Research On Religion » gay rights

John Inazu on the Four Freedoms, Religious Liberty, and Assembly

tonygill — Sun, 23 Aug 2015 08:00:01 +0000

How do the “four freedoms” of the US Constitution’s First Amendment relate to one another? And what has happened historically to this relationship. Prof. John Inazu, associate professor of law and political science at Washington University (St. Louis), explores these questions with a particular focus on the relationship between the free exercise of religion and the right to assembly. We talk about historical conceptions of the “four freedoms” and how the interrelatedness of these essential liberties have changed since the middle of the 20th century. (Technically, we do note that there are “five freedoms” in the First Amendment, but we ignore the right of petition in this interview.)

The conversation begins with our usual banter to get to know the guest. We discover that even though he has multiple degrees from Duke University and UNC-Chapel Hill, John remains a solid fan of the Blue Devils. He also explains his work as a lawyer for the US Air Force and why his position wasn’t categorized as a JAG and how this allowed him to avoid wearing a uniform.

We then jump into a discussion as to what the “four freedoms” are — free exercise of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and the right to assembly — and how these freedoms were conceived of early in US history. (It is here where John notes that there is actually a fifth freedom — petition — that not many scholars pay attention to.) John sets this discussion into a pluralist framework as conceived of by Madison and other Founding Fathers. The idea here as that division and conflict are likely to be part of the political landscape and knowing how to manage it with a balanced set of freedoms is critical. Tony notes from his own work that the freedoms listed in the First Amendment are separated not by periods, but by semi-colons, which seems to indicate some degree of contingency. John agrees and we talk a bit about the connection between these rights, particularly with reference to religious free expression and the right to assemble peaceably.

It is mentioned that US history, despite the lofty goals of the US Constitution, has not always lived up to the ideal of preserving and protecting these freedoms for all. John noted that the Founding Fathers did have their blind spots, particularly over race, and there have been many instances of minorities being denied freedoms or outright persecuted. One of the important groups for our discussion is the Jehovah’s Witnesses who were quick to assert their rights of association along with the labor movement in the early decades of the 20th century. We talk about how the height of “four freedom” rhetoric occurred in the 1930s and ’40s when the US was faced with a totalitarian threat overseas and was also put in a position of promoting freedom abroad. This leads to a particularly fascinating discussion of the limits of freedom and how living up to high standards was difficult during the 1950s when there was concern over communist interests using the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution to undermine American democracy. This problem, John notes, is endemic to a free nation that must balance an absolute right to freedom (which is hard to ever achieve) with the threat of imminent violence.

…

Bradley Murg on Russian Orthodoxy after the Soviet Union

tonygill — Sun, 22 Sep 2013 08:00:49 +0000

Following seven decades of a repressed existence, the Russian Orthodox Church has re-emerged following the collapse of the Soviet Union to assert itself in the nation’s culture and political landscape. Bradley Murg, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Washington and adjunct faculty of political science at Seattle Pacific University, details what has happened with the Orthodox Church since 1991 and its emerging role in politics under Vladimir Putin. Brad’s extensive travels in Russia, and indeed throughout the world, brings a special comparative insight into this topic.

Following a few introductory remarks about Brad’s globetrotting, we look at how the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) emerged from Soviet domination after 1991. Under a relatively laissez faire religious environment, the first thing the ROC hierarchy focused on was the reconstruction of church buildings. The onslaught of foreign missionaries into the country became a major concern of the ROC as well, and Patriarch Alexis II and Metropolitican (later Patriarch) Kirill looked towards the new Russian state to prevent this “spiritual poaching,” that eventually led to the passage of a law in 1997 definining historical Russian faiths (including Orthodoxy, Buddhism, Islam, and Judaism) and significantly restricting foreign confessional activity. This discussion leads Tony to inquire about the hierarchical structure of the ROC, what a “patriarch” is, how the ROC relates to the Patriarch of Constantinople (Istanbul), and how Metropolitan Kirill became Patriarch Kirill.

We then move to a discussion of church-state relations and how the ROC hierarchy has attempted to achieve a level of “symphonia” harkening back to Byzantine times when religious and secular rulers partnered to support the health of the nation. Brad lists the number of benefits that the ROC has received from this newly-crafted “symphonic relation” including access to teach religion in public schools, the ability to view legislation in the Russian Duma (parliament) before it goes public, and support on a number of social issues including marriage, fertility, and gay rights. This leads our discussion in the direction of how Vladimir Putin is interacting with the ROC, including some details about Putin’s own religiosity. Putin’s use of the ROC as a means of state’s legitimation then becomes the focus of our conversation.

Tony asks Brad how effective a religious legitimation strategy would work for Putin given a long history of religious suppression and the seemingly “atheistic” nature of Russian culture. We then dive into a sociological examination of the religiosity of the Russian people, and look at whether Orthodoxy is just an “ethnic marker” or whether it has some real spiritual meaning. Brad provides some interesting data on cultural shifts that may be taking place among the Russian population, including amongst the young folks in society. He then explains how Putin is attempting to expropriate the social trust average Russians place in the ROC to help bolster his own trustworthiness among the population.

Our conversation moves towards an extended discussion on how the ROC has played into Russia’s including the issue over gay rights and the Olympics, but also looking at affects on policy towards Syria and relations with the World Council of Churches. We conclude with looking at how the ROC has fared with respect to cultivating religious belief within the Russian population and Brad’s broad reflections on what he has learned from examining the Russian religious environment in comparison to other places he has roamed around the world. Recorded: September 12, 2013.