Acton Line

Share

Rebroadcast: A primer on religious liberty

Ep. 236

This week we’re rebroadcasting a conversation about religious liberty with Ryan T. Anderson, the William E. Simon senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, that was first released on the podcast in April of 2015. In the intervening five years since we first aired this episode, much has changed in our conversations on religious liberty – but much is still the same.


While the focus is no longer on Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act as it was in 2015, religious liberty is front and center this term at the Supreme Court, which major cases impacting American’s right to free exercise of religion in Bostock v. Clayton County, Espinoza v. Montana, Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania and Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru. We’ll be bringing you more converge of these important cases on the podcast in the coming weeks.


In this episode, Acton’s Marc Vander Maas talks with Ryan Anderson about what we mean when we talk about religious liberty – if it’s restricted merely to the freedom to worship or if the correct understanding is more expansive than that.

More Episodes

8/5/2020

Critiquing the 1619 Project with Phil Magness

Ep. 240
Since debuting in the New York Times Magazine on August 14, 2019, the 1619 Project has ignited a debate about American history, the founding of the country and the legacy emanating from the nation’s history with chattel slavery.The project’s creator and editor, Nikole Hannah-Jones, has described the project as seeking to place “the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative.” Components of a related school curriculum have been adopted in major cities like Chicago, Washington, D.C., and Buffalo, New York. For her work on the project, Hannah-Jones was awarded the 2020 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary.But the project has also come in for heavy criticism from historians and economists of all political and philosophical persuasions for inaccuracies in "matters of verifiable fact” in history and economics. In response to these critics, Hannah-Jones just recently declared the project not a work history, but instead a work of journalism.One of the project’s most frequent critics is Phil Magness, Senior Research Fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research.On this episode, Phil Magness discusses the objectives of the 1619 project, the economic history of slavery, the project’s historical errors and why many Americans seem to have such a difficult time accepting the complicated totality of our own history.Phillip W. Magness at the American Institute for Economic ResearchThe 1619 Project - The New York Times MagazineThe 1619 Project: A Critique - Phil MagnessPublic Schools Are Teaching The 1619 Project in Class, Despite Concerns From Historians - ReasonKarl Marx: Intellectual father of the 1619 Project? - Rev. Ben JohnsonThe 1619 Projection: 3 lies Pulitzer should not reward - Rev. Ben Johnson