money that will disappear other the next year or so, combined to make the state budget won't get well until long after mississippi's real economy is growing again. and strongly. while you state officials and i will still be wrestling with with these nasty budget problems as long as i'm around with governor, i predict our people, our businesses, mississippi's real economy, will see a lot of good things happening this year and next. you know, this is the day that we celebrate reverend martin luther king's birthday. he had a dream about america and our people. his "i have a dream" speech is one of the most famous and most quoted in the english language.

our little chat tonight will never be viewed in that league. but i would suggest to you that we should all have a dream about mississippi's future. i believe a time is fast approaching when mothers and grandmothers in our state will see their children and grandchildren staying in mississippi to make their careers and their futures because mississippi will be the best place, the place that offers the best opportunities to be productive, have a successful career, and a great quality of life for their families. that day is not far off. 2010 is the year when we will lead america out of this recession. the year when we will pick up where we left off before the recession that sidetracked our growing economy and rising incomes. we can and will out perform the

national economy. we were doing it before this global recession. and we'll be doing it again. so my advice to you as we close: is mississippi, believe in it. thank you y'all very much. [applause] [applause] :

now discussion on was concerning religious expression in the united states. and diverse group of palace produce what they call a consensus statements, that aims to clarify what the law says about public displays of religion. they talk about areas such as religion in politics and the workplace, religious gatherings on government property, and the legislative bodies in the military. this to our forum was hosted by the brookings institution. >> and so i want to introduce our very distinguished panel, and will introduce the other members later on. i want to start by introducing my friend and colleague and the person for whom i have a boundless respect and admiration , melissa rogers. i'm proud to say that melissa is a non resident senior fellow with the governance studies department at brookings and she also serves as director of a

wake forest university divinity school center for religion and public affairs. melissa teaches classes on christianity and public policy and on church-state relations in the united states. in 2008 baylor university press published a case she authored called religious freedom and the supreme court and to previously served as director of the purest form on religion and public life and as general counsel of the baptist find committee on public affairs. president obama appointed melissa to his council on faith based in everett partnerships in 2009. melissa has won many many awards, but not nearly as many as she deserves. at present you with melissa rogers. [applause] >> good morning and thanks to my friend, for that kind introduction appearing as you can tell, e.j. has such a way

with words and he always is able to put his finger right at the heart of an issue and i think him for that very eloquent introduction. i also want to thank just as we get started darrell west, emily, christine jacobs, and john at the brookings institution for helping. in this event, they encouraged the work. additionally i want to thank the divinities school and all the people named on the final inside page of this booklet that you have today particularly bill, james, adam what's, susan tag, enjoy robbins. without the support this project would have come together. that we began by highlighting continue to the first inside page of this document where you will see the list of the members of the drafting committee for this document. in this project in particular the drafters are as important as the draft. i want to recognize all these

distinguished leaders whether efforts, painstaking at times, and their commitment to religious freedom. and i'm going to call the names of the drafters who were able to join us today and if you wouldn't mind just raising your hand when i call your name. nathan diamond of the indian orthodox jew of america, richard fulton of the american jewish committee, charles haines of the freedom forum first amendment center, a holly hollman and brent walker of the baptist joint committee, shabbir mansuri of the institute for religious and civic values, colby may of american center for law and justice, rabbi david sat christine of the religious action center of reformed judaism, marc stern of the american jewish congress, mitchell formally of the general conference of seventh-day adventists and i hope i haven't missed any drafters in the audience with us today. isabel, my goodness, thank you.

you changed your name recently, but i'm so glad that you raise your hand here. isabel richmond of the first freedom center, a very valued drafter and came from richmond to join us this morning. thank you so much, isabel, for your participation in this project. well, again that what makes this statement particularly valuable is that it has been tightly drafted not only by a group that is quite diverse and religious terms but also diverse in terms of the church representatives. indeed, to some on the drafting committee are actually on opposite sides of church and state litigation it with some regularity. the drafting committee for the seven includes for example, a former staff member of the aclu, jeremy gone, an akron member of law and justice. investors like this can agree on what the law is i think it commands our attention. now as a document makes clear, saying that these experts agree

