Fred Clark, on why it seems the five Catholic Supreme men ruled that, if the sincerely held religious belief of the Green family of Hobby Lobby wishes to turn contraceptives into abortifacients, we must bow to that sincerely held religious belief no matter what scientific evidence tells us to the contrary. Because. Because Catholic:
That is to say, in Alito’s apparent way of thinking, the religious scruples against blood transfusions do not involve a legitimate religion. Concern about abortion, however — even when that concern has no factual basis — is a legitimate religious scruple because, well, it’s Catholic. Just like Sam Alito. And just like John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas — the only justices who agreed with Alito’s inexplicable assertion that this alleged concern about alleged “abortifacients” is self-evidently different from other such claims.
Like I said, that seems unbearably ugly. It would suggest that Alito is trying to write his own sectarian views into law without even bothering to defend them. But he hasn’t given us any other explanation for this distinction.
The graphic is from the new Twitter hashtag #BoycottHobbyLobby, one of several bitingly funny Twitter responses to the Supremes' Hobby Lobby decision that has sprung up in the past few days, about which I'll blog in a moment. The particular tweet using this image is by Leedog. The original of the graphic appears to be by RJ Matson of Cagle Cartoons, and is at Truthdig right now.
No comments:
Post a Comment