Welcome to the Liberty Insider.
00:00:23.00\00:00:24.77
This is the program bringing you
00:00:24.80\00:00:26.19
news, views,
discussion, analysis
00:00:26.22\00:00:28.71
and up-to-date
information on religious events
00:00:28.74\00:00:31.88
in the United States
and around the world.
00:00:31.91\00:00:34.53
My name is Lincoln Steed,
editor of Liberty magazine
00:00:34.56\00:00:37.99
and my guest on the program
00:00:38.02\00:00:39.84
is Melissa Reid,
associate editor of Liberty.
00:00:39.87\00:00:43.71
So, I know you very
well but as well as that
00:00:43.74\00:00:46.45
for a program you
are also the director
00:00:46.48\00:00:48.43
of the North American
Religious Liberty Association.
00:00:48.46\00:00:50.89
Yes, it's a pleasure
to be with you today.
00:00:50.92\00:00:52.60
Yeah, you've been
on the program before.
00:00:52.63\00:00:54.15
This is not syour first
time. What do we talk about?
00:00:54.18\00:00:58.84
I've got an idea. Let's hear it.
00:00:58.87\00:01:03.63
There's a lot of talk
in the media at the moment
00:01:03.66\00:01:06.40
as we were recording this
about the objection of fairly
00:01:06.43\00:01:10.76
well known business in the U.S.
00:01:10.79\00:01:12.25
Hobby Lobby. Right.
00:01:12.28\00:01:13.50
To the federal health mandate.
00:01:13.53\00:01:15.46
Right, I think Hobby
Lobby is actually one of,
00:01:15.49\00:01:17.89
I think its 30 something
00:01:17.92\00:01:20.28
for-profit businesses
that are challenging--
00:01:20.31\00:01:21.73
Oh, it's the
beginning of a huge trend,
00:01:21.76\00:01:23.52
I think this is-- Yeah,
yeah but obviously that--
00:01:23.55\00:01:25.27
They've been
orchestrate of it at the moment
00:01:25.30\00:01:26.85
they are the
case, well, the reason
00:01:26.88\00:01:28.70
that I picked on them
is the federal government
00:01:28.73\00:01:32.53
or the White House
itself is suggesting
00:01:32.56\00:01:36.68
or asking the Supreme
Court to discuss this.
00:01:36.71\00:01:39.30
So, this is gonna be the
pivotal case of this phenomenon.
00:01:39.33\00:01:41.04
Right, yes, yes, right.
00:01:41.07\00:01:42.78
And it certainly has a
lot of religious groups
00:01:42.81\00:01:45.06
that are backing,
its, it's a court case.
00:01:45.09\00:01:51.33
It has the Becket Fund
for Religious Liberty is its,
00:01:51.36\00:01:54.75
is actually its
different attorney
00:01:54.78\00:01:56.99
and then also I think
Christian Legal Society.
00:01:57.02\00:02:00.67
But really that the
issue is the root issue is,
00:02:00.70\00:02:04.58
can a for-profit company
have a religious freedom claim
00:02:04.61\00:02:09.48
against the Affordable Care Act?
00:02:09.51\00:02:10.93
And so, and so that's really
00:02:10.96\00:02:11.99
what the Supreme Court
will probably, eventually
00:02:12.02\00:02:13.91
if they decide to take
on the case, a look at.
00:02:13.94\00:02:16.50
To me it's very interesting
00:02:16.53\00:02:18.10
because you're
dealing not with an individual
00:02:18.13\00:02:20.04
you are dealing with a company,
00:02:20.07\00:02:21.27
of course a corporation,
registered as a corporation.
00:02:21.30\00:02:24.47
Yeah, I know absolutely--
00:02:24.50\00:02:25.61
And the Supreme Court
recently held corporations
00:02:25.64\00:02:29.49
and this is in Citizens United
00:02:29.52\00:02:31.72
that corporations
are individuals too.
00:02:31.75\00:02:34.76
And that's pervaded the
whole election process where,
00:02:34.79\00:02:37.99
where there are corporations
00:02:38.02\00:02:40.23
ironically exempt
from the individual limits
00:02:40.26\00:02:43.04
on campaign giving
operate independently
00:02:43.07\00:02:45.49
and just fund
it on limited ways,
00:02:45.52\00:02:48.35
pseudo political campaign.