in many cases about what the law is is not to say that these rafters always agree about what the law should be. indeed, some of the members of the drafting committee are challenging and tried to push the law in different directions. the law that is described in this booklet. but while this diverse group often disagrees about how the law should address legal issues, the drafters agree in many cases on what the law is today. and more and fundamentally, the drafters agree that religious liberty for a freedom of conscience is a fundamental inalienable right of all people, religious and nonreligious, and that there is a need to correct misunderstandings about this right. indeed, we have drafted this statement because i don't have to tell you there is tremendous confusion about this area of the law. we hear a broad and inaccurate statements all the time. on the one hand, a statement

that somehow religion has been kicked out of the public square and, on the other hand, the statement that there are no limits on government deals with religion or just one or two. so this statement is an effort to try to blow away this mischaracterization to stick with the current law is where we can together and to educate people about that law. let me just say he may be wondering how long did this motley crew come together to draft the statement so let me to skivvy a bit of background on the genesis of this project if you will. the it began several years ago when the freedom forum first amendment center which is charles haines associated with the first half amendment and the freedom forum with the mccormick to be in an freedom museum hosted a conference and brought many of us together to talk about the future of religious liberty. at that conference we discussed

some ways in which some previous to my statements of current law have helped us educate americans about church state law. these statements some of you may remember or about religious expression in public schools and charles played an instrumental role in the development of these statements as did mark stern who will speak in just a moment. so we talked about those statements, their usefulness and decided that it would be a good idea to draft another joint statement. this one addressing some issues of religious expression in the wider public square including religion and politics, religious gatherings on government property, chaplains and the descent of bodies, prisons in the military, and religion in the workplace. i offered to convene a and facilitate the project under the auspices of this religion and public affairs at wake forest university divinity school and while i think it's safe to say there were times that all of us doubted our sanity for agreeing

to participate in this project we can say today had a happy ending. let me also just notes quickly that we have been very fortunate to have a number of statements of endorsement for this project by a distinguished and diverse group of leaders. we asked a handful of leaders to endorse the statement and i'm pleased the stanley carlson, president of the institution over the does freedom alliance is one of the endorses' could be with us today. well, let me just turn quickly to the document itself. we have divided the questions among ourselves so we can do just the briefest of overuse of some of the subjects that the saban addresses. the the statement by the way does not address every issue and is not address all specific fact patterns and instead is certain general principle of law and constitutional law. so let me say that the first roughly 11 questions deal with

generally religious role in public life and religion and politics. the statement makes clear that the first amendment protects the rights of religious groups to participate in political activities. religious individuals and groups like not a religious individuals and groups have a right to participate in the debate on all issues that are important in political and civic life. now, as the state notes organizations including religious ones which two qualify and 19 status tax-exempt c3 organizations that have to abide by certain restrictions on their political activities and you can see in the document questions nine through 11 briefly discuss those rules. i'm not going to take the time to discuss them right now but we can later if you wish. the caring for with the theme of religion and politics government officials religious beliefs man from their policy decisions so long as it be as not the predominant purpose or primer, in fact, the government action. but the mere fact that a law

coincides with religious tensions doesn't mean and that it violates their religious clauses of the constitution. for example, just because religions teach that death is wrong doesn't mean the government cannot act was against larceny. also the federal government may require a person to swear or affirm that he or she will support the constitution in order to serve as a government official but it may not require a person to promise allegiance to war against a god, any particular faith or any purely religious precepts in order to serve in government and those who make an affirmation are taken oath promising to fulfill certain duties toward government may choose to go so well placing a hand on a text and that is sacred to him or her whether the text is the bible or something else but this is not in any way required by the constitution. we also know in a statement that led to the officials have to protect and defend the constitution including a sound as one cause of the constitution. at the same time auletta

officials are given substantially way to refer to religious ideas and communities and talk about their personal beliefs including personal religious beliefs in their official capacities. the constitutional lines in this area aren't always clear but we pride provided a few examples of where this might run afoul of the establishment clause in question and answer seven. levy concluded with an overarching now to put before i do i want to know it's bad beer to duke has done this from the ethics of religious liberty commission of the southern baptist commission and he is here, we're so happy here and richard land of the southern baptist convention was a tractor and we're grateful for his participation in the project. so let me just conclude with one overarching now to that dovetails from comments ej made. i thought one of our purpose was drafting this document was to attempt to educate people about current law. we also have another purpose and that is we know that we can and should have a better

conversation about religion's role in public life. and we hope this statement will help us to sell. the statement should help settle the debate about whether current law provides protection for the rights of religious expression and practice in public life. it clearly does and it should focus our attention on the merits of specific laws and court decisions in this area. and as we say in this document, we hope that as we americans debate is a very important areas of church-state law and religion's role in public life, we will describe the law accurately. doing this job of describing the law accurately certainly people not in our debate over religious liberty but it should help to make them much more productive. with that, let me thank you again for being here and let me turn over the microphone to e.j. again for the introduction of the other valued colleagues.

