 |
|
|
|
June 29th, 2014
08:19 PM ET
Hobby Lobby: the Bible verses behind the battleBy Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Editor [twitter-follow screen_name='BurkeCNN'] Washington (CNN) – For the Greens, the Christian family behind the Hobby Lobby chain of stores, their battle with the Obama administration was never really about contraception. It was about abortion. After all, the evangelical Greens don't object to 16 of the 20 contraceptive measures mandated for employer coverage by the Affordable Care Act. That puts the family squarely in line with other evangelicals, who largely support the use of birth control by married couples. Like other evangelicals, however, the Greens believe that four forms of contraception mandated under the ACA - Plan B, Ella and two intrauterine devices - in fact cause abortions by preventing a fertilized embryo from implanting in the womb. (The Obama administration and several major medical groups disagree that such treatments are abortions .) “We won’t pay for any abortive products," Steve Green, Hobby Lobby's president, told Religion News Service. "We believe life begins at conception.” Evangelicals as a whole may be relative newcomers to that view, but since the 1980s it has become nearly gospel. (The Pew Research Center has a helpful guide to other religious groups' stance.) As Christianity Today editor Mark Galli has argued, evangelicals arrived at their current stand on life issues through a combination of factors, including biblical interpretation, moral accounting and political calculus. Others also add the influence of early architects of the religious right and the example of the Catholic Church, which has opposed abortion for centuries. But given the importance of scripture to evangelicals, it's no surprise that groups like the National Association of Evangelicals cite the Bible in the second sentence of their policy stance on abortion:
You'll see that verse, Psalm 139:13, cited quite a bit when it comes to evangelicals and abortion. In it, the psalmist says to God, "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb." (You'll also see that verse cited by many Mennonites, so it makes sense that a Mennonite business, Conestoga Wood Specialties, joined a companion challenge to Hobby Lobby at the Supreme Court.) If God knew you in the womb, the thinking goes, then you must have been at some stage of personhood, and that provides biblical justification for the idea that life begins at conception, according to evangelicals and other Christians. In addition to Psalm 139, you'll also hear evangelicals and Mennonites cite several other Bible passages that they believe affirm the sanctity of human life. Genesis 1, for example, says that mankind is made in God's image; the Ten Commandments make murder a crime against God; and Job, the old Testament sufferer, frets about what would happen if he mistreats his servants because:
Again, you see the divine and womb interacting, which is why evangelicals like the Greens so strongly oppose contraception that prevents embryo implantation in the womb. Still, those verses may not be on the Greens' minds after Monday's decision. Instead, Steve Green has said, they'll be thinking about Daniel 3:17-18
« Previous entryHow Muslims flipped the script in Hollywood
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Catholics are such hypocrites. In Moral Theology they teach that INTENTION isthe crux of a moral act. The INTENTION of NFP is to limit a family, and prevent pregnancy. It's an attempted sleight of hand. Temperature taking, abstinence, day-counting are INTENTIONAL acts. Is their god SO dumb she doesn't know what they're really up to ?
Heck you don't even need intention....just looking at a person with lust is enough even if you had no intention of acting on it.
The "MORALS" of Hobby Lobby – –
DO NOT FORCE people to pay for services that they object to
but:
FORCE atheists and agnostics to pay the taxes that their churches don't pay.
Good one!
The "MORALS" of Hobby Lobby – – part 2
Take an ethical stand against financially supporting the possibility that women in their employ might use certian medication that they are morally opposed to.
Supporting the companies that make said medication by investing in them.
Hobby Lobby PAID for contraception until the ACA was passed. Hypocrites much ? Bucha liars.
"Hobby Lobby must pay for (in reality we all pay) and the problem is we do not have a choice or a say in the matter."
Hobby Lobby employees don't have a choice because Hobby Lobby took away their individual rights. Hobby Lobby is imposing their religious views on their employees. That's completely pompous and should be completely illegal. This is no different than saying that Christian Scientists should be able to avoid the rules and provide no coverage if they don't believe in medical treatment. Truly insane in what is supposed to be a free country.
