In Monday’s ruling for Hobby Lobby the Supreme Court only upheld the religious values that Catholics would agree with. They upheld religious rights relating to birth control, something Catholics agree with. The specifically excluded religious objecting to Jehovah Witnesses over blood transfusions and religious objections to vaccinations. So only Catholics have religious rights in America.

  1. NewFormatSux says:

    China is now forcing Uyghur Muslims not to observe Ramadan, going into houses to ensure that fasting is not being observed. Liberals salivate at the thought of doing that to Catholics.

    • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

      I wonder…… would this help you NFS, and any Supreme that might read this forum:

      Imagine someone comes into your house and finds $100 hidden in a sock in the air vent over your bed and they steal that money. You file a police report and go on with your life.

      Do you get it???

      Ha, ha. I’m damn near masturbating in your face. so… the question is: in the above scenario, have your religious rights been interfered with?

      The answer is……………..NO!

      Because MONEY has nothing to do with God.

      I know this will be a stretch for you, but imagine that taxation is just like theft==> yea verily the gubment steals your money. That money goes into a pile and all sorts of unholy god defaming BS happens after that. Its the nature of gubment, its how life operates…….. but …. no violation of your religious freedom.

      Do you see that now?

      So…. further imagine the stolen money is used to buy women contraceptive or even abortificatants. Same deal: the collection and spending of money cannot by definition violate any religious rights.

      Easy Peasy.

      Next: defining and applying the difference between contraception and abortion.

      …………………all leading to: Why are they Called the Supremes? All I hear is cacaphonia.

      Yes, the emPHAsis is on caca. Its how I amuse myself before I drink beer.

      Silly Hoomans. Money does not violate religion, unless money is your god.

      • NewFormatSux says:

        Somehow I don’t think anyone on the Supreme Court would be helped by your post, except in a Billy Madison way. If they read it, the vote might have been 9-0 instead of 5-4.

        • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

          Words flow forth willy-nilly.

          Your reasoning is?

      • NewFormatSux says:

        Latest poll shows majority support the Supreme Court decision. That should settle it for you.

        • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

          With an average IQ of 100, the majority of Americans/people….. aren’t too bright.

          That why we have:

          1. Sports
          2. Religion
          3. Republicans
          4. Patriotism
          5. Reality TV
          6. Income Inequality
          7. Lack of vacation ethic
          6. Support for an Activist Conservative Court

          ……………… long a list as you might wish.

          But yeah…. I do support majority rule.

        • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

          yes jp==I was in that ballpark but thought of patriotism first. Nationalism is the better choice…………………………..???? Hmmmm… whats the difference again?

          Before I google:

          Patriotism–love of country. Nothing wrong with that in a vacuum with certain contextual restraints applied.

          Nationalism–wanting your own country to rule over other countries?

          ….so we have to add jingoism–your country right or wrong.

          doing the google:

          Patriotism definition, devoted love, support, and defense of one’s country; national loyalty. /// love should be reserved for people.

          Nationalism definition, an extreme form of this, especially marked by a feeling of superiority over other countries.

          jin·go·ism== extreme patriotism, especially in the form of aggressive or warlike foreign policy /// so, my shading of meaning was off. Was I thinking of Chauvinism?

          Chauvinism==excessive or prejudiced loyalty or support for one’s own cause, group, or gender /// Oh…its more than Nations States.

          Fun to think about words, what they mean, how and what we think with them.

          • jpfitz says:

            I love my country. I don’t have to agree with certain aspects of my country. I can be Patriotic. I am not Nationalistic.

            “When talking about nationalism and patriotism, one cannot avoid the famous quotation by George Orwell
            , who said that nationalism is ‘the worst enemy of peace’. According to him, nationalism is a feeling that one’s country is superior to another in all respects, while patriotism is merely a feeling of admiration for a way of life. These concepts show that patriotism is passive by nature and nationalism can be a little aggressive.
            Patriotism is based on affection and nationalism is rooted in rivalry and resentment. One can say that nationalism is militant by nature and patriotism is based on peace.


