The First Meeting Of The White House Religious Liberty Commission

On Monday, the President's Religious Liberty Commission held its first public meeting. I was honored to testify on the fourth panel.

Panel 1

• Mark Rienzi, President and CEO of the Becket Fund
• Gerard Bradley, Professor of Law at Notre Dame Law School

Panel 2

• Mark David Hall, Professor in Robertson School of Government at Regent University

Remarks by Attorney General Bondi

Panel 3

• Barbara Elliott, Fellow of the Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology and Assistant Professor of Liberal Arts at Houston Christian University

Panel 4

• Stephanie Barclay, Professor of Law at Georgetown Law Center
• Josh Blackman, Professor of Law at South Texas College of Law Houston
• Kristen Waggoner, CEO and President of Alliance Defending Freedom

Comments

[hobie]

I couldn't figure out why you'd post this on a legal blog, but then I saw the photo with our 'national thought leader' in it. Then I knew.

Also, how come Blackman got a tankard of water while everyone else just got a bottle?

[ScottK]

This blog hasn't been written for actual practicing lawyers for a while now, and certainly Blackman isn't writing for us.

[FBlarstan]

Nice group of Christians and Jews. Probably a good sign 😐

[hobie]

I wish it were so. The Nazis lead the Jews to slaughter for racist reasons. But American Christians have a different objective. They have one arm around the Jews but a knife in the other. All this bizarre fawning over Israel when all other people on earth are hated is, of course, pretext for getting our Jewish friends all lined up for slaughter in the end of times to fulfill prophesy.

The Jews understand this and accept all the ridiculous charity, but they have no intention of sacrificing themselves to satisfy you hayseed's doomsday cult fantasies.

[mike petrik]

You are talking about the tiniest cohort of what used to be called fundamentalist Christians and making them out to somehow be represented by this Commission. That is stupid.

[Magister]

A quarter of the US are evangelical Christians, and a majority of them believe that Israel fulfills biblical prophecies for the return of Jesus. Which would pretty much end Judaism. That's not the tiniest cohort.

[bye]

No, that is called Supersessionism. Condemned by Bible
Romans 11:29
for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.

CATHOLIC CATECHISM
The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People, 326 "the first to hear the Word of God." 327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ", 328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable." 329

840 And when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.

[Magister]

So? There are large numbers of self-identified Christians who believe and practice things that are condemned by the Bible.

[bye]

NO, you are talking so.
And they were never called Fundamentalist

1920 in the religious sense, from fundamental + -ist. Coined in American English to name a movement among Protestants c. 1920-25 based on scriptural inerrancy, etc., and associated with William Jennings Bryan, among others.

Doesn't apply to even ONE ~!!

[bye]

You are a disgusting person but I know (from experience) that you know you are disgusting.

[Brett Bellmore]

Wow. You have approximately zero understanding of American Christians. Only approximately because negative numbers aren't zero.

You also, of course, don't understand Islam, and why exactly the Iranians are perfectly serious about destroying Israel even if they die in the process, and so Israel dare not let them gain that capability.

[Swede425]

LOL!
I was in an Iraqi border fort on the Syrian border, drinking chai with a fat little Iraqi major. He had been educated in England and spoke perfect English, with a slight lisp. We had captured some guys smuggling booze and cigarettes from Iraq into Syria and were keeping them in the cells at his fort. Anyway, we were having a perfectly fine conversation while some of our MI guys were talking to these prisoners. My interpreter, a Yazidi, was translating between the MI guys and the prisoners. The major and I were watching them from the couch in his office. Out of nowhere, he leans over to me and says "Your interpreter is Yazidi". I said "Yes, quite of few of our interpreters are. Most can speak Arabic, Yazidi, and Kurdish". He says "They worship the devil". Now, there was the smallest kernel of truth in this statement. From a certain perspective. But the misunderstanding that this major had was vast and glaring. Kind of like this retard Hobie.

[Magister]

Evangelical Christians overwhelmingly support President Donald Trump because they believe he'll cause the world to end.

Many have questioned why devout evangelicals support Trump, a man who has bragged about sexual assault, lies perpetually and once admitted he never asks God for forgiveness. Trump's lack of knowledge of the Bible is also well-known.

Nevertheless, many evangelical Christians believe that Trump was chosen by God to usher in a new era, a part of history called the "end times." Beliefs about this time period differ, but it is broadly considered the end of the world, the time when Jesus returns to Earth and judges all people.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-will-bring-about-end-worldevangelicals-end-times-779643

There are varying views of the end times, but lots of suffering for those who don't fall in with the Christian line, like Jews who don't accept Jesus as their messiah. There are plenty of Christians who want to use Israel to accelerate the arrival of the end times.

