Weekend Plans? I'll Be Crusading

Like most of y'all, my weekend plans involve some backyard grilling, a little work around the house, oh, and probably some crusades.

Enjoy the crusades, y'all. It is the weekend, after all.

"Gunmen hunted after 12 killed at Paris magazine"

The religion of peace strikes again.

“It’s hard to argue that opposing marriage equality is a central tenet of Christianity when majorities of Christian voters support same-sex marriage.”

Says Sally Kohn, writing in The Daily Beast.

Whoa! Same-sex marriage and government's role in it aside, when did the central tenets of Christianity become determined by poll results? Did I miss a meeting where the Pope decided that Christianity's tenets would just be whatever the poll numbers showed most Christians wanted to go with?

I'm pretty sure Moses didn't take poll of all the Israelites when he came down off Mt. Sinai and saw them worshiping the golden calf.

You know, I read these kinds of pieces, and it's obvious that the kulturkampf war is over on this issue. However, unsatisfied with claiming the field, the victors are now in full "mop-up" duty, going around and humiliating and shooting the survivors on the other side.

Some Thoughts on Hobby Lobby and Why Liberals Fail at America

Now that the long holiday weekend is over, it's back to work. That meant I had a full day today, so no time for blogging until now. I haven't blogged much here on the Hobby Lobby case.

If you go over to Brad's post on that case,I probably wrote more over there than I have over here. In any event, I've covered the legal aspects of the case over there, and I don't really care to rehash that aspect. What I've been mulling over the weekend was the absolute freakout that the left had over the decision. Frankly, it doesn't seem that earth-shattering to me. What really puzzled me was all the hair-pulling, wailing, and gnashing of teeth. I saw all that and thought....really? Um, ok.

It puzzled me that people are aghast to discover a law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) protects religious freedom. The whole reason you pass a law like this is to protect religious freedom and give them accommodations. That's the whole point. But then, this upcoming point was made on Ace's podcast, and it bears repeating here, on this much less frequented corner of the internet, because it clarifies the issue.

The whole point of RFRA is to make special provisions, and to make accommodations with different beliefs. Because normally, the majority of a group finds it annoying to have to make these accommodations.

Accordingly, we passed a law about it - the RFRA. For instance: If a guy at your job site is a Muslim, then he may have to take a break three times a day to pray to Mecca. Obviously, not everyone gets this break. The rest of you guys have to keep digging the ditch. But to get along with the Muslim guy and be tolerant, we've decided, with RFRA, that we are going to respect that this guy has a belief system that isn't what everyone else's belief system is. Therefore, we're going to cut him some slack from the general rule that you don't get three breaks a day to pray in the direction of Mecca.

And for the most part, liberals are seeming fine with some of these special exceptions. But as soon as you have just one special exception that goes against their belief system, they want to crush people and impose their will on them. And then when you point out that the law also protects this religious group, all the liberals start yelling: "What the hell!, Now we're making laws for EVERY SINGLE RELIGIOUS GROUP?? It's going to be like ANARCHY here!" Well....that's kind of what the law says. What did you think the law said?

And that goes into the main point: One of the things that most people think was a good quality in liberals is that they wanted to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. I did. I kind of thought that it was a good thing that liberals at least thought about that problem a lot. They always seemed worried about a small group getting steamrolled by the conventions of the larger group.

But...it turns out that liberals don't really think about that. They don't really care about small groups having their own little exceptions if it the small group isn't part of their voting coalition. It was never about principle for liberals. For them, it's purely a transactional process for members of their voting coalition. LIberals are not fighting about the principle of the minority, because when it gets extended to a Christian, they're aghast, and they want to overturn the RFRA. They don't believe in the principle of protecting this religious minority. This whole thing has been very revealing for me.

I've seen liberals basically say that they don't support pluralism of viewpoints in general. They support specific exceptions and accommodations for people in their voting coalition - and that's it. It's not that liberals are principled and good people, they've just decided to do favors for people who vote like them.

And I hear these liberals say, If only these trouble-making Hobby Lobby Christians could be could be forced, somehow coerced by the government, to behave properly, then we wouldn't have these problems!

They fail at America.

Kennedy's Concurring Opinion Explained In a One-Act Play

While waiting on hold (with a government office) I had time to compose this short play, which I call: Kennedy’s Concurring Opinion. I hope you all like it.

HHS: Welcome to our office here at HHS. Here, drink some coffee.

Hobby Lobby: I only drink decaf coffee, but I see you have some of that. Since you have that available, I’ll take that.

HHS: Decaf coffee is for other people, not you! Drink this regular coffee! Do it!

