Is Religious Liberty Training Good for Woke Attorneys?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns freedom of religion. In 2017, Charlene Carter, pro-life flight attendant for Southwest Airlines, was fired because she disagreed with the purposes for which her union dues were being spent. She went on social media to voice her concern about her dues being used to send the president of the union to the Women’s March in Washington, D.C. She did not want her dues to be used to support pro-abortion causes. 

According to an article by Nicole Russell in The Daily Signal, Carter hired an attorney and filed a claim for discrimination against her “due to her pro-life beliefs rooted in her religious beliefs.” The jury awarded $5.2 million to Carter, but U.S. District Judge Brantley Starr reduced the amount to “$800,000, to align with federal limits on punitive damages.” Starr also ordered Southwest to rehire Carter.

Judge Starr also order the three lawyers representing Southwest Airlines to take eight hours of “religious-liberty training from the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative nonprofit law firm that specializes in First Amendment law” before August 28.  ADF is the nonprofit law firm that has represented several other people fighting religious liberty cases. It is “best known for its wins at the Supreme Court in both Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission and 303 Creative v. Elenis.”

“[T]he Court concludes that training on religious freedom for three lawyers at Southwest the Court finds responsible (Kerrie Forbes, Kevin Minchey, and Chris Maberry) is the least restrictive means of achieving compliance with the Court’s order,” Starr wrote in his ruling. “The Alliance Defending Freedom (‘ADF’) has conducted such training in the past, and the Court deems that appropriate here.”

Southwest announced Tuesday that it would appeal Starr’s ruling, but it seems logical and sensible, and it’s not overwrought. But some in the left-of-center media reacted to the sanctions with outrage and disdain over both this particular kind of “diversity training” and the group the judge prescribed for providing it; namely, the ADF.

Russell wrote that “Southwest was found to be in serious violation of Carter’s religious liberties.” She indicated that the judge’s decision was an appropriate consequence because the training would help the Southwest attorneys to better “understand what the concept of religious liberty entails within the First Amendment.”

Russell also showed her approval for the training to take place at Alliance Defending Freedom because ADF “has won 15 cases at the Supreme Court on issues just like this.” ADF is a “highly specialized law firm of attorneys and staff who understand and respect the authority of the First Amendment, especially as it relates to free speech or free exercise of religion cases. 

Can We Save Our First Amendment Freedoms?

            The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is First Amendment freedoms. Some people believe that the Biden administration promotes censorship on information not approved by the Biden administration.

Republican Senator Josh Hawley recently criticized the Biden administration of censoring information on environmental issues by technology companies. In an appearance on “The Ingraham Angle” with host Laura Ingraham, Hawley said, “Laura, this is the most recent example of the most anti-First Amendment administration in American history.”

Hawley’s statement came in response to a clip played on the show of Gina McCarthy, White House National Climate Adviser, calling for tech companies to censor debate over environmental issues. According to Harold Hutchison, McCarthy said the following: 

The challenge is that now we’re moving from denial to actually just trying to disengage the public. We have to get tired, we have to get better at communicating, and frankly, the tech companies have to stop allowing specific individuals over and over again to spread disinformation.

            Hawley has a point. Tech companies have censored “specific individuals” because they were spreading “disinformation.” In 2021, YouTube said that videos had to align with “well-established scientific consensus around the existence and causes of climate change” to be monetized. YouTube was not alone in its censorship because Twitter and Facebook also censored individuals for so-called “misinformation” on environmental issues. Hawley continued with this explanation:

This is an administration assaulting our basic fundamental constitutional values and principles at every single turn. I can’t think of another administration in our history that has assembled an enemies list if you will and read it over and over from the White House podium and says, “We want these people off of social media, we want these people not to be able to communicate a message.”

            Hawley continued by giving examples. His list included “vaccines to combat COVID-19, mask mandates and environmental issues” to show the topics about which the Biden administration wants to suppressed debate.

            Hutchison reported that neither Hawley nor the White House did not respond to requests for comments. Nevertheless, Americans can plainly see that the Biden administration is coming for our First Amendment and Second Amendment rights.

 

What Should We Do to Make a Stand for Christian Principles?

             Among other things, the Book of Mormon – Another Testament of Jesus Christ is the history of ancient inhabitants of the Americas. It contains the history of the Jaredites, the Nephites, and the Lamanites as well as another group known as the Mulekites who joined the Nephites. The Jaredites left the Middle East and came to the Americas at the time of the Tower of Babel. About 600 B.C., the other people came from the Middle East to America in two groups – the Mulekites and the family of Lehi – and later combined. Soon after the death of Lehi, his children divided into the Nephites and the Lamanites.

