Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Dotwithaperiod

Hobby Lobby?

Recommended Posts

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/07/05/nyregion/hobby-lobby-artifacts-smuggle-iraq.html?referer=https://www.google.com/

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/hobby-lobby-trouble-importing-artifacts/

 

Not sure how long this will be up, but what's your opinion of a company that claims to be a moral, religious led corporation which buys antiquities from one country( where there are strict rules on sales), lies about it and sends them to Turkey( where these strict import rules don't exist), packages these antiquities as " sample tiles" and has them delivered to multiple addresses in the U.S. Supposedly they were warned repeatedly. They, a corporation that basically deals in importing merchandise, claim they were just naive, and will give back these items and pay a fine.

So, are they innocent and naive, or is the head of the company merely a liar and a thief and happens to run a Christian based corporation? Should he have been tried for a crime, or is paying a paltry ( to him) 3 million dollar fine okay.

I see him as a hypocritical, immoral fake who hides behind his Bible, who has no problem denying others while amassing his own pile of goodies.

...and you know, this is not about bashing religion. But religion does play a part, because this is a man and a company who have built their business, and had a case brought all the way to the SC, which entailed religion and the importance of it in running their corporation.

Edited by Dotwithaperiod
  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I read about it, I was actually shocked...but then after 2-3 minutes, not so much.  Many many organizations, corporations, etc. proclaim to be uber-religious, but when examined closely, are not.   We have many in Islam (yeah....I'm looking at you ISIS.)

 

As they are Christian, I will say, for the record, that the one restaurant in America I could go to in hijab, and always be welcomed so kindly...to the point where many times, a manager would see me in hijab, and personally come over and welcome me and smile at me, was Chick-fil-A.  I know that many do not agree with their stance on same sex marriage (nor do I, but I can't say that it's not Biblical),,,,but in terms of "living their values", they really seemed to. 

 

I think there is an article about this in the Current Events or Politics groups. :) 

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, but to me this is not political, lol. it's not about how they treat people of other religions. It's about a corporate leader who decided to buy antiquities, go out of his way to send them to another country before sending them here in packages that were not marked correctly. He has lied, broken laws, and possibly even purchased these items from nefarious factions in Iraq.

No matter what, he is a sad excuse for the life and religious view he fights for.

He is a complete hypocrite.

 

And I didn't realize there was a Current events sub board. So I guess we can't even handle news here in the general. Figures.

Edited by Dotwithaperiod
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Religion can be used to justify all sorts of crime, hatred, and narrow views to hurt other people.

 

That's not saying religion is bad.  It's saying that I am always skeptical when someone proclaims their faith loudly because silently they're usually guilty of what they're against.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a person with a background in archeology, my internal response was mostly just "same old...same old..."

 

I mean, the collections of the Louvre and the British Museum and the Smithsonian were not exactly obtained under highly ethical circumstances. Tainted collections are the norm.

 

That's no justification, and I am glad that prosecution is happening in this case. I just can't conjure up any exceptional ire. I am not sure why the fact that this organization claims a religious background is relevant--do those who think it is relevant believe that people who claim to be religious can and should be ethical and that non religious people can be expected to be unethical?

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thought when I read this the other day-Oh, I guess stealing from people who don't agree with you is a family value.

 

I am not sure why the fact that this organization claims a religious background is relevant--do those who think it is relevant believe that people who claim to be religious can and should be ethical and that non religious people can be expected to be unethical? 

 

 

I think it is relevant because they took it the supreme court that their health insurance shouldn't have to pay for birth control as it is against their religious beliefs. If you are going to claim you are moral that should carry over to all aspects of your life. You don't get to pick and choose.

Edited by kewb
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thought when I read this the other day-Oh, I guess stealing from people who don't agree with you is a family value.

 

I am not sure why the fact that this organization claims a religious background is relevant--do those who think it is relevant believe that people who claim to be religious can and should be ethical and that non religious people can be expected to be unethical? 

 

 

I think it is relevant because they took it the supreme court that their health insurance shouldn't have to pay for birth control as it is against their religious beliefs. If you are going to claim you are moral that should carry over to all aspects of your life. You don't get to pick and choose.

 

It is also relevant, I think, because the family who owns the company is apparently collecting items for and funding a Museum of the Bible.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thought when I read this the other day-Oh, I guess stealing from people who don't agree with you is a family value.

 

I am not sure why the fact that this organization claims a religious background is relevant--do those who think it is relevant believe that people who claim to be religious can and should be ethical and that non religious people can be expected to be unethical?

 

 

I think it is relevant because they took it the supreme court that their health insurance shouldn't have to pay for birth control as it is against their religious beliefs. If you are going to claim you are moral that should carry over to all aspects of your life. You don't get to pick and choose.

No, I think anyone who makes a point of how ethical or righteous in some way and reneges on that should expect ridicule. Religious or secular.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thought when I read this the other day-Oh, I guess stealing from people who don't agree with you is a family value.

 

I am not sure why the fact that this organization claims a religious background is relevant--do those who think it is relevant believe that people who claim to be religious can and should be ethical and that non religious people can be expected to be unethical? 

 

 

I think it is relevant because they took it the supreme court that their health insurance shouldn't have to pay for birth control as it is against their religious beliefs. If you are going to claim you are moral that should carry over to all aspects of your life. You don't get to pick and choose.

 

The vibe is quite different to me if a religious vs non religious person/group does this.  In both cases they are doing something unethical and unlawful, but one group preaches against such things while the other does not.  It's kind of like a cop breaking a law verses a non cop.  Both broke a law, but one is a representative of lawfulness.  I don't expect them to receive a harsher punishment, but yes this does make them look not just like criminals, but hypocrites to boot. 

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The vibe is quite different to me if a religious vs non religious person/group does this. In both cases they are doing something unethical and unlawful, but one group preaches against such things while the other does not. It's kind of like a cop breaking a law verses a non cop. Both broke a law, but one is a representative of lawfulness. I don't expect them to receive a harsher punishment, but yes this does make them look not just like criminals, but hypocrites to boot.

I agree with this. There are certain groups or people, for better or for worse, that should take extra care in holding themselves with the highest integrity as they are being watched, admired or followed by other people. Christians of course realize that it is faulty to idolize or put too much expectation in humans as they are not God and God should be the one they are receiving guidance from. However, new Christians, non Christians etc also are looking to other Christians and Christian groups and either their example or their hypocrisy. It is critical these high profile Christians represent themselves well. I am disappointed in Hobby Lobby for this behavior regardless of their heart behind why they did it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The vibe is quite different to me if a religious vs non religious person/group does this.  In both cases they are doing something unethical and unlawful, but one group preaches against such things while the other does not.  It's kind of like a cop breaking a law verses a non cop.  Both broke a law, but one is a representative of lawfulness.  I don't expect them to receive a harsher punishment, but yes this does make them look not just like criminals, but hypocrites to boot. 

 

But wouldn't this sort of thinking correlate with "atheists are less ethical than Christians (or other religious folks)"? Do you believe that in general atheists are less ethical? Do you believe Christians are or should be more ethical? Do you perceive Christians as caring more about ethics than atheists therefor they are more hypocritical if they do something unethical?

 

One pretty universal tenet of Christianity is that humans are imperfect, fallen, flawed--including those who belong to a Christian church. 

 

In fact we just had a long thread in which many professed Christians pointed out that they do not equate morality/integrity with following laws. How would such a person be more hypocritical than another when breaking a law?

 

I think the issues here is that churches do preach morality, and in some cases morality that not everyone in society agrees with. I think an organization or person is hypocritical when blatantly going against something they actively preach about--so the minister who preaches against sexual infidelity while cheating on his wife is obviously a hypocrite. 

 

Does Hobby Lobby actively preach against breaking export/import regulations? I mean, most people do have a general "we should obey laws" mentality, but then most people and organizations (regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof) also pick and choose and sometimes skirt laws when they feel they can get away with it or the law is silly or they are willing to deal with the consequence if caught. 

 

I would call Hobby Lobby hypocritical if, after making a big deal about being pro-life, they were to turn around and fund abortion clinics.

 

In this case I just seem them as run-of-the-mill law breakers.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But wouldn't this sort of thinking correlate with "atheists are less ethical than Christians (or other religious folks)"? Do you believe that in general atheists are less ethical? Do you believe Christians are or should be more ethical? Do you perceive Christians as caring more about ethics than atheists therefor they are more hypocritical if they do something unethical

 

 

I do not think atheists are less ethical than Christians and have not seen any evidence for such a claim.

 

I do believe, however, that those Christians who publicly proclaim their values (or even proselytize) should be held to exactly those standards they publicly tout and are hypocrites if they don't.

If you pick certain biblical rules and make a large noise about enforcing them, better make sure your keeping of the ten commandments is impeccable. And that you don't commit any deadly sins.

Edited by regentrude
  • Like 17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the fines could be paid to the rightful owners who are now trying to rebuild. They could certainly use the funds.

 

For the time being, I would like to see these items go to a safe place with a promise to be returned. We are friends with Assyrians from Iraq. Their churches were desecrated and destroyed as well. Many of their towns and cities do not even have water because the water mains were destroyed.

 

Refugees are trying to return but have been met with so many difficult challenges, including being barred by other groups from entering their former towns. It's a mess.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about the fact that they have potentially subsidized terrorism by buying it from ISIS who not only loot and destroy artifacts but sell them to less careful buyers?

 

I've seen it mentioned in a couple spots, but from the PBS article-

They’re also coming from a part of the world where conflict antiquities are being actually excavated by groups like Daesh or ISIS, and knowingly being exported and used as a means for funding terrorism

Their religious faith is relevant because if you're going to set out to be the arbiter/judge of what's right and moral and proclaim so loudly and publicly, then your ethics had better be spot on in all areas and not just the ones that are politically expedient.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the real problem with Hobby Lobby was born out of a "Silly government, silly red tape, silly bureaucracy - I'll just go around because I'm smart and special" mentality.

 

It's a hubris thing, more common among the "government is bad!" and "but I'm on a mission from God!" people, but generally seen in lots of places in different ways.

 

I also can't dismiss the idea that the buyers where on a "I'm like Indiana Jones!" type high. One of the articles I read said that their own antiquities expert told them not to complete those sales.* But they did it anyways. 

 

It's all very dodgy. And unethical. And illegal. But seriously, this stuff happens all the time. Really, all the time. I bet you anything that the dealers played a big part in the "oh, this is how everyone transports antiquities" line (I also bet anything the dealers themselves were shady, hence why they would suggest the scheme). The antiquities market is pretty insane on the inside.

 

 

* I have an idea who the unnamed antiquities expert was, and believe that he's honest and aware of the ethical and legal issues here, so I believe the statement made that "this was a stupid oops, and we know better now." I don't think he would still be working with them if this was their everyday M.O. So, while I think the Bible Museum is exasperating, and Hobby Lobby double exasperating, I'm willing to give them some grace here. But my "inside" knowledge is still pretty peripheral, so my opinion may change if more if this type of shady activity comes to light.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But wouldn't this sort of thinking correlate with "atheists are less ethical than Christians (or other religious folks)"? Do you believe that in general atheists are less ethical? Do you believe Christians are or should be more ethical? Do you perceive Christians as caring more about ethics than atheists therefor they are more hypocritical if they do something unethical?

 

One pretty universal tenet of Christianity is that humans are imperfect, fallen, flawed--including those who belong to a Christian church. 

 

In fact we just had a long thread in which many professed Christians pointed out that they do not equate morality/integrity with following laws. How would such a person be more hypocritical than another when breaking a law?

 

I think the issues here is that churches do preach morality, and in some cases morality that not everyone in society agrees with. I think an organization or person is hypocritical when blatantly going against something they actively preach about--so the minister who preaches against sexual infidelity while cheating on his wife is obviously a hypocrite. 

 

Does Hobby Lobby actively preach against breaking export/import regulations? I mean, most people do have a general "we should obey laws" mentality, but then most people and organizations (regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof) also pick and choose and sometimes skirt laws when they feel they can get away with it or the law is silly or they are willing to deal with the consequence if caught. 

 

I would call Hobby Lobby hypocritical if, after making a big deal about being pro-life, they were to turn around and fund abortion clinics.

 

In this case I just seem them as run-of-the-mill law breakers.

 

 

As a general principle, I largely agree with this.

 

 

 

In Hobby Lobby's particular case, they took an argument all the way to the SCOTUS, and won, that amounted to "we cannot comply with THIS particular law because THIS law is contrary to our deeply held principles."

 

When a "person" does that (Hobby Lobby was deemed to be a "person*"), it is fair to hold the "person" to a higher-than-usual standard going forward, with respect to compliance with other, ordinary, laws.  Otherwise there is a risk that the SCOTUS argument about deeply held beliefs would appear to have been disingenuous, and that Hobby Lobby actually just doesn't believe in compliance with laws.  Generally.

 

 

 

 

(*  As a tangent, Hobby Lobby's "oops! the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing!" defense also to my mind renders the "personhood" of the small-privately-held company into some question.  If the right hand doesn't know that the left is looting treasure, the prior SCOTUS argument that the company is a unified and indivisible moral agent who cannot act against unified deeply held convictions is... weaker.)

  • Like 19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a general principle, I largely agree with this.

 

 

 

In Hobby Lobby's particular case, they took an argument all the way to the SCOTUS, and won, that amounted to "we cannot comply with THIS particular law because THIS law is contrary to our deeply held principles."

 

When a "person" does that (Hobby Lobby was deemed to be a "person*"), it is fair to hold the "person" to a higher-than-usual standard going forward, with respect to compliance with other, ordinary, laws.  Otherwise there is a risk that the SCOTUS argument about deeply held beliefs would appear to have been disingenuous, and that Hobby Lobby actually just doesn't believe in compliance with laws.  Generally.

 

 

 

 

(*  As a tangent, Hobby Lobby's "oops! the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing!" defense also to my mind renders the "personhood" of the small-privately-held company into some question.  If the right hand doesn't know that the left is looting treasure, the prior SCOTUS argument that the company is a unified and indivisible moral agent who cannot act against unified deeply held convictions is... weaker.)

I agree with this so very, very much!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm shocked!  I live in Okc and know people who know people who know the Greens, so take that for what it's worth.  :p   But from what I've heard they are pretty moral.  I *want* to believe they were just naive, but as all Christians know the truth eventually comes out.  It sickens me to know it may have given any $ to ISIS in any way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a Christian. That said, I think people/groups/etc who scream the loudest about their religious beliefs, whether they're Christian or Muslim or Hindu or any religion, have the most to hide. I'm not surprised by too much anymore.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

When a "person" does that (Hobby Lobby was deemed to be a "person*"), it is fair to hold the "person" to a higher-than-usual standard going forward, with respect to compliance with other, ordinary, laws.  Otherwise there is a risk that the SCOTUS argument about deeply held beliefs would appear to have been disingenuous, and that Hobby Lobby actually just doesn't believe in compliance with laws.  Generally.

 

 

 

 

 

So here's a question. Since the corporation was found to be "a person" can it now be arrested for treason if it is found that the money did make its way to ISIS or another terrorist organization? I'd be all for Steve Green going on trial for it.

 

I realize this kind of crap goes on "all the time". But maybe if we started prosecuting and throwing the most extreme prison sentences according to the law at the perpetraters, we'd see a little falling off of such activity. Maybe not though. Kind of didn't do a dang thing for the "War on Drugs." One can dream about it though.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm shocked!  I live in Okc and know people who know people who know the Greens, so take that for what it's worth.  :p   But from what I've heard they are pretty moral.  I *want* to believe they were just naive, but as all Christians know the truth eventually comes out.  It sickens me to know it may have given any $ to ISIS in any way.

I don't think a case for naivety can be made, not people who have a bevvy of corporate lawyers around them. it isn't as if these lawyers are completely unaware of the laws in this regard, nor of ISIS or how ISIS funds itself, or anything else. It is telling that the antiquities expert told them not to do it, and by gum, did it anyway. I really don't think this is naivety. Just another bunch of rich yahoos who think the laws are for everyone else, and the end justifies the means especially again, if your wealthy or have a religious agenda.

 

I'm a regular, joe blow American, and have seen enough news to know you don't do this. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

 

I'm thinking that's.... unlikely, FM.  One can always dream, though.

Somewhere over the rainbow

Way up high

And the dreams that you dreamed of

Once in a Lullaby

 

Somewhere over the rainbow

Bluebirds fly

And the dream that you dreamed of

Dreams really do come true.........

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So many Christian churches, communities, and artifacts are being destroyed in that region in an effort to wipe out the religion and culture, that I wonder if it was thought that this was the only way to get the artifacts out in order to preserve them. I don't know. I agree that it doesn't look good to participate in the black market, that's for sure.

 

The means one uses is just as important as the end goal.

 

Maybe they didn't realize that the artifacts were illegally sourced and being smuggled out.

Edited by Fifiruth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But wouldn't this sort of thinking correlate with "atheists are less ethical than Christians (or other religious folks)"? Do you believe that in general atheists are less ethical? Do you believe Christians are or should be more ethical? Do you perceive Christians as caring more about ethics than atheists therefor they are more hypocritical if they do something unethical?

 

 

I don't look at this as an atheist vs. religious person thing.  They don't practice what they preach when it is convenient for them.  So I guess to me it's ironic.  If they weren't so vocal about their religious views this would be a very different conversation if we ended up discussing it at all. 

 

I believe many Christians think atheists are less moral, but they also claim to own the rules of morality.  Neither of which I believe to be true.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So many Christian churches, communities, and artifacts are being destroyed in that region in an effort to wipe out the religion and culture, that I wonder if it was thought that this was the only way to get the artifacts out in order to preserve them. I don't know. I agree that it doesn't look good to participate in the black market, that's for sure.

 

The means one uses is just as important as the end goal.

 

I seriously doubt they engaged in multiple layers of hiding what they were doing to preserve artifacts from destruction.

 

ETA:

Just saw your edit.  Do you really believe that no one at Hobby Lobby knew this was illegal when they were transporting the goods to a nation with less stringent laws and intentionally mislabeling the items to shop them? Come on.

Edited by ChocolateReign
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So many Christian churches, communities, and artifacts are being destroyed in that region in an effort to wipe out the religion and culture, that I wonder if it was thought that this was the only way to get the artifacts out in order to preserve them. I don't know. I agree that it doesn't look good to participate in the black market, that's for sure.

 

The means one uses is just as important as the end goal.

 

Maybe they didn't realize that the artifacts were illegally sourced and being smuggled out.

 

I suppose assuming the best intentions this might be true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone posted the article about this on a local community facebook page. The subsequent response was #fakenews. This upset me more than anything else. I am a bit jaded and not surprised with the hypocrisy of the whole thing. But I was disappointed that we are at the point that any "bad" PR about a conservative company was met with immediate dismissal and denial.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone posted the article about this on a local community facebook page. The subsequent response was #fakenews. This upset me more than anything else. I am a bit jaded and not surprised with the hypocrisy of the whole thing. But I was disappointed that we are at the point that any "bad" PR about a conservative company was met with immediate dismissal and denial.

 

It sounded so nutters to me that I did dig around to find more articles.  So I guess I get that.  Facebook is an annoying place for news!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone posted the article about this on a local community facebook page. The subsequent response was #fakenews. This upset me more than anything else. I am a bit jaded and not surprised with the hypocrisy of the whole thing. But I was disappointed that we are at the point that any "bad" PR about a conservative company was met with immediate dismissal and denial.

I know this is off-topic, but I am so sick of that term. Whenever some people hear anything they don't like -- and with no evidence whatsoever that the story is inaccurate -- they immediately cry, "Fake news!" :glare:

  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So many Christian churches, communities, and artifacts are being destroyed in that region in an effort to wipe out the religion and culture, that I wonder if it was thought that this was the only way to get the artifacts out in order to preserve them. I don't know. I agree that it doesn't look good to participate in the black market, that's for sure.

 

The means one uses is just as important as the end goal.

 

Maybe they didn't realize that the artifacts were illegally sourced and being smuggled out.

I doubt it. They're opening a museum of the bible in D.C. and wanted some ancient stuff to put in it. The reality is if you pay attention to the news, you know that terrorist groups and in particular ISIS fund themselves selling pillaged antiquities. 

 

Pilfering it through Turkey. That's a pretty darn deliberate thing to do. Definitely not naive, altruistic, misguided, or anything else. 

Edited by FaithManor
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

re "news I dislike" vs "fake news"

 

I know this is off-topic, but I am so sick of that term. Whenever some people hear anything they don't like -- and with no evidence whatsoever that the story is inaccurate -- they immediately cry, "Fake news!" :glare:

 

Actually, I don't think the phenomenon *is* off topic.  The Charlie Gard story is an object study example of how a complicated, nuanced story which is very much intertwined with the laws and culture of another country, is reduced to headline-sized sound bytes that are hawked and shared and re-shared, here.

 

This thread IMO is a good example of what digging to find the details of the story, and turning over and examining the various issues and complexities, looks like.  

 

If as a culture we did more of that, we would as a nation be better able to tackle (real, difficult, complicated) health care sector and end-of-life challenges here.  It's not easy anywhere but it's not possible if we only work in twitter-sized memes and dismiss all context as fake.

 

 

 

 

 

ETA Sorry, I lost track of what thread I was responding to, here...   :001_rolleyes: ... but, anyway, much of the same dynamic still applies.

Edited by Pam in CT
  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seriously doubt they engaged in multiple layers of hiding what they were doing to preserve artifacts from destruction.

 

ETA:

Just saw your edit. Do you really believe that no one at Hobby Lobby knew this was illegal when they were transporting the goods to a nation with less stringent laws and intentionally mislabeling the items to shop them? Come on.

 

I really don't know. If they did do it with knowledge and foresight, then shame on them. It wouldn't be the first time that Christians have compromised when it came to money, unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't know. If they did do it with knowledge and foresight, then shame on them. It wouldn't be the first time that Christians have compromised when it came to money, unfortunately.

 

Their own expert told them the artifacts were likely stolen.  They then go to great lengths to hide the transactions and smuggle them into the country. And you don't know if they knew what they were doing was illegal?

Okay.

  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are going to claim you are moral that should carry over to all aspects of your life. You don't get to pick and choose.

 

This kind of thinking always puzzles me. Everyone claims some sort of morality, so is every person or only the religious a "hypocrite" when (not if, sorry) they do something wrong?  Unless a person is claiming perfection or sainthood (imperfect people, btw, lol) then this is an odd line of thinking.  

 

I'm using the word hypocrite because it's been used so many times before. Just asked someone about this on FB the other day who said that the guy is a hypocrite because he won't give women the birth control they want but then goes and steals stuff.  OK...  That means that taking a moral stance on ANY issue means that you cannot ever make a mistake in any other unrelated area.  Why does this make sense to people?  lol  

 

I think if they did this on purpose then they should get the consequences that anyone else would.  They should be called out on THIS situation.  If they had wrong motives and knew what they were doing was wrong, it stinks and they should feel rotten in addition to paying for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deplorable behavior. To me, being a moral person, which they claim (or do we say Hobby Lobby is a person now?) regardless of religious beliefs, requires that you live out those moral principles. Even if everyone else is doing it and your stance is that stealing is wrong, period, then don't steal. Don't fall into situations where it might appear that you steal. So it doesn't matter if everyone is doing it, it doesn't matter if the British museum should probably give back some of their antiquities, it matters what you (the person of Hobby Lobby) do. 

 

I had not set foot in a Hobby Lobby until last week, since the corporate debacle of a few years ago. Now, I'm not going back. 

 

I have had discussions with others regarding the "saving" of artifacts by moving them out of war zones and I have mixed feelings, but lying on manifests to get them through proper channels is shady and if you're going to tout "do not lie, do not steal," then getting artifacts in that manner makes you a hypocrite. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Christian, I hold Christians to higher standards, not because I think Christians are more ethical or better in some way, but because I am ashamed when people on my "team" behave badly and feel it reflects badly on us all. The same way we as Americans can be embarrassed at the antics of our politicians.

 

I shop at HL and probably still will, though the majority of my art/craft buying business is through Michael's and Amazon. Both of those companies have their own flaws as well. I don't shop at HL because they tout their own Christianity, I shop there because it's nearby and I want stuff that they have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This kind of thinking always puzzles me. Everyone claims some sort of morality, so is every person or only the religious a "hypocrite" when (not if, sorry) they do something wrong?  Unless a person is claiming perfection or sainthood (imperfect people, btw, lol) then this is an odd line of thinking.  

 

I'm using the word hypocrite because it's been used so many times before. Just asked someone about this on FB the other day who said that the guy is a hypocrite because he won't give women the birth control they want but then goes and steals stuff.  OK...  That means that taking a moral stance on ANY issue means that you cannot ever make a mistake in any other unrelated area.  Why does this make sense to people?  lol  

 

I think if they did this on purpose then they should get the consequences that anyone else would.  They should be called out on THIS situation.  If they had wrong motives and knew what they were doing was wrong, it stinks and they should feel rotten in addition to paying for it.

 

Whoa.

 

First, your argument is puzzling because it relies on non-facts.  Hobby Lobby isn't not giving birth control.  Hobby Lobby is restricting women's access to birth control through the health care THEY PAY FOR, no matter the reason it is needed.  They didn't make a decision to not give pills.  They made a decision to restrict access based on murky, poor science and called it religion. One of the many reasons why a national health service should be formed.

 

Second, this was a calculated effort.  Thou shall not steal is a commandment, one of the two sets of 10 handed down to Moses.  They made an effort, repeatedly, to be successful at stealing.  This is not a mistake.  They did not walk into Iraq and have artifacts oops fall into their bag.  No.  And to sit on a moral high horse, proclaiming their morality from the rooftops, while covertly committing one of the flat out easiest sins to abstain from......yeah, they're hypocritical.  Not to mention other things.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...