Jesus is the poster child for ignorant and backwards. Whats your favorite story about Jesus? Mine is where he cast the demons out of that dude and cast the demons into pigs and then had the pigs run over a cliff.
I had that in mind when I wrote that. That’s why I said that old ideas aren’t necessarily right because they’ve been around forever. Only that they are sustainable, whereas many new ideas are not. What you cited were all good ideas. Massive wrongs were righted. The ideas become less sound when we’re talking about correcting minor wrongs, and discarding a very important moral and philosophical precept in the process: freedom of religion.
One of the things I’ve noticed in recent decades that I don’t like very much and that I think we’ll regret is reprioritizing our rights. Freedom of speech becomes subject to more government regulation, the right to health care becomes sacrosanct. That kind of thing. When freedom of religion and some other societal imperative collide, that societal imperative should be extremely important to infringe on freedom of religion. It seems that people like Robert don’t want to consider religious freedom at all when it conflicts with the desires of the government. That will never really be a good idea, either 100 years from now or 1000.
Opposition as in, “We need to outlaw this!”, you’re right. Opposition as in, “I’m personally opposed and will not participate in this regardless of what the government says I have to do”, you’re wrong.
No, I just don’t want to consider ideas that come out of a book where the hero casts out demons and sends them into pigs and then sends the pigs over a cliff. I’d call adhering to the thoughts of that book a march backwards into ignorance.
what?
Ok then, let’s get back to the question that you’ve repeatedly refused to answer. If the government forces anybody to give up a religious ideal, that obviously violates separation of church and state. You’ve said that the owners of Hobby Lobby have a religiously-based objection to a few types of birth control. If the government were to force them to pay for birth control, that would force them to give up one of their religious ideals, and would thus violate separation of church and state, wouldn’t it?
That’s true now, but in 1 AD Jesus’ ideas were a vast improvement over what came before. A lot of the social advancement we’ve had has not come from science, but from religion.
The government hasn’t taken away their ideal, if they don’t like birth control, they don’t have to use it. That, that specifically, is their “religious freedom”. To do as they wish on their own terms on their own time. When they start to dictate what - other - people can do or not do, that is not about freedom.
like what?
Religious faith is increasingly rapidly in many parts of the world. I would recommend reading the book God is Back: How the Global Revival of Faith is Changing the World
Equality of man for starters. Wasn’t practiced, still isn’t totally, but expressing the idea and accepting it on faith is what led to civil rights movements. Which often had a heavy religious presence.
Contrast that to non-religious philosophies, which rejected the concept in favor of ideas like eugenics, “scientific” racism, and rule of the intellectuals over the masses.
Even the very things that go against Judeo-Christian morality tend to confirm its wisdom. Such as gay rights. Yes, homosexuality is a sin in Judeo-Christian morality. But we’re all sinners and equal before God. And the highest commandment aside from loving God is loving your brother. THat outweighs everything else. Pretty revolutionary concept even today.
Yeah, like Japan and England and Norway…
Except we’re not all equal. I’m a lot better than a rapist and Dr Salk (Polio) is a lot better than me. “All sinners equal before god” is just a lazy way to make up for your misgivings and faults. Your contention that Christianity builds love and brotherhood only works in a limited degree, it only unites the people who think like you do to your cause. For everyone else it is a force of division. Some people who were already very good people to begin with have been made better, morally, by religion. That is as much credit as I am willing to extend in that regard.
To state the obvious (again) Hobby Lobby has never attempted to dictate what anyone else can or cannot do. The Obama Administration, on the other hand, has tried to dictate what all of us must do, namely that we all must purchase insurance that covers all forms of birth control. So according to what you’ve just written, Hobby Lobby was in favor of freedom, while the Obama Administration was opposed to freedom.
Hobby Lobby is trying to limit other people’s choices based upon religion. What if Hobby Lobby said faith healing was all that was medically necessary and just decided to get rid of insurance for their employees?
You may have a point about ACA requiring people to purchase birth control. Is that actually true? If it is then I disagree with the practice.
The problem is they don’t like it because “god” doesn’t like it. That is an irrational thought process that I want no part of.
If Hobby Lobby wanted to say we will not pay for 28 day detox in our insurance because alcoholism is a choice and people are responsible for their actions… I’d probably agree. or at the very least, that is the start of a rational conversation. Saying “god don’t like alcohol” is the opposite, there is no way possible to turn that into a rational debate.
Right. So each appealed to the vaguely worded concept to support conflicting opinions.
No, it was not.
The vaguely worded concept of that separation was a point to which two conflicting views on the SCOTUS both appealed when rendering a decision. The phrase was not “established” in that decision; it had already been around for 145 years. It was simply invoked, with contradictory results, by two sides of an opinion.
I think wall of separation is pretty darn explicit.
The only incredible statement is your apparent confusion that the phrase “separation of church and state” appears in the Constitution. The Constitution does establish the Law. The phrase, written 15 years after the Constitution and ten years after the First Amendment was ratified, does not appear in the Constitution.
I realize that you believe that your personal interpretation has some significant meaning. The fact that it is bandied about by people on opposite sides of a number of issues demonstrates that your view of its clarity is silly.