The recent Hobby Lobby ruling has impressed upon me the fact that a good number of people in the United States, citizens I presume, do not understand the supreme document of the land. If they do "understand" that document, then they simply do not wish for it to apply to people with whom they disagree with, particularly when something in that document is inconvenient to them. Lets look at
the latest example, and remember, The standard here is as follows:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Let us proceed:
Christianity is fundamentally imperialistic. Its aim is to convert and control people with its assumed biblically revealed one true savior of the world. The tip of its evangelizing iceberg is seen in the folly of Hobby Lobby.
Ok. So what does that have to do with the SCOTUS decision? Should the opinion that Christianity is an imperialistic religion play a role in a decision in which revolves around "free exercise"?
Following its recent Supreme Court victory– that the Affordable Care Act’s requirement to provide contraceptive coverage for women employees violated its religious freedom– a New York Times story on Hobby Lobby’s “new project” contains more of its mission to gain power over people– which motivates much of Christianity.
We should amend that paragraph to read more accurately:
that the Affordable Care Act’s requirement to provide [free to the user] contraceptive coverage for [only] women employees violated its religious freedom [of free exercise].
See how by providing the left out information transforms the paragraph to accurately reflect what the legal case was about? Secondly, Hobby Lobby is not trying to "gain power over people". Hobby Lobby, the agent of it's founders, is and was merely protecting it's enumerated right of "free exercise". That is it was protecting itself from the federal government's power grab.
The evangelical family-owned craft store chain has purchased a huge, eight-story building in Washington, near the National Mall, to house a Bible museum. Why? Steve Green, Hobby Lobby president is quoted as having “referred to the Bible as ‘a reliable historical document,’” and intends to “’reintroduce this book to this nation.’”
That's nice. I won't be visiting, but again how is this relevant to the aforementioned constitutional requirement at hand?
Steve Green is correct. But not in the way he thinks. Dangerous indeed is “ignorance of this book.” The danger is failing to see how people with power use “this book” to justify imposing their beliefs on others, dehumanizing and robbing them of their rights, oppressing and killing them and stealing their resources and land. It is about power– ordained and licensed by “what God has taught” in The Bible.
Of course the Reverend does not see that it is in fact those who slipped in the unconstitutional requirement (IMO) for free to the user but provided by the employer contraception mandate into the ACA, who are actually trying to impose their beliefs on others. Those persons
believe that free to the user contraception is a right. It is not. They believe that they can pass a law that prohibits the free exercise of those who hold a particular religious belief simply because they disagree with it.
Other than that, the talk about "robbing them of their rights. Killing them and stealing their resources" is entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand. The only issue at hand is whether the founders of Hobby Lobby, having founded their business on what they consider to be Christian principles were having their free exercise rights abridged.
The imperialism underneath Christianity’s evangelizing iceberg surfaced right after The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby’s biblically-based, “be ye fruitful and multiply,” anti-contraceptive desire to control women’s bodies. Fourteen Christian leaders immediately sent a letter to The White House, requesting that their institutions be exempt, on religious freedom grounds, from a forthcoming presidential ruling that would prohibit groups, receiving federal funds, from discriminating against LGBT persons in hiring. To these and many other Bible-believing Christian leaders, religious freedom means the “freedom” not to hire a gay, lesbian or transgender person and, when it is known, the right to fire a same-sex marriage partner—because homosexuality is “an abomination,” which is “what God has taught” in The Bible. Conventional Christian leaders want LGBTQ persons to stay in the closet, i.e., remain invisible, i.e., to not even exist.
It seems that it hasn't occurred to the Reverend that "be ye fruitful and multiply" puts a burden on male followers of such a teaching as well. A different burden but a burden none the less. But even so, what they believe is irrelevant to the issue. The first amendment does not have a "that we agree with" clause in it. Whither one thinks that such a "be ye fruitful" ideology is "controlling women's bodies" is irrelevant. In America women are free to disregard the edicts of any religion and do what she pleases. She can even leave said religion without fear of bodily harm, including death.
As for the "discriminating against LGBT persons" again, that is explicitly permissible under the first amendment and the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Religious institutions and organizations run by them, as well as private clubs cannot be held liable under anti-discrimination laws. If the president or anyone else has a problem with that, they are also free to not hire religious companies to do federal work.
o these and many other Bible-believing Christian leaders, religious freedom means the “freedom” not to hire a gay, lesbian or transgender person and, when it is known, the right to fire a same-sex marriage partner—because homosexuality is “an abomination,” which is “what God has taught” in The Bible.
And they have an absolute right under the US Constitution to do so whether anyone else likes it or not.
Conventional Christian leaders want LGBTQ persons to stay in the closet, i.e., remain invisible, i.e., to not even exist.
This is an entirely fabricated argument. And it is irrelevant to the constitutional issue at hand.
What would happen if such Christians had the power to impose all of their biblical beliefs on society? If various Christian denominations could do that? If other religions could subject everyone to their will? If white persons were in complete control? ? If “pioneers” and “settlers”– and “capitalists”– could have their way with others?
If "such Christians had the power to impose all of their biblical beliefs on society" then we would be in England before the Mayflower.
Duh.
The reason we have the first amendment is so that Christians [or any other religion] could not impose all of their biblical beliefs on society. Does the Reverend understand that?
The literal belief in “this book” provides the license to dominate — given by an infallible god who favors his own. It is just a matter of obtaining the legal—and military—power to carry out “what God has taught” his chosen people. Beware of this “God.” If he thinks like a man, and talks like a man, and acts like a culturally-conditioned man, then, he is a man—dressed in “spirituality.”
Yadda yadda yadda. What exactly does any of this have to do with "free exercise"?
The rest of the piece is more "yadda yadda..." Enumerating the various "sins of the father" may be fun. It may be a nice way to guilt trip certain people. However; at the end of the day it has squat to do with the constitutional issue at hand. And yet this fellow has a PhD.
:-/
With writing like his, the apparent value of these PhD's in the non-hard sciences is becoming quite dubious.
