Tyndale House Files Suit Against the HHS Mandate

Tyndale House, one of the largest Christian book publishers in the world, filed suit yesterday against the HHS Mandate.

Tyndale House specializes in religious books, particularly Bibles. Despite this, they fell outside the narrowly-drawn exemptions to the HHS Mandate requiring employers to pay for, among other things, abortifacients.

According to an October 2 LifeNews.com article, “The (HHS) mandate forces employers, regardless of their religious or moral convictions, to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterlization and contraception under threat of heavy penalties.”

This ” … demands that Americans choose between two poison pills: either desert your faith by complying, or resist and be punished,” Matt Bowman, Senior Legal Counsel for Tyndale said.

Tyndale House Publishers V Sebelius was filed in the U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Tuesday October 2, 2012.

The LifeNew.com article reads in part:

Tyndale House Publishers, which publishes Bibles and other Christian books and multimedia, filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday against the Obama administration’s abortion pill mandate.

Tyndale House is one of the world’s largest privately held Christian publishers of books, Bibles, and digital media, but it is apparently not religious enough to meet the narrowly-drawn pot-out the Obama administration placed in the HHS mandate.

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing Tyndale House filed a lawsuit and said it is subject to the mandate because Obama administration rules say for-profit corporations are categorically non-religious, even though Tyndale House is strictly a publisher of Bibles and other Christian materials. Tyndale is owned by the non-profit Tyndale House Foundation, a Christian group which provides grants to help meet the physical and spiritual needs of people around the world. (Read more here.)

  • http://ackans.com Mr. V.

    Hmmm…interesting and well-thought out story. Quite fictional, of course. But what exactly does it have to do with the topic of discussion?

    • http://ackans.com Mr. V.

      Arkenaten,

      I would add to my last comment by saying not only do I not know any Christians who fit such a narrow, wooden description of no depth, I don’t know anyone who fits that type of description. I’ve come across some fairly hateful people in my life, Christian and otherwise, and they were more complex personalities than your portrayal of Becky. In real life, everyone has good and bad points. The characters in your story do not.

      Neo-nazis portray Jews and Blacks and Asians (and other ethnicities) as having no redeeming characteristics at all. They portray those they hate in much the same way you portray Christians. So, yes, I do call your story hateful. And it’s not because of your viewpoint, but rather the means in which you choose to express your viewpoint.

      I’ve walked in your shoes, Arkenaten. I spent many years as a self-avowed atheist, who viewed and treated anyone of faith with derision and scorn, so I know where you’re coming from. I also spent a few years spent exploring paganism and running in those circles as well. And you would probably find out much the same if you took time to learn more of the Christians you encounter in your life. It’s a rare person who is born a Christian and stays perfectly true to God his entire life with no mistakes.

      In truth, I only know of two who can lay claim to living sinlessly and in line with God’s will with no faults or slip-ups. The rest of us have many faults and we stumble and we fall away and with God’s grace, we return to Him in time.

      Arkenaten, I shall pray for you, that God opens your eyes, just as he opened mine.

      • Arkenaten

        With such comments as these, I think you are viewing life through glasses with cracked lenses.
        To even suggest I portray Christians as the “Nazis portrayed, Jews, Blacks and Asians” illustrates an attitude that goes way beyond gross bad manners and is truly beneath contempt.

        And for the record, using the term, ‘Blacks,’ is offensive and smacks of a racial slur.

        • Arkenaten

          Oh, and I have made a screen shot of the ‘Nazi’ comment. Just for the record, of course.

          • http://ackans.com Mr. V.

            Oh by all means help yourself.

            Just make sure you point out that I never called you a Nazi or anything of the sort. I do not believe you hold to their beliefs, and I’m sure you would find the ideology of neo-nazis just as contemptible as do I. What I did make a point of illustrating is the fact that you paint those whom you oppose with a broad brush. You do use the literary techniques of extremists. If you don’t like being called out for that, then I would suggest that you stop using such techniques.

            If you wish to be regarded as a thoughtful person, then you must needs present your arguments in a thoughtful manner.

        • http://ackans.com Mr. V.

          “To even suggest I portray Christians as the “Nazis portrayed, Jews, Blacks and Asians” illustrates an attitude that goes way beyond gross bad manners and is truly beneath contempt.”

          Well, Arkenaten, all I can say is, you don’t seem to have any idea of the effect of your words and how they come across. You frequently imagine Christians, as can be evidenced in your little piece of pure fiction, as hyper-intolerant, wooden, uncompassionate, rigid jerks who are unable to handle any type of tragedy.

          And let’s set the record straight. I never once spoke of Nazis. You changed my words to that. I said Neo-Nazis, and yes it may be splitting hairs, but there is a difference. I also never called you one. I do not think you are a neo-nazi in any way. I believe you would find their philosophy as contemptible as would I. What I did make a point of saying is that you use a similar type of logical fallacy as people like that do. They paint their enemies with broad strokes, with no redeeming values.

          I also compared you to the writings of Jack Chick, an extreme fundamentalist who produced the infamous Chick Tracts of the Twentieth Century. You use similar tactics, painting those with whom you disagree as being ugly, foul people with very little of a redeeming value, if at all.

          And for the record, ‘Blacks’ is not a racial slur. It is no more than a descriptor that has become outdated. Though not the current term of choice by the media, it is still used in ordinary language, in ordinary conversation, by countless people across the country, across all ethnicities, white and black and asian and hispanic and all others.

          The fact that media talking heads have decided we shouldn’t use a word, doesn’t make that word automatically racist or bigoted or intolerant or anything else.

          • Arkenaten

            I appreciate you don’t like the piece of writing, fair enough. I don’t much care for JK Rowling’s writing either, but no one alluded to her being anything other than a fantasy writer, good or bad depending on one’s preference for the genre.
            From the infantile hystrionics of your comments including your critique of my story suggests you still have some unresolved issues – anger management immediately springs to mind – that your born again status has not sorted out. I do not hate anyone. I cannot understand what part of ths sentence you are unable to comprehend.
            To identify a person as a black man is not considered a racial slur. And I could care less what Talking Heads think or say. The manner and context in which you used the term Blacks suggests you categorise people by ethinicity in general, thus using the term in this manner is indicitive of tacit racism,(whether you recognise it or not, my friend) and would be roundly lambasted in most forums. And I’m sure you are aware I am from South Africa, yes?
            I might just as well say Catholics are not Chrisitan – a view expressed by a great many reborn fundamental Protestants as I’m sure you are aware and you would object to this quite strongly I have no doubts.
            So please don’t try to patronise me about Political Correctness or Generally Accepted Word Usage.

            Let’s be clear. You did not like my story, May your God protect you, neither the characterisation or the apparent implications re Christians, mothers, and people dying in hospital.

            Fine. Critque duly noted. You wont be wanting a signed copy then, I take it?
            Just asking…..

            Peace

            • http://ackans.com Mr. V.

              “And I’m sure you are aware I am from South Africa, yes?”

              Actually, I had no idea of who you are in real life, or where you are from. From what part of South Africa do you hail?

              Also, I was curious as to why your name on your comments on this blog do not link back to your own blog.

        • Rebecca Hamilton

          Douglas, I think this may be some sort of cultural difference between South Africa and the United States, but we can refer to someone as “black” or “white” in America without intending a racial slur of any sort. People who want to issue a racial slur in America would use different words than “black” or “white.” Saying someone is “black” or “white” is considered a statement of fact, not an insult; somewhat akin to saying someone is a man or a woman. I don’t want to get into a big debate about this, I just want you to be aware that Stephen is not making a racial slur when he says this.

          • Arkenaten

            ‘Re read hs comment, Rebecca. And my response.
            To refer to someone as a black person is not generally considered racist.
            To use the term ‘Blacks’ is tacit racism, and to attempt to suggest it is okay by lumping it in with Jews and Hisapanics wont carry.
            eg. “Öh, the Blacks in South Africa”
            Talk about Obama in a fashion such as, Oh he’s a black and I Guarantee he will be more than a tad miffed.

            • Rebecca Hamilton

              Stop looking for racism where none exists Douglas. I mean it.

              • Arkenaten

                I did say tacit racism, did I not?
                To identify any individual or group by colour is identifying by race, which is a negative mindset, with negative connatations. This is fact.
                There is a vast difference between using the term African and Black. If you do not realise this then maybe you should reconsider your own thoughts on the issue?
                Ever wonder why there is no representation of Jesus with the skin tone of a Palastinian?
                Makes you think, doesn’t it?

                .

                • Rebecca Hamilton

                  Douglas, no, it’s not. People are different sexes and races. The only negative is what we put on that. I know that human beings have hurt one another terribly over trivial differences but in truth we are beautifully and wonderfully made in the image and likeness of God. There is nothing wrong with our differences. They just make us stronger, if we let them.

                  You are very stubborn when you get off on a tangent about keeping on and on after I ask you to stop. Please stop saying that the other commenters on this board are being racist.

                  • Arkenaten

                    I am not saying nor have I said MrV is a racist.
                    I merely stated that the manner in which he uses the term Black has racist undertones.
                    Who are the “other commenters”, Rebecca, please? I thought there was only one other on this thread, MrV,

                • http://ackans.com Mr. V.

                  “To identify any individual or group by colour is identifying by race, which is a negative mindset, with negative connatations. This is fact.”

                  First, identfiying by color is not identifying by race, not really. First of all, geographically and scientifically, there’s no such thing as either a monolithic white or black race. Those words are descriptive of appearance and nothing more.

                  “There is a vast difference between using the term African and Black.”

                  Well, now you contradict yourself. First you say that identifying by race is negative, then you say I should use the word African, which is an identification by race.

                  “Ever wonder why there is no representation of Jesus with the skin tone of a Palastinian?”

                  No, I don’t because there are many representations of Jesus with the skin tone of a Palestinian.

                  “Makes you think, doesn’t it?”

                  Makes me think you’re not very aware of the world around you, and you are trying to force the world to fit your notions.

            • http://ackans.com Mr. V.

              In this country, black is not taken as a racist statement. Nor white. It is considered as a descriptor and nothing more.

              And actually, people (including me) do not generally refer to a single individual as a ‘black’. Your example of talking about Obama like ‘oh he’s a black’ is kind of stilted language, and is generally not used. Blacks and Whites are words that are used, as collective nouns. When referring to an individual, on the other hand, people generally say ‘he’s a black/white/asian/whatever guy’ or woman. There is nothing racist or derogatory in that usage, and I don’t know of anyone who views it as such. In South Africa, it might be different. But in America, black and white are commonly used as descriptions. A common police report, for example, when describing a subject of an incident, will read ‘black/white male, age 23, 6’4″, athletic build, dressed in blue jeans and red t-shirt’.

              There are many other words that are racist and derogatory, but blacks is not one of them.

              • Arkenaten

                Is not the term Caucasian? Maybe I’ve been watching too many American Cop shows?
                You may use the term ‘Black’ in an offhand manner but when used even as a descriptor with the implied capital it has racist undertones.

                • http://ackans.com Mr. V.

                  “You may use the term ‘Black’ in an offhand manner but when used even as a descriptor with the implied capital it has racist undertones.”

                  Not in this country. No racist undertones. Sorry. Again, you’re trying to fit the cultural trends in your country to here. It may very well have racist undertones in South Africa. In America, though, it is not considered racist. And I’m not using it in an offhand manner. It is a normal description here, and it is not racist or offensive.

                  As for Caucasion? That’s a matter of using more formal language or everyday language. Caucasion vs. White is like the word Imbibe vs. Drink.

                  • Arkenaten

                    You included the term Black along with Hispanics and Jews. There are also black Jews. They are called Falashas. If you had written Afro Americans it would have shown you were aware of the sensitivities of this issue. You did not.
                    You might refer to President Obama, or Denzl Washington or Jimi Hendrix for instance as a black man. To say he is a Black is wrong.
                    I reiterate, using the term in THIS fashion has tacit racist undertones.

                    As for Caucasion? That’s a matter of using more formal language or everyday language. Caucasion vs. White is like the word Imbibe vs. Drink.”

                    Oh dear, did you honestly believe I meant it to refer to an Afro American? “

  • http://ackans.com Mr. V.

    Thanks for posting this. In spite of the HHS Mandate, and the determined efforts of the Obama administration to continue its efforts and push even harder, I think things are looking up. The ball is rolling, and I think more and more people and organizations are going to resist these measures. It may come down, however, to having to make the choice of civil disobedience. I don’t mean revolt; I mean large numbers of people and organizations simply refusing to go along with the HHS Mandate. If enough people stand up and refuse to play ball, the government won’t have much choice but to back down and probably throw it out. Those who say government policy and regulation can’t be stopped need look no further than prohibition.

  • http://ackans.com Mr. V.

    Tonight I call to all Christians out there to pray for those they know who are lost and in need of salvation. Pray for them that their eyes may be opened and they let go of the anger and hurt and rage that’s keeping them from giving their lives to Christ. When they rage against us, let us remember that there is much more of importance than our own pride. It’s their souls that are at stake, and our true battle is with the devil and all the evil spirits that prowl the earth seeking the ruin of souls.

    Go in peace and in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

    Amen.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      Beautiful comment. Thank you my friend.

    • Arkenaten

      Pray for yourself, truly, you need it.

      • http://ackans.com Mr. V.

        I do. Everyday. I have my own set of problems, and am far from imperfect. I am in no less need of prayer than anyone else.

        • Arkenaten

          The ‘Pray comment was for MrV, Rebecca.”
          I have no need of prayer, but I thank you all the same.

          • Rebecca Hamilton

            I pray for you too, Douglas. We all have need of prayer, whether we acknowledge it or not, including irascible atheists with good hearts.

            • Arkenaten

              “Who irascible? I don’t even know where Irasc is. For the record I’m actually from South Africa.

              • Rebecca Hamilton

                :-)

            • Arkenaten

              Probably best you go ahead and delete all this nonsense, what do you say?

          • Ted Seeber

            “I have no need of prayer, but I thank you all the same.”

            Which, from the Christian point of view, just means you need the prayer all the more.

            • Arkenaten

              Ah, hello ,Ted, come to add you six penny worth have you? LOL
              Well, you pray away my old son.
              Äs I lay me down to sleep,,
              I pray to Ted my soul to keep,
              I hope the neighbours dog wont bark
              Oh, and send a message to The Ark.
              “Stop annoying the Christians, you are giving God a migraine”
              Nite nite , Ted.

      • Ted Seeber

        What part of “When they rage against us, let us remember that there is much more of importance than our own pride.” did you not understand?

        • Arkenaten

          I’m not raging against you Grrrrrrr!
          I think you and all your religious stuff is quite silly.
          30,000 different branches of Christianity cannot be wrong.
          In fact you are all a bunch of Sects Maniacs.
          Smile, Ted, it will give your face something to do.

  • Arkenaten

    Once again. Apologies, Rebecca. Stephen seems intent on arguing his point on your blog for some reason.
    I thought the story was pretty good, in fact. But then I wrote it.

  • Arkenaten

    “No, I don’t because there are many representations of Jesus with the skin tone of a Palestinian.”
    You are absolutely correct. There certainly are now. Thanks for pointing this out.
    I worded the statement incorrectly and forgot to include the word “popular”
    Don’t you wish these forums had an edit button. Sigh, oh well,

  • http://ackans.com Mr. V.

    “I reiterate, using the term in THIS fashion has tacit racist undertones.”

    Because you say so? I reiterate, using the term black man is not racist, nor does it have racist undertones. One more time: that may be the case in your country, but here in America it is not racist in any way to use the word black. If I use the term blacks and then follow it with a demeaning or racist description of black people, then that would be racist. And just so you know, most people do refer to Obama as a black man. Many publications have called him our first ‘black’ president. Most of the media has referred to the fact we finally elected a black man to the presidency. It is not racist, and no one thinks of it that way.

    As far as saying ‘blacks, jews, and hispanics”? Nothing racist there either. One could say “blacks, jews and hispanics have faced a lot of discrimination in the work force.” That is a very acceptable sentence, one which is not taken as racist, or as having any racist undertones in any way.

    “Oh dear, did you honestly believe I meant it to refer to an Afro American?”

    No, of course not. I mentioned that cops generally used white and black as descriptors. You then mentioned that you thought the right word was Caucasian, obviously referring to whites. All I did was say that neither word was more correct than the other. Caucasian is a more formal way of saying white, that’s all. Since you used the word caucasian, I responded back to you in ref. to the use of the word you wrote.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X