Participants: Lincoln Steed (Host), Alan Reinach
Series Code: LI
Program Code: LI000121
|
00:21 Welcome to the Liberty Insider.
00:24 This is the program bringing you 00:25 up to date news, views, discussion 00:27 and opinion on religious liberty concerns 00:31 all around the world and in the 00:32 United States particularly. 00:33 My name is Lincoln Steed, Editor of 00:35 Liberty Magazine. And my guest on the program 00:38 is Attorney Alan Reinach, welcome Alan. 00:40 Thanks glad to be with you Lincoln. 00:43 Great to have you back. There's many things 00:45 that we could talk about today, but I wanna start 00:47 with a topic that in some ways takes us back 00:49 to the future, George Bush some years ago, 00:52 you remember he was President 00:53 of the Untied States. Do I have to remember? 00:56 Went on forever, but he did something from 00:59 religious liberty point of view 01:00 that was shocking, still shocks me, 01:03 started the so called Faith-Based 01:06 Initiative FBI, where monies that, 01:11 had been previously going to welfare 01:13 type programs would be funneled through 01:15 church non-profit programs. And initially 01:20 they said they would not be used for religious 01:22 proselytizing or faith programs, 01:25 but later on it came out that yes 01:27 that was actually okay. That continued thorough 01:30 his presidency during the election of 2008 01:35 President Obama now, now President Obama 01:39 actually said that he would continue it, 01:42 he would do more of the same, 01:43 but, he would apply stringent federal 01:47 policies against non-discrimination, 01:49 correct. That has not happened 01:52 two years later. Well okay, so where are we, 01:55 the program is as flawed as it ever was, 01:58 but with its flaws it could only exists really 02:02 while the discrimination policies 02:03 would not apply, so where are we today? 02:05 Should we apply the discrimination, 02:06 or should we discontinue the program? 02:08 Okay, well there's many issues raised by 02:12 the Faith-Based Initiative. I'm not sure 02:15 that I entirely share your suspicion that the 02:18 program is completely flawed entirely. 02:22 Well not about flawed, but it was at the time 02:24 I believe it was a very calculated conscious 02:27 step across what we see again in Lords 02:30 how to define the line. But, it was clearly step 02:33 big enough to cross what was accepted 02:35 as a line between church and state. 02:37 There is a sound concept and there is 02:39 an unsound concept. How Bush applied it was 02:45 clearly unsound because what he would do is 02:49 permit government funds, our tax dollars 02:53 to be used by not just separately incorporated 02:57 religious charities, but by churches themselves 03:01 and in activities that clearly 03:03 involve religion, proselytizing, 03:07 you know worship etcetera, where there 03:10 really was no boundary in terms of church 03:14 and state between the use of public funds for 03:18 religious activities. What President Obama 03:21 has done is to renew the program 03:25 but to clarify by his executive order that 03:28 we do respect the establishment 03:30 clause limitations, that public funds 03:33 cannot be used for any proselytizing 03:35 for any overtly religious activities 03:38 but only for secular kinds of services 03:41 that the government would otherwise 03:43 want to provide services for. 03:47 But what you are basing that statement? 03:49 Well on the basis of the executive order 03:52 that he issued at the end of 2010. 03:56 Well, okay maybe I haven't caught 03:59 the very latest, but I know just the other day 04:02 I've read an article saying that 04:03 he is yet to implement the promised 04:07 anti-discrimination requirements. 04:10 Okay the anti-discrimination 04:12 issues is a very contentious issue, 04:14 and frankly Seventh-day Adventists have 04:17 take a position that is different from 04:20 where the Liberals are pushing this thing. 04:23 The Liberals want to insist that if 04:27 You're a religious charity, you cannot hire people 04:31 of your own faith. We all agree that you 04:34 can't discriminate in providing services. 