Participants: Lincoln Steed (Host), Greg Hamilton
Series Code: LI
Program Code: LI000158
|
00:22 Welcome to the Liberty Insider.
00:24 This is the program bringing you discussion, 00:26 news and up to date views on religious liberty 00:30 in the U.S. and around the world. 00:31 My name is Lincoln Steed, Editor of Liberty Magazine. 00:35 And my guest on the program, Gregg Hamilton, 00:38 President of the Northwest 00:39 Religious Liberty Association. 00:41 Good to be with you, Lincoln. 00:42 There's a lot we can talk about 00:44 but I'm gonna launch off 00:46 with a T.V. program called Jeeves. 00:49 You've ever watched? Jeeves, no I haven't. 00:51 I remember that was a crazy British comedy. 00:54 You know one point there was 00:55 a rather eccentric young man 00:58 who wanted to propose to a woman. 00:59 He lost his nerve and he instead descended 01:02 to discussing his hobby which was keeping 01:05 newts and salamanders. 01:08 And the statement was, 01:10 it was lost the minute 01:11 he started talking about newts. 01:12 Well, U.S. presidential campaign 01:17 is in that same phase. 01:19 Newt Gingrich is suddenly is top of the heap. 01:21 Yeah he's risen to the polls, 01:23 he's even topping Mitt Romney now, 01:25 which is amazing comeback for this guy. 01:28 But to me it represents a scary sign. 01:32 The entire Republican pack wasn't trusted 01:36 by the Republican electorate and Mitt Romney 01:40 who has been holding steady 01:41 and kind of the leading the pack 01:43 is not an enthusiastic candidate 01:45 in the minds of tea partiers 01:47 or conservative Republicans 01:48 or of the fundamental evangelical right. 01:53 Yeah, why is it, is it think it's but-- 01:55 I'll answer my question. 01:56 I think Newt's religious affiliation 01:59 is the stumbling block for too many people, isn't it? 02:01 Well, because he's a Lauderdale Saint, 02:02 a "Mormon," that's problematic for some people. 02:06 And I can understand some of their reasoning 02:08 but I would have to say that, 02:10 when I look at Article VI Section 3 of 02:12 U.S. constitution where it says basically-- 02:15 No religious test-- 02:16 No religious test should be applied to anybody 02:18 appointed to public office, 02:20 or running for public office, 02:21 to me that's very significant. 02:23 So, I mean, the same thing occurred 02:25 when Jack Kennedy was running for president. 02:28 Now, many Seventh-day Adventist 02:29 of course were troubled back in, 02:31 when Jack Kennedy was running 02:33 because we saw prophetic fulfillment. 02:34 But constitutionally we need to be very plain. 02:37 When we stand for religious freedom 02:39 in the United States, we can't object someone 02:41 just because of their religion, yes. 02:44 We can draw a construct 02:45 because of their religious activities that 02:47 maybe something's going on. 02:49 And we've an article coming up in Liberty Magazine 02:52 by Jonathan Turley a law professor 02:54 George Washington University, 02:56 and he wrote an article for us 02:57 and similar material in a Washington Post Column, 03:00 where he pointed out the extreme 03:02 and usually inappropriate use of religion 03:05 in this current presidential campaign. 03:07 And that's really where we're starting from, 03:09 Isn't it. I had a-- 03:10 There's a religious, very clear religious 03:12 dynamic that's, that makes you a little troubled. 03:15 Why I even had a church member 03:16 write me one time and say, you know, 03:17 we should demand that no Catholics, 03:21 no more Catholics be on the U.S. Supreme Court. 03:23 I said, well I said, constitutionally 03:26 that would be wrong, 03:27 I said, have you ever read Article VI, Section 3. 03:30 He hadn't, so when I shared that him I said, 03:32 we can't object to a Catholic 03:34 serving on U.S. Supreme Court. 03:35 There are 6 Catholics and 3 Jews 03:37 on the U.S. Supreme Court right now, yeah. 03:39 There's no Protestant, but that doesn't mean 03:41 that they don't have a right to serve 03:43 or even to be appointed. 03:44 I consider it a major sign of times, mind you. 03:46 Absolutely, it may signal that 03:48 there's a significant shift in society, yes. 03:50 And the aspirations of different religious groups, 03:53 but it's not a constitutional problem, 03:55 nor directly a religious freedom problem. 