In my opinion, the current Supreme Court of the United States is a disaster for this country. It has allowed a controlling subservience to money------not the people.
12
The "Guttmacher Policy Review" is as "authoritative" and impartial as Pravda was in discussing the pros and cons of communism: it is the house organ and mouthpiece of Planned Parenthood, which makes the lion's share of its money on abortions. As for the ongoing obfuscation of pretending that pregnancy starts with "implantation," there is no reason for moving that goalpost from conception EXCEPT to blur the abortiofacient action of the IUD, which is circular reasoning for the concept.
1
we need some rules which guarantee freedom from religion.
12
Yea Linda! I read everything you write and you always hit the nail on the head!
3
Devastating, Linda!
4
Supreme Court decisions frequently have consequences that were not foreseen.
What disturbs Greenhouse is that she doesn't like this particular decision because it doesn't comport with her politics. She isn't a journalist, she's an advocate for a point of view.
The Times has a competent Supreme Court reporter. They don't need cheerleaders for a point of view. Adn if they do, why not invite a conflting view and see if Ms. Greenhouse is simply biased, or if she actually has a legitimate opinion?
What disturbs Greenhouse is that she doesn't like this particular decision because it doesn't comport with her politics. She isn't a journalist, she's an advocate for a point of view.
The Times has a competent Supreme Court reporter. They don't need cheerleaders for a point of view. Adn if they do, why not invite a conflting view and see if Ms. Greenhouse is simply biased, or if she actually has a legitimate opinion?
2
I say this as a believer in Christ;when one begins to push their religious beliefs upon others it then goes from religous freedom to tyranny. Religious freedom is the ability to believe as one chooses free from governmental interference not to impose one's beliefs upon those who disagree with you.
18
This whole line of reasoning is nonsense. Every single person arrested for drug use should claim it is their sincere religious belief that they get to use these drugs for spiritual sacrament.
13
Religiosity is running amuck and destroying the social fabric! Should a Seventh Day Adventist employer be permitted to prohibit hospitals on an employee's health plan from serving meat to him or her? This is the logic being used by the far right to reduce freedoms.
12
Isn't this the absurdly attenuated theory used in Kentucky for a clerk to refuse to do her elected job of issuing marriage licenses? It would be better to reverse the Hobby Lobby mistake.
I wonder how Justice Kennedy is feeling about his legacy now? Hobby Lobby, Citizens United and the voting rights case should be enough to ruin anyone's legacy.
I wonder how Justice Kennedy is feeling about his legacy now? Hobby Lobby, Citizens United and the voting rights case should be enough to ruin anyone's legacy.
8
I would suggest that the Supremes outlaw god.
1
Here's what I can't get my mind around: In 21st century America, there are people who oppose BIRTH CONTROL.
18
If this case from the Eighth Circuit is upheld, what then happens if I claim a religious belief in pacifism so as not to pay the share of my business tax or personal income tax bill that goes to the military? Or not to collect a percentage of tax payments from my employees because I don't want to be involved in militarism even to that extent? I am sincere in my religion, I say.
Or, what if I am a sincere believer in segregation. So sincere that segregation is a core plank in my religion and is celebrated at a certain mountaintop in northern Georgia during pilgrimage once a year. I do not want to sell my product - say, bibles - in my store to people other than whites. I don't even want non-whites in my store at all. Nor do I want any of my or my employees' tax money going to non-whites. Would any of this be okay if the Eighth Circuit decision is upheld?
Those questions would be open, it seems to me, if the Eighth Circuit decision is upheld. However I wouldn't need to ask anything to do with women's rights, since the Supreme Court would already have ruled that women have no rights to anything at all, just like in countries in which Islamic fundamentalists make all the rules.
Is that where Hobby Lobby is leading us?
Or, what if I am a sincere believer in segregation. So sincere that segregation is a core plank in my religion and is celebrated at a certain mountaintop in northern Georgia during pilgrimage once a year. I do not want to sell my product - say, bibles - in my store to people other than whites. I don't even want non-whites in my store at all. Nor do I want any of my or my employees' tax money going to non-whites. Would any of this be okay if the Eighth Circuit decision is upheld?
Those questions would be open, it seems to me, if the Eighth Circuit decision is upheld. However I wouldn't need to ask anything to do with women's rights, since the Supreme Court would already have ruled that women have no rights to anything at all, just like in countries in which Islamic fundamentalists make all the rules.
Is that where Hobby Lobby is leading us?
34
Ah, to know the mind of God, an exclusive and choosy God at that, so intimately as Evangelicals feel that they do must be utterly reassuring. And, for the rest of us, utterly frightening.
It would seem that the very thought of sexual activity without the intention of procreation is taboo. And that is absurd in the extreme.
In this, as in so many ways in this country today, we are at a very dangerous crossroad. And If this continues, I can only expect a societal explosion. And that will be most tragic. It should not have to come to that. All that is required is a measure of sanity. But, increasingly, that seems a bridge too far.
It would seem that the very thought of sexual activity without the intention of procreation is taboo. And that is absurd in the extreme.
In this, as in so many ways in this country today, we are at a very dangerous crossroad. And If this continues, I can only expect a societal explosion. And that will be most tragic. It should not have to come to that. All that is required is a measure of sanity. But, increasingly, that seems a bridge too far.
16
This is such a crock, but perfectly emblematic of the left's disdain for religious convictions and the belief that religious people, in a country that constitutionally prohibits the government from "restricting the free exercise" of those beliefs, should not have to check those beliefs at the confines of their home or church and actual can actually exercise them even while participating in the economy and commerce. And this statement epitomizes the false equivalents in their views: allowing religious exemptions to employers providing all forms of contraception would blow "a gaping hole in the fabric of civil society". Really??? For 239 years of our country's existence we survived and thrived just fine without government mandated, employer provided free birth control... And now if we allow those who, as part of free exercise of their religion don't want to be forced to directly or indirectly pay for contraceptives they are opposed to we destroy the fabric of our society??? Really??? If you don't see just how silly that statement is then I guess you can't understand that forcing people of religious conviction to, just because they own a business and participate in commerce, provide medications they are religiously opposed to is by definition a substantial burden. On the other hand I don't see why requiring women to do what 90+% of them have done just fine without the mandate for 50 years (handle their own birth control) is such an undue burden. Where am I wrong?
5
Christians with such objections need to mind their own souls and not interfere with the free will of others. Coercion of religious conformity led to the whole reason people left Europe for this continent in the first place. Uniformity of health coverage, including family planning should not be such a bone of contention. These helter skelter objections from companies complaining about religious freedom are interfering in the religious freedom of others. No one is making anyone TAKE contraceptives, that should be up to the individual person who may want or need it.
26
There is no 'disdain' in asserting that religious conviction CANNOT replace reasoned argument. If that were the case, there would be no Constitution, no Bill of Rights, no nation...because conviction is Belief, and Belief is not Reason. Without Reason we would not have had the inspiration of Hume and Locke with a set of separate institutions of power that form the American republic. That's why we have two words to distinguish between the two. Belief and Reason. Why is it so difficult for 'the religious' to understand this? Its the bedrock principle between separation of church and state. Unless, of course, you're one of those newfangled interpreter's of the Establishment clause that changes the focus from a citizen's freedom from a state-sanctioned religion to a freedom by the citizen from the state in anything involving religion. That is new and arbitrary and has no basis in the history of this nation's legal precedent. It is simply an expression of 21st century anti-statism dressed up in the First Amendment.
9
You have the right to follow your religious beliefs, but you have no right to impose them on others. Yes, you are free to be a Christian Scientist, and believe that going to Doctors or taking medication is against your deeply held religious beliefs - but no, you cannot impose that belief on your employees. You may believe that eating pork is an abomination against your God, but no, you cannot forbid your employees from eating it.
Get it? Religious freedom is about freedom to practice your religious beliefs - it is not about forcing other to do the same.
Get it? Religious freedom is about freedom to practice your religious beliefs - it is not about forcing other to do the same.
10
Some Christians feel that they are being persecuted by anyone or anything that limits their persecution of others.
69
I don't believe the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision will be much of a factor in the cases whereby the petitioners claim that even participating in a notification regulation that goes against their religious beliefs violates the "Free Exercise" clause of the 1st Amendment.
Specifically, the Supreme Court may simply decide that although an employer is religiously exempt from providing contraceptive coverage to their employees, it does not follow that the employer's personal convictions eliminate the employer's obligation to conform to the statutory, and regulatory notification requirements established by the ACA, and failure to do so will allow the government to take the appropriate remedial actions.
Personally, I would prefer the Supreme Court finds the RFRA unconstitutional, but the chances of that are non-existent.
Specifically, the Supreme Court may simply decide that although an employer is religiously exempt from providing contraceptive coverage to their employees, it does not follow that the employer's personal convictions eliminate the employer's obligation to conform to the statutory, and regulatory notification requirements established by the ACA, and failure to do so will allow the government to take the appropriate remedial actions.
Personally, I would prefer the Supreme Court finds the RFRA unconstitutional, but the chances of that are non-existent.
7
"Free exercise of religion" is consensual worship. There is no worship in arbitrarily manipulating the lives of others.
3
Wait - doesn't it also mean religious objectors can't be forced to pay for schoolbooks that teach ungodly ideas like evolution and the development of the family? That the Confederacy lost the Civil War? That it can be a bad idea to shout fire is a crowded theater? That it would be okay to make a bonfire out of your Jewish neighbors if you shout Jesus as you do it, because it's religious expression?
Keep Christ in Christmas - and don't force your beliefs on everybody else. That's MY religious concept and you better abide by it... or no more fire department protection for your house or place of business, no more sewers, no more police, no more Defense Department. I mean, either we're all in this together or we're not.
Keep Christ in Christmas - and don't force your beliefs on everybody else. That's MY religious concept and you better abide by it... or no more fire department protection for your house or place of business, no more sewers, no more police, no more Defense Department. I mean, either we're all in this together or we're not.
1
How dare they keep family planning methods away from my nursing students about to graduate, from the education students ready to graduate. Young people wanting to serve their communities, but some phony elevated people feel entitled to force their religious views on Americans for whom their institution may be the only major employer in their town. These pseudo-pious people are no different that the Taliban and they make me sick.
43
What evidence do you have that they don't believe abortifacients are morally offensive? If someone believes in God, then they believe he Created every human, and did so with equal love to each of us. If there is no God, then there is nothing but the majority opinion deciding that all human have an equal right to life. We have already chipped away at that belief because now, a woman carrying a child can kill that child for any reason whatsoever (it's a girl not a boy, for example) because that child, being in her womb, is not a human being with the rights granted to it by the Creator God, but instead is defined by its fellow man as having fewer rights than the woman carrying the child. You can rail against religion as much as you want, but just realize that without God, there is only the opinion of the majority in power in your community to ensure your ability to live your life as your conscience dictates. You might be fine with mandated birth control, but if any group is being Taliban-like, it's the group making fun of religious believers for wanting to live their lives according to unpopular beliefs. No business owner is denying their employees the right to take abortifacients. They are only objecting to being forced to participate in that decision. Should the Catholic Church be forced to allow gay couples to get married in their churches? Will that participation also be forced? What religious beliefs are safe if not all of them?
3
If only the "Feckless Five" weren't so, well, feckless.
9
They believe they are geniuses as they destroy the credibility of their court with illogic.
6
Since the RFRA has Bill Clinton's fingerprints all over it, it's time he come forward and speak out on these cases.
He doesn't even need to mention our execrable, chip, chip, chip away... do-it-over- 'til-it's-dead supreme court. But, he needs to explain what's going on here like he explained the problems Republicans have with arithmetic at the 2012 Convention.
He doesn't even need to mention our execrable, chip, chip, chip away... do-it-over- 'til-it's-dead supreme court. But, he needs to explain what's going on here like he explained the problems Republicans have with arithmetic at the 2012 Convention.
8
What about the right of men and women who believe in the obligation both personal and societal to limit population growth. Do their moral concerns and scruples have no standing under the first amendment?
28
Nope, at least not according to Christians, who want their beliefs to trump everyone else.
7
They have every right to believe what ever philosophy they want and to publicly propose the benefit of it. They just don`t have the right to impose their philosophy on others legally.
7
Even when the editorial page of The New York Times seems increasingly untethered from reality, I maintain my digital subscription.
The always excellent analysis by Linda Greenhouse of the Supreme Court, its cases and decisions is an essential reason to keep my subscription current.
The publishers should thank you.
And I say brava! :)
The always excellent analysis by Linda Greenhouse of the Supreme Court, its cases and decisions is an essential reason to keep my subscription current.
The publishers should thank you.
And I say brava! :)
24
"Religion poisons everything."
"Science? We don't need no stinkin' science. We have faith!"
Birth control is fought over? Really? In an overpopulated world with millions of children malnourished and living in extreme poverty, when B/C prevents the spending of billions of tax dollars in welfare and educational costs, these organizations should be driven out of existence.
The government cannot establish, nor prevent the establishment of a religion, but why not hound it out of existence when against our best interests? Radical, I know, but they have no problem going after native American religions for they peyote use.
"Science? We don't need no stinkin' science. We have faith!"
Birth control is fought over? Really? In an overpopulated world with millions of children malnourished and living in extreme poverty, when B/C prevents the spending of billions of tax dollars in welfare and educational costs, these organizations should be driven out of existence.
The government cannot establish, nor prevent the establishment of a religion, but why not hound it out of existence when against our best interests? Radical, I know, but they have no problem going after native American religions for they peyote use.
13
US public policy has no business respecting religion, either in words or with financial inducements.
1
Let's just sterilize the poor. Oh wait, that's what we're trying to do by paying for all women to take birth control. Hey, maybe if those poor women won't take it even if free, maybe we can just implant it under their skin if they won't stop having babies.
I can't help but think it's about sperm's rights, along with prudishness. Before I go off the reservation with a link to some off-color humor for those who will enjoy it, one important point jumps out.
Life is only precious to these shysters before it leaves the womb. After that, god help the baby if it's family is having trouble providing it with food, shelter, and health care. They don't have trouble with the death penalty, or with LWB penalties (living while Black).
So here's the humor (Monty Python's "Every Sperm is Sacred"):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk
Life is only precious to these shysters before it leaves the womb. After that, god help the baby if it's family is having trouble providing it with food, shelter, and health care. They don't have trouble with the death penalty, or with LWB penalties (living while Black).
So here's the humor (Monty Python's "Every Sperm is Sacred"):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk
25
A great analysis, marred by its factual inaccuracy-- at the very moment it impugns the factual accuracy of the 8th Circuit. According to the company's own website, Plan B may in fact prevent ovulation, but may also prevent fertilization, or the implantation of a fertilized egg. Doesn't anyone fact-check the opinion pages?
2
More sperm's rights? !!!
sigh ...
sigh ...
3
Teacher, you are exactly and medically correct. In addition if you read the FDA package insert on several of the IUDs in question here you will clearly see that pregnancy is a medical contraindication for their implantation because they may cause "spontaneous abortion". That's not a Catholic or evangelical talking point that is the FDA required medical information product insert. So if the FDA, medical pharmacology texts and medical tests all agree that these birth controls have the potential to stop post fertilization implantation and fetal development, why does the left not see how those religiously opposed to stopping the development and life of individuals post conception have a problem with directly or indirectly paying for these medications and devices? Is it because they are anti-science, or anti-religion... or both?
Read her opinion again. She includes all these possibilities
1
If the transferred obligation - from employers to insurers - is unacceptable even with all relationship between employer and the coverage severed, it may follow that simply allowing employees to purchase the coverage on their own with money from their paycheck may be unacceptable as well.
How about purchasing pregnancy tests? Perhaps it would be better just to let things happen as the Almighty chooses?
The door is now officially opened to insanity, as the US right make the country look more and more like the religious zealots we abhor, but only when cloaked in different religious garb.
How about purchasing pregnancy tests? Perhaps it would be better just to let things happen as the Almighty chooses?
The door is now officially opened to insanity, as the US right make the country look more and more like the religious zealots we abhor, but only when cloaked in different religious garb.
34
So entering an abortion clinic is found in nature? Where, pray tell?
2
A majority of fertilized eggs that implant never make it to birth. Thus one could say that every womb is a potential site of abortion even without medical intervention.
1
Whenever religion is injected into politics and government actions it raises unacceptable conflicts. Religious stand on the matter of a woman's freedom to choose and the activities of the majority of the people of the US is too frequently an extremist view, that of a minority or religious entity trying to impose their beliefs on everybody. That is unacceptable as the Freedom Caucus, a group of 40 in the House of Congress, trying to impose their politics on the nation. Rule by a minority is never acceptable in a Democracy, because it engenders authoritarianism and its attendant restrictions on liberties.
15
The cold hard fact is that religion, in general, is suffering in the light of our increasing knowledge about 'how nature really works'. No force in the universe is going to put Pandora back into the box. It is becoming increasingly obvious that we, the humans, are responsible and accountable for our destiny. And even if that is the 'will of God', it is contrary to underlying premises of the 3 major religions.
The only smart one on the planet is Pope Francis who appears to be looking for the ultimate compromise 'reform' that will retune his religion to survive the changes in the wind (at least temporarily).
Fear not conservatives. We can and do have "morality" without religion..........and that's because WE seem to inherently know that WE are responsible and accountable for our destiny as a species.
The core lesson of all religions is respect and support for others. Why haven't the religious learned that lesson?
The only smart one on the planet is Pope Francis who appears to be looking for the ultimate compromise 'reform' that will retune his religion to survive the changes in the wind (at least temporarily).
Fear not conservatives. We can and do have "morality" without religion..........and that's because WE seem to inherently know that WE are responsible and accountable for our destiny as a species.
The core lesson of all religions is respect and support for others. Why haven't the religious learned that lesson?
17
So far, however, Francis has failed to back the Vatican away from its misogynist opposition to women's rights of conscience. Francis's push for action on climate change will not get very far unless he backs of on contraception. -- Edd Doerr (arlinc.org)
If anyone will bother, they can read literature of fifty years ago and find these same religious references that people believed allowed them to mistreat African Americans.
It is easy to say that your religion prohibits you giving even decent treatment to anyone not of your faith or ethnicity, much less fair.
Maybe that is what they intend here! Why not?
It is easy to say that your religion prohibits you giving even decent treatment to anyone not of your faith or ethnicity, much less fair.
Maybe that is what they intend here! Why not?
19
Underlying all of this is why I must pay for someone's birth control. If you think you are mature enough to have sex you should be mature enough to realize you need birth control if you don't want to get pregnant. It isn't like paying for prescriptions to cure or maintain someone's health. Pregnancy is not a sickness.
