On the Necessity of Theological Courage in the Public Square
January 22, 2013
Owen Strachan and Andrew Walker
On the subject of religious controversy, 2013 started off with a bang, not a whimper. Hobby Lobby, the craft chain owned by a Christian couple, chose to defy the odious HHS mandate pioneered by the administration of President Barack Obama. This edict seeks to bring religious groups to heel by requiring all employers to cover contraception and abortifacients in their health-care plans. For its defiance, Hobby Lobby faces atmospheric fines of $1.3 million dollars per day.
What could motivate such response from this company, traditionally associated less with political battles than knick-knacks and sewing kits? David and Barbara Green, the owners of Hobby Lobby, remain committed to upholding their evangelical beliefs—including pro-life convictions—no matter the cost or threat inflicted upon them. This is a remarkable example, and a heroic one. The Greens are demonstrating the theological courage necessary to participate in a public square that continues to show increased hostility toward orthodox expressions of faith.
Though this challenge is new, this virtue is not. In the grand Christian ethical tradition, prudence, temperance, justice, and fortitude or ‘courage’ have formed what are called the cardinal virtues, from the Latin meaning ‘the hinge of the door.’ According to our guides, all other virtues “hinge” upon practicing these virtues as necessary for experiencing the moral life.
According to C. S. Lewis, courage is the most necessary of the pack. “And Fortitude includes both kinds of courage—the kind that faces danger as well as the kind that ‘sticks it’ under pain. ‘Guts’ is perhaps the nearest modern English. You will notice, of course, that you cannot practice any of the other virtues very long without bringing this one into play.” The righteous, Proverbs says, are bold as a lion.
This was true in ancient times, and it is true in ours. One must have courage in one’s veins to withstand the secular forces that would elbow Christian faith out of society and reduce it to a prayer card and some precious moments.
So this is what theological courage is: it is courage driven by truth, biblical-theological truth. Its power is such that it impels Christians of all kinds to address matters of great import. Theological courage calls the inner-man to ignore his buckling knees and take theologically driven stances that, while potentially controversial, are righteous in nature.
Theological courage, you might say, is God’s truth addressed not only to the academy, but the public world. This includes the central gathering place of this world, where ideas are debated and strategies for change vie for adoption: the public square.
But this term might seem bloodless if not fleshed out. What does theological courage actually look like?
Theological courage is Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who mounted an assault on Hitler’s tyrannical overreach and abasement of human dignity. This bravery cost Bonhoeffer his life.
Theological courage is bearing epithets like “bigot” because one believes marriage is paramount to society’s health.
Theological courage is Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn at Harvard’s 1978 commencement, indicting the West for trading ultimate meaning and spiritual living for fleeting sensations and material comfort.
Theological courage is a mega-church pastor (or a small-town preacher) willing to preach not only against homosexuality, but against divorce, cohabitation, and sexual promiscuity.
Theological courage is a college student willing to speak biblical truth on human sexuality. It is that same student getting a burger with her friends after class and urging them to embrace the transforming power of the gospel.
Theological courage is Pope Benedict’s Christmas address to the Roman Curia, calling the world back to a sane and faithful embrace of sexual identity and gender, a pursuit worthy of evangelical cobelligerency.
And let us be clear on the opposite end. Theological courage is not the path taken by British evangelical leader Steve Chalke, who recently abandoned biblical sexual ethics. Chalke has characterized his grappling with Scripture as a courageous enterprise toward justice and inclusion. But what is courageous about cultural appeasement? Would Chalke have reached his conclusions had there not been great cultural pressure to do so?
Courage, and love for sinners like us who think their ways better than God’s, inspires us to protest injustices like Louie Giglio’s removal from the inaugural proceedings. The Bible compels us to do so. Love of our neighbor means that we must reject the view that homosexuality, and all sexual sin, “liberates” the sinner. In reality, it is enslaving. The truth, then, is not hostile; it is loving, for it frees us from our sin.
So Christians are not unloving and hateful for calling for repentance (and the right to do so, or even the right to be an evangelical in public). Confessional Christianity in the public square, involving the affirmation of moral transcendence on matters of moral consequence, is theological courage, and theological courage is by nature motivated by love.
These are strange times, whether for wholesale craft suppliers or fresh-faced pastors. To face the headwinds, Christians must summon fresh bravery if our faith is to continue to play its vital role in this country, if thriving businesses are to endure, and most importantly, if our neighbors of all kinds are to know the love of Christ.
Owen Strachan is a professor at Boyce College and Executive Director of the Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood. Andrew Walker works at The Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. The views expressed in this commentary are his own and should not be interpreted as the views of his employer.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
1.22.2013 | 2:55am
Howard says:
Remind me again why it is so imperative to stand our belief system - of God - up against governments - of man? As spiritual beings dealing with matters of the soul, I've always questioned the pious 'take the high ground' approach to dealing with rules of government when we disagree with that government. Perhaps, instead, we should spend more time and energy attempting to use the eternal rights and privileges afforded us by God to seek out and find people who need God - and make our 'high road' a road of service, personal love, and humbleness instead of grandiose and very public positioning. People hurt - not governments.
1.22.2013 | 7:21am
Would you also be willing to grant that Bradley Manning exhibits the virtue of theological courage for his exposure of a systemic pattern of US war crimes and other forms of morally underhanded conduct in international affairs?
1.22.2013 | 9:08am
Joe DeVet says:
Because, Howard, when governments require individuals or groups to do that which is evil, they must be disobeyed. It is more than a matter of disagreement--it's a matter of personal morality.
And it turns out that the very disobedience of the martrys was the most persuasive way of evangelizing. "The blood of martyrs was the seed of the Chruch." The martyrs of imperial Rome did not have to seek out and find those who needed God--the latter flocked to convert to the Christian (in truth, the Catholic) faith after the example of those whose belief was so strong as to stand against Caesar, not rendering to him that which belonged only to God.
I can only hope that our Catholic Bishops hold fast to the brave words of deficance spoken last year, and persist with Hobby Lobby and its likes in opposing the evil HHS mandate. We must not cooperate in the evil which Caesar is now trying to impel us to do. I predict that, if we do stand firm, we will find those whom we could not convince of Jesus' good news by words and argument, will flock to us because of demonstrated principle.
And it turns out that the very disobedience of the martrys was the most persuasive way of evangelizing. "The blood of martyrs was the seed of the Chruch." The martyrs of imperial Rome did not have to seek out and find those who needed God--the latter flocked to convert to the Christian (in truth, the Catholic) faith after the example of those whose belief was so strong as to stand against Caesar, not rendering to him that which belonged only to God.
I can only hope that our Catholic Bishops hold fast to the brave words of deficance spoken last year, and persist with Hobby Lobby and its likes in opposing the evil HHS mandate. We must not cooperate in the evil which Caesar is now trying to impel us to do. I predict that, if we do stand firm, we will find those whom we could not convince of Jesus' good news by words and argument, will flock to us because of demonstrated principle.
1.22.2013 | 12:51pm
pandera says:
1. Nobody is forcing you to buy or use birth control.
2. Nobody is forcing you to buy or use birth control.
3. Nobody is forcing you to buy or use birth control.
Requiring employers to offer insurance that covers birth control is not an infringement of religious rights, it is protecting the rights of employees to have legal, medically valid prescriptions covered by their insurance plans. Not all christians believe that birth control is a sin and we are not all christians. Preach your beliefs to all who will listen but let your employees decide what is best for themselves.
2. Nobody is forcing you to buy or use birth control.
3. Nobody is forcing you to buy or use birth control.
Requiring employers to offer insurance that covers birth control is not an infringement of religious rights, it is protecting the rights of employees to have legal, medically valid prescriptions covered by their insurance plans. Not all christians believe that birth control is a sin and we are not all christians. Preach your beliefs to all who will listen but let your employees decide what is best for themselves.
1.22.2013 | 1:16pm
Daniel says:
I don’t understand the need for Hobby Lobby to fight this. They are a “for-profit” business that sells non-Christian items (Halloween anyone? Ghouls, goblins, witches, etc.). They claim that “Government Overreach” is forcing them to provide this pill and blah blah blah… Well, I ask, to what extent could an employer force their beliefs on their employees? Where’s the fight against “Employer Overreach”? It’s a Christian-minded company, does that mean HL will start checking for church attendance, small group attendance, and verse memory? Will the employees start having to memorize the Apostle’s Creed? Which flavor of Christianity will they uphold: Lutheran, Catholic, Baptist, Seventh Day Adventist, etc.?
I wholeheartedly agree that abortion is wrong, no matter what. But so is divorce, and I see no laws against it? Maybe we should try to remove the plank in our eye, before removing the speck off our brother’s?
I wholeheartedly agree that abortion is wrong, no matter what. But so is divorce, and I see no laws against it? Maybe we should try to remove the plank in our eye, before removing the speck off our brother’s?
1.22.2013 | 1:34pm
michael Currie says:
I have often wondered about the mechanisms of cultural change, how is it that things that were largely accepted or rejected for generations become, a generation or so later, rejected or accepted. Unless we are willing to accept that these changes happen spontaneously then it is reasonable to assume that voices in the "public square" are the real heroes or culprits. And they coupled with our virtuous/corrupted selves acquiesce or reject them and our culture stumbles forward, richer or poorer.
"Howard", you are not all wrong, our quiet toil for the benefit of others is a necessary ingredient for a richer, life affirming culture.
"Church of the East", there is some question as to what his motivation was, so I would hold off on the halo.
"Howard", you are not all wrong, our quiet toil for the benefit of others is a necessary ingredient for a richer, life affirming culture.
"Church of the East", there is some question as to what his motivation was, so I would hold off on the halo.
1.22.2013 | 3:19pm
Thomas Murray says:
pandera,
Regarding your "Not all christians believe that birth control is a sin and we are not all christians. Preach your beliefs to all who will listen but let your employees decide what is best for themselves."
Fine, then don't force those who do believe that birth control and abortion are sins to pay for it. While "Nobody is forcing you to buy or use birth control", they are forcing us to provide and pay for it.
Oh, and I believe that most readers here are literate, so you don't have to repeat things three times to make a point.
Regarding your "Not all christians believe that birth control is a sin and we are not all christians. Preach your beliefs to all who will listen but let your employees decide what is best for themselves."
Fine, then don't force those who do believe that birth control and abortion are sins to pay for it. While "Nobody is forcing you to buy or use birth control", they are forcing us to provide and pay for it.
Oh, and I believe that most readers here are literate, so you don't have to repeat things three times to make a point.
1.22.2013 | 3:30pm
To Michael Currie,
There is no question whatsoever as to what Bradley Manning's motivation was: It was horror at the evidence of government crimes that he encountered in his work as an intelligence analyst, combined with a sense of duty he felt to promote the good and honor his oath to the constitution by attempting to publicize these crimes.
Manning's motivations deserve the honor of any truth-and-justice loving Christian, especially since the trials he is undergoing as a result of his forthrightness and courage are horrific. What is scandalous is the refusal by the judge presiding over Manning's court martial to admit any testimony concerning Manning's motivation. The military judicial process thus makes itself complicit in subverting government whistle blowers who wish to remain true to their duty to uphold the Constitution.
Obama, too, shares responsibility for this outrage.
There is no question whatsoever as to what Bradley Manning's motivation was: It was horror at the evidence of government crimes that he encountered in his work as an intelligence analyst, combined with a sense of duty he felt to promote the good and honor his oath to the constitution by attempting to publicize these crimes.
Manning's motivations deserve the honor of any truth-and-justice loving Christian, especially since the trials he is undergoing as a result of his forthrightness and courage are horrific. What is scandalous is the refusal by the judge presiding over Manning's court martial to admit any testimony concerning Manning's motivation. The military judicial process thus makes itself complicit in subverting government whistle blowers who wish to remain true to their duty to uphold the Constitution.
Obama, too, shares responsibility for this outrage.
1.22.2013 | 4:04pm
Peter says:
Preach your beliefs to all who will listen but let your employees decide what is best for themselves.
It's one thing to allow one's employees to decide what is best for themselves, it's another to provide the means to implement it.
It's one thing to allow one's employees to decide what is best for themselves, it's another to provide the means to implement it.
1.22.2013 | 4:18pm
Richard M says:
Hello Pandera,
"Nobody is forcing you to buy or use birth control."
Yes, they are. Hobby Lobby is being forced to pay for the contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients of its employees through the health insurance that it offers.
"Not all christians believe that birth control is a sin and we are not all christians."
In case you didn't notice, the Hobby Lobby owners do not believe that birth control is a sin, and are not objecting to the HHS Mandate on those grounds. They are objecting because some of those contraceptives, such as Ella and Plan B, are abortifacients. And their church, like pretty much every Christian denomination worthy of the name, teaches that abortion is a great evil.
"Nobody is forcing you to buy or use birth control."
Yes, they are. Hobby Lobby is being forced to pay for the contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients of its employees through the health insurance that it offers.
"Not all christians believe that birth control is a sin and we are not all christians."
In case you didn't notice, the Hobby Lobby owners do not believe that birth control is a sin, and are not objecting to the HHS Mandate on those grounds. They are objecting because some of those contraceptives, such as Ella and Plan B, are abortifacients. And their church, like pretty much every Christian denomination worthy of the name, teaches that abortion is a great evil.
1.22.2013 | 5:49pm
JERD says:
Howard suggests time and energy be directed to the evangelizing of persons, rather than governments. This is a good point, but I would suggest that persevering against government interference with the free exercise of religion serves to evangelize individuals who vicariously learn of the church's teaching.
Pandera says, "Nobody is forcing [Hobby Lobby] to buy or use birth control." Health insurance, like all other insurance, is a means by which persons share the costs associated with an unpredictable risk. The premium payer is not paying for treatment in the event of injury, rather the premium payer is paying the cost of a risk factor. With the HHS mandate, birth control pills are not a risk factor. Purchasing them is at the will of the buyer. Thus, to pay for the birth control "insurance" is to pay for the birth control itself. Hobby Lobby then indeed finds itself forced to buy birth control for others.
Daniel thinks Hobby Lobby is forcing its beliefs on others. To the contrary, its employees can buy all the birth control and all the abortions they would like - with their own money and without the slavish participation of their employer. As for planks and specs, in this case there is no larger plank than in the eye of the Federal government, blinding it to the meaning of the First Amendment.
Pandera says, "Nobody is forcing [Hobby Lobby] to buy or use birth control." Health insurance, like all other insurance, is a means by which persons share the costs associated with an unpredictable risk. The premium payer is not paying for treatment in the event of injury, rather the premium payer is paying the cost of a risk factor. With the HHS mandate, birth control pills are not a risk factor. Purchasing them is at the will of the buyer. Thus, to pay for the birth control "insurance" is to pay for the birth control itself. Hobby Lobby then indeed finds itself forced to buy birth control for others.
Daniel thinks Hobby Lobby is forcing its beliefs on others. To the contrary, its employees can buy all the birth control and all the abortions they would like - with their own money and without the slavish participation of their employer. As for planks and specs, in this case there is no larger plank than in the eye of the Federal government, blinding it to the meaning of the First Amendment.
1.22.2013 | 5:59pm
Dee says:
The fact remains that the Pill is an abortifacient. It doesn't prevent conception, it prevents implantation of the early human life on the uterine wall.
And I wish that pandera would quit forcing her morality on the rest of us.
And I wish that pandera would quit forcing her morality on the rest of us.
1.22.2013 | 6:15pm
dadfly says:
let me spell it out simply:
hobby lobby is being forced to BUY insurance, using their money, earned in their lifetime. the insurance company they are paying (private or now government run) must provide abortion and other abominations due to obamacare. abortion is an abomination to God and a sin to all true Christians. period. this money is fungible; hobby lobby cannot direct this money because of the obamacare mandate. period. thus their choice: violate their Faith by funding abortion as required by the government or stand firm with God and oppose this Evil use of their life's work.
when you're in Jesus, this is an easy choice.
hobby lobby is being forced to BUY insurance, using their money, earned in their lifetime. the insurance company they are paying (private or now government run) must provide abortion and other abominations due to obamacare. abortion is an abomination to God and a sin to all true Christians. period. this money is fungible; hobby lobby cannot direct this money because of the obamacare mandate. period. thus their choice: violate their Faith by funding abortion as required by the government or stand firm with God and oppose this Evil use of their life's work.
when you're in Jesus, this is an easy choice.
1.22.2013 | 7:12pm
Daniel says:
Howard,
All people need God -the truth is a message for all, not just those we can find receptive.
When a government is intent upon leading souls astray and as well limiting and or abolishing "the eternal rights and privileges afforded us by God" to convey the truth that comprises salvation it is our duty to confront and oppose such actions or we will be complicit in promoting such evil.
All people need God -the truth is a message for all, not just those we can find receptive.
When a government is intent upon leading souls astray and as well limiting and or abolishing "the eternal rights and privileges afforded us by God" to convey the truth that comprises salvation it is our duty to confront and oppose such actions or we will be complicit in promoting such evil.
1.22.2013 | 8:52pm
Doughlas Remy says:
Thomas: As a corporation, Hobby Lobby must abide by generally applicable laws. The religious scruples of the company’s founder do not qualify it for exemption from these laws.
How would you feel if a Muslim bought a company in, say, Georgia, and declared that employing infidels would be a violation of his religious principles? What if he fired all his Christian employees and brought in busloads of Muslims from Michigan? Would you expect the Supreme Court to uphold his right to do this?
How would you feel if a group of company owners were to form a religion called The Church of God Without Borders so that they could hire undocumented workers?
How would you feel about a company whose founder and CEO refused to pay corporate taxes because his religion forbade him to render anything at all to “Caesar”?
What if you were a strict Calvinist and believed workers should not be paid overtime? Would you expect the government to give you a pass?
How would you feel if a Muslim bought a company in, say, Georgia, and declared that employing infidels would be a violation of his religious principles? What if he fired all his Christian employees and brought in busloads of Muslims from Michigan? Would you expect the Supreme Court to uphold his right to do this?
How would you feel if a group of company owners were to form a religion called The Church of God Without Borders so that they could hire undocumented workers?
How would you feel about a company whose founder and CEO refused to pay corporate taxes because his religion forbade him to render anything at all to “Caesar”?
What if you were a strict Calvinist and believed workers should not be paid overtime? Would you expect the government to give you a pass?
1.22.2013 | 9:31pm
Doughlas Remy says:
Doughlas Remy says:
The employees earned their insurance and should be able to use it as they please. What if Hobby Lobby’s founder and CEO opposed the consumption of alcohol? Should he be allowed to stipulate that employees must not buy alcoholic beverages with their earnings?
The employees earned their insurance and should be able to use it as they please. What if Hobby Lobby’s founder and CEO opposed the consumption of alcohol? Should he be allowed to stipulate that employees must not buy alcoholic beverages with their earnings?
1.23.2013 | 9:12am
Matt Houser says:
Actually, Hobby Lobby is not yet incurring the fines because it was able to change the "year" of its health plan so it doesn't match the calendar year. Its 2012 plan year extends a few months into 2013.
1.23.2013 | 9:39am
LC says:
Why the heck are our health policies tied to employers in the first place? Why is it not a benefit given to the employee, if an employer wants to provides such a benefit, in the form of a check, that the employee can use to purchase a policy they choose? It started as employers meddling in our healthcare decisions, and it will eventually get to the government meddling in our healthcare, because after all the costs get implemented, employers will be racing to find ways to pass off the health insurance cost per employee to the government. Then we'll end up with the government telling us what foods we can or cannot eat, whether or not we may own a gun, and how many kids we cannot or that we MUST have (can you say ONE-CHILD policy [in China] and Handmaiden's Tale?) The real question is how can the human individuals in this world TAKE BACK their own decision-making ability regarding their own health care?
1.23.2013 | 9:52am
JERD says:
Doughlas Remy equates religion as a pretext to avoid compliance with a generally applicable law, to Hobby Lobby's objections. That is not this case. The teaching of the Catholic Church regrading the immorality of artificial contraception and abortion is long standing and predates the Affordable Care act by many centuries.
Doughlas Remy then uses various arguments in the vein of "argumentum absurdum." The response to all of them is simple: When a person can walk to the drug store and buy their monthly birth control for six dollars, there is no overriding legitimate reason to force an employer - over the employer's legitimate religious objections - to pay instead.
The real reason for this governmental policy is equally simple: the President's strategy is to divide and conquer those of us who in his words "cling to our religion." It looks like he is making progress.
Doughlas Remy then uses various arguments in the vein of "argumentum absurdum." The response to all of them is simple: When a person can walk to the drug store and buy their monthly birth control for six dollars, there is no overriding legitimate reason to force an employer - over the employer's legitimate religious objections - to pay instead.
The real reason for this governmental policy is equally simple: the President's strategy is to divide and conquer those of us who in his words "cling to our religion." It looks like he is making progress.
1.23.2013 | 10:23am
anon says:
Doughlas Remy says:
The employees earned their insurance and should be able to use it as they please. What if Hobby Lobby’s founder and CEO opposed the consumption of alcohol? Should he be allowed to stipulate that employees must not buy alcoholic beverages with their earnings?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No analogy at all. No one is telling employees how to spend their money. The government is making employers spend their money on immoral things.
The employees earned their insurance and should be able to use it as they please. What if Hobby Lobby’s founder and CEO opposed the consumption of alcohol? Should he be allowed to stipulate that employees must not buy alcoholic beverages with their earnings?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No analogy at all. No one is telling employees how to spend their money. The government is making employers spend their money on immoral things.
1.23.2013 | 1:22pm
Doughlas Remy says:
Doughlas Remy:
Jerd, I researched the cost of birth control and couldn’t find anything as low as the $6 a month that you cite. A USA Today article says the price varies dramatically, “from $9 a month for generic pills to $90 a month for some of the newest brands.” In addition, there must be a doctor’s visit for the prescription. More reliable options like IUDs or implants can cost $600 to $1000 and then have to be inserted by a doctor at an additional cost.
Some estimates put the average yearly cost at about $1000. Nothing to sniff at for low wage earners.
