Participants: Lincoln Steed (Host), Paul Anderson
Series Code: LI
Program Code: LI000312A
|
00:22 Welcome to the "Liberty Insider."
00:24 This is the program bringing you news, views, discussion, 00:27 up-to-date information, all on religious liberty. 00:30 My name is Lincoln Steed, Editor of Liberty Magazine. 00:34 And my guest on this program is Chaplain Paul Anderson. 00:38 Welcome Paul. Thank you. 00:40 And welcome back again 00:42 because we've done a few programs before. 00:44 Well, it's an honor to be back again with you. 00:46 Well, it's my honor for you to be on the program. 00:49 And I'm captivated by your career 00:53 as well as your responsibilities, 00:55 in charge of chaplaincy 00:56 for the Seventh-day Adventist church. 01:00 I want to discuss religious liberty in a general sense 01:03 but you bring your world experienced to view on this. 01:07 It strikes me that religious liberty has been said before 01:11 as the first freedom, 01:13 since U.S Constitution pretty... 01:17 not a great length but, you know, first amendment 01:19 and then very importantly 01:21 in religious test for public office, 01:25 that the first amendment separates church and state. 01:27 Correct. 01:28 Bit of an argument about that as, you know, 01:31 not what it says, but what it means, 01:33 but we know very well from history. 01:36 Thomas Jefferson, that set up the model for that, 01:40 and he did say, that it made a separation, 01:43 a wall of separation between church and state. 01:45 Right. 01:46 But as I look at some other models and Islam 01:49 where we counterpoints 01:51 with some Islamic countries and activists. 01:55 The Quran doesn't allow for religious freedom 01:58 or it doesn't-- 01:59 Well, they say it does but it doesn't allow 02:00 for separation of church and state, not at all. 02:05 I can see many signs 02:07 that we're losing our civil liberties 02:09 and our religious liberty for one reason or another. 02:13 I think a misunderstanding 02:14 about separation of church and state is making it worst. 02:17 What do you think? 02:18 How does this figure into this all? 02:20 What do you see in the many events swirling around us? 02:23 I think some people misunderstand the concept 02:28 of separation of church and state as to mean 02:32 that there should be no religious perspective 02:36 or spiritual perspective in politics. 02:40 Or in society even. 02:42 Or even in society where the constitutional separation 02:48 was to say that the state 02:52 would not establish a state church, 02:55 to which all citizens were responsible, 02:59 so it doesn't say that an American 03:03 can't be spiritual or an American politician 03:07 can't be a religionist of some sort, 03:10 but it does say that the church should not be the arbiter 03:15 of all things political 03:17 and that the political leaders 03:19 should not be the arbiter of all things spiritual. 03:22 I've got a-- I tend to be a contrarian, 03:27 I'd agree with you absolutely, 03:29 but I can think of something interesting 03:31 in the recent speech of the pope to congress, 03:35 which in my view might need 03:37 the separation of church and state considerably. 03:39 Well he clearly is a head of state. 03:42 Right. And a head of the church. 03:44 And so in liberty, I say there, you know, 03:46 he has a right to be Catholic or to be pope 03:48 and to hold whatever Catholics hold, 03:50 but this is sort of the ultimate nemesis 03:54 of the American system. 03:55 You got the two rolled up into one, 03:57 it's the opposite of our system. 03:59 But he made a comment in his speech, 04:03 I heard nobody comment on that, but I noticed that he said, 04:06 there is a need for reciprocal subsidiarity. 04:11 I read an article about that. 04:15 Did you? How did you interpret that? 04:17 Well, I'm mulling over it, 04:19 but I know where the word comes from. 04:21 The Roman Catholic Church has stated that officially 04:24 lately that the separation of church and state, 04:28 ironically they are the only ones, not the only, 04:30 but they're the only major group pushing for it 04:33 where the religious right had become dismissive, 04:35 but the Roman Catholics have very properly said, 04:38 "Yes, there should be 04:39 separation of church and state." 04:41 But they've said that the state is subsidiary to the church. 04:47 Well, in a certain sense I agree with them. 04:49 The spiritual value is of the highest 04:52 and we have to, you know, obey the state, 04:55 unless the higher calling conflicts with that, 04:58 but I think they mean, 05:00 that the power of the church which does not exercises 05:04 separation of church and state, 05:05 sort of sits there really and it has the upper hand, 05:09 that the little troubling in itself. 05:10 But reciprocal subsidiarity, 05:13 I'm not really sure what that means. 05:14 Don't we see the same spiritual social construct 05:20 in place like Iran, 05:24 where they'll elect a president or a prime minister 05:29 but they are subject to the mullahs. 