The recent passing of U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and the ensuing battle over her proposed replacement, has thrust issues of civil and religious freedom into the forefront of public consciousness and of the current U.S. presidential campaign.

Of even greater importance to God’s people facing the end of all things, the present struggle over the makeup of the High Court constrains us to recognize—and oppose—those forces in our land seeking to unite church and state, and who are unwittingly paving the way for the fulfillment of the second half of the prophecy found in the thirteenth chapter of Revelation.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1933-2020)

Before we go further, let us pause to honor the memory of one of the towering figures of modern American jurisprudence—the second woman ever to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court and an unabashed champion of liberty and justice for all. Having experienced both gender and ethnic discrimination early in life [1], raised an adherent of the Jewish faith during the horror of the Holocaust [2], Ruth’s formative years ingrained within her the imperative of equal protection under the law.

Most importantly for Seventh-day Adventists, Justice Ginsburg was an uncompromising believer in the separation of church and state, and a champion of true religious freedom—the kind that protects those choosing to practice a particular faith as well as those who practice no faith at all [3]. Speaking of the Framers of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Ginsburg described how they sought to “build a wall of separation between church and state” because, she explained, “while the union of government and religion tends to destroy government and to degrade religion, separating the two preserves the legitimacy of each” [4].

In her dissent from the High Court’s Hobby Lobby ruling in 2014, Ginsburg opposed the Court’s decision to equate religious freedom with the right of for-profit businesses to deny employees health care coverage on the basis of the employer’s religious convictions. Her dissent drew a plain and important distinction between religious organizations and a business that exists for the profit of the owner:

Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community. . . . Indeed, by law, no religion-based criterion can restrict the work force of for-profit corporations. . . . The distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Court’s attention. One can only wonder why the Court shuts this key difference from sight [5].

And while many religionists hold moral objections to gay marriage and certain reproductive practices, Justice Ginsburg rightly understood that opposition to such choices cannot utilize the arm of the secular state; hence her strong support for marriage equality [6] and reproductive rights [7]. Ginsburg rightly understood that it comes to consensual behavior, freedom of conscience in a free country belongs to all, not merely to some.

Little wonder that Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been lauded as “one of the great women advocating for church-state separation and religious freedom . . . who has consistently ruled in favor of the separation of church and state” [8].

Amy Coney Barrett (1972-)

On September 26, 2020, a week and a day following Justice Ginsburg’s passing, one Amy Coney Barrett, presently serving as a circuit judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and a professor at the University of Notre Dame Law School, was nominated by President Donald Trump to replace Justice Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Our purpose here is not to assess Judge Barrett’s judicial qualifications, nor do we wish to pass judgment on her religious faith. Nor do we wish to address the allegations of hypocrisy that have been raised so far as the U.S. Senate confirmation process is concerned. Rather, our purpose is to consider Judge Barrett’s stance relative to issues of conscience, religious liberty, and the wall between church and state upheld by such early American luminaries as Roger Williams and Thomas Jefferson [9].

“The Dogma Lives Loudly Within You”

In the present writer’s view, it was a mistake for a prominent U.S. senator to give the impression several years ago of criticizing Barrett’s Roman Catholic faith, stating at her 2016 hearing for confirmation to her present judgeship that “the (Catholic) dogma lives loudly within you” [10]. My hunch is that the senator in question was concerned, not about Barrett’s Catholicism, but about what she has done with it in blurring the line between church and state. It would have been helpful had Senator Feinstein’s statement been worded more carefully.

America has thus far had one Roman Catholic president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy (1917-1963), whose record in office likely made him the most meticulous protector of church-state separation among U.S. presidents during the twentieth century. The current Democratic presidential nominee is also a devout Catholic, but whose career has likewise demonstrated considerable care in keeping religious convictions of a consensual moral nature at a rightful distance from the coercive arm of government. A political leader’s choice of religious faith in the United States of America is as free as that of any other citizen of this Republic. Where the problem arises is when political leaders seek to impose that faith on conscientious, consensual choices.

