hobby lobby

This week we’ve been exposed to plentiful perspectives regarding the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision.  First, a factual synopsis prior to the point of today’s post, as reported by the Independent Journal Review:

“In the 5-4 ruling, the court sided with Hobby Lobby in its effort to prevent the Affordable Care Act from mandating that the company cover emergency contraceptives Plan B and ella, as well as intrauterine devices, to female employees; it will still provide most other forms of birth control to its employees…  Hobby Lobby argued that the requirement was in direct violation to the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prevents the government from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion. This is the first time the Court has ruled in favor of a for-profit company presenting a case to defend religious freedom.”

In the wake of schismatic societal response, I am a bit stunned; the rants fill the rhetorical realm.  From those who declare “an incredible victory for people of faith” to yet another “war on women” (… didn’t we learn anything from the Gabby Giffords shooting?) to a House Rep’s intentional unwillingness to call the court’s majority opinion writer a “justice” — I have two, actually uniting, current conclusions.  One, we are often an arrogant people; and two, our opinions are laced with contradiction.

The arrogant aspect is easy.  Allow me to first acknowledge wrestling with my own arrogance on a regular basis.  It’s not attractive; and it creeps in so easily, subtly, and seemingly justifiably.  Arrogance is not just the “I’m right and he’s wrong” attitude; it’s the “I’m right and there’s no possible way I’m wrong” idea. There is a notable lack of humility in the rhetorical response that is most disappointing to this observer.  Persons on all sides who preach respect and tolerance show that their tolerance is often only advocated within agreement.  Therein lies one of the initial contradictions.

Another contradiction that seems glaring from a more removed perspective is the way in which all sides of an issue utilize the colloquial classic of wanting the “government out of our bedrooms and boardrooms.”  In other words, we don’t need legislation dictating our individual, private activity.  But yet, we call on the government when it’s convenient.  On both sides of issues, we chomp and cheer when government rules what we can and cannot do — what’s appropriate and not.  Allow me to humbly submit the following as perhaps a truly inconvenient truth:  what would be wrong with the government completely staying out of it?  That means the government refraining from personal regulation… refraining, for example, from restricting or supplying birth control… refraining from any definition of marriage.  It means recognizing that the government is not our nation’s highest moral authority — and that it is incapable of being that authority, as no law or legislation is capable of convicting the individual heart.  Last I looked, the convictor of truth concerning righteousness and wrongdoing had zero to do with the federal government.

One final aspect of the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. decision, no less, is one that too many have too quickly dismissed.  The fact is that many activist groups have self-serving purposes which are prompting them to inflame minute aspects of the court’s opinion.  Their intentional, manipulative goal is to rile us up in order to advance their own cause.  Allow me a simple question:  since when have women’s rights and religious freedom diabolically opposed one another?  Can they not co-exist?  To assume they cannot is an illogical conclusion.

No one will like what I’m about to say, but I also have no desire to be disrespectful.  The Hobby Lobby decision is neither a major “defeat” for women nor a major “victory” for the faithful.  Women and faith are not in opposition to one another.  But we continually justify pitting one thing against another in the “must-always-have-a-winner-or-loser” society in which we live.  That pitting divides us.  And my sorrowful sense is that the activist groups, politicians, and loyal followers actually intend for that division — because it prompts us to act; it makes us want to go out and do something.  As witnessed by the week’s ongoing vitriol, the approach is unfortunately effective.  Friends, know that the narrow Hobby Lobby ruling acknowledged that birth control can still be available to all, but that a small, “closely held” company should not have to pay for the all.  A viable, resulting question is the implied personhood of the company.  Another viable question is how many other ambiguities exist within Obamacare — and why can’t we fix them via something other than the administration’s very controlled, calculated Executive Orders.

I have a few more brief questions resulting from this decision.  First, can the morals of a company be placed upon its employees?  Second, can the morals of an administration be placed upon its citizens?  And one more:  do we support one of those moral impositions but not the other?  Hence, I ask: are there other ways in which we are laced with contradiction?

Respectfully… always…

AR