This is more than religion. This is the corrupt Supreme Court again choosing to give the same rights to corporations as the Constitution gives to citizens. This is just another step to convert this nation into the oligarchy of wealthy citizens it is already becoming. The republican party are truly traitors.
Make sure you vote! The only way to turn it around!
I'm curious what your response to all of this would be if HL did not have corporate status, but was rather simply an assumed business name of a company owned by an individual (or a group as a general partnership). What I want to know is if your chief complaint is the organizational structure of the company, or if it is the scope of the first amendment as interpreted by the SCOTUS.
@nonworkingcopy......This is a heathcare issue. The 4 contraceptives in question DO NOT cause abortions. Because Hobby Lobby refuses to believe it, that doesn't make it less true. Why should women have less choices? men have choices for erectile dysfunction. No one is limiting their choices.
President Obama is trying to cut down/end abortions by making as many birth control options available so people will have ZERO excuses. Isn't that what the religious right wants? Instead they want people to have s3x only to make babies like we're the Duggans.
WE (taxpayers) pay for children parents can't afford. You're probably one of the first ones to whine about taxes. There's NOTHING more expensive than people. So make up your mind. If you want them here, then help them (raise taxes). If you don't want to help them, then why do you want them here (more birth control)?
Not sure if you were asking me, but my chief complaint is the use of religious views as grounds to avoid following the rules. If you don't like the rules, by all means, try to get them changed. But it is completely wrong that anyone (or business) should be exempt from following the same rules as the rest simply because the rules don't jibe with their religious views. People can (and do) believe just about anything under the guise of religion and that should never be an excuse for following the laws of the land.
In short, religious views deserve no more respect or credence than any other opinion.
Then there's the slippery slope argument – what about corporations adopting religious beliefs that prohibit transplants and transfusions also wanting an exemption.
I never thought I would see the end of this country in my lifetime. But Rovian politics have driven such an insurmountable wedge between people, I don't see any saving it. Congratulations, republicans. Your greed has ruined this grand experiment for all of us, at least within our own borders.
The wonderful thing is that other nations have seen what we had, copied it, and improved upon it. I hope they can control destructive, individual greed that ruined this country so that it does not endanger their own freedom.
Ru bbish
Have you seen the middle east lately? They kidnap children like it's an olympic sport!
The sky is not falling. As applied to HL, this represents the loss to perhaps a few individuals (5? 6?) of the company paying for insurance that would cover a pill that costs as little as $50.00. I'm pretty sure the 1st Amendment right to freedom of religious expression trumps that VERY small price for a HANDFUL of people.
The sky is not falling.
---------------
Well no, not entirely, but,
"I'm pretty sure the 1st Amendment right to freedom of religious expression trumps that VERY small price for a HANDFUL of people."
------------------------
The ACA is *not* infringing the Green's right to religious expression in any way.
Why do the owners 'rights' get to trump the employees 'rights'?
By extension of your argument it is OK to discriminate against minorities, so long as there's only a "handful of them"? This is the tyranny of the majority. It is the most insidious form of discrimination, because it gets rationalized as 'no big deal' the way you are doing.
This issue is a question of conflicting rights. On one side equal protection under the law is being trampled on to satisfy extrapolated (not actual) religious freedom rights.
So then... King Obomo of the new kingdom of THE UNITED STATES OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH lost another one with the Court!! Well, well what did you know!!
Now, where are all the HO.MOS's of both genders who rabidly voted for him in 08 & 12? Gee they're NOT even joining the Military after the repeal of DADT. Well I don't blame them for not joining; Who in the right mind wants to join a gay Military?
You didn't have the courage to join the military before DADT was repealed. Just think, GAY MEN were protecting your little soft AZZ. Actually gays and lesbians have it good this way. The ruling has zero effect on them. So they can have all the s3x they like without a care in the world. Is that why you're jealous?
Big Bad Obama wanted to give women more options to PREVENT abortions. The religious whack offs are now against that. Ok when your taxes go up because you force women/men to have children they can't afford, go to the supreme court and see if they'll help you with the tax bill.
