- ► 2017 (47)
- ► 2016 (122)
- ► 2015 (325)
- Is Easter Pagan? Part 1 - The Rites of Spring
- Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus: What does "Firstbor...
- Dealing with All Those "Lost Gospel" Claims
- Problems with Utilitarianism
- Breaking News May Break Your Heart: Tales from the...
- Britain Looks to Soylent Green Energy
- Three Problems with the World Vision Decision
- Does Religious Liberty End When Business Begins?
- The Best Question in Apologetics
- The Effects of Jesus on the Western World
- Swallowing the Poison of Moral Relativism
- The Truth-Value of the Resurrection
- Evolution's Problem of Plagiarism
- Why Evolution Cannot Produce a Mind
- Why Your Mind Cannot Be Your Brain
- Answering Arguments for Abortion: "We'd Mess Up Th...
- Science is founded on faith as much as religion
- The Moral Argument in a Nutshell
- Has Science Found Consciousness in the Brain?
- Can Neuroscientists Use MRI Imaging to See Thoughts?
- Science vs. Scientism: Scientism Refuses to Have I...
- Science owes a debt to theology
- God is making an impact in philosophy
- Our Culture Was Predicted Over 80 Years Ago
- Scientism rejects philosophy as a form of knowledge
- Science versus Its Evil Twin: Scientism
- The King James Version versus modern translations
- Should Christians Stop Saying They're Blessed by M...
- What Does 'the Bible Is Inerrant' Really Mean?
- Science, God, and Knowing
- ▼ March (30)
- ► 2013 (141)
- ► 2012 (28)
- ► 2011 (25)
- ► 2010 (36)
- ► 2009 (11)
Come Reason's Apologetics Notes blog will highlight various news stories or current events and seek to explore them from a thoughtful Christian perspective. Less formal and shorter than the www.comereason.org Web site articles, we hope to give readers points to reflect on concerning topics of the day.
Monday, March 24, 2014
Does Religious Liberty End When Business Begins?
As you can see, there's bias even in the way Gans chose to word the question. There is no violation of employees rights if one works for Hobby Lobby. Their employees are completely free to exercise any right they have, including their choice to use abortifacient drugs. They simply have to pay of that right themselves, instead of asking the company to do so.
While I hold a very firm stand on the immorality of elective abortion, that isn't the main idea I am concerned about in this article. My bigger concern is that much of the Western world has bought into the idea that religious beliefs are not anything truly important. Most people think that while individuals may feel passionately about their religious convictions, such beliefs are akin to the passion other people feel for a favorite sports team or music artist. These fan-addicts see themselves through their fandom and any criticism of their object of adoration will lead to hard feelings and harsh words.
Such thinking is ignorant in the extreme. No matter what one's religious persuasion is, one's understanding of truth and morality are shaped by one's religious views. This includes even those who would say they are "nones, " atheists, or humanists. As I've explained before, in order to make sense of the world, everyone has some kind of worldview. Thus, an atheists lack of belief in God will color his understanding of right and wrong as much as a Christian's understanding of God will color his. No one is immune to this.
The crucial respect for religious beliefs is why the pilgrims left Europe and endured suffering and pain to establish a society that would recognize that respect. It is why when the United States was founded the people demanded that the Constitution contain a statement guaranteeing the free exercise of religion without government intrusion.
The problem becomes when people trivialize those foundations of right and wrong, especially when it comes to business owners. In the article above, Gans claims "Corporations lack the basic human capacities — reason, dignity and conscience — at the core of the free exercise right. Corporations cannot pray, do not express devotion to God and do not have a religious conscience." I think Gans claims too much here. If corporations don't have religious conscience, then they have no conscience at all. There is no distinction between a religious conscience and a secular one, except for the basis of the worldview from which it is based. Therefore, if one were to take Gans' view of corporations as automatons that lack any kind of reason, dignity, and conscience, then Enron is morally equal to Tom's Shoes and we should quit pressuring manufacturers to care about pollution. A corporation is equal to the machines that it employs and nothing more.
Of course, no one would hold to such ridiculous views. We understand that behind corporations there are real people and those people don't become autonomous simply because they own a company. To cheer the principled ecological convictions of a company and then turn around and decry the principled religious convictions of another is contradictory. Both are morality based and both flow from the worldview of the company's owners. By seeking to gut Hobby Lobby's stance against paying for abortifacient drugs, we are in danger of gutting any grounding for holding companies accountable at all.
Get the latest news and articles delivered to your inbox each month - absolutely free!