11 ms·

Between 2009 and 2014, Steve Green, the owner of Hobby Lobby, a chain of arts and crafts stores, purchased 13 of the fragments, which he has donated, along with

Between 2009 and 2014, Steve Green, the owner of Hobby Lobby, a chain of arts and crafts stores, purchased 13 of the fragments, which he has donated, along with thousands of other artifacts, to the Museum of the Bible. Green is helping to fund construction of the museum, scheduled to open in Washington, D.C., next fall. (A fly-through of the museum can be seen on YouTube). I'm more than slightly sure the Green family has total control over this, "museum", and this was less a donation, than a transfer of stolen artifacts from an individual, to a private company held by that individual. Hobby Lobby, as you may recall, is the privately held company that disallowed its workers to use the Affordable Care Act to cover birth control, because of the religious beliefs of the owners. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/us/hobby-lobby-case-supreme-court-contraception.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/us/hobby-lobby-case-suprem...

gotofritz 10y ago
I wonder whether the owners' religious beliefs influenced what scrolls were passed on to the museum... some of the scrolls are a bit left field. But then again, they would have needed to understand them first...
- c0achmcguirk 10y ago
  Which of the scrolls are you referring to? Were they from canonical books?
  - gotofritz 10y ago
    No, the non-canonical
chinese_dan 10y ago
"'m more than slightly sure the Green family has total control over this, "museum", and this was less a donation, than a transfer of stolen artifacts from an individual, to a private company held by that individual." More than slightly sure? What you really should have said is: "I have no idea what I'm talking about" "Hobby Lobby, as you may recall, is the privately held company that disallowed its workers to use the Affordable Care Act to cover birth control, because of the religious beliefs of the owners." Ahhh, so you demonize them because they go against your personal beliefs. One has nothing to do with the other. You just wanted to post your displeasure with Hobby Lobby.
- Retric 10y ago
  It's simple if you are not willing to provide health insurance either admit that and don't provide health insurance or don't employ people. I also demonize serial killers, because they go against my personal beliefs. Because that's what personal beliefs mean. I also don't calibrate the lives destroyed from insanity, why should a tolerate the mass delusions from religion again?
  - castis 10y ago
    What exactly are you having to tolerate?
    - Retric 10y ago
      Poor working conditions for a fellow person. In a wider context indoctrination of children. I feel that 'Sunday school' is child abuse. But, where we don't tolerate public beatings of children some topics are considered off limits. PS: I accept many people will disagree with this. But, while many pat them on the head and move on I think it is important for everyone to understand their bubble is just that, and their assumptions are far from universal.
      - kbenson 10y ago
        It's a tricky subject, because heavily regulating what kids must be exposed to by the state could easily be classified as propagandized brainwashing. If we support both the right of parents to express their beliefs to their children and the right of the children to make an informed decision when they are adults about their beliefs, the best thing may be have a mandatory "survey of beliefs" class for children at various points in their lives. A class that covered the 4-5 most common world religious beliefs as well atheism in a way that did not promote any of them, much less one over the others (a tall order in some communities, I'm sure), would do a great deal to both inform individuals on various beliefs and how they interrelate, as well as foster understanding for others.
        10y ago
proksoup 10y ago
I disagree with Hobby Lobby's decision, but support their right to make it. There are different types of contraceptives, and that we use the same word for all types is disingenuous and muddies the argument. The day after pill is very different from a condom, and at least a little different from "the pill".
- DanBC 10y ago
  > The day after pill is very different Why? They both prevent conception.
  - LyndsySimon 10y ago
    The morning-after pill has two methods of action, IIRC - preventing ovulation, and making the womb inhospitable for implantation. In the latter case conception occurs.
    - Domenic_S 10y ago
      We're wandering from the topic, but I don't believe that's correct. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levonorgestrel#Emergency_birth_control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levonorgestrel#Emergency_birth... - The primary mechanism of action of levonorgestrel as a progestogen-only emergency contraceptive pill is, according to International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO), to prevent fertilization by inhibition of ovulation and thickening of the mucosa of cervix. FIGO has stated that: "review of the evidence suggests that LNG [levonorgestreol] ECPs cannot prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. (references on the wiki page as always)
      - LyndsySimon 10y ago
        They've removed the notice from that specific type of ECP (and I was not aware of that), but it's still present on other types, including some that are common in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_contraception#Mechanism_of_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_contraception#Mechan...
Dagwoodie 10y ago
Do pitchforks need to come out every time a Christian or Christian topic is mentioned on HN? Everyone knows there are people who exercise their religious freedoms, do we need to keep trying to burn them in effigy here?
- mhurron 10y ago
  If people think strongly enough about a topic, it will happen.
- kmonsen 10y ago
  I agree with your general sentiment, but disagree with your wording. From what I understand HL, and many others, are not exercising their religious freedom but rather imposing their religion on others. For example, if you are against an action like prevention on religious reasons you should of course be free to not use them yourself. Enforcing those standard on others, including your employees, is not exercising your own religious freedom.
  - Dagwoodie 10y ago
    He's not imposing any behavior on his employees or taking their freedoms way, he's just choosing not to pay for it himself on religious grounds. I suspect the real issue is that he's going agains the grain by not celebrating that form of birth control and that's enough to feel like oppression to some.

gotofritz 10y ago

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

c0achmcguirk 10y ago
Which of the scrolls are you referring to? Were they from canonical books?
- gotofritz 10y ago
  No, the non-canonical

chinese_dan 10y ago

"'m more than slightly sure the Green family has total control over this, "museum", and this was less a donation, than a transfer of stolen artifacts from an individual, to a private company held by that individual." More than slightly sure? What you really should have said is: "I have no idea what I'm talking about" "Hobby Lobby, as you may recall, is the privately held company that disallowed its workers to use the Affordable Care Act to cover birth control, because of the religious beliefs of the owners." Ahhh, so you demonize them because they go against your personal beliefs. One has nothing to do with the other. You just wanted to post your displeasure with Hobby Lobby.

Retric 10y ago
It's simple if you are not willing to provide health insurance either admit that and don't provide health insurance or don't employ people. I also demonize serial killers, because they go against my personal beliefs. Because that's what personal beliefs mean. I also don't calibrate the lives destroyed from insanity, why should a tolerate the mass delusions from religion again?
- castis 10y ago
  What exactly are you having to tolerate?
  - Retric 10y ago
    Poor working conditions for a fellow person. In a wider context indoctrination of children. I feel that 'Sunday school' is child abuse. But, where we don't tolerate public beatings of children some topics are considered off limits. PS: I accept many people will disagree with this. But, while many pat them on the head and move on I think it is important for everyone to understand their bubble is just that, and their assumptions are far from universal.
    - kbenson 10y ago
      It's a tricky subject, because heavily regulating what kids must be exposed to by the state could easily be classified as propagandized brainwashing. If we support both the right of parents to express their beliefs to their children and the right of the children to make an informed decision when they are adults about their beliefs, the best thing may be have a mandatory "survey of beliefs" class for children at various points in their lives. A class that covered the 4-5 most common world religious beliefs as well atheism in a way that did not promote any of them, much less one over the others (a tall order in some communities, I'm sure), would do a great deal to both inform individuals on various beliefs and how they interrelate, as well as foster understanding for others.
      - 10y ago

proksoup 10y ago

I disagree with Hobby Lobby's decision, but support their right to make it. There are different types of contraceptives, and that we use the same word for all types is disingenuous and muddies the argument. The day after pill is very different from a condom, and at least a little different from "the pill".

DanBC 10y ago
> The day after pill is very different Why? They both prevent conception.
- LyndsySimon 10y ago
  The morning-after pill has two methods of action, IIRC - preventing ovulation, and making the womb inhospitable for implantation. In the latter case conception occurs.
  - Domenic_S 10y ago
    We're wandering from the topic, but I don't believe that's correct. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levonorgestrel#Emergency_birth_control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levonorgestrel#Emergency_birth... - The primary mechanism of action of levonorgestrel as a progestogen-only emergency contraceptive pill is, according to International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO), to prevent fertilization by inhibition of ovulation and thickening of the mucosa of cervix. FIGO has stated that: "review of the evidence suggests that LNG [levonorgestreol] ECPs cannot prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. (references on the wiki page as always)
    - LyndsySimon 10y ago
      They've removed the notice from that specific type of ECP (and I was not aware of that), but it's still present on other types, including some that are common in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_contraception#Mechanism_of_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_contraception#Mechan...

Dagwoodie 10y ago

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

mhurron 10y ago
If people think strongly enough about a topic, it will happen.
kmonsen 10y ago
I agree with your general sentiment, but disagree with your wording. From what I understand HL, and many others, are not exercising their religious freedom but rather imposing their religion on others. For example, if you are against an action like prevention on religious reasons you should of course be free to not use them yourself. Enforcing those standard on others, including your employees, is not exercising your own religious freedom.
- Dagwoodie 10y ago
  He's not imposing any behavior on his employees or taking their freedoms way, he's just choosing not to pay for it himself on religious grounds. I suspect the real issue is that he's going agains the grain by not celebrating that form of birth control and that's enough to feel like oppression to some.