3
Pregnancy is not a sickness but 800 women per day die from it, some of them in developed nations like ours. Among those nations, the U.S. has some of the worst maternal mortality and morbidity rates. Ectopic pregnncies, pre-eclampsia, hemorrhage, and other life- and health-threatening issues are not as rare as you think.
I take it you'd be fine with your insurance premiums covering the expensive treatments for these problems, as well as for all the babies delivered prematurely to save the mother. Trust me, reliable access to effective birth control is cheaper. Besides, why shouldn't men contribute? It's men's involvement in sex that causes women to need birth control; why should the cost be wholly on women?
I take it you'd be fine with your insurance premiums covering the expensive treatments for these problems, as well as for all the babies delivered prematurely to save the mother. Trust me, reliable access to effective birth control is cheaper. Besides, why shouldn't men contribute? It's men's involvement in sex that causes women to need birth control; why should the cost be wholly on women?
20
Simpleton answer. Perhaps some people's health may be endangered by pregnancy. Think your answer through.
7
I'm sure many of us are paying for something that you receive benefit from. Our society is too interwoven and complex to figure out what you are paying for, and then raise an objection that if carried out, results in far, far more expenses for welfare, schools, and everything else a child needs.
Paying for The Pill is a very smart thing to do.
Paying for The Pill is a very smart thing to do.
19
If the second amendment is clear, so is the first,
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
It seems that the RFRA on its face violates that provision. Should have been struck down.
We should note there are no caveats like the 2nd either.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
It seems that the RFRA on its face violates that provision. Should have been struck down.
We should note there are no caveats like the 2nd either.
10
Exactly, and the US government has EVER tried to "establish a religion" in the US. You do know what "establish" means, right? Oh. Sorry, didn't realize you did not know what that means. Just as a clue, your "argument" is totally irrelevant.
I'm left wondering, what happens when a case arrives at the Supreme Court, arguing for the "freedom" to impose one's religious beliefs onto their employees, when the litigant isn't Christian?
We need to hurry up and see that day.
We need to hurry up and see that day.
28
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/02/us/supreme-court-rules-in-samantha-ela...
No, you can't fire someone because they're imposing their Muslim beliefs on you by wearing a headscarf to work. It's already been litigated and in the NY Times.
No, you can't fire someone because they're imposing their Muslim beliefs on you by wearing a headscarf to work. It's already been litigated and in the NY Times.
But, but, but this is a Christian nation. There is only one true God, and therefore one true religions. Therefore, the First Amendment only applies to Christians.
That will be the basic argument. I am always amazed at Christians upset with other Theocracies, because what they want is a Theocracy. Just a different God. This is, in the end, simply about power and control, and a last ditch effort by old white guys (and I am in the old white guy group) to hold onto the levers of power against the inevitable demographic forces changing America.
That will be the basic argument. I am always amazed at Christians upset with other Theocracies, because what they want is a Theocracy. Just a different God. This is, in the end, simply about power and control, and a last ditch effort by old white guys (and I am in the old white guy group) to hold onto the levers of power against the inevitable demographic forces changing America.
1
Maybe Amish, no cars ,no electricity and no phones by law.
There is no such thing as a reasonably held religious belief. Since there is no god there is no religious belief that is reasonable.
18
What is truly sought by the plaintiffs is a private veto over generally applicable law. And, a majority of the US Supreme Court, only because they recognize the religion the plaintiff's claim to be exercising, appear willing to grant the this veto.
The proof: When the issue was non-white members of the non-Abrahamic and social marginal Native American Church, Justice Scalia found that religious belief did not trump a 'physical action' prohibited by a neutral law of general applicability.
Now comes members of schismatic portions of the Christian division of the followers of the god of Abraham -- who are not marginal, but have money, power and privilege -- and the 'logic' of Scalia's pronouncements in the 'Peyote Case' are turned upside down and inside out, just for them.
The proof: When the issue was non-white members of the non-Abrahamic and social marginal Native American Church, Justice Scalia found that religious belief did not trump a 'physical action' prohibited by a neutral law of general applicability.
Now comes members of schismatic portions of the Christian division of the followers of the god of Abraham -- who are not marginal, but have money, power and privilege -- and the 'logic' of Scalia's pronouncements in the 'Peyote Case' are turned upside down and inside out, just for them.
31
The real issue here is: How will the most corporation-friendly SCOTUS in our history see the interests of corporations?
The unifying threads in the Roberts Court appear to be:
Does a state or federal law impose restrictions on a corporation? If so, overturn it.
Does the state or federal law impose restrictions on real, breathing humans? If so, uphold it.
The unifying threads in the Roberts Court appear to be:
Does a state or federal law impose restrictions on a corporation? If so, overturn it.
Does the state or federal law impose restrictions on real, breathing humans? If so, uphold it.
13
Just commenting to share how much I look forward to and appreciate your columns, from LGBTQ rights to health care to death penalty to more, you have sparked a life-long fascination with the supreme court in me. Thank you so much Linda
12
Didn't some religions until recently not allow blacks to be priests)? So why couldn't employers take the same stance and not allow blacks to be managers?
This religious stuff is nuts! I'll obey the law unless my secret voice in the sky tells me differently. Not fair!
This religious stuff is nuts! I'll obey the law unless my secret voice in the sky tells me differently. Not fair!
16
Exactly, and why the Hobby Lobby ultra fundamentalist christian right-wing cult decision was a disaster. Bader has it right that now the door is open for any cult to claim religion as a basis for denying anyone anything they please. it will come to that. but maybe non-christian cults will will have a harder time convincing the ultra-right wing, ultra-fundamentalist catholic arm of SCOTUS to see things their way.
2
In answer to your first question, it was the Latter Day Saints - "Mormons" who wouldn't allow black priests.
The underlying fact is that these groups object to contraception itself, and would probably wish the country could return to the era where it was often illegal.
9
It's not about abortion and it's not about saving innocent lives.... it's about sex. Adam disobeyed god and took a bite out of an apple in the Garden of Eden, so we are all sinners who do not deserve pleasure!
7
this entire arguments boils down to this statement. "You are free believe, as long as you don't act on your beliefs."
3
Close, but not quite. You are free [to] believe, as long as you don't . . . impose those beliefs on others.
1
Sure Clare, but by "impose your beliefs" many people mean "any action that could possibly offend anyone, anywhere". Freedom or religion is meaningless without the freedom to practice your religious beliefs.
The analysis says, with apparent approval, that RFRA was intended to protect certain religious minorities, and says it's a distortion of the law's purpose for larger religious groups to rely on it. The truth is, there can't be any favored religions under RFRA. It has to apply to everyone equally. And, just like other freedoms, religious freedom means people are allowed to have religious views you don't agree with. That's part of what it means to be live in a free society. If you want to withdraw RFRA's protections, you have to withdraw it for everyone, not just for certain disfavored religious groups.
2
"The reasonableness of a religious belief is something “the federal courts have no business addressing,” Justice Alito said."
Another example that Neanderthal mumbo jumbo outweighs scientific fact.
And on the other hand, we as a nation attempt to get more people enrolled in STEM programs. Is there some hypocrisy going on here that we are not seeing?
Another example that Neanderthal mumbo jumbo outweighs scientific fact.
And on the other hand, we as a nation attempt to get more people enrolled in STEM programs. Is there some hypocrisy going on here that we are not seeing?
2
I am unfamiliar with Ms. Greenhouse's staunch advocacy, but openly welcome it. It appears SCOTUS has veered off into a Neverland of its own crafting in recent years, overturning decades of accepted law and creating space where none previously existed. Greenhouse offers an effective countermeasure to the court's partisan excursions
7
The 5 Republicans on the Court are only interested in advancing the Republican agenda of appeasing the religious Right while advancing the causes of Wall Street and the 1%.
The Republican Justices are Republican Politicians first and foremost. To them the Law, Logic and reason, not to mention common decency, are immaterial when they are trying to appease the Republican Base.
The Republican Justices are Republican Politicians first and foremost. To them the Law, Logic and reason, not to mention common decency, are immaterial when they are trying to appease the Republican Base.
8
Whatever the truth of which contraceptives cause abortions and which prevent fertilization, when human life begins is not a matter of opinion or speculation, but of science. Only by making it about personhood would the question enter the realm of speculation and opinion.
You argue that the Court engages in elevating the free exercise clause over the establishment clause, but your opinion essentially does exactly that, making the Court the judge of the beliefs of Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, etc.. Contrary to your argument, acknowledging this free exercise right does not detract from the freedom of women wanting to contracept, it only detracts from the able to force others to subsidize it against their religious beliefs.
But it’s a burden, you say. Perhaps, but it’s a burden that should be borne by the government which has other mechanisms for satisfying its goal of making contraception widely available. Sadly, as lower courts have noted, the HHS mandate, and the multiple iterations of the rules to implement it, seem as much designed to force believers to participate in some fashion as provide free and accessible contraception.
You argue that the Court engages in elevating the free exercise clause over the establishment clause, but your opinion essentially does exactly that, making the Court the judge of the beliefs of Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, etc.. Contrary to your argument, acknowledging this free exercise right does not detract from the freedom of women wanting to contracept, it only detracts from the able to force others to subsidize it against their religious beliefs.
But it’s a burden, you say. Perhaps, but it’s a burden that should be borne by the government which has other mechanisms for satisfying its goal of making contraception widely available. Sadly, as lower courts have noted, the HHS mandate, and the multiple iterations of the rules to implement it, seem as much designed to force believers to participate in some fashion as provide free and accessible contraception.
1
The court would not be judging their beliefs but only if the program constituted a "substantial burden". Courts do that balancing test all the time. Further, running a business isn't the free exercise of religion. Likewise, the idea that it's designed to force believers to participate is a bit paranoid; it's aimed at all employers and is no more unjust in terms of forcing some to subsidize it then collecting taxes from Quakers that partially go to defense.
1
As usual, the same people who are so hyper-concerned with protecting a tiny clump of undifferentiated cells because it a "potential human being" have a remarkable disdain for helping that human being once it becomes actual, that is, when it is born.
15
I wonder if single-payer would change the dynamic.
If one receives Medicare (a single payer system), it doesn’t seem that your employer has any possible right to interfere with your benefits, does it? So, if there was Medicare-for-all, the Hobby Lobby case could never have occurred?
Yet another reason why single-payer makes sense.
If one receives Medicare (a single payer system), it doesn’t seem that your employer has any possible right to interfere with your benefits, does it? So, if there was Medicare-for-all, the Hobby Lobby case could never have occurred?
Yet another reason why single-payer makes sense.
22
FYI, the Green family, the owners of Hobby Lobby, have been caught dealing in illegal antiquities that they planned to put into their Biblical museum. I'm sure that the Supreme Court will invalidate any charges brought against them.
8
This author is right on. Lawsuits fund by the religious right are part of a larger tactic to deprive basic civil rights to those who do not share a particular religious viewpoint. Let's be perfectly clear that three members of the Supreme Court, Scalia, Thomas and Alito (possibly Roberts' as well) are fine with that objective. If the Court accepts one of these cases it may well rule in favor of the classification of our society, which is what the loss of the right to be engaged in commerce and civic life and seek employment free of a religious standard would entail. Ironically, the result will be exactly what the religious right cites as the very reason for their aggressive tactics; the destruction of our American values. How crazy is that? It seems to me that over the last two decades or so, beginning with the ascendancy of Newt Gingrich, when the religious right begins to bellow in earnest about a threatened American value, it is the rest of the nation that soon feels the loss, not those of the religious right doing the bellowing. I believe a smoke screen would be an apt analogy for such a tactic. Complain about activist judges, elect and appoint right wing activist judges; screech about restrictions on religious observance, elect legislators that restrict societal behavior based on a religious standard; bemoan litmus tests for judicial appointments, use a pro-life litmus test to screen appointments. Take note. This is far from over.
8
Wait, if a child is a gift of God, then abortion, can occur before coitus. If a divinely intended child is not realized, then abstention might be considered a form of abortion. By all means, let's pursue these kinds of phony religious arguments such as cited by Ms. Greenhouse to their ultimate and absurd limits.
7
I don't understand why all you people are so eager to take away my religious freedom to not take part in the process of filling out a form that says I don't want to take part in the process of someone who doesn't subscribe to my religious beliefs independently exercising her own rights to do things differently than my religion prescribes, without any participation by me!
Next you nuts will be telling me I can't refuse to fill out my 1040 and pay tax, whereas my sincere and strong religious belief is that it is completely wrong to fund in any way the actions of others, especially government, that are against my religious beliefs. Like art, public television, food for the hungry, war, and education.
(Oops, sorry, war IS advocated by my religion… war against any who don't agree with my religion. So I guess I can send in that bit of tax.)
Next you nuts will be telling me I can't refuse to fill out my 1040 and pay tax, whereas my sincere and strong religious belief is that it is completely wrong to fund in any way the actions of others, especially government, that are against my religious beliefs. Like art, public television, food for the hungry, war, and education.
(Oops, sorry, war IS advocated by my religion… war against any who don't agree with my religion. So I guess I can send in that bit of tax.)
10
The gravaman of the objectors' position is that they claim the right to impose their beliefs of their employees, by denying them access to health care options provided under secular law. Nothing else will do. That's not free exercise, it is the infliction of those beliefs on unwilling others, which the First Amendment does not condone.
In any saner era, that fact would be obvious and sufficient, without having to opine on the (otherwise evident) absurdity of the underlying belief system. One fable is as good as another -- until you want to force me to believe it.
In any saner era, that fact would be obvious and sufficient, without having to opine on the (otherwise evident) absurdity of the underlying belief system. One fable is as good as another -- until you want to force me to believe it.
9
Apparently, in the minds of these naysayers, conception occurs at ejaculation. Also apparently, they cannot conceive (pardon the word) a situation in which one more child is going to be detrimental to the health and financial well-being of the existing children.
5
Having created a political spending free-for-all in Citizens United, the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby reasoning now threatens to undermine the structure of our economic interactions as well.
An orderly society requires uniform and equal application of laws. The reasoning of Hobby Lobby and its possible progeny can lead to a form of anarchy, in which every workplace and place of business has its own customized interpretation and application (or non-application) of certain laws. Prospective employees, customers and patients, etc., would be faced with a daunting task of identifying the unique privately-imposed legal system applicable to each specific situation.
Perhaps the justices commonly described as conservatives, and decried as reactionaries, are really secret anarchists.
An orderly society requires uniform and equal application of laws. The reasoning of Hobby Lobby and its possible progeny can lead to a form of anarchy, in which every workplace and place of business has its own customized interpretation and application (or non-application) of certain laws. Prospective employees, customers and patients, etc., would be faced with a daunting task of identifying the unique privately-imposed legal system applicable to each specific situation.
Perhaps the justices commonly described as conservatives, and decried as reactionaries, are really secret anarchists.
5
Strange that all of these "religious" organizations never hesitate to formally request tax exempt status from the IRS so they can avoid paying anything to support all of the government services they never seem to refuse to accept.
13
A funny thing happened on the way to the podium. A Catholic Speaker resigned and was praised by a past Speaker who is also Catholic, who then went on to introduce the new Speaker who is also Catholic.
What's up with America and its affair with Rome?
What's up with America and its affair with Rome?
1
Yeah , but they have little in common with the present occupant of the Vatican
He is much too liberal for them.
He is much too liberal for them.
The human "soul" is the software we program into ourselves from the experience of living. This is why birth is the rational time to legally establish the beginning of life.
2
Terrific piece. We should not be at all surprised by absurd "reasoning" or results from the courts. If the RFRA effectively provides everyone a religious veto to any law, the basis of our entire legal system is profoundly philosophically undermined. By definition, there are no rational strictures on religious beliefs; virtually anything can be cited as a "religious" reason not to follow the law. God help us.
4
Gods help us.
So, placing restrictions which are totally medically unnecessary and serve no purpose except to force a clinic out of business on medical clinics that perform abortions does not "substantially burden" a women's right to choose, but a religious charity having to fill out a form DOES "substantially burden" their religious liberties? That is the logical corner which Justice Alito and his Four Horseman have backed American women into.
12
Seems to me that under Hobby Lobby, businesses owned by Christian Scientists should not be required to pay for any health insurance whatsoever. Am I missing something?
9
The conservative SCOTUS justices with their holier-than-thou calls for religious freedom, and the rest of us who want freedom FROM religion, can all achieve exactly what we want. All it takes is single-payer, universal healthcare for all Americans.
Think about it: yes, there will be a tax increase to pay for it. But the price will be far less than paying premiums to private insurance companies which means each working American and, every company, from small mom-and-pops to the largest corporations will no longer be paying insurance premiums for their employees.
The argument against single-payer universal healthcare is all about philosophy, not the economics. Furthermore, for those right-wing Christians who keep voting for Tea Party GOP candidates, you will finally have a clear conscience. WHY! Because the GOP philosophy of monetizing healthcare at the expense of such a basic human need goes against the teachings of Jesus (Jesus Christ, if you are so inclined). Jesus taught empathy and compassion for the sick, the old, the infirm, the poor. Unfortunately, today's right wing Christian seems to be embracing Ayn Rand instead of Jesus.
Year after year, the Republican party has tried to privatize Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, or kill those plans altogether. With the ever-rising costs for essential goods and services, could anyone with air in their lungs imagine that privatizing those federal services (entitlements) will benefit those who need them the most? C'mon!
Think about it: yes, there will be a tax increase to pay for it. But the price will be far less than paying premiums to private insurance companies which means each working American and, every company, from small mom-and-pops to the largest corporations will no longer be paying insurance premiums for their employees.
The argument against single-payer universal healthcare is all about philosophy, not the economics. Furthermore, for those right-wing Christians who keep voting for Tea Party GOP candidates, you will finally have a clear conscience. WHY! Because the GOP philosophy of monetizing healthcare at the expense of such a basic human need goes against the teachings of Jesus (Jesus Christ, if you are so inclined). Jesus taught empathy and compassion for the sick, the old, the infirm, the poor. Unfortunately, today's right wing Christian seems to be embracing Ayn Rand instead of Jesus.
Year after year, the Republican party has tried to privatize Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, or kill those plans altogether. With the ever-rising costs for essential goods and services, could anyone with air in their lungs imagine that privatizing those federal services (entitlements) will benefit those who need them the most? C'mon!
7
It's time for all religious institutions to get out of women's pants. Health care decisions should be personal, not subject to veto by some religious group or one of its nonprofit affiliates.
11
The heart of the issue is simple: does "freedom of religion" go beyond the right to free exercise of one's own religion, and include the right to impose one's religious views on the legal choices of others?
The answer cannot be yes in a tolerant and diverse society. If the answer were yes, we would be faced with an absurd result: while the First Amendment would protect us from a governmental establishment of religion, it would allow any individual or entity to create an establishment of religion over their employees, customers, patients and anyone else subject to their influence.
The answer cannot be yes in a tolerant and diverse society. If the answer were yes, we would be faced with an absurd result: while the First Amendment would protect us from a governmental establishment of religion, it would allow any individual or entity to create an establishment of religion over their employees, customers, patients and anyone else subject to their influence.
15
These arguments are all nonsense. There is no "freedom of religion" issue here. The claim being made is about religious coercion. Employers do NOT have the right to impose their religious beliefs on employees (with the partial exception of religious functionaries employed by religious organizations).
The Hobby Lobby argument is essentially the following: God says contraception is a sin and I live in a democratic society that allows this sin so I am complicit when people commit this sin. In some cases because of the authority and power I have over others, e.g. my employees, I can use my power to prevent them from committing such heinous acts as having protected sex. The federal government has no right to protect the rights of my employees against my religious conviction that I should abuse my power and force my religious beliefs, theology, and morality upon them.
Instead of ruling that such arguments are absolutely undemocratic, the current ideological Supreme Court of Fools uses sophomoric reasoning to allow employers to force their religious beliefs on employees. Moreover, in addition to sophomoric reasoning that would have led to failing law school, they also pretend that the arguments are genuine rather than ploys to push a clericalist political agenda.
The Hobby Lobby argument is essentially the following: God says contraception is a sin and I live in a democratic society that allows this sin so I am complicit when people commit this sin. In some cases because of the authority and power I have over others, e.g. my employees, I can use my power to prevent them from committing such heinous acts as having protected sex. The federal government has no right to protect the rights of my employees against my religious conviction that I should abuse my power and force my religious beliefs, theology, and morality upon them.
Instead of ruling that such arguments are absolutely undemocratic, the current ideological Supreme Court of Fools uses sophomoric reasoning to allow employers to force their religious beliefs on employees. Moreover, in addition to sophomoric reasoning that would have led to failing law school, they also pretend that the arguments are genuine rather than ploys to push a clericalist political agenda.
18
The practical solution would be to exempt the employer from providing health insurance and letting employees buy privately through the exchange.
1
Frankly the court should require the religion to prove their god exists in the first place - such as physical proof as the god must show up at court and prove it existence - otherwise it is just a make believe entity
28
Remember when John F. Kennedy was considered a questionable candidate for president due to his Catholic beliefs? People were afraid that his first allegiance would be to the Pope, rather than to the Constitution. Turns out there was no reason to worry about JFK, but the overall concern was quite well-founded. Just look at our Supreme Court, House of Representatives, and GOP candidates for president.
18
It seems to me that many people do not grasp what the religious nonprofits are actually contending, or many more people would be outraged.
The nonprofits are asserting that standing aside and _allowing_ their employees to obtain their contraception coverage through an insurer constitutes "complicity" in the objected-to contraception. By that reasoning, if the employees used their salaries to purchase the contraception, the nonprofits would be just as complicit. There is no transmutation of the employer's money that permits it to avoid responsibility.
The only word for this sweepingly expansive view of guilt is "insane". Wait, there's another word: illegal. These employers want to exercise an infinitely extensible veto over their employees' lawful actions.
This should have been obvious to the Court in the Hobby Lobby case, which permitted employers' beliefs to trump employees, but obviously the reactionary majority doesn't find extending employers' authority troubling. I don't hold out hope that the reactionary majority will object to infinitely transitive guilt, either. If it does, it'll have to tie itself into pretzel knots to make the decision consonant with Hobby Lobby.
The nonprofits are asserting that standing aside and _allowing_ their employees to obtain their contraception coverage through an insurer constitutes "complicity" in the objected-to contraception. By that reasoning, if the employees used their salaries to purchase the contraception, the nonprofits would be just as complicit. There is no transmutation of the employer's money that permits it to avoid responsibility.
The only word for this sweepingly expansive view of guilt is "insane". Wait, there's another word: illegal. These employers want to exercise an infinitely extensible veto over their employees' lawful actions.
This should have been obvious to the Court in the Hobby Lobby case, which permitted employers' beliefs to trump employees, but obviously the reactionary majority doesn't find extending employers' authority troubling. I don't hold out hope that the reactionary majority will object to infinitely transitive guilt, either. If it does, it'll have to tie itself into pretzel knots to make the decision consonant with Hobby Lobby.
42
"...can be permitted to impair the rights of non-adherents to the benefits designed by a secular government to apply to all. "
Ms. Greenhouse; doesn't this statement, which includes an assumption, chrystalize the problem?
The assumption, is that the secular government can create "rights" to benefits.
In truth, aren't "rights" only bestowed by the "Creator?"
Aren't "benefits" "bestowed" by the "secular government" actually redistribution of tax dollars collected at the point of a gun?
Isn't the problem that the "secular government" has created a "scheme" using tax dollars to provide "benefits" which must be further implemented by the involuntary participation of the employer?
Isn't the problem, really, Central Planning?
Ms. Greenhouse; doesn't this statement, which includes an assumption, chrystalize the problem?
The assumption, is that the secular government can create "rights" to benefits.
In truth, aren't "rights" only bestowed by the "Creator?"
Aren't "benefits" "bestowed" by the "secular government" actually redistribution of tax dollars collected at the point of a gun?
Isn't the problem that the "secular government" has created a "scheme" using tax dollars to provide "benefits" which must be further implemented by the involuntary participation of the employer?
Isn't the problem, really, Central Planning?
2
Thanks for outlinng why the Government should impose a single payer system and completely decouple health care coverage from employment. It not only would be far better for business, but it would enable employees to avoid busybody employers from imposing a for profit religion upon their employees.
Ace, as for rights only being conferred by the creator, she didn't stop centuries of slavery and human trafficking. That was government, overcoming resistance, at the point of a gun.
Ace, as for rights only being conferred by the creator, she didn't stop centuries of slavery and human trafficking. That was government, overcoming resistance, at the point of a gun.
5
No benefits are 'only bestowed by the creator' as no one has yet proven such an entity exists. Consequently, anyone claiming their conscience is harmed by requiring them to do what the non-existent entity they imagine says not to do is a piece of foolishness. They should not be allowed to foist their imaginary entity's notions on anyone else than themselves, if they're dumb enough to believe such nonsense.
1
ace mckellog -
You're aiming too high. You added a word that Ms. Greenhouse did not use -- 'rights.'
She only wrote of 'benefits' -- and you incorrectly construed what word actually means.
She merely meant it as 'health insurance benefits -- a contractual feature, nothing more.
You're aiming too high. You added a word that Ms. Greenhouse did not use -- 'rights.'
She only wrote of 'benefits' -- and you incorrectly construed what word actually means.
She merely meant it as 'health insurance benefits -- a contractual feature, nothing more.
2
It's futile trying to argue for religion-blind legislation and law. Fanatics simply will not stand for it, whether they are screaming outside abortion clinics or engaging in obtuse doublethink legalese from the highest bench in the land. I'm not optimistic about the future.
20
It seems the right wing fanatics on the court are in the process of putting the Establishment Clause in the same dustbin of history where they chucked "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state."
Quite frankly, for these judicial activists to characterize themselves as "originalists" is the most rank hypocrisy.
Quite frankly, for these judicial activists to characterize themselves as "originalists" is the most rank hypocrisy.
2
Constitutional law, as written, already makes this whole issue moot by prohibiting faith-based legislation. When the Supreme Court opens its eyes to the reality of faith-based legislation, it will have to rule it all unconstitutional.
1
The fact that the extension of the RFRA to claims by ostensibly religious organizations that "impair the rights of non-adherents" finds no support in either the nation's traditions or Supreme Court precedent will not cause the Roberts Court's majority a moment's hesitation. No more than it did in Citizens United. McCutcheon v. FEC, or any of the other cases this court has used to impose its unique vision of corporations as "persons" entitled to all the rights reserved for actual, living, breathing human beings (sorry, not fertilized eggs) by the Bill of Rights.
11
It seems to me that these organizations are worried that their employees might actually want contraceptives (and to have them provided by their insurance coverage). That is, they want this control over their employees because providing contraceptives would go against the personal beliefs of the leaders of the organization, independent of the personal beliefs of the employees. Typical of religions and religious organizations to demand that sort of control over people.
19
You can want total control over everyone. The problem arises when our government seriously allows some people to control other's choices.
1
Hobby Lobby was a terrible decision. Corporations are creatures of the state that are legally different than their owners. If the owner/shareholders wish to have the protection of limited liability afforded by a corporation they cannot say that their beliefs are the same as the corporations.
37
It's more than time to remove the tax-exempt status rewarded to organized religion, whether of the Huge Catholic variety down to the store fronts. Talk about wasted tax dollars. We have more than enough hypocrites and frauds accepting tax dollars and exemptions while they, seemingly unhindered, attempt to hijack our Constitution. I don't care what religious groups do to help the less-fortunate. Remember, Al Capone ran soup kitchens during the Depression!
22
The bottom line here is that conservatives are trying to use the court system to impose their views of morality on everybody else. That's why Hillary Clinton needs to be the next President of the United State, to appoint justices to the courts who will not impose this on the rest of us.
19
I'm sure Bernie Sanders will appoint judges who respect our civil rights.
1
Hobby Lobby is another company that is trying to get out of giving their workers health insurance. It was never about religious beliefs. We are heading to a show down on whether we continue to allow any religious organization to interfere with our laws. We have been able to control our population growth because of contraceptives and other measures. These court rulings will definitely lead to an amendment if the religious right continue to push us to deciding whether religion is at all worth having in our country. We see how religion is being used in the Middle East and it sickens us. We hold that all men are created equal but the religious right wants to decide who those men are. We have kept religion out of our country's laws because they discriminate based solely on their beliefs and judge people solely on their beliefs. We must make sure they do not change our laws by sending a clear message that this will not be tolerated.
13
In a concurring opinion in City of Boerne v. Flores, a case decided in 1997, Justice Stevens said that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act should itself be declared an unconstitutional establishment of religion. In his words, the statute gives every church, self-proclaimed or otherwise, "a weapon that no atheist or agnostic can obtain."
The cases that are now making their way to the Supreme Court prove just how right he was. RFRA was a baby step on the road to theocracy.
The cases that are now making their way to the Supreme Court prove just how right he was. RFRA was a baby step on the road to theocracy.
31
It is time to remove all yes ALL tax exemptions for any religious based organization or for private organizations that claim god is their co pilot. Religion is a private matter between the professor and their g*d and not between g*d and the public. All public displays of a god should be removed. All claims to a god should be removed, and no god should open any governmental meeting, ball game or similar activity. A nondescript God is not the issue. What is the issue is the sanctimonious self important, self righteous hypocrites who use a god as an excuse to promote their hate, bigotry and poor behavior and exclusionary practices.
13
All the comments here are so polarized. It's disheartening. I still for one don't understand why everyone has to pay for birth control. I'm a woman and always felt that if I chose to have sex, I'd be the one to make that choice and to choose how to stop getting pregnant. The pill was not too expensive, and frankly most insurance companies covered it. But that was back before my out of pocket and deductibles reached over $10,000. Thanks ACA for your utter failure to address rising costs and thanks NYTimes for continuing to lie about this piece of lousy legislation that has still not been read by most of those implementing it.
Hobby Lobby was a good compromise, and a good decision based on law and the constitution. I realize that progressives would like everything free, but...
And I also realize the other side of this coin isn't too happy either - they don't want anyone to cover birth control. They want abstinence, or ???
In the end, we need compromise. One side pushes for an inch and then wants a mile and vice versa. When are people going to start to think again?
Hobby Lobby was a good compromise, and a good decision based on law and the constitution. I realize that progressives would like everything free, but...
And I also realize the other side of this coin isn't too happy either - they don't want anyone to cover birth control. They want abstinence, or ???
In the end, we need compromise. One side pushes for an inch and then wants a mile and vice versa. When are people going to start to think again?
3
Thank you, Mary. So glad to not be the only one..
Mary, the most effective, reliable birth control methods are long-acting -- hormone implants and IUD's -- but have a much higher upfront cost than pills, one that many low-income women cannot afford. (Even used correctly, pills have a much higher failure rate -- I know several children conceived in this way.) So employers choosing not to cover implants or IUD's are in effect making medical decisions for employees, based on the employer's beliefs.
Why is this judicial nonsense continuing? It leads inexorably to the conclusion that anyone can avoid compliance with any law by saying that it offends her religious convictions. A clear win for the otherwise obscure county clerk who refused to issue a marriage license to a gay couple.
But what about the people -- and there are many of them -- who claim it violates their religious beliefs to pay income taxes? Those claims are contemptuously dismissed by the courts. So, ah ha, it turns out that judges do have to determine whether there's any rational basis for refusing to comply with the law based on religious convictions.
But what about the people -- and there are many of them -- who claim it violates their religious beliefs to pay income taxes? Those claims are contemptuously dismissed by the courts. So, ah ha, it turns out that judges do have to determine whether there's any rational basis for refusing to comply with the law based on religious convictions.
7
Greenhouse: Judge Roger L. Wollman said that the question was not whether the ministry or its affiliated school “have correctly interpreted the law, but whether they have a sincere religious belief that their participation in the accommodation process makes them morally and spiritually complicit in providing abortifacient coverage.”
To "provide" something requires "making available." How is the opting out of the requirement to cover contraception making the employer a provider. They are NOT "providing" or paying for any contraception coverage.
To "provide" something requires "making available." How is the opting out of the requirement to cover contraception making the employer a provider. They are NOT "providing" or paying for any contraception coverage.
4
The HHS regs. specify that the "opt-out" is supposed to guarantee that the Employer will not be in any way involved in activity “to contract, arrange, pay, or refer for contraceptive coverage,”. Now, HHS has instructed Insurance Carriers that upon receipt of the "opt-out" they are to use it as a "lead generator" and contact each insured under the Employer's Policy inviting them to enroll for separate contraceptive coverage. This puts the Employer in the position of arranging or referring their Employees for coverage, which according to the regulations they are not required to do. Now HHS could just advertise that "if your Employer has opted out contact your Insurance Carrier and get the contraceptive coverage for free, but that would be to easy and would end the fighting, something the Administration does not want to do.
1
You have hit on the crux of the situation. The argument is that by filling out paperwork to not provide contraception, they automatically move the responsibility to the insurer to provide it instead. That action makes contraception available, and makes them complicit. So, the only workable solution is that no one provides contraception coverage for their employees.
Yes, you read that right. *NOT* providing contraception makes one complicit in providing contraception. And one judge bought the argument.
Yes, you read that right. *NOT* providing contraception makes one complicit in providing contraception. And one judge bought the argument.
Religion belongs in the heart and mind of the individual and nowhere else.
Health care is a burden to employers and it makes no sense to straddle them with this complicated, ever-changing requirement. Universal, cost-controled, government coverage payed for by every individual according to her/his means is the solution waiting to be discovered.
Health care is a burden to employers and it makes no sense to straddle them with this complicated, ever-changing requirement. Universal, cost-controled, government coverage payed for by every individual according to her/his means is the solution waiting to be discovered.
9
One's means are generally reflected in one's spending, which is why many countries have chosen to fund their national health plans with a value-added tax.
1
I love it when one of my tunnel-vision religious friends or acquaintances - even family members - say they will pray for me if I don't agree with their religious beliefs. I tell them to pray for themselves - I have a direct line to my creator and do not need anyone to act as a "middle man/woman" and muddy my personal link.
6
Prayer is at best an artifice to reinforce the delusion that nature has an empathetic human personality. To put it more bluntly, prayer masturbates narcissism.
7
Balderdash....same old fear tactics, with little understanding of the legal argument and the fact that "doomsday" has not and will not occur and that all affected can get contraceptive coverage free for the asking.
The one thing that Ms. Greenhouse got correct was that the HHS regs. specify that the "opt-out" is supposed to guarantee that the Employer will not be in any way involved in activity “to contract, arrange, pay, or refer for contraceptive coverage,”. Now, HHS has instructed Insurance Carriers that upon receipt of the "opt-out" they are to use it as a "lead generator" and contact each insured under the Employer's Policy inviting them to enroll for separate contraceptive coverage. This puts the Employer in the position of arranging or referring their Employees for coverage, which according to the regulations they are not required to do. Now HHS could just advertise that "if your Employer has opted out contact your Insurance Carrier and get the contraceptive coverage for free, but that would be to easy and would end the fighting, something the Administration does not want to do.
The one thing that Ms. Greenhouse got correct was that the HHS regs. specify that the "opt-out" is supposed to guarantee that the Employer will not be in any way involved in activity “to contract, arrange, pay, or refer for contraceptive coverage,”. Now, HHS has instructed Insurance Carriers that upon receipt of the "opt-out" they are to use it as a "lead generator" and contact each insured under the Employer's Policy inviting them to enroll for separate contraceptive coverage. This puts the Employer in the position of arranging or referring their Employees for coverage, which according to the regulations they are not required to do. Now HHS could just advertise that "if your Employer has opted out contact your Insurance Carrier and get the contraceptive coverage for free, but that would be to easy and would end the fighting, something the Administration does not want to do.
4
An excellent op-ed by Ms. Greenhouse. Two thoughts: (1) my vote for President will hinge upon the fact that the next President will likely have at least one Supreme Court nomination with enormous long-term consequences for our nation; and (2) if one buys the arguments of evangelicals, what is to stop such employers from demanding that their employees not spend their paychecks on things that violate the employer's religious faith - e.g., alcohol, meat, medical services for blood transfusions or vaccinations, etc., etc., etc? Hobby Lobby was a terrible decision - employers merely pay for the insurance policy which, in turn, offers an array of services that the employee may or may not uitlize; much like with a paycheck, it should be the the employee's prerogative alone to determine what services he/she will utilize without first asking permission of a corporation that has somehow sprouted "faith-based" beliefs.
19
The very concept that religious claims trump all other considerations (health, liberty, equal protection) are secondary.This is the end of the secular republic that our Founders gave us. Contrary to Rightist claims, our Founders produced a document more influenced by the Enlightenment, not the Old Testament
19
Not true, no one's rights are being trumped. Contraceptive coverage for employees whose Employers opt out is free for the asking. Our secular republic remains strong.
Nicholas Kristoff has lifted the veil of theocratic gov't in Saudi Arabia today with his op-ed. Exposing a country so enslaved to religious dogma they reduce half their population to chattel, whippping and crucifying those missed by the headscarf police. And right after Niick we have the ever enlightening Linda Greenhouse pointing out the machinations of our own court system's tireless effort to install Sharia of the west. Anthony M. Kennedy may be the "swing vote" of the present court, but Scalia, Thomas and the nail in the coffin Alito are the toll gate, appeasing this terrified minority our march toward enlightenment can be hobbled.
