Welcome to the Liberty Insider.
00:00:22.59\00:00:25.12
This is the program
bringing you discussion
00:00:25.13\00:00:27.16
and news and
updates on religious liberty
00:00:27.17\00:00:30.30
developments around the world
00:00:30.31\00:00:32.01
and with some focus
on the United States.
00:00:32.02\00:00:34.26
My name is, Lincoln Steed,
Editor of Liberty Magazine.
00:00:34.27\00:00:37.89
And my guest on the
program is, Dwayne Leslie.
00:00:37.90\00:00:40.58
Welcome Dwayne.
Thank you, glad to be here.
00:00:40.59\00:00:42.78
You're the Legislative Liaison
00:00:42.79\00:00:44.23
for the
Seventh-day Adventist Church,
00:00:44.24\00:00:45.59
just to put you in a
context for our regular viewers.
00:00:45.60\00:00:49.11
I want to talk about a
Supreme Court case that
00:00:49.12\00:00:52.45
as we record this
hasn't quite been settled,
00:00:52.46\00:00:54.90
but it just recently
went before the Supreme Court,
00:00:54.91\00:00:57.94
they've heard oral argument.
00:00:57.95\00:00:59.61
And now we're
waiting to see, what happens.
00:00:59.62\00:01:01.72
But it's the Hosanna-Tabor case.
00:01:01.73\00:01:05.13
What is this concern?
00:01:05.14\00:01:06.68
Well, it's actually
interesting case in it.
00:01:06.69\00:01:08.54
It's shaping up
to be one of the most
00:01:08.55\00:01:10.50
important religious
cases over the last 20 years.
00:01:10.51\00:01:14.87
In this case, it
will really decide
00:01:14.88\00:01:16.84
to what extent a
religious organization
00:01:16.85\00:01:20.83
can oversee its hiring decisions
00:01:20.84\00:01:25.42
of employees that are
deemed to be ministers.
00:01:25.43\00:01:29.49
You know, why should a church,
00:01:29.50\00:01:32.74
in fact you can use the word,
00:01:32.75\00:01:33.94
but it all hinges on
exemptions, doesn't it?
00:01:33.95\00:01:36.88
Why should a church have
an exemption from the state?
00:01:36.89\00:01:40.03
Well, what happens is that,
00:01:40.04\00:01:41.78
you've two conflicting
issues that are at play here.
00:01:41.79\00:01:44.99
You know,
church is traditionally
00:01:45.00\00:01:46.87
as part of freedom of religion,
00:01:46.88\00:01:48.47
have the right to
decide who can be a minister
00:01:48.48\00:01:51.26
under their
particular organization.
00:01:51.27\00:01:54.08
But then, they're
other rules in this country
00:01:54.09\00:01:56.64
that say that
employees cannot be
00:01:56.65\00:01:59.12
discriminated against
in the public specter.
00:01:59.13\00:02:03.50
And so in this case though,
00:02:03.51\00:02:05.29
there's been an
exception that says,
00:02:05.30\00:02:07.90
churches have pretty
much unfettered right
00:02:07.91\00:02:11.58
to decide who can
and cannot be a minister
00:02:11.59\00:02:15.07
and can make
decisions on hiring and firing
00:02:15.08\00:02:19.63
without any
inference from the government.
00:02:19.64\00:02:21.95
So what led to this issue
00:02:21.96\00:02:24.14
being discussed by
the, Supreme Court,
00:02:24.15\00:02:26.00
there's always a
particular case? Sure,
00:02:26.01\00:02:27.67
So what are the
particulars, what happened?
00:02:27.68\00:02:30.04
Well, in this specific
case we had a school teacher,
00:02:30.05\00:02:34.04
Cheryl Perich, who was,
00:02:34.05\00:02:36.95
she was
suffering from a disability
00:02:36.96\00:02:38.62
or that's what she claimed
00:02:38.63\00:02:40.13
and so that
impacted her performance
00:02:40.14\00:02:43.01
and so she
actually asked to take
00:02:43.02\00:02:44.50
some time off to focus on that.
00:02:44.51\00:02:46.99
The school
subsequently replaced her
00:02:47.00\00:02:49.21
and when she felt she
was ready to comeback,
00:02:49.22\00:02:52.50
she was not able to
get her job back, and so--
00:02:52.51\00:02:56.43
Sorry to
interrupt, but you know,
00:02:56.44\00:02:57.62
I read a bit about this recently
00:02:57.63\00:02:59.35
and it reminded me of
something that I've noticed
00:02:59.36\00:03:01.69
and I've heard
others comment on.
00:03:01.70\00:03:03.86
The, the--some
of the particulars
00:03:03.87\00:03:05.71
of this sort of embarrassment,
00:03:05.72\00:03:09.35
you and I might not act
that way in that situation,
00:03:09.36\00:03:11.70
but it raises a bigger question.
00:03:11.71\00:03:14.06
Like when I read what she did,
00:03:14.07\00:03:17.16
if I was the employer
I'd be a bit bothered too,
00:03:17.17\00:03:19.71
because she got sick,
00:03:19.72\00:03:21.79
she took leave
which they granted.
00:03:21.80\00:03:23.83
And then she told them
00:03:23.84\00:03:25.90
that she was coming
after they've gotten
00:03:25.91\00:03:27.41
their replacement teacher.
00:03:27.42\00:03:28.60
She says, oh I'm
coming back such a,
00:03:28.61\00:03:30.46
such a day and they
didn't acknowledge it.
00:03:30.47\00:03:33.26
And she just turned up
00:03:33.27\00:03:35.02
and when she turned
up there was a bad scene
00:03:35.03\00:03:37.66
and she says,
well I'm ready here,
00:03:37.67\00:03:39.20
I can do what
I-you know, no problem.
00:03:39.21\00:03:41.29
And they thought well,
we've a replacement teacher,
00:03:41.30\00:03:44.09
this would be disrupted
to sort of pull that person
00:03:44.10\00:03:47.05
at a moments notice when,
00:03:47.06\00:03:48.37
you know, they
hadn't agreed with her
00:03:48.38\00:03:50.63
and then she got offended said,
00:03:50.64\00:03:52.08
well I'm gonna sue
you, going to invoke,
00:03:52.09\00:03:57.30
you know, a government.
00:03:57.31\00:03:58.72
Right, it was a
disability claim,
00:03:58.73\00:04:00.40
she said, I'm being
discriminated against.
00:04:00.41\00:04:01.78
But, you know, looking at it
00:04:01.79\00:04:02.79
just from a human
relation point of view,
00:04:02.80\00:04:04.37
I think there was a
conflict precipitated that
00:04:04.38\00:04:08.37
that with other
individuals and in better times,
00:04:08.38\00:04:10.55
it might not have gone that way.
00:04:10.56\00:04:12.51
But given that it developed,
00:04:12.52\00:04:14.78
there is a very
real issue for churches
00:04:14.79\00:04:17.73
and for how the
government relates to them.
00:04:17.74\00:04:21.54
And on one level I've
even argued against it,
00:04:21.55\00:04:25.11
you know, not against this case,
00:04:25.12\00:04:26.62
but the early
Adventist church to go back
00:04:26.63\00:04:30.21
to Adventist
history had a fierce debate
00:04:30.22\00:04:32.78
as to whether the church
should have tax exemptions.
00:04:32.79\00:04:37.77
You know, why we, why
should the state grant
00:04:37.78\00:04:41.70
and why should the church expect
00:04:41.71\00:04:45.74
that it would get some
special treatment on tax.
00:04:45.75\00:04:48.88
And, you know, because
that was settled in the end
00:04:48.89\00:04:50.40
and I remember,
reading that, Ellen White,
00:04:50.41\00:04:53.16
said to early Adventist church.
00:04:53.17\00:04:55.84
She says, you know,
God still moves upon kings
00:04:55.85\00:04:58.27
and princess and
authorities to grant favors.
00:04:58.28\00:05:01.76
So it's not immoral
for favor to be granted,
00:05:01.77\00:05:04.09
but it is a
favor, isn't it? Right.
00:05:04.10\00:05:06.39
And, you know, you
can trace the history
00:05:06.40\00:05:08.09
of special
dealings between church
00:05:08.10\00:05:10.31
and states through the years.
00:05:10.32\00:05:11.96
But where this seems
to hit the fan to me,
00:05:11.97\00:05:13.93
is it's an old
assumption, that is not bad,
00:05:13.94\00:05:18.24
but it's, you know,
has historical antecedents.
00:05:18.25\00:05:20.80
And old assumption of
that special treatment
00:05:20.81\00:05:22.64
is running hot up
against new rights
00:05:22.65\00:05:26.25
and not just privileges,
00:05:26.26\00:05:29.15
protection for
people of disabilities.
00:05:29.16\00:05:32.62
Of course sex, and race,
and now sexual orientation,
00:05:32.63\00:05:39.25
these things have been
protected in the workplace.
00:05:39.26\00:05:42.34
And will the church be required
00:05:42.35\00:05:44.47
to grant what seems
reasonable to most people.
00:05:44.48\00:05:47.77
Well, and that's why this case
is of such great importance,
00:05:47.78\00:05:51.32
because if there is not deemed
00:05:51.33\00:05:53.92
to be this
ministerial exception,
00:05:53.93\00:05:56.10
then the church
would be required.
00:05:56.11\00:05:57.55
It would then be a
slippery slope in terms of
00:05:57.56\00:06:00.57
having the government
make decisions to say,
00:06:00.58\00:06:03.63
well, you the church
cannot govern yourselves
00:06:03.64\00:06:07.27
according to your
religious beliefs.
00:06:07.28\00:06:09.37
Now, we're just placing an
article on Liberty Magazine,
00:06:09.38\00:06:13.08
written by a lawyer
who you and I both know
00:06:13.09\00:06:20.10
and he studied
the case and read the,
00:06:20.11\00:06:22.84
well actually he went to
hear some of the hearings,
00:06:22.85\00:06:25.79
the arguments
before the Supreme Court.
00:06:25.80\00:06:29.21
And as I read
over that it struck me
00:06:29.22\00:06:31.11
that the issue of
how the Catholic Church
00:06:31.12\00:06:34.73
is related to certain things
including the priestly scandal
00:06:34.74\00:06:42.02
with sort of front and center
00:06:42.03\00:06:43.35
and it's an
interesting discussion,
00:06:43.36\00:06:44.79
because, isn't six
of the nine justices
00:06:44.80\00:06:48.61
were themselves Roman Catholics.
00:06:48.62\00:06:50.68
And I've seen no evidence that
00:06:50.69\00:06:53.08
the comments
were colored by that,
00:06:53.09\00:06:54.58
but that's tension
that's interesting.
00:06:54.59\00:06:57.64
The whole world has been
watching for some years now,
00:06:57.65\00:07:00.13
as this priestly
scandal is blown outside.
00:07:00.14\00:07:03.88
Is it, is it even comprehensible
00:07:03.89\00:07:06.34
that there will be a
status quo in this exemption
00:07:06.35\00:07:08.82
even as this scandal troubles
00:07:08.83\00:07:11.01
people within and
without the church
00:07:11.02\00:07:12.89
Well, but I think
the problem is that
00:07:12.90\00:07:15.67
where do you draw the line,
00:07:15.68\00:07:16.74
because what we don't
want to do is have courts
00:07:16.75\00:07:19.15
making decisions based on
applying religious principles.
