Barr: Takes Break From Being Trump's Lawyer to Be His Minister

This promotion of a Secretary of State Pompeo speech on being a Christian leader was recently front page of the U.S. government's SOS website home page.  Not merely a person making a speech with religious themes while the person also had a government job.  Likewise, it is in no way a one-off for him, who seems to be up there as Pence's favorite Cabinet member.

Still, this just shows that the speech is shall we say "on brand."  The Attorney General of the United States has a brand too, but it is more as Trump's personal lawyer, a sort of consigiliere role.  Therefore, at least me personally, it seemed surprising that he had such a prominent speech on religion at Notre Dame. Again, it is not a problem that he talked about religion and its importance.  It is not even really a problem (though we can strongly disagree) his overall lines between church and state are misplaced. (Well, somewhat so, given his role.) His blatant sectarianism is problematic.  Plus, the hard to take preaching given his boss.

We have two different takes -- first, from an evangelistic history professor who is a strong critic of Trump and "court evangelicals."  John Fea leads with saying he agrees with a lot of the speech, but does flag some issues (e.g., it does seem focused on Christianity, even though it is putatively about religion and religious freedom in general).  His last bullet point also flags how "rich" some of the remarks about our responsibilities and "restraining individual rapacity" with a shutout to the House of Representatives as doing this a lot better than his boss.  He also challenges Barr on public schools and other matters.  It's a good summary.

It's not surprising that a secular coalition would find the speech bad though not challenging his right to have personal religious beliefs. The statement is basically a criticism of his bias and misstatements. Barr's general remarks on the importance of religious freedom is basically benign on the bland level.  An early red flag is a reference to James Madison on the importance of religion.  That's fine but oh you better also note that he had a strong view on the separation of church and state. The stuff about the need of a restraint outside of government and all that.  

A major sticking point is what exactly "religion" entails.  He sees things through a Judeo-Christian (emphasis on the latter; few Jews here in the beginning) prism:

First, it gives us the right rules to live by. The Founding generation were Christians. They believed that the Judeo-Christian moral system corresponds to the true nature of man. Those moral precepts start with the two great commandments – to Love God with your whole heart, soul, and mind; and to Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself.

But they also include the guidance of natural law – a real, transcendent moral order which flows from God’s eternal law – the divine wisdom by which the whole of creation is ordered. The eternal law is impressed upon, and reflected in, all created things.

The Founding generation included many non-Christians, especially if that term is not broadly defined (as many seem to wish) to mean supporting general moral values that are not tied to the "Christian" beliefs of the audience.  Thomas Jefferson honored Jesus (not "Christ") as a great moral teacher, but thought much "Christian" beliefs b.s. There was a general belief in natural law though there still is on some level.  People do not need to believe in God to think that human happiness requires a basic set of rules and justice that grow out of our general nature.

Modern secularists dismiss this idea of morality as other-worldly superstition imposed by a kill-joy clergy. In fact, Judeo-Christian moral standards are the ultimate utilitarian rules for human conduct.

People like Thomas Jefferson had no love for clergy. Also, modern secularists (a vague term -- clearly it does not mean here merely those with strong view on separation of church and state) again don't dismiss the importance of morality overall.  They regularly are strongly moral people who feel they have a special obligation in life to be good and are a lot less immoral than many like the people he works for and defends regularly.  They do not merely wish the government to restrain us though all talk of individual liberty is rich coming from someone whose party wishes to take individual liberty (such as involving abortion choice) away.

The speech rails against the modern age (nodding, as one must, to struggles we had in the 20th Century, but let's focus on the horrors of our secular age, not the past with more religion but a helluva lot of problems).  There is the usual feelings of victimhood and so forth:

These instruments are used not only to affirmatively promote secular orthodoxy, but also drown out and silence opposing voices, and to attack viciously and hold up to ridicule any dissenters.

