February 23, 2014
"If corporations can’t have religious beliefs, then it follows that they can’t believe in climate change, sustainable investment or any other beliefs embraced by the corporate social responsibility movement."
Writes Keith Paul Bishop, "shocked" by the brief filed by 44 law professors in the Hobby Lobby case, in a post that Professor Bainbridge called "A truly great post that made me very happy."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
70 comments:
Our founders would be appalled at the evil efforts to remove religious conviction from public life. This administration spares no such effort whatsoever. Worst President ever. Worst Attorney General of the United States ever. Literally evil in SO many respects. The country will recover and Obama and Holder will take their rightful places as the historical pariahs they already are.
Slippery slope starts cutting both ways doesn't it?
A synthetic person can't hold synthetic beliefs?
As an atheist - so opposed to both forms of belief used here - this seems like the correct approach.
Bravo!
See? My long-espoused outlook and conservatism ARE one in the same, it just takes some digging for y'all to get there,...
Whenever I read of someone talking about “social justice,” I check my wallet.
"Social Justice" - the name of Father Coughlin's anti - semitic rag.
Isn't the real problem here is that 44 law professors just got tripped up for a simple flaw of logic that you'd hope not to find on a student paper in Logic 101?
Young Hegelian wrote:
"Isn't the real problem here is that 44 law professors just got tripped up for a simple flaw of logic that you'd hope not to find on a student paper in Logic 101?"
Yes. And the left by and large is tripped up in this same flaw of logic all the time.
Argument for single payer, keep businesses out of morality. But then that would shut down every Catholic medical facility and create state run hospitals.
The radical secularist/anti-theist religion is the only one to be allowed the public square.
No wonder Leftists are sympathetic to Islamism ... the dedication to eradicating any dissent or opposition is rampant in both ideologies.
Like recognizes like
Leftists are sympathetic to Islamism? Seriously? Leftist women would submit to such a society and actually embrace it? What utter hogwash.
No, Igna, leftists aren't generally pro-Islamist, at least in public, they're just consistently and shamefully anti-anti-Islamist. They did the same with Communism: rarely pro-Communist, but reliably anti-anti-Communist. Being anti-anti-X is just like being pro-X, but with deniability.
By the way, a few posts back you called me a racist. I'm still waiting for you to provide even one single piece of evidence backing up your nasty little slur. Care to provide it, or apologize, or would you rather look like a liar and a fool?
Leftists are sympathetic to Islamism?
They often turn a blind eye to the flaws of the Islamic movement, finding it more convenient to assail the Christians in their midst.
Inga: Leftists are sympathetic to Islamism? Seriously?
No, Inga. They're just dumb enough to hold opinions and allegiences that, objectively, make them supportive of it.
See "Rachel Corrie" and "Hamas".
"A truly great post that made me very happy."
My goodness. That's all it takes to make him happy? For that matter, that's all it takes to be a "truly great post"? I see the argument he is celebrating gwet trotted out all the time on townhall.com alone.
@inga,
Leftists are sympathetic to Islamism? Seriously?
Much more of an issue with the European as opposed to the American Left, but what the European left adopts comes over here sooner or later.
See here for an interview with lefty intellectual Slovoj Zizek. Or articles here and here.
When Lynn Stewart was being actively recruited by Ramsey Clark to represent the Islamic extremist, Sheik Rahman, his sales pitch was that "the Arab world would feel betrayed by their friends on the American left" if she didn't take the case.
There are the actively evil lefties......and then there are the blind and ignorant sheep lefties. Inga falls into the latter.
- Krumhorn
Here is another coy substitution of words.
Does LGBT Care About A Religious Extremist Burning A Gay Bar?
Here's some more Logic 101
NAACP requires marchers protesting North Carolina voter ID law TO Show Photo ID
"would you rather look like a liar and a fool?"
What, you think there's a choice?
Sure there's a choice. She can look like a coward by pretending not to have seen my comment. Of course that's also a form of lying, and foolish, too, since we know she has nothing to do all day except read every comment on every post and reply to a huge percentage of them.
Very obscure joke for YoungHegelian: You think Igna is a direct descendant in the male line of the French philosopher killed in the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre? (He has a scene in Marlow's Massacre at Paris.)
@ alan
Depends on the religion?
Leftists are a little more accommodating to Islam, because it's "other" and exotic.
Case in point. A friend of mine was arguing against religious accommodation laws that are currently being passed in many states. I replied that I didn't think that not baking a wedding cake was any different than allowing Muslim cabbies to refuse service to anyone carrying alcohol.
