Referencing this article, does anyone else find this whole situation completely retarded? The supreme court judges are debating the wrong issue!

No one would object to participating in a health plan voluntarily. It is wrong to use force to coerce any one.

The Christians are right, but for the wrong reasons. Irony abounds. 

And now we have a legal quagmire that will only thicken as time goes on.

Finally, in reading her long-winded opinion essay I noticed that Justice Ginsburg really seems to like the argument from consequences fallacy. Surely other people caught on to this?

Views: 90

Comment

You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by Čenek Sekavec on July 7, 2014 at 5:51am

And you are ok getting your "necessity" from others at the point of a gun?

Comment by Freethinker31 on July 6, 2014 at 10:04pm

LET ME MAKE MYSELF  CLEARER    Health care  is  a necessity not a luxury...For the system  to work  everyone  needs  to  participate....the ones  who   choose  not  to are the ones  who end up  in the ER  one night  and  have  no insurance  and  guess  who pays  for that person.....those of us  who  do participate...That is why Auto insurance  works  because  it is mandatory...the same thing  can   not  be said  of religion because one  does not have  to be a member  of  any  religion....  

Comment by Loren Miller on July 6, 2014 at 7:13pm
There is a major difference between religion and health care. Religion is by no means mandatory. Health care is at least desirable. I participate in healthcare because I need the benefits and I benefit from lower costs. I do not need religion, & I don't participate in it!
Comment by Čenek Sekavec on July 6, 2014 at 6:36pm

Freethinker31 the exact same statement you made can be used against atheists. Everyone needs to participate in religion... so get used to it.

Not only is what you said a non-argument, it is atrocious in nature, and evil in implementation. I give you the opportunity to recant and clarify.

Comment by Freethinker31 on July 6, 2014 at 6:00pm

I disagree....... Everyone  needs to participate  in health care  to bring down  the  premie cost...aka  auto insurance...so  get used  to it       

Comment by Čenek Sekavec on July 6, 2014 at 12:36pm

Thanks everyone for your thoughtful responses. Craig when I said that I thought that the Christians were right, I meant it purely from the perspective of opposing the ACA. They choose the only tool left available to them - 1st amendment. ie, right to oppose, wrong reason to oppose. 

How I disagree with Ginsburg and indeed the rest of the Supreme Court is that I don't believe that a law like the ACA can in any way be fair, just, or non-violent. 

Ginsburg's entire dissenting opinion (particularly pages 25 and 27) boils down to this: Contraceptive choice is good, therefore force people to pay for it. She doesn't say the 2nd part but it is implicit in her argument because that is exactly how government works.

I didn't state this in my original post but I approach this and all issues from an application of the non-aggression principle. 

Finally, I wanted to also say that I most enjoyed reading your 3rd paragraph, particularly where you quite eloquently said

"Why should they be able to shield themselves from personal liability via corporate protections, yet still impose their personal religious beliefs on employees?"

Which is exactly why I think that the court majority is also wrong. 

Comment by Sentient Biped on July 5, 2014 at 6:44pm

Craigart14-

Your response is far more articulate than anything I could come up with. 

My dad always used to say, "It all comes down to whose ox is being gored".  In the case of the supreme court, the conservatives have one ox, the liberals have another, and it doesn't seem like they are as interested in applying modern interpretation to the constitution as they are in following their agenda.

Comment by Craigart14 on July 4, 2014 at 11:07pm

The argument from consequences is not always a fallacy.  Ginsburg points out that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act requires that consequences to non-beneficiaries be considered in interpreting the law.  Women employed by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga may be de facto denied access to IUDs because of the prohibitive cost, though IUDs may be medically appropriate for a variety of reasons.  Like it or not, the consideration of consequences is part of the very law on which the plaintiffs are basing their case.

I'm not sure to what truth you refer.  As Ginsburg points out, the RFRA and legal precedent prohibit the courts from arguing the validity of anyone's "sincerely held" religious beliefs.  In theory, all religions are thus protected, but in practice only so-called mainstreams faiths actually are protected.  Thus the court can't even consider whether or not the Greens' and the Hahns' beliefs are "true"; that can of worms is firmly closed.  What seems odd to me, though, is not so much that their anti-abortion beliefs, which have no specific Biblical support, are untouchable, but that their scientifically untenable argument that four specific types of birth control cause abortion, which is an illogical extension of Biblically unsupported belief, is also untouchable.  It seems less about freedom of religion and more about the freedom to reject science.  The Bible does not prohibit abortion nor does it prohibit Plan B.

Ginsburg also points out that despite the reductionist "corporations are persons, too" meme in circulation since Citizens United, the courts have always taken a more a discriminating view, recognizing that precedent as a legal fiction that allows individuals to shield themselves from personal and financial responsibility should their corporations, "closely held" or not, be found liable for damages in, say, a civil suit.  GM will undoubtedly be paying settlements over those faulty ignition switches that have caused a couple of dozen deaths, but it won't come out of the CEO's paycheck.  Though all the Hobby Lobby stock is owned by members of the Green (IIRC) family, should Hobby Lobby lose a big lawsuit brought by an employee or a customer the family members would not have to cough up any cash.  Why should they be able to shield themselves from personal liability via corporate protections, yet still impose their personal religious beliefs on employees?  Why should they argue that the ACA places a "significant burden" on their beliefs while trampling on the religious freedom and right to privacy of their employees?  Alito argues that the court's decision here will not apply to other corporate religious exemptions, but it certainly opens the door.

Ginsburg's 35-page opinion may seem long-winded, but it is 14 pages shorter than Alito's majority ruling.  (At least Scalia didn't write the bloody thing.)  It is also closely argued, well supported, and relevant, a beautifully constructed legal argument.

Comment by Michael Penn on July 3, 2014 at 4:06pm

To me, the consequences of this decission will be future issues of law where "religion" wins again! Someone wanted to create this irony, but it's sort of like the tail wagging the dog. What about church and state remaining separate?

Look for more of it. The foot is now inside the door.

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service