This is a political matter, so I am putting it here. It is about the interaction of politics and religion, but it plays to civil rights and the intrusion of religion into government.
Let us consider Hobby Lobby for a minute, now.
What does it say? It says, specifically, that religious people have rights that the non-religious do not have.
Hobby Lobby can ban birth control payments from its health care because a book of myth has been misinterpreted to say so.
I could not, however, ban homeopathic services from my health care payments as a business because I don't believe homeopathy is real.
Let us look at the pledge: Currently, the SCOTUS requires atheists to out themselves, self-identify, each and every time someone asks to say the pledge.
Let us look at the Air Force Case: An atheist must either lie or out his or herself, by asking for an affirmation.
Let us look at the court system: An atheist must out his or herself by requesting affirmation instead of oath. What's more, you can ask for an affirmation, and have the court officer read you an oath, IN FRONT OF THE JURY. Yes, it happened to me in federal court in San Diego in a patent trial, so yes, it can happen.
In many ways, the law already forces athiests to either hide and lie, or to out themselves in ways that are understood to cause them harm.
Need we more proof? Nope. SCOTUS has endorsed most of these behaviors, and those it hasn't don't matter, because the harm is done during the demand, not during the trial. The mere outing is enough to subject anyone to the threat of immanent harm as well as lasting reputation damage.
Let us consider Hobby Lobby for a minute, now.
What does it say? It says, specifically, that religious people have rights that the non-religious do not have.
Hobby Lobby can ban birth control payments from its health care because a book of myth has been misinterpreted to say so.
I could not, however, ban homeopathic services from my health care payments as a business because I don't believe homeopathy is real.
Let us look at the pledge: Currently, the SCOTUS requires atheists to out themselves, self-identify, each and every time someone asks to say the pledge.
Let us look at the Air Force Case: An atheist must either lie or out his or herself, by asking for an affirmation.
Let us look at the court system: An atheist must out his or herself by requesting affirmation instead of oath. What's more, you can ask for an affirmation, and have the court officer read you an oath, IN FRONT OF THE JURY. Yes, it happened to me in federal court in San Diego in a patent trial, so yes, it can happen.
In many ways, the law already forces athiests to either hide and lie, or to out themselves in ways that are understood to cause them harm.
Need we more proof? Nope. SCOTUS has endorsed most of these behaviors, and those it hasn't don't matter, because the harm is done during the demand, not during the trial. The mere outing is enough to subject anyone to the threat of immanent harm as well as lasting reputation damage.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire