Participants: Lincoln Steed (Host), Orlan Johnson
Series Code: LI
Program Code: LI000262A
|
00:21 Welcome to the Liberty Insider.
00:23 This is a program brining you 00:24 news, views, information, analysis 00:27 and even an occasional opinion on religious liberty events 00:32 in the United States and around the world. 00:34 My name, Lincoln Steed, editor of Liberty Magazine 00:37 and my guest Orlan Johnson, director of Public Affairs-- 00:43 every time I say this it stretches. 00:45 Director of Public Affairs and Religious Liberty 00:47 for the North American Division 00:48 of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. 00:51 Long title. Yeah. 00:53 It's very easy for Liberty magazine, that's it. 00:57 Let's talk about-- and you are an attorney 01:00 which I think a wonderful background 01:03 to bring to this job but let's talk about 01:06 some of the Supreme Court cases recently 01:09 one that's not too far in the distance 01:12 was a discussion that went to the Supreme Court obviously 01:15 on whether it was acceptable 01:17 to have different religious prayers offered 01:20 at a town meeting in Greece, New York. 01:24 But in a way it's not new 01:25 because this has come up over and over. 01:27 It's been an issue that's been going 01:28 back and forth quite sometime 01:30 regarding the idea of prayer in public places 01:33 or prayer in public schools and things of that nature. 01:35 I think one of the instinct dynamics 01:37 of this particular case is there was a lot of folk 01:39 this on the different types of religions 01:43 that could be impacted by the prayers 01:44 which is something that is little bit more of new wants 01:47 than what you had in the past. 01:48 But at the end of the day 01:49 they still came to the conclusion 01:51 that assuming you are not going to be engage 01:53 in activity that's going to create some type 01:56 of state interest that really is detrimental 01:58 to a larger group of individuals that 02:01 it really something that can go forward 02:02 but it should go forward in a way 02:04 where you are not exactly gonna be putting 02:06 pressure on any specific group 02:08 what they can't do but to be more clear 02:10 in certain thing that they would be-- 02:11 Well, you know, never caught in different directions. 02:13 They didn't want to be dictating to government 02:16 and to church ministers 02:18 or religious representatives and that's fine. 02:21 But in the past often these prayers 02:23 of being required to be generic so that they are acceptable 02:26 to all people well, not offensive. 02:29 That not requiring that this time 02:31 and I remember hearing the discussion 02:33 of the debate on the-- among the justices 02:39 and they did seem to be accepting 02:41 that certain religious minorities 02:43 would excluded if not offended 02:46 and that was sort of unavoidable but acceptable. 02:48 Right, and I think we have seen a little bit of that 02:51 in particular in state houses 02:53 some of the officials of the North American division 02:56 and I went to engage in a prayer-- 02:58 Yeah, that was a wonderful thing, of course. 02:59 And it turned out quite well 03:01 but before we went there were clear restrictions 03:04 and guidelines that they want to give us to try to make sure 03:07 that we did not necessarily offend a large group. 03:11 I mean, at the end of the day almost everything you do 03:13 will end offending somebody in some form of fashion 03:16 but as long as turning out not to be something 03:18 where you're actually targeting a specific group 03:20 I think that's really where the laws 03:22 really trying to go. 03:23 Yeah, and of course, at the senate 03:28 and in the Congress we have chaplains 03:32 that were set up the very beginning 03:34 James Madison not too happy about that. 03:36 Right. Right. 03:39 And so I think it puts the Supreme Court on the merits 03:43 because they themselves cooked up a concept 03:46 they call ceremonial deism 03:49 I think to dismiss these sort of inconveniences 03:52 and I think they are right too 03:53 because ceremonial deism is religion 03:55 removed of its real meaning. 03:57 Right. Right. 