Hacker News Reader

Comment by justinator | Hacker News Reader

Between 2009 and 2014, Steve Green, the owner of Hobby Lobby, a chain of arts and crafts stores, purchased 13 of the fragments, which he has donated, along with thousands of other artifacts, to the Museum of the Bible. Green is helping to fund construction of the museum, scheduled to open in Washington, D.C., next fall. (A fly-through of the museum can be seen on YouTube).

I'm more than slightly sure the Green family has total control over this, "museum", and this was less a donation, than a transfer of stolen artifacts from an individual, to a private company held by that individual.

Hobby Lobby, as you may recall, is the privately held company that disallowed its workers to use the Affordable Care Act to cover birth control, because of the religious beliefs of the owners.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/us/hobby-lobby-case-suprem...

View on HN

"'m more than slightly sure the Green family has total control over this, "museum", and this was less a donation, than a transfer of stolen artifacts from an individual, to a private company held by that individual."

More than slightly sure? What you really should have said is: "I have no idea what I'm talking about"

"Hobby Lobby, as you may recall, is the privately held company that disallowed its workers to use the Affordable Care Act to cover birth control, because of the religious beliefs of the owners."

Ahhh, so you demonize them because they go against your personal beliefs.

One has nothing to do with the other. You just wanted to post your displeasure with Hobby Lobby.

It's simple if you are not willing to provide health insurance either admit that and don't provide health insurance or don't employ people.

I also demonize serial killers, because they go against my personal beliefs. Because that's what personal beliefs mean. I also don't calibrate the lives destroyed from insanity, why should a tolerate the mass delusions from religion again?

What exactly are you having to tolerate?

Poor working conditions for a fellow person.

In a wider context indoctrination of children. I feel that 'Sunday school' is child abuse. But, where we don't tolerate public beatings of children some topics are considered off limits.

PS: I accept many people will disagree with this. But, while many pat them on the head and move on I think it is important for everyone to understand their bubble is just that, and their assumptions are far from universal.

It's a tricky subject, because heavily regulating what kids must be exposed to by the state could easily be classified as propagandized brainwashing. If we support both the right of parents to express their beliefs to their children and the right of the children to make an informed decision when they are adults about their beliefs, the best thing may be have a mandatory "survey of beliefs" class for children at various points in their lives.

A class that covered the 4-5 most common world religious beliefs as well atheism in a way that did not promote any of them, much less one over the others (a tall order in some communities, I'm sure), would do a great deal to both inform individuals on various beliefs and how they interrelate, as well as foster understanding for others.

You are falling into the trap of assuming the state must accept religion. We where happy to indoctrinate Indians though forcible separation from their parents.

So, it's not actually about 'religion' or 'tolerance' it's about the short list of accepted religions.

PS: Some argue that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Child_Welfare_Act fixed this, but there are plenty of more recent cases disproving that idea. As of 2010, Alabama,[41] Indiana,[42] Kentucky,[43] Louisiana,[44] Missouri,[45] and Tennessee[46] still use the "existing Indian family" exception.

> You are falling into the trap of assuming the state must accept religion.

I prefer to think I'm "falling into the trap" of assuming that personal choice is important and we want to preserve it. Like most things, both extremes of the spectrum are unhealthy. Indoctrination by your parents about the "one true way" to think is dangerous, but so is indoctrination by the state.

The way to fight misinformation is not to restrict that information, it's to provide more information so people can make informed choices. It's a free market of ideas, and information (and light regulation) is key.

> We where happy to indoctrinate Indians though forcible separation from their parents.

We were happy to enslave people as well. That doesn't mean we should condone conduct such as that going forward.

> So, it's not actually about 'religion' it's about the short list of accepted religions.

No, it's about opening people up to the possibility of choice, and that there there may exist views different than they have been exposed to. I'm an atheist myself, but I can't imagine a world in which people are forced, coerced or steered to a particular belief as being better.

Adults get personal choice when it comes to religion, children don't.

