10 ms·

I wish the author was a little less over-wrought in her descriptions of the Green family's religious commitments. I've heard complaints before about the Green's

I wish the author was a little less over-wrought in her descriptions of the Green family's religious commitments. I've heard complaints before about the Green's artifact acquisition process, and they've had to return some manuscripts: it's a story worth investigating and telling. But it distracts from the author's main point when she's making snide comments about their faith. Yes, they're Christians who are successful at business and who take their faith seriously - so? If the author is trying to convince people she's an even-handed reporter, she'd do better to drop the sarcastic tone.

Digory 2y ago
It’s fine to be inexperienced with Christianity, but it skews the reporting. For example “kingdom giver” is not someone who gives kingdoms, it’s someone who gives to Christ’s kingdom. But the widow and her mite is an example of kingdom giving as much as the Greens.
- Fluorescence 2y ago
  >> someone who gives kingdoms The article doesn't claim that so it seems your Christian sensitivities have skewed your reading comprehension. It's referencing a Forbes article using the term to distinguish between thoughtless arbitrary giving vs. giving with purpose: "Even the most generous Christian philanthropists often don't see the purpose of their giving," says Dr. Mark Rutland, the new ORU president and founder of the Global Servants evangelical ministry. "There are impulse givers, people who give to their alma mater or their church or some particular ministry with which they become familiar—but the Greens are Kingdom givers. ... They consider it an honor; they consider it a mission." https://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryadolan/2023/02/13/this-billionaire-is-a-donor-behind-the-jesus-focused-super-bowl-ads/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryadolan/2023/02/13/this-bil...
  - Digory 2y ago
    The sentence from the article is: "While the total amount the Greens have made in charitable contributions has been kept private, former Oral Roberts University president Dr. Mark Rutland may have worded it best when he described the family as “kingdom givers”. It doesn't link to the Forbes article's definition. Without more, I'd read that sentence to say "Kingdom givers" is a descriptor of the total amounts given by the Greens -- we don't know the amount, but they give kingdoms. As I explained above, "Kingdom" is unrelated to the size of the gift, as made clear from the quote you cited.
hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
Completely agree. I think the author's tone in this article, in a nutshell, exemplifies what was a huge driving force of so many evangelical's in the US now being firmly in the MAGA camp, even though that seems paradoxical to many of us. For a long time now, many people who's religious values are deeply important to them have felt disrespected and looked down upon by "the left" (yes, I'm obviously painting with a broad brush here). In subtle and not-so-subtle ways, the elite left essentially said "you all are backwards and silly". And look, I'm an atheist who has felt acute harms from religion in some very specific ways, so I get it - a lot of times I believe that religion is backwards and silly. But Trump and MAGA came along and essentially said "you're not backwards and silly, you're the righteous ones, the ones who are condemning you are backwards and silly". And yes, Trump has been married 3 times, had an affair with a porn star while his wife was pregnant, values displays of material wealth above all else, etc. etc., so I struggle mightily many times to understand how a community that preached "family values" so stridently for my entire youth supports him now so unconditionally. But, IMO, it's because Trump really constantly drove home this message of "you should be proud, and the only people who should be ashamed are 'the other side'". I know that may feel like a tangent, but I've seen the general dismissive tone of this article repeated so many times (e.g. in much reporting about the Chick-fil-a family) that it now feels easy to recognize.
- duped 2y ago
  Some beliefs deserve to be looked down upon and disrespected because they are backwards. I wouldn't call them "silly" because they're very serious. I don't believe in treating religious fundamentalists with compassion and empathy anymore. That's how we got the nutjobs in power, by not deriding them enough in public and private. There can be no tolerance of hate, and the people you are talking about are motivated by hate of others.
  - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
    Look, in many ways I agree with you, but I guarantee that mindset is essentially doomed to failure if you want to win elections in the US where 68% of Americans identify themselves as Christian in some way. The problem is not so much wanting to coddle up to the fire-and-brimstone fundamentalists. It's that a lot of people who used to have what would be considered "standard", middle-of-the-road religious views have been told, again in subtle and not-so-subtle ways, that they're stupid. Whether you believe this to be true is not the point. Calling a large portion of the country stupid is a great way to push them into the arms of an extremist.
mock-possum 2y ago
Isn’t the hobby lobby crew also notoriously queer bashers? I would think the issue is not so much that they’re Christian, it’s that they’re hypocrites who use Christianity as a smokescreen for bigotry. (The relevance being, they’re using Christianity as cover for capitalism in a way that Jesus himself, as depicted in the Bible, would certainly never have sanctioned.)
- dfedbeef 2y ago
  Yep
  - MrMcCall 2y ago
    BINGO!
- yannis 2y ago
  But ... He adopted a Christian capitalist worldview centered around personal wealth as a precision tool to carry out God’s. F..ng nonsene!
