 Good evening everyone. I'm Tom McCown executive director of the Kellogg-Hubert Library. It's great to have you here with us this evening I know next month you're gonna be here like every day, right? What's the next month? Oh Palm City, yes, so we have 42 events scheduled from the month of April So on the table outside through lobby if you want to pick up a program for Palm City There's a lot of stuff going on Yeah, right there. Thank you, but tonight We have part one of the programs in this continuing series that we are sponsoring with the League of Women Voters About the first amendment and it's really been a dynamic series so far I'm gonna have another great presentation this morning or this afternoon this evening Whatever yeah So I'm gonna turn this over to Kate Rader from the League of Women Voters and she will introduce tonight's speaker. It's okay And thank you again for coming. This is our fourth in our series if any we will be having another one in June on Petitioning for to redress grievances of government We're working on that program and if you would like to help us with it There's membership material there in the back of the room Tonight we're changing our format from the panel discussions that we've had the first three programs Rob Boston is the director of communications at Americans United for separation of church and state He is the author of four books most notably why the religious right is wrong about separation of church and state and Taking liberties why religious freedom doesn't give you the right to tell other people what to do There will be questions after he has done with this talk, but we do ask you to hold your questions till the end Bob Thank you so much for coming out. It's a pleasure to be here with you this evening. It's always a pleasure to Visit Vermont state that my wife and I first toured in 1992 when we were married We hadn't been to Vermont thought let's go there for a honeymoon and we really enjoyed it And I have used every opportunity since to get back to this lovely state with so many friendly people I'm gonna talk a little bit tonight about religious freedom. We're gonna talk about some different controversies and Conflicts you may have been reading about in the news. There'll be a Q&A afterwards, but first thing I want to tell you is just this simple fact 16 words 16 words that's the religious freedom clauses of the First Amendment They are 16 words long Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof 16 words now imagine Today's Congress Trying to codify a fundamental human right in 16 words Since the Congress had just passed a 2230 page budget bill It funds us through September 16 words now the the genius is In a surreal economy of language some eloquence to it Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof Think about that literally really no law never probably not so the genius of The religion causes is the economy of words the drawback is that they have to be Interpreted Somebody has to make a determination as to what those words mean On both sides of the equation We have the first few words to talk about no law respecting an establishment of religion I am not a lawyer my job is to take what lawyers write and turn it into English The lawyers call that part the establishment clause they call the second half the free exercise clause Free exercise does not mean you get to go to the gym for free. It refers to religious exercise So we have these two Clauses and the religion provisions of the First Amendment as you know then goes on to talk about other fundamental rights and over the years are Understanding of this language and this concept has been informed by many historical figures one of the first individuals To really talk about this notion was before we even had a constitution and that was Roger Williams the founder of Rhode Island Roger Williams was a Puritan minister in Massachusetts who ran a fowl of the governing Religious leadership there that ruled that state as a theocratic government and Roger Williams argued that All people should have the right to choose the religion that was meaningful for them a concept that he called soul liberty And when Roger Williams fled Puritan, Massachusetts because they were going to forcibly send him back to England Went into the wilderness and found that his own city called Providence He guaranteed everyone the right to worship as they saw fit and that even included the Quakers who were a despised minority in much of the colonies at that time now we would think about this today The right to choose your religion the right to worship as you see fit the right to make your own decisions and think Of course, I mean what's the big deal? Well, it was a big deal back then because that was not the pattern that had been followed in most countries of the world And it was not the pattern that had been followed in much of colonial America either So this idea that everybody would have the right to choose their own faith To worship as they saw fit to spread those doctrines was really kind of radical in some ways and as time went by We had more and more people argue in favor of that concept The idea that you could only protect religious freedom He put some distance between church and state and people are very very familiar with Thomas Jefferson's Famous metaphor of the first amendment directing a wall of separation between church and state people may be familiar with James Madison and some of the things he said about that the father of the constitution one of the primary Authors of the first amendment folks may be familiar with the virginia statute for religious freedom and other pioneering Works that were steps along the way What we sometimes forget is how much religious leaders of the time how many of them were advocating for this idea of religious freedom Religious leaders one of them was a very interesting gentleman named John Leland. John Leland was a baptist minister and very Convinced an adamant that his views were correct He believed in his version of Christianity And that's what he thought was good and he would have been happy to have everyone embrace that But he argued that the government never had the right to use force to compel anyone To support or get involved in religion against their will. He argued for complete liberty of conscience Leland Reflecting on his lifelong career of advocating for religious freedom And Leland had has an unusual distinction in american history He helped end state established churches in three states Remember the colonial period a lot of states had an officially established church in virginia It was the anglican church here in new england It was often a congregational church a remnants of the old puritan church And the carolinas you had anglicanism and so on so you had these state established churches and Leland Very much was opposed to that idea. He helped thomas jefferson and james madison disestablished the church in virginia He did it in his own state of massachusetts as well And while living in massachusetts, he would wander across the border into connecticut and help people there too And their state established church Late in his life Leland wrote Government should protect every man in thinking and speaking freely And see that one does not abuse another Now again, that sounds like a fairly simple concept. We all take that for granted But it wasn't at the time of john leland and notice what leland is saying here Religious freedom as important as it is As powerful as it is has limits One does not abuse another Your right to religious freedom should be secure, but it does not give you the right To abuse to control to offend to put some kind of problem on another person We're grappling with that still today and there are a couple of ground rules We should be thinking about when we're discussing religious freedom And I kind of want to touch on some of those tonight The first is that the freedom to believe is absolute But the freedom to act is not And again, not a radical concept. This is something that's been in our courts for a long time It's an old idea that goes back to the 19th century At least when we had cases dealing with the Mormon church and their desire to practice plural marriage The freedom to believe absolute you believe whatever you want But your right to act on those beliefs may be curtailed If it is seen as infringing upon the rights of others Now we step back a little bit. Why is this concept important religious freedom mean a lot of nations had what they called toleration They hadn't established church, maybe but they tolerated other faiths A lot of our founders talked about that and they said that that there's not that did not go far enough That the idea that toleration would secure the rights of the people They rejected that toleration was the first step To complete the process you had to have complete freedom of conscience. Remember how things were in europe established churches Centuries of religious warfare blood violence hatred persecution because the government took it upon itself To tell people what religion they should belong to or they should support if you read The writings of the founders this theme comes through constantly They were very aware of the european experience. They wanted to have a different path in this country. They wanted to make things different And if you think about some of the experiences in our own nation before we were a nation You think about Ann Hutchison being persecuted for her beliefs because she dared to have religious meetings in her home That conflicted with what the puritans taught eventually being expelled from the massachusetts bay colony You think about the quaker martyrs Who were hanged in boston because of their beliefs and the fact that they would not stop spreading those views You think about these things and you realize that we're talking about A radical break from hundreds of years of history If you look at the let me go way back The christianization of the western empire under constantine the great The idea that there would be a church and state combined together