Decision Here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf
The concept of religious freedom ( or "rights") is akin to a child justifying their actions based on what an imaginary friend told them to do. The problem with all religions is the imaginary friend justifies all sorts of murderous, oppressive, idiotic unjustified bs as defined by whatever psychopathic adult(s) happens to roam the street and attracts the most weak minded, emotionally needy followers. None of the books, or the beliefs, are special. The Abrahamic, monotheistic religions are still the frightening fairy tales of stone age, desert lunatics who didn't understand fermentation, thought leprosy was caused by mold and sold their daughters into slavery to pay off debts. Catholicism, derived from the hybridization of a failing Roman Empire and the organized cult of wandering imaginary Messiah worshippers, is its still existing corrupt, money holding, sexually disturbed, child molesting descendent. Intermixed with modern legal theory and the concept of corporation (or property) as person, and you get today's decision. Of course it is illogical and unjustified, because it's moral and legal underpinnings are from those who have to twist and turn to justify their unjustifiable beliefs: " These people, who believe their imaginary friend says this (though nothing is actually said because the concept of a contraceptive is not even mentioned in the ravings of the ancient, ignorant, lunatics who passed these scribblings on) and own property that pays other people, shouldn't have to pay for this part of what they think their imaginary friend says". It doesn't make sense as it is second century thought imposing itself on a 21st century world. It has to justify stupid, ancient beliefs while imposing its social relations on the modern world's socio-economic relations, while colliding with modern science and altered social relationships; one might as well define a fish in biblical terms, while at the same time studying its phylogenetic tree.
The concept of religious freedom ( or "rights") is akin to a child justifying their actions based on what an imaginary friend told them to do. The problem with all religions is the imaginary friend justifies all sorts of murderous, oppressive, idiotic unjustified bs as defined by whatever psychopathic adult(s) happens to roam the street and attracts the most weak minded, emotionally needy followers. None of the books, or the beliefs, are special. The Abrahamic, monotheistic religions are still the frightening fairy tales of stone age, desert lunatics who didn't understand fermentation, thought leprosy was caused by mold and sold their daughters into slavery to pay off debts. Catholicism, derived from the hybridization of a failing Roman Empire and the organized cult of wandering imaginary Messiah worshippers, is its still existing corrupt, money holding, sexually disturbed, child molesting descendent. Intermixed with modern legal theory and the concept of corporation (or property) as person, and you get today's decision. Of course it is illogical and unjustified, because it's moral and legal underpinnings are from those who have to twist and turn to justify their unjustifiable beliefs: " These people, who believe their imaginary friend says this (though nothing is actually said because the concept of a contraceptive is not even mentioned in the ravings of the ancient, ignorant, lunatics who passed these scribblings on) and own property that pays other people, shouldn't have to pay for this part of what they think their imaginary friend says". It doesn't make sense as it is second century thought imposing itself on a 21st century world. It has to justify stupid, ancient beliefs while imposing its social relations on the modern world's socio-economic relations, while colliding with modern science and altered social relationships; one might as well define a fish in biblical terms, while at the same time studying its phylogenetic tree.
No comments:
Post a Comment