Corporate Religion

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

A few cases involving the mandates on employers have come down in the last week, which raise some interesting issues:

* In Tyndale House Publishers v. Sebelius, the Washington, DC district court granted an injunction on penalties stemming from the publishing house's refusal to offer contraceptive coverage, citing religious freedom. Of the key findings from the ruling, it was held that even the indirect burden is enough to cause a religious liberty issue, and that the government lacked a compelling interest in handing down the mandate.

* In Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, an Oklahoma district court ruled in favor of the federal government in part because the ruling differentiated between for-profit and religious corporations, making a distinction between organizations involved in worship and organizations that, at least according to this judge, are for-profit or simply religiously-associated.

We now have 4 lower court rulings in play right now regarding the contraception mandate. All four involved for-profit institutions, only Hobby Lobby ruling in favor of the government on the issue, and none of this has anything to do with the Liberty University case that just made it back to the 4th Circuit.

Why shouldn't corporate entities have religious freedom rights? Especially in the case of places like Hobby Lobby, who outright state that '[T]he foundation of our business has been, and will continue to be strong values, and honoring the Lord in a manner consistent with Biblical principles." Given the first amendment, hasn't the government clearly overstepped their bounds?

Comments

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

You really don't see the flaw in attributing to private industries the power to wield religious influence? I seem to remember a Rabbi once said to Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's. This is claiming that Mammon is God. There are theological reasons galore to oppose this blasphemous approach to business without roping in political ones, of which the most obvious is that this is a practical attempt to end-run Constitutional provisions against discrimination. Which I'm sure you don't believe in as you've never answered any of the legions of questions I've asked you about the role of the 14th and 15th Amendments in this regard.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

...what role do you think the 14th and 15th Amendments play in regulating the behavior of corporations, precisely?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Strictly speaking they don't, it's more that this would violate the separation of church and state like a particular genre of extreme pornography. Jeff, however, has amazing predilections to ignore certain types of questions despite being repeatedly asking, leading to my rather pessimistic conclusion that he'd address this as the actual issue, namely attributing to unaccountable private bureaucracies the kind of power they do not need to have just as he refuses to address the 14th and 15th Amendments whenever the States' Rights issue comes up.

It's part of how for an atheist he sure tends to take the theistic side of discussions far more than an atheist reasonably should.

My point is that he doesn't seem to believer that a separation of church and state is viable, and I'm also beginning to seriously question if he is in fact an atheist as opposed to a theist who's adopting an atheist POV for hipsterism.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Now we're no-true-scotsmanning atheism? No TRUE atheist would side with religion more than X% of the time? C'mon.

You think it violates the establishment clause, he thinks it violates the free exercise clause. I understand his objection, but not yours. Specifically, I want to know how your theory accounts for the Amish exemption to paying Social Security.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I would say that the Amish shouldn't be exempted from paying Social Security, for one thing. It's not more than X% of the time, Jeff's atheism comes across as looking like a goose, hissing like a goose, and chasing things like a goose and being told it's a duck. To be perfectly honest I don't believe he is an atheist as he invariably decides the religious faction in any dispute between the Church and the state must be in the right for whatever reason.

That being said, my view is that this is illegal because it violates the tenet that the USA is not a society where one religion imposes its view on others. Imagine if a corporation mandated all women wear burkas or that its employes to ascend the latter must offer the dripping hearts of young people to the Unconquerable Sun. Would *that* be covered by the religious aspect as Jeff finds everything to do with religion being so covered?

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Note that deciding consistently against state exercises of power would also typify one as a very, very small government conservative, which Jeff clearly is, and not be inconsistent with atheism.

