Friday, July 27, 2012

A Logical Conclusion

Can we all at least agree that we agree on logic? 
I know it's a tautology. Logic is, by definition, logic.  In political debate, however, logic is commonly suspended in favor of passion. 

So I ask again, can we agree to hold logic to its own standard?  You know, two plus two is four; if Sally is older than Dave, then Dave is younger than Sally; that kind of thing?


Hercules Industries is suing the Obama administration over the mandate to provide contraception insurance.

An except from an article (found here) on the suit:

Colorado-based Hercules Industries and the Catholic family that owns it are seeking an immediate order to halt the Obama administration mandate that forces employers to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception. The administration’s response argues, contrary to the Constitution, that people of faith forfeit their religious liberty once they engage in business

Let's take the administration's response to its logical conclusion:
  • ...people of faith forfeit their religious liberty once they engage in business
  • Business = commerce**
  • We all engage in commerce***
  • We are therefore required to foreit our religious liberty.
  • Rephrased, religious liberty is against the law.
The Obama administration is a wee bit arrogant.  Commerce > God? I beg to differ.

* Credentials: I did get a better grade in highschool geometry than my older brother, who was in the same class.  Highschool  geometry, in addition to learning how to bisect a lines with a compass, which has proven quite handy in many a woodworking project, is where a theorem is resolved through a series of logical statements called a proof.   

** If you need help crossing this hurdle, try it the other way around.  Commerce = business.  It's a symmetrical (a = a) relationship in my mind, but if you need a transitive proof:
  • Businesses need Customers
  • to engage in Transactions
  • resulting in Commerce. 
  • Therefore, if we are engaged in commerce, we are engaged in business.  See my request about agreeing on logic above or, failing that, see equility at wikipedia:

***Required, mind you.  You  know, that mandate-tax-not-a-tax thingy. Engaging in commerce is, for all practical considerations, unavoidable, being that we are alive and in a nominally free-market economy.  We have to eat.  But now it is required.  Mandated.  A tax.