Transcripts For CSPAN2 Religious Freedom Debate At Vail Symp

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of the people to peacefully assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The two, establishment of religion and free exercise come first which is why religious freedom is often called americas first freedom. And establishment actually comes even before religious freedom. It often people understand what establishment is. Now, in 1833, massachusetts disestablished, and what that means is people no longer had to pay taxes to support my own religious ancestors, the congregationalists. Former religion come everybody sitting like this. There is a liturgy, when you rather go to a camp meeting and sang . So that is the end of establishment in that sense. It is not, as we will see this evening, the end of issues about establishment. Similarly, free exercise of religion is difficult for people to understand because it sounds simple. My own son, adult son who is 40 said, i told him about panel and he said hasnt that really been settled, mom . But hes a physicist, so you know, what does he know . Now one phrase that does not appear in the constitution is separation of church and state. And that is often misunderstood. Separation of church and state is actually paraphrased from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the danbury baptists. It was published in the paper in massachusetts. Im going to read some of it to you. Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god that he owes account to none other than his faith and his worship, that legitimate powers of government reach actions only, not opinions. I contemplate with sovereign reverence that the whole American People have declared their legislature shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Thus, building a wall of separation between church and state. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, i shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore twoman all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. Now, the rights of conscience in this letter, this crucial language that the framers used, and it was a relatively new idea. That a king didnt control what you might believe. A new idea. Tonight our panelists will reflect on the constitutional promise of free exercise and the prohibition against religious establishment. And were going to try to keep this pretty tight. This is a big subject. So were going to look at the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado civil rights commission, and denver baker, Jack Phillips, he may have seen this in the paper if you live around colorado, refusal to make a cake for a gay couples wedding reception side his religious conviction that marriage is only a union of a man and a woman. He said he believed were he to create a wedding cake for an event that celebrates something that goes against his understanding of the bible, it would have to be a personal endorsement and participation in the ceremony. The couple sued alleging that phillips had engaged in prohibited discrimination under colorados public accommodation law. He asserted his right to free exercise his religious beliefs. The second one which has been recently decided is the American Legion versus the American Humanist Association. The state of maryland maintain a 40foot latin cross in the median of a public highway. The cross with first erected 94 years ago as a world war i memorial, sometimes called the bladensburg peace cross. Residents challenge the governments display of the cross as an unconstitutional establishment of religion. Now, i would like to remind you that any of the material the safety could be on the final exam. [laughing] and with that im going to turn it over to mr. Shackleford. [applause] ive been fighting religious freedoms cases for 30 years, and in that time ive represented all faiths, catholic, protestant, people of the jewish faith, muslim, native american indian, even the fallen. So i thought the way if we start this discussion, if people dont care about religious freedom, then they will not be that into what we are saying. Let me start with the first, why should you care about religious freedom . If youre a person of faith has come obvious. What of the freedom to live out the faith, but what if youre not a person of faith . Should it be important to you . The answer is yes to our founders call this the first freedom because they understood if you lose this freedom, you will lose all your freedoms. Theres lots of ways i could describe it but the quick is what i can do this is, the one thing that a totalitarian regime will never allow our citizens who hold an allegiance to one higher than the government. Whenever you see that type of oppressive regime come into force, you will see the flashpoint will be religious freedom. If you lose at that point, you will lose it all. This has been seconded to me over and over again. As i speak around the country often times i have people come up to me afterwards, particularly from Eastern European countries who say, im not a person of faith but i buw this happen in my country. They took down the religious symbols, and within months we all lost our Political Freedoms. A number of these people as they had to be checks and said im going to be supporting your nonprofit because i want my Political Freedoms. Number one, i think this is something everybody should care about. Number two, some people might say, well, is a really a problem with religious freedom . Are the any battles going on . The answer is yes. We keep track every year, a servant of all the tax going on of all the cases. They are not only increasing every year, they are increasing at alarming rates. From it own experience seven years ago at First Liberty Institute we had 47 cases. Last year we had 447. So the increase is dramatic, and especially against minority faiths. Most of you probably would not be able to see this but this ts a picture of a synagogue we represent in los angeles. This is the second time the synagogue has been defaced. There is paint thrown all over it. We are in the six lawsuit against this im sorry, synagogue, that is just trying to keep them from being a synagogue and existing. We have cases in los angeles, dallas, in new york. In balance for instance, is Orthodox Jews to walk in dallas who walk to the synagogue. They dont have enough Parking Spaces. They dont need Parking Spaces to walk to the synagogue. But if they can keep them from having a synagogue, they all have to move. Thats the point. They are trying to move these people out of their community. This is a picture of what happened to the rabbis car. I dont know if you can see this. This is not in germany. This is in the United States. I just want to focus on the fact that our battles on religious freedom in the United States. This is an important issue. This is the basis for the founding of our country. Let me get to the subjects were supposed to talk about tonight. Go through it, the establishment clause and the free exercise clause, one major case thats been recently decided by u. S. Supreme court. Let me start with the establishment clause. The case that was mentioned is the i was referred to it as its the American Legion versus the American Humanist Association case. In that case you had a memorial, and large cross that was put up almost 100 years ago by mothers who lost their sons in world war i, and by the American Legion. It was the 49 men in prince georges county, maryland, who lost their lives in world war i. That memorial was originally put up on American Legion land, and it sat there. If you go to look at it, it is a ninefoot wide, two and half foot up and down plaque listing these individuals who died. And after about 40 years and roche were being built, this is right outside of washington, d. C. The government took over the property for health and safety reasons, and all of a sudden this memorial is now in Government Property. The government didnt want to disturb a Veterans Memorial so they didnt. Then you go decades later, the American Humanist Association comes along and says hey, there is a large cross on Government Property. This violates the