NYT Wants Supreme Court To Impose Its Religious Views On Hobby Lobby

March 24, 2014 8:04 pm 0 comments

From OneNewSNow

The New York Times has it all wrong. The right to the free exercise of religion doesn’t belong to organizations: it belongs to individuals – and organizations like Hobby Lobby have that right because the individuals who make them up have that right.

The New York Times blithely and blindly contradicts itself in its column arguing for a flatly immoral and unconstitutional ruling from the Supreme Court against Hobby Lobby. Oral arguments will be heard tomorrow on whether Hobby Lobby’s owners, against their will, their conscience and their religious convictions, can be forced to provide abortion-causing drugs to their employees at their own expense.

It’s worth noting at the outset that no one who works for Hobby Lobby is being denied their “right” to buy abortion-inducing contraceptives. They can still do it, on their own time and on their own dime. Nothing, absolutely nothing that Hobby Lobby is doing here endangers that “right.” Hobby Lobby simply does not want its corporate resources used to kill babies. If some corporations want their assets used to protect the environment, it certainly should be permissible for other corporations to use their assets to protect human life.

The Times argues that it is wrong for Hobby Lobby’s owners to “impose their religious views on their employees.” But they apparently believe it’s perfectly fine for the justices on the Supreme Court to “impose their religious views” on employers. This is a spectacularly disingenuous position for the Times to take.

If imposing religious and moral values on others is wrong, as the Times contends, then it’s wrong when anybody does it to anybody. The Court, if the Times is right, has no more ethical authority to do this than anyone else. But that’s exactly what the Times want the Supremes to do – to impose their own moral views of the sanctity of life on the owners of a private business.

So the Times is blind to the plain fact that, according to its own value system, it wants to allow the Supremes to do something grossly immoral and unethical on the grounds of morality and ethics. Not only is this nauseatingly hypocritical, it is nothing less than an argument for abject tyranny. It reveals a staggering level of obtuseness on the part of the Times, whose editors are apparently unable even to see the double-standard and self-contradiction manifest in their own editorial.

The Times also trivializes the financial impact of an adverse Supreme Court decision. “[E]mployers,” says the Times, “are not actually required to offer employee health plans. They could instead pay a tax to help support the government subsidies that are available to those using a health insurance exchange.” Well, that “tax” in Hobby Lobby’s case would amount to $1.2 million per day, which would bankrupt them in a matter of weeks. Easy for the Times to say. It’s not their money or their jobs which are at risk.

The Times condescendingly sneers at the views of Hobby Lobby’s owners by dismissing them as nothing more than a matter of their “personal disappro(val”) of certain contraceptives. But this is not a matter of “personal disapproval.” It is a matter of the deeply-held conviction that God himself disapproves of the termination of the lives innocent human beings, even in their earliest stages of development.

The Times tries to hide behind the ruse that Hobby Lobby is not a “person” but a corporation.  ”[F]or-profit corporations are not ‘persons’ capable of prayer or other religious behavior.” Then why is every store in the Hobby Lobby chain closed every Sunday? Since they are closed because Sunday is the Lord’s Day, that certainly sounds like “religious behavior” to any objective observer.

The manifest problem here is that the owners of Hobby Lobby are, in fact, persons, who have deeply held religious views on the nature of life in the womb, and possess a constitutional right to exercise those religious views in every part of their lives, including the way they run their business.

This right to the free exercise of religion does not belong to organizations: it belongs to individuals. Organizations have them because the individuals who make them up have them. The Court has already affirmed this view of First Amendment rights in its Citizens United ruling. Every right in the Bill of Rights is an individual right; not one is a group or organizational right. Churches, for example, have religious liberty and assembly rights because every individual who attends has them.

In point of fact, every American has an individual right to the free exercise of religion, and he does not have to check that right at the door when he walks into his office on Monday morning.

The Times argues that no one is depriving the owners of Hobby Lobby of their freedom of “worship.” Says the Times, “The companies’ owners remain free to worship as they choose.”  But the Constitution does not guarantee freedom of “worship,” it guarantees the “free exercise” of religion. The “exercise” of religion cannot be boxed into the four walls of church buildings on Sundays from 11 a.m. to noon. It is a constitutional right, that, like every other single right in the Constitution, is in effect 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

The position of the Times‘ editors on the extent of the Constitution’s protection of First Amendment rights is manifestly absurd. Would they ever accept the proposition that the Times itself possesses freedom of the press only one hour a week, or only inside the Times‘ building, or only when the Supreme Court says it does?