- gowld 2y ago
  If your morality welcomes homosexuality, that's fine. But anti-homosexuality is not un-Christian. Jesus never opposed "capitalism" in secular life.
  - mock-possum 2y ago
    Capitalism itself? Maybe not. But - “And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” Jesus was very clear about how far worldly riches would get you.
duped 2y ago
What exactly do you find "snide" or "sarcastic?" The thesis of TFA is that their faith motivated the crimes. You can't tell the story without talking about how they choose to practice their faith.
- themaninthedark 2y ago
  Aside from what I called out in my sibling comment these two are pretty snide: "A fortune built on the sales of sewing notions and glitter has paid for many of the country’s most influential megachurches and scriptures delivered to the most remote corners of the world. A careful calculation of potential proselytized souls drives every financial decision." "Perhaps the Greens, in their inexperience, did not understand the magnitude of their actions. Perhaps the Greens just didn’t care. Maybe when you believe that human souls are on the line, it’s easy to unshackle yourself to the ethical and legal trade guidelines that shackle secular academics. Maybe the money saved and the ancient items procured were powerful enough to make the risk worthwhile. "
  - alabastervlog 2y ago
    Well. Those sure are incredibly mild. This entire thread is among the most bizarre things I've ever seen on HN.
    - themaninthedark 2y ago
      They are mild in the context of an internet flame war or rap fight sure. There might be real discussion to be had on Hobby Lobby and their actions however it is hard to get there because you are trying to pick through pure conjecture and speculation with the style of writing makes it look more like an opinionated hit piece.
    - EnergyAmy 2y ago
      When you get this level of people jumping in to deflect based on tone, you know you're doing something right. The person you're responding to isn't acting in a curious manner, they're trying to poison the well.
themaninthedark 2y ago
The author's tone is...definitely not neutral and it make it hard to believe them when they put pure conjecture in: "Between the high demand and likely paying workers a subminimum wage" with footnote "...While this practice was completely legal (current federal law permits employers to pay disabled workers a fraction of minimum wage), it’s certainly questionable practice coming from a guy whose entire schtick revolves around stewardship." I was waiting to read how it was possible that Green might have kicked a puppy or drown some kittens.
- armchairhacker 2y ago
  Although it sounds very bad, there’s actually a good argument for paying disabled workers below-minimum wage: - Disabled people get paid (what is supposed to be, but not actually, a living wage) by the government, so they aren’t living on the wage. - No company would hire them if they were forced to pay minimum wage, because companies are greedy and would always hire a more productive non-disabled worker. - Many disabled workers want to work not for the pay, but because they enjoy the work and/or want to feel productive. As stated, they get paid by the government, so in theory they don’t have to work if they don’t want to. With the caveat that disability payments outside of work should be raised, so that nobody (disabled or not) feels like they must work a too-boring or too-hard job to afford a decent standard of living (unless absolutely necessary for society to subsist, but that’s another discussion)…I think it’s a great practice. Maybe there are good arguments against it, but a good argument needs to provide the full context.
  - Iulioh 2y ago
    My counterargument would be: If it is bellow ""living wage"" it should not be allowed. (that was easy) You can find other workarounds to incentive the hiring of disabled people and we (in italy) have a few: -Requirement of medium and big firms to hire them (reduced ability, they can still perform) For example where i work there is a janitor that has dawn syndrome and an IT guy with dwarfism -tax breaks (so the worker still get paid minimum wage but to the company he costs less)
    - 2y ago
doug_durham 2y ago
It goes deeper than their "faith". These are the people who took away healthcare benefits from all Americans because they didn't personally want to fund birth control and women's health. It's reductive to say that the author looks negatively on the family because of their faith alone.
- MrMcCall 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - oersted 2y ago
    For reference: > But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God—having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people. -- 2 Timothy 3:1-5
    - 93po 2y ago
      this is basically 90% of american politicians
  - watwut 2y ago
    Bible is full of contradictions. And old testament is quite cruel at places. They are Christians. Destructive Christians on the quest to harm others ... but Christians.
    - Arainach 2y ago
      There is no relevant contradiction. The entire New Testament is Jesus preaching love and forgiveness, Jesus practicing love and forgiveness - and not just to his followers - and explicit condemnation of wealth and instructing his followers to care for others. Anyone who takes that message and instead lobbies to destroy healthcare and welfare and to push hate and attack anyone who doesn't agree with them - and anyone who votes for the party of politicians that has been practicing and preaching that for decades - is not a Christian regardless of how they spend their Sundays.
kumbayamysdog 2y ago
[flagged]
- bloomingeek 2y ago
  The subject of the word "evil" hasn't been given enough importance in recent modern times, IMO. It's as if the church and almost everyone else is afraid of discussing it. It is an uncomfortable subject for sure, but to ignore evil is to suffer it's results.
washadjeffmad 2y ago
