Participants: Lincoln Steed (Host), Alan Reinach
Series Code: LI
Program Code: LI000120
|
00:21 Welcome to the Liberty Insider.
00:23 This is the program that brings you up to 00:25 date news, views, information and 00:27 discussion on events that relate to religious 00:30 liberty. My name is Lincoln Steed, 00:33 editor of Liberty Magazine. And my guest 00:35 on the program is Attorney Allen Reinach, 00:38 and you're President of the Church State 00:40 Council for, which area? Well, the Church 00:43 State Council serves in California, 00:46 Western region, right. Churchstate.org is 00:48 our website. Little advertisement there, 00:51 that's fine. Well Allen, let's talk about 00:53 something, you and I are both Seventh-day 00:56 Adventists, both Christians. 00:58 As we look around especially in the United 01:00 States we can see that there's an 01:02 increasingly negative environment that 01:05 Christians often are working in, and 01:07 in fact it's even being said that Christianity 01:11 is prejudicial, is inherently negative to 01:16 rights. Well, the hostility that the right 01:19 has been sounding, I'm saying that the 01:22 Christianity is under attack for many years. 01:25 Honestly Lincoln, when I first started hearing 01:28 those kinds of statements I thought they 01:30 were rather shrill, exaggerated. 01:33 I was dismissive of them, I thought they 01:35 were motivated by political agenda, 01:38 but I have to tell you there is increasing 01:41 evidence, and most recently this past year 01:45 a decision from the Supreme Court of the 01:47 United States that essentially held that 01:51 Christianity is discrimination. 01:54 How did that come about though, 01:55 why would, why would the Supreme Court 01:57 say it? The majority of the Supreme Court 02:01 justices are Roman Catholics Christians. 02:05 They got six Catholics and three Jews, 02:07 it's incredible isn't it. Well, let's talk about 02:09 the case and you know maybe it's an 02:11 oversimplification to say, they didn't say 02:14 "Christianity is discrimination" that 02:17 simply the effect of the holding. 02:20 The case arises from a University of 02:24 California Law ]School in San Francisco, 02:26 Hastings Law School. Law schools have dozens 02:30 of student clubs. And in the history of this 02:34 law school there was only one student group 02:36 that was not permitted, not recognized as a 02:41 student club, and that was a chapter of the 02:44 national organization, the Christian legal 02:45 society, and I give my disclaimer, 02:47 I've been a member of Christian legal society 02:50 since law school. I found it to be very 02:53 wonderful opportunity to fellowship with other 02:55 Christian law students in a very harsh 02:58 secular kind of environment to encourage 03:01 one another, to pray with one another. 03:04 There was no, there was a statement of 03:05 faith we had to sign, but it was only a basic 03:08 belief in the Gospel and in the case of Hastings, 03:13 I don't remember this from my law school days 03:15 but there was an affirmation of fidelity to 03:19 Biblical standards of sexuality, which is to say 03:22 that you are not going to engage in 03:24 extramarital sex. It didn't say whether that 03:28 extramarital sex was gonna be homosexual 03:31 or heterosexual. So it wasn't discriminatory 03:35 in the language of it, it was upholding of 03:37 biblical standard. And by the very title of that 03:39 society you would presume that it was a 03:42 group of Christians. Well what, the law 03:45 school rejected the application and insisted 03:49 that this club because it had a statement of 03:52 faith was in violation of the non-discrimination 03:56 rules of the university on two counts, 04:01 one because it discriminated on the basis 04:04 of religion, and also because it discriminated 04:06 in membership on the basis of sexual 04:10 orientation. Well, it wasn't for nine months 04:14 later when the case is filed, and the dean of 04:17 the law school's deposition is being taken, 04:20 that they put a new spin on the policy and 04:24 they decide that what the policy really as 04:28 applied is not simply the same kind of you know 04:32 generic every, every school, every employer 04:35 has a generic non- discrimination policy. 04:37 We don't discriminate on the usual bases race 04:40 and sex and age and disability and you know 04:44 whatever they are religion, we don't 04:46 discriminate, and nobody is allowed to 04:48 discriminate and hiring in the context of a 04:50 university, whether it's hiring, whether it's 04:53 admissions policies, you know generic general 04:57 non-discrimination laws. But the dean then says, 05:01 as applied to student clubs, you have to 05:04 accept anyone as a member what the 05:07 Supreme Court characterized as an 05:09 all-comers policy. You have to take anybody 05:12 who wants to join as a member. 05:15 Well on its face that policy is absurd. 05:19 So the young republicans have to take 05:22 you know professed communists as members, 05:25 that doesn't make any sense. 05:27 On its face do you think it likely that 05:29 non-Christian lawyers would want to? 05:33 Well that was one of the things that the 05:35 majority in the court pointed out that there was 05:37 no evidence that the all-comers policy would 05:41 somehow undermined the integrity of any of 05:44 the clubs and that you know that there would 05:46 be a hostel takeover where, but that one of 05:50 the problems from a factual standpoint is that 05:54 at the same time that the dean gave that 05:56 testimony, pointed out by, I think it was by 06:01 Scalia in his descent, that there was another 06:05 student club that had discriminatory membership 06:08 policies for years and nobody ever said 06:11 anything about it, and it was on the basis of 06:13 national origin, a club called La Raza which is 06:17 for Hispanic students, and they were perfectly 06:21 fine to admit as members only Latino students. 06:26 But the Christian club couldn't admit only 06:28 Christian students, so you know on the basic 06:32 facts there was something very wrong 06:35 with the University's interpretation of its own 06:38 policy? It was obviously discriminatory. 06:42 And maybe the worst thing of this is, it sort 06:45 of labels Christianity as an actively discriminatory 06:50 viewpoint. So, because I'm not sure that I mean 06:53 is there any case where someone walked in the 06:55 door and they said you're not a Christian, 06:58 I don't think they would have said, 07:00 you're a Christian but you're behaving badly, 07:04 your sexual habits don't compote. 07:06 I imagine they have a don't ask; don't tell 07:08 even on their principles, right. I don't know that 07:10 there is an, that they've ever had to give 07:12 consideration to it. That's what I mean, 07:14 so really just an assumption that's implicit 07:18 in you a common viewpoint has been made 07:21 to sound discriminatory, they probably would 07:23 not turn anyone away that just walked in the 07:25 door and, want to participate. Well everyone 07:28 is welcome to attend you know events of any 07:32 of the group. So if they're gonna sponsor an 07:34 event it's not exclusive, you know within the 07:36 law school community. And I think that's pretty 07:38 typical of any of the group, so if the federal 07:41 society puts on an event anybody can come, 07:44 you don't have to be a member of the society. 07:47 The question is, who is a member and who gets to 07:50 decide what the activities of the group are, 07:53 etcetera. Well, so the case gets filed in court 07:57 and the district court rules against Christian 07:59 Legal society, the Ninth circuit court of appeals 08:02 rules against them, it goes up to the US 08:04 Supreme Court we thought this was a 08:07 no-brainer. Yeah, I remember thinking that 08:08 myself. Even the Los Angeles Times which 08:12 you know literally in its editorial page was 08:15 holding its nose, saying we don't like what the 08:17 Christian legal society stands for but we think 08:20 they have a right to have their members be 08:24 Christian, they thought that CLS would win. 08:27 And so we're all shocked and the decisions 08:30 of the court were very clear that they felt 08:35 that the University had every right to uphold 08:38 its non-discrimination policies, that CLS was 08:41 in violation of the non- discrimination policies, 08:44 and therefore they ruled against the student 08:47 club and especially troubling, I want to read 08:51 a quote from the conclusion of Justice 08:54 Stevens concurring opinion, because I think 08:56 this really highlights the dangerous attitude 09:01 that we're seeing more and more from the 09:03 judiciary. Stevens wrote, other groups may 09:07 exclude or mistreat Jews, blacks and women. 09:10 A free society must tolerate such groups it 09:14 need not subsidize them, give them its official 09:16 imprimatur or grant them equal access to law 09:20 school facilities. So Stevens is equating the 09:24 Christian club, Christian students meeting 09:27 together with groups that exclude or mistreat 09:31 Jews, blacks or women, that is a very, very 09:35 disturbing assumption. Yeah, you're right, 09:38 and how can we account to that, but do you 09:40 really think that this, is this reflected in a 09:45 pattern of decisions from the Supreme Court 09:47 or you think there was, they were just in 09:51 this case parroting some of the assumptions that 09:53 we do here in society? Well I think. 09:56 Because I still find it hard to, sorry to 09:58 interrupt but I find it hard to believe that the 10:00 Supreme Court, six out of nine, 10:02 Roman Catholic Christians is tilting against 10:06 religion, I think it's the other way around. 10:09 They have an agenda to support a certain 10:12 form of civic Christianity. I am, you 10:20 know clients like to ask me what's gonna be 10:24 the outcome of the case, and I remind them 10:26 when I graduated law school they gave me 10:29 you know I passed the bar, I got a license to 10:31 practice law, I didn't get a crystal ball. 10:34 I don't know what the Supreme Court is gonna 10:36 do in the future, I can only tell you what 10:38 they did in this case, and it's a very regrettable 10:41 case, it's not a question, in this case what 10:42 they essentially held is that Christianity was in 10:45 violation of the non- discrimination rules of 10:48 the University rules that every employer has, 10:51 every university has, and the implications are 10:55 extremely disturbing for the future of all kinds 10:59 of religious organizations, it's now you know 11:03 official from the Supreme Court, its official 11:05 President to restrict membership on the basis of 11:09 a Christian club being Christian that's 11:12 discrimination, that's even potentially illegal 11:16 discrimination. Yeah, we've got, we have got a 11:19 long way on carving out rights for certain 11:22 groups and restricting others. 11:26 So where does this go from here though? 11:28 Well, the context is not so much that the 11:31 Supreme Court has done this previously, 11:33 the real context in my mind is what courts 11:37 like California Supreme Court have done in 11:40 elevating the rights of homosexuality to 11:43 equate them with race, while diminishing the 11:47 rights of religious freedom, such that we 11:49 now have this unleveled playing field where 11:52 homosexuality is protected as a 11:54 fundamental right, and religion is way down 11:57 here as barely even counting as a right. 12:02 We should have another program on this. 12:04 The new found homosexual exclusive or 12:09 the right trumps everything else, doesn't 12:11 it? And religious rights are suffering. 12:13 Well this was a lesson out of some California 12:16 cases, yeah we can do a whole show on that 12:18 if you want. Now, you made an illusion earlier 12:20 and I think it's correct that we sometimes in 12:24 Liberty Magazine and on this program dismiss 12:28 many in the religious right claiming that 12:29 they're being harassed and marginalized and so 12:32 on, because you can equally argue that 12:35 certainly under the last administration they 12:37 were on the box seat, they had actual political 12:39 power. And I read some of the books like 12:41 Rush Limbaugh's brother, I wish I could 12:43 remember his first name, wrote a book about 12:45 how Christians are being persecuted, 12:47 and I read that through, and I didn't like 12:48 his overall viewpoint, but the examples were 12:51 undeniable. There are many, many cases in the 12:54 schools and in society where Christians are 12:56 restricted in proclaiming their faith, witnessing. 13:00 T-shirts, kids in school who wanna speak about 13:04 their faith, all sorts of things that actually are 13:06 legally allowed are routinely restricted. 13:09 So there's some case for a growing societal 13:13 disapproval of Christian action. Some of that we 13:17 have to understand is the natural hostility of 13:20 the unconverted heart, right, through the 13:22 Gospel of Jesus Christ. That's really more what I 13:24 would want to say because politically and as 13:26 far as given rights, there's a disconnect, 13:30 there's a certain power to a religious viewpoint. 13:33 We'll be back after the break to discuss 13:35 more on this very important topic. 13:47 One-hundred years, a long time to do anything 13:51 much less publish a magazine, but this year 13:54 Liberty, the Seventh- Day Adventist voice of 13:56 religious freedom, celebrates one hundred 13:59 years of doing what it does best, collecting, 14:02 analyzing, and reporting the ebb and flow of 14:05 religious expression around the world. 14:07 Issue after issue. Liberty has taken on the 14:10 tough assignments, tracking down threats 14:12 to religious freedom and exposing the work 14:14 of the devil in every corner of the globe. 14:17 Governmental interference, personal attacks, 14:20 corporate assaults, even religious freedom 14:22 issues sequestered within the church 14:24 community itself have been clearly and 14:26 honestly exposed. Liberty exists for one 14:29 purpose to help God's people maintain that 14:32 all important separation of Church and State, 14:35 while recognizing the dangers inherent in such a 14:38 struggle. During the past century, 14:40 Liberty has experienced challenges of its 14:42 own, but it remains on the job. 14:45 Thanks to the inspired leadership of a long 14:48 line of dedicated Adventist Editors, 14:50 three of whom represent almost half of 14:51 the publications existence and the foresight 14:54 of a little woman from New England. 14:56 One hundred years of struggle, 14:59 one hundred years of victories, religious 15:01 freedom isn't just about political machines and 15:04 cultural prejudices. It's about people 15:07 fighting for the right to serve the God 15:10 they love as their hearts and the Holy Spirit 15:13 dictate. Thanks to the prayers and 15:15 generous support of Seventh-Day 15:17 Adventists everywhere. Liberty will continue 15:19 to accomplish its work of providing timely 15:22 information, spirit filled inspiration, 15:24 and heaven sent encouragement to all who 15:27 long to live and work in a world bound 15:30 together by the God ordained 15:32 bonds of religious freedom. 15:44 Welcome back to Liberty Insider. 15:46 Before the break I was talking with Attorney 15:48 Allen Reinach about developing phenomenon 15:52 in the United States where Christianity is seen 15:54 as somehow a prejudicial viewpoint, 15:59 that's really a public harm, as something that 16:01 needs to be restricted. Well and there is 16:03 another case that I want to bring up here 16:06 that is a very disturbing case, where again 16:09 the Christian was the one who was 16:12 discriminatory. And this is more of a real 16:14 world case, I think the Christian legal society 16:16 is sort of, it gets into some legal splitting 16:19 hairs I think, I mean you might not agree 16:21 with that statement. Well it's a real world 16:24 case when you're a Christian law student and 16:26 you're not allowed to have your meetings on 16:29 the same basis as any other student club. 16:32 Well what I'm getting. It tells it very plainly 16:34 that your religion and your status is a second 16:38 class citizen within the law student, 16:40 I mean within the law school. Well it's the 16:41 status of the club, because there's no 16:43 evidence that there been problems within the 16:46 club of, right, undesirables coming in or 16:49 them restricting anyone. Well, exactly, 16:52 this is a policy on how that club was regarded, 16:54 but this case you bring up as a woman that 16:58 for her religious viewpoint was clearly 17:00 ostracized and treated as persona unheard 17:04 of. Well let's set up the case, in Michigan, 17:08 a young woman Julia Ward was in a 17:10 graduate program at a public institution in, 17:15 I want to say, oh what's the name of the 17:17 school, Eastern Michigan University. 17:22 I don't have it in the notes here, 17:24 but it was a public institution, she's in a 17:27 graduate program, she is studying to be a 17:29 high school counselor. Not the kind of 17:33 counselor that tells you, you know what 17:35 courses you have to take, you know to get 17:38 into college or whatever, but one who deals 17:40 with student problems, things like drug 17:43 addiction, relationship issues, students who 17:46 maybe suicidal, in a real, real counseling, 17:50 she is in a counseling program and early on 17:54 her Christianity becomes a source of constant 17:58 conflict with her faculty. She gets very good 18:02 grades, she's not, she doesn't get bad grades 18:05 because she expresses her Christian values 18:07 and Christian viewpoint, but it's clearly a 18:10 point in conflict. So then it comes to where she 18:15 has to do the actual counseling, 18:18 the practical part of the program and so they 18:21 assigned her a counselee who is a homosexual, 18:26 knowing that in her value system she cannot 18:30 affirm his sexual orientation. That was a 18:34 bit of set up there obvious, it was a set up, 18:36 what she does is simply ask the supervising 18:40 faculty member what should she do? 18:43 Should she go ahead and do the counseling 18:45 or should she refer, because she knows that 18:48 the requirement is for her to affirm the 18:53 lifestyle and the sexuality of the 18:55 counselee, and she knows that's a problem 18:58 for her. So she asks for guidance, 19:01 what should I do? As a result of simply 19:04 asking for guidance she subjected to what 19:08 amounts to an inquisition, which the university 19:12 and the courts insist was not disciplinary, 19:16 but the result of the inquisition is, 19:19 she is put to an ultimatum, you either 19:22 agree that you can affirm the lifestyle and 19:27 the sexuality of gay people or you're expelled 19:31 from the program. You either change how you 19:37 interpret and apply your religious beliefs or 19:41 you're out. She was expelled from the program 19:44 and she filed a religious discrimination case 19:47 in federal court alleging that she had been 19:50 expelled from the university on account 19:53 of her religious beliefs. And, was there 19:56 acknowledgment it was because of her beliefs? 19:59 There was no major dispute over the facts. 20:03 There was a big dispute over the 20:05 interpretation of the facts. 20:08 The University's defense was that their 20:12 counseling program has to comply with, 20:16 let's see I have it in my notes, it's the 20:17 American Counseling Association's code of 20:22 ethics and practice, she was in violation of the 20:26 code of ethics and practice of the American 20:29 Counseling Association and that the ACA 20:32 code was required for accreditation. 20:35 So the University insists we have to teach and 20:38 require all students to comply with these 20:41 standards of ethics, and if they don't, 20:43 we're at risk of losing our accreditation. 20:46 And let me throw a wild card at you, look, 20:48 this case is what it is, but if she had gotten 20:51 through her schooling and then was practicing, 20:54 would she have been protected under the 20:57 Religious Land Use and Institutionalized 20:59 Persons Act. Well you know that's a completely 21:02 different application. That doesn't apply, 21:05 didn't the Institutionalized Persons 21:06 Act deal with pharmacists and hospital workers, 21:09 it was hospital workers who were refusing to 21:11 perform abortions. There are separate provisions 21:15 that deal with rights of conscience and 21:17 healthcare, but it is problematic if you are a 21:22 counselor and you refuse to counsel 21:26 homosexuals in states that outlaw discrimination 21:30 against gays, you could be sued for 21:32 discrimination. Well let me, you know I'm 21:34 playing, not the devil's advocate but I take 21:38 it some of these views, clearly as a Christian 21:42 we can't always expect that the law is in 21:45 accordance with our viewpoint, 21:46 that's fair enough. And I do think 21:49 progressively has become prophetically close 21:53 to time of conflict; we just have to do what 21:55 we do and take the legal consequence. 21:58 Why I mean what's the line of logic here that 22:02 we should bent the state to our will? 22:06 Is this just holding it to, it's claim that 22:08 gives free exercise or do we believe that this 22:12 anti-discrimination law is wrongfully applied. 22:16 Alright, there is an assumption that you, 22:18 in your question about bending the state to it's 22:20 will. In this particular case Miss Ward 22:25 was simply saying as a Christian I have the 22:28 right to complete my University education 22:31 and to practice in the counseling profession 22:35 and without having to jettison my Christian 22:38 values. And the Eastern, the district court in 22:42 Eastern District of Michigan ruled in favor of 22:45 the University and said no, this is not 22:48 religious discrimination, the University has 22:50 every right to uphold the standard of ethics 22:53 and conduct, the American Counseling 22:54 Association and has every right to throw 22:57 you out of the program because you won't 22:59 affirm the sexuality of a counselee. 23:04 As a licensed counselor, would she be in 23:07 trouble if she was reported to be either 23:11 refusing to counsel homosexuals or counseling 23:14 them that this was an abhorrent lifestyle. 23:17 If I'm remembering the statistics correctly, 23:21 something like 40 percent of currently licensed 23:25 psychologists, social workers etc. 23:27 who do counseling will not counsel gay people. 