[applause] >> thank you, melissa, and we are very honored with colleagues on this as well as many of the folks in the audience. charles haynes, many are you familiar with his work. he is senior scholar at the freedom forum first amendment center and he directs the religious liberty initiatives at the museum in washington d.c.. he is best known for his work on first amendment complex in public-school over the past two decades, he has been the principal organizer and drafter a consensus guidelines on religious liberty in american schools. personally i think that's one of the most important documents and you and has produced a long time on the subject because he clears a lot of way, a lot of ground to secure actual religious liberty in the schools. and to put aside and useless argument that it was endorsed by

a broad what range of educational groups. he's the author and co-author of six books including first freedoms, documentary history f. gerson and rice in america come a series of other books, his column inside the first amendment appears in more than 250 newspapers nationwide and as somebody who writes a, that's a lot of newspapers. he holds a master's degree from harvard. a doctorate to and from every university. mark stern, welcome, he's acting consecutive director and general counsel of the american jewish congress and director of its commission on law and social justice in intergroup relations. one of the most respected lawyers in the u.s. on church-state and religious liberty issues. he's consulted widely by many jewish and non-jewish organizations. interested in maintaining the separation of church and state. he's widely interviewed in the printing and broadcast media. he has been named one of the

fourth 50 most influential leaders of the american jewish committee. when i saw the board and 50i thought was a basketball group. [laughter] this is a very --. >> [inaudible] >> prior to joining the american jewish congress u.s. law clerk to the u.s. court of appeals for the fourth circuit. he was an undergraduate at issue the jorge graduated summa cum laude. he received his legal education at columbia university school of law where he was managing editor of the columbia journal ought lot in social problems. end colby may, director and senior counsel of the washington office of the american center for law and justice. he has been with the ac l.j. since 1994, he specializes in litigation regulatory proceedings communications and technology, nonprofit tax issues and first amendment law. he's a graduate of george mason university school of law and has

represented parties in various amicus briefs and in other ways in so many landmark supreme court cases that i have a five and a half pages of them here. you'll forgive me if i don't read them all but they stand as a history of first amendment litigation in our country over the last many years. he has testified before congress on a variety of matters including the religious liberty and protection act, the houses of worship political speech protection act, he is an adjunct professor of law at regent university in virginia beach. he is on the board of directors of many civic and charitable organizations including another is enough, a pro-family organization working toy interee should discuss some day.

i first call on charles haines for his response. >> thank you very much, he said, for that generous introduction and i am delighted to talk to the rest of my drafters and i want to begin by expressing deep gratitude to melissa rogers. to mention the that this started in the future of religious freedom. the future is now. [laughter] it took us that long to get here today. banaa because melissa did in to her job because the rest of us kept her from getting it finished pushing not only did it start their but it was her idea and then she volunteered to do it. i think he might do that over again differently than today but her leadership has been extraordinary. her negotiating skills and things to her the american people now have a i think it's fair to say the first-ever

consensus statements on constitutional role of religious expression in american public life under current law and those of you who are not with the press concerning now applauding melissa for her leadership on that. [applause] >> well, the document released today builds on the civility and the trust that have characterized similar common ground negotiations over the past two decades. now the people at the table have very, but the process i would say has consistently reflected a share dedication to first amendment principles. even when we disagree on how to apply those principles. and an abiding commitment to treat one another with fairness and respect. now prior common ground agreements, nine in all by now, have focused on religion in public schools as e.j. mention and beginning with guidelines

for teaching about religion in 1988. i think i have the last surviving copy although mark says he has won so there may be too last copies. you have won? there are three copies left in the world. this old. we actually printed them. but that goes way back beginning with that. that was an interesting negotiation. and more recent agreement on appropriately because of the comprehensive nature of many of these earlier agreements we didn't find it necessary to include in this statement more than a brief summary of the common ground already reached on the place of religion in public schools and we simply then refer people to those more

comprehensive statements otherwise this would have been a book. in answer to questions 33 and 34 you will find briefly and we reaffirm their the public school officials cannot promote or endorse religious expression but we underscore that students are free to express their faith so long as there are not disruptive, don't infringe on the rights of others and to comply with the same time place and manner restrictions applicable to other non school related student expression. and we reaffirm that public schools may teach about religion. and we finally get over the method that religion can't be discussed in public schools. they can teach about religion as opposed to engaging in a religious indoctrination, of course where appropriate as an important part of the complete education. the consensus on what the law requires on key issues involving religious expression in public schools this bill that more fully in these earlier joint

statements, i would say has helped transform how many public school districts apply the first amendment. in 2000, three of these consensus statements are set by the u.s. department of education to public schools in the united states. and that provided school leaders with a legal safe harbor for addressing conflicts over religion in schools. now, having worked with hundreds of school districts on these issues were two decades, i can say with confidence that common ground reached on a national level frequently enables local communities to adopt policies and practices that enjoy broad public support. that's why this matters. the success in the school arena is a powerful illustration of why the work of finding common ground it is essential for the

civic health of our country. based on the track record of these past agreements, i'm convinced that this new joint statement covering a wide range of issues can play and will play a significant role in preventing litigation, encouraging civil discourse, and promoting public understanding of the religious liberty principles of the first amendment. at a time of rapidly expanding religious diversity, ongoing culture wars, of religion, this agreement is a welcome reminder that america still works. seeking common ground is not an attempt to ignore or minimize differences that are deep and abiding, but rather a reaffirmation of what we share as americans across our differences. as father john courtney murray

famously reminded this years ago, the first amendment principles that sustained the american experiment of religious liberty are not our articles of faith. we have those of our different ways. but they are, he said, are articles of peace. and now more than at any time in our history it is imperative that we live and model of these articles of peace and our life together as citizens of one nation with many faiths with many cultures with many peoples. thank you very much. [applause] >> my colleagues all of whom the

i have worked for many years have a knack for saying the right thing. i have a knack for saying the wrong thing. [laughter] >> that's why he is invited to be on panels. >> a radical tendency in some of my family. i guess that much has come down. like much else in american life, church-state separation and religious liberty are today highly polarized topics or at least so it appears. presently contending for influence of those who see religion as an indispensable pillar of the state and those who would confine it religion to the purely private sphere. debates over highly charged issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion touch both popular discourse on both freedom from the established religion and freedom of religious practice. these debates seem to take on more intense analysis time goes on, the abortion or is more than 35 years old and shows no sign

of abating. the abortions wars battle over same-sex marriage are to the complicated by competition wars with the quality of our liberty and those who prize liberty over equality. the emergence in the last 5210 years of visible and active secular movements with litigious organizational arms is good for lawyers have added a new dimension to american debate over religious presence in the public sphere. the square leading to challenges to a variety of practices including manifestations of civil religion and others concerned with every have long ignored. accommodation of religion was routinely accepted are now challenged. life insurance assembler 30 or four years ago or so it appears in hindsight and all i thought about was prayer and bible reading in the public school and parochial schools and provision of unemployment the saturday sabbath. as he did mention the issues i have mentioned and which we're divided important and understandably disappear and i don't think we ought to shy away from vigorous debate nor do i think the country cannot survive

unbridgeable gap between those with differing views on the place of religion and public life. one argument i can stand and he repeatedly is if you raise the argument you'll be divisive. it's an odd argument in a democracy. what would be damaging, however, would paraphrase to pick up on argument and to paraphrases the report from the days of the solarize movement would be the wise been a proven that we are two unbridgeable separate and unequal over religion in the law. the joint statement we are releasing today should at a minimum dispel the suggestion that such a gap exists or at least it is unbridgeable entirely. sec there's broad agreement on important points if not always with the law should have been but when it is. people knew what the law was there would be less likely to be offended to the demagogues of right and left to either drama the secularism or religious fanatics for capturing a lot of religion and state. ..