Adults also get personal choice as to which TV programs they watch, which beverages they drink, which candidates to vote for, whether to join the military. The option is not whether to constrain the choices available to children - it's a matter of who gets to decide. Remember, always turn things around: how would you feel if the religious right got to tell you that you couldn't raise your children as atheists or agnostics?

> how would you feel if the religious right got to tell you that you couldn't raise your children as atheists or agnostics?

This has been a common state of affair in many places for thousands of years. But here is the thing, you don't need to indoctrinate someone as an agnostic.

An interesting comparison is the effort to maintain belief in Santa Clause vs end it.

I'm not actually sure how common it was for the government to intervene in families' home lives, even, say, at the height of the middle ages or the Byzantine empire. That said, to whatever extent it did happen, it was wrong, and the Catholic church acknowledges as much these days.

On the other hand, I think the history of humanity, which involves nearly universal belief in some flavor of divinity, is all-but-conclusive proof that your second point is incorrect. That doesn't mean the x-theists are right: just that religion is quite obviously the default state of humanity, and irreligion is the exception.

Religious thinking doesn't require divinity. various outspoken outrage groups qualify, as does anyone who has a belief system that is not evidence-based.

Promoting Religion has clear upsides and most humans for most of human history have not had their thoughts recorded. Further, religious people kept a lot of our history's. So we have no idea how common actual belief was.

I suspect in 10,000 years looking though limited and relatively random records Santa could be considered a widely warshiped god even if effectively zero adults believe in him today. Private journals are solid evidence, writing on temple walls is not. A coworkers Rabbi growing up was an atheist.

If we are going by popularity either Atheism or Agnostic beliefs are probably the single most common specific beliefs. Religions come and go, shifting through time so a modern Mormon has little in common with a 5th century Christian sects.

On a side note - you do know that Santa is real, right? He was a real bishop in Turkey in the 4th century, participated in the Council of Nicea, and was even reputed to have thrown a punch at Arius on the council floor.

I would agree with the religious right on that point. I think brainwashing a child into blind acceptance of atheism is just as bad.

I don't view it as regulating what kids must be exposed to. What we should be doing and what I think the GP is suggesting is that we regulate was kids must not be exposed to.

There is no ethically sound justification for forcing a child to go to Church repeatedly during their development. Most religious people believe that children have innate innocence until a certain point. Until that point, they have no need for religion and should be given the opportunity to make up their own mind about it when they are old enough.

Are they being forced to work at hobby lobby? Are sexually active people who refuse to pay for their own contraceptives a Protected Class?

> sexually active people... a Protected Class?

Yes, of course the US only plays lip service to separation of church and state so that can cause confusion.

The US also only pays lip service to the enumerated powers.

Separation of church and state doesn't mean you're entitled to various federally funded benefits, regardless of your beliefs. At the state level - sure.

Sexually active people are not a Federally Protected Class.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_Discrimination_Act

required to provide disability and sick leave for women who are recovering from an abortion.[4].

Birth control is specifically for NOT pregnant women.

What's your point?

Someone that just had an abortion is also not pregnant. Regular abortions are also a form of birth control.

That still doesn't mean that sexually active people are a protected class. There are people who get pregnant without sex. There are people who have sex and cannot get pregnant.

For the record, I agree with both points you make. Preventing your employees from accessing certain birth control products because you are against birth not different from forbidding your employees from having homosexual relations because you are against homosexuality. It's wrong.

Also, indoctrination of children is an abhorrent crime. It's child abuse. It's brainwashing, fact, and there's no way to argue otherwise. Brainwashing is the word. It's instilling fear, implanting a worldview in a child while their brain is developing that will cripple and condition them for life. Sending your child every week to church and Sunday school to have dogmas drilled into their heads is tantamount to the "hypnopaedia" in Brave New World. Insidious and abhorrent, a crime against freedom and self-determination.

> Preventing your employees from accessing certain birth control products

Not providing access != prohibiting access.

He didn't say prohibiting, he said preventing. The distinction matters greatly. For lower paid people, the cost of access can to some mean a difference between eating or paying their bills and getting contraception.