            By the year 72 B.C., the Lamanites and Nephites had fought many battles, and the chapters for this week’s Come, Follow Me lesson is about some of their wars. Amalickiah was a Nephite dissenter who joined the Lamanites and became their king by a series of lies and intrigue. Being the king of the Lamanites gave him power but not as much as he desired because he wanted to be the king over all the land.

As soon as Amalickiah had obtained the Lamanite kingdom, he began to stir up the Lamanites in anger against the Nephites. Before too long “he had hardened the hearts of the Lamanites and blinded their minds, and stirred them up to anger” (Alma 48:3). He was determined “to overpower the Nephites and to bring them into bondage” (Alma 48:4). He chose other dissenters from the Nephites as his chief captains because they were “the most acquainted with the strength of the Nephites” (Alma 48:5).

Meanwhile, Captain Moroni, the leader of the Nephites, had been “preparing the minds of the people to be faithful unto the Lord their God” (Alma 48:7). He strengthened the armies, erected small forts, and fortified the forts with banks of earth and walls of stones around them. The Nephites were “preparing to support their liberty, their lands, their wives, and their children, and their peace,” and their religious freedom that “they might maintain that which was called by their enemies the cause of the Christians” (Alma 48:10).

Besides having a righteous cause for their preparations for war, the Nephites were led by a righteous man. Captain Moroni was described as “a strong and a mighty man” with “perfect understanding” who “did not delight in bloodshed” but found his “joy in the liberty and the freedom of his country, and his brethren from bondage and slavery” (Alma 48:11). His “heart did swell with thanksgiving to his God, for the many privileges and blessings” given to his people, and “he was a man who did labor exceedingly for the welfare and safety of his people” (Alma 48:12). He “was firm in the faith of Christ,” and he had sworn “an oath to defend his people, his rights, and his country, and his religion, even to the loss of his blood” (Alma 48:13).

When Mormon compiled the Book of Mormon, he wrote the following about Captain Moroni: “… I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men” (Alma 48:17).

Captain Moroni was not the only righteous leader among the Nephites. “Helaman and his brethren were no less serviceable unto the people than was Moroni” (Alma 48:19). By following their righteous leaders, the Nephites were prepared for the attack of the Lamanites and were able to repel their enemies.

There are several principles in this story. The first principle is that we should choose righteous people as our leaders. The second principle is that we are more able to survive and even thrive during emergencies and disasters when we are prepared for them. The third principle is that we cannot all be in the spotlight as was Captain Moroni, but we can “be serviceable” to our fellow human beings just as Helaman and his brethren were. The fourth principle is that sometimes we must make a stand for our Christian principles.

            Sometimes true followers of Christ must make a stand just as Captain Moroni and his people did to defend “their liberty, their lands, their wives, and their children, and their peace” as well as “the cause of the Christians” (Alma 48:10). We are living at a time when there is a tide of wickedness sweeping the world. President Gordon B. Hinckley of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints taught that “there are times when we must stand up for right and decency, for freedom and civilization, just as Moroni rallied his people in his day to the defense of their wives, their children, and the cause of liberty (see Alma 48:10)” (Ensign, Nov. 2001, 72).

            We are living in the last days before the Savior Jesus Christ returns to earth to rule and reign for 1,000 years. The family has been under attack for many years and continues to be attacked. Now churches, particularly Christian churches, are being attacked, and Christians are being denied the right to worship together. One group of Christians recently met in a casino in Nevada to worship together, while another group in another state worshipped at Wal-Mart.

            Freedom of religion is the First Freedom because it is the most important. All other freedoms will fall like Dominoes if we lose this first one. It is time for all Christians to stand up and to stand together to protect the cause of Christians, which is really the cause of liberty.

First Amendment Freedoms

            The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns the freedoms protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It seems that not a day passes that someone is not calling for less freedom for someone else – whether it be trying to control what another person says, complaining about what is written on a tee shirt, or the bashing of the right to worship as we choose. These and other freedoms are protected by the First Amendment.

            As discussed in a Deseret News Editorial, Elder D. Todd Christofferson, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, recently

spoke about the freedom of religion to a committee in the British Parliament in London. He titled his address, “Why Atheists (and Everyone Else) Should Support Freedom of Religion or Belief.”

I was interested in reading Elder Christofferson’s ideas because this topic is rather new and surprising to me.

            It is easy for all of us to consider that freedom of religion or belief protects only the believers and their churches. Elder Christofferson makes the point that “courts have implicitly recognized that rights must protect both religious believers and nonbelievers. The freedom of speech, for instances, embraces the right to speak about God but also to speak about one’s personal opinions on matters of politics, art, literature, history, morality and virtually any other topic.”