that the state would presume To tell you what is religious truth and punish you if you did not agree with that view Coercion commands control. That was the order of the day But then we see the founders come along And argue that there was a better way to do things inspired by people like roger williams inspired by people like john leon Inspired by examples from history. They created a division of church and state. They did not do it to harm religion They did it to protect religion If you take nothing else from this talk tonight, that is the principle that I want you to understand Because there are people in this country today telling you that separation of church and state is Vilous against religion that it attacks religion that it undermines religion and it hurts religion It does the exact opposite it protects religion. It protects free exercise and protects everybody's right to have these views To believe what they want and largely to act upon them There are some examples where There is curtailment and i'm going to talk a little bit about that now You may not subject others to harm or injury. This is an essential concept of religious freedom Your right to believe is absolute. It is protected. It is secure But that doesn't mean that you can subject another person to ill will or harm and again This is not a new concept the courts have stated this for many years There's an old case that the court handled back in the 1940s called princely massachusetts That dealt with whether jehovah's witnesses would have the right to subject their children to long hours out on the streets in the evenings and on the weekends Passing out religious literature and proselytizing Well, the court said there was no religious freedom right to subject children to that type of activity Because it could be harmful to their health. It could be dangerous for them to engage in that type of activity now adults Of course adults would have the right But religious freedom was not meant to be a cover for exposing children to danger Consider faith healing consider some of the more esoteric practices that occur in some far flung religious communities in our country today There are churches where people handle snakes There are churches where people engage in dangerous activities are these things legal and most states they are not legal And you may argue religious freedom, but the courts are going to say you are subjecting Someone else or possibly yourself to harm Religious freedom cannot be a cover for those types of activities now. There is wide latitude About what you can do But the free exercise clause has not historically been interpreted as a license for one person No matter how sincere in his belief no matter how strongly they hold it To make decisions for other people. So that's an important principle You also may not subject others to a loss of rights that they are legally entitled to have And I point this out because right now we're going through some very interesting times in our country The supreme court in the year 2015 upheld the right to marriage equality in a case called a berger fell In which the court said citing the equal protection clause of the constitution That you could not deny marriage to same-sex couples that that was a violation of their rights Now when that case came down and we followed it very closely at americans united We were aware that there would be a pushback to that That that wouldn't be the last word the supreme court decision is usually not the last word There's usually some type of a reaction to the more prominent decisions That's court hands down and certainly the case is dealing with separation of church and state and religious freedom People are going to react to those and certainly we have seen that happen in the case of marriage equality We've seen people like kim davis a county clerk An elected government official paid for by the taxpayers in roan county kentucky Say that she would not issue a license to a couple that is legally Allowed to have it and furthermore She would not allow anyone in her office To issue that license to a same-sex couple even though the supreme court ruled they are legally entitled to have it And what was her excuse for not doing that? She cited religious freedom We had a case in americans united that we litigated briefly in the courts involving a couple in west virginia same-sex couple that approached their county office Asked for a marriage license. They were called names. They were mocked. They were ridiculed They left in tears We sued that county and the county came along and said can't we settle this out of court? We said yes, but everybody in your office has to be trained about how to treat people coming in here To get a right that they are entitled to have we're not going to have any more of this type of activity So they're being properly trained and that won't happen again. I hope my point though is that you have situations where people who work for the government Are saying they don't have to do their job and they're citing religious freedom Well, that is a bit of a problem There are real dignity harms to people who are denied these services You know sometimes folks say oh, what's the big deal? You can just go to the next county We know we used to hear that type of talk in america when people would say Well, if this restaurant doesn't want to serve you or this hotel doesn't want you to stay there You can just go somewhere else Yeah, there's another place for you down the street or across town or in the next county over Well, we worked hard to end that type of discrimination which i'm referring to of course in the gem crow south And to see it reasserting itself now and another guys especially cloaking itself And the noble garment of religious freedom is to me very disturbing If your job requires that you facilitate A marriage that you issue a license for a marriage That you somehow make it possible for people to get married if that is part of your job And you are a government employee and you need to do that job If you don't want to do that part of your job, you can resign now There may be cases where Some individuals affected with the government have the option of performing marriages judges oftentimes fall into that situation They're not required. They have the option That's different from a clerk who has to issue a license to anyone who's legally entitled to have it So these matters are still working their way through the courts. We're going to see how they pan out But certainly I would hope folks could agree that when it comes to the level of the government You cannot be denied services because of your religious beliefs Your your sexuality your age your race lots of different things The government doesn't have the right to discriminate against you in that way That ties into the principle of what can businesses do This is really where we're seeing a lot of activity right now in the wake of the a broken fellow decision We've had businesses step forward and say business owners step forward and say I'm not going to make a cake for that same-sex couple I'm not going to photograph their wedding They can't stay at my b&b I'm not going to make invitations at my printing shop. We're not going to serve those folks Now there's a case pending before the supreme court right now Looking at this case from colorado ball in a baker who said he did not want to serve same-sex couples He didn't want to make a cake for them He argued that he is a cake artist That he has the right to deny services To same-sex couples because he's artist just like you couldn't require someone to write for you or to create For you some artistic thing. He can't be required to make a cake Now the supreme court is going to look at this. It's been argued. We'll probably have a decision by the end of june Given this court. I'm not quite sure what's going to happen, but I I do think that it's a bit of a stretch to make an argument that baking cakes Is entitled to the same first amendment protection that a journalist would have Or a writer or somebody like that And we've had cases in the past Where courts have looked at this type of discrimination and they've invalidated it in 1968 The u.s supreme court handed down ruling in a case called newman v piggy park enterprises piggy park was a barbecue restaurant In the south that refused to serve african-american people The owner of piggy park cited his religious beliefs He said in quote doc in court documents. My religious beliefs compel me to oppose any integration Of the races whatever So he was arguing religious freedom as a right to refuse to allow African-americans to come into his restaurant to eat in his restaurant to be in any way served in his restaurant Well when that reached the supreme court, it wasn't even close the court said in its ruling quote This is not even a borderline case And they struck down that form of discrimination. So we have examples in the past Where religious freedom being used as an attempt to discriminate or deny services to an entire class of people Have been invalidated As I said, I don't quite know what the supreme court will say in this case in colorado But certainly the precedent would seem to argue That you do not have the right to deny services to entire classes of people Now an individual business owner can always turn down a certain job for some reason that's unrelated to The clients that he's been asked to serve But when you say that there are entire classes of people individuals who will not get service Because of things about themselves that they cannot or do not or should not have to change That is a much different situation and I would hope the supreme court does not open the door To types of discrimination that we thought we had put the rest a long time ago in this country The next principle I would say is that your actions or your ability to engage in actions That are deemed harmful to larger society may also be curtailed even if you cite religious freedom Again, not a new idea The courts have looked at these cases in the past and they have ruled that The general needs and