Developing: Pakistani Plane Escorted by UK Fighter Jets — 2 Men Arrested

Doc Thompson’s 24-hour radio marathon, ‘#24forok,’ continues until 9 am ET — Listen Live!

Business

‘Insufficiently Religious’: Bible Publisher Tyndale Sues Obama Admin Over Contraceptive Mandate

Oct. 3, 2012 8:25pm Billy Hallowell

Tyndale Publishers Sues Obama Administration Over Contraceptive Mandate

Photo Credit: Tyndale House Publishers

With the growing chorus of lawsuits over the Obama administration’s contraceptive mandate, there’s a chance that the Supreme Court will, once again, be ruling on the president’s controversial health care legislation.

As religiously-owned businesses, universities and other cohorts launch individual lawsuits against the regulation, the situation only seems to be intensifying. This week, Tyndale House Publishers, a Bible-only publishing house, is joining in with an anti-contraception mandate complaint of its own.

In a lawsuit filed on Tuesday (read it here), Tyndale maintained that the regulation violates its owners to rights to their free exercise of religion — a sentiment that is guaranteed by the First Amendment. However, the debate, as seen in other cases, seems to hinge on whether a business can be exempt from government provisions based on his or her owner’s personal religious viewpoints.

Christianity Today has more about the newest case against the Obama administration’s mandate:

“The federal government has deemed devout publishers of the Bible to be insufficiently ‘religious’ to enjoy religious freedom in America,” the complaint stated.

According to a press release from Alliance Defending Freedom (formerly the Alliance Defense Fund), which is representing Tyndale, “The publisher is subject to the mandate because Obama administration rules say for-profit corporations are categorically non-religious.”

However, the for-profit publisher is owned by the Christian nonprofit Tyndale House Foundation, which funds Christian charities and receives 96 percent of Tyndale House Publishers’ profits.

This undated file photo provided by Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc., shows a package of Plan B' One-Step, an emergency contraceptive. (Photo Credit: AP)

As noted, Tyndale is only one of the numerous religiously-owned companies to battle the contraceptive mandate. As TheBlaze reported in July, Catholic-owned employer Hercules Industries won a temporary halt of enforcement against the controversial mandate (the case is still being debated).

But on Friday, Missouri federal court Judge Carol E. Jackson, who was appointed by President George H. W. Bush, found that the requirement that all employers provide contraception free-of-charge doesn’t infringe upon O’Brien Industrial Holdings, a Catholic business, and its rights to religious exercise.

Craft store chain Hobby Lobby, the popular, evangelical-owned craft-store chain, also filed a separate lawsuit against the contraceptive mandate last month. Rather than taking issue with birth control, Hobby Lobby’s main concern is with the morning after pill and other related drugs. The store chain filed its complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.

—

Related:

Benghazi, IRS, AP...What's next? Only TheBlaze TV offers the truth from Glenn Beck, Andrew Wilkow, and Real News from TheBlaze. Get instant access and a free trial here.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (32)

jman-6
Posted on October 4, 2012 at 10:00pm
The fact that we are being forced into nO’Idontcare even having to sue over our religious freedoms proves were living in an upside down bass akwards place! Besides nO’Idontcare being unconstitutional and a financial scam disaster looking for a place to happen, its real purpose was never about health insurance it was to unionize ALL healthcare workers as we have recently uncovered! Tax Payer-back for union thuggery support!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
intrepidorator
Posted on October 4, 2012 at 8:47pm
@ wvernon1981;
If it is actually against their religious beliefs, they should not be forced to do it. Legal precedence may need to be set in order to protect religious liberty.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Worriedboomer
Posted on October 4, 2012 at 5:41pm
The Catholic Church’s objection is not simply to being asked to pay for contraception and abortions. It is also objecting to the government defining the limits of the Church. They do this when they state that exemptions may be given to the Church, and then state that this includes only those people who work within the actual walls of the Church buildings and serve only their own members. The government is allowing the exemption, but defining WHO is “the Church”. Under this definition, Jesus Christ would not fit under their definition because He served people outside of His own Apostles. (Refer to the statement by the Council of Catholic Bishops for further explanation of this argument.) The argument has more to do with the Church having the freedom to practice their religion in their own way without government definition.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- intrepidorator
  Posted on October 4, 2012 at 8:26pm
  Worriedboomer, that is the most Insightful statement that I have read in a long time on the subject of religious liberty.
  
  Report this comment
Chuck Stein
Posted on October 4, 2012 at 3:29pm
William Tyndale led the world into the light.

He translated the Bible into English from Greek and Hebrew.
Some phrases he translated:
“lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil”; “knock and it shall be opened unto you”, “twinkling of an eye”, “a moment in time”, “fashion not yourselves to the world,” “seek and you shall find,” “ask and it shall be given you”, “judge not that you not be judged”, “the word of God which liveth and lasteth forever”, “let there be light”, “the powers that be”, “my brother’s keeper”, “the salt of the earth,” “a law unto themselves,” “filthy lucre”, “it came to pass”, “gave up the ghost”, “the signs of the times”, “the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak”, and “fight the good fight”

WILLIAM TYNDALE FOUGHT THE GOOD FIGHT HE GAVE HIS LIFE FOR TRUTH

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
mcsledge
Posted on October 4, 2012 at 1:35pm
What do you call a woman who receives financial benefit (yes – receiving free items that would normally cost is financial benefit) for having sex? Obama…. the big promotor of ……. You guessed it.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
TEARS FOR AMERICA
Posted on October 4, 2012 at 10:00am
Obamacare- the raping of America.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
gibby45
Posted on October 4, 2012 at 2:12am
This is not a Bible only publishing house. They also publish fiction (the Left Behind series) non-fiction and children’s products. They have had #1 best sellers on the NY Times list and made a ton of money. They are truly a non profit organization but do have other interests besides just Bibles

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- intrepidorator
  Posted on October 4, 2012 at 8:31pm
  The left behind series is a religious series. Any thinking person should be able to realize that people should not be required, under threat by the Obama administration, to go against their religious beliefs just because they don’t work directly for the church.
  
  Report this comment
- gibby45
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 1:30am
  I wasn’t saying they shouldn’t be able to decide for themselves because of religious beliefs. The blurb made it sound like all they did was publish Bibles.
  
  Report this comment
- gibby45
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 1:37am
  It is a great company that I used to work for that really does great things. They really do try to do what is right. When the founder Dr Taylor was still alive it was truly a great place to work. Kind of changed slightly afterwards but still was an upright and just company.
  
  Report this comment
bgotts27
Posted on October 3, 2012 at 11:49pm
Also, wyvernon, what difference is there between “religious” and “secular” when it comes to deeply held convictions?

Does the fact that one bases his convictions on a religious book make his convictions any more religious than the beliefs held by someone who has a different basis for his convictions? By definition, a conviction must be religious.

Something that is secular may be defined as not having a religious intent or desired outcome or what have you, but that does not make the underlying beliefs and convictions any less “religious.”

It is impossible to separate one’s secular beliefs from one’s religious beliefs. That is why the founders of this country and framers of the Constitution stated that there shall be no law respecting (giving special privilege to) an establishment of religion OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- The Third Archon
  Posted on October 4, 2012 at 10:51am
  “It is impossible to separate one‘s secular beliefs from one’s religious beliefs.”
  That’s patently false–just look at all the cherry-picking of the texts upon which various theologies are based to decide which are “mandatory” and which are “advisory” at best. The Catholic church says the Bible prohibits divorce and contraceptives (except, and only, to prevent STD infection, something they recently decided “God REALLY meant to say”), yet many Catholics ignore one or both of these tenets in their daily lives, despite believing genuinely they are “Catholic” (and despite not being excommunicated). Protestants, by contrast, ALSO look to the SAME text (the Bible) but most say it DOESN’T proscribe divorce or contraception–SOMEONE has to be wrong on one or both topics. Look also at the Commandment on Sabbath keeping–some Christians argue the bible designates a specific day, and then break down into groups bickering over WHICH day was the “original seventh.” Some argue the PRINCIPLE of 1:6 (rest:work respectively) is what matters–still others disregard the Sabbath entirely (whether for purely self-aggrandizing workaholic reasons, or self-sacrificing reasons, such as special forces training or deployment on unique and demanding missions). All of these groups still genuinely believe themselves to be “Christians.” What about “shalt not kill”? I don’t remember any exceptions to that–yet in a majority self-professing “Christian” country, we have capita
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on October 4, 2012 at 10:58am
  *capital punishment. Yet no one among the church leadership, least of all the parishioners, seems to see any contradiction between this hypocrisy of PROFESSED religious belief, and SECULAR practice. You NEVER hear American Protestants (or even many CATHOLICS for that matter) arguing that American Protestants aren’t “REAL Christians” because they are favorable towards capital punishment.
  
  Cognitive dissonance is a very real thing–human beings are MORE than capable of genuinely BELIEVING one set of propositions, but EARNESTLY acting upon another.
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on October 4, 2012 at 11:01am
  *capital punishment.
  
  Report this comment
wvernon1981
Posted on October 3, 2012 at 10:08pm
@Hillbilly,

Unless you have a good source for that, I suggest you read this from Snopes on medical exemptions for Muslims:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/exemptions.asp

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
weskets
Posted on October 3, 2012 at 9:05pm
My last response was directed at WVERNON1981

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
weskets
Posted on October 3, 2012 at 9:03pm
Wow, you almost make it sound like you have a legitimate argument, but you don’t. What you fail to acknowledge or refuse to acknowledge in your endorsement for this Healthcare Act with hidden agenda’s is the fact that PEOPLE and BUSINESS alike are being FORCED to buy a product or service whether they want it or agree with it or not.

This administration has flipped flopped, depending on who they are disputing with, whether or not it is a TAX or a PENALTY. Everyone, including business, pays taxes and funds the government, including Military, The far too many government Agencies and overpaying the President and Congress. This goes for the current and previous President(s) and Congress.

This mandate was added as nothing more than an attack on Christianity and their beliefs and as a matter of giving “Free” stuff to those who don’t want to take responsibility for their own actions.

Therefore I will give you credit for making it sound like a really good argument, unfortunately for you, it will only work on the “Kool-Aide” consumers.

May we be free of this administration, the destruction of our religious freedoms and rights, and return to our US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and SMALLER, MUCH, MUCH SMALLER government so that we can get the SPENDING UNDER CONTROL.

IF the President and Congress truly believe that there should be FREE Contraceptives, then they should buy them and hand them out personally. If this Healthcare bill is so GRAND, why did they EXCLUDE

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- wvernon1981
  Posted on October 3, 2012 at 10:38pm
  “This administration has flipped flopped, depending on who they are disputing with, whether or not it is a TAX or a PENALTY. Everyone, including business, pays taxes and funds the government, including Military, The far too many government Agencies and overpaying the President and Congress. This goes for the current and previous President(s) and Congress.”
  
  And now everyone is going to be paying for contraceptive coverage. There is a good discussion to be had on the role of government. I’m glad to have that discussion. My contentions are that the religious are seeking a special exemption available only to the religious and not the secular and that winning such a case will establish legal precedent such that various sects could object to anything on religious grounds.
  
  Report this comment
- bgotts27
  Posted on October 3, 2012 at 11:41pm
  wyvernon, the solution to your “the religious are seeking a special exemption available only to the religious and not the secular” argument is simple: EVERYONE should be able to choose for themselves what coverage they want and will pay for and what coverage they do not want and will not pay for.
  
  Kinda like we have now in cafeteria plans – those who are paying decide what they will pay for.
  
  Requiring everyone to pay for everything, whether they want it or not, and particularly regardless of their deeply held religious beliefs and convictions, is unconstitutional and decidedly wrong.
  
  Report this comment
- intrepidorator
  Posted on October 4, 2012 at 8:43pm
  What most people fail to understand is that the issue isn’t about free contraception, it is about forcing people of faith to go against their beliefs. It is no different than forcing muslims or jews to provide bacon to the rest of us.
  
  Report this comment
kickagrandma
Posted on October 3, 2012 at 8:45pm
CHRISTIANS, CHRIST-followers, stand up!
Back these businesses that are standing up.
If you are a real CHRISTIAN you have courage. GOD grants that to you.
We must stand now for HIM and what HE teaches us is HIS WILL for us.
If not now, there will never be another chance. It is now.

GOD BLESS, PROTECT, EMPOWER AND ENCOURAGE YOU. May HIS LOVE flow through you to others seeking HIS WILL for their lives at this historic time.

PRAY ON AMERICA!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- kalli
  Posted on October 3, 2012 at 9:01pm
  Amen, Kick!
  
  Report this comment
wvernon1981
Posted on October 3, 2012 at 8:32pm
If you want to object to paying for contraception for others, fine. However, attempting to use the courts to opt out on “religious” grounds should not be a legitimate avenue as given the vast landscape of religious beliefs, anyone can find a religious reason to opt out of anything.

Moreover, how is a religious belief any different than any other strongly held conviction? If one has a conviction that the military is inherently immoral, should one be allowed to opt out of paying the portion of their taxes allocated to the military? If anarchists and libertarians strongly believe government is bad, should they be legally allowed to opt out of paying taxes?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Longing for Change
  Posted on October 3, 2012 at 8:49pm
  If you don’t enjoy the freedoms that our service men and women afford you through their service to this country, feel free to move to Cuba, Venezuela, or any other communist country. See how that feels.
  
  Report this comment
- hillbillyinny
  Posted on October 3, 2012 at 8:53pm
  Muslims groups and muslim-owned busineses have already been “opted out” by the current administration due to “religious conflict.” Why are they more “special” than Christian and Orthodox Jewish groups??!!
  
  Report this comment
- RebelPatriot
  Posted on October 3, 2012 at 9:00pm
  Then why was McDonald’s allowed to opt out of Obama Care? It must have been strictly for financial reasons. The company would have had to provide insurance for all of it’s part time employees. Now that they have were allowed a waiver the rest of us will have to pay for those individuals to have healthcare. How? By paying a higher premium on the government forced healthcare. They are basically taxing the haves to give to the have nots, while allowing a multi-billion dollar company to skirt paying a single penny. While all of us who don’t believe in abortion or the use of the morning after pill will pay for McDonald’s employees to have healthcare.
  
  This isn’t care insurance, those who were forced to buy car insurance pay out of their own pockets. Thus lowering the premiums necessary to cover the losses of the insurance companies.
  
  Forcing everyone to pay for Obama Care only forces those who can pay, to pay higher premiums to compensate for those who will not be able to afford it without their companies assistance which McDonald’s was able to waiver out of.
  
  Those companies that support the progressive socialist agenda are benefitting greatly from their waivers. Those of us who had this “TAX” forced upon them will suffer the most.
  
  Taking from the rich and giving to the poor sounds admirable. When the poor sit on their asses and are able to have healthcare, housing, food and a cell phone without working a day in return that is a problem not a solution t
  
  Report this comment
- kalli
  Posted on October 3, 2012 at 9:00pm
  So, what other alternative is available if the courts are not used? Americans are being forced to pay for “others” use of contraceptives and their abortions. That is not only against the law of God, it is wrong to force others to pay to murder their babies or their contraception. Abstaining costs nothing if one is too cheap to buy their own protection. The SCOTUS are the turkeys who should have abolished this despicable leftist law that nobody was allowed to read;. Everyone voting for it should be hanged with the traitor in the WH.
  
  Report this comment
- wvernon1981
  Posted on October 3, 2012 at 10:05pm
  @Longing,
  
  You should learn not to read so much into what someone says. I never said I didn’t support the military. Even if I did, why should I move to Cuba and bow to your desires rather than use my rights to push for change?
  
  Report this comment
- wvernon1981
  Posted on October 3, 2012 at 10:20pm
  @Rebel,
  
  My point was not to the legitimacy of the Affordable Care Act but rather the irrational argument that religious organizations should have an exemption because of their religions convictions when no such exemption would be granted on the basis of secular convictions.
  
  Report this comment
- wvernon1981
  Posted on October 3, 2012 at 10:22pm
  Kalli,
  
  If you want to use the courts, fine. That’s your right. However, I’m not sure how you aren’t creating legal precedent for any religions organization to object to paying taxes and other government mandated expenses by the same reasoning.
  
  Report this comment
- wvernon1981
  Posted on October 3, 2012 at 10:31pm
  @Kalli,
  
  I’ve also been pondering an equivalence today which touches on what you said. If a religious employer pays their employee and they go out and buy contraceptives or have an abortion, what is the effective moral difference between that and paying for healthcare that covers contraceptives and abortions? Probabilities? There is a 100 percent chance a portion of your money will go to provide an abortion where only a fractional chance that your employee will do so with their wages. A portion of the goods and services the employer produced and traded for money will, in a round about way, be traded for contraceptives and abortions.
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.