Today in court Hobby Lobby is asserting that because certain owners of the company are Christians, the for profit business is also “Christian” and should be allowed to forego supplying coverage that goes against their conscience, i.e. birth control. They feel this way because they believe some types of birth control can be abortifacient. Rather than allowing women and their doctors to discuss all the options available and decide on the best course of action, Hobby Lobby would also like to make sure the insurance they provide does not even cover such discussions if they involve the types of birth control they disapprove of. Nevermind the fact that they sell thousands of products made in China, a country which encourages (and sometimes mandates) abortion if it is necessary to maintain the one child policy. Forget about the fact that employees can use the money they are paid (by Hobby Lobby) to engage in other activities (sins) the owners may feel offend their conscience when they are off the clock (or shall we also allow them to decide how their employees spend that money as well, perhaps the employees should have to provide expense receipts to justify their choices so that Hobby Lobby can avoid inadvertently financing what they consider sinful activities). Perhaps they should just set up an old school company store and employees could live in a company town where only Hobby Lobby approved, sin free products and activities are condoned. Sorry for the snark, but honestly, it is just nuts.
Do they not understand that contributing to the cost of an employee’s government mandated health care plan which may or may not mean they choose a birth control method they disapprove of is NO DIFFERENT than giving them a paycheck that the employee then uses to buy the EXACT SAME type of birth control? It is the same money! It came from the same place! You bear the exact same responsibility for the employee’s choice of birth control and you should have the exact same amount of say in that choice…NONE!
Hobby Lobby’s supporters also say, as do all the defenders of the various “turn away the gay” laws, that they are merely fighting for their constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom. The first amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. In the decision written by Chief Justice Waite, however, the Supreme Court in Reynolds v. United States ruled that “Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order,” and that allowing people (and in this case Hobby Lobby) to do so “would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government would exist only in name under such circumstances.” Personally, this is why I am confident (and will be extremely disappointed if the Court comes back with any other decision) that the Supreme Court will rule for the government in this case.
In other news, yesterday World Vision, a Christian non-profit agency whose mission is providing “emergency assistance to children and families affected by natural disasters and civil conflict, work[ing] with communities to develop long-term solutions to alleviate poverty, and advocat[ing] for justice on behalf of the poor, set the evangelical world on fire by stating that:
…since World Vision is a multi-denominational organization that welcomes employees from more than 50 denominations, and since a number of these denominations in recent years have sanctioned same-sex marriage for Christians, the board—in keeping with our practice of deferring to church authority in the lives of our staff, and desiring to treat all of our employees equally—chose to adjust our policy. Thus, the board has modified our Employee Standards of Conduct to allow a Christian in a legal same-sex marriage to be employed at World Vision.
Since World Vision’s announcement, the evangelical world has their knickers in a twist. Benjamin L. Corey sarcastically translated the collective twitter rants on Formerly Fundie:
“I have sponsored this child for many years now and built a relationship with them. Yes, I know that this is a specific child with a real name and real story who will miss my letters. I know that this child may end up dying from lack of access to clean water or medicine without my help. I understand that without the education my donation provides, this child is at high risk of a life of trafficking and exploitation. Yes, I know that my donation makes sure they get three square meals a day and that without it, they’re going to be hungry. But, I simply must abandon this child now that I realize Janice from accounting has a wife.”
The best (and by best I mean worst) part of the comments for me are the folks who say it is World Vision’s fault that these kids are going to go without now. They have no choice but to pull their support. WOW. Really? You really only give money to people who agree with you 100% on what is sin and what isn’t or do you only give money to the people who sin like you do? I mean come on, isn’t that what it comes down to? Many of us would prefer that people only committed the “sins” we are comfortable with. But wait, we are talking unrepentant sin here. Really? How about we stop contributing money to organizations who hire people who are gluttons? Maybe we should stop giving money to organizations that hire people who are divorced and remarried? Or having sex before marriage (none of us have done that, right? Oh snap, some of us have.) So here we sit, World Vision tries to be inclusive of all of the beliefs of the 50 denominations of people they employ and THEY are cutting off the kids? If only Jesus had given us some clear direction in all of this, then we might know what to do. Oh wait, he did.