interests of society can in certain cases Trump A religious freedom claim the best example of that would probably be the Mormon polygamy cases from the late 19th century Some some of you who know a little bit about Mormon history and I understand Joseph Smith was born in Vermont So you may know some of that Know that the church in its early years practiced plural marriage Well polygamy was illegal in the united states and the Mormons Fought to retain that practice Case went all the way to the supreme court where they lost and the court ruled that there were certain societal difficulties and practices and things that created A situation that Took away the rights of others Were against the general societal principles. This was one of them. So they struck that down. There have been other cases Where religious groups have tried to block government projects the building of roads The use of federal land where basically the courts have said You have the right to practice religion as you see fit But that doesn't give you the right to control or determine how public property is used Or decisions made for other individuals And I think one of the most important things that we've I have to keep in mind when we look at these cases is rationale Laws in the united states Are not based on religious books. They're not based on the bible. They're not based on someone's understanding of faith They and ideally are based on our constitution And one of the reasons that religious. I'm sorry laws public laws are not based on religion is that Religious texts like the bible and others are notoriously Open to different interpretations. I mean you might have noticed this We have a lot of religious groups in this country. We have a lot of different types of christian groups. We have a lot of Non-christian groups. We have a lot of religion And one of the reasons we have different religions and so much different religious expression Is that people don't agree And when they don't agree they may split off or form another group or go do their own thing So when I hear people talk about wanting a christian nation Or biblical law I say who's christianity Who's interpretation of the bible laws are supposed to have a secular rationale If the law does not have a secular rationale It can't stand in my view It must must be struck down. We saw this during the debate over Marriage equality now. I mentioned that case was decided on the equal protection clause not the first amendment But there was I think a compelling first amendment component to that case in that The religious right groups that were arguing against marriage equality Could not articulate any secular reasons why same-sex couples should not be allowed to wed And I challenged them a lot on this myself In writings sometimes on television news programs What do you got? I mean your argument seems to be It's against the bible You might cite a passage in Leviticus Or some other biblical book I don't think that that's relevant to the laws of this country What else have you got? And they'd make a stab at it They might try to conjure up some secular arguments, but they did not hold water and the social science Showed that they did not hold water They often argued for example that somehow same-sex couples were Bad parents were not as good as opposite-sex couples and parenting There's no social service social science data that shows that to be the case There are no objective academic peer-reviewed studies that show that to be the case So these types of arguments did not carry the day And we saw the result in that case My point is that when we're looking at these things these issues we really have to ask ourselves What is the basis of this law? If it is religious if it is someone attempting to get us to behave in a certain way religiously If it's an attempt to further a religious viewpoint Then it probably cannot stand under our first amendment It will have to be struck down Next principle religious groups need to keep in mind that they are subject in many cases To the same laws as everyone else With certain exceptions Now I bring this up because we often hear folks Especially if you listen to some of the more conservative media out there You might hear individuals arguing that Christianity is under attack in the United States Religions under attack and we don't have our rights respected anymore. I mean to make these arguments In fact The law and the custom in the United States Privileges religion in many ways Let me give you a couple of examples Houses of worship in the United States are tax exempt nonprofit entities under the IRS code Under section 501 c3 again. I want to sound like an attorney. I'm not but there is a section of the IRS code that deals with nonprofit organizations And it says that there are certain things that they must do and that they can't do and that they're allowed to do and it's very detailed Now my organization is a nonprofit. We hold the exact same tax exempt status as a church even though we're not We are required every year to file a form with the IRS called a 990 the 990 form is a detailed financial statement Which you as a donor or potential donor have the right to look at You can see how we're spending our money. How much money do we collect? What are we doing with it? That kind of thing basic financial information Churches are exempted from filing that form They don't have to do it. They get an exemption to get special treatment sometimes people ask me How much money does the catholic church or the Mormon church or some other church spend on lobbying in washington dc How much do they spend in the states? Well, the answer is nobody knows they're not required to tell anybody Again my organization We are required to tell you Every year we must file detailed financial statements. How much we spend on lobbying? There are limits on how much we can spend if we step over the line We're going to be sanctioned houses of worship are exempt from that My point is that there are many exemptions to religious groups in the law already Consider religiously run daycare centers, for example in some states. They aren't regulated at all Even though they're serving children So there are no health and safety inspections like there would be in a secular daycare center That's not every state, but there are some states now the law does not nothing in the first amendment requires that Because they're serving children the state has an interest in making sure the children are safe That's just lawmakers in those particular states deciding that They think that religious daycares should get special treatment over secular daycare centers So you have these situations where the law is already providing generous exemptions special treatment There are a number of federal laws that have been passed in the past few years the religious freedom restoration act is one the religious Land use and institutionalized persons act is another That's second one Religious land use and institutionalized persons act deals with questions of zoning and people who are incarcerated Is designed to enhance the rights of people who are incarcerated which in many cases Their rights aren't as protected as they ought to be But the first part of that law that deals with zoning is really interesting It's essentially a federal law that deals with zoning yet zoning in this country has always been traditionally a local issue Now i'm not arguing that houses of worship should encounter problems when they want to build And I think they should be treated just like a lot of other types of similarly situated organizations But the fact is there is a federal law right now that gives them a leg up It gives them an advantage Now again It's not persecution when you have that type of unequal playing field That's a benefit. That's special treatment. That's preference There are some cases where religious groups have been expected to follow the same laws as everyone else and they've complained about it Let me give an example Non-profit organizations are not allowed to endorse or oppose candidates for public office I as a representative of my organization can't stand up here and tell you you should vote for or against a candidate for public office That's illegal We're not partisan. We're not allowed to be partisan houses of worship aren't either although some of them do it They are required to follow that law. They've been complaining about it. They've been trying to get rid of it It's a law that goes back to 1954. It was championed by then senator linden johnson So it's called the johnson amendment. There have been efforts, especially under the trump administration To do away with the johnson amendment So there are examples where religious organizations are being asked to follow Rather sensible laws than a lot of other groups are following and they have been trying to overturn some of those as well My point again being that the law often preferences these groups certainly does not Attack or undermine their rights so what We have talked i've talked a little bit about some of the restrictions that are out there What what are religious groups allowed to do? What what does religious freedom guarantee them? Absolutely. Well, again, it's a very generous Bank would have benefits you might say There are a lot of things that they are permitted to do that they are allowed to do that I think most americans embrace their right to do One would certainly be the ability to just pull together Open a house of worship meet worship pray read religious books Do all the types of things that you see going on in houses of worship not may seem like a fairly low bar But there are many countries in the world today where those rights Are not respected or do not exist So just the right to get together to form a religious house a religious community a house of worship You have the right to build facilities under zoning laws that as i mentioned a moment ago Should be applied equally to all that hasn't always been the case in this country There have been a number of situations recently where communities that had no problem having a mega