Don't feed the troll. He's just not worth it.
So kenmargo you think that I did not do Military service.
What part of the body you use to get your assumptions? Are you a chickenhawk? Who in his/her right mind would join a Gay Military? That's a good question. King Obomo HO.MOS's are not helping him much now. Gee they don't even join the Gay Military after so much arguing to abolish the DADT policy. So much for defending the country.
Akira he's the worst kind of bigot. Instead of being a man and owning up to his bigotry. He's hiding behind his religion.
This is beyond the line. You are doing yourself and your faith (if you really have one) a huge disservice.
Says who, you?
Yes.
So you'll be leaving the New Kingdom then before Jebus rains down fire and brimstone ?
No ? If not, I guess someone must be lying about something, methinks, and doesn't really buy his own tripe.
That's as stupid as it gets, it just does not get any more stupid than that.
Once again:
FROM THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THE COMMENTARY:
"After all, the evangelical Greens don't object to 16 of the 20 contraceptive measures mandated for employer coverage by the Affordable Care Act. That puts the family squarely in line with other evangelicals, who largely support the use of birth control by married couples."
AGAIN THE ISSUE IS THAT WOMEN ARE FAILING TO USE THE "FREE" PILLS PROPERLY AND MEN ARE FAILING TO USE INEXPENSIVE CONDOMS. IF THEY DID, THERE WOULD BE LITTLE NEED FOR THINGS LIKE THE $30-60 MORNING AFTER PILL.
So, first line defenses do fail. Other means should be available. Why is this a problem?
Tis not a problem if people practiced safe se-x. And obviously, Hobby Lobby et al supports safe s-ex. If you are dumb enough not to, then Hobby Lobby et al and actually any employer should not hire you. See again the Brutal Effects of Stupidity on page one.
As Tom said: So, first line defenses do fail. Other means should be available. Why is this a problem?
After say 10 fails would you support mandated tubal ligation (covered by Obama and Hobby Lobby currently)
The REALITY is Hobby Lobby IS STILL PAYING for the contraceptive. If their employees take their pay (From Hobby Lobby) and buys the contraceptive Hobby Lobby doesn't like? The money still comes from Hobby Lobby, therefore Hobby Lobby is still paying (contributing). The only Difference is Hobby Lobby won't know about it. In addition Hobby Lobby will be contributing 100% for that contraceptive.
kenmargo
Bingo, forcing the owners to do what they do not believe in is wrong.
@believerfred
I think you need to read what I wrote again. You're lost.
Akira
I have a problem with the government mandating what we do and using political hot buttons (women's rights, gay marriage) to achieve their goals. Tubal ligation is covered as are other reproduction issues all of which Hobby Lobby must pay for (in reality we all pay) and the problem is we do not have a choice or a say in the matter. Hobby Lobby drew the line at respect for life and the belief that life is of God and the purpose for creation. We exist because God gave the gift of life and the ability to appreciate and value that gift as well as to devalue life. Hobby Lobby has bent over backwards and we should appreciate their kindness positive contributions as well as their right to draw the line.
respect for life and the belief that life is of God and the purpose for creation
-----
Maybe HL shouldn't buy so much stuff from China, then. That sends a message of double-standard and hypocrisy.
" Hobby Lobby drew the line at respect for life ..."
Nonsense. If they wished to be consistent at where they "draw lines" they wouldn't invest in the companies that manufacture the very products they wish to restrict from coverage. But then, moral consistency isn't much of a virtue among modern evangelicals.
"I have a problem with the government mandating what we do and using political hot buttons (women's rights, gay marriage) to achieve their goals."
Tell the truth. You have a problem with a black president leading that gov't. Keep in mind the ACA is a REPUBLICAN IDEA!
"Tubal ligation is covered as are other reproduction issues all of which Hobby Lobby must pay for (in reality we all pay) and the problem is we do not have a choice or a say in the matter."
Since you think surgery is such fun. Why don't you volunteer for a vasectomy!
" Hobby Lobby drew the line at respect for life and the belief that life is of God and the purpose for creation."