03:58 It's just now so the cultural 04:01 but when you get a specific a faith 04:05 into even at the senate of the Congress 04:07 to give a prayer it cannot be too strip down. 04:11 No, not necessarily 04:12 but I think in terms of you know, 04:14 obviously your description of who you are, 04:18 you know, "personal authority" 04:20 may be I think is where individuals 04:23 start to get a little bit hampered by in the say 04:25 but I think its important 04:26 that you be clear on what you believe 04:28 and I think you can get that done 04:31 in a prayer without being offensive. 04:33 I think that's what the Supreme Court 04:34 is saying that you know, 04:36 "we are a nation that's supposed to respect religion." 04:39 We're a nation that believes in God in large part 04:42 and therefore concept of prayer 04:44 is really a part of who we are 04:46 but how do you do it in a way 04:47 where you don't end offending anyone. 04:48 You know, unless you belong to the very small freedom 04:52 from religion and foundation 04:53 its probably not grossly offensive 04:56 and clearly as people who believe in God 05:00 we would not find any offensive of any one of Christian 05:05 or Jewish or even Islamic faith just giving a generic prayer. 05:11 So I don't see the danger 05:13 directly from what's done. 05:15 In my view I have a little bit of apprehension 05:18 so that writing large what-- the community is happy with. 05:21 Because of the community right now 05:23 they are probably happy with something benignly general 05:26 but you could go down south and you know, 05:28 they want a southern Baptist 05:30 real far damnation sort of thing 05:32 and that might be not only offensive, 05:34 it might be targeted against some Christian 05:38 or non-Christian minority that they don't like. 05:40 So it could be exclusive-- excluding. 05:43 And so the, you know, 05:45 I'm playing devils advocate to a degree here 05:47 but I just didn't like the justice's right up front 05:50 before they reach their end points so to deciding. 05:52 Well, that some people will be excluded 05:54 or offended and that's it. 05:56 Well, you know, I kind of look at this 05:58 a little interesting way as well 06:00 because even when you think about 06:01 the pledge of allegiance for example and it wasn't until 06:04 Eisenhower in 1950s came with the "under God." 06:07 But the under God concept when you talk to the people-- 06:10 And we are under God. Right. 06:12 He didn't really want that languid in these 06:15 so much for "religious reasons" 06:17 but because of the large communist activity 06:20 happening at the time 06:21 he thought that was something that would essential 06:24 which in part almost sounds more political 06:27 than it does anything else and Supreme Court decisions 06:31 and all these other decisions that we get 06:33 we still have to remember 06:34 that there is a certain political tone 06:36 that get attached to it. 06:37 Right and you are getting closer 06:38 to what we actually put in Liberty Magazine 06:40 when we had an article on the Greece prayer issue. 06:43 We titled it powerless prayer 06:47 and if you're talking about true spiritual 06:49 reality of a prayer in such a formal public way 06:52 with politics mixed in it ceases 06:55 to become narrowly speaking a prayer. 06:57 It's really a statement and it could be as much 06:59 a statement of political religion, 07:01 political intent is that is of faith. 07:04 Absolutely, and when we were actually 07:06 with the Maryland General Assembly this year 07:08 the prayer that is given is actually 07:10 read into the record of the daily activities 07:13 that becomes a formal part of the action 07:16 and that's one of the reasons 07:17 why they try not to have certain language in there 07:20 because its not just simply an activity 07:22 that happen at the beginning 07:24 but it now becomes a "official part" 07:27 of that government activity that day. 07:28 Well, we really thought this one was a great thing 07:31 that you are able to negotiate that as public prayer. 07:35 Clearly in North America it was once 07:39 not any overwhelming Christian it was a Protestant 07:43 and how could we find that offensive. 07:45 And there's nothing wrong with society 07:48 expressing its religious sentiments. 07:50 Even through government really its just-- 07:53 there's a structural danger 07:55 if government is allowed to project 07:57 and promote or even enforce religion at the end of the day 08:00 then you got a potential for mishears. 