Participants: Lincoln Steed (Host), Wintley Phipps
Series Code: LI
Program Code: LI000266A
|
00:16 Welcome to the Liberty Insider.
00:18 This is the program bringing you news, 00:20 views, discussion and up-to-date information 00:23 on religious liberty developments 00:25 in the United States and around world. 00:27 My name is Lincoln Steed editor of Liberty Magazine 00:31 and the guest on this program is Wintley Phipps. 00:34 Good to be with you. 00:35 And he's gonna not forget me 00:36 because I have called him "The Voice." 00:39 That's all right. 00:41 You know religious liberty is also something 00:43 you're very concerned about. 00:44 You've been a pastor for many years 00:46 but for a time you're working at our world headquarters. 00:49 Yes. 00:50 I think the legislative liaison for the Religious Liberty. 00:54 Yeah in 1995 00:55 I was voted in Utrecht as the associate director 00:59 for the public affairs Religious Liberty 01:01 and my primary responsibility was really the Congress 01:08 dealing with executive branch and the UN actually. 01:12 Oh, you did the UN, too actually. 01:13 Yeah. Now we have two people so. 01:15 So that should satisfy you that. 01:17 It's taken two people to replace you. 01:18 That's right. 01:19 So that's those where my primary responsibilities 01:22 and it was very meaningful and it was a great opportunity 01:28 to represent my church 01:32 in the halls of Congress and the legislative. 01:37 We had to deal with for example 01:42 there was some legislation at the time taking place 01:44 dealing with trust and annuities. 01:47 And if you remember there was a time 01:49 when they were going after churches 01:55 and other organizations 01:58 and trying to use an antitrust legislation 02:04 to get us to pay lots of money in millions of dollars. 02:08 One of the reasons was they were saying 02:09 that nonprofits that were colluding 02:15 or they were coming together 02:18 to set specific rates for annuities 02:23 and when that happens that's a breach of antitrust. 02:28 Lot of people don't realize this side of religious liberty. 02:31 There are lot of legal proposals 02:35 that might not appear to be about religious liberty 02:37 but can have a huge impact 02:38 on churches and people of faith. 02:40 Absolutely. 02:41 And one that I remember 02:43 I don't remember the legislation 02:44 but there was a move a few years ago 02:46 to hold churches accountable 02:48 as though they sold a product to the members that if they. 02:51 Remember that? Right, yeah, yeah. 02:52 If the member felt that they've been defrauded 02:54 by the church they can sue them. 02:55 Yeah, that's right, that's right. 02:57 And consequently you know there are some people 03:01 who are applauding the protections 03:05 that this particular Supreme Court is giving to-- 03:10 Neither so called Hobby Lobby case. 03:12 Yes, yes and giving to what they call corporations 03:17 or churches because they feel 03:22 that the common good is more important 03:26 than individual liberties and individual rights. 03:30 And even as you say that it's obvious that there's a danger 03:32 to the individual liberty from that I think. 03:33 Yeah, absolutely and this court 03:36 has made a decision that corporate rights. 03:41 Yeah, a right really when it comes to religious believes 03:45 is more important than the rights of the individual. 03:49 Because what they are saying is that a corporation 03:53 can be in enforce their religious believes 03:58 on the rights of on the individual 04:01 and so its gonna be interesting to see how that turns out 04:05 because I understand there's some legislation is being 04:08 proposed now to counteract the Hobby Lobby issue. 04:10 Well, you know, my take on it is very similar to yours 04:13 there's others who argue that that's not so 04:16 but I think there ignoring the obvious 04:19 the Supreme Court already in Citizens United said 04:24 that corporations have the rights of individuals. 04:27 Right. 04:28 And so now its writ into something that involves 04:31 its written into something that involves religious liberty 04:34 but if you think about it even for a moment you realize 04:37 that it's the owners of this business 04:39 that are being given the right to project their personal view 04:42 against activities of their employees 04:45 and others in the community 04:46 so its beyond me and my religionist 04:49 now and me and my religion will tell you 04:52 that you must act as I do and that to me 04:55 that's not religious liberty. 