Exploring the Connections

'Day of Action' marks 60 days of Occupy Wall Street

by Lynette Wilson
Episcopal News Service, November 18, 2011 

Interfaith leaders march over the bridge

Thousands of Occupy Wall Street protesters and supporters, including an interfaith contingent, converged on lower Manhattan Nov. 17 for a Day of Action, marking the two-month anniversary of the birth of the worldwide nonviolent protest movement against economic inequality.

Before Occupy, "people were, we were, like zombies … this is a wake up," the Rev. Maria Isabel Santiviago, an Episcopal priest in the Diocese of New York and vicar of St. Ann's Church for the Deaf, said in an interview with ENS at Foley Square.

The movement reminds people that they have control of their lives and that they don't have to "accept things" as they are; it's leading to a new state of consciousness, she said.

Santiviago joined the protest just before 5 p.m. when interfaith leaders representing Occupy Faith NYC, an interfaith coalition formed in the wake of the OWS movement, met at Foley Square, just north of New York City Hall and the Brooklyn Bridge, in advance of a planned march across the iconic bridge. Many other protesters and supporters gathered alongside City Hill, opposite the pedestrian entrance to the bridge, where a sign flashed two screens yellow on black, first "PEDS ON ROADWAY," then "SUBJECT TO ARREST."

But the Day of Action began much earlier, around 7 a.m. when crowds of people and media of every description gathered for instructions and direction at Zuccotti Park -- site of the original OWS encampment -- and in front of a giant red cube with the hole in the center immediately across Broadway Avenue in front of Brown Brothers Harriman, a privately held financial-services firm with west views into the park.

New Poll: Majority of White Evangelicals Oppose Cutting Federal Programs that help the Poor

by Tim King
God's Politics, November 17, 2011

A new poll released this morning by Public Religion Research Institute shows the American public has clear ideas about what steps political leaders should take to reduce the federal deficit.The poll shows that a majority of white evangelicals are opposed to cutting federal anti-poverty programs for the poor and nearly three-quarters of white evangelicals oppose cutting funding for religious organizations that help the poor.

The poll, based on a survey of 1,002 American adults performed November 10 -14, also shows a nation divided both by political affiliation and generation when it comes to attitudes towards Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party.

The survey found that nearly 7-in-10 (68 percent) of Americans say that in order to reduce the deficit, it’s fair to ask wealthier Americans to pay a greater percentage in taxes than the middle class or those less well off.

“Although political leaders on the Congressional super-committee cannot agree on a plan to reduce the deficit, the American public largely agrees on a blueprint,” said Daniel Cox, PRRI Research Director. “Americans favor taxing wealthier Americans and corporations, and they oppose cutting social programs and military funding.”

Majorities of all major religious groups, agree that it’s fair to ask wealthier Americans to pay a greater percentage in taxes than the middle class or those less well off.

Respondents were asked about measures they would favor or oppose in reducing the deficit and a stron majority favor increasing taxes on Americans making at least $1 million dollars per year (69 percent) and eliminating tax breaks for large corporations (57 percent).

Not surprisingly, Americans oppose cutting funding for the military (74 percent). But, contrary to popular belief most opposed cutting federal funding for social programs that help the poor (67 percent), and cutting federal funding for religious organizations that help the poor (66 percent).

The survey also found:

There are interesting divisions over cutting federal funding for programs that help the poor, depending on whether the funding is going to religious organizations.  Nearly 7-in-10 (68 percent Republicans oppose cutting federal funding to religious organizations helping the poor, but only 46 percent oppose cutting general federal funding to help the poor.  Among Democrats, there is an opposite, though less pronounced, pattern: 83 percent oppose cutting general federal funding to help the poor, but only 66 percent oppose cutting federal funding to religious organizations to help the poor.

On Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party:

• Americans are equally likely to say that the Occupy Wall Street movement shares their values as to say the Tea Party movement shares their values (29 percent each).
• For both the Tea Party movement and the Occupy Wall Street movement, about one-third of Americans say each movement is a good thing for society (32 percent each), 1-in-5 say each movement is a bad thing for society (19 percent and 18 percent respectively), and about 4-in-10 say each movement doesn’t matter one way or another (38 percent and 39 percent respectively).
• Among religious groups, white evangelical Protestants are the most likely to say that the Tea Party movement shares their values (49 percent), but nearly 4-in-10 (39 percent) say it does not.  Nearly 4-in-10 (38 percent) of religiously unaffiliated Americans say the Occupy Wall Street movement shares their values, compared to 34 percent of minority Protestants, 30 percent of white mainline Protestants, 29 percent of Catholics, and only 18 percent of white evangelical Protestants.
• Americans who are part of the Millennial generation (ages 18-29) are significantly more likely to say the Occupy Wall Street movement shares their values (34 percent) than to say the Tea Party movement shares their values (26 percent).

Tim King is Communications Director for Sojourners. Follow Tim on Twitter @TMKing.

Don’t push Black Friday into Thanksgiving - Guest Voices - The Washington Post

by Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite
Washington Post Blog On Faith, November 16, 2011

 Toys "R" Us Inc. announced that its stores nationwide will open their doors at 9pm on Thanksgiving night to welcome Black Friday shoppers as they kick off the holiday shopping season. (Peter Foley - BLOOMBERG) How much is the American worker supposed to put up with? Ordinary Americans are already overworked and underpaid, but major retailers like Wal-Mart are pushing their “Black Friday” sales into Thanksgiving day, some starting at 10 p.m. on the holiday. These stores are invading one of the few holidays many workers get anymore.

No thanks.

Thanksgiving is about family and friends rejoicing together, relaxing after all the hard work of the year. But now workers in these stores are even losing that option; if stores continue the drive to start “black Friday” on Thursday, some employees will have to literally get up from the Thanksgiving table and head in to work.

Our economy has become a treadmill for both workers and consumers alike, locked in an awful race of overwork and consumption. If the retailers don’t get into the “black,” that is, turn huge profits during the pre-Christmas sales on the Friday after Thanksgiving, then there is the threat that more workers will lose their jobs. Consumers, with their salaries flat or even cut in recent years, think they need the sales in order to afford gifts for the holidays. Workers are locked on to this same treadmill, having to service the consumption in order for the machinery of the economy to “improve.”

Enough.

This system is profoundly immoral. First, the basic premise is false. These retailers don’t need to encroach on Thanksgiving in order to survive. Corporations are making huge profits, and they are increasingly doing so on the backs of American workers. “In the past 20 years, the US economy has grown nearly 60 percent,” according to Dan Gilson of Mother Jones. This is not only due to the Internet and automation, but also as a “result of Americans working harder—often without a big boost to their bottom lines. Oh, and meanwhile, corporate profits are up 20 percent.”

Second, the human toll of this increased “productivity” is “heartbreaking and harrowing,”as shown by personal stories of overworked Americans. The stories are crucial to understanding the human cost of our skewed economic values. From warehouse workers to surgeons, from teachers to mental health technicians, the stories in this article show how few escape the productivity treadmill powered by human overwork.

Let us be clear. Squeezing profits out of the American worker in this way not only violates standards of basic human dignity, from a faith perspective it also is an affront to the God who created people in God’s image. This is why I appreciate so much the work of John Paul II in laying out a theology of work. In his famous encyclical “On Human Work,” the Pope John Paul II wrote that work is fundamental to the truth of the human condition. Through work, people become who they are intended to be. Through work, human beings share “In the activity of the Creator “(Laborem Exercens, V.25).

When, however, work becomes grinding toil for flat or reduced wages and workers are afforded little rest, it violates human dignity; this has serious consequences for people’s sense of self-worth. It can contribute to a sense of helplessness and despair, and can spill over into family and society as people are more and more tired and stressed. Work today is becoming an attack on the fundamental dignity and worth of human beings as expressed through their work.

These retailers need to re-think not only their proposed intrusion into their workers’ Thanksgiving holiday, they also need to be pushed to find a decent balance among work hours, compensation and profits for the whole year. Just a decent balance, is that too much to ask?

“People before profits” say the signs at #OWS. They’re right.

Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, former president of Chicago Theological Seminary (1998-2008), Thistlethwaite is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.

NY Places of Worship Open Doors to Displaced Occupy Wall Street Protestors

[Thanks to Bob Baker for the "heads-up" on this web site. It's worth exploring for yourself. -MT]

Posted by Nick Sementelli
Faith in Public Life, November 16, 2011 

As we've been tracking, the faith community has been an important supporter of the Occupy Wall Street movement since its beginnings.

Today, in response to Mayor Bloomberg's early-morning raid to evict the protesters from Zucotti Park, New York churches are stepping up to fill the need for space. A coalition of local faith leaders have announced that they'll be temporarily opening up their places of worship to the displaced occupiers to sleep over the next three days.

They'll also be holding an interfaith candlelight vigil tonight at 5:30 at Judson Memorial Church to demand Mayor Bloomberg allow the occupiers to re-establish their camp "so that they can return to the important work of addressing the economic disparities that threaten the soul of this nation."

Faith leaders involved include:

• Rev. Dr. Jacqueline Lewis, Senior Minister, Middle Collegiate Church
• Rev. Dr. Herbert Daughtry, Senior Minister, The House of the Lord Church
• Rabbi Jill Jacobs, Executive Director Rabbis for Human Rights-North America
• Imam Talib Abdur-Rashid, The Mosque of Islamic Brotherhood
• Rev. Stephen Phelps, Interim Senior Minister, The Riverside Church
• Rev. Dr. Donna Schaper, Senior Minister, Judson Memorial Church
• Bishop Tavis Grant
• Ven. Bhikku Bodhi
• Debbie Almontaser

Episcopal News Service - COMMENTARY

By Mark S. Sisk (Bishop of the Diocese of New York)
Episcopal News Service, November 15, 2011 

On Friday, Oct. 21, I visited Zuccotti Park, the site -- at least until last night -- of the Occupy Wall Street protest. Whatever happens next in Lower Manhattan (and as I write, on the morning of Nov. 15, things are moving fast, with the outcome unclear), there can be no doubt that this protest has struck a chord, and given birth to a movement that appears, in spite of everything, to be gaining momentum. For some, this chord seems to have sounded like a long awaited trumpet call to action; for others -- who have not been shy to express their disdain -- it is decidedly discordant.

Back in October, it was not always easy to distinguish those who were "tourists" -- people who swung by to see what was going on out of simple curiosity -- from those who were active participants in the protest itself. But what was clear was that this was not some tiny cell of extremists. Those present represented what was, to me, a surprisingly wide swath of the American people. Some, young and not so young, gave the appearance of being seasoned protesters. Others, again both young and not so young, seemed to be first timers: folks who held their banners and slogans with a slight aura of awkwardness.

It is true that it was not easy at Zucotti Park to sort out the substance from the theatre. The media have offered little help, with their focus, unsurprisingly, on the most colorful and extreme expressions of protest. They have highlighted slogans that call for the jailing of bankers, while ignoring placards like the one I saw that said "99% + 1% = ONE" -- which I interpreted as intending to highlight our common interests and essential unity as a people. Nor, sadly, have those in public leadership often commented helpfully -- and they are certainly disingenuous when they point to the protestors' lack of a plan as evidence of a lack of seriousness, when apparently they have no plan themselves. Indeed, all too often the opposing voices that we hear are shrilly dismissive -- their aggressive, trivializing tone hinting, to me, at a deep, largely unconscious, level of anxiety. It cannot be lost on many that all this is taking place with the background noise of the Arab Spring ringing in our ears.

Whatever happens next in Downtown Manhattan, it is terribly important that the core energy behind this protest not be lost behind a blizzard of slogans and rhetoric. The particular motivations of those protesting are, undoubtedly, as mixed as the American people itself. One dominant thread, however, is an (admittedly inchoate) critique of unfettered capitalism.

But the fundamental issue is not that the laws of capitalism are flawed; the fundamental issue is that we are flawed in our attitude to them.

There can be little doubt that capitalism is a productive way to order economic life. But we need to remember, as the protestors have reminded us, that that is all that it is -- an economic system based on the entirely reasonable propositions that capital has value, and that supply and demand are the most efficient way to set prices. Capitalism is of no help at all in determining what is morally good -- that is something that must instead be determined by the community's wider values.

And there should be no question that when an economic system fails to reflect those communal values, it should be modified and governed until it does. To say, as some do, that any attempt to control or guide our economic system is neither wise nor possible is to admit that an economic system has decisive control of our lives. For a Christian, such an admission would be nothing less than to yield to idolatry. (Though I do not claim deep knowledge of other religious traditions, I suspect that this is true for them as well.) God alone is the One, and the only One, to whom we can concede such ultimate authority. For the non-theist to make the argument that the laws of economics are immutable is to concede that we have no power of ourselves to help ourselves. That is the same argument that those in the grip of various kinds of addiction make: "I am not in control, my addiction made me do it."

As the OWS protestors point out, wealth in our country is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few, the real income of the broad middle class has not increased in more than a generation, and the ranks of the poorest among us each year become ever more solidified. These are the facts -- and the reality behind them is, quite simply, morally wrong. Ultimately, left unchecked, that reality is deeply dangerous. It is at odds with our vision of ourselves, and as Americans we ignore it at the peril of our most cherished national ideals. As Christians, we ignore it at the peril of our souls.

The way forward is not simple. In spite of what some in the public square would have us think, there are no obvious and easy solutions for complex problems. But what we must strive for is clear. We must -- and I believe that this is what lies at the core of the OWS protests -- rein in the imbalances that have caused our economic house to careen off course as though it is a self-perpetuating, self-governing good. The solution that we find will not be perfect, just as human beings are not perfect; but to surrender to forces as though we are helpless before them is not an answer, but an excuse.

We can do better. We are not helpless. We can, by working together, build a better, more just, society: a society founded on the American ideal of a nation in which there are "certain unalienable Rights," including those to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." We can look to the heart of who we are as a people and draw upon our better lights to seek the common good. That is our challenge as a nation. As followers of Jesus, we know that our calling now and always is to seek the welfare of the people, the children of God.

-- The Rt. Rev. Mark S. Sisk is bishop of the Diocese of New York. This commentary was originally published on the diocese's website at http://www.episcopaldioceseny.org

Walking With Integrity: In Massachusetts, An Unfolding Dream

By Cameron Partridge
Walking With Integrity, November 15, 2011

[Remind me again - who is my neighbor? MT]

It's been a tense, exciting day in the Boston area as the legislation known as the "Transgender Equal Rights Bill" makes its way out of the Judiciary Committee for the first time in six years.  The bill is heading to the legislature with a vote expected tonight or tomorrow as the winter recess approaches.  

Yesterday the Boston Globe and Boston Herald reported on the impending vote, and this morning both papers reported on dueling press conferences in which the bill's opponents called the vote a "distraction" from economic issues.  When one such representative argued, "The goals of the advocates is to have this litigated in the courts,” he was confronted by Ken and Marcia Garber.  The Garbers' transgender son was, as the Globe explained,"bullied and discriminated against before he lost his life to a drug overdoes at the age of 20." When the representative "said he did not have time to answer their question because he was late to a meeting," the Garbers, faithful members of Dignity Boston, "challenged Lombardo’s contention that the transgender bill is a distraction from bills that would protect the state’s economic future, [saying] 'Some of these people will never have a future if they don’t do something' to pass the legislation."

The trans community had strong victories late last Spring with Connecticut and Nevada added to the ranks of the now fifteen states and 132 counties and cities  with nondiscrimination and hate crimes protections.  

This drama happens to be unfolding during Massachusetts' "Transgender Awareness Week," in which a number of colleges, universities and other community spaces are holding trans-themed events.  The culmination of the week is the twelfth annual observance of the Transgender Day of Remembrance (TDOR).  Though international in scope, the TDOR movement was sparked by a death here in Allston, about a mile away from where I write.   Rocker Rita Hester was murdered on November 28, 1998 almost three years to the day after the loss of Chanelle Pickett on November 20, 1995.  A growing number of Episcopal (and other) congregations have been hosting TDOR events in solidarity with trans communities, even as the observances themselves usually avoid the languages, music or imagery of specific (or at least any one) religious traditions.  Indeed, in his TDOR welcome at a packed Cathedral Church of St. Paul last November, Bishop M. Thomas Shaw offered an apology to the gathered community for the ways in which Christian communities in particular have failed to welcome trans people and have, as he put it, "misrepresented God" to us.  I posted a piece about that TDOR here.  This Sunday the Boston TDOR will take place once again at the Cathedral Church of St. Paul.  

Today Bishop Shaw reiterated his support, that of the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts (as of its 2008 Convention), and that of The Episcopal Church (as of the 2009 General Convention) for the legislation.  His statement reads,

"Hopeful that after six years the transgender equal rights bill will come to the Massachusetts Legislature for a vote this week, I continue to urge lawmakers to support it.  Now is the time to carry civil liberty for all people another step forward by safeguarding the equality and honoring the human dignity of transgender people.  Passing the bill this week will serve as a powerful sign of hope, particularly as Transgender Day of Remembrance is being observed at our Cathedral Church of St. Paul in Boston this Sunday.  I pray that Massachusetts will open this new door this week so that we might step through it together toward social justice for all."  

The full text of the statement is available on the Diomass website, here. 

