous position. The employee may not agree with these religious beliefs of the employer.' Kennedy then asked: Do 'the religious beliefs just trump?' " Regardless of how you feel about the ACA and its mandates, why should a for-profit employer be allowed make a decision, based on religious values only, that will potentially burden its employees, especially if some employees don't have the same religious beliefs?

Because employee benefits are part of the job contract. If you don't want or value the benefits, don't take the job. You can certainly buy your own policy elsewhere... or alternatively buy coverage specifically for what is excluded.

It seems to me that there are certain things that are pretty obviously not universal, but only apply to certain segments of the population. Birth control and pre-natal care would be among them IMO. We can certainly debate that on percentages and numbers... and in industries that hire lots of people that need that care, that might be a reason to work for company a and not company b... or if you didn't need it and could choose to take a little more pay instead, that too would be an advantage.

In the best examples I can give, Medicare only covers about 50% of the costs associated with healthcare. A "silver' policy by most state exchanges is an 80/20 or 70/30 split and carries a few thousand dollar deductible (on top of that). These policies aren't free, even to people who don't pay the premiums...

It seems that having the ability to exclude something you don't need (say reproductive coverage for an older couple) in order to get something you do (a smaller deductible or copay) is just way too easy of a thing to quantify and allow... and will ultimately deliver better care... We act like this is rocket science and it is only math.

(04-08-2014 01:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Well for starters, humanistic based morality != religious based morality. But also, I doubt very many people support those examples you provided because they are morally good, but because they believe in the specific outcomes provided by each action. I doubt they support, say, restrictions on conflict diamonds because it is moral, but rather because it helps prevent the brutality associated with them.

Other than personal preference, I'm not sure what the difference between humanistic and religiously based morality is. And I certainly don't understand why judgments based on humanistic morality are entitled to respect but those based on religious morality aren't. It seems like that would be an actual Free Exercise problem, not just a RFRA one.

It's obviously going to be different for different people, but many do oppose things like child labor in and of itself. Even if it can be shown that children in countries that allow child labor are better off than they would be if child labor wasn't allowed, a sizable group of people would still refuse to buy products made with child labor. But even most of those that are supporting those examples because they are in favor of specific outcomes are doing so for moralistic reasons. Trying to reduce the brutality associated with conflict diamonds is a morally based decision.

Quote:Also, I found this part of the article about Anthony Kennedy's question interesting: "Kennedy pointed out, Hobby Lobby’s view that it need not cover birth control would allow 'the employer to put the employee in a disadvantageous position. The employee may not agree with these religious beliefs of the employer.' Kennedy then asked: Do 'the religious beliefs just trump?' " Regardless of how you feel about the ACA and its mandates, why should a for-profit employer be allowed make a decision, based on religious values only, that will potentially burden its employees, especially if some employees don't have the same religious beliefs?

In this case, it's because that's the way Congress set the burdens when they passed RFRA. Assuming the plaintiff's can prove a substantial burden (probably the biggest question in the case), religious beliefs typically trump. Only if the Government can demonstrate that they have chosen the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling government interest can Hobby Lobby's religious beliefs be overridden. That was the entire point of the statute, which was passed in response to a Supreme Court decision that said there were no religious exemptions from neutral laws of general applicability. It even added the least-restrictive clause to make the standard even stricter than it had been before the decision.

As part of his response, Paul Clement pointed out an inherent tension in this question. The benefit the employee is allegedly deprived of is given by the very law under challenge. If the law doesn't apply to Hobby Lobby then no, their employees have not been deprived of any benefits that they were actually entitled to.

But I would also disagree with the premise of the question that the employee is put in a disadvantageous position, at least not in any way that's legally relevant. The government has already exempted numerous other employers from the contraception mandate, raising the obvious question about just how important the mandate really is. Should a female employee of Hobby Lobby chose one of four methods of birth control, out of a total of 20, then she has to pay for it herself. Are single men put in a disadvantageous position because the mandate only requires birth control coverage for women? Perhaps, but I wouldn't want to make the equal protection argument.