03:57 I read in this one economist magazine, 04:00 they-- it was in reference to Catholics 04:04 rising in the Supreme Court. 04:06 And it was an economist in the Lexington 04:13 section of Economist Magazine. 04:14 And in there it was quoting, oh, what's his name, 04:19 Dr. Noll from Notre Dame 04:23 anyway he wrote the book several years ago 04:26 The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. 04:28 He says, the scandal is that 04:29 there is no evangelical mind. 04:31 And that's the problem he says, 04:32 if you look at the Catholic schools 04:35 from elementary school all the way up 04:36 to the university, 04:37 they got a wonderful educational system, 04:39 they're very astute. 04:40 It's like Protestantism is dead-- 04:42 essentially buried. 04:44 And so the intellectuals aren't coming up 04:47 through the protestant world, 04:49 they're coming up through which is basically agnostic 04:52 and all most humanist and atheistic these days. 04:54 But as everybody is rising up 04:56 through the Catholic ranks 04:58 and so their influence is seems 05:00 almost like superman so to speak. 05:06 But in fact it is real and it is a sign 05:10 of the times in this country. 05:12 And but we, I should say that 05:13 it's not necessarily at this point 05:15 a monolithic way of thinking. 05:17 Because of those, six Supreme Court justices, 05:20 they're not all of the same political persuasion. 05:25 So it's not a-- Correct. 05:27 Justice Kennedy is a moderate 05:29 and he's a Catholic and that helps, yeah. 05:32 So and we'll talk about that in the minute. 05:34 But I do think it derives from 05:35 any number of encouragements 05:37 that system is being given, given 05:40 for the members to move in the public life 05:43 and to even on the Dies Domini, 05:46 it said that they should work 05:48 for laws that uphold Sunday worship. 05:51 I'm one who's just-- This is not by chance. 05:53 I am one who is just as concerned about 05:55 President Obama as I am the Republican 05:59 primary pack-- the candidates 06:01 that are running for nomination, 06:04 become nominated to be President 06:06 or the Presidential Candidate for the Republican side. 06:08 I'm quite upset with both sides. 06:11 Because as I'd explained earlier about Obama's 06:15 International Religious Freedom policy. 06:17 In other program, he's approach 06:20 to religious freedom is just as harmful 06:22 as the religious rights program, 06:23 because it focuses on this whole idea 06:26 that you've a right to peacefully coexist especially 06:30 in the third-world countries 06:31 and especially Arab Muslim world. 06:33 He hasn't adopted that motto 06:34 for U.S. constitutional law for sure 06:36 or even the western world. 06:37 But never the less, his approach assumes 06:40 this approach of, that we need to return 06:42 to religious tolerance not the full guarantee 06:45 of religious freedom, enshrined by the constitution 06:48 and so that's, that's problematic. 06:50 But on the right you have people 06:52 that are off the charts radical. 06:55 And so really whoever becomes the nominee 06:59 for president, it becomes a-- 07:02 on the Republican ticket. 07:03 Becomes a problem, it puts all of us voters 07:06 between a rock and a hard place, let me explain why. 07:09 Mitt Romney, the would be frontrunner 07:14 who isn't anymore, his constitutional adviser 07:19 that he's hired on is failed 07:22 Supreme Court nominee Judge Robert Bork. 07:26 Now what does Robert Bork believes, 07:28 well Robert Bork believes the same thing 07:29 that Newt Gingrich believes who's now ahead in the polls. 07:32 And that's the idea that constitutionally 07:35 the First Ten Amendments or the Bill of Rights 07:39 only apply in their thinking to the Federal Government. 07:42 So therefore state should be able to do anything 07:45 they want, in terms of civil rights, 07:47 human rights even going as far as to establish 07:51 or reestablish churches through local taxation. 07:55 Now that's, that's the pretty extreme. 07:57 Now, but it's not that they understand something 08:00 that other people don't quite see it. 08:02 It's a philosophical shift where they're really 08:04 refusing to accept the results of the civil war 08:06 and what the 14th-- 14th Amendment, yeah. 08:08 Because it's not a question that originally 08:10 those rights were really only to do 08:13 with the Federal Government, right. 