04:37 If you're running a soup kitchen, right, 04:39 you can't ask somebody you know 04:41 are you a Christian, will you pray with me? 04:43 And if you don't we're not gonna give you soup. 04:46 No, you have to give soup to everybody 04:49 regardless of their religious beliefs 04:51 or lack there off, you're a there to serve 04:53 the general public. The real issue is if you're a 04:56 religious charity, are you entitled to hire 05:01 people of our own faith to carry out the mission 05:03 of that charity consistent with your 05:06 religious values or do you have to hire 05:08 anybody who might be qualified from a 05:11 secular standpoint. I know what you mean, 05:13 but I need to rephrase it, it seems to me 05:15 The not issue is whether, 05:16 the issue is not narrowly whether as a 05:19 religious charity you can carry it out without 05:21 being held non discrimination policies, 05:25 it's whether as a charity taking 05:27 government money, right. We would have to insist 05:31 that the government of the church charity 05:34 should always be free of government control 05:36 as long as it's not acting in a grossly 05:39 illegal way, you know against the public good 05:41 and its true to its face, okay but the issue 05:44 here is they're taking the money. 05:45 Okay, let's be very clear Lincoln. We know 05:48 this discussion with schools for example 05:50 you takes state money the government has felt 05:54 need to order how you dispose of that money. 05:59 Okay lets be very clear, for decades 06:02 we have a system in the United States, 06:04 Roman Catholics have Catholic charities, 06:07 the Lutherans have their program, 06:09 there are various Jewish programs, 06:11 Seventh-day Adventist have what we now call, 06:14 ADRA Adventist Development and Relief. 06:16 All of us well some more than others ADRA 06:23 certainly I can speak from a 06:24 Seventh-day Adventist context, 06:26 we hire Seventh-day Adventists because 06:30 we regard the otherwise secular activities of 06:35 ADRA as an expression of our religious faith. 06:38 Okay, world vision is a Non-Denominational 06:43 Christian Organization that does all kinds of 06:47 relief work with children 06:49 etcetera overseas. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 06:53 recently held that they are sufficiently 06:56 religious that they can require their employees 07:01 to a spouse a Christian religion. It seems to me 07:04 that you're mixing a couple of things 07:07 together, like I know ADRA and perhaps 07:09 some of these other organizations 07:10 while they maintain by hiring certain 07:15 Adventist Christian context, 07:17 they are not allowed to promote their viewpoint. 07:20 Okay, now we're talking about discrimination 07:24 or proselytizing, where we are agreeing 07:26 I think is that it's inappropriate to preach 07:30 the gospel funded by the state, 07:33 that's pretty basic to the American system 07:37 of church state relations you know, 07:39 we don't get government funding 07:41 to preach the gospel. And I'm quite sure where 07:44 this is going out on television, 07:46 and so it might be a shock to people, 07:47 but I'm quite sure that many of the constituents 07:51 of these church based programs including 07:53 even our own have the assumption 07:56 that that's exactly what they are doing 07:58 with the government money they're promoting 08:00 religious viewpoint. There is no question 08:06 that there have been some abuses, 08:08 one of the more difficult areas. 08:11 Well no I mean it shouldn't be an abuse 08:13 if it's under the ground rules. 08:14 But, the expectation of the religious 08:16 constituency for their organization 08:18 that is taking this government money 08:20 is precisely that it is advancing 08:22 their religious viewpoint. They would be 08:25 quite shocked to be told that the organization 08:29 has accepted the ground rules, 08:31 yes they might just hire only their own people, 08:34 but they are not actively promoting 08:35 their religious viewpoint, cannot. 08:38 Well but that is the Constitutional form oh yes 08:41 you and I know that very well. 08:43 That we are cooperating you know 08:45 there is room for religion and state to 08:48 cooperate on things that we agree on. 08:51 For example our whole healthcare system 08:54 is largely dependent now on government funding, 08:58 government programs like Medicaid and Medicare, 09:01 Medi-Cal in California state 09:03 funding programs. Well, we regard our healthcare 09:07 as the healing ministry of Jesus Christ. 09:09 And we are going to engage in healthcare, 09:12 and if the government chooses to fund it to us 09:15 it's still a religious mission. 09:17 It's the expression of the love of Christ 09:20 in caring for people. Are we gonna stop 09:22 trying to heal people, because if government's 09:25 is going to be providing funds. In my point is 09:28 a number of us working in religious liberty 09:30 know this message goes back a long way, 09:33 way before this became the presently 09:36 entangled state, it was recommended 09:40 by those working with church state issues 09:41 that it was best not to take the state money, 09:44 because the net affect is that it will 09:46 tend to mute progressively mute 09:48 what you're consciously aiming at, right. 09:50 It's not that we're in an unacceptable 09:52 situation, because yes as a Christian you're 09:56 doing an active charity but, you basically 10:00 have progressively muted what 10:02 you would otherwise have done. 10:03 The golden rules still applies. 10:05 He who's got the gold makes the rules, sure, 10:08 thank you for cutting me; the other imagery 10:10 is that you know the strings that strangle. 10:14 You know there are strings attached to 10:17 government funds and they do 10:18 tend to strangle. What becomes especially 10:22 problematic is when the priorities of a 10:26 religious organization are distorted 10:30 because of the institutions. 10:33 For example when healthcare 10:35 and their dependency on government funds 10:39 starts to determine how the denominations 10:41 as a whole is going to set its policy 10:45 in practice, that can be a very 10:47 disturbing proposition. Yeah of course we agree 10:51 on this, so let's bring it up to date, 10:53 then where do you think with the state of 10:57 objectives in this recent executive order 11:00 of President Obama, where are we going 11:02 with this Faith-Based Initiative. Okay 11:04 the battle, the real battle time change 11:06 even, the battle Lincoln is very simple, 11:08 the Liberals want to destroy 11:10 religious charities by requiring them to 11:14 diminish their religious character by 11:16 hiring people, requiring them to hire people 11:19 of any faith or no faith. And if that 11:22 happens there is no such thing as a 11:24 religious charity anymore. We might 11:26 as well shut down or simply not 11:28 take any government fund. And they want and 11:29 I better qualify they want that applied 11:33 regardless of whether or not charity 11:35 is taking government money? 11:36 Well that's true too but the government money 11:38 is the wedge. When they take the 11:40 government money the argument 11:41 has greater force. Right, and so there is a 11:44 big misunderstanding when Catholic charity 11:47 shut down its adoption agencies, 11:49 well its Catholic charities 11:51 I think in Boston, but the church also had 11:54 adoption agency in San Francisco 11:57 that they shut down. It had nothing to do 11:59 with government money, it had to do 12:01 with regulation that applied they were 12:03 required to provide services to same 12:06 sex couples to adopt out children 12:09 which they were consciously 12:11 unwilling to do. And there was no exception 12:14 made for them but it had nothing do 12:17 with whether they were publicly funded 12:20 or not it was a simple regulatory issue. 12:22 Yes, so there is a move generally 12:25 but the Faith-Based Initiative is sort of 12:27 given an angle for those that had 12:29 this opinion describe with to restrict. 12:32 Right, it's essentially the secular attack on 12:34 religious institutions and trying to minimize 12:37 and marginalize the presence 12:39 and impact of the faith community 12:41 within the society as a whole. 12:43 This is definitely problematic; 12:44 we need to discuss this more. 12:45 We will be back after the break to continue 12:47 our discussion of the public funding issue 12:50 and Faith-Based Initiatives. 13:01 One-hundred years, a long time to do anything 13:05 much less publish a magazine, 13:07 but this year Liberty, the Seventh-Day 13:10 Adventist voice of religious freedom, 13:12 celebrates one hundred years of doing 13:14 what it does best, collecting, analyzing, 13:17 and reporting the ebb and flow of 13:19 religious expression around the world. 13:21 Issue after issue, Liberty has taken 13:24 on the tough assignments, tracking 13:26 down threats to religious freedom 13:28 and exposing the work of the devil 13:29 in every corner of the globe. 13:31 Governmental interference, personal 13:33 attacks, corporate assaults, even religious 13:36 freedom issues sequestered within the 13:38 church community itself have been clearly 13:40 and honestly exposed. Liberty exists 13:43 for one purpose to help God's people maintain 13:47 that all important separation of Church 13:49 and State, while recognizing the dangers 13:51 inherent in such a struggle. 