Hobby Lobby Day 3: A Bit of Poetry & A Whole Lot of Rage

Why does it matter?

A reasonable question:

Why does it matter that

HL is a corporation?  Are 

not corporations simply

organizations or structures

made up of people?  And if

so, why does it matter to say

that a corporation has religion?

This a friend did ask

and this I did truly and seriously

ponder and this is what I walked

away with . . . 

Quite simply, it matters . . . 

Because it is not true

[and Truth does indeed matter]

Because it is not true 

A corporation is not a person

We call it a legal fiction

Fiction is another word for ‘not true’

Made up

Pretend

A lie

in this case

a legal lie – 

meaning a lie

we agreed would be okay

because we all know it’s

a lie in advance – 

like Santa Claus

or the Easter Bunny

or Tooth Fairy

or “Yes, you look great in that dress”

yeah, like that

as a Christian

I do have to ask

exactly how it is

that a lie –

a self-professed lie

not just a liar –

as in someone who

sometimes lies – 

but a lie –

a thing which by

its very identity is

a sham, a pretense,

a farce, a false

yes, how that ‘thing’

that is Lie, albeit legal,

can be Truth?

I’m as fond of paradox as

the next person, but I tell

you, that dog won’t hunt

even if the cows and the chickens

do finally, at the last, come

home and come home to roost

***

Hobby Lobby had a prize

it’s truth – a pack of lies

that a SCOTUS – whatever that is – 

did say was true – ah, now we’re in biz!

Turns out you can be a bad Christian

so long as you’re not no Christian at all

and you get favors – the specialness

of your own peculiar brand of spe-ci-al-ity-ness

a prize – a ring – or perhaps a calf?

Oh now, let the cheating begin – at least by half

Your idolatry of your Christianity

would rouse hilarity if you had 

even a smidgeon of charity

but you are no-thing

so how can it even be?

It cannot

The Liars Club has met

and well met and it is 

so and we are done 

and undone and there

is no more laughter

not because it is a big

thing – no – truly you

are right – in and of –

itself – not so much –

but aye, here’s the rub –

finally we are unmasked

come out of our closet

and stood in the light

to be proudly revealed

and here we are –

a Christian nation

it would make a grown woman 

weep were it not so damned

funny – Christian, you see –

the follower of the Christ he

– that Way – would seem to 

say I am to take the irony

and give it another cheek –

and yes I do and yes I will –

but every now and then I do

wonder where’s Hobby’s

cheek, for I would surely

like to smite it and be forgiven

I would surely like to witness

that act of Christian fidelity

from a piece of paper filed 

away in a court house somewhere

and yes, my blood does boil

for I have not forgotten history

and the reasons that corporations

have existence in any form, 

fictitious or otherwise –

and let me assure you, 

it is not for the worship of God

never has been

never will be

and no, God does not need my defending

but thanks to SCOTUS, now I think I have

found it and it doth make me tremble –

for here stands the place where I make

the fool’s declaration

if there be corporations in heaven

then count me out . . . 

And surely this will make you laugh

and laugh some more – when it comes

to the ‘faith’ + corporations new math

[I do so love irony]

in its origins, 

‘corporation’

could 

and 

did

refer 

to

the 

S-T-A-T-E

[now wasn’t that worth the wait?]

Yes – to the government

to that very entity 

whose requirements 

the secret

hiding

masked

owners

seek

to avoid

it too is one of them

it too, apparently may have a god

[as opposed, of course, to being one, 

as the ancients – and apparently a few

moderns – you know who you are – did

and do insist]

isn’t the irony fabulously rich?

And of course it does make sense

for a corporation to claim a religious

identity when one of the main historic

purposes of corporations was the survival

of the entity beyond the death of its members

the idea of perpetuity

isn’t that a grand word?

The other word, of course, is

eternity

You see – of course the corporation has a god

[you were merely surprised because you thought

it thought itself to be a god – we always love that one]

anything that’s going to claim infinity as its shelf life

darned well better have a god, after all

ah, but you thought our god was money

close – but not quite –

it’s not money we worship, you see –

rather, it’s money that is the expression of our faith

you sing

you praise

you thank

we make money

it’s all the same

isn’t it?

***

I think 

if I am

honest

it is a 

matter 

of jealousy

I cannot be it

but alas

it can be me

and the sweeping

grandiosity

the canard of it all

does truly take my breath

my breathing me breath

away

and since presumably

it must choose

I wonder that a corporation

would ever choose to be

a woman

I would not were I it

for if I did

on my own petard

would I not be hoist?

***

Hobby Lobby: The Good News Just Keeps on Coming

I wrote yesterday about my reaction (angry) to the Hobby Lobby decision of the Supreme Court (they aren’t cool enough to warrant the SCOTUS appellation - this is no rock group, folks).

In on-going FB and elsewhere conversations, I have reason to be even more hopeful today than yesterday.

Here goes:

Did I Just Hear Justice Alito Say Single-Payer is Constitutional?  Fact is, I think I did.  It goes something like this (fact check me, please – this is too important to get it wrong):

• Privately-held corporations can get out of certain ACA requirements because they are privately-held

• nothing in this ruling can let people get out of obligations to the government based on religious beliefs because those are taxes and this ruling does not apply to taxes

• flash back to Chief Justice Roberts’ decision upholding the constitutionality of ACA, finding that it is essentially a tax

Starting to get it?

• Health-care requirements are a tax – except when they aren’t

• People have to pay taxes whether said taxes violate their religious beliefs or not – except when they don’t

In spite of the nonsensical result, and without meaning to, I am sure, it would seem to me that Justice Alito has just opened the door very wide for the constitutionality and workability of a single-payer national health plan.  If his friend and colleague Chief Justice Roberts’ ruling holds true (and why would it not?  He is, after all, the Chief among the justices), the Alito + Roberts formula seems to be

private + religion = opt out

public + religion = too bad, everybody follow the same rules

And before my conservative friends go all crazy on me insisting that you don’t want the government up your . . . just remember this: according to Justice Alito, somebody gets to be up  there, so the only question remaining is who.

I know you don’t want it to be the government.  But really, do you want it to be your boss?  I’m going for the folks who have so many people to deal with they can’t even remember the view up mine – but that’s just me.

More important to me is the ‘everybody follows the same rules’ proviso.  I am a woman, so I do not have constitutional protections like Hobby Lobby (and yes, I am going to be a very, very, very long time getting over that one).  But even though I don’t have those constitutional safeguards, for some crazy reason, I keep thinking that I should.  Call me closed-minded.

But the good news in all this is that by holding that government action is distinctly different than private action in terms of the ability to opt in or out, Justice Alito has laid some very nice groundwork for nationalized health care.

It might go something like this (hint to Congress: pay attention):

WHEREAS [Congressional bills that are a big deal often have a whole bunch of whereas clauses – they tell you why this is being done] over 50% of the population of these United States of America have no constitutional safeguards;

WHEREAS those 50% plus citizens are women;

WHEREAS women and women only thus far in our development [notice the avoidance of the language of evolution so as not to alienate certain folk who would otherwise be for the bill] are capable of bearing children and thus are the only part of the population subject to certain health issues, risks, and focus, religious and otherwise;

WHEREAS the private sector has had decades of opportunity to provide adequate and fair health care to all our citizens but has yet failed to overcome obstacles to universal and fair coverage, as witnessed by the present ability of certain privately-held concerns to opt out of certain coverages out of their religious beliefs, which adversely impacts female citizens in a way that male citizens are not and cannot be impacted;

WHEREAS, the government, being as it is constitutionally prohibited from making any laws of establishment relative to religion;

WHEREAS the decision in Hobby Lobby, et al., inadvertently establishes a religious rule in carrying out the terms and conditions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), an inevitability so long as ACA coverage continues to be provided by employers:

NOW THEREFORE WITNESS: Congress does hereby hold and act to end this unintended consequence of the Hobby Lobby ruling by enacting Single-payer Universal Health Care, to be implemented forthwith, that no longer may the injustice of women’s health issues being subordinated to the health concerns of men under the guise or out of the rubric of religion.

___________________
*Recall if you read yesterday's piece, I predicted that this decision would head in directions its author and signers never envisioned.  Let the madness begin.

