Participants:
Series Code: LI
Program Code: LI000397A
|
00:26 Welcome to the Liberty Insider.
00:28 This is your program bringing you news, 00:30 views, discussion, and insight on religious liberty events 00:34 in the US and around the world. 00:36 My name is Lincoln Steed, Editor of Liberty magazine, 00:40 and my guest on the program, Greg Hamilton, 00:43 President of the Northwest Religious Liberty Association 00:46 and a repeat offender on this program. 00:49 Appreciate your input always. Thank you. 00:51 Let's talk about the United States. 00:55 I said worldwide which we often cover, 00:57 but let's talk about the US, and rights, 01:00 this is a nation of rights, right? 01:03 Yeah, I believe so, but, you know, 01:05 when policemen march down the streets in St. Louis 01:08 and say against the protestors, "We own these streets," 01:12 I'm reminded the fact that no, 01:14 peacefully protesting citizens own these streets, 01:17 and it's the police 01:18 that are servants of the citizenry. 01:20 So, you know, 01:22 I think that we are getting things 01:24 backwards today. 01:25 Absolutely. 01:27 For some reason, we Americans 01:28 are more and more loving authoritarianism. 01:30 Absolutely. 01:32 And that's a problem. 01:33 And you're talking about protesting, 01:34 where I first started... 01:36 My heckle started to rise 01:38 was two administrations ago, 01:41 I think it started because the inauguration 01:43 of George Bush, to name the president, 01:47 was a bit contentious 01:48 and he had to ride instead of walk down to Pennsylvania, 01:52 but shortly after that, they started roping off areas 01:55 sometimes a mile from the event at hand, 01:58 where you could freely speak, 02:00 they were called free speak zones 02:02 only within the enclosure. 02:04 I thought, "Man, 02:06 at the very least it's like 1984," 02:08 where up is now down, 02:09 you know, the language is changed 02:11 but what amounts to it is free speech is gone 02:14 or at least in principle. 02:17 Yeah, absolutely. 02:20 You know, I think of Christ in junction in Matthew 7:12, 02:23 where he said, "So in everything, do to others 02:29 what you would have them do to you, 02:30 for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." 02:32 Golden rule. 02:33 It's a golden rule, 02:35 and that's a very hard ideal to live up to 02:37 but it's what we are called to do. 02:39 And I'll never forget, 02:40 when I was a kid growing up in 1976, 02:43 Jimmy Carter had just been elected president, 02:45 and my dad was riding in the back of a pick-up truck 02:49 with his best friend 02:50 and his best friend had two guns in his gun rack, 02:54 and a window opened, the slide had opened, 02:56 and I was able to listen to their conversation, 02:58 and his question was, "Well, is Jimmy Carter 03:03 the one to bring about National Sunday laws?" 03:06 And you know, I just thought, 03:07 "Oh, this is typical sport 03:09 among us Seventh-day Adventists, you know? 03:10 Okay, the next president, 03:12 is he the one that's going to bring about Sunday Laws?" 03:14 And I thought that was interesting. 03:18 And then he said this, 03:19 a deep philosophical discussion took place 03:21 about whether or not as Christians, 03:23 we should view our Constitutional right 03:25 as privileges and not as rights 03:28 that we should demand. 03:29 In fact, the conversation awakened something in me, 03:31 and I am glad that my dad being a Lincoln Republican disagreed. 03:35 He basically said that kind of apathy creates a problem. 03:39 It creates feelings of superiority that, 03:42 you know, if we should only view 03:45 our rights as privileges and not as rights. 03:49 What does that do? It leads to abuse. 03:52 To me, it... 03:54 The claim that somehow we are obsessed with rights 03:57 means that, well, we are going to deny 03:59 somebody else their rights and it's easy to say 04:01 as a white American male to say that 04:05 because then I don't want to recognize all the hard work 04:10 it's taken for a nation to get to the path we are on now 04:14 in terms of where we've come 04:16 in terms of our nation of rights. 04:18 Yeah. They were hard fought for. 04:21 Whether you look at the American Revolution, 04:23 whether you look at the Civil War, 04:26 whether you look at Reconstruction 04:28 and Post-reconstruction period, 04:29 you look at the civil rights movement, 04:31 you look at the Jim Crow laws, 04:33 the civil rights movement, 04:34 and where we've come as a nation, 04:36 it's been hard fought, and a lot of people 04:40 have deserved to have access 04:43 to those Bill of the People's Rights, 04:45 so to speak, those rights under the First Amendments 04:48 and all the Amendments. 04:49 Well, we are forgetting the dynamic between the ruled 04:53 and the ruler and we are drifting toward 04:55 an autocratic view of government 04:58 which naturally takes away rights. 05:01 And I think we are also forgetting 05:03 where that comes from. 05:05 I mean, Jefferson famously said inalienable rights 05:09 by virtue of the... 05:12 What was his term? 05:13 Nature and nature's God, wasn't it? 05:15 Yes. 05:17 You can debate forever exactly his view on religion, 05:20 but I think he meant the God that's covered by the Bible 05:26 creator that he didn't want to make it sound too narrow. 05:30 But, you know, if we don't, unless we go back to that, 05:32 then we are just in legal constructs 05:34 that move according to the sentiments of the time. 05:36 I think this is what you wanted to get out in your discussion. 05:38 Oh, absolutely. 05:39 In a sinful world, our nation of equal rights 05:41 is the best we can actually hope for. 05:43 I believe these constitutional rights 05:45 are safeguard against discrimination, 05:47 dictatorship, and tyranny. 05:48 And I believe, Lincoln, 05:50 that apathy is what causes people to relax 05:52 and allow untold discrimination and injustice to thrive. 05:56 And I think that's kind of where our country is at. 05:58 Sometimes apathy, sometimes privilege. 06:00 Yes, that too. 06:01 Like we in a first world situation, right? 06:04 Yeah. 06:06 We are not uninformed about the third world. 06:07 Yeah. 06:09 But are we greatly motivated 06:11 to equalize things and to recognize those rights? 06:15 Most people are not 06:16 because why would we disadvantage ourselves 06:19 for an abstraction that we ever know it's there 06:21 but we are not moved. 06:23 Eleanor Roosevelt, the author of the Universal Declaration 06:27 of Human Rights, which is a universal standard, 06:29 but nevertheless in terms of international law, 06:32 but she says, "Where, after all, 06:33 do universal human rights begin? 06:35 In small places, close to home, 06:37 so close and so small 06:38 that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. 06:42 Yet they are the world of the individual person, 06:44 the neighborhood he lives in, 06:46 the school or college he attends, 06:47 the factory, farm, or office where he works. 06:49 Such are the places where every man, woman, 06:52 and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, 06:54 equal dignity without discrimination. 06:57 Unless these rights have any meaning there, 06:59 they have little meaning anywhere. 07:01 Without concerned citizen action 07:03 to uphold them close to home, 07:05 we shall look in vain 07:06 for progress in the larger world." 07:08 And I think of our own nation here. 07:10 You know, if our apathy says, "Well, okay, you know, 07:15 everybody has their rights, and, you know, why demand them, 07:18 you know, you are just a trouble maker 07:20 if you demand your rights." 07:22 I think that creates a problem that, 07:24 you know, when certain groups of people 07:27 and/or an individual is deprived 07:29 of their rights under the law, we should take notice. 07:33 Well, let me throw out 07:35 the real everyday example in the negative. 07:37 Seems to me, certain public statements 07:39 were made about Puerto Rico 07:42 after the relatively recent disaster 07:46 that reflects this sort of hierarchy of rights. 07:48 Oh, that these countries come 07:51 from a certain round circle. 07:55 Yeah. 07:56 No, but most people dismissed it 07:59 as just a political foul power 08:01 or bad public statement but underneath that lay exactly 08:04 what we are talking about here. 08:05 And I hadn't realized 08:07 that Eleanor Roosevelt wrote that way 08:10 because she is absolutely right. 08:11 You've got to see it immediate as a part of a society, 08:15 it's hard in the abstract. 08:17 And it connects with what 08:19 I've noticed on television. 08:23 What are some of the groups, "Save the Children" 08:25 or all these different types of things, 08:27 they will have ads where there is a single child, you know, 08:29 puss running down their eyes or whatever 08:31 and flies buzzing around, "Help this child." 08:33 People respond to that 'cause they can personalize it, 08:37 and that's fine, that's our human nature. 08:38 But somehow, we need to get 08:41 through to people to see it in the theoretical 08:45 that the people that are not next door to them 08:47 or in the trailer parks across the street 08:49 or something like that, they are all as deserving 08:53 and have the same right to life, liberty, 08:55 and happiness as anyone else. 08:57 Oh, absolutely. 08:58 And that was part of the genius of the framers 08:59 they have recognized or at least formulated 09:02 and it put it down as an ideal. 09:04 A 2010 Baylor University study 09:06 suggested that religion itself may be a contributing factor. 09:11 This is coming from the most elite, largest, 09:14 most influential Baptist University 09:16 in the world. 09:17 And the study published in the journal, 09:19 Social Psychological and Personality Science, 09:21 found that people subliminally primed with Christian words 09:25 or phrases reported more negative attitudes 09:28 about African-Americans 09:29 than those primed with neutral words. 09:32 "What's interesting about the study 09:34 is that it shows some component of religion 09:36 does lead to some negative evaluations 09:37 of people based on race," said Wade Rowatt, 09:41 the professor who conducted the study. 09:43 One possible explanation, one that consistently 09:45 came up in the research 09:47 is it because America's religious traditions 09:49 are so influenced by Puritanism, 09:51 people responding to religious terms 09:53 may be drawing on ideals like the protestant work ethic 09:57 which has been shown to activate anti-Black attitudes 10:00 including the phrase constitutional privileges, 10:03 a phrase often used by evangelicals 10:05 to evoke their disdain for equal rights. 