I noticed an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times that basically reads thus: religious values ought to be private, whereas atheism is public. You are “free” to be as “religious” as you want – provided that you never dare try to emerge from the tiny little black box we liberals force you into. And whether you know it or not, everyone who forms a corporation has to abide by the tenets of secular humanist atheism and is literally immoral for trying to live out their religiously-informed moral values in any way, any shape or any form if they in any way run contrary to liberalism.
I have to ask the question: if liberals hadn’t taken these incredibly intrusive steps “to control the people” (the REAL purpose of ObamaCare), would our society be in this situation in which “a dangerous precedent is created” to allow the constitutional freedom of religion? The obvious answer is “NOT.” But of course religious people should really be viewed as the bad guys because when godless liberal fascists punch us in the mouth before they stab us in the heart we dare to try to defend ourselves.
Here’s the op-ed (note the highly-biased wording of the intro: should the people we hate have the right to evilly “violate” people’s rights?”):
These claims shouldn’t have a prayer
Two challenges to Obamacare on religious grounds would create a dangerous precedent.
By David H. Gans
March 18, 2014Are secular, for-profit corporations free to violate the rights of their employees by claiming that the law violates their corporate religious conscience? That’s the big question at the heart of the two blockbuster challenges to a key provision of Obamacare that will be heard by the Supreme Court next week. In its 225-year history, the Supreme Court has never held that secular, for-profit corporations are entitled to the free exercise of religion. It should not start now.
Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood claim in their lawsuits that the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers’ health insurance plans cover preventive care for women, including the full range of FDA-approved contraceptives, violates their right to the free exercise of religion. Houses of worship and other religiously affiliated employers already are entitled to a religious accommodation. Some secular businesses, such as Hobby Lobby, claim that they too exercise religion and should be exempted from the obligation to pay for contraceptive coverage for their employees.
Corporations have a number of constitutional rights, mostly connected to property rights and commerce, but the free exercise of religion has never been one of them. The Constitution’s protection of religious liberty always has been seen as a personal right, inextricably linked to the human capacity to express devotion to a god and to act on the basis of reason and conscience. In this respect, the free exercise right shares much in common with the 5th Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination, which too safeguards dignity and conscience and does not protect corporations.
Corporations lack the basic human capacities — reason, dignity and conscience — at the core of the free exercise right. Corporations cannot pray, do not express devotion to God and do not have a religious conscience. The fundamental values at the heart of the free exercise right simply make no sense as applied to corporations.
Corporations are created so business owners can take advantage of the special privileges of the corporate status, such as limited liability. What Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood are seeking is to have their cake and eat it too: to be treated as a corporation to receive special privileges, but then be treated as an individual for the purposes of the fundamental protections our Constitution guarantees to secure freedom of conscience and human dignity for all Americans. Corporations should not be permitted to game the system in this way.
Extending free exercise rights to corporations would undercut the rights of actual living, breathing Americans. At stake in this lawsuit is whether corporate chief executives are entitled to impose their religious beliefs on their employees and deny important federal rights to those employees. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood hire workers of all religious faiths and persuasions, but refuse to respect that many of their employees may have a different set of religious views and want and need access to the full range of contraceptives.
Far from vindicating the Constitution’s promise of religious liberty, a ruling that corporations have the same right to the free exercise of religion as individuals would be a grave setback for the rights of Americans in our nation’s workplaces. It would also create a dangerous precedent with dramatic implications far beyond the Affordable Care Act.
A business run by Christian Scientists might refuse to pay for healthcare at all, other businesses run by devout individuals might refuse to pay for the costs of stem cell therapy, or refuse to extend family leave to same-sex married couples, or even fire employees for engaging in activities, such as terminating a pregnancy, that do not conform to the religious code of the company’s owners.
The justices should reject the notion that a corporation is a person that exercises religion.
David H. Gans is director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights and Citizenship Program at the Constitutional Accountability Center. He is a coauthor of the center’s amicus brief in Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. vs. Sebelius.
I never realized that no religious person ever formed a business, but that every single business that ever became a corporation was inherently “secular” (i.e. defined as having no part with ANY religious values)?
I’ve never actually formed a corporation before, so maybe I’m wrong and every time – dating back to the days of our VERY RELIGIOUS founding fathers – people formed a corporation they had to sign some kind of statement agreeing to surrender their constitutional rights to their freedom of religion.
I note the wording of Gans, who says, “The Constitution’s protection of religious liberty always has been seen as a personal right, inextricably linked to the human capacity to express devotion to a god and to act on the basis of reason and conscience.” And, again, having never formed a corporation, I can’t say with certainty that a “human” or “humans” have ever formed a corporation before. Maybe only robots devoid of any “human capacity” have the right to form corporations.
I wonder who forms corporations. Apparently, it’s NOT human beings. But then again, liberals DO view what they colloquially refer to as “human beings” as soulless meat puppets.
