Time to HAMMER the Other Side of this Coin

LESSONS IN LOGIC: Taking the Hobby Lobby Case to Its Logical Conclusions

The Hobby Lobby case is an excellent example of what happens when we turn Natural Law on its head to suit our desires rather than seek to structure our society to work according to that same Natural Law. In short, it illustrates what happens when one tries to put themselves in the place of God. When we do that, we fall under the condemnation of Isaiah 5:20-21. And, even if you do not believe in God or the Bible, you would be wise to read Isaiah’s warning before you dismiss it because it most certainly applies here. Now, let me show you how and why it applies.

On its surface, the Hobby Lobby case is about a corporation’s religious rights. I have already written about the absurdity of such a claim here, but it should be apparent when you think of a corporation going to your local church to worship. Have you ever seen a corporation in church? No, because it is not a real person. The problem is that we treat it like one for the purposes of shielding its owners from legal liability for their actions. So, if people did not want to claim what is essentially a ‘special’ right – freedom from responsibility – then this case would be easy. If Hobby Lobby were a fictitious name for a business owned and operated by a limited number of people who were directly responsible for their actions, they would be named in this case and not their business. In that case, the argument would be abundantly clear: that these people were claiming their rightful protection of their religious freedom under the Constitution and not their fictitious company. But we want to be ‘wise in our own eyes,’ so we invent artificial people to take our place before the law.

Read the rest…


7 thoughts on “Time to HAMMER the Other Side of this Coin

  1. Sorry but you’re sounding more and more like the “Occupy Wallstreet” rhetoric.

    Also Your post parrots much of what the Marxist anti-Citizens United groups put up …. and you know they are Funded by Soros and Company right ?

    • Don,

      Then I fear you need to do some more research into the Progressive movement and the work Quigley did trying to tell people what they have been building and why.

      There is a break between you and I and our right to run a business and the multi-national conglomerates we have allowed to take over the market. If you cannot see this, then you validate many of the points Marx made. I do not say that to insult or attack; only because it is true. And before you take offense or get upset, remember that I count myself among the guilty because I believed as you still do for far too long. It was only after I stepped back and looked at reality for myself that I saw what I had been tricked into accepting and defending. All I am trying to do here is show it to people so they can see they are just as caught as I was.

      • I am not insulted nor upset. And I have done enough research to recognize what I said above …. your words are supportive of Marxist tactics and of the modern form of Progressive attacks on individual Liberties. I understand this Precisely because I know the history of the restraints put on the Journeyman and Merchant and Professional Peoples before Limited Liability.

        I am well aware of the Multi ( Inter) National Conglomerates, and their machinations…… as example the shenanigans between Standard Oil and I G Farben from 1926-1929 capped by the Rochefeller National City Bank of New York ( with Charles Mitchell and Paul Warburg-one of the CHEIF architects of the ” Federal” Reserve System ). In fact I could probably even bore myself with accumulated horror stories…LOL.

        But this ( mixing Corporations and Conglomerates) is a conflating of issues…important ones. And you are doing the “devil’s” work for them by repeating essentially the current political polemic that is designed to do nothing but take down the Republic pure and simple.

        • Don,

          Then you missed something, because I am not attacking private property, but the argument that what exists ONLY because of a public action should or even can be made private. When you show me a corporation in the State of nature, or even one that exists outside of any man-made law, I’ll listen to you — but not until.

          As for me supporting Marxist tactics, again, you have missed your mark. I have repeatedly rejected the Marxist solution. But this is not to say that there is no validity in their critique, because there is. And to say there isn’t is to be dogmatic and blind, which turns you into exactly what the majority of us are on both sides: automatons who have been programmed to ignore the real threat and even defend it from ourselves — to work against our own best interests.

          There is no difference of issues here, either. You claim to support private property while opposing big, tyrannical government. The Left supports the government while opposing tyrannical corporations. I FINALLY understand there is no difference between the two. If government gets so powerful it destroys liberty, or a conglomerate of businesses working together gets so powerful it destroys liberty, the result is the same: LIBERTY IS DESTROYED! The only difference is the vehicle through which that tyranny is achieved. Whichever side you defend is the vehicle you wish to control so that YOU can dictate to others. The true liberty-seeker will defend neither and seek to control no one.

          So, the question now is do you really care about liberty, or do you actually want to defend your chosen vehicle of domination?

          • That is the question indeed ….. but rather posed to those who champion Marxist arguments like yours above.

            You completely bypass or ignore the Liberty inherent in “pooled assets” or Capital outlay … completely. As well as ignore the protection of such under Limited Liabilty laws…… which freed more people to accomplish more things for themselves and others than any arrangement before or since. This social agreement allowed more actual Practical Liberty to flourish than any before or since. For individuals and for collections of individuals-incorporated by choice.

            But …. as you said…. you will not listen.

            • Pooled assets is — by definition — collectivism, which is also known as socialism.

              But the point you keep missing is that I am NOT saying we should get rid of cooperative ventures, only to bring them under Natural Law. They were once known as co-ops, my man, and that structure would still work. So, back to my point: are you trying to defend your version of control over others, or liberty? It cannot be both.

              BTW: it is not me who is not listening, because I have repeatedly addressed all your objections. 🙂

            • Don,

              You say I am a Marxist, or, at least, I am making a Marxist argument. So, does that also mean that you believe Jefferson and Franklin were making Marxist arguments, too? Or have you forgotten their quotes I have posted about land rights and rights in those things which exist only as an act of civil legislation? Because THEY were the two primary figures who opened my eyes to the proper relationship and Natural Right of ownership here. So, if you are telling me I am wrong, you are essentially denying the founders and the very Declaration/Constitution you claim to support. I just wonder if you have considered this fact?

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s