Participants: Lincoln Steed (Host), Nick Miller
Series Code: LI
Program Code: LI000370B
|
00:05 Welcome back to the Liberty Insider.
00:06 Before the break we were discussing 00:08 Supreme Court functions and of course... 00:11 Five hundred years of... 00:13 To promote this book. 00:14 Protest and liberty and... 00:16 This is not this book, this is the book. 00:17 The book. 00:19 You know, this mean public figures 00:21 that waved the book around 00:22 and said, after the Bible this is the most popular... 00:24 Well, you know, I wouldn't say that but it's a good book. 00:26 But... it's pun on. 00:28 But I think anybody 00:30 that's concerned about religious liberty 00:32 and how we got it and what it means 00:34 really should read this. 00:35 This is a very comprehensive 00:37 and relatively easy to understand. 00:40 I mean, it's easy as you could write it 00:41 but I mean, this is a complex thing, 00:43 but I think you've woven the thread 00:45 from Martin Luther to the present day very well. 00:46 Thank you. 00:47 Liberty500.com and you get a free subscription 00:51 to Liberty Magazine as well. 00:52 So we, before the break ad, 00:55 we're talking about the Hobby Lobby case... 00:57 Yeah. 00:59 And I was trying to explain 01:00 why I thought it was an acceptable outcome that the... 01:02 that we protect the religious consciences 01:04 of individuals of employees in the workplace, 01:08 Seventh-day Adventists have their Sabbaths accommodated. 01:10 Why don't employers or business owners 01:12 have their consciences protected? 01:14 And I think the critical question that you've raised 01:17 and I agree with you 01:18 that they shouldn't be protected 01:20 at the expense of the healthcare 01:22 of the employees. 01:23 But in the decision Justice Kennedy pointed out 01:27 that the government had an alternate place 01:30 where they could deliver the same healthcare. 01:33 So the conscience could be protected and the employees... 01:35 So the tax payer would pay but the employer wouldn't. 01:38 Well, whenever you have a religious protection, 01:41 there is some burden on the government somewhere. 01:43 You know, what if someone, what if I employee someone 01:46 and I say that I have a religious compunction 01:50 against you wearing steel toed shoes, 01:51 you know, versus, you know, God cares for the godly 01:54 and all the rest and here, depend on the Lord. 01:56 I'm not being theoretical, 01:58 used to be an argument like this on life insurance 02:00 and things like that. 02:01 Right. 02:03 Would that be fun? 02:05 Well... Would you... 02:06 'cause OSHA gets involved 02:07 and you know, people need safety, 02:09 you're exposing your employee to threat, to risk 02:14 and it seems to me taking away some health provisions. 02:17 It's the same thing, you're prepared to expose them 02:20 in one way or another to health deficiency. 02:23 Well, I'm a little confused 02:24 by the steel toed shoes comparison. 02:26 Is it the... 02:27 Well, there is a, there is a public safety issue there... 02:29 Right, but somebody has a religious conviction 02:31 against wearing it. 02:33 It might. They might. 02:34 And so the question would be, could that be accommodated 02:36 in a way that still protected the underlying interest? 02:39 And in this instance with the contraceptive care, 02:43 the court said there's another avenue 02:44 for these people to be treated. 02:45 'Cause they helped them. 02:47 So there really wasn't... 02:48 They basically gave the exception 02:50 and then the government will do 02:53 what the employer is to the employee. 02:54 So there was no harm to the employee. 02:56 There was going to be some burden or some cost 02:59 but there's always a cost to accommodating people. 03:01 I really come into from different angles, 03:02 doesn't this come to medicine 03:03 where the government is playing the religious deeds. 03:05 Oh, my... 03:07 Well, we do both of them. 03:08 The government shouldn't be funding religious activity 03:10 which this boils down to. 03:12 Well, the government is not funding the activity, 03:16 the government is removing one of its own burdens. 03:19 There wouldn't be a cost 03:20 if the government wasn't imposing it. 03:22 As our viewers can see, they really, 03:24 there's some little fine distinctions to be made. 03:27 This is why even when the Supreme Court 03:29 as they acted on this, they rarely now and then 03:32 but they rarely are unanimous 03:34 that there's dissenting opinions, 03:35 so good legal mind sometimes give an arguments... 03:38 Sometimes may differ. 03:39 And it may not be the central argument 03:41 but they may see some complicating factors. 03:44 Well where I do agree with you on the Hobby Lobby case 03:46 even though the outcome I believe was correct here, 03:49 it does also show another trend of the court 03:52 to protect more institutional corporate interest 03:55 at the expense of the individual. 03:57 I think a case which illustrated that more fully 04:00 or completely is a case called the Hosanna Tabor case. 04:03 And it involved an elementary school teacher 04:06 teaching at, I think it was a Lutheran elementary school 04:09 and she was considered by the church to be a minister 04:11 she had ministerial 04:13 credentials though she taught school children math 04:15 and reading and spelling, 04:16 but she also taught one Bible class a day. 04:18 Did she actually have credentials, I don't know. 04:20 She actually had missionary ministerial credentials 04:22 from her church. 04:24 And she came up with a disability claim 04:27 under the Federal Disability Act... 04:29 Narcolepsy, is that right? 04:30 And the church said, "Oh, she's a minister 04:33 and human resource civil rights employment laws 04:38 don't apply to her 04:39 as they don't to ministers of the gospel." 04:42 And the court after some analysis 04:44 upheld what's called the ministerial exemption 04:47 and said it applied to her. 04:48 Now I agree with the court on the fact 04:51 that there should be a ministerial exemption 04:53 that should give churches freedom 04:56 in their employment relationship with pastors 04:58 because pastors preach the doctrine of the church 05:00 and they must have a free hand to choose 05:03 who will represent them. 05:04 But where I think the court may have gone wrong 05:08 is in applying that to an elementary school teacher. 05:11 By the way I agree with you generally 05:13 but you need to read Nathaniel Hawthorne, 05:14 you might not give the ministers quite that. 05:20 A minister can abuse his role just as well as anyone else. 05:24 Well, no, he can and what's protected there 05:28 isn't ministers abusing other people. 05:30 What's protected there is the church 05:32 choosing to hire or fire the minister. 05:34 Yeah. 05:35 And again like you say there's competing interests 05:38 in some that overlap. 05:40 And why I think Hosanna Tabor, 05:42 I mean, I think it was very good 05:44 but where I think it might be too good 05:46 is that it sort of leaves the church open to charges 05:49 that it's using this to act 05:51 in personally abusive ways toward people. 05:53 Well, and I think that... 05:55 It's got an exemption from General... 05:57 General Laws. 05:59 And pastors are generally of the status 06:02 and credibility maybe that's not the right word, 06:07 but they're usually in positions of authority 06:09 in a church structure. 06:11 You know, we're talking about the Reformation, 06:12 the big issue in England with Henry VIII 06:15 was which law the minister is under, 06:18 the church law or civil law? 06:19 Civil law. 06:21 But they can protect themselves, in other words, 06:23 largely from abuse they're often male, 06:25 they're the chairmen's of the board, 06:26 they're the heads of the churches 06:28 but an elementary school teacher 06:29 I would say is in a much weaker position 06:32 in social status and standing and protection. 06:36 And I think to remove 06:38 the protections of the civil laws 06:40 and the employment laws 06:42 open up these other church employees 06:46 to the possibilities of greater abuse. 06:48 And I think it's a trend in the court 06:50 to protect institutions and institutional interest... 06:53 Yeah, there's no question. 06:54 At the expense of individual rights. 06:56 And I think that's something 06:57 that needs to be watched closely 06:59 in the months and years to come. 07:01 And you know, when you talk religious liberty 07:05 all churches and all religions and all ill religion 07:08 needs to be protected at least the right 07:09 for people to hold those views. 