Anti-Catholic bigotry from MSNBC’s Joy Reid

From MSNBC via CMR comes another great example of MSM anti-Catholic bigotry.

The MSNBC-sanctioned bigot this time is the anchor Joy Reid, who commented on the Hobby Lobby religious freedom case before the Supreme Court.

Anchor Joy Reid says:

The Obama administration is arguing that corporations are, in fact, not people, and that they can’t shield themselves behind religious beliefs. The court that will decide includes six Catholic justices, some of whom have not been shy about asserting their religion. And all of this is taking place as the country becomes more secular. Even as the fervently religious fight even harder than ever to push creationism in taxpayer funded schools, and on science TV shows. And where the question of corporate personhood has gone from whether the railroad has to pay its taxes to whether corporations can be religious people. The question is do you trust this court to make those decisions?

Happily, more people read this blog, than watch Joy Reid.

 

 

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Biased Media Coverage, Liberals, Religious Liberty, The Drill, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice, Throwing a Nutty and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Anti-Catholic bigotry from MSNBC’s Joy Reid

  1. incredulous says:

    “The question is do you trust this court to make those decisions?”
    No, they were the final say that gave us Obamacare. They gave us Roe V. Wade (hyporcritical and murderous “right” to privacy that allows liberals to kill babies as an exercise in “privacy” yet the same “liberal” cheerlead the NSA spying on EVERYTHING.) SCOTUS is not trustworthy.

    Yet, “Joy”, would I ever turn a trusting eye towards you being an honest commentator or rather do I look at you as just another leftist shill who wouldn’t know the truth or the concept of consistency if it bit her on the nose?

  2. ckdexterhaven says:

    “Even as the fervently religious fight even harder than ever to push creationism in taxpayer funded schools, and on science TV shows”

    Creationism is just as sciencey as man made global warming, lady. What “science tv shows” is she talking about?

    No, Ms. Reid, I don’t trust the court to make this decision, but as a fervently American Catholic I have no choice.

  3. Iacobus M says:

    “Happily, more people read this blog, than watch Joy Reid.”

    God is good, Fr. Z, God is good.

  4. mrshopey says:

    I see what she is doing. By the way she is framing it, if the courts decide to acknowledge a person’s right to refuse something based on religion (favorable), it will be because the courts are unbalanced. Similarly like the justice in CA, openly gay, deciding favorably in “gay” marriage. But wait, that was seen as “justice”…
    The most offensive I have seen so far was on our local news channel that claimed it had the potential to exclude women from health care. They do not represent my voice, what health care is or what is good for women in general.
    Here are highlight of what the women justices are saying:

    Justice Sotomayor: how can courts know whether a corporation holds a religious belief? And what if it’s just the beliefs of the leadership, not the entire company? What happens to a non-religious minority in a corporation?
    Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan asked: Because nobody is forcing Hobby Lobby or Conestoga to provide health insurance, they can simply pay the tax penalty instead.
    Justice Kagan: women are “quite tangibly harmed” when employers don’t provide contraceptive coverage.

  5. Sonshine135 says:

    Yes, amazingly for people that tout the logic of science over faith, they cannot make a logical argument without bigoted commentary. Just more example of how “tolerant” people are the loudest at shouting down opinions contrary to their own. More prayer is needed. More fasting is required.

  6. Andrew says:

    The “affordable care” with its provision for abortificient contraceptive coverage is a form of tax. Hobby Lobby has to pay a tax. Case closed.

  7. Legisperitus says:

    Open bigotry against Catholics on the Supreme Court has a long and proud history.

    When Clarence Thomas was nominated to the Court in 1991, the abortion mafia (led by Kate Michelman and Faye Wattleton) held the press conference that famously made “Bork” a verb with Wattleton saying “I don’t think we even need to ask any questions before we bork this guy.”
    Another Wattleton comment that made the news that evening was (as best I recall): “I can’t believe he picked another Catholic! I don’t know how many Catholics are on the Supreme Court already. I go blind when I try to count that high.” (There were two.) Clarence Thomas, though raised Catholic, was at that time an Episcopalian.

    Blind, indeed, with irrational and demonic hatred.

  8. LarryW2LJ says:

    “The Obama administration is arguing that corporations are, in fact, not people…..”

    OK, then. If that’s the case, let the buildings, office supplies, computers and office furniture fund their contraception and abortion.

    If that’s not the case, then allow the people who work for these corporations to excersize their Constitutional Right of Freedom of Religion. Last time I checked, government funded healthcare coverage wasn’t included in the Bill of Rights.

  9. Del says:

    “Happily, more people read this blog, than watch Joy Reid.”

    I have never met anyone in real life who quoted or admitted to watching MSNBC.

  10. AngelGuarded says:

    “The Obama administration is arguing that corporations are, in fact, not people,”

    … and according to the Obama administration, unborn people are not people either. (Or as I learned from Strunk and White, the proper word would be “persons.”) Consistent. Consistently wrong. In so many ways.