These arguments would be simpler if only Jesus had said something like “Whatever you did for the least of these you did for me” #WorldVision
— Micah J. Murray (@micahjmurray) March 25, 2014
As Kristen Howerton said on her post on Rage Against the Minivan,
Is access to food, water, and education trumped by keeping gay people out of a job at a nonprofit? If we want to serve people, we should not make distinctions about who we serve, and we should not deny those we serve out of disunity or division. It’s astounding to me that Christians would take food from starving children because a gay person might have helped in getting it there…I’m also just so, so dismayed that this is yet another instance in which Christians are telling the world that their feelings about gay people are stronger than their compassion. That their anger over gay employees is greater than their anger over starving children.
I cannot for the life of me understand people who would rather see all Hobby Lobby employees lose their jobs (the owners have threatened to close their stores if they lose) to protect the religious sensibilities of the owners (who coincidentally also sin) than see some of their employees be allowed their choice of birth control (some of which Hobby Lobby deem sinful). These are the same people who would rather have the child they sponsor be left wondering why they were dropped than continue allowing World Vision to use their funds to be the hands and feet of Jesus because the dude who is in charge of bringing clean water to villages in developing countries is married to a man named Jim instead of a woman named Jane. Jesus wept.
There are tons of ways to help World Vision. You can fund a microloan, sponsor a child, provide disaster relief, buy handmade gifts for friends, or choose any one of several items to give from their catalog including water wells, anti-trafficking aid, farm animals, schooling and many many more. Please go visit WorldVision.org and lend your support today.
6 thoughts on “World Vision vs Hobby Lobby”
Interesting that you bring up the injustice of removing support of a child in a poor neighborhood because the dude delivering the help is married to Jim and yet you condemn Hobby Lobby’s owners that are not desiring to to participate in the killing of pre-born children in the insurance they offer their employees. Your arguments lack credibility and integrity as you blast out your apparent agenda.
I have a World Vision child that I will continue to sponsor but am very disappointed in the stand they have taken. I believe they have compromised the authority of scripture and damaged their witness to the world.
Jim – Hobby Lobby is not being asked to participate in the killing of pre-born children in the insurance they offer their employees.
The company admits in its complaint that until it considered filing the suit in 2012, its generous health insurance plan actually covered Plan B and Ella (though not IUDs). The burden of this coverage was apparently so insignificant that God, and Hobby Lobby executives, never noticed it until the mandate became a political issue.
And even more interesting is this:
The company argues that emergency contraception pills, such as Ella and Plan B, destroy fertilized eggs by interfering with implantation in the uterus. Hobby Lobby’s owners consider this abortion. But the pills don’t work that way. When Plan B first came on the market in 1999, its mechanism for preventing unplanned pregnancies wasn’t entirely clear. That’s why the FDA-approved labeling reflected some uncertainty and said that the pills “theoretically” prevent pregnancy by interfering with implantation. Since then, though, there has been a lot of research on how these pills work, and the findings are definitive: They prevent pregnancy by blocking ovulation. In fact, they don’t work once ovulation has occurred. As Corbin recently wrote in a law review article, “Every reputable scientific study to examine Plan B’s mechanism has concluded that these pills prevent fertilization from occurring in the first place…In short, Plan B is contraception.”
Liz, your explanation of Plan B is not my understanding of this “contraception.” I haven’t found a quick explanation from a credible source but i will continue to look. if as you say it prevents ovulation, then I stand corrected. I am really only concerned with coerced participation in taking a life. Thank you.
Jim here are a couple resources…
Click to access Health%20Progress%20JanFeb2010.%20Plan%20B%20How%20It%20Works.pdf
Thanks for those links. As Jim mentioned the issue entirely is one of whether or not this drug prevents a fertilized egg(potential human) from being essentially flushed out of the uterus. From doing some quick research it seems that at the very least that mode of prevention is under intense debate and most research points to the probability that it does not prevent implantation. I was incredibly opposed to Plan B. Knowing this now I probably still wouldn’t want it used with my wife(due to the small uncertainty left), but if someone did decide to use it I don’t think I’d have any issue with it.
Seriously, if this research that plan B does not act as an abortifacient was known widely I feel like at least most of the discussion could be put to rest. I mean really my objection rests only on the claim that this contraceptive method does prevent human life. If that claim is untrue praise God.
You may also find this article interesting…