10:09 Well, there's probably a line you can draw on that, too. 10:13 But when they say religion, what I am trying to bring out, 10:18 there's a world of difference 10:20 between religion and spirituality, 10:23 and religion has long been the cover 10:25 for all sorts of biases and prejudices 10:28 and racism in particular. 10:30 Yes, well, that's what the study points out. 10:33 But if it's expressed wrongly, 10:36 it looks like religion is the problem. 10:38 Right. 10:39 No, I am... 10:40 You know, the organization of religion 10:42 is facilitating irreligious people 10:44 indulging in their natural tendencies. 10:46 This professor is not making that argument. 10:48 And what does the Bible say? 10:50 A true religion is this. 10:52 What was it? 10:53 It had to deal with the love in God 10:55 and love in justice for your fellow man. 10:57 Yes. 10:58 Right, and that's essentially what the Fourteenth Amendment 11:01 suggests as well. 11:03 What does the Fourteenth Amendment section one say? 11:05 "All persons born 11:06 or naturalized in the United States, 11:08 and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, 11:10 are citizens of the United States 11:12 and of the State wherein they reside. 11:14 No State shall make any law 11:15 which shall abridge the privileges 11:17 or immunities of the citizens of the United States, 11:19 nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, 11:22 or property without due process of law, 11:24 nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction 11:28 the equal protection of the laws." 11:32 And, you know, when you look at our nation 11:34 and all the Supreme Court rulings 11:36 that had been handed down, 11:38 we have come a long ways... 11:40 That goes back a long way. 11:42 That's almost the exact same language 11:43 as from Runnymede, 11:45 the Magna Carta, that was the original burden 11:48 against your rights not being granted 11:51 and subject to arbitrary rest, 11:53 imprisonment, personal abuse, loss of property, 11:57 and all the rest. 11:59 It's been the struggle of western law, 12:01 and the US has continued it. 12:03 How do you protect the landless or the non-aristocrat 12:08 who doesn't have an army or a posse or whatever, 12:13 and even now I think we are in deep trouble 12:15 because I've seen since Watergate particularly, 12:19 in the US, you don't get good justice 12:22 unless you are wealthy, connected or whatever, 12:25 and people have run afoul of the past the bail, 12:27 they would be litigated into poverty 12:31 and they're already poor, 12:33 cannot even get a good hearing in the courts. 12:35 The public defenders often don't care, 12:38 I mean, it's a good concept, 12:40 but you don't get a good level of justice 12:45 if you are without means in US. 12:46 So we are paying lip service to this, 12:48 but we are already far alone 12:51 in different justice for different people, 12:54 different rights for different people. 12:56 And how that can be resolved? I don't know. 13:00 And as you know, at the moment, 13:01 we are clearly in a very telling 13:04 apparent debate or... 13:06 Real debate but apparent conflict 13:08 between gay rights and religious rights. 13:10 Right. 13:12 And on one level, I think, it's a fight 13:15 that shouldn't have been joined by ostensible Christians 13:18 because Christian charity should rule the day. 13:21 But when you run those rights head to head, 13:23 someone is gonna lose. 13:25 And either way, I don't think it's good 13:27 for the overall application of human rights. 13:30 I think the courts, 13:32 you know, they've got time to sort that out. 13:34 I think in time, these... 13:35 They've taken their time. 13:37 Well, but the Civil Rights Act in 1964, when it was passed, 13:40 I mean African-Americans were still... 13:42 The courts were still sorting out, you know, 13:44 what are the parameters of their rights 13:46 and in terms of equal justice. 13:49 And so it's taken a long time to counterbalance. 13:53 Well, it says on title seven, article seven it says, 13:58 "You can't be discriminated against on the basis of sex." 14:02 Right now, we are debating what gender... 14:05 We are debating what gender is? 14:07 It is very so further away 14:10 and I am not pro 14:12 to the whole gender bender issue at all, 14:14 but legally it has created a legal miasma in my view. 14:19 Oh, I agree. 14:20 That has to bleed into other rights issues. 14:22 But it's a challenge for the courts 14:24 and that's what they have to... 14:25 Is it, really? Yeah. 14:27 The courts are dealing with it, 14:29 but I think it's society at large 14:31 that is struggling with these issues 14:33 and doesn't understand rights clearly. 14:35 Well, they didn't understand it 14:36 even after Brown v. Board of Education, 1951, 14:39 and so even there, 14:41 I mean the Supreme Court came up with the ruling 14:43 and the political powers, 14:45 be it the President and the Federal Marshals, 14:48 had to do exact justice for black people. 14:51 Let's take a break, 14:52 and we'll come back with Brown v. 14:54 Board of Education, right after the break. 14:56 Stay with us. |
Revised 2018-08-09