08:14 And this was the United States 08:16 was a correlation of 13. 08:18 Right. Original colonies. Right. 08:20 They would've to be sovereign states, 08:22 united states. 08:23 It's not united provinces, these were national states. 08:28 But they forget that the states on their own 08:31 at that time during the American founding, 08:33 even prior to even the constitutional dimension 08:35 1787 already began disestablishing there. 08:38 Oh yes, the argument of history 08:40 is on our side that that's where it was going. 08:42 Right. That's why they adopted that national law. 08:44 Right, but the facts are and these types 08:49 seem to want to overturn it. 08:50 Right. But there was a civil war. 08:51 Right, that the whole dynamic between 08:55 states and the Federal Government shifted 08:57 and laws regularly now are projected 09:00 through to the states from the federal level. 09:02 What happened is the Supreme Court 09:04 was basically what came about later actually 09:07 in U.S. constitutional jurisprudence 09:09 in the early twentieth century 09:12 and that was called the incorporation doctrine. 09:13 That is the Bills of Rights empowered 09:17 the Federal Government to regulate the states 09:20 especially when it came to blacks having 09:23 the right to not only be citizens but to vote, 09:25 citizenship is in the 14th Amendment, 09:28 the Right of Vote is in the 15th Amendment. 09:29 Emancipation of course which freed them 09:31 was the 13th Amendment, 09:32 the Emancipation Proclamation Act by Lincoln. 09:35 So you have those 3 civil war amendments. 09:37 But the incorporation doctrine says that 09:39 the due process clause, the religious 09:42 and immunities clause, the equal access clause 09:46 all apply to the states by the Federal Government. 09:50 So, that's huge and that's what they want to ignore 09:53 or eviscerate or even undo and that's problematic. 09:57 So this is a-- we're looking at not just 10:00 a few campaign promises. 10:01 These are serious radical shifts in the way 10:05 the constitution itself is regarded, 10:07 in a practical way for people living 10:09 in those individual states. 10:11 I've heard something on the news the other day 10:12 that I think illustrates the thoroughly 10:15 the appropriate way religion has been 10:16 banded around as a play. 10:22 Rick Perry, the other day, famously was about 10:25 to deteriorate his 3 main points. 10:27 The things that he would do away with. 10:29 Yes, like, you would think that will be 10:31 important of the candidate, 10:32 couldn't remember the last one. 10:33 Yeah, and that seems to have sent him 10:35 down on the polls. 10:36 So one wag on a comedy show said that Rick Perry 10:42 was at trouble with the religionists, 10:43 which you don't want to be right now. 10:45 And people are making great professions 10:47 of orthodoxy or in one case one candidate 10:51 Michele Bachmann actually changed 10:52 her religious affiliation to be more acceptable 10:55 than what she thought was the vote of block. 10:57 And they said, well, Rick Perry, 10:59 you know he remembered the father 11:00 and the son but if he got the holy ghost. 11:02 Yeah, yeah. 11:04 It's a rude sort of a statement 11:06 but it's become that important 11:08 for these candidates to be acceptable 11:10 to what they see as the conservative religious base. 11:13 Well, but it even goes to more extreme than that, 11:16 I mean, God bless her but Michele Bachmann 11:19 is into a luminary conspiracy theories, 11:22 John Birch Society conspiracy theories 11:25 and you know there is, 11:28 the Trilateral Commission's coming to get you. 11:31 You know, the Illuminati is coming 11:32 to get you, type mentality. 11:34 And I know that may seem fair to some of you 11:36 in our audience but if you really 11:37 checkout their background. 11:40 You will discover this, not from extreme left-wing 11:43 sources but from mainstream credible sources. 11:46 And people who are concerned even 11:48 on the evangelical right, that don't want 11:50 to see a Michele Bachmann presidency. 11:53 And Karl Rove himself, who was 11:55 George Bush's lead adviser. 