It is no wonder, then, that they collided with the government when the government mandated that they violate their primary commitment to "Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with biblical principles." You see, the Bible clearly says that God considers human life to be valuable and, as such, the company could not in good conscience fund the termination of human life. It makes me ask the question, "Where is the line?" Ruth Ginsburg (and others) worried that this ruling would open the door for other religious-owned companies to refuse to pay for, say, transfusions if they were Jehovah's Witnesses or antidepressants if they were Scientologists or medications derived from pigs if they were Jewish or Muslim or ... well, you get the idea. Indeed, some religious groups are opposed entirely to visiting doctors, so it might be conceivable in this line of thinking that a company owned by a Christian Science adherent might oppose paying for any healthcare. Now, I have to admit that I'm skeptical. I know that a Jehovah's Witness is opposed to transfusions (for instance), but are they opposed to all transfusions, or just to having one themselves? I know that Christian Science (which is neither) think that all disease is a product of fear, not actual disease, but do they believe that all who disagree with that are evil or worse? That is, if Bob the Jew denied himself pork for dinner, would he also refuse to pay for your ham sandwich if he took you to lunch? It seems to me that there is a line somewhere. A Christian who sees in Scripture that homosexual behavior is a sin and that history, the Church, and the Bible all define marriage as the union of a man and a woman might not be willing to celebrate a homosexual wedding, but that doesn't typically translate into any action on their part. That is, the Christian waitress won't refuse serving breakfast to a homosexual couple and a Christian auto mechanic has no problem fixing the broken transmission on a lesbian's car. The line occurs, then, when the Christian with scruples is asked to participate in the sin. So the baker that is asked to make a celebratory cake or the photographer that is asked to take celebratory pictures or ... well, you know how this goes ... these people might demur on participating in the violation of their consciences. So, is refusing to pay for the murder of babies the same thing as refusing to pay for an improper view of how we get sick? That's what the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Christian Science folks would have to hold. You see, it is a matter of faith that they can't go to doctors. Is it their view that they would be violating their own conscience if you went to a doctor on their dime? That's my question. Where is the line? At what point does my participation in your life constitute sin on my part?
- Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with biblical principles.
- Offering our customers exceptional selection and value in the crafts and home decor market.
- Serving our employees and their families by establishing a work environment and company policies that build character, strengthen individuals and nurture families.
- Providing a return on the owner's investment, sharing the Lord's blessings with our employees, and investing in our community.
This is another of those question posts. I don't know the definitive answer. I'm not entirely clear. Maybe you are.
12 comments:
Good questions. The answer, I think, lies in the support of nanny state. None of these questions would much of an issue if the government wasn't so intent on deciding for us how we should live our lives. I don't see as the government has much business in doing so. This also is true of how we run our businesses. And when the government decides it must play a role in any level of private business, and health insurance is not public business, then it will go beyond and begin to dictate according to the whims of whatever is the controlling party.
I'm just clarifying your answer. The question was "At what point does my participation in your life constitute sin on my part?" It appears that your answer is that it is sin if I support the nanny state. This, of course, would not provide an answer to why it would be a sin for a Christian photographer to participate in a gay wedding, I suppose. But it appears that your answer is that it is the supreme evil for a State to run our lives, so participating in that sin by going along with it would be sin for us.
Actually, my point is that the question would be moot if the state wasn't so interested in butting into private business to the extent it has. It has forced the conundrum upon us despite the system being set up for more liberty in such things.
As to this:
"At what point does my participation in your life constitute sin on my part?"
...I would say that when a specific act is intended, as in the case of requests of products or services for the purpose of celebrating a sinful act, such as homosexual marriages. Or, if I am simply asked to involve myself in the commission of a sinful act, such as hiding stolen goods, giving false information regarding a sinful act ("tell my wife I was with you"). Simple association with a sinner does not implicate us.
I think if whatever you do either approves of the sin, helps the sin to be maintained, or even gives tacit approval for the sin by personal actions.
If a business owner also happens to own an abortion clinic, I can shop at their business without supporting the abortion clinic. But if that other business is specifically there to get funding for the abortion clinic, then I could not shop there because it would then be participating in the abortions.