13:53 During the past century, Liberty has experienced 13:56 challenges of its own, but it remains 13:59 on the job. Thanks to the inspired leadership 14:02 of a long line of dedicated 14:03 Adventist Editors, three of whom represent 14:05 almost half of the publications existence 14:07 and the foresight of a little woman 14:09 from New England. One hundred years 14:12 of struggle, one hundred years of victories, 14:15 religious freedom isn't just about 14:17 political machines and cultural prejudices. 14:20 It's about people fighting for the right 14:23 to serve the God they love as their hearts 14:26 and the Holy Spirit dictate. 14:28 Thanks to the prayers and generous support of 14:30 Seventh-Day Adventists everywhere, 14:32 Liberty will continue to accomplish its work of 14:35 providing timely information, 14:37 spirit filled inspiration, 14:38 and heaven sent encouragement 14:40 to all who long to live and work in a world 14:44 bound together by the God ordained 14:46 bonds of religious freedom. 14:57 Welcome back to our discussion of 15:00 public funding for some church based programs. 15:03 We spoke about before break with 15:05 Attorney Alan Reinach We're talking about 15:07 Faith-Based Initiative under President Bush 15:10 and now under President Obama, 15:11 there is something in Arizona that's really 15:14 based on this explain this to our viewers. 15:18 Well the Supreme Court heard oral arguments 15:21 concerning a tax credit program in Arizona 15:25 for private and religious schools. 15:29 The way the program works essentially, 15:33 individuals can make donations 15:36 I think it's up a $1000 now, 15:38 started out originally it was $500 you make 15:42 the donation to a like a charitable 15:45 scholarship fund and you cannot donate for 15:50 your own kids tuition, but you can for some other 15:55 child's tuition, and then you would get, 15:58 you would be eligible to get a tax credit off 16:01 of your state tax bill for the amount 16:04 that you donate up to a $1000. 16:06 How would this differ from giving money 16:09 directly to a church which will be 16:11 tax deductible right to a non profit 16:12 or to a church. Well, okay that's a 16:15 tax deduction which reduces 16:17 your taxable income, this is a tax credit, 16:20 straight off your tax. So, exactly if owe $5000 16:24 in state income taxes and you give a 1000 to 16:28 the scholarship fund you only owe $4000. 16:33 Now the question which I think Scalia 16:36 was the one who pointed out in oral argument 16:39 is under what sort of myth does your giving 16:46 your money to a scholarship fund somehow 16:51 translate into the state has given the funds 16:55 to the religious school. It's you who are giving 17:00 your money and then the State's giving 17:03 you a credit, but it's far removed 17:06 you now the Supreme Court approved 17:08 vouchers years ago. Which we for many years 17:11 we apposed. Well I filed briefs, 17:14 I filed a brief in the US Supreme Court, 17:17 we apposed tuition vouchers, 17:19 and still believe the vouchers are a bad plan 17:24 because in a voucher system the state 17:27 you may choose to send your kid to a private 17:30 to a religious school, so you get a voucher, 17:34 lets say you get a $1000 voucher from the state. 17:37 You give this voucher to the school the state 17:42 gives the money directly to the school. 17:44 The state doesn't give you the money, 17:46 the state gives the money to the school. 17:48 And before they give the money to the school 17:50 the state has to in some sense approve 17:53 that the school is within the you know 17:57 meet certain criteria one of which is 18:00 non-discrimination criteria in most cases, 18:03 the school if it were a Seventh-day Adventist 18:06 school that only hired Seventh-day Adventist 18:08 teachers it could be excluded 18:10 from the program should be in most cases. 18:14 But, you would lose the right 18:16 and whether you lose the right at 18:18 the when the programs starts or down the road, 18:21 even worse down the road, you know 18:24 they are going to be strings that strangle 18:28 and the schools will lose their freedom 18:31 if they are taking these government funds. 18:33 So, we are very adamantly, 18:35 continue to be adamantly apposed to 18:37 voucher programs as apposing the threat 18:39 to the survival of Christian schools. 18:41 And we connected back to our prior 18:43 discussion on Faith-Based Initiative? 