Or, to pick another example, would they accept the view that freedom of speech is a right that can only be exercised one hour a week, say on Fridays from 11 a.m. to noon, inside particular buildings, but verboten in public the rest of the week?

The Times essentially is saying that the constitutional right to freedom of religion is not being infringed as long as Christians are allowed an hour a week of liberty. That doesn’t sound like liberty – it sounds like solitary confinement with 23 hours in a cell and an hour a day in the yard.

The Times‘ view is fundamentally no different than arguing that Americans can still have slaves 167 hours a week and not be in violation of the 13th Amendment as long as they give those slaves that one hour a week to do anything they want.

Bottom line: Either freedom and liberty belong to us all every second of every day or they do not belong to us at all.

It’s worth noting at the outset that no one who works for Hobby Lobby is being denied their “right” to buy abortion-inducing contraceptives. They can still do it, on their own time and on their own dime. Nothing, absolutely nothing that Hobby Lobby is doing here endangers that “right.” Hobby Lobby simply does not want its corporate resources used to kill babies. If some corporations want their assets used to protect the environment, it certainly should be permissible for other corporations to use their assets to protect human life.

The Times argues that it is wrong for Hobby Lobby’s owners to “impose their religious views on their employees.” But they apparently believe it’s perfectly fine for the justices on the Supreme Court to “impose their religious views” on employers. This is a spectacularly disingenuous position for the Times to take.

If imposing religious and moral values on others is wrong, as the Times contends, then it’s wrong when anybody does it to anybody. The Court, if the Times is right, has no more ethical authority to do this than anyone else. But that’s exactly what the Times want the Supremes to do – to impose their own moral views of the sanctity of life on the owners of a private business.

So the Times is blind to the plain fact that, according to its own value system, it wants to allow the Supremes to do something grossly immoral and unethical on the grounds of morality and ethics. Not only is this nauseatingly hypocritical, it is nothing less than an argument for abject tyranny. It reveals a staggering level of obtuseness on the part of the Times, whose editors are apparently unable even to see the double-standard and self-contradiction manifest in their own editorial.

The Times also trivializes the financial impact of an adverse Supreme Court decision. “[E]mployers,” says the Times, “are not actually required to offer employee health plans. They could instead pay a tax to help support the government subsidies that are available to those using a health insurance exchange.” Well, that “tax” in Hobby Lobby’s case would amount to $1.2 million per day, which would bankrupt them in a matter of weeks. Easy for the Times to say. It’s not their money or their jobs which are at risk.

The Times condescendingly sneers at the views of Hobby Lobby’s owners by dismissing them as nothing more than a matter of their “personal disappro(val”) of certain contraceptives. But this is not a matter of “personal disapproval.” It is a matter of the deeply-held conviction that God himself disapproves of the termination of the lives innocent human beings, even in their earliest stages of development.

The Times tries to hide behind the ruse that Hobby Lobby is not a “person” but a corporation.  ”[F]or-profit corporations are not ‘persons’ capable of prayer or other religious behavior.” Then why is every store in the Hobby Lobby chain closed every Sunday? Since they are closed because Sunday is the Lord’s Day, that certainly sounds like “religious behavior” to any objective observer.

The manifest problem here is that the owners of Hobby Lobby are, in fact, persons, who have deeply held religious views on the nature of life in the womb, and possess a constitutional right to exercise those religious views in every part of their lives, including the way they run their business.

This right to the free exercise of religion does not belong to organizations: it belongs to individuals. Organizations have them because the individuals who make them up have them. The Court has already affirmed this view of First Amendment rights in its Citizens United ruling. Every right in the Bill of Rights is an individual right; not one is a group or organizational right. Churches, for example, have religious liberty and assembly rights because every individual who attends has them.

In point of fact, every American has an individual right to the free exercise of religion, and he does not have to check that right at the door when he walks into his office on Monday morning.

The Times argues that no one is depriving the owners of Hobby Lobby of their freedom of “worship.” Says the Times, “The companies’ owners remain free to worship as they choose.”  But the Constitution does not guarantee freedom of “worship,” it guarantees the “free exercise” of religion. The “exercise” of religion cannot be boxed into the four walls of church buildings on Sundays from 11 a.m. to noon. It is a constitutional right, that, like every other single right in the Constitution, is in effect 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

The position of the Times‘ editors on the extent of the Constitution’s protection of First Amendment rights is manifestly absurd. Would they ever accept the proposition that the Times itself possesses freedom of the press only one hour a week, or only inside the Times‘ building, or only when the Supreme Court says it does?

