Just so you know, not all religious groups rejoiced over Monday's 'Hobby Lobby' decision

[ColesCountyDem]

http://www.abpnews.com/opinion/commentaries/item/28885-justice-blundered#at_pco=smlwn-1.0&at_si=53b67dd4e363a800&at_ab=per-2&at_pos=0&at_tot=1

Tuesday, July 1, 2014

Justice blundered

The Hobby Lobby decision fails on human rights, theological and Baptist grounds.

...................................................................................................................................................

By Eileen Campbell-Reed

Yesterday the Supreme Court handed down a decision on the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case that allows family businesses as “closely held corporations” to deny coverage for the reproductive health of their employees. As a Baptist minister and practical theologian, I found myself objecting to the ruling for at least three reasons.

First, the decision means the state fails to protect human rights sufficiently. Second, from a theological perspective the ruling conflates for-profit businesses with religious bodies. And finally, from a Baptist perspective the decision opens the door to conferring religious status on U.S. corporations, which blunders justice and threatens religious liberty.

On human rights grounds

Birth control is a woman’s choice, and no woman should be coerced by the state or her employer over decisions about her body, her health or her future. She may of course join or affiliate with any community — religious or otherwise — that influences her to adopt particular values regarding reproductive health. Yet without the freedom to choose in these matters, women cannot act on their conscience to use or not use birth control of any kind. Within this debate, I think the state should protect human rights, allowing individuals to choose their care for reproductive health and protecting access to these rights whenever possible...

(snip)

On theological grounds

Corporations are not religious bodies. Hobby Lobby is a business not a church, synagogue, mosque or temple. Certainly some religious bodies look like and are run like corporations. For instance megachurches often sustain policies, staff, budgets and even investments that make them appear to be corporations. However, businesses like Hobby Lobby are not primarily gathered for the sake of worship, human service or communal support, as religious bodies are. They are gathered for making a profit. They may run by the principles of the scriptures (and we could ask which ones?) or with Jesus or Muhammed or Yahweh as their “CEO.” Yet they are still businesses and should be legislated accordingly...

(snip)

On Baptist grounds

Religious liberty is best understood as both the free exercise of religion and the avoidance of government establishment of religion. Baptists through history have defended religious liberty not only for themselves, but for all religious groups. While some conservative Christians and Baptists may see the Hobby Lobby case as a “win” for religious liberty, I see it only as a win for their brand of conservative religion...

Potentially this ruling takes two slides down the slippery slope of disregarding the First Amendment protections for religious liberty. First, it legislates corporations as religious bodies, troublesome as already noted. Further, it risks establishing for-profit corporations as religions by 1) giving them a financial advantage over competitors (the cost of reproductive health is shifted to individual women) and 2) offering them protection from the state as religious bodies. This amounts to a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. And although it is deeply unfortunate that a consumer driven culture is increasingly normative in the U.S., granting businesses and corporations official religious status — on par with churches, synagogues and mosques — is worse than unfortunate. It is a blunder of justice.

...............................................................................................................................................

Eileen Campbell-Reed is co-director of the Learning Pastoral Imagination Project at Luther Seminary in St. Paul, Minn., and newly appointed mentoring, coaching and internship coordinator for Central Baptist Theological Seminary’s create program for women in Nashville, Tenn.

*American Baptist Churches is one of the most diverse and progressive Christian denominations today, with over 5,200 local congregations comprised of 1.3 million members across the United States and Puerto Rico.

[gordianot]

1. The fact remains the largest Christian denomination now has a tool they will use in this country.

Another degree of seperation bought and paid for to aid religious fanatics of many stripes.

[ColesCountyDem]

2. No disagreement about that from me. I was simply trying to make the point that...

... one cannot assume that ALL religious groups march in lockstep on this (and other) matters. Some religious groups ARE progressive, in the sense that we here at DU understand that term, and we should remember that.

[Bluenorthwest]

5. I understand your desire to see these good people acknowledged but there is an issue.

It is not really possible to point out those who are righteous because others, who support openly bigoted anti choice activists such as Pope Francis insist that their favorites be called righteous as well, they urge us to 'understand him' to 'give him time' because 'he needs to take baby steps'.

Unless you and the other faith groups will stand to defend us against the forces of the real haters, I have no reason to figure out which of them are this and which are that. If THEY will not call out the fools then they ARE the fools.
It is their job to stand apart. So far they don't. On DU any criticism of intolerant or ignorant religious dogma is met with hyperbolic defenses by the 'faith community' who are in the wrong, but insist they are the true victims. The same group in which so many want laws against gay people actually stand up and accuse secular people of 'wanting all religion eliminated'. Yeah. If you say 'bigotry is wrong' they say 'you hate all religious people'. And I've never seen any of the 'righteous' stand up to say that is wrong.
So that's the deal. This is a faith community 'in house' issue that the faith community needs to address.

[theHandpuppet]

9. In the meanwhile, others are celebrating

“When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” -- Sinclair Lewis

http://stlouisreview.com/article/2014-07-02/faithful-called

[ColesCountyDem]

10. So, both our words and actions are worthless, because we are not in the majority?

I fail to see that attitude as 'progressive' in any shape, form or fashion. Would you have said the same to the Friends, Congregationalists and Northern Baptists before the Civil War? Would you have rejected their support, simply because they did not form a majority of Christians?

[theHandpuppet]

13. The way I interpreted that...

.. is that some who do not ascribe to the bigoted dogmas of other denominations never seem to speak out until after the fact. I think of all the amicus briefs (friendly to Hobby Lobby) filed with the SC by church leaders and wonder, where were the voices of our allies then? They always seem to come after the damage is done. At least that's the way I see it, so although I appreciate the support now, it's tinged with a bit of bitterness.

