Research On Religion » Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Kelsey Dallas on Religious Journalism

tonygill — Sun, 12 Feb 2017 09:00:36 +0000

In a world where the non-affiliated are on the rise, religious journalism is still alive, well, and adapting to a changing media environment. To discuss the world of “faith-driven stories,” we are joined by Kelsey Dallas, a regular journalist for the Deseret News who has written over 600 news articles of varying length and depth about the world of faithful. We begin the discussion with how a kid from a small town in Illinois makes it to the University of Iowa, on to graduate school at Yale University, and then lands a job as a religion beat reporter in Utah. Ms. Dallas shares her religious upbringing and intellectual experience at Yale, including taking a class from the famed-journalist Bob Woodward, and how she was able to bring together her three great passions — writing, reading, and religion. She also explains her membership in the Religion News Association and how important that organization has been in helping to link journalists and columnists who focus on religious news. This draws us into a discussion about where the topic of religion is in today’s mainstream media. Kelsey then explains the difference between news stories about religion and faith-driven stories, the latter which are based less on changes in major institutions (e.g., a new appointment of a Catholic bishop) and more about personal stories about how people live their daily lives. Throughout the podcast, Kelsey shares a number of her favorite, most interesting, and oddest stories. The latter includes a piece on how religions would react to the discovery of life on other planets (see link below). We talk about the prominence that stories on religious liberty have taken over the past few years with events such as the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court case and Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act controversy. Ms. Dallas also shares her insights on being a journalist attending the services of different faith traditions, including one where she visited an Islamic mosque and was moved to the women’s section during the formal prayers. Our conversation also covers football, both prayer circles after NFL games and the fantasy version. Kelsey finishes off with some personal reflections on what she has learned over the span of the past few years and reaffirms for Tony the importance of ice cream. Recorded: February 10, 2017.

RELATED LINKS

Kelsey Dallas’s news feed at Deseret News.

Kelsey Dallas on Twitter.

Religion News Association.

“How Would Religions React to the Discovery of Life on Other Planets?” by Kelsey Dallas (Deseret News

“Taking a Knee: Professional Football and Its Mysterious Postgame Prayer,” by Kelsey Dallas (Deseret News).

“How Religious Pilgrimages Feed Mental, Physical, and Spiritual Health” by Kelsey Dallas (Deseret News).

RELATED PODCASTS

Jeremy Lott on Real Clear Religion.

Jeremy Lott on Episcopalians, Ex-Atheists, Health Care, and German Circumcision.

Jeremy Lott on America’s Shifting Religious Election Coalition.

Jeremy Lott on the Media’s Pope-O-Rama.

Jeremy Lott on Mormons, Pope Francis, and Ugly Churches.

Jeremy Lott on Religious Newsmakers of 2013.

Karen Elliott House on Journalism and Saudi Arabia.

David Brody on the 2010 Midterm Elections and Religious Journalism.

Michael Cromartie on Religion, the Media, and Think Tanks.

Luis Bolce on the Media and Anti-Fundamentalism.

Mark David Hall on Religious Accommodations and the Common Good

tonygill — Sun, 03 Jul 2016 08:00:19 +0000

The issue of special exemptions to laws based upon a person’s religious views has been a hot topic in the news lately (e.g., Hobby Lobby, Little Sisters of the Poor, and Arlene’s Flowers). Prof. Mark David Hall, the Herbert Hoover Distinguished Professor of Politics at George Fox University and a senior research fellow at Baylor’s ISR, reviews the history of such religious accommodations to federal and state statutes. As an expert witness in the State of Washington vs. Arlene’s Flowers case, he began to study the depth and scope of exemptions to various laws based upon one’s conscience and published this as a separate paper entitled “Religious Accommodations and the Common Good” (Heritage Foundation’s Backgrounder). He explains the term “common good” and how it relates to religious accommodations, asserting that when we have “Americans at their best,” our nation is sensitive to the sincerely-held religious beliefs of religious majorities and minorities alike. Historically, America has grown more religiously free over time, leading to greater religious diversity. As federal and state government power has expanded, especially in the 20th century, the need for more religious accommodations has also grown, often in new areas. We step back in history to look at some of the policy areas where such accommodations have been made, including military service, the swearing of government oaths, mandatory school attendance, and vaccinations. Quakers, often (though not exclusively) known for their pacifism, have been at the forefront of many of these struggles for accommodations, and Mark reveals how various compromises were made to satisfy the “common good” and the specific religious interest. He notes that exemptions from combat service did not necessarily exempt one from military (or civil) service altogether, as many Quakers and other conscientious objectors were asked to take non-combatant roles (e.g., medics). Other religious groups such as the Amish, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Adventists have received similar accommodations on various statutes and the number of religious accommodations granted numbers over 2000 as of the mid-1990s. We briefly discuss whether and how such accommodations could be abused by individuals seeking to avoid various laws including military service and vaccinations, and whether this has been a major problem (which it appears not to be). Prof. Hall finishes with some observations on the contemporary legal landscape and where he thinks legislation and jurisprudence may be heading in the near future. Recorded: June 27, 2016.

