Participants: Lincoln Steed (Host), J. Brent Walker
Series Code: LI
Program Code: LI000243A
|
00:22 Welcome to the Liberty Insider.
00:24 This is a program bring you discussion, 00:26 news and up-to-date information on religious liberty 00:29 in the United States to be sure but around the world 00:32 as things come up. 00:34 My name is Lincoln Steed editor of Liberty Magazine. 00:37 And my guest on this program is Brent Walker, 00:40 executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee 00:43 for Religious Freedom, 00:44 a group and an individual that we deal with a lot 00:47 so it's my pleasure to have you on the program, Brent. 00:49 Thank you, Lincoln. It's good to be here. 00:51 There is many things that we could talk about 00:53 and I want to extend our discussion 00:55 to some other programs 00:57 but there is something that's been in the news 00:58 for a long time now this-- 01:00 this ObamaCare for what of a better term 01:03 and spearheaded mostly by the Roman Catholic Church 01:07 but joined by even businesses entities 01:09 like Hobby Lobby and that, 01:11 there are religious sensibilities 01:13 seem to have been stirred by some of the mandates 01:16 in this healthcare thing. 01:18 How do you see this is affecting religious liberty? 01:20 Is there a real issue or its some what manufactured? 01:24 Well, I think both. I think there is a real issue. 01:26 You think exactly my way in one word. 01:28 It may go little bit too far in some respects. 01:32 Yes, this is dealing with that part 01:37 of the first amendment 01:38 that protects the free exercise of religion. 01:40 The first 16 worlds in the first amendment 01:43 say Congress shall make no law 01:45 respecting an establishment of religion, 01:47 or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. 01:51 Those two-- two clauses working in tandem, 01:55 one keeping government from trying to promote religion, 01:58 one keeping government-- 02:00 trying to keep government from putting down religion 02:02 but requiring government 02:04 to maintain a posture of neutrality 02:07 and allow people of faith to practice their religion 02:09 unaided and unhindered by government. 02:12 Well, this is the issue that you rise 02:14 is a free exercise issue allegedly that-- 02:18 that it violets the free exercise rights of churches, 02:24 houses of worship, religious organizations 02:27 that have-- 02:29 religious believes against contraception. 02:33 Your listeners may know that 02:36 the affordable care act does require employers 02:39 with 50 or more employees to provide insurance 02:44 to cover contraception for female employees. 02:50 The Obama administration though right up front said 02:54 we are not gonna make that apply 02:55 to religious organization. 02:57 Yeah, they tried to get exception. 02:58 Well, they did. 02:59 There was an exception for churches 03:01 and church type organizations. 03:03 Catholic Church is the most visible and vocal 03:07 that we are not covered 03:09 but how about the religiously affiliated organizations 03:14 not in the house of worship but related to it. 03:18 Catholic charities, social service agencies, 03:22 hospitals, religiously affiliated 03:25 colleges and universities how about them? 03:28 They also requested that kind of coverage 03:32 but they are little bit out side the inside. 03:34 But severe with the-- further 03:35 with the Hobby Lobby this is a-- 03:37 Well, but even before we get with respect 03:39 to the second concentric circle, 03:43 the accommodation that was made was that okay, 03:46 well you don't have to-- 03:47 employer you don't have to provide this service 03:52 if you find it objectionable 03:54 but you got to permit an insurance company 03:56 to come in and provide that laterally. 04:00 So-- that not even, 04:03 not even pay for the insurance premium 04:05 but the mandate with the insurance company 04:08 will come in. 04:09 We thought that was a-- 04:11 a proper accommodation of religion in that second tier. 04:15 Catholic Church still objected to it. 04:16 They thought ought to be treated like-- 04:19 like the inner circle but-- 04:21 it appeared to be a very thoughtful accommodation 04:25 of both the religious columns of the employers 04:29 and the needs of the employee. 04:31 They were religiously affiliated. 04:32 Do you get the feeling on the catholic position 04:33 because there are several popes, 04:36 they have been very vocal all around the world. 