[ColesCountyDem]

16. We do not fight evil with evil.

We believe that groups like the Southern Baptist Convention, et al, who actively involved themselves in this matter were wrong to do so. Our support for the separation of church and state is not a late development, but a centuries-old one. The editorial re-emphasizes why we believe it is wrong for churches to inject themselves into the political and judicial processes.

[nomorenomore08]

26. We believe it is wrong for churches to inject themselves into the political and judicial processes."

Problem is, the right-wing churches don't see it that way. So even if progressive Christians are reluctant to engage in political activism, it may be necessary for them to do so.

[ColesCountyDem]

29. I cannot speak for other progressive denominations.

In no way do we deny our fellow congregants the right to individually engage in the political and judicial processes, because that choice is an individual one-- a matter of free will and conscience. What we will not do, collectively, is inject ourselves into the political and judicial processes. We fear (and properly so, I think), that collective action endangers our freedom from governmental interference.

[nomorenomore08]

30. All I'm saying is the rest of us, religious or not, need to push back in a serious way.

Encroaching theocracy is especially dangerous for those the wackos would consider heretics.

[ColesCountyDem]

31. I agree with you there!

[roguevalley]

21. You cannot win in an argument here I am afraid or even interject this point. No one saw the

clergy, priests and nuns of all kind and color who stood with the civil rights marchers, went to prison and got beaten half to death too on the marches. No one sees the nuns who go to prison protesting war now or acknowledge the outrage a lot of religious have over this ruling and all the rest. They lump all of them together and no matter how powerful the testimony and actions of some, they can't allow it to matter.

If you apply a majority requirement to all things that matter the way they do to religion, no one should be crying about half the crap that happens in this country including ACA because there isn't majority support for it. there was majority support for the last two wars. I suppose given the feelings applied to religion, the people who didn't support the wars didn't matter and are assholes too.

I will take the support I can find for the pushback wherever I can find it.

[ColesCountyDem]

22. Thank you!

Your observations are spot on.

[roguevalley]

28. you are most welcome. Have a great weekend. :D

[skepticscott]

7. Except that none of this pseudo-intellectual puffery

AFTER the decision has been handed down accomplishes anything, except PR for certain Christian groups who want to distance themselves from the fundies and keep their own reputations untainted by ongoing attempts to force Christian beliefs and morals on everyone. Where was this guy all those years that Hobby Lobby was pressing this issue in the courts? Where were all of these so-called "progressive" religious groups when it would have mattered?

As usual, they come late to the fight, and try to grab credit, when it's really nothing more than self-interest.

[ColesCountyDem]

15. We adhere to a strict separation of church and state, so no, we didn't file briefs.

We did not draft legislation in the decades before the Civil War; we helped establish, fund and operate the Underground Railroad. We did not file amicus curae or send swarms of lawyers into the federal courts in the modern civil-rights era; we sent actual volunteers into the Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia to register voters and march in solidarity with those who marched for equal rights.

Unfortunately, even many progressives fail to understand the meaning of 'strict separation of church and state', as your post so eloquently demonstrates.

[skepticscott]

20. That you fail to comprehend

that a stand on the issue could have been taken a long time ago without remotely violating church-state separation speaks very eloquently for why "progressive" Christianity is such an impotent force for good in this country. This is about your own image and public perception, and nothing more. "Look god, and everyone else..we're REAL Xstians, not like those other guys!"

[ColesCountyDem]

23. Thank you for the insult.

It is you who fail to comprehend, my friend.

[tavernier]

3. Yes! The separation of church and state

offers protections to both. The founding fathers would not have allowed these yahoos on the SC to sharpen their quills, let alone interpret law.

[ColesCountyDem]

4. Precisely! n/t

[KrazyinKS]

6. Good article-the writer understands the issue

When the constitution says separation of church and state that is what it means.

[ColesCountyDem]

11. Indeed! n/t

[valerief]

8. So why didn't they influence/buy SCOTUS? nt

[ColesCountyDem]

12. Because we're not rich, corrupt S.O.B.'s, maybe? n/t

[valerief]

24. Didn't mean to offend. I thought all religious groups were rich. Also, I'm angry that

the only way to get what you want in our government is to buy it.

[ColesCountyDem]

25. No offense taken, I assure you!

My reply was meant to be amusing, if cheeky. I share your frustrations.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

14. I really don't think I'll ever get over how there is so much death and hurt and shaming behind

the belief in some imaginary omnipotent being. Why do we not leave this notion behind as children, like we do Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy?

[ColesCountyDem]

17. Because not all of us agree that God is "some imaginary omnipotent being". n/t

[ChisolmTrailDem]

18. I'm listening... nt

[ColesCountyDem]

27. I'm respecting your right to not believe. n/t

[Wounded Bear]

19. No matter what they say...

Conservatives of the current stripe do not believe in individual rights. After all, individual rights allow people to make decisions, decisions which, in their minds, are better left to those in authority.

All governments, to a greater or lesser degree, are authoritarian. In "democratic" countries, it is supposedly the "people" who choose whom they allow to have authority in political matters. The US is rapidly losing this, and replacing our secular government with one based on religious dogma is not a proper goal. Conservatives who doubt that corporate America won't exploit this decision for profit are delusional, and one only has to look at one's local mega-chruches and the proliferation of televangelism on the airwaves to see how religion can be exploited for profit. The unholy alliance forged between religious fanatics and big corporate interests has been growing since Reagan and before. There are signs of rifts, but it's still there.

Some faith-based organizations realize, as shown by the piece linked in the OP, that if the government becomes religious-based and/or linked, that not all faiths will benefit. After all, believers tend to believe that they have the "answers" and often think that others will benefit if forced to follow them. Any knowledge of history whatsoever will support that truth.