11:57 Who thinks that some of these people are real 11:59 looney tunes especially Rick Perry, 12:01 according Karl Rove, who can't stand him so. 12:04 But the point I'll make and I hope you'll agree with me. 12:08 I don't want to give chapter and verse 12:09 but I know studying U.S. history 12:11 there are been some people 12:12 with some personal looney views, oh yes. 12:15 On religion and other conspiracies or whatever, 12:18 that have made their way to the top office. 12:20 Yes, but they've not offered 12:24 or been allowed the chance to mix that into the-- 12:26 They were chalked. 12:28 But we've this election as much as any 12:30 and its been happening for the last few 12:32 is that these things are put out in about 12:35 and they're publicly debated and in some cases 12:37 they even play on it because it has a constituency. 12:40 That's the improper use of religion. Right. 12:44 I don't think that would, you know, 12:46 no religious test I think means hopefully 12:48 that the intelligent electorate would look 12:50 at all of that person does and if their personal 12:53 religious views are submerged they're not, 12:56 you know, mixing it in an avert way 12:59 with their public actions. 13:03 Then it's not really a concern. Yeah. 13:05 But the church and state have been 13:09 thoroughly mangled during the campaign. 13:11 We'll back after the break to discuss this little bit more. 13:15 What's happening in the election campaign 13:17 in the United States and proper and improper use 13:20 of religion and religious affiliation. 13:32 One-hundred years, a long time to do anything, 13:35 much less publish a magazine, but this year, 13:38 Liberty, the Seventh-day Adventist 13:41 voice of religious freedom, celebrates one hundred years 13:44 of doing what it does best, collecting, analyzing, 13:47 and reporting the ebb and flow 13:49 of religious expression around the world. 13:52 Issue after issue, Liberty has taken 13:55 on the tough assignments, tracking down threats 13:57 to religious freedom and exposing 13:59 the work of the devil in every corner of the globe. 14:02 Governmental interference, personal attacks, 14:05 corporate assaults, even religious freedom issues 14:07 sequestered within the Church community itself 14:10 have been clearly and honestly exposed. 14:13 Liberty exists for one purpose, to help God's people 14:16 maintain that all important separation 14:19 of Church and State, while recognizing the dangers 14:22 inherent in such a struggle. 14:24 During the past century, Liberty has experienced 14:26 challenges of its own, but it remains on the job. 14:30 Thanks to the inspired leadership of a long line 14:33 of dedicated Adventist Editors, 14:35 three of whom represent almost 14:36 half of the publication's existence 14:38 and the foresight of a little woman 14:40 from New England. 14:41 One hundred years of struggle, 14:43 one hundred years of victories, 14:45 religious freedom isn't just about political machines 14:49 and cultural prejudices. 14:50 It's about people fighting for the right to serve 14:54 the God they love as their hearts 14:56 and the Holy Spirit dictate. 14:59 Thanks to the prayers and generous support 15:01 of Seventh-day Adventists everywhere. 15:03 Liberty will continue to accomplish its work 15:05 of providing timely information, 15:07 spirit filled inspiration, 15:09 and heaven sent encouragement to all who long to live 15:13 and work in a world bound together by the God 15:16 ordained bonds of religious freedom. 15:30 Welcome back to the Liberty Insider 15:31 before the break with guest Gregg Hamilton. 15:34 We were talking about the presidential election 15:37 which had an early beginning it seems to be the cycle. 15:41 But there's a lot of talk about religion 15:44 and candidates are rising and falling for many reasons. 15:47 You know, sexual harassment one of them, 15:49 but also their acceptability 15:52 with different religious factions 15:53 is playing a big pardon. 15:55 This is true, Newt Gingrich 15:56 who's marital past speaks for itself, 15:58 but his book Rediscovering God in America, 16:01 Reflections on the Role of Faith 16:02 in Our Nations' History in Future, is very clear 16:06 what he intends for the future of this country. 16:08 And that is, he advocates in this book 16:12 that the Supreme Court should be banned 16:14 through constitutional amendment from hearing, 16:17 making any rulings on the free exercise 16:21 and establishment clauses of the First Amendment. 