I'd hesitate to write off the severity of their difference to any Christianity you might recognize. The Green family wields a personal antinomianist doctrine reserved for the rich and powerful. Under their brand of Creationism, God has given them literal dominion over the world (Genesis 1:26-31), and not exercising that, whether or not in defiance of conflicting secular laws, would be a denial of the mission of their faith. I remember my first time hearing them called "Wahabbi Lobby" in the mid-2000s after the FBI had "spoken to them" about ISIL targeting early (pre-)Christian sites to plunder artifacts, knowing the Greens had a taste for them. Consider the implications. What would have happened if your local church had sent money or took a secret mission trip to aid Al-Qaeda?
- themaninthedark 2y ago
  I think there is a little difference in culpability between directly sending money or traveling to a terror cell vs contacting buyers to purchase artifacts. If my local church was attempting to support African businesses by purchasing goods but the buyer was getting good from a factory that used slave labor, I would expect the FBI to come talk to the church as well.
  - snypher 2y ago
    This is the same logic that got DJI a ban from some proposed invisible link to Uyghur oppression.
  - washadjeffmad 2y ago
    The article mentions the family had tens of thousands of looted artifacts (there's no legal way to acquire them) and attempted to evade detection by customs by mislabeling them. They knew what they were doing, were told to stop, and they kept doing it. If you discovered the clergy or elders in your church wanted a supply of something so badly that they secretly used your tithe or offertory to fund a warlord who then enslaved people to acquire it for them, how would you feel? That's a closer equivalent of what Hobby Lobby did to their customers. Unrelated, but how would you summarize the plot of Raiders of the Lost Ark?
dangus 2y ago
It sounds like you are intentionally leaving out the meat of the article’s criticisms, which is that the schemes involving “charity” and “giving” are essentially tax dodging. > Less evident these charitable contributions equate to sizable tax breaks. These tax write-offs are calculated using the highest appraisals possible, which is not necessarily indicative of the actual sum of money paid out by the Green family for the land. Counterintuitive as it may seem, this practice frequently allows the Greens to save far more money than what they spend via hefty deductions. Hobby Lobby is, according to this article, taking advantage of the nebulous valuations of artifacts to minimize tax burden in a way that is morally questionable at the least. Matthew 19:24
wormlord 2y ago
Won't someone think of the poor megalomaniacal religious extremist billionaires???
HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
In a just world they would be in prison for their horrendous harmful actions. I'm not going to lose sleep because an article wasn't kind to them.
jt2190 2y ago
> Have been told that I have to “drop the sarcastic tone” if I want to be “taken seriously” as a “““reporter””” but the jokes on them because that criticism implies that I’ve crossed the threshold into being a “journalist” rather than a “guy with a substack” https://substack.com/@meghanboilard/note/c-102976235 https://substack.com/@meghanboilard/note/c-102976235?
- themaninthedark 2y ago
  There are several comments here using the same logic, which I find to be rather...odd: >It's a blog post not a news article or scholarly report. - The topic is a business run by people who ostensibly make decisions based on their faith to justify actions which cause various harm to others. Taking a critical view of those actions and the motivations is reasonable. and the author shares the same view.... I am being asked to take a critical look at Hobby Lobby, the reasons are outlined in the linked Substack. However, if I have any questions or criticisms of the Substack article, please note that it is not a professional work it is just a guy with a microphone. If I can't trust the source material, how can I trust the claims?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
RavingGoat 2y ago
Please stop calling these people Christian, you have to follow Christ to be a Christian. They do not.
ck2 2y ago
Of course religion should be treated with sarcasm It singlehandedly has held back the world for centuries, caused the suffering and death of millions if not billions. It's completely made up, thousands of years before anyone knew anything about anything and then as science is learned the world is bent to its superstitions and not the other way around because it can never ever change because some ignorant dude said so way back when. The only way religion survives is indoctrination, it makes ZERO sense to anyone who learns to apply the smallest amount of logic to it. And Christianity might be the very worst of all abrahamic-rooted nonsense because it basically stole all it's practices and beliefs from every other religion at the time. They didn't have microscopes, telescopes or even eyeglasses but yet not only do they insist on somehow knowing a specific exact god but all the rules and why such an all powerful being would give a damn about anything. It's control, manipulation and very often a profit seeking scam.
- chuckadams 2y ago
  Every religion stole from every other. That's what cultural exchange is.
- clear_view 2y ago
  [dead]
cratermoon 2y ago
Prosperity gospel is a peculiar American brand of protestant pentecostal evangelism that is the motivating aspect of the Green family. While it has no Biblical basis, it does riff on Andrew Carnegie's Gospel of Wealth and has a number of parallels in the so-called Effective Altruism movement.
kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
They've used their wealth to lobby against the liberty of American citizens. They deserve the ire of the masses.

Digory 2y ago

It’s fine to be inexperienced with Christianity, but it skews the reporting. For example “kingdom giver” is not someone who gives kingdoms, it’s someone who gives to Christ’s kingdom. But the widow and her mite is an example of kingdom giving as much as the Greens.

Fluorescence 2y ago
>> someone who gives kingdoms The article doesn't claim that so it seems your Christian sensitivities have skewed your reading comprehension. It's referencing a Forbes article using the term to distinguish between thoughtless arbitrary giving vs. giving with purpose: "Even the most generous Christian philanthropists often don't see the purpose of their giving," says Dr. Mark Rutland, the new ORU president and founder of the Global Servants evangelical ministry. "There are impulse givers, people who give to their alma mater or their church or some particular ministry with which they become familiar—but the Greens are Kingdom givers. ... They consider it an honor; they consider it a mission." https://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryadolan/2023/02/13/this-billionaire-is-a-donor-behind-the-jesus-focused-super-bowl-ads/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryadolan/2023/02/13/this-bil...
- Digory 2y ago
  The sentence from the article is: "While the total amount the Greens have made in charitable contributions has been kept private, former Oral Roberts University president Dr. Mark Rutland may have worded it best when he described the family as “kingdom givers”. It doesn't link to the Forbes article's definition. Without more, I'd read that sentence to say "Kingdom givers" is a descriptor of the total amounts given by the Greens -- we don't know the amount, but they give kingdoms. As I explained above, "Kingdom" is unrelated to the size of the gift, as made clear from the quote you cited.

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago

Completely agree. I think the author's tone in this article, in a nutshell, exemplifies what was a huge driving force of so many evangelical's in the US now being firmly in the MAGA camp, even though that seems paradoxical to many of us. For a long time now, many people who's religious values are deeply important to them have felt disrespected and looked down upon by "the left" (yes, I'm obviously painting with a broad brush here). In subtle and not-so-subtle ways, the elite left essentially said "you all are backwards and silly". And look, I'm an atheist who has felt acute harms from religion in some very specific ways, so I get it - a lot of times I believe that religion is backwards and silly. But Trump and MAGA came along and essentially said "you're not backwards and silly, you're the righteous ones, the ones who are condemning you are backwards and silly". And yes, Trump has been married 3 times, had an affair with a porn star while his wife was pregnant, values displays of material wealth above all else, etc. etc., so I struggle mightily many times to understand how a community that preached "family values" so stridently for my entire youth supports him now so unconditionally. But, IMO, it's because Trump really constantly drove home this message of "you should be proud, and the only people who should be ashamed are 'the other side'". I know that may feel like a tangent, but I've seen the general dismissive tone of this article repeated so many times (e.g. in much reporting about the Chick-fil-a family) that it now feels easy to recognize.

duped 2y ago
Some beliefs deserve to be looked down upon and disrespected because they are backwards. I wouldn't call them "silly" because they're very serious. I don't believe in treating religious fundamentalists with compassion and empathy anymore. That's how we got the nutjobs in power, by not deriding them enough in public and private. There can be no tolerance of hate, and the people you are talking about are motivated by hate of others.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  Look, in many ways I agree with you, but I guarantee that mindset is essentially doomed to failure if you want to win elections in the US where 68% of Americans identify themselves as Christian in some way. The problem is not so much wanting to coddle up to the fire-and-brimstone fundamentalists. It's that a lot of people who used to have what would be considered "standard", middle-of-the-road religious views have been told, again in subtle and not-so-subtle ways, that they're stupid. Whether you believe this to be true is not the point. Calling a large portion of the country stupid is a great way to push them into the arms of an extremist.

mock-possum 2y ago

Isn’t the hobby lobby crew also notoriously queer bashers? I would think the issue is not so much that they’re Christian, it’s that they’re hypocrites who use Christianity as a smokescreen for bigotry. (The relevance being, they’re using Christianity as cover for capitalism in a way that Jesus himself, as depicted in the Bible, would certainly never have sanctioned.)

dfedbeef 2y ago
Yep
- MrMcCall 2y ago
  BINGO!
yannis 2y ago
But ... He adopted a Christian capitalist worldview centered around personal wealth as a precision tool to carry out God’s. F..ng nonsene!
gowld 2y ago
If your morality welcomes homosexuality, that's fine. But anti-homosexuality is not un-Christian. Jesus never opposed "capitalism" in secular life.
- mock-possum 2y ago
  Capitalism itself? Maybe not. But - “And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” Jesus was very clear about how far worldly riches would get you.

duped 2y ago

What exactly do you find "snide" or "sarcastic?" The thesis of TFA is that their faith motivated the crimes. You can't tell the story without talking about how they choose to practice their faith.

themaninthedark 2y ago
Aside from what I called out in my sibling comment these two are pretty snide: "A fortune built on the sales of sewing notions and glitter has paid for many of the country’s most influential megachurches and scriptures delivered to the most remote corners of the world. A careful calculation of potential proselytized souls drives every financial decision." "Perhaps the Greens, in their inexperience, did not understand the magnitude of their actions. Perhaps the Greens just didn’t care. Maybe when you believe that human souls are on the line, it’s easy to unshackle yourself to the ethical and legal trade guidelines that shackle secular academics. Maybe the money saved and the ancient items procured were powerful enough to make the risk worthwhile. "
- alabastervlog 2y ago
  Well. Those sure are incredibly mild. This entire thread is among the most bizarre things I've ever seen on HN.
  - themaninthedark 2y ago
    They are mild in the context of an internet flame war or rap fight sure. There might be real discussion to be had on Hobby Lobby and their actions however it is hard to get there because you are trying to pick through pure conjecture and speculation with the style of writing makes it look more like an opinionated hit piece.
  - EnergyAmy 2y ago
    When you get this level of people jumping in to deflect based on tone, you know you're doing something right. The person you're responding to isn't acting in a curious manner, they're trying to poison the well.