04:56 Well again there are some people 04:58 who really believe that kind of ruling protects you 05:05 as an Adventist when you build a business. 05:07 Well it may. 05:08 Yeah when you have a corporation 05:11 and that corporation now is protected 05:16 because it does not have to go against your conscience. 05:21 So it really depends on whose side you're gonna support. 05:25 But they've got very short memories 05:27 when its not long ago in fact, 05:29 barely before I arrived in the US 05:32 when businesses used to have signs out-front no so and so. 05:35 Yes. 05:37 It was Blacks and Jews. Yeah. 05:39 Bold and it was all under force of law. 05:41 And it was and their religious believes. 05:43 It was based on religious believes. 05:45 And so there are some people who don't think that 05:50 that can happen again but if you know human nature 05:54 and you know the fallenness of our human nature. 05:56 Well, they say that history doesn't repeat itself. 05:59 It does it just doesn't repeat identically. 06:01 But the patterns of history and of human behavior 06:05 and thought roll around and around and around. 06:07 But they also say that they also say that past is prologue. 06:11 A quote by Shakespeare. Absolutely. 06:14 You know that you'll see you can almost predict 06:17 the behavior of the future by the behavior of the past. 06:21 And this almost begs a counter I think it was Yogi Berra says 06:25 it's very hard to make predictions 06:27 especially about the future. 06:29 But it's a very serious case. Absolutely. 06:32 And it's going to have its going to reverberate 06:35 and here's why it can be very serious case, 06:40 97% of American corporations are family held. 06:46 So that means that there is almost no place 06:49 where you can go to work 06:51 where if the owners of those corporations 06:56 wanted to live by certain religious believes 06:59 that they can impose those believes on employees as well. 07:03 And so it can have a very serious effect. 07:07 Yes, its always unintended consequences 07:10 and maybe I shouldn't defend the Supreme Court 07:12 because I haven't felt they have been the worst offenders 07:15 on some of these recent religious liberty cases 07:19 but I believe to this day that on the Lawrence V. Kansas case 07:25 that resulted in the whole move toward guy marriages 07:29 and guy rights and so on. 07:30 I don't think they really were particularly 07:33 intending to enable that they were at the time 07:36 fixated on the right of privacy. 07:40 And I think they were right we don't want the government 07:42 or anyone else coming into our home 07:44 and telling us what to do and so on. 07:46 But in so doing upholding that they just opened the floodgates 07:50 to the whole guy rights, guy marriages and so on. 07:54 And I have views on that but I think 07:56 just as a matter of description 07:57 it's obvious that one thing came from the other and yeah 08:00 what didn't seem to be connected at that time. 08:02 Well, one of the things I often share is that democracy 08:07 is a marvelous wonderful form of government 08:12 but it has one fatal flaw. 08:15 People. Yes. 08:18 And the fatal flaw is that the will of the majority 08:23 no matter how slim becomes the law of the land 08:28 and in many cases trumps. 08:35 What you and I may perceive as the will of God. 08:39 Yeah. 08:40 And so you sometimes in a quandary 08:43 you cannot have a true democracy 08:47 and celebrate that 08:49 and at the same time expect that 08:53 when your religious view is not in the majority 08:56 that somehow it will be impose another's. 09:00 Well, you're getting close to and now we're back to 09:02 what you use to spend a lot of time debating. 09:05 This great misunderstanding about democracy is 09:09 it was written for the United States 09:11 but if you go to the founding fathers 09:13 its very obvious what they thought. 09:15 They were very fearful of majoritarian rule. 09:19 They literally feared it. 09:21 And most of arc the now seemingly 09:24 arching elements of the balance of powers 09:27 and all of the constitution itself 09:31 were really designed to dampen down 09:34 and make more defuse the will of the majority. 09:37 Remember the United States-- 09:38 Check on the will of the majority. 09:40 Well, it's more the United States 09:41 representative system 09:42 which is a lot of different from a majoritarian, 09:45 it's not a majoritarian democracy it's becoming 09:49 and when it becomes bad things will follow. 09:52 The French revolutions showed us that. 09:54 Sometime that was ruled by mobocracy 09:57 about the people, the will of the people. 