04:39 I mean, not just within the US on contraception 04:43 you know, their views on contraception and I-- 04:46 I get the distinct feeling in this debate 04:48 on the healthcare mandate 04:49 that the Roman Catholic Church 04:50 really is wanting to project their view 04:52 on the whole society not just-- 04:54 I think that's -- 04:55 There are on members which they have a great trouble 04:57 with not just their own employees, 04:59 not just those that come into the institution 05:01 but they really they don't accept that position period 05:05 so they would want to enlarge it. 05:08 But when you were talking I was thinking about a case 05:12 and I wish I could remember the case 05:13 but there has been several but I remember one 05:16 where there was a fairly large company 05:19 run by some very dedicated and sincere Christians 05:22 and they provided religious instruction 05:28 and other outreach to their employees. 05:31 And some of the employees 05:32 found it onerous and objected 05:34 and it was definitively decided this was improper. 05:37 Yes, right. 05:39 Under title seven of the civil rights action 1964 05:43 you know, there are barriers to that conductivity. 05:49 There is-- It wasn't even close court. 05:50 You can't discriminate on the bases of region 05:52 employees religious requirements-- 05:54 It just came to me how does that really differ structurally, 05:57 a non Christian or a different professing person of faith 06:03 joins a company 06:04 and the company is going to tell them 06:07 how publicly mandated, 06:11 you know, what sort of publicly mandated treatment they can get. 06:14 They made a religious decision for a person seems to be. 06:17 Yeah, but let me finish one thought in that title seven. 06:21 Employers generally can't discriminate 06:23 in the bases of region but religious employers can-- 06:26 can discriminate. 06:28 So there is a call about there. 06:29 It sort of mirrors what we have been talking 06:31 about that the church is exempt 06:33 from the affordable care acts mandate, 06:36 the gravitating religiously affiliated or accommodated 06:40 in the sense that I had suggested 06:42 by having to allow the insurance company 06:45 to come in and provide the coverage. 06:46 Now, what you're talking about as a third circle, 06:50 we are not talking about 06:52 the church or religious affiliates 06:54 but for profit commercial cooperation's engaged in-- 07:01 in enterprise in our capitalistic system 07:05 that the owners the stockholders of these cooperation's 07:10 may want to run it kind of out of 07:13 Christian motivation to be sure, 07:15 may be even some Christian principles 07:18 but its in a different-- 07:22 different arena when you are talking about 07:25 for-profit not for-profit religious groups 07:28 but for-profit cooperation's 07:30 engaged in the stream of commerce. 07:31 So far we have removed from this 07:32 further removed from the central. 07:34 Whether the owners, whether the stockholders, 07:37 for their own religious reasons to justify 07:41 or insisting the point imposing that 07:44 belief on the woman employees way down the line. 07:48 True after all we are hired not with regard to-- 07:51 to their religion 07:52 but with we respect to their ability 07:55 to promote the business adjectives of the cooperation 08:00 and that's the case that-- 08:01 that is going to the Supreme Court. 08:03 The Hobby Lobby case the Supreme Court has-- 08:06 has said that it will take the case. 08:09 Probably will be argued sometime in January or February 08:13 and of 2014 and then decided 08:17 in a matter of the few months of that, 08:19 So that's gonna be a interesting question 08:23 on not just the free exercise clause 08:26 but the Religious Freedom Restoration Act 08:29 that we know we're gonna talk about 08:31 that was passed by congress 20 years ago 08:34 to strengthen the protections 08:36 that sort of had been taken away 08:39 from the free exercise clause by the Supreme Court 08:41 in the native American peyote case back in 1990, 08:45 we can talk about that but-- 08:47 Kindly reverse the debate we started discussing. 08:50 But the Religious Freedom Restoration Act will be-- 08:52 will be one of the acts under 08:56 which the case will be argued 08:57 but Hobby Lobby and the question is, 09:00 whether a for-profit cooperation is a "person" 09:03 under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act whether the-- 09:08 the rights of the owners, 09:11 the share holders are substantially burdened 09:15 by having to provide their service. 09:16 So they can now burden someone else? 09:18 Yes, and whether the government 09:21 has a sufficiently compelling interest 09:23 in not allowing that to happen. 09:25 I would think the government would argue 09:27 because they feel completed enough 09:29 to pass this whole legislation to provide this-- 09:32 and I'm not particularly in favor 09:35 of this contraceptive treatment or not 09:38 but the dynamic here make it, 09:41 you know, I have thought about it a few times 09:42 and have never read this anywhere 09:43 but it strikes me as coming perilously close 09:47 to what over the years 09:48 I have heard some people say 09:49 that they wouldn't pay taxes 09:51 because the taxes are used 09:52 by the government to do something 09:54 that's against their principles. 