00:02:48.38\00:02:49.99
Right.
00:02:50.02\00:02:51.05
Now that's probably to
me one of the most troubling
00:02:51.08\00:02:53.61
court cases that we've
seen in recent history.
00:02:53.64\00:02:55.90
I think so.
00:02:55.93\00:02:57.13
And its been surprising to me
00:02:57.16\00:02:58.41
how sort of little
pushback its received
00:02:58.44\00:03:00.29
but, there are
individuals involved
00:03:00.32\00:03:03.89
as far as you are looking
00:03:03.92\00:03:05.71
at the religious
rights of this non-person
00:03:05.74\00:03:08.38
this organization
is for-profit company--
00:03:08.41\00:03:11.15
Actually a family
business too. Right.
00:03:11.18\00:03:13.72
And you can't separate
it from the family owners
00:03:13.75\00:03:16.27
out of Oklahoma,
the Green family.
00:03:16.30\00:03:18.76
Right, but the individuals
that we are looking for,
00:03:18.79\00:03:21.70
those are the people
who work for them who,
00:03:21.73\00:03:24.61
you know, should
have rights as well
00:03:24.64\00:03:26.45
just because you go and work
for particular organization,
00:03:26.48\00:03:29.30
a for-profit organization.
00:03:29.33\00:03:30.76
It seems little suspect
that they can then can choose--
00:03:30.79\00:03:33.47
Well, thank you, you
are running ahead of me.
00:03:33.50\00:03:35.13
This is where I, its
fine you're allowed to
00:03:35.16\00:03:38.15
but my thinking on
this is precisely that,
00:03:38.18\00:03:40.75
yes there is some
logic in this all scenario
00:03:40.78\00:03:44.62
that there's the
appearance of restricting
00:03:44.65\00:03:48.15
someone's religious
wishes and lifestyle and so on.
00:03:48.18\00:03:52.82
But, what about the
non-religious person
00:03:52.85\00:03:57.23
in a secular business
as far as they're concerned
00:03:57.26\00:04:01.94
that has rights under the
law and expectations at here
00:04:01.97\00:04:06.08
his business wants
to deprive them however.
00:04:06.11\00:04:07.90
Right, yeah.
00:04:07.93\00:04:09.02
I don't think too many people
00:04:09.05\00:04:10.37
have thought
this thing's through.
00:04:10.40\00:04:13.62
And I elect to give
extreme examples to underlie it
00:04:13.65\00:04:18.77
but really how is this different
00:04:18.80\00:04:21.40
then it is structurally
00:04:21.43\00:04:23.77
that in
Afghanistan with the Taliban
00:04:23.80\00:04:27.03
they would stop
women going to school
00:04:27.06\00:04:30.09
because they didn't like that.
00:04:30.12\00:04:31.39
Right. They would
stop someone flying a kite.
00:04:31.42\00:04:34.99
You know, they felt
their religious sensibility
00:04:35.02\00:04:37.20
was being threatened by
these sort of activities.
00:04:37.23\00:04:39.77
And yet the outside world sees
that is just normal behaviors
00:04:39.80\00:04:44.48
and much of what the
outside world thinks,
00:04:44.51\00:04:46.48
much of what the secular
world thinks has a moral tinge
00:04:46.51\00:04:50.39
or immoral tinge for Christians
00:04:50.42\00:04:51.86
but we don't try to stop
the whole of those things
00:04:51.89\00:04:54.65
that's part of
the civil construct in
00:04:54.68\00:04:56.87
and the role of a
Christian and any of faith is
00:04:56.90\00:04:59.05
I think is to
witness their faith
00:04:59.08\00:05:00.79
and try to persuade
people no to force them.
00:05:00.82\00:05:03.25
Yeah, I agree
with you on that too
00:05:03.28\00:05:05.54
and I feel like there
is certain doing business
00:05:05.57\00:05:09.47
as requirements for
for-profit companies
00:05:09.50\00:05:11.75
that you
probably would not receive
00:05:11.78\00:05:13.91
or do not see for non-profits
00:05:13.94\00:05:16.27
or religious
exempt organizations.
00:05:16.30\00:05:20.82
So it's an
interesting case to me.