establishment clause and the filed a lawsuit. In District Court, we by the way, our client is the American Legion. We had this case at the Supreme Court. In the District Court we won. They said this is a violation of the establishment clause. The establishment clause is there cannot have a National Church established and as to be forced to contribute to prevent gifts that he Veterans Memorial has to be torn down because its in the shape of a cross is something our founders would find bizarre, i think. We made this argument. We want at the District Court. At the court of appeals we got a different court. Threejudge panel ruled that this was unconstitutional under the establishment clause. One of the questions or statements during the oral argument by one of judges was why dont we just cut the arms off the cost because that way we will not have to destroy it and get it wont offend anybody anymore. We knew at that point we might be in trouble in that case, and the decision was against us. The building was this will have to be removed or destroyed by way it was later would have been destroyed. Is that an sheaporter can be moved. So went to the Supreme Court. This case is really important because the impact of what a decision would mean either way. If you tear down, if you say this is unconstitutional, this piece cross has been up for almost 100 years, only two miles away from this is Arlington National cemetery. You would have to go into arlington and take down the large freestanding crosses arlington. Youd have to go and pretty much every community of every state of our country with our religious symbols, stars of david and crosses throughout the landscapes. There would be a religious cleansing that a a think most americans couldnt even conceive of. We argued at the Supreme Court theres no way that this is a violation of the establishment clause. In fact, we argued theres a case, we really shouldnt even be here. The only reason were here is that because of what the constitution said but because of the case that is 50 50 years od called the limit case, we think aptly named, the limit case, that is been applied to attack all kinds of religious symbols, religious history and traditions of our country, that we think is not what the constitution says. They created things like the offended observer standard where it means that somebody who walks through a Committee Sees a religious symbol on Government Property and feels like theyre an outsider, that that makes it a violation of the establishment clause. Which is a window at the establishment clause says. The establishment clause says Congress Shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. The talked about an establishment like a National Church, taking one denomination, forcing people to support that. So we argued in the case at the Supreme Court that only should you uphold this, but you need to get rid of lemon because it is being used to attack religious symbols and religious practices across the country, and its never what the founders intended or what the constitution says. The decision of the Supreme Court came down just two months ago, and we were very pleased to say that that Veterans Memorial, that peace cross was upheld and it was 72 decision here but like most things at the Supreme Court it wasnt exactly a real simple 72 decision because there were seven different decisions handed down in that 72 decision. But let me just, the quick summary i can give you is, in my view the limit test, the limit case and a limited test those being used is dead. Many commentators are saying that. In the case it didnt Officials Say it is dead. They said in this case, they took shots at and said its a bad test, its been used for years and its not effective. Its creating, making the government hostile to religion, creed all kinds of problems and it has been for decades. Its time to put it aside. The court did not follow lemon in this case. In fact, they said theres a presumption now from now on that any of our longstanding symbols, practices, even religious ones, are presumptively constitutional. We dont go on a search and destroy mission trying to scrub out the researchers parts of her history and heritage in the country. That decision has been handed down. Let me go quickly because im running out of time. The Masterpiece Cake shop case is the case that was mentioned with Jack Phillips was a christian man who said that he was opposed to samesex marriage. Two men came and said we want to did a wedding cake for us. Jack phillips said look, ill bake you a birthday cake, you can buy any of my bakeries but i cannot create a custom wedding cake because that would violate my faith and my beliefs about samesex marriage. I want i would be displayed in expressing something that i dont believe in. They went to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The Commission Found Jack Phillips in violation of their laws, said this was discrimination. They told him he could not do wedding cakes in more if he is going to take this approach, which half of his business way been gone. He wouldve had to let go of half of his employees. He was also ordered to go together the Education Program about his police on these issues and he filed a lawsuit. He said this violates my freespeech rights and my free exercise rights. The Supreme Court said, look, this is normally the case about a state, and lgbt statute protecting your rights and your freedoms versus these fundamental First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of religion. They sit in this case well have to go to that because in this case, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was itself engaging in religious bigotry by how they handled this case. They were not neutral. They were discriminatory. Why did they say that . Number one, because of the statement of the commissioners were very antagonistic to those of faith who held the belief that samesex marriage was against the biblical beliefs. Secondly though they said it was because of how to handle of the cases. In addition to Jack Phillips who was punished, you had another person go to three different bakers and said id like you to duplicate that says that samesex marriage is wrong. They refuse to do saying they were offended by that message. And that person then went to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and said hey, they are discriminated against me and what i wanted to do with my cake. They said no, no, no those bakers were offended and, therefore, that a right not to do those cakes. The Supreme Court said you are treating people differently, this religious person is being treated gently than people, like if you are one side of the samesex rights issue your treat one weight, and if youre on the other side think of is treating you a different way. This is not neutrality. This is rumination. I think both cases were decided correctly into a trend of us moving in in a way thats goodo providing more freedom, more religious freedom at a think well see that in the future because of the court that we have. I look forward to the discussion and now bring up mr. Clark. [applause] hello. I want to thank the vail symposium for inviting me to participate in this panel. There is no debate that the free exercise of religion is of foundational importance in our country, and issued, come as no surprise that i believe religious exemptions from certain laws have legitimate place in our system of order liberty. I was the general counsel of the United Church of christ, which in 2014 successfully brought a lawsuit declaring north carolinas criminalization of the religious solemnization of samesex marriages to be an unconstitutional violation of our clergy and congregants right to free exercise their religious beliefs. However, there is debate about where the place for religious exemptions is. For example, the courts have recently been called upon to resolve questions such as whether business providers aboods and services frequently used in Wedding Services may decline to provide those goods and services when that Business Owners religious beliefs do not embrace samesex marriage. Constitutional statutory standards, all the new, provide g