In the midst of the hysteria over Christian presidential candidates, it’s worth remembering the intellectual and personal foundations of the modern Christian legal movement. Yesterday, the Daily Caller published an interview with Jay Sekulow (chief counsel of the ACLJ, where I work). It’s notable a notable interview, not just for presenting the actual legal arguments Christian conservatives make in the Supreme Court, but also for presenting how thoroughly mainstream and respectful of liberty these arguments are. Here’s a key portion (Matt Lewis conducted the interview):
Matt Lewis: So, your first case before the Supreme Court in 1987, Board of Airport Commissioners v. Jews for Jesus, tell us, if you would, about that case.
Jay Sekulow: Well, it was a straightforward case. The City of Los Angeles, in light of the 1988 Olympic Games, passed a resolution prohibiting free speech activities at the airport. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld our position. The concern was that the Supreme Court took the case to reverse. Rather than arguing it as a religion case, we presented the case as a classic free speech case. We received wide support from political parties, labor unions, civil liberties groups, and others. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in our favor, and Justice O’Connor wrote that there was no conceivable governmental interest justifying such a sweeping prohibition of free speech.
It’s easy to forget that just a generation or two ago, there was a real question about whether Christian student groups even had a right to meet in public schools or on public university campuses. It’s also easy to forget that America was and is a beacon of religious liberty in the world, and we should never allow the ignorance and prejudices of, among others, the secular Left (especially when manifested through government action) drive religion from the public square. Here’s Jay on the personal roots of his own advocacy:
My grandfather faced [religious] persecution at the time of the Russian Revolution, as a lot of Jewish people did in 1914, ’15, ’16 and ’17; and he came to the United States as a 14 year old . . . When I argue those cases at the Supreme Court of the United States—and I say this with deep admiration for living in this country—when they call my name and they say, “Mr. Sekulow, we will now hear from you,” . . . I always think about that. Here I am, Mr. Sekulow, the grandson of a Russian immigrant who came through Ellis Island, and his grandson is arguing cases before the Supreme Court of the United States.
The battle for religious liberty is not a battle for legal supremacy but instead for legal equality, for the chance — the opportunity — for citizens to make their voices heard and make a way for themselves and their descendants. Simply put, religious liberty grants the freedom to persuade, not coerce.
If the Left is secure in the power of its ideas, why should it fear our words?
Brilliantly stated, David:
"The battle for religious liberty is not a battle for legal supremacy but instead for legal equality, for the chance — the opportunity — for citizens to make their voices heard and make a way for themselves and their descendants. Simply put, religious liberty grants the freedom to persuade, not coerce."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. French, If Obama gets a second term, all that Sekulow and others fought for regarding 1st amendment protections, speech and religious freedoms, could be reversed. Conservatives need to wake up and realize that Scalia and Kennedy, and possibly Thomas, may be off the Court by 2017. What then? Not just the 1st Amendment, but also, remember, the 2nd hangs by one vote. We give lip service each election to the Court, but this election seems supremely critical for maintaining our freedoms.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"If the Left is secure in the power of its ideas, why should it fear our words?"
1. The Left is NOT secure in the power of its ideas but is quite comfortable with the idea of power.
2. The Left most definitely fears our words and therefore employs words to evoke fear, e.g., "extremist," "fundamentalist," "dominionism," "theocracy."
3. That the Left is not secure in its ideas in no way makes them less of a threat to liberty; rather, it makes them MORE dangerous, because they will use coersion rather than persuasion.
4. A wilding mob is never dissuaded by reasoned discourse, so we shouldn't get cocky about the insecurities or untenableness of Leftism: an armed man with a bad idea will always beat the unarmed man who has a good idea, cf. all of human history.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is a very well-put defense of religious liberty and free speech, and I agree fully. But Mr. French, what is your opinion of the efforts to prevent the building of mosques in communities across the country (excluding the one near Ground Zero)? Does this not infringe on religious liberty?
My concern is that while you would rightly defend the liberty of Christians to express their faith, you would be more hesitant to defend other (possibly more unpopular) faiths.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes there are those who oppose the building of Mosques (and I appreciate your realization of the unique issues presented by the ground zero situation) and I believe your call to that issue is a good one.
I also believe however, that the issue is not one of popularity, but of willingness to accept western cultural expectations of its citizens. Islam doe not recognize the separation of public and religious life. It does not accept evangilizing - its requires submission. It does not respect the primacy of public and civil authority. As much as Catholics were once accused of essentially wanting to place the pope in the white house - Islam does actively work for the overthrow of our constitutional government. In effect I am unaware of any other major religious group whose object is the overthrow of the constitution. That makes your question much more delicate. These are not a bunch of Thomas More's out there.
Now we can argue that Islam is not that, however, polling is not nearly so convincing. We can argue that Islam in the US is populated with a milder form of adherant. But it is not universally so. I believe Islam - and by extension its followers - appropriately have a closer scrutiny placed upon them. I would like to see some formal recognition by Islam of the "secular" authority in this country ala Jesus' comment regarding rendering unto Caeser that which is Caeser's.
Until then, the question has no easy answer.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere isn't any "hysteria over Christian presidential candidates".
There's lots of criticism of ridiculous ideas held by some (and sometimes, many) Christians, such as "I don't believe in evolution" and "gays can be cured". And the criticism is justified.
Again, how about you show us some evidence that the "hysteria" is about Christianity itself, and not about some particular ideas held by some Christians.
How about it? What have you got?
Personally, I'd say the "hysteria" seems to be on your side of the aisle.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo equate the recent "persecution" of US christians with the Russian pogroms is despicable. (Questione anyone who believes in the "rapture" and end times and they'll tell you they support Israel only because it's necessary for the triumph of the second coming--the Jews, however, won't be saved along with the righteous christians.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt shows their double standard hypocrisy. The Leftists want TOLERANCE for everything THEY do or say, but not for anyone else....who dares to believe differently and oppose what they stand for.........They hate the TRUTH, so when they hear it, they try to forbid it by calling it HATE SPEECH....while they say whatever they want against the TEA
PARTY and Christians and 'white conservative heartland Americans"....We are such a THREAT that the Department of Homeland Security sees us as a THREAT to national security instead of looking to the TRUE terrorist threat....and now OBAMA wants to make any negative speech against islam illegal....
TOTO, WE ARE NOT LIVING IN AMERICA ANYMORE..... :-(
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse