Did Tom Ascol Come Out for Blasphemy Law?
Florida pastor Tom Ascol, President of Founders Ministries and former candidate for the presidency of the Southern Baptist Convention, recently posted an excerpt from an 1897 Supreme Court decision, which stated, “The freedom of speech & of the press (art. 1) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation,...” He then went on to thank Aaron Reale, a writer who has fallaciously defended Christian Nationalism1 in the past, for sharing a Harvard Law Review article on the history of blasphemy law, confirming that this was his intent for sharing the quote.
As far back as 1925, the Baptist Faith & Message, the statement of faith for the United States’ largest denomination, that Ascol has sought the highest office in, has stated:
A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.2
There is no qualification of the quality or content of the opinions that the SBC deems worthy of free expression, and that should not receive any governmental interference. If Ascol is in agreement with this quote from the Robertson v Baldwin decision, then he is in direct contradiction with the BF&M. This would be especially hypocritical, considering violation of the BF&M is the reasoning that he and his allies are using to attempt to expel any church from the SBC who has a female minister, at any level of authority.
Secondly, there is a distinct difference between legal precedent and the morality of prior legal decisions. Referring to an aside from a 19th-century Supreme Court decision on military conscription, after the ratification of the 13th Amendment, for how 21st-century citizens should view religious freedom constitutes an appeal to tradition logical fallacy. For instance, would Ascol refer to how the Dred Scott decision interpreted the Fifth Amendment to make an argument for the morality of slave-holding or states rights?
Ultimately, Ascol must make a decision whether his highest loyalties are to a 19th-century interpretation of the limits to freedom of speech or to the view that our denomination has held for a century.
On December 18, Reale argued that “Christian Nationalism doesn't advocate for Theocracy or compelled religion,” when, in fact, the top selling pro-Christian Nationalist book, Stephen Wolfe’s The Case for Christian Nationalism argues both for what he calls theocratic Caesarism and compelled church attendance.
Baptist Faith & Message, sec. XVII