Yes, where oh where will we hear about these points of view that are expressed by those that now control the Senate, White House, a majority of state legislatures and are still a significant voice in the House of Representatives?  That is even using the stereotype of Democrats as secularists.  It was noted, e.g., that Nancy Pelosi used a lot of religious language in recent remarks.  Likewise, multiple Democratic candidates for President regularly do as well.  Put aside the b.s. about blaming secularism on modern ills  or simplistic ignorance on the complexity of the beliefs of those (who easily could be a quarter of the population in some fashion) who disagree that "Judeo-Christian" morality (whatever that is -- Jesus' redmeption of humanity on the cross, e.g., doesn't seem to me to have much to do with anti-homosexual beliefs) is the way to go.

A taste of the sort of thing that bothers me -- it's not the argument that religion is a necessary part of human happiness:

So the reaction to growing illegitimacy is not sexual responsibility, but abortion.
The reaction to drug addiction is safe injection sites.
The solution to the breakdown of the family is for the State to set itself up as the ersatz husband for single mothers and the ersatz father to their children.
The call comes for more and more social programs to deal with the wreckage. While we think we are solving problems, we are underwriting them.

This is crap.  Serious crap.  The reaction to growing illegitimacy is concern for the complexities involved, not limited to changes in society (hint: it didn't turn on secularism) that threatened family integrity. Not that family life was all Leave It To Beaver back in the day either.  Plus, to the degree this includes not just reproductive choice based on individual morality (freedom of religion is great) but governmental involvement such as health care and so forth?  Nothing new here.  The push for national health care goes back to at least the 1940s.  The government also was always involved in some fashion here. But, it was never just that.

The reaction to drug addiction? Likewise a range of things, including personal in nature that involves a range of approaches. Not that safe injection sites are a bad thing.  They very well can be good social policy. He just tosses it out there as a potshot.  The fear "the State" will take over the family is also moronic.  First, again, the government in the past quite often intruded in family life.  Second, things like a broader definition of what a family includes (such as same sex parents) is a common thing here.  The people don't want the government as the parents.  And, for the 100th time, your party aren't a bunch of libertarians!  Your party in lots of ways intrude in our lives, if in conservative ways.

Plus, there is nothing specifically "secular" about those who have a more socialistic (not a bad word) view of how government should work. Loads of people here believe in Jesus Christ or some other religious belief.  It is b.s. to say otherwise.  These issues are too important for us to be preached crap by someone who is defending an immoral menace.  I'll toss in a favorite example of mine.  PPACA, which their party threatens daily, is in place to better protect our health and well being. In the process, it better allows people -- not forced to choose out of want -- to live their lives pursuant to their religious values.  Hard as it is to some (I saw this) to believe, this very well can include contraceptives.  Universal health care might allow businesses, e.g., to be less involved. Are they for that?

The speech is not geared to a neutral defense of religion -- again this blog repeatedly explains this term is quite open-ended -- but a certain set of religious beliefs.  The silent parts are said aloud. "Moral relativism" is seen as a threat, which is a tad different from religious liberty:

First, either through legislation but more frequently through judicial interpretation, secularists have been continually seeking to eliminate laws that reflect traditional moral norms.

What "tradition" moral norms?  The "watershed" here was of course Roe v. Wade.  Why not the contraceptives ruling?  Abortion has been performed throughout our history. At any rate, religions have a range of beliefs on its morality and it in no way is merely some secular act to allow individuals to use that, not the selective force of the state (the horror), to make choices here. The state is not there to force us to do that, right?  Natural laws, to the extent that is a thing, don't go by the wayside because of limited government. He seems to want his cake and to eat it too.

More recently, we have seen the law used aggressively to force religious people and entities to subscribe to practices and policies that are antithetical to their faith.

The problem is not that religion is being forced on others. The problem is that irreligion and secular values are being forced on people of faith.