18:45 I remember early on when it was being challenged 18:48 under the Bush administration, 18:51 a prominent Christian editor who was in favor 18:54 of this wrote in his magazine, 18:56 because he was anxious for it to get through 18:58 and he said, it may necessary to voucherize, 19:00 voucherize the program Faith-Based Initiative 19:03 which told me that they see it, 19:05 the whole voucher things as a wedge way to get 19:08 the foot in the door to direct 19:09 government funding, so you're right vouchers 19:12 are problematic because in essence 19:15 the government will see that is they are funding 19:18 that institution therefore they need 19:20 some control. Look there is I think 19:23 a healthy debate in our society, 19:25 and if I give you know the Tea Party movement 19:28 any credit at all. It is that we need a debate 19:31 about the proper scope of government. 19:33 Right now government funds everything 19:36 and with their funding means control 19:39 and really that lessens freedom in our society. 19:44 It doesn't increase freedom; 19:45 we need to build up the private sector as 19:48 against the public sector in many respects. 19:51 And so the idea that the religious community 19:53 wants more public funding, wants more 19:57 public control of the religious sector is what it 20:01 amounts to is really a troublesome. 20:04 And I think it's troublesome for reason 20:06 most people don't think about, 20:08 to me it tells that the religions don't want 20:11 that funding it become etiologically innovated. 20:16 Well, Ben Franklin going back to, right you know 20:20 our founding fathers and I don't have 20:23 the perfect quote, but he said that you know 20:26 if a church has to generate it to the point 20:30 where it needs to rely on government funds 20:32 it's a sign that it's a bad religion, 20:35 right it's a bad one. There is no question 20:38 on that, there is no question that 20:40 They're taking the government money to 20:41 debilitate your commitment and they've 20:44 shown that with a Faith-Based Initiative 20:46 there was a certain level of a church 20:49 charitable giving through their programs 20:51 which started there was certain amount of money 20:54 is going through the Federal Welfare programs 20:57 and they took a set amount that they 20:59 designated to go through Faith-Based Initiative. 21:02 And sold it to the constituency that 21:05 it would save money and they obviously knew 21:07 what they are up to because after a 21:09 couple of years it was shown that with 21:11 the government funding through the churches 21:13 the members contributions to those 21:15 programs dropped significantly, 21:17 of course. The commitment of the churches 21:19 to their charitable programs 21:20 actually dropped. And we know from our experience 21:24 in the church for example you can 21:26 have a church that is quite lethargic 21:29 spiritually, do a building project, 21:32 have to raise a half-a-million dollars, 21:34 a million dollars which seems astronomical 21:36 for the church and it brings 21:38 spiritual revival. The process of stretching 21:42 yourself of making these commitments of putting 21:45 the Lord to the test and having to give you know 21:48 what is precious to you. It really renews 21:51 your spiritual life, that's the genius 21:53 of the separation of church and state in 21:56 America is that voluntarism is 21:58 good for religion. Absolutely, so what 22:01 We're really talking about from the government 22:02 perspective it's all about money. 22:04 But, in a discussion of religion 22:07 and whether or not it's gonna be helped or hurt 22:09 or whatever. This is really a matter of a 22:11 commitment to the faith, not a matter of means, 22:13 the means is never a problem to a faith group 22:17 that believe in what they're doing, 22:18 they find it they don't need to go 22:20 look to the government. Well, do we still 22:23 believe the Bible when it says the Lord owns 22:25 a cattle on a thousand hills, 22:27 and the gold and silver is his, 22:28 do we still believe that God is able to provide 22:31 for his work. Having said that we've lived 22:34 with this tax credit program in Arizona 22:37 for many years now, it's been in existence, 22:40 I wanna say for about a decade. 22:41 When it first came in as someone who believes 22:45 in church state separation, 22:47 I was quite skeptical, I've seen it working 22:50 it works very well because it is a program 22:54 of private donation. It does not involve 22:58 the state regulating the schools. 23:00 The state really has no business coming in 23:03 and regulating the schools because 23:06 of the way the program works 23:07 and I've been surprised you know the state, 23:11 the secular bureaucrats have consistently 23:16 found that the program saves the sate money, 23:20 because the cost of the tax credits as compared 23:25 to the reduced costs of more kids being in 23:29 private school versus public schools, 23:32 it saves the state's money. So, from a purely 23:35 pragmatic secular standpoint 23:37 it's a good policy in terms of funding 23:40 public education and in from the church 23:42 standpoint it's been very beneficial 23:45 to the finances of our religious schools 23:47 without having the same kind of regulations 23:50 and risk of these strings that 23:53 the voucher program carries. So, why is it 23:55 suddenly under attack then? 23:56 Well look the secular left has been attacking 24:00 from the beginning Americans United for 24:02 separation of church and state, filed around 24:04 a lawsuits in the Arizona courts 24:07 they lost years ago. Now it's going up under 24:12 attack in Federal court, the Liberals don't want, 24:16 they want an absolute separation of church 24:18 and state that really marginalizes 24:21 religion in American public life. 24:23 And this is the irony of separation 24:27 isn't it church and state separation. 24:28 Some of it's necessary and required by 24:31 the constitution but too vigorously done, 24:33 it becomes sort of vendetta 24:35 against faith, correct. And we are in danger of 24:38 going that far. My view is not the religion 24:41 is in trouble, but in going too far I think 24:44 the secular has risked a huge backlash 24:47 from an innately, if not spiritual 24:49 and religiously inclined community, 24:51 and in the backlash we may find that we go 24:54 on absolutely the wrong way. 24:56 We have warned our friends you know 24:58 we too you know it may come as a surprise 25:00 for our listeners, but we actually do talk 25:03 with folks in the ACLU and they're 25:06 nice people, we enjoy their company, 25:08 and we do have these discussions from 25:10 time to time that by pursuing such an 25:14 aggressive secular agenda they run 25:16 the risk of really losing out 25:19 because of the backlash. And that they really 25:22 should think twice before some of the sort 25:25 of the hostile acts that they take 25:27 against religion. You know they'll hear us 25:30 we haven't change their plans 25:33 about anything, but at least we have the 25:35 conversation from time to time. 25:37 Sure and not all of the ACLU or the Americans 25:40 United for separation of church 25:42 and state do is wrong. But, in certain areas 25:45 and perhaps their overall emphasis more 25:47 and more they are aiding the wrong tendency. 25:51 Well the problem is that there is this extreme 25:55 view of separation of church 25:57 and state, that has become very hostile 25:59 to Christian values, to religious values, 26:02 and so Christian America you know religious 26:06 right has reacted against that 26:08 and is in danger of throwing out the baby 26:10 with the bath water and in reality 26:14 there is a healthy separation of church 26:16 and state that we need to recover. 26:18 What we need to be careful as we need to 26:20 separate the complications 26:23 organizationally between the government 26:26 and churches, but never separate faith from 26:30 society and I think that is part of the agenda. 26:33 You know it's easy for us to say we don't 26:36 legislate morality, but the reality is 26:39 of course we do. Religious values 26:41 have to inform public policy 26:43 that's always been the case. 26:47 Thinking of Faith-Based Initiatives from a 26:50 biblical perspective, what comes to my mind 26:52 immediately is Jesus looking at that widow 26:56 giving of her single mite and saying that she had done 26:59 more than all others, because she give 27:01 all that she had, that is a sort of initiative 27:04 the sort of selflessness that faith 27:06 would draw us toward. I think too of Tabitha 27:09 or Dorcas, a new Christian who gave 27:12 selflessly of what she had to those who had 27:16 less than she did. When she died it was 27:19 a great moment for God to show his power 27:21 and raise her from the death. You know 27:23 in our day we have rough equivalency of 27:28 churches charitable giving being 27:30 questioned and being stated as needing 27:33 some extra help, and the state has been called 27:35 into make that Faith-Based Initiative 27:40 of some more greater impact. 27:43 I believe that such an arrangement 27:46 results in death, and of this death 27:48 they can be no resurrection. 27:49 The death of charitable initiatives by combining 27:53 with the state is an old era that will decrease 27:57 the initiative of people of faith and increase 28:01 the power of the state over 28:02 spiritual perspectives. 28:04 For Liberty Insider this is Lincoln Steed. |
Revised 2014-12-17