December 17, 2020 • 41 mins
In this episode we are joined by General Counsel and Associate Executive Director Holly Hollman of BJC, in Washington D.C. BJC is formerly known as the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty. BJC is a national ministry partner of Pine Street Church.
This episode explores cultural and legal aspects of the Constitutional principle of the separation of church and state. We also address the meanings of religious liberty that impact our nation and houses of worship during COVID-19 as well as how our heritage of religious liberty can inform people of faith during this holiday season.
Learn more about BJC and important work they're doing in the "heart of the dragon," Washington DC, by downloading their podcast, BJC Podcast, wherever you get your podcasts. In the meantime, Happy Holidays, to all our listeners!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
You lived in Washington, DC in some capacity,
right?
Yeah.
Well, yeah.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
I lived in Washington DC for I'll call it two years.
Okay.
Yeah.
Like Baker's dozen.
Yeah.
Like 2003, 2005, something likethat lived on Capitol Hill.
Speaker 1 (00:19):
Who's the most recognizable person you ran into
on the, on the bad streets ofDC.
Definitely.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Ted Kennedy.
Whoa.
Yeah, for sure.
Ted Kennedy, man.
That was one of the, yeah, thatwas one of the highlights of my
time in DC was in a pressconference where Ted Kennedy, it
was a fairly small room as Irecall, but he was talking about
healthcare and it was during theGeorge W.
(00:46):
Bush administration and one ofhis great political lines from
because he was, you know, hetouted health care for a lot of
his career and was passionateabout that.
Um, and I don't remember all thespecific legal or political
differences, uh, at the timearound health care and the
George W.
Bush administration.
But one of the great lines fromthat press conference was, uh,
(01:12):
George W.
Bush wants to privatizehealthcare come fall of 2004,
which is the Novemberpresidential election.
I say, we privatized George w
Speaker 1 (01:22):
Oh, which was this great political theater.
Yeah, absolutely.
That sounds like the olden dayswith the powdered wigs and
banging of canes and occasionalfish, there is C
Speaker 2 (01:36):
You know, you're such a natural at this.
Speaker 1 (01:41):
Are you saying I should run for office?
Maybe?
Yes.
I think I can get right in therewith the best of them.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
I will endorse you from the pine street church
pulpit, which will be, Oh, don'ttell Holly that.
Definitely not.
Yeah.
It would be a major violation ofthe Johnson amendment,
Speaker 1 (01:58):
Right?
The Johnson amendment for ourlisteners who don't know what
that is, what is the Johnsonamendment?
So the Johnson
Speaker 2 (02:04):
Amendment basically is a provision where it ensures
that religious leaders do notendorse or oppose up a political
figure, uh, for public office sothat the church and houses of
worship do not become politicalaction committees.
So that doesn't mean it's amuzzle on people like me, uh, in
(02:29):
this work.
Um, speaking out on the majorissues of the day immigration,
healthcare run the list.
It's not like that.
It's just that we can, there aretwo main components to the
Johnson amendment and maybeHolly can talk more about this
too.
Uh, you just can't oppose orendorse a political candidate
from a pulpit and you can't takereligious offerings and give
(02:53):
them to partisan campaigns.
That's what it amounts to.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
Right?
That seems like a pretty goodidea.
Um, because he get, you get someagenda issues there that could,
that could bubble up
Speaker 2 (03:05):
Today.
We get to sit down with HollyHoleman.
Holly is the general counsel andassociate executive director of
BJC, formally known as Baptistjoint committee for religious
Liberty in Washington DC.
And I'm pretty sure it's theonly faith based agency in the
United States that reallyfocuses on the religion clauses
(03:28):
of the first amendment.
And those are no establishmentand free exercise.
Yeah, I think, you know, there'sa,
Speaker 1 (03:35):
A lot of confusion I hear around, you know, if
there's mention of anythingpolitical from a pulpit, some
people come shouting with theirpitchforks saying that that's in
violation of a separation ofchurch and state.
And in fact, it's, it's not,it's, it's the going up to the
pulpit and saying, God wants youto vote for candidate X, Y, Z a
(04:00):
or B.
And, and there's a in, that's avery significant difference
because those are two completelydifferent realms.
The idea of, uh, politicsoverlapping with society, you
talked about immigration, youknow, talk about healthcare,
right?
Um, so those things overlap.
They're always going to overlapand those conversations will
(04:22):
come from pulpits, but it's notthat hard to not, to just not
endorse a candidate, you know?
Um, you know, I can, I can sayin my time with you, I've never
seen you directly endorse oroppose a political candidate.
So thank you for honoring theJohnson amendment.
Speaker 2 (04:40):
Just thanks for saying that.
I mean, I think it's unwise.
I think it's unhealthy.
I think it's, un-American to beblunt about that.
Right.
You know, we don't go to churchor houses of worship to hear our
religious leader, tell us who tovote for.
Right.
Right.
And you know, that's the, thecamel's nose in the tent as a,
(05:01):
to use one of my favoritecolloquialisms.
Speaker 1 (05:04):
That one too.
Yeah.
That's a good one.
Have you ever seen a camel inreal life?
I don't know.
I actually got to ride a camelonce at the new Orleans Audubon
zoo.
Pretty cool.
Well, yeah, it was a two humpedcamel.
I'm not sure there's probably abetter zoological name for that,
but, um, yeah, I think I got tofeed the camel too.
(05:29):
So it was pretty good.
Speaker 3 (05:30):
Cool.
But there were no tents so thatwasn't on my radar back then.
Speaker 2 (05:46):
Welcome to hyphenated life.
We invite you to join us on thisjourney to explore the
connection of the sacred and thesecular that inspires us to
become more fully alive.
(06:09):
[inaudible]
Speaker 4 (06:10):
I'm going to talk the whole time.
Wait, please wait.
The meeting host will let you insoon open the door.
Speaker 2 (06:20):
We were, we were jabbering on and on.
Uh,
Speaker 4 (06:23):
David.
It's nice to meet you.
Nice
Speaker 2 (06:25):
To meet you, Holly.
Yeah, Andrew's making you waitat the door.
He's not introducing you to thenew people in the room.
I'm sorry.
That was very rude of me today.
We are so delighted to behosting our special guest.
Holly Hollman Holly Holeman isthe general counsel and she is
the associate executive directorof BJC in Washington, DC.
(06:47):
For those of you who arelistening, who wonder what BJC
means?
It is the artist formerly knownas Baptist joint committee for
religious Liberty.
Uh, Holly provides legalanalysis of church state issues
that arise before Congress, thecourts and administrative
agencies.
Holly serves as adjunctprofessor of law at the
Georgetown university law centerwhere she co-teaches the church
(07:11):
state law seminar.
Holly has a BA in politics fromthe great wake forest
university, hello, demondeacons, and her JD from the
university of Tennessee collegeof law, where she was a member
of the Tennessee law review andthe national moot court team.
Holly is married to Jay Smithand they have two beautiful and
(07:34):
wonderful sons who live.
Uh, they live in falls, church,Virginia, and Holly's most
famous or most biggest claim tofame is that she was my first
real boss at Baptist jointcommittee, fresh out of me
coming from wake forestuniversity school of divinity to
(07:57):
BJC Holly Hollman.
You are so great for coming onhyphenated life this week.
Thank you for joining us and forsharing your expertise.
Uh, you and I share a longhistory and it's just a total
pleasure and delight and honorto have you today.
Speaker 4 (08:14):
Uh, thanks.
Andrea is great to be with youand fun to hear you doing your
thing and this new endeavor, aswell as to follow your career.
You've come a long way sincethat, that first job.
And I'm not going to take itpersonally, that after that you
decided you're going to go intoa field where you don't have a
boss.
(08:35):
Not because I was a bad boss, welearn a lot from each other.
Speaker 2 (08:39):
You're amazing.
Absolutely.
Me too.
So Holly, I want to start today.
I'm not sure.
I mean, we probably have somecommon listeners between the BJC
podcast and now the emerginghyphenated life phenomenon.
Um, but I, I'm kind of curiousas I have listened to the BJC
podcast and maybe one of thosequestions or something that's a
(09:03):
little more assumed or embeddedthat folks might not necessarily
ask about, but because I'm apastor, I'm curious how you
think about, how did you come tothis work as an attorney who is
so passionate about church stateseparation and religious
Liberty?
