In the present-day United States, important decisions are too-often made with little regard for a sizable number of citizen stakeholders. What will be the consequence of this decision-making?
More and more, affluent interests trump the concerns of the less wealthy. Money has been labeled speech by our highest court, allowing unlimited and anonymous individuals and groups unprecedented influence on who gets elected. As such, the less wealthy have less voice in how our government is run.
In the present-day United States, important decisions are too-often made with little regard for a sizable number of citizen stakeholders. What will be the consequence of this decision-making?
More and more, affluent interests trump the concerns of the less wealthy. Money has been labeled speech by our highest court, allowing unlimited and anonymous individuals and groups unprecedented influence on who gets elected. As such, the less wealthy have less voice in how our government is run.
If the almighty dollar determines how well a campaign can convey its message, candidates no longer must appeal to an electorate of voters; the key constituency now is cash. How that will affect we, the people over time remains to be fully understood, but I am guessing it’s not going to be pretty.
Now we ponder the ramifications of the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision, confirming the right of the firm’s ownership to not pay for certain types of contraceptive coverage as part of its employee health insurance. Some call it a victory for religious freedom. We shall see.
What unexpected outcomes will result from granting individual human rights to a corporation? Will closely-held religious beliefs impact compliance with other laws?
What if, based on a doctrine of faith, an employer treats women as inferior to men or declines to provide health coverage to same-sex couples? What if someone’s steadfast principles forbid blood transfusions, inoculations, or any health care intervention at all? What if their moral compass dictates they not employ gay employees, the disabled, or those with different (or no) religious beliefs?
There are most certainly a number of things paid for with my tax dollars I firmly believe to be immoral – the indefinite incarceration of prisoners at Guantanamo, spying on our own citizens at home and abroad, engaging in wars (and war profiteering) of choice, overthrowing other governments, stockpiling nuclear (and other deadly) weapons, etc. In fact, many of these very things have been publically condemned by the faith tradition in which I was raised.
If I, in good conscience, cannot financially support these activities, may I opt out of remitting a portion of my taxes owed on the grounds of religious freedom?
At the end of World War I, the powers of Europe—mostly England and France—were hungry to reap the spoils of that great conflict. Ignoring the potential repercussions, they blithely drew a new map of the Middle East based on their own interests, turning their backs on the Arabs who had helped them defeat the Ottoman Turks. Ever since, this area of the world has roiled with conflict and unrest.
With the decisions of our judicial branch regarding money as speech and freedom of religion, might there be a king-sized can of unforeseen consequences opened over time? I wonder how much turmoil our republic will have to endure, and for how many for generations.
Pat Grimes, a former South Bay resident, writes from Ypsilanti, Mich. He can be reached at pgwriter@inbox.com