Dear Hobby Lobby, et al.: Jesus Is Not a Legal Fiction

[This piece is a reaction to the Supreme Court's ruling in the Hobby Lobby et al. cases, finding that for-profit corporations can have religious views and can opt out of certain laws as violative of those views.  I am furious -- hence this piece.  Working titles included -- The Good News of Hobby Lobby . . . or . . . Ladies & Gentlemen: I Give You Hobby Lobby World do not even get close to the heartbreak I experience over this case and its conclusion, to which I react much more as a Christian than I do as a woman, although both are in play.  If I offend, so be it.  I will not ask forgiveness in advance, which suggests an intention to sin while seeking to blunt the consequence to me, which is exactly what I perceive to be happening here, as self-interest prompts the highest ruling body in our land -- the Supreme Court -- to actually take faith and make it a joke.  God does not need my defending.  But my nation requires my participation.  To the decision . . . ]

So let’s all of the so-called liberal ilk*, and especially the women among us, just take a deep breath and look for a little bit of humor, a little bit of justice, a little bit of common sense in the Hobby Lobby Debacle.

***

First, to the humor:

Corporations are now not only people, but religious people.  This is GREAT news for us!  Finally, now, we women persons can form our own for-profit corporations, declare our religious views and exempt ourselves from a whole host of laws we find problematic.

1. Corporation Beth will not allow for nor pay for any employee of Corporation Beth to be away from work serving his or her country in the military.  It violates Corporation Beth’s pacifist religious tenets.  Sadly, that does not mean my employees might not be required by their government to serve.  But hey, the good news is that I as Corporation Beth, won’t have to pay for it.

2. Maybe Corporation Sally doesn’t care for certain styles and fashions popular to the day – so Corporation Sally might require men to wear loose-fitting pants so as not to be unduly distracting in the work place because Corporation Sally's God does not like tight pants on men!

3. Corporation Joan has read that addiction is one of those nefarious behavior-based diseases where the person may not know of their susceptibility to it until they imbibe.  Being a reasonable religious person and deeply caring for her employees, Corporation Joan may now institute a policy that in order to receive health care under her plan (her plan, her rules, remember, so long as it’s religious), all employees must refrain from all consumption of alcohol or drugs, prescription or otherwise (which quite handily gets rid of the prescription drug coverage requirement in one fell swoop).

4. In Corporation Every Woman in the United States, Viagra coverage is gone, gone, gone, because for sure, that violates ALL our religious faiths.

5. Corporation I Am Your Mother eliminates caffeine (bad for you and keeps you up at night); all fats in the diet (what, you want to have a heart attack before you’re 30?); cigarettes (need we say more?); driving too fast (I should pay for your suicidal behavior?); well, you get the point.  And it doesn’t matter one little bit whether we follow these rules or not (this is, after all, Corporation I Am Your Mother – CIAYM for short and in CIAYM, the order of the day is to do what I say and not what I do – Mom, after all, knows best).  So, to all you conservatives and libertarians, we hope you’re as pleased as we are – you’ve traded in your ‘Nanny State’ for Nanny Corporation.  And our freedom of speech guarantees you’ll be hearing from us even in your sleep.  Sweet dreams, cutie.  Love you, Mom.

6. Corporation Gladys eliminates all blood pressure medicines and treatments from coverage under her plan as most affected by such things are men and they have brought it on themselves and Gladys’ religion prohibits, absolutely prohibits, rewarding anyone, but especially men, for their own self-destructive behavior.  Corporation Gladys will send a representative to the visitation at your funeral.  But she will not be paying for your own self-destructive behavior.

***

As for justice, I’m with Dr. King on this one – the moral arc is indeed a long one, but its bent is one-directional.  The fact is that over time, this ruling will inevitably be taken to its logical and ridiculous conclusion and some future mothers and fathers will come to their senses and undo this nonsense.

I know that simply because, having been a lawyer, I know that my own kind can never, never, never, leave well enough alone.  Some creative cuss will inevitably come up with the silliest and most dangerous (from the State’s point of view) interpretation of this legal joke and it will work and the Supreme Court (keeper of the traditional values of the nation – never think otherwise) will recoil in horror at what their own ancestors have wrought.  The thing will be undone and all will be well – well, of course, except for all the folks in the meantime for whom it was not well.

And understand this about justice:  perception is as important as reality.  We cannot know with any certainty the intentions of those bringing these cases or those deciding in their favor.  But we can know that many women across this land feel disenfranchised, dismissed, attacked, minimized, disappeared from public discourse, simply because they are the target.  This action does not, cannot, affect health coverage for men.  It is only about women, as the 'keepers' of the reproductive cycle.  Argue all you like:  the fact is that many women experience this decision as discriminatory.

***  

Common sense – that oh, so rare commodity, is right scarce these days, it seems to me.  Maybe I’ve missed something really important.  But I don’t think so.  So I offer a few personal bromides in the (most likely vain) hope of assisting those whose own common sense seems to have fled:

1. Jesus neither requires nor desires bouncers.  You do not have to (in fact you cannot) act to enforce Jesus.  It just doesn’t work.  In fact, it has the opposite effect.

2. Think mote and plank.  If this is really about religion (and we all know it’s not – it’s about money – but let’s play along and pretend that you really are honest brokers of your own truths), I humbly (okay, I’m not all that honest either) suggest you recall Jesus’ own words about the mote and plank and devote yourself to some time reading the Desert Fathers and Mothers (who were quite clear that their own breaches were so extreme that they were in no position to condemn the actions of others).  More directly, did you survey all your shareholders or trust beneficiaries to determine whether or not any of your women use IUD’s or other comparable means of birth control?  Clean your own damn house before you go snooping around in the houses of your employees is a more direct way of putting it.

3. There are always unintended consequences – put another way:  Know that you will pay for this – and not in a good way.  I alluded to this above, but I’ll be more clear: making law ALWAYS has unintended consequences.  You lack the imagination to even begin to comprehend where this law will go.  But there are lawyers and activist groups out there now plotting away.  In the long run, you will not have protected the sanctity of your own religious beliefs.  What you will do is make anything called religious a joke, as companies far and wide seek new and interesting ways to make themselves ‘religious’ so as to avoid their financial obligations (remember: it is ALWAYS all about the money).  If you really care about the practice of your religion, this was a very bad day for you and I am only sorry that you lack the insight to understand that.

4. Beware of any action taken by one group that affects the rights of another.  This is supposedly about religion.  But hear the women.  And hear them clearly.  This rule applies ONLY to women – men, thus far, cannot have children, so by definition, this rule is about women and women only.  The opinion is written by a man.  The dissent is written by a woman.  That should tell you something.  At a minimum, it should tell you that when one group (in this case, men) makes a rule that only affects another group to which they do not belong (women), great humility and caution are called for.  Listening to the voices of the other group is called for.

5. Moral ambiguity is the land of grown-ups.  You live in the land of grown-ups.  That means things will not always go your way, simply because you are not the only inhabitant of this land.  Just sit with that one for awhile.  You might ask yourself what we who see otherwise on this issue than you have had to put up with from the likes of you over the centuries to get some idea of what is intended here.

***

To Justice Alito and all the signers-on: I thought you were a Christian.  As such, I gave you credit for understanding how very ridiculous it is to claim that a corporation has religion**.  I never considered for an instant that you would take the rule that allows for non-profits to opt out of this provision as ‘evidence’ that corporations have religion.  But you did.

You may be a wonderful Justice (I am not in a position to know), but sadly, I must conclude that you aren’t much of a Christian, because you have made the Christ I follow a joke by doing that most insidious thing we lawyers can do: you have made Jesus a legal fiction.

And you have broken my heart.



_____________
*When it became ‘liberal’ as opposed to conservative or even libertarian to keep the government out of my vagina, I really would like to know.  When it became liberal as opposed to conservative or libertarian to favor the creeds of my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters (contraception equals sin) over the creeds of oh, say Jehovah’s Witnesses (blood transfusions equal sin) or Christian Scientists (all medical treatment equals sin), I really would like to know.  When the ‘religious’ rights of a fictional character (a corporation) became more important that the religious freedoms of its employees (real, actual, living, breathing people), as a stated value of the conservative and/or libertarians among us, I really, truly, genuinely, would like to know.

**Hobby Lobby  My own Hobby Lobby analysis – turns out (according to the majority of the Supreme Court) I was wrong.

How to Know You’re Religious: Hobby Lobby, Corporations, Personhood and Religious Liberty

So claims Hobby Lobby in its law suit against the obligations of what’s been nicknamed Obamacare: that the corporation is, under the laws of the United States, a ‘person’ and as a ‘person’, it is a religious ‘person’ with particular ‘religious’ belief which preclude it (he?  she?) from providing certain types of birth control insurance coverage to its employees.

So the question now seems to become whether a corporation, a legal ‘person’, can be ‘religious’.

Well, there actually are ways to know whether an actual (as opposed to a legal) person is religious:

1. To what religion does the person adhere?  When a person is religious, it’s actually an easy question to answer.

2. What church/synagogue/mosque/meeting house does the person attend?  Ditto #1.

3. What are the tenets of the religion to which the person adheres?  Ditto.  Whether they’re sensible to others isn’t actually the question.  But what the tenets actually are is.

4. What are the religious texts applicable to the person’s beliefs?  Ditto.

These are fairly straightforward questions for a genuine person.  But what does a corporation read?  Nothing.  It cannot read for it has no eyes.  What worship house does a corporation attend?  None.  It has no legs and a wheel chair will not help it get there.  Where does a corporation tithe?  (Trust me when I tell you that if this corporation were an evangelical ‘person’, it would be a person required to tithe.)  To what religious authority does the corporation submit for discipline?  A person’s behavior can and does come under the discipline of its religious authority.  But there is no body to discipline, for a corporation is an idea put to paper.  Ideas may be condemned, but they are notoriously difficult to discipline.  To what church/synagogue/ mosque does the corporation belong?  None.  It can’t.

Think this is silly?  Then let’s ask when the corporation was baptized.  To belong to any evangelical Christian church with which I am aware, one must be baptized.  It’s a non-negotiable.  I don’t know about you, but I’m trying to imagine what a corporation’s baptism would look like.

And there immediately arises a very practical differentiation that must need occur: this ‘exception’ that Hobby Lobby seeks, could always and only apply to privately-held corporations.  There are many such entities, but it is impossible (at least under currently existing laws as I understand them) for there to be anything approaching religious unanimity of the stockholders of a publicly-traded entity: in order for that to be so, save the extremely random element of chance, the entity would have to discriminate against those seeking to acquire publicly-traded stock on the basis of their religion.

And it wouldn’t be enough that the stockholders even be all Christian, for example: they would all have to be Christians of the particular view that birth control is wrong/sinful/immoral.

Public activities overseen by the government cannot discriminate against persons on the basis of their religion/religious beliefs.  That’s the very point of the law suit brought by Hobby Lobby.

And here’s the practical problem with even a privately-owned entity: how does one know that the claims of religiosity are universally held by the private shareholders?  Hobby Lobby says that in its trust documents, all trustees must be ‘Christians’.  It does not say that they must all be evangelical Christians who are against certain forms of birth control.  And I’m willing to bet (although I could be wrong) that there are at least a few women among the family that set this business up in the first place who actually have used the IUD (one of the forms of birth control that would be problematic according to their ‘theology’ – assuming women are given any voice in the company).

What the folks filing this law suit are actually trying to say is that some or all of the people who are stockholders (or in this case trustees) of the legal entity we call a ‘corporation’ themselves hold certain religious view which conflict with the obligations of Obamacare when it comes to providing contraceptive care insurance coverage.

I feel their pain.

When it came time to ‘sign up’ as a minister, I wanted to opt out of Social Security because I did not want to provide any monies to my federal government, directly or indirectly, that would be utilized for our war efforts.  Plain and simple, that violates each and every tenet of my faith as I understand it.

But then I read the rules of opting out.  What they said was that I had to be able to state (remember the part of Christianity that says your yes is to be yes and your no, no) that my religion prohibits participation in Social Security.  The fact is that my religion does not prohibit participation in Social Security.  Nowhere close.  So I had to participate.  Or I had to (at least be willing to) go to jail by simply refusing to comply.  I thought about that.  I still do, every tax day.  Thus far, I’ve not been willing to make that sacrifice.  That may make me a coward (trust me when I tell you that I feel that condemnation deep in my soul).  But it also makes it my choice.

I am a person.  Not a theoretical person.  An actual person.  And I am free to choose when, where and how to take my ethical stands.

If a corporation is a person, it too can make such decisions.  It can ‘decide’ to make a moral stand and face the consequences.  That, actually, and contrary to what Hobby Lobby asserts, is a choice.

Jesus never promised us good choices and neither did the United States Constitution.

So, Hobby Lobby, if you are a person and this really does violate your moral conscience, woman up and make the choice and face the consequences.

Religious people have been doing that for a very long time now.  You’ll be in good company.

But it’s a problem for you, isn’t it?  Because you’re not a person; you’re a legal fiction and your particular legal fiction sets your ultimate reason for existing the serving (financially) of your owners/stockholders/ trustees in a way that does nothing to hurt the financial standing of your shareholders (trustees).  It actually has a name, this concept:  fiduciary duty.

It would be immoral for you to violate that duty according to your own construct, your own reason for being.

What a conundrum that must be for you.