Participants: Lincoln Steed (Host), Melissa Reed
Series Code: LI
Program Code: LI000235A
|
00:23 Welcome to the Liberty Insider.
00:24 This is the program bringing you 00:26 news, views, discussion, analysis 00:28 and up-to-date information on religious events 00:31 in the United States and around the world. 00:34 My name is Lincoln Steed, editor of Liberty magazine 00:38 and my guest on the program 00:39 is Melissa Reid, associate editor of Liberty. 00:43 So, I know you very well but as well as that 00:46 for a program you are also the director 00:48 of the North American Religious Liberty Association. 00:50 Yes, it's a pleasure to be with you today. 00:52 Yeah, you've been on the program before. 00:54 This is not syour first time. What do we talk about? 00:58 I've got an idea. Let's hear it. 01:03 There's a lot of talk in the media at the moment 01:06 as we were recording this about the objection of fairly 01:10 well known business in the U.S. 01:12 Hobby Lobby. Right. 01:13 To the federal health mandate. 01:15 Right, I think Hobby Lobby is actually one of, 01:17 I think its 30 something 01:20 for-profit businesses that are challenging-- 01:21 Oh, it's the beginning of a huge trend, 01:23 I think this is-- Yeah, yeah but obviously that-- 01:25 They've been orchestrate of it at the moment 01:26 they are the case, well, the reason 01:28 that I picked on them is the federal government 01:32 or the White House itself is suggesting 01:36 or asking the Supreme Court to discuss this. 01:39 So, this is gonna be the pivotal case of this phenomenon. 01:41 Right, yes, yes, right. 01:42 And it certainly has a lot of religious groups 01:45 that are backing, its, it's a court case. 01:51 It has the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is its, 01:54 is actually its different attorney 01:57 and then also I think Christian Legal Society. 02:00 But really that the issue is the root issue is, 02:04 can a for-profit company have a religious freedom claim 02:09 against the Affordable Care Act? 02:10 And so, and so that's really 02:12 what the Supreme Court will probably, eventually 02:13 if they decide to take on the case, a look at. 02:16 To me it's very interesting 02:18 because you're dealing not with an individual 02:20 you are dealing with a company, 02:21 of course a corporation, registered as a corporation. 02:24 Yeah, I know absolutely-- 02:25 And the Supreme Court recently held corporations 02:29 and this is in Citizens United 02:31 that corporations are individuals too. 02:34 And that's pervaded the whole election process where, 02:38 where there are corporations 02:40 ironically exempt from the individual limits 02:43 on campaign giving operate independently 02:45 and just fund it on limited ways, 02:48 pseudo political campaign. 02:50 Right. 02:51 Now that's probably to me one of the most troubling 02:53 court cases that we've seen in recent history. 02:55 I think so. 02:57 And its been surprising to me 02:58 how sort of little pushback its received 03:00 but, there are individuals involved 03:03 as far as you are looking 03:05 at the religious rights of this non-person 03:08 this organization is for-profit company-- 03:11 Actually a family business too. Right. 03:13 And you can't separate it from the family owners 03:16 out of Oklahoma, the Green family. 03:18 Right, but the individuals that we are looking for, 03:21 those are the people who work for them who, 03:24 you know, should have rights as well 03:26 just because you go and work for particular organization, 03:29 a for-profit organization. 03:30 It seems little suspect that they can then can choose-- 03:33 Well, thank you, you are running ahead of me. 03:35 This is where I, its fine you're allowed to 03:38 but my thinking on this is precisely that, 03:40 yes there is some logic in this all scenario 03:44 that there's the appearance of restricting 03:48 someone's religious wishes and lifestyle and so on. 03:52 But, what about the non-religious person 03:57 in a secular business as far as they're concerned 04:01 that has rights under the law and expectations at here 04:06 his business wants to deprive them however. 04:07 Right, yeah. 04:09 I don't think too many people 04:10 have thought this thing's through. 04:13 And I elect to give extreme examples to underlie it 04:18 but really how is this different 04:21 then it is structurally 04:23 that in Afghanistan with the Taliban 04:27 they would stop women going to school 04:30 because they didn't like that. 04:31 Right. They would stop someone flying a kite. 04:35 You know, they felt their religious sensibility 04:37 was being threatened by these sort of activities. 04:39 And yet the outside world sees that is just normal behaviors 04:44 and much of what the outside world thinks, 04:46 much of what the secular world thinks has a moral tinge 04:50 or immoral tinge for Christians 04:51 but we don't try to stop the whole of those things 04:54 that's part of the civil construct in 04:56 and the role of a Christian and any of faith is 04:59 I think is to witness their faith 05:00 and try to persuade people no to force them. 05:03 Yeah, I agree with you on that too 05:05 and I feel like there is certain doing business 05:09 as requirements for for-profit companies 05:11 that you probably would not receive 05:13 or do not see for non-profits 05:16 or religious exempt organizations. 