In the Star Wars movies epic fight scenes were conducted with light sabres. Everyone remembers the clash of the sabres and the sound of electric current arcing through the atmosphere. In the great contest between Christ and the Devil, between Belief and Unbelief there emerge points of conflict which are so representative of the respective world-views that the clash is like two light sabres meeting in deadly battle.
The issue of abortion is one such clash of the light sabres. When Obamacare was legislated in the United States it contained a provision that forced businesses to provide health insurance coverage for their employees. Wrapped up in that little package was the implicit requirement that employers provide coverage that would fund abortifacient drugs for their employees. Now the implicit has become explicit. Businesses that refuse will effectively be driven out of business.
Hobby Lobby is a US retail business selling supplies for home hobbies. Its owners are Christians. They have declared that they cannot comply with the government's strictures. Ken Klukowski, writing in Breitbart News, describes that is going down.
The light sabres are engaged. The ancient Beast has emerged once again. Battle is joined.“We must obey God rather than men!”—Acts 5:29.
Now that Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has denied Hobby Lobby’s application for an emergency injunction protecting them from Obamacare’s HHS Mandate on abortion and birth control, Hobby Lobby has decided to defy the federal government to remain true to their religious beliefs, at enormous risk and financial cost.
Hobby Lobby is wholly owned and controlled by the Green family, who are evangelical Christians. The Greens are committed to running their business in accordance with their Christian faith, believing that God wants them to conduct their professional business in accordance with the family’s understanding of the Bible. Hobby Lobby’s mission statement includes, “Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company … consistent with Biblical principles.”
The HHS Mandate goes into effect for Hobby Lobby on Jan. 1, 2013. The Greens correctly understand that some of the drugs the HHS Mandate requires them to cover at no cost in their healthcare plans cause abortions.
Today Hobby Lobby announced that they will not comply with this mandate to become complicit in abortion, which the Greens believe ends an innocent human life. Given Hobby Lobby’s size (it has 572 stores employing more than 13,000 people), by violating the HHS Mandate, it will be subject to over $1.3 million in fines per day. That means over $40 million in fines in January alone. If their case takes another ten months to get before the Supreme Court—which would be the earliest it could get there under the normal order of business—the company would incur almost a half-billion dollars in fines. And then of course the Supreme Court would have to write an opinion in what would likely be a split decision with dissenters, which could easily take four or six months and include hundreds of millions of dollars in additional penalties.
This is civil disobedience, consistent with America’s highest traditions when moral issues are at stake. The Greens are a law-abiding family. They have no desire to defy their own government. But as the Founders launched the American Revolution because they believed the British government was violating their rights, the Greens believe that President Barack Obama and Secretary Kathleen Sebelius are commanding the Greens to sin against God, and that no government has the lawful authority to do so.
The Christian tradition of defying government commands to do something wrong goes back to the very birth of Christianity. When the apostles were ordered not to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with anyone, the Book of Acts records: “Peter and the other apostles replied: ‘We must obey God rather than men! The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree.’”
Eleven of the twelve apostles—including Peter—would lose their lives for the sake of spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ; only the apostle John died of old age. They were determined to obey God’s will at all costs.
This issue of civil disobedience is never to be undertaken lightly. The Bible teaches Christians to submit to all legitimate governmental authority (e.g., Romans 13:1), and so a person can only disobey the government when there is no other way to obey God.
But here in America, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and in its First Amendment it protects against a government establishment of an official religion and separately protects the free exercise of religion. On top of that, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) to specifically add an additional layer of protection against government actions that violate a person’s religious beliefs.
The HHS Mandate is a gross violation of the religious beliefs of the Green family. The issue before the courts here is whether the Greens religious-liberty rights include running their secular, for-profit business consistent with their religious beliefs. In other words, is religious liberty just what you do in church on a Sunday morning, or does it include what you do during the week at your job?
The Greens are now putting their fortunes on the line to do what they believe is right. The courts should side with them, affirming a broad scope of religious liberty under the Constitution and RFRA. And the Supreme Court should resolve this matter with dispatch in their favor.
Millions of Christians across the country feel exactly the same way as the Greens. The Obama administration has issued a statist command that is a declaration of war on people of faith who object to abortion, and civil disobedience could break out all over the country unless the courts set this matter right—and quickly.
Breitbart News legal columnist Ken Klukowski is on faculty at Liberty University School of Law.
8 comments:
Hobby Lobby is wholly owned and controlled by the Green family, who are evangelical Christians. The Greens are committed to running their business in accordance with their Christian faith, believing that God wants them to conduct their professional business in accordance with the family’s understanding of the Bible. Hobby Lobby’s mission statement includes, “Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company … consistent with Biblical principles.”
And no one, no law, no government, is stopping them from conducting "their professional business in accordance with the family’s understanding of the Bible."
They are simply being told that they cannot use their "understanding of the Bible" to force their religious beliefs on to others.
Thought experiment:
A law is passed requiring all employers to provide, at their own expense, a bottle of spirits free to each employee per annum.
A business owned and managed by Muslims objects to this law on the grounds that they regard alcohol consumption as sinful, and therefore they don't want to promote or facilitate drinking.
Any employee who so wishes can still go, buy and drink alcohol on his own initiative. There is nothing in any employment contract saying he must abstain in his own time.
Are the Muslim business owners, in this scenario, "forcing" their religious beliefs, as those apply to alcohol, onto their employees? If so, how? If not, in what sense are the Green family doing so?
David,
Could you please explain how you understand the Greens are forcing their faith upon others. What you have written is a non sequitur, as Mr Gronk's thought experiment illustrates. You need to "fill in the gaps" in your argument.
As to the Green's being subjected to force, let's be clear. They have said that they believe providing abortifacient drugs to staff to enable them them to abort their children is immoral, unethical, irreligious, a violation of their consciences, and sinful. They believe such a thing is forbidden by Almighty God.
The government is declaring that the Greens shall do this; if they do not, they shall be subjected to fines and sanctions. In anyone's book that is force. Ergo, the government is employing force to make the Greens deny their faith, their God, and their beliefs. We thought the Bill of Rights proscribed such government tyranny.
JT
Mr Gronk, your thought experiment seems to contain little, if any, actual thought. There is no correlation between the two.
Quite simply, the Hobby Lobby is under the mistaken impression that female reproductive health is just about "slut pills". And because of this, they are prepared to deny women lifesaving medical care.
Odd, too, don't you think, that they have no opposition to sexual health care for studs. They can have as much as they want.
John, I fully agree that the Greens have a right to stand by their conscience. But a conscientious act often comes with consequences.
It is my opinion that this is nothing more than another beat up by the religious right.
They have said that they believe providing abortifacient drugs to staff to enable them them to abort their children is immoral, unethical, irreligious, a violation of their consciences, and sinful. They believe such a thing is forbidden by Almighty God.
Now, I may be wrong, as I don't follow US politics all that closely, mainly just to see what the next cause d'jour of our own theocrats will be. As I understand it, Hobby Lobby is not required to have reproductive health care in their employee health package, but in cases where the employer declines that care, then the insurance company is required to pick it up.
By the quick research I have done, it also seems highly unlikely that the Green's consciences will ever be troubled by this issue as it appears they employ mostly people who believe the same myths that they do.
However, IF the Greens want to deny healthcare to employees based on their religion and conscience, then yes, they ARE forcing their religious beliefs on to others.
A federal district court in Indiana has already ruled on this issue.
The crux of the court’s ruling is that the mandate that insurance companies provide a rider for contraception coverage for all people covered by employer health plans even if those health plans do not include such coverage in the group policy does not constitute a substantial burden on the religious freedom of the plaintiffs. The court cited an earlier ruling from a federal court in Missouri in this regard:
[T]he challenged regulations do not demand that plaintiffs alter their behavior in a manner that will directly and inevitably prevent plaintiffs from acting in accordance with their religious beliefs. … [P]laintiffs remain free to exercise their religion, by not using contraceptives and by discouraging employees from using
contraceptives. The burden of which plaintiffs complain is that funds, which plaintiffs will contribute to a group health plan, might, after a series of independent decisions by health care providers and patients covered by [the
company’s] plan, subsidize someone else’s participation in an activity that is condemned by plaintiffs’ religion. The Court rejects the proposition that requiring indirect financial support of a practice, from which plaintiff himself
abstains according to his religious principles, constitutes a substantial burden on plaintiff’s religious exercise…
But my research also turned up something interesting about the way they run their business in accordance with their Christian faith, believing that God wants them to conduct their professional business in accordance with the family’s understanding of the Bible. Hobby Lobby’s mission statement includes, “Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company … consistent with Biblical principles.”