Freedom from religion, that's what I hope for., unlikely in my remaining years but I am hopeful for my adult children.
Freedom from religion, that's what I hope for., unlikely in my remaining years but I am hopeful for my adult children.
18
The next argument presented by the religious nut jobs (and endorsed by SCOTUS's Fascist Five - at least Clarence Thomas):
"My employee might use money from her paycheck to purchase contraception on her own. That makes me morally and spiritually complicit. Therefore, I should not have to pay my female workers."
"My employee might use money from her paycheck to purchase contraception on her own. That makes me morally and spiritually complicit. Therefore, I should not have to pay my female workers."
20
In this one case, the religious nut jobs wouldn't limit their objections to their female workers. Some sects -- the RCC, anyone? -- find it just as objectionable for men to use contraception.
You take a position held by someone else which is different from your own but which makes sense on its own turns, and replace it with another one which makes no sense. And then you proceed to attack this invented position which no one holds, and no one has held.
This is not the way to bring the country together.
How on earth can we create peace between Shias and Sunnis or between Israel and the Palestinians, if we cannot create peace here between pro-lifers and pro-choicers?
Disrespect for the views of others is the way wars begin.
This is not the way to bring the country together.
How on earth can we create peace between Shias and Sunnis or between Israel and the Palestinians, if we cannot create peace here between pro-lifers and pro-choicers?
Disrespect for the views of others is the way wars begin.
1
There is a simple, but politically difficult, way to avoid this entire problem. Get employers out of the business of providing health insurance for their employees. Give employees a salary alone and let them chose what kind of health insurance they want to buy (as well as any other benefit.) No government mandates for coverage. If you want contraceptive coverage, get a plan with it. If not, don't.
To those who say that employers will drop health coverage and not increase salaries, even Paul Krugman agrees that the cost of health insurance is borne by be employee in the form of reduced wages. In fact one reason salaries have been static for the past decade has been the increased cost of health insurance.
Unfortunately, most people will continue to believe that employer provided health insurance is "free" even though it is not.
To those who say that employers will drop health coverage and not increase salaries, even Paul Krugman agrees that the cost of health insurance is borne by be employee in the form of reduced wages. In fact one reason salaries have been static for the past decade has been the increased cost of health insurance.
Unfortunately, most people will continue to believe that employer provided health insurance is "free" even though it is not.
7
The rest of the world thinks the insurance company, plan and network redundancy of the US insurance systems is the reason it costs twice as much and delivers inferior public heath compared to single-payer systems.
It costs the US extra to be the last country in the world not measuring by the Metric System too.
It costs the US extra to be the last country in the world not measuring by the Metric System too.
6
The problem with your idea is that most employers will not increase wages to cover the cost of the workers' insurance. They will just keep the money.
Thank you once again, Ms. Greenhouse, for shedding light on a subject most Americans do not understand. Yes, it is time to REPEAL the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and take away religious organizations' tax-free status. Rabid religionists would like nothing more than to have a taliban-like christianity take over America. It is time to put religion back into homes and places of worship. NOW.
31
The RFRA is unconstitutional on its face. It mandates Congress to give respect to establishments of religion, beliefs held solely on the basis of faith.
The Hobby Lobby decision breathed new life into the religious right, and they intend to milk it for all it is worth. SCOTUS needs to establish a very bright, clear line in the sand, or rather in stone, that their rights end when they try to impose them on others. Period.
The true irony is that in trying to impose their beliefs, they actually drive more people away.
The true irony is that in trying to impose their beliefs, they actually drive more people away.
7
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
2
Another boffo piece by Ms. Greenhouse. Brava! as another reader has noted.
4
Well, Dick, perhaps you might expound on the "boffo" piece and give supporting wisdom to your comment, as now it lacks in both reason and comprehension.
How about this Supreme Court? If there is a law that I don't like, all I have to do is say I have a religious objection, and then I don't have to obey it? That should work out just find for everybody. Why limit this concept to just birth control?
11
Hailing from the state that tried to pass a law allowing wedding cake bakers to not serve gay couples on religious grounds, it is clear implantation by any definition has absolutely nothing to do with why this case or Hobby Lobby has reached the supreme court at all.
That I no longer honor the court with capitalization is my way of signifying that until the meeting with the truth, I have little respect for the court at all (Sorry Honorable Ginsburg for a lifetime on the front lines of the truth and whom I find impeccable with each and every opinion handed down.) Despite the number of supposedly balanced opinions, it is the breadth of the few including Hobby Lobby, Citizens United and on ACA, the country has been transformed and degraded. How dare they destroy the country for everybody for the interests of a few.
That I no longer honor the court with capitalization is my way of signifying that until the meeting with the truth, I have little respect for the court at all (Sorry Honorable Ginsburg for a lifetime on the front lines of the truth and whom I find impeccable with each and every opinion handed down.) Despite the number of supposedly balanced opinions, it is the breadth of the few including Hobby Lobby, Citizens United and on ACA, the country has been transformed and degraded. How dare they destroy the country for everybody for the interests of a few.
5
I'll accept the 'sincerity' of their religious beliefs when they start objecting to coverage of ED medication, like Viagra and all the other pills that are freely advertised on TV. Until then, it's just a more and more desperate attempt to control women.
12
Thanks Linda! As usual, a thoughtful, informative piece on a serious subject written in language that is approachable by the average reader. Sadly, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court seems to lack both the wit and moral fibre of the average reader of the New York Times. Therefore, I expect another hare-brained decision in favour of right wing, religious intolerance in the guise of First Amendment rights.
9
Excellent reporting: thank you.
7
Except that it wasn't reporting. It was an editorial column which mixed fact with opinion. "Reporting" is supposed to be fact.
Let us not forget that George W Bush became president because Scalia "believed" that he should, and so stopped the recount in Florida that would have "proven" that Gore was the next president.
15
Despite the number of religious organizations bringing suit over this issue, their "problem" lacks simple and clear common sense and in any normal world would be rejected -- period. The fact that the Court is even considering looking at these cases tells you the fix is in. The right wing ideologues have already decided what they want to do: make government as impotent as possible. Another nail in the coffin of our democracy.
11
Ironic that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was passed by Congress in 1993 in outraged response to the Supreme Court's decision, majority opinion by Justice Scalia, in Oregon Dep't of Employment v. Smith, the "peyote case." Scalia wrote that laws of general application not targeted at any religious group need not carve out accomodations for religious minorities. Scalia's embrace of Hobby Lobby shows it is really all about whose ox is being gored.
24
Here's a multiple choice question. Who should nominate the next Supreme Court Justice? Choose one:
Hillary Clinton
Bernie Sanders
Donald Trump
Ben Carson
Ted Cruz
Marco Rubio
Mike Huckabee
etc.
Hillary Clinton
Bernie Sanders
Donald Trump
Ben Carson
Ted Cruz
Marco Rubio
Mike Huckabee
etc.
74
When I looked at this list of Presidential pretenders, it seemed to be the order in which I would trust their nominations. Trump would recommend his "hot" wife, but, still, preferable to the Roberts Court.
Are we citizens of the United States, where everyone is expected to obey the laws of the land, or are we citizens of our religious sects, first, and only obey the laws that don't offend our religious beliefs? The latter is what the religious right is shooting for (although they seem to assume only Christians would be given this right to ignore laws that offend them).
At some point we must make it clear that all citizens must obey all our civil laws and be treated equally. People should understand that they are free to join a religion (or not), just as they are free to give to the charities of their choice and root for the sport teams of their choice.
At some point we must make it clear that all citizens must obey all our civil laws and be treated equally. People should understand that they are free to join a religion (or not), just as they are free to give to the charities of their choice and root for the sport teams of their choice.
21
Religion is a shield against reality. Whenever reality penetrates the shield, the religious whip out their spears and slay their enemies in the name of God.
I mean, God gave us two hands, what else are we supposed to do with the one that's not holding the shield?
I mean, God gave us two hands, what else are we supposed to do with the one that's not holding the shield?
"everyone is expected to obey the laws of the land"
May I conclude that you oppose "sanctuary cities"?
May I conclude that you oppose "sanctuary cities"?
1
Creating a new law as Linda Greenhouse suggests, isn't the answer (e.g., the Establishment Clause Restoration Act), that's what got us into this predicament in the first place. Instead, we should repeal the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, the legislation introduced by Chuck Schumer and Ted Kennedy (Robert Byrd and Jesse Helms voted against it). They should just have made the use of peyote legal, instead they made a law that was way too broad and elevated the rights of believers over non-believers.
1
Thank you for noting the scientific fallacy at the heart of this ruling (notwithstanding the issue of women's basic rights to determine their own health care). Even at the time, one of the conservative justices admitted that it was junk science but didn't matter since this was the sincerely held belief of one of the Hobby Lobby owners.
If a form is too difficult for a religious group to fill out, then they should be taxed at the normal rate. No more religious exemption from taxes. These groups are acting in a tyrannical way over all the women in their employ (and the wives and daughters of the male employees).
The Hobby Lobby decision was a disgrace to the court. Women should have basic rights to determine their health care; they should have the right to privacy about their bodies and health in their workplace; and bosses have zero right to impose their religious beliefs on all those who work for them.
Maybe the Roberts Court believes in theocracy, but if so, the justices should just move to Vatican City.
If a form is too difficult for a religious group to fill out, then they should be taxed at the normal rate. No more religious exemption from taxes. These groups are acting in a tyrannical way over all the women in their employ (and the wives and daughters of the male employees).
The Hobby Lobby decision was a disgrace to the court. Women should have basic rights to determine their health care; they should have the right to privacy about their bodies and health in their workplace; and bosses have zero right to impose their religious beliefs on all those who work for them.
Maybe the Roberts Court believes in theocracy, but if so, the justices should just move to Vatican City.
37
In the absence of rational alternatives, Republicans have exploited religion (and other ideological vulnerable groups) as political tools. Interestingly, its good enough to garner almost 50% of the votes in a country as enlightened (supposedly) as the USA.
"Houston, I think we've got a problem."
"Houston, I think we've got a problem."
3
It is well past time we stopped granting unearned privilege to superstitious nonsense.
1
The Hobby Lobby decision did not remove any "basic rights to determine... health care". It removed the power to compel a third party to pay for it.
So a company run by any religious group that does not believe in health care by doctors could opt out of insurance coverage because they will not write a letter? Absurd and complete abnegation of employee's rights. the courts have ruled for many years that they have the right to over rule parents who will not seek medical assistance for their children due to religious objections. In this they are on the side of science. But because some justices are opposed to abortions and would try to over rule roe vs. Wade by devious means they will allow religious objections to abortions to stand through denial of insurance employee coverage. Will justices allow burning at the stake because some religions might believe in witches? Absurd, but our country and legal system is full of absurdities.
17
Our system was designed to be tolerate reasonable levels of absurdity, hypocrisy, corruption, and immorality because these are always relative to the majority of thinking in any given time and circumstance.
Thee information age is rapidly introducing 'waves' of new facts that are challenging and overwhelming our ability to process and adapt.
It's beginning to look like the process f evolution might be too slow. Call Pfizer, I think that we might need a pill!
Thee information age is rapidly introducing 'waves' of new facts that are challenging and overwhelming our ability to process and adapt.
It's beginning to look like the process f evolution might be too slow. Call Pfizer, I think that we might need a pill!
1
Dishonest. The court was not saying that it had to accept the validity of the plaintiffs' belief that the devices are abortifacients, it was saying that it had to accept the validity of the plaintiffs' belief that participating in the accommodation process rendered them morally complicit in abortion. The court assumed that the devices are abortifacients, and nothing in the court's decision suggests that the government had argued otherwise. Liberals win by lying.
5
There is no complicity in abortion if the contraceptives in question do not act by causing abortions. That is the essential point of the issue. The entire premise of the religious objection is factually incorrect. So we are left with a couple of possible conclusions. One is that religious objections can be stupid but still be enforceable. Another is that the objection was never actually about abortion, but was always about allowing employers to suppress women's rights to manage their pregnancies. Or maybe both conclusions are true.
Anybody who doubts that misogyny is at the core of the Abrahamic religions has not been watching. We can only hope that the Supreme Court will reject the argument that people are free to impose their religious beliefs on those less powerful than themselves.
Anybody who doubts that misogyny is at the core of the Abrahamic religions has not been watching. We can only hope that the Supreme Court will reject the argument that people are free to impose their religious beliefs on those less powerful than themselves.
21
If the plaintiffs claimed that the devices were abortifacients and the government made no claim to the contrary, the court has to assume that they are abortifacients. This is the judicial process, not a first amendment principle. Nothing prevented the government from claiming that the devices were not abortifacients. If the court agreed, the first amendment claim would have gone away.
Under the law, abortion is a personal choice, and any arguments that use it as justification for imposing religious beliefs on someone whether or not that "someone" adheres to those beliefs is a violation of the US Constitution.
Only the conservative dummies on the court would be blind to the rights of others, and favor personal bias and beliefs over the Constitution. Fortunately, like their Republican candidates for office these guys are not greasing the path to for future conservatives.
Only the conservative dummies on the court would be blind to the rights of others, and favor personal bias and beliefs over the Constitution. Fortunately, like their Republican candidates for office these guys are not greasing the path to for future conservatives.
2
Greenhouse: " It’s striking that neither the Hobby Lobby majority nor the Eighth Circuit panel even inquired into the facts, simply deferring to the sincerity of the plaintiffs’ belief."
Fact-free political discourse and decisions put our nation at risk -- e.g., slavery, segregation, Iraq, impeding and restricting the right to vote, making health care a privilege rather than a right, etc.
I hesitate to think what chaos awaits us if judicial decisions begin blessing and embracing fact-free arguments. Those that consider many of our judges to be little more than "politicians in robes" may be on to something. A number of them are obviously doing more than calling "balls and strikes."
Fact-free political discourse and decisions put our nation at risk -- e.g., slavery, segregation, Iraq, impeding and restricting the right to vote, making health care a privilege rather than a right, etc.
I hesitate to think what chaos awaits us if judicial decisions begin blessing and embracing fact-free arguments. Those that consider many of our judges to be little more than "politicians in robes" may be on to something. A number of them are obviously doing more than calling "balls and strikes."
24
This establishes beyond all reasonable doubt that these judicial clowns don't even know what an "establishment of religion" is: any belief held solely on the basis of faith.
3
So much institutional mobilization against filling out a form, yet funny that we don't hear religious institutions acting on behalf of their numerous members who are retail employees required to work on the Sabbath. Among the 10 commandments, that one is most descriptive, even prohibiting one's servants from working. More funny, the concise commandment, "Thou shall not kill" doesn't get legal challenges from the religious institutions regarding state executions and national decisions to go to war, but again, lots of objection to filling out a form.
29
Any law should be suspended for those whose religious beliefs dispute that law. In America, we are free to believe whatever we want, and if we can gather together a sufficient number of believers we can dispute any legislation, whether or not it has been passed and signed by our elected representatives. That's the way it should be.
As for unorganized individuals who sincerely object to their legislators feeding an increasing number of tax dollars into a war machine that becomes ever more menacing, well, without a pulpit from which to scream they're on their own.
As for unorganized individuals who sincerely object to their legislators feeding an increasing number of tax dollars into a war machine that becomes ever more menacing, well, without a pulpit from which to scream they're on their own.
4
Did you actually say that those who have contrary religious beliefs should be exempted from any and all laws that they construe to be at odds with their beliefs? And this applies to all religions, right? Wow! That is quite a departure from the Constitutional separation of Church and State. Who would have thought that in the USA the State was subordinate to any and all religious beliefs.
So, you'll be volunteering your kid to be sacrificed to Tlaloc to make the rains come, then? After all, followers of Tlaloc have a sincere belief that only the tears of a child make the rain come, so the torture/murder of a child every now and then is an unfortunate aspect of his worship. You're okay with religious believers disputing the laws against torture and murder when it goes against their religious beliefs, right?
Clearly, I needed to use the ironic font. Next time I promise!
Ms. Greenhouse writes that "implantation is the medical definition of the start of a pregnancy" and suggests that therefore the birth control / abortifacients at issue don't cause abortion. But focusing only on implantation obviously misses (or seeks to suppress) the relevant question. The relevant question, in considering whether human life is terminated, is not when would implantation occur, but when does human life begin. Science is clear that a new human life has begun at conception, when a new human organism has formed by the combination of chromosomes from the mother and the father making a unique new human, and also that conception occurs prior to implantation. (When personhood begins in a philosophical or moral sense may be a more complicated or separate question.)
Thus, since human life begins scientifically at conception, birth control / abortifacients that prevent the new human life from surviving effectively cause the death of that new human life, naturally raising legal, moral, and religious concern, as well as objection and condemnation. Ms. Greenhouse even admits that some of the birth control / abortifacients at issue produce this result when she writes, "Occasionally, the copper IUD, one form of the device to which the plaintiffs object, may work by keeping a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine lining."
By avoiding some of the most pertinent questions at issue, the author undermines her article and arrives at some suspect conclusions.
Thus, since human life begins scientifically at conception, birth control / abortifacients that prevent the new human life from surviving effectively cause the death of that new human life, naturally raising legal, moral, and religious concern, as well as objection and condemnation. Ms. Greenhouse even admits that some of the birth control / abortifacients at issue produce this result when she writes, "Occasionally, the copper IUD, one form of the device to which the plaintiffs object, may work by keeping a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine lining."
By avoiding some of the most pertinent questions at issue, the author undermines her article and arrives at some suspect conclusions.
4
Science isn't even remotely clear on that subject. A potential human life begins at that stage but the point at which it passes from potential to actual isn't clear and is a philosophical,not a scientific, question.
It's like saying that mixing up a cookie dough recipe is a cookie the moment you put it in the oven, even before it's started cooking.
It's like saying that mixing up a cookie dough recipe is a cookie the moment you put it in the oven, even before it's started cooking.
3
"Science is clear that a new human life has begun at conception,"
This is utter nonsense. The is no scientific consensus about when human life begins. None. This is a religious doctrine. Please don't pretend otherwise.
This is utter nonsense. The is no scientific consensus about when human life begins. None. This is a religious doctrine. Please don't pretend otherwise.
4
If "new DNA" is your definition of human life, then how do you feel about identical twins? Is only one of them a person, or neither one, since they don't have unique DNA?
How about cancer? It has unique DNA too. We kill it mercilessly when we can. Do you oppose that?
How about hydatidiform moles? What about chimaeric persons? They have more than one DNA in them. If someone has a second set of DNA only in their appendix (it has happened), is it murder to remove the appendix since that is the only living DNA of that specific type?
You see why "new set of DNA" is perhaps not a very good indicator of when we should value human life or personhood now, I hope.