00:05:20.85\00:05:24.33
I've surprised again
00:05:24.36\00:05:25.95
I'm very
uncomfortable with the fact
00:05:25.98\00:05:28.49
that it seems like companies
00:05:28.52\00:05:30.99
and organizations are
receiving more priority
00:05:31.02\00:05:33.60
or more rights than
the, then the individual
00:05:33.63\00:05:38.74
but I guess
looking at the history
00:05:38.77\00:05:40.29
of the recent Supreme Court case
00:05:40.32\00:05:41.68
we shouldn't be surprised.
00:05:41.71\00:05:43.63
No, you're right.
00:05:43.66\00:05:44.97
I think that Citizens United
is one of the most negatively
00:05:45.00\00:05:51.96
influential acts in my
life that the Supreme Court,
00:05:51.99\00:05:56.51
even though as I've
read United States history
00:05:56.54\00:05:59.73
it doesn't some ways
go back to the thinking
00:05:59.76\00:06:02.19
when this country was formed.
00:06:02.22\00:06:04.50
It was really
capital and by definition
00:06:04.53\00:06:07.95
the big business, businessmen
00:06:07.98\00:06:10.81
and they were
interested to determine
00:06:10.84\00:06:12.32
and
philosophically being protected
00:06:12.35\00:06:14.39
by the establishment of
the whole civil construct.
00:06:14.42\00:06:19.01
People don't
see to realize that.
00:06:19.04\00:06:23.30
So it was a business sensibility
00:06:23.33\00:06:25.15
but that said there was
a constitution put in place
00:06:25.18\00:06:28.10
that enshrine the
rights of the individual
00:06:28.13\00:06:31.50
even though they'd
had great discussion
00:06:31.53\00:06:33.31
about whether you
should even give the vote
00:06:33.34\00:06:34.89
to a non-property holder.
00:06:34.92\00:06:36.06
Property was the key
thing. Oh, right, yes.
00:06:36.09\00:06:39.20
But we got over that
00:06:39.23\00:06:40.26
and for, you
know, nearly two well,
00:06:40.29\00:06:42.94
200 years plus the
individual was elevated
00:06:42.97\00:06:47.52
then their rights
versus the big corporations.
00:06:47.55\00:06:49.93
We went through
the Laissez-faire
00:06:49.96\00:06:51.56
industrialist era where
they became very abusive.
00:06:51.59\00:06:55.40
But that was by law.
00:06:55.43\00:06:56.57
So now we are in another cycle
00:06:56.60\00:06:58.14
where we are going back
to that beginning thinking
00:06:58.17\00:07:01.42
and it's really against the
interests of the individual.
00:07:01.45\00:07:03.91
Right, So, you
think the Supreme Court
00:07:03.94\00:07:05.25
will take on the
case as requested by--
00:07:05.28\00:07:07.32
Oh, I think so.
00:07:07.35\00:07:08.38
Yeah, and you think
00:07:08.41\00:07:09.81
they'll rule in a way consistent
with the citizens case.
00:07:09.84\00:07:12.75
Well, it's very dangerous
to say how the Supreme Court--
00:07:12.78\00:07:14.56
Sure, yeah.
00:07:14.59\00:07:16.54
Yeah, I wouldn't
be surprised. Yeah.
00:07:16.57\00:07:20.50
Because what I pickup and
you've mentioned the Becket Fund
00:07:20.53\00:07:24.96
that we have
through Liberty Magazine.
00:07:24.99\00:07:26.82
We've have good relations
with them. Yes, absolutely.
00:07:26.85\00:07:28.43
Number of the Becket Fund people
of written articles for Liberty.
00:07:28.46\00:07:31.66
And much if not most of
what they do is very good.
00:07:31.69\00:07:34.29
We would agree with most of it.
00:07:34.32\00:07:37.75
The Becket Fund is a thinly--
00:07:37.78\00:07:40.49
in fact, not even
barely disguised correlation
00:07:40.52\00:07:44.06
that represents Roman Catholic
interests which is their right.
00:07:44.09\00:07:48.51
But you need to understand
00:07:48.54\00:07:50.12
that the Roman Catholic Church
00:07:50.15\00:07:52.03
and its present initiatives
which are far ranging
00:07:52.06\00:07:54.85
and coming to the
fore end religious liberty
00:07:54.88\00:07:57.66
but they're reflected
in Becket Fund cases--
00:07:57.69\00:08:01.07
Right, what we really
soften the Catholic Church
00:08:01.10\00:08:03.59
is the one that brought
religious exemptions as far--
00:08:03.62\00:08:06.32
That's what I'm
getting at. Yeah.