The proper balance of religious liberty and the state did not suddenly "recently" (some fictional golden age is common here).  Many "traditional" moral norms were in fact largely a result of certain religious beliefs dominating.  Public schools were used (well used more) to promote Protestant values. This would seem relevant given the location of his speech.  Secular values are always going to be present in some fashion, since we live in a society with laws.  Laws that do not establish religion.  Nonetheless, this still doesn't mean that irreligion is being "forced" on people.  Requiring equal access in public accommodations is not that. Unless that is code for something else.

Accommodations also are made.  They always have been. The range of religions and nature tendency to favor the majority here complicates this.  The result repeatedly was to favor certain religions, not secularism.  RFRA is referenced.  Yes, some things are recent.  Why?  Well, one reason is that pre-RFRA, the rules on required accommodations are stricter than they once were.  The Hobby Lobby dissent could appeal to multiple decades long precedents. The majority argued RFRA expanded the reach of accommodations.  And, in that case, employees with different religious beliefs were burdened.  What of their beliefs? 

The speech complains about public schools that pass teaching requirements about LGBT curriculum that clashes with the beliefs of some people. Lots of Christians strongly support such things.  Religious liberty now is threatened by public schools teaching things that promote equality because it clashes with certain religious beliefs.  What beliefs matter here? Can parents opt out of evolution classes?  Those that honor feminist principles they disagree with or why not racial equality?  Public schools promote certain values and they do clash with certain beliefs. There is an option here to go to private schools.  It is not a threat to religious liberty as properly applied in our system.

Barr also opposes states that choose not to use public funds toward parochial education. This is a longstanding strand of public policy and well supported by his pal James Madison.  It is not a threat to religious liberty to avoid using our money to promote religious beliefs we do not believe. At the very least, it 's a tricky issue.  Arguments can be used in both directions and it is not "secularist" necessarily to be on either side. James Madison thought funding of religious institutions would threaten religion.

If Catholics want to promote Catholic doctrine, they have every right to do so.  They are limited when they mix with the public sector to some degree. They, for instance, cannot deny minimum wages to their employees. If a janitor at a church wants to use their wages for non-Catholic reasons they can.  They also have the right to pick and choose their ministers and educators.  The lines here are open to some debate.

A third kind of assault on religious freedom in education have been recent efforts to use state laws to force religious schools to adhere to secular orthodoxy. For example, right here in Indiana, a teacher sued the Catholic Archbishop of Indianapolis for directing the Catholic schools within his diocese that they could not employ teachers in same-sex marriages because the example of those same-sex marriages would undermine the schools’ teaching on the Catholic view of marriage and complementarity between the sexes.

It is not "secular orthodoxy" to determine that employment laws require some degree of non-discrimination.  Someone running for POTUS who seems to want us to think him Latino by using the nickname "Beto" (okay; this just annoys me) tossed in an answer at a GLBTQ forum that he thinks that "churches" can be denied tax exemptions for not supporting same sex marriages.  Going that far is dubious though I'm not sure if a neutral tax exemption law (which would not just focus on one view on that subject but perhaps have a general equality string) would actually be unconstitutional.

(The lines to draw regarding other religious institutions can be tricky like when denying religious colleges who opposed racial mixing was upheld. Another issue would be allowing Catholic adoption groups, e.g., to be included in a state system even though they discriminate.  This is a touchy issue that has some emotional salience since needy children seem to be harmed.  But, again, what are the limits there?  Should the state welcome adoption groups that are racist?  "Traditional" values would have once upon a time thought that fine too.  Anyway, if the speech tossed in such perhaps harder cases in among a generally fair speech, fine enough, but it did not.) 

But, even in this scenario, the choir master or whatever still has to teach Catholic doctrine when required.  If the lawsuit should fail (and why the feds should interject in a local dispute is unclear), fine, but even there his remarks go too far.  Overall, religious liberty is great, but when he says:

I can assure you that, as long as I am Attorney General, the Department of Justice will be at the forefront of this effort, ready to fight for the most cherished of our liberties: the freedom to live according to our faith.

does he only mean "our" faith?