Or, to pick another example, would they accept the view that freedom of speech is a right that can only be exercised one hour a week, say on Fridays from 11 a.m. to noon, inside particular buildings, but verboten in public the rest of the week?

The Times essentially is saying that the constitutional right to freedom of religion is not being infringed as long as Christians are allowed an hour a week of liberty. That doesn’t sound like liberty – it sounds like solitary confinement with 23 hours in a cell and an hour a day in the yard.

The Times‘ view is fundamentally no different than arguing that Americans can still have slaves 167 hours a week and not be in violation of the 13th Amendment as long as they give those slaves that one hour a week to do anything they want.

Bottom line: Either freedom and liberty belong to us all every second of every day or they do not belong to us at all.

Bryan Fischer is director of issues analysis for the American Family Association. He hosts “Focal Point with Bryan Fischer” every weekday on AFR Talk from 1:00 – 3:00 p.m. (Central).

Leave a Reply


Trackbacks

Other News

  • Christian Persecution World Russia Declares ‘Holy War’ On Islamic State

    Russia Declares ‘Holy War’ On Islamic State

    The Orthodox Christian Church, which is reclaiming its traditional role in post-Soviet Russia, has just described its government’s fight against the Islamic State and other jihadi groups in Syria as a “holy war.”

    According to Vsevolod Chaplin, head of the Church’s Public Affairs Department,

    The fight with terrorism is a holy battle and today our country is perhaps the most active force in the world fighting it. The Russian Federation has made a responsible decision on the use of armed forces to defend the People of Syria from the sorrows caused by the arbitrariness of terrorists. Christians are suffering in the region with the kidnapping of clerics and the destruction of churches. Muslims are suffering no less.

    This is not a pretext to justify intervention in Syria.

    Read more →
  • 2nd Amendment Faith Oregon Shooting – When Tragedy Happens Let’s Focus On The Cause And Not The Tools Used

    Oregon Shooting – When Tragedy Happens Let’s Focus On The Cause And Not The Tools Used

    While the blood was still dripping from those martyrs who, in front of an evil man armed with a gun, asked them if they were Christians and those strong in the faith said they were. He shot them in the head. While those who were lost or weak said nothing he spared their lives and shot them in their legs.

    Barrack Hussein Obama angrily ran to the cameras to use this opportunity to say that guns being in the hands of the law-abiding Americans is the problem, and we need to restrict the 2nd amendment to spare the lives of “we the people.”

    This is nuts; guns do not kill people, people kill people! You can test this fact in your own home right now. (Do not worry no one will get hurt).

    Read more →
  • 2nd Amendment Faith Gun Free Zones Are Killing Zones

    Gun Free Zones Are Killing Zones

    How did you feel when you heard of the shootings in Oregon this week? Was the first thing that came to your mind the thought that if we only had stricter gun control legislation, this kind of tragedy could have been prevented?

    If you listened to idiotic liberals, like President Barack “Insane” Obama, you might believe that. It is my contention that liberalism is a mental disorder based on the rejection of God and His principles, and extreme irresponsibility.

    Read more →
  • National Where’s the Beef, in Republican candidates, in 2015?

    Where’s the Beef, in Republican candidates, in 2015?

    What type of Republican Leader do you want in 2015?

    As we look at elections coming up quickly in 2015, as well as the very important 2016 election cycle, what type of “Republican” leaders do you want to shape the future of your county and country?

    Do you ever wonder why it is that the current crop of Republicans are not declaring, at every media interview, “These ills have been brought to you by the Democrat Party!” when speaking of Obamacare, the hordes of immigrants being allowed to destroy our country, the Iranian nuclear treaty, the “Black Lives Matter” racial division rhetoric, the attack on the defense of marriage, the 94 million Americans not currently in the work force,

    Read more →
  • National Child protection services Sentences Baby To Death ON 9/11/2015

    Child protection services Sentences Baby To Death ON 9/11/2015

    Child protection services should be self-explanatory based on the simplicity of its name. But they are doing exactly opposite of their name in many places. Wynne, Arkansas is one such place.

    A baby has been sentenced to death and will be executed on Friday, September 11, 2015 and Arkansas Department of HUMAN SERVICES (DHS) – Division of Children and Family Services- Central Office will facilitate the delivery of the baby’s 10-year-old to the abortion clinic.

    On August 29, 2015 20-year-old Justin Smith was arrested and charged with three counts of rape and one count of endangering the welfare of a minor. His “alleged” victim is a 10-year-old.

    Read more →