finally, a personal loan to the effort to produce the joint statements have overtime lead to personal or organizational relationships the would not have existed and frankly the depths the would not have existed as well but for the drafting process. it is a matter of great results

the polarization of the last decade there have not been efforts to create joint statements. i think that's led to a centrifugal force -- i never took physics, that's it, that have drawn apart over time i think. i've been asked and tasked with the impossible job of explaining to you the rules on access to public land for private religious speech, question 17 and 21. since i don't understand this i'm not quite sure how one way to explain it. it gets more and more confusing every time the supreme court clarified it. there are four categories of cases you have to keep in mind. the first is access to government to its own property for the purpose of displaying its own symbols including religious symbols. the important country here's the establishment clause as construed in cases involving crashes in the ten commandments. we now however note that the

government is under no obligation to allow balance or competing symbols on its own party if it excludes of robotics itself. the traditional public forum is the second category. this is land set aside by tradition whenever that might be for public expression such as parks or sidewalks. hear more access more to be cut by religious groups poses the establishment clause problem, the pope can say mass on the great lawn or in new york choral mall here and there's no establishment, there's no unconstitutional aid to religion. on the contrary the exclusion of of the religion only from these places would be a violation of the establishment clause, the free access calls, and free speech clause. however reasonable time place and manner restrictions limit on the number of people attending with a disappointing level of soudet application to the cult amplification equipment are permissible in the context. the state need not make available a tradition to public debate but to look for in chooses to open public debate. if it does so intentionally, not

by accident, it's created designated public forum subject to the same rules as applicable to traditional public forums. in particular, in a designated public forum content base with no discussion of politics or religion or viewpoint based restrictions, catholics or allowed, protestants are not are in permissible. but again, time, place or manner the nonpublic forum, state jail, is public property give which is kept close to the public and hear the government is free to exclude everybody from speaking however if it chooses to allow some people in it cannot engage in viewpoint discrimination, will allow people who favor government policies to speak in this nonpublic forum but not others. now here comes the hard case -- and don't worry if you don't understand it because i think it's completely unintelligible. [laughter] part case is what is sometimes called, you will love this, the limited designated public forum. that is the government limits

and sets up an otherwise nonpublic forum for a limited speech purposes, say a form of community to be a good discussion of community interest or community issues if it's a community group made and say it will exclude abortion services because these do not fall within parameters of the intention of the open forum. the forums for discussion of community issues and praying. well, that's not within the balance of the forum we set up. first you have to decide is that content based exclusion, we are excluding a particular kind of content worship services or is that viewpoint discrimination, we are excluding the viewpoint that god can help us through our problems? i don't know the answer to that question. don't expect help. some courts say yes, that sort of -- when you said at a designated four of you can limit what sort of speech you will allow. other courts say no you can't. some courts say you could do it on the basis of content but not viewpoint. of course they can't agree -- av

the supreme court's cases are in complete disarray as to whether an explosion of religion is an exclusion of the point where an explosion of content. and you can possibly understand it either way. we didn't even attempt consensus on this issue; there was hard enough to understand it. there is a case presently pending before the supreme court which is supposed to clarify what will undoubtedly muddied the waters still more and which a christian group, christian legal society, was denied access to a law school for rahm -- that is a student club pool that allowed people to meet in classrooms and use e-mail to announce a meeting -- because, strangely enough, the christian club thought that people who belonged in those offices should be christians. and they said, no, our designated limited forum is only open to cluster open to everybody. and, of course, there's a sexual orientation issue as well. and the way the case gets

litigated is whether this is a designated public forum in which case these are content and key point based discrimination, or whether it's a designated limited forum in which case these are the rules that marked off the forum, and therefore you fall outside the forum and you can be excluded. look for greater confusion by the end of the term on this area of law. i think it is a singular accomplishment of melissa and her drafting skills that she manages the state in the document all these rules in deceptively simple and coherent fashion. i cannot resist before colby gets up to speak that the real merkel here is that he got out at all because unlike the rest of us, colby knows the rules of english grammar and cares about them, and knows the rules for citing legal cases and cares about them. most of the rest of us put both of those out of mind as soon as we graduated in elementary school and -- lescol in reverse

order. we nevertheless overcame his objections to get a statement out. [applause] >> if you prefer to talk about rules of grammar that's okay. you can do that. [laughter] >> thanks a lot. i tend to agree that sometimes the rules of grammar can be maybe more ascertainable than some of the rules that we've put forward in this joint statement. but i do, like all the others on to thank melissa for her leadership on this. it wouldn't have happened otherwise command to be on the panel with charles haynes i think is also a distinct privilege because charles in many ways as we discussed earlier before the panel began i regard him as kind of the godfather of all of these events where, you know, we need to try and work things out and see with the common grounds are. and every time i've participated and been given the privilege to do so i can tell you the low and

behold there is pretty good common ground that exists between the two. but lots of times in the fever of the moment a few well it seems those of us that are engaged in an indication of these areas are sort of in this constant fever. it's difficult to sort of calm down a little bit and say well okay, we can agree with those things. but clearly as has been noted when it comes to the intersection of religion and government there's no doubt the signers of the document disagree over what the law should be but in many ways along in this area is clear and we want to be about to give you some insights and direction on how that happens. just as surely as we are all in the throes of figuring out what the law should be we are actively trying to get the courts to ship the law and ways we actually want to be and so marrec made illusion to the case my organization the american center for justice litigated

where we recently obtained unanimous decision from the united states supreme court just this past said you were a which noted governance may in fact accept permanent monuments from private parties including the ten commandments monument and they may in fact display those monuments without otherwise opening of shall we say this public forum which obligates the government to allow divergent or contrary points of view to be done. now not surprisingly many in the academy if you will opposed us on that and yet we very much or about trying to carve the law and push in the direction we think is appropriate in order to fulfil the aspirations of the founders and to recognize the importance of religious liberty. so, when we come together of what the law currently answers these basic questions regarding, what really brought us together is our shared conviction that religious liberty and the freedom of conscience are in

fact fundamental. they are inalienable rights for all people, and it's our hope the efforts to find consensus will spur others to engage in another and similar efforts to find that common ground as charles said many times over the years. now, in keeping with the format of this morning's kind of panel, let me briefly polka some of the specific issues. and it's when you get down to the nitty gritty of the various issues reason to litigate or of controversy over that's when all negative breaks loose you might say. in my home when i was growing up my mother didn't like the other words she always made sure she said when all have an breaks loose because she was an optimist and wanted the good things the of the other things you might say. so let me briefly discuss a few of these. i want to touch base on the national motto, prayer in certain public events including inaugurals of what officials and the like, prayer at the beginning of legislative sessions and then why government does not violate the establishment clause when hikers

military and prison chaplains who is of the is function, of course, is to perform religious services and me to the religious needs of those who are in the government charged. these are questions generally 23325 and the joint statement that you have. let me state categorically the national motto in god we trust does not establish a state religion or impermissibly endorse religion over non-religion. this is so because, as the courts have noted for many, many decades, the motto which originated during the war f-18 12th come has become so deeply interwoven into the fabric of our civil policy that its primary effect is one of ceremonial patriotism, and it bares no real resemblance to government sponsorship of a religious exercise. now even in the face of this general consensus, however, the freedom from religion foundation recently challenged the increasing of the national motto at the new capitol visitors

center here in washington. so stay tuned. we will see what happens as the case may develop itself out. turning to the customary practice of prayer at inaugural events come here, too, the courts of a general consensus that the practice can be traced back to the founding of the country and that this distinctive history and ubiquity allows such prayer to be treated as ceremonial exercises and not asking from the sponsorship of religious exercise. in addition in this context, because inaugural events involve the individual to places of the electoral officials as to what's going to be in or not in that particular ceremony or even, the oath of office notwithstanding, the courts have usually given difference in those decisions. and then the last reason we can say with some confidence that inaugural prayers are permissible is that the courts just simply have not been convinced that inaugural prayers

are reduced to affiliate's the government with religion or to otherwise proselytize. now regarding legislative prayers, it's also clear that are permissible in the legislative bodies may employ chaplin's to provide prayer during legislative sessions and this so for the reason stated in march of the chamber's second 1983 which is in light of the indigenous and unbroken history of more than 200 years there can be no doubt that the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part of the public of society to invoke divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making the laws is not in these circumstances and establishment of religion or a step towards establishment. it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country. now this acknowledgement, however, is not open-ended, and they're continues to the litigation in the area in the lower courts, particularly over when official prayers,