To take another route of inquiry, why is human life more important than personhood in determining what obligations we have towards it? Do you think that the survival of a single-celled organism requires the enslavement and torture of a fully-fledged human being? And yes, forced pregnancy is slavery (forced labor) and torture (lowered immune system, heightened blood pressure, nausea for most ... if we injected hormones to do that to an unwilling person, we'd be prosecuted for torture, plus labor pain is so bad that ancients thought it a curse from gods). If so, why do you think so?
How about cancer? It has unique DNA too. We kill it mercilessly when we can. Do you oppose that?
How about hydatidiform moles? What about chimaeric persons? They have more than one DNA in them. If someone has a second set of DNA only in their appendix (it has happened), is it murder to remove the appendix since that is the only living DNA of that specific type?
You see why "new set of DNA" is perhaps not a very good indicator of when we should value human life or personhood now, I hope.
To take another route of inquiry, why is human life more important than personhood in determining what obligations we have towards it? Do you think that the survival of a single-celled organism requires the enslavement and torture of a fully-fledged human being? And yes, forced pregnancy is slavery (forced labor) and torture (lowered immune system, heightened blood pressure, nausea for most ... if we injected hormones to do that to an unwilling person, we'd be prosecuted for torture, plus labor pain is so bad that ancients thought it a curse from gods). If so, why do you think so?
1
"To accept the claims being made here is to plunge into a world where conviction clothed in religious garb, no matter how untethered from reality, can be permitted to impair the rights of non-adherents to the benefits designed by a secular government to apply to all."
An apt description of last night's Republican presidential debate?
An apt description of last night's Republican presidential debate?
18
Clearly we must fertilize every viable human egg that comes into existence and ensure its delivery as a healthy baby in order to avoid truncating potential human life. It is only after they are born that we can morally begin to neglect them or launch drone strikes against their homes.
40
@Jim K: I'm still surprised that people make these illogical arguments. I think once you increase your understanding of biology a bit you'll stop making it.
No one claims a human egg or human sperm is a separate human being or even a potential human being. It can never develop on its own into a human, and if you cloned it, that would not produce a new human life; it's just a reproductive cell and has only half the full 46 chromosomes needed to produce a new human being.
Only when a human sperm fertilizes a human egg at conception is a new human life produced, with a new, unique combination of genetic material, distinct from both the father and the mother. Biologically, scientifically, that is when new human life begins. And it is after that point, not before, that people are legitimately concerned about protecting human life from unjustified termination, i.e. killing.
No one claims a human egg or human sperm is a separate human being or even a potential human being. It can never develop on its own into a human, and if you cloned it, that would not produce a new human life; it's just a reproductive cell and has only half the full 46 chromosomes needed to produce a new human being.
Only when a human sperm fertilizes a human egg at conception is a new human life produced, with a new, unique combination of genetic material, distinct from both the father and the mother. Biologically, scientifically, that is when new human life begins. And it is after that point, not before, that people are legitimately concerned about protecting human life from unjustified termination, i.e. killing.
@Jim K: I'm still surprised that people make these illogical arguments. I think once you increase your understanding of biology a bit you'll stop making it.
No one claims a human egg or human sperm is a separate human being or even a potential human being. It can never develop on its own into a human, and if you cloned it, that would not produce a new human life; it's just a reproductive cell and has only half the full 46 chromosomes needed to produce a new human being.
Only when a human sperm fertilizes a human egg at conception is a new human life produced, with a new, unique combination of genetic material, distinct from both the father and the mother. Biologically, scientifically, that is when new human life begins. And it is after that point, not before, that people are legitimately concerned about protecting human life from unjustified termination, i.e. killing.
No one claims a human egg or human sperm is a separate human being or even a potential human being. It can never develop on its own into a human, and if you cloned it, that would not produce a new human life; it's just a reproductive cell and has only half the full 46 chromosomes needed to produce a new human being.
Only when a human sperm fertilizes a human egg at conception is a new human life produced, with a new, unique combination of genetic material, distinct from both the father and the mother. Biologically, scientifically, that is when new human life begins. And it is after that point, not before, that people are legitimately concerned about protecting human life from unjustified termination, i.e. killing.
Thanks to Ms. Greenhouse for shining a light once again on the Roberts Court's derangement of the Free Exercise Clause: "religious" corporations are now free to exercise their religion on my reproductive system. Terrifyingly, the court seems poised to go one further and find that the plaintiffs' Rube Goldbergian "injuries" are caused by the substantial burden of anyone's civil rights, thus establishing The Supreme Court Church of Anything Goes When a Plaintiff Cries Religion.
19
One name says it all, Alito!
3
Time to set boundaries rather than skirt them, because squishy compromises clearly haven’t satisfied both sides.
We see the arc taken by peoples and nations that govern themselves religiously – a 17-year-old in Saudi Arabia awaiting beheading and crucifixion documented in Nick Kristof’s column today. Now, some will argue that this is an unreasonable comparison, but is it? Once you accept the authority of religion to determine which laws people must follow and which they can ignore, how far is it, really, to that beheading and crucifixion? How long before every law that’s proffered must pass successfully through the filter of every religion? What is the likelihood that the will of the majority can survive in any guise when any group can claim exception to it?
Both sides of these issues claim authority to define acceptable behavior, and they’re irreconcilably opposed definitions. One of them must win, and it’s time for our federal courts, specifically the U.S. Supreme Court, to halt the fight and declare a winner.
In the end, if we want to avoid having ministers, priests, rabbis and mullahs determine our law by what their consciences permit them to accept, we will have no law or, after the religious wars, the law we’ll have will see a 17-year-old awaiting beheading and crucifixion.
Time to set boundaries, time to render unto Caesar what is his.
We see the arc taken by peoples and nations that govern themselves religiously – a 17-year-old in Saudi Arabia awaiting beheading and crucifixion documented in Nick Kristof’s column today. Now, some will argue that this is an unreasonable comparison, but is it? Once you accept the authority of religion to determine which laws people must follow and which they can ignore, how far is it, really, to that beheading and crucifixion? How long before every law that’s proffered must pass successfully through the filter of every religion? What is the likelihood that the will of the majority can survive in any guise when any group can claim exception to it?
Both sides of these issues claim authority to define acceptable behavior, and they’re irreconcilably opposed definitions. One of them must win, and it’s time for our federal courts, specifically the U.S. Supreme Court, to halt the fight and declare a winner.
In the end, if we want to avoid having ministers, priests, rabbis and mullahs determine our law by what their consciences permit them to accept, we will have no law or, after the religious wars, the law we’ll have will see a 17-year-old awaiting beheading and crucifixion.
Time to set boundaries, time to render unto Caesar what is his.
26
This country veered away from constitutional concept when it passed the first law allowing religious properties to be tax exempt.
I haven't heard: has Hobby Lobby been granted tax-exemption on its businesses?
I haven't heard: has Hobby Lobby been granted tax-exemption on its businesses?
6
These people will stop at nothing less than Gilead out of The Handmaid's Tale.
1
rosa:
In fairness, religious properties belonging to established religions have never NOT been tax-exempt in the U.S., or in any of its earlier incarnations -- and this tradition goes back in time to English Common Law. Hobby Lobby is not a church, so has been granted no such tax exemptions. What's more, the issue under debate has nothing to do with taxes or any similar notion.
Liz:
Oh, I suspect "these people" likely would stop before Microsoft, that prefers to hire "contractors" with no benefits instead of "employees". Or do you live in Redmond merely for the delightful scenery? Gilead could never happen without first suspending the Constitution for discrete physical areas within our borders; and, heck, we don't even do that for Native American reservations.
"Evil" ain't all about the religious.
Both of You:
It's not productive to vilify the religious because we disagree with them. Their traditional preferences are under serious and constant legal attack; and, over the course of the 20th century, they lost a heck of a lot more than was ever validated. The best way of handling this is the way it's being handled, by careful, incremental movement that respects tradition but that, over time, imposes limits on it. It's now time to impose a little more.
In fairness, religious properties belonging to established religions have never NOT been tax-exempt in the U.S., or in any of its earlier incarnations -- and this tradition goes back in time to English Common Law. Hobby Lobby is not a church, so has been granted no such tax exemptions. What's more, the issue under debate has nothing to do with taxes or any similar notion.
Liz:
Oh, I suspect "these people" likely would stop before Microsoft, that prefers to hire "contractors" with no benefits instead of "employees". Or do you live in Redmond merely for the delightful scenery? Gilead could never happen without first suspending the Constitution for discrete physical areas within our borders; and, heck, we don't even do that for Native American reservations.
"Evil" ain't all about the religious.
Both of You:
It's not productive to vilify the religious because we disagree with them. Their traditional preferences are under serious and constant legal attack; and, over the course of the 20th century, they lost a heck of a lot more than was ever validated. The best way of handling this is the way it's being handled, by careful, incremental movement that respects tradition but that, over time, imposes limits on it. It's now time to impose a little more.
Abortifacient! When and where does religious intolerance of our civil rights and personal lives end?
Apparently the right-wing, Catholic dominated SCOTUS would impose Catholic religious doctrine on everyone.
The Catholic church opposes abortion. More than that, it opposes anything that prevents procreation in a marriage, encouraging couples to have children regardless of whether they or the earth can support them. But even more ludicrous, the Catholic church opposes any and all sexual activity that is not for the sole purpose of impregnation and procreation. Sexual acts other than intercourse are a sin. Perhaps the Roberts court would like to interpret and impose that Catholic sin into civil law.
Apparently the right-wing, Catholic dominated SCOTUS would impose Catholic religious doctrine on everyone.
The Catholic church opposes abortion. More than that, it opposes anything that prevents procreation in a marriage, encouraging couples to have children regardless of whether they or the earth can support them. But even more ludicrous, the Catholic church opposes any and all sexual activity that is not for the sole purpose of impregnation and procreation. Sexual acts other than intercourse are a sin. Perhaps the Roberts court would like to interpret and impose that Catholic sin into civil law.
14
When you overplay your hand, you eventually lose more than you might have otherwise. The pendulum will inevitably swing back in the other direction, and then the phrase "religious liberty" will resonate more authentically. Also by then, the religious zealots will be long gone and others will be made to suffer for their sins.
4
Yes, by judicially abiding and accepting religious dogma the Court does make law respecting an establishment of religion. A religion is not a building, it is dogmas, beliefs expressed as the religious establishment's teachings.
These particular cases are grating since there is no mention of abortion anywhere in the Bible. The cases are based on theological and biological nonsense.
These particular cases are grating since there is no mention of abortion anywhere in the Bible. The cases are based on theological and biological nonsense.
13
Linda Greenhouse makes more sense than at least five Justices of the Supreme Court.
31
Refusal to participate in the killing of unborn children represents "a gaping hole in the fabric of civil society" ?
"Children" have "birth certificates". They receive them when they are born. What you are calling for is a "Conception Certificate". Good luck with that, both medically and legally (not).
2
Oh my gosh. Read the article. There is no 'participation' here; that's the point.You participate in a lot of killing in funding war. Maybe it would be more meaningful if you learned that some of the victims of war were carrying unborn children. Then you would not be able to rationalize so easily.
2
No, but your insistence that I follow your doctrine does threaten the fabric of civil society. Your insistence that American businesses may apply your beliefs to their employees does too.
1
Organized religion is a clear and ever present menace to any government that allows it access to power. 'Christianity' is no exception as has been demonstrated ever since Constantine used it to concentrate his power in the political maelstrom of the late Roman Empire. Lately we have the example of Buddhism being used in the same fashion in Myanmar by a clearly unscrupulous religious leader. And the less said about the current state of Islam the better. And much can't said about ever more theocratic nation of Israel. A pox on all their houses!
13
I continue to be surprised at how anxious the Supreme Court is to undermine its legitimacy and rent the fabric of our nation. Indeed Liberty will soon be naked and then we'll let the religious fanatics to cover her in a naqib and our wonderful experiment in democracy will draw to a close.
12
I agree with Ms. Greenhouse and thank her for her analysis.
Let's recognize, though, the the central problem here is religion itself. It offers superstitious, supernatural, made-up nonsense as if it is "eternal truth." OF COURSE there are going to be problems when we treat "faith" (i.e., the absence of evidence) as warranting special accommodation.
People can believe whatever silliness they want. The 1st Amendment protects their right to the "free exercise" of religion, however unfortunate that may be for them. It does not expose the rest of us, however, to disadvantage based on their departure from reality.
Perhaps some nice corporation led by Quakers could refuse to pay taxes that go to fund war and military expenditures (or something like that). Then, let that case go to the SCOTUS. In THAT type of case, finally, we might get more thoughtful restrictions on the depredations imposed on society by religions.
Let's recognize, though, the the central problem here is religion itself. It offers superstitious, supernatural, made-up nonsense as if it is "eternal truth." OF COURSE there are going to be problems when we treat "faith" (i.e., the absence of evidence) as warranting special accommodation.
People can believe whatever silliness they want. The 1st Amendment protects their right to the "free exercise" of religion, however unfortunate that may be for them. It does not expose the rest of us, however, to disadvantage based on their departure from reality.
Perhaps some nice corporation led by Quakers could refuse to pay taxes that go to fund war and military expenditures (or something like that). Then, let that case go to the SCOTUS. In THAT type of case, finally, we might get more thoughtful restrictions on the depredations imposed on society by religions.
28
I think the late George Carlin or someone like him covered this area with the "church-of-what's-happening-now." I am waiting for the Supreme Court to decide what constitutes "superstition" and what constitutes "religion."
Bringing religion to politics only makes religion dirty.
Stop running businesses. Go pray, given out money, care for the poor yourself. But get out of business
Stop running businesses. Go pray, given out money, care for the poor yourself. But get out of business
16
This situation is nothing less than surreal. Employers want to ram their religious beliefs down the throats of employees as an exercise of their "religious freedom." So what about the religious freedoms of the employees?
33
There is no ramming. Are employers preventing people from buying contraceptives in drug stores? Why use misleading language?
I personally believe in contraception and wish it were used more frequently in our crowded planet.
But I do not believe in ramming my beliefs down the throats of Catholics. I believe in persuasion and not in the heavy hammer of the law.
I personally believe in contraception and wish it were used more frequently in our crowded planet.
But I do not believe in ramming my beliefs down the throats of Catholics. I believe in persuasion and not in the heavy hammer of the law.
2
An employee is a person who takes money from someone in return for their services. That is a voluntary arrangement. If a person doesn't like an employer's religious constraints, then they are free to not take the money. How is that person's rights impaired by the employer's position?
1
Whose belief is being rammed down anyone's throat? Contraception is a medical treatment. Make it available through health insurance and people can choose to use it or not as they desire. The only way the "heavy hammer of the law" would be invoked is if Catholics were being required to use contraception, and that isn't happening.
Lets say I, a Jewish atheist, work for Hobby Lobby because it's a job. There's not a lot of jobs where I live, and I do have to pay rent and eat. I have no moral or ethical objections to contraception at all, but it's not free or even cheap, and I can't afford it without insurance. Why does my boss get impose his religion on me? The "heavy hammer of the law" has come down upon me, a minimum wage worker, by letting my employer not cover my health needs because HE objects to MY health coverage. That is simply not acceptable.
Lets say I, a Jewish atheist, work for Hobby Lobby because it's a job. There's not a lot of jobs where I live, and I do have to pay rent and eat. I have no moral or ethical objections to contraception at all, but it's not free or even cheap, and I can't afford it without insurance. Why does my boss get impose his religion on me? The "heavy hammer of the law" has come down upon me, a minimum wage worker, by letting my employer not cover my health needs because HE objects to MY health coverage. That is simply not acceptable.
2
" . . . Even if a person believes that a fertilized egg is a human being . . ."
Is this a chicken?
http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h49/ClutchHutch/Miscellaneous%20Pics/F...
Is this a chicken?
http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h49/ClutchHutch/Miscellaneous%20Pics/F...
1
Putting faith above law is a many thousands year fight. Religious beliefs are a necessity for many people. Thinking is indeed a very hard thing to do.
6
In related matters a low court ruled a trucking must accommodate Muslim beliefs and allow drivers to refuse to transport alcohol. Another court says Muslim cabbies do not have to carry the blind using service dogs. Elsewhere Christian bed and breakfast owns must deny their religion and facilitate gay weddings. Is there any consistency in which religion's followers can practice their beliefs and which is not allowed to?
5
There is no consistency. It is chaos. That's why it is time for the Supreme Court to do the one thing it has always avoided: define "religion".
1
As far as facts are concerned, it is certainly not true that IUDs prevent implantation of a fertilized egg and the beginning of a growing fetus. So for some, when that happens, the IUD gets removed and then months later, the pregnancy begins to spontaneously abort. This to me is the definition of an abortifacient. Those without this lived experience do not know the facts.
1
Unfortunately, the justices on the Supreme Court appointed by republicans are more interested in caving in to religious cranks and nuts, and their irrational and non-reality based beliefs than to decent humane ethics. It's about time the ridiculousness of many religious notions, not to mention their harmfulness, is strongly pointed out, and those conservative justices replaced by rational justices as soon as they can be replaced. Their Hobby Lobby decision is a piece of nonsense in which the owners of Hobby Lobby are enabled to foist their nutty ideas regarding contraception on their employees. Of course, another way around such situations is for the government to institute a single-payer health system that covers all these amenities, including abortion, contraception and all the other items the religious nut cases don't like. The nut cases then would not have to opt in to them and couldn't complain or do what they're now doing in spite of the constitution and foisting their stupid notions on everyone else.
32
Pacifists have to pay for wars, capital punishment, and the deadly weapons police carry and use. But these involve people who are already born, so the rules allowing government to involve others in these deaths by forcing them to fund the activities, are much looser.
18
Hobby Lobby is such a cheat, a farce, claiming religious attack by allowing women to use the services provided, by law, via this corporate insurance company. The use of a word in religious belief named 'reasonableness' smacks as something based on reality, not a make-believe fantasy. Religion is not based in reality, and does not tolerate any reasonable disagreement or discussion, hence, dogmatic...and against the common good of the many who have no faith in a deity, or at least try to separate facts from fancy. There is no substantial burden if a religious plaintiff says it is, as no one is impinging on his narrow interests, even if proven to represent a distortion of the truth in the real world. The Supreme Court is playing with fire; lets hope they won't complain as they get burned.
17
What is disturbing is that religious belief trumps scientific fact in matters that affect other people.
Suppose a religious group ran a day care center in a facility that had lead paint. Even if they sincerely believed that lead was a holy substance that did not cause brain damage in young children, would they be exempt from regulations requiring the removal of lead paint??
One can imagine all manner of absurdity based on supposed religious belief.