            This means that these freedoms protect the rights of both the believer and the nonbeliever equally. The “interdependent First Amendment freedoms” allow us to prosper as individuals and as a society. It is to the benefit of all of us to protect and preserve these freedoms.

            Elder Christofferson spoke on the importance of religious freedom in 2015 at an interfaith conference held in Sao Paulo, Brazil. The conference was titled, “A Celebration of Religious Freedom.” This is what he said at that time.

We use our freedom of religion and belief to establish our core convictions, without which all other human rights would be meaningless. How can we claim the freedom of speech without being able to say what we truly believe? How can we claim the freedom of assembly unless we can gather with others who share our ideals? How can we enjoy freedom of the press unless we can publicly print or post who we really are?”

            All of us must understand the importance of preserving our First Amendment rights. It should not matter whether we are atheist, agnostic, or devout believer, or whether we meet in a synagogue, mosque, or church. If we cannot speak about the ideals that are most dear to us in our work places or in public areas, we do not truly have the freedoms outlined in the First Amendment.

            Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have defended the freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment for many years, just as Elder Christofferson did in Sao Paulo and in London. Joseph Smith made the following oft-quoted statement in 1843.

If it has been demonstrated that I have been willing to die for a “Mormon,” I am bold to declare before Heaven that I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any denomination; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholics, or of any other denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves. It is a love of liberty which inspires my soul – civil and religious liberty to the whole of the human race.

            Leaders of the Church from the days of Joseph Smith to the current day have defended the First Amendment rights of each person. The Eleventh Article of Faith declares: “We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.” This is a principle that members learn from childhood to adulthood. We are encouraged to memorize it as a child and to live it for the rest of our lives. It is a principle that all Americans should learn and follow as we protect and preserve our First Amendment freedoms.

First Amendment Freedoms

            The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns challenges to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. There are more and more questions about what is protected by this amendment. Here is what the First Amendment says.

Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

            According to the wording of this amendment, “Congress” – and by extension all governments – cannot make any laws restricting religion or religious expression, speech, press, assembly, or petitioning the government. Yet, there are people who call for the restriction of these freedoms in one way or another.

            The freedom of expression has been challenged for numerous years by the concept of “political correctness.” Remember back a few years when “Christmas” became a bad word, and many demanded that we use “holidays” or “winter vacation” instead of Christmas? Later, we were called racist if we used the term “illegal aliens” instead of “undocumented immigrants.” Job titles had to be changed to accommodate different sexes, such as “policeman” became “police officer.” Any job title with “man” in it had to be changed to a neutral sex title, such as “chairperson” instead of “chairman,” “flight attendant” instead of “stewardess,” and many others. However, Americans would allow themselves to be pushed only so far.

            This article claims that the term “political correctness” arose in the 1990s from what one reporter saw as “a growing intolerance on university campuses for views that diverged from mainstream liberalism.” It also says that political correctness led to “the popularity of the Tea Party and the election of a president, Donald Trump, who made the shunning of political correctness a political trademark.” I was personally relieved that Trump made a mockery of political correctness.

            The above referenced article says that conservatives support the freedom of speech “more consistently than liberals, even when it’s speech that goes against their views…. By contrast, progressives have been more likely to advocate constraints, particularly on speech … seen as harmful to racial minorities and women.” It also states that conservatives would like ban the burning of flags while liberals say political donations should not be protected as free speech.

            I was amazed by the attitudes of some people when I read their comments on social media. Some people actually said that neo-Nazis should not have the freedom to assemble and the freedom of speech. I tried to help them see that all Americans have the right to assemble and to share their ideas, but they refused to change their views. The group had a permit to “peaceably assemble.” I understand that there was no violence until the counter-protesters arrived. The counter-protesters were there to deny the first group their right to freedom of assembly and freedom of speech because they did not agree with them.

            I do not support neo-Nazis in any way, shape, or form. I do not understand why they push for socialism when we have so many freedoms in America. They do not make sense to me, but they have the same rights as you and I do. According to the above referenced article, direct threats are not protected speech. “But to count as a threat, speech has to incite `imminent lawless action,’ in the words of a 1969 Supreme Court ruling; merely advocating violence is allowed. This is why neo-Nazis are allowed to march, and to cast themselves as free-speech champions.”

            The law must protect both conservatives and liberals in order to remain just. We cannot take the freedoms outlined by the First Amendment from any group - whether we agree with them or not – or we will lose those same freedoms for ourselves.