particularly of the local, county and city levels may become an permissible government attempts to proselytize or advanced any one religion or disparage any other religion or belief. therein lies the rub so you have to be careful. while in the general that may be permissible, in the particular all negative may break loose in the words of my grandmother. now, last week in the context of military and prison chaplains while there's controversy over when and what if any limitations may properly be placed upon the religious exercise and prayer of those officials and what they may offer carries a general consensus the government may and indeed perhaps should hire such a chaplains and make them available as an accommodation to the individuals that are in charge of the government. coming as far back as the supreme court decision in 1963 in what abington v. schempp, a

decision which struck the mandatory bible readings of public schools, the courts acknowledged that when the government requires someone to be somewhere -- in this case the context of armed forces and prisoners -- when they have to be in specific places for specific times and they are otherwise denied the opportunity to practice their faith that the place and time of their choosing, then in order to avoid infringing their free exercise guarantees, the government should provide substitutes where it requires that person to be. each of these categories -- d'amato, the prayer at public events and inaugurals, legislative prayers, military and public job once and prison chaplains, of course they have no one says. we've tried to address those nuances to the extent inappropriate in the try statement. and we think that we -- will be helpful as you actually get the friction points of these things played out in the day-to-day life.

that's why i commended the try statement to you. i look forward to today's discussion on this, and again i want to thank every member of the panel and the opportunity to be able to participate in the drafting of this document. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, thank you so much. i must say by the way as a catholic of a certain age i particularly appreciate the question and answer format. this is kind of the catechism of law and religious liberty. and i very much appreciate a point that marc made the american law is more moderate fundamentally than demagogues would have it. religion has not been driven from the public square, and we are not moving down the road toward a theocracy. and i think that the first amendment itself invites balance since it says the congress shall make no law as doubles and religion or interfere with its free exercise, and i always think instructed by my lawyer, melissa, a lot of our arguments are about two halves of the

first amendment and how we can live by both of them. i want melissa to join me in moderating this, and we are going to bring in the audience fairly quickly. but for people who sort of are not all that familiar with this area that you all are very familiar with, they might come to this and say okay, all you smart lawyers have actually manage to agree on what the law says what good is that, actually? what difference does a document of this would make a? well eight bordoff lummis azar litigation? my take comfort to both of the more secular and more religious americans that along makes more sense that either of them might imagine? could you talk about the why this matters? suggest why i think it matters by the curious who would like to take that first. maybe melissa since you were responsible eckert for everything except the grammar which kolbe was -- [laughter]

>> no camano. i want to emphasize again before getting into that question this document was drafted jointly by all these people. we did it together. it was a joint draft -- >> stop blaming the rest of us, melissa. [laughter] >> we are all in this together. and i want to say that all of these topics come in the one of the drafters could stand up and talk for two or probably all day about, so i want to bring the folks that are with us of the front of the rim come part of the drafting committee into the conversation quickly. but to really reiterate quickly, and then i will turn to my colleagues, i do think that this statement that there has been just an incredibly brain-dead discussion about religious expression in american public life in so many contexts, and part of that brain-dead nature of that conversation is that there are so many false claims about religion in public life --

just the idea that religious groups can't meet on government property, just to cite one. now, they can't always do so in every context, but of course they can in many contexts, and this document even though the law is very complicated, as marc described, makes that point clear. and so i do hope that this document will help us to have that more productive discussion about religion's role in public life, which is so important to all of us whether we are religious or not religious. it's important to all of us and we ought to have an accurate and productive discussion. >> i can give concrete examples to each of e. j.'s questions to be just so you know that this is all the waste of time, this actually gets out there and is used. it remains to be seen how this document will be used, but earlier documents, if you look at school district policies around the country, just go and look what do you have on religion in schools and schools

districts that have worked on good policy -- and there are quite a few now -- you will see quoted verbatim a lot of these earlier consensus statements including the one marc draft of religion in schools, or including the one buzz thomas and i negotiated earlier in the history of this tvd will see actually they used these are read words and language because groups are on one side and the others who signed on to these agreements, they have now a basis for developing policies and the courage to do it. that plays out in preventing a lot of fights in those school districts. and you hear about the fights and you hear about lawsuits but you don't hear about the ones that didn't happen. and i can tell you a lot more would happen if it hadn't been for this consensus. so it's a prevented it kind of measure. the bible to guide that we put out in 2000, and ken marc was instrumental in that as well, and i can tell you the state boards of education have used

this guideline, a consensus on guidelines to