Participants: Lincoln Steed (Host), Bruce N. Cameron
Series Code: LI
Program Code: LI000330B
|
00:06 Welcome back to the Liberty Insider.
00:07 Before the break with guest Professor Bruce Cameron. 00:13 We've gone up feeling down then on the Supreme Court 00:15 on this particular case but we've gone back 00:19 to the future to the Smith case 00:24 which has Antonin Scalia's fingerprints 00:27 all over it, right? 00:29 Yeah, that's all he had for comrades who voted with him. 00:33 But I know he is often been fingered 00:37 as part of the problem there. 00:38 He absolutely was part of the problem. 00:40 And I think he had clear opinion on it 00:42 but that put him in trouble, right? 00:46 That's right, in fact you know, to explain to the audience 00:50 about this... 00:52 in the normal case involving a First Amendment right 00:54 of free speech. 00:56 If the state interferes with your right, 00:58 it doesn't matter whether or not they intended to interfere, 01:02 if you file lawsuit challenging the constitutionality 01:05 of the interference, state has to show 01:08 a compelling state interest satisfied in a way 01:11 least restrictive on your right. 01:13 That's the classic first amendment test. 01:16 Justice Scalia and for other justices said, 01:21 when it comes to free exercise of religion, 01:24 the government has to be targeting you, 01:26 that is the government has to be aiming 01:28 at depriving you of religious freedom, 01:31 otherwise it's not a violation of the first amendment right 01:36 of free exercise, it's a horrible decision. 01:39 I mean, it was just making problems with people of faith, 01:42 and it makes a mockery of the first amendment 01:45 that seems to me... 01:46 Well, mockery... 01:48 That the government's not to be in the religious, 01:49 put his hands off, let it go. 01:51 Yeah, for seventh day Adventist, 01:53 it was cause for real concern because for example, 01:56 if you are our age, you've seen the cycles with gas problems 02:01 and imagine if the government said, 02:04 no one could drive on the weekend or on Saturday 02:07 because we want to conserve gas under Smith, 02:10 absolutely constitutional, it's not... 02:12 Generally applicable law. That's right. 02:14 Generally applicable not targeting religion. 02:17 So Congress thankfully was concerned about this 02:21 and they pass through religious freedom restoration act 02:25 which at the time... 02:26 What year was that again... 02:30 Was it '96? 02:31 I'm gonna go with whatever date you say. 02:37 That sounds right. 02:40 I'm on the interpretation site, 02:43 not the historical side. 02:47 But I think it was round about there 02:49 but and it was declared unconstitutional unfortunately 02:54 but not for the road, I don't think it was for 02:57 a reason that disqualifies the bill, it was a good bill. 03:00 You're exactly right, Lincoln. 03:02 It's not because of the marriage 03:04 through religious freedom restoration act. 03:06 It has to do with the basis for passing it. 03:10 It was based upon 03:13 the Fourteenth Amendment Section 5. 03:16 I won't get in the constitutional complexity 03:18 of it, but it simply had to do with Congress's authorization 03:25 to pass the statute. 03:27 It would have applied to the states. 03:28 Right, not the merits of the bill 03:32 and it still applies 03:35 to Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 03:37 still applies to federal employees. 03:39 And is being quoted recently in Supreme Court cases. 03:43 That's right. 03:44 In fact, it was the bases 03:46 for the Hobby Lobby, did decision. 03:48 We'll talk about another... That's right. 03:50 We need to really settle on that and discuss it fully. 03:59 What I really want to mention, I hesitated, 04:01 because we had a program on it, but it's worth telling 04:04 our viewers, that the effort to do it state by state, 04:10 which followed on from the Supreme Court 04:12 disqualifying it as a federal general law 04:16 applied to the states. 04:18 It's now going through state by state 04:20 and that was going fine, I think 20 states 04:22 passed state refers and then the growing conflict 04:27 between gay rights and religious rights 04:32 became a public item. 04:34 I think it was Indiana, remember the Indiana case 04:36 hit the fan big time, and you may know 04:41 but some interested inserted some, 04:45 some language there that gave Christians 04:48 or people of faith the right to, I think, 04:52 sort of aggressively exclude gays 04:57 and others in businesses and that, 05:00 then the war was on, and I think the future of state 05:03 refers is probably not good. 05:06 Well, it's unfortunate, because in the past both left 05:10 and the right agreed on religious freedom. 05:12 They agreed on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 05:15 but as you say, exactly right. 05:19 It is the rising growth, the homosexual movement 05:23 that has harmed it. 05:25 Now when you say aggressively, 05:27 I think that as a shop owner, 05:32 I should be able to practice my trade, 05:35 operate my shop without violating 05:39 my religious beliefs and what was happening is, 05:43 that states were passing statutes 05:45 that would protect sexual orientation and say, 05:49 but you had to patronize people regardless 05:53 of their sexual orientation. 05:55 Well, I think that probably most Christians 05:57 would have no idea about the sexual orientation 05:59 of their customers, it's not an issue, 06:02 they sell cookies to whoever wants to buy cookies. 06:06 The problem is, 06:07 when you force someone that has artistic input, 06:11 someone who is creating a cake, creating, you know, 06:14 photographer what have, let's say, 06:16 we're going to force your speech 06:19 to promote a homosexual event. 06:22 That's where the clash starts. Well, that's true. 06:23 There is a crossover where it clearly impinges 06:27 upon your individuality and your views that 06:31 I think from what I've read, there are some people 06:35 that would like to have sort of a current version 06:38 of what I saw when I first came to the U.S., 06:41 you know, the end of the Civil Rights movement, 06:43 they were signs up, you know, certain people, 06:46 we're not gonna serve, 06:47 and that had this theology of sorts too. 06:51 So, you know, Christianity and religion is wonderful, 06:55 but like many belief systems, you can use that 06:59 for personal bigotry. 07:00 Well... 07:02 I'm little afraid that some people at least 07:05 are getting involved 07:07 just to exclude the certain category 07:09 rather than in this very real cases 07:12 were someone can be personally conflicted 07:15 over an apparent demand to become part 07:18 of what they think is morally wrong. 07:20 Let me tell you the difference between 07:22 the Civil Rights movement and the gay rights movement... 07:24 Oh, they're not the same at all. 07:25 Christianity... 07:27 Yeah, was at the heart of the Civil Rights movement. 07:30 I mean, the leaders in the Civil Rights movement 07:33 were ministers, Christians supported this idea 07:38 that you shouldn't be discriminating against people. 07:41 On the other hand, homosexuality and its movement 07:44 conflicts with sections of the Bible, 07:47 and so Christians who are concerned about 07:51 what the Bible say 07:53 are concerned about supporting it, 07:56 concerned about being forced to expend their speech, 08:01 their artistic efforts in support of it. 08:03 Yeah, that's true. 08:06 So, we will talk about refer... 08:08 Right. 08:09 We got off a little... 08:11 So you would asked about 08:12 whether or not Congress can pass a law, 08:18 which will fix what the Supreme Court has done 08:22 and the answer is, its ability is limited. 08:25 This Congress cannot definitively interpret 08:29 the United States constitution, 08:32 instead, it can pass a statute that give someone rights, 08:36 or course what's the parallel to that. 08:39 If Congress can pass a statute to give those rights, 08:42 Congress can pass a statute to take away those rights 08:46 or now the statute of the past. 08:49 And then Scalia said correctly a few times, 08:53 even if congress can't, 08:55 then Supreme Court had said the constitution says this, 08:58 there is a mechanism in the constitution 09:00 to amend the constitution. 09:03 Well, that is true. 09:06 Which we don't do very much but it's... 09:08 Hopefully not often. 09:09 No, 09:11 but that is the strength of it, 09:15 I mean, it started off with amendments, 09:16 admittedly they were sort amendments at the beginning, 09:21 a condition of the passage of the original constitution, 09:23 but in theory it's a document 09:26 that can be adjusted as the people decide. 09:29 Right, well, I mean, 09:30 I think that perhaps the last big issue 09:34 was the equal rights amendment, I mean, 09:36 one that was heavily debated among the states, 09:40 but here is the problem in my mind. 09:44 The United States 09:45 is the most successful country in history. 09:50 Why is it successful country? 09:52 Because I think it's based on biblical principles 09:55 which are the rule of law, 09:57 free choice and the rule of law, 09:59 and so I think 10:01 that kind of bases shouldn't be changed. 10:05 You and I might have a little difference, 10:07 I wouldn't worded that way. 10:10 I don't think it's based on biblical principles 10:14 but its bases, 10:18 there maybe distinctive difference 10:19 but it accorded more closely with biblical principles 10:24 as it came into its formative period. 10:27 I mean English common law 10:28 and history wasn't all biblical. 10:31 I think it had a strong Protestant flavor to it 10:34 that clearly put us on the right side of morality 10:39 and as you and I believe, 10:40 God blesses the nation that follows his natural law. 10:45 Here is the historical distinction, 10:46 the French Revolution, 10:48 the American Revolution are at the same time. 10:51 The French Revolution 10:52 was not based on biblical principles, 10:54 the American Revolution was. 10:56 In fact, you're right, 10:57 that's a very clear distinct and in many ways 10:59 the French Revolution 11:00 was an over rejection of religious freedom. 11:02 Exactly. 11:03 Exactly, and so 11:04 and so many ways this idea of free choice, 11:08 this idea of free decisions reflect God's will 11:13 to give us free choice, when it comes to making things, 11:18 making decisions in our life. 11:20 Even those decisions 11:22 which involve very direct consequences, 11:26 if we make the wrong ones. 11:27 That's why I say the U.S. Constitution 11:32 reflects God's will on free choice. 11:35 To me it's rather axiomatic 11:37 when talking about religious liberty, 11:40 but you can discover it in the negative 11:42 anytime there is compulsion involved. 11:45 When we talk about religion and the trade unions 11:49 that is the sticking point. 11:51 Are you compelled to join in such a union against your will, 11:55 and further, 11:56 in this era of some sort of deferment though, 12:00 are you compel to pay the dues. 12:03 Thankfully that is largely been resolved, 12:06 but it's worth remembering this principle. 12:10 When you talk about unionism per se, 12:12 I think it's easy as the matter of history. 12:14 To be thankful in the western world 12:17 that the rights of employees 12:18 and the general welfare of society 12:21 are being helped by the dynamic of unions 12:25 working out working conditions 12:27 with their employee, the employers. 12:29 After all the age of laissez-faire industrialism 12:33 is long past, 12:35 but never the age of laissez-faire 12:38 religious accommodation, 12:40 and anybody with a deeply held faith surely 12:44 needs to have the ability and the right 12:47 to up doubt of any coalition that might co-opt 12:50 their freedom of choice. 12:52 For liberty Insider, this is Lincoln Steed. |
Revised 2016-08-22