05:32 Yes. 05:33 But that's not ideal, is it? 05:38 It works, it's their way, it's not our way. 05:41 It's true and, and that's probably not an ideal thing 05:47 but if even with that structure, 05:49 if they allowed the citizenry 05:52 to chose their own religious path, 05:55 you could still have practically speaking 05:57 religious freedom for people within that system. 06:00 And it's worth remembering that I think the U.S system 06:02 is well designed and it's worked pretty well, 06:05 but it's not the only way that people can practice 06:09 full religious freedom. 06:11 True. 06:13 But I think in many countries and in particular the U.S 06:18 and in particular since 9/11, we have seen an erosion 06:22 of not just the laws 06:26 that have to do with religious freedom 06:27 but more important to me, 06:29 an erosion of the concept of what it means what. 06:33 Do you have the right to be wrong? 06:35 Do you have the right to belong to a group 06:38 that others find troubling or even perhaps dangerous? 06:44 You know that becomes an issue 06:46 and can even within the structure of a church, 06:52 if a person sees, has a contrarian view, 06:56 or a different perspective, 06:59 then the norm is the person in good and regular standing. 07:06 You're getting perilously close to what-- You know, 07:09 we want to represent our church actively, get not so much, 07:13 not show dirty linen, 07:14 but we don't want to undercut our own position. 07:16 But I have said and I believe this fervently 07:19 to mostly Adventist groups, 07:22 the lifestyle that we're called toward in the Bible. 07:26 If we live that exemplary and aggressive-- 07:30 in an exemplary and aggressive manner, 07:32 we would probably get even persecution 07:34 within our own fellowship. 07:36 Probably so. 07:37 And certainly kick back and some ostracization, 07:42 so how do you deal with it? 07:45 There is got to be some balance and interplay 07:48 between the role of individual liberty 07:52 and corporate responsibility and accountability. 07:57 You know, even since 9/11, 08:00 I remember very foolish and panic people 08:03 getting up and say, "I don't care, 08:04 what liberties I give away. 08:06 I don't care if the president knows, you know, 08:09 what I put on in my bathroom and I brush my teeth, 08:13 if I'm protected that's it." 08:15 Well, you know, very foolish statements, 08:17 but we are bearing the fruit of that sort of willingness. 08:21 All sorts of oversight 08:23 has been allowed by the federal government, 08:25 which makes judgments, 08:27 and human being make judgments on many thing 08:29 but religion in particular, 08:32 and it troubles me that bureaucrats 08:36 or somebody in authority 08:39 might be sort of looking through 08:42 the two-way lens of my television, 08:44 making judgments about how I practice my faith. 08:47 George Orwell was a much more than prescient, 08:52 he was prophetic. 08:54 It really happens. Yes. 08:56 I mean, I don't think 08:57 it's worth keep staying up at night over 08:58 but the there is a mechanism 09:00 if you connected the cable, it's a two way lens. 09:03 Yes it is. 09:07 I have old televisions at home for that reason, 09:12 but I don't want to live my life paranoid, 09:16 but that beg the question then of right doing 09:19 and I guess some people were saying you know, 09:22 if I'm doing the right thing, 09:23 it doesn't matter who sees 09:24 or when they see whatever I'm doing, 09:26 as long as they keep me safe. 09:29 That's true but I saw an interview with someone 09:32 from the intelligence community recently, 09:34 and he quoted people saying that 09:36 and we all generally upbraid on that little one as we, 09:39 that's all we can anyhow and that's reasonable, 09:42 but he made a comment that's worth thinking about 09:45 and I'd like to connect it to religious activity, 09:48 because he said, just remember, 09:50 he says, you're not the one 09:52 that gets to determine what's legal or illegal. 09:54 That's true. 09:56 So you could be doing like Daniel, 10:00 you could be praying at your window, 10:03 a very reasonable religious activity, 10:06 but it could be highly illegal or construed in a very bad way 10:11 by someone who doesn't like your religion. 10:13 Right, right and but I guess the, 10:18 the answer to that is to know what's right and best 10:24 and do it though heavens fall. 10:26 Obviously all of us need to do what's right and moral 10:29 and serve before God. 10:31 And if any authority is dually author-- 10:35 You know, if it's fulfilling its charter on the garden, 10:39 on the heaven, it won't find that dangerous, 10:43 but I think we're entering a phase, 10:45 where there is so much oversight 10:46 and then we spoke about that in another program, 10:48 the religious baggage of this whole war and terror 10:52 is so heavy, 10:53 that I think more and more, 10:55 there's the likelihood 10:57 that wrong judgments will be made 10:58 about people's religious behavior 11:00 that could have huge ramifications 11:02 for civil liberties. 