00:07:19.16\00:07:24.61
And the court has been
very hesitant to do that
00:07:24.62\00:07:26.80
and if you look
at the transcript
00:07:26.81\00:07:28.55
from what some of
the justices were saying,
00:07:28.56\00:07:30.81
they don't
really want to do this.
00:07:30.82\00:07:32.74
But part of one of
the determining task is,
00:07:32.75\00:07:35.11
what it constitutes a minister.
00:07:35.12\00:07:36.90
When if someone is a
priest, a pastor, a rabbi,
00:07:36.91\00:07:39.28
they clearly
fall in that category.
00:07:39.29\00:07:41.02
If they are janitor or
sort of lower level employee,
00:07:41.03\00:07:46.17
they clearly are not.
00:07:46.18\00:07:47.57
But, you know, who is
in that middle category
00:07:47.58\00:07:49.26
and how far down does
the protection extend.
00:07:49.27\00:07:51.15
So do you see any evidence
00:07:51.16\00:07:52.55
they're going to narrow
00:07:52.56\00:07:54.28
the definition
of one of minister?
00:07:54.29\00:07:56.63
I think, it's
really up in the air.
00:07:56.64\00:07:58.40
I mean I think the questioning,
00:07:58.41\00:08:00.31
I mean the
government took the EOC
00:08:00.32\00:08:02.85
sort of came
forth position that,
00:08:02.86\00:08:04.84
it was not the easiest to
defend in the oral argument.
00:08:04.85\00:08:07.64
But I think that
at the end of the day,
00:08:07.65\00:08:10.43
I hope that they'll
preserve the exception.
00:08:10.44\00:08:12.75
Yeah, now I need
to make it clear too,
00:08:12.76\00:08:14.22
from the perspective,
we're working for the church
00:08:14.23\00:08:18.98
and from the perspective
of being a church insider
00:08:18.99\00:08:22.45
and knowing what we were doing
00:08:22.46\00:08:24.46
and what needs to be protected.
00:08:24.47\00:08:25.72
Of course, we
want the Supreme Court
00:08:25.73\00:08:27.75
to uphold this
exemption that really protects
00:08:27.76\00:08:31.45
the integrity of
church operation.
00:08:31.46\00:08:33.28
Hiring and firing and how
the ministers operate and so on.
00:08:33.29\00:08:36.53
And various church
groups have submitted
00:08:36.54\00:08:38.35
front of the court
briefs in support of this.
00:08:38.36\00:08:42.43
Whether that's
in itself so sacred
00:08:42.44\00:08:46.57
that it can never
be touched we will see.
00:08:46.58\00:08:51.03
Because there as I hinted that
00:08:51.04\00:08:52.81
more than hinted that
as I brought up before,
00:08:52.82\00:08:55.86
there's no question
that we've all been witnessed
00:08:55.87\00:08:59.35
to a betrayal of
trust with some priests
00:08:59.36\00:09:03.82
in the Roman Catholic Church
00:09:03.83\00:09:05.07
and all of us wish for then
to be some legal accountability
00:09:05.08\00:09:09.65
and we've been uncomfortable
00:09:09.66\00:09:11.39
to see not a
church stance to be sure,
00:09:11.40\00:09:14.60
but some administrators
within that church
00:09:14.61\00:09:17.24
who've actually sheltered
00:09:17.25\00:09:19.37
some of these perpetrators
from legal accountability.
00:09:19.38\00:09:22.84
But those are, but
I think that because,
00:09:22.85\00:09:24.84
that's a different case
than in the Hassan-Tabor case.
00:09:24.85\00:09:28.48
I understand that it
came up in the hearings.
00:09:28.49\00:09:31.25
They did, there was
questioning about it,
00:09:31.26\00:09:33.46
but I think both
sides rightly wanted to say,
00:09:33.47\00:09:36.02
this is an employment decision.
00:09:36.03\00:09:38.22
And so as in terms of criminal
00:09:38.23\00:09:42.07
or other legal
liabilities separate
00:09:42.08\00:09:44.17
from deciding as a
church, who can you hire,
00:09:44.18\00:09:46.65
who can you fire
without oversight.
00:09:46.66\00:09:49.72
Because I think
they purposely said,
00:09:49.73\00:09:52.05
this case is not to determine
who the Catholic Church
00:09:52.06\00:09:55.45
can decide is an
ordained priest or not.
00:09:55.46\00:09:58.55
Yes, true, they did
discuss about ordination.
00:09:58.56\00:10:03.07
From when I
first heard about this,
00:10:03.08\00:10:04.70
it sort of evoked
historical analogs to me.
00:10:04.71\00:10:09.77
And I've always been
taken by the story of,
00:10:09.78\00:10:12.80
Henry the II and Thomas Becket.
00:10:12.81\00:10:15.43
In fact, just a
few days ago at home
00:10:15.44\00:10:17.47
we watched one of
the old oldies with,
00:10:17.48\00:10:21.20
Richard Burton
and Peter O'Toole,
00:10:21.21\00:10:26.99
acting out this story.
00:10:27.00\00:10:28.26
And it was a major
event in English history,
00:10:28.27\00:10:32.74
where, Henry II, as descendent
of William the conqueror,
00:10:32.75\00:10:37.72
hundred and some years removed
from the conquest of England
00:10:37.73\00:10:41.31
and a Norman, and
while we think of England,
00:10:41.32\00:10:46.07
as being the dying place,
00:10:46.08\00:10:47.08
the Normans really had
ground down the Saxons,
00:10:47.09\00:10:50.05
it was not a nice occupation.