“Religious Accommodations and the Common Good,” by Mark David Hall in The Heritage Foundation’s Backgrounder.

Faith and the Founders of the American Republic, edited by Daniel L. Dreisbach and Mark David Hall.

Roger Sherman and the Creation of the American Republic, by Mark David Hall.

America’s Forgotten Founders, by Gary L. Gregg and Mark David Hall.

The Sacred Rights of Conscience, edited by Daniel L. Dreisbach and Mark David Hall.

See Prof. Hall’s bio (above) for additional books.

RELATED PODCASTS

Should Christians Have Fought in the U.S. War of Independence? (Discover Prof. Hall’s answer.)

Mark David Hall on Religious Minorities in the American Founding.

Mark David Hall on Roger Sherman, Puritan Patriot.

Mark David Hall on Religion and the Founding Fathers.

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

Rajdeep Singh on American Sikhs and Religious Liberty.

Jonathan den Hartog on Patriotism and Piety.

Michael McConnell on Church Property Disputes.

Francis Beckwith on Taking Rites Seriously.

Matthew Franck on Hosanna-Tabor and Ministerial Exemptions.

Matthew Franck on Hobby Lobby and Religious Freedom Jurisprudence.

David Cortman on Religious Freedom Updates.

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.

…

“The Four Freedoms and the Future of Religious Liberty ,” by John Inazu (article at SSRN).

Liberty’s Refuge: The Forgotten Freedom of Assembly, by John Inazu.

Confident Pluralism: Surviving and Thriving through Deep Difference, by John Inazu (article for forthcoming book).

Theological Argument in Law: Engaging with Stanley Hauerwas, edited by John Inazu.

RELATED PODCASTS

David Cortman on Religious Liberty Updates.

Matthew Franck on Hosanna-Tabor and Ministerial Exemption.

Matthew Franck on Hobby Lobby and Religious Freedom Jurisprudence.

Jordan Lorence on Religious Property Cases.

Phillip Muñoz on Catholic Bishops, Religious Liberty, and Health Care Mandates.

Mark David Hall on Religion and the Founding Fathers.

Matthew Franck on Hobby Lobby & Religious Freedom Jurisprudence

tonygill — Sun, 16 Feb 2014 09:00:34 +0000

Join us on our Facebook Fan Page for weekly updates and other tidbits.

Can the federal government require a private employer to provide a service or product to employees that violates the private owner’s freedom of conscience? This is the subject that is up for debate in an upcoming US Supreme Court case pitting Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties against the Health and Human Services contraception mandate that is part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Prof. Matthew Franck, director of the William E. and Carld G. Simon Center on Religion and the Constitution at the Witherspoon Institute, provides us with the background to this case, the historical precedents that may influence how it is decided, and his review of what each side will be arguing in late March.

We begin with a review of how this court case percolated up to the Supreme Court, as well as a brief discussion who the primary plaintiffs — Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties — are and what issues are at stake. This discussion covers a bit of the history of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the HHS mandate that came out in the fall of 2011. The primary issue being contested concerns whether or not a business owner can be required to provide certain types of contraception, most notably abortifascients, that those owners consider to be in direct violation of their religious conscience. Tony asks a variety of questions regarding the nature of the litigants including why they were chosen amongst a number of other potential companies that were also suing, and whether or not the fact that both of these companies are privately held has any impact on their legal standing. Matt fills in all the details and notes how the case might have been different had this been the CEO of a publicly-held and traded corporation bringing suit. He also points out that under consideration is whether or not a corporation — in this case one that is privately held — can have the same rights of conscience that an individual possesses under the US Constitution’s First Amendment.