church in their town Suddenly went crazy because some muslims wanted to open a mosque Suddenly that was a problem. Oh, suddenly that was too much parking issue traffic noise Whatever that they never said anything about if it was a large christian church So you have to apply these laws Equally if you're going to say that a christian church has the right to build on a certain Piece of land than a mosque or a temple or other types of religious organizations would be able to do the same thing equal treatment You have the right to believe Things that people may think are strange Again, that seems like a fairly obvious thing But there are places in the world where that is not permitted and i just point that out because that kind of idea That you have the right to believe what you want is really in many ways At the crux of religious freedom in america. Why do we have so many different faiths? I mentioned a moment ago all the different denominations because people split off change their mind have a disagreement have a revelation Form a new religion And sometimes people might think well that that's really strange. Some of those beliefs are really odd Well, they probably said the same thing when the first christians came along And the first muslims came along and the first buddhists and the first everybody came along All the beliefs seem strange when you first encounter them The idea is that you have the right to believe these things to spread them And tell others and that's my next point. You have the right to proselytize You have the right to spread the word A very powerful thing If you think about it in this country You have the right to go into public places You have the right to go door to door You have the right to use Forums that are open to all groups to spread a religious message Now, you know, I'm not always crazy when a religious proselytizer comes to my door. I'm not always happy to see that person But part of me thinks this is really special Because in this country They have the right to do this and I may feel uncomfortable and I may not want to get into a discussion with them about religion I may have to set the door. I may have to whatever I have to do But the point is in a free country They can spread their faith through magazines Through door to door proselytism through websites through radio stations through pamphlets, however they want to do it They have that right And sometimes religious groups argue that their right to public space has been curtailed, but that is not true That is not true There have been many cases where the supreme court and lower courts have looked at this question of access to public space And what they have eventually said is that Religious groups have the same right to that space as all other groups If it is equal treatment, let me give an example how this can play out It's christmas time And the town green in front of the city hall Is there and it's open and it's groups are using it for free speech So maybe the Knights of columbus puts up a nativity scene And maybe a jewish group puts up a menorah And maybe a islamic group puts up its symbols and other groups come in And there may be an atheist group that might come in and put up a display The point is that everybody's got to be treated equally everybody's got to be given access And sometimes this is hard for some of these folks to understand I'll tell you a little story that happened a couple years ago in capital florida in the capital building They had a rotunda in the capital building and it was december and they wanted to have a nativity scene there And they knew that the government couldn't put it up there because that would be unconstitutional So they allowed a religious group to come in a catholic religious group to come in And put in a nativity scene in a rotunda Well, some folks from a jewish organization saw that and said, well, hey, how about if we bring in a menorah? And the state official said, okay, you bring in a menorah And then some other folks saw it and they were with this church to the flying spaghetti monster And if you've heard about this, but they wanted they wanted to put up a display of the of the the noodley god and the um Like you know the the folks in the rotunda who rolled the control the rotunda rolled their eyes said, okay bring it in Then another guy saw the displays and said, hey, I'd like to put a festivus pull up. It's made of Budweiser cans And it's about six feet tall and they said, all right, you know bring in the festivus pull So he bring in the festivus pull so there were times it's getting a little crowded But all these things are there then a group called the satanic temple came along And said we want to put up a diorama of an angel falling into a pit of fire And suddenly the people who ran the rotunda said, oh, no, no You can't do that That's offensive Well, the satanic temple people who by the way don't actually literally believe in satan They're just sort of provocateurs who go out into the world and stir things up by doing things like that Putting dioramas of angels falling into pits of fire They called us up in americans united and they said can you help us? We're being denied a right that is given to all these other religious groups So our attorneys called the folks up in florida and said you have 24 hours to put the display up or we're taking you to court They put the display up It was vandalized It was attacked But it was up the following year the officials in florida said Maybe we're not going to have any religious displays in the rotunda this So look everybody has the right to spread the word everybody has the right to use this space But I do mean everybody The only types of displays I think legally could be barred in situations like that would be ones that meet the legal definition of obscenity Otherwise the fact that something is a little bit unusual That's not going to cut it a couple years ago. I was visiting a friend of mine in san diego And a suburb of san diego named alcohol. There's a small group called eunarius foundation They believe that spaceships we're going to come from a galactic federation in the california desert And these ufo's are going to stack on top of one another And we're going to be invited to join this galactic federation of planets as soon as we get our act together We're not quite ready yet. That's what they told me Now they incorporate jesus and the buddha and and mohammed and other religious leaders Into their belief system when I toured their building I saw these paintings of these religious leaders and I thought well What is this all about and the guide told me well, those are just reincarnations Of a godhead that keeps reasserting itself throughout history So all these spiritual leaders are just manifestations of a godhead And we're still getting manifestations of that today and that they had a spiritual leader They followed and so on my point is that this is a little bit unusual to most people probably But the first amendment does not play favorites. It does not say that there's two tiers of religion There's the normal accepted of religions that everybody thinks are great And then there's these stranger to weir ones and the weir ones don't get the same rights No, it doesn't work that way Everybody gets the same rights And when you're proselytizing and when you're spreading your point of view, whether it's for christianity or Galactic federation or whatever it's for There are certain places that you can't go The public school system is why public school system Is charged with the duty Of educating children from a vast array of religious and non-religious beliefs You cannot come into that system As outsiders and use it to proselytize that is a violation of parental rights So there are some restrictions But there are very few restrictions and when you think about all the public places that are open to religious organizations The scope of religious freedom is is very broad religious freedom protects your right To argue to debate to change your mind To doubt to question and to criticize And this this is one of the most important features of religious freedom because intellectually This is how we grow as people I think I keep talking about how things were in the past because it's instructive to remember how far we have come Think about the days when people could not publicly express their doubts There are countries like that in the world today Where it's technically illegal to be an atheist Or to express skepticism or to criticize the dominant religion if you do that's blasphemy That's illegal Yet in this country We have the absolute right To hash these things out To debate to argue with one another to change our minds And that's really important because that has been I think a fundamental part of so many people's religious journeys As I've traveled around the country giving talks like this and speaking with folks I've had so many of them tell me about How they came to new religious understandings because of something they read or a person they encountered or a family They may be married into or engaged with in some way. They blended traditions They pulled all this together in a free country where we have these rights The right to do your own thing Extremely important. Thomas Jefferson Was once asked to describe his religious beliefs and he said quote I am of a sect by myself as far as I know Thomas Jefferson as some of you may know Took the new testament and he cut out the things he did not believe in the references to jesus's divinity the miracles He cut all that out and he pasted up what was left It was called the life and morals of jesus christ also known as the jefferson bible It was a private devotional later became published the thing about it is if you read it now It's amazing because his jesus is a very human jesus He doesn't claim to be the son of god. He doesn't perform miracles But he has a system of morals and ethics that jefferson admired my point is that Jefferson had the right to do that and he handed that type of freedom down to us The right to take a doctrine and look at parts of