Don't you think with that respect, Hobby Lobby could pay their employees more?
"We exist because God gave the gift of life"
Does that include Gays and Lesbians?
" and the ability to appreciate and value that gift as well as to devalue life."
Yep repubs are against Healthcare, SNAP, Pell grants etc. Things poor people need to live.
" Hobby Lobby has bent over backwards and we should appreciate their kindness positive contributions as well as their right to draw the line."
Again shouldn't kindness mean paying their employees more than minimum wages"
kenmargo
Hobby Lobby pays employees a minimum $14 per hour. This is well above industry standard and well above minimum wage.
kenmargo
""We exist because God gave the gift of life" -Does that include Gays and Lesbians?"
=>yes gays, lesbians just like everyone else has the same struggle. Putting desires of mankind before a desire for God.
That's not what I've heard. I'll do more research and see if you're right. I noticed you had no comment on my other statements!
midwestrail
I know the President of Hobby Lobby and he would not invest in a company that manufactures or supports abortive services. Perhaps you should compliment him on all he gives to those in need without bias as to orientation or beliefs (sorry the American Atheists have not expressed a belief so he does not support them)
You're wrong, fred.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/hobby-lobby-retirement-plan-invested-emergency-contraception-and-abortion-drug-makers
@fred..........That 14.00 bucks started today. Still it's not like hobby Lobby is paying them a fortune. That's about 560.00 a week (before taxes). Unless you live in the mountains, that's not enough to feed a family.
midwest rail
These are 401k plans and are the personal money of the employees not Hobby Lobby. What a terrible twist of the truth from you and whoever spun the article as they did. Hobby Lobby would be personally liable for mismanagement if they only allowed employees to select from "Christian mutual funds". They must by law do what all other corporations do and that is called due dilligence in administration of 401K funds, The cottage industry of "Christian" funds does not have a net yield or beta equivalent net yield after cost so they would be putting their employees personal nest eggs in a riskier product. They are not equivalent investments.
Remember this is not their money and does not belong to them. That information was from 2012 and perhaps they may be large enough now to offer employees the option of investing in "Christian values funds". I can't wait to see the public cry when they do that.
How about giving Hobby Lobby some kudos for contributing to employees retirement plans instead of looking for dirt.
@fred
As you said:
" They must by law do what all other corporations do"
------------------–
Yeah, that's kind of the point.
They should be doing that with contraceptive medications too. Equal protection under the law means *equal* not asterisk, special pleading if you're a closely held company with specific religious views.
Akira
The abuse by the Federal and State governments dwarfs anything the insurance industry ever did. The profits from insurance companies average about 4.8% on medical related products. Their stocks sell far below other industries because they have such a low profit. If Apple or Google only had hopes of a minimum profit they would be out of business.
The cost of medical insurance and medical care in this country is outrageous because the Federal and State governments force hospitals to pay for service to all emergency cases regardless of ability to pay. That cost is passed on to those who can pay and those with insurance.
Hello Obama Care where pay to doctors is reduced and patient load increased 15%. I meet with different doctors every day and they tell their children to say away from the medical field due to high hours and reduced pay. You will now be seen by less qualified professionals and in 15 years we will see a major shortage. Tell me why doctors pay is attacked and reduced while other government employees receive massive payouts....................
Tell me that the 3 million illegals that surged into this country over the past 6 weeks will not put more stress on the medical system. It is the government not the insurance industry.
I see the reimbursements to doctors and coding under the new ACA and guess what ......they are more restrictive than HMO's ever were
GOPer
Equal protection .......................seriously you believe that is reality in the U.S.?
" They must by law do what all other corporations do" fed
you do realize that this is what were arguing about right,.. Hobby Lobby should not be getting special treatment.
Equal protection .......................seriously you believe that is reality in the U.S.
------------------------
It is unquestionably the law and we should always strive to stamp out any form of inequity in the legal process.
Do I think it is the reality in the US? Sadly no. But that doesn't mean we just shrug our shoulders and say, "well, what do you expect?"
This episode is one more disturbing milestone down our road to oligarchy. It needs to be stopped.