Jerd, I researched the cost of birth control and couldn’t find anything as low as the $6 a month that you cite. A USA Today article says the price varies dramatically, “from $9 a month for generic pills to $90 a month for some of the newest brands.” In addition, there must be a doctor’s visit for the prescription. More reliable options like IUDs or implants can cost $600 to $1000 and then have to be inserted by a doctor at an additional cost.
Some estimates put the average yearly cost at about $1000. Nothing to sniff at for low wage earners.
1.23.2013 | 1:32pm
Doughlas Remy says:
Doughlas Remy
Anon, you don’t like my analogy? Here’s another one for you: Should the employer have a right to terminate employment of a woman suing her husband for divorce? No, of course not. The government would say the anti-discrimination law applying to that case does not impose a “substantial burden” on the employer’s religious beliefs.
Anon, you don’t like my analogy? Here’s another one for you: Should the employer have a right to terminate employment of a woman suing her husband for divorce? No, of course not. The government would say the anti-discrimination law applying to that case does not impose a “substantial burden” on the employer’s religious beliefs.
1.23.2013 | 2:34pm
anon says:
Doughlas Remy
Anon, you don’t like my analogy? Here’s another one for you: Should the employer have a right to terminate employment of a woman suing her husband for divorce? No, of course not. The government would say the anti-discrimination law applying to that case does not impose a “substantial burden” on the employer’s religious beliefs.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
How is that analogous? The government is demanding employers spend money on immoral things. The employee is not prohibited from divorcing or buying pills to self sterilize.
Anon, you don’t like my analogy? Here’s another one for you: Should the employer have a right to terminate employment of a woman suing her husband for divorce? No, of course not. The government would say the anti-discrimination law applying to that case does not impose a “substantial burden” on the employer’s religious beliefs.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
How is that analogous? The government is demanding employers spend money on immoral things. The employee is not prohibited from divorcing or buying pills to self sterilize.
1.23.2013 | 2:37pm
anon says:
Doughlas Remy,
Following your logic the government should force employers to pay for the divorces of employees.
Following your logic the government should force employers to pay for the divorces of employees.
1.23.2013 | 3:30pm
Doughlas Remy says:
Anon, as you say, the woman in my analogy is not prohibited from divorcing. However, she loses her job if she does divorce, because her employer refuses to support an “immoral” lifestyle. Our government has rightly decided to weigh the harms to the employer against those to the employee. Continuing to employ a divorcee does not impose a substantial burden on the employer, but losing her job does impose a very, very substantial burden on the divorcee. Our government has a compelling interest in keeping people employed. This interest trumps but does not invalidate individuals’ interest in honoring their religious convictions. The government has shown its willingness to make reasonable accommodations. (through the Religious Freedom Restoration Act)
1.23.2013 | 3:44pm
JERD says:
Doughlas Remy: The difference between $6 and $9 is inconsequential and has no material effect on the argument.
The appeal to other more expensive means of birth control is curious. The reason for the Affordable Care Act was to make health care more "affordable." It is ironic that the justification for overriding First Amendment protections is that the employee is entitled to the most expensive birth control.
The appeal to other more expensive means of birth control is curious. The reason for the Affordable Care Act was to make health care more "affordable." It is ironic that the justification for overriding First Amendment protections is that the employee is entitled to the most expensive birth control.
1.23.2013 | 3:49pm
Doughlas Remy says:
Anon, my analogy rests on one area of commonality between two scenarios--one hypothetical and the other actual. No one-to-one mapping is necessary for the analogy to be valid. What the scenarios have in common is that in each of them, the employer’s religious convictions are in conflict with his employee’s use of the salary and benefits that she has earned.
The salient point is that the government wants all women to have access to contraceptive coverage. Women should not be denied this coverage just because they happen to work for Hobby Lobby.
The salient point is that the government wants all women to have access to contraceptive coverage. Women should not be denied this coverage just because they happen to work for Hobby Lobby.
1.23.2013 | 5:19pm
Doughlas Remy says:
Jerd, $9 is the minimum but not the average, and $9 may be an hour’s wage for some workers. Add in the doctor’s visit, and the cost is not “inconsequential.”
Whether you think a contraceptive device is too expensive is simply immaterial. The decision is between the employee, her doctor, and the insurance company. It is unusual for employers to meddle in these decisions, and contraceptive coverage is, after all, a government mandate for which there is very broad-based popular support. I think it is here to stay, considering the recent Pew Research Center findings about public attitudes regarding abortion and contraception. For the younger generation, contraception is mostly not an issue.
