Family Behind Hobby Lobby Has New Project: Bible Museum

[cbayer]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/17/us/politics/family-that-owns-hobby-lobby-plans-bible-museum-in-washington.html?_r=0

By ALAN RAPPEPORT
JULY 16, 2014


The family that owns the Hobby Lobby chain is planning to build a Bible museum on the site of the Washington Design Center, shown here, near the National Mall. Credit Doug Mills/The New York Times

WASHINGTON — The evangelical Christian family that owns Hobby Lobby, the chain of craft stores, made history two weeks ago when the Supreme Court overturned the Obama administration’s mandate that family-owned companies must provide contraceptive coverage to their employees.

Now, the family is looking to build a permanent presence on the Washington landscape, by establishing a sprawling museum dedicated to the Bible — just two blocks south of the National Mall.

The development of a Bible museum has long been a dream of the Oklahoma-based Green family, which has built Hobby Lobby into a $3 billion company in which its religious beliefs infuse every aspect of the business, from the music played in its stores to being closed on Sundays.

But on the heels of the company’s legal victory, the project is raising concern in some quarters that the Greens’ museum could blur the line between educating and evangelizing. Steve Green, president of Hobby Lobby and the son of its founder, has referred to the Bible as “a reliable historical document,” and, as part of the museum project, he is developing a curriculum to “reintroduce this book to this nation.”

more at link

[Fridays Child]

1. I haven't followed this as closely I would like so I have some questions.

...will Hobby Lobby also decline to provide coverage for male contraception or erectile dysfunction treatment? What about pregnancy from incest or rape? Ectopic or other pregnancy that endangers the mother's life? Birth deformity that will result in the painful demise of the child?

[cbayer]

4. I don't think I can answer all of your questions, but let me give

it a shot and hopefully others will join in.

I don't think there is anything that would prevent them from covering ED drugs, as they don't have anything to do with contraception. Not sure what male contraception is available, other than surgery.

Your other questions are about abortions, right? I don't think that was covered in the SCOTUS decision at all.

[Fridays Child]

7. Thanks.

Some male birth control medications have been studied but I don't know whether they're available by prescription. HSA plans allow for the purchase of condoms. And, as you mention, vasectomies are available.

And I understand that abortion, per se, wasn't banned by this decision but is it possible that employers may now decline coverage for abortions?

[cbayer]

11. I don't think there is anything available by prescription for men,

but I could be mistaken.

I think there are already rules in place concerning abortion. I know that certain facilities, like Catholic hospitals, are permitted to no provide abortion services. And I think there are rules about medicare which allow private payers to exclude it as a service.

The issue with Holly Hobby is that they took it a whole step further and that birth control that does not technically cause the disruption of a fertilized egg being implanted was given the exemption, is the issue.

[YarnAddict]

8. The SC decision related

to forms of BC that the Green family feels cause abortion (anything that destroys a developing embryo, or prevents implantation of a fertilized ovum.) since no male contraception could possibly cause abortion, there is no reason to oppose it. HL continues to provide coverage for any female birth control that doesn't cause what they feel to be abortion. In other words, they cover 16 of 20 forms of BC.

n the case of an ectopic pregnancy, abortion is treatment for a life-threatening condition, and would be covered.

The rest--I'm not real sure. I imagine that in the case of fetal anomaly, they would feel that every life has value, and wouldn't cover it, although I don't believe the SC decision addressed this aspect.

[DetlefK]

2. I wonder, how many versions of the Bible they will show.

We have four conflicting versions of the New Testament, we have stuff that's in the Thora but not in the Old Testament, there are non-canonical parts of the New Testament, e.g. dragons...

And we have that tiny inaccuracy that camels show up in the Old Testament at a time when there weren't camels in Palestine.

[cbayer]

5. I feel certain it will be just their own version and will not include any others.

It is unlikely that their intent is to show that there are lots of ways of interpreting this book.

[DetlefK]

3. And then there's this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/123024671

[cbayer]

6. I doubt they will focus on the contradictions.

Fundamentalists never do.

[trotsky]

10. Nor do moderates or liberals.

All Christians find a different way to dismiss the contradictions.

[LeftishBrit]

9. Apart from all other aspects...

where in the Bible does it say that you can't use contraception?

[cbayer]

12. No where. They base it on their own biased interpretation, not on any scripture.