05:20 So it's an interesting case to me. 05:24 I've surprised again 05:25 I'm very uncomfortable with the fact 05:28 that it seems like companies 05:31 and organizations are receiving more priority 05:33 or more rights than the, then the individual 05:38 but I guess looking at the history 05:40 of the recent Supreme Court case 05:41 we shouldn't be surprised. 05:43 No, you're right. 05:45 I think that Citizens United is one of the most negatively 05:51 influential acts in my life that the Supreme Court, 05:56 even though as I've read United States history 05:59 it doesn't some ways go back to the thinking 06:02 when this country was formed. 06:04 It was really capital and by definition 06:07 the big business, businessmen 06:10 and they were interested to determine 06:12 and philosophically being protected 06:14 by the establishment of the whole civil construct. 06:19 People don't see to realize that. 06:23 So it was a business sensibility 06:25 but that said there was a constitution put in place 06:28 that enshrine the rights of the individual 06:31 even though they'd had great discussion 06:33 about whether you should even give the vote 06:34 to a non-property holder. 06:36 Property was the key thing. Oh, right, yes. 06:39 But we got over that 06:40 and for, you know, nearly two well, 06:42 200 years plus the individual was elevated 06:47 then their rights versus the big corporations. 06:49 We went through the Laissez-faire 06:51 industrialist era where they became very abusive. 06:55 But that was by law. 06:56 So now we are in another cycle 06:58 where we are going back to that beginning thinking 07:01 and it's really against the interests of the individual. 07:03 Right, So, you think the Supreme Court 07:05 will take on the case as requested by-- 07:07 Oh, I think so. 07:08 Yeah, and you think 07:09 they'll rule in a way consistent with the citizens case. 07:12 Well, it's very dangerous to say how the Supreme Court-- 07:14 Sure, yeah. 07:16 Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised. Yeah. 07:20 Because what I pickup and you've mentioned the Becket Fund 07:24 that we have through Liberty Magazine. 07:26 We've have good relations with them. Yes, absolutely. 07:28 Number of the Becket Fund people of written articles for Liberty. 07:31 And much if not most of what they do is very good. 07:34 We would agree with most of it. 07:37 The Becket Fund is a thinly-- 07:40 in fact, not even barely disguised correlation 07:44 that represents Roman Catholic interests which is their right. 07:48 But you need to understand 07:50 that the Roman Catholic Church 07:52 and its present initiatives which are far ranging 07:54 and coming to the fore end religious liberty 07:57 but they're reflected in Becket Fund cases-- 08:01 Right, what we really soften the Catholic Church 08:03 is the one that brought religious exemptions as far-- 08:06 That's what I'm getting at. Yeah. 08:07 This is really a legal stalking horse 08:13 for what the Roman Catholic Church already decided. 08:16 For reasons we've quiet, don't quiet understand 08:18 but they chose this moment. 08:20 You're right. 08:21 To tackle the federal government on the healthcare mandate 08:24 and it's consistent with Roman Catholic, dogma, 08:28 for one of a better word on birth control. 08:31 So, that's not something they dreamed up 08:33 but the timing of this is all to do 08:35 with the Roman Catholic Church. 08:36 Right, consistent with the dogma 08:38 but not with the practices 08:39 of the majority of their members. 08:40 Well, that's now we're getting into the degree. 08:43 So, and you can't condemn on a religious liberty front. 08:47 You can't condemn stance, 08:50 a conscience stance held by an organization 08:53 or even by some members of that organization 08:55 if others even the majority don't follow with that. 08:58 Oh, absolutely. 08:59 So, it's just a comment 09:00 but it doesn't really destroy their position. 09:03 Right, right. 09:04 Where I think their position is problematic 09:07 in a separation of church state construct 09:11 is if you really look at the logic 09:12 of this in essence its not for themselves 09:15 it's to project their idea on employees 09:18 and indeed if you listen 09:21 to some of the rhetoric on the larger community. 09:24 Right, right, right and again we are talking 09:26 about we should probably be specific 09:28 and say, what we are talking about parachurch organizations 09:31 and the Catholic charities 09:32 and things like that rather than, 09:34 so it would be rather than an actual church organization-- 09:38 Well, again the Supreme Court-- 09:40 And I think those are different 09:41 because again for a church organization 09:43 you're hiring you know, one of the requirements for, 09:46 for employment is church membership and things like that 09:49 for a parachurch organization its not. 09:51 So, again it seems counter to the idea of Christians, 09:57 you know, accepting something rather 09:59 then it being forced up on them. 10:01 Oh, you know, the Supreme Court again, 10:03 I think I'm not really down on the Supreme Court at all. 10:06 I think by at large they bring a lot of legal experience 10:11 and careful thought to the decisions. 10:13 And they are not usually often lay field. 