Hobby Lobby CEO open letter: “Honoring God is more important than turning a profit”

posted at 1:01 pm on January 5, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Normally I’d be inclined to run something like this on a Sunday, when I like to explore more faith-based topics.  However, today is Hobby Lobby Appreciation Day, where consumers who support the Christian ownership’s stand against the HHS mandate that attempts to impose a highly restrictive definition of religious expression can put their money where their mouths are.  Since I don’t really have a hobby at the moment, I’ll instead offer a passage from the open letter written by Hobby Lobby CEO David Green, who explains why he’s decided to spend a lot of money and risk even more to fight the HHS regulation that would force him to act against his religious principles.

We’re Christians, and we run our business on Christian principles. I’ve always said that the first two goals of our business are (1) to run our business in harmony with God’s laws, and (2) to focus on people more than money. And that’s what we’ve tried to do. We close early so our employees can see their families at night. We keep our stores closed on Sundays, one of the week’s biggest shopping days, so that our workers and their families can enjoy a day of rest. We believe that it is by God’s grace that Hobby Lobby has endured, and he has blessed us and our employees. We’ve not only added jobs in a weak economy, we’ve raised wages for the past four years in a row. Our full-time employees start at 80% above minimum wage.

But now, our government threatens to change all of that. A new government health care mandate says that our family business MUST provide what I believe are abortion-causing drugs as part of our health insurance. Being Christians, we don’t pay for drugs that might cause abortions, which means that we don’t cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill. We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of conception, something that is contrary to our most important beliefs. It goes against the Biblical principles on which we have run this company since day one. If we refuse to comply, we could face $1.3 million PER DAY in government fines.

Our government threatens to fine job creators in a bad economy. Our government threatens to fine a company that’s raised wages four years running. Our government threatens to fine a family for running its business according to its beliefs. It’s not right. I know people will say we ought to follow the rules; that it’s the same for everybody. But that’s not true. The government has exempted thousands of companies from this mandate, for reasons of convenience or cost. But it won’t exempt them for reasons of religious belief.

So, Hobby Lobby – and my family – are forced to make a choice. With great reluctance, we filed a lawsuit today, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, asking a federal court to stop this mandate before it hurts our business. We don’t like to go running into court, but we no longer have a choice. We believe people are more important than the bottom line and that honoring God is more important than turning a profit.

It’s worth pointing out that the mandate doesn’t exempt actual religious organizations either, such as Catholic charities, Presbyterian hospitals, Lutheran schools, and so on.  Why?  That’s the crux of the issue: the Obama administration is attempting to redefine religious expression to only those activities which take place within the four walls of a place of worship, or those activities restricted only to those of a single faith.  That means that Catholic hospitals would qualify only if they refused to treat and employ any non-Catholics, for instance.  Can you imagine those lawsuits?

The mandate for free birth control, which is already cheap and readily available for anyone who wants it (and has federal subsidies for Medicaid recipients already in place through Title X), is just a Trojan horse in an attack on religious liberty — and even more, for freedom of choice.  If businesses want to offer “free” birth control (which will get funded by premium hikes), they can already do so; no one is stopping them.  Same for schools, hospitals, and private citizens who want to donate money to family-planning clinics on their own.  Barack Obama and Kathleen Sebelius want to strip that choice from Americans and force everyone to subsidize the procreative choices of everyone else, even those tens of millions whose religious beliefs have heretofore never had to be part of public policy.  That’s the invasion of privacy, and it’s people like David Green who are being exploited.

Update: Added a bit to the second-to-last paragraph, and also wanted to include Hobby Lobby’s online shopping website link.  You can support the company from the comfort of your own home.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

As far as the “sweat shops” goes, in third world countries, the people are happy to work for many times more than they could make in a company belonging to their home country. The “evil sweat shops” schtick is mostly a leftie meme.

As far as China goes, it’s a communist country. They do things the way they do things.
Do you think we should impose our values on them by force..if not force, how?

Do you think a union should be able to force a private business to dance to their tune, or have the business destroyed or move to places like China?

Mimzey on January 5, 2013 at 5:36 PM

I am aware that some people are happy to work in sweatshops and I didn’t say they are evil. The question was how far would a business get today using those practices. Nike seems to be doing pretty well. I know China is communist but much of what they produce comes to America and business is booming. So businesses can get pretty far using those practices.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 5:47 PM

I wasn’t up to speed on Hobby Lobby appreciation day, but it just so happened that today I went there to find a few things. The place was a NUTHOUSE. Total beehive of activity. I said to the clerk “Gosh, you’re busy today!” She said, “Yes, we are.” Then the gentleman in front of me in line said “It’s Hobby Lobby appreciation day! We’re SUPPOSED to BE HERE!” Then it all made sense to me….the packed parking lot, the shoppers whom I am SURE had NEVER been there before, the LONG lines at the checkout (all 6 lanes open). It made me HOPEFUL. This is PACKER country. The idea that people took the time to go out and support HL is refreshing.

AppletonMom on January 5, 2013 at 5:47 PM

I think dan yul forgot to log off the daily kos.

Joey24007 on January 5, 2013 at 5:51 PM

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 5:44 PM

What in the world are you saying? That the Muslim population, all 1.5% of them, will have the upper hand on average Americans?

And no, he is already allow them to opt out.

http://www.examiner.com/article/if-you-are-muslim-you-can-opt-out-of-the-obamacare-health-care-reform-laws-with-no-penalties

kingsjester on January 5, 2013 at 5:52 PM

My point is to ask where the line should be drawn for what employers can opt out of and on what grounds. Do you people ever think about the unintended consequences of things?

Your biggest mistake, and what pegs you instantly as a libtarded moron, is that you think people are incapable of handling their own affairs without government intervention.

gryphon202 on January 5, 2013 at 5:06 PM

I think the question was effectively answered.

Cleombrotus on January 5, 2013 at 5:54 PM

What in the world are you saying? That the Muslim population, all 1.5% of them, will have the upper hand on average Americans?

Have you taken a look at Denmark lately? It can’t happen here?

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 5:56 PM

My point is to ask where the line should be drawn for what employers can opt out of and on what grounds. Do you people ever think about the unintended consequences of things? Do you not think about what happens when the wind blows from the other direction? With a president who is good buddies with the Muslim Brotherhood you should really keep in mind that it applies to them too, and they will push a lot harder than you.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 5:44 PM

If the government isn’t mandating anyone to do anything, it matters not in which direction the wind blows.

You worried about what the government will do? Give it less power and it won’t do anything.

northdallasthirty on January 5, 2013 at 5:57 PM

a private company should also not be forced to withhold federal income taxes from employee paychecks…the hypocrisy and selective outrage is stunning

Pragmatic on January 5, 2013 at 5:57 PM

Yes, I’m asking the limits of the definition of rights. I realize most people here respond based on knee-jerk tribalism so most are not used to having to think about where the lines are drawn. But if there are to be limits, where are they? How far can the government go in regulating business? Businesses still use child labor overseas so it’s not like they care about employees or working conditions. Where should the line be drawn?

[Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 5:03 PM]

Okay, I kind of expected that from the mix of examples you offered.

I think the first thing that must be done however, is to define what a right is, and whether there are different kinds (or species) of rights. But I don’t think only that should be the only thing defined. Another one that ought to be defined is what civil authority is so that we can weigh the limits of rights against the legitimacy and competency the state has to set those limits.

Pardon me, if I offer Catholic thinking on the matter, or should I say thinking of Catholics none of which has been deemed to be contrary to Catholic doctrine, i.e., Nihil Obstat). I do so, since I am Catholic and, being Catholic, it ought to be something I know whether I agee with it or not. I have found it good in that it starts from the beginning of what to think on about the subjects, and it does have the advantage of often dovetailing with the unalienable aspects of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness, not to mention natural law.

Anyway, here’s Right and here’s Civil Authority.

Some cool stuff is the part obligation plays in right (such as other people’s obligation wrt your right).

Dusty on January 5, 2013 at 5:58 PM

If the government isn’t mandating anyone to do anything, it matters not in which direction the wind blows.

You worried about what the government will do? Give it less power and it won’t do anything.

northdallasthirty on January 5, 2013 at 5:57 PM

I agree, but we crossed that threshold a long time ago. The government is not going to get out of our lives. We’re in a cycle of more and more oppression.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 6:01 PM

The question was how far would a business get today using those practices. Nike seems to be doing pretty well. I know China is communist but much of what they produce comes to America and business is booming. So businesses can get pretty far using those practices.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 5:47 PM

And my answer was that we have no say in how other countries conduct their social and economic structures.

Is you solution to have an official total country boycott mandated by the federal government?

What were your answers to my questions?

Mimzey on January 5, 2013 at 6:06 PM

I would go even further. A private company should not be forced by the government to provide health insurance.

davidk on January 5, 2013 at 3:08 PM

When did health insurance become a requirement rather than a ‘benefit’, anyway?
Is the government going to start mandating parking spaces and paid vacations?

Solaratov on January 5, 2013 at 6:08 PM

gryphon202 on January 5, 2013 at 5:34 PM

You Sir are absolutely correct, didn’t say it worked, just said they tried at an earlier date, I was arguing with old Dan_Yul who seemed to be saying that the founders weren’t wrestling with that at all, and if I am not mistaken old JQA got the importing of slaves outlawed around 28 which was before the 13th as well. Don’t worry you and I are on the same side, but the founders gave us a good foundation and when somebody suggests that they were that shortsighted well it tends to irritate me a bit.

MarshFox on January 5, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Anyway, here’s Right and here’s Civil Authority.

Some cool stuff is the part obligation plays in right (such as other people’s obligation wrt your right).

Dusty on January 5, 2013 at 5:58 PM

From the one on civil authority:

But the authority of the State is not arbitrary; it is not available for the carrying out of every whim and caprice.

Exactly. It needs to be defined.

Thanks for posting these links, Dusty.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 6:14 PM

Weren’t you the guys doing a lot of lynching in the 1930s? Those mobs had all prayed in school. It’s easy to dismiss your religion’s history when you are the hangman.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 3:13 PM

Actually, lefty, that was the terrorist arm of the democRAT party – popularly known as the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) – who were lynching ‘uppity nigras’ and Republican agitators. And I’d really like to see the proof that “Those mobs had all prayed in school”.
Perhaps you should take that up with the DNC…since they seem to be trying to revive the old ways.
And, your mobs had rather a fine old time lynching Catholics and Jews – not to mention a lot of other people of foreign extraction…just because.

Maybe, if you bothered to learn a little of the history of the times and the place, you wouldn’t make such a blithering ass of yourself while trying to proselytize for your atheism.

Solaratov on January 5, 2013 at 6:20 PM

And my answer was that we have no say in how other countries conduct their social and economic structures.

Is you solution to have an official total country boycott mandated by the federal government?

What were your answers to my questions?

Mimzey on January 5, 2013 at 6:06 PM

The original question was not country specific. It was how far can a business get today using those tactics. If they use those tactics overseas they are using those tactics.

No my solution is not to have an official country boycott. If consumers care they can do their research and spend accordingly. Just don’t pretend American business’ hands are clean.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 6:23 PM

Hey, Dan.

Do you think Hobby Lobby provides for their employees what they do because the government mandates that they do?

Or is there some other motivation at work in their business model?

Cleombrotus on January 5, 2013 at 6:25 PM

From the one on civil authority:

But the authority of the State is not arbitrary; it is not available for the carrying out of every whim and caprice.

Exactly. It needs to be defined.

Thanks for posting these links, Dusty.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 6:14 PM

You’re welcome. Read it a few times. New points and interrelationships within the dissertation come to mind each time I read it. If you get hung up on the use of “prudence” in,

A legal enactment may be immoral, and then it cannot in conscience be obeyed; or it may be ultra vires, beyond the competence of the authority that enacts it, in which case compliance with the law is not a matter of obedience, but of prudence.

then read the entry on Prudence to understand the meaning in which it is used.

Dusty on January 5, 2013 at 6:26 PM

Looking forward to the day when no employer gives any employee anything. Looking forward to the day when the government gives no citizen anything other than the bare Constitutional minimum. This day will come.

Bmore on January 5, 2013 at 6:28 PM

It’s really a marvelous thing when someone stands up against the odds and says “I will not comply.”

Republican leaders would probably call these people extremest.

Courage is such a site to behold today. So rare. Almost an oddity. We want to all watch it like it’s a traffic accident or a side show in a circus. …”Look Ma.. that man is being odd. He’s not bowing down like the rest of us? Why is that? It’s so strange. What would make him not bow down like that?”

“It’s called courage, son. Something few men have today.”

JellyToast on January 5, 2013 at 6:28 PM

Actually, lefty, that was the terrorist arm of the democRAT party – popularly known as the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) – who were lynching ‘uppity nigras’ and Republican agitators. And I’d really like to see the proof that “Those mobs had all prayed in school”.
Perhaps you should take that up with the DNC…since they seem to be trying to revive the old ways.
And, your mobs had rather a fine old time lynching Catholics and Jews – not to mention a lot of other people of foreign extraction…just because.

Maybe, if you bothered to learn a little of the history of the times and the place, you wouldn’t make such a blithering ass of yourself while trying to proselytize for your atheism.

Solaratov on January 5, 2013 at 6:20 PM

What are those big things they like to light on fire at their rallies?

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 6:28 PM

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Are you calling me a RAAACIIIST? The little old black lady at my church who hugs my neck on Sunday mornings and the young Americans, who happened to have been black, who I have worked with and have mentored in the business world over the last 30 years would disagree with you, Skippy.

kingsjester on January 5, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Kinda reminds you of the tactics of the leftists, don’t it? :)

Solaratov on January 5, 2013 at 6:29 PM

Are you being frivolous in asking questions stripped of all other considerations? Or are you seriously pursuing the limits to the definition of rights?

Dusty on January 5, 2013 at 3:49 PM

Leftists do that sort of thing.

Solaratov on January 5, 2013 at 6:30 PM

Just don’t pretend American business’ hands are clean.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 6:23 PM

Clean of what? Surviving? The Ponzi schemes of unions forced many onto survival or collapse.

What of my questions..are you still thinking?

Mimzey on January 5, 2013 at 6:32 PM

Hey, Dan.

Do you think Hobby Lobby provides for their employees what they do because the government mandates that they do?

Or is there some other motivation at work in their business model?

Cleombrotus on January 5, 2013 at 6:25 PM

It sounds like they take care of their people and live by their philosophy. Good for them. The motivation behind their business model is to earn a living. It’s a business and the purpose of a business to to make money or it won’t survive. I may be wrong but they’re a for-profit entity I believe.

And even though people choose to ignore it, once again, I support their right to opt out.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 6:34 PM

The original question was not country specific.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 6:23 PM

What was the original question again? Can you restate it?

Mimzey on January 5, 2013 at 6:35 PM

What of my questions..are you still thinking?

Mimzey on January 5, 2013 at 6:32 PM

What were they again? I’m not scanning this whole thread to see what you mean.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 6:36 PM

What are those big things they like to light on fire at their rallies?

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 6:28 PM

Those were crosses. Appropriating the mere symbols of Christianity is not living a Christian life. If I wore a star of David, because I liked the shape, that wouldn’t make me an observant Jew.

massrighty on January 5, 2013 at 6:39 PM

What are those big things they like to light on fire at their rallies?

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 6:28 PM

“Plus” signs.

Mimzey on January 5, 2013 at 6:40 PM

Courage is such a site to behold today. So rare. Almost an oddity. We want to all watch it like it’s a traffic accident or a side show in a circus. …”Look Ma.. that man is being odd. He’s not bowing down like the rest of us? Why is that? It’s so strange. What would make him not bow down like that?”

“It’s called courage, son. Something few men have today.”

JellyToast on January 5, 2013 at 6:28 PM

So true. Well said.

rrpjr on January 5, 2013 at 6:41 PM

Leftists do that sort of thing.

[Solaratov on January 5, 2013 at 6:30 PM]

Maybe, but that doesn’t mean Dan_Yul is a leftist, though he might be. I don’t know. He did say that he was serious in exploring the issue of rights and what the limits are/should be, so I’ll accept that he was being provocative in a stimulating way and honest in his intentions, especially since his responses to me indicate such.

Dusty on January 5, 2013 at 6:42 PM

I’m not scanning this whole thread to see what you mean.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 6:36 PM

I agree. Thats why I asked you the same question :)

My question was in regards to the union tactics necessitating the moving of labor overseas in order to survive as a business.
My question was a mirror to yours..basically, should a company have the right ignore union demands?

Mimzey on January 5, 2013 at 6:42 PM

My point is to ask where the line should be drawn for what employers can opt out of and on what grounds. Do you people ever think about the unintended consequences of things? Do you not think about what happens when the wind blows from the other direction? With a president who is good buddies with the Muslim Brotherhood you should really keep in mind that it applies to them too, and they will push a lot harder than you.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Sorry – I’ve been away from the computer for a while. I cannot help but think that you are really confused about your history and why certain laws restricting businesses were enacted. First, child labor – it was common practice to have child labor long before the industrial revolution. Both the agricultural economy and the merchantile economy used child labor – it was considered the education at the time. As the industrial revolution set in, the equipment used became larger, crowded into factories and which had adults as well as children operating them. The movement to end child labor was a 2 fold movement – first, to get the kids out of the industrial equipment environment where they could safely operate and second to get them into public eduction. The second reason was not to produce, as you progressives fantasize about, young scholars, but to produce educated teenagers who could then go right back into the factories. It was felt that they would be better workers. Dewey himself modeled the school day after factory shifts (why do you think they end class periods with bells and whistles?).

No one here is saying that there should be zero regulation about safety. That’s a zero-sum red herring that you progressives pull out of the hat whenever someone questions the quantity and quality of the regulation currently on the books. It’s stupid when Chris Matthews says it and its not very intelligent when it’s said in these comments. Here is the major difference which YOU are not recognizing – forcing a manufacturing company to maintain safe operations and restricting their ability to hire children to handle machinery for which they have no skill or ability is VERY DIFFERENT from requiring companies to provide health insurance that provides a benefit outside the workplace and even MORE ONEROUS when you require that benefit to include a private activity to which the business owner, individually, is morally opposed. If you can’t see the difference, then you are truly lost to all logical thought.

studentofhistory on January 5, 2013 at 6:47 PM

And even though people choose to ignore it, once again, I support their right to opt out.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 6:34 PM

And who SHOULDN’T be allowed to opt out? And why not?

Cleombrotus on January 5, 2013 at 6:47 PM

Leftists do that sort of thing.

[Solaratov on January 5, 2013 at 6:30 PM]

Maybe, but that doesn’t mean Dan_Yul is a leftist, though he might be. I don’t know. He did say that he was serious in exploring the issue of rights and what the limits are/should be, so I’ll accept that he was being provocative in a stimulating way and honest in his intentions, especially since his responses to me indicate such.

Dusty on January 5, 2013 at 6:42 PM

Actually I think this is kind of funny because people that know me accuse me of being a Republican. I think it’s sad that just asking for a definition of where the line is drawn provokes so much hatred. Yes, it’s an honest question. I love philosophy and this is a good question and one that right now is one of the most important ones we are facing. It matters to me because I want to be free not to fund what I don’t believe in too.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 6:53 PM

My question was in regards to the union tactics necessitating the moving of labor overseas in order to survive as a business.
My question was a mirror to yours..basically, should a company have the right ignore union demands?

Mimzey on January 5, 2013 at 6:42 PM

I’m not a big fan of unions. I think they were necessarry when they came about but now they are just a money laundering organization for the Democrat party. I think they muscled their way out of their own jobs in many cases.

I think companies should have the right to ignore union demands.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 6:56 PM

What are those big things they like to light on fire at their rallies?

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 6:28 PM

That doesn’t necessarily mean that it was done in the name of Christianity – as you should well know. I’m not saying that they weren’t members of Christian churches – since Christianity was the predominate faith in the South. But you want to paint all Christians as racists and murderers – and you know full well that it was your communist heroes who murdered far more people – many for no other reason than being Christians – than even your KKK managed.

As I said, you should learn a bit of history of the times. Right now, you’re just parroting the same old leftist crap that you people always do. It’s tiresome, trite and, frankly, rather retarded.

Solaratov on January 5, 2013 at 6:57 PM

No one here is saying that there should be zero regulation about safety.

studentofhistory on January 5, 2013 at 6:47 PM

OK. So where is the line drawn? What mandates are acceptable?

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 6:59 PM

And who SHOULDN’T be allowed to opt out? And why not?

Cleombrotus on January 5, 2013 at 6:47 PM

Businesses who provided money in support of the legislation.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 7:00 PM

I also want to address the nativity scene meme. At no time that I am aware of in the history of this country has public money been spent on a nativity scene. That has NEVER been an issue. Any cursatory read of the various supreme court cases regarding the display of a creche (read: nativity scene) makes this clear.

The issue has always been whether a nativity scene donated by a private party: Catholic Church, Knights of Columbus, a Church or particular religious group, to the City, County or Town could then be displayed on public property (thereby “costing” the city, county or town money by hosting the creche). At no point has there ever been a demand that the government pay for a Nativity Scene.

As to prayer in schools – let’s get over this little bit of nostalgia, shall we? From the founding of the country to roughly the late 1800s, prayer in schools was maintained because schools originally were considered local institutions that were semi-private, often housed in the local church or a building which served as a church and schoolhouse. When a town of 5,000 people established a “public” school, it was not surprising that such a town would expect the morals of their community to be reflected in the education. States had little involvement and federal involvement would have been an outrageous concept. It was the slow and steady intrusion of first state and then federal money, regulation and authority that resulted in a confusion as to who got to say what was taught in a school from a moral authority point of view. Only now, since we have essentially federal and state regulation of every aspect of education, is the matter controversial. Because of their increased involvement, prayer in a school is no longer a reflection of a local community’s moral concensus, but a coercive action of the state and federal government.

studentofhistory on January 5, 2013 at 7:00 PM

dan_Yul

ohh! ohh! ..I have a question. What’s this klan cross burning stuff? Did the owner of hobby lobby burn a cross? Did I miss something? And what’s it got to do with the feds forcing on us thier pro-eugenics and anti-life religion?

BoxHead1 on January 5, 2013 at 7:02 PM

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 7:00 PM

OK. Thanks

Cleombrotus on January 5, 2013 at 7:08 PM

Oh what a disgrace if such a despicable and base man, who hates America and it’s constitution and all Christians, and worships himself, should be allowed to assault a people which has the faith of omnipotent God! With what reproaches will the Lord overwhelm us if we do not promptly and fully aid those who’s conscience is being brutalized and murdered because they profess the Christian religion! Let those who have been accustomed unjustly to wage private warfare against other of the faithful now all unite and go against the tyrant in a Holy Crusade!

Let those who have been in service of this tyrant against their own brothers and sisters now fight in a proper way against this tyrant. Let those who have been wearing themselves out in both body and soul in vain attempt to appease him now labor for glorious honor against him. Behold! On the one side will be the destroyed tyrant, on the other the fierce and righteous protectors of the Constitution and Christianity. On the one side will be the destroyed enemy of the Lord and the Constitution, on the other, their friends who will shout at the tyrant as they destroy his despotic rule, “It is for the Founding Fathers!”, “It is for the Founding Fathers!, and “Deus vult! Deus vult! Deus vult!

RasThavas on January 5, 2013 at 7:09 PM

The issue has always been whether a nativity scene donated by a private party: Catholic Church, Knights of Columbus, a Church or particular religious group, to the City, County or Town could then be displayed on public property (thereby “costing” the city, county or town money by hosting the creche). At no point has there ever been a demand that the government pay for a Nativity Scene.

Considering churches are tax exempt and they have their own tax exempt property on which to display Nativity scenes, why do they even ask to use public property?

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 7:10 PM

I think companies should have the right to ignore union demands.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 6:56 PM

We agree on that.
Should a company have the right to forbid the creation of a union?

Mimzey on January 5, 2013 at 7:11 PM

What drives Obama is his inborn nature, which is similar to that of a Vampyroteuthis Infernalis, lit. “Vampire Squid from Hell”, ramming his blood funnel into every part of America to suck dry all remaining individual freedoms. His blood lust will not be satiated unless the United States Constitution, especially including it’s Bill of Rights, and most especially the First, Second and Fourth Amendments, is a withered corpse. As this throwback fascist monstrosity was reelected this past November the mask will now slowly come completely off and he will go into a rabid freedom killing totalitarian frenzy such as this nation has never before even imagined.

VorDaj on January 5, 2013 at 7:13 PM

Should a company have the right to forbid the creation of a union?

Mimzey on January 5, 2013 at 7:11 PM

I don’t think they should be able to forbid the creation of a union because of the right to free assembly. But they should have the right to fire them and hire new people.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 7:14 PM

why do they even ask to use public property?

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 7:10 PM

They ask?

Mimzey on January 5, 2013 at 7:15 PM

They ask?

Mimzey on January 5, 2013 at 7:15 PM

I guess they do. Maybe they just go and set up. Maybe the process is different at different places.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 7:17 PM

No one here is saying that there should be zero regulation about safety.

studentofhistory on January 5, 2013 at 6:47 PM
OK. So where is the line drawn? What mandates are acceptable?

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 6:59 PM

The line is typically drawn with physical safety at the workplace. Beyond that, you get into some pretty muddy waters. I’m not saying that this means no regulation to address other issues – say legitimate sexual harrassment cases – but there must be a compelling reason. THIS is where progressives go off the rails and this HHS mandate is the PERFECT EXAMPLE. Think about it this way – when the country was founded, the idea of religious freedom was proposed because in the eyes of the founders, Europe had experience turmoil as religious sects tried to become the official “state religion” – Lutheranism in the German principalities, Anglicanism in England, Catholicism in France and Spain, etc. If you were a sect that was classified as the “state religion” you were privileged to government favor. The founders realized that the “United States” was already made up of too many sects – the battle over which one was going to be the “state religion” would be horrendous. Also, prevalent thinking during the Enlightenment (even for many devoutly Christian figures, such as Wilberforce) was that each man was to be allowed his “freedom of conscience” with regards to religious belief.

Now, combined with a refusal to allow any sect to achieve the status of “state religion,” the founders realized that the government should never pick a religion to be the official belief of the state. Also, any restriction on a community’s or individual’s “freedom of conscience” was to be allowed only if it met a high burden. This idea was in its infancy at the time, but later Supreme Court cases let us see what this meant.

So, the idea is that the government only infringe upon a person’s “freedom of conscience” if it meets a high burden of necessity – worker’s safety for instance. I find it hard to believe that a woman’s ability to obtain free birth control meets the high burden of infringing upon a business owner’s freedom of conscience. But progressives – they believe that any problem to which they can enact a solution should be subject to their superior reasoning. Therefore, “freedom of conscience” be damned – if they believe that the problem of greater access to birth control, no matter how immaterial, can be solved by imposing a regulation on someone, then by God, they will do it. There is no high burden to meet because anyone elses “freedom of conscience” is subject to their decision whether the underlying beliefs that inform such “conscience” are “reasonable.”

studentofhistory on January 5, 2013 at 7:18 PM

I don’t think they should be able to forbid the creation of a union because of the right to free assembly. But they should have the right to fire them and hire new people.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 7:14 PM

The right for the public to freely assemble is not the same as organizing a force against another group and exercising that force.

Mimzey on January 5, 2013 at 7:21 PM

To pick an extreme example, human sacrifice is not permitted under the First Amendment.

Or parents who don’t want their children vaccinated. Or have surgery because it violates their religious views.

There are limits.

SteveMG on January 5, 2013 at 1:55 PM

All of which cause harm or has the potential to cause harm to another individual.

Refusing to give your employee free birth control does not harm them in any way. Forcing a Christian employer to provide their employees with birth control against their stated faith does cause actual harm.

Wendya on January 5, 2013 at 7:21 PM

Considering churches are tax exempt and they have their own tax exempt property on which to display Nativity scenes, why do they even ask to use public property?

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 7:10 PM

If you examine the cases, it is actually very rare for a church to be behind a Creche controversy for exactly the reason you stated. All of the Supreme Court cases are results of private organizations of religious citizen donating the Creche to the City, Town or County or wanting to display THEIR Creche on public property.

studentofhistory on January 5, 2013 at 7:22 PM

I’m happy to see this receive some recognition. I sent the info to Drudge but it was ignored. People on Ace had been talking about it and Gateway had a post on it.
I shop at HL all the time. They have great merchandise and great sales every week. I went there today, got some great deals on Christmas stuff at 80% 0ff and some other items at 50% off. It was busy and I haven’t seen that many men there before. A couple of guys were talking about how they never realized how many different things they carried. LOL

Deanna on January 5, 2013 at 7:23 PM

OK. So where is the line drawn? What mandates are acceptable?

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 6:59 PM

How about we only mandate that which is absolutely necessary for a narrowly defined common good.

We mandate obedience to laws against murder, theft, fraud.
We mandate reasonable behavior in public, where others are affected by our behavior.
We compel a level of taxation sufficient to pay for defense, and reasonable public projects.

Someone had a list, one time; I think there were 10 things on it.
Someone else came along, with a much shorter list; just two things.

We’d be far better off if we tried to live within those strictures, left each other alone, and didn’t try to force people to fund behavior that is against their stated moral principals.

massrighty on January 5, 2013 at 7:28 PM

Considering churches are tax exempt and they have their own tax exempt property on which to display Nativity scenes, why do they even ask to use public property?

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 7:10 PM

Churches are not so tax exempt as you have been led to believe. Payroll taxes, fuel taxes, food taxes(when they apply.) Also, land which is not contiguous to a house of worship, but which may be owned by a church, is taxed.

Beyond that, some churches are not “in the public square;” therefore, a display might not be widely seen.

It’s also more convenient, in cases where a group of churches in a town, acting together, collaborate on a display, to put in “downtown.”

massrighty on January 5, 2013 at 7:34 PM

We’d be far better off if we tried to live within those strictures, left each other alone, and didn’t try to force people to fund behavior that is against their stated moral principals.

massrighty on January 5, 2013 at 7:28 PM

I agree as long as it applies across the board.

It will be interesting to see how this thing plays out. I wonder will other businesses see in this an opportunity to stand together, or will they sit by and see if Hobby Lobby gets fed to the lions? I hope more businesses join in.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 7:47 PM

Actually I think this is kind of funny because people that know me accuse me of being a Republican. I think it’s sad that just asking for a definition of where the line is drawn provokes so much hatred. Yes, it’s an honest question. I love philosophy and this is a good question and one that right now is one of the most important ones we are facing. It matters to me because I want to be free not to fund what I don’t believe in too.

[Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 6:53 PM]

As I was composing my “frivolous” containing comment, I had only seen your first comment. Something in your second comment made me think you were questions rhetorical and from a philosophic bent. I think the hatred (more likely anger) came more from your poking people in the eye with your KKK references, than the questions themselves, though some of it was from having to be habitually on guard in responding to those who oppose the more conservative and liberty loving leanings here.

As for being free to not fund what I don’t believe in, I’ve been thinking more on the ‘principle of voluntary control’, but in the larger question of civil authority, I’m pretty much at the point that the government is illegitimate for many reasons, these latest infringement of religious liberty and the calls for gun control being cases in point. I have not finished considering the reasons or completed how to best explain my reasoning but two, in general, are:

– The government is too large and complex with too much whim and caprice in it’s operation for citizens to be secure in the belief that they are abiding the laws or treated justly.

– The prime purpose for civil authority is to ensure the peace and tranquility of the people and the government, as operated, in it’s actions run counter to that purpose, causing all manner of angst, argument, fear, despair, anger, and hatred.

Dusty on January 5, 2013 at 7:48 PM

Considering churches are tax exempt and they have their own tax exempt property on which to display Nativity scenes, why do they even ask to use public property?

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 7:10 PM

I think ti’s time that maybe churches should start paying some taxes. It would mean some Pastors might have to live in smaller mansions and drive older cars, but the trade-off is our churches in America could finally speak freely about who and what is to blame for the corruption in America. Name the names!

JellyToast on January 5, 2013 at 7:50 PM

studentofhistory on January 5, 2013 at 7:18 PM

Now was that so hard? No need for ad homenim attacks. Thanks for your reasonable answer.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 7:54 PM

The Obamanation: fundamentally changing America, as promised.

You will be assimilated.

locomotivebreath1901 on January 5, 2013 at 7:59 PM

Dusty on January 5, 2013 at 7:48 PM

I didn’t mean funny in the frivilous sense.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 8:03 PM

Now was that so hard? No need for ad homenim attacks. Thanks for your reasonable answer.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 7:54 PM

It wasn’t hard at all. Once you asked a question that I could answer, without the added snark about people of religious faith, we could have the reasonable discussion. I understand that many of the people who post one HA (you may or may not be one of them) are not religious, and may in fact be atheist or strong agnostics. However, the tendency for them to use the same reasoning as progressives about the evils of religion shows a lack of knowledge about actual history and a tendency to attribute to Christians in particular all the evils of our world. As if violence and hatred started in 3 A.D. I’m perfectly willing to have a pleasant conversation with everyone on HA.

studentofhistory on January 5, 2013 at 8:15 PM

So let Green follow his conscience and pay the fine.
Problem solved.

chumpThreads on January 5, 2013 at 8:17 PM

chumpThreads on January 5, 2013 at 8:17 PM

Wrong, dullard.

22044 on January 5, 2013 at 8:27 PM

studentofhistory on January 5, 2013 at 8:15 PM

My questions weren’t about the evils of religion. Well, OK. That one about the lynchings and cross burnings were but that was never the point of my argument. I was just returning venom directed at me. I’ve been asking about the limits of government. It’s just that in this case it involves religion.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 8:31 PM

ahhh my apologies davidk..didn’t sense the sarcasm at all

sadsushi on January 5, 2013 at 3:30 PM

No problemo. I’m not very good at it.

davidk on January 5, 2013 at 9:02 PM

also wanted to include Hobby Lobby’s online shopping website link. You can support the company from the comfort of your own home

Thanks. I’ve been looking for a shadow box for my 1920′s era Smith&Wesson .32 hand ejector. (see how easy that was?)

mike_NC9 on January 5, 2013 at 9:02 PM

My questions weren’t about the evils of religion. Well, OK. That one about the lynchings and cross burnings were but that was never the point of my argument. I was just returning venom directed at me. I’ve been asking about the limits of government. It’s just that in this case it involves religion.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 8:31 PM

The reason it is important is because it involves religion, which is one form of “freedom of conscience,” and therefore the bar should be high in order for the government to ask a citizen to violate that conscience. I’m not going to argue that this has always been practiced perfectly by the religious – it hasn’t – but if that means that now the religious can be forced to violate their conscience as some sort of penance or because past violations of the principle negates current protection, then we’ve really just turned our nation from one seeking perfection to one in which might makes right and “an eye for eye” is seen as an appropriate basis for a society.

studentofhistory on January 5, 2013 at 9:19 PM

GOVERNMENT IS GOD.

It’s the religion of Progressives.

Everything revolves around its worship and growing its power. They are EVANGELISTS of Government.

Once you realize that……..it all makes sense.

PappyD61 on January 5, 2013 at 9:21 PM

…then we’ve really just turned our nation from one seeking perfection to one in which might makes right and “an eye for eye” is seen as an appropriate basis for a society.

studentofhistory on January 5, 2013 at 9:19 PM

That is what the “We are a Christian nation” argument sounds like to atheists, and I suspect other non-Christians.

But in the case of Hobby Lobby I would like to see other businesses do the same and let the fines mount to the point there is no way to collect them. Businesses have a lot more influence than we do on a blog.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 9:29 PM

chumpThreads on January 5, 2013 at 8:17 PM

Using your logic:
The US GOVT has declared that you must now die or pay a fine. The dying violates your religious conscience (cult of self), so just pay the fine. Right?

nobar on January 5, 2013 at 9:31 PM

GOVERNMENT IS GOD.

It’s the religion of Progressives.

Everything revolves around its worship and growing its power. They are EVANGELISTS of Government.

Once you realize that……..it all makes sense.

PappyD61 on January 5, 2013 at 9:21 PM

The interesting thing about this very idea is that the Progressives started as the millenialist Protestants in the mid-1800s. Their zeal to create a utopia through regulation and tight control of education was at first religious. As religion was dropped, they kept the other aspects of their ideology: perceived intellectual superiority, moral superiority, and a supposed superior understanding of human behavior. History has proven them wrong again and again (i.e., prohibition, eugenics, communism, socialism, etc., etc.), but they continue to revel in their supposed superiority.

studentofhistory on January 5, 2013 at 9:37 PM

…then we’ve really just turned our nation from one seeking perfection to one in which might makes right and “an eye for eye” is seen as an appropriate basis for a society.

studentofhistory on January 5, 2013 at 9:19 PM
That is what the “We are a Christian nation” argument sounds like to atheists, and I suspect other non-Christians.

But in the case of Hobby Lobby I would like to see other businesses do the same and let the fines mount to the point there is no way to collect them. Businesses have a lot more influence than we do on a blog.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 9:29 PM

I recognize that the “We are a Christian nation” argument sounds this way, that is why I said that the religious haven’t always done a good job of upholding the principle of “freedom of conscience.” However, that is why I said that, now that the country is clearly moving into a post-Judeo-Christian culture, are we going to violate Christian’s “freedom of consciences” as payback? Does their prior failure justify further failure to uphold the principle even with them? If it does, then we truly have moved to an “eye-for-an-eye” and the result, I argue, will be devestating to this country.

studentofhistory on January 5, 2013 at 9:43 PM

Then they came for Hobby Lobby…

Knott Buyinit on January 5, 2013 at 9:47 PM

studentofhistory on January 5, 2013 at 9:37 PM

Yes. Daniel Flynn’s “A Conservative History of the American Left” does a good job of recounting this story.

rrpjr on January 5, 2013 at 9:58 PM

…now that the country is clearly moving into a post-Judeo-Christian culture, are we going to violate Christian’s “freedom of consciences” as payback?

I understand that point of view. It also seems to be happening with white males in general right now too. It seems like with human beings burying the hatchet is one of the hardest things to do. I see from some of my atheist Facebook pages that a lot of people claiming to be atheists are really more anti-Christian than they are skeptics. There is a lot of “stick it to them” mentality. I don’t agree with that school of thought. I think most of my fellow atheists don’t want to see that this is about our freedom too, along with the freedom of every American.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 10:02 PM

Using your logic:
The US GOVT has declared that you must now die or pay a fine. The dying violates your religious conscience (cult of self), so just pay the fine. Right?

nobar on January 5, 2013 at 9:31 PM

Neither one of us has the slightest idea what you’re talking about.

chumpThreads on January 5, 2013 at 10:09 PM

Couldn’t make it to a HL store today, and don’t really need anything right now, so I bought a gift card online just to show my support for HL Day.

toby11 on January 5, 2013 at 10:16 PM

The mandate for free birth control, which is already cheap and readily available for anyone who wants it (and has federal subsidies for Medicaid recipients already in place through Title X), is just a Trojan horse in an attack on religious liberty

Hmmm….

ScottG on January 5, 2013 at 10:17 PM

…now that the country is clearly moving into a post-Judeo-Christian culture, are we going to violate Christian’s “freedom of consciences” as payback?
I understand that point of view. It also seems to be happening with white males in general right now too. It seems like with human beings burying the hatchet is one of the hardest things to do. I see from some of my atheist Facebook pages that a lot of people claiming to be atheists are really more anti-Christian than they are skeptics. There is a lot of “stick it to them” mentality. I don’t agree with that school of thought. I think most of my fellow atheists don’t want to see that this is about our freedom too, along with the freedom of every American.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 10:02 PM

I couldn’t agree more. Atheists, secularists, conservative Christians, liberal Christians, scientists – too many are seeking to become that “state religion” that was once occupied by some sect – for the US is was Protestantism at large, for England – the Anglican church, for Germany – Lutheranism, for India its Hinduism, for China – Buddishm at first, now communism. What each group, represented here in the US, does not realized is that this “freedom of conscience” was probably the only really unique and truly ingenious idea that the founding fathers had. They didn’t practice it fully themselves, but the seed of that idea was the reason for the growth of Evangelical Christianity, the current Unitarian church, Mormanism, the healthy agnostic and atheist community in this country. If we give that up, even for our own chosen belief system, we shall eventually see that move turned on ourselves.

I’ve got to sign off – it’s been a geniune pleasure.

studentofhistory on January 5, 2013 at 10:19 PM

What are those big things they like to light on fire at their rallies?

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 6:28 PM

Those were crosses. Appropriating the mere symbols of Christianity is not living a Christian life. If I wore a star of David, because I liked the shape, that wouldn’t make me an observant Jew.

massrighty on January 5, 2013 at 6:39 PM

And importantly, when NOT living a Christian life, those are merely a couple of sticks arranged perpendicularly.

Nutstuyu on January 5, 2013 at 10:21 PM

I have no idea what they sell at Hobby Lobby, however, I will
visit their website and purchase a bunch of whatever to support
the cause.

While I agree with their stand on religious freedom, I also think
that their stand and our stand must be about fighting against the loss of all our freedoms with this thug regime.

Look at what is happening in Vermont with the local political
hacks, no doubt financed and backed by the political hacks in
Washington and the UN (Agenda 21 anyone?). We must battle this
infringement on our rights at the local, state and federal level
wherever, whenever we can. It is our duty.

My advice? Read as many blogs and conservative websites as you
can to learn what the media is not telling us. Then support the
people, companies and causes that you believe in. Read the comments on each article on the blogs. I get some of my best
info on events and links to other conservative websites from the
comment sections like Hot Air.