Your examples are so extreme as to be absurd. The Amish have a strong religious objection, and don't impose their beliefs on others because they are required by their exemption to provide a roughly equivalent social safety net by themselves.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Yes, and when his examples include a corporation explicitly wanting to run itself on Biblical models (presumably including slavery and polygamy) and defending this is as somehow a good thing as opposed to blasphemous mistaking God for the God of commerce and greed he's easily open to counterattack just like any fool who opens the Bible and points to some verse to validate their misconception of what the Bible actually means and assuming this is also what God thinks.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Wouldn't an atheist trying to cite Scripture to prove that Christians don't understand real Christianity be less obviously atheist than one who shrugs and takes the religious at their word about their beliefs?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

No, as the Bible has nothing to do with traditional Christianity in terms of validating or invalidating it. Such points would be viable against the Fundamentalists but have nothing to do with even mainline Protestantism, let alone Catholico-Orthodoxy. A corporation cannot maintain itself on the tenets of Jesus of Nazareth and be a viable profit-making enterprise. Period.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Again: why would Jeff care if they're making bad theological choices? Why would anyone, for that matter? His whole point is that it's not for you or I to judge their validity, but to let them worship as they see fit.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Because I'll be perfectly honest here, too, that if you consider those last two sentences a strawman, they are no different than this premise:

[T]he foundation of our business has been, and will continue to be strong values, and honoring the Lord in a manner consistent with Biblical principles."

Stating this as a foundation is no different, from that POV, than stating that the foundation of a business is offering dripping hearts to the Right-Handed Hummingbird to prevent the arrivals of the Star Gods. No business has the right to assume government protection of its right to impose the religious views of its boss on others. No business can appeal to the government to give it that right. The Church and the State have always been and will always be two separate things in any healthy Christian society.

Likewise, businesses have no business associating God with Mammon. This, however, is a theological argument. Since Jeff saw fit to bring into it the statement by Hobby Lobby, I have no problem telling him that he's full of nonsense in claiming that God and Mammon can be yoked together and that anyone who's actually studied that connection should agree with it. Using a religious argument is easily refutable by a religious counterargument, but it's as political as Sophia_Sadek's Caesar salad.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

I don't smoke pot. I wouldn't smoke pot even if it was legal to do so in my locality. However, I vigorously advocate legalizing pot. Clearly I must be a closet pothead? How else could I possibly explain this apparent contradiction, unless maybe, I'm appealing to a concept that extends outside of my own personal interest?

Congratulations, you've now got a practicing Roman Catholic defending the atheist. How can that be?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Well, I hate to say it but no corporation can run itself consistently on Christian practices, so when he's defending one that does and saying they've a right to present themselves as Christian, I'm just as free to call them greedy heretics.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

You can, but that's beyond the scope of the issue as you yourself presented it just a couple of minutes ago.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Which is the problem, Jeff, like Sophia_Sadek, wants a religious discussion masquerading as a political point. There are zero legal grounds to deny women access to contraception (note that this is contraception, not abortion), and there are zero secular grounds to justify such a denial regardless.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Was the original case about Hobby Lobby following employees around and making sure they didn't buy contraception. I really haven't read the details.

How is it that the only reasonable way to get contraception nowadays is through Hobby Lobby? (I'm being semi-facetious here, but with a point.)

[existentme.livejournal.com]

Lol, (without adopting an argument in regard thereto) hipsterism!

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

eff, however, has amazing predilections to ignore certain types of questions despite being repeatedly asking

There are certain rabbit holes I refuse to go down with you anymore, lest it devolve into a "37th Tigers/Stalin/Grant" craziness again. I don't have the energy for it.

It's part of how for an atheist he sure tends to take the theistic side of discussions far more than an atheist reasonably should.

If the government can tell a religious person how to worship, they can tell a nonreligious person how to as well. And there are many more of them than there are of me, and they won't be rushing to my defense.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

So if I have a sincere conscientious objection to Christianity, such that I refuse even to associate with Christians, and I want my business producing widgets to reflect that objection, I ought to be entitled to discriminate against Christians in my employment practices?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I have no issue with that from a legal standpoint, no.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

So, no legal objection to not serving blacks food in a restaurant?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

No legal objection, no. Significant moral and ethical, however.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Civil_Rights_Act

There are legal restrictions. Its why I want my dog to be a certified guide dog.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I understand that the legal objections exist in legislative form. I disagree with them.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

1) Unfortunately they do that because you're incapable of answering a direct question when asked it or backing up what it is that you say. If you did that even once it might happen less, but it's never anything you do in your own eyes that lead to it, so......

2) The governments of these states do do that when they ban atheists from say, holding government office. But that quite obviously is less of an issue to you than the people who want to justify business in the eye of God, who as per the Bible they claim to read is not fond at all of such pretensions.