One major reason for Judge Barrett’s objections to the Affordable Care Act, often called Obamacare, is the Act’s requirement that employers include coverage for birth control, something the Roman Catholic Church strongly opposes [11]. In 2012 she signed a letter authored by the Becket Fund—a conservative think tank relative to religious liberty issues—which attacked both the ACA’s requirement that birth control be covered in employees’ health plans, and the accommodation to religious objections provided by the Act that employers could opt out of the requirement simply by filling out a form [12].

In other words, Judge Barrett seems to think that the mere filling out of a form explaining one’s religious objections to birth control coverage, is an undue burden on religious exercise [13]. It is hard to make sense out of this perspective on the judge’s part. How could the simple filling out of a form constitute an “undue burden”?

Judge Barrett appears to see no problem in permitting her anti-abortion views as a Roman Catholic to affect her understanding of the law. Among other troubling opinions, she has defended the right of anti-abortion protesters to block clinic entrances, thus obstructing their access to services to which they possess a legal right [14]. And on the issue of gay marriage, she has defended the dissenting Supreme Court justices in the case that gave gay couples the right to legally marry [15].

We must never forget that civil and religious liberty in free America doesn’t belong exclusively to persons with correct Biblical theology or conservative cultural values. We may disagree with any of the practices under discussion here, but opposition to such choices belongs solely within the realm of religious and moral persuasion, with no room for judges or politicians in the mix.

The observations of our current General Conference president, Elder Ted N.C. Wilson, regarding the marriage issue remain wise and well-considered:

Like many other faiths, the Seventh-day Adventist church subscribes to the Biblical definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, for example. But where we differ from some of our peers is that we acknowledge that there’s a difference between government allowing certain actions with which we might disagree on moral grounds, . . . as opposed to compelling them. That is the fine line that is religious liberty [16].

Conclusion

The problem with Judge Barrett, in other words, is not that Catholic dogma “lives loudly” within her, but rather, that she has permitted this dogma to shape her perspective on the rights of others in a free country. Indeed, Seventh-day Adventist dogma “lives loudly” within me—regarding Biblical sexuality, the definition of marriage, the sacredness of the seventh-day Sabbath, the authenticity of the Biblical creation and Flood stories, and a host of other issues. But the same Bible that upholds each of the above doctrinal and moral positions also contains the words of our Lord in His interview with Pontius Pilate, in which He stated, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36).

Ellen White offers the following dire warning as to what will happen in America when religious dogma becomes the stuff of civil legislation:

Let the principle once be established in the United States that the church may employ or control the power of the state, that religious observances may be enforced by secular laws; in short, that the authority of church and state is to dominate the conscience, and the triumph of Rome in this country is assured [17].

The confirmation of yet another Supreme Court justice with theocratic views of the judiciary and civil government will only hasten the establishment of the image to the beast foretold in Revelation and the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy. While we know this catastrophic conclusion to the American experiment is inevitable according to the forecasts of Inspiration, the following Ellen White admonition to our people comes clearly to mind:

If they do nothing to disabuse the minds of the people, and through ignorance of the truth our legislatures should abjure the principles of Protestantism, and give countenance and support to the Roman fallacy, the spurious sabbath, God will hold His people who have had great light, responsible for their lack of diligence and faithfulness. But if the subject of religious legislation is judiciously and intelligently laid before the people, and they see that through Sunday enforcement the Roman apostasy would be re-enacted by the Christian world, and that the tyranny of past ages would be repeated, then whatever comes, we shall have done our duty [18].

Note carefully such phrases as “let the principle once be established,” “religious observances,” and “religious legislation” in the above statements. Sunday laws won’t be introduced without precedents being laid down. Marriage, by the way, is for most a religious observance, and if civil government can legally forbid adults to participate in marriage ceremonies which violate one or another set of religious beliefs (including beliefs based on the Bible), the principle Ellen White says will facilitate the triumph of Rome in the United States of America is being put in place.

In another statement the prophet writes:

There are many who are at ease, who are, as it were, asleep. They say, “If prophecy has foretold the enforcement of Sunday observance the law will surely be enacted,” and having come to this conclusion they sit down in a calm expectation of the event, comforting themselves that God will protect His people in the day of trouble. But God will not save us if we make no effort to do the work He has committed to our charge.

