Can people who question the intrusion of religion into civil law be blamed when they are confronted with what clearly appears to be clueless nonsense? Here is televangelist Kenneth Copeland, he of the wild of eye, during a sermon last April:
What is he doing? “I blow the wind of God on you. You are destroyed forever, and you’ll never be back.” And what is he blowing into oblivion? The COVID-19, while the first wave was just getting started. We’ve had two more waves since then. Any reasonable person would think that this guy is off his rocker. This is Copeland again last Sunday:
Why is he doing a Howler monkey impression? He learned that the “media” has declared Joe Biden the winner in the presidential election, and he is attempting to “ha-ha” that reality into oblivion. The general consensus is that Copeland must be some kind of maniac, and frankly the guy has a slightly crazed “gaze” that to normal people seems a little scary. Of course that hasn’t prevented people from throwing away their money, allowing him to live in mansions and own a small fleet of private jets, one of which cost his sheep $20 million.
Shouldn’t this be the kind of thing we would want to keep “private” and not interfere with the regular routine of daily life? Well, not if you are Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who yesterday once more demonstrated his unfitness for a lifetime post passing judgment on people he believes are not morally fit to have rights--insisting that it is a simple issue of “freedom” to deny such people service simply because in someone’s mind their lifestyle is a “sin” in the eyes of his or her God. According to Politico, Alito suggested before an audience of conservative lawyers that by forcing the “righteous” to accept the legality of same-sex marriage was akin to putting the same kind of “strictures” on Christians as was done in Nazi Germany:
“Is our country going to follow that course? For many today, religious liberty is not a cherished freedom. It’s often just an excuse for bigotry and can’t be tolerated, even when there is no evidence that anybody has been harmed. The question we face is whether our society will be inclusive enough to tolerate people with unpopular religious beliefs.”
That’s rather funny. I mean, who is actually practicing bigotry and intolerance here? Regardless of what one thinks of same-sex marriage, one must approach this in terms of a slippery slope. Alito may say that discrimination based on any other criteria--like race or gender--isn’t the same thing, but what would prevent someone from saying it is? If a wedding cake baker is allowed to refuse to make one for a same-sex couple on “moral” grounds, then what of inter-racial marriage? I’m sure some people still think that is a “sin”; should laws be changed to accommodate the religious “freedom” of someone who does? What about unmarried couples? Isn’t that living in “sin”? What Alito is actually suggesting is that the law should allow, because of one’s religion, to tolerate bigotry in the name of “freedom.”
Alito went on to assert that "One of the great challenges for the Supreme Court going forward will be to protect freedom of speech. Although that freedom is falling out of favor in some circles, we need to do whatever we can to prevent it from becoming a second-tier constitutional right.” Again, Alito’s own prejudices blind him to the fact that people know he is talking out of both sides of his mouth. What does practicing discrimination have to do protecting one’s “freedom of speech”? People can say what they want; what the law demands is that they not act on what they say if it interferes with or denies another from pursuing his or her rights under the Constitution.
Alito further demonstrated his “out there” personal philosophy by engaging in conspiracy theories about the COVID-19: “The pandemic has resulted in previously unimaginable restrictions on individual liberty. The Covid crisis has served as a sort of constitutional stress test and in doing so it has highlighted disturbing trends that were already in evidence before the pandemic struck.” What is he talking about here? Is he suggesting that the health and welfare of the generality must be subservient to the demands of the few who insist on their “liberty” to make other people sick?
Why doesn’t Alito just say that people have the “liberty” to carry guns into houses of worship, because preventing them from doing so presents an “unimaginable restriction of individual liberty”? If someone decides they want to use their gun for some political grievance reason, isn’t that person exercising their “freedom of speech”? Of course that is an extreme example, but Alito seems to believe that in most cases, people can just do what the want without any limitations, or at least “reasonable” limitations. But who does decides what is or isn’t a “reasonable” limitation? A religious fanatic like Alito who doesn’t seem to understand that his own definition of religious “freedom” does in fact promote intolerance and bigotry--which is not a “constitutional” right.
No comments:
Post a Comment