Suppose a religious group ran a day care center in a facility that had lead paint. Even if they sincerely believed that lead was a holy substance that did not cause brain damage in young children, would they be exempt from regulations requiring the removal of lead paint??
One can imagine all manner of absurdity based on supposed religious belief.
39
I know this is not an advice column but I'll try anyway.
I believe my thoughts to be of great value, but judging by the number recommending or replying to them, this opinion is not widely shared.
What demands can I make which will force more to;
1) read them;
2) consider their value;
3) respond; and finally, regardless their personal opinion;
4) respond favorably?
I expect many responses and demand they are all positive.
God appeared to me in a dream last night and told me to represent myself before the court as it would be a substantial burden to hire an attorney without having proper health insurance or something. A Divine Coincidence?
Thanks in advance.
I believe my thoughts to be of great value, but judging by the number recommending or replying to them, this opinion is not widely shared.
What demands can I make which will force more to;
1) read them;
2) consider their value;
3) respond; and finally, regardless their personal opinion;
4) respond favorably?
I expect many responses and demand they are all positive.
God appeared to me in a dream last night and told me to represent myself before the court as it would be a substantial burden to hire an attorney without having proper health insurance or something. A Divine Coincidence?
Thanks in advance.
5
When it comes to any issue regarding sectarian issues the justices can't help but be influenced by their religious upbringing.6 of the 12 judges in the history of the Supreme Court,who have been Catholic,are currently on the court. All of the Hobby Lobby majority are Catholic.Sandra Sotomayor dissented.
The Constitution is a tree with many branches. When it comes to religious or social issues the Justices can find a branch somewhere on that legal Timber which contains a Constitutional rationale for whatever position their personal value system dictates. Despite any protestations by the Justices to the contrary, it is unreasonable to assume they don't vote to sustain their personal value system. That is the reality and any judge who says it isn't dispositive is being disingenuous.
The Constitution is a tree with many branches. When it comes to religious or social issues the Justices can find a branch somewhere on that legal Timber which contains a Constitutional rationale for whatever position their personal value system dictates. Despite any protestations by the Justices to the contrary, it is unreasonable to assume they don't vote to sustain their personal value system. That is the reality and any judge who says it isn't dispositive is being disingenuous.
12
Although this is an excellent article, the real problem is the separation of church and state. Ms. Greenhouse mentions hallucinogens, apparently a reference to the Yaqui culture made famous by Carlos Castaneda where peyote and other mind altering substances were an integral part of religious rituals.
This is not the same.
Hobby lobby apparently is a religion based company. Remember the word company. The Catholic church used to own Christian Brothers winery. They divested rather than pay taxes (a religion based tax break).
If Hobby Lobby or anyone else dabbling in the free market (not religion) wants religious protection, they should keep to religion rather than a capitalistic enterprise.
This is not the same.
Hobby lobby apparently is a religion based company. Remember the word company. The Catholic church used to own Christian Brothers winery. They divested rather than pay taxes (a religion based tax break).
If Hobby Lobby or anyone else dabbling in the free market (not religion) wants religious protection, they should keep to religion rather than a capitalistic enterprise.
29
The "free exercise" clause guarantees the Yaqui the right to consensually consume hallucinogens in religious services. There was no need for legislation to exempt them from invasion of their ceremonies by drug cops.
5
For a religious company, they are hypocrites. They have medical companies that manufacture and sell contraceptive devices in their retirement funds, and have been caught illegally smuggling Iraqi artifacts by saying they were clay tablets with little value. Why should an exemption be carved out for such people?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/26/exclusive-feds-investig...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/26/exclusive-feds-investig...
1
Absolutely right. This is a religious freedom that has nothing to do with religion delving into the commercial marketplace.
2
Since a basic tenet of the Roman Catholic church is in the virgin birth of Jesus, which defies medical reality, is it really so surprising that its believers, at least, will insist it is against their deeply held beliefs to even participate in a process for an exemption to birth control coverage? Religious beliefs have little to do with facts and much to do with something akin to a magic wand. Hard to work around that for a rational application of the law.
12
As a practicing Catholic, I am often embarrassed by members and hierarchy of my Church. It's a mystery religion, but not a religion of strident ignorance. To me, it seems only a sense of deep insecurity can explain the idiocy of the case Ms. Greenhouse so clearly silhouettes. The Supreme Court has no obligation to enable idiocy, religious or not.
19
Thank you, Ms. Greenhouse, for a clear explanation about how the Supreme Court arrived at the appalling point where it is now weighing the "sincerity" of the plaintiff's beliefs against scientifically relevant facts.
In a way, given our post-modern era, this was predictable. Post-modern theory, and the pervasive popular ideas about relativism that it props up, leads to a broad cultural acceptance--even on the part of SCOTUS judges--that "there are no final truths," science is a matter of "opinions," and matters of opinion are equal.
But maybe that's just me philosophizing. What's clear as a bell is that a whole lot of people in the United States cannot stand the thought that there are women out there having sex, enjoying it, and not having to pay for it by getting pregnant.
In a way, given our post-modern era, this was predictable. Post-modern theory, and the pervasive popular ideas about relativism that it props up, leads to a broad cultural acceptance--even on the part of SCOTUS judges--that "there are no final truths," science is a matter of "opinions," and matters of opinion are equal.
But maybe that's just me philosophizing. What's clear as a bell is that a whole lot of people in the United States cannot stand the thought that there are women out there having sex, enjoying it, and not having to pay for it by getting pregnant.
27
What a farce it is to live in a country where its highest court has been packed with liars and psychopaths to deny the specific constitutional limitation to Congressional power implicit in "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".
The US Supreme Court has been aborted in a long term program of deliberate treason.
The US Supreme Court has been aborted in a long term program of deliberate treason.
11
"The reasonableness of a religious belief is something “the federal courts have no business addressing,” Justice Alito said."......Alito's position is untenable. Ancient religions practiced human sacrifice, and what happens if the virgins are willing? More to the point there is the practice of polygamy, is that now legal? Who is to say what my religion is or is not? Meaning if Alito's position were valid there is no limit to what a person might be able to claim. But the real question is when and to what degree does an employer have the right to force their religious beliefs on their employees?
37
How about the reasonableness of snake handling as still practiced in a few congregations in Appalachia?
Abortion is readily demagogued. Science has been politicized, so that the "personhood debate" is highly charged and supported by false interpretations of physiology.
Abortion has a mixed record in human history. It has never had the same clear-cut condemnation as theft or murder. Trying to squeeze abortion in under the cover of "murder" is not helpful. Elastic rules are bad rules. Change the rules or redefine the rules by all means. But don't appeal to the bible or to bad science, neither of which supports the "personhood" pushers.
Abortion has a mixed record in human history. It has never had the same clear-cut condemnation as theft or murder. Trying to squeeze abortion in under the cover of "murder" is not helpful. Elastic rules are bad rules. Change the rules or redefine the rules by all means. But don't appeal to the bible or to bad science, neither of which supports the "personhood" pushers.
4
The 30-60 second blobs of self-congratulatory advertisements that fill the un-debates makes Ms. Greenhouse's articulate, detailed analysis shine like diamonds in dross.
But do the 5 Hobby Lobby Justices see the sparkle? I doubt it. Thank heaven for 1 HLJ who wavers. And for the women on the court and one man who consistently balk at the attacks on free-thinking by reactionaries. But the inning, to use another trope, is late and we are one run(ner) behind... again and again. In spite of the precise fielding of the ball by Linda, there is no joy in Mudville.
But do the 5 Hobby Lobby Justices see the sparkle? I doubt it. Thank heaven for 1 HLJ who wavers. And for the women on the court and one man who consistently balk at the attacks on free-thinking by reactionaries. But the inning, to use another trope, is late and we are one run(ner) behind... again and again. In spite of the precise fielding of the ball by Linda, there is no joy in Mudville.
11
I enjoy Ms. Greenhouse's well written columns.
My disagreement with her is that Supreme Court decisions are not based on the Constitution but on expediency. Justices decide what result they want and then dredge up some rationale to support that decision.
Many Court decisions are 5-4. The justices are experienced lawyers they know what the Constitution says.
There is no reason for there to be so many 5-4 decisions.
Examples of expediency abound.
During WWII the Court upheld the Japanese internment. Justice Black argument was :"We were at war" That is an argument based on expediency not law. During Vietnam a man walked in public wearing a shirt that said
" [expletive] the draft" Black [of "no law means no law"] voted in the minority in a 5-4 Court decision to uphold the obscenity conviction because [expletive] was sufficiently obscene.
Child porn [as is all porn] is disgusting and I understand and support the Court's ruling on child porn but a strict reading of 1st amendment protects child porn.
In Heller / McDonald the Court compromised. The 5 wanted to allow gun ownership but they allowed exceptions that a strict reading of the 2nd amendment would not allow. There is no justification in the 2nd amendment to bar gun ownership by mentally ill or felons. Whether those exclusions or Black's opinions are desireable is a separate discussion.
In Hobby Lobby there is no justification for allowing small companies a "religious" objection.
My disagreement with her is that Supreme Court decisions are not based on the Constitution but on expediency. Justices decide what result they want and then dredge up some rationale to support that decision.
Many Court decisions are 5-4. The justices are experienced lawyers they know what the Constitution says.
There is no reason for there to be so many 5-4 decisions.
Examples of expediency abound.
During WWII the Court upheld the Japanese internment. Justice Black argument was :"We were at war" That is an argument based on expediency not law. During Vietnam a man walked in public wearing a shirt that said
" [expletive] the draft" Black [of "no law means no law"] voted in the minority in a 5-4 Court decision to uphold the obscenity conviction because [expletive] was sufficiently obscene.
Child porn [as is all porn] is disgusting and I understand and support the Court's ruling on child porn but a strict reading of 1st amendment protects child porn.
In Heller / McDonald the Court compromised. The 5 wanted to allow gun ownership but they allowed exceptions that a strict reading of the 2nd amendment would not allow. There is no justification in the 2nd amendment to bar gun ownership by mentally ill or felons. Whether those exclusions or Black's opinions are desireable is a separate discussion.
In Hobby Lobby there is no justification for allowing small companies a "religious" objection.
14
By this logic, companies that cut a paycheck to an employee who uses the money for contraceptives are facilitating that activity. The only consistent position for these companies is to either have an employment requirement that the individual may not use contraceptives, or to deny employment to such individuals who do. Good luck with that one.
42
My first morning read in the paper, and how infuriating! It is very difficult to empathize with those who reject science outright and attempt to inhibit my right to do with my body as I wish based on such denial. The Roberts court majority has become a truly terrifying force for women to contend with. I can only hope that RBG busts out some serious powers of persuasion.
85
I believe the counter argument is that no one is inhibiting your right to do with your body what you like, but with the body, albeit small, of another human being. seems to be the fundamental disagreement, eh?
"To accept the claims being made here is to plunge into a world where conviction clothed in religious garb, no matter how untethered from reality, can be permitted to impair the rights of non-adherents to the benefits designed by a secular government to apply to all. "
This sounds all well and good, but the troublesome word here is "rights". Specifically the notion that Ms. Jones has a "right" to a benefit paid for (under threat of imprisonment, financial retribution, or punitive sanction) by Mr. Smith. By definition the exercise of a "right" imposes no obligation upon anyone else; the right of free speech does not entitle the speaker to a megaphone paid for by others.
Hobby Lobby denies Ms. Jones the power to compel Mr. Smith to pay for certain benefits, but the power to compel is the antithesis of freedom.
This sounds all well and good, but the troublesome word here is "rights". Specifically the notion that Ms. Jones has a "right" to a benefit paid for (under threat of imprisonment, financial retribution, or punitive sanction) by Mr. Smith. By definition the exercise of a "right" imposes no obligation upon anyone else; the right of free speech does not entitle the speaker to a megaphone paid for by others.
Hobby Lobby denies Ms. Jones the power to compel Mr. Smith to pay for certain benefits, but the power to compel is the antithesis of freedom.
2
Ms. Jones has a right to what our society considers reasonable recompense for her labor. She is not a slave. Just as we have requirements around child labor and fair pay, we have requirements for benefits that equal compensation. If I am a consultant, my employer is not required to remit payroll taxes or provide insurance. If I am an at-will employee, my employer is required to remit tax monies and yes, if a large enough business, provide health insurance.
It's not so easy to get a low wage job, the competition at the bottom, retail, is cutthroat. Without intervention, we'll have subsistence.
It's not so easy to get a low wage job, the competition at the bottom, retail, is cutthroat. Without intervention, we'll have subsistence.
11
No, the rule overturned by Hobby Lobby does not compel Mr. Jones to do anything. It compels Hobby Lobby, a for-profit corporation, an entity created by the state, to comply with minimum standards for employment. Just like having to pay a minimum wage or pay for unemployment insurance.
13
The Supreme Court has ruled that some speakers have a right to multiple megaphones paid by others. It's Called Citizens United
2
The Catholics on the Supreme Court should recuse themselves, as should anyone who might believe that religious beliefs should trump the liberties provided us by our Creator and embodied in the Constitution. Among those liberties are both birth control and abortion. As decent a man as the pope is, those whose loyalty to the pope surpasses their loyalty to liberty have no rightful place in these deliberations. Nor should any corporation have the right to deprive any citizen of our liberties.
114
Beth, of course you are correct that the "Catholics on the Supreme Court should recuse themselves" on this issue since [their brand of] Catholicism forbids them from having any freedom of thought on the matter. But this is the precisely the real reason that the court has been stuffed with far right Catholics by GOP presidents: they will fight tooth and nail to overturn Roe v Wade. They cannot build a right wing police state with out the subjugation of women.
1
When did our Creator, God, give us the right to have another pay for our own birth control? And really, you think God gave us the liberty to kill the innocent creation that He also created? You actually have to believe that God had nothing to do with Creation in order to say that adults have the right to kill a fetus. If there is no creator God, then there are no common rights between humans. Without a Creator God making us equal, then we have learned that some lives are worth more than others. Abortion is saying that a mother's life is worth more than her child's life. Abortion is not an inalienable right--it is a pragmatic approach by our government to the problem of poor people from having children, or anyone having unwanted children. But don't you think God would prefer that we stop eliminating his creations and instead figure out how to better feed the poor, raise living standards, support men and women of all economic status raise their children together rather than punish families with two working parents with higher taxes? We have so many better ways of honoring the humanity of all people, of all Creation, than by resorting to killing the innocent.
Another fine example of Ms. Greenhouse's excellent prose - although we are partial to this soaring sentence:
" To accept the claims being made here is to plunge into a world where conviction clothed in religious garb, no matter how untethered from reality, can be permitted to impair the rights of non-adherents to the benefits designed by a secular government to apply to all. "
One wonders what in the world will the Citizens United/McCutcheon Decision/Shelby Co. Court that Roberts has been presiding over cook up from their Halloween cauldron ?
To eliminate the utter hypocrisy of Hobby Lobby's vaunted " conscience ", whereby it's o.k. for Hobby Lobby to have almost $100 million of its retirement funds invested in medical companies providing " abortifacients ", but to see such products accessed by its employees gives Hobby Lobby a bad case of the vapors, searching for the fainting couch:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-invests-in-em_n_507...
the Court should stipulate that any of the plaintiffs whose cases appear at the Court automatically will have their case rejected for " lack of religious consistency " (appropriate new legal term, yes ?) if the plaintiffs have any investments in mutual funds, etc. with holdings in " abortifacient " services or pharmaceuticals.
Thereby, the Court will be helping out such plaintiffs as Hobby Lobby by removing the massive ' log in their own eye ' that apparently can't be seen from the inside :)
" To accept the claims being made here is to plunge into a world where conviction clothed in religious garb, no matter how untethered from reality, can be permitted to impair the rights of non-adherents to the benefits designed by a secular government to apply to all. "
One wonders what in the world will the Citizens United/McCutcheon Decision/Shelby Co. Court that Roberts has been presiding over cook up from their Halloween cauldron ?
To eliminate the utter hypocrisy of Hobby Lobby's vaunted " conscience ", whereby it's o.k. for Hobby Lobby to have almost $100 million of its retirement funds invested in medical companies providing " abortifacients ", but to see such products accessed by its employees gives Hobby Lobby a bad case of the vapors, searching for the fainting couch:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-invests-in-em_n_507...
the Court should stipulate that any of the plaintiffs whose cases appear at the Court automatically will have their case rejected for " lack of religious consistency " (appropriate new legal term, yes ?) if the plaintiffs have any investments in mutual funds, etc. with holdings in " abortifacient " services or pharmaceuticals.
Thereby, the Court will be helping out such plaintiffs as Hobby Lobby by removing the massive ' log in their own eye ' that apparently can't be seen from the inside :)
167
Soaring prose that blurs vision of the flaws in her argument.
The "logic" behind these suits is as convoluted as any mechanism illustrated by Rube Goldberg. Alito's logic in Hobby Lobby, already cattywampus, may now be extended to an irrationally numbered dimension that only he and Clarence Thomas can see. Religion is, at best, only vaguely tangential to all this, it's mainly about the selfishly deliberate intransigence, distorted logic and feigned ignorance of a spoiled, bullying minority who have zero perspective on anything but their fight of the moment, and who delight in picking those fights the way some deranged preteen might pick the wings off insects. It's about time someone raised the issues of mental fitness, to say nothing of common sense and common courtesy. They're presenting a definable sociopathy by attempting to carve out special rules and conditions for their "beliefs" which result in a net infringement on the lives and practices of the vast majority, the exercise of which have no material effect on the petitioners. The simple truth is they put a burden and restriction on the majority and establish a religious foundation for statutes and court decisions, both strictly prohibited by any reading of the constitution. So far, Alito and Scalia seem to be wearing the emperor's new clothes, Thomas seems to be saying "what, me worry?", and Roberts is tilting at windmills. I mean, if I object to eggs on a religious basis, does that justify a crusade to kill all the chickens? Dog help us.
92
"Forgive me for wondering whether the accommodation at hand would have been so vigorously resisted had any president other than Barack Obama been in office"
They would certainly do the same to Hillary. We would live with Hillary derangement syndrome in all things, all the time. It would be Benghazi on everything forever.
They would certainly do the same to Bernie Sanders. We'd be in Dr. Strangelove territory, in which Bernie the Commie would drain their vital bodily fluids.
It is political, but it isn't personal to Obama. It is any Democrat.
In fairness, I doubt any of the Republicans would even attempt to enforce the law. That would take us to your option two, "had the target of the objection not been women presuming to have sex without procreation."
But if they did, I doubt that the same resources would be poured into the subject, to produce seven appeals to the Supreme Court on mere birth control. That is major legal expense, well into six figures each. Those seven idential appeals represent near a million dollars in legal costs, all for something that is so 1960. Even the Pope says women are not required "to reproduce like rabbits."