Those are exactly the kind of situations where the societal cost of not ensuring access to contraceptives is vastly higher than the cost of contraceptives, so it's not just the employees that are harmed in this, but wider society as well.

This is a nice rant, more emotional than well thought out. First off there is no such thing as neutrality in this context. Whatever worldview/moral system you approve of teaching children is not neutral. You are lying to yourself by pretending it's possible to raise a child in some kind of a void.

Indoctrination to you = any time somebody teaches a child something you don't approve of.

Who is the dangerous extremist enemy of freedom? Look in a mirror.

No, indoctrination to me is instilling dogmas in a small child who is developing their brain personality and cannot critically evaluate what they're being told. Instilling your morality based on a solid reasoning is not. Compare "Stealing your schoolmate's toy is wrong. Why daddy? Because it's his and he wants to play with it. If you steal it he can't play, and he will be sad. If you want to play, ask him first for permission, and offer one of your toys too so he can have something to play with." with "There's a man who preached in the middle eastern desert in the time of the Roman Empire that will make you live forever if you are good and go to church every Sunday. Why daddy? Because. And if you ever doubt, even in your mind, he will punish you forever!". These aren't the same.

Critical thought is a beautiful thing. Brainwashing a child into accepting an absurd dogma for no reason other than authority and fear is wrong.

Why are you instilling your child with such a reverence for private property? Taking the toy could be morally justified if the schoolmate is a child of the parasitical classes. Your 'solid reasoning' is severely lacking a grounding in material dialectics IMO, you're practically brainwashing them with capitalist absurdity.

Everything you claim to be true to your children is indoctrination. It doesn't matter if its religious in nature or not. Everyone is therefore a child abuser according to you.

Have you done research on the worldview or are you just brainwashed as the ones you claim are. If you can I want you to watch this video and try to explain how this is possible

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kqo6a5n1ArQ

start around the 5 min mark.

I'm not likely to watch a >1h evangelist propaganda video, thanks. If you can give me a summary of the alleged points I'm supposed to consider, I'd be grateful.

Ok here is the point basically I think u don't believe in God....but I want you to consider on what basis you came to that conclusion was it because of what you saw or what you were told. So I am presenting to you a video which clearly shows the work of God working in this man through prophecy which you can check for yourself and decide whether to believe or not.

> More than slightly sure? What you really should have said is: "I have no idea what I'm talking about"

While I normally side with Orwell's dislike of this kind of linguistic indirection, it does sound like you're over-reacting to justinator's verbiage.

> "Hobby Lobby, as you may recall, is the privately held company that disallowed its workers to use the Affordable Care Act to cover birth control, because of the religious beliefs of the owners." > > Ahhh, so you demonize them because they go against your personal beliefs.

Cute use of the word demonise there. :)

Is it legal in the USA (where I'm assuming you, and indeed this Hobby Lobby company are located) to discriminate for health benefits based on religious views? (Preemptive apologies - not all of us are based in the same place as other people assume we are, and I'm really not sure what the legislative arrangement there is.)

> Is it legal in the USA (where I'm assuming you, and indeed this Hobby Lobby company are located) to discriminate for health benefits based on religious views?

Yes, a privately held company can offer plans that do not meet ACA standards if the owners object on religious grounds to those options.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby_Stores,....

It is legal for a specific class of privately held companies, though the matter was sufficiently unclear to reach the supreme court and will probably be subject to follow-up cases which will clarify/expand/narrow the extent of the decision.

The owner of Hobby Lobby does own that museum and they were under investigation over stolen artifacts. I never heard about the end result of that investigation though... I didn't spend a lot of time looking, but I didn't see anything new. Does anyone know what ended up happening with that case?

EDIT: perhaps "own" is the wrong word to use. The owner of Hobby Lobby is the chairman of the board for the museum and the museum's collection was largely built from his personal collection.

Do pitchforks need to come out every time a Christian or Christian topic is mentioned on HN? Everyone knows there are people who exercise their religious freedoms, do we need to keep trying to burn them in effigy here?

If people think strongly enough about a topic, it will happen.