As it so happens, Sunday is also one of the major examples of what I call "hinge days" in the liturgical year, those days in the Christian calendar that form us with peculiar intensity as we move from one liturgical season to the next.  November 20th marks the last Sunday after Pentecost, otherwise known as the Feast of Christ the King or the Reign (or perhaps, as Verna Dozier might put it, the Dream) of Christ.  Sunday's gospel text from Matthew 25 issues the ultimate challenge of justice from the Son of Humanity, enthroned in eschatalogical splendor:  will we feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give drink to the thirsty, welcome the stranger, visit the imprisoned?  As we "do it unto the least of these," we "do it unto" Christ, we are reminded with unsettling specificity. 

As the battle over this legislation heats up, I find myself seeking to be present to it as a holy time and space, as an invitation to be, as Bishop Shaw often puts it, opened.  It strikes me that this openness is not simply a static state of welcome and inclusion, but an ongoing process of being opened, transformed by God, ushered into new ways of being in the world, into a new time and space that Christians name as the reign or dream of God. That notion of openness is unsettling and challenging indeed, but hopeful and promising beyond our wildest imaginings.  May it be—may it become – so.

Rev. Dr. Cameron Partridge is the Episcopal Chaplain at Boston University and a Lecturer at Harvard University.

'Food stamp challenge' poverty wake-up call to US politicians | Ekklesia

by agency reporter
Ekklesia News Service, November 12, 2011

A US interfaith TV cable channel has highlighted the recent "food stamp challenge" to challenge poverty and attitudes towards it in America.

The programme also looked at the effect the challenge had on Congress members who took it. The initiative was developed by the organisation Fighting Poverty with Faith, a multi-faith collaboration lead by the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the National Council of Churches USA, Catholic charities and over 50 other faith-based groups to cut domestic poverty in half by 2020.

The challenge requires participating representatives to eat on a food stamp budget for a week, which provides $4.50 per day for food, or $31.50 for the week. The purpose is to allow those entrusted with legislative power to walk in the shoes of the 46 million Americans who live on food stamps, so that they might understand why the amount should be raised.

Odyssey Networks reveals the emotional reactions and thoughtful conclusions of two Congress members who lived the challenge: Rep. Keith Ellison (Democrat, Minnesota) and Rep. Eleanor Homes Norton (Democrat, District of Columbia).

Norton laments that nutritional favorites like fruit and fish are too expensive to purchase on the stamp budget. She says that as Americans wait for the new super-committee to determine what spending cuts will be made, it is important to remember the hungry and struggling.

Ellison realizes that the frustratingly difficult challenge will be over in a week for the Congress participants, but "for some people this is their life, and I think we need to have a little more compassion and remember that a budget is a moral document, and in that document we specify who matters and who doesn't, what matters and what doesn't..."

Rabbi Steve Gutow, President and CEO of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs says of the challenge, "It feels a little like being enslaved because once you purchase what can purchase, you can't eat another thing."

Ellison reflects on the fact that "the values of love and charity are shared by many faiths," and the opportunity to join with people of different faiths who care about the plight of others gives him hope for the future.

Established in 1987, Odyssey Networks is a service of the National Interfaith Cable Coalition, Inc. It has over 100 denominational, organisational and individual members, representing Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Baha'i, Sikh, Buddhism and Hinduism.

* The video can be viewed at odysseynetworks.org

[Video title is"Faith, Food Stamps and the Fight Against Hunger. MT]

Americans believe in a fairer distribution of wealth | Ekklesia

By staff writers
Ekklesia New Service, November 9, 2011 

A strong majority (60 per cent) of Americans believe that their society would be better off if the distribution of wealth were more equal.

As the Occupy Wall Street and other protests againt unjust economics, nationally and globally, continue to galvanise media attention, a new major US national survey finds that majorities of every religious group and religiously unaffiliated Americans agree on this point.

However, there are large partisan, ethnic, and generational disagreements about the distribution of wealth in society.

The 2011 American Values Survey - a large annual survey conducted by Public Religion Research Institute exploring important issues at the intersection of religion, values and politics - highlights American attitudes on equal opportunity and inequality, the Mormon question in the 2012 election, and attitudes about the Obama presidency.

"We are witnessing the emergence of a generational fault line over what constitutes a good society," commented Dr Robert P. Jones, CEO of PRRI. "Seven-in-ten of the Millennial generation believe that society would be better off if the distribution of wealth were more equal, while a majority of seniors disagree."

With the exception of Americans who identify with the right-wing Tea Party movement, Americans strongly support proposals to address economic inequality at both the top and bottom end of the income spectrum.

