M/cloudy
39°
M/cloudy
Hi 51° | Lo 35°

Letter: A question of existence

When did the Supreme Court prove the existence of God?

Like beauty is in the eye of the beholder, God is in the minds and hearts of the faithful. That doesn’t prove he exists. Since religion takes everything on faith, it is impossible to prove God’s existence one way or the other. If you believe, He exists.

I don’t believe, therefore He doesn’t exist. And please spare me the “looking at a sunset” stories and the miracle of birth, etc. It proves nothing concretely except in the minds of the faithful.

With that in mind, how can the Supreme Court make rulings based on someone’s unproven religious beliefs when they are at best theories? One of the freedoms we enjoy in this country is freedom of religion, which also includes freedom FROM religion.

I would challenge the Supreme Court to first prove the existence of God before they make rulings based on that existence.

RICK O’NEAL

Hillsboro

Legacy Comments25

Rick from Hillzbra' is right. In fact, when it comes right down to any existence, including OURS, one theory is as good as the next. tillie, take a nap before you fry that motherboard. Keep YELLING at virtual enemies on the 'net like that, and YOU will be the one in need of a prescription.

The one thing that really has never been addressed to my knowledge on this issue, is what exactly is the cost. They say they don't want to pay for something that is outside of their political beliefs. Exactly how does one exclude this from a policy and what if any cost benefit is there. Anyone here that views this as a religious issue is confused. This is just another swipe at Obamacare disguised as a religious protest.

Interesting question. How much would insurance without birth control save per person? Perhaps if they allowed the worker to co-pay it, it would provide a path to move forward. But this appears to be more about making a statement of control by making sure none of their workers can be covered than it is about money or trying to find a fair balance.

Now to get down to facts: 1) I think, therefore I am (Rene Descartes). 2) Thinking people accept reality. When I hammer my thumb, it hurts. The sun provides light energy to warm the Earth. 3) Educated people (some) become scientists. 4) Scientists have studied the universe and Earth and established some incontrovertible facts such as: speed of light, Earth is 3rd planet from our sun, our solar system is a minor system on a wing of the Milky Way Galaxy, there are billions of stars in this galaxy and billions of galaxies in the universe, there are thousands of planets similar to Earth in our galaxy and they have not found heaven To believe that heaven exists, without it being detectible by any known scientific method, requires (now) faith. Another aspect taken on faith is the existence (?) of a soul. While some may take the existence of the universe as proof of God, I believe that the process which created the universe is NOT the Christian 'God'. And, since the universe was created more than 13 billion years ago, and our Earth is only 5 billion years old, the Christian, Jew, Islam, etc. 'God' was not responsible for any creation.

More silliness from BPR and wrong statements from Itsa. Typical. '...Our existence on Earth is all a matter of faith...' Are you serious? No. My faith says that you don't exist.

what in the world did women do before their saviors NObama and Shaheen graced the land with their edicts. The wold must have been such a hostile and burdensome place to live

Well, I would agree with you Rick. The Supreme Court has not "proven" the existence of God. You say that "I don’t believe, therefore He doesn’t exist." Well, for believers or otherwise, that's quite an assertion. You have presented a challenge to the Supreme Court that they must first "prove" (whatever that might mean to you) the existence of God before they make certain rulings. Could be. Would it help if you were to specify which rulings and why? And what would be specifically the nature of proof or otherwise, as you see it, for or against belief in the existence of "God" as usefully understood? In this context, shortcuts are better than just nothing specifically at all. After all, you have undertaken the question. Yes?

my point is that the existence of God can not be proven it is strictly taken on faith. So saying that Hobby Lobby can contradict a government mandate based on their religion which is based on the existence of God is wrong since that existence is not provable.

Individuals have rights to moral positions in this country, without suffering under a mandate to somehow prove the existence of God. And Hobby Lobby is not supporting a legal mandate against contraception, only these utterly oppressive "mandates" that they must directly pay for it.

The employees also pay for their health insurance. What about their moral belief that a morning after pill (from a date rape) is not an abortion? Oh of course, this is the Supreme Court and corporations have more rights than individual rights. How strange is it that the far right is so worried about individual rights (guns, water rights, etc) but not a woman's right over her own body.

Well, I think in the case of rape or incest, abortion is fine. I think that late term abortion should only be allowed if the life of the mother is in jeopardy. But curiously, why can't we all have "a right our own bodies", as in choice of insurance, treatments, doctors. Why are you not worried about limitations that Obamacare put on those rights? Only women have rights now?