Americans like to think we are special. Liberty and equality are the cornerstones of this claim. Without individual freedoms and equal treatment under the law there is nothing special in being American.
their cannot be freedom until every one has antiquity access to healthcare.
fred,
how exactly is an employee deciding how to use their insurace money provided by their employer and an employee deciding how use the retirement money provided by their employer any different from an ethical standpoint.
Blessed
The ACA took away freedom of choice it gave nothing. The employees now pay 30% more for less health insurance than they had before. That is about $60 per month. They could buy their own abortion pill every month and still come out ahead. They were robbed.
Employees can choose from a pool of funds selected by the employers fund manager and they can choose not to take their employers insurance and get Obama care on their own. However, Hobby Lobby pays for 50% of their health coverage so it is cheaper to choose the Hobby Lobby plan and buy their own abortion pill.
fred,
that is a nice response to a question I didn't ask. I asked how ethically those situations were any different.
Blessed are the Cheesemakers
Ethically indifferent as to the employee as to choice to use the pill or do not use the pill. Unethical to force the employer to facilitate abortion.
The Obama administration has claimed tax dollars are not used for abortion so they forced the employers to use their $.....that is unethical.
Ok,
So I guess if Hobby Lobby wasn't forced to supply contraception coverage it would be ethically ok to do so in their mind right? So there isn't really a religious issue suppling insurance coverage for contraception....other than it is being mandated....and the religious argument is just a way to attack the ACA.
Rationalize it as you wish, fred – it IS hypocritical, especially in light of the fact that their coverage includes vasectomies and viagra for their male employees.
It's a bump in the road. The MAJORITY of CATHOLIC women of child-bearing age use birth control, and have for years. It's a tempest in a teapot. When the economy improves, and they have to really compete for talent, they will conveniently forget all about this.
Yes, it is a tempest in a teapot.
The actual number of women who might choose to take advantage of this heath care option is very, very small.
It is however symbolic. On principle no one should be treated differently under the law.
No. The issue here is that the owners of a company should not be able to use their personal religious views to discriminate against their employees. Religious views vary widely and are often insane. They are not a valid excuse to get special treatment and avoid following the laws of our land. At the risk of sounding like a conservative, if you don't like it, get out of our country and quit your whining.
Birth control pills are not "one size fits all". Condoms do break. Why should women have limits put on them? They should have as many choices as the men would want.
The Hobby Lobby challenge: can abortion be safely carried out using only materials and devices available at Hobby Lobby?
Devices at Hobby Lobby, cheaply manufactured in East Asia, are as effective as they are in China; boys only don't you know?
"If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to deliver us from it, and he will deliver us..."
Just silly. No one will do any such thing to the Greens. They can either deliver on standard healthcare insurance or close up shop. No one has a furnace set up for the Greens – though of course they believe there is one set up for all of us.
Well, I'll give them this, Tom–their hair certainly seemed to be on fire...
Unfortunately it may take someone to abuse this new 'right' for the law to be changed.
Do you all know what this means?
The Satanists now have a golden opportunuty to chage the country for the better.
Take that christians!
I'd love to see it, Alias; a Satanic business saying that Viagra and fertility treatments are against their religion so they're dropping that coverage. The schadenfreude as the RWNJs ran around screaming their heads off would be delicious
This opens a very dangerous door, yet all the fundies can see is "yay! no birth control". Their blindness is staggering.
I will have my uterus removed and send it to the Hobby Lobby CEO so he can guard it against unwanted contraceptives.
I was going to hold a rally to boycott them, but I would have to go in and buy some poster board and art supplies. Talk about a catch 22.
Think about it though. As with the other contraceptives that HL does provide, there are alternatives. You could go to Michaels, or a real art store.
I guess Hobby Lobby is the Piggly Wiggly of art stores.....
Hey! I liked Piggly Wiggly. It was a great grocery store and the name says it all. 🙂
I can understand the court looking out for the rights of the religious owner of the business, but what about the rights of the many employees of that business that don't share the owner's beliefs on the abortion debate? I guess these employees can choose to pay out their own pocket or get a job at a company with full coverage. Long time employees would stand to lose a lot though.
