Religious Liberty: Understanding The Arguments Of The Other Side

The government splintered religion religion not being relevant in the public square in the new sexual values prominent create all of the condition for our current related liberty to this is family policy motors with NC family Pres. John Weston thanks for joining us this week for family policy matters.

Today we will be discussing one of our culture's most intense debate the intersection between religious liberty and discrimination. Considering the current state of discourse in our nation.

Many wonder how we as people of faith can be persuasive and effective voices were truth in this arena are yesterday is Dr. Ron Anderson, the William E.

Simon Senior research fellow at the Heritage foundation, one of our nation's leading voices in the debates around marriage and religious liberty. Dr. Anderson has published three important books on marriage and his research has been cited by many, including US Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. Ron is here today to discuss the topic of his newest book debating religious liberty and discrimination. This new book is a point counterpoint that brings together leading opposing voices in the culture war.

Dr. Ron Anderson. Welcome to family policy matters is great to have you back on the show happy with you.

Well, it's a pleasure no one you were quite an accomplished author is, we begin tell us about your new book. Who are your co-authors, and why did you tackle this topic as a group, especially considering that one of the other authors.

As I understand it, tends to have a completely different perspective than you when it comes to issues like marriage exactly why we tackled this project as a group was one of the next major debate take place in the United States, especially for people of faith is what is the status of religious believers who are pro-life or proto-national marriage who are hesitant about some of the new gender ideology and transgender identities that are being promoted.

What will be their status in American public life will Catholic hospitals have to do sex reassignment surgery will evangelical bakers have to bake same-sex wedding cakes will Mormon schools lose their nonprofit tax data through their accreditation because they teach about marriage in accordance with Mormon understanding. Those are the sorts of disagreements that are coming to a for right now.

We just saw the Supreme Court can be reviewing the case of one of the bakers is been told he is to bake same-sex wedding cake to the book as a point counterpoint book John Corvino is a philosophy professor in Detroit. He's a person that would identify on the political left side of the spectrum, progressive or liberal use pro-choice and abortion is pro-gay marriage, he himself is married to a man agree about all those underlying issues. We also disagree about many of the religious liberty issues that we do in the book as we try to present the best arguments on both sides of the debates about liberty. What we want for readers to come away better understanding of their own position and the other position and possibly modifying their position you you might come in and read this book and say wow like you know and I was wrong about something. I was right about some other things like hearing on the best arguments on both sides of this debate. It's better informed me on what I should believe where I should come down when it comes to balancing what may be considered by some to be competing interests, like protecting religious liberty and avoiding unjust discrimination. How do the values of tolerance, respect and acceptance come into play in this whole discussion shortcoming so it's always important in terms of tolerance and respect that we are respectful of other people, but that doesn't mean that we should be respectful of all decisions or that we should agree with all opinions. There are some of things that we disagree with even other respect the person who holds that opinion and and that I would say is the most challenging thing in American public life is being able to make that distinction between respecting individuals will not always agreeing with actions and will not always agreeing with opinions and too often in Americo it gets conflated that if you disagree with someone, you must therefore be disrespecting if you disagree with someone's actions. Therefore, you must not have respect for the dignity of the individual who made action and that's is fundamentally flawed. What were saying is that you have moral disagreement that I can think abortion is a bad choice while still having respect for the dignity of the person that chose to have an abortion that I would say is one of the biggest rhetorical challenges for American culture right now is how to disagree without being disagreeable by voice. These arguments, while still being respectful will absolutely load that, poses the question, how do we get to where we are. Why do you think the discourse on these topics of Mary's religious liberty, discrimination, and faith have degraded so much in our culture told me. I think there couple of different answers that I think part of this is a self-inflicted wound. Think about of faith communities, churches in the United States over the past 50 years there's been I was in the Protestant side of the aisle. Kind of a liberalization of mainline Protestant churches that took place. You then saw the rise of evangelicalism, but evangelical never had the respect of the main stream culture in the way that the mainline churches did.

They were kind of a culture shaping institution neighbor counterculture institution. Something similar happens in the Catholic side of the aisle. After the second Vatican Council you see Catholics who were the spirit of Vatican II Catholics going along more and more with the cultures using the GP to a generation of Catholics which I would count myself in that category. Part of it there that you see a splintering of religion in the United States between evangelicals and GP to Catholics in the one side that are more Orthodox and vibrant and then means mainline churches in spirit Vatican II Catholics. You also see a challenge from secularism and the understanding that religion is personal because it's personal have to be private. That was at the founders, understanding, religion was important was personally important, but also a public role. The naked public square, says religion is constrained to your church and your bedroom. But it's not relevant to Main Street or Wall Street and then I would say beyond this, the sexual revolution and we can't discount what took place in the 60s and 70s to change how we think about our bodies, how we think about marriage and the family. When you then put these things together it's not surprising the religious liberty challenges that we have, especially when you couple that with the rise of the modern nationstate government has grown significantly in the past 50 years. So if you put big government splintered religion religion not being relevant in the public square in the new sexual values by gaining prominence that creates all of the conditions for our current religious liberty disagreements your listening policy matters a resource to listen to our radio show online resources that will be a voice of persuasion in your community to our website only.org so how do we restore respectful and fruitful dialogue, interpersonal and political discussions on these important topics while at the same time not surrendering our fundamental beliefs we we do this to me.

Partly this is why you I wrote my half of this book we we do this by making good arguments that are accessible to people were speaking to. So I don't make a theological arguments I make, philosophical, and sociological you're using social science using philosophy using reason and evidence that a secularist could graphs could understand if I make a biblical argument to someone who doesn't accept the authority of the Bible. It won't go very far right.

If I try to make arguments that other people can access and do it in a way that is friendly that civil so I think part of that. This is just when you figure how do we restore stability while also defending our views simply by doing. I don't rollover don't back down. Don't mute yourself. Don't censor yourself when you do speak do it in a way that is intelligent and civil.

And so I hope that the that the book actually provides resources to your listeners on how to do that now I know you include in the book very interesting discussion of the double standard that is applied to speech versus action that results in concrete versus dignitary harms talk about the little bit more short. Yes oh using a classical liberalism liberalism of family GS Mills not modern liberalism, but classical liberals is the idea that people had rights and consenting adults had rights to do things I provided they didn't cause harm to other people in the types of harms when JS Mill talks about his harm principle he's talking about material physical, tangible harm until the result.

Free-speech doctrine was. Look, you can stay in the United States, provided it's not direct defamation or fighting words, things are because physical, tangible, material harms you tomorrow.

Say whatever you want even hate speech. There's no heat each exception to the First Amendment protections for free speech but then people realized we didn't leave too much room for freedom to people who don't like this much freedom is that if we just limited to material physical harm will be too much freedom to work to come up with a new category called dignitary harping that the idea here is that there are certain things that you could do that while not causing material physical harm. They harm the dignity of the in the double standard here that this is being applied to religious liberty. But it's not being applied to speech were now seeing legal scholars say open if you're religious person you engage in religious action, whether the Baker the forest, the photographer those acts because dignitary harm and that harm can override the religious liberty protection that can be the reason why we don't grant religious liberty exemption and so there kind of loading the dice to create this double standard. They don't count dignitary harm against the liberties that they like but they do count dignitary harm against the liberty that they dislike well and were seeing that in lots of different venues around the country. The Supreme Court of the US Supreme Court has issued some important decisions.

All religious liberty recently. What sort of legal trends do you see in the decisions of the court is issued thus far.

And as far as what direction you expect these things to go and is there called for hope. For those of us who hold religious liberty is one of our most important fundamental right. Obviously, the appointment of Neil corsets than the confirmation by the Senate was very good but just keep the status quo as he was replacing glia and so we more of The balance awareness of the that the big question will be, will there be a retirement or otherwise a vacancy in the next three years and who will of the president nominates and will disseminate Senate confirmed that person because that's when you could see a change in power run was very nice to see was that we had a 72 decision on the Trinity Lutheran case it didn't split down the 54 it was 72. We have seven Supreme Court justices thing a state cannot deny a religious institution, a public benefit that they otherwise are qualified for. Simply because the religious that's very encouraging that that one was seven to not fight for. They announce they're going to review the Baker case.

I imagine that this will be a five for decision but who knows. I think a lot will depend on where Justice Kennedy come down.

I think we need to do for the lawyers will be litigating this case but also people in the broader culture is explained that what took place.

The Baker didn't discriminate on the basis X orientation is no problem serving gay or lesbian customers doing happy birthday cakes doing. Get well soon. Take susceptible sunflowers are more typical but it is no problem doing any sort of the cake product for a gay or lesbian customer with the one exception of a wedding cake can't do a wedding cake for something that he thinks is an actually going to be a marriage growing and that's not discrimination on the basis of X orientation at simply a disagreement over the nature of what marriage is me penalizing every disagreement as if it unjust and unlawful discrimination happened to be the big teeth watch well when we can all participate by praying for the attorneys for the individuals involved in these cases, and especially for those justices on the US Supreme Court, I want to encourage all of your listeners to to continue to do that, but it also want to encourage your listeners want to get a copy of your new book debating religious liberty and discrimination so that they can avail themselves of incredibly helpful information that is included in that work, go to get a copy of that book in your other writings shortening DDE.

This place is going to Amazon you Amazon you tighten the title the book debating the liberty and discrimination.

Are you type in my name Ryan Anderson will pop out you'll see a couple other books there. There's a book that I wrote two years ago titled truth overruled the future of marriage with his freedom, which was a response to the Oberto decision.

Is that still very relevant, especially as this Baker case goes, the Supreme Court, we did I discuss his case. In that book and you can preorder a book that will be out in the winter, titled when Harry became Sally subtitle that is responding to the transgender moment of the book is about that that book in the editing process right now to be out in the winter, but that specifically but how should we respond to the transgender moment that we find ourselves great will thank you for that.

When he mentioned the name of your book again debating religious liberty and discrimination by Dr. Ron Anderson and listeners. Please avail yourselves again of this great information. I and without Dr. Ron Anderson.

I will thank you so much for being with us on family policy matters and for your incredibly important work in researching and writing about these fundamentally important matters for the benefit of so many across our country were extremely grateful. Thank you for listening to family policy matters a production of NZ family to listen to our radio show online, and for more valuable resources and information about issues important to families in North Carolina go to our website@ncfamily.org and follow us on Twitter and Facebook