{"id":3438,"date":"2014-07-03T06:03:53","date_gmt":"2014-07-03T10:03:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/intramuralist.com\/?p=3438"},"modified":"2014-07-03T06:22:08","modified_gmt":"2014-07-03T10:22:08","slug":"hobby-lobby-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/intramuralist.com\/?p=3438","title":{"rendered":"hobby lobby"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"HOBBY<\/a>This week we\u2019ve been exposed to plentiful perspectives regarding the Supreme Court\u2019s Hobby Lobby decision.\u00a0 First, a factual synopsis prior to the point of today\u2019s post, as reported by the Independent Journal Review:<\/p>\n

“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\u00a0emergency contraceptives Plan B and ella, as well as\u00a0intrauterine devices, to\u00a0female employees; it will still provide most other forms of birth control to its employees…\u00a0 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\u2019s 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.”<\/i><\/p>\n

In the wake of schismatic societal response, I am a bit stunned; the rants fill the rhetorical realm.\u00a0 From those who declare \u201can incredible victory for people of faith\u201d to yet another \u201cwar<\/i> on women\u201d (… didn\u2019t we learn anything from the Gabby Giffords shooting?)<\/i> to a House Rep\u2019s intentional unwillingness to call the court\u2019s majority opinion writer a \u201cjustice\u201d — I have two, actually uniting, current conclusions.\u00a0 One, we are often an arrogant people; and two, our opinions are laced with contradiction.<\/p>\n

The arrogant aspect is easy.\u00a0 Allow me to first acknowledge wrestling with my own arrogance on a regular basis.\u00a0 It\u2019s not attractive; and it creeps in so easily, subtly, and seemingly justifiably.\u00a0 Arrogance is not just the \u201cI\u2019m right and he\u2019s wrong\u201d<\/i> attitude; it\u2019s the \u201cI\u2019m right and there\u2019s no possible way I\u2019m wrong\u201d<\/i><\/b> idea. There is a notable lack of humility in the rhetorical response that is most disappointing to this observer.\u00a0 Persons on all sides who preach respect and tolerance show that their tolerance is often only advocated within agreement.\u00a0 Therein lies one of the initial contradictions.<\/p>\n

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 \u201cgovernment out of our bedrooms and boardrooms.\u201d\u00a0 In other words, we don\u2019t need legislation dictating our individual, private activity.\u00a0 But yet, we call on the government when it\u2019s convenient.\u00a0 On both sides of issues, we chomp and cheer when government rules what we can and cannot do — what\u2019s appropriate and not.\u00a0 Allow me to humbly submit the following as perhaps a truly inconvenient truth:\u00a0 what would be wrong with the government completely staying out of it?<\/i>\u00a0 That means the government refraining from personal regulation… refraining, for example, from restricting or<\/i><\/b> supplying birth control… refraining from any<\/i><\/b> definition of marriage.\u00a0 It means recognizing that the government is not our nation\u2019s highest moral authority — and that it is incapable<\/i><\/b> of being that authority, as no law or legislation is capable of convicting the individual heart.\u00a0 Last I looked, the convictor of truth concerning righteousness and wrongdoing had zero to do with the federal government.<\/p>\n

One final aspect of the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. decision, no less, is one that too many have too quickly dismissed.\u00a0 The fact is that many activist groups have self-serving purposes which are prompting them to inflame minute aspects of the court\u2019s opinion.\u00a0 Their intentional, manipulative goal is to rile us up in order to advance their own cause.\u00a0 Allow me a simple question:\u00a0 since when have women\u2019s rights and religious freedom diabolically opposed one another?\u00a0 Can they not co-exist?\u00a0 To assume they cannot is an illogical conclusion.<\/p>\n

No one will like what I\u2019m about to say, but I also have no desire to be disrespectful. \u00a0The Hobby Lobby decision is neither a major \u201cdefeat\u201d for women nor a major \u201cvictory\u201d for the faithful.\u00a0 Women and faith are not in opposition to one another.\u00a0 But we continually justify pitting one thing against another in the \u201cmust-always-have-a-winner-or-loser\u201d society in which we live.\u00a0 That pitting divides us.\u00a0 And my sorrowful sense is that the activist groups, politicians, and loyal followers actually intend<\/i> for that division — because it prompts us to act; it makes us want to go out and do<\/i> something.\u00a0 As witnessed by the week\u2019s ongoing vitriol, the approach is unfortunately effective.\u00a0 Friends, know that the narrow Hobby Lobby ruling acknowledged that birth control can still be available to all, but that a small, \u201cclosely held\u201d company should not have to pay for the all. \u00a0A viable, resulting question is the implied personhood of the company.\u00a0 Another viable question is how many other ambiguities exist within Obamacare — and why can’t we fix them via something other than the administration\u2019s very controlled, calculated Executive Orders.<\/p>\n

I have a few more brief questions resulting from this decision.\u00a0 First, can the morals of a company be placed upon its employees?\u00a0 Second, can the morals of an administration be placed upon its citizens?\u00a0 And one more:\u00a0 do we support one of those moral impositions but not the other?\u00a0 Hence, I ask: are there other ways in which we are laced with contradiction?<\/p>\n

Respectfully… always…<\/p>\n

AR<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This week we\u2019ve been exposed to plentiful perspectives regarding the Supreme Court\u2019s Hobby Lobby decision.\u00a0 First, a factual synopsis prior to the point of today\u2019s 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 … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “hobby lobby”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8],"tags":[454],"class_list":["post-3438","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-current-issue","tag-burwell-v-hobby-lobby-stores"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/intramuralist.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3438","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/intramuralist.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/intramuralist.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/intramuralist.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/intramuralist.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3438"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/intramuralist.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3438\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3448,"href":"https:\/\/intramuralist.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3438\/revisions\/3448"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/intramuralist.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3438"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/intramuralist.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3438"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/intramuralist.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3438"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}