Activist Justices Favor Religion Over Scientific Progress

It's getting impossible to separate church and state
It’s getting impossible to separate church and state

The 2012 campaign featured the first Mormon candidate to ever run for Commander in Chief. Willard Romney, who by way of his standing in the Mormon faith, is obedient to the LDS religion’s hierarchy. He believes that such leaders

are divinely inspired, that they speak for god on earth.

Imagine if the LDS doctrine governed the Supreme Court. It seems sincerely held religious beliefs can indeed open a can of worms too great to even fathom. Not only do many religions have a very insidious view of women, children and slavery, but there is a great deal of racism as well. Since the Mormon faith privately believes that black skin is a curse from god for being a

“fence-sitter” in a war between Jesus and Lucifer in a pre-mortal existence, and that god has cursed Native Americans with a red skin for their ancestors’ wickedness, sin, and idolatry. Is it even possible to assume that the person’s views and votes on civil rights issues will be free of racial prejudice?

How different is the objection to certain types of contraception by the newly declared person (called a corporation) to the wide range of beliefs held by an infinite number of religions, which are man-made constructs? Funny, but in the 2012 campaign, from the Republican nominee, I never heard “…unless I’m President of the USA, that is, in which case said office renders my temple oath null and void.” Where do we draw the line? Scalia’s Sharia proclamation of the disavowal of anything the religious owners of corporations or even colleges, deem blasphemous can truly create a theocracy never envisioned by our Founding Fathers.

Yet the Supreme Court just made a proclamation that honors any sincerely held religious beliefs by the owners of a corporation, and thus the corporation itself can entertain any credence they deem sincere. The sincerity of the belief leads us down a very slippery slope into categorizing any belief as valid by any measure of religiosity. At first we thought only a few contraceptives were open to debate with the Hobby Lobby case. However, with Wheaton College, all forms of contraception are barred, at least temporarily, from coverage.

Under this arrangement, the groups are required to fill out a form, EBSA Form 700, to register their religious objections. This enables their insurers or third-party administrators to take on the responsibility of paying for the birth control. The organizations do not have to pay for the coverage, and the cost is borne by the government or in other ways.

Yet Wheaton merely states that filling out the EBSA Form 700 is in direct violation with their religious beliefs, so the Court is forced, possibly temporarily, to allow them to do as they wish based on this arbitrary assertion of beliefs. Imagine

if a person privately deems homosexuality a sin, a choice, a perversion, condemned by god, can I trust that individual to labor to establish equal rights for gays and lesbians, including marriage?

Why does contraception, a matter where women are left with the burden to prevent pregnancy in most cases, have to be the ultimate of the theocratic pronouncements of the SCOTUS? Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg said the Court was venturing into a minefield and she sure as hell wasn’t joking. If anyone thinks this SCOTUS will stop anywhere short of overturning Roe v Wade, think again.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s