Apparently buying a building to house a "Museum of the bible" and kicking out the 40 or so small businesses that traded there following their own religious beliefs (or not) is in accordance with biblical principles, as is NOT kicking out the government tenant because that is a golden lease.
As usual, these folks are confusing a right, as individuals, to practice without hindrance the faith of their choice, with an institutional privilege to deny others what amounts to the same choice. Freedom of religion boils down to freedom of conscience; and if everybody doesn't have that right, nobody does. Freedom to practice your individual religion doesn't translate to a right to impose it; and if you’re a business owner with the power to dictate to your employers what the insurance they pay for can cover, based on your religious principles, then, yes…you are imposing.
Hi, David
We are not into ad hominem slurs against opponents and respectfully suggest that you avoid them as well. The only one demeaned is the fabricator.
We could understand your position if you were alleging that the Greens were telling employees that if they were to use abortifacient drugs or have an abortion they would be fired. You could then argue that the Greens were forcing others to hold their beliefs, with the sanction of dismissal if they did not comply.
Is that what you believe the Greens are doing? If not--and of course they are not--then talk of forcing their beliefs upon others is a non sequitur. Please explain how you make the allegation of the Greens forcing their beliefs upon others stack up. Merely asserting it does not do the job. In what way are the Greens forcing people not to kill their unborn children? Employees remain at liberty to get abortifacient drugs from the local pharmacy and the Greens have no power to stop them. There are no consequences for employees if they choose to do that. The Greens are not forcing anyone to do anything. What they are saying is that they will not pay for someone to do something the Green's believe is sinful. Now would we. It is a standard Christian ethical position.
You may not like it, because you will have your own religion with different tenets. You may find Christianity offensive. It may make you angry and frustrated. But we are not forcing you to be a Christian. Neither will we accept a non-Christian forcing us to do things we believe are wrong. And that is what the Greens are facing.
Secondly, the Federal Government requires that if employers do not provide abortifacient drugs as part of their employee health care plans, then an insurance company must provide them, and bill the company for the premium. Now that is force. The US government has attempted a sneaky hair splitting casuistic ploy, but it fools no-one. Just because the government inserts another agent (the insurance company) and then charges the Greens does not in any way let the Greens off the hooks of their own conscience.
The ruling of the Federal Court that you refer to confirms that the law is being interpreted as forcing the Greens to do what they believe is forbidden according to the tenets of the Christian faith--that is to pay for abortifacient drugs for their employees, should their employees want to use them. The Federal court said "no problem". The Court is morally and ethically wrong.
The burden of which plaintiffs complain is that funds, which plaintiffs (employers) will contribute to a group health plan, might, after a series of independent decisions by health care providers and patients covered by [the
company’s] plan, subsidize someone else’s participation in an activity that is condemned by plaintiffs’ religion. In other words, the Greens pay for the plan, the employees go to the insurance company and say they want abortifacient drugs, and the insurance company says, no--its not covered. The Greens have stipulated that no coverage to such things would be given in any plan they pay for. The Federal Court is saying no, the Greens cannot so stipulate. You will pay for such things whether you like it or not. That's force, and a violation of conscience any way you cut it.
But, as argued above, the employees are not so violated. They can go and get abortifacient devices anywhere they choose. The Greens are not forcing their beliefs upon their staff in any way. They are simply objecting to being forced to subsidize and pay for the sinful, unbelieving actions of any of their employees. They are the only ones facing force and sanctions.