it and think that's pretty good But this I don't like I'll discard that the right to be spiritual but not religious You hear that term a lot these days people are saying that the right to blend traditions the right to form new faiths Think about some of the religions that got started in this country the Mormon church christian science Semite Adventist Scientology and so on These types of things happen only in a nation where people have an absolute right or a confident in their ability To express religious freedom to the point where they can just go do their own thing create a whole new system of belief It's very important intellectually that is in many ways the underpinning of religious freedom in this country The right to debate the right to argue and that may include The right to be offensive it doesn't include the right to be offensive Sometimes people get the idea that oh, you know You can't attack someone's faith. You can't insult someone on the basis of the religion. Look, I think there are many reasons why that's not a good idea I think it's rude. I don't think it's very polite. I don't think it's nice but It's not illegal not in this country I mentioned a minute ago about no hierarchy of religions I just want to stress that again because there is some confusion about that I hear people sometimes use this word cult I said that's a cult That has no legal meaning That's a term people use to describe religions. They don't like All religions start as cults Christianity was considered a cult when the Roman Empire was pagan That has no legal meaning All religions are equal We have to remember that there's no preference. There's no hierarchy Now no religion has the right To engage in illegal activities Some have done that in the past Some have engaged in illegal activities. The law is going to post off to that It does not protect illegal activities But the idea that somehow there's A system of religions that the ones we like are at the top and as we go down They get stranger and stranger and then they get to a point where we don't have to give them any rights That has no standing in the law If you look at what the supreme court has said about these things over the years One thing comes true It rings true very clearly and that is that Men and women have the right to believe things they cannot prove to be true That's an important principle That undergirds many of the religious freedom cases You can't be put on trial or put to the test about your religious beliefs You simply assert them and that's the end of it And of course religious freedom Has to include the right to reject all religions And I bring this up because occasionally I write into somebody who argues that Usually it's someone associated with the conservative religious community who argue that well the first amendment Only speaks of religious freedom the free exercise of religion That doesn't say you can't You could be a non-believer Well a theory of religious freedom that did not encompass the right to be a non-believer would be of little value Some atheists I know will sometimes say I just believe in one less god than most people And indeed the courts have made it clear over the years that there is a right to be a non-believer At the right there's a right to ridicule mock and blaspheme to be impolite as I mentioned a moment ago to be rude And there is an absolute right to take an unpopular stand The Jehovah's Witnesses did that with the flag salute cases in the 1940s at a very Difficult time in our country. They stood up for their right not to salute the flag because they believed that Saluting a flag placed an image A thing over god Their only allegiance was to god at the time the Jehovah's Witnesses brought that case Under god was not in the pledge of allegiance. That was inserted in 1954 The Jehovah's Witnesses cases came in the 40s So they brought that case because they did not believe that a flag salute Was something that they could do in good conscience So these rights To reject them all to debate to discuss to argue to fight in a peaceful way Very important pieces of religious freedom. I want to take just one minute to talk about Another little issue that sometimes pops up that people ask me about And that is the question of civil religion civil religion Is important when we're talking about religious freedom because it is sometimes argued By the more conservative folks in our society that the existence of civil religion Shows that there is a kind of generalized principle of religiosity That moves through our society and that that is kind of a de facto establishment of religion Civil religion if you're not familiar with the term Is the tendency of the government to use generic religious language in ceremonial ways For instance If you have any coins in your pocket, this is a quarter and god we trust it's on the dollars too Under god being slipped into the pledge of allegiance in 1954 the use of the phrase in god we trust As our national model These types of things and yes, uh They do exist And yes, they have been examined by courts and courts have not tended to take these cases seriously I think that's a mistake I think that the use of civil religion by the government While it may have made some sense in the 1950s, although I doubt it made much even then Makes none today Simply because there are too many people with too many different beliefs and philosophies and non beliefs The idea that there is a generic one size fits all religion watered down Like canned peas from the grocery store that bland and that everybody can rally around that faith And that your patriotism your ability to express your love of country is in fact tied to your acceptance of civil religion Is a dangerous idea The courts have for too long. I think dismissed these cases by saying it's no big deal. It's just ceremonial But in fact, it's not when the government says something like in god we trust It's making a series of theological statements There's one god Not 20 gods not no god. There's one god You can trust in that god In fact It's a good thing to trust in that god real americans Trust in that god. That's what they are saying in those statements And if you don't agree You're a little bit outside of things. Maybe you're not on the same level as other citizens This is the state making a series of theological statements The government in my mind Has no right To meadowland theology no right to make theological statements no right to assume Things about folks of what they may believe or may not believe my hope is that someday the courts will take a little more serious Look at these civil religion questions. We're obviously not there yet But I hope the day will come and I bring that up simply because a lot of people argue that I know again folks from the more conservative side of things will argue that The fact that these things exist is evidence that separation of church and state was never intended by our founders But these things came much after the founders they came much later They came in the 1950s. What was going on in the 1950s the epic struggle with godless communism We wanted to show that we were different. We adopted these civil religion practices We embraced them the pledge of allegiance as written in 1892 by francis bellamy a minister and a socialist Did not contain any reference to god Again, that was put in there later So these are artifacts of a much different time They do not undermine the idea that the framers intended there to be a separation of church and state The final thing I want to say before I wrap up is that There's one more aspect of this we need to consider Religious freedom means you have the right To pay for your own religious stuff and that is not a burden In fact, it should be a joy to do that And for many years in this country That was Just an accepted thing Religious groups paid their own way And people were happy to do that They felt great pride in the fact that they built religious communities from nothing Paid for a church Paid for a proselytism or an outreach project built a soup kitchen Whatever they did With their own money they dug deep showed how passionate they were about their faith Well in the past several decades for whatever reason We've been moving away from that and moving toward the idea of government funding instead faith-based initiatives voucher plans Whatever you want to call them the idea that the government will somehow start subsidizing somebody else's religious worship When you're done Well, that isn't right Thomas Jefferson said it was sinful and tyrannical Before someone to support a religion against your will and in fact, that's what got people so worked up about the separation of church and state Back in the day Church taxes If you go back and look at the history, that's what people were so angry about They were forced to pay a tax to support a church that was not their own Forced to pay a tax to prop up somebody else's faith and they opposed that And we need to get back to that central principle now I'm going to finish by saying that There are always going to be those among us who believe that only they are right That only their worship is correct Only their worship is pleasing to god. They have been with us for a very long time and I don't Doubt their sincerity I don't Doubt the fact that they believe in their religion strongly But I would say to them just one interesting question Has it ever occurred to you that you might be wrong? And I think anybody who's intellectually honest about faith needs to ask that question from time to time To examine it to look at it anew to say Am I so sure Real faith authentic faith valuable faith Does not fear doubt It embraces it Yet too many people today. I think have this rigid belief That only their faith Only their path Leads to god Or an understanding of god The problem with that belief is that it has been held simultaneously By every theocrat Of every kind Of every faith All throughout human history You hear the christian fundamentalists say it You hear the fundamentalist muslims say it You hear fundamentalist buddhists. Yes, there