Don’t just get stuck in a rut by just reading and posting on Hot Air. It is a waste of time to fight the trolls; they are just posting because they get paid to distract from the real issues.
And since Townhall took over, too many rino subjects to suit me.
Topics that for some unexplainable reason, because they are indeed
noteworthy to all conservatives, are never touched upon at Hot Air.
Don’t get me wrong, Hot Air is a great site; its just that to be
well informed you need to get your news from multiple sources.

Also, we must not forget that politicians are self serving; if
their election is threatened, they will start towing the line.
Until we citizens start paying attention and reacting, they will
continue to get away with fleecing the citizens.

Ok – long past the time to get off my soapbox!!! Gotta go to
Hobby Lobby’s website and spend some cash!

Amjean on January 5, 2013 at 10:42 PM

I recognize that the “We are a Christian nation” argument sounds this way, that is why I said that the religious haven’t always done a good job of upholding the principle of “freedom of conscience.”

One of St. Paul’s letters answers for a popular prayer said by many Jewish men “I thank the Lord that I wasn’t born a slave, woman or gentile”. This is the real context of “In Christ, there is neither male nor female.”

Of course, on the Gentile side, God had done much to make the Jewish road the more blessed. But the popular expression of that value wasn’t always on target, and a sort of gloating and self-congratulations was not what he intended.

Axeman on January 5, 2013 at 10:47 PM

Actually I think this is kind of funny because people that know me accuse me of being a Republican. I think it’s sad that just asking for a definition of where the line is drawn provokes so much hatred. Yes, it’s an honest question. I love philosophy and this is a good question and one that right now is one of the most important ones we are facing. It matters to me because I want to be free not to fund what I don’t believe in too.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 6:53 PM

If that is what you call hatred, then you are a very little, smarmy man. You and all your ilk.

HiJack on January 5, 2013 at 11:43 PM

hatecraft on January 5, 2013 at 3:19 PM

That’s not how you started the thread. I’ve seen your comments on other threads. Your name fits you.

How I started the thread? I didn’t start this thread. Did you mean my first post in this thread? All I said was that I used to buy books at Hobby Lobby when I was a kid. How can you have a problem with that?

As to my name, it is simply a pun of an author’s name. I guess you think I hate “craft” or something. That doesn’t even make sense.

hatecraft on January 6, 2013 at 12:17 AM

You’re a gnat or part of a plankton bank.

I meant every word.

Schadenfreude on January 5, 2013 at 4:44 PM

Geez, what’s your problem with me?

Thankfully the majority of Hotair posters, with the exceptions of the liberal trolls, have a bit more class than you sir.

hatecraft on January 6, 2013 at 12:22 AM

The most outrageous exemption to Obamacare is that which congress gave itself.

GaltBlvnAtty on January 6, 2013 at 12:49 AM

Regardless of religious objections, no company should be forced to provide any type of health care coverage to their employees. The Founders wouldn’t even recognize this country.

hatecraft on January 6, 2013 at 1:12 AM

Avoid the Hobby Lobby website. Quite possibly the worst website I have ever visited. Evidently, old ladies looking for picture frames and yarn do not demand an efficient online presence.

ZippyZ on January 6, 2013 at 2:37 AM

And even though people choose to ignore it, once again, I support their right to opt out.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 6:34 PM

And who SHOULDN’T be allowed to opt out? And why not?

Cleombrotus on January 5, 2013 at 6:47 PM

Yes, and furthermore, why should the private citizen or corporation have the burden of opting out?

My questions weren’t about the evils of religion. Well, OK. That one about the lynchings and cross burnings were but that was never the point of my argument. I was just returning venom directed at me. I’ve been asking about the limits of government. It’s just that in this case it involves religion.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 8:31 PM

Through this entire discussion, you’ve shown yourself to be anti-religion, specifically, anti-Christian.

And you’re a liberal. During this discussion, you want to talk about the limitations of liberty instead of talking about the limitations of government.

Kyle_Reese on January 6, 2013 at 3:48 AM

God bless you, Hobby Lobby. As you have honored the Lord, may He in turn, honor you.

tommy71 on January 6, 2013 at 6:09 AM

During this discussion, you want to talk about the limitations of liberty instead of talking about the limitations of government.

Kyle_Reese on January 6, 2013 at 3:48 AM

I guess you missed this one for instance. I asked more than once where the limits of government regulation are.

Yes, I’m asking the limits of the definition of rights. I realize most people here respond based on knee-jerk tribalism so most are not used to having to think about where the lines are drawn. But if there are to be limits, where are they? How far can the government go in regulating business? Businesses still use child labor overseas so it’s not like they care about employees or working conditions. Where should the line be drawn?

[Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 5:03 PM]

Dan_Yul on January 6, 2013 at 8:01 AM

Dan_Yul on January 6, 2013 at 8:01 AM

It amazes me, Dan, that guys like you, describing yourselves as “atheist”, miss the lesson here as regards Hobby Lobby and our larger social situation.

Cleombrotus on January 6, 2013 at 8:27 AM

It amazes me, Dan, that guys like you, describing yourselves as “atheist”, miss the lesson here as regards Hobby Lobby and our larger social situation.

Cleombrotus on January 6, 2013 at 8:27 AM

Do you mean this lesson that I already acknowledged?

I think most of my fellow atheists don’t want to see that this is about our freedom too, along with the freedom of every American.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 10:02 PM

Dan_Yul on January 6, 2013 at 8:34 AM

The interesting thing about this very idea is that the Progressives started as the millenialist Protestants in the mid-1800s. Their zeal to create a utopia through regulation and tight control of education was at first religious. As religion was dropped, they kept the other aspects of their ideology: perceived intellectual superiority, moral superiority, and a supposed superior understanding of human behavior. History has proven them wrong again and again (i.e., prohibition, eugenics, communism, socialism, etc., etc.), but they continue to revel in their supposed superiority.

studentofhistory on January 5, 2013 at 9:37 PM

Great post and insight. +

Mimzey on January 6, 2013 at 8:37 AM

Dan_Yul on January 6, 2013 at 8:34 AM

Only peripherally. The “freedom” you relish is the effect; you seem oblivious to its cause.

Cleombrotus on January 6, 2013 at 8:43 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5