Rachel Laser: Abortion rights are a religious freedom issue.

This episode features a conversation with Rachel Laser, President & CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, protecting the foundational American principle of freedom of religion—including the right to believe or not believe—for all.

George & Rachel discuss the intersection of religious freedom and abortion laws. Rachel highlights the importance of church-state separation in preserving religious freedom and democracy. They unpack the role of religious pluralism in America and the necessity of protecting the rights of all citizens, regardless of their faith. The episode also touches on the challenges of motivating moderate voices and fostering meaningful dialogue across differences.

The discussion serves as a prelude to an upcoming event in Dallas focusing on these critical issues:
Under G-d: Screening and Discussion on Why Abortion Bans Violate Religious Freedom
June 17 @ 7:30 pm - 9:00 pm

Details, here.

Watch the video, here.

George (00:00):

Welcome to Good God, conversations that matter about faith and public life. I am your host George Mason, and I'm delighted to welcome to the program today, Rachel Lazer. Uh, Rachel is the president and CEO of Americans, United for Separation of Church and State. Rachel, we're so glad to have you on the program.

Rachel (00:22):

It's great to be here with you. Thanks.

George (00:24):

Well, I should act, actually tell the audience that this is partly a runup to an event that we're gonna be having in Dallas at North Haven United Methodist Church on Monday night, June the 17th. Uh, and that event, uh, will, uh, you know, give shape to our conversation today, in fact, and one of the key things that you are dealing with at Americans United and, uh, leading in, and that has to do with the restrictive abortion laws that we are finding in numerous states, including in Texas, and how that actually, uh, instead of simply reinforcing people's religious, uh, convictions, as many people believe is the case, violates other people's religious convictions at the same time. So, uh, talk to us about that, because I think for many, uh, in our society, people don't hear that. They don't understand that that's true.

Rachel (01:29):

That that's really true. I think an older generation really got it because I think when the older generation was living in America, they were aware of the way certain religions and in leadership were trying to influence abortion in this country as a way of asserting their own religion. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative> and imposing it on everyone. And I think then it was the concern that way was around the Catholic Church sort of imposing one religious view on everyone. So we have members of Americans United for Separation of church and state who are in their nineties. Men, men who I've asked, what draws you to Americans United? And they say the abortion issue <laugh>, um, which I've always found fascinating, right. Um, because they understand it to be an issue of religious freedom. Um, but to sort of spell it out, um, the reason that abortion rights is a religious freedom issue is because everyone should be able to make their own decisions about their own bodies lives and futures according to their own religious beliefs.

Rachel (02:43):

Mm-Hmm. <affirmative> and different religions have different belief systems when it comes to abortion and sort of, and women in general. Right. Um, and so, you know, as a Jewish woman, which is relevant because the film that we're gonna be showing at this event that you just, um, advertised is, uh, uh, a film about Jewish resistance to abortion bans. I'm a Jewish woman, so I, I feel comfortable speaking in that space. And as a Jewish woman, I can say that logically, according to the Holy Books of my religion, that I would be not just allowed but obligated to have an abortion if a pregnancy threatened my health or life. Um, and so it is, it is a direct violation of my religious beliefs to ban abortion. Right. You know, in my case. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>, and this is true of many people from many different, uh, religious denominations.

Rachel (03:50):

I actually have up on my other screen something that I wanted to, to point out. My friend Robbie Jones, runs a group called PRRI that does great research in the space of religion and politics and policy and culture. And, uh, he wrote recently about a study that they did, and, and I quoted this on Twitter, if you were going to accurately finish the following sentence, most people of faith in America believe abortion should be the final words would be mostly legal. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. And isn't that fascinating? And I think that's because there are so many different religious denominations that actually believe in abortion rights in most cases. And of course, there's a piece that, um, you know, there's a study and a piece that Robbie did that really lays this out. I have it open right now, and, you know, it's just, it's quite remarkable how, um, how throughout so many different denominations, this is true.

