Skip to main content

The Hobby Lobby decision by the Supreme Court is a political issue that resonates with women. It is not only an issue for single women, but also for married couples. Most Protestant denominations do not have deep theological objections to the use of birth control. Many Protestant denominations regard the use of birth contol by married couples as a responsible and loving way to provide the best possible lives for children. The Hobby Lobby decision favors Roman catholic theology, not some sort of generic Protestant fundamentalist belief. This should be clearly understood if this court decision is used as a political issue.

The Roman catholic church has decided that birth control is a sin and has been promoting this idea aggressively for many years.

In 1963, Pope John XXIII established a commission of six European nontheologians to study questions of birth control and population. John died the same year and was succeeded by Pope Paul VI, who released the encyclical Humanae Vitae, or “Of Human Life,” in 1968.
If for any reason Catholic couples want to space out their children, Paul said “it is then licit to take into account the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions, for the use of marriage in the infecund periods only, and in this way to regulate birth without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier.”

The Hobby Lobby decision was made by five male Roman catholics who claim that large, for-profit corporations can deny health care coverage providing birth control for female employees. Justice Ginsburg pointed out in her dissent that this decision could logically be extended to allow employers to deny affordable health care access to their employees on the basis of the religion of the corporation. She listed several types of medical care that could be denied to employees on the basis of the company religion even if the employees are not members of that faith.

Would the exemption the Court holds RFRA demands for employers with religiously grounded objections to the use of certain contraceptives extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations (Christian Scientists, among others)?31 According to counsel for Hobby Lobby, “each one of these cases . . . would have to be evaluated on its own . . . apply[ing] the compelling interest-least restrictive alternative test.”

The decision by the five male Roman catholic justices was only intended to be in favor of limitation on health care when it forces conformation to their own religious preferences. They specifically ruled that people of faiths other than their own do not necessarily have a right to impose religious beliefs on employees. Their decision said:

This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage man­dates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.

Religious reasoning was used to reach this decision.

in footnote 34 Justice Alito cites Fr. Henry Davis's book Moral and Pastoral Theology (1935) as the source of certain supposedly legal reasoning in the text of the majority's ruling. The Roman Catholic Church has a long tradition of carefully worked out moral reasoning about formal and material cooperation with supposed evil.
So let us pause now and savor this. The five Roman Catholic Justices on the Supreme Court of the United States have drawn on their familiarity with Roman Catholic moral reasoning to write the majority ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.

This was essentially a decision of the catholics, by the catholics, for the catholics. The Supreme court has required reconsideration of cases where Roman catholic companies were told they could not deny birth control services to employees. Clearly five men on the Supreme Court feel that it is reasonable to force their religious beliefs about birth control on other people even if those people do not choose to be members of their church.

Cases ordered reconsidered in appeals courts:
Autocam Corp. v. Burwell. The Catholic owners of a Michigan company that manufactures products for the auto and medical supply industries objected to all forms of services covered by the mandate.
Gilardi v. Department of Health & Human Services. Two Catholic brothers who operate two Ohio companies that distribute fresh foods objected to all forms of preventive services.
Eden Foods v. Burwell. The Catholic owners of an organic food company in Michigan objected to all forms of preventive services.

Cases where the Roman catholic company won the right to force their beliefs on employees have now been allowed to stand.

Burwell v. Korte. Government appeal. This case involved two Catholic families — one owning a construction company in Illinois, the other a vehicle safety manufacturing company in Indiana, who objected to all preventive services mandated. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld the challenges of both groups of owners and their companies. Review denied.
Burwell v. Newland. Another government appeal. This case involved the Catholic owners of a Colorado heating and air conditioning company, who objected to all services under the mandate. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, applying its decision when the Hobby Lobby case was before it, upheld the challenges of the owners and their company. Review denied.

Roman catholic individuals have every right to decide whether or not to make personal use of birth control. Many of them use birth control themselves and even get abortions. The rest of us should also be allowed to make our own decisions based on our own beliefs. The rest of us should not be forced to conform to the religious beliefs of the controlling majority on the Supreme Court. This issue not only affects single women, but interferes with access to birth control by married couples.

The Hobby Lobby decision allows a for-profit company to force the Hobby Lobby religion on employees of other faiths or no faith.  The Green family control the closely-held Hobby Lobby corporation. The Green family come from the Church of God and a Southern Baptist background. These churches do not have any unified objections to the use of birth control by married couples.

The United Church of God is a relatively conservative Christian church. The published view of the United Church of God encourages family planning as part of a loving relationship between a husband and a wife.

Our Marriage and Family: The Missing Dimension booklet points out: “The idea that sex was dirty and evil was an idea that crept into Christianity from early Catholic teachers. Their compromise with the obvious reality that sexual activity was necessary to have children resulted in their teaching that sex should only be engaged in by married couples when they wanted to have children. Yet there is no such instruction in the Bible.
“Genesis:2:24 says, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh [have sex].’ Proverbs:5:15-19 encourages couples to enjoy sexual pleasure together within marriage. Paul says that husbands and wives should render the sexual affection due each other—refraining only during times set aside for prayer and fasting (1 Corinthians:7:3-5).
“No passage in the Bible forbids husbands and wives from having sex for pleasure when not trying to conceive children. There is nothing wrong with couples using contraceptive methods, provided they are not physically harmful, to postpone having children until the time of their choosing.”

There is some disagreement in Pentecostal churches about the use of birth control, but people who do not like the views of one pastor can find a more sympathetic church where they feel more at home. A letter asking advice from a Pentecostal pastor with a newspaper column gives a reasonable idea of the range of attitudes that Pentecostals may hold:

I am a Jamaican living in New York and I believe in God to the fullest. I grew up in the Pentecostal church. I have a niece back home in Jamaica who is also a Pentecostal Christian. She just recently got married and has a child. She is a registered nurse. The thing is that she has decided not to have any more children for now and is on birth control. Her pastor is preaching against Christians taking birth control.
When I heard about it I was saying there is nowhere in the Bible that says taking birth control is a sin. And, what hurts me the most is the pastor told her that she cannot worship at the church anymore.
The Pentacostal pastor answered:
Pastors who preach that their members should not take contraceptives cannot prove from the Scripture that what they are saying is doctrinally sound. I feel that such preachers are wasting their time and trying to fool the people. So tell your niece that she has the right to limit the number of children that she would like to have. And if contraceptive is the method she chooses to use, she should continue to do so.

In the past Southern Baptists had very progressive views about birth control and even about abortion.

In 1971, the Southern Baptist Convention adopted a resolution supporting legislation to “allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental and physical health of the mother.”
A resolution in 1974 affirmed that stance as “a middle ground between the extreme of abortion on demand and the opposite extreme of all abortion as murder.”

There has been a steady movement by the Southern Baptists toward the theology of the Roman catholic church ever since. The effort to harness political power by using Protestant fundamentalists makes this remake of Protestant views politically convenient.

Opposition to birth control is growing in conservative Evangelical groups who rely more heavily on Catholic teachings, so birth control still remains controversial. Some oppose all forms of contraception short of abstinence while others allow natural family planning but oppose other methods. Some sects even support any form of birth control that prevents conception but are against any method that keeps a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. In 1954, The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America stated that “to enable them to more thankfully receive God’s blessing and reward, a married couple should plan and govern their sexual relations so that any child born to their union will be desired both for itself and in relation to the time of its birth.”
The nation’s largest Protestant denomination, the Southern Baptists, uphold the use of some methods of family planning by married couples. The denomination’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission helps ensure that the church can find ways to apply biblical truth to moral, public policy, and religious liberty issues. This creates a biblical model as a framework through which Christians can evaluate the moral and religious liberty issues confronting families in modern culture. The church believes that the use of birth control, as a means to regulating the number of children a couple has and as a means to space out the ages of the children, is a moral decision that is left up to each couple. However, Southern Baptists stipulate that a couple uses a form of contraception that prevents conception.

The Vatican has been involved in the effort to reduce availability of birth control and to decrease the use of birth control by Protestant fundamentalists.

Pope Francis met Monday (March 31) with members of the Green family, the Oklahoma billionaires whose company, Hobby Lobby, took their challenge to Obama’s contraception mandate to the Supreme Court last week.
The Greens are in Rome for the launch of one of their traveling exhibits, “Verbum Domini II” (Latin for “The Word of the Lord”).
“The purpose of the meeting was to thank the pope for the loan of items to the exhibit from the Vatican museum and library,” said Jennifer Sheran of DeMoss, the Atlanta public relations firm that represents the Greens. “The pope did ask how the (Hobby Lobby) case was progressing.”
Eighteen members of the Green family met with the pope, Sheran said, as well as 10 members from the American Bible Society. The meeting lasted 30 minutes.

Clearly there has been high level Vatican involvement in the effort to keep women in the US from having financially reasonable access to birth control. Roman catholics have the right to make their own personal decisions about birth control, but they do NOT have the right to impose their religious beliefs on others. Moral hazard of financing faith did not seem to be a problem for this Supreme Court when government tax money was given to private religious schools.

The Roman catholic church has opposed the use of birth control for much of my lifetime. This is not the case for most Protestant churches. Sex within the confines of Protestant marriage does not tend to be regarded as sinful and family planning is commonly regarded as responsible concern for the welfare of children. Different Protestant churches have widely different views, since many denominations allow the congregations of each church choose the minister. The Vatican gets to decide the policy for the entire Roman church.

The Vatican requires all members to believe certain speech by their leader (the Pope). It is the official, formal teaching by this organization that most birth control methods are immoral and should not be permitted. Unlike many Protestant churches that are run democratically, the Roman church has official positions. People who are not members of the Roman church have every right to object when this church claims it is universal and has a right to force its beliefs on everyone else.

Denial of birth control to married Protestant couples is an invasion of the sanctity of their marriage. The imposition of the Hobby Lobby religion is not just an issue for single women. Negative comments about Protestant fundamentalists when this issue is discussed are not likely to win any of their votes, especially in the South.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  However, I don't think (9+ / 0-)

    that it was by accident that the chose Wheaton College a protestant institution as the vehicle for their latest ham fisted undertaking. They are using the politics of abortion in which the protestant fundamentalists actively participate to drive the politics of this campaign.

    •  The Wheaton College action was a response to (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      allie4fairness, Lujane, august88

      the request for an injunction. The case continues on appeal. There was no final determination on the Wheaton College case and therefore no expansion of Hobby Lobby. While the Wheaton case may expand Hobby Lobby, we won't know that until the case is actually decided by the SCOTUS.

      "let's talk about that" uid 92953

      by VClib on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 04:27:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Bingo! The fundie opposition is new (11+ / 0-)

    In the 1990s, I knew of no fundamentalist denomination (save Sarah Palin's Pentecostals) who formally opposed the use of contraception by married couples. Since 2006, it has grown to become tantamount to being anti-abortion. I wholly agree that this decision supports Roman Catholicism at the exclusion of many other denominations including (and especially) Jehovah's Witnesses.

    Flame me if you wish, but I hope the next Supreme Court justice is a mainline Protestant.

    •  A lot of Prostestants have been steeplejacked too (5+ / 0-) I'm more inclined to pay close attention to what a potential justice has actually done to advance the cause of a free society.

      Stop the FCC from killing the Internet! E-mail them. Call them. Tell the President & your congressmen to help save Internet freedom!

      by Brown Thrasher on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 02:06:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Rather than a Protestant . . . (6+ / 0-)

      . . . how about an atheist (like there would be a chance of that)?

      Someone who does not use faith (belief without proof) to hold forth on a political or legal position.

      It does not matter that a Catholic justice thinks certain forms of contraception are abortificants, or a Protestant justice thinks we ought to re-impose miscegenation laws.

      I want no faith-based legal reasoning in my secular state. I want real reasoning.

      "A Conservative is a fellow who is standing athwart history yelling 'Stop!'"—William F. Buckley, Jr.—Founder of the conservative policy magazine "National Review"

      by Village Vet on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 04:13:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sotomayor factoid (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Justice Sotomayor is Roman Catholic. As per her wiki page and the NYT.

      •  Justice Sotomayor is a woman. (0+ / 0-)

        In a 2012 Gallup poll 89% of American adults said that birth control is morally acceptable. 82% of American Roman catholic adults said that birth control is morally acceptable.

        These data are from Gallup's May 3-6 Values and Beliefs survey, in which the issue of birth control was included for the first time. Birth control has become controversial in light of the pushback from some Catholic leaders and institutions on the portion of the 2010 Affordable Care Act that requires all institutions, including Catholic ones, to offer birth control as part of employee healthcare plans. The Obama administration has proposed a solution that offers such institutions a technical way around this requirement, but on Monday a number of Catholic dioceses and institutions, including the University of Notre Dame and Catholic University, filed a lawsuit against the government regarding the requirement.

        The issue involved here is the broad separation of church and state, not necessarily the morality of using birth control. Still, the current data show that the substantial majority of Catholics interviewed say birth control is morally acceptable. At the same time, when given a choice, 56% of Catholics in a Gallup survey conducted Feb. 16-19 said they sympathized with the views of religious leaders on the contraception-healthcare coverage debate, while 39% sympathized with the Obama administration's position.
        (My addition of boldface.)

        According to Reuters:

        Some 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women in the United States have used contraceptive methods banned by the church, research published on Wednesday showed.
        A new report from the Guttmacher Institute, the nonprofit sexual health research organization, shows that only 2 percent of Catholic women, even those who regularly attend church, rely on natural family planning.
        The latest data shows practices of Catholic women are in line with women of other religious affiliations and adult American women in general.
        most sexually active women who do not want to become pregnant practice contraception, and most use highly effective methods like sterilization, the pill, or the intrauterine device (IUD).
    •  Be serious. It was illegal in many states (0+ / 0-)

      to even buy condoms for a long time well before Sarah was a gleam in her mommy's eye. Blue laws in this country are mostly due to some ravings of the Prots, not the Catholics or non-xtians.

      That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

      by enhydra lutris on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 07:05:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Condoms have been available in drugstores, (0+ / 0-)

        grocery stores and even truck stop bathrooms for many years. Protestant conservatives have been mostly concerned with keeping birth control away from teenagers (especially the girls). Protestant conservatives also tend to oppose premarital sex even when it involves consenting adults. Protestant conservatives do not generally object to marital sex, even when there is no intent to procreate.  

        For many years Roman catholic church has taught that copulation is a sin if it is only for pleasure. Most Protestant denominations disagree. This is a typical statement about birth control by a Church of Christ:

        Since God allows sex, (between a husband and his wife), for reasons other than the begetting of children, then they have the right to take what ever precautions necessary to fulfill that purpose. This is where birth control comes in.

        Let us make some observations:
        1. God nowhere has set the number of children that a couple should have. Various Bible couples had from one on up.
        2. God does hold parents responsible for the spiritual and physical well-being of each individual child He entrusts to them, Ephesians 6:1-4 and First Timothy 5:8. Children are a sacred trust.
        3. Parents therefore should not have more children than they can truly provide for in all areas of their parental responsibilities.
        4. God does not ordain that a woman in fulfilling her responsibilities and privileges should always be pregnant. A woman could not bear nor properly care for all the children she could possibly have from marriage to menopause. Thus, we have the need for some kind of birth control, and that was not to come through defrauding your mate sexually.
        5. Proper spacing and limiting of children is in the best spiritual and physical interest of both the parents and the children.

        I changed the formatting to make it more readable, but their statement itself was cut and pasted from their church website.

        •  Ah yes, and that tells us exactly, in (0+ / 0-)

          detail, what each and every self proclaimed member of that sect believes and how they vote and behave, even the ones out trying to get pharmacists licenses so that they can withhold birth control from customers.

          Got it.

          That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

          by enhydra lutris on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 08:06:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Uh, oh It's the dreaded Papists! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean

    Nothing gets religious extremists more loony than that.  Well, okay Jews.  They also make extremists batty.


    by otto on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 02:01:12 PM PDT

  •  Yes the Alliance With the Rightwing Has Helped (7+ / 0-)

    convert the evangelicals to this issue. I recall them in radio and tv evangelizing from the 50's and 60's and neither birth control nor rightwingism were themes I was hearing.

    On the other hand they've adopted it now, at least the most politically imperialistic factions have, so they're as much a threat as RW Catholics now.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 02:02:53 PM PDT

    •  The less dogmatic groups may resent (2+ / 0-)

      interference with the sanctity of marriage. This is a legitimate objection.

      Gay marriage does not directly impact them despite the frothing at the mouth on the issue. This is actual government interference in their bedrooms.

    •  No, it was their's too, based on the go (0+ / 0-)

      forth and multiply horseshit in their book. Goo look at all the restrictions on selling condoms back before the pill even existed and the early restrictions on the pill. They just didn't rave about it on air because they had succeeded in getting it into law.

      That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

      by enhydra lutris on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 07:09:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Protestant objections to birth control did (8+ / 0-)

    not exist until the fundie alliance with the right wing. It doesn't arise from theology, it comes from politics.
       The metastatic spread of Roman Catholic anti-woman theology is killing Christianity.

  •  I don't give a Flying fuck about evil (8+ / 0-)

    religions. BC saved my life. Fuck the people who want to make women's lives worse whether thru contraception or other control of us.

    FUCK christianists.
    FUCK men who hate women.
    FUCK women who hate women.
    FUCK the evil 5 men in the SCOTUS.

    I voted Tuesday, May 6, 2014 because it is my right, my responsibility and because my parents moved from Alabama to Ohio to vote. Unfortunately, the republicons want to turn Ohio into Alabama.

    by a2nite on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 02:44:39 PM PDT

    •  One of my aunts had a heart condition that made (6+ / 0-)

      pregnancy life threatening. After she managed to survive the birth of my cousin the doctors told her another pregnancy would be likely to kill her.

      She and my uncle wanted to have a brother for my cousin. They were foster parents for awhile, but had difficulty adopting due to concerns about my aunt's health. Eventually they were able to adopt another son from a foreign orphanage. My new cousin was six years old and had always lived in poverty. He was a happy, bright little boy. My aunt lived long enough to see him graduate from high school.

      Birth control made this family possible.

  •  I don't think those "votes" are available anyway. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The imposition of the Hobby Lobby religion is not just an issue for single women. Negative comments about Protestant fundamentalists when this issue is discussed is not likely to win any of their votes, especially in the South.
    In my (admittedly distant and limited) read of the political landscape, the South is basically a write-off on this issue.  Whatever sensible voices - if there is such a thing anymore - amongst the devout who are most politically active appear too marginalized to really affect the debate.
    •  Kay Hagan in North Carolina is a Democrat (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mph2005, Vicky, august88

      who will be trying to keep her Senate seat next fall. This is an issue that will be used to GOTV.

      Attacks on the sanctity of marriage are taken seriously. Even the Southern Baptists tend to regard birth control as a matter of conscience for each couple to decide. The Supreme Court really does need to stay out of our bedrooms.

      •  So we're just going to pretend the So. Baptists (0+ / 0-)

        and other non-Catholic religious organizations didn't file an amicus brief supporting Hobby Lobby and seeking exactly this result?

        Russell D. Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission reacts to the decision:

        This is an exhilarating victory for religious freedom. The Greens refused to render to Caesar that which did not belong to him and the Supreme Court agreed.

        “As a Baptist, I am encouraged that our ancestors’ struggle for the First Amendment has been vindicated. This is as close as a Southern Baptist gets to dancing in the streets with joy.

        And that multiple Southern Baptist universities and other organizations don't have suits pending to get exactly this result?

        You seem to think you know better than they and many other non-Catholic Christians about what they really want. You could have saved them a crapload in legal fees if only you'd told them what they want sooner.