11:04 I agree and some of the oversight 11:06 that the government is doing 11:08 seems to violate the sense of the right 11:12 not to incriminate yourself. 11:14 On the other hand, 11:15 I was reading an article last night 11:17 about the raids on some of the mosques in France, 11:21 and the cash of weapons 11:24 that were found in these places.. 11:27 And I remember back during the Iraqi War, 11:31 there was a mosque in Ramadi 11:33 that had been essentially made into an arsenal, 11:37 but we, the American military refused to attack it 11:42 because of the value that we place on sacred sites. 11:49 Well, yeah, I mean, it's a difficult thing. 11:53 I wonder like I'd say as Jesus said, you know, 11:56 all that take up the sword, die by the sword. 11:59 And any church that becomes, allows itself to be subverted 12:04 into a military operation or operation for violence, 12:09 I think it's kind of bear the fruit of that. 12:11 But it is good that there was that respect. 12:14 Yeah, we executed that level of respect. 12:19 They used that as a weakness it seems, 12:24 but I think in the balance or overtime 12:29 the balance was made clear. 12:31 But, you know, I'll go back to really seminal event, 12:35 the Davidian stand of in Waco, Texas, 12:41 the Davidians are an interesting offshoot group, 12:44 very small, I doubt there's more than tens of them left 12:49 and never more than a few hundred, 12:52 at most a couple of thousand worldwide, 12:54 but Adventists have some knowledge about them 12:57 because many decades ago they spun off from people 13:00 who were Seventh-day Adventists 13:02 and developed to their vanishing points, 13:04 certain apocalyptic prophecies 13:07 and Old Testament exclusionary views. 13:11 But, you know, when I saw that confrontation 13:14 that developed inexorably there in Texas, 13:18 and resulted in many people dying, 13:21 I thinks it's 1890. 13:23 People, many of them young people, 13:25 all of them ex Seventh-day Adventist 13:28 or the children of Adventist I thought that, you know, 13:32 it really became a self-fulfilling tragedy, 13:35 that was fueled by many things, 13:37 but I think primarily misinformation, 13:40 misunderstanding of their religious views 13:43 just because they're doctrinally 13:45 different from our church 13:46 didn't make them deserving of death. 13:48 In that fashion. 13:50 No, so what really happened among other things 13:55 as I think some of their ideas were extrapolated so huge 14:00 that they became offensive and even threatening 14:03 to the larger population. 14:05 And I thought many times how easily that could be done 14:09 in any religious group. 14:11 I think what fascinated the world about that event 14:15 and subsequent more recent ones 14:18 was the rapidity and rapacious nature 14:23 of a militarized police force. 14:28 And we were talking about the erosion of liberty 14:32 and I think we are beginning to see 14:34 how some of our eschatology 14:37 is being previewed by the 14:44 in... 14:45 What's a good word, 14:47 intense capacity of law enforcement 14:50 to enforce perspective not always law. 14:55 Yeah, you're right. 14:57 You know, there are good and bad people in any country 15:00 and in any society, 15:02 and all people with good intention, bad intention 15:04 but so much of what we're living through, 15:06 I think there's a cause and the effect 15:09 is felt by different people, 15:10 and they don't realize they are responding 15:12 to something that they didn't set in emotion and you have, 15:16 can have a policeman, 15:18 he has got a view that was sort of presented to him 15:22 but it's not necessarily right 15:24 and he's gonna act a certain way 15:26 that could result in someone being deprived 15:30 in essence of the benefit of the law. 15:34 They will be perceived just because of their-- 15:38 You know, in the past, 15:39 there was plenty in this country 15:41 and because of your race, certain things kick in 15:42 but it could just as easily be and I think it's getting, 15:44 well, I'm of an era, 15:46 when if you had long hair and dress a certain way, 15:49 the police were down on the hippies movement. 15:51 Yeah, we don't have that problem now though. 15:53 Not you and I. 15:57 No, but I think we are rapidly heading toward the point 16:02 where just to call someone a fundamentalist, 16:04 everything kicks in. 16:06 Or to disagree with someone's reasonable belief 16:13 on how they want to live their life. 16:16 It can be a resistant 16:19 to someone's choice of lifestyle 16:22 might be perceived as hate speech. 16:25 Yeah, I agree, that's a very serious point. 16:27 Think about that for a minute while we take a break 16:29 and then come back 16:30 while we continue this discussion. |
Revised 2016-01-01