16:23 In fact he goes as far as to say 16:26 along with Justice Clarence Thomas 16:29 on the U.S. Supreme Court. 16:31 And he gets these ideas 16:33 a lot of them from David Barton. 16:34 Yes, I've heard many in the religious right 16:37 have been pushing this idea. 16:38 They don't like the activist judges 16:40 particularly Supreme Court 16:41 legislating from the bench. Law. 16:42 They just want to cut them off at the knees. 16:44 They're ignoring the constitution 16:47 and the balance of power, 16:48 that were purposely put into the system. 16:50 Their argument essentially is that the Federal Government, 16:55 the first 10 Amendments were only intended to bar-- 16:58 were intended to bar the Federal Government 17:00 from regulating the states for having them 17:02 apply at the state level. 17:03 And we talked about that earlier. 17:05 But here he's saying that the Supreme Court 17:07 should be barred for making any ruling on any issue 17:11 having to do with religious freedom. 17:13 Now that's-- That's a bizarre. 17:14 That's pretty radically is also advocated 17:16 that the Ninth Circuit Federal Appeals Court 17:19 should be done away with. 17:20 Okay, should be disbanded. 17:22 Which is really radical. 17:23 I mean it is, it is almost authoritarian 17:27 and it's pretty scary if you ask me because-- 17:29 It would be taking in this area, 17:32 effectively taking out 17:33 one-third of the governmental system. 17:36 You know these three arms of government 17:37 that are in some opposition on purpose, 17:41 which was to limit. 17:42 It limit a government, without one 17:44 or certainly without two you've got a dictatorship, 17:46 either, you know, it could be the president 17:48 or the legislature or judiciary. 17:51 So under the claim that the judiciary 17:53 have been acting unilaterally to take them out 17:57 creates the likelihood that they'll be more 17:58 unilateral action from the other parts, right? Yes. 18:01 But here's is-- one of the main examples 18:05 he gives in the book it's called Santa Fe versus, 18:07 Santa Fe School District versus Bush in the year 1988, 18:11 which the case was finally decided 18:13 ruled upon in 2000 by the U.S. Supreme Court. 18:16 And in that case the Supreme Court 18:19 ruled on a case involving prayers by students-- 18:22 prior to football games. 18:24 The Supreme Court had a hearing on it, 18:25 they did an investigation, 18:26 they discovered that the kids that were doing the prayers 18:29 before the football were doing a voluntarily-- 18:32 were not doing it voluntarily, 18:33 they were encouraged and organized by the staff 18:36 or the administration of the school. Okay. 18:38 Thus making it a violation of the establishing 18:41 clause of the 1st Amendment. Okay. 18:42 So, so many talk show hosts Rush Limbaugh, 18:46 Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, 18:49 all these guys got on the radio, 18:50 Glenn Beck on T.V. says, 18:52 "look, they've thrown God out of public school again." 18:55 And they didn't bother to read the opinion 18:57 that was rendered by the Supreme Court. 18:59 And the Supreme Court clearly said in the opinion 19:01 and in the investigation that we've ruled on many occasions 19:04 that if its student led and it's voluntary. 19:08 It's done voluntarily by the students 19:10 that it is not unconstitutional. 19:12 But what happens. But what they consistent-- 19:13 But what happened, what happened? 19:15 All the newspapers across the South 19:17 and different parts of the U.S. says, 19:19 we're going to protest this Supreme Court ruling 19:21 because we think this is wrong 19:23 and they throwing God 19:24 out of the public school is against it. 19:25 We're gonna protest this ruling by doing prayers, 19:27 having prayers before football games anyway. 19:30 But by their very act of doing it voluntarily 19:32 they were actually upholding 19:34 the very supreme courts decisions 19:35 that had been handed out and they didn't know it. 19:37 It was like one-- Lot of disinformation. 19:40 It was like one sheep going over the cliff 19:41 after another sheep into the sea to their death. 19:44 And they don't realize 19:45 that they don't know what they are talking about. 