I think some of our listenersmight be curious about what this
(09:24):
means for you as a passion or acalling, uh, and as a vocation,
not just a job, but a vocation.
Speaker 4 (09:32):
Sure.
Well, for those who aren't asfamiliar with BJC, um, I
shouldn't say that it's beenaround for eight decades and its
mission has been to defend andextend religious Liberty for
all.
And doing that by bringing thatBaptist heritage to the idea
that religion must be freelypractice, you know, that, uh,
(09:55):
that it's not the government'sjob to interfere in religion or
to prop it up or advance it.
That is the work of individuals.
And so it's kind of this amazingvision of a institution, the
nonprofit organization that wasestablished out of a historic
Baptist principle that reallypromotes religious freedom, not
(10:16):
just for self-interests, but foreveryone, which is also in our
self-interest.
And we think in the government'sinterest as well as individuals.
And, um, I learned about thatwork.
Um, I think when I was, uh,from, from my home church, so,
you know, college years, Ilearned about BJC.
I took a traditional path to lawschool and private practice
(10:39):
working for big firms doing justemployment law and litigation,
but then had the opportunity tointern at BJC to come spend a
semester in Washington and, um,learn all about the work and
kind of put together the, thepart of my faith story, which
was in Baptist churches, wherethere was a great emphasis on
(11:00):
individual responsibility, aswell as this concern for others.
It it's not, it wasn't a churchthat was only concerned with
individual salvation.
There was concern for others inthe community, but clearly the
idea of being responsible forone's faith and, um, accountable
for that was part of my Baptistupbringing.
And then to figure out how thatrelates to our kind of
(11:21):
constitution, our constitutionaltradition that protects that
individual freedom.
So, so, and, and does it requireAmericans to be religious or be
any kind of related, you know,religious people?
It was cool as I was learning to, I was starting to be really
interested in law to have thatintern, that formative intern
experience and learn about BJC.
(11:42):
Then I went on the traditionalpath and then had the chance, uh
, to work for BJC when myhusband and I moved back to DC,
um, for his work.
So that's how I, that's how Igot to was through loving the
work they did, and then havingthe opportunity to do, um,
watching really good Washingtonkind of work if I'm going to
(12:02):
live in Washington, uh, might aswell have a Washington job where
I get to work with governmentand, um, media sources and not
just, not just being a law firm,like I could be anywhere else.
Um, but the, the callingdeveloped even more over time,
as I understood the richness ofwhat it means to protect
religious freedom for all, um,to get, to apply my legal skills
(12:26):
and, you know, to practice inthe area of constitutional law
is a thing that most lawstudents can only dream of
doing, you know, you know, youdon't get to always do that.
So, uh, I appreciated theopportunity I was given, and
then I've learned so much more,um, about how important it is.
Not just to people who grew uplike me, but people all over the
(12:47):
country from all differentbackgrounds.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
Thank you for sharing some of your story and journey.
I'm not sure I've even heard youtalk about that at least well,
in this format.
So thanks for taking time to saya little bit about that.
And so I'd like to step intowhat is going on, you know, when
I think about our listeners outthere, especially, you know,
(13:09):
some of our core members here atpine street church, and then
just, um, other folks who arepassionate about religious
Liberty and the separation ofchurch and state in the most
historic Baptist way, which someof our lessors might not even
know about how Baptists havecontributed to Jeffersonian
(13:29):
democracy in terms of church andstate.
But, um, Holly, what is going onnow at the Supreme court level
and some of the decisions thathave been handed down recently
that you would want to reallyhighlight and underscore for
some of our listeners, what,what court decisions have been
handed down recently that, thatmight relate to houses of
(13:52):
worship and, uh, what it meansto be church in the middle of a
pandemic?
Speaker 4 (13:56):
Well, I think we can talk a lot about what it means
to be church in a pandemic andthe court's only slightly useful
for us to do that.
Right.
We can talk about that.
Let me just, let me say it acouple of things.
I'm not the court, and then wecan expand the conversation in
the, in the hyphenated Lifeway,but, um, it's a really, uh, it's
(14:18):
been a really interesting time.
It was pretty in court the lastfew years, you know, we've had
pets and personnel turnoverduring the Trump administration,
right?
Got three new justices.
Um, I'd say religious Libertyhas been in the news and the
past decade in ways that havebeen, um, sometimes confusing or
the term religious Liberty hasbeen sort of misused to, to
(14:40):
speak on just particular issueshas been confusing about whether
it's a conservative or liberalidea and who's for against it.
And what that means for you as achurch member, crisp and
Christian.
So it's interesting time forreligious Liberty at the core,
you know, from a legalstandpoint, it's always about
what is the meaning of the firstamendment and how do we uphold
this dual promise in, um,religious Liberty law that says
(15:05):
we protect the free exercise ofreligion and we keep government
from establishing religion.
So it's this two part that weprotect individuals and
accommodate religious practices.
We want people to be free andled by, uh, religion or not, but
we want, we, we believe that asa pluralistic society and our
founders recognize that thegovernment has a limited role in
(15:28):
religious matters.
And I would say the court inrecent years has been, um, sort
of diminishing has paid lessattention to the no
establishment clause.
And so, as it been, we've seenopinions that sometimes get
reported as pro religiousLiberty.
And sometimes BJC takes adifferent stance on them because
we say no, actually causes iscentral it's half of the it's
(15:52):
half of the game and the firstamendment.
So to weaken the establishmentclause does not mean to aid
religious Liberty.
In fact, we were eight timesthat it can harm religious
Liberty, that the moregovernment is involved, whether
that's funding, you know,letting certain funding and go
to religious institutions or,um, approving of religious
symbols on government property,things like that.
(16:13):
When you, when you weaken thoseprotections, we believe you end
up harming religion and harmingour religious Liberty tradition.
So the concern of the court issort of a lack of emphasis on no
establishment and a lot ofdifferent things are happening
on the free exercise side.
If your listeners are reallyinterested, you know, the, the,
(16:33):
the new podcast series we didthis year called respecting
religion really was focusing onkind of the top issues, because
there's so much going on in theworld.
And we wanted to have a placewhere we could have
conversations about these big,um, religious Liberty matters.
So that's kind of the big, thebig picture.
Um, a lot of people have said,Oh, wow, what's, you know,
Holly, what do you think aboutthese court cases?
(16:55):
Um, they've made it all the wayto the Supreme court over
conflicts between governmentorders, a stay at home orders or
limits on public gatherings, um,that apply to churches.
And we've seen a lot of these.
We've had three now cases go allthe way to the Supreme court,
where the court is asked whetheror not to uphold a government
(17:18):
restriction on individuals inworship.
And, um, I think those, thosecases, without going too, too
far in this format and, andkilling your listeners off, it
is still a relatively newpodcast and we don't wanna run
it by off.
Um, I think they just reflectthe time that we're in, you
(17:39):
know, we're, these are hardissues, right?
These, these cases are where achurch is saying the governor or
the local authorities aren'tletting us worship.
And I just said, the firstamendment protects us our
ability to worship, right?
So this is important.
It's not just annoying, it'simportant.
(17:59):
And it's hard, it's difficult,you know, governors and
government officials are tryingto protect all of their people,
keep the virus from spreadingand they have these
constitutional standards touphold.
So there's a lot going on inthose opinions.
And, um, yeah, if you want tohear more about them, you can
look more BJC website, uh, and,and our, our writings.
(18:22):
And, and I'll, um,
Speaker 2 (18:24):
I appreciate you saying, you know, it's both
important and annoying.
And as a pastor, like one of thethings that's been annoying to
me, and I think you and Amandahave alluded to the Amanda
Tyler, by the way, who's theexecutive director of BJC, but
you and Amanda have talked aboutthis, I think on the respecting
religion series, when we S youknow, people compare, well,
(18:46):
liquor stores are open and bikestores are open, but my
goodness, they are suppressingour religious Liberty because
they're not allowing houses ofworship to be open.
Holly, what would you say?
I mean, I guess sort of the, oneof the general questions I would
have is certainly thatreference, but what's the
balance, you know, right now ofthe free exercise clause of the
(19:09):
first amendment, right.
And we're living in the midst ofthe global health crisis.
So what where's, where's thesensible center, if you will, in
all of that?
Speaker 4 (19:20):
I, I think that I was that, that we have to be, um,
careful and we have to be smartand we don't want to just close
down everything and we don'twant to close churches and, um,
or put restrictions on thataren't necessary, or that are
worse than other comparablethings.