Rachel (04:53):

This was reflected in the case that Americans United brought in Missouri Mm-Hmm. <affirmative> also challenging their abortion ban because we brought it on behalf of 14 clergy from seven different religious denominations. And the religious nominations were mostly Christian. You know, there was United Church of Christ and United Methodist, um, their, their, uh, Episcopal, we actually rolled it out in the, in this beautiful, um, Episcopal church, uh, uh, Christ Church Cathedral, gorgeous in St. Louis. Um, but then we also had an orthodox Jewish woman plaintiff. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. She's called a mahara. It's the term that many of us aren't familiar with, including many Jews. Um, but a a sort of leading official in, uh, religious and orthodox Judaism. We also had a couple of Unitarian universalists and some, um, sort of non-denominational and reform rabbis. I think that also shows George, how, uh, so many different religious beliefs have a stake in this, in this fight against religious, uh, excuse me, against the abortion ban that we're seeing pop up across the country. So

George (06:11):

I think you're making an important point because, um, often what's claimed is that, uh, policies like these that are put into law are a result of something that has commonly been called Judeo-Christian, uh, ethics. Right. That has, for this country, of course, that that seems to be somehow a broad brushed gesture toward including Jews with, uh, historic Christian hegemony in this country. Uh, but what, what you're pointing out is that, first of all, Jews haven't really given their consent to being part of that. And we really are different, and we have different interpretations of things, and that's true among Christians as well. And the fact is that we also have a, a country where agnostics and atheists have a stake in this matter of religious, uh, separation of, of, uh, church and state, uh, and that they are no less, uh, citizens of this country because they lack a particular faith commitment, uh, than, uh, those who have one.

George (07:31):

So we really haven't, in a way, Rachel, I think, uh, risen to the, the constitutional ideals of religious pluralism. Have we, I mean, part, part of what's going on here is that we are still fighting for, it seems, or some groups are a privileged religious voice in the country when, uh, both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights prevent such a thing from being a reality. They protect the rights of the, uh, of the, of the minority religions and no religion. So much of what's going on here is about democracy itself, about how we make decisions in past laws. Right. And what role religion has to play in it. Uh, so the, the work of, of AU is really important in this fight, not just over abortion, but the larger question, huh?

Rachel (08:31):

I think you put that perfectly. I think this is a battle over democracy and specifically a battle over whether America is going to be a diverse and pluralistic nation that makes good on its promise of equality, which of course, is a fundamental of American democracy, or whether it's going to be a conservative Christian nation and no longer be a democracy. I mean, America wouldn't be America right. Without that. Right. And I, and, and I think Christian nationalism is an effort to embed privilege for European Christians and frankly, conservative Christians into our laws and policies. Right. And the kryptonite to that is church state separation, because it prevents Christian nationalists from doing that. It stops conservative Christianity from imposing itself into our law, into our democratic secular law. But I think you're exactly right. This is, this is really nothing less than a fight for democracy.

Rachel (09:38):

But George also, you know, as the leader of this group, when I came here over six years ago, I noticed that we, we did talk in sort of platitudes and abstraction all the time, which is important, and it attracts a lot of our members. I mean, democracy and our, you know, our constitution and our first amendment and our founding fathers, and found, you know, all these things, right? Very important. Doesn't always touch sort of a new generation in the same way. And what I found has is the human connection to the issue, the fact that, you know, what we're talking about isn't just some abstraction, right? It's about whether you're going to have access to healthcare in this country, or whether there can be a rule that says that, you know, abortion bans trump the tala requirement of doctors to treat you if your life is at risk, or whether or not you can get a job, um, with a federal contractor.

Rachel (10:42):

Federal contractor's employ one fifth of the nation. Mm-Hmm. But under the Trump administration, in the name of quote, religious freedom, they tried to have a religious litmus test available for federal contractors to impose when you apply for that work. So it's about your healthcare, your livelihood, right. Your ability to access social services. Right. If you're vulnerable, I mean, that there were all of these rules that the Trump administration passed in the name of religious freedom that said, taxpayer funded foster care agencies can turn away parents that don't pass a religious litmus test. Or, you know, we're gonna remove the religious freedom requirements from social services so that you're no longer notified that you don't have to say a prayer in order to get access to food when you're hungry or a bed when you're homeless. So, I mean, I think also, yes, very much democracy and also just bringing it home to our daily lives. Right.

George (11:52):

So, you know, you, you mentioned this sort of new interpretation of religious freedom. It reminds me of, um, the, uh, parable that Soren kard, the, uh, Dutch existential, uh, the Danish existentialist philosopher and preacher told, um, in his day when he said, uh, that a, a grocer woke up one morning and went to his grocery store and found that someone had switched all the labels on the cans on the shelves, so that you didn't know what was what inside anymore. And it, it feels to me somewhat like that on the matter of religious freedom.

Rachel (12:33):

Oh, yes.