          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and junior culture critic says:

            Hey jp: well copied. (smile!)

            I agree with what you post. So… in that regard, wouldn’t patriotism be the better word for the list? More of an effortless even minless pop vulture thing rather than putting some thought into what it takes to beat the other guys?

          • jpfitz says:

            No, Patriotism shouldn’t be on the list. Nationalism should. I have many disagreements with others when watching a sporting event and I’m not rooting for the American. I’m called a traitor or told that the American is superior just because their from my country. Well, sports isn’t the best example of nationalism, or feeling ones homeland is superior, no matter the actions of said country.

            What cha mean “well copied”. Copy is copy. I didn’t take credit for the text. Just goggled, maybe good googling?

          • jpfitz says:

            Patriotism can be a great feeling. Love is lovely.

    • RE@DER says:

      The poet, the artist, the sleuth – whoever sharpens our internal perception tends to be anti social; rarely “well-adjusted,” he cannot go along with currents and trends. A strange bond often exists among anti-social types in their power to see environments as they really are. This need to internal interface, to confront environments with a certain anti-social power, is manifest in the famous story, “The Emperor’s New Clothes” “Well adjusted” courtiers, having vested interests, saw the Emperor as beautifully appointed. The anti-social brat, unaccustomed to the old environment, clearly saw that the emperor “ain’t got nothin’ on.”
      - _The Medium Is The Massage_

      I’m a sleuth and they are covering things up. The place is quiet for a 4th of July. Dead economy! Court can declare US bankrupt. It’s like 1934 in the USA. You used to be able to paper it over and now all the papers are folding up or downsizing. Book stores are history. More empty Main streets. More chain stores and web links. Get rid of more jobs and more spying on the public. Gross still stuck in Cuba for undermining glorious communist state, which is a huge failure. They have a plan and are expanding. Internet growth?

      Future internet protocol upgrading will expand addressable space on line from 2 to the 32 power to
      2 to the 128 power—
      the equivalent of an internet the size of a golf ball to an
      internet the size of the
      sun.(Power of Moore’s Law
      in the World of Geotechnology)

      Jails are growing to the size of the moon. Public in the dark treated like mushrooms and North Koreans. Mars is the money shot. We’ll be there by 2026. Cuba might have dial up connections by then.

  2. NewFormatSux says:

    If birth control is not your boss’s business, why do you expect him to pay for it?

    • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

      Said “boss” wants to “give” with the BIG PRINT but steal it back with the small print.

      Bosses dont “want” to pay employees at all. Nada. Nothing. Zero. They do it only because workers won’t show up if not paid.

      In todays F*cked Up America: part of any employers compensation package is a package of healthcare services, usually an insurance package of some description. So, the Employer promises to pay by way of Health Care, but steals it back by way of limitations of coverage.

      Seems rather obvious. If YOU don’t want an abortion, then don’t have one. THAT, and ONLY THAT, is your religious FREEEEEEEDOM. Leave other people alone to exercise THEIR religious FREEEEEEDOM.

      THAT would have been the least restrictive option.

      Only 5 of the Supremes potentially would disagree with this more acute analysis….. and they sing off key. Bush v Gore, Corps are People, Money is Speech. They are about as bad as Congress.

      …………….you gotta feel for Obama.

      • Help Me Out says:

        You (probably) value life.
        You (probably) do not value religion.

        It must be that opposition to abortion (especially out of convenience) is not solely based on religion.

        You’re a smart guy (?). Finish this sentence:

        “Abortion of convenience is OK because…”

    • Phydeau says:

      More and more, looks like NFS is in favor of single-payer health insurance… good for you NFS! It’s the best and cheapest way. :)

  3. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

    Based on the same insight I have posted, that is rejected by the Supremes, here is a quiz for you to evaluate whether or not your religious FREEEEEEEDOM is under attack:

    hint: its not.