        •  Each Baptist church is a separate religious entity (0+ / 0-)

          Some Baptist churches have similar outlooks to a Methodist church, and  some Baptist churches think traumatizing malnourished rattlesnakes is a reasonable religious activity. There are quite a few moderate Baptists, despite external stereotypes. Then are the Baptists who supported Rick Santorum. Baptists are a very diverse group. I looked up the clips to post, but I already knew what views many of these churches hold from personal communications.

          Individuals in more progressive Baptist churches are quite likely to find this Supreme Court decision is an unreasonable intrusion into their bedrooms. It really is an unreasonable intrusion into their bedrooms.

          •  Then I don't understand your title. (0+ / 0-)

            If you think some Baptists are progressive, would you not label the non-progressive ones "Protestant fundamentalists"? Those Southern Baptists, and I suspect they're the majority, applaud the Hobby Lobby decision. Many of them want their businesses to take advantage of it themselves. So in what sense was the decision "not a decision favoring Protestant fundamentalists"?

            Again, they seem to think it is. They want to be exempted from the mandate, many of them have sued to get exempted from the mandate, and they're now celebrating getting exempted from the mandate.

            I guess they just don't realize as clearly as you do that they really don't want what they paid to get.

            •  Protestant fundamentalists believe, to varying (0+ / 0-)

              degrees, in the inerrancy of the Bible. As the Pentecostal minister notes, the Bible does not forbid the use of birth control.

              Southern Baptists have been strongly influenced by the Roman catholic church, but this does not mean that all individuals have bought into the dramatic changes in the public stance by some of their church leaders. Other Protestant denominations have different views.

              Instead of being rude to me why don't you follow the link in my diary to the views of the Church of God on birth control. Their policy shows great human decency and a very sensible attitude toward marital happiness.

  •  more to it (3+ / 0-)

    HL was allowed to object for religious reasons, without providing any proof whatsoever, what those reasons are. They did not cite chapter and verse of the Bible, they just threw it out there, and the SC went with it..

    Now back up to the Vietnam ware era and look at Conscientious objectors, who refused to kill, based upon religious beliefs. Were they allowed to simply claim, with no support or proof at all, those religious beliefs? No. They actually had to belong to a religion whose tenets were pacifism. They had to have letters from their church officials, attesting to those beliefs.

    So, with this precedent set in the 60's, the SC created a new standard out of whole cloth, and contradicted itself. And, by not having any proof of those Christian beliefs, now the SC has set itself up to be the arbiter of what exactly are Christian beliefs. And note that Southern Baptists think that Catholics are idol worshipers and worshipers of non Gods- like the Virgin Mary and all fo those Saints.

    America needs to take a case to the SC, a case of discrimination (remember, the Bible was once used to justify segregation, and the SC just flung that door wide open again) and demand they explain themselves.

    "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government" T. Jefferson

    by azureblue on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 08:21:15 PM PDT

    •  I have to wonder how deeply held the Hobby Lobby (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      beliefs are. They sell a lot of stuff from China where women are forced to have abortions. They also make money from companies that sell birth control.

      Hobby Lobby invests in nine funds which involve three quarters of Hobby Lobby's 401(k) assets: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, manufactures Plan B and ParaGard, a copper IUD; Actavis, manufactures a generic version of Plan B and distributes Ella; Pfizer,manufactures Cytotec and Prostin E2, which are used to induce abortions and Bayer manufactures the hormonal IUDs Skyla and Mirena; AstraZeneca, which has an Indian subsidiary that manufactures Prostodin, Cerviprime, and Partocin, three drugs commonly used in abortions. Forest Laboratories, manufacturer of Cervidil, a drug used to induce abortions, is also in the Hobby Lobby investment portfolio. Several funds in the Hobby Lobby portfolio invests in Aetna and Humana, and both of these health insurance companies cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in many of their insurance plans.
  •  Lotsa Prots are into that whole (0+ / 0-)

    quiverfull schtick, go forth and propagate xtian warriors as if thou were a rabbit on viagra thing.

    IN addition, both goups covertly adhere to the "women shall not enjoy sex or fool around on penalty of childbirth and childrearing" crap that uses unwanted pregnancy as the penalty for the fact that females can actually derive pleasure from sex.

    That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

    by enhydra lutris on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 07:02:00 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site