So at this point, we would expect all lovers of liberty, such as yourself, to spring to the Green's defence, non? Even if you vehemently disagree you would want to defend their liberty of conscience to do and act as their religion teaches-wouldn't you?
JT
John, I'd apologise for the ad-hom, but I don't see one from me.
The Greens have stipulated that no coverage to such things would be given in any plan they pay for.
in other words, they are forcing their religious beliefs on others by denying their employees a benefit not denied to other employees for the sole reason that the Greens find it against their religion.
They are simply objecting to being forced to subsidize and pay for the sinful, unbelieving actions of any of their employees.
Again, forcing their religious beliefs upon their employees. Why should an employee have to "believe" the same myths as their employer? Who gives the employer the right to determine what is and is not "sinful", a concept that has no meaning outside religion?
The government has made the law, and it seems on the surface to be constitutional. The Greens may abhor the law, they may want to defy the law, but they must then be prepared for the consequences.
I like how god hates the same things the Greens hate, though.
Hi, David
We expect that the Greens will accept whatever sanctions the ungodly and tyrannical regime in the US dreams up. They will, one expects, remonstrate against the powers that be, but their life's work may be stripped from them.
You, one expects, would applaud that outcome.
Liberty of conscience, in that case, would appear to be virtually nothing of consequence in your world-view. One imagines you would defend liberty of conscience only insofar as it touches the "private" sphere (the inner thoughts and intents of the mind), but it must never become public to the extent that it touches others in any way whatsoever. Were it to do so, then those folk so touched would be forcibly traduced and can call upon the the State to punish the miscreant who is enslaving them.
Such a notion of liberty of conscience would be of no worth whatsoever as a social or political or judicial doctrine, and the Bill of Rights would be stupidly redundant when it comes to liberty of conscience. It would free that which the State can never touch in any event--the inner, secret thoughts and intents and motives of the heart. For the State and society to say that it earnestly defends such liberties is to boast of nothing, for the State can never control such anyway. To say that the state only recognizes such internal private liberty of thought, if that is all that is meant in the Bill of Rights, is nothing other than a tautology.
As to the alleged force you believe the Greens are inflicting upon their employees, you have once again failed to make the case by means of argument, but continue the assertion--which by now is becoming somewhat tedious, if not vacuous.
So, presumably, you would agree with the following:
The Greens employees have entered into a free commercial contract and arrangement with their employer. They are free at any time to leave and seek employment elsewhere with different terms and conditions with whomever and anywhere they choose. If they remain, it is because they choose to do so.
Their employer, for reasons of his/her own, has freely determined that they will not pay for abortifacients for their staff. It would violate their moral beliefs.
By not so providing what some employees might want, the Greens--you argue--are enforcing their beliefs upon others.
We believe that to be a fair representation of your position.
You enter a local dairy to buy alcohol. It is a commercial contract into which you wish freely to enter . You are free to go to this dairy or to any other establishment to seek to purchase alcohol.
The dairy owner says he will not sell you alcohol because he is a teetotaller and believes that alcohol is evil; his shop does not carry alcohol and never will as long as he is the owner.
You object, saying that the dairy owner has no right to force his moral convictions upon you. You demand that he provide you and sell you what you want. Otherwise he violates your rights of liberty of conscience.
At that point--if such a doctrine were to be accepted--the dairy owner is enslaved to the will of the customer. He has no rights, but must provide whatever the customer wills. The conscience of the customer rightly enslaves the shopowner. The customer has a right (recognized by the state) to get the state to force the dairy owner to sell alcohol to whomever wants it.
Is that seriously what you are arguing, mutatis mutandis, in the case of the Greens and their employees? It would appear so.
At which point the absurdity of your position becomes self-evident. Argue the equivalent for the diary owner, and we will take your argument against the Greens to be serious and principled. If not, your argument would appear to be empty sophistry.
As to your amusement over your god hating the same things as the Greens, we cannot comment. We do not know who your god is. We have never met him, or know of him, nor has it/he/she been revealed to us: we, therefore, could not possibly opine. About him/it/her we are thoroughly agnostic.
JT
Post a Comment