  11. robtbrown says:

    MRSHOPEY says,

    Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan asked: Because nobody is forcing Hobby Lobby or Conestoga to provide health insurance, they can simply pay the tax penalty instead.
    Justice Kagan: women are “quite tangibly harmed” when employers don’t provide contraceptive coverage.

    I was stunned when I read the remarks of Sotomayor and Kagan, which implicitly acknowledge the argument that this particular aspect of the law violates the Free Exercise Clause. According to their “thought”, if the government passed a law that said the first born of every family had to be put to death except if a fine was paid, that would be OK.

    And of course, it needs to be noted against that both these women were nominated by the same pro abortion President was honored by Notre Dame.

    Calling Dr Howard . . . Dr Fine . . . Dr Howard . . .

  12. robtbrown says:

    She probably means juridical person rather than corporate person.

    If corporations are not juridical persons, then it is impossible to sue them or impose regulations on them.

  13. MikeM221 says:

    Isn’t it odd that corporations are not people when it comes to religious beliefs, yet they can apparently be racial minorities or females when government agencies put contracts out for bid?

  14. pannw says:

    @MikeM221,

    Now, now, you can’t expect immoral leftists to be bothered with complicated abstract concepts like consistency, hypocrisy, irony, etc… What do those things matter compared to their feelings, anyway? You just aren’t being fair!!!!! Sheesh, it’s like you don’t realize or have sympathy for the fact that they suffer from a mental and/or spiritual defect or something. And clearly, leftism/modern feminism/liberalism whatever you want to call it, is a mental/spiritual defect.

  15. mrshopey says:

    Yup.
    And once upon a time, in our fair land, in order to pass a new tax on the people, you needed super majority vote. They didn’t have it.

  16. RANCHER says:

    Until reading this blog post I had never heard of Joy Reid. My “punishment” for not watching television I guess.

  17. tonyfernandez says:

    Contraception is as much a part of health care as helmets, parachutes, and air bags.

  18. OrthodoxChick says:

    LarryW2LJ,

    If SCOTUS were to agree with the Obama Admin’s claim that corporations are not people, then SCOTUS will be setting new precedent with the ruling. I’m not sure if there’s enough support on the court presently to do that for this issue (of corporate ‘non-personhood’). We’ll see.

    From Wikipedia: “…in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania – 125 U.S. 181 (1888), the Court clearly affirmed the doctrine, holding, “Under the designation of ‘person’ there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment]. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution.”[2] This doctrine has been reaffirmed by the Court many times since.

  19. Andrew says:

    tonyfernandez:

    “Contraception is as much a part of health care as helmets, parachutes, and air bags.”

    That is a great line.

  20. Lutgardis says:

    tonyfernandez,
    “Contraception is as much a part of health care as helmets, parachutes, and air bags.”

    Andrew,
    “That is a great line.”

    Helmets, parachutes, and air bags are designed to protect the normal functioning of organ systems. Contraception is designed to break an otherwise healthy organ system so that it cannot function as it is designed to.

  21. frjim4321 says:

    “Happily, more people read this blog, than watch Joy Reid.”

    I think this blog and a lot of other Catholicish blogs have many readers, but I doubt that they have more readers than any of the fake news cable channels.

    Even if you were to posit that for every unique commenter there were one thousand readers that would still be far less than CNN, FN, MSNBC or even far less than ETWN.

    Don’t get me wrong, as a Catholic-flavored blog this has a LOT more traffic (and probably far more cogent comments) than most others, but none of these and similar blogs have the viewership of even the most surf-over of surf-over cable channels.

    [If that gives you comfort! o{];¬) ]

  22. robtbrown says:

    frjim4321 says:

    “Happily, more people read this blog, than watch Joy Reid.”

    I think this blog and a lot of other Catholicish blogs have many readers, but I doubt that they have more readers than any of the fake news cable channels.

    The network news hasn’t been much good in years. I used to depend on the Sunday news shows, but they have also declined. And the newspapers are long gone. The days of HL Mencken, Jimmy Breslin, David Broder, and Evans & Novak are over.

    Many of the international news bureaus have been closed. The money to maintain these bureaus was used to pay the big salaries of anchors. And correspondents were replaced by cameras.

    Even if you were to posit that for every unique commenter there were one thousand readers that would still be far less than CNN, FN, MSNBC or even far less than ETWN.

    Of course, bloggers often appear or are quoted on TV. And I think they do a really good job of getting out information organizations want to suppress. For example, after the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum Fr Z published a few letters from chanceries to priests about its contents that simply lied about what SP said. That seemed to have stopped the letters.

    Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter to the US bishops, misrepresented (I’m being kind) by Cardinal McCarrick, was leaked to Sandro Magister. The McCarrick deception went public very quickly when Magister, who also writes for the magazine L’Expresso, referred to it on his blog.

    I also think that if the bloggers would have been around years ago it wouldn’t have taken so long for the bishops to stop ignoring the priest sexual scandals.