A victory for religious freedom: the Hobby Lobby decision

I applaud the Hobby Lobby decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled in a split decision that the Obama administration cannot require Hobby Lobby and similar "closely held" businesses to pay for contraceptives and abortifacients if they have religious objections to doing so.  This is a victory for religious freedom.

Now I am no lawyer, but I know enough to realize that decisions like this are often made based on the legal technicalities of the case, not on the broad moral issues involved.  Such appears to have been the case here.  The court held that the administration's requirement was not the "least burdensome" approach with regards to religious freedom.

Still, a victory is a victory, and we will take it.  The technical nature of the ruling, however, leaves open the possibility that the administration or the pro-abortion wing of Congress may try another approach, so the battle is not over.  Vigilance is still the order of the day.

I have seen editorials in the local paper, and even posts by Facebook friends, claiming that this decision is a blow to freedom and even a step toward a creeping theocracy.  One even asked a rhetorical question about how we would feel if a Muslim started a business and then wanted to impose Muslim beliefs on "white Christians."  I'll just state my thoughts on that briefly.

Any decision about rights and freedom has to balance the rights of different parties.  Conferring a right on one party inevitably restricts the rights of someone else.  If I have the right to own property, someone else does not have the right to take it.  If I have the right to choose where I shop, then no shop owner has the right to compel me to buy from them.  If I believe that abortion is wrong and choose not to pay for someone's abortion, they cannot compel me to do so.

If I start a business, why do I give up that right?  The government was trying to force Hobby Lobby to pay for insurance that covered abortions, to which they had a religious objection.  The company was not telling its employees they could not use contraceptives or have an abortion.  They just objected to paying for it.  I see nothing wrong with that, and I'm glad that the Supreme Court agrees.  Furthermore, no one is being forced to work for Hobby Lobby.  If someone wants to work for a company that pays for abortions, they are free to find one.

So what about Muslim employers forcing their beliefs on "white Christians"?  I must at least call attention to the race card being played here, and point out that its use is spurious and irrelevant.  Would it be OK for a Muslim employer to force his beliefs on black Christians, or Chinese Christians?  What does race have to do with it?  At any rate, I will say that if a Muslim wants to run his business according to his beliefs, that is his right.  If he wants to insist that any woman working in his business wears a head covering, so be it.  Again, no woman has to work for him.  And I suspect that, in America at least, few women would.

It would seem that this is one of many instances of the left trying to shove their morality down our throats, the very thing they always accuse Christians of doing.

Addendum: OK, I just got in an argument with someone on Facebook who called me ignorant for not "knowing" that preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg is not abortion, as "medical science" agrees.  Excuse me!  It is as clear as day that a fertilized egg will develop into a full human being if not interfered with, but an unfertilized egg will not.  So a drug that prevents implantation of a fertilized egg is not a contraceptive, but an abortifacient.  It is just killing the unborn human a bit earlier than usual in the abortion business.

"Reverend" Wright is Wrong!!!

I doubt I'll be the only one using this title, but I like it, so I'm using it anyway.

Recently the "Reverend" Jeremiah Wright, former pastor of imploding Democrat presidential hopeful Barack Obama, put himself front and center in the media to reply to criticisms of his positions. In doing so, he has dragged the name of Christ through the mud, embarrassed Obama, and possibly irremediably hurt Obama's campaign. After trying to soft pedal the issue for a while, Obama finally had to distance himself from Wright unequivocally.

I shed no tears over his effect on Obama. It's fun to watch the Democrats squirm. But few things rouse me to reaction more than his misrepresentations about Christ and the church. Here are some statements attributed to Wright.

* The US is responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
* "God D--- America!"
* You can't criticize one of my sermons unless you have heard the whole sermon.
* "His people" came over on the lower decks of the ships.
* Black children are all right-brained, and learn differently from white children.
* An attack on Wright is really an attack on the black church.
* Some (presumably white) people just don't understand the black church, its history, or its "prophetic theology."

My responses:

* The US is responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
* "God D--- America!"

"Reverend" Wright resents his patriotism being questioned and points out that he served in the military. Well, so did Timothy McVeigh, so that proves nothing. If saying "God D---- America" does not qualify as unpatriotic, I don't know what does.

Maybe "Reverend" Wright would appreciate sharing the fate of the fictional character Philip Nolan in "The Man Without A Country."

* You can't criticize one of my sermons unless you have heard the whole sermon.

"Reverend" Wright loves to whine about being taken out of context. Well, then, he should not say things that make bad sound bytes. He can't evade questions about what he says by criticizing the questioner for not having heard the whole sermon. I don't have to roll in mud to recognize that someone else has mud on his clothes.

* "His people" came over on the lower decks of the ships.

The whole "we came over on slave ships" business is getting tiresome. There is not one black American alive today who came over on a slave ship. Slavery was a sad and sorry episode in our country's history, but it is over. If "Reverend" Wright is so upset about how his ancestors got here from Africa, maybe he would like to return there.

* Black children are all right-brained, and learn differently from white children.

"Reverend" Wright had better be careful about this one. One might argue from this that if they learn so differently, perhaps they should be taught in separate schools. If a white person were to make such a blanket generalization, it (and he) would be labeled as racist. Why isn't the same thing said here? OK, I'll say it: this statement by "Reverend Wright" is racist.

* An attack on me is really an attack on the black church.

Oh, really? Who appointed "Reverend" Wright pope of the black church? And since when is there a monolithic black church? There are black Baptists, Pentecostals, Methodists, and Catholics, just to name a few. And there are lots of variations among those. Do they all agree with "Reverend" Wright?

* Some (presumably white) people just don't understand the black church, its history, or its "prophetic theology."

It's easy to make this kind of ad hominem argument: if you don't agree with me, you must not understand me, so I can dismiss you. One might just as well say that "Reverend" Wright does not understand the "white" church since he is part of the "black" church. It's interesting that it's OK to talk about the "black" church, but a "white" church would be discriminatory. Whether we understand or not, does that justify such bigotry toward us? And if we need to be educated, we are a lot more likely to listen if you approach us with kindness rather than confrontation.

I find it most interesting that not once during all this have I even heard a mention of church-state separation. If a white pastor, say John McCain's pastor, were making inflammatory statements, you can bet the liberals would be screaming "separation of church and state" and telling him to keep his mouth shut.

All of this drags the name of Christ through the mud. Where is the focus on Christ in "Reverend" Wright's antics? It just gives the infidels something more to make fun of and exploit.