She thought it was completely different, because? Well, one has to do with who you are and one has to do with what you're carrying. I said, "People aren't getting sued for denying service to gay people because they're gay. They're getting sued for not participating in a gay wedding. It's an event, just like the guy carrying a 12 pack."
No response.
"..44 law professors..."
Good thing it wasn't "88 members of the Duke University faculty."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_of_88
Is "44 law professors" the new incarnation of "12 bishops"?
It's a bit surprising that folks still think that an amicus brief from "44 law professors" is still an effective advocacy tool. I think of the quote from Justice Scalia in his Lawrence v. Texas dissent:
"Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct. I noted in an earlier opinion the fact that the American Association of Law Schools (to which any reputable law school must seek to belong) excludes from membership any school that refuses to ban from its job-interview facilities a law firm (no matter how small) that does not wish to hire as a prospective partner a person who openly engages in homosexual conduct. See Romer, supra, at 653."
Birches,
Of course, your "friend" doesn't represent liberals. I'd say "fire the cab driver," is a representative response from most all liberals I know. It's certainly my response to that bullshit.
And of course, those cab drivers you are talking about. I wonder about their attitudes towards gay weddings, and homosexaulity generally. More aligned with US liberals, or more aligned with current members of the Arizona legislature?
But Birches still will cite his "friend" as, um, evidence of something. Or something.
If corporations are human enough to be greedy, I guess they're human enough to be religious.
The Left needs Islam as its pocketbook and a source of cannon fodder. Islam needs the Left as its propaganda mouthpiece.
Sorry, harrogate. She's a liberal. These types are everywhere in academia. I see it a lot from my under 30 something friends.
You'd be interested to know that Eric Holder's Justice department is taking up the cause for these Muslim cab drivers. In their view, it's a protected religious right.
I find it interesting that the Justice Department run by the most powerful leftist in our Country sympathizes with one group of religious "bigots" while fighting steadfastly against the other (hobby Lobby).
You can say my example is BS, but the Obama administration's position is not. The progressive left still hasn't reconciled their accommodation to Islam with the fact that Islam is closely aligned with the SoCons and probably more vehemently full of "hate."
It's the same kind of mindset that has people posting distasteful zombie jokes on Easter, but then turning around 3 days later and saying something about how they totally believe in karma and reincarnation.
One's ok because it's "other" and exotic.
"One's ok because it's 'other' and exotic"
Thanks for the scholarly, measured explanation. It's great to get a chance to meet people (even in digital space) who have everything, and everyone so well figured out as Birches does.
That Hobby Lobby is privately held would seem to equally obviate many of the concerns raised by the Gang of 44.
Hobby Lobby is a privately held retail chain of arts and crafts stores based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA, and is formally called Hobby Lobby Creative Centers. The company was founded by David Green on August 3, 1972, and as of August 2012 the chain has 561 stores nationwide.
Birches, I have made it clear I am against these "religious accommodation laws," euphemistically blessed term and all. I am also of the "fuck the can drivers" position. So, according to your little rubric anyway: Blamo, consistency!
What about you? Where are you on these issues.
Gee harrogate, I just thought we were discussing an interesting intersection between religion, politics, social responsibility and hypocrisy. I didn't know you were looking for scholarly level explanations.
But since you asked, I used quotation marks for "other" for a very specific reason. Nationalism (and there is much scholarly research in this area) is predicated on creating an "other" that must be attacked to strengthen National Identity and loyalty. If you'd like examples of "other" in the use of scholarship see here and here.
Modern day progressivism seeks to undermine these National (or Patriotic) tendencies by embracing the "other" and renouncing some of the more Nationalistic parts of American history and culture. (This is why you can infer if someone is a liberal or conservative by having them answer if they are proud of this country's history.)
All of this was implied by my use of the quoted "other" in my posts and my belief that modern day progressives give Islam a pass, but rail against Christians. I didn't think I needed to explain myself so thoroughly in the comments of a blog. My apologies.
The issue is not what "Other" means. The issue is your little quip purporting to "explain" ( see what I did there?) the mentalities of people with whom who you disagree politically.
If a corporation can have any one belief it can have many beliefs including religious beliefs. Whether it's a for profit or a non profit the status means nothing since both are controlled by its management and or shareholders and directors. Either they all can have beliefs or none can have beliefs. If it's good enough for the ACLU it's good enough for Hobby Lobby.
Cab. Fuck the cab drivers.
Harrogate,
I think both groups should be afforded reasonable accommodation. The baker shouldn't be sued because they won't bake a wedding for two gay guys, but the Muslim cabbie should be free to take whoever he wants in his cab.