They would certainly do the same to Hillary. We would live with Hillary derangement syndrome in all things, all the time. It would be Benghazi on everything forever.
They would certainly do the same to Bernie Sanders. We'd be in Dr. Strangelove territory, in which Bernie the Commie would drain their vital bodily fluids.
It is political, but it isn't personal to Obama. It is any Democrat.
In fairness, I doubt any of the Republicans would even attempt to enforce the law. That would take us to your option two, "had the target of the objection not been women presuming to have sex without procreation."
But if they did, I doubt that the same resources would be poured into the subject, to produce seven appeals to the Supreme Court on mere birth control. That is major legal expense, well into six figures each. Those seven idential appeals represent near a million dollars in legal costs, all for something that is so 1960. Even the Pope says women are not required "to reproduce like rabbits."
78
Mark, in building your case that the GOP would act to destroy any Democrat you missed the best example of all: what they did to Bill Clinton.
2
If the free exercise clause keeps gaining power does that mean I will eventually be drafted into a church? Will I have to show an acceptable church on my application for employment? Will I be able to opt out of the draft if I attend Bob Jones U?
22
With the Supreme Court bowing to political pressure from a small. select group of "victims" with a lot of money and political influence are we seeing the beginning of a secular religion of equality mandated by the US Supreme Court?
Will the Five Ayatollahs of Political Correctness force people of faith to give "diversity oaths" against their will? Will we have bathrooms with the top of the sign male and the bottom female? Will Kim K. run for President in 2020 with Caitlyn Jenner as her running mate and lover? I sure hope not but now that The Supreme Court's erroneous decision has opened the floodgates anything is possible and anything goes---there are no rules any longer.
Will the Five Ayatollahs of Political Correctness force people of faith to give "diversity oaths" against their will? Will we have bathrooms with the top of the sign male and the bottom female? Will Kim K. run for President in 2020 with Caitlyn Jenner as her running mate and lover? I sure hope not but now that The Supreme Court's erroneous decision has opened the floodgates anything is possible and anything goes---there are no rules any longer.
The first amendment is possibly the simplest and least ambiguous amendments to the constitution. The 'Establishment" and "Free Exercise" clauses are clearly defined.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
In this situation congress is not attempting to pass a law establishing a religion. Multiple religions do not approve of contraception or abortion. Congress does not have any laws in the pipeline that would establish any of these religions as the state religion. Therefore the "Establishment" clause is not applicable to these cases.
There is an argument to be made concerning the "Free Exercise Thereof". If the law forces an individual, or the individuals who own a company, to violate their religious beliefs it is a clear violation of this clause and the law must be vacated.
This is clear and simple, but over time first amendment interpretations have become so tortured and twisted it's actual meaning is now lost. If you do not like the first amendment as written there is a mechanism within the constitution to change it. Until then, like it or not, American citizens must live with the amendment as it stands.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
In this situation congress is not attempting to pass a law establishing a religion. Multiple religions do not approve of contraception or abortion. Congress does not have any laws in the pipeline that would establish any of these religions as the state religion. Therefore the "Establishment" clause is not applicable to these cases.
There is an argument to be made concerning the "Free Exercise Thereof". If the law forces an individual, or the individuals who own a company, to violate their religious beliefs it is a clear violation of this clause and the law must be vacated.
This is clear and simple, but over time first amendment interpretations have become so tortured and twisted it's actual meaning is now lost. If you do not like the first amendment as written there is a mechanism within the constitution to change it. Until then, like it or not, American citizens must live with the amendment as it stands.
7
The key is that the "Free Exercise Thereof" cannot be enacted in a way that it takes away rights from those who do not share the belief. It is a balancing act. When we get out of balance, we run the risk of either promoting or inhibiting a given religious or moral belief. We have, at the same time, both Freedom Of Religion and Freedom From Religion.
Hobby Lobby skimmed into territory that in protecting one group's beliefs we put another group's rights and beliefs aside. The next set of cases argues that if *anyone* provides their employees the benefit it makes the employer complicit, and actively seeks to bar one person's legal rights on the grounds that another person finds them immoral. "Freedom From" becomes important.
We don't have convoluted interpretations of the first amendment. We have a society in which one singular set of moral and religious beliefs are not universally accepted by everyone in the nation, setting up natural conflict.
Hobby Lobby skimmed into territory that in protecting one group's beliefs we put another group's rights and beliefs aside. The next set of cases argues that if *anyone* provides their employees the benefit it makes the employer complicit, and actively seeks to bar one person's legal rights on the grounds that another person finds them immoral. "Freedom From" becomes important.
We don't have convoluted interpretations of the first amendment. We have a society in which one singular set of moral and religious beliefs are not universally accepted by everyone in the nation, setting up natural conflict.
30
"If the law forces an individual, or the individuals who own a company, to violate their religious beliefs it is a clear violation of this clause and the law must be vacated."
Gee, we've got a problem, then. The use of my tax money to fund wars and multiple other projects violates my religion (and it doesn't matter what that religion; I need only invent one). So the law requiring me to pay taxes requires me to be complicit in a violation of my beliefs and should be vacated. Similarly, I am a member of a church that requires free access to alcohol on Sundays. So all blue laws should be vacated. I am a member of a religion that believes that pollution is God's way of bringing about his kingdom on earth, so all laws against pollution should be vacated.
Reductio ad absurdum makes it pretty clear why your sweeping proclamation fails.
Gee, we've got a problem, then. The use of my tax money to fund wars and multiple other projects violates my religion (and it doesn't matter what that religion; I need only invent one). So the law requiring me to pay taxes requires me to be complicit in a violation of my beliefs and should be vacated. Similarly, I am a member of a church that requires free access to alcohol on Sundays. So all blue laws should be vacated. I am a member of a religion that believes that pollution is God's way of bringing about his kingdom on earth, so all laws against pollution should be vacated.
Reductio ad absurdum makes it pretty clear why your sweeping proclamation fails.
46
Dude, Christmas is a vacation day. I'm a Jew, my husband is buddhist. This does our family no good. No days off for Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur, Chinese New Year. No was to flex Christmas to cover our major holidays.
The state intervenes when religious objections endanger the life of a child. Was the recent beating to death of a rebellious teen ok because it was sanctioned by their church?
Please consider the lived life of Americans. The flexibility of our constitution is it's strength. Amendments are not to be taken lightly. Multiple religions do allow contraception and abortion also. Forcing me to follow your beliefs to have public employment is rightly illegal. After all, you can't make me cover my hair.
The state intervenes when religious objections endanger the life of a child. Was the recent beating to death of a rebellious teen ok because it was sanctioned by their church?
Please consider the lived life of Americans. The flexibility of our constitution is it's strength. Amendments are not to be taken lightly. Multiple religions do allow contraception and abortion also. Forcing me to follow your beliefs to have public employment is rightly illegal. After all, you can't make me cover my hair.
113
Religious beliefs should not subordinate secular beliefs. The purpose of the government should not be to decide what a religion is or what are appropriate beliefs of that religion. To take Alito's ruling to its logical conclusion means that anything a group declares is religious trumps law, and chaos ensues. Of course, that means religious groups will no longer be granted tax exemptions or other special advantages not available to secular groups.
30
And it's high time!
" To accept the claims being made here is to plunge into a world where conviction clothed in religious garb, no matter how untethered from reality, can be permitted to impair the rights of non-adherents to the benefits designed by a secular government to apply to all."
And that is precisely--and eloquently--why the Founders had the foresight to include the Establishment Clause. Anyone's right to practice his or her religious beliefs stops at my right to not practice.
And that is precisely--and eloquently--why the Founders had the foresight to include the Establishment Clause. Anyone's right to practice his or her religious beliefs stops at my right to not practice.
101
But since you are free to buy contraceptives at any druggist (as I have on many occasions) it seems to me that the lady doth protest too much.
I personally favor contraception and hope the current Pope will finally remove this burden from Catholics.
But in the meanwhile I find the attempt from the NYT and its readers to bully those with different beliefs to be distasteful.
Are there people who complain that they cannot order pork in a kosher restaurant? What would Greenhouse think about the rights of someone who enters a kosher restaurant and demands pork? Would not her answer be, "Then choose another restaurant, but don't force THIS restaurant to violate their religious beliefs." Or do we use different standards for different religions?
There was a time when contraception was illegal in both Massachusetts and Connecticut. And that was wrong. But the current issue is really a non-issue. People are taking up this issue because they dislike Republicans.
Makes perfect sense. But don't wander away from your real issue.
I personally favor contraception and hope the current Pope will finally remove this burden from Catholics.
But in the meanwhile I find the attempt from the NYT and its readers to bully those with different beliefs to be distasteful.
Are there people who complain that they cannot order pork in a kosher restaurant? What would Greenhouse think about the rights of someone who enters a kosher restaurant and demands pork? Would not her answer be, "Then choose another restaurant, but don't force THIS restaurant to violate their religious beliefs." Or do we use different standards for different religions?
There was a time when contraception was illegal in both Massachusetts and Connecticut. And that was wrong. But the current issue is really a non-issue. People are taking up this issue because they dislike Republicans.
Makes perfect sense. But don't wander away from your real issue.
"Bullying"??? What a simply silly response. The only bullying going on is religious institutions asserting that sending a piece of paper to their insurance company telling the company that they will not cover contraception is somehow burdening their religious liberty. No one is saying that they have to provide coverage -- just that they have to inform their insurer that they will not be doing so. THAT is what they are objecting to as "a substantial burden" on their religious liberty. How anyone can assert that is anywhere close to the demand of someone entering a kosher restaurant and ordering pork goes beyond the bounds of rationality.
1
Thank you, Linda, for this clear explanation of what has seemed to many to be a most confusing issue. I always look forward to your editorials.
17
Is it really true that the sincerity of an employer's belief is legal justification to deny medical services to women, even when that belief demonstrably contradicts scientifically established fact? Astonishing!
38
Here's an even dumber extension of such "thinking", "I refuse to pay any taxes because I sincerely believe that my tax money will or may be used to pay for, supply or encourage the use of abortifacients."
Note: this is pretty much the same logic which anti-Vietnam war protesters used in the 60's to refuse paying taxes-that some portion of their money would go to the DOD which would use it to prosecute a war which the taxpayer didn't agree with.
The "sincere belief" rule pretty much allows people to do and say and or not do or say almost anything, claiming they have "sincere beliefs" to back their refusals.
How about, I refuse to aid that doctor dying in a car crash because his life allows other doctors to give abortions. Or
a person kills three thousand doctors at a convention by poisoning the wine and vodka, because of a sincere belief that some of them were performing abortions."kill them all and let "God sort them out".
You can do anything and justify anything "Al Qaeda" style, by claiming sincere belief. The Germans sincerely believed the Nazi party was correct in all it did and they followed it in building death camps and executing Jews, Roma, Gays, POWs and Civilians all over East Europe.
Maybe America needs to return to the post war trials of Germans and allow that any of them, with a sincere belief in war making, or racial and ethnic cleansing cannot be held criminally responsible . . .
Note: this is pretty much the same logic which anti-Vietnam war protesters used in the 60's to refuse paying taxes-that some portion of their money would go to the DOD which would use it to prosecute a war which the taxpayer didn't agree with.
The "sincere belief" rule pretty much allows people to do and say and or not do or say almost anything, claiming they have "sincere beliefs" to back their refusals.
How about, I refuse to aid that doctor dying in a car crash because his life allows other doctors to give abortions. Or
a person kills three thousand doctors at a convention by poisoning the wine and vodka, because of a sincere belief that some of them were performing abortions."kill them all and let "God sort them out".
You can do anything and justify anything "Al Qaeda" style, by claiming sincere belief. The Germans sincerely believed the Nazi party was correct in all it did and they followed it in building death camps and executing Jews, Roma, Gays, POWs and Civilians all over East Europe.
Maybe America needs to return to the post war trials of Germans and allow that any of them, with a sincere belief in war making, or racial and ethnic cleansing cannot be held criminally responsible . . .
19
Thank you, Ms. Greenhouse. The Supreme Court is deeply complicit in the far right-wing based exercise to not merely explicitly introduce and transform (the "right") religion into sanctioned policy and practice, but in fact to transform our nation into a theocracy. This way lies peril.
41
Think Isis.
The reasonableness of a religious belief is something “the federal courts have no business addressing,” Justice Alito said.
I beg to differ, Judge. If your 'belief not based on evidence and fact' (aka - superstition) puts my life or well-being at risk, then the federal court very much has a 'business in addressing' your beliefs, no matter how sincerely held.
If doctors still believed bleeding patients cured them of 'bad humors', would they let them do it? I think not. Why would we have an FDA, since many people 'believed' patent snake oil would cure their ills?
I beg to differ, Judge. If your 'belief not based on evidence and fact' (aka - superstition) puts my life or well-being at risk, then the federal court very much has a 'business in addressing' your beliefs, no matter how sincerely held.
If doctors still believed bleeding patients cured them of 'bad humors', would they let them do it? I think not. Why would we have an FDA, since many people 'believed' patent snake oil would cure their ills?
26
"Is a “substantial burden” anything that a religious plaintiff says it is?"
Clearly the answer to this question must be no. Otherwise we would have people who sincerely believe in the ancient Aztec religion taking virgins to the tops of pyramids, cutting out their hearts, and holding the still beating hearts up to God.
Clearly the answer to this question must be no. Otherwise we would have people who sincerely believe in the ancient Aztec religion taking virgins to the tops of pyramids, cutting out their hearts, and holding the still beating hearts up to God.
27
Give it time.
Questions:
Could the Amish owners of a company argue that paying federal taxes forces them to be complicit in war which is against their religion?
Could Hobby Lobby fire an employee who uses his/her salary to buy/use contraception?
Could the Amish owners of a company argue that paying federal taxes forces them to be complicit in war which is against their religion?
Could Hobby Lobby fire an employee who uses his/her salary to buy/use contraception?
63
both settled under the law, both answered no by the courts, neither one relevant to the current discussion.
Ms. Greenhouse's analysis of this serious and concerning subject is simple and elegant. Brava.
65
Truth in the supreme court?
4
Clearly, your country needs more members on the Supreme Court who have the power of reason that Ms. Greenhouse displays. Hers are opinions worth printing/clipping out and saving.
49
Ah, Gerry. Let me gently suggest you're missing the point. The four conservatives, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito, have ample powers of reason. The problem is, they are ideologues who couldn't care less about settled precedent (Citizens United) or first amendment (Hobby Lobby). They have an obvious political viewpoint and shamelessly use their office to promote it, all the while claiming they are merely calling balls and strikes, not reinventing the game.
Fantastic!
6
Old Karl got one thing right, religion truly is the opiate of the people.
23
...And therefore should be designated a Class 1 pharmaceurical, like heroin, illegal even by prescription.
Health care gets tax subsidies, religious exemption should be unconstitutional.
26
How many steps away would we be from a religious for-profit company saying that their taxes can't go to support any medical coverage (through Obamacare for example) if it allows for contraception?
This has to be scaled back, it has to be about what a person is directly being compelled to do TO THEMSELVES. This is clearly a case of a few religious people trying to abuse the Constitution to advance an agenda of pushing their beliefs on others, not just protecting their own.
This has to be scaled back, it has to be about what a person is directly being compelled to do TO THEMSELVES. This is clearly a case of a few religious people trying to abuse the Constitution to advance an agenda of pushing their beliefs on others, not just protecting their own.
67
Wow.
3
Cutting to the chase, Ms. Greenhouse reduces the Religious Right's "legal brief" to its refusal to accept the black president and its recoiling at the idea of a woman having sex for pleasure, not procreation. The forces out to demonize the latter cannot and do not understand that their attacks upon women's sexual choices and privileges set a match to the Constitution they so love to wave around as their very own. Their hypocrisy is beyond appalling in any civilized country. Both the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals case referred to by Ms. Greenhouse, as Well as the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington vs. Burwell breadcrumbs, are transparent tentacles reaching out for the real goal: the ultimate repeal of Roe v. Wade. As for President Barack Obama and his ACA, well, 60-plus House and/or Senate votes to destroy it speak for itself. One does indeed wonder if the same meanness of spirit and soul towards the public's health would have attached itself to any health initiative proposed by any Republican president, even going back 60-plus years to Dwight D. Eisenhower. Four [five?] Roberts Court "justices" smirk at the answer.
16
So iff I argue that I sincerely believe that my God requires child sacrifice, the Supreme Court would uphold my religious conviction?
Taken to an extreme, the RFRA is shown to have a pernicious effect on our society and needs a corrective to limit present and fu.ture distortions
Taken to an extreme, the RFRA is shown to have a pernicious effect on our society and needs a corrective to limit present and fu.ture distortions
10
How do we start with the idea that folks cannot be compelled to worship as the king worships, to a scenario where religious folks can thwart govt programs that are designed to help folks do what the vast majority of religious people do already, which is use contraception.
11
Religion and behavior are solely the responsibility of the individual. Churches marry people every day and many marriages end up being hell on earth. Churches and religious people must have their own business to attend to.
3
WHERE DOES IT END? Not satisfied with the outcome of the Supreme Court case involving Hobby Lobby, the writer reports that other religious organizations, whose primary function is other than the direct practice of religions services, are suggesting that for them even to be required to inform a woman that what they inaccurately describe as "abortafacients" is consistent with the Supreme Court's decision.
The First Amendment says that the state will not establish any religion. So exactly where does the "free practice" of a religion cross the line, requiring the government, effectively, to adopt the practices of the religion to support it.
For example, both Orthodox and some mainstream Jews believe that any text containing the Holy name (of the divinity) must not be "destroyed" in a disrespectful manner. So copies of pages and worn out books containing the Holy name are buried with a scholar.
But the difference is that we don't expect people of any other religious beliefs to adopt the same practices in discarding their sacred texts, even if those happen to be copies of the Hebrew Scriptures (AKA "Old Testament"). Perhaps Jewish history, being replete with persecution, found that there was survival value in keeping hands off anything to do with any religion other than Judaism.
But for me, to cross the line and demand that the government must officially comply with religious dictates, is going to far. Ok so don't say or write "abortion" or other words.
The First Amendment says that the state will not establish any religion. So exactly where does the "free practice" of a religion cross the line, requiring the government, effectively, to adopt the practices of the religion to support it.
For example, both Orthodox and some mainstream Jews believe that any text containing the Holy name (of the divinity) must not be "destroyed" in a disrespectful manner. So copies of pages and worn out books containing the Holy name are buried with a scholar.