George (12:34):

You know, we have, uh, we have something that is rooted in protecting minority conscience, uh, something that is, uh, uh, part of the history of our country in saying that we will not be a majoritarian religious nation, and it's now being used to enforce majority religious views, although I would argue that's not actually true, as you say with Robbie Jones' piece. But the assumption is that there is, uh, one position that can be, uh, encoded into law. And so, Rachel, I guess what I would, would ask you at this point of people who are listening, much of the argument that people make, uh, maybe on the other side of this is that groups like, uh, Americans United, uh, and Faith Commons and other organizations that are arguing for religious pluralism and for, uh, a, a true separation of church and state are, uh, are the end goal is, it is a loss of moral, uh, life, uh, encoded in our law. And, and I guess I, I, I always want to say, have we lost confidence in our religious communities and families ability to shape the moral ethos of our, our country? And we now have said that we're going to turn to government when we have actually always been skeptical, uh, from the beginning of government's role in being able to do that. What do you say to people who say, you're just trying to take God and morality out of, out out of our country?

Rachel (14:25):

I say absolutely not. I say Americans, United for separation of church and state was founded by religious folk. Mm-Hmm. Seven, six years ago, we were founded by a group of Methodist pastors, the President of the Southern Baptist Convention. Mm-Hmm. Seven day Adventists. Right. Seventh, three deans. And that even today, every day, we bring religious Americans and leaders together with the non-religious <affirmative> to fight for everyone's right to believe as they choose, so long as they don't harm others. So there's nothing that could be further from the truth. In fact, many have argued that it's our church state separation commitment that allows religion to flourish in America. Because as Roger Williams wrote long ago,

George (15:12):

Hey, I'm a Baptist. Yeah, Roger Williams. Thank you.

Rachel (15:15):

There you go. And first, he founded Rhode Island as the first state, uh, colony with religious freedom in the country. And he said, uh, forced worship stinks in God's nostrils. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative> so truly devout people, you know, and I've heard about the sermon on, you know, read about, heard about, I'm not Christian, but the Sermon on the Mount and praying ostentatiously, I mean, truly devout religious folk, Christians and non-Christians that work with us are very, very committed to church state separation as a way to preserve the sanctity of religion and to keep it from suing by our government. In fact, think of Dr. Martin Luther King, too, right? Who talked about the importance of the church being the conscience of the state. And the church can't be the conscience of the state if the state is a religious state. Right. The two are mixed.

George (16:10):

And we also are not just doing it for the sake of the, the flourishing of our religious communities, but also because rooted in, uh, all of our religious traditions is an obligation to love our neighbor as ourselves. And that neighbor may be a person of other faith or no faith. And being able to show that we are defending their right to be different from us is part of religious obligation than our religious community. So, I

Rachel (16:44):

Mean, for sure, I remember, um, when I was working for the Religious Action Center of Reformed Judaism Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. And, um, and we sort of noted that, um, according to the Talmud, I think it was Rabbi Zer the great who said that the Torah warns 36 times, and I think some people say 46 times not to oppress the stranger. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. Right. But once or something, not to oppress your neighbor. And so the idea is it's harder not to oppress the stranger, right. Because they're different from you. Right. So we all have this very natural human kind of instinctive way of treating the stranger as lesser. Right. Um, person we know, you know, who's in our family or, you know, but, um, but the, the, the thing is, Amer the American experiment will fail if we can't find a way to be mutually respectful and coexist.

Rachel (17:46):

Right. Who are different from us, because we are an experiment that have, that has intentionally invited in intentionally Mm-Hmm. Invited in the stranger. Right. I mean, that's what our country is based on. And if you also think about, just looking for the quote so I don't blow it, 'cause I love it. Yeah. Thomas Jefferson, who, um, sorry, I have to go there just for a moment. Um, <laugh>, who is the architect really of the First Amendment along with James Madison, right. You know, wrote the Virginia statute for religious freedom, which is the sort of underlier. Right. And when he described that in his autobiography, and you gotta realize, right, this was like, like he wrote this in something like 1802 or you know, 17, I think it was in the early 18 hundreds that he actually wrote this. He said that the purpose of t he Virginia statute for religious freedom was to protect, and I'm quoting "the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Hamadan, the Hindu and the infidel of every denomination." Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. Think about how radical that was for that time period. But you know what? Church state separation is an American original. Right?

Rachel (19:02):

These, these guys got some things very wrong. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. But they got church state separation very right. As the invitation for America to be a country of pluralism and diversity. Right. They, and it was so intentional, you can see in that statement, so intentional.

George (19:24):

So let's go back to focus on the matter of reproductive freedom now, or abortion rights, uh, if you will, depending on what language you want to use, uh, because that's gonna be the focus of our, our conversation here in June. And, uh, I, I think it's important to say that this matter of, uh, people's con religious convictions about things like when life begins and who should decide and all of that, we are, we are not actually telling people that they have to stop using their religion to reason about this debate. Right. Uh, but what, what are we saying, Rachel, to people of faith about how we make laws regarding reproductive rights and care in this country? Because we're having to adjudicate this in a democratic setting. So when, when people who say, but my religion wants to say that a, that that conception is the moment when life begins.

George (20:36):

It is a human life at the moment of conception that violates Jewish, uh, law, it violates Muslim law. It, it violates the conscience of many other Christians. But some Christians especially have that view. So how do we adjudicate this? Where do we go? Because now the Supreme Court has said, have it out in the States. Right. Uh, and, and here in Texas, we have a, a, a virtual ban on abortion. I mean, uh, the, the chances of you getting an abortion in, in, in Texas are almost nil. And what's more it, you may be criminally charged if you even abbet someone tried to leave the state to get abortion.

Rachel (21:22):

You know, first, George, let me just say something that it's just so obvious, but it has to be said. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative> abortion bans are so sexist because it takes two to tango. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>, it takes two to create a pregnancy. Right. But it's only, and it's, of course there are some gender non-binary and trans, but I'll just talk about sort of the majority of pregnancies are people identify as women. And you know, only the woman is the one who, whose body is growing this. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative> developing life. Right. And I also wanna say, you know, in Roe v. Wade, justice Blackman acknowledged that it's developing life. It's fine to acknowledge that and to still say it's fine for a certain amount of time in pregnancy for women to be the ones, the pregnant people, to be the ones to make their own decisions about their own bodies.

Rachel (22:15):

Because you know, the thing about pregnancy is there's this developing life, but it's embedded within this other human being. Right. Right. And the other human being is typically a woman. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. Right. And her life, her health, her future, right. All these things, her mental health, all these things Right. Are wrapped up in that pregnancy. And we all know that stuff happens. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. Right. This is not all irresponsible or certainly not all irresponsibility from women. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>, um, right. Those are sort of living sort of memes and tropes <laugh> about that are sexist. And so what we're really talking about is, you know, interfering with the health in life of so many women through these abortion bans. And, you know, I think that's why what we're seeing across the country is a backlash. Right. And we're seeing these ballot initiatives. We're so proud that in Missouri where we brought this abortion lawsuit, and I think we really have, and it's still alive in the court. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. And I really wanted to talk about it in the under God documentary that that will show, um, in June. But I couldn't because we hadn't filed it yet. So that was, that's the only frustration of my role in the film that we were amidst filing it. And I couldn't say a word. I was a good girl. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. Um, but I think, you know, what, what happened is we filed that lawsuit and it led to in part this ballot initiative there now too, even in Missouri. Um, and

George (23:49):

Every time it goes to a ballot, if you can get to a ballot, and we can't by the way, in Texas because we don't have that privilege, we, we can't have statewide referenda. So it, it's fascinating. But whenever we see that a abortion becomes legal again in a state. Right,

Rachel (24:06):

Right. And I think that Texans should not lose hope. Yeah. You know, I think sort of Texans who believe in religious and reproductive true freedom Mm-Hmm. <affirmative> are actually still part of a majority. Right. Or the majority in this country. And right now, you're right, it's not even necessarily the majority who has, is holding the power reigns. It is sort of the powerful Right.

Rachel (24:36):

Powerful. But the people have a lot of power. And I think a lot of the necessary ingredient, the like, excuse me, I, this doesn't work for everyone, but the Tinkerbell magical dust is people not losing hope. Yes. In the power of their voices. Right. And, and not forgetting about the importance of coming together across our differences. And that's what Americans united for Separation of church and state au.org, for those who wanna join us and, and donate, that's what we're doing every day. We're knitting together this diverse community of all of the different types of religious groups, Christians, religious minorities, the non-religious right. Public school advocates, because Christian nationalists are attacking public schools and trying to either conservative Christianize 'em, and we can talk about what's going on in Texas Mm-Hmm. Um, or divert funds to private religious schools. Right. Right. Reproductive rights advocates, L-G-B-T-Q advocates, people who just care about the right to read the books Mm-Hmm. <affirmative> that you wanna read and make sure that our libraries aren't banning and burning them. I mean Right. This issue knits together so many different communities. And if we bring those communities together, George Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>, and we, and we reach out even if we have some differences in other ways, whatever they are great. That's the power of the coalition that we can put together to regain reproductive and religious freedom, even in Texas.

