Participants: Lincoln Steed (Host), Nicolas Miller
Series Code: LI
Program Code: LI000355B
|
00:05 Welcome back to the Liberty Insider.
00:07 Before the break with guest Nick Miller, 00:09 we were talking about the Johnson, 00:11 I used the term, was it an amendment? 00:13 What was the term of the Johnson rule? 00:15 Johnson Bill or Johnson Act, I think. 00:16 Johnson Act, I think, yeah, 00:18 which restricted the ability of churches 00:22 to act directly in a nakedly political manner. 00:25 And I think we agreed that 00:27 there were good reasons for that 00:29 and security for both the state and church. 00:32 But this question of 00:36 how publicly religious views should be held and promoted 00:41 is very vibrant at the moment. 00:44 In another context on this gay marriage 00:46 and gay rights issue. 00:49 And, in fact, our new vice president 00:52 pins that was his last major act. 00:57 Governor of Indiana. 00:58 Governor of Indiana defended, hit the headlines, 01:01 he actually signed into, vote for at one point, 01:03 a referral bill that had as a writer, 01:07 an incredible authorization for people of faith 01:10 to refuse service of cakes, 01:12 and wedding photos, and the whole thing. 01:13 Right. 01:15 And then as I remember he had to back down. 01:16 Yes. 01:18 And it's probably gonna be the last of the state refers 01:21 for a long time. 01:22 Well, now that there's been a new administration though 01:24 and Mike Pence is now the Vice-President, 01:26 other winds could blow. 01:28 Well, that would have to be a wind, 01:30 because the federal government can't easily mandate 01:32 to the states too. 01:33 No, but a lot of states are wanting to do it. 01:35 Yeah, that's true. Yeah, you're right. 01:36 It changed the dynamic, there's no question. 01:39 But, you know, this is a bigger issue. 01:42 You and I may disagree on it. 01:46 Should a Christian expect that a law 01:49 will empower them to treat a non-believer differently, 01:54 if they are running a business 01:55 or even just any set of public interchange? 01:58 So let me ask a slightly different question. 02:01 Should the law protect a Christian businessman 02:04 in conducting their business 02:07 according to their moral convictions? 02:11 Let me throw another one at you. 02:14 We'll find out who's interviewing who. 02:16 But, you know, I'm old enough 02:18 when I first came to the US in 1966, 02:20 because the civil rights thing was blossoming. 02:23 We drove down south a few times 02:25 and I saw the signs on restaurants and other places. 02:29 Now I forget what the words... 02:32 No colors allowed? It's colors. 02:34 I was fishing for the word. No colors, no Jews. 02:36 No Jews, really? Wow. 02:38 Yup, and the other day... 02:42 My wife is Hispanic from Guatemala 02:44 and her brother was visiting from Guatemala, 02:48 but he studied in Texas, 02:49 and he told me how the police ejected him from a restaurant 02:53 that signed no Mexicans either. 02:56 He's not Mexican but, you know, was all Spanish... 02:58 It was a broad basis of discrimination. 03:00 Now I've studied enough to know 03:02 those were not just bigoted statements, 03:04 which they were. 03:05 Yeah. They were bigoted. 03:07 But there was a theology that lay behind it 03:08 and good Christian people felt that 03:11 this was their view that was being empowered by law. 03:14 Right. 03:16 So it was an erroneous theology which has never been widely 03:17 held in the church. 03:19 Well, is it erroneous? 03:20 It arose in particular societies 03:22 that were bigoted to begin with. 03:25 The south... 03:26 We are all bigoted to begin with. 03:28 Well, we know that's the faith statement, 03:29 it's the faith statement. 03:31 But there are historians have recognized 03:34 that the use of the Bible 03:35 to defend racial distinctions arose in the south 03:38 long after slavery was implemented. 03:41 It was a new argument to make against the moral arguments 03:44 that were being made against them. 03:45 Now, of course, I'm against these sorts of 03:50 improper uses of theology to defend discrimination, 03:54 but let me tell you how they are different. 03:56 But they are not putting signs up now. 03:58 I wouldn't feel too good, I mean, 04:00 I'm not a part of those communities, 04:02 but still just the effect on me, 04:04 if I went to a cake shop 04:07 and I see, "We do not serve gays." 04:10 Well, no. Okay, that would be inappropriate. 04:12 But that's what they wanted. 04:13 No, that's not what they wanted. 04:15 They don't want the sign, but they want to act that way. 04:16 No, this is an important distinction. 04:19 None of the cases I know involve discrimination 04:21 against gays. 04:23 In fact, in almost all, many of the cases... 04:25 Oh, I know, it's provocation 04:27 where they go there and try to... 04:28 No, no, no, no, this is the difference 04:30 between distinction, 04:31 I'm sorry, between identity and between moral act. 04:36 So in the cases, the race cases, 04:39 people are being turned down just because of their identity. 04:42 Who they are? 04:44 But in these issues relating to same sex marriage, 04:47 in many instances, the gay individuals 04:49 are long time customers of the florist or the bakery. 04:53 They are being served, 04:55 the owners know that these persons are gay, 04:57 they don't have a problem with serving them, 04:59 selling them cakes, or cupcakes, or whatever. 05:02 But what happens is, it's not about identity, 05:05 it's about moral choices. 05:07 So when that gay person decides to choose 05:11 to enter into a lifelong 05:13 or some sort of same sex relationship 05:15 and then wants to celebrate that, 05:17 that is taking a moral standing position 05:21 that they then want to involve the business owner in, 05:24 in promoting in some way. 05:26 So I think it's quite a different thing to say, 05:28 "I'm discriminating against someone based on who they are, 05:30 their status." 05:32 And I'm against that. 05:33 You know, if there was a Seventh-day Adventist 05:35 diner of a fast food, semi-fast food restaurant 05:38 that caters for parties. 05:40 Yeah. 05:41 Are they going to provide food at a beer party 05:44 where there's beer, dancing, and probably more. 05:48 So they may not choose to, right? 05:50 And that would be their moral choice to be able to. 05:53 They can say, I don't like your party, 05:55 I'm not gonna cater to it. 05:56 And let's make it as a professional, as a lawyer, 05:59 if I am approached by a pornographer, 06:02 Playboy Magazine or some such outfit, 06:05 and they want me to take their case, 06:08 I have the ability to say, 06:11 "No, I don't morally agree with your production 06:14 and I'm gonna chose not to." 06:16 Now if I can do that, 06:17 and I'm essentially protected 06:19 under my legal ethics and standards, 06:20 I have the right to do that. 06:22 Why is it that a blue collar worker 06:26 doesn't have the same moral protection? 06:29 And think about the Christians in the early Roman Empire. 06:33 You have thrown another spanner 'cause I forgotten that lawyers 06:37 and some other professionals would act that way. 06:39 We make moral distinctions 06:41 about the clients we will serve. 06:42 And if you think about the early Roman Empire, 06:45 Christians drew the line and sometimes lost their lives 06:50 not for doing some obviously immoral act, 06:54 but for refusing to burn a pinch of incense 06:57 to the emperors, it was highly symbolic. 07:00 It was hardly crossing the line on some issues. 07:03 They wouldn't incite the pledge of allegiance. 07:04 And so these persons, 07:07 these Christian florists or bakers are saying, 07:11 "If I make a cake with a wedding with two men on it 07:14 and provide it to the services there, 07:16 I'm endorsing, I'm supporting by my behavior this act 07:20 which I morally disagree with." 07:21 I actually see the moral quandary, 07:25 but I do believe that 07:27 there are many subtle interactions in life 07:31 where you apply your moral viewpoint 07:34 and you might pay up a penalty. 07:36 You might lose business, generally or specifically. 07:39 You may lose business, 07:41 but what's happened in many instances is that 07:42 they are then sued. 07:44 Well, we're in the developing phase of this new right. 07:47 Some businesses have been closed down. 07:48 I would have never granted it necessarily, but... 07:51 A business in Washington 07:52 for refusing to bake a cake. 07:55 What's going on is these are provocations 07:58 that flush out a bad attitude. 08:02 Well, let me ask you this. 08:03 But, you know, if you run a business, it seems to me, 08:06 you can guarantee that through that door will come 08:09 wife beaters, drug dealers, you know, 08:12 and people that are embezzling at work. 08:16 You don't know, you can't make that moral judgment, 08:18 but if here's something very obvious 08:22 sort of in your face thing, 08:23 does that make them a worst sinner than the others? 08:25 If you gonna disallow people 08:27 based on your distaste for their lifestyle, 08:30 you shouldn't be running a public business. 08:31 Well, let me ask you this. 08:33 If there was an African-American baker 08:35 and the local KKK high wizard came in and said, 08:40 "We want a cake saying white supremacy 08:43 with a burning cross on it, 08:44 should the black baker have to bake it? 08:47 Well, I don't know, because that's what seems to be 08:49 he's running foul some laws. 08:52 What? No, he can say that. 08:53 There is no law that prevents you from expressing 08:56 inappropriate racial views. 08:59 So if the answer to this one is no, 09:01 the black baker should be able to turn it down, 09:02 then why can't the Christian turn down a cake 09:04 that he is morally opposed to? 09:07 I believe in the real world. 09:08 You made a very interesting point. 09:10 In the real world these things sort them out 09:13 because something is personal 09:16 or becoming more personal like a customized cake 09:19 and that or your wedding pictures. 09:21 You go to someone that you're sympathetic with, right? 09:24 Well, you think so. What's happen normally... 09:26 These days people are seeking out, 09:27 ones with religious convictions and put them out to trial. 09:29 Well, they are seeking them out to prove a point. 09:31 Right. 09:32 But once the thing is settled, 09:34 I don't think this will come up very much. 09:37 Well, I hope not. 09:38 I mean, I think the point is 09:39 there's usually a number of different options 09:41 for cakes and flowers, 09:43 and it's not as though if the Christian one 09:45 doesn't provide it, 09:46 they are not going to have a wedding, 09:47 they are not gonna have access to it. 09:49 They want to force these individuals 09:51 to approve and support their moral choices. 09:54 And in a moral question, 09:56 and morally, the other side of it is exactly that. 09:58 Right. 09:59 And it's very abusive of peoples' 10:02 Christian sensibilities. 10:03 And if we're committed to morally pluralistic society, 10:07 then we need to preserve the ability of individuals. 10:11 That's why, in fact, 10:13 we agree that the gay community should have the right 10:16 to make the moral choices they do. 10:18 But then I should have the right 10:20 to make the moral choices I am convicted of. 10:22 But where they started, at least in my mind, 10:24 it didn't start with the gay thing, 10:27 it started with contraception, and chemists, 10:31 and others filling prescriptions, 10:34 and I didn't like that either. 10:35 Here you don't agree with their whole deal, 10:38 but it could make a huge difference in someone's life 10:41 whether they could get something over-the-counter 10:43 in this chemist or they go elsewhere 10:45 if it's available somewhere else in town. 10:46 But that's not a convenient thing at all. 10:49 You've affected other people's lives negatively 10:52 just because you have moral squeamishness about it. 10:57 But that was the state law. 10:59 I mean, in other words, the Supreme Court case 11:04 you're alluding to was about some states 11:06 forbid the sale of birth control. 11:09 And I think that was... 11:10 Supposedly there were moral objections 11:12 where the things would be denied to other people. 11:13 Yeah, well, the state has a complicated role 11:17 in trying to preserve morality, 11:19 but doing it in a way that doesn't infringe 11:21 on individual believer's freedom of conscience. 11:25 We need to learn how to stand up 11:26 for these issues as both Christian citizens 11:30 and citizens of the kingdom of heaven. 11:34 Quite a few years ago, I remember running an article 11:36 in Liberty Magazine by Dr. D. James Kennedy, 11:40 who had a TV program out of Coral Gables 11:43 and quite some national exposure. 11:46 In fact, he was to the fore 11:48 and pushing for a piece of legislation 11:50 then known as the Jones Bill, 11:53 and as Dr. Kennedy said, 11:55 "The Jones Bill would free the churches 11:58 to be a part of the community and a part of public life." 12:01 Well, let me free them by giving them political power. 12:04 I'm not so sure that, 12:06 that is the path to the best religious expression, 12:10 because in reality, as Jesus said, 12:12 "If the Son sets you free, you are free indeed." 12:15 And the freedom that we want to encourage 12:18 should bubble over from a spiritual life 12:20 and an indwelling hope in Christ 12:23 that is not able to be contained. 12:26 That spiritual revival doesn't need a Jones Bill. 12:32 It doesn't need the repudiation of the Johnson directives. 12:37 It needs the power of the spirit 12:39 lived out in the life and in the community. 12:42 For Liberty Insider, this is Lincoln Steed. |
Revised 2017-04-13