- Religious liberty is oftencalled America's first freedom.

25 years ago, Congressofficially established

January 16th as ReligiousFreedom Day in honor

of one of our founding documents.

David Closson is a research fellow

at the Family ResearchCouncil and joins us now.

So historically, theidea of religious freedom

enjoyed broad support.

How is it looking today?

- Well, good afternoon.

And yes, you're absolutely right.

Historically, religiousfreedom has enjoyed

broad bi-partisan supportin the United States.

In fact, in 1993, in responseto a Supreme Court decision

Congress introduced the ReligiousFreedom Restoration Act.

It was introduced bythen-Congressman Chuck Schumer

and in the Senate by Ted Kennedy.

It passed unanimously inthe House and by a 97-3 vote

in the US Senate.

And President Bill Clintonsigned it into law.

So you're right.

There was broad bi-partisansupport for religious freedom

for conscience protection in this country,

but that is changing today.

And that's problematic.

Just in the last couple ofyears you've seen this issue

come up with questionsbeing asked to nominees

to the Federal Judiciary.

And you've also seen this issue come up

in the wedding industrywhere bakers and florists...

Bakers like Jack Phillips out in Colorado

whose faith teaches themthat marriage is an ordinance

of God, and therefore theycannot be a part of a ceremony

that would require them tosay something that violates

their deeply heldconvictions and conscience.

These beliefs are comingunder attack in some sections

of our society.

- Why do you think judiciarynominees and people

like the baker havethese issues challenged?

Why is this happening?

- And that's a good question.

And on the judiciary, thatcaught everyone's attention

in 2017, when ranking member Feinstein,

if you remember in thesenate judiciary hearing,

asked Amy Coney Barrett about her faith

and kind of famously or infamously

you might say looked at her and said,

"Well, it looks like the dogmalives loudly within you."

And then she suggestedthat Barrett's faith

might be a concern.

And so you're seeing thesereligious freedom concerns

coming in conflict with some of the,

especially with the LGBTmovement, some of the issues

with the contested sexualorientation gender identity laws.

And that's where a lot ofthese conflicts are coming up.

- David, you write thatthere is a subtle shift

in language that can lead to a weakening

of religious freedom.

What's the differencebetween freedom of worship

and freedom of exercise of one's religion?

- Yeah, that's a great question.

You saw that language beingused by some officials

in the previous administration,some other organizations.

Freedom of worship, which is the language

you're seeing used by some,it implies you have the right

to do what you want withinthe four walls of your church,

you synagogue, or your mosque.

But then as soon as you walk out the door

or drive off the parking lot you lose

your religious liberty.

And that's not the case.

The Constitution providesfor the free exercise

of religion which allowspeople to exercise their faith,

to live out their life in accordance

with their fundamentalbeliefs and convictions.

And importantly, the SupremeCourt has affirmed this,

most recently in the Hobby Lobby case,

the Little Sisters of the Poor.

So it's a slight nuance with the language,

but the Constitutionprotects freedom of religion

and religious exercise notmerely just freedom of worship.

- Alright, David Closson, thankyou so much for your time.