TomNaegeleBlogs

In a recent Supreme Court decision, the federal government was denied the ability to force businesses with religious objections to provide certain forms of contraceptives to their employees. Of course there was the predictable outrage from the left, but perhaps the loudest cries arose from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her 35-page dissent. With all of the praise being heaped upon this dissent, one would think it contains some of the most insightful observations of a brilliant philosopher. Unfortunately, however, each one of the 35 pages is filled with nothing but purely emotional, entirely baseless, and pathetically illogical appeals. It would be much too time consuming and mundane to tackle and counter each of Justice Ginsburg’s points, so I will settle for picking apart two of her most prevailing yet worthless arguments.

One of Justice Ginsburg’s biggest complaints, and the one that I found most intriguing, was that this Supreme Court decision was somehow contrary to our Freedom of Religion. “Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be perceived as favoring one religion over another,” she writes, “the very risk the Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.” In all of Justice Ginsburg’s years of law school, she apparently never learned what the law is actually intended to accomplish.

The entire purpose of the law is to discriminate against less-than-desirable behavior. All laws are de facto discriminatory. Laws will always contain “religious claims” because religion is an all-encompassing part of life. Using these basic facts, it is quite easy to see that laws put into place will very often be favoring one religion over another. Laws against murder are in accordance with Christian principles, but not necessarily in accordance with Muslim principles. Laws banning polygamy favor Christian principles over Mormon principles. Laws prohibiting gay “marriage” favor Christian and Muslim principles over say, Episcopalian principles. Laws concerning war are contrary to the Quakers’ principles. The list goes on. Laws will always “approve some religious claims while deeming others unworthy.” Favoring a religion through laws and establishing a national religion are two very different matters.

Of course our constitution does have an Establishment Clause, but its purpose is not to prevent law makers from favoring certain religious claims. Rather, the Establishment Clause was put into place buy our founders to prevent an eternal civil war and to promote the unity that is so essential to the American people. A national religion of Protestantism, for example, would outrage the Catholic and Christian population and cause never-ending bickering among all opposed sects. Also, the only means for establishing a national religion would be to choose the most prominent religion, but that could be a different religion every year. This method certainly would be completely disastrous because it would mean nothing more than mob rule. Furthermore, any government with the power to establish a national religion would inevitably disintegrate into the exact form of tyranny that our founders had risked their lives to flee. These reasons are why we have the Establishment Clause in place–not to prevent the Supreme Court from favoring certain religious principles as Justice Ginsburg would have us believe.

Since laws will always be discriminating against some religions while favoring others, the only remaining question, then, is which religion or religions to favor. Our founders clearly desired a Christian nation with Christian principles. This was not merely because our founders were mostly Christian themselves, but because they understood that Christian principles are the ones that produce the best citizens and thus the best country. The favoring of Christian principles in our society has been the norm throughout most of our history. It wasn’t until our nascent descent that America suddenly began to question the favoring of Christianity. Now, revolutionaries would have us favor atheistic principles (perhaps more accurately described as an utter lack of any principles whatsoever) in the name of being equal to all religions. This is nothing more than cunning deceit. In the crafting of laws it is impossible not to favor some set of principles. In reality there are only two sets from which to choose: good principles and evil principles. Justice Ginsburg has thrown her weight behind the latter.

The other ludicrous argument spewed by Justice Ginsburg that I wish to comment upon is summed up in this quote from her dissent: “Suppose an employer’s sincerely held religious belief is offended by health coverage of vaccines, or paying the minimum wage, or according women equal pay for substantially similar work?” One has to wonder how an individual with such poorly formed logical reasoning powers ever made her way to the lofty and powerful position she possesses in the nation’s highest court. The fact that Justice Ginsburg would even make such a ridiculous statement proves that she is entirely short-sighted and guilty of engaging in demagoguery.

Suppose, Justice Ginsburg, that my sincerely held religious belief is offended by your serving on the Supreme Court. Would you remove yourself in order to appease my religious beliefs? Of course you would not, and thus we are stuck with an incompetent Justice…but I digress. The point here is that this particular Supreme Court decision actually had very little to do religious freedom, and more to do with the battle of good versus evil. This country was never meant to grant its citizens unrestrained freedom of religion. If it had, how could we speak out against acts of terrorism? After all, those horrendous acts are carried out by persons simply following their religious principles!

Our Freedom of Religion does not mean that any citizen can justify an evil act in the name of their religion. Freedom of Religion is subject to the omnipotent principles of goodness. In this Supreme Court case, Freedom of Religion need not even be mentioned. The real question is the question of principles and which to support. Should America support the principles of evil which hail birth control as the savior of mankind? Or should America support the principles of goodness which recognize birth control for what it is—an atrocity? Thankfully, by the slimmest of margins, our Supreme Court made the right decision.

There are many more complaints that Justice Ginsburg raises, but they are of the same ilk. Her dissent is nothing more than a purely emotional appeal for Americans to support the principles of evil. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is an enemy to the crusade for the triumph of goodness and it is truly a travesty that she possesses any rank in our court system. America should associate her with the evil principles she supports and pray for her conversion to our good efforts.