00:10:50.06\00:10:52.68
And here he had a
friend, Thomas Becket,
00:10:52.69\00:10:56.35
who he trusted implicitly,
Thomas Becket, was a Saxon.
00:10:56.36\00:11:00.43
He elevated him to be
Chancellor of the Exchequer,
00:11:00.44\00:11:03.30
pretty much the top
job working with the king.
00:11:03.31\00:11:06.88
He was in charge of
the financial operations
00:11:06.89\00:11:09.30
of the government
and the king got into
00:11:09.31\00:11:11.91
some trouble with the church.
00:11:11.92\00:11:15.37
The church said and I
remember the exact issue,
00:11:15.38\00:11:19.05
the church said, that you,
00:11:19.06\00:11:22.00
the government
courts are not empowered
00:11:22.01\00:11:25.85
to judge a priest who
commits a civil crime.
00:11:25.86\00:11:29.38
We'll judge him ourselves.
00:11:29.39\00:11:31.53
And the king of course
wanted to deal with it.
00:11:31.54\00:11:35.05
And he finally dreamed up
the way to control the church.
00:11:35.06\00:11:38.75
He appointed his
friend, Thomas Becket,
00:11:38.76\00:11:41.70
to be archbishop of Canterbury.
00:11:41.71\00:11:43.61
And even as I saw
the movie the other day
00:11:43.62\00:11:46.05
and thought again on
him, I don't know how he,
00:11:46.06\00:11:48.14
he pulled that off,
00:11:48.15\00:11:49.14
because on the face
of it, it was just silly.
00:11:49.15\00:11:53.78
Thomas Becket,
had taken ordnance
00:11:53.79\00:11:55.89
briefly early in his life
00:11:55.90\00:11:57.46
and on that technicality he
had him ordained as a priest
00:11:57.47\00:12:00.44
and confirmed as archbishop
of Canterbury the same day.
00:12:00.45\00:12:03.79
And the dynamic of the story
00:12:03.80\00:12:05.97
is that once
installed as archbishop,
00:12:05.98\00:12:08.56
Thomas Becket, then
defended his new loyalty
00:12:08.57\00:12:11.56
rather than his old
loyalty and so was the classic
00:12:11.57\00:12:13.89
confrontation of
the church and state.
00:12:13.90\00:12:16.35
And, Thomas Becket,
was eventually murdered
00:12:16.36\00:12:19.03
by zealous knights who
took the king in his word,
00:12:19.04\00:12:22.97
when he said, "Who'll rid
me of this meddling priest?"
00:12:22.98\00:12:25.97
But I thought about
this as I listened to it
00:12:25.98\00:12:28.12
and in some ways the reformation
00:12:28.13\00:12:29.76
in England was
the end of that story.
00:12:29.77\00:12:31.82
Because the first
act that Henry VIII did
00:12:31.83\00:12:34.15
was to take control
of the church properties
00:12:34.16\00:12:37.30
and of church Canon Law,
00:12:37.31\00:12:38.56
he took it under
the civil authority.
00:12:38.57\00:12:41.88
And it's interesting to see
you to draw those two parallels.
00:12:41.89\00:12:44.64
Yes, it's not quite analogist,
but there's some similarities.
00:12:44.65\00:12:48.73
We'll be back after the
break to discuss further,
00:12:48.74\00:12:51.20
the Hassan-Tabor case,
before the Supreme Court
00:12:51.21\00:12:53.88
and some ramification that
there might be for us today.
00:12:53.89\00:12:57.83
One-hundred years, a
long time to do anything,
00:13:05.98\00:13:09.92
much less publish a
magazine, but this year Liberty,
00:13:09.93\00:13:13.78
the Seventh-day Adventist
voice of religious freedom,
00:13:13.79\00:13:16.48
celebrates one hundred years
of doing what it does best,
00:13:16.49\00:13:20.17
collecting, analyzing,
and reporting the ebb and flow
00:13:20.18\00:13:23.76
of religious
expression around the world.
00:13:23.77\00:13:26.30
Issue after issue,
00:13:26.31\00:13:28.14
Liberty has taken on
the tough assignments,
00:13:28.15\00:13:30.49
tracking down
threats to religious freedom
00:13:30.50\00:13:32.50
and exposing the
work of the devil
00:13:32.51\00:13:34.07
in every corner of the globe.
00:13:34.08\00:13:36.36
Governmental
interference, personal attacks,
00:13:36.37\00:13:39.11
corporate assaults,
even religious freedom issues
00:13:39.12\00:13:41.77
sequestered within the
Church community itself
00:13:41.78\00:13:44.11
have been clearly
and honestly exposed.
00:13:44.12\00:13:47.12
Liberty exists for one purpose
00:13:47.13\00:13:49.38
to help God's
people maintain that
00:13:49.39\00:13:51.68
all important
separation of Church and State,
00:13:51.69\00:13:54.55
while recognizing the dangers
inherent in such a struggle.
00:13:54.56\00:13:58.47
During the past century,
00:13:58.48\00:13:59.84
Liberty has experienced
challenges of its own,
00:13:59.85\00:14:02.36
but it remains on the job.
00:14:02.37\00:14:04.53
Thanks to the
inspired leadership
00:14:04.54\00:14:06.25
of a long line of
dedicated Adventist Editors,
00:14:06.26\00:14:08.95
three of whom
represent almost half
00:14:08.96\00:14:10.57
of the publications existence
00:14:10.58\00:14:12.42
and the foresight of a
little woman from New England.