Did Hobby Lobby ever offer any health benefits?
If so, what percentage of employees was eligible for benefits?
Interesting question, but how is that relevant?
The AFA changes the way businesses participate in the benefits space, particularly smaller businesses.
Were I to hazard a guess, I would say that many Hobby Lobby employees, except at corporate headquarters or in the warehousing operations are part-time employees. As such they are probably not offered health benefits.
I was trying to scope how much impact the ACA actually had on the business. My guess is that it is negligible and that this whole case is political grandstanding.
Of course it's political grandstanding. A bunch of crooked organizations putting the screw to poor people. They "care" so much for these babies, they can't wait to pay them as little as possible!
Apparently they do offer health benefits:
"Hobby Lobby itself provided the emergency contraceptives Plan B and Ella to employees as part of their insurance plan until September 2012. – Wikipedia
"There's a N!@@*r in the White House!!!1!1!! It's Th'End o' Days!!!11!1!!!1one!!!"...
Switching jobs isn't easy. There just isn't that many jobs available. If people start losing coverage because of this ruling, the repubs will run from the decision like it's a disease.
They are basically a minimum wage business, check their website. A family business that keep most of the profit in the family, yet want to dictate to their underpaid employees because they have the power to do so.
I'm sure they're against rasing the minimum wage also.
Correction: raising
Not only minimum wage, but being retail, many of their store employees are likely to be part time only working hours that are limited to make sure they do not become eligible for full-time benefits.
Just like Walmart, Target, McDonalds, etc.
Of course, many of the great family fortunes have been made by the abuse of their workers (decent wages) and the oppression of unions. All under the guise of religious virtue, lucky to have a job. Thank goodness the newer companies seem to treat employees as their greatest asset, rather than a necessary profit sucking evil.
"All the while ensuring that these employees have to apply for SNAP, (Wal-Mart even gives them the forms) and then kvetching about the "freebies" they're getting because they aren't paid a living wage to actually feed their families."
To the RWNJ, Akira, there are two kinds of people; corporations and their CEOs. The rest are SubhumanLazy47%Freeloaders(tm)...
Plus, forcing people to work part-time creates "more", "good-paying" (meaning minimum wage) jobs, none of which anyone can actually live on.
Totally agree, if these companies were providing a decent living wage and had universal health care as they have in most other advanced industrial countries, I would be satisfied. Unfortunately most of the products that slimy companies like Hobby Lobby sell are manufactured in third world countries by impoverished people and yet they declare they have the moral high ground, desp!cable hypocrisy. These b@stards would love to bring child labor to the USA, $4..00 per hour.
We all lose, because the Supreme Court granted a business the same rights as an individual. Slowly but surely, the wealthy of this nation are stripping away individual rights and handing them to corporations.
Anybody else catch Money in the Bank last night?
I'm going to walk into my business to day and give my employes an announcement, that even though my religious convictions are against the idea of western medicine and the supreme court has allowed me to refuse you medical insurance because of it i wont. i thought about it but doing the other thing would make me no different the the evil Christians whose filth plagues this world.
Maybe in the future we could challenge the 2nd amend.
Ex thou shall not kill. Based on religious belief, since guns kill people, we should ban them!
the right to bear arms is rooted in our right to life, so no.
My favorite 2 words in the 2nd amendment are "well regulated".
a lesser known part of the 2nd amendment is the right to arm bears.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can only arm bears if they are part of a militia.
"My favorite 2 words in the 2nd amendment are "well regulated".
Maybe they just don't understand english or many of the definitions for english words.
my English is not that good but isn't the word regulated in 1787 was to keep in good working order. also what part of it is hard to understand.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the people.
other wise it makes no sense when i go get my watch regulated, or when i regulate my broiler.
also the Colonial definition is to arm.
so in modern English you have two possible outcomes
1 A well armed Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
or a well working Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
basicly its are right to defend ourselves from enemy governments both foreign and domestic.
in order to maintain a free state we have a right to weapons, its about time we use um to.
