by levicoff » Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:20 am
In 1989, a federal district court in Arkansas enjoined a group of devout Christian women from going into a school in Gravette and reading Bible stories to the children (attendance was voluntary). Needless to say, a couple of parents sued and, since there was obviously an establishment of religion taking place at the school, they won.
The school district was represented by John Eidsmoe, an eminent legal scholar and then a professor at the Coburn School of Law at Oral Roberts University (the school that ultimately relocated to Pat Robertson’s Regent University). Following the lower court decision, John filed a writ of cert. with the U.S. Supreme Court, which, naturally, declined the case.
One day I said to John, “You know, you’re bound to lose this case. Why pursue it?”
John, who is among my favorite professors of all time, a man so conservative he would make Falwell look liberal, replied, “Why do you think we’ll lose?” (I used to love it when he would pull a pop quiz on me.)
Fortunately, I knew the answer – the Supreme Court ruled many years ago in Zorach v. Clauson (1952) that kids could be released from school early to attend religion classes held elsewhere. However, in the earlier McCollum v. Board of Education (1948) they held that such classes could not take place in the schools.
John smiled and said, “You’re right.”
“So,” I continued, “why do you do it?”
“To let them know we’re there.”
(I posed a similar question to Igal Roodenko, as liberal as John was conservative, several years earlier. Igal, who served 18 months in jail as a conscientious objector in WWII, was protesting at the site of a soon-to-open nuclear power plant, and I was covering their rally for a radio program at the time. “You know this plant will open,” I said. “Why continue the protest?” Igal replied, “To let them know we’re there.” I guess some philosophical ideas transcend ideology.)
My take of the current case? Since corporations are not human, and since Hobby Lobby is not what the law calls a pervasively sectarian institution (being a commercial enterprise, despite the beliefs of its founder), I would make an early prediction that they will lose the case, and that billionaire owner David Green knows that.
So why, we might ask, is he pursuing a case he’s likely to lose?
Well, if you were to ask that question and if he were to respond honestly, I tend to think he might say, “To let them know we’re there.”
Incidental note: In the Chattanooga area, there is a fairly large national trucking company called Covenant Transportation (presumably named after the nearby Covenant College). On the back of every one of their trailers is a large sign that says, “It is not a choice, it is a child.” Yet, while I don’t know if they have ever tried to limit their health care benefits for drivers and other employees, I’m sure that they have a load of drivers that holds a pro-choice position on abortion. (Unlike Hobby Lobby, a privately held firm, Covenant is traded on the NASDAQ.) So why do they still bother with such blatantly evangelistic prolife signs? You guessed it – to let people know they’re there.
Another incidental note: Several years ago I interviewed Tony Campolo, a Baptist minister and now-retired sociology professor from Eastern University who was well known as a spiritual advisor to then-President Bill Clinton. Although an evangelical who was popular with so-called Jesus festivals, Campolo is pro-choice. Discussing the topic of single-issue voting during the first Reagan campaign, he said, “While I don’t agree with [right-to-lifers], I can understand the notion that this single issue is so important to them that they are willing to put every other issue on the back burner.” One may assume that the issue of abortifacient contraception is so important to David Green of Hobby Lobby that he’s willing to magnify it into what may (or may not) be a losing battle. As for me, I’m willing to just sit back and watch the entertainment.
_____________________
I’m doing some classes this week, so I’m too lazy to look up the McCollum v. Board and Zorach v. Clauson case references (they’re easily searchable). The Gravette case, Doe v. Human, can be found at 725 F.Supp 1499 (W.D. Ark. 1989). And there’s a fascinating bio of Igal Roodenko on Wikipedia. Enjoy your homework.