00:08:06.35\00:08:07.87
This is really a
legal stalking horse
00:08:07.90\00:08:13.32
for what the Roman
Catholic Church already decided.
00:08:13.35\00:08:16.31
For reasons we've
quiet, don't quiet understand
00:08:16.34\00:08:18.92
but they chose this moment.
00:08:18.95\00:08:20.16
You're right.
00:08:20.19\00:08:21.22
To tackle the federal government
on the healthcare mandate
00:08:21.25\00:08:24.61
and it's consistent
with Roman Catholic, dogma,
00:08:24.64\00:08:28.09
for one of a better
word on birth control.
00:08:28.12\00:08:31.15
So, that's not
something they dreamed up
00:08:31.18\00:08:33.33
but the timing
of this is all to do
00:08:33.36\00:08:35.83
with the Roman Catholic Church.
00:08:35.86\00:08:36.89
Right, consistent with the dogma
00:08:36.92\00:08:38.07
but not with the practices
00:08:38.10\00:08:39.24
of the majority
of their members.
00:08:39.27\00:08:40.30
Well, that's now we're
getting into the degree.
00:08:40.33\00:08:43.67
So, and you can't condemn
on a religious liberty front.
00:08:43.70\00:08:47.23
You can't condemn stance,
00:08:47.26\00:08:50.50
a conscience stance
held by an organization
00:08:50.53\00:08:52.97
or even by some
members of that organization
00:08:53.00\00:08:55.05
if others even the
majority don't follow with that.
00:08:55.08\00:08:58.48
Oh, absolutely.
00:08:58.51\00:08:59.54
So, it's just a comment
00:08:59.57\00:09:00.82
but it doesn't really
destroy their position.
00:09:00.85\00:09:03.65
Right, right.
00:09:03.68\00:09:04.71
Where I think their
position is problematic
00:09:04.74\00:09:07.87
in a separation of
church state construct
00:09:07.90\00:09:11.03
is if you really
look at the logic
00:09:11.06\00:09:12.86
of this in essence
its not for themselves
00:09:12.89\00:09:15.82
it's to project
their idea on employees
00:09:15.85\00:09:18.95
and indeed if you listen
00:09:18.98\00:09:21.46
to some of the rhetoric
on the larger community.
00:09:21.49\00:09:24.02
Right, right, right
and again we are talking
00:09:24.05\00:09:26.80
about we should
probably be specific
00:09:26.83\00:09:28.93
and say, what we are talking
about parachurch organizations
00:09:28.96\00:09:31.32
and the Catholic charities
00:09:31.35\00:09:32.38
and things like
that rather than,
00:09:32.41\00:09:34.90
so it would be rather than
an actual church organization--
00:09:34.93\00:09:38.90
Well, again the Supreme Court--
00:09:38.93\00:09:40.13
And I think those are different
00:09:40.16\00:09:41.19
because again for
a church organization
00:09:41.22\00:09:43.23
you're hiring you know,
one of the requirements for,
00:09:43.26\00:09:46.86
for employment is church
membership and things like that
00:09:46.89\00:09:49.44
for a parachurch
organization its not.
00:09:49.47\00:09:51.15
So, again it seems counter
to the idea of Christians,
00:09:51.18\00:09:57.22
you know,
accepting something rather
00:09:57.25\00:09:59.87
then it being forced up on them.
00:09:59.90\00:10:01.69
Oh, you know, the
Supreme Court again,
00:10:01.72\00:10:03.08
I think I'm not really down
on the Supreme Court at all.
00:10:03.11\00:10:06.24
I think by at large they
bring a lot of legal experience
00:10:06.27\00:10:11.22
and careful
thought to the decisions.
00:10:11.25\00:10:13.40
And they are not
usually often lay field.
00:10:13.43\00:10:16.09
And the Supreme Court
gave a resounding affirmation
00:10:16.12\00:10:19.16
of the church exemption recently
in the Hosanna-Tabor case.