The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to avoid the requirement for a standing army by having instead a 'well regulated militia' (however you like to define 'regulated').
The idea was that a standing army would oppress the liberties of the people.
And the militia principle failed drastically during the War of 1812. A standing army was raised to prosecute the war after the militia had had their hides tanned by the British. Ever since then we have had a standing army.
All pretense to the concept of armed citizenry as a defense against a standing army was obliterated by the Union Army during the civil war.
Now we have a clandestine military insti.tution that reads our email and drones unleash death from above on the citizen and non-citizen alike while our standing army is deployed at the President's pleasure without any declaration of War by the Congress. It's all a mockery of what was intended.
If you want to understand the primary origin of the 2nd amendment, it is religious in nature. It was one of the rights of Englishmen from the English Bill of Rights in 1688:
Subjects’ Arms
That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law
It is a product of the wars of the reformation, including the English Civil War. The idea was born in the 17th century, where it belongs today.
And the militia principle failed drastically during the War of 1812. A standing army was raised to prosecute the war after the militia had had their hides tanned by the British. Ever since then we have had a standing army.
Whiskey Rebellion 1791 was when America abandoned the republic, and traded in the militia for a standing army.
this is when a militia rouse up in defiance of the United states because they became something they did not fight for.
although it is true about the English constitution it did only allow protestant to bare arms in fact it only made protestant human. never the less the idea was to prevent the state from taking control of its citizenry again; by not allowing them to take weapons away. it evolved to circumference every citizen when the idea was taking from the English. I'm well aware of the evil in that law, i am Irish, it was made specifically to keep weapons out of are hands.
In particular it was Cromwell's standing army that people wanted to make sure never happened again when the English bill of rights was written, but yes, it also had very unhappy consequences for the Irish.
It was precisely the "well regulated militia" under the command of President and General Geo. Washington* (not a standing army) that put down the western PA insurgents in the Whiskey Rebellion. The insurgents were not the militia, even if they felt they were standing up for their 'freedom'.
* Who as commander in chief actually rode at the head of his citizen soldiers.
The militia was called out under the Militia Acts of 1792.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1792
Perhaps George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776 will help. James Madison was familiar with this, having helped Mason write the religious freedom clause:
Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776
XIII That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.
This is the prototype for the 2nd amendment.
I once worked for a roofing company owned by a Jehovahs Witness. Under this ruling, wouldn't he be able to refuse to pay for my health insurance if it included coverage for blood transfusions? If I fell off a roof and the hospital gave me blood would he be able to refuse to pay for it?
There are so many problems with this ruling that I wager it will be overturned within the next 5 years.
It will be over turned when these bad batch of conservative judges pass on.
Just hope that worse ones don't replace them.
It could happen.
As long as you vote, things should be okay.
"If I fell off a roof and the hospital gave me blood would he be able to refuse to pay for it?"
Yeah, pretty much...
Went to the Hobby Lobby web site and checked out employment application forms. One great Christian organization they have there, paying employee wages that keep the employees as the working poor. Profit for the managers and owners, they do not give a damn about anyone else. Reminds me of the pastors, priests, ministers and the TV evangelists; it is all about the bling.
Of course it is, ausphor; to the RWNJ Crischin(tm), Gawd(tm) is all about profit, because Capitulizm iz Gawd's Way!!!1!1!one!!!(tm)...
$9.00 an hour seems to be Hobby Lobbies favorite rate of pay!!!!
If an employee at Hobby Lobby takes his/her paycheck and buys the contraceptive Hobby Lobby doesn't approve of, Isn't Hobby Lobby still paying for it? The employee pay came from Hobby Lobby so Hobby Lobby is payinmg for it. This is what happens when religion is chosen over common sense. The jack azzes at Hobby Lobby and their ilk are slow to realize this.
Their next step, ken, will inevitably be to fire anyone they suspect of buying the contraceptives they don't like. They'll mask it under the usual BS, but it's a first step to allowing businesses to tell employees what they can do with their pay, and ultimately, their lives. Just the way the right wing wants it to be...
no hobby lobby is paying for the time the employes have worked for them, what the do with that money is on them,.. no one ever said this was not about their bottom line.