00:14:12.43\00:14:15.61
One hundred years of struggle,
00:14:15.62\00:14:17.85
one hundred years of victories,
00:14:17.86\00:14:20.05
religious
freedom isn't just about
00:14:20.06\00:14:21.87
political machines
and cultural prejudices.
00:14:21.88\00:14:24.79
It's about people
fighting for the right
00:14:24.80\00:14:27.72
to serve the God
they love as their hearts
00:14:27.73\00:14:30.70
and the Holy Spirit dictate.
00:14:30.71\00:14:33.04
Thanks to the
prayers and generous support
00:14:33.05\00:14:35.00
of Seventh-day
Adventists everywhere.
00:14:35.01\00:14:37.42
Liberty will continue
to accomplish its work
00:14:37.43\00:14:39.71
of providing timely information,
00:14:39.72\00:14:41.59
spirit filled inspiration,
00:14:41.60\00:14:43.19
and heaven sent encouragement
to all who long to live
00:14:43.20\00:14:47.07
and work in a
world bound together
00:14:47.08\00:14:49.68
by the God ordained
bonds of religious freedom.
00:14:49.69\00:14:53.95
Welcome back to Liberty Insider
00:15:03.90\00:15:06.50
with guest, Dwayne Leslie.
00:15:06.51\00:15:08.31
Before the break with, Dwayne,
00:15:08.32\00:15:11.04
I was--we were talking about
00:15:11.05\00:15:12.20
a very important
Supreme Court case
00:15:12.21\00:15:15.26
that as we're recording
this is still being debated
00:15:15.27\00:15:18.05
or analyzed by the justices
node the termination yet,
00:15:18.06\00:15:22.18
the Hosanna-Tabor case
of ministerial exception.
00:15:22.19\00:15:28.31
Explain a little bit more on it.
00:15:28.32\00:15:30.13
We talked a lot about
it, but I'm little afraid,
00:15:30.14\00:15:34.31
from what we both said
00:15:34.32\00:15:35.33
that we maybe sort of muddying
the issue for our viewers.
00:15:35.34\00:15:38.12
What in its rural sense,
00:15:38.13\00:15:39.81
what are we talking about here?
00:15:39.82\00:15:41.31
Sure To be clear,
00:15:41.32\00:15:43.42
this case really
governs how a church can decide
00:15:43.43\00:15:48.51
who to hire and who to fire
00:15:48.52\00:15:50.49
under what they
consider to be a minister.
00:15:50.50\00:15:52.81
And so with this case
is really looking at is
00:15:52.82\00:15:55.33
who falls into that minister,
00:15:55.34\00:15:56.63
because the plaintiff in
case was a school teacher,
00:15:56.64\00:15:59.92
but also was deemed
under the Lutheran faith
00:15:59.93\00:16:02.80
to be a commission to minister.
00:16:02.81\00:16:04.25
And she tried to
claim that she was not--
00:16:04.26\00:16:06.53
But the Lutheran
church gave reasonable reasons
00:16:06.54\00:16:10.96
at least under the old or
the present scenario that yes,
00:16:10.97\00:16:15.39
she has some
religious functions.
00:16:15.40\00:16:16.94
She takes devotions and so on,
00:16:16.95\00:16:18.59
so we expect her to
fulfill religious duties.
00:16:18.60\00:16:23.74
Right, because even
though her job is primarily
00:16:23.75\00:16:25.72
to be a teacher to the children,
00:16:25.73\00:16:27.79
she did lead
them in the worship.
00:16:27.80\00:16:29.32
And so, and she did have
other religious functions
00:16:29.33\00:16:32.53
and so the court spent
some time trying to decide,
00:16:32.54\00:16:35.13
well, how do you determine that.
00:16:35.14\00:16:37.15
And famously, I
think, Justice Roberts,
00:16:37.16\00:16:39.67
asked while the Pope
has secular functions
00:16:39.68\00:16:44.04
and religious functions,
00:16:44.05\00:16:45.18
so would he be
deemed a minister?
00:16:45.19\00:16:47.85
Yeah. With the
twinkle in his eye.
00:16:47.86\00:16:51.63
So and again if
this had been a pastor
00:16:51.64\00:16:56.51
that had done the same thing,
00:16:56.52\00:16:58.10
this case wouldn't be here.
00:16:58.11\00:16:59.67
But it's how
far is the exemption
00:16:59.68\00:17:02.28
and should the
exemption continue to exist?
00:17:02.29\00:17:07.07
Or how far does it apply,
00:17:07.08\00:17:08.50
does it apply to sort
of midlevel employees,
00:17:08.51\00:17:12.72
who do some secular
and some religious--
00:17:12.73\00:17:16.58
Now, let me throw a real
wildcard at you since we,
00:17:16.59\00:17:19.69
I want to have an
open discussion here.
00:17:19.70\00:17:23.03
I know on this program
at least some years ago,
00:17:23.04\00:17:25.73
we've some discussion
about some church schools
00:17:25.74\00:17:29.92
or church colleges
anxious to get government money.
00:17:29.93\00:17:34.96
And they, to get the money
00:17:34.97\00:17:37.38
they needed to prove that
they were not very religious.
00:17:37.39\00:17:41.67
So they based an argument,
00:17:41.68\00:17:43.60
that yes they
were run by a church,
00:17:43.61\00:17:45.37
but they were
pervasively sectarian one.
00:17:45.38\00:17:49.51
Oh, not. No, I'm not
getting the right word.
00:17:49.52\00:17:51.01
Secular, secular,
pervasively secular.
