7 ms·

"'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 in

"'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.
      - Retric 10y ago
        You are falling into the trap of assuming the state must accept religion. We where happy to indoctrinate Indians though forcible separation from their parents. So, it's not actually about 'religion' or 'tolerance' it's about the short list of accepted religions. PS: Some argue that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Child_Welfare_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Child_Welfare_Act fixed this, but there are plenty of more recent cases disproving that idea. As of 2010, Alabama,[41] Indiana,[42] Kentucky,[43] Louisiana,[44] Missouri,[45] and Tennessee[46] still use the "existing Indian family" exception.
        kbenson 10y ago
        > You are falling into the trap of assuming the state must accept religion. I prefer to think I'm "falling into the trap" of assuming that personal choice is important and we want to preserve it. Like most things, both extremes of the spectrum are unhealthy. Indoctrination by your parents about the "one true way" to think is dangerous, but so is indoctrination by the state. The way to fight misinformation is not to restrict that information, it's to provide more information so people can make informed choices. It's a free market of ideas, and information (and light regulation) is key. > We where happy to indoctrinate Indians though forcible separation from their parents. We were happy to enslave people as well. That doesn't mean we should condone conduct such as that going forward. > So, it's not actually about 'religion' it's about the short list of accepted religions. No, it's about opening people up to the possibility of choice, and that there there may exist views different than they have been exposed to. I'm an atheist myself, but I can't imagine a world in which people are forced, coerced or steered to a particular belief as being better.
Jedd 10y ago
> More than slightly sure? What you really should have said is: "I have no idea what I'm talking about" While I normally side with Orwell's dislike of this kind of linguistic indirection, it does sound like you're over-reacting to justinator's verbiage. > "Hobby Lobby, as you may recall, is the privately held company that disallowed its workers to use the Affordable Care Act to cover birth control, because of the religious beliefs of the owners." > > Ahhh, so you demonize them because they go against your personal beliefs. Cute use of the word demonise there. :) Is it legal in the USA (where I'm assuming you, and indeed this Hobby Lobby company are located) to discriminate for health benefits based on religious views? (Preemptive apologies - not all of us are based in the same place as other people assume we are, and I'm really not sure what the legislative arrangement there is.)
- mhurron 10y ago
  > Is it legal in the USA (where I'm assuming you, and indeed this Hobby Lobby company are located) to discriminate for health benefits based on religious views? Yes, a privately held company can offer plans that do not meet ACA standards if the owners object on religious grounds to those options.
- hyperpape 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby_Stores,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby_Stores,.... It is legal for a specific class of privately held companies, though the matter was sufficiently unclear to reach the supreme court and will probably be subject to follow-up cases which will clarify/expand/narrow the extent of the decision.
splawn 10y ago
The owner of Hobby Lobby does own that museum and they were under investigation over stolen artifacts. I never heard about the end result of that investigation though... I didn't spend a lot of time looking, but I didn't see anything new. Does anyone know what ended up happening with that case? EDIT: perhaps "own" is the wrong word to use. The owner of Hobby Lobby is the chairman of the board for the museum and the museum's collection was largely built from his personal collection.
- AWildDHHAppears 10y ago
  Hobby Lobby does not own that museum. Have you ever been there?

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.
    - Retric 10y ago
      You are falling into the trap of assuming the state must accept religion. We where happy to indoctrinate Indians though forcible separation from their parents. So, it's not actually about 'religion' or 'tolerance' it's about the short list of accepted religions. PS: Some argue that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Child_Welfare_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Child_Welfare_Act fixed this, but there are plenty of more recent cases disproving that idea. As of 2010, Alabama,[41] Indiana,[42] Kentucky,[43] Louisiana,[44] Missouri,[45] and Tennessee[46] still use the "existing Indian family" exception.
      - kbenson 10y ago
        > You are falling into the trap of assuming the state must accept religion. I prefer to think I'm "falling into the trap" of assuming that personal choice is important and we want to preserve it. Like most things, both extremes of the spectrum are unhealthy. Indoctrination by your parents about the "one true way" to think is dangerous, but so is indoctrination by the state. The way to fight misinformation is not to restrict that information, it's to provide more information so people can make informed choices. It's a free market of ideas, and information (and light regulation) is key. > We where happy to indoctrinate Indians though forcible separation from their parents. We were happy to enslave people as well. That doesn't mean we should condone conduct such as that going forward. > So, it's not actually about 'religion' it's about the short list of accepted religions. No, it's about opening people up to the possibility of choice, and that there there may exist views different than they have been exposed to. I'm an atheist myself, but I can't imagine a world in which people are forced, coerced or steered to a particular belief as being better.

Jedd 10y ago

> More than slightly sure? What you really should have said is: "I have no idea what I'm talking about" While I normally side with Orwell's dislike of this kind of linguistic indirection, it does sound like you're over-reacting to justinator's verbiage. > "Hobby Lobby, as you may recall, is the privately held company that disallowed its workers to use the Affordable Care Act to cover birth control, because of the religious beliefs of the owners." > > Ahhh, so you demonize them because they go against your personal beliefs. Cute use of the word demonise there. :) Is it legal in the USA (where I'm assuming you, and indeed this Hobby Lobby company are located) to discriminate for health benefits based on religious views? (Preemptive apologies - not all of us are based in the same place as other people assume we are, and I'm really not sure what the legislative arrangement there is.)

mhurron 10y ago
> Is it legal in the USA (where I'm assuming you, and indeed this Hobby Lobby company are located) to discriminate for health benefits based on religious views? Yes, a privately held company can offer plans that do not meet ACA standards if the owners object on religious grounds to those options.
hyperpape 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby_Stores,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby_Stores,.... It is legal for a specific class of privately held companies, though the matter was sufficiently unclear to reach the supreme court and will probably be subject to follow-up cases which will clarify/expand/narrow the extent of the decision.

splawn 10y ago

The owner of Hobby Lobby does own that museum and they were under investigation over stolen artifacts. I never heard about the end result of that investigation though... I didn't spend a lot of time looking, but I didn't see anything new. Does anyone know what ended up happening with that case? EDIT: perhaps "own" is the wrong word to use. The owner of Hobby Lobby is the chairman of the board for the museum and the museum's collection was largely built from his personal collection.

AWildDHHAppears 10y ago
Hobby Lobby does not own that museum. Have you ever been there?