are such things. You hear them say it fundamentalist hindus You hear it over and over again. We're absolutely right And if you don't agree with us We will bring you around by force For hundreds of years That was the model That was the way things were done Force compulsion armies forcing people to Believe certain things or pretend to believe certain things or punish them if they didn't believe certain things That was it Well, we had people come along like Roger Wayans and his soul liberty John Leland and his demand for not Something beyond mere tolerance Thomas Jefferson's bold claims in the virginia statutes for religious freedom James Madison's first amendment Come along with eloquent language That inspired many today who yearn for religious freedom and nations without principle is not respected yet here Those same words are sometimes pressed into a shabby service of discrimination to control others To oppress them To take away their rights And I think about some of the fights we're having these days over things like access to birth control The rights of transgender communities muslim bands And so on I have to ask myself Is this the legacy we were given by our founders? That we would be no better than to say to someone you can't come here because of your faith We don't welcome you because of the way you worship We think your behavior Is inappropriate It offends our nation And to tell them that there will be almost a kind of religious test For what determines a good citizen. No, no that was never what was intended We were given a much better legacy than that We were given the absolute right of freedom of conscience And if we don't want to lose it, we better embrace it all more tightly Thank you Questions. Yes, um In terms of separation of virgin states I understand that christmas is a national holiday. I'm not sure about Easter Could you speak to that? Yes christmas Well Puritans puritans made christmas celebrations illegal Puritans considered christmas to be a popish holiday associated with the roma catholics So they it was illegal to celebrate in the puritan massachusetts it began to catch on pre civil war some parts of the country and States started to name it a holiday and not exactly sure when it became a national holiday But it was sometime in the 19th century and It's probably not the greatest thing we ever did but a little bit too late to correct it now With good friday and easter that's actually an interesting question because I think that there's a stronger case to be made That those holidays have not been secularized to the extent that christmas has There are people who do celebrate a pretty secular christmas these days But good friday, uh, which is a legal holiday in my home state of marion by the way Schools are closed governments closed banks. I mean things are not open Uh, I don't know if there's a secular aspect to good friday but uh I don't know that it's been challenged in court, but it's definitely I think something that's problematic Yes, this is um, uh, a really big issue that we've been fighting for decades 90 percent of american school children attend public schools The other 10 percent are in private schools or home school Most private schools in the country are religious something like 80 percent So when you're talking about any kind of plan that diverts taxpayer money To private schools do vouchers or tax credits or education savings accounts or whatever they want to call it You're talking about a plan that most of the time is going to be supporting a private religious institution. These institutions Can hire and fire who they please on the grounds of morality If you're they find out you're gay or they find out you're got pregnant on a wedlock They find out you're living with somebody, you know cohabitating They can fire you You have none of the protections that a public school teacher will have a lot of these schools teach very controversial things They may teach creationism instead of evolution. They may teach, uh, homophobic views Uh, they may teach false views in american history. Some of them really saturate Christian fundamentalist schools tend to saturate all of their curriculum with Their particular religious beliefs now I do not dispute the right of these schools to exist Religious groups have the right to open and operate school systems But I don't think they should have the right to get our tax money. Unfortunately the u.s. Supreme court In a case from the early 2000s in a close decision Ruled in favor of a voucher plan from Ohio And since then we've had more and more of these programs popping up in the states Sometimes we're able to fight them if the state constitution Has strong language about separation of church and state which about two-thirds of them do So sometimes we can strike them down on those grounds by the other times we We go into court and we make our best shot and we still lose. So it's frustrating Oh, yeah, just a follow-up question. What about once they get the money from The tax payer are they obligated to follow special education? They're not. I mean, I mean they could be I mean, that's what's so frustrating about these plans Right the state lawmakers that are passing these plans could build accountability into these programs if they wanted to but they never do So, yeah, you're right. A lot of times these schools are not they're not 88 compliant. They're not required to offer Instruction to students with special needs And on down the line Those types of accountability measures could be built into the law, but It's it's the wild west out there a lot of people just think oh free market free market that let them do what they want And that's the end of the discussion. So in most states There's very little accountability. I mean There was a situation in wisconsin wisconsin had one of the first voucher programs in the country started in the 19 early 1990s the original law Called for testing the voucher students to see how they were doing And they were consistently not doing as well as the kids who had stayed in the public schools So it was evidence that the plan really wasn't working. What was the legislature's response to that? They didn't shut down the plan They ended the testing mandate That's the mindset Interesting question tax exemption From the study I have done of tax exemption. That is a very old concept It goes back to the pagan days of the roman empire pagan temples were exempt from taxation That practice was handed down when the empire christianized and became part of the western tradition There's nothing in the constitution that requires it Constitution says nothing about tax exemption for houses of worship or other nonprofit organizations It's simply a matter of law. It was challenged I think wall's the tax commission of the state of new york maybe 71 Basically what the supreme court said was that Tax exemption was not unconstitutional, but it was not required So in theory A state could Lift the tax exemption of houses of worship and lots of other groups as well I mean remember that too if they pull up from churches They're also going to be pulling it from a lot of other nonprofit organizations There was a ballot referendum in the state of colorado about seven or eight years ago That would have opened the door to some limited forms of taxation of houses of worship And it went down to defeat like 70 percent 30 percent wasn't even close. So the the public You know stance for most people is that they don't seem to find that a problem I have a question back here. Yeah, yeah I'm just curious about your how did you what was your motivation to get involved with all of us Two things one was um eight years of catholic education And prayers that mandated three times a day mandatory attendance at mass And you know, I it's not that I disliked what the church was saying I just felt that I didn't want that impressed upon me opposed upon me to me religion has to be Freely chosen if someone's pointing that you would say you absolutely have to pray now That's that's useless if there's a god, he's not going to hear prayers said under coercion It has to come from your heart So that was the first thing the second thing was just reading history Love to read history and the more I read from all periods of time the one thing that shines through Over and over again is that combinations of church and state or religion and government or everyone to put it Crush human freedom. They never lift it up Always crush it Someone had a question. Yes. Yeah. Have you read the uh state of Vermont constitution? Section on religious freedom it goes through about a page and a half and separates people from religion I've had if you um, have you ever read that I haven't read for months now Now I have a book in my office that has all state constitutions. I'll take a look at it. It's um, it's If Jesus would come in and look for apostle pp violating the state constitution For real it's interesting and it comes it has to change A word since 1777 when it was written and this is very much the founding fathers their opinion in Hold on this detail Take a look talking about civil Do uh This this is combination by experience is a jail for lawyer and also watching a lot of old to you The one of the old struggles was to replace oaths with affirmations Most jurisdictions still have so help me God when you testify in court. I know we don't hear it for months It's really various and what I've been what I've heard. Uh, it's a part of some of this Attack that on a class action basis on a federal basis. Most Most jurisdictions will allow you to take an alternative non non religious oath And remember, you know the first people who who protested saying swearing oaths were not Atheists they were Quakers Uh, you know, so you had these people saying that they they they would rather affirm than take a note Now a lot of people would look at that today and say what's the difference? But it meant something to them. It was very meaningful for them Yeah, information was what they wanted to do So a lot of places will allow that now. Uh, it's been a long time