That might mean that he might need to start his own cab company if his boss isn't happy with his decision, but those are the choices we make, much like the baker might be put out of business for all the bad press.
No company should be forced to comply with supplying any standard of care with the insurance it provides its employees as a benefit. If that means the Jehovah's Witness boss can get a policy for all her employees that does not cover blood transfusions, well, so be it. It's her company and his benefit to offer.
Well I appreciate your vaunted consistency on the issue and I suppose that makes us parallel consistencies. Of course the implications of your position involve the Rand Paul position, if you want to keep "the blacks" out of your diner then by all means this is 'Murica!
Whether or not the super magic market would punish such a diner, or bakery, or cab company, is a separate question. I'm opposed to the pre-Civil Rights mentality either way.
Harrogate,
My anecdote was my own. I also think other commenters supplied enough articles and evidence that the left and Islam are wrapped up uncomfortably, which was my whole point. If you don't like the reason I think that is so (anti-Nationalism and the embrace of "other" by the progressive left), that's fine and you can use your own experience to counter that.
Also I appreciate your acknowledgment of the strong alignment between the cab drivers and the SoCons because extrapolated, it's such an important truth that gets overlooked and needs to be pointed out lots of times. That you don't think liberals have "reconciled" that alignment is amusing but immaterial. The good thing is that more and more people speak to the alignment itself.
corporations don't have beliefs. people have beliefs and organize themselves as corporations. they don't waive their god given rights when they do.
We will never know for sure if the free market would have solved the problems of the Jim Crow South on its own without separate Civil Rights legislation. I think there is some evidence to suggest that it might.
In her biography, Condoleeza Rice tells the story of a Jewish doctor who recently relocated to Alabama and treated her and her family on the sly in the White's only part of the practice in defiance of the laws forbidding it. We also know that there was a lot of Northern migration into the South. The rigid social hierarchy that existed before took a big hit because of it and the growth of a middle class. The story about the doctor shows that there might have been enough people around to open integrated shops, restaurants and other businesses without being forced to by legislation.
On the other hand, the migration and innovation that happened might have only been possible because the Civil Rights Act gave people reason to relocate, open new industries and provide new jobs.
The maybe it would have worked out, maybe it would have not worked out in Randtopia game is fun I suppose but again, I'll take the Civil Rights legislation on principle.
"I find it interesting that the Justice Department run by the most powerful leftist in our Country...."
Ok, any other remarks following this are immediately suspect, if not easily dismissed outright.
Neither Obama nor Holder are "leftists" and to say so impeaches the honesty (or goog sense) of he or she who says it. Obama/Holder are stooges for the military/corporatist complex. They may claim or pretend to hold "liberal" views, but in their actions in office they represent a seamless continuation of and expansion on the policies of every administration going back to the Reagan administration. They represent the same constituency as the preceding administrations: the wealthy interests who consider America to be its private piggy bank, and we who fill the piggy bank to be inconsequential rabble, to be ignored if possible and clamped down on when necessary.
Robert Cook:
Left-wing ideology is based on the premise of intelligent design. That is a minority interest, which is raised to the status of mortal gods, in order to secure money, sex, and ego gratification for an opportunistic or dependent base.
The minority consolidates capital and control through democratic leverage or coercion, then redistributes it progressively in order to retain favor of lesser classes.
They are not classical liberals. They are generational liberals or libertine. They do not respect individual dignity and do not recognize an intrinsic value of human life (i.e. human life is a commodity, interchangeable and disposable). At the extreme, they murder people by the millions, and abort them by the same number, in order to reduce the problem set to a manageable quantity.
Cook: the whole point is to call people like Obama and Holder and Reid "leftists." Such gross distortions prevent actual policy from moving away from corporate lockdown mode.
Inga:
Yes, the Left is sympathetic to Islamic imperialism, as a matter of convenience. While the Left competes with other Leftist factions for the finally monopoly, they are also allies of convenience during intermediate stages. The fanatical Muslims will remain the Left's conspirators until that leverage is no longer required. After all, there can only be one ruling minority.
You can't compare the muslim cabbies to bakers not wanting to participate in someone's wedding.
If it were comparable, the cabbies would have to physically touch and perhaps pour said booze. If that were the case, they would have a legitimate gripe. But, it's not. Just like the boobs, who were moved to other positions in a store because they didn't want to touch a pack of bacon, as a cashier. Seriously? Their religion says they can't eat it. Says nothing about touching a sealed package. From people I know, who have lived all over the Middle East, these aren't 'issues' and pork is sold in shops.
Wedding cakes are an involved process from selection to delivery. A totally different animal than over-the-counter product or some muslim cabbies making an issue over something they don't even touch.