08:02 No, I think-- 08:03 But its actually an encouraging thing 08:05 when there is any night spiritual sensibility 08:08 that can be allowed to be expressed. 08:11 But, you know, we're-- 08:12 in the United State diverse religious community 08:15 beyond what the frame is were imagined. 08:17 Yeah, I can imagine if Jefferson and Franklin 08:21 others were here today that they would look and say, 08:23 wow, this is exactly 08:24 what we thought this was gonna be. 08:25 Now, I mean, I hear a lot of and you have read them too, 08:27 lot of read and heard a lot of high flying rhetoric 08:30 about the four sides of the frame is-- 08:33 well, let's find that something that works quite well 08:35 but there's no reasonable way 08:38 that they are looking forward could seen our cultural 08:41 and religious diversities-- 08:44 because its really just a melting potter 08:47 or bubbling colder enough of issues and initiative 08:53 and view points they couldn't have seen that. 08:55 But there would no logic. 08:56 They were Englishmen barely removed from England 08:59 by a revolution that they fermented. 09:01 But this was largely English society. 09:03 Yeah, I think the big thing 09:05 and we've talked about this before. 09:07 I'm not sure they could have actually foreseen 09:10 but I think the idea of making the law flexible enough 09:14 to be able to taken to consideration potent 09:16 to change is down the road. 09:18 I think that was probably the real genius that went on 09:21 but in terms of them actually thinking that 09:23 they knew where this was gonna end up 09:25 and could have any idea would be where we are today, 09:28 it would be far beyond the pale for that to be, 09:32 you know, possible at least in my mind. 09:33 Yeah, I mean, that the only one 09:35 that we know his thoughts 09:37 on down the line was Thomas Jefferson 09:40 and we don't want to buy into that. 09:42 He thought religion-- 09:43 Christianity would die out in the United States. 09:46 He was fine on the terror of the French relation. 09:49 So he was a bit of a firebrand, a wonderful founding father, 09:54 I mean, he per quested incredible legacy of tolerance 09:58 and of good governance to the US. 10:00 But his philosophical view point 10:02 and his prophetic vision not sure. 10:07 Yeah, and well, you know, when you think about it 10:09 and we were-- you know, 10:11 as we talked earlier Jefferson and Franklin 10:13 have spent a lot of time in France. 10:15 And while they were there they had a chance 10:17 to see what I would call the ups and downs 10:19 and reviewing the pluses and minuses 10:22 of revolution versus non-revolution 10:24 and you know Protestantism the growth 10:26 and the stamping out all at the same time 10:28 and I think that helped 10:30 to kind of create some of the view points that were, 10:33 they ended up drafting-- 10:34 Franklin probably knew more about 10:35 French ladies that French government. 10:37 Like to see just-- Well, you know-- 10:38 He is the playboy but Jefferson was ambassador, 10:42 wasn't he for France for a while? 10:44 And he was a student of politics and of history 10:48 and that's I think why he saw the abuses 10:51 of governmental power and of religion 10:55 that he was so keen on the French revolution. 10:57 Because was even though it went so far 10:59 and you read Great Controversy the Seventh-day Adventist 11:01 particularly we know the godlessness 11:03 of the French revolution was more than a passing element 11:06 if it was hatred of religion for a while 11:09 that had horrible consequences. 11:12 But I think Jefferson saw it more as a clearing of the air 11:15 and enabling individual self determination. 11:19 So he didn't shy away from the worst 11:22 of the French revolution but we don't-- 11:23 nobody would want that in the United States. 11:25 He was quite willing to throw you know, 11:27 a lot of patriots to the more of a revolution 11:31 if it guaranteed freedom. 11:33 And I think the interesting thing about Jefferson 11:35 as well is I don't know if anybody would consider him 11:37 to be extremely religious man. 11:38 No. 11:39 But I think he was somebody 11:41 that thought the importance of making sure 11:43 that you safeguard at ones willingness. 11:44 He had great respect for what religious faith 11:48 brought out in human beings. 