00:17:51.02\00:17:55.66
Well, that's not so at least
00:17:55.67\00:17:58.03
by the Seventh-day
Adventist institutions
00:17:58.04\00:18:00.40
and I think most other church
00:18:00.41\00:18:01.79
run higher
institutions of higher learning,
00:18:01.80\00:18:06.57
the whole point the church
00:18:06.58\00:18:07.57
gets into it is
to encourage faith
00:18:07.58\00:18:09.90
and to steer people
toward a religious viewpoint.
00:18:09.91\00:18:13.46
They're not
neutral, they're not empty
00:18:13.47\00:18:15.51
of religious sentiment.
00:18:15.52\00:18:17.63
But to get the money,
00:18:17.64\00:18:18.91
some schools have been advancing
00:18:18.92\00:18:20.66
an argument that seems to me,
00:18:20.67\00:18:22.10
works a little against
this ministerial exemption
00:18:22.11\00:18:27.50
for people that are
working for the church,
00:18:27.51\00:18:30.50
that are advancing its beliefs,
00:18:30.51\00:18:32.14
but yet not formally ministers.
00:18:32.15\00:18:35.67
Right, then I, but I
think again the point comes back
00:18:35.68\00:18:39.01
to is that when people
have religious functions,
00:18:39.02\00:18:41.81
what we don't want to
do is have the court system
00:18:41.82\00:18:44.74
determining the
validity of faiths
00:18:44.75\00:18:49.13
particular religious
practices, absolutely, not no.
00:18:49.14\00:18:52.09
And I under
achieve but I don't think
00:18:52.10\00:18:54.36
that's gonna happen
out of this case directly.
00:18:54.37\00:18:56.84
But I just have a
fear that they may narrow
00:18:56.85\00:19:00.00
the determination
of who is a minister.
00:19:00.01\00:19:06.09
Right and but again I
don't-- but for most churches
00:19:06.10\00:19:10.33
there's a pretty clear
distinction often times
00:19:10.34\00:19:12.11
between who's a
minister and who's not.
00:19:12.12\00:19:14.48
Yeah. Well, and it also
intersects with the debate
00:19:14.49\00:19:17.01
that is not
confine to any one church.
00:19:17.02\00:19:19.51
you know,
ordination of women and--
00:19:19.52\00:19:21.68
Right, so, which we
wont' even go there.
00:19:21.69\00:19:24.62
No, but again in
the oral argument,
00:19:24.63\00:19:27.52
they took great
pains to sort of distance
00:19:27.53\00:19:30.56
and show that this case was
not about ordination of women.
00:19:30.57\00:19:35.11
Well, the mystery to me on this
00:19:35.12\00:19:36.90
and its hard to do
double guess the Supreme Court
00:19:36.91\00:19:40.00
and as a lawyer I know that
00:19:40.01\00:19:41.26
people have not
a good track record
00:19:41.27\00:19:43.47
on trying to double guess them,
00:19:43.48\00:19:44.48
but just think of the dynamic.
00:19:44.49\00:19:46.82
There are many
issues that bubble up
00:19:46.83\00:19:49.08
through the legal
system that could be taken
00:19:49.09\00:19:53.72
by the High Court, but
they don't take everything.
00:19:53.73\00:19:56.44
They take things, it seems to me
00:19:56.45\00:19:58.68
from what I know less
for the case at hand than
00:19:58.69\00:20:02.20
what it might
represent larger issues,
00:20:02.21\00:20:04.57
so they're choosing.
00:20:04.58\00:20:06.30
So they must have
a reason for this,
00:20:06.31\00:20:08.56
so what would their
reason be for taking this.
00:20:08.57\00:20:12.08
The exemption has not really
been seriously threatened,
00:20:12.09\00:20:14.80
so are they taking it
to protect the exemption,
00:20:14.81\00:20:19.21
doesn't seem so to me.
00:20:19.22\00:20:21.70
yeah, it will be interesting
to see how this comes out.
00:20:21.71\00:20:24.34
So what's in their mind? Yes.
00:20:24.35\00:20:26.89
And I think, again
looking at the oral argument,
00:20:26.90\00:20:29.80
it's, there was some,
there is a high degree
00:20:29.81\00:20:32.19
of skepticism in the
argument that was put forth
00:20:32.20\00:20:34.51
by both the
plaintiff and the government.
00:20:34.52\00:20:37.01
Because they really sort of
had to control it themselves
00:20:37.02\00:20:39.37
to figure out
argument that didn't run a foul
00:20:39.38\00:20:43.04
of traditional free
expression of religion,
00:20:43.05\00:20:46.73
but still wanted to
give the opportunity
00:20:46.74\00:20:49.72
to bring claims for
employment discrimination.
00:20:49.73\00:20:52.51
By the way in this
job, I've had to be careful.
00:20:52.52\00:20:58.44
I had to carefully
study how lawyers present
00:20:58.45\00:21:00.58
the law or the constitution.
00:21:00.59\00:21:03.30
And I've read the transcripts
00:21:03.31\00:21:05.47
and heard some
of the presentations
00:21:05.48\00:21:07.50
before the Supreme Court
00:21:07.51\00:21:08.51
and it has amazed me like
you say some of the lawyers,
00:21:08.52\00:21:11.45
more brilliant individuals
that I can ever hope to be,
00:21:11.46\00:21:15.53
certainly more
knowledgeable in the law
00:21:15.54\00:21:17.26
that I could ever dreamed to be.
00:21:17.27\00:21:18.51
But still just
on the faces of it,
00:21:18.52\00:21:20.12
here are some of the arguments,
00:21:20.13\00:21:21.13
they're fantastical,
right, convoluted reasoning.