According to Gans, the expression of “reason and conscience” are forbidden to corporations or to anyone who works for a corporation. He asserts, “Corporations lack the basic human capacities — reason, dignity and conscience…” Well, that actually explains a LOT. Because, for example, THAT allows you to understand why GM – which of course is protected by the bankruptcy Obama bequeathed upon it – should be allowed to knowingly sell a car with a faulty ignition switch that may at any moment may stall the car causing death or disaster. God – oops, I’m sorry, that’s been banned – I mean Obama forbid that any corporate officer should be allowed to have moral conscience (that only humans should be allowed to have and never corporations) which would keep him or her from making a decision purely based on the “property rights” and “commerce” that liberals say they should be restricted to having.
If you’re atheist, you have rejected the imago Dei – the image of God – in you. It is the recognition OF the image of God in the souls of human beings that makes morality possible – unless you think cockroaches and the rest of the beasts have “morality.” We can consider the fruits of atheism in the reigns of officially state atheist regimes such as the USSR and the other communist countries to see how depraved, perverted and IMMORAL atheism truly is in the murder of at least 100 million of their own citizens even during peacetime. And then we consider Japan (the most atheist nation on earth) and the Bataan Death March and demonic acts such as what Unit 731 perpetuated on living (screaming) human beings. We think of the Nazis and their proven atheism.
So please don’t lecture me that you atheists are going to hold corporations “morally responsible” when you simultaneously deny those selfsame corporations the very foundation for what makes morality possible.
It is for this reason that our founding fathers wrote, “Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars.” It is for this reason that our founding fathers wrote, “We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Basically, what Gans is asserting is that no religious person ought to be allowed to form a corporation if they want to be allowed to practice their values; only atheist, secular humanist liberals ought to be allowed to incorporate. Which George Washington pretty much directly stated was an act of treason. Oh, you could look at it this way (with liberals playing the part of the Pharisee’s Temple guard punching Jesus in the mouth and mocking Him by saying, “Prophesy, who is the one who hit You?”). On this view, Hobby Lobby should have prophetically KNOWN when they chose to incorporate back in 1972 that one day demon-possessed liberals would force them to abandon and betray their Christian moral values and decided not to incorporate.
The alternative is to suggest that Christians and other religious people really have no business forming a business and should not have the right to incorporate unless they agree to abide by the moral values of Hitler, Stalin and fascist liberals.
Why is it that if I form a corporation I don’t have any right to imprint it with my values, but must instead bow down to Obama’s values?
I ask who died and made liberals “god”? Because one thing is crystal clear: they HAVE made themselves God such that they can depose God’s moral values and install their own rival values in place of God’s values.
You need to understand what is happening and why. Back in 1972 when Hobby Lobby incorporated, none of this crap was an issue. What has happened since is that godless liberals have seized more and more and more dictatorial power for their fascist Government-as-God and have put God and those who value Him and His values into a smaller and smaller little box. And what liberals are saying today is that we won’t take away your “freedom” to believe in your stupid little “god” – as the overwhelming majority of Americans still do – provided you live your life as if you DON’T believe in God.
I think about the Little Sisters of the Poor who oppose having the atheism of ObamaCare abortion murder forced upon them. Oh, they can get out of it – providing they undergo a “Pontius Pilate-esque” ceremony in which they sign a form “washing their hands” of the babies who would be killed on their behalf by an insurance company.
And in this age of atheism as the official policy of the United States, how dare these nuns not play the part of Pilate?
Religious people have no right to impose their moral values; that is a right that only godless liberal Nazis ought to have.
The sad thing is that very soon the Antichrist – the beast prophesied in the Books of Daniel and Revelation – will take power. And these liberals will have their way. But you can see it coming today if you have eyes to see and ears to hear.
The beast is coming. And after liberals vote for him to impose the mark of the beast, by which no man or woman may participate in the economy unless they worship the beast and take his mark upon their right hands or their foreheads, believe you me that “religious values” will NOT be legitimate grounds to escape.
Start Thinking Right 
Moral Fool And Moral Weakling: Obama Weighs In On Ground Zero Mosque Before Wavering
August 16, 2010As usual, Barry Hussein has talked himself into a pretzel. And the twisted shape suits him. It appears to go off in every direction, but leads nowhere.
In this case, Obama was for that mosque before he was against it.
He doesn’t support it (or at least he doesn’t not support it???):
Before he did support it.
From ABC News:
Obama thinks that everyone in the country is some kind of moron. And he can say one thing, and then say another thing, and only he can tell the difference.
From the Associated Press:
Democrats have been moral idiots for the last forty years. And Barack Obama has stomped his foot all the way down to the floorboard toward moral idiocy.
I watch Fox News regularly. I hear what the Republicans and the conservatives have been saying. I’ve heard what Sarah Palin has said and what Newt Gingrich has said.
None of them are saying that the Muslims who want to build this “community outreach center” don’t have the legal right to build it. What they are saying is that the Muslims shouldn’t build it if they actually want any genuine community “outreach.”
It isn’t “outreach.” It’s “outrage.”
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf claims that this “community center” “will serve as the platform to launch a broader vision of Muslim-West harmony and interdependence.” That clearly isn’t anywhere even remotely true.
This isn’t about freedom of religion, and it isn’t about the Constitution. It’s about right and wrong.