Whether you think a contraceptive device is too expensive is simply immaterial. The decision is between the employee, her doctor, and the insurance company. It is unusual for employers to meddle in these decisions, and contraceptive coverage is, after all, a government mandate for which there is very broad-based popular support. I think it is here to stay, considering the recent Pew Research Center findings about public attitudes regarding abortion and contraception. For the younger generation, contraception is mostly not an issue.
1.23.2013 | 6:16pm
Zack Skrip says:
D. Remy,
Please, make an analogy that is analogous. Things you need: A) Employer with religious convictions B) Over-reaching Government C) Said government FORCING the Employer to spend its own money on items or services against its religious convictions.
So, would you be against the government forcing a muslim man to purchase bibles or vedas for his employees? I would. Would you be against the government forcing a mormon employer to stock his breakroom with coffee? I would. But yet you aren't against the government forcing a christian employer to purchase a type of insurance that would make him somewhat complicit in the murder of unborn babies?
Before now, the employer has had the right/opportunity to decide what type of benefits to offer. Some (like the company I work for) offer incredible benefits, some cannot afford to offer any at all. Now HL is being forced to offer a particular type of coverage that goes against their religious convictions. That is why this has nothing to do with how the employee spends their income, because this used to be at the choice of the employer, not the employee.
Dude, they're murdering babies. Think about it.
Please, make an analogy that is analogous. Things you need: A) Employer with religious convictions B) Over-reaching Government C) Said government FORCING the Employer to spend its own money on items or services against its religious convictions.
So, would you be against the government forcing a muslim man to purchase bibles or vedas for his employees? I would. Would you be against the government forcing a mormon employer to stock his breakroom with coffee? I would. But yet you aren't against the government forcing a christian employer to purchase a type of insurance that would make him somewhat complicit in the murder of unborn babies?
Before now, the employer has had the right/opportunity to decide what type of benefits to offer. Some (like the company I work for) offer incredible benefits, some cannot afford to offer any at all. Now HL is being forced to offer a particular type of coverage that goes against their religious convictions. That is why this has nothing to do with how the employee spends their income, because this used to be at the choice of the employer, not the employee.
Dude, they're murdering babies. Think about it.
1.24.2013 | 12:10am
Virginia says:
"What if Hobby Lobby’s founder and CEO opposed the consumption of alcohol? Should he be allowed to stipulate that employees must not buy alcoholic beverages with their earnings? "
Should he be forced to pay for his employees' booze?
Seems to me the employees should continue to pay for their own liquor and contraceptives as they presumably have been doing all along.
Should he be forced to pay for his employees' booze?
Seems to me the employees should continue to pay for their own liquor and contraceptives as they presumably have been doing all along.
1.24.2013 | 8:29am
JERD says:
Doughlas Remy: (Final Post)
For the sum of 9$, for the sake of validating contemporary "public attitudes" and "public support," and to soothe the feelings of the "younger generation," we betray our natural and constitutional right to the free exercise of religion.
At least we should have held out for 30 pieces of silver too.
Lamb of God . . . have mercy on us all.
For the sum of 9$, for the sake of validating contemporary "public attitudes" and "public support," and to soothe the feelings of the "younger generation," we betray our natural and constitutional right to the free exercise of religion.
At least we should have held out for 30 pieces of silver too.
Lamb of God . . . have mercy on us all.
1.24.2013 | 1:38pm
Anon says:
1.23.2013 | 3:49pm
Doughlas Remy says:
Anon, my analogy rests on one area of commonality between two scenarios--one hypothetical and the other actual. No one-to-one mapping is necessary for the analogy to be valid. What the scenarios have in common is that in each of them, the employer’s religious convictions are in conflict with his employee’s use of the salary and benefits that she has earned.
The salient point is that the government wants all women to have access to contraceptive coverage. Women should not be denied this coverage just because they happen to work for Hobby Lobby.
---------------------------------------------
Your analogies are false. No one is dictating what employees can do with their money. The government is demanding that employers spend their money on specific sexual products. How can you not see this vast and obvious difference?
Doughlas Remy says:
Anon, my analogy rests on one area of commonality between two scenarios--one hypothetical and the other actual. No one-to-one mapping is necessary for the analogy to be valid. What the scenarios have in common is that in each of them, the employer’s religious convictions are in conflict with his employee’s use of the salary and benefits that she has earned.
The salient point is that the government wants all women to have access to contraceptive coverage. Women should not be denied this coverage just because they happen to work for Hobby Lobby.
---------------------------------------------
Your analogies are false. No one is dictating what employees can do with their money. The government is demanding that employers spend their money on specific sexual products. How can you not see this vast and obvious difference?
