I mean, that was the case from the emergence of modern science until fairly recently when the two seemingly diverged… Most of the early scientists in Europe at least were seeking to “describe god’s creation” using reason and logical, and rigorous testing. Same with the scientists of Baghdad in the 10th century or so…
It was the religious people who argued that science and religion were at odds, not the other way around, though. See the Scopes Monkey trial, for example, which put it very much in the public imagination in a new way.
Or maybe we should oppose rulings that kill anyone at all, because the state establishing different rules for for-profit companies that serve the public based on their religious beliefs flies in the face of the establishment clause of 1A. That’s literally how you get a theocracy, which most of us do not want to live in, and completely guts the orignal intent of 1A, which was very much to keep that from happening. Also see, the Treaty of Tripoli.
Ah, perhaps I was being a bit cute here, but I was making another Church of Christ, Scientist joke. (And that a follower of Christian Science would tend to be against medical interventionism other than praying for healing.)
He claimed that the mandate violated the beliefs of a Christian-owned company.
There remain a substantial number of Christian sects who believe most emphatically that any systematic medical intervention runs counter to 'God’s intentions. (the Jehovah’s Witnesses are most likely the one to be heard asserting this) So, given that pretty much any medical prescription would be a “violation [of] the beliefs of a Christian” something or other. Perhaps some ACLU lawyer should make that point to this moron of a judge? (hat tip to @ElQuesero as they had this point prior)
The problem, as we have now many, many judges who do not know the law, the Constitution, or even the book they claim their own profoundly held beliefs are based on, is that we may well end up with Trump/Bush/Bush/Regan/Nixon(There’s still a half-dozen Nixon judges active!) appointed judges clogging up the works and legislating injustice from the bench for the foreseeable future. If even if somehow the Ds end up with enough Congressional seats to start impeaching the worst offenders, the party mentality seems to be lacking in such foresight and fearful of the inevitable backlash such that they will find reasons to not convict and remove even such blatantly corrupt judges.
I hope I’m wrong, but without a Judicial purge of unprecedented scope and scale I just don’t see things getting better at this point.
I may be guilty of actually liking a bit of precision in what I’m opposing, but yeah, the “reduced evil scope” is still evil, and still something to be opposed.
Well that’s the beauty of this from a Republican point of view; the Handmaid’s Tale Republicans get their blood-soaked fun, and if that does lead to the collapse of federal healthcare regulation, then the Robocop Republicans get what they want, too.
That’s how the post-Reagan right unifies such diverse types of thug. They all want to be different kinds of feudal warlord, but on the first step – destroying the state – they are in unison.
I’ve said before the Reagan’s big success was that his cry for “smaller government” was a double dog-whistle. The racists heard that as no more federal interference with racist state laws, and the Banksters heard it as “lower taxes.”
Certainly, but my point is that even if it was a disease that only impacted people who engaged in so-called “sinful” sexual activity then it would still be ridiculous for people to deny medical care based on “Christian” beliefs given that Christ explicitly extended his message of love and forgiveness toward adulterers and prostitutes.
oh, they know. they just choose to pretend that it all supports their worldview so they can force that world into being.
it’s a tactic that weaponizes both regular human empathy and the trait of many white americans to not want to confront oppression for fear of being labeled impolite
the news media and others tend to treat this as “let’s look at both sides of these sincerely held beliefs” without acknowledging that’s it’s not sincere. it’s all about bigotry and power
or something… I dunno. It’s still critical background information, I’d say.
