Government has failed its purpose, Heritage Foundation expert Ryan Anderson says

Home News Government has failed its purpose, Heritage Foundation expert Ryan Anderson says
Government has failed its  purpose, Heritage Foundation expert Ryan Anderson says
The Federalist Society hosted Ryan Anderson via Zoom last week.
Kalli Dalrymple | Collegian

Our government has failed its purpose to protect natural rights, according to Ryan T. Anderson, a senior research fellow in American principles and public policy at the Heritage Foundation. 

In his speech on Oct. 5 titled “Religious Liberty is not Enough,” Anderson advocated for a more holistic approach to interpreting the Constitution. More than 30 students attended the event hosted via Zoom by the Hillsdale College Federalist Society in Lane Hall 124.

While the federal government does protect some rights, Anderson said religious liberty exemptions undermine these protections. Religious exemptions do not protect moral beliefs and convictions outside of religion and do not engage in the moral truth of laws.  

“Government has one big purpose: to foster a good life for its citizens under natural law,” Anderson said. “The state needs to set up conditions in which its citizens can flourish, where they can live virtuous lives and exercise their rights.” 

According to Anderson, progressives try to sacrifice religious liberty to support their own ideology regardless of morality.  

“First they repeal a law, and then try to subsidize the preferred action,” Anderson said. “After that, they use federal mandates to prevent opposition, and then punish those who do not comply.” 

In Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, for example, Anderson said the court decided the Trump administration could protect religious groups from Obamacare mandates related to abortion. Although the court made this decision, the Pennsylvania Attorney General said he would file another lawsuit against the Little Sisters of the Poor.

“Most nuns don’t enjoy debating politics,” Anderson said. “This process can be a punishment for many people if they don’t enjoy litigation, and many cave because they don’t want to go through the legal process again.” 

On top of using litigation as punishment, Anderson said the judicial branch considers religious liberty as a secondary right. Court decisions uphold religious liberty, but only to a certain extent.

“Right now, exemptions only favor religion as long as it does not undermine the purpose of the law,” Anderson said. “Many people believe the government should create the right for everyone to have access to abortion through every employer or to purchase a cake from any baker.  Protecting religious liberty undermines these laws.”

Because of this, Anderson said, conservatives should focus on more than just religious liberty.  

“We need to vote for people who will focus on good litigation in the executive and legislative branches,” Anderson said. “We also need people in all vocations to promote our rights, including intellectuals, artists, and even those who simply live out moral truths every day.” 

Hunter Law, a sophomore and member of the Federalist Society, said he disagrees with Anderson’s argument for using the government to advance one opinion or another.

“I think the law should be neutral,” Law said. “Anderson admitted that if someone else was in power, they could still do whatever they want.” 

Dan Grifferty, a senior and president of the society, said he agrees with the originalist position of interpreting the law as it was originally intended.  

“The problem is that most people use the law as a bludgeon against minority opinions, and we don’t do anything because we’re trying to take a neutral stance,” Grifferty said. “We need a full-throated response where we look at the law through the lens of originalism.”