As faithful watchmen you should see the sword coming and give the warning, that men and women may not pursue a course through ignorance that they would avoid if they knew the truth [19].

In light of the above, Seventh-day Adventists throughout the United States should contact their United States senators and urge them to place in the crosshairs of careful scrutiny the judicial philosophy of Amy Coney Barrett relative to church-state relations and matters of conscience. The attempt by too many conservative American Christians to establish a de facto theocracy in this country—and to leave no means untried, no alliances unforged, to achieve their political ends—poses a mortal threat to the liberties of this Republic.

If Judge Barrett either vacillates in her answers or affirms her belief in the government’s right to regulate conscientious and consensual choices on the part of citizens, her nomination to the High Court should be rejected.

God’s remnant people can neither sit on the sidelines in this titanic struggle, nor find themselves on the wrong side thereof.

REFERENCES

1. “Ruth Bader Ginsburg,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg; Gary Fields and Sally Stapleton, “Ginsburg’s Empathy Born of Jewish History and Discrimination,” U.S. News & World Report, Sept. 24, 2020 https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-09-24/ginsburgs-empathy-born-of-jewish-history-and-discrimination.

2. Fields and Stapleton, “Ginsburg’s Empathy Born of Jewish History and Discrimination,” U.S. News & World Report, Sept. 24, 2020 https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-09-24/ginsburgs-empathy-born-of-jewish-history-and-discrimination.

3. Rachel Laser, “Justice Ginsburg: A Powerful Force for Real Religious Freedom,” Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Sept. 18, 2020 https://www.au.org/media/press-releases/Justice-Ruth-Bader-Ginsburg.

4. Ibid.

5. Rokia Hassanein, “Women’s History Month Spotlight: Ruth Bader Ginsburg,” Americans United for Separation of Church and State, March 30, 2018 https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/womens-history-month-spotlight-ruth-bader-ginsburg.

6. Ibid.

7. Sarah McCammon, “Ginsburg’s Death A ‘Pivot Point’ For Abortion Rights, Advocates Say,” NPR, Sept. 19, 2020 https://www.npr.org/sections/death-of-ruth-bader-ginsburg/2020/09/19/914864867/ginsburgs-death-a-pivot-point-for-abortion-rights-advocates-say.

8. Hassanein, “Women’s History Month Spotlight: Ruth Bader Ginsburg,” Americans United for Separation of Church and State, March 30, 2018 https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/womens-history-month-spotlight-ruth-bader-ginsburg.

9. Leonard W. Levy, The Establishment Clause: Religion and the First Amendment (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co, 1986), pp. 183-184.

10. Tucker Higgins, “Trump nominates Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme Court, setting up election year confirmation battle,” CNBC, Sept. 25, 2020 https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/25/trump-is-expected-to-nominate-amy-coney-barrett-to-fill-ginsburg-supreme-court-vacancy-.html.

11. “The nomination of Amy Coney Barrett: What’s at Stake? The Separation of Church and State: A report from Americans United for Separation of Church and State,” Sept. 26, 2020, p. 2. https://www.au.org/sites/default/files/2020-09/Amy%20Coney%20Barrett%20%26%20Separation%20of%20Church%20and%20State%209.26.20.pdf.

12. Ibid.

13. Ibid.

14. Ibid, p. 7.

15. Ibid, p. 8.

16. Ted N.C. Wilson, “Keeping Church at Arm’s Length from the State,” Huffington Post, Nov. 6, 2013 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/keeping-church-at-arms-le_b_4226809

17. Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, p. 581.

18. ----Review and Herald, Nov. 24, 1888.

19. ----Last Day Events, p. 127.

Pastor Kevin Paulson holds a Bachelor’s degree in theology from Pacific Union College, a Master of Arts in systematic theology from Loma Linda University, and a Master of Divinity from the SDA Theological Seminary at Andrews University. He served the Greater New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists for ten years as a Bible instructor, evangelist, and local pastor. He writes regularly for Liberty magazine and does script writing for various evangelistic ministries within the denomination. He continues to hold evangelistic and revival meetings throughout the North American Division and beyond, and is a sought-after seminar speaker relative to current issues in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. He presently resides in Berrien Springs, Michigan