I agree with your general sentiment, but disagree with your wording. From what I understand HL, and many others, are not exercising their religious freedom but rather imposing their religion on others.

For example, if you are against an action like prevention on religious reasons you should of course be free to not use them yourself. Enforcing those standard on others, including your employees, is not exercising your own religious freedom.

He's not imposing any behavior on his employees or taking their freedoms way, he's just choosing not to pay for it himself on religious grounds. I suspect the real issue is that he's going agains the grain by not celebrating that form of birth control and that's enough to feel like oppression to some.

I disagree with Hobby Lobby's decision, but support their right to make it.

There are different types of contraceptives, and that we use the same word for all types is disingenuous and muddies the argument.

The day after pill is very different from a condom, and at least a little different from "the pill".

> The day after pill is very different

Why? They both prevent conception.

The morning-after pill has two methods of action, IIRC - preventing ovulation, and making the womb inhospitable for implantation. In the latter case conception occurs.

We're wandering from the topic, but I don't believe that's correct. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levonorgestrel#Emergency_birth... -

The primary mechanism of action of levonorgestrel as a progestogen-only emergency contraceptive pill is, according to International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO), to prevent fertilization by inhibition of ovulation and thickening of the mucosa of cervix. FIGO has stated that: "review of the evidence suggests that LNG [levonorgestreol] ECPs cannot prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.

(references on the wiki page as always)

They've removed the notice from that specific type of ECP (and I was not aware of that), but it's still present on other types, including some that are common in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_contraception#Mechan...

Conception =/= Fertilization. The latter case you mentioned involves fertilization, not conception.

Your definition differs from every popular and academic source I've ever found.

Example: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conception

"Formation of a viable zygote by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; fertilization."

Farther down on that same page: "the fertilization of an ovum by a sperm in the Fallopian tube followed by implantation in the womb"

"I disagree with Hobby Lobby's decision, but support their right to make it."

Well I don't, the money belongs to the employees and it's not up to Hobby Lobby to decide how they can spend it.

Then let's separate employment from health insurance already and remove the ambiguity. The ACA only doubled-down on this problem.

I totally agree that this would be the best way to handle it, but I also don't see the problem with being forced to pay for something you don't agree with. Isn't that basically what government does? Why aren't these people also outraged that their tax dollars are paying for missiles blowing up funerals and weddings in the Middle East?

Catholic theologians have spent a lot of time analyzing this problem. The short version is that there's a pretty big moral difference between giving money to somebody (even if you know they're going to do something evil with it), and arranging for the evil yourself. You may have a pretty good idea that your employee Bob is going to spend his paycheck at the local saloon and whorehouse, but that's rather different from personally opening up a tab for him there.

Wow that's an unfortunate conclusion.

"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's" and whatnot though eh.

I have a difficult time seeing moral differences where there are no practical differences.

If the government says, "Give us $X so that we may use it to purchase a health plan that includes contraceptive coverage," the effect is exactly the same as if they said, "Spend $X purchasing a health plan that includes contraceptive coverage." I don't see how one could be moral and the other not.

I can see it at the point where it changes from spending money to taking actions. Actually dispensing or taking contraceptives would be qualitatively different from paying for a health plan. But if it's just your money going to an insurance company, I don't see why it matters if it passes through the government first.

Basically, all this boils down to is whether "ends justify the means" or "means justify the ends". In the Catholic case, it would seem to be the latter, but that's only because they're looking at distant ends (e.g. heaven as reward for good) rather than immediate results.

Thing is though, "ignorance is bliss", or so it's said. If you were aware that life insurance companies across the US were about to make a huge gamble that might put them out of business, would you stick with yours (supposing you had one) if they (a) told you they were going to make the gamble or (b) not told you? (I suppose we could have also referred to purchasing manufacturer warranties from unsteady businesses - same principle.)