23:31 So they have that exclusion. 23:33 Well it's not that they have the 23:35 exclusion, you know it's still only a relatively 23:39 small number of states that have laws 23:42 against discrimination on the basis of sexual 23:44 orientation. There is no question that it 23:48 could be troublesome if as a counselor you 23:51 refused to counsel someone. You know 23:53 part of it though you know is really based 23:56 on common sense. If you're a counselor and 24:00 you act with any sense of human decency 24:03 and compassion, and you say to someone when 24:07 the issue of their sexual orientation becomes 24:10 an issue in counseling, then you say to them 24:12 look I may not be the best person to counsel 24:16 you because you know I have certain values 24:19 and beliefs I cannot affirm your sexual 24:24 orientation, you may choose to continue 24:26 with someone and I can refer you to someone 24:30 you know who maybe able to, to help you, 24:34 if you're interested in you know, 24:37 if the gay person is uncomfortable with their 24:41 orientation and wants to change. 24:45 You know maybe that counseling relationship 24:48 is appropriate, but if someone is wanting to be 24:51 affirmed they may want somebody who can 24:53 affirm them, and so why would you think that 24:56 you have to sue someone simply because 24:59 you know they can't provide you with the 25:01 service that you're entitled to. 25:03 You and I've talked about this before, 25:04 and we're involved in these on Religious Liberty 25:06 all the time. I think on gay rights for example, 25:11 it got some traction on a fallacy that this was 25:14 the exactly the same as civil rights. 25:16 It is a fallacy. And once we've crossed that 25:20 logical line, I do believe that the legal system 25:25 has got two protected classes that are in 25:27 conflict, and you know everything is cause and 25:30 affect, you have to follow the logical conclusion 25:32 through. Obama's appointment, I don't 25:34 believe that this country is by any means 25:37 formally turned against religion. 25:39 I mean in practice, there is a lot of diabolism, 25:41 and people that are secular minded but it's 25:44 following the logical progression, and 25:47 something's gonna have to give. 25:49 Well okay, one of the bellwethers Lincoln, 25:52 on the subject of marriage, courts around 25:56 the country including in places like Iowa, 25:59 you know have ruled in favor of same sex 26:02 marriage when it's been put to the ballot, 26:05 the American people have consistently voted 26:08 against it, right, so there is a difference 26:10 between public opinion. Now the proponents of 26:14 same sex marriage insists that the pendulum is 26:17 swinging and eventually every, you know the 26:19 majority is gonna vote for it, but where we 26:22 stand now, the courts have voted for it, 26:24 it, the American people have not. 26:27 But we're in a huge, we're running out of 26:29 time, we're in a huge social experiment where 26:31 the society is being swung toward that. 26:33 The problem here is it we have both the 26:35 Supreme Court decision and a district court 26:38 decision essentially holding the Christianity 26:41 is discrimination and upholding 26:44 discrimination against Christians. 26:48 Anybody that doubts that there's a certain 26:51 bias against Christianity in our culture, 26:53 has clearly not, never watched an episode of 26:56 the Simpsons. Periodically I, a troublesome 27:00 neighbor of Homer Simpson, Ned Flanders, 27:04 would come on and his sanctimonious or 27:06 even worse, bubble headed religion was so 27:10 cast as anti-social, dangerous, simplistic 27:14 that anybody watching that program after a 27:17 while would come to believe that Christianity 27:20 was against everything sane and hopeful 27:23 and uplifting in a crazy society. 27:27 We have in many ways come to live out that 27:30 cynical world view of a long running TV program. 27:34 We're seeing it worked out through the 27:36 courts, not in every case but more and more, 27:39 either a judge or a plaintiff bringing some 27:42 sort of a case claiming that Christianity is the 27:46 trouble. When in reality our society arguably 27:50 is in trouble because its lost sight of not just 27:53 Christianity but all the higher values that 27:56 really dignify and protect the society from 28:00 the very things that we're experiencing. 28:04 For Liberty Insider this is Lincoln Steed. |
Revised 2014-12-17