Tyndale and Treason

This is my Bible.  It's from Zondervan.

This is my Bible. It’s from Zondervan.

The publishing company, Tyndale, has recently won a reprieve from the federal mandate requiring all employers offering health insurance to offer contraception coverage as well.  You can read a good discussion of Tyndale’s legal argument here.

Tyndale’s basic argument is this: they believe contraception is immoral and, because they are self-insured, the money for contraceptives would go straight from their pocket to the pharmacist’s without any moral ambiguity granted from a middle man.  This, therefore, puts an undue strain on their religious freedom.  I’ve already discussed why I believe providing contraception is not a question of religious freedom.

But the basic illogic of the situation aside, I’m wondering why a company gets religious protections at all.  Does the board of Tyndale believe that Jesus died for the company’s sin?  Or does the board believe that all the assets of the company belong to a few folks just like the change in my pocket belongs to me (my pocket is not incorporated while Tyndale is)?  Religious organizations, usually only houses of worship, are granted some exemptions from some employment laws.  The Catholic Church, for example, is allowed to discriminate against women when hiring clergy.  However, it may not require it’s employees to work in patently dangerous situations, say, in a building that’s been condemned.  Being a religious organization does not exempt one from all laws.

Except Tyndale, or at least, Tyndale’s supporters, thinks it should.  On the radio today I heard someone make the “common sense” plea that since Tyndale publishes Bibles it should be allowed to follow the rules in the very book it prints.  Well isn’t that a fine idea!  First, let’s be clear, the last thing Tyndale wants to do is follow all the rules in the book it prints.  Let President Bartlet carry this argument for me.

Or, the author of Luke can give us a few examples of what Tyndale probably doesn’t want to hear as “rules.”

A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’”

 “All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said.

 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

 When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was very wealthy. Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!  Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

Luke 18:18-25

Now, it’s clear that Tyndale doesn’t actually want to just follow the “rules” of the Bible.  But they do want to follow this one, about contraception.  We’ll skip, for now, the fact that the Bible never addresses contraception, or for that matter, abortion.  Well, why shouldn’t they be able to follow the rules that they themselves take such pains to publish?

What if printers of the Koran could ignore our civil laws in preference for Sharia law?  Certainly that would raise a kerfuffle.  What if printers of Marx’s Communist Manifesto exempted themselves from property rights?  That wouldn’t fly.  What if the only rules that bound you legally were the ones you printed right out of your home printer?  Kinkos would become the next Congress!

You can’t just say “no thank you, I’ve brought my own,” to the laws of the land.  Tyndale, or at least these supporters of Tyndale, are making a borderline seditious argument.  They’ve rejected the government’s right to require fair treatment of women in favor of their own rules.  In this particular instance they’ve stayed on the right side of the law by bringing this disagreement through the proper legal channels, but the nut of the argument, that one is empowered to decide what laws to follow primarily by having the option to print other laws, is deeply troubling.  It’s a coup de press.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in America's Confusion, Christianity's Confusion and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Tyndale and Treason

  1. It will take time to adjudicate the limits of the Affordable Care Act. The temporary injunction obtained by Tyndale is being appealed by the government. A similar injunction requested by Hobby Lobby was rejected, a decision affirmed on appeal. A further appeal to the Supreme Court was unsuccessful, and Justice Sotomayor, who wrote the opinion, was skeptical about Hobby Lobby’s chances in the courts. The issue will likely get to the Supreme Court eventually only if the lower courts reach different conclusions.

    The Christian Post wrote, “Judge Walton determined that the beliefs of Tyndale and its owners are indistinguishable.” I didn’t know that corporations had beliefs. I guess that’s that “corporations are people” thing again.

    You are perfectly correct in suggesting that a victory by Tyndale heads us toward anarchy. This is one reason I think its and similar suits ultimately will fail.

    Thanks for the clip from The West Wing. It was great to see it again.

  2. janineyork says:

    Religious beliefs are subjective and optional. Laws on the other hand are objective and must be upheld by all. Period. The Hobby Lobby thing annoyed me so much that I stopped shopping there, it feels like greed and pettiness of sore losers if you ask me. I cannot believe that this judgement was won by Tyndale. Very well written argument!

  3. Ed Darrell says:

    There is no rule on contraception in the Bible, at least no rule against it, especially one that survives the New Testament.

    One of the more odd things is that if you trace the “religious views” of the Protestant groups Tyndale serves, in the 1940s through 1960s they argued that there was a right to contraception, and they would not be hornswoggled by creeping Catholicism.

    What a turnaround! Many fundamentalists who still mouth concerns about the Catholic church, embrace Catholic theology they rejected not long ago.

    I don’t see any theological reason for the switch. I just note that it has occurred.

Now it's your turn...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s