(19:42):
Now, just, you, you brought itup and so let's make it clear.
You know, as in case you have alot of listeners who aren't
ready to church goers, churchpeople, um, do things that it's
not like going to the, it's notlike going to the grocery store.
We actually sit, hang outtogether.
We get in each other's face andtalk and we hug and we sing, and
(20:03):
we do lots of things that Idon't ever see happen at the
grocery store.
And the times I've been in aliquor store.
And so, uh, I think, you know,those, there's those, I say that
, you know, we joke about theliquor store because it has this
, um, this more, you have thisfeeling of, of, of it's so
(20:24):
wrong.
How could you let people go tothe liquor store, not, and let
them go to church.
And I totally sympathize withthat.
You know, it sounds ridiculouson its face, but it's not the
right question, right?
These, these government ordersare trying to keep commerce
going without spreading thevirus.
And I don't think many, um, manyof the restrictions on churches
(20:45):
have been intended to harm, uh,worship to harm religious
exercise and where they havegone too far, where they needed
to be amended.
We're seeing that happen.
And that's, that's the case inthe last, the last case that
went to the court, it was a verysevere restriction that in a
hotspot could have no more than10 people in a church building.
(21:06):
And that sounds just on itsface, kind of crazy if you're
imagining a big cathedral,right?
Because you know, a better rulewould be in relation to the
space.
You know, that said, this is oneconversation.
We can also just have the otherconversation of like all the
great things that churches aredoing that don't even involve
(21:26):
that risk, especially thechurches from our tradition that
do not involve the risk of beingindoor together, where we might
infect someone, it could lead totheir death.
So, um, I think, I think we'regetting smarter.
I think the government ordersare getting better.
I think there's a lot to learn.
I'm pretty sympathetic to thegovernment's efforts here.
(21:50):
I'm also sympathetic toreligious people and their
desire to be together.
And especially some traditionsthat are different from ours
that really require in person,um, contact to do certain
things, to experience certain,certain rituals.
So, um, we needed it.
It's another area where, youknow, we need to be a little
(22:11):
kinder to each other.
Listen, think about otherpeople, figure it out, do no
harm pine streets, uh, notmeeting in person, right.
Speaker 2 (22:21):
You're not meeting in person no.
Up at the very beginning.
You know, we saw, we thoughtthis is the best way for us to
love our neighbors as ourselves.
Right.
And, uh, so to honor, and itabide public health officials,
decisions and advice.
Uh, we're actually a churchHolly that pays attention to
(22:42):
science, believe it or not.
And, uh, we have done that, Ithink very well.
And it's also really opened upas even this podcast, even
hyphenated life, we've beendreaming about this for a year
and a half or more.
And it just felt like some ofthe timing of being able to
launch this podcast and do somenew creative projects in digital
(23:03):
space.
It's, it's, uh, really opened upa creative channel for us that
we're grateful about.
And we're trying to make themost of, but yeah, we're,
nobody's eager to get back in,you know, debris on one another
anytime soon.
And so what do we do in themeantime to be, I keep saying,
I'm sure that our members arechurch members of pine street in
(23:26):
Boulder here who are listening.
Get really tired of me saying weare the church scattered when we
can't be the church gathered.
I mean, I think we're learning alot about what it really means
to be the church when we're notin a physical location right
now.
And that is a, that's a big dealfor churches everywhere,
obviously, but we're, we'relearning that lesson on our own
(23:46):
here too
Speaker 4 (23:47):
Well.
And I'm not surprised to hearthat from you.
And that's definitely anapproach that I've seen in a lot
of congregations where I am, butI also am in a position where I
see, um, you know, a variety ofresponses and you kind of joke,
you know, say we're a churchthat follows science.
Of course, a lot of churches arefull of people and leadership
that believe in science and wantto follow that.
And that's a primary concern forpeople's health.
(24:09):
It's important to say that outloud and people know that it's
also important to recognize thata lot of church leaders were the
first to do the right thing andto lead, to use their voices, to
lead and say, we're not going tospread this.
We're not going to, we're goingto find other ways and we're
going to help get the word out.
And we're going to explain whythis is.
(24:31):
So I, you know, when we, when wetalk about the cases, sometimes
we seem to be focused on somecongregations that are pushing
the limits that are saying, youknow, don't, don't harm me.
Don't, uh, don't mess with me.
I've got this right to, toworship the way I want to.
And of course law is not that weprotect religious Liberty, but
(24:52):
not at all cost, um, to otherother concerns.
Um, but there have also been,uh, Amanda and I've talked about
this a little bit on our podcast.
There's been so much greatleadership from religious
communities in, in, in beingpassed via pastor and church to
each other, um, by check,checking on each other and doing
(25:13):
it different ways.
It's, it's been, there's been alot of positive, um, leadership
from churches that I've seenthat don't involve, you know,
conflict with government orders.
Speaker 2 (25:25):
Exactly.
Yeah.
So, Holly, I want to kind ofcircle back to that idea.
You mentioned, you brought up alittle bit earlier about, you
know, what religious Liberty,how, how that phrase has been
used.
And we're obviously however manydays away from inauguration day,
January 20, right.
(25:46):
20, 21 with a newadministration.
But I was just kind of curious,what, what have you noticed
about, and what has BJC, uh,really done in, in, in their
work and your work about whatreligious Liberty has meant, uh,
during the Trump administration,let's say, how has that been
(26:06):
used or abused or distorted orused for good, uh, w w what's
been your angle of vision aboutthat, uh, over the last few
years in terms of religiousLiberty, because I, I just
really want our listeners tohear about that.
That's one of those, uh,somewhere on the spectrum of
important and annoying to me aswell about how religious Liberty
(26:27):
can be co-opted, uh, and reallyused as, uh, as I told David
earlier, a political football,what's your front row seat to
that.
And what would you say to, toour folks about religious
Liberty and how it's been used?
Speaker 4 (26:41):
Yeah, well, you know, we, religious Liberty is a
foundational American principle.
It is, and it's that, thatCongress will make no law
respecting an establishment ofreligion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof is the first 16words of our bill of rights.
So we know it's important andit's important to people across
(27:01):
the religious spectrum and thepolitical spectrum, um, whether
you are religious or not, ifyou're not, you, you may really
appreciate it.
The government's not going toimpose some religious tests on
you to, to vote or to run foroffice.
So I really it's a, it's aproblem.
And religious Liberty is used inpartisan terms because we only
have two parties and we getpretty intense about that,
(27:23):
right?
So one party starts puttingtheir, their, um, priorities in
a religious Liberty frame.
And the other, the other part islike, not that then, you know,
that they are, co-opting theterm religious Liberty.
Now we can disagree about a lotof, a lot of issues and kind of
how you come out on particularlydifficult religious Liberty
(27:44):
disputes.
Um, but we shouldn't, we shouldnot ever accept religious
Liberty to be coterminous, it'sa problem when we allow any
political party to use religiousLiberty as a partisan term,
because we all value it it'simportant to us.
(28:05):
And while we might disagree onspecific issues, we all care
about religious freedom.
We want to protect that as animportant American value we have
seen in the last, I would say,especially in the last decade or
so, a lot of conflicts between,um, the need to protect LGBTQ
(28:26):
rights and people who havereligious objections to the
same-sex marriage.
And I think that has done a lotof damage to people's
understanding of what religiousfreedom is.
Speaker 1 (28:36):
Yeah.
I don't want to undermine theentire premise of our podcast
here, where we like to get ridof the line between sacred and
secular.
Um, but a pretty hard line isthat line of separation of
church and state.
And I think on a very basiclevel, I, I hear you, you know,
obviously anything that gets tothe Supreme court is probably a
(29:00):
pretty complex issue.
You know, anything that, thatruns that high up the flag pole
is not simple, but I think for alot of people, there's some very
basic, simple confusions about,uh, what religious Liberty
means.
And, uh, you know, I think it,it seems to me fairly obvious
(29:20):
that, uh, you know, for example,you can't force someone to pray
in a school, right.
Prayed to a Christian God, forexample.
Um, and to flip that around andsay that that is a violation of
your religious Liberty is just,it seems so backwards and
obvious to me, short of bangingmy head against the table, a
(29:41):
what's a,
Speaker 2 (29:42):
Maybe an easy way to, to get people to understand the
difference between those twothings.
