The Hobby-Lobby Decision according to the Generation

07/07/2014 11:50

by Allen Williams


The Sebelius vs Hobby Lobby decision has hardly been rendered by the Supreme Court and we're already experiencing an 'alternative' narrative. The latest attempt, if you can call it a rebuttal, is by supposed constitutional law expert, Marci A. Hamilton who claims that denying contraceptive coverage is not only discriminatory but religious extremism at its worst. Her arguments  are a learning experience for the vast majority of Americans who not only don't understand what the U.S. Constitution means but have never read it as it hadn't appeared on American Idol, Facebook, Oprah, Judge Judy or PBS. Public education stopped teaching it decades ago. (Sorry, it's not available in comic book form either.)


It's strange that Mss Hamilton should see 'God vs the Gavel, 2nd edition, The Perils of Extreme Religious Liberty'  as a conflict when the Constitution is the highest law in the land, superceding any and all laws that conflict with its inalienable rights (that means absolute so it naturally trumps law) that mankind has been given, not by Government but by God. And, this is the problem that Hamilton and other phony constitutional experts have in that they believe all rights emanate from government. That's only true in totalitarian societies like North Korea, not in a free republic. But, there is no room for alternative beliefs beyond the singularity in the New World Order. Note that there is no ire at the Supreme Court's supposed error in affirming religious rights but that they CONTINUE to exist in the aftermath of Roe v Wade and the 1948 Everson decision which forever did away with the archiac rights of the past.  Hamilton is upset because the court resurrected rights that were dispeled by governement edict some 50 years ago. Ergo, it's a new era and there needs to be a more modern constitution which is 'fluid and changes with the times'. (For those of you who will likely need a good constitutional lawyer when you run afoul of the many legal pitfalls contained in the 'Affordable Care Ac't are advised to shop around.) Here is Amazon's lead-in to the Hamilton book:

"Today's decision in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby has vast implications, not only for religious organizations, but also for anyone concerned with civil rights in America. When female employees are denied contraceptive coverage on religious grounds, the door to discrimination is opened - making the issue at the center of the Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby decision a key example of the dangerous modern trend of extreme religious liberty. In this updated second edition ebook of God vs. the Gavel , leading constitutional law expert Marci A. Hamilton addresses the Hobby Lobby case and other modern church-state debates. This updated classic puts hot-button church-state controversies in the spotlight and explains the dangers we face when we allow religious freedom to trump our most basic laws. Among the issues are discrimination against same-sex couples; clergy child abuse cover-ups and the mistreatment of children; the permissibility of polygamy; and debates over medical care, including faith healing, vaccinations, and access to contraceptives. As the battle between women's rights and religious rights reaches fever pitch, this timely new ebook edition is essential reading for all Americans, before they or their friends and family are harmed by religious believers exercising their newfound rights."


Yes and those 'inferences' are freedom still lives. It should be noted that 'civil rights' in America are for everyone, not just women desiring free contraceptive care or gays forcing the public to accept their deviant lifestyle.  Buy the pills and condoms yourself, where do you get off demanding that others must pay for it to your benefit? 'Discrimination' has become a 'catch-all' phrase to claim that the public's right to make law is somehow unfair because a band of miscreants is denied their desire to run amok over society. Learn about some of the many diseases plaguing the gay lifestyle as reported by the Canadian Healthcare system, I think you'll find its a pretty strong affirmation of Romans 1:27. Yes, it would appear that the bible's more than myth.

The right to decide against paying for contraceptives used by others is not a form of religious extremism despite what you may have learned in the public education system. The First Amendment is quite clear on the free exercise of religion, especially its clauses on "Congress shall make no law.." and  "..the free exercise thereof.."  Congress would do well to learn these meanings themselves. Free exercise means freedom of choice not freedom from 'want', financial responsibility' or 'freedom from religion.'  It should be shocking that 'freedom of choice' doesn't apply to those who desire to be true to their religious convictions rather than just for those who advocate the right to murder their unborn child. Abiding by one's conscience isn't  '..religious believers exercising their new found religious rights', its been a fundamental right of every American since the founding of this country.  Read the First 10 Amendments to the Constutution and understand the founders intent to protect citizens from the abuses and excesses of government. These rights have only been abandoned at the advent of the evolutionary neo-fascism currenrly spread around the globe by the abominable administration and its desire for one world government.


Clergy abuse of children is certainly lamentable and must be exposed and eradicated whenever discovered but look to the Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court decision which struck down national sodomy laws which beget our current societal malaise. The uptake is you can practice sodomy in the public schools, parks, movie theatres and elsewhere but not in Church. Mss Hamilton must be aware that once license is given to sodomy, then in order not to be discriminatory, license must be given to all forms of perversion, bestiality, incest, polygamy and pedophillia.  And who is to say where and when it can be practiced? After all these individuals only want to be with the ones they love, hasn't that been both the gay and the NAMBLA argument?

Once the people's rights have been nullified by international treaties, Obama's activist judges and America's perverse educational system, the world will descend not into a global utopia promised by the many billionaire nitwits and their allies who govern America but rather into a new dark age that will make Hell look like a vacation spot.