19:47 Yeah, we've had many programs 19:49 or topics on this program dealing with this 19:52 and this is what I think 19:54 most people don't understand it. 19:55 And that there is a clear distinction 19:57 fact it's the distinction to make 19:59 between religious activity required 20:02 or organized by the state/school 20:05 and the right of the individual, student 20:08 or otherwise even teacher 20:10 for religious expression in their own right. 20:13 Newt Gingrich has been so influential 20:15 that he's actually encouraged Congress, 20:17 I was reading an article from the new republic magazine 20:21 regarding this very thing 20:23 in fact it even accuse liberals of wanting to 20:25 amend the constitution so to satisfy 20:27 their own political agenda. 20:29 But let me talk to you one of the reasons 20:31 why I have a concern, some people assume 20:35 that just because you're a Republican, 20:40 they assume that we're Republicans 20:42 as Seventh-day Adventist Christians 20:43 because we're against labor unions. 20:45 Okay, traditionally that has been somewhat true. 20:49 The problem I have with that thinking these days is 20:53 if you watch the Tea Party convention. 20:55 The very first one in Nashville, 20:56 Sarah Palin got up to speak and for about 5 minutes 20:59 she made this huge appeal to unemployed, blue collar, 21:05 labor union members to come join the Tea Party okay. 21:09 Percentage wise according to David Brooks 21:11 in the New York Times 12% of the Tea Party today 21:14 is labor union members. 21:16 Proof of that is Wall Street Journal, 21:19 when Scot Brown took Ted Kennedy's seat 21:22 in the U.S. senate, very powerful senator, okay. 21:25 When he ran as a Tea Party candidate 21:27 and won that election, 21:29 the Wall Street Journal in one of its headlines, 21:31 "union households gave boost to GOP's Brown, 21:35 Republican Party, Scot Brown." 21:36 And what did they say in there, 21:37 59% of the AFL-CIO voted for Scot Brown. 21:42 Now what does it say? 21:43 It says this, that you cannot rely on party 21:47 if you think that just because you're Republican 21:50 and I'm a Republican mind you, 21:52 maybe that's here nor there. You don't to. 21:53 I know but I did, but my point is that 21:56 when I lobbying in Olympia 21:58 regarding this in Washington 22:00 for this against this forced unionization bill. 22:03 Olympia is the capital State in Washington... 22:04 Olympia is the capital in Washington. 22:06 But it was the forced unionization 22:07 of all child care centers, 22:10 public as well as private and religious. 22:12 In fact, the service employees' 22:14 international union at the time was pushing this. 22:16 So it had gone through the house 22:18 we caught the bill late in the senate. 22:19 I testified in the senate labor committee hearing 22:24 and we got it to the Ways And Means Committee, 22:26 urged the Republican senator to put cost on the bill. 22:30 Thus putting it into the Ways And Means Committee 22:32 where we can hopefully kill it, we thought. 22:34 But when we heard that it was very much alive 22:36 and well and that it would get 22:38 past through the Ways And Means Committee. 22:40 I decided that I got to go up there 22:42 to the Washington capital and I've got to spend 22:45 you know twelve hour to eighteen hour days. 22:47 Lobbying senators on both sides of the aisle 22:49 against this bill. 22:51 My most receptive audience was 10 conservative Democrats 22:55 who essentially helped me kill the bill. 22:57 Five Republicans out of the nineteen Republicans 23:00 that were there were for this bill 23:03 and all of them, and God bless her hearts, 23:06 but all of them were Catholic, 23:09 Tea Party supporters, senators. 23:11 One of them who was my own senator 23:13 in Clark County in Vancouver, Washington, all right. 23:16 He was one of the leading proponents. 23:17 In fact when it got around to the Republican caucus, 23:21 that 5 of their own members were pushing this bill, 23:23 heads were revolving, 23:24 people were really upset but the work paid off 23:28 we were able to kill the bill. 23:29 But it was a very eye opening thing to me 23:31 to see that, you know, 23:33 despite what some might say 23:35 and with the growing influence 23:36 of the Catholic Church in terms of political might 23:40 and power within our system, 23:42 both at the state and federal level. 23:44 It set volumes to me that the labor unions 23:47 are going find a way to comeback 23:49 and their avenue is through the Catholic Church. 