Speaker 4 (29:47):
No, I think, I think the public schools are a great
place to get people tounderstand what the first
amendment means, because, uh,you know, the folks that you're
talking about first saying thatthey, you know, they want to
pray in school.
I would say that if you pressthem, I would say in most cases
about 80 to 90% of those fallways, the conversation
(30:08):
continues.
In other words, they don't wantsomeone to pray a different kind
of prayer.
They don't want the teacherdescriptive prayer.
That's at odds with what theyteach at home.
And so they really, a lot oftimes those conversations are
worth having, because people arejust expressing that they want
in their school system.
They want in their community andculture a sense of, um, of
(30:31):
appreciation for and respect fortheir Christian values.
Guess what we all do.
We all want that.
And we need to show that to eachother.
But if, when press, when they'repressed, do they really want
government sponsored prayer?
Not usually.
So it's really a good example totalk about religion in the
public schools.
Once you get people to realizethat the public school is a mini
government, right, when it saysCongress, you know, can't
(30:53):
establish religion.
That doesn't just mean Congress.
It also means Colorado.
And it also means Boulder andalso means whatever the name of
the elementary school is thereat the high school.
So, um, in a, in a governmentsetting, there is religious
freedom for individuals to beChristian Muslim atheist.
And that comes up in differentways, but the government, the
(31:13):
school itself should not advancethose values, or I mean, should
not advance religion.
And, um, any of those particularreligions, nor should it
denigrate any of those studentsand their religious beliefs,
that's the, you know, the publicnature of, of schools and really
that's, that extends to us justas citizens, right?
We want to have a system wherewe're all free to follow our
(31:38):
religious traditions andprinciples, but we can't impose
them on each other and wherethey're in conflict, we have to
work it out.
And it depends on the contextthat you're in, on how we
protect religious Liberty.
And, um, yeah, there's some,there's some tough questions out
there, but I would say anyonewho's interested can, you know,
(31:58):
get help by learning more andtesting themselves and see, can
you stand up for the religiousLiberty of someone with whom you
disagree and try to do that, tryto do that, and then see what
you can tolerate, um, and, andseek an aware where it is that
we are most free to all bedifferent and where we come
together and in ways that are,um, you know, that are shared
(32:23):
and civic and are not explicitlyreligious.
Speaker 2 (32:26):
I think you said that maybe over the last couple of
years, it's not been so intense.
Right.
But all I can remember, not allI can remember, but I think a
big part of this, this mythologyof a Christian America does come
up during December, where thereare something like 14 different
religious holidays in the monthof December.
(32:48):
I mean, welcome to a pluralistdemocracy, right.
So why do we say, Oh mygoodness, you know, the other
mythology being, wow,Christianity we're being so
oppressed in the United States,we can't even say Merry
Christmas at target these days.
You know, and now we we've had apresident who said, well, now
(33:10):
you can say Merry Christmasagain.
You know, so what is that?
But it's, uh, it's another oneof those political footballs,
one of these culture warcrosshairs, right?
That you gain political pointsby saying these certain things
on, on the stump, so to speakthat doesn't do any good, right.
For, for religious Liberty inits, at its heart and what that
(33:32):
really means.
Uh, and so, uh, I guess, yeah, Imean, it's one of those, I keep
coming back to that spectrum ofimportant and annoying, right.
But the whole Merry Christmascrusade that, you know, people
want to carry on, that really isan annoyance to me as a
Christian pastor, I want tohonor and respect my neighbors
(33:55):
who may or may not, you know, beChristian.
They may have no belief.
They may be Jew Jews or Muslims,or what have you Zoroastrians
whatever.
So how do we, Holly, what's youradvice this time of year about
all of that even, and I'm reallyhappy to hear you say that the
(34:15):
last couple of years, it, itseems to not be as intense from
your perspective that culturewar thing with Christmas, but
it's still in the atmosphere.
Speaker 4 (34:24):
No, it's still there.
So Andrew knows, we've talkedabout this through the years,
you know, the there's this, thistime of year, you hear these,
um, this conflict, these peoplewould say, Oh, you know,
America's lost its way.
I can't even say MerryChristmas.
And it's this real sort ofself-centered, um, view of
(34:45):
religious freedom.
Um, and it really, obviously,it's not a legal issue.
You know, now you can go on thisstreet, you can go in the store
and say Merry Christmas, or, youknow, a lot worse to people.
And, um, it, so it's not a legalissue, but just as a matter of,
of kindness and awareness, uh,it's good to note, you know, not
(35:08):
everyone celebrates Christmas.
And when I say happy holidays, Idon't mean any offense to any
Christian.
Um, I'm just trying to say it'sa fun season.
And I know that I know thatthere are Christians and others,
Speaker 2 (35:21):
Christian, and I don't mean any offense to other
Christians when I say happyholidays.
Right.
I'm offended that you didn'tknow it was offended.
Speaker 4 (35:31):
Yeah.
So I think we, maybe in thiscrowd, we all, we know the
annoying part of that is I guessthe important part of it is just
to stop and, and, and recognizewith each other, that we are, we
are diverse and that in somecommunities, Christians may, for
whatever reason may feel likethey're not valued.
(35:52):
And we want to recognize thattoo, and understand that too.
And, and we don't want it toplay out in our, you know, our
December happy shopping, but,you know, we can learn from
that.
We can, we can talk to peopleand take the temperature down.
And I think that there's beensome of that going on.
And I think, I think it'simportant that we continue to
try to do that.
(36:13):
And it's, it's similar.
I haven't seen as much of thewar on Christmas talk this year,
but I've thought about it aswe've entered the, uh, holiday
season and all of the conflictsover masks and people feeling
strongly that I don't want towear a mask and you can't make
me wear a mask when, um, youknow, it's really just a way of
(36:36):
looking out for other people.
It's not to oppress you.
Right.
And when I say again, it's like,when I say happy holidays, I'm
not trying to oppress you, youand your, your Merry Christmas.
But, um, it's just being awareof other people and other things
around you.
And obviously our country has alot to work on in that area.
Speaker 1 (36:54):
You basically said this, but for the record for our
listeners, it's not illegal tosay Merry Christmas, right?
Yeah.
You can go into target and, andnobody, it was never illegal in.
Certainly nobody has made itlegal again, you know?
So taking credit for somethingthat never happened or
Speaker 4 (37:16):
That's right, that's not, we can, we can talk about
serious religious Libertyissues, but that's not one
that's gonna, that's gonna makethe case.
Speaker 1 (37:24):
Right.
That's kinda what I wasthinking.
Speaker 2 (37:27):
We are so grateful Holly, that you've joined us for
hyphenated life today.
Thank you for your expertise,for your passion and for doing
all of the great work that youhave been doing for such a long
time with BJC.
I am personally grateful, uh,and for, for your formation in
my own journey and being aninspiration to my life, I am
(37:48):
grateful.
And you have helped me live inthat hyphen space in more ways
than one that church statechurch, hyphen state separation,
uh, space, um, and just, justmy, my own path.
So thank you.
Thank you for your wisdom andexpertise and joining us today.
Speaker 4 (38:08):
Well, it's been great to be with you both, and I'm so
happy about the good work thatyou all are doing at pine street
church and out through,throughout the world, as you go
from here and this podcast andall of your other work, it's a
wonderful expression of how touse religious Liberty
responsibly.
And I, I love it.
(38:29):
So it's great to be with you.
And, uh, our partnership willcontinue for sure.
It will.
And Holly, for those who arelistening, who
Speaker 3 (38:36):
May, may or may not be new to BJC, where can they
find you and what do they needto do?
Speaker 4 (38:42):
So you can find us@wwwbjconline.org.
You can subscribe to BJC podcaston any of the major platforms
and the series that we did thisyear, that really focuses on
these issues about the court andthe Trump administration.
(39:03):
And then the change toward a newadministration coming is called
respecting religion.
Speaker 3 (39:09):
Everybody go to BJC, listen to respecting religion
series on the BJC podcast.
Ali Homan.
Thank you.
Thank you.
(39:31):
I feel needed.
Life is a production of pinestreet church in Boulder,
Colorado hosted by AndrewDoherty and David longed.
You, the podcast is produced byPhil Norman and executive
producer, Alexi Molden special,thanks to our guests today and
the Leo Hill trust of Boulder,Colorado[inaudible]
Speaker 4 (40:49):
Staff.