  4. RE@DER says:

    Afonso de Albuquerque explained to his armies why the Portuguese wanted to capture Malacca:

    “The king of Portugal has often commanded me to go to the Straits, because…this was the best place to intercept the trade which the Moslems…carry on in these parts. So it was to do Our Lord’s service that we were brought here; by taking Malacca, we would close the Straits so that never again would the Moslems be able to bring their spices by this route…. I am very sure that, if this Malacca trade is taken out of their hands, Cairo and Mecca will be completely lost.” – The Commentaries of the Great Afonso de Albuquerque

    The history of spices and the variety of life.

  5. Captain Obvious says:

    The rights of the corporation over the individual. A private company can’t ban fire arms from it’s premises because it’s a constitutional violation. Two individuals of the same sex who want to marry causes a ruckus.

    Right wing collectivism gone wild.

    • After Obama's IRS brownshirts devour the TeaParty, they will get to YOU says:

      Gibberish. Collectivism is leftist, individual freedom is right.

      Gun free restaurants are springing up everywhere, and getting robbed, so predictable.

      A person doesn’t lose their religious rights just because they enter a business as a corporation. Corporations don’t have religious rights if the aren’t owned by families or individuals.

      Hobby Lobby provided contraception to all its workers, but not baby killing concoctions because they violates the command thou shalt not kill.

      What is wrong with you, can’t you think straight about anything anymore?

      • Tim says:

        Guns and restraunts always remind me of this {especially, at breakfast} —

        Falling Down ‘I want breakfast’

        still, no more ‘red level’ than somebody storming in tossing flashbangs in all the kids’ happy meals…

      • Captain Obvious says:

        Collectivism is collectivism. It can be left or right. Up or down. You happen to like this ruling because it appeals to your social agenda. Wait until it’s used against you, then you’ll be crying that the communists are out to get you when you were really screwed in the butt (metaphorically of course) by your own team.

  6. NewFormatSux says:

    Note the vote was 7-2 in favor of the idea that corporations can exercise religious freedom.

    “In Justice Ginsburg’s view of the matter, an incorporated kosher deli could be forced to carry non-kosher goods; an independent Catholic hospital with a lay board could be required to provide abortions; a closely-held market owned by Seventh-day Adventists could be required to open on Saturdays; and an incorporated retail store owned by Muslims could be forced to carry liquor.”

    • bobbo, Big Brained Apes with Lizard Emotions is an Evolutionary Dead End says:

      You don’t see those retail examples as different in some way from part of a compensation package that also touches on the Religious Freedom of the employees?

      Well—it is “like” that===just as evreything is like anything else.

      What the court does sadly is not recognize how it is NOT like that, then value the pros and cons, weigh the interests. They do make a judgment though, but without even mentioning much less discussing the case against forcing religious values on to employees…….. the case is structurally a bit weak.

      • NewFormatSux says:

        It’s not up to a court to weigh pros and cons and make value judgments.

        • bobbo, Big Brained Apes with Lizard Emotions is an Evolutionary Dead End says:

          Oh NFS—doesn’t the case at issue show that that is unavoidable?

          NO right is absolute, they all have to be balanced to one degree or another off all the other rights.

          That is a value judgment.

          Pop Quiz: Name a right that is or should be absolute.

        • NewFormatSux says:

          No, it doesn’t show that at all. Congress could have said that ObamaCare is exempt from the RFRA. They chose not to do that. So the Supreme Court applied the RFRA, the law passed by Congress, and held it to be supreme over an administrative regulation. It is Congress that can weigh pros and cons, subject to the Constitution.

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and junior culture critic says:

            How the gubment spends your money does not impact religious FREEEEEEDOM at all.

            There is nothing to balance.

  7. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Help Me Out spending his life denying the help he has already been given quizzes the Quisling and says:
    7/4/2014 at 11:13 am

    You (probably) value life. //// Yep, balanced among other interests, but it is high on the list making it valued. Its value, as this is where you are going, is strongest in the middle, less at either end, and value over the continuum by consciousness.

    You (probably) do not value religion. //// I do value the good parts of all of them. Sadly, those good points are not what define them, one from another.

    It must be that opposition to abortion (especially out of convenience) is not solely based on religion. /// I think it is. You see, I hold life to be balanced against other interests, making opposition to abortion an ABSOLUTE value only comes from religion.

    You’re a smart guy (?). //// Smart or dumb, everyone enjoys finishing a sentence…..sic… as all too many fumble this job when it reveals anti-dogmatic conclusions or otherwise pushes their nascent intellect into new territory.

    Finish this sentence:

    “Abortion of convenience is OK because…” //// Its not OK.

    How to stick this pig?
    1. FREEEEEEEEEEEEDDOM===leaving other people alone.
    2. Its not the morality of the decision reached, but rather the morality of who is allowed to make the decision
    3. In a Libertarian/Existential universe, or even those tyranized by a God as opposed to his earthbound agents: people should be allowed to make and suffer decisions and consequences of their own actions.
    4. Innocent life is taken all the time in the service of other interests. Think of the Draft.
    5. The earth is already overpopulated. Short sighted not to be encouraging abortions just as general policy.

    I could go on but I would start to dither.

    • Tim says:

      – We can’t be consumed by our petty differences any more. We will be united in our common interest. Perhaps it’s fate that today is the 4th of July, and you will once again be fighting for our freedom. Not from tyranny, oppression, or persecution, but from annihilation. We’re fighting for our right to live, to exist; and should we win the day, the 4th of July will no longer be known as an American holiday, but as the day when the world declared in one voice, ‘We will not go quietly into the night! We will not vanish without a fight! We’re going to live on, we’re going to survive.’ Today we celebrate our independence day!”

      President Thomas Whitmore
      July 4th, 1996

      keep ‘em outta the frogs’ butts, people. peace.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        ……….and then they went back to their petty differences, because: Global Warming.

    • NewFormatSux says:

      >people should be allowed to make and suffer decisions and consequences of their own actions.

      Says the supported of Bloomberg who supports seat belt laws.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and junior culture critic says:

        I do support seat belt and helmet laws….even 16 oz size limits on sugar water.

        Ahem: No right is absolute. Every right has to be balanced off all the other rights.

        If we were a people that would allow motorcyclists to die on the side of the road for not wearing a helmet, then I would be against helmet laws.

        ………………. but we aren’t. We value LIFE above the value of FREEEEEEEDOM to be reckless and irresponsible.

        See that?…………………… balance in all things. In this case…. more about the pragmatism and MY freedom not to pay for your stupidity.

        Yea, verily!

  8. RE@DER says:

    The Greek roots of the term “Catholic” mean “according to (kata-) the whole (holos),” or more colloquially, “universal.” At the beginning of the second century, we find in the letters of Ignatius the first surviving use of the term “Catholic” in reference to the Church.
    Our prime purpose in this life is to help others. And if you can’t help them, at least don’t hurt them.
    Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama
    Mans most cherished right, the right to be let alone is universal.

  9. judgehooker says:

    Would someone please take the keyboard away from Bobbo?

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and junior culture critic says:


      Be as specific and personal as you like.

      ……. it can’t hurt me, but might make me a better person.

      Isn’t that what we all want for each other?

  10. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Viable Fetus arguing for an absolute right says:
    7/8/2014 at 8:07 pm

    Please don’t kill me out of convenience. //// I could be wrong, but I think states can control to the point of outlawing the abortion of viable fetus’s==the whole tri-mester arrangement.

    This “implies” you have no objection to abortions before the fetus is viable?????? ((somehow I doubt it–requiring a name change)).

    but to be absolute would mean you would allow no exception for the health of the mother. So–why should the fetus be given priority over a full fledged tax paying adult?