10:16 And the Supreme Court gave a resounding affirmation 10:19 of the church exemption recently in the Hosanna-Tabor case. 10:24 So, its hands off the government is 10:25 not going to or is not legally allowed to bother a church 10:30 and a church activities with its employees, 10:33 with its ministers and so on. 10:36 I'm not sure how long that'll stand 10:37 because there's an inherent contradiction 10:39 which you don't want the church to act prejudicially 10:41 regarding race, gender and all those sort of things. 10:44 Of course. But in actuality they do have a sort of a pass. 10:47 Yes. Under Hosanna-Tabor. 10:50 So, as far as affirming the principle of separation 10:52 of church state and the rights of the church, wonderful. 10:56 But this health care mandate 10:58 where it's being skirmished is on the very fringes 11:01 in the Roman Catholic Church 11:02 in particularly they're not the only ones 11:04 but in particular running hospitals 11:06 and public institutions largely with government money. 11:09 Yeah, I was gonna-- Largely servicing non-Catholics, 11:12 largely employing non-Catholics you have to ask, 11:15 why this huge insistence on an emasculated 11:22 form of health care mandate 11:24 that it's the general law of the land 11:27 and they would get, they would disadvantaged people 11:29 who make no profession of faith. 11:31 Right, right. That's the really thing. 11:32 I just don't can't get away from the fact 11:34 that it is really imposing 11:36 a religious view on other people. 11:38 Right, and I'm glad that you brought up there 11:40 with government money aspects 11:42 because to me that's very important. 11:45 You know, many times in the magazine 11:47 and I know on the show as well 11:48 we talk about the real concern for private organizations 11:54 or non-profit organizations, 11:56 religious organizations taking government funds. 11:59 That's certainly very tempting. 12:01 We work for a non-profit 12:02 in the Seventh-day Adventist Church 12:04 and it's probably, it's very you know, 12:06 we do lots of fund raising. 12:10 Every dollar counts we're judicious with all, 12:12 you know, with our funds that we make. 12:13 And I know 3ABN is the very same way. 12:16 And its so we're very tempting to take this government money 12:19 but with funds there are strings attached. 12:22 And I can see with the government 12:23 would have a legitimate argument 12:25 for non-profit programs, organizations to say, 12:29 well, you've taken all this funding from us 12:32 then you are going to need to play by our rules 12:34 you no longer get these exemptions 12:36 for what you can and can not. 12:39 Well, it's true what's you're saying 12:41 but lot of people don't give much thought 12:44 to forget the government what about the tax payer. 12:47 Oh sure. 12:48 You know we are back to the Clinton era 12:51 they-- few people objected the Clinton era. 12:54 They started talking about the tax payers, 12:56 the customers-- sort of the other way around. 13:00 Yes, yes. 13:01 The government is supposed to work for the tax payer. 13:04 Well, you know, is it tax payer gonna feel happy 13:07 giving some of their money to an entity 13:11 that is now gonna deprive them of what, through their system 13:15 they're granted to themselves or privilege or support. 13:19 Absolutely. Now, I think that's a great point. 13:21 I don't think too many people think about that. Yeah. 13:24 We're again thinking it 13:25 from the institutional point of view. 13:26 The government as some big terror apart from us. Yeah. 13:30 now what I hear, I have people say that frequently 13:32 well, you know, I don't want my tax dollars 13:34 doing x, y, z or whatever and that-- 13:36 Well, we all think that. Yes. 13:38 And that you know, 13:40 I'm sure you get letters like I do from people to think, 13:43 wow, I don't have to pay my income taxes 13:45 or so it's a relatively recent thing 13:47 which very few people think to rely. 13:49 But its very legal thing 13:51 and you don't pay your tax you go to jail. 13:54 Right, right. 13:55 Or at least after everything else is exhausted-- 13:57 Well, we're instructed in the Bible, 13:59 in the Gospel's too of course. 14:00 It's our responsibility to obey lawful authorities. Sure. 14:03 My point that I'm building to is all of us 14:06 object to one thing to another that the government does. 14:08 We can not withhold their money just 14:11 because we don't like what the government does. 14:13 And I really believe this is not as directly 14:16 but it's the some what similar dynamic. 14:19 This is the society at large that's offered something. 14:23 There is a mandate of the Supreme Court 14:25 did declare it constitutional in spite of what people think. 14:28 Right. 14:30 Now we are in a current government shut down, 14:31 where one party haven't accepted that. 14:34 They want to overturn established law 14:36 which they can do legislatively but not by hostage taking. 14:43 These are political statements but not partisan. Okay. 14:47 No, but we need to understand that all of us are safe 14:51 whether its in the United States 14:52 or in any particular in any western country, 14:56 you have to follow the rules. 14:57 Right. 14:58 And whether it's Egypt or England 15:02 you subvert the rules that you're disadvantaged. 15:04 Well, I'm sorry to get into the discussion so much. 15:07 We've passed our midpoint 15:08 so we'll take a little break 15:09 and be back short to continue 15:11 this discussion of Hobby Lobby and the healthcare mandate. |
Revised 2014-12-17