I have a cool client.
That's
Speaker 3 (40:52):
Right.
Okay.
Kind of a big deal.
You are a big deal, big deal.
Speaker 4 (40:58):
I did not need to make jokes like that and get us
going on
Speaker 3 (41:01):
Now.
We've already.
So we've got that.
So big deal.
You lived in Washington, DC in some capacity,
right?
Yeah.
Well, yeah.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
I lived in Washington DC for I'll call it two years.
Okay.
Yeah.
Like Baker's dozen.
Yeah.
Like 2003, 2005, something likethat lived on Capitol Hill.
Speaker 1 (00:19):
Who's the most recognizable person you ran into
on the, on the bad streets ofDC.
Definitely.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Ted Kennedy.
Whoa.
Yeah, for sure.
Ted Kennedy, man.
That was one of the, yeah, thatwas one of the highlights of my
time in DC was in a pressconference where Ted Kennedy, it
was a fairly small room as Irecall, but he was talking about
healthcare and it was during theGeorge W.
(00:46):
Bush administration and one ofhis great political lines from
because he was, you know, hetouted health care for a lot of
his career and was passionateabout that.
Um, and I don't remember all thespecific legal or political
differences, uh, at the timearound health care and the
George W.
Bush administration.
But one of the great lines fromthat press conference was, uh,
(01:12):
George W.
Bush wants to privatizehealthcare come fall of 2004,
which is the Novemberpresidential election.
I say, we privatized George w
Speaker 1 (01:22):
Oh, which was this great political theater.
Yeah, absolutely.
That sounds like the olden dayswith the powdered wigs and
banging of canes and occasionalfish, there is C
Speaker 2 (01:36):
You know, you're such a natural at this.
Speaker 1 (01:41):
Are you saying I should run for office?
Maybe?
Yes.
I think I can get right in therewith the best of them.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
I will endorse you from the pine street church
pulpit, which will be, Oh, don'ttell Holly that.
Definitely not.
Yeah.
It would be a major violation ofthe Johnson amendment,
Speaker 1 (01:58):
Right?
The Johnson amendment for ourlisteners who don't know what
that is, what is the Johnsonamendment?
So the Johnson
Speaker 2 (02:04):
Amendment basically is a provision where it ensures
that religious leaders do notendorse or oppose up a political
figure, uh, for public office sothat the church and houses of
worship do not become politicalaction committees.
So that doesn't mean it's amuzzle on people like me, uh, in
(02:29):
this work.
Um, speaking out on the majorissues of the day immigration,
healthcare run the list.
It's not like that.
It's just that we can, there aretwo main components to the
Johnson amendment and maybeHolly can talk more about this
too.
Uh, you just can't oppose orendorse a political candidate
from a pulpit and you can't takereligious offerings and give
(02:53):
them to partisan campaigns.
That's what it amounts to.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
Right?
That seems like a pretty goodidea.
Um, because he get, you get someagenda issues there that could,
that could bubble up
Speaker 2 (03:05):
Today.
We get to sit down with HollyHoleman.
Holly is the general counsel andassociate executive director of
BJC, formally known as Baptistjoint committee for religious
Liberty in Washington DC.
And I'm pretty sure it's theonly faith based agency in the
United States that reallyfocuses on the religion clauses
(03:28):
of the first amendment.
And those are no establishmentand free exercise.
Yeah, I think, you know, there'sa,
Speaker 1 (03:35):
A lot of confusion I hear around, you know, if
there's mention of anythingpolitical from a pulpit, some
people come shouting with theirpitchforks saying that that's in
violation of a separation ofchurch and state.
And in fact, it's, it's not,it's, it's the going up to the
pulpit and saying, God wants youto vote for candidate X, Y, Z a
(04:00):
or B.
And, and there's a in, that's avery significant difference
because those are two completelydifferent realms.
The idea of, uh, politicsoverlapping with society, you
talked about immigration, youknow, talk about healthcare,
right?
Um, so those things overlap.
They're always going to overlapand those conversations will
(04:22):
come from pulpits, but it's notthat hard to not, to just not
endorse a candidate, you know?
Um, you know, I can, I can sayin my time with you, I've never
seen you directly endorse oroppose a political candidate.
So thank you for honoring theJohnson amendment.
Speaker 2 (04:40):
Just thanks for saying that.
I mean, I think it's unwise.
I think it's unhealthy.
I think it's, un-American to beblunt about that.
Right.
You know, we don't go to churchor houses of worship to hear our
religious leader, tell us who tovote for.
Right.
Right.
And you know, that's the, thecamel's nose in the tent as a,
(05:01):
to use one of my favoritecolloquialisms.
Speaker 1 (05:04):
That one too.
Yeah.
That's a good one.
Have you ever seen a camel inreal life?
I don't know.
I actually got to ride a camelonce at the new Orleans Audubon
zoo.
Pretty cool.
Well, yeah, it was a two humpedcamel.
I'm not sure there's probably abetter zoological name for that,
but, um, yeah, I think I got tofeed the camel too.
(05:29):
So it was pretty good.
Speaker 3 (05:30):
Cool.
But there were no tents so thatwasn't on my radar back then.
Speaker 2 (05:46):
Welcome to hyphenated life.
We invite you to join us on thisjourney to explore the
connection of the sacred and thesecular that inspires us to
become more fully alive.
(06:09):
[inaudible]
Speaker 4 (06:10):
I'm going to talk the whole time.
Wait, please wait.
The meeting host will let you insoon open the door.
Speaker 2 (06:20):
We were, we were jabbering on and on.
Uh,
Speaker 4 (06:23):
David.
It's nice to meet you.
Nice
Speaker 2 (06:25):
To meet you, Holly.
Yeah, Andrew's making you waitat the door.
He's not introducing you to thenew people in the room.
I'm sorry.
That was very rude of me today.
We are so delighted to behosting our special guest.
Holly Hollman Holly Holeman isthe general counsel and she is
the associate executive directorof BJC in Washington, DC.
(06:47):
For those of you who arelistening, who wonder what BJC
means?
It is the artist formerly knownas Baptist joint committee for
religious Liberty.
Uh, Holly provides legalanalysis of church state issues
that arise before Congress, thecourts and administrative
agencies.
Holly serves as adjunctprofessor of law at the
Georgetown university law centerwhere she co-teaches the church
(07:11):
state law seminar.
Holly has a BA in politics fromthe great wake forest
university, hello, demondeacons, and her JD from the
university of Tennessee collegeof law, where she was a member
of the Tennessee law review andthe national moot court team.
Holly is married to Jay Smithand they have two beautiful and
(07:34):
wonderful sons who live.
Uh, they live in falls, church,Virginia, and Holly's most
famous or most biggest claim tofame is that she was my first
real boss at Baptist jointcommittee, fresh out of me
coming from wake forestuniversity school of divinity to
(07:57):
BJC Holly Hollman.
You are so great for coming onhyphenated life this week.
Thank you for joining us and forsharing your expertise.
Uh, you and I share a longhistory and it's just a total
pleasure and delight and honorto have you today.
Speaker 4 (08:14):
Uh, thanks.
Andrea is great to be with youand fun to hear you doing your
thing and this new endeavor, aswell as to follow your career.
You've come a long way sincethat, that first job.
And I'm not going to take itpersonally, that after that you
decided you're going to go intoa field where you don't have a
boss.
(08:35):
Not because I was a bad boss, welearn a lot from each other.
Speaker 2 (08:39):
You're amazing.
Absolutely.
Me too.
So Holly, I want to start today.
I'm not sure.
I mean, we probably have somecommon listeners between the BJC
podcast and now the emerginghyphenated life phenomenon.
Um, but I, I'm kind of curiousas I have listened to the BJC
podcast and maybe one of thosequestions or something that's a
(09:03):
little more assumed or embeddedthat folks might not necessarily
ask about, but because I'm apastor, I'm curious how you
think about, how did you come tothis work as an attorney who is
so passionate about church stateseparation and religious
Liberty?
I think some of our listenersmight be curious about what this
(09:24):
means for you as a passion or acalling, uh, and as a vocation,
not just a job, but a vocation.
Speaker 4 (09:32):
Sure.
Well, for those who aren't asfamiliar with BJC, um, I
shouldn't say that it's beenaround for eight decades and its
mission has been to defend andextend religious Liberty for
all.
And doing that by bringing thatBaptist heritage to the idea
that religion must be freelypractice, you know, that, uh,
(09:55):
that it's not the government'sjob to interfere in religion or
to prop it up or advance it.
That is the work of individuals.
And so it's kind of this amazingvision of a institution, the
nonprofit organization that wasestablished out of a historic
Baptist principle that reallypromotes religious freedom, not
(10:16):
just for self-interests, but foreveryone, which is also in our
self-interest.
And we think in the government'sinterest as well as individuals.
And, um, I learned about thatwork.
Um, I think when I was, uh,from, from my home church, so,
you know, college years, Ilearned about BJC.
I took a traditional path to lawschool and private practice
(10:39):
working for big firms doing justemployment law and litigation,
but then had the opportunity tointern at BJC to come spend a
semester in Washington and, um,learn all about the work and
kind of put together the, thepart of my faith story, which
was in Baptist churches, wherethere was a great emphasis on
(11:00):
individual responsibility, aswell as this concern for others.
It it's not, it wasn't a churchthat was only concerned with
individual salvation.
There was concern for others inthe community, but clearly the
idea of being responsible forone's faith and, um, accountable
for that was part of my Baptistupbringing.
And then to figure out how thatrelates to our kind of
(11:21):
constitution, our constitutionaltradition that protects that
individual freedom.
So, so, and, and does it requireAmericans to be religious or be
any kind of related, you know,religious people?
It was cool as I was learning to, I was starting to be really
interested in law to have thatintern, that formative intern
experience and learn about BJC.
(11:42):
Then I went on the traditionalpath and then had the chance, uh
, to work for BJC when myhusband and I moved back to DC,
um, for his work.
So that's how I, that's how Igot to was through loving the
work they did, and then havingthe opportunity to do, um,
watching really good Washingtonkind of work if I'm going to
(12:02):
live in Washington, uh, might aswell have a Washington job where
I get to work with governmentand, um, media sources and not
just, not just being a law firm,like I could be anywhere else.
Um, but the, the callingdeveloped even more over time,
as I understood the richness ofwhat it means to protect
religious freedom for all, um,to get, to apply my legal skills
(12:26):
and, you know, to practice inthe area of constitutional law
is a thing that most lawstudents can only dream of
doing, you know, you know, youdon't get to always do that.
So, uh, I appreciated theopportunity I was given, and
then I've learned so much more,um, about how important it is.
Not just to people who grew uplike me, but people all over the
(12:47):
country from all differentbackgrounds.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
Thank you for sharing some of your story and journey.
I'm not sure I've even heard youtalk about that at least well,
in this format.
So thanks for taking time to saya little bit about that.
And so I'd like to step intowhat is going on, you know, when
I think about our listeners outthere, especially, you know,
(13:09):
some of our core members here atpine street church, and then
just, um, other folks who arepassionate about religious
Liberty and the separation ofchurch and state in the most
historic Baptist way, which someof our lessors might not even
know about how Baptists havecontributed to Jeffersonian
(13:29):
democracy in terms of church andstate.
But, um, Holly, what is going onnow at the Supreme court level
and some of the decisions thathave been handed down recently
that you would want to reallyhighlight and underscore for
some of our listeners, what,what court decisions have been
handed down recently that, thatmight relate to houses of
(13:52):
worship and, uh, what it meansto be church in the middle of a
pandemic?
Speaker 4 (13:56):
Well, I think we can talk a lot about what it means
to be church in a pandemic andthe court's only slightly useful
for us to do that.
Right.
We can talk about that.
Let me just, let me say it acouple of things.
I'm not the court, and then wecan expand the conversation in
the, in the hyphenated Lifeway,but, um, it's a really, uh, it's
(14:18):
been a really interesting time.
It was pretty in court the lastfew years, you know, we've had
pets and personnel turnoverduring the Trump administration,
right?
Got three new justices.
Um, I'd say religious Libertyhas been in the news and the
past decade in ways that havebeen, um, sometimes confusing or
the term religious Liberty hasbeen sort of misused to, to
(14:40):
speak on just particular issueshas been confusing about whether
it's a conservative or liberalidea and who's for against it.
And what that means for you as achurch member, crisp and
Christian.
So it's interesting time forreligious Liberty at the core,
you know, from a legalstandpoint, it's always about
what is the meaning of the firstamendment and how do we uphold
this dual promise in, um,religious Liberty law that says
(15:05):
we protect the free exercise ofreligion and we keep government
from establishing religion.
So it's this two part that weprotect individuals and
accommodate religious practices.
We want people to be free andled by, uh, religion or not, but
we want, we, we believe that asa pluralistic society and our
founders recognize that thegovernment has a limited role in
(15:28):
religious matters.
And I would say the court inrecent years has been, um, sort
of diminishing has paid lessattention to the no
establishment clause.
And so, as it been, we've seenopinions that sometimes get
reported as pro religiousLiberty.
And sometimes BJC takes adifferent stance on them because
we say no, actually causes iscentral it's half of the it's
(15:52):
half of the game and the firstamendment.
So to weaken the establishmentclause does not mean to aid
religious Liberty.
In fact, we were eight timesthat it can harm religious
Liberty, that the moregovernment is involved, whether
that's funding, you know,letting certain funding and go
to religious institutions or,um, approving of religious
symbols on government property,things like that.
(16:13):
When you, when you weaken thoseprotections, we believe you end
up harming religion and harmingour religious Liberty tradition.
So the concern of the court issort of a lack of emphasis on no
establishment and a lot ofdifferent things are happening
on the free exercise side.
If your listeners are reallyinterested, you know, the, the,
(16:33):
the new podcast series we didthis year called respecting
religion really was focusing onkind of the top issues, because
there's so much going on in theworld.
And we wanted to have a placewhere we could have
conversations about these big,um, religious Liberty matters.
So that's kind of the big, thebig picture.
Um, a lot of people have said,Oh, wow, what's, you know,
Holly, what do you think aboutthese court cases?
(16:55):
Um, they've made it all the wayto the Supreme court over
conflicts between governmentorders, a stay at home orders or
limits on public gatherings, um,that apply to churches.
And we've seen a lot of these.
We've had three now cases go allthe way to the Supreme court,
where the court is asked whetheror not to uphold a government
(17:18):
restriction on individuals inworship.
And, um, I think those, thosecases, without going too, too
far in this format and, andkilling your listeners off, it
is still a relatively newpodcast and we don't wanna run
it by off.
Um, I think they just reflectthe time that we're in, you
(17:39):
know, we're, these are hardissues, right?
These, these cases are where achurch is saying the governor or
the local authorities aren'tletting us worship.
And I just said, the firstamendment protects us our
ability to worship, right?
So this is important.
It's not just annoying, it'simportant.
(17:59):
And it's hard, it's difficult,you know, governors and
government officials are tryingto protect all of their people,
keep the virus from spreadingand they have these
constitutional standards touphold.
So there's a lot going on inthose opinions.
And, um, yeah, if you want tohear more about them, you can
look more BJC website, uh, and,and our, our writings.
(18:22):
And, and I'll, um,
Speaker 2 (18:24):
I appreciate you saying, you know, it's both
important and annoying.
And as a pastor, like one of thethings that's been annoying to
me, and I think you and Amandahave alluded to the Amanda
Tyler, by the way, who's theexecutive director of BJC, but
you and Amanda have talked aboutthis, I think on the respecting
religion series, when we S youknow, people compare, well,
(18:46):
liquor stores are open and bikestores are open, but my
goodness, they are suppressingour religious Liberty because
they're not allowing houses ofworship to be open.
Holly, what would you say?
I mean, I guess sort of the, oneof the general questions I would
have is certainly thatreference, but what's the
balance, you know, right now ofthe free exercise clause of the
(19:09):
first amendment, right.
And we're living in the midst ofthe global health crisis.
So what where's, where's thesensible center, if you will, in
all of that?
Speaker 4 (19:20):
I, I think that I was that, that we have to be, um,
careful and we have to be smartand we don't want to just close
down everything and we don'twant to close churches and, um,
or put restrictions on thataren't necessary, or that are
worse than other comparablethings.
(19:42):
Now, just, you, you brought itup and so let's make it clear.
You know, as in case you have alot of listeners who aren't
ready to church goers, churchpeople, um, do things that it's
not like going to the, it's notlike going to the grocery store.
We actually sit, hang outtogether.