Hobby Lobby: Look, you’ve got plenty of decaf coffee for everyone. It’s right there. Can I just have some decaf?

HHS: We get to decide what kind of coffee you get. Now drink this regular coffee!

Hobby Lobby: Hey…I didn’t come here to argue. If this is going to be a problem, I’ll just leave.

HHS: No. You’re not going anywhere. You’re going to sit here and drink some coffee, and it’s going to be regular!

Hobby Lobby: Ummmm….can I speak to your supervisor or something?

Supervisor Kennedy: What’s the problem here?

HHS: This person won’t drink the regular coffee. They’re demanding decaf!

Supervisor Kennedy: What’s this marked “Decaf" right here?

HHS: That’s decaf coffee.

Supervisor Kennedy: Looks like you have plenty of decaf. And didn’t I just see you give decaf coffee to the last person?

HHS: Yeah, but the last person was wearing a suit, and this guy is sitting here wearing a t-shirt!

Supervisor Kennedy: Seems kind of arbitrary if you ask me. You’re telling me that you made all this coffee, and made both decaf and regular, so as to give it to people who came to your office, but you don’t want to accommodate this particular guy’s choice?

HHS: Yes.

Supervisor Kennedy: Give this guy some decaf.

/scene

Father and Two Children Lost in Congaree National Park Have Been Found

Thank goodness.

I didn't want to put this story up until there was something good to report, and luckily, the family has been found. I know that the dad shouldn't have gotten lost to begin with, but this is one of those situations where you're just happy to have them back.

“Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’

Good to have the lost sheep back.

The Hobby Lobby Case and Jeffrey Toobin Continuing His Hackery

UPDATED IN BOLD TO GET A LITTLE MORE TECHNICAL/LEGALISTIC

Awhile back, I wrote a post called "Jeffrey Toobin Is a Hack". I was reminded of this when Ann Althouse wrote a post today on a similar topic: Toobin's Hackery. Althouse calls his piece on the Hobby Lobby Oral arguments "embarrassingly bad" I commend it to you only to demonstrate that my opinion of Toobin's hackery abounds all over the internet.

Anyway, you don't come here to get bad analysis, so if you want some actual, good analysis of the Hobby Lobby case, I am going to send you over to SCOTUSblog. 

My short and sweet thought is that an employer's failing to pay for an employee's preferred form of birth control is not a denial of that employee's ability to use that form of birth control. The employer not preventing the employee from using the birth control, the employer is simply saying they won't pay for it.

And that's fine.

But now you have a law (Obamacare) that says employers have to provide basically every type of birth control. And to be really technical about it, the actual law doesn't say that. HHS is issuing regulations that say this because Congress didn't explicitly want to take the heat for mandating the birth control requirement. This is an important issue, because regulations issued by HHS can be changed...by HHS. Regulations aren't as strong as federal statues.

So now, you have an employer (Hobby Lobby) that claims a sincere religious belief would be violated by complying with the regulation promulgated under the law, but claiming protection under a federal statute.

And so now you have a complicated problem. You have to balance the employer's religious beliefs against the compelling government interest (the regulation). Also, you've got to deal with a federal law (the Religious Freedom Restoration Act) passed in 1993 that basically says you have to apply "strict scrutiny" to laws that burden religious views, even if the law is religiously neutral - which is what we have here.

Note, the government's position concedes that the RFRA applies to for profit corporations, but they're basically asking the Supreme Court to ignore that.

Strict scrutiny is basically a death knell for anything that has to pass through it, so my guess is that the Court will apply the RFRA and issue a very narrow decision allowing Hobby Lobby an exemption based on religious grounds.

One big problem for the government is getting out from under the RFRA, and Toobin doesn't even mention the statue in his stupid little write up!

Also, It's not going to help the government's case that so many other waivers have been granted. It's hard to argue that there's a compelling government interest in this specific case when the government itself has given other entities a pass.

But that's just me.

Michael Crichton on Environmentalism as Religion

Last night the Senate Democrats had an all night talkathon in which they burned the midnight oil to discuss climate change. (See what I did there?)

In response, I'd like to share a piece that author Michael Crichton wrote in the Hawaii Free Press several years ago. It holds up very well today.

I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear. They can't be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion. Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people---the best people, the most enlightened people---do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious. 

Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths. 

There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.

Go read the whole thing.

Nine Cars You'll Drive In Hell

Good list. This should be a segment on Top Gear.