But the difference is that we don't expect people of any other religious beliefs to adopt the same practices in discarding their sacred texts, even if those happen to be copies of the Hebrew Scriptures (AKA "Old Testament"). Perhaps Jewish history, being replete with persecution, found that there was survival value in keeping hands off anything to do with any religion other than Judaism.
But for me, to cross the line and demand that the government must officially comply with religious dictates, is going to far. Ok so don't say or write "abortion" or other words.
8
The right is wrong because contraception is something good and not something bad.
The left is wrong because contraception is not a "health need".
Two wrongs fighting each other and one is bound to win.
Meanwhile, dental care which IS a health need, goes uncovered.
The left is wrong because contraception is not a "health need".
Two wrongs fighting each other and one is bound to win.
Meanwhile, dental care which IS a health need, goes uncovered.
4
18.5 women in 100,000 die from pregnancy. And the rate is increasing. That makes it a "health need."
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21657819-death-childbirth-un...
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21657819-death-childbirth-un...
8
Contraception is not a "health need", but dental care is? Have those rotten teeth pulled and be done with it.
4
And without pregnancy, none of these 100,000 would even have been born.
Traffic lights save plenty of lives, but no one has suggested that traffic lights be covered by health funds. Nor seat belts.
Your argument is specious.
Traffic lights save plenty of lives, but no one has suggested that traffic lights be covered by health funds. Nor seat belts.
Your argument is specious.
1
As always when religious zealots take over civil society in the name of "true faith" in the only "true religion," citing their "conscience" as its basis, the rest of us must fear for our freedom to coexist. We deplore and send our troops to die to protect foreign citizens from the Taliban, while the American brand of religious intolerance and enslavement seeks legitimation from the Supreme Court for its practices. By all means restore sanity under the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution. The church of Hobby Lobby should not be allowed to oppress its employees, nor should the rest of us allow it to prosper by patronizing its stores.
27
Hobby Lobby -- and Wheaton College – – cannot refuse to hire people who use contraception. They cannot insist, for example, that all new hires sign a pledge refusing they won't use contraception. They cannot insist insist that employees have children -- and lots of them -- until the wife reaches the age of menopause. How, then, can these organizations refuse to allow their employees access to contraception?
19
Many conservatives cite this case and the Hobby Lobby one to prove the Obama administration guilty of hostility to religion. It would be closer to the facts to use the disputes involved as evidence that the religious right has rejected the secular nature of American society. The plaintiffs have demanded a religious exemption from responsibilities the community has created to enhance the well-being of women.
The ACA does not attack religion. Rather, like most American legislation, this law simply ignores religious beliefs. In that sense, the measure reinforces the secular nature of our society and legal system, without interfering with any church's practices or doctrine. But the plaintiffs assert the right to a partial veto over any law that imposes obligations on religious institutions or their lay followers, if religious leaders deem those obligations a violation of their beliefs. If the plaintiffs win this case, then SCOTUS will have helped establish a legal principle that would enable religious institutions and their followers to determine which laws they would have to obey.
This principle would undermine the secular character of our society, because it would permit religious groups to opt out of obeying the laws the community has decided enhance the welfare of its members. This interpretation of religious freedom would endow the faithful with rights not enjoyed by the rest of society, which would have to bear the costs they shirked.
The ACA does not attack religion. Rather, like most American legislation, this law simply ignores religious beliefs. In that sense, the measure reinforces the secular nature of our society and legal system, without interfering with any church's practices or doctrine. But the plaintiffs assert the right to a partial veto over any law that imposes obligations on religious institutions or their lay followers, if religious leaders deem those obligations a violation of their beliefs. If the plaintiffs win this case, then SCOTUS will have helped establish a legal principle that would enable religious institutions and their followers to determine which laws they would have to obey.
This principle would undermine the secular character of our society, because it would permit religious groups to opt out of obeying the laws the community has decided enhance the welfare of its members. This interpretation of religious freedom would endow the faithful with rights not enjoyed by the rest of society, which would have to bear the costs they shirked.
75
The best test of your logic is how you react when the tables are turned. Imagine an employer whose religious beliefs require helping to fund employee abortions. And imagine his having to purchase federal insurance barring such funding. Assume the court has allowed the employer to opt out of his insurance, upon notice, providing a substitute plan upholding his religious views. But then he decides that it is unfair for him to have to fill out complicated, time-consuming paperwork just to subsidize his employees' rights. So he goes to court and sues for the right to make the payments required by his religion without having to jump through a dozen bureaucratic hoops. Tell me, Ms, Greenhouse, is it your view that this well-intended boss trying to help his employees must fill out the paperwork, however burdensome, or do you maintain a double standard, where those you consider virtuous have more rights than those you oppose?
The plaintiffs in the case have not complained that the requirement to notify the government of their exemption from the law's mandate involves an unfair burden in terms of paperwork. (How do you know its burdensome?) They claim the requirement makes them complicit in the medical practices they believe contravene God's law. Their tender consciences, as I have noted before, recall to mind the story of the princess who could detect the presence of a pea in her bed, even if it were separated from her by several mattresses. Such delicacy is truly awe-inspiring.
8
Actually the paperwork is NOT burdensome. It is a one page letter.
9
"...To accept the claims being made here is to plunge into a world where conviction clothed in religious garb, no matter how untethered from reality, can be permitted to impair the rights of non-adherents to the benefits designed by a secular government to apply to all..."
Indeed. Or to put it another way, it makes religious people not only a law unto themselves but to others also.
Indeed. Or to put it another way, it makes religious people not only a law unto themselves but to others also.
43
It appears that's what these Christian zealots want--everyone to follow THEIR beliefs. In the Middle East it's called Sharia Law. But they don't get the connection.
10
Two Questions:
If the court validates "passive complicity" as a basis for faith based and closely held corporations to not conform with federal law and regulations, will those employers have the legal right to discipline or terminate employees who utilize birth control, participate in abortions, or otherwise deviate from the employer's beliefs and doctrines?
Recalling the Bush days of faith based initiative debates, validation of religiously based discrimination in employment by federally grantees and contractors was a central issue. Will the Supreme Court's decision to hear or not hear IUD driven cases be tantamount to accepting or declining an Invitation to Unrestricted Discrimination?
Validating discrimnation for any reason can only undermine religious freedom is a diverse society.
If the court validates "passive complicity" as a basis for faith based and closely held corporations to not conform with federal law and regulations, will those employers have the legal right to discipline or terminate employees who utilize birth control, participate in abortions, or otherwise deviate from the employer's beliefs and doctrines?
Recalling the Bush days of faith based initiative debates, validation of religiously based discrimination in employment by federally grantees and contractors was a central issue. Will the Supreme Court's decision to hear or not hear IUD driven cases be tantamount to accepting or declining an Invitation to Unrestricted Discrimination?
Validating discrimnation for any reason can only undermine religious freedom is a diverse society.
6
Hearing the IUD case and actually supporting the decision on viability-before-fertlization makes it easier to argue that procreation is the only legitimate end of intercourse between men and women. As a 76 year-old, I find that hilariously optimistic and Hallowe'enly scary, but the nutty professors of law might not, and we have them on SCOTUS. As lawprofessor and Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Trudeau said "The Government of Canada has no place in the bedrooms of Canadians." His son just became PM, and we all feel safer.
6
Perhaps a solution would be to require that any organization refusing birth control cover offer one full year of fully-paid maternity leave for each pregnancy, with the guarantee of the job upon the mother's return, along with free childcare for any children who might result from their ridiculous policy. That just might shut them up.
99
Cute, but that doesn't solve the government becoming part of the forced birth movement.
2
And if the religious win this one, will they next complain that they cannot employ anyone who buys birth control with the money they pay them because it makes them complicit? If simply saying, "we won't pay for this" is viewed as immoral participation in an employee benefit, where are the lines?
142
Or "we don't employ people who use birth control"? Or, better, yet, "we don't employ women who have sex outside of marriage"? Or, best of all, "We don't employ women"?
8
Greenhouse: "By the dozens, religiously...organizations sued the government on the ground that even having to request the opt-out made them complicit in the eventual enabling of their employees to obtain birth control."
This is very strange logic. If someone during wartime requests conscientious objector status, is that person complicit in enabling others to become warriors in the conflict to which that person is objecting?
This is very strange logic. If someone during wartime requests conscientious objector status, is that person complicit in enabling others to become warriors in the conflict to which that person is objecting?
29
It is difficult to escape the conclusion that evangelicals believe that I am violating their freedom to practice their religion by refusing to convert to it.
294
In a section about people's beliefs as to when life begins or what is contraception Ms. Greenhouse notes "Their belief doesn’t happen to be scientifically correct."
So I can believe anything; it does not have to be correct for me to oppose or support a policy. If I believe that Mexicans are rapists (as some famous voices have noted) then can I be excused from hiring Mexicans in my business? Or not serve Mexicans in my restaurant? Or begin the program of deporting them en mass? After all, my belief need not be correct or valid.
Later she notes that "Beliefs are relevant in a public policy context only when they are invoked to impinge on the rights of others." In other words, my beliefs - correct or incorrect, valid or invalid - has to impinge on "the rights of others." As far as I can tell providing a comprehensive healthcare that includes contraception does not negative;y impinge on "the rights of others." If anything, it facilitates "the rights of others."
SO, what is the basis, other than pure politics, for any judge to support plaintiffs?
So I can believe anything; it does not have to be correct for me to oppose or support a policy. If I believe that Mexicans are rapists (as some famous voices have noted) then can I be excused from hiring Mexicans in my business? Or not serve Mexicans in my restaurant? Or begin the program of deporting them en mass? After all, my belief need not be correct or valid.
Later she notes that "Beliefs are relevant in a public policy context only when they are invoked to impinge on the rights of others." In other words, my beliefs - correct or incorrect, valid or invalid - has to impinge on "the rights of others." As far as I can tell providing a comprehensive healthcare that includes contraception does not negative;y impinge on "the rights of others." If anything, it facilitates "the rights of others."
SO, what is the basis, other than pure politics, for any judge to support plaintiffs?
21
Considering who is bringing these suits, the nation's suspicion of the Catholic religious hierarchy back in the JFK days appears to be completely justified.
18
Arun,
You are not going back far enough. The bankrolling of Joseph Raymond McCarthy by the Buckleys and Joseph P. Kennedy should shed some light in some very dark corners. I think much of their resentment was justified as the Catholic population were deemed by the powers that be second class citizens. But the methods used in using a mad dog like McCarthy to achieve their goals unleashed a genie that we may never get back in the bottle until it has destroyed America.
You are not going back far enough. The bankrolling of Joseph Raymond McCarthy by the Buckleys and Joseph P. Kennedy should shed some light in some very dark corners. I think much of their resentment was justified as the Catholic population were deemed by the powers that be second class citizens. But the methods used in using a mad dog like McCarthy to achieve their goals unleashed a genie that we may never get back in the bottle until it has destroyed America.
2
As far as I'm concerned, religious organizations of any type should not have special privileges with regard to birth control or any other topic. People within any religious community are free to believe as they choose but when they choose to apply their beliefs to all others, they are infringing on individual rights and another person's religious views. What if a business owner is Christian Scientist or Jehovah's Witness and refuses to cover surgical procedures or blood transfusions? Would that stand? There are many scenarios that could be pushed to ridiculous extremes and the Supreme Court would be smart to give thought to that. I knew a very vibrant, accomplished young woman who was Christian Scientist. She had a curable condition that many women have but, despite the approaches by her friends and colleagues, her mother kept everyone away from her and she died within a Matter of weeks. It was a sad waste of a life that should have had many years left. What if an entire religion had the clout to allow such a thing to happen?
155
It's not so much that having to submit an accommodation violates the 'sincere religious beliefs' of one of these corporations, so much as it is the notion that the business has already demanded that one of its employees can use contraception or get an abortion, and it is the government that stands in the way of them enacting this. After all, no one is talking about the right of any of the women to use these methods, and ONLY about the right of the business to keep women from doing so.
2
"After all, no one is talking about the right of any of the women to use these methods, and ONLY about the right of the business to keep women from doing so."
So, it's OK for a business to dictate what birth control method a woman uses? You'll notice, of course, that it's specific to women. Would it be OK if your employer demanded that you get a vasectomy?
So, it's OK for a business to dictate what birth control method a woman uses? You'll notice, of course, that it's specific to women. Would it be OK if your employer demanded that you get a vasectomy?
5
The thorny issue of contraception and abortion will be kicked around the pitch as long as there are religionists who seek to enforce their concepts of "natural, i.e., putative 'God-given' behavior" on the general public.This year we've seen support for an elected public servant who martyr-like accepted jail time rather than carry out the sworn duties of her office because of her personal behavioral code. Both of the Bushes foisted on the American public two of the most egregious religion-driven judges, Alito and Thomas to join Reagan's ideologue of choice to play the game of hegemony rather than interpret the law of the land.
60
Brilliantly argued. Thank you for this.
27
Another excellent column by Ms. Greenhouse. Consider the abstract argument offered by those attacking the opt-out provisions of the contraception mandate: They contend that the act of requesting a accommodation is, in itself, an impermissible burden on their religious beliefs. In short, government may not legislate in any manner they disapprove, because they may not so much as be required to speak up and say "I choose not to participate." This is the reductio ad absurdum of the trend that holds it is "oppressive" to be greeted with "happy holidays" or to be asked to live in a world that acknowledges ANY beliefs except one's own right-wing Christian views.
152
Supreme Court News 2016:
Employers with strong religious beliefs are seeking the right to pay workers only in scrip or limited-use gift cards. They categorically reject "passive complicity" in the sins of employees who spend their payroll in ways that violate the employer's beliefs. Cases on appeal include wages used to purchase such things as alcohol, tattoos in vitro treatments, abortions, and in one highly publicized example, rental of hotel rooms for exotic forms of extramarital sex.
The plaintiffs are expecting a favorable judgment, as they have already won a similar accommodation for employer-provided health insurance.
Employers with strong religious beliefs are seeking the right to pay workers only in scrip or limited-use gift cards. They categorically reject "passive complicity" in the sins of employees who spend their payroll in ways that violate the employer's beliefs. Cases on appeal include wages used to purchase such things as alcohol, tattoos in vitro treatments, abortions, and in one highly publicized example, rental of hotel rooms for exotic forms of extramarital sex.
The plaintiffs are expecting a favorable judgment, as they have already won a similar accommodation for employer-provided health insurance.
243
Excellent reductio ad absurdum. Who do you write for? (If you don't, you should.)
6
Brilliant, Naomi! Thank you.
5
The Supreme Court Justices are not naive, and only the most naive could have believed that Hobby Lobby would not have led us right here. Which means the majority must have planned to hear the expanded question of how to balance freedom of religion and freedom from religion.
For whatever reason, the right truly believes that they are inhibited from practicing their religion. That they are discriminated against. We hear it in the "War on Christmas" rhetoric, in challenges over placement of the 10 Commandments in government offices, in the quest to deny birth control, in the quest to deny equal treatment of people seeking same sex marriage. And equally, about half the Court agrees.
The Court needs to get this one right. We live in a secular country with secular laws. There is no reason for us to bend towards theocracy.
For whatever reason, the right truly believes that they are inhibited from practicing their religion. That they are discriminated against. We hear it in the "War on Christmas" rhetoric, in challenges over placement of the 10 Commandments in government offices, in the quest to deny birth control, in the quest to deny equal treatment of people seeking same sex marriage. And equally, about half the Court agrees.
The Court needs to get this one right. We live in a secular country with secular laws. There is no reason for us to bend towards theocracy.
342
You mean like Kennedy's opinion in Citizens United that money would not have a corrupting influence on our political system?
9
Yeah, that was a convincing argument for Citizens United. Kennedy wasn't being naive, he was being intentionally blind. I think the term is "disingenuous."
5
If a human egg is a human being, then a human sperm is also a human being since it contains the same number of chromosomes and genes as the egg. If that is the case, then almost all of the sperm produced by males ( many millions per day) are doomed to death if they are somehow not protected. Is this the next step in this utterly ridiculous argument about what is a human being? Let's get some adults on the Supreme Court who have a better understanding of science than the average junior high student.
263
I don't actually think many people, no matter how religious, think the unfertilized egg is a human being. That was a hypothetical. It's the fertilized egg that some people think in good faith is a human being. I don't agree and our laws don't agree but at least understand what the people seeking accommodation DO believe.
1
Two priests told me that. Therefore sex was only to make children. Any other reason for sex is a sin.
2
@FT:
I would congratulate you on this marvelous argument, but I can't as it is not an original thought. It was said at least as far back as 1983, by the Pythons, Monty:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk
I would however like the government lawyers to bring this up before the Supremes, and ask those of the petitioners who are male if they have ever masturbated as a test of the sincerity of their beliefs.
I would congratulate you on this marvelous argument, but I can't as it is not an original thought. It was said at least as far back as 1983, by the Pythons, Monty:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk
I would however like the government lawyers to bring this up before the Supremes, and ask those of the petitioners who are male if they have ever masturbated as a test of the sincerity of their beliefs.
8
Just one question - do such plaintiffs object to policies covering vasectomies? It seems there is an equal protection argument here.
173
Thank you! This is merely a thinly veiled attempt at controlling the lives of women.
14
And what about Viagra and Cialis, and the other drugs that blanket our airwaves? These surely are not aimed at men looking to procreate! But as usual, male sex is fine--it's the woman's desire to control the outcome that is the problem.
13
This is just another example of a very conservative religious minority in this country attempting to turn the Bill of Rights on it's head in the pursuit of it's religious goals at the expense of the vast majority.
Unfortunately, they appear to be succeeding with the Supreme Court and Congress we've had for the last 35 years with the Free Exercise Clause taking precedence over the Establishment Clause.
Therefore, Linda, please help us in the majority in succeeding to make your Establishment Clause Restoration Act become law. Go, Linda, go!!
Unfortunately, they appear to be succeeding with the Supreme Court and Congress we've had for the last 35 years with the Free Exercise Clause taking precedence over the Establishment Clause.
Therefore, Linda, please help us in the majority in succeeding to make your Establishment Clause Restoration Act become law. Go, Linda, go!!
198
It's always our right to be wrong
Sincerity strengthens our song
We also revere
Right to be sincere
But only when it's all day long!
It clearly is right to be Right,
Just keep it clearly out of sight,
Obscurity counts
As illogic mounts,
Plain logic is always a blight!
Sincerity strengthens our song
We also revere
Right to be sincere
But only when it's all day long!
It clearly is right to be Right,
Just keep it clearly out of sight,
Obscurity counts
As illogic mounts,
Plain logic is always a blight!
49
Without Ms Linda, I swear,
My sanity would not be there.
My sanity would not be there.
122
One of your best, thanks!
4
And you thought it was just about peyote. Silly girl.