America’s capital is finally getting the Bible museum it so desperately needs! And, of course, it’s brought to you by the good people at Hobby Lobby!
The biggest challenge for a Bible museum that’s bankrolled by the evangelical Green family? Well, that it might actually be designed for the purpose of proselytizing rather than as a museum of historical artifacts related to the history of the Abrahamic faiths:
Elizabeth Merritt, founding director of the Washington-based Center for the Future of Museums, said keeping a clear distinction between science and religion was the most important challenge the Bible museum faced in differentiating itself from so-called creation museums, like the one in Petersburg, Ky., that has drawn scorn from paleontologists for displays making the case that dinosaurs died in a biblical flood.
As the Green collection evolved from an assemblage of rare biblical artifacts to the curation of a large museum, Mr. Carroll, formerly a professor at Baylor University, decided in 2012 to part ways with the project. While he believes in the scholarly roots and historical significance of the collection, he is concerned that the Green family faces a difficult challenge in balancing its passion for ministry with the objective mission of a museum.
And the concern seems to be justified since “Steve Green, president of Hobby Lobby and the son of its founder, has referred to the Bible as ‘a reliable historical document,’ and, as part of the museum project, he is developing a curriculum to ‘reintroduce this book to this nation.’”
On the plus side, this looks to be a really nice spot for many of the Supreme Court justices to hang out.
HT: Brian McCraw.
A little-known religious exemption to United States labor law may have just become extremely important, thanks to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hobby Lobby.
By declaring that “closely held” corporations may hold religious beliefs, the court may have provided businesses with a new tool for crushing workplace unionization drives. In addition to declaring themselves exempt from contraception mandates and non-discrimination laws, religious employers may soon be able to argue for an exemption from collective bargaining laws.
Little Caesars argued that the persecution of Christians and the feeding of them to ravenous big cats was a “deeply held” religious belief, that the continued survival of the roughly 6,000 Christian employees, as well as the fact that they remained on company payroll, imposed a “substantial financial burden” on their religious liberty.
John Oliver vs Hobby Lobby
go to google translate. type a sentence in english and translate it to a language of your choice. translate it again to another language. translate it again. and again. and again. translate it 6 more times. then once more. translate it one final time back to english. what are you left with? something that’s completely different than the original.
or as we like to call it
This is great
SCOTUS doesn’t even believe its own argument in the Hobby Lobby case, and says so in the ruling.
If you read the ruling, SCOTUS even admits that the ruling makes so little sense, that it HAS to be applied solely to the single area of contraceptives, or it becomes even more fucked up:
In any event, our decision in these cases is concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate. Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat thespread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them.
Meaning, the court understands that logically their argument makes no sense in the broad scheme of things, and if you follow the logic it basically puts the US into a feudal system, but if they can carve out this one exception to logic, reason, and the rule of law, they’re okay with doing so.
There’s no reason that a “closely-held” corporation (like 90% of US corps) can’t have a moral religious exception to blood transfusions or organ donations (see: Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example) but those corporations can’t deny coverage of such for “religious exception” under this ruling - it’s just this one category of
contraceptionwomen’s contraception that can be exempted, because…well, they never really explain why. They’re willing to admit that overall the whole proposition is fucking nutter, but never get around to saying why this one category is so special that it requires the existence of religious exception, aside from it being an area that people have been trying to limit for decades.
Long story short: SCOTUS recognizes the hypocrisy in their decision, and actively carve out denials against the logical extension of their own ruling. THAT’S the most fucked-up part of this whole thing: the five men in favor of this decision have to admit that their logic isn’t sound, and that if taken to it’s logical conclusion would be catastrophic - so instead of asking why their logic isn’t sound, they say “So it only applies to this one area. No others. And only if you really believe. Like…like a lot.”
More than two-thirds of U.S. women oppose allowing corporations to drop contraception from their health plans due to spiritual objections, but GOP leaders are nevertheless saying the exact opposite.