09:56 Right. 09:57 And you know, no one is getting away with that one. 09:59 Generally it doesn't work of course, no. 10:02 And in fact, periodically I have people 10:05 that are probably mostly internet readers 10:08 call up saying that you know, 10:10 they don't think they have to pay income tax 10:11 because it's not authorized at all the rest of the-- 10:13 Right. 10:15 They always find out they kept that this accountability 10:18 and seems to me that the insurance 10:23 because it covers that it's not the same 10:25 as you delivering that service to that person. 10:29 Your employer may or may not take advantage of that, 10:31 that's up to their conscious and your conscious 10:33 is not troubled because you haven't given. 10:35 So, I think to me it's very tangential 10:38 but there is a bigger issue of plan. 10:39 I think the issue in some regards 10:42 is enlarging of the influence 10:45 and power of religious entities in society. 10:49 I keep coming back and be interested in your comment. 10:51 Are you thinking that-- 10:53 that first exemption should not be in place? 10:57 Sometimes I think that. 10:58 Yeah, yeah, I-- 11:01 I think it was proper to exempt that first circle. 11:02 Protective-- yeah, Hosanna-Tabor is very good 11:06 but this is why I bring up this case 11:09 and I have discussed in another program here the case of, 11:12 you know, we have it in the namesake 11:16 advocacy group today 11:17 the Beckets the Thomas Becket story 11:20 and his challenge with the king. 11:22 Back then the church, ran its own civil courts 11:26 and there was a direct conflict between the-- 11:29 the governments civil courts and the church civil courts. 11:32 They didn't just try religious matters in the church court 11:34 they could try a civil matter they would like, 11:35 the priest committed murder. 11:36 He come up before the church court 11:38 rather than state court. 11:40 And if we are not careful if the any church 11:45 or any church prerogative with large 11:47 but different denominations 11:49 so the stats having the trump cut on things 11:52 that the government would normally do 11:54 they you will have that classic power struggle again. 11:56 To me it's a backdoor way of establishment. 11:59 It's really a coup, 12:01 establishment by coup in essence. 12:04 Many, many coups at this stage 12:05 I shouldn't overwrite it but it's an interesting dynamic. 12:09 Lord knows I would never advocate anything 12:10 even smack of the theocracy 12:12 and I think that's the logical outcome of the you know, 12:16 the popes above the king kind of a-- 12:18 kind of a attitude but I do think 12:21 that if free exercise of religion is going 12:24 to have a full blow full orbed meaning 12:30 and meaning for protection we have got to say, 12:36 its okay sometimes with the government 12:38 to provide an exemption for religious practice 12:42 to treat religion differently. 12:44 If you just treat religion the same as everybody else 12:47 you are not gonna have much protection for religious-- 12:48 Oh, I think you are agree that this-- 12:50 There is got to be-- 12:51 Assumptions are concession that enables religious practice. 12:55 And even powerful religious groups should be able 12:58 to get exemptions when they deserve one. 13:00 Now logic is, is their, 13:01 particularly for the minorities that 13:03 But we shouldn't allow powerful religious groups 13:06 to grasp it more and more exemptions as soon as 13:10 because again the history of medieval Europe shows. 13:14 I mean even the worst excess of the state church allied 13:20 with the civil powers during the Middle Ages. 13:23 Yes, it was Babylon that started 13:24 but it started little bit by vivid didn't a rifle blown 13:27 and I don't think generally speaking 13:29 that it arrived with a bad intention 13:33 these were religious societies 13:36 that had great respect for religion 13:38 so that crept in on them. 13:39 Yeah, yeah. 13:40 Its human nature it's not even particularly 13:43 a church structure question. 13:45 Human nature tends to, you know, what it wants 13:48 and if human nature is allied with the church 13:51 if left untrammeled it will tend to swell out the state 13:55 and the state the same way around. 13:57 And so we need this protective first amendment 13:59 and other legal and as well as sociological diverse 14:03 I think to-- to keep us now-- 14:05 in our within our behind our garden walls right out of edges. 14:10 I see our time in this first part is drifted away 14:13 so we will take a break now but please come back 14:16 and we will continue this discussion 14:18 of some of the ongoing cases 14:20 that test the separation of church and state 14:22 and religious freedom in the United States. |
Revised 2014-12-17