themaninthedark 2y ago

The author's tone is...definitely not neutral and it make it hard to believe them when they put pure conjecture in: "Between the high demand and likely paying workers a subminimum wage" with footnote "...While this practice was completely legal (current federal law permits employers to pay disabled workers a fraction of minimum wage), it’s certainly questionable practice coming from a guy whose entire schtick revolves around stewardship." I was waiting to read how it was possible that Green might have kicked a puppy or drown some kittens.

armchairhacker 2y ago
Although it sounds very bad, there’s actually a good argument for paying disabled workers below-minimum wage: - Disabled people get paid (what is supposed to be, but not actually, a living wage) by the government, so they aren’t living on the wage. - No company would hire them if they were forced to pay minimum wage, because companies are greedy and would always hire a more productive non-disabled worker. - Many disabled workers want to work not for the pay, but because they enjoy the work and/or want to feel productive. As stated, they get paid by the government, so in theory they don’t have to work if they don’t want to. With the caveat that disability payments outside of work should be raised, so that nobody (disabled or not) feels like they must work a too-boring or too-hard job to afford a decent standard of living (unless absolutely necessary for society to subsist, but that’s another discussion)…I think it’s a great practice. Maybe there are good arguments against it, but a good argument needs to provide the full context.
- Iulioh 2y ago
  My counterargument would be: If it is bellow ""living wage"" it should not be allowed. (that was easy) You can find other workarounds to incentive the hiring of disabled people and we (in italy) have a few: -Requirement of medium and big firms to hire them (reduced ability, they can still perform) For example where i work there is a janitor that has dawn syndrome and an IT guy with dwarfism -tax breaks (so the worker still get paid minimum wage but to the company he costs less)
  - 2y ago

doug_durham 2y ago

It goes deeper than their "faith". These are the people who took away healthcare benefits from all Americans because they didn't personally want to fund birth control and women's health. It's reductive to say that the author looks negatively on the family because of their faith alone.

MrMcCall 2y ago
[flagged]
- oersted 2y ago
  For reference: > But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God—having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people. -- 2 Timothy 3:1-5
  - 93po 2y ago
    this is basically 90% of american politicians
- watwut 2y ago
  Bible is full of contradictions. And old testament is quite cruel at places. They are Christians. Destructive Christians on the quest to harm others ... but Christians.
  - Arainach 2y ago
    There is no relevant contradiction. The entire New Testament is Jesus preaching love and forgiveness, Jesus practicing love and forgiveness - and not just to his followers - and explicit condemnation of wealth and instructing his followers to care for others. Anyone who takes that message and instead lobbies to destroy healthcare and welfare and to push hate and attack anyone who doesn't agree with them - and anyone who votes for the party of politicians that has been practicing and preaching that for decades - is not a Christian regardless of how they spend their Sundays.

kumbayamysdog 2y ago

[flagged]

bloomingeek 2y ago
The subject of the word "evil" hasn't been given enough importance in recent modern times, IMO. It's as if the church and almost everyone else is afraid of discussing it. It is an uncomfortable subject for sure, but to ignore evil is to suffer it's results.

washadjeffmad 2y ago

I'd hesitate to write off the severity of their difference to any Christianity you might recognize. The Green family wields a personal antinomianist doctrine reserved for the rich and powerful. Under their brand of Creationism, God has given them literal dominion over the world (Genesis 1:26-31), and not exercising that, whether or not in defiance of conflicting secular laws, would be a denial of the mission of their faith. I remember my first time hearing them called "Wahabbi Lobby" in the mid-2000s after the FBI had "spoken to them" about ISIL targeting early (pre-)Christian sites to plunder artifacts, knowing the Greens had a taste for them. Consider the implications. What would have happened if your local church had sent money or took a secret mission trip to aid Al-Qaeda?

