Discover Ministry Briefing! --> The Best Way To Keep "In The Know"!


Rick Warren releases statement on Hobby Lobby situation

Rick Warren’s statement about Hobby Lobby:

Every American who loves freedom should shudder at the precedent the government is trying to establish by denying Hobby Lobby the full protection of the First Amendment. This case is nothing less than a landmark battle for Americas FIRST freedom, the freedom of religion and the freedom from government intervention in matters of conscience. Religious liberty is often called our First Freedom because it is the first phrase of the first sentence of the First Amendment of our Bill of Rights. Freedom to practice your religion is listed before the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble, and the right to bear arms. The first American settlers, Pilgrims, came to America for this very reason seeking the freedom to PRACTICE their religion, which they were denied in Europe. This is the freedom that made America unique from all other nations.

Today, the government has tried to reinterpret the First Amendment from freedom to PRACTICE your religion, to a more narrow freedom to worship, which would limit your freedom to the hour a week you are at a house of worship. This is not only a subversion of the Constitution, it is nonsense. Any religion that cannot be lived out at home and work, is nothing but a meaningless ritual.

What do YOU think?

Is this Hobby Lobby situation a real red flag, or is it overblown?

// Read more here…

Todd Subscribe to me on YouTube

 

 



13 Responses to “ “Rick Warren releases statement on Hobby Lobby situation”

  1. Adam McLane says:

    Publicity stunt. Pure and simple. Imagine the precedent that’d be set? Any employer could opt out of any federal employment law “for religious reasons.”

    What about the bigger picture? Um, people are really against birth control in 2013?!?! You’ve got to be kidding me.

    • Brandon Cox says:

      Hobby Lobby isn’t against birth control. They cover that. They just don’t want to cover the two medications that prevent a fertilized embryo from attaching to the uterine wall, causing an abortion. Judge the Green family’s motives if you will, but they have a right to this conviction. Further, the Greens have invested many millions of dollars into the kingdom out of the wealth from their growing company. I don’t think they need a publicity stunt.

    • davepatchin says:

      Adam, I don’t think this is a publicity stunt, nor is Hobby Lobby trying to get freedom to ignore any law. Presuming others motives is dangerous.

      But let me flip this on you….isn’t the federal government just in a publicity stunt mode? What about the precedent and bigger picture? Does the federal government have the authority to say what benefits an employer must pay down to the drugs and procedures they must cover? Does the 10th amendment not exist anymore?

  2. kjc says:

    if you own the company you should be able to set the tone of that company as long as you meet the needs of your people, but having the government tell you how to do that in a line by line action is crazy. its not an issue of health as much as it is an issue of government control and freedom to own a company and have christian convictions as an owner.

  3. David Brown says:

    Rick Warren is simply exactly right! The issue is “Can Christians (people…not churches) PRACTICE their faith in America?”.

  4. Steve Long says:

    I don’t see the issue here. It is not the governments role to protect the church no matter what the First Amendment says. It is the head of the churches responsibility (Jesus). Once we cede protection to the government we have lost the war because governments do not possess the Holy Spirit of God. The choice here isn’t to figure out how to make the government leave me alone but whether I will follow Jesus even if the government tries to wreck me up. It is o.k. to appeal to Caesar like Paul did but if the owners of Holly Hobby are told to comply or close their business by the government they will have to decide here who rules in their life, Caesar or Jesus. There are plenty of example in scripture of folk who did jail time rather than follow the ungodly orders of men. Jesus warned us that there might be a cost for following Him. I’m pretty sure the goal from heaven is aimed at drawing people to Jesus and sometimes the innocent and the righteous get bloodied up in the process. In scripture blood makes a better case for eternal things than litigation does.

  5. IN general I identify with Hobby Lobby’s pushback against the govt mandating they provide for abortion inducing meds.

    But a problem that a lot of people do not realize is that MANY of the common birth-control pills work on the same basis: they prevent ovulation (this is the main way they work.) AND if that aspect fails, then they also prevent implantation IF fertilization has occurred (because the chemicals have a thickening of uterine wall, which effects implantation).