[bye]

NO, according to the study by Salena Zito, they first voted for Trump with great hesitation only stirred to do so by Hillary's hate speeches and anti-Christian remarks.

[Magister]

Whatever hesitation they started with, they supported him strongly in the election.

[Brett Bellmore]

On the basis that, while he might be a deeply immoral person, he was at least a deeply immoral person who wasn't out to get them.

[Darwinnie]

Or the Judeo-Christian Nationalist Front might be a better name.

[bye]

Except you obviously don't know the meaning of the word 'front'

[bernard11]

Interesting that the opening prayer ended with, "We make all these prayers in Jesus' holy name." Not very ecumenical or inclusive, considering that there are at least two Jews present.

Could he at least have said, "I make all these prayers....?"

[Darwinnie]

The evangelical Christians of course believe Jews are going to hell. The only reason they so strongly support Israel is because they see it as a necessary prerequisite to Jesus return per the Book of Revelations. I mean, does anyone actually think Mike Huckabee doesn’t believe Jews must become Christians to gain entrance to Heaven?

[Martinned2]

Why do you think he was literally praying for nuclear war in the Middle East the other day?

[y81]

I don't think you understand evangelical Christians: how many do you know? Speaking as one, I support Israel because it is a liberal democracy, and since the English Revolution, we have identified liberal democracy with the will of God. (We could be wrong, of course; maybe God or the dialectic or the world-spirit or whatever intends something else.) As soon as there is a Muslim liberal democracy, we will embrace it too.
To answer the theological question: Jews or anyone else probably cannot enter Paradise unless they recognize Jesus as lord and savior. But Jews mostly don't believe in Paradise anyway, so I don't know why they would complain.

[bernard11]

I don't think you understand evangelical Christians: how many do you know?

Having lived much of my life in the Bible Belt, I actually know quite a few, and have had friends and co-workers who were evangelical Christians. I haven't discussed religion with many, however.

But Jews mostly don't believe in Paradise anyway, so I don't know why they would complain./i>

Well, first, the alternative is not that attractive (nor particularly consistent with the idea that Jesus loves everyone).

More important, it leads, and has led, to the conclusion that anything one does to convert Jews, and I mean anything, is justified because you are trying to save their eternal souls from hellfire, and what could be more important.

Need I discuss the consequences of that belief?

[Brett Bellmore]

I hardly think it leads to the conclusion that anything one does that achieves that is justified.

[David Nieporent]

Empirically, that's wrong; historically, it has led to that conclusion.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, it has never led to anything that extreme. Not anything.

[loki13]

/facepalm

You're either trolling, or ignorant of history. Look, I don't want to get into the debate above about the motives of people today, but for anyone to try and paint a picture of the history of Christianity and Judaism with a shrug and a "Hey, no biggie, right," is just weird.

[Brett Bellmore]

Or maybe I just understand the meaning of the word, "anything". There have ALWAYS been limits, and they're a lot more stringent today.

[Sarcastr0]

...really, Brett?

[bye]

Yes, but the largest denomination does not.
The Salvation of Jews
Yes, they can, and indeed salvation is from the Jews, as Jesus Christ teaches (John 4:22). But anyone who is saved is saved by Jesus Christ, the Jewish Messiah and Savior of all mankind, and through his Catholic Church (see CCC 846-848). In addition, we should not presume upon the salvation of non-Catholics, nor on our own salvation

[mike petrik]

I don't think you know what ecumenical means, but I agree that the ending was thoughtlessly impolitic.

[bye]

It is not ecumenical to pretend you aren't a Christian, nor does 'we mean 'they' the prayer for all is before 'we make this prayer (already made) in Jesus name'
That is how prayers work

[Sidney r finkel]

Thank God Josh is out there leading the fight against the awful discrimination against white Christians.

[Doug Heffernan]

The liberty of the religious residing in the US doesn't seem to be in much jeopardy nowadays. I guess I'll need to watch all of those videos in order to see what they are so worried about.

[mulched]

You've got as much liberty as Doug thinks you should have, so bake the damn cake!

[Doug Heffernan]

The cake baker won his case. The religious side has won almost all cases, the outliers being just the early pandemic cases, which also eventually went to them too. The circumstances of the early pandemic cases were not normal, so those cases by themselves shouldn't be considered some everlasting precedent that still currently restricts religious liberty. The court has made it quite clear that the non-religious must bend to the religious.

[Brett Bellmore]

The cake baker won his case, and the case after that, and the case after that... Every time he won a case he was instantly back in court on a very slightly different basis, they didn't exactly just give up and go away when the Supreme court ruled in his favor. The latest case was resolved last October.

Well, it was pretty much the same guy playing Ahab to the cake baker's White whale, repeatedly, so maybe when Scardina lost last year that WAS the end of it.