1.24.2013 | 1:56pm
Doughlas Remy says:
Virginia, to answer your question (“Should HL’s CEO be forced to pay for his employees’ booze?”): No, certainly not, unless he stipulated in the employment contract that he would do so. But if the employment contract promises a salary and benefits, then the employee would have every right to buy booze, Italian cheroots, Crispy Cremes, or anything else that is legal. The salary and benefits are earned by the employee, who has a right to use them as she sees fit. The federal government has mandated that most health insurance plans must cover preventive services for women. So there is no need for HL’s CEO to have a guilty conscience. The decision to use the services offered by the plan is entirely the employee’s, not his. The coverage offered by the plan is mandated, and so he is absolved from all responsibility.
1.24.2013 | 2:05pm
Doughlas Remy says:
Zack, to answer your hypothetical about the government’s forcing Muslims to buy bibles for their employees:
I cannot imagine any circumstances in which the government would have a “compelling interest” in forcing employers to purchase Bibles for their employees. But if there were one, then yes, that compelling interest would trump the Muslim’s religion convictions. In France, Muslim girls have been forbidden to wear the veil in public school classrooms, and in this country, Sikh boys may not wear swords to class though their religion requires them to do so.
The point, once again, is that the state tries to accommodate religious belief and in fact bends over backwards to do so. But there are cases, like this one, where other priorities assert themselves. I think it’s best for religious folks to just understand that they cannot always get everything they want in the public sphere--especially when that sphere is as secularized as it has become in this country and Europe.
I cannot imagine any circumstances in which the government would have a “compelling interest” in forcing employers to purchase Bibles for their employees. But if there were one, then yes, that compelling interest would trump the Muslim’s religion convictions. In France, Muslim girls have been forbidden to wear the veil in public school classrooms, and in this country, Sikh boys may not wear swords to class though their religion requires them to do so.
The point, once again, is that the state tries to accommodate religious belief and in fact bends over backwards to do so. But there are cases, like this one, where other priorities assert themselves. I think it’s best for religious folks to just understand that they cannot always get everything they want in the public sphere--especially when that sphere is as secularized as it has become in this country and Europe.
1.24.2013 | 5:54pm
Virginia says:
"The federal government has mandated that most health insurance plans must cover preventive services for women. So there is no need for HL’s CEO to have a guilty conscience. The decision to use the services offered by the plan is entirely the employee’s, not his. The coverage offered by the plan is mandated, and so he is absolved from all responsibility."
so "the government made me do it" is supposed to salve a conscience? Are you kidding?
so "the government made me do it" is supposed to salve a conscience? Are you kidding?
1.24.2013 | 6:53pm
Doughlas Remy says:
Virginia, if HL's CEO feels that strongly about it, then he'll do whatever he'll do. I don't think contraceptive coverage is quite on a par with war crimes, however. There is no Geneva Treaty prohibiting it. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not refer to it. The European Court of Human Rights has not declared against it. Nor has the U.S. government. So I think it's okay if he just decides to let it go. That's up to him, however. As far as I am concerned, he will just cut off his nose to spite his face if he assets to paying 1.3 million per day in fines for this. I think he's over-reacting, but you are certainly free to disagree.
1.24.2013 | 11:30pm
Virginia says:
Doughlas Remy,
You still don't get it. It doesn't matter if you don't think contraceptive coverage is on the level of war crimes. It isn't your conscience that is being violated. Just because something is legal or protected by the likes of the UN or USG does not mean it is moral and we should all go along with it.
It is especially objectionable to cite the US government as an authority whose rulings on abortifacients should "make it OK" for pro-life employers to just "let it go". It's the US government that has inserted itself between people and their consciences. The US Government is oppressive. Try to empathize--- is there nothing that you would refuse to participate in even if the government orders you to do so?
You still don't get it. It doesn't matter if you don't think contraceptive coverage is on the level of war crimes. It isn't your conscience that is being violated. Just because something is legal or protected by the likes of the UN or USG does not mean it is moral and we should all go along with it.
It is especially objectionable to cite the US government as an authority whose rulings on abortifacients should "make it OK" for pro-life employers to just "let it go". It's the US government that has inserted itself between people and their consciences. The US Government is oppressive. Try to empathize--- is there nothing that you would refuse to participate in even if the government orders you to do so?
1.27.2013 | 8:04pm
John2 says:
@Virginia,
Got it. Legal is not always moral, although it is intended to be so. The Greens are an example for us all.
Got it. Legal is not always moral, although it is intended to be so. The Greens are an example for us all.