Tillie, that woman that wants her morning after pill can still walk into her doctor's office and get it. The SC decision just took Hobby Lobby out of the equation.

SHE HAS A RIGHT TO GET IT FROM A DOCTOR AND FOR IT TO BE PAID FOR BY HER HEALTH INSURANCE THAT SHE PAYS INTO. Why is it so hard for you people to understand that a woman has rights too? If you worked for HL and they didn't believe in blood transfusions and you needed one immediately, would you be willing to pay for it yourself even though YOU pay into your health insurance? Just like I told that other guy, if you don't try to understand it is useless to discuss it with you.

There are many things that my insurance doesn't cover. Besides, We're not talking about blood transfusions...we're talking about a little pill that kills unborn babies. I stand with HL...if you want to kill your children, do it on your own dime.

One more time, it is her dime. She pays into her insurance and it is part of her pay package (her salary in case you don't understand.)

The Constitution specifically grants the right to practice religion and the government needs to stay out of that practice. That is the law. Therefore, the government can't mandate and trump religion in the name of ideology of a minority of the population whether the Congress nefariously passed the law or not. That is WHY we have three co-equal branches of government. Supreme court ruled, when they did that for Obamacare you progressives and those with no faith said: "It is settled law". Now take the medicine.

I agree with you that individuals have rights to beliefs of faith, and the moral positions that may follow from those beliefs. But the issue here is that HL is not opposed to the insurance mandate, but is claiming the moral/religious right to impose its views on its employees. In effect, imposing its views into the doctor/patient relationship. There are many reasons a woman might choose an IUD over other methods of BC. For HL to deprive its female employees of that option-based on faith,not science or medicine, strikes me as unfair and discriminatory. In a pluralistic society that claims to treat everyone fairly under the law, an employer's rights to impose their view of morality on a female's reproductive choices takes us down the slippery slope toward a Christian fundamentalist version of sharia law.

It is not granting morality over a woman's reproductive choice, it is about the right of the employer to not have their religious beliefs stomped upon. Sharia law and this decision are miles apart. BTW-Health care is not a right, never has been and should never be.

No one is forcing the owners of HL to get IUDs for themselves. The employees of HL earn their pay and benefits, and should be able to decide how they wish to spend that money. There are NO absolute rights. The "right" that HL owners claim conflicts with the right of their female employees to the best and safest reproductive health care available. To paraphrase part of the NH Constitution: when one enters the marketplace/commons in a pluralistic society, one gives up some measure of personal freedom for the greater good. This notion has long been enshrined in our laws and society.

nope....the slippery slope is Obamacare...not the supreme court ruling.

To paraphrase Monty Python, you haven't made an argument, you've just made a contradiction. So much trolling, so little time....

I think that the case of belief, GOD and the universe as well as our existence here on Earth is all a matter of faith. Those who have their own set of values different than the Judeo-Christian or similar philosophies believe that we evolved from one cell stuck in primordial sludge. It is all theory. If man believes that there is nothing more in the Universe, nothing bigger than ourselves, then our arrogance will consume us. That is what Marx and Lenin believed; Hitler and Stalin. People want to live free but we still need a set of morals or ethics. Think about where we would be without say, the Ten Commandments. Thou shalt not kill, steal etc. are still alive and well, much to the chagrin of liberals. Of course old commandments like not coveting your neighbors wife or envy have been completely left impotent by society. I guess I am saying, prove to us that secular humanism is valid, Mr. O'Neal.

Without the 10 Commandments Charleton Heston may not have been a big star. 90% of what people believe about the commandments are from that movie. Look at that a fact I just made up. The doctrine of the church was that the earth was the center of the universe, until science proved them wrong. You are right that thinking we are the only life in the universe would be arrogant to save the least. There are things that science can't explain, quite a few. However I will grant you that there could be a "God" in some sense of the word but that only begs to ask, where did "he" come from. Faith is critical, however if one were to look at the history of organized religion, one would find some truth in the words "Religion is the opiate of the masses." The more you work, slave and suffer in this life, the greater the rewards in heaven, quite a good concept if you are the Church or the titled lords you toil under. You make me rich and you will be rewarded when you die, a classic.

GOD, the universe, etc. Did you ever think that our pea brains might not be able to fathom existence outside of our planet. The BIG BANG according to scientists came from "nothing". What is nothing? Faith in something bigger than corrupt, self serving politicians, bureaucrats and government.

more theatrics from the democrats. If democrats didnt always want somebody else to pay for their whims there would not be an issue. They always spin the issue - The issue a spelled out by the Supreme Court is forcing someone to PAY for others "belief"

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.