Seven-in-ten Americans, including majorities of all major religious groups as well as Democrats, Independents, and Republicans, support increasing the tax rate on Americans earning more than $1 million per year.

Two-thirds of Americans - again including majorities of all major religious groups and Democrats, Independents, and Republicans - also support raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.00 per hour. Majorities of Americans who identify with the Tea Party oppose both proposals.

The survey also finds that Mitt Romney may continue to face difficulty with white evangelical Protestant voters, a key Republican constituency. Approximately four-in-ten Americans report they would be somewhat or very uncomfortable with a Mormon president; that number rises to nearly half (47 per cent) among white evangelical Protestant voters.

"Despite the considerable attention paid to Romney's Mormon faith, most Americans are still unaware of his religious identity, with one important exception: white evangelical Protestants have become significantly better informed about Romney's faith since mid-summer," said Daniel Cox, PRRI research director.

"Within this period, Romney's favorability among white evangelical Protestants has fallen significantly, from 63 per cent in late September to just 49 per cent currently," Cox added.

"Government-The Federal Budget-Common Good"

Ray Silvester

7:30 PM, Friday, December 2, 201
Ahern Room in the Crooker Center, University of St. Thomas

As the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction works to issue their report before Thanksgiving to cut the U.S. Federal budget by $1.2 trillion, a group of parishioners at St. Michael Catholic Church in Houston is engaged in an eight week JustFaith module dealing with the government, the federal budget and the common good.  Ray Sylvester, Director of Social Justice at St. Michael's Church in Houston, will guide us through the process being used in this study group, and the relationship that the parish has fostered with JustFaith since 2002.

(Hosted by the Rev. William J. Young Social Justice Institute at the University of St. Thomas, Houston)

The Corporate Pledge of Allegiance

by Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog
Reader Supported News, November 8, 2011

Despite what the Supreme Court and Mitt Romney say, corporations aren't people. (I'll believe they are when Georgia and Texas start executing them.)

The Court thinks corporations have First Amendment rights to spend as much as they want on politics, and Romney (and most of his fellow Regressives) think they need lower taxes and fewer regulations in order to be competitive.

These positions are absurd on their face. By flooding our democracy with their shareholders' money, big corporations are violating their shareholders' First Amendment rights because shareholders aren't consulted. They're simultaneously suppressing the First Amendment rights of the rest of us because, given how much money they're throwing around, we don't have enough money to be heard.

And they're indirectly giving non-Americans (that is, all their foreign owners, investors, and executives) a say in how Americans are governed. Pardon me for being old-fashioned but I didn't think foreign money was supposed to be funneled into American elections.

Romney's belief big corporations need more money and lower costs in order to create jobs is equally baffling. Big corporations are now sitting on $2 trillion of cash and enjoying near-record profits. The ratio of profits to wages is higher than it's been since before the Great Depression. And a larger and larger portion of those profits are going to top executives. (CEO pay was 40 times the typical worker in the 1980s; it's now upwards of 300 times.)

But, hey, if the Supreme Court and regressive Republicans insist big corporations are people and want to treat them as American citizens, then why not demand big corporations take a pledge of allegiance to the United States?

And if they don't take the pledge, we should boycott them. (Occupiers - are you listening?)

Here's what a Corporate Pledge of Allegiance might look like:

The Corporate Pledge of Allegiance to the United States 

The [fill in blank] company pledges allegiance to the United States of America. To that end: 

We pledge to create more jobs in the United States than we create outside the United States, either directly or in our foreign subsidiaries and subcontractors. 

If we have to lay off American workers, we will give them severance payments equal to their weekly wage times the number of weeks they've worked for us. 

We further pledge that no more than 20 percent of our total labor costs will be outsourced abroad. 

We pledge to keep a lid on executive pay so no executive is paid more than 50 times the median pay of American workers. We define "pay" to include salary, bonuses, health benefits, pension benefits, deferred salary, stock options, and every other form of compensation. 

We pledge to pay at least 30 percent of money earned in the United States in taxes to the United States.

We won't shift our money to offshore tax havens and won't use accounting gimmicks to fake how much we earn. 

We pledge not to use our money to influence elections.

Companies that make the pledge are free to use it in their ads over the Christmas shopping season.

 Robert Reich is Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He has written thirteen books, including "The Work of Nations," "Locked in the Cabinet," "Supercapitalism" and his latest book, "AFTERSHOCK: The Next Economy and America's Future." His 'Marketplace' commentaries can be found on publicradio.com and iTunes.