Money still came from Hobby Lobby.
Logic fail.
Once you pay your employees the money is no longer yours and you have no claim to how it is used.
Logic fail.
"Once you pay your employees the money is no longer yours and you have no claim to how it is used."
The same can also be said: Once you give money to the insurance company the money is no longer yours and you have no claim to how it is used.
Sound familiar?
the insurance is a product on which you pay for if that product does not meet what they promised it is false advertising and a crime if such violation is with intent to defraud or mislead, be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine of not more than $5,000 or by imprisonment for not more than six month.
Whoa big fella! If I work at Boeing and buy a ticket to ride in a MD 380 with the money I earned at Boeing, is Boeing paying for my plane ride? If I work at Electrolux and buy a Kirby, is Electrolux paying for my vacuum cleaner?
I think a lot of us are over the edge here.
no Boeing is only paying for 20% employe discount
I am not following. What discount?
what no emplye discount, dude your getting fucked.
sorry
Hobby Lobby's position is they DO NOT WANT ANY of their money used to pay for certain contraceptives thru insurance Hobby Lobby pays into.
If people pay for contraceptives thru their pay from Hobby Lobby, then Hobby Lobby is paying (helping) for it. Suppose a woman wanted to work at Hobby Lobby part time for money needed for contraceptives/abortion, Do you think Hobby Lobby would hire her?
Ken, Part time or full time, once the emp loyee is paid, it is no lo nger Hobby Lobby's mo ney. The emp loyee owns the money. They can do with it whatever they want.
This argument is getting surreal.
The same can also be said: Once you give money to the insurance company the money is no longer yours and you have no claim to how it is used.
Sound familiar?
Once give my money to the insurance company I have a contract for a specific amount and kinds of coverage. I don't care what they do with what has then become their money. That's on them.
I worked for Pepsi one time, and during a random drug screening, they found Coke in my system, so they fired me.
(Gary Larson)
Nice.
Christianity is the belief that an infinitely-old, all-knowing being, powerful enough to create the entire Universe and its billions of galaxies, has a personal interest in my $ex life.
Atheism is the belief that the above belief is ludicrous.
Yes, to your first statement. No, to the latter.
He wanted a garden with 2 poeple in it. He clearly had to build billions of galaxies.
The problem with the anti-choice argument is that there is no legal precedent for anyone to be obligated to save another person's life, even without threat to their own. Even today, pregnancy is risky. Women still come to harm delivering babies and some even die in the process. That puts pregnancy in the category of a voluntary activity, as the state has no right to demand that someone risk their lives for another, even in the case of someone's actual, live children. Say your daughter needs a kidney. Does the state have the right to demand that you give one up? Of course not!
If it did then blood transfusion and organ donating would be mandatory, but the state recognizes that this is an individual's right. Therefore, donating a womb for the incubation of a fetus is also the individual's right, see how that goes. It's not murder if you don't donate a kidney to save someone, and it wouldn't be murder if you don't rush into a burning building to save someone, so it isn't murder if you don't want to be pregnant. That simple!
You make interesting points, but I don't think you can equate mandating that a person engage in life-saving efforts to prohibiting actions that affirmatively take a life.
nclaw441
If someone clawed at you to save them from drowning, possibly endangering your efforts to also stay afloat, would you be held accountable if you pushed them away? See, the problem here is that pregnancy is still risky for women, and the state really shouldn't be able to force anyone to risk their own life for another, right?
Is it ok to follow the Bible and kill your disobedient child, as long as you are an employee of Hobby Lobby?
Is it okay for Hobby Lobby to stop paying an employee they feel is using his salary for sinful activities?
No, and no, unless your activities in the second question affect your effectiveness at your job.
So are the health benefits part of their salary which is being paid to the employees for the time they work or is it charity that the company is providing at their own cost? If it isn't charity then it is part of the employees pay so the company should not get a say in how that money is spent.
I know of no company medical benefits program where employees don't have to contribute...