We next consider the historical case law that may (or may not) inform the thinking of the Supreme Court justices. We take a quick tour of religious liberty cases over the past half century beginning with Sherbert v Verner and ending, most recently, with Hossana-Tabor, a case that Matt has discussed in greater detail on this show before (see link below). It is during this discussion that Prof. Franck brings up a judicial concept that Tony was unaware of — exemption-based jurisprudence. This style of jurisprudence allows for laws to be made and then exemptions appealed for based upon some special characteristic of an individual or group. Matt feels that this is not the best legal structure for a country to have, something that he has written about and will be available in a few weeks (see link below).

Following our historical discussion, Matt then lays out what he believes will be the arguments made on both sides of this case. A coin flip determined that he would start with the plaintiff’s side of things and he then brings up the defendant’s rebuttal to each of those points. Many of these arguments were hinted at throughout our earlier discussion, but the last 15 minutes of the interview provide a nice summary of what will probably be heard in oral arguments in late March of 2014 (assuming the snow in DC will melt by then). At the end of the conversation, Prof. Franck lays out what he thinks will be the implications for religious liberty should the government win the case and should Hobby Lobby and Conestoga win. Recorded: February 14, 2014.

“When Government Does Theology,” by Matthew Franck (at the Canon & Culture blog).

“Escaping the Excemptions Ghetto,” by Matthew Franck (at First Things … available in March 2014).

Against the Imperical Judiciary: The Supreme Court against the Sovereignty of the People, by Matthew Franck.

RELATED PODCASTS

Matthew Franck on Hosanna-Tabor and Ministerial Exemptions.

David Cortman on Religious Liberty Updates.

Phillip Muñoz on Catholic Bishops, Religious Liberty, and Health Care Mandates.

Jeremy Lott on Episcopalians, Ex-Athiests, Health Care, and German Circumcision.

David Cortman on Religious Liberty Updates

tonygill — Sun, 20 Oct 2013 08:00:42 +0000

Can a public high school choir group choose to sing Christmas songs at a concert? Is it legal to pray to Jesus before a city council meeting? And does the federal government have the ability to mandate certain actions from businesses that might go against the owner’s rights of conscience? We explore these, and a few other, cases with David Cortman, senior counsel and vice president of litigation with the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).

Our discussion begins with an examination of a recent controversy over the choice of songs by an elite choir group in Wisconsin. Upon finding out that the students were going to sing music with religious content, the local school board stepped in to stop this. However, Mr. Cortman explains how a simple letter from the ADF helped to clarify the legalities of the issue and reverse the school board decision. He further details how there is a great deal of misunderstanding about the legal status of many of these “school songs” cases, but they nonetheless keep cropping up year after year.

The next issue we take up is one that is currently being debated in court — the issue of whether or not prayers can be allowed before a city council meeting. Tony challenges David on this case, noting how a prayer with specific denominational content could alienate a constituency in the community, thereby inhibitting their equal access to the wheels of policy. Mr. Cortman explains the legal issues surrounding this case and some of the previous court decisions that support his position. We learn a number of interesting legal terms that are coming into common use nowadays, including “offended observer” and “eggshell plaintiff.”

Our coversation then takes us to the issue of the recent Health & Human Services mandates surrounding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare). While the lawsuit by Hobby Lobby has been well-publicized in the media, there are a number of other similar court cases swirling about the legal system, including one involving the Conestoga Wood Specialties company, which employs about 900 workers in Pennsylvania. Finding the requirement to provide insurance that covers abortifacient drugs to be a violation of their religious principles, the owners of this privately-held company are seeking redress in the US legal system. In addition to viewing this as a matter of religious liberty, we also examine its broader implications for governance, including the limits (or lack thereof) for unelected bureaucracies to create regulations that circumvent the normal legislative process of making laws.

We finish our interview with a brief look at other matters that are seen as threats to religious freedom, including the use of zoning laws to restrict church growth and property usage, as well as potential changes to tax-exempt status for religious groups and other such organizations. Mr. Cortman explains why smaller organizations are often unaware of these changes and what they can do to become more knowledgeable about the policy environment that has direct impact on them. Recorded: October 18, 2013.

NOTE: The views expressed in this and all of our podcasts, reflect only the host and individuals interviewed. The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Baylor or any other institution affiliated with this program.

Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn (as mentioned in the podcast).

Marsh v Chambers (as mentioned in the podcast).

RELATED PODCASTS

Erik Stanley on Clergy and Free Speech.

Philip Muñoz on Catholic Bishops, Religious Liberty, and Health Care Mandates.

Matthew Franck on Hosana-Tabor and Ministerial Exemptions.

David Wills on Religious Charity and Taxes.

Jeremy Lott on Episcopalians, Ex-Atheists, Health Care, and German Circumcision.