00:10:19.19\00:10:24.14
So, its hands
off the government is
00:10:24.17\00:10:25.57
not going to or is not legally
allowed to bother a church
00:10:25.60\00:10:30.37
and a church
activities with its employees,
00:10:30.40\00:10:33.10
with its ministers and so on.
00:10:33.13\00:10:36.31
I'm not sure how
long that'll stand
00:10:36.34\00:10:37.73
because there's an
inherent contradiction
00:10:37.76\00:10:39.46
which you don't want the
church to act prejudicially
00:10:39.49\00:10:41.95
regarding race, gender
and all those sort of things.
00:10:41.98\00:10:44.33
Of course. But in actuality
they do have a sort of a pass.
00:10:44.36\00:10:47.67
Yes. Under Hosanna-Tabor.
00:10:47.70\00:10:50.33
So, as far as affirming
the principle of separation
00:10:50.36\00:10:52.81
of church state and the
rights of the church, wonderful.
00:10:52.84\00:10:56.14
But this health care mandate
00:10:56.17\00:10:58.29
where it's being skirmished
is on the very fringes
00:10:58.32\00:11:01.54
in the Roman Catholic Church
00:11:01.57\00:11:02.74
in particularly
they're not the only ones
00:11:02.77\00:11:04.70
but in
particular running hospitals
00:11:04.73\00:11:06.55
and public institutions
largely with government money.
00:11:06.58\00:11:09.90
Yeah, I was gonna--
Largely servicing non-Catholics,
00:11:09.93\00:11:12.44
largely employing
non-Catholics you have to ask,
00:11:12.47\00:11:15.53
why this huge
insistence on an emasculated
00:11:15.56\00:11:22.40
form of health care mandate
00:11:22.43\00:11:24.59
that it's the
general law of the land
00:11:24.62\00:11:27.15
and they would get, they
would disadvantaged people
00:11:27.18\00:11:29.49
who make no profession of faith.
00:11:29.52\00:11:31.03
Right, right.
That's the really thing.
00:11:31.06\00:11:32.91
I just don't can't
get away from the fact
00:11:32.94\00:11:34.61
that it is really imposing
00:11:34.64\00:11:36.58
a religious
view on other people.
00:11:36.61\00:11:38.36
Right, and I'm glad
that you brought up there
00:11:38.39\00:11:40.61
with government money aspects
00:11:40.64\00:11:42.80
because to me
that's very important.
00:11:42.83\00:11:45.51
You know, many
times in the magazine
00:11:45.54\00:11:47.44
and I know on the show as well
00:11:47.47\00:11:48.81
we talk about the real concern
for private organizations
00:11:48.84\00:11:54.49
or non-profit organizations,
00:11:54.52\00:11:56.31
religious organizations
taking government funds.
00:11:56.34\00:11:59.36
That's certainly very tempting.
00:11:59.39\00:12:01.16
We work for a non-profit
00:12:01.19\00:12:02.63
in the
Seventh-day Adventist Church
00:12:02.66\00:12:04.01
and it's probably,
it's very you know,
00:12:04.04\00:12:06.70
we do lots of fund raising.
00:12:06.73\00:12:10.07
Every dollar counts
we're judicious with all,
00:12:10.10\00:12:12.30
you know, with our
funds that we make.
00:12:12.33\00:12:13.67
And I know 3ABN
is the very same way.
00:12:13.70\00:12:16.92
And its so we're very tempting
to take this government money
00:12:16.95\00:12:19.90
but with funds there
are strings attached.
00:12:19.93\00:12:22.41
And I can see
with the government
00:12:22.44\00:12:23.93
would have a legitimate argument
00:12:23.96\00:12:25.84
for non-profit
programs, organizations to say,
00:12:25.87\00:12:29.87
well, you've taken
all this funding from us
00:12:29.90\00:12:32.12
then you are going to
need to play by our rules
00:12:32.15\00:12:34.93
you no longer
get these exemptions
00:12:34.96\00:12:36.71
for what you can and can not.
00:12:36.74\00:12:39.44
Well, it's true
what's you're saying
00:12:39.47\00:12:41.67
but lot of people
don't give much thought
00:12:41.70\00:12:44.64
to forget the government
what about the tax payer.
00:12:44.67\00:12:47.09
Oh sure.
00:12:47.12\00:12:48.92
You know we are
back to the Clinton era
00:12:48.95\00:12:51.37
they-- few people
objected the Clinton era.