We get in each other's face andtalk and we hug and we sing, and
(20:03):
we do lots of things that Idon't ever see happen at the
grocery store.
And the times I've been in aliquor store.
And so, uh, I think, you know,those, there's those, I say that
, you know, we joke about theliquor store because it has this
, um, this more, you have thisfeeling of, of, of it's so
(20:24):
wrong.
How could you let people go tothe liquor store, not, and let
them go to church.
And I totally sympathize withthat.
You know, it sounds ridiculouson its face, but it's not the
right question, right?
These, these government ordersare trying to keep commerce
going without spreading thevirus.
And I don't think many, um, manyof the restrictions on churches
(20:45):
have been intended to harm, uh,worship to harm religious
exercise and where they havegone too far, where they needed
to be amended.
We're seeing that happen.
And that's, that's the case inthe last, the last case that
went to the court, it was a verysevere restriction that in a
hotspot could have no more than10 people in a church building.
(21:06):
And that sounds just on itsface, kind of crazy if you're
imagining a big cathedral,right?
Because you know, a better rulewould be in relation to the
space.
You know, that said, this is oneconversation.
We can also just have the otherconversation of like all the
great things that churches aredoing that don't even involve
(21:26):
that risk, especially thechurches from our tradition that
do not involve the risk of beingindoor together, where we might
infect someone, it could lead totheir death.
So, um, I think, I think we'regetting smarter.
I think the government ordersare getting better.
I think there's a lot to learn.
I'm pretty sympathetic to thegovernment's efforts here.
(21:50):
I'm also sympathetic toreligious people and their
desire to be together.
And especially some traditionsthat are different from ours
that really require in person,um, contact to do certain
things, to experience certain,certain rituals.
So, um, we needed it.
It's another area where, youknow, we need to be a little
(22:11):
kinder to each other.
Listen, think about otherpeople, figure it out, do no
harm pine streets, uh, notmeeting in person, right.
Speaker 2 (22:21):
You're not meeting in person no.
Up at the very beginning.
You know, we saw, we thoughtthis is the best way for us to
love our neighbors as ourselves.
Right.
And, uh, so to honor, and itabide public health officials,
decisions and advice.
Uh, we're actually a churchHolly that pays attention to
(22:42):
science, believe it or not.
And, uh, we have done that, Ithink very well.
And it's also really opened upas even this podcast, even
hyphenated life, we've beendreaming about this for a year
and a half or more.
And it just felt like some ofthe timing of being able to
launch this podcast and do somenew creative projects in digital
(23:03):
space.
It's, it's, uh, really opened upa creative channel for us that
we're grateful about.
And we're trying to make themost of, but yeah, we're,
nobody's eager to get back in,you know, debris on one another
anytime soon.
And so what do we do in themeantime to be, I keep saying,
I'm sure that our members arechurch members of pine street in
(23:26):
Boulder here who are listening.
Get really tired of me saying weare the church scattered when we
can't be the church gathered.
I mean, I think we're learning alot about what it really means
to be the church when we're notin a physical location right
now.
And that is a, that's a big dealfor churches everywhere,
obviously, but we're, we'relearning that lesson on our own
(23:46):
here too
Speaker 4 (23:47):
Well.
And I'm not surprised to hearthat from you.
And that's definitely anapproach that I've seen in a lot
of congregations where I am, butI also am in a position where I
see, um, you know, a variety ofresponses and you kind of joke,
you know, say we're a churchthat follows science.
Of course, a lot of churches arefull of people and leadership
that believe in science and wantto follow that.
And that's a primary concern forpeople's health.
(24:09):
It's important to say that outloud and people know that it's
also important to recognize thata lot of church leaders were the
first to do the right thing andto lead, to use their voices, to
lead and say, we're not going tospread this.
We're not going to, we're goingto find other ways and we're
going to help get the word out.
And we're going to explain whythis is.
(24:31):
So I, you know, when we, when wetalk about the cases, sometimes
we seem to be focused on somecongregations that are pushing
the limits that are saying, youknow, don't, don't harm me.
Don't, uh, don't mess with me.
I've got this right to, toworship the way I want to.
And of course law is not that weprotect religious Liberty, but
(24:52):
not at all cost, um, to otherother concerns.
Um, but there have also been,uh, Amanda and I've talked about
this a little bit on our podcast.
There's been so much greatleadership from religious
communities in, in, in beingpassed via pastor and church to
each other, um, by check,checking on each other and doing
(25:13):
it different ways.
It's, it's been, there's been alot of positive, um, leadership
from churches that I've seenthat don't involve, you know,
conflict with government orders.
Speaker 2 (25:25):
Exactly.
Yeah.
So, Holly, I want to kind ofcircle back to that idea.
You mentioned, you brought up alittle bit earlier about, you
know, what religious Liberty,how, how that phrase has been
used.
And we're obviously however manydays away from inauguration day,
January 20, right.
(25:46):
20, 21 with a newadministration.
But I was just kind of curious,what, what have you noticed
about, and what has BJC, uh,really done in, in, in their
work and your work about whatreligious Liberty has meant, uh,
during the Trump administration,let's say, how has that been
(26:06):
used or abused or distorted orused for good, uh, w w what's
been your angle of vision aboutthat, uh, over the last few
years in terms of religiousLiberty, because I, I just
really want our listeners tohear about that.
That's one of those, uh,somewhere on the spectrum of
important and annoying to me aswell about how religious Liberty
(26:27):
can be co-opted, uh, and reallyused as, uh, as I told David
earlier, a political football,what's your front row seat to
that.
And what would you say to, toour folks about religious
Liberty and how it's been used?
Speaker 4 (26:41):
Yeah, well, you know, we, religious Liberty is a
foundational American principle.
It is, and it's that, thatCongress will make no law
respecting an establishment ofreligion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof is the first 16words of our bill of rights.
So we know it's important andit's important to people across
(27:01):
the religious spectrum and thepolitical spectrum, um, whether
you are religious or not, ifyou're not, you, you may really
appreciate it.
The government's not going toimpose some religious tests on
you to, to vote or to run foroffice.
So I really it's a, it's aproblem.
And religious Liberty is used inpartisan terms because we only
have two parties and we getpretty intense about that,
(27:23):
right?
So one party starts puttingtheir, their, um, priorities in
a religious Liberty frame.
And the other, the other part islike, not that then, you know,
that they are, co-opting theterm religious Liberty.
Now we can disagree about a lotof, a lot of issues and kind of
how you come out on particularlydifficult religious Liberty
(27:44):
disputes.
Um, but we shouldn't, we shouldnot ever accept religious
Liberty to be coterminous, it'sa problem when we allow any
political party to use religiousLiberty as a partisan term,
because we all value it it'simportant to us.
(28:05):
And while we might disagree onspecific issues, we all care
about religious freedom.
We want to protect that as animportant American value we have
seen in the last, I would say,especially in the last decade or
so, a lot of conflicts between,um, the need to protect LGBTQ
(28:26):
rights and people who havereligious objections to the
same-sex marriage.
And I think that has done a lotof damage to people's
understanding of what religiousfreedom is.
Speaker 1 (28:36):
Yeah.
I don't want to undermine theentire premise of our podcast
here, where we like to get ridof the line between sacred and
secular.
Um, but a pretty hard line isthat line of separation of
church and state.
And I think on a very basiclevel, I, I hear you, you know,
obviously anything that gets tothe Supreme court is probably a
(29:00):
pretty complex issue.
You know, anything that, thatruns that high up the flag pole
is not simple, but I think for alot of people, there's some very
basic, simple confusions about,uh, what religious Liberty
means.
And, uh, you know, I think it,it seems to me fairly obvious
(29:20):
that, uh, you know, for example,you can't force someone to pray
in a school, right.
Prayed to a Christian God, forexample.
Um, and to flip that around andsay that that is a violation of
your religious Liberty is just,it seems so backwards and
obvious to me, short of bangingmy head against the table, a
(29:41):
what's a,
Speaker 2 (29:42):
Maybe an easy way to, to get people to understand the
difference between those twothings.
Speaker 4 (29:47):
No, I think, I think the public schools are a great
place to get people tounderstand what the first
amendment means, because, uh,you know, the folks that you're
talking about first saying thatthey, you know, they want to
pray in school.
I would say that if you pressthem, I would say in most cases
about 80 to 90% of those fallways, the conversation
(30:08):
continues.