00:21:21.14\00:21:24.61
And the justices
are very good at,
00:21:24.62\00:21:26.86
particularly what
interest me as a lawyer
00:21:26.87\00:21:29.23
is the
hypotheticals that they give
00:21:29.24\00:21:31.17
and again asking about the Pope
00:21:31.18\00:21:33.35
and how the-would the
Pope be considered a minister.
00:21:33.36\00:21:35.72
That's a good way to highlight
00:21:35.73\00:21:37.13
some of the flaws in argument.
00:21:37.14\00:21:39.75
Well, this is, it's
out of context a bit,
00:21:39.76\00:21:42.26
but it's a good time
for me to bring it up,
00:21:42.27\00:21:44.96
because this is pertinent
to our discussion generally.
00:21:44.97\00:21:47.85
I listen to one fairly
recent Supreme Court case
00:21:47.86\00:21:53.19
with oral argument and
I could not believe it.
00:21:53.20\00:21:56.20
When I heard the Justice's
bounce among themselves
00:21:56.21\00:21:59.75
for maybe ten
minutes about how appropriate
00:21:59.76\00:22:03.93
it was for the
government to build
00:22:03.94\00:22:05.65
a religious structure
for a certain religion.
00:22:05.66\00:22:08.94
And they got to joking about it.
00:22:08.95\00:22:10.31
It was so lighthearted
00:22:10.32\00:22:11.34
that it was actually
a little ominous to me.
00:22:11.35\00:22:13.96
But they came to the
joint decision that as along,
00:22:13.97\00:22:17.89
if the government built,
00:22:17.90\00:22:19.60
I forget which
church they settled on,
00:22:19.61\00:22:21.92
but they named
cathedral or something,
00:22:21.93\00:22:23.63
if they build one cathedral,
00:22:23.64\00:22:25.57
as long as they then build them
00:22:25.58\00:22:26.96
for anybody that wanted
it, things were hunky-dory.
00:22:26.97\00:22:31.25
I know, you are
as perplexed as I am,
00:22:31.26\00:22:32.89
because on the face of it
00:22:32.90\00:22:33.90
that was against the
establishment code absolutely.
00:22:33.91\00:22:36.70
But they seem to,
I can't say that all,
00:22:36.71\00:22:40.01
none of them went with it,
but there was no counter voice
00:22:40.02\00:22:43.11
and it bounced around at least
00:22:43.12\00:22:44.81
four or five of
them loved the idea.
00:22:44.82\00:22:47.33
So they thought as long as
they're even handed about that
00:22:47.34\00:22:49.82
the government
could build churches.
00:22:49.83\00:22:52.62
And so I wonder really
what thinking is developing
00:22:52.63\00:22:56.73
in our highest
judiciary like that.
00:22:56.74\00:22:59.58
Well, there's a
whole body of law,
00:22:59.59\00:23:00.63
maybe that's another show
00:23:00.64\00:23:01.76
with you know
religious land use.
00:23:01.77\00:23:04.27
But now that's why I think
there is a so much attention
00:23:04.28\00:23:07.43
being paid to this case,
00:23:07.44\00:23:08.88
because there is a
high degree of scrutiny,
00:23:08.89\00:23:11.24
judging from the questions,
00:23:11.25\00:23:12.34
it's really hard to say
and so would it be curious.
00:23:12.35\00:23:14.93
Well, we-we've now
placed two articles
00:23:14.94\00:23:17.13
in Liberty
Magazine on this topic
00:23:17.14\00:23:18.51
and I expect the third
when the case comes down,
00:23:18.52\00:23:20.77
because I agree with you.
00:23:20.78\00:23:22.17
I think this is in my judgment
00:23:22.18\00:23:25.26
just as an observer
in the last 13 years,
00:23:25.27\00:23:27.25
it's the most
important Supreme Court case
00:23:27.26\00:23:29.61
relating to
religion that I've seen.
00:23:29.62\00:23:32.10
It may turn out
to be a non event
00:23:32.11\00:23:34.32
if they judge it in a moral way.
00:23:34.33\00:23:36.74
they could judge
it very narrowly.
00:23:36.75\00:23:38.40
But there is a lot
of stake here, right.
00:23:38.41\00:23:41.02
I mean there has
been some other important,
00:23:41.03\00:23:42.31
ones like the challenge brought
by an antireligious group,
00:23:42.32\00:23:46.18
the Freedom From
Religion Foundation,
00:23:46.19\00:23:47.77
against the government's
faith based initiative.
00:23:47.78\00:23:50.48
I thought that was a huge case,
00:23:50.49\00:23:52.10
but it ended up as nothing,
because the Supreme Court,
00:23:52.11\00:23:54.51
as they've so
often done likely said,
00:23:54.52\00:23:56.54
well, they have no standing.
00:23:56.55\00:23:59.11
This was a group
speaking on behalf of people,
00:23:59.12\00:24:01.64
but they needed
the case of somebody
00:24:01.65\00:24:03.75
who would have really
been impacted by this.
00:24:03.76\00:24:06.42
And as a net result
I think they took off.
00:24:06.43\00:24:09.27
I hope it's not true,
but my reading of that case
00:24:09.28\00:24:11.76
was that in essence
citizens can't easily challenge
00:24:11.77\00:24:16.76
any action of the
state crossing the line
00:24:16.77\00:24:20.56
of separation of
church and state.
00:24:20.57\00:24:22.36
You just, it's not
your business anymore.
00:24:22.37\00:24:25.08
Because it,
because from standing.
00:24:25.09\00:24:27.30
Yes, I think they
took it off the table.
00:24:27.31\00:24:30.91
Well, I'll go back to
what narrowly they said,
00:24:30.92\00:24:34.48
because this came
out of the, White House,
00:24:34.49\00:24:37.20
because it was
done on the government
00:24:37.21\00:24:38.54
appropriation not by statute.
00:24:38.55\00:24:41.58
And you're just the
citizen who and not,
00:24:41.59\00:24:44.53
you can't prove that
you were impacted by,
00:24:44.54\00:24:46.92
you know, you
can't say anything.
00:24:46.93\00:24:49.50
It was a very
odd sort of a logic,
00:24:49.51\00:24:51.72
but they clearly as
you know dismissed it
00:24:51.73\00:24:53.70
because of lack of standing
and no one much worried,
00:24:53.71\00:24:57.93
because there is
not great sympathy
00:24:57.94\00:24:59.97
to a group that are
opposed to all religion.
00:24:59.98\00:25:03.13
Right, The Freedom
From Religion Foundation
00:25:03.14\00:25:05.33
and I think even lot of secular
00:25:05.34\00:25:07.47
so a little squeamish
about a group that just wants
00:25:07.48\00:25:09.83
to drive religion out of every
nook and cranny in society.
00:25:09.84\00:25:13.56
Right and could said
there's not necessarily
00:25:13.57\00:25:14.93
lot of support for that, no.
00:25:14.94\00:25:17.04
Even among people who want
00:25:17.05\00:25:18.44
separation of church and state
00:25:18.45\00:25:19.52
but they don't want
freedom from all religion.
00:25:19.53\00:25:22.01
Yeah, so we're getting
down to the final minutes.
00:25:22.02\00:25:28.72
I'd certainly we can
encourage our viewers
00:25:28.73\00:25:30.91
to pay attention to
this that there are issues
00:25:30.92\00:25:33.52
that bubble up from time to time
00:25:33.53\00:25:35.14
that have great ramifications.
00:25:35.15\00:25:36.99
They should be studying the
news to see where this goes.
00:25:37.00\00:25:39.88
They should recognize that a
church has a legitimate right
00:25:39.89\00:25:43.51
to protect the integrity
of its ministerial force
00:25:43.52\00:25:46.28
as well as those that work
for it really in any environment
00:25:46.29\00:25:49.56
you don't
really want the janitor
00:25:49.57\00:25:54.18
at the church school to be,
00:25:54.19\00:25:56.01
you know, a
Satanist for example.
00:25:56.02\00:25:59.89
Thankfully, lot of them but--
00:25:59.90\00:26:00.92
So the church has legitimate
things were it might be,
00:26:00.93\00:26:05.47
on other roles outside
in the secular environment
00:26:05.48\00:26:08.22
might be acting
somewhat prejudicially but its,
00:26:08.23\00:26:10.94
it want the integrity of mission
00:26:10.95\00:26:13.07
to be worked out
through its workforce.
00:26:13.08\00:26:15.86
Right and I think that
00:26:15.87\00:26:17.74
and again like we
mentioned early on.
00:26:17.75\00:26:19.75
There is a
certain tension that comes
00:26:19.76\00:26:21.74
in these kinds of
cases because on the one hand
00:26:21.75\00:26:25.24
again you have the
religious application issue.
00:26:25.25\00:26:29.53
But then, you, the
government say we don't want
00:26:29.54\00:26:31.97
to allow discrimination
in hiring decisions.
00:26:31.98\00:26:35.14
But ultimately if
you've to air on that side,
00:26:35.15\00:26:38.16
I think you really
have to air on that side
00:26:38.17\00:26:39.86
of protecting religion
and religious institutions
00:26:39.87\00:26:43.28
that have a right to hire
and fire people in accordance
00:26:43.29\00:26:47.27
with there own
religious principles
00:26:47.28\00:26:48.81
and that's what important.
00:26:48.82\00:26:51.30
It's amazing to
study throughout history
00:26:51.31\00:26:54.32
and see how often the
debates between church
00:26:54.33\00:26:57.72
and state where over
00:26:57.73\00:26:59.48
who had the
purgative to administer laws?
00:26:59.49\00:27:03.21
Liberty Magazine
and this program argues
00:27:03.22\00:27:05.93
for the separation
of church of state.
00:27:05.94\00:27:07.60
But that separation
was not easily gained.
00:27:07.61\00:27:10.71
It once was that the
church told the state,
00:27:10.72\00:27:13.83
had to
administer even civil laws.
00:27:13.84\00:27:16.73
Then once was in
England particularly a time
00:27:16.74\00:27:19.35
when the civil powers tried
to say to the church powers
00:27:19.36\00:27:23.57
that you must
answer for civil errors.
00:27:23.58\00:27:27.99
Henry II, tried
that with Thomas Becket
00:27:28.00\00:27:31.39
and the result was
a matter to the cause
00:27:31.40\00:27:33.56
and the man sainted
by the Catholic Church
00:27:33.57\00:27:36.18
and it remained until
the Protestant Reformation
00:27:36.19\00:27:39.36
and the Henry
VIII, for fully control
00:27:39.37\00:27:42.01
of religious
entities by the state.
00:27:42.02\00:27:44.54
In a small way the
Hosanna-Tabor case presently
00:27:44.55\00:27:47.76
before the Supreme Court
is re-fighting that issue.
00:27:47.77\00:27:51.70
Is there an
exemption for the church,
00:27:51.71\00:27:56.07
an exemption for
spiritual matters certainly,
00:27:56.08\00:27:58.53
but is there an exemption
from civil responsibility.
00:27:58.54\00:28:01.71
Time will tell and the
Supreme Court will say.
00:28:01.72\00:28:05.70
For Liberty Insider
this is Lincoln Steed.
00:28:05.71\00:28:09.82