George (26:10):

But Rachel, how do we motivate moderate people? And, you know, moderate is a word that sounds lukewarm, frankly. You know, I mean, uh, it you, you put together a, a campaign called Come Let Us Reason Together. Yes. Uh, which was intended to bring people like this together, uh, uh, when you were, I guess, directing the culture program at third way. And so, uh, this is a call from Isaiah, right. Come, let us reason across our differences and, uh, and find a way forward. You know, it, it feels like we are in a zero sum contest right now. It's all winners and losers who gets to win, and there has to be a loser. Um, I I I'm remembering during the civil rights era, Dr. King said that the goal was not victory. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative> it was justice and reconciliation. And so what does that look like in this case, Rachel? How do we motivate people of moderate, liberal, progressive, uh, instincts to be passionate around justice and reconciliation and, uh, and, and, and, and assure that people on the other side do not think that if they, if, if, if our position prevails, so to speak, that they are summarily dismissed from our society, that they have no place. How do we, how do we mobilize people to be passionate about that and assure people on the other side that there's room for all of us, uh, in, in the, at the end of this struggle?

Rachel (28:01):

So, for one, thank you for the confidence in me for even asking me such a question. <laugh>, I appreciate it. It, it is the question, I think, and it's, I mean, I definitely have thoughts on it. Um, I think we are in a moment where I myself find that I'm in the minority, in the progressive community for often, not always for kind of wanting to, to find shared values and, you know, kind of sit down and talk together. I recently was invited to speak at the Federalist Society on a panel they had on, uh, 30 years of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. And I absolutely enthusiastically accepted their invitation. And I went and I spoke from my heart. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>, you know, and I said, uh, look, I mean, I think, you know, I think you all would agree, right, that the Piggy Park case was right and that religious freedom shouldn't be used, uh, as a work around civil rights laws to be able to discriminate against black people.

Rachel (28:59):

Do I hear an amen here? Okay. So, but why can't we agree that religious freedom shouldn't be used to harm any of us? What about our L-G-B-T-Q Brothers and Sisters? Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>, why? You know, and I was especially touching for me to say that 'cause a lesbian member of our staff was in the room. She's doing our social media and I was so aware of her, you know, the whole time. But, um, I mean, I think that a couple things. Number one, um, I think we need to be able to sit down together, um, as human beings and to make ourselves vulnerable and be authentic. I just spoke about this. I just did the, uh, baccalaureate address at Lehigh University on Saturday, which was a huge honor. And I actually spoke about come let us reason together and doing this. Excellent. Ah, um, so I'll have to, I'm actually gonna publish it in our church and state magazine Good for the July, August edition.

Rachel (29:54):

So you'll be able to read the whole thing then. But the, the Lehigh has an article up on their website about it. Now, if you wanna look, it quotes speech. But I think if we can sit down as our authentic selves with people who are from quote the other side, right? And so we don't have to hold our nose or give up being who we are, right? But we sit down authentically, but we're not, we're letting go of stereotypes and our defenses are down. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. And we're there because we want to see what we can, we realize there are real differences, but we also are hopeful that there is vast space in front of us where we can find shared territory and shared ground. Right? I think those, you gotta pick the right people for those conversations. But I think those conversations are incredibly valuable.

Rachel (30:42):

Mm-Hmm. That's what we did with Come let us reason together. So that's one thought. You know, and the other thought is, I truly believe that an issue like church state separation should be a great place for common ground. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. I mean, this is not like back in the 1980s, Americans united for separation of church and state was majority Republican. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. Um, and, you know, we're not anymore. Right? But we really should be. We are bipartisan. It is not, you know, it's not every day, but it's not unusual for me to speak to a member who's Republican. Um, and I really appreciate that we have bipartisan membership that is so important, you know, for, for our cause. And I feel like, you know, this should be as apple pie. This should be as American as apple pie and vanilla ice cream.

George (31:31):

Right? I'm

Rachel (31:32):

Hopeful that our issue can do some work in bringing people together. It's just more challenging today where religious extremists are operating so much in the culture war space that it makes it just so partisan, you know? And it, and it's really, it, it transcends partisanship. So I think there's also some hope there.

George (31:53):

We call our organization Faith Commons for the very reason you have just suggested that there should be space a commons to which people can come and bring their faith with them or no faith and, and participate fully in those kinds of conversations. Uh, Rachel, thank you so much for being with us. Thank you for leading Americans United, uh, for being a voice of reason and faith and, uh, promoting full participation in, in our democratic society. We look forward to, uh, having you here in Dallas in June, again, June 17th at North Haven United Methodist Church. You can look on social media to find, uh, the AU and Faith Commons, uh, promotion of all of this. Uh, but, uh, uh, thanks again for being on. Good God. And we look forward to seeing you soon.

Rachel (32:44):

Great to talk to you, and I can't wait.

George (32:46):

Thanks so much.