11:49 And I think that in my opinion is the most important thing 11:52 that we can do in area of religious liberty 11:54 as it relates to any political leader. 11:57 Not expecting them to decide, you know, what I would like 11:59 to be a Seventh-day Adventist like you 12:01 but have at least the respect 12:03 for what we do stand for and understand 12:05 the importance of the fabric 12:07 that is also part of what we bring. 12:09 And I think that's essential. 12:11 Well, you know, playing not a devils advocate 12:13 but I'll throw things. 12:14 That you already you figured out 12:15 I'll jump different directions. 12:17 We were talking at lunch time about Guatemala, 12:21 Central America where my wife comes from 12:23 and the history of that part of the world 12:26 is not being too good in the long haul 12:29 but in the short term a lot of dictators and problems 12:32 and when I was first married with my wife 12:35 they had civil war in Guatemala, 12:36 guerrilla movement but it really hit the fan 12:39 when I a very-- 12:44 trying to think of an appropriate word 12:47 and aggressively evangelical religious 12:52 general took over Ríos Montt. 12:56 He basically believed heaven was on his side 12:58 and it was his divine purpose to solve the revolution 13:02 and to get rid of the non-believers 13:04 or that is the word, 13:05 not his religion he saw them more as the enemy. 13:08 And they had a scorched earth policy 13:10 a blitter--hole religious of Indians 13:13 that's when the many of the refuges came to the US. 13:16 It was a dark time for Guatemala. 13:18 And so the analogy I would draw not the analogy 13:21 but turning it to the US the last thing 13:24 we want our leaders didn't have the much Jefferson 13:28 and we don't want them today with anybody president 13:31 or the otherwise who is a religious visionary 13:33 trying to write their wishes into the constitution. 13:37 It's actually good that the government tends 13:39 towards this business as usual secularism. 13:42 It's good an ideal have taken in that row 13:46 to keep religion away from their preview 13:50 and let us do what we want. 13:51 No, I couldn't agree more and, 13:54 you know, what is interesting I wonder 13:55 when we think about what the future is gonna be 13:58 and we know the prophecy is telling us 14:00 that at some point the trials and tribulations 14:04 from a religious stand point-- 14:05 Even in the US. 14:06 And even in the US will come back into play in a large way. 14:10 I'm still trying to visualize exactly how that would be. 14:13 I mean, we think about the Waldensians, 14:16 you know the running to the hills, 14:17 the hiding in the mountains and I'm wondering if the world 14:22 that we're living in now is that exactly 14:25 how would turn out. 14:26 Well, nothing ever happens exactly. 14:28 It's a fallacy of that 14:30 history repeats itself, history doesn't. 14:32 What repeats itself is human nature 14:36 expressed through different historical periods 14:38 and they tend to be if you understand that 14:41 and how humans react to different types of stimulus 14:44 you could probably make a good stab at it. 14:47 The reason we believe this is the Bible hints that 14:50 in identifying United States in Revelation 13 14:54 and we believe under inspiration 14:56 to the early Adventist Ellen White 14:58 elaborated on that a little bit. 15:00 But I think we are close enough to a crises 15:03 potential crises time to extrapolate. 15:06 We can see under a national emergency 15:09 where people fear for their lives, 15:11 fear for the survival of the country 15:13 and you mentioned Eisenhower where you are dealing with a, 15:18 you know, communist secular or other. 15:20 It's pretty easy dynamic to say we are a Christian nation, 15:25 we want to do this and you acknowledge the country 15:28 and Christianity generally and if you don't go along 15:30 with this agenda you are now a tarter 15:33 and an anti American and someone as the Bible says 15:36 that better to wipe you off the face of the planet 15:38 and that the nation should perish. 15:40 I got into this quickly 15:42 and time is going by but stay with us 15:44 and we continue this discussion. 15:46 Liberty Insider talking about prophecy and religious freedom. |
Revised 2014-12-17