since I've heard of any jurisdiction really going to the matter with that But maybe it still happens. I mean, I wouldn't try it in rural texas Conscious objection to war or just anything It just occurred to me Conscious objection Some people were Stayed out of the service right because of it. How did that work? Well that evolved over uh many years Litigation started the first world war first conscientious objectors really I'm sure there were some before that but they they asserted a right to be exempt What usually happened is they were given a alternative type of service At first it was limited to religious groups and the so-called peace churches But during the vietnam war Some folks began to argue that they Had a secular belief against fighting and war That wasn't motivated by religion but was the equivalent for legal purposes and in usb seager they they ruled that Yes, that could be extended to the that the folks who had the secular Objection as well And yes, I'm not sure I can articulate this very well, but but your discussion seems to be less about rights Given under the constitution because you're a member of the church or you were participating in church Then it is about your beliefs So it's basically it protects your beliefs as much as you don't necessarily have to be a church. It's just your beliefs Oh, yes, absolutely. Yeah. Yeah, the courts the courts actually been very clear about that your religious freedom The context of religious freedom is beliefs not Necessarily tied to a larger religious body. There was a case in the early 1990s called fray's e.v. Department of Employment Security a guy Uh Was told he had to take a job working on a sunday He had a personal religious belief against laboring on the sunday The church he belonged to Did not teach that you couldn't work on sunday. That was just his personal belief and basically the court looked at that narrow question of Was the fact that he held that belief personally and it didn't necessarily jibe with what his home church was saying Is that relevant and they said it was This sincerely held belief that's really all the matters whether you tie it to a larger denomination or a religious body is irrelevant That really depends on the state you're in Some states have very generous exemptions. Some have very have to have tighter exemptions So it really just depends on the jurisdiction. I don't know that that question has ever been tested at the federal level But isn't that a classic case of the very militarized frontier between belief and action Yeah, I mean it absolutely is and you can look at that and argue that there are you know Both sides would have a fairly strong argument The question is does that present a danger to larger society and so on? I don't know what a court would say about that But I do know that there have been a couple of cases In the california courts because california had fairly loose regulations in that area and then recently tightened them after measles outbreak at disney world and Some people have been contesting that they haven't really been very successful at the court We have a friend who was very is a very business Jew and he was a lawyer in chicago and at that time he always wore a kippa or a young right and He was told he was not allowed to wear it in the court because it would influence If it's a jury trial the jury would see if this person is saying this he was a defense attorney Then he must not he must be telling the truth because he's a religious person and wouldn't tell a lie So Yeah, right Anyway, he was told he couldn't wear this garment But later on I've you know past Last two or three years. I know he always has so yeah, I mean he was probably told that by a Jewish judge That's It's a I mean that sounds like a pretty unusual case, but generally speaking The situation with religious attire religious garb has been that in most cases That's not seen as a problem. Maybe in some public school context, you know possibly But as far as other contexts in the military for example military has been expanding Its rules dealing with religious attire. It now seeks Can wear religious headgear And so on so There are usually ways to find a fairly decent compromise in that area. I'm not sure that argument that was made To him would really fly In the current political landscape, what worries you the most about risks to religious freedom? The supreme court supreme court is already very precariously balanced on these issues Uh, if there's a retirement or a death or some sort of opening on the court and uh, that's filled with another very conservative justice I think we're going to see Some fairly significant changes that pains me to say that but It's very very crucial. Remember, you know as much as we talk loftily about these issues and and vote the founders and How important that language is and the history is It really comes down to the supreme court being the final judgment in many of these situations We start out with congress shall make no laws concerning How does that apply to the states? Good question. The first amendment as originally written did apply only to the federal government So that first word is congress. It was now applied only to the federal government. In fact Many states still had established churches After the first amendment was passed massachusetts was the last state to disestablish its established Disestablish its church and I think that was in the 1840s. So you're talking about, you know, fairly late in the game What happened is after the civil war series of amendments were passed To rectify some of the issues that had come up during that conflict One of them was the 14th amendment the 14th amendment began not a lawyer I've just picked up some of their language over the years Contains a provision that lawyers call the incorporation doctor and that is in incorporates the bill of rights onto the states So now the states are required to abide by the bill of rights The gentleman up here asked a question about the vermont constitution and it's it's got a much longer provision But what's most interesting? Well, what's sort of interesting is it has last sentence The last sentence it says after going through some of the same language of as the federal constitution about religious freedom The last sentence says nevertheless Every sect or denomination of christians ought to observe the Sabbath or lords day and keep up some sort of religious worship Which to them shall seem most agreeable to the revealed will of god Yeah, you can find some pretty interesting language in some of the older constitutions, especially ones that have never been updated or modified Uh, there are still I think seven state constitutions that say it's illegal for an atheist to hold public office Now those were nullified by the u.s. Supreme court in the case called turkoso v. Watkins But they're still in there. One of them is in mariland where I live There's just that's where the turkoso case first came about he was he wanted to be a notary public Notary notary public in mariland is considered a public official when he tried to be a notary He was denied because he refused to affirm a belief in the supreme being supreme court Struck that down so those provisions can't be enforced anymore But they're still in there I mean nobody went back and decided to rewrite the entire mariland state constitution because of this one provision So we have those antiquated provisions in in uh, several states Actually, I mean there are also a lot of references to The u.s constitution the federal constitution doesn't contain any references to god or to jesus But you do find those references in a lot of state constitutions. They're product of their times Can they ask for just, uh Affiliation on job applications? No, not anymore. Uh No, that's a violation of well for most most companies now. That's a violation of Anti-discrimination laws religious groups can They came but you know, there were a lot of things used to go on when you go back and look at some of our history As much as we Claim to the separation of churches state and it's important that has it has been to our country There have been car vows over the years and there have been practices that clearly Conflicted with that principle and that idea of sort of compelling people to believe Believe certain things about religion before they can hold a public office was Actually very common in the colonial area An unfortunate blot in our history that we have since fixed but Some people wanted to have this fight even in the modern era. It was a case Just within the past five or six years a man won election to City council in ashville, north carolina North carolina is one of the states that has one of these provisions this man was an atheist Some people in that community actually tried to stop him from taking his seat now. They weren't successful, but they tried And this day in age Cell phones You think the time will come When unscrupulous people Will try to contribute to the delinquency of miners By putting forth a religion That will punish them They can subscribe to them and they'll Read great profit By subscribing to it, but they have to do certain things that are Contrary to their own Well-being or the well-being of society. Well, all I can say is that religious groups as much as they are Sometimes treated with kid gloves in this society when you think about the The scandal involving roman catholic clergy and how Uh, that was not aggressively pursued as it would have been had it been almost any other institution There are laws that apply to these groups equally I've been watching a very interesting series on netflix. I don't know if anyone's watching it too It's a documentary series called wild wild country And it's a six-part documentary about a group that moved into a small town in oregon in the early 80s The rajnishis they were Loosely based on hinduism and at first they just you know They wanted to have their religious freedom and they wanted to practice their faith and there were some people in the town Who were concerned about that but they had that right But