23:52 Well again, quoting from the document 23:54 I've mentioned several times in this-- 23:56 well, not yet here, but in other programs 23:58 it was caritas in veritate, Pope Benedict is quite plain. 24:03 That they are taking up 24:04 the schedule for the union cause, 24:06 under the rubric of justice for the worker. 24:12 The problem I think with this law is the cohesion, 24:15 isn't it. Yes. 24:17 And that root is why Seventh-day Adventists 24:20 have historically been more than cautious 24:24 believe that unions are inherently wrong 24:27 and will at some clear point in the future 24:31 be a mechanism to restrict religious activity. 24:35 And I'm often trying on this program to use history 24:38 to show that we can't reflexly be against unionism, 24:42 because unionism is sort of a carry on 24:45 from the battle between capital and labor 24:47 in this country in the United States, 24:49 that at one point had people working for almost nothing 24:51 it had been subject to the employer in wage 24:55 and living conditions and so on. 24:57 The employees hired the Pinkertons after them. 24:59 Yeah. It was not good. 25:01 So unionism created fair conditions 25:05 really in essence created 25:07 or in a--was part of the enabling dynamic 25:10 for a middle class America. Sure, sure. 25:11 But that said, carried to its limit it's not good. Right. 25:15 Because it works against the individual choice-- 25:18 the choice of the individual 25:20 and can lead to a monopoly of the unions 25:23 just as surely as there was a monopoly of the workers. 25:26 Well, you probably heard of the state level, 25:29 the controversies over labor union benefits 25:31 and scaling the back by Governor 25:34 Scott Walker in Wisconsin and by John Kashutch, 25:38 the Governor in Ohio. 25:39 And how both of those, 25:41 well, in Wisconsin the Republicans won. 25:44 In Ohio, during the November election 25:47 on the state wide level, 25:50 that was turned back in Ohio just a couple of weeks ago. 25:55 So this is crucial. 25:56 I think you're on to something, 25:58 because clearly more than 25:59 anytime in the several decades, 26:01 unionism is a matter of the public discussion 26:03 in the United States and there's a lot at stake. 26:06 Well, I think that we have to be careful 26:09 if we assume for some reason that we're Republican, 26:12 that we're Republican because we're anti labor union. 26:15 You got another thing coming. 26:16 When it comes to both Democrats and Republicans, 26:20 I really believe that this is an issue an avenue, 26:23 labor unionism as an issue is a big issue 26:27 that I find Republicans and Democrats 26:30 finding unity over in the future 26:32 and I think union will find a comeback. 26:35 I also believe that the Republican primary, 26:37 the elections right now, 26:39 be careful because unions are growing powerful 26:42 and there's unconstitutional movements taking place. 26:45 Jesus had some very hard things 26:47 to say about the pharisees who loved to pray 26:50 and be seen of people in the public places. 26:53 During presidential elections in the United States, 26:56 I sometimes wonder if the candidates 26:58 might not obey and pay attention 27:00 to what Jesus said, 27:01 particularly with the First Amendment, 27:04 prohibition on church and state uniting 27:07 and religion being exercised in a political manner. 27:11 I saw a cartoon some years ago 27:13 with opus the penguin running for office 27:16 and he got up there and he says, 27:18 I believe in religion more than my nearest opponent, 27:21 20% more than my nearest opponent. 27:24 And then someone from the audience said, 27:25 do you believe in walrus angels, 27:28 and he said, certainly, 27:30 and the next thing he's kicked off the stage. 27:32 And then he says, you know, 27:34 conspicuous religiosity is such a dangerous thing. 27:39 We need to be careful as voters 27:42 and as those seeking public office 27:43 that we have deep held, deeply held faith views. 27:48 But we need to be just as certain 27:50 that we don't mix those with the public order 27:53 and the way that government projects 27:55 itself on those who think differently than we do. 27:58 This is truly religious freedom. 28:02 For Liberty Insider, this is Lincoln Steed. |
Revised 2014-12-17