Political Cartoons

Right, but the religious belief part does exist in law. That's the important part.

From:

Does this ever make you uncomfortable as an atheist?

From:

Yes and no. At the same time, protecting the right to believe pushes the government in the direction of also protecting the right not to believe, so I see rulings like this as a good step for atheism.

From:

I see rulings like this as a good step for atheism

I'm not sure I see it working like that. Maybe I need an example.

From:

The government that can tell someone how to worship can also tell someone how not to. If the government can mandate to someone to violate their religious beliefs, what if it goes in the opposite direction? Should someone who sees religion as a cancer have to accommodate prayer nooks in their store? An extreme example, yes, but as an example off the top of my head...

From:

The government that can tell someone how to worship can also tell someone how not to.

Well, they do that already - Satanists can't perform human sacrifices, etc. But to your larger point, you seem to be speaking about people, individuals. This is about corporations.

From:

Well, they do that already - Satanists can't perform human sacrifices, etc

Meh, to a point. Religions cannot violate the rights of other people, that's where the line sits. That people aren't allowed to consent to be human sacrifices is a different problem, but there are a lot of ways we treat death that is borderline immoral anyway.

But to your larger point, you seem to be speaking about people, individuals. This is about corporations.

Corporations are groups of individuals.

From:

So corporations worship?

From:

Obviously.

From:

Enjoy this then, along with your well-earned title of Livejournal's Worst Atheist:

From:

I would think atheism better protected if the Supreme Court refused to sanction any supernaturalism, period. This way, it opens the door, or opens it further, to more sectarian demands. It makes religion stronger, and hence further marginalizing atheism.

From:

The First Amendment precludes that, thankfully.

From:

Under this Court, alas. But it doesn't have to be. It's one thing not to have the state go into churches and tell priests/pastors/clergy/whatever to do this or that, but it is another thing to refuse the power of the state to enforce an employer's religion on its employees.

From:

Under this Court, alas. But it doesn't have to be

It's less the Court and more the language of the Amendment.

but it is another thing to refuse the power of the state to enforce an employer's religion on its employees.

No religion has been "enforced" on any employees. To claim this is a distortion of the Hobby Lobby case in general.

From:

The Court and the language of the Constitution are like husband and wife. The Constitution is not just passively read, especially since there is so little there to be read. They work together; the language must be interpreted. To read so clearly that the First Amendment protects employers from a healthcare program to pay for birth control is a very active reading indeed.

From:

The Court and the language of the Constitution are like husband and wife.

If they're in an abusive relationship, maybe.

To read so clearly that the First Amendment protects employers from a healthcare program to pay for birth control is a very active reading indeed.

No, it's a very clear read. The First Amendment protects us from having the state interfere with our free exercise of religion (note it doesn't say "worship.") The contraceptive mandate, by mandating the offering of contraceptives believed to be abortifacients, violated the free exercise of the religion that does not allow for the assistance of abortion. This should have been 9-0 in favor, just like how Citizens United should have been 9-0 in favor, but the liberal side of the Court, well...

From:

You are right that the decision was a straight-Party vote, which should tell you something, except that you actually believe there is a Party that has the Truth.

Putting party aside, taking you as a rational atheist, I should think you would be somewhat wary about going in this kind of direction. It's going backward, taking us deeper into the superstitious mindset. Let them do what they must in private and in their places of worship/exercise, but let's not humor them with public sanction.

From:

You are right that the decision was a straight-Party vote, which should tell you something, except that you actually believe there is a Party that has the Truth.

Well, in these cases in particular, there's certainly one group ignoring written text in favor of ideology. Tell me, what was so much more unclear about the Hobby Lobby case than about the buffer zone case, or the NLRB case?

Putting party aside, taking you as a rational atheist, I should think you would be somewhat wary about going in this kind of direction. It's going backward, taking us deeper into the superstitious mindset.

Culturally, you're absolutely right. The Supreme Court, however, is not an institution you go to in order to enact cultural changes, but rather to protect our rights. In this case, protecting the right to free exercise of religion acts in a way that benefits nonbelievers in that it establishes the separation of what the government can do in this area.

Let them do what they must in private and in their places of worship/exercise

In private? Like, say, the workplace?

From:

In private? Like, say, the workplace?

Maybe if you are a writer.

Tell me, what was so much more unclear about the Hobby Lobby case than about the buffer zone case, or the NLRB case?

I'm not going to kid you. I haven't read them that tightly, just getting the highlights from the reportage. Still, if I get the gist of your question, I don't think there is much that is crystal clear in any of those cases, and that they could go either way.

On the NLRB case, I can see the Court saying that it was plain that the Senate had no intention of conducting any business and was just set up precisely to deny the president his constitutional right to pick recess appointments, and we won't be part of the trick.

As for the buffer zone case, I can see pointing out how, these days, abortion clinics are like a warzone, and recognizing the sensitive position these women are in, and that they should be free to exercise their abortion rights without people stepping in their face and harassing them.

I'm not saying that the decision had to go this way and it is a travesty that they did not, but I think they could have been perfectly legitimate decisions.

From: