Participants: Lincoln Steed (Host), Greg Hamilton
Series Code: LI
Program Code: LI000360A
|
00:26 Welcome to the Liberty Insider.
00:27 This is your program bringing you up-to-date news, 00:30 views, discussion, 00:31 and information on religious liberty events 00:34 in the U.S. and around the world. 00:36 My name is Lincoln Steed, editor of Liberty Magazine, 00:40 and my guest is Greg Hamilton, 00:42 President of the Northwest Religious Liberty Association. 00:44 How are you doing, Lincoln? 00:45 A long time friend and sometime guest. 00:48 You know, let's pick up on something 00:50 that most people don't hear about, 00:52 but it's central to religious 00:54 and religious liberty developments 00:56 around the world and in the U.S. 00:57 a document that came out a few decades ago 01:00 now called Dignitatis humanae. 01:03 Yes. 01:05 Which just means the dignity of the human being or... 01:08 Seems Latin to me. 01:09 It was really the doctrine of religious freedom 01:12 that was first proposed at Vatican II 01:14 by Jesuit trained Monsignor John Courtney Murray 01:19 and an American Monsignor. 01:21 And he went to Vatican II along with, you know, 01:24 other people it was known as an ecumenical council 01:27 and John Courtney Murray proposed... 01:29 It was only Catholic... 01:32 Well, but there actually, 01:33 but there were all religions there 01:34 who viewed and observed it. 01:36 Yes. Okay. 01:37 But it was called as a Council of Trent 01:41 even for that matter. 01:42 It was called as a general Christian council. 01:45 Correct. 01:46 But it was the Catholic hierarchy that ran it. 01:48 But the point is that they came together 01:52 and for the first time, the Catholic Church 01:54 adopted the doctrine of religious freedom. 01:58 It's a good document. It's a good document. 02:01 But the document promotes the free exercise of religion, 02:05 but logically, because the Catholic Church 02:08 is a sovereign, 02:09 considered a sovereign nation state 02:11 recognized by the United Nations that way 02:14 and recognized by nearly 200 countries, 02:18 who receive ambassadors from the Holy See 02:20 and in return the same. 02:23 So it denounced or not, 02:25 it silently didn't address 02:30 the whole constitutional separation 02:31 of church and state. 02:32 And it became a redefinition of religious freedom, 02:37 so to speak, 02:38 which influenced other people such as Francis Schaeffer. 02:42 And Francis Schaeffer wrote a book 02:45 called "A Christian Manifesto" in 1970. 02:48 It was an earthshaking book. I read it many, many times. 02:50 That basically challenged the whole idea of... 02:55 He basically brought up 02:56 the whole idea of civil disobedience 02:58 that there is a time and a place 02:59 for civil disobedience in America. 03:01 And to even overthrow its system 03:03 even our constitutional system... 03:05 He was quite a revolutionary, isn't he? 03:06 To rewrite it so that abortion... 03:09 Which was his singular. 03:10 Singular issue at that time. 03:14 That the Roe, well, this is even before Roe v. Wade 03:17 in 1973 by the Supreme Court 03:20 that decision by the Supreme Court 03:21 making abortion legal. 03:24 But nevertheless, 03:25 it anticipated it almost prophetically in a way 03:29 but his mentees, 03:31 the people he mentored up in his mountaintop retreat 03:34 in outside of Basel, Switzerland, L'Abri. 03:38 And guess who were his mentees, who sat at his feet? 03:42 The modern day Christian right... 03:44 Now, obviously some of them are dead, 03:46 I'm gonna name but Jerry Falwell, 03:49 Pat Robertson, 03:50 Dr. James Dobson, John Whitehead who is... 03:52 I'm about to mention him, I know him. 03:54 Who has since reformed and really is a believer 03:57 in the constitutional separation 03:58 of church and state, 04:00 and D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries 04:01 of Florida who is now deceased along with Jerry Falwell. 04:05 This is all very fascinating to me 04:07 because this Catholic redefinition 04:10 of religious freedom that is they believe 04:12 in the free exercise of religion 04:13 and liberty of conscience. 04:15 And the right to hold any religion of your conscience 04:18 and change at will without coercion. 04:20 That's revolution. 04:21 But essentially reject the Protestant 04:24 based founded document of the notion, the principle, 04:27 the constitutional principle of the separation of church 04:30 and state, that's essentially the redefinition 04:33 that has emerged throughout American society. 04:36 And there's a constant struggle 04:38 between those who are constitutional separationists 04:43 in this country 04:45 and those who want to emphasize free exercise of religion only. 04:48 And to me, that's a phenomenon that is not often talked about. 04:53 To me, the religious right 04:55 is just as much of a threat to religious freedom 04:58 as what we are gonna talk about later in another segment 05:01 as the interfaith left. 05:02 Right. 05:03 And Liberty Magazine has kept that line for a long time, 05:07 even when some didn't think it was logical. 05:09 By the way, in this current and emerging administration, 05:13 the new Attorney General Jeff Sessions very recently 05:17 in the media was quoted as saying, he doesn't believe 05:19 in the separation of church and state. 05:21 Now, this is an outgrowth of that same 05:24 one of the better id religious right thinking. 05:28 You know, they're ready to overturn the constitution 05:31 or at least what the constitution 05:32 apparently demands for this religious agenda. 05:36 What they believe comes from the Federalist Society 05:41 and other groups like the Heritage Foundation 05:44 and other groups on the right. 05:47 That believes that the Establishment Clause 05:50 of the First Amendment, 05:51 where it says "Congress shall make no law respecting 05:53 and establishment of religion 05:55 or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." 05:57 The establishment clause, 05:59 the constitutional separation of church and state, 06:01 they believe that the constitution founders 06:03 only intended to prevent 06:06 the establishment of a national church, 06:07 didn't mean anything else. 06:09 And yet, Supreme Court has made it very clear 06:11 over and over again that the two words, 06:13 an, which is a root word for any, 06:15 an establishment, and the word respecting. 06:18 The word respecting is the reference to neutrality, 06:21 which says that government can neither sanction support 06:24 or endorse religion 06:26 or religious practices of any kind. 06:28 They just want to obliterate all of that 06:31 and they want federal funding 06:32 to flow directly from their coffers 06:36 to private religious institutions, 06:38 and that's a problem. 06:40 Because once the church has federal money, 06:43 they can also then turn around and call the shots. 06:45 Absolutely. 06:46 But it seems to me that in holding that view, 06:48 they're just absolutely ignoring the Virginia Statute, 06:53 which was same wording 06:55 and the comments upon it by Jefferson. 06:57 Well... 06:59 The contemporary. 07:00 So it's one thing to play the game, 07:02 as Scalia always said, 07:03 you know, original as what, what did they think, 07:05 try to get into their minds. 07:06 We know what was in the mind of Jefferson 07:09 and most of his peers. 07:11 And then, to pass the words out to bypass that, it sort of, 07:14 it will be the equivalent 07:16 to our church having a clear council 07:18 from our prophet on our publishing institutions 07:21 and then saying, "Well, let's study what it is, 07:23 and we'll do something different." 07:25 There is two leading gurus 07:26 who introduce this Catholic redefinition 07:29 of religious freedom. 07:31 The first is Judge Robert Bork 07:33 the failed Supreme Court nominee 07:34 under the Reagan administration. 07:36 And then... 07:37 He was quiet a stir and a shaker, 07:40 in some ways I think 07:42 it was a safe call to pass it by. 07:44 He believed, one of the things 07:46 that he put forward in his writings, 07:47 in fact, came out later in his book 07:50 "The Tempting of America" 07:51 and also the book called "Slouching Towards Gomorrah". 07:54 By the way he was the chief constitutional advisor 07:57 to Mitt Romney, 07:58 during the Mitt Romney presidential campaign. 08:00 I notice that. 08:01 That was a real problematic in my opinion. 08:03 But it was Justice Antonin Scalia. 08:06 Now Justice Antonin Scalia was the other guru. 08:09 And in 1961, when he graduated from Harvard Law School 08:14 tops in his class, okay, cum laude all that stuff. 08:18 He took a job in a law firm in Cleveland, Ohio, 08:22 and the head of the law firm 08:23 invited him home for a big party, 08:26 for all of his colleagues to welcome him. 08:27 Is this in this book? That's in this book. 08:29 It's actually in six biographies, 08:31 six different biographies that I've read. 08:32 What's the book you've got today? 08:34 But most recently is an "American Original, 08:36 the Life and Constitution of Supreme Court Justice 08:38 Antonin Scalia" by Joan Biskupic 08:41 who's writes for the USA Today newspaper 08:44 and also writes and speaks for National Public Radio. 08:49 But what's interesting is, 08:51 Justice Antonin Scalia before he became a justice, 08:54 when he was just lowly attorney at this law firm, 08:57 when they threw this party for him, 08:59 there was a big argument. 09:01 And the argument was over a case 09:03 that was before the Supreme Court at that time. 09:05 This was 1961. 09:06 It was the McGowan versus Maryland case 09:09 before the Supreme Court. 09:10 It was the last decision 09:11 or ruling that Supreme Court has ever ruled on 09:13 when it came to Sunday Closing Laws. 09:16 Okay. 09:17 And he argued till 3 am in the morning, 09:19 and brags about it in all six of the biographies 09:22 written on him, 09:23 including this one by Joan Biskupic, 09:25 which is largely an interview with Antonin Scalia. 09:28 With laws that are unconstitutional. 09:29 That was his stand of view. 09:30 His argument was that the law was not unconstitutional 09:32 and that he predicted Supreme Court 09:34 ruled that was fine. 09:36 And he turned out to be right. 09:38 But he went on to state that 09:40 if my dream ever comes true and a national, 09:44 I mean not a national Sunday Law, 09:46 but if a Sunday Law, you know, comes up before Supreme Court, 09:49 I will rule in favor of it 09:50 because I see no problem with it. 09:52 Okay. So that's fascinating to me. 09:55 And denied statements like 09:57 that only a few years before he died. 09:58 Yeah. 09:59 It wasn't at the very beginning of his career. 10:01 Even before he died, 10:02 he believed and this is what Judge Bork believed in, 10:05 that states could establish 10:06 their own state tax supported churches. 10:09 In other words, states could have favored churches 10:12 and then unflavored churches. 10:14 And that was perfectly constitutional in their mind, 10:16 in their thinking, 10:18 which is a complete violation establishment clause, 10:20 but it's part of that Catholic redefinition 10:23 of religious freedom that I'm talking about. 10:24 I agree with that point. 10:26 But I must tell you about my study of American history, 10:28 I think there's some truth in that. 10:30 The U.S. clearly was setup with the federal government 10:34 for just defense and interstate commerce 10:37 and the states were sovereign states 10:39 that had covenanted together. 10:41 But the change that we can never get back previous 10:45 to any more, civil war, 10:47 really took away the true national sovereignty 10:49 and we're under a very old embracing federal government. 10:53 And under that, this would mean 10:56 that there's not to be state establishment, 10:58 but I think originally they were okay with it. 11:01 Well, here's the reason why and you're half right. 11:04 And here's... 11:06 It's good to be half right. 11:07 You're half right, 11:08 but as a constitutional scholar, 11:10 I'll just tell you that, 11:11 and as a constitutional historian, 11:13 to be honest with you, what happened was. 11:15 States started enacting, 11:17 after they started disestablishing 11:19 all their state churches from the back, 11:21 the holdover from the Puritan era, 11:23 they came up with this scheme, whereby, 11:26 when they wrote their state constitutions 11:28 that they created such a separation 11:31 between church and state within their own states, 11:34 in their own constitutions, 11:36 that the federal government didn't need to act. 11:38 Now here's another one... 11:39 Because there was this, 11:40 the federal government was established 11:42 and the constitution 11:43 because of the spirit of the times. 11:44 Establishment was in disrepute then, but... 11:47 Right. 11:48 There were some states that had established churches 11:51 that linked a long time. 11:53 And my point is that it became a moot point 11:56 after the Civil War because... 11:57 Yes, we're gonna get to that, 11:58 but let me systematically explain that 12:00 so our audience understands this. 12:02 Article VI of the Constitution sections one and two 12:06 is known as the Supremacy Clauses, 12:08 which is something the South 12:10 never wanted to accept this idea 12:11 that any anytime there's a state law 12:14 that's in dispute with federal law, 12:15 federal law trumps, always. 12:18 Okay. They never wanted to accept that. 12:19 Okay. 12:20 So they wanted to, they totally rejected Article VI 12:24 and they adopted what's called through John C. Calhoun, 12:28 even Andrew Jackson fought John C. Calhoun 12:30 on this doctrine of nullification 12:32 that is states are ultimately sovereign 12:34 over the federal government, 12:35 which is not what the founders intended, okay. 12:37 It's very clear, they intended federalism, 12:40 they intended that states be their own satellites 12:43 without interference with the federal government, 12:45 unless there was a conflict between federal and state law. 12:49 And it seems to me, I agree with the statement generally, 12:52 but it's not all laws, there are some state laws 12:57 that don't need to be in harmony with the federal. 13:00 The federal laws are the ones 13:01 that are certainly on civil rights, 13:05 and on national rights, and so on. 13:08 But there's been a history even on pre Civil War, 13:11 what about slaves states and non slave states? 13:13 If the states supersede federal law 13:16 in a positive way that don't violate federal law 13:20 but does better than federal law, 13:21 then the federal government doesn't touch it. 13:23 And that's... 13:24 You can see the whole marijuana laws 13:26 in cities right now. 13:27 I was about to say. 13:29 That's the... 13:30 Marijuana laws are fascinating. What is that, Oregon? 13:32 It's legal to have marijuana and federal government 13:34 is still saying no. 13:35 Colorado, Washington. Yeah. 13:36 We need to take a break, we're very close to halfway 13:40 and we're gathering steam for an interesting second half. 13:43 So, we'll take that break, come back with us 13:45 and we'll continue this discussion, 13:47 constitutional and religious liberty and both. |
Revised 2017-05-01