themaninthedark 2y ago
I think there is a little difference in culpability between directly sending money or traveling to a terror cell vs contacting buyers to purchase artifacts. If my local church was attempting to support African businesses by purchasing goods but the buyer was getting good from a factory that used slave labor, I would expect the FBI to come talk to the church as well.
- snypher 2y ago
  This is the same logic that got DJI a ban from some proposed invisible link to Uyghur oppression.
- washadjeffmad 2y ago
  The article mentions the family had tens of thousands of looted artifacts (there's no legal way to acquire them) and attempted to evade detection by customs by mislabeling them. They knew what they were doing, were told to stop, and they kept doing it. If you discovered the clergy or elders in your church wanted a supply of something so badly that they secretly used your tithe or offertory to fund a warlord who then enslaved people to acquire it for them, how would you feel? That's a closer equivalent of what Hobby Lobby did to their customers. Unrelated, but how would you summarize the plot of Raiders of the Lost Ark?

dangus 2y ago

It sounds like you are intentionally leaving out the meat of the article’s criticisms, which is that the schemes involving “charity” and “giving” are essentially tax dodging. > Less evident these charitable contributions equate to sizable tax breaks. These tax write-offs are calculated using the highest appraisals possible, which is not necessarily indicative of the actual sum of money paid out by the Green family for the land. Counterintuitive as it may seem, this practice frequently allows the Greens to save far more money than what they spend via hefty deductions. Hobby Lobby is, according to this article, taking advantage of the nebulous valuations of artifacts to minimize tax burden in a way that is morally questionable at the least. Matthew 19:24

wormlord 2y ago

Won't someone think of the poor megalomaniacal religious extremist billionaires???

HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago

In a just world they would be in prison for their horrendous harmful actions. I'm not going to lose sleep because an article wasn't kind to them.

jt2190 2y ago

> Have been told that I have to “drop the sarcastic tone” if I want to be “taken seriously” as a “““reporter””” but the jokes on them because that criticism implies that I’ve crossed the threshold into being a “journalist” rather than a “guy with a substack” https://substack.com/@meghanboilard/note/c-102976235 https://substack.com/@meghanboilard/note/c-102976235?

themaninthedark 2y ago
There are several comments here using the same logic, which I find to be rather...odd: >It's a blog post not a news article or scholarly report. - The topic is a business run by people who ostensibly make decisions based on their faith to justify actions which cause various harm to others. Taking a critical view of those actions and the motivations is reasonable. and the author shares the same view.... I am being asked to take a critical look at Hobby Lobby, the reasons are outlined in the linked Substack. However, if I have any questions or criticisms of the Substack article, please note that it is not a professional work it is just a guy with a microphone. If I can't trust the source material, how can I trust the claims?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

RavingGoat 2y ago

Please stop calling these people Christian, you have to follow Christ to be a Christian. They do not.

ck2 2y ago

Of course religion should be treated with sarcasm It singlehandedly has held back the world for centuries, caused the suffering and death of millions if not billions. It's completely made up, thousands of years before anyone knew anything about anything and then as science is learned the world is bent to its superstitions and not the other way around because it can never ever change because some ignorant dude said so way back when. The only way religion survives is indoctrination, it makes ZERO sense to anyone who learns to apply the smallest amount of logic to it. And Christianity might be the very worst of all abrahamic-rooted nonsense because it basically stole all it's practices and beliefs from every other religion at the time. They didn't have microscopes, telescopes or even eyeglasses but yet not only do they insist on somehow knowing a specific exact god but all the rules and why such an all powerful being would give a damn about anything. It's control, manipulation and very often a profit seeking scam.

chuckadams 2y ago
Every religion stole from every other. That's what cultural exchange is.
clear_view 2y ago
[dead]

cratermoon 2y ago

Prosperity gospel is a peculiar American brand of protestant pentecostal evangelism that is the motivating aspect of the Green family. While it has no Biblical basis, it does riff on Andrew Carnegie's Gospel of Wealth and has a number of parallels in the so-called Effective Altruism movement.

kevin_thibedeau 2y ago

They've used their wealth to lobby against the liberty of American citizens. They deserve the ire of the masses.