Money going to the government via taxes doesn't necessarily end up paying for contraceptives. It's supposed to be for other things. We pay taxes knowing full well that people are siphoning off money for their own gain. We don't like it, sure, but we pay taxes because of what the money is intended for. "It's the thought that counts." :/

From your last paragraph, I think you've misunderstood my point. The problem with taxes isn't that it gets siphoned off for private gain. The problem is that it intentionally goes to do a bunch of horrible stuff that people disagree with. My tax money helped invade Iraq with all its horrible consequences. My tax money helps kill wedding and funeral attendees in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It pays to imprison people for non-violent drug crimes.

I'll fight to get the government to stop spending my money on these things, but on the basis that they shouldn't be doing it at all. I'd never argue that my own personal tax money should only go to things I agree with, because the whole point of taxes and government is to take collective decisions and collective action. I may not always agree with the results, but the basic concept is important and useful.

Why is it OK to send money to the US treasury when you know some small part of it will buy Hellfire missiles, but not OK to send money to Aetna when you know some small part of it will buy Plan B?

Rereading it, I see what you're saying. It's a fine line point. In a way, then, I agree with you, but - let's take an interesting stance - supposing we assume that missiles can be used for good (in some way). I seem to recall the pope justifying the war against Nazi Germany. Consequently, there is a positive use. Contraceptives, however, could only be used for something the church considers immoral.

Did I catch your logic this time?

Can't they both be immoral? Whole problem is catholicism is a state supporting religion that says "your government doing evil isn't your problem".

I pay my taxes, but I consider it the least moral thing I do, for my own morality.

I look at paying taxes the same way I view my drug addicted friend that just needs a fix so he can make it til tomorrow. I don't like it, I'm enabling his problem, but I don't want him to get into a worse situation or die.

Of course, they can both be immoral. If someone argued against both of them on the basis of morality, I'd probably disagree but I'd respect the argument. I just can't understand why people find it immoral to be forced to pay for contraceptives but not to be forced to pay for missiles and bullets.

I agree that separating them would help in this regard. We should; however, consider why it was done this way. I can only speculate on the matter, but tend to think it was bundled with payroll for simpler accounting (assuming tax deductible insurance premiums stay intact).

Initially, it was bundled with payroll because, during World War II, employers were restricted in their ability to give pay raises to employees. They started buying health insurance as a way of giving a raise without giving a raise, as it were.

It continued because "that's the way it was done" by the time WWII was over.

The money belongs to the employees? Only if you mean that the employer buys the health-insurance plan with money that would otherwise go to the employee as salary. (I presume that you are not saying that the company's money rightfully belongs to the employees. If you are saying that, I disagree, strongly.)

But it gets muddied because of taxes. Most people get to pay for their health insurance pre-tax, whereas if the company just gave them the money, they'd pay for it with post-tax dollars. Also, many employees contribute some of the cost themselves. So it's fair to say that part of the money belongs to the employees, but it's not fair to say that all of it does. The rest belongs either to the employer or the government.

Argh. Also, many employers contribute some of the cost themselves. (Though one could argue that the employee could have had that part as salary...)

What money belongs to employees? Are all of Hobby Lobby's employees also owners of the company?

The benefits are part of an employee's compensation. It's something they earn by working there. It contractually belongs to them, not to Hobby Lobby.

What "contractually belongs to them" is exactly what they agreed to work for when they were hired. If that included health benefits exclusive of any particular medication, that used to be a consideration between them and their employer. You may think it better to live in a place where the terms of those contracts are stipulated by the government.

The reason for the U.S. having enumerated powers where states could pass such laws but the federal government couldn't was that if you disagreed with your state's world-view, you could leave that state for one more aligned with your beliefs.

Your premise is incorrect. If the employer were to replace the employees health insurance with a product costing 50% less, the employees would not necessarily receive the former cost of the insurance as new compensation.

There may be specific individuals contracted with Hobby Lobby, but the general "employee" doesn't have any such contract.

I wonder whether the owners' religious beliefs influenced what scrolls were passed on to the museum... some of the scrolls are a bit left field. But then again, they would have needed to understand them first...

Which of the scrolls are you referring to? Were they from canonical books?

No, the non-canonical

Reply on news.ycombinator.com