If I am asked to play for the birthday party of someone who practices homosexual behavior, I could participate in the celebration of the person's birthday (as long as the focus wasn't about his homosexuality, of course). But if I was asked to play music at a "wedding," that would be participating in the sinful activity or at the very least giving it tacit approval.
The line is crossed whenever we are required to give approval of the sin or help the sin.
So, Glenn (this is a question, not a challenge), the accusation against Hobby Lobby right now is, "They're hypocrites because they won't pay for certain contraceptives, but their 401(k) includes companies that make those contraceptives." Is this hypocritical? (I have a really hard time with that line of reasoning because it would require that we all quit driving since money paid for gasoline that comes from the Middle East can go to terrorist organizations and we don't want to be supporting those, do we?) Seems like a difficult distinction.
In today's society, one couldn't purchase a thing if they had to worry about where some of the money from their purchase went. We have to live in the world, but we are not to be part of the world. There is indeed a big difference between a direct involvement in sin and an indirect - usually unknown - involvement.
At one time, when Levi's was one of the first corporations to support the homosexualists, I quit buying Levi products. Before long it became almost impossible to find a business which DIDN'T support the homosexualists. And that is the very unfortunate thing about our culture.
Hobby Lobby was also called hypocritical because they buy products from China (as does everyone) and China has government-forced abortions. Well, the business goods are purchased from are not the government of China. Will a large portion of the money the businesses earn go to the gov't? Of course.
But here in the USA it is the same thing. The gov't gives millions of dollars every year to Planned Parenthood. Should we then refuse to pay our taxes because some money goes to fund abortions?
It is only when PERSONAL involvement is DIRECTLY engaged in the assistance of the sin that we need to refuse. We can't be responsible for what governments or corporations do with SOME of their money.
Thanks, Glenn. Another question. If Hobby Lobby can allow 401(k) investments in companies that produce abortifacients because it is indirect, is it (purely your opinion here) right that they should refuse to pay (in general) for contraception because the possible abortifacients employees might employ (nice turn of a phrase, eh?) would be an indirect connection? I mean, we're agreeing that Hobby Lobby owners should not be required by the government to violate their religious beliefs. My question is should this be a religious belief on their part?
It's hard for me to understand 401K investments because I've never been involved. However, I was at one time holding stock in a mutual fund, which actually had money in many corporations. So if ONE of those corporations produced abortifacients, would then that mean one could not invest in that mutual fund? To me that is saying, well I put $1000 into this fund, and they give some to a company providing abortifacients" - which is like saying SOME of what I pay in taxes goes to support Planned Parenthood. So in that manner it is indirect.
BUT, if the investment is made directly with the company producing abortifacients, that would be a horse of a different color.
As a matter of observation, I find that people who make Marshall Art's objection tend not to appreciate the suggestion that the state also not interfere in marriage by attempting to impose a definition thereof.
"Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's" cuts both ways, regardless of where you stand on what is Caesar's and what is God's.
(And, as a matter of perspective: Caesar's taxes funded temples to Jupiter and Isis*.)
There is a large difference between a nation with laws and a "nanny state". The first is what is expected of any nation (including the biblical version -- Rom 13:1-4). The second is a State that determines what you can eat and thinks that it is the purpose of government to be sure that wealth is properly distributed (as a couple of examples).
If the government was not involved in marriages, then 1) no marriages could occur outside of a religious setting, leaving out all atheists, etc., and 2) the government couldn't regulate things like inheritance, divorce, etc. That's not "nanny state" stuff, nor are those things limited to "God's".
And of course, there is a legitimate and logical argument for a state to support one type of relationship that it sees as beneficial versus every other form of relationship that the state sees no benefit or no benefit worth its time.
Marshall Art, I know that you don't support the concept of "gay marriage", and you clearly support both marriage and the State's involvement to some degree in it. This is a question about what you think they think, not what you think. I agree that the State has a legitimate concern for the regulation and maintenance of marriage because it is beneficial (in fact, integral) to the well-being of the people and the State. What do you think the argument is from the "gay marriage" folks as to the benefit to the State of "gay marriage"? I only ask because I can't think of any. Can you?
Post a Comment