Satan is going to make some of y'all drive a 1997 Ford Aspire

h/t Insty

Not Ashamed of Being Religious

Gamecock QB Dylan Thompson isn't afraid to share his faith. I strongly believe that Spurrier has recruited a great group of football players over the last few years. Not just on the field - but outside the lines. Ever since a certain QB left, South Carolina has been blessed to have great players on the field who are genuinely good guys.

Here's Dylan Thompson, if you don't know who he is:

Dylan Thompson - Doing what he does best.

I'm sure Marcus Lattimore's influence is a major factor, as he is probably the foundation of the locker room ethos that exists right now. Although he's in the NFL, his work ethic and attitude are still present with this team. I can't remember a previous summer when there were zero off-field problems for the Gamecocks. We haven't had anyone in trouble, and it's due to having solid guys of character on the team.

In related news, Kate Upton is also not afraid of telling people she's religious.

Here's Kate Upton, if you don't know who she is:

Kate Upton - Doing what she does best.

Notre Dame Files Suit Against HHS Regulation

The University of Notre Dame has filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court against the Obama Administration's Department of Health and Human Services. The University claims that the federal government of the United States does not have the power to force it to provide for or pay for services (birth control) that violates its own conscience.

“We do not seek to impose our religious beliefs on others; we simply ask that the government not impose its values on the university when those values conflict with our religious teachings,” University of Notre Dame President Fr. John Jenkins, C.S.C., said in a May 21 letter.

I'm honestly surprised that Obama is fighting this battle. I know he is going to try and spin this as a "war on women" but the funny thing about Court is that Judges don't really put up with "spin". They kind of have this hang-up for legal arguments. HHS is going to lose this suit. They cannot force a religious group to violate their beliefs. It doesn't matter what those beliefs are. If you doubt me, I would refer you to this.

Talk about shaking down the thunder. Notre Dame is stepping right into the center of what is going to be a very controversial issue, but that's what people do over matters of conscience and principle.

I wonder how Notre Dame is feeling about awarding Obama that honorary degree now.

Thanks for the degree, suckers. 

Rep. Trey Gowdy Grills Secretary Sebelius

Via the NY Sun, this five minute video shows local upstate boy, South Carolina Representative Trey Gowdy, absolutely destroy Secretary of HHS Kathleen Sebelius. This really highlights the divide between the parties today:

Imagine that. A lawmaker wants to talk about the law.

I want to puke when she says that she doesn't pretend to understand the nuance of Constitutional law. She understands it fine - she just doesn't give a damn. Her goal is to advance contraception/healthcare/whatever she wants in any manner that she can regardless of the Constitution.

On a related note, what kind of idiot wants insurance coverage for birth control? Birth control is a regular, predictable, and recurring expense that people have. Insurance is for irregular, unpredictable, and catastrophic expenses that can be spread out over a large group.

Asking for insurance to cover your birth control is like asking for insurance to cover your deodorant.

Wild-Eyed Christian Says Jesus Inspires His Public Policy Decisions

 Apparently, Jesus is in favor of the Healthcare Reform Bill and Dodd-Frank. Who knew?

"And so when I talk about our financial institutions playing by the same rules as folks on Main Street, when I talk about making sure insurance companies aren’t discriminating against those who are already sick, or making sure that unscrupulous lenders aren’t taking advantage of the most vulnerable among us, I do so because I genuinely believe it will make the economy stronger for everybody. But I also do it because I know that far too many neighbors in our country have been hurt and treated unfairly over the last few years, and I believe in God’s command to 'love thy neighbor as thyself.'"

Here's my problem: I'm fine with people living their life according to the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, or even The Essential Calvin & Hobbes Treasury. Whatever you want to be your personal guide in life is fine with me. However, your personal belief system is pretty much irrelevant to whether you should use the coercive power of government to come down on one side or other of a public policy debate.

When I see Obama invoking Christ to support his public policy position, he sounds like the folks on the other side of the aisle who invoke Christ in support of anti-gay marriage legislation. They both sound like buffoons.

Additionally, I'm pretty sure that Christ's teachings of caring for other people was supposed to be through charity and done voluntarily. I don't recall Jesus advocating for people a requirement that the wealthy people of Bethlehem pay more money to Caesar so Rome could implement a unified healthcare system and administratively deal with the issue under a single system.

Religion and Politics

It really doesn't mix.

Congress votes to affirm "In God We Trust" on all our coins and such. Ok, great. Thanks for addressing serious issues Congress. [Congress looks distracted].

The President criticizes: “That’s not putting people back to work,” Obama said. “I trust in God, but God wants to see us help ourselves by putting people to work.”

Ok, now the President looks silly, because he's implying that God wants us to pass his jobs bill. Congress should stop wasting time, and our President should ignore the silly things, not jump all over them.