    Yep, the same pill that a lot of anti-abortion Christians take can actually be killing living embryos by not allowing them to implant. It’s a very small percentage of cases…but the science of the pill proves it. Kind of scary, huh?

  6. Jeorge says:

    people hae beliefs, and since the SCOTUS has elevated corporations to personhood I guess this is the logical result. I hope some day pastors get to baptize corporations and deny them communion for their business practices. Oh wait businesses don’t have souls!

    • Hubristic John says:

      Are you trying to say that Hobby Lobby fails the test of having a legitimate right to complain? Or are you saying that the whole discussion up to this point about the effect of birth controll is a smoke screen?

      • Jeorge says:

        Years ago when I took accounting and economics 101 collectively it was generally believed that business were inanimate entities that had no collective reason to exist except to enhance profits. Hobby Lobby only exists to make the investors money. The investors can and do have a moral center. This center can be expressed by the actions of the corporation but the corporation itself cannot claim a moral center because it is at best an amoral entity responsible only to its investors in terms of profits.
        Should the complainants in this instance wish to have a solid basis for their position they need to say this action will limit their financial bottom line. Claiming to have a moral issue is to grant a piece of paper value it cannot possess.
        The question is never how does birth control work? It is can the government tell corporations operating in the public arena to begin or stop an action. If the government cannot in this case tell a corporation to do something then the question is to what extent does this logic extend? Can a company refuse to have its insurance policy cover insulin because the principle investor fails to believe in diabetes? (Extreme logic I know but really it is that basic.)

  7. Steve Long says:

    A simple solution to this problem is to tell the employees the sum that the corporation will contribute toward medical coverage and let them decide among themselves how to use their portion, to collectivize or to go it alone. I wonder if the present coverage covers treatment for venereal disease or drug/alcohol related diseases?

    • davepatchin says:

      Steve…there is no option to “collectivize.” It is banned by federal law. Either the employer offers insurance that the Federal Gov’t requires to offer abortifacients or the employer pays steep tax penalties. If they do not offer the insurance, employees move into the federal subsidized program. As well, every person in the USA is required to have health insurance or they will be individually taxed/penalized

  8. Steve Long says:

    You have raise an interesting point Dave. I a sense individual States are allowed to form their own collectives. Many of them have accepted the Federal effort instead. A larger issue might be what my conscience says about how my taxes are used. I don’t want the government to tell me what type of medical coverage I offer my employees but I must pay taxes (every last sou and farthing) to pay for rendition and waterboarding, and weapons sales to dictatorships and war (even if I am a conscientious objector) and for the corn dole to the Roman citizens and yet Jesus said for us to pay our taxes, all of them. If an employee used the medical mandate items the federal government mandates I do not understand how this becomes any more or less a religious freedom issue than say an errant drone missile strike that takes the life of women and children that my taxes paid for. Again, Jesus said for us to pay our taxes. Why would this be? Because taxes belong to the government. God is able to discipline wayward governments (that is the story of the ancient nation of Israel). I am not responsible for any of the sins of my employees or anyone else for that matter. This idea is rooted in the OT where the fathers are not punished for the sins of the sons nor the sons for their fathers. I do not see Holly Hobby grousing about the possibility that their employees might misuse their paychecks to by illegal drugs. They hand them the check and company responsibility ends there.
    Jesus is a simple message about walking in the light and our choice whether or not to walk with him. When the government tells us to do something that bothers us we must make a choice whether to take the heat or know that God understands our own heart on the matter. The applicable account here is about Naaman in II Kings 5: 18 In this matter may the Lord pardon your servant: when my master goes into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leans on my hand and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, when I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, the Lord pardon your servant in this matter.” 19 He said to him, “Go in peace.” So he departed from him some distance.

Leave your comment now!

×

TWO WEEKS FREE: This week's top 50 stories for pastors & church leaders... Subscribe today and get your first two weeks FREE!

Switch to our mobile site