A few weeks ago, I signed a petition to overturn the Citizens United andHobby Lobby decisions, via a constitutional amendment. Unfortunately, the senators for my state are McCain and Flake.
McCain sent me an interesting response, which includes the paragraph below.
I supported Hobby Lobby in this case arguing for the ongoing and central importance of RFRA's protections against government-imposed violations of religious liberty. [...] I strongly believe that religious freedom and individual liberty must be preserved in the face of big-government mandates.
This is what some people may call "talking out both sides of your mouth".
So I wrote him back.
More below the curlicue ...
Here's what I sent, along with my commentary along the way. And yes, I know that I'm preaching to the choir here ...
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Senator John McCain
wrote:
"Thank you for contacting me to share your views regarding the Supreme Court's decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. I appreciate knowing your thoughts on this issue."
I realize that this was mostly a form letter, but I still feel that there is part of it which you really need to consider further. That is the paragraph where you say:
"I supported Hobby Lobby in this case arguing for the ongoing and central importance of RFRA's protections against government-imposed violations of religious liberty. [...] I strongly believe that religious freedom and individual liberty must be preserved in the face of big-government mandates."
This is what some people may call "talking out both sides of your mouth".
Of course,
I would say it, too.
The ultimate issue at stake is: Whose religious liberties trump over other religious liberties when there is a conflict? You seem to say that you're supporting both sides in such a conflict.
This is the central issue, that I reiterate at the end of the letter, where I ask whose beliefs he is willing to defend.
This is the proverbial "one" in the phrase "the old one-two". The other point that I brought up was that saying that corporations have religious beliefs was a matter of confusing the map the with the territory, the menu with the meal, and something that represents an object with the actual object.
The Hobby Lobby case says that the religious "beliefs" of a a corporation are more important than the religious beliefs of the people who work for it. The reason that I put "beliefs" in quotation marks is because I do not believe that corporations can actually have religious beliefs. Corporations are economic constructs which have no physical aspect to them. There are buildings belonging to corporations, and there are people running corporations (who may legitimately have religious beliefs), but these are not the corporation itself.
In case you want to read about this further, Gerry Spence says it a lot better in his book
How To Argue and Win Every Time: At Home, At Work, In Court, Everywhere, Every Day, where he rips into the "physical nature" of corporations.
You cannot get rid of a corporation, either. If the rules behind a corporation are written on a sheet of paper, burning the paper does not destroy the corporation. And how can someone being sued face their accuser in court, if they are being sued by an entity with no physical presence? Sure, they can face the lawyers representing the corporation, and can face the CEO of a corporation, but once again, this is not the same thing as facing the corporation.
I am distinguishing between "the menu" and "the food" here; you wouldn't go to a restaurant and eat a piece of paper that says "spaghetti", would you? That certainly wouldn't be the same as eating actual spaghetti.
At this point, I imagine Senator McCain's beady little eyes glazing over. Time to bring it back to the real world.
There are also practical considerations. The Hobby Lobby case says (in actuality) that anyone who runs a corporation can impose their religious beliefs on its workers. How would this work if a high-ranking government official were a Muslim, and used this law to prevent you from maintaining your Christian beliefs?
Let's see how McCain would feel if he were put in the position of having religious beliefs imposed on
him. And pointing out that "religion" does not mean "Christian".
As if he'd ever be in such a situation.
Now, let's rally:
My main question is: Why are you choosing to respect the (non-existent) beliefs of a non-physical entity, instead of the (actual) beliefs of your constituency?
As of 5:00 pm on September 20, 2014, I have not received a reply.
Sat Oct 04, 2014 at 6:56 PM PT: Still no response.