Google "funny cake toppers". It should be a crime to put such a thing on a beautiful cake.
FYI my parent picked out my cake. We would of fought over it anyways, so my mom had her cake she always wanted.
the Rand Paul position, if you want to keep "the blacks" out of your diner then by all means this is 'Murica!
You do know that is Larry Elder's position, too?
Neither Obama nor Holder are "leftists" and to say so impeaches the honesty (or goog sense) of he or she who says it. Obama/Holder are stooges for the military/corporatist complex.
o_O
5150
That some Christians have an issue with paying for what they consider are abortificants, or might not want to provide their goods or services for a gay wedding is abhorent to the left.
Islamists, however, who have been known to hang, burn, and stone homosexuals are all right with the left. Because, "it's their culture."
If Obama is not a leftist, then tea party is a moderate conservative group.
"You do know that is Larry Elder's position, too?"
Sure. So what?
The law prof brief is of a piece with the current administration's disturbing tendency to affirm a "right to worship", rather than the constitution's "free exercise of religion". "Keep your religious beliefs inside your house of worship, insolent peasants!" they seem to be trying to say...
harrogate: "I see the argument he is celebrating gwet trotted out all the time on townhall.com alone."
That's funny.
I see 100% of harrogates arguments show up almost verbatim on democrat underground.
Now that that is cleared up, I wonder if harrogate would like to explain why the townhall comment was relevant.
(pssst, we already know why...)
Birches: "I also think other commenters supplied enough articles and evidence that the left and Islam are wrapped up uncomfortably, which was my whole point."
More than enough.
All you have to do is look at the convergence of western lefties and anti-isreal movements on campus to see this time and time again.
A bomb goes off somewhere and lefties have 2 simultaneous thoughts:
1) Please don't let this be a muslim
2) Please please please please let this be a white guy (even a lefty or crazy can be spun into a "respected member of the conservative/NRA community")
Of course, we really can't blame the left. Since the collapse of their BFF (Soviet Union), they've needed some kindred spirits to help fill the void.
n.n.: "Yes, the Left is sympathetic to Islamic imperialism, as a matter of convenience."
Not true.
The sympathy goes much much deeper than that.
Both the western left and Islamists despise the west.
The left wants to turn us into a marxist paradise.
The islamists want the obvious, the world under islamist domination.
In both cases, the first step is: destroy the institutions of the west.
We are well along on that path.
Assuming we will continue on the path (and I believe we will), there will come a day of reckoning with islam.
By then though, what will it matter?
Drago, you seem to be confusing vitriol and hyperbole with good argument and/or thinking. Take it easy there, big fella.
The left is completely comfortable with the notion of corporate criminal liability. Which suggests mens rea, or whatever modern version of that you'd like to use to describe criminal intent, which implies free choice, which implicates the first amendment. QED, no?
"...the whole point is to call people like Obama and Holder and Reid 'leftists.' Such gross distortions prevent actual policy from moving away from corporate lockdown mode."
Harrowgate, thanks for pointing this out. It's quite true, and those orchestrating such characterizations are well aware they promulgate falsehoods. Those who receive the lies are dupes who take it as truth, which they then repeat to others...both of which they are intended to do, (i.e., to believe and repeat).
Robert Cook,
I do think that lots of people who spread this lie of US Democrats as "leftists" or even paticularly liberal on economic policy, do so knowing they are lying.
But beyond the moves of corporate media, it does seem like more and more analysts, bloggers, and thoughtful people in general, have had their ideas of economic policy sufficiently shwarped by now, that they really believe this stuff to be true.
Like "Cap and Trade," ACA was a garden variety Republican idea not so long ago. Now it's "socialism."
The US will be corporate owned for a long, long time.
Cook: "Harrowgate, thanks for pointing this out. It's quite true, and those orchestrating such characterizations are well aware they promulgate falsehoods."
LOL
Cookie takes time out from promulgating hilarious lies about Reagan conspiring with the Ayatollah to keep Americans hostage longer in order to complain about "falsehoods".
Precious.
"I do think that lots of people who spread this lie of US Democrats as "leftists" or even paticularly liberal on economic policy, do so knowing they are lying."
Okay, comrade, do you seriously think then that the Tea Party are right-wingers? That Bush domestic policy was "right-wing?
Here is a really middle of the road idea - let's cut spending back to 2007 level. I guess we all agree that this not right-wing, right?
"Like "Cap and Trade," ACA was a garden variety Republican idea not so long ago. Now it's "socialism." "
And slavery was a garden variety Democrat idea not so long ago.
Post a Comment