they rather quickly began engaging in a number of really illegal activities poisoning people attempting to assassinate people violating immigration laws and uh, that was not tolerated, you know, I mean there are Certain things you can do and even if you claim you're doing for religion Not gonna fly if it's illegal It really is a good documentary I Yeah, it's a really interesting story and it you know my my sympathies That generally tend to be toward minority groups because I sometimes see the bigotry that they face And I hear people say things that just alarm me, you know that religion doesn't belong in this country Those people shouldn't be in my community and just really things that are disturbing But then The group begins to engage in activities. They're just so blatantly dangerous and erratic and illegal that you can't really have a sympathy for But there have been instances in our country and we know this from reading our own history where People have been attacked and criticized and denied their rights simply because of their religious beliefs So joe's witnesses are a good example. There was a lot of anti-Semitism and still is in some parts of this country We're seeing a lot of Islamophobia right now is Much as we hold up religious freedom as a ideal and it is important You really have to live it not just talk about it and living it means that you have to allow the same rights to a minority faith Even if you don't like what they're saying or doing that you would to all the faiths you're comfortable with Got to treat them equally. Yeah If people violate anti-discrimination laws for instance and some other laws Regarding the separation of state and religion. Are there kind of things or is the only recourse to take into the courts? Do the people who violate are they penalized in any way? They can be um, that's usually not the case Uh, we Let me give you an example We had a case back in 2005 some of you might have read about this In a city in pennsylvania called dover where they wanted to teach intelligent design creationism in the school Now we told them Don't do that Not a good idea You could get sued And they did it anyway Well, we sued them And we won When you win a case like that in federal court The law allows you to recover your attorney's fees all the money that our attorneys spent Or their time, you know, and this was a complicated case That was going to be two million dollars They would have had to pay Now we agreed to lower that fee to one million So they are they their insurance company paid that obviously, but Do you think their insurance company was really happy with that? We don't like to do that. That's a public school system That money is better spent in the classroom But they openly knowingly violated the law The law does allow for the recovery of reasonable attorney's fees in those cases So that's that's kind of the closest thing you can really get to Say a fine In the civil courts You know, if a religious group engages in criminal activity, then yes All its leaders can in theory go to prison Just be punished like any other person would be But in civil courts, it's usually the recovery of attorney's fees That's the closest thing that you see to monetary damages Very very boggy ground I'm inviting you to step on Military chaplaincy is in fact encouragement of religion Not any particular religion, but it's an encouragement of religion And of course it's existed for a long time Has anybody been brave or suicidal enough to try to approach that from a legal or constitutional standpoint? Interestingly, James Madison, father of the constitution and the author of the First Amendment Opposed chaplains in the military. He once wrote an essay where he talked about He talked about them in the Navy because that was the main fighting force of his time He thought those chaplains were unconstitutional Now I look at it A little differently As much as I respect Madison Things have changed a lot since Madison's day You're talking about soldiers being stationed halfway around the world sometimes In countries where there's no, say, Christian churches or very few To make some accommodation for their religious needs Doesn't seem to me to be a problem As long as the chaplain understands that his or her job Is to facilitate the needs of people of a variety of different religious perspectives And that's what a good chaplain does And provides counseling and helps people of all different views Where I would like to see us get rid of chaplains Entirely, completely and utterly Is in the U.S. Congress and state governments We have no need for that anymore When the country was founded Washington, D.C., as you know, was built from scratch You had Congress, you had the executive mansion Now called the White House A couple of boarding houses, it wasn't much else there So they had some chaplains come in to provide for religious services for people Well, that was a long time ago Things have changed I live in Washington suburbs Believe me, there are plenty of houses of worship there Members of Congress who suddenly feel the need for spiritual solace Can't get it We don't need to be paying a chaplain in the house And a chaplain in the Senate Hundreds of thousands of dollars every year For your tax money to come into the chamber every morning And recite a prayer to a chamber that is usually empty Seriously, watch C.Span sometimes They're not even in there They're completely inaccurate So those are the ones I really want to get rid of Maybe one or two more questions? I'm not sure I have the history right But I seem to remember that Utah becoming a state Was a fraught process Because Even though they met what had been Established as the requirements For statehood around population And establishing the state capital That there were so many people in that state Of one religious denomination That there was concern in Washington That there would be a theocracy In a state Yes Could you speak to that? Utah first applied for admission Into the Union under the name Desiree And yes, there were concerns There were concerns about polygamy There were concerns about the Mormons Having handed the presence in that state And be honest, if you read the history Some of what was said about that church Was a little bit hysterical But some of it was true So you kind of have to separate that out a little bit And it wasn't until all of the leaders Agreed to disavow polygamy That their admission for statehood Was approved and how the name got changed I'm not sure about that, but nevertheless They had to make some statements like that Interesting thing is Even today On the border of Utah and Arizona There's a couple of little towns They're run by a splinter group Of Mormons who still practice polygamy And this place is called Short Creek They basically were running it Like a little theocracy in American borders They were telling deciding Who could live there Their police would roam These are small towns, but you know Roamed the roads and just harassed People who were outsiders It was a real problem That spread food stamp fraud There was that too But essentially the federal government After many years of just turning a blind eye To this settlement It finally started to crack down They persecuted some of the church leaders For food stamp fraud Prosecuted Prosecuted There were some allegations Of sexual abuse And things that they started to take a little more Seriously too They also enforced the nation's fair housing laws I mean in these communities They were basically telling people They could not live there unless they were members of this group This religious group and you just can't do that So it's breaking down there Some of the leaders were imprisoned And it started to finally break down But there have been these kind of odd examples A couple of times in our history Of little quasi-theocratic settlements Zion Illinois It was a town called Zion Illinois At the turn of the 20th century That was run by a very strict Christian fundamentalist sect That actually taught its children In the public schools That the earth is flat Because that was their belief And usually these types of settlements They break down because people from outside Start moving in and they just Outnumber the folks eventually But there have been a couple of just little odd Circumstances like that throughout our history That were remedied eventually But it just took a little time We have one more? Yeah It's pretty clear that they didn't want anybody Religion To interfere with anybody's Being sent in their ways Is that over simplification? You know I think the idea is that Your religious freedom Would be maximized to the point where You're not affecting the rights of other people It's like that old argument Of that old line sometimes people say My right to swing my fist Ends where your nose begins It's a good way to think about it Your religious freedom is maximized To the extent that you cannot Start affecting the rights Or impose harms On third parties Please forgive me For not being able to But I tried smoking marijuana When I was 38 years old For the first and only time I sat down on the back road And the person writing with me said Do you want a puff? And I said sure So I took a puff And then She said would you like another puff? And I said sure You have a question? So I had another puff And I was born and brought up in Vermont And I drive on the back road I don't want to run over a helpless deer And I driven up To know that you're out there I didn't give a damn Whether or not it was an easier interval So I know we're getting In a back-to-back situation To change anybody's view Of view of the physical Substance Rather than the psychological level I mean I would Always argue that you We all have the right to argue For religion, whether it's pro or anti We have the right to try to change someone's mind I mean that's part of the great American experiment Is that we Hash these things out in public We have very spirited discussions But there are limits on What the state can do To help you promote your theology It's really on you Thank you