To the editor: Professor Amanda Hollis-Brusky's discussion of recent Supreme Court decisions regarding speech and religion is a welcome contribution to our political discourse. She writes, "If for-profit corporations could engage in political speech, why could they not also practice religion?" ("The Supreme Court's Citizens United decision continues to echo," Op-Ed, Jan. 8)
Why not indeed?
It follows logically, then, that in their practice of religion, corporations should be understood to possess souls, to be prayerful in their pursuit of salvation, to love their neighbors, distribute alms, turn the other cheek and otherwise do the things that have long been understood to be good for the well-being of souls.
The truly revolutionary implication, however, is that, at that point, such corporations will be serving God and mammon. Perhaps future court clarifications will make these points explicit.
John H. Geerken, Claremont
To the editor: Is it not basic to the law that terms be clearly defined? Would somebody please bring a case before the Supreme Court that requires it finally to define what a person is: a flesh-and-blood human body, one consciousness, one will, born of a woman, and destined to biological death?
Would not the court then be forced to recognize the preposterous twisted logic of a corporation claiming to be a person?
Jerry Small, Venice