[bye]

actually the Court said the opposite, many times, explicitly.
Take Masterpiece Cake. it did not mention non-religious at all

" the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case, which showed elements of a clear
and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection. As the record shows, some of the commissioners
at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that
religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere
or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and
characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of
his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they
mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs
filed here. The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case. "

THRILLED TO DEBATE YOU ON THIS

[bye]

Your posts show great ignorance of things religious so of course you wouldn't notice, would you

[bye]

Doug, they are in great jeopardy so much so that in the Masterpiece Cake case (almost unbelievable you don't know this) the Supreme Court thought that case showed the HUUUUGE attack on religious liberty went all the way up to the highest state levels

"As the record shows, some of the commissioners
at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that
religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere
or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and
characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of
his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they
mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs
filed here.

[SimonP]

To be clear, the administration that is disbanding committees in charge of advising the government on how best to regulate food and drug safety, manage pandemics, avoid economic disasters, etc., feels that it is worth the time and resources to empanel a bunch of self-promoting asshats to talk about "religious liberty" in a country where it is already extremely well-protected.

Every person who chooses to accept a role handed to them by Trump shows us the content of their character.

[bye]

Let me embarrass you in front of the Founders

"Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion." —John Adams, in a letter to Benjamin Rush. 1812

"[T]hat the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty." —Thomas Jefferson, 1779.

"The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man: and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate." —James Madison, 1785.

"Driven from every other corner of the earth, freedom of thought and the right of private judgment in matters of conscience direct their course to this happy country as their last asylum." —Samuel Adams, Speech on August 1, 1776.

"While we are contending for our own liberty, we should be very cautious not to violate the conscience of others, ever considering that God alone is the judge of the hearts of men, and to Him only in this case are they answerable." —George Washington, in a letter to Benedict Arnold.

"Conscience is the most sacred of all property." —James Madison, 1792.

[Magister]

Not seeing why any of this would embarrass anyone.

Yes, the founders thought religious freedom was important, and accordingly it is well protected in this country, as SimonP said. None of these quotes suggest that they didn't view the things that are being neglected as unimportant.

[bye]

As I said to you many times, you don't read the actual cases !!!

Here is the SCOTUS response , officially, on the Masterpiece Cake case

As the record shows, some of the commissioners
at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that
religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere
or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and
characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of
his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they
mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs
filed here.

[Magister]

SCOTUS protecting someone's religious freedom demonstrates that religious freedom is in fact well protected. Now consider the many other important things that are neglected in favor of this commission that is not likely to do anything important.

[SRG2]

So basically all conservative Christians with a right-wing (wannabe) court Jew.

Exactrly what one would expect if you want this country to become more of a Christian theocracy.

[bye]

Like pregnancy, one is a theocracy or it isn't. no in-between, doesn't even make logical sense

[SRG2]

Wrong again. If you weren't so intent on incorrectly correcting me, you wouldn't come over as so stupid.

[BrotherMovesOn]

"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I don't have high hopes for this commission, but it would be of some interest to get an insider's account of what it did.

The insider here is a rather imperfect narrator but that would be true for many involved. So, seriously here, it would be helpful if he provides some insider commentary of how things go.

[bye]

This is exactly why our Founding Fathers banned insider accounts 🙂

Secrecy Rules at the Convention
One of the Convention's first decisions was to adopt secrecy rules. The delegates agreed “that no copy be taken of any entry on the journal…and that nothing spoken in the [Convention] be printed, or otherwise published, or communicated without leave.”

Read why and you will see your error

[JoeFromtheBronx]

He provides video, so regardless of the evidence that they did not truly follow Fight Club rules, that is of limited relevance.

[loki13]

As others have pointed out, this is not defending religious freedom. This is a panel of, and for, right-wing Christians. With, of course, Josh Blackman to provide his token support. And I mean that in the worst possible way.

Fundamentally (ahem) this is just Christian supremacism with a bone thrown to Judaism. There are, in fact, many other religions. The greatest lie the devi... the majority Christian faith of this country ever told is that, in fact, Christianity is the religion that is under attack and needs special protection. It is a worrying thing when the majority of a people band together to demand special protection (ahem) from the minority- this usually doesn't end well.

Now, in saying this, I would also add that religion in America flourishes because it is pluralistic, because it is free. and because it is separate from the state. Not because some religions are more equal than others.

[bye]

Wow, such ignorance about the Founding and the law !!!

IT IS NEVER SEPARATE FROM THE STATE. You can think what you want but not do whatever you want

MANY MANY EXAMPLES but let's go to one that specifically addresses your false claim.You are like the person in that case saying "america is pluralistic and my Mormon religion says I can be a bigamist"
Rynolds v. United States (1879)
Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?

So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances. . . .
==========================
To get rid of slavery and bigamy many brave people had to fight defenders like you.