00:12:51.40\00:12:54.49
They started talking
about the tax payers,
00:12:54.52\00:12:56.85
the customers-- sort
of the other way around.
00:12:56.88\00:13:00.51
Yes, yes.
00:13:00.54\00:13:01.57
The government is supposed
to work for the tax payer.
00:13:01.60\00:13:04.56
Well, you know, is it
tax payer gonna feel happy
00:13:04.59\00:13:07.12
giving some of
their money to an entity
00:13:07.15\00:13:11.45
that is now gonna deprive them
of what, through their system
00:13:11.48\00:13:15.66
they're granted to themselves
or privilege or support.
00:13:15.69\00:13:19.36
Absolutely. Now, I
think that's a great point.
00:13:19.39\00:13:21.78
I don't think too many
people think about that. Yeah.
00:13:21.81\00:13:24.37
We're again thinking it
00:13:24.40\00:13:25.57
from the
institutional point of view.
00:13:25.60\00:13:26.96
The government as some big
terror apart from us. Yeah.
00:13:26.99\00:13:30.19
now what I hear, I have
people say that frequently
00:13:30.22\00:13:32.19
well, you know, I
don't want my tax dollars
00:13:32.22\00:13:34.32
doing x, y, z or
whatever and that--
00:13:34.35\00:13:36.66
Well, we all think that. Yes.
00:13:36.69\00:13:38.65
And that you know,
00:13:38.68\00:13:40.72
I'm sure you get letters
like I do from people to think,
00:13:40.75\00:13:43.30
wow, I don't have
to pay my income taxes
00:13:43.33\00:13:45.43
or so it's a
relatively recent thing
00:13:45.46\00:13:47.52
which very few
people think to rely.
00:13:47.55\00:13:49.92
But its very legal thing
00:13:49.95\00:13:51.53
and you don't pay
your tax you go to jail.
00:13:51.56\00:13:54.11
Right, right.
00:13:54.14\00:13:55.17
Or at least after
everything else is exhausted--
00:13:55.20\00:13:57.17
Well, we're
instructed in the Bible,
00:13:57.20\00:13:58.98
in the Gospel's too of course.
00:13:59.01\00:14:00.04
It's our responsibility to
obey lawful authorities. Sure.
00:14:00.07\00:14:03.63
My point that I'm
building to is all of us
00:14:03.66\00:14:06.29
object to one thing to another
that the government does.
00:14:06.32\00:14:08.43
We can not
withhold their money just
00:14:08.46\00:14:11.41
because we don't like
what the government does.
00:14:11.44\00:14:13.62
And I really believe
this is not as directly
00:14:13.65\00:14:16.96
but it's the some
what similar dynamic.
00:14:16.99\00:14:19.75
This is the society at
large that's offered something.
00:14:19.78\00:14:23.93
There is a mandate
of the Supreme Court
00:14:23.96\00:14:25.96
did declare it constitutional
in spite of what people think.
00:14:25.99\00:14:28.84
Right.
00:14:28.87\00:14:30.03
Now we are in a
current government shut down,
00:14:30.06\00:14:31.91
where one party
haven't accepted that.
00:14:31.94\00:14:34.18
They want to
overturn established law
00:14:34.21\00:14:36.65
which they can do legislatively
but not by hostage taking.
00:14:36.68\00:14:43.73
These are political statements
but not partisan. Okay.
00:14:43.76\00:14:47.69
No, but we need to understand
that all of us are safe
00:14:47.72\00:14:51.32
whether its in the United States
00:14:51.35\00:14:52.75
or in any particular
in any western country,
00:14:52.78\00:14:56.35
you have to follow the rules.
00:14:56.38\00:14:57.46
Right.
00:14:57.49\00:14:58.52
And whether
it's Egypt or England
00:14:58.55\00:15:02.22
you subvert the rules
that you're disadvantaged.
00:15:02.25\00:15:04.88
Well, I'm sorry to get
into the discussion so much.
00:15:04.91\00:15:07.16
We've passed our midpoint
00:15:07.19\00:15:08.22
so we'll take a little break
00:15:08.25\00:15:09.51
and be back short to continue
00:15:09.54\00:15:11.07
this discussion of Hobby Lobby
and the healthcare mandate.
00:15:11.10\00:15:14.33