What exactly is Hobby Lobby’s argument?

If you’ve been following the Hobby Lobby case for the past few years (whew! really?!) you’ve probably never considered exactly what the big deal is. You’ve probably wondered about or rejected the arguments outright because your are “pro-choice” or you don’t believe that religion has any place in public life.

Well, let’s draw some careful lines here. Whenever we talk about “religion” we have to realize exactly what we’re talking about. We aren’t talking about the Bible or church on Sunday, we are talking about a right to a worldview, and the right to live out the principles of that worldview. Fortunately, most people live with similar worldviews, and while we may disagree on certain fine points, we believe that we have the right–while disagreeing on where it comes from–to not only live out that worldview, but to express it toward one another in a reasonable manner, until recently when one particular view, a devoutly secular, dare I say anti-Christian, desires to assert itself. How might this relate to the Hobby Lobby matter? Our reverently secular HHS secretary desires to force a business, that has made no secret of its focus, to provide a product that has a purpose that is contrary to the beliefs of the business owners.

What exactly is their opposition to this mandate. They have introduced into evidence several scientific arguments and research to back their claim: that the “morning after” pill causes an abortion. Well, just what exactly is the problem, after all abortion is legal in the US? It all depends on when life begins, which is a scientifically settled matter, at conception, and how to rectify that with this commandment, “Do not murder (Exodus 20:13).”

Advertisements

8 comments

  1. The big deal to me is that I don’t want bosses who aren’t my doctor trying to countermand my doctor’s orders on the basis of their orthodox interpretation of a religion I might not even belong to! There are other reasons these meds are used besides birth control, you know. Hobby Lobby is throwing up a smokescreen. They just dislike Obama and/or the PPACA, and would really prefer not to have to provide insurance at all, if they could get away with it.

    • Well, let’s keep this in mind, employers are under no obligation to provide health insurance, they started doing it as a means of retention of employees. They could have simply offered it as bonuses or raises or even pocketed the money which is completely within their right, but in generosity they decided to use the money to benefit–that’s the key word–their employees. But let’s also be clear, I think that you would much rather have someone who sustains an orthodox position, where you know what exactly someone believes, as opposed to a heretical position which is subjective. I notice that you are also ignorant of exactly why the drugs were developed, as opposed to a contraceptive which prevents–another important word–pregnancy as opposed to terminating one. Also that you are completely comfortable with forcing someone to capitulate to you, assuredly if positions were reversed you would not feel the same. Liberty is for all, we went to war over this matter 150 years ago, nice to see we’re willing to violate our own standards for a pill.

      • It still goes back to who’s the expert, the doctor or the religious boss, when the matter under consideration is health care related. Though employers were previously under no obligation to provide insurance, employers of for-profit companies over a certain size are now, unless they want to pay fines. Hobby Lobby objects because they don’t agree with the mandates in the law, and they want it changed to allow an exemption that’s not in the law. They are arguing disingenuously for a religious exemption, when their motive is either political or economic or both. I can see the point if it was a religious non-profit, but not for a business selling craft supplies, most of which are of Chinese manufacture.

      • I notice that Hobby Lobby, and several similar employers and organizations with similar cases pending, have no problem providing health insurance, and have been doing so, generously for years, so that is not the issue. The issue is that Hobby Lobby, the Green family who are the sole owners, believe that they, according to their principles which they hold as inviolable, in complying with the HHS mandate would, and in fact would be, complicit in the death of an innocent human being. Now if the question is “are you certain it’s human”, what else could it be given time and opportunity, a lizard? The science is settled on the matter. But if they are “disingenuously” arguing on a religious basis, which is best described as a way of viewing the world, then so is the government, but Hobby Lobby is arguing their point from the evidence, both philosophical and scientific, which match with reality; however, the government is arguing from a fantasy.

  2. If the Greed err GREEN family’s principles are “inviolable”, how do they justify selling product from China, where abortion laws are a hell of a lot more draconian than here? They trade with a “godless” communist country, contributing to the deaths of innocent lives there! Or is it just that innocent lives here have more monetary value? The issue and the motive is profit.

    • There are two Chinas, of course most people forget that. And without clarifying whether they deal with the People’s Republic, or the Republic of China, it’s hard to say. But let’s also keep in mind that by placing demands on the PRC’s economy through demand for products, we are forcing them to relax their laws in order to fill the demand for workers. If profits are a problem then you’ve really got a problem. Without profits there are no job expansions, no raises in pay, no benefits. You really need to take a course in economics before criticizing something you obviously do not understand.

  3. We aren’t talking about the Bible or church on Sunday, we are talking about a right to a worldview, and the right to live out the principles of that worldview.

    And, if your worldview is empirically unsound and based on magic, you don’t get to force its implications on others.

    Our reverently secular HHS secretary desires to force a business, that has made no secret of its focus, to provide a product that has a purpose that is contrary to the beliefs of the business owners.

    There should be no issue with procedures that are legal and necessary to help maintain the reproductive health of women. Or did you want the employees of Jehovah Witnesses business not to have blood transfusions covered because they have the right to live and then magically impose on others their ‘worldview”. You can believe whatever ooga-booga you’d like behind closed doors, but in the wider secular society, you should follow the strictures based on evidence based medicine and science.

    It all depends on when life begins, which is a scientifically settled matter, at conception,

    Life begins at sometime during conception, science has not ‘settled’ the matter (this is where you provide the clear, non-embryological textbook evidence that says we know exactly when life begins) nor does establishing exactly life begin hold any particular significance.

    • That is a good point. Is your worldview consistent with cosmology, teleology, ontology, epistemology and biology, not what is believed, but what is evident, that is the test of the validity of a worldview. And it’s funny to mention magic, since that is what is used by non- monotheistic religions to attempt to explain anything relating to the natural world.
      I find it troublesome that those who claim to be safeguarding the health of women are insistent to use measures which have been linked to severe depression, cancer, and death. Sounds like a lot of concern to me.
      When exactly is conception? My biology teacher in public high school taught me that it begins the instant the sperm breaches and genetic material is transferred to, added to, and successfully begins to copy itself. Now, unless something drastic has changed in the past 20 years, I believe that definition of biological conception in humans pretty well has held its ground. Perhaps I should have plugged in a link or quoted a source to back my claim, but most people who’ve taken a course in at least high school biology have been exposed to that information, so I accepted it as common knowledge and put it forth as such.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s