In other words, they don't wantsomeone to pray a different kind
of prayer.
They don't want the teacherdescriptive prayer.
That's at odds with what theyteach at home.
And so they really, a lot oftimes those conversations are
worth having, because people arejust expressing that they want
in their school system.
They want in their community andculture a sense of, um, of
(30:31):
appreciation for and respect fortheir Christian values.
Guess what we all do.
We all want that.
And we need to show that to eachother.
But if, when press, when they'repressed, do they really want
government sponsored prayer?
Not usually.
So it's really a good example totalk about religion in the
public schools.
Once you get people to realizethat the public school is a mini
government, right, when it saysCongress, you know, can't
(30:53):
establish religion.
That doesn't just mean Congress.
It also means Colorado.
And it also means Boulder andalso means whatever the name of
the elementary school is thereat the high school.
So, um, in a, in a governmentsetting, there is religious
freedom for individuals to beChristian Muslim atheist.
And that comes up in differentways, but the government, the
(31:13):
school itself should not advancethose values, or I mean, should
not advance religion.
And, um, any of those particularreligions, nor should it
denigrate any of those studentsand their religious beliefs,
that's the, you know, the publicnature of, of schools and really
that's, that extends to us justas citizens, right?
We want to have a system wherewe're all free to follow our
(31:38):
religious traditions andprinciples, but we can't impose
them on each other and wherethey're in conflict, we have to
work it out.
And it depends on the contextthat you're in, on how we
protect religious Liberty.
And, um, yeah, there's some,there's some tough questions out
there, but I would say anyonewho's interested can, you know,
(31:58):
get help by learning more andtesting themselves and see, can
you stand up for the religiousLiberty of someone with whom you
disagree and try to do that, tryto do that, and then see what
you can tolerate, um, and, andseek an aware where it is that
we are most free to all bedifferent and where we come
together and in ways that are,um, you know, that are shared
(32:23):
and civic and are not explicitlyreligious.
Speaker 2 (32:26):
I think you said that maybe over the last couple of
years, it's not been so intense.
Right.
But all I can remember, not allI can remember, but I think a
big part of this, this mythologyof a Christian America does come
up during December, where thereare something like 14 different
religious holidays in the monthof December.
(32:48):
I mean, welcome to a pluralistdemocracy, right.
So why do we say, Oh mygoodness, you know, the other
mythology being, wow,Christianity we're being so
oppressed in the United States,we can't even say Merry
Christmas at target these days.
You know, and now we we've had apresident who said, well, now
(33:10):
you can say Merry Christmasagain.
You know, so what is that?
But it's, uh, it's another oneof those political footballs,
one of these culture warcrosshairs, right?
That you gain political pointsby saying these certain things
on, on the stump, so to speakthat doesn't do any good, right.
For, for religious Liberty inits, at its heart and what that
(33:32):
really means.
Uh, and so, uh, I guess, yeah, Imean, it's one of those, I keep
coming back to that spectrum ofimportant and annoying, right.
But the whole Merry Christmascrusade that, you know, people
want to carry on, that really isan annoyance to me as a
Christian pastor, I want tohonor and respect my neighbors
(33:55):
who may or may not, you know, beChristian.
They may have no belief.
They may be Jew Jews or Muslims,or what have you Zoroastrians
whatever.
So how do we, Holly, what's youradvice this time of year about
all of that even, and I'm reallyhappy to hear you say that the
(34:15):
last couple of years, it, itseems to not be as intense from
your perspective that culturewar thing with Christmas, but
it's still in the atmosphere.
Speaker 4 (34:24):
No, it's still there.
So Andrew knows, we've talkedabout this through the years,
you know, the there's this, thistime of year, you hear these,
um, this conflict, these peoplewould say, Oh, you know,
America's lost its way.
I can't even say MerryChristmas.
And it's this real sort ofself-centered, um, view of
(34:45):
religious freedom.
Um, and it really, obviously,it's not a legal issue.
You know, now you can go on thisstreet, you can go in the store
and say Merry Christmas, or, youknow, a lot worse to people.
And, um, it, so it's not a legalissue, but just as a matter of,
of kindness and awareness, uh,it's good to note, you know, not
(35:08):
everyone celebrates Christmas.
And when I say happy holidays, Idon't mean any offense to any
Christian.
Um, I'm just trying to say it'sa fun season.
And I know that I know thatthere are Christians and others,
Speaker 2 (35:21):
Christian, and I don't mean any offense to other
Christians when I say happyholidays.
Right.
I'm offended that you didn'tknow it was offended.
Speaker 4 (35:31):
Yeah.
So I think we, maybe in thiscrowd, we all, we know the
annoying part of that is I guessthe important part of it is just
to stop and, and, and recognizewith each other, that we are, we
are diverse and that in somecommunities, Christians may, for
whatever reason may feel likethey're not valued.
(35:52):
And we want to recognize thattoo, and understand that too.
And, and we don't want it toplay out in our, you know, our
December happy shopping, but,you know, we can learn from
that.
We can, we can talk to peopleand take the temperature down.
And I think that there's beensome of that going on.
And I think, I think it'simportant that we continue to
try to do that.
(36:13):
And it's, it's similar.
I haven't seen as much of thewar on Christmas talk this year,
but I've thought about it aswe've entered the, uh, holiday
season and all of the conflictsover masks and people feeling
strongly that I don't want towear a mask and you can't make
me wear a mask when, um, youknow, it's really just a way of
(36:36):
looking out for other people.
It's not to oppress you.
Right.
And when I say again, it's like,when I say happy holidays, I'm
not trying to oppress you, youand your, your Merry Christmas.
But, um, it's just being awareof other people and other things
around you.
And obviously our country has alot to work on in that area.
Speaker 1 (36:54):
You basically said this, but for the record for our
listeners, it's not illegal tosay Merry Christmas, right?
Yeah.
You can go into target and, andnobody, it was never illegal in.
Certainly nobody has made itlegal again, you know?
So taking credit for somethingthat never happened or
Speaker 4 (37:16):
That's right, that's not, we can, we can talk about
serious religious Libertyissues, but that's not one
that's gonna, that's gonna makethe case.
Speaker 1 (37:24):
Right.
That's kinda what I wasthinking.
Speaker 2 (37:27):
We are so grateful Holly, that you've joined us for
hyphenated life today.
Thank you for your expertise,for your passion and for doing
all of the great work that youhave been doing for such a long
time with BJC.
I am personally grateful, uh,and for, for your formation in
my own journey and being aninspiration to my life, I am
(37:48):
grateful.
And you have helped me live inthat hyphen space in more ways
than one that church statechurch, hyphen state separation,
uh, space, um, and just, justmy, my own path.
So thank you.
Thank you for your wisdom andexpertise and joining us today.
Speaker 4 (38:08):
Well, it's been great to be with you both, and I'm so
happy about the good work thatyou all are doing at pine street
church and out through,throughout the world, as you go
from here and this podcast andall of your other work, it's a
wonderful expression of how touse religious Liberty
responsibly.
And I, I love it.
(38:29):
So it's great to be with you.
And, uh, our partnership willcontinue for sure.
It will.
And Holly, for those who arelistening, who
Speaker 3 (38:36):
May, may or may not be new to BJC, where can they
find you and what do they needto do?
Speaker 4 (38:42):
So you can find us@wwwbjconline.org.
You can subscribe to BJC podcaston any of the major platforms
and the series that we did thisyear, that really focuses on
these issues about the court andthe Trump administration.
(39:03):
And then the change toward a newadministration coming is called
respecting religion.
Speaker 3 (39:09):
Everybody go to BJC, listen to respecting religion
series on the BJC podcast.
Ali Homan.
Thank you.
Thank you.
(39:31):
I feel needed.
Life is a production of pinestreet church in Boulder,
Colorado hosted by AndrewDoherty and David longed.
You, the podcast is produced byPhil Norman and executive
producer, Alexi Molden special,thanks to our guests today and
the Leo Hill trust of Boulder,Colorado[inaudible]
Speaker 4 (40:49):
Staff.
I have a cool client.
That's
Speaker 3 (40:52):
Right.
Okay.
Kind of a big deal.
You are a big deal, big deal.
Speaker 4 (40:58):
I did not need to make jokes like that and get us
going on
Speaker 3 (41:01):
Now.
We've already.
So we've got that.
So big deal.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.