Thoughts on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

The overwhelming majority of the reactions I have read were formulated within hours (or less) of the publication of the decision and appear to be based on its effect and informed solely by media reports. I believe that the only relevant consideration is whether the Court properly interpreted and applied the law.

After a couple of days of research and deliberation, I have decided that I agree with the Supreme Court’s decision.

I DO have a problem with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act itself. The law favors, among other things, moral or ethical beliefs that are grounded in religion. Ethical beliefs, just as sincere and immutable, that are grounded in secular philosophy or ideology are afforded lesser or no legal consideration. This categorically denies atheists equal protection and at least hints at a violation of the Establishment Clause.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/103-1993/s331

Advertisements
Published in: on 2014 07 03 at 09:01:31  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , ,

One for the history books

In the United States History courses I took in college, the emphasis was squarely on political history: the political and military efforts to create our country, the effect of electing this candidate rather than his opponent as President, the transformation that World War II wrought on the world geopolitical stage and our emergence as a global power.  I learned also about the concept of historical perspective: that historians cannot speak intelligently about the effect of a given action until decades have passed and the ripples can be seen.

That still leaves us with the enjoyable pastime of speculation.

Just as the destructive force of post-tropical storm Sandy was amplified by merging with a North Atlantic system before making landfall, the economic and military fear, uncertainty, and doubt provoked by the possibility of sequestration, which strikes me as the United States’ self-imposed withdrawal from its role as a major military power, is coupled with what has become an annual Congressional tradition of holding the nation hostage, with each party and representative seeking to maximize the political and economic ransom in exchange for a continuing resolution to keep the government operating. Back when the Congress still performed its Constitutional duty to pass an annual budget, that opportunity to play chicken with (pig-)earmarked spending and unrelated amendments that would never pass on their own merits came only once a year.

The sequestration bill, the idea of Congress motivating itself by creating an alternative default scenario so dreadful that no sane person would allow it to come to pass, may make sense at first glance, but what it reveals to me is a Congress that lacks an awareness of its own capacity for stupidity and that considers brinksmanship as the default method for dispute resolution. The federal government has become so accustomed to unthinkable things, such as a war over personal animosity or abandoning our most fundamental ethical principles, our rights, and legal obligations for the sake of expediency and the perception of security, that it has lost that healthy fear of the repercussions of its own actions.

Regardless of what happens with the looming budgetary crises, there will be negative fallout for the Armed Forces and vital defense contractors. Infrastructure will go unmaintained or even be dismantled. Personnel training and equipment maintenance will be delayed or canceled. Our government is failing us in its most important duty: defending us. The degree and result of that failure cannot be foreseen. It is worth noting that a nation along our porous border is in a state of open war between the federal government and drug cartels, and some have speculated that it is in danger of becoming a failed state.

One would think that our elected officials should be spending all of their energy resolving the government’s immediate fiscal problems and mitigating the impact on the readiness of our Armed Forces. Instead, they have chosen this time to try to limit the American people’s access to firearms. Why, they ask, would a person need military-style weapons? As our politicians eviscerate our military in a way that no adversary ever could, that question pretty much answers itself!

It will be…interesting…to see how this plays out in the coming months and years. Perhaps historians will look back on this year as the beginning of the end of the United States’ status as a superpower.

 

%d bloggers like this: