I have been ruminating about today's decision by the Supreme Court in the Hooby Lobby case, and one sentence quoted from Alito's opinion struck me in particular.
In the New York Times, Alito was quoted as saying he thought it unlikely that " 'publicly held "corporate giants" would make religious liberty claims. And, the article continued, "Racial discrimination," he said, could not 'be cloaked as religious practice to escape legal sanction.' "
My questions are these: A) does this allegation that racial discrimination could not be cloaked as religious practice fly in the face of history? and B) why does discrimination on the basis of gender get to be cloaked as religious practice?
I realize this slightly veers off topic, but it does address the question we were discussing in seminar today about what happens when social values "penetrate" the political system in such a way as to legalize exclusionary practices.
Thoughts for tonight, open to discussion and dialogue on this blog.
My initial response relates to the reading I am doing for our small group portion of OT. A totalitarian regime makes it policy to confuse and perplex people so that power can be held and wielded in secret. There is the facade of government and then the actual government. I wonder, is the Supreme Court now a part of our facade of government of the people, by the people and for the people?
ReplyDelete