07:12 But I do see a looming problem 07:14 with the rise of the Roman Catholic Church 07:15 because it's somewhat automatically 07:18 looks at things corporately. 07:20 Well, it's a return to a medieval view of things 07:23 where in... 07:25 Well, it is a medieval structure, 07:26 you can't help much. 07:27 Well, I'm not just talking about the Catholic Church, 07:29 I'm talking about the court decisions 07:31 that protect institutions. 07:33 There was a religious freedom in the Middle Ages, 07:35 but it was generally the freedom of the church 07:38 to be free from civil laws and civil oversight. 07:41 Well, that was good for the church 07:43 but it wasn't good for the individuals 07:44 within the church. 07:46 In this case in Hosanna Tabor 07:48 smacks of that direction back to a more medieval conception. 07:51 Yeah, you're right, I didn't realize your objection. 07:53 No, there's no question 07:54 the corporate thinkers had work there too. 07:57 So we come to, well, the 21st century 08:01 where during the Obama years 08:03 we had the rise of a secularist left 08:05 especially LGBT secular sexual agenda 08:10 which came into direct conflict with religious freedom... 08:12 It's unfortunate. 08:14 I don't think it needed to be, 08:15 both parties were somewhat guilty. 08:17 I think that's right. 08:18 I think Christians that tried to give them pariah status 08:21 and you know, I have no obligation to deal with you 08:25 go to them and I think 08:27 some of the LGBT community federal 08:31 were sort to have anonymous against religious faith. 08:34 Well, so florists, bakers, cake makers, 08:40 photographers have been taken to court, 08:43 have been fined thousands, tens of thousands 08:46 in one instance more than a hundred thousand dollars 08:48 for refusing to become involved in a same sex wedding. 08:53 And see I believe the... 08:54 that they've risen to the bait 08:56 because in the real world 08:58 when you're running a business... 09:00 If I'm a gay couple, a part of a gay couple 09:04 I go where there's sympathetical. 09:06 Right. 09:07 So it will naturally sort itself out 09:09 if people didn't sort of buttheads 09:12 and try to prove a point at the other's expense. 09:14 But that's what's been happening. 09:16 And in all of the cases I know of, 09:18 it's not that these business owners 09:20 were discriminating against gays per se, 09:23 many of these were customers. 09:26 It was when they were asked to do something 09:28 especially for a same sex wedding 09:31 when these services were 09:32 widely available in other venues, 09:35 I think to force these business owners 09:37 to support a moral decision 09:39 that they don't agree 09:41 with that goes against their conscience 09:42 is to request a complicity from them 09:46 that it is that should be protected 09:48 under the free exercise clause. 09:51 And I think we're going to see 09:52 more and more of this competition 09:56 between rights when the reality is... 09:57 Sure of that. 09:59 In the state of Utah they passed a law 10:02 which protected both religious freedom 10:04 and LGBT rights in housing and employment, 10:07 and I think at the national level, 10:09 we could do the same thing 10:11 where we recognize human rights, 10:14 both the rights of LGBT individuals 10:17 to make their moral choices 10:19 and the rights of religious freedom 10:20 of religious individuals. 10:21 You can read more about it in our book here, 10:24 500 Years of Protest and Liberty. 10:28 We are now living in the era of making America great again. 10:33 That's not a bad sentiment but what does it mean? 10:37 When we're talking about religious liberty, 10:40 I think that's a very good goal 10:43 because to make religious liberty great again 10:45 is to reemphasize the principles, 10:48 and of course go back to God Himself 10:50 but that, as we've said on this program 10:53 can be directly seen in the Protestant Reformation. 10:57 We need to reinstitute 11:00 the separation of church and state. 11:02 Sure, it's in the Constitution 11:03 but it's a biblical, spiritual principle. 11:06 It's time I believe in the very truest sense 11:11 to absolutely make sure 11:14 that religious liberty is great again, 11:17 that freedom is great again, 11:19 and all of the promises of the past are fulfilled. 11:24 For Liberty Insider, this is Lincoln Steed. |
Revised 2017-07-24