09:59 The will of the people needs to be 10:00 expressed in the government 10:02 but not in the majoritarian sense 10:04 because turning back to spiritual things 10:08 you read the Bible 10:09 and the majority are always wrong. 10:11 The majority is not on God's side. 10:13 But we-- I think inherently, intrinsically we are conflicted 10:19 because we do want to standup and share 10:23 when our religious believes 10:26 are advancing in the society and but at the same time 10:32 when that we do also want to applaud the democracy 10:37 but when the democracy doesn't see it the way 10:39 we believe, you know, I think of so many instances 10:43 and say Ellen White's writings were you know 10:47 she was going against the will of the majority 10:50 and the will of the democracy. 10:52 And within the church. And in the society as well. 10:56 Well, and our church also should not be run 10:58 as by majoritarian principles. 11:00 Yeah, okay. 11:02 No, I think that it can easily be shown from history 11:06 and particularly shown from the record 11:09 of the framers of the constitution 11:11 and great grand old man of American governance. 11:14 They did not like the majority. 11:17 So how do you-- They feared it. 11:18 So how do you reconcile 11:21 religious freedom of the majority 11:26 and the religious needs of the minority 11:32 because there is I'm saying we're conflicted-- 11:34 Well, that's why there's the bill of rights for example. 11:37 Which is to trump what the majority think it anytime. 11:40 These things are guaranteed 11:42 regardless of the sentiment of the time. 11:44 And you have to have checks. Yeah. 11:45 And I say as long the government representatives 11:49 or the government well they have representatives 11:53 are listening to their constituency 11:55 but we all know that a better statements 11:59 is made of someone that's 12:01 that has the best of the people in mind 12:02 but won't always jump when they say jump. 12:05 Like you were talking about Winston Churchill. 12:07 Winston Churchill didn't do what the people did over to. 12:10 He led the people it's the difference 12:12 and they should lead on good principles. 12:15 Obviously if they're dictators 12:17 and a misanthropes like Adolf Hitler 12:20 then you got serious trouble. 12:22 So what do you do in from your own perspective? 12:24 What do you do when the majority 12:29 can then change even the bill of rights 12:32 or change the constitution? 12:34 In other words you have a situation-- 12:35 You have a dangerous situation and you quoted Ellen White 12:38 who wrote a lot of things to our church in its early days 12:42 and feel she was moved of God and some of the statements 12:46 and she looked ahead in the future to a time 12:49 she said when the United States Sebastian of civil liberties 12:53 and protectors of the rights of the minority 12:55 that it would actually-- 12:57 Speak like a dragon. 12:58 Well, beyond that I'm trying to think of the word she used, 13:00 it would effectively repudiate 13:03 every principle of the constitution. 13:04 Of the constitution, yeah, yeah. 13:06 And I in some ways I see that coming down the point. 13:09 It hasn't happened yet but this majoritarian assumptions, 13:14 extraordinary reactions in emergencies-- 13:16 Yes. 13:18 One of the framers says, you know, 13:19 who would give away essential liberties 13:21 in the time of crisis for security deserves 13:23 neither the liberty nor security. 13:25 Freedom nor security. Ben Franco. 13:26 I think I thought it was Franco but I-- 13:28 I usually don't say what I'm not sure and that's very true. 13:31 Yeah, yeah. 13:32 It's really in an emergency that you show that 13:35 those principles are important same with religious liberties. 13:37 Its easy, to give religious freedom to a minority 13:41 when there is no stress. 13:42 It's when it's dangerous and there's, you know, 13:45 religious people maybe attacking each other 13:47 that you still stick with it. 13:49 As the US has done since 9/11 I must say publicly 13:53 we've not wave it from saying we protect the minorities 13:55 and we're divergent religious opinion. 13:58 I have spoken too much and broke up my own rule. 14:00 But coming up to our first break 14:03 but I just ask the people to stay with us 14:05 we'll be back shortly and we'll continue 14:07 this discussion with Wintley Phipps. 14:10 And I have a reason for the-- my title given to this program. 14:14 Because I want to deal with young people. 14:17 It's a important part of religious freedom stay with us. |
Revised 2014-12-17