Let me give you an example of what I’m saying. In this country, I have every right to go into a black establishment and repeatedly shout the N-word at the top of my lungs. I have the right to go into a black church wearing a white robe and a white pointy hat. But I shouldn’t do it. And all rights aside, I’m profoundly wrong if I do do it.
On the Democrats’ morally idiotic defense of the mosque, the fact that the Muslims have a right to build it means therefore ergo sum that they should build it, and that anyone who disagrees is “intolerant” or is violating the Constitutional rights of the Muslims.
But that is every bit as stupid as my walking down the street pointing out every single black person and shouting the N-word, and then telling anyone who criticizes me for doing it that they are enemies of the Constitution.
And, of course, the only reason I’m wearing that white robe and that pointy hat is for “community outreach.” You see, I want to create a “racial dialogue.”
So how DARE you criticize me. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ll put my pointy hood back on and be on my way. I have some black people to go shout at.
And yet Democrats who argue that I should have no right to criticize the inappropriateness of building a mosque celebrating a religion immediately adjacent to a site that was destroyed with huge loss of life in the name of that decision refuse to extend that same principle to their fellow citizens as they repeatedly demonized Tea Party people who were merely exercising their Constitutional rights.
Now, I don’t have to explain this to people who have moral common sense. But if I actually want to create a community, or to create a racial dialogue, I don’t set up a gigantic act of offense to the very people I claim to be reaching out to. There’s something profoundly wrong with this picture.
And building what is essentially a mosque (or are they going to build a synagogue and a church in this “community center” so that Jews and Christians cans worship there, too?) clearly incites rather than heals.
Maybe, instead of building a mosque as close as possible to Ground Zero, this “outreach” could focus on building a synagogue as close as possible to Mecca, instead.
The Reuters article points out that:
Seventy percent of Americans don’t feel any “community” from this community center. They feel outraged.
Which is why the next paragraphs that follow that demonstration that the American people are opposed to the construction of this “community center” are true:
The American people understand the difference between the fact that the Muslims who own the property have a right to build, and the fact that it is an outrage for Muslims to build a mosque near the site where a group of Muslims acting in the name of Islam and shouting “Allahu Akbar!” murdered 3,000 innocent Americans in a cowardly attack.
This “outreach center” should not be built near Ground Zero. Build it somewhere else. The American people have been very tolerant regarding the building of more than 3,000 mosques in the United States. The fact that radical Muslim – and their useful idiot liberal apologists – are now arguing that they have the right to build a mosque so close to a scene of Islamic jihadist massacre is a profound demonstration of which side is intolerant. Especially since Islamic countries refuse to allow Christians to build a single church in their countries, let alone 3,000 of them.
And there are questions. So many questions. Who is paying for this “community center”? Can we know for certain that this center is not being funded with radical Islamist money for radical Islamist purposes? No. We don’t get to know.
And what about the man – Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf – who is behind this center? Is the man who refused to even acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist organization someone we want behind such a huge venture? Do we want the man who said that American policies were an ‘accessory’ to the crime of 9/11, and who said “Osama bin Laden is made in the USA,” to be the American face of Islam as a result of this center?
Particularly when we find that this man says one thing to Americans audiences, and quite a different thing to Islamic audiences?
“Cordoba” refers to the Muslim conquest of Spain. And how is naming this “the Cordoba Initiative” and “the Cordoba House” anything other than Islamic triumphalism, in celebration of the successful 9/11 attack? Add to that the historic Muslim tradition of building a mosque on top of every place of victory (i.e., 9/11 as a victory for Islam and a defeat for Christendom), and we’ve got a problem.
Do we want an Imam to represent Muslims in America who favors Shariah Law? Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf DOES support Shariah Law in America.
Do you want to see the face of Sharia Law? Here it is:
And no decent American wants that evil taking root here.
So does Obama do? Other than twist himself into a pretzel in endorsing the mosque that he doesn’t endorse? He foots the bill to make this extremely questionable imam his emissary representing the interests of the American people. When this man represents the exact opposite of American interests.
There are good Muslim leaders out there. Faisal Abdul Rauf is not one of them.
Barack Obama is a fool. And nearly 70% of the American people understand that as regards to this issue. Obama is as fundamentally twisted about this issue as he was about Gitmo when he demonized it and idiotically promised he would close it no later than January 2010. He is a moral idiot and a moral weakling. He is a disgrace to this country. And until he day he is gone, we are living in “God damn America.”
Even Harry Reid is breaking with Obama and publicly stating that this mosque is a terrible idea. That should tell you something.
Tags:Allah akbar, Arabic, Barack Obama, CNN poll, community center, Constitution, Cordoba, Cordoba Initiative, diaglogue, endorsed, Engish, face of, Faisal Abdul Rauf, freedom of religion, God damn America, Ground Zero, Harry Reid, I was commenting very specifically, Imam, moral idiots, mosque, n-word, New York, poll, right to build, Sharia Law, synagogue, Tea Party, That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property, to put a mosque there, wisdom
Posted in Barack Obama, Conservative Issues, Democrats, Harry Reid, Politics, Republicans, terrorism | 2 Comments »