I feel like I'm trapped in a surreal, absurd alternate universe. Corporations don't believe in God.
The marrying of legal constructions designed for commerce and the people that work for and own them has gone too far.
After the ridiculous expansion of corporate personhood under Citezen's United I am no longer assuaged that the absurd is not the possible under this court though.
It's odd how the definition of religious freedom has evolved over the years. It used to be that the state, and therefore the people, were protected from religion (as in, the government can't sponsor a religion). It seems now that we think that the primary goal of religious freedom is to protect religions from the government. I'm all for individuals being able to practice whatever they want, but I can't abide my tax dollars supporting religious nuts. It makes my skin crawl to know that we subsidize these places via their tax exemptions, but to extend that to a corporation is a new low. All corporations benefit from our collective support (the infamous "You didn't build that" that the GOP jumped all over), so to let them off the hook from a specific law because it 'feels' wrong to them is unconscionable. Fuck you. Go into the ministry if you want special treatment. Don't go into business if you don't want to abide by the covenant that society has crafted with business. Unfortunately, the Roberts court has shown no shame when it comes to right wing activism (which is obviously a thing, despite their talking points). If letting business do what they please based on the religion of the owner is legislating from the bench (as there is no precedent for such disrespect for law), then I clearly have no idea what judicial activism is.
Also, one more thing on the surrealist, absurdist POV: I'm very disappointed in The New Republic, and other reputable news organizations for their coverage of this story. Their insistence that "there are good points on both sides" smacks of that hyper sensitivity the news media has to being balanced, even in the case where one side is clearly right and one side is clearly wrong. Come on media, let's call a fair game.
Marwan Bishara, the senior political analyst of Al Jazeera English gave an AMA a few weeks back and gave one of the best answers about this:
- As a news organisation, we are not in search of neutrality. Rather, objectivity. In other words, we would expose the facts regardless of how any which party is affected - or how we might be perceived. In Egypt, there have been some dramatic shifts and twists over the last three years which we have tried to cover to the best of our abilities. That does not mean mistakes have not been made. After all, we are a news organisation that broadcasts 24/7. On the overall, our coverage has been sound but that doesn't mean we have been popular among certain Egyptians or other viewers.
I suppose one can only hope that this new absurdity will shine a light on the holes in the Citizen's United ruling, right? It's funny that neither the right or the left openly embraced the ruling, but neither staunchly condemned it either.
That's a great point, you are right. I am recalling prior to that when none of the candidates condemned them but openly utilized them. Also, Obama has said a lot of things. He's really good at saying things.
I do remember the shaking of Alito's head and the "that's not true" remark. -also unprecedented stuff.
Obama is great at talking. And we all saw that he has a (not to sound racist, it just fits here, I swear) "Don't hate the player; hate the game," sort of attitude, as well. That is, he might have disagreed with the ruling, but he had no problem spending all that unlimited cash, did he?