Prof. Jeffrey Sachs has a cogent explanation of the 5-4 decision. As he put it, "the court proved the dangers of scientifically illiterate judges overturning government decisions that were based on scientific evidence".
It's too bad the Founders didn't think science worth mentioning alongside speech and religion in the First Amendment. If they had, the blinkered, religiously overzealous right-wing Justices in the majority might have had a harder time excusing their otherwise inexcusable elevation of religion over public health.
I don't care about the devout contracting CoViD-19. That's their choice. Unfortunately, their disregard of public-heatlh guidelines endangers the rest of us, unless they're willing to segregate themselves — and their disregard of our well-being is ethically indefensible.
So to all those pious believers and clergy bleating about how just and noble this boneheaded decision is, and decrying jurisdictions that currently enforce similar restrictions (I'm talking to you, S.F. Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, you arrogant twit), I dare you to square your cries of "religious freedom" with the physical health and well-being of the others with whom you share breathing space.
Do your moral precepts let you excuse endangering our health? If so, your religion (or at least the way you practice it) is as ethically bankrupt as I suspected.
If not, you need to disavow the religious authorities, including the demonstrably religiously non-neutral Justices in the majority on this decision, who aren't just elevating religious interests over state ones, but are prioritizing religious interests over our very physical health and well-being.
Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, you have sullied the Court's reputation. You obviously cannot be trusted to restrain your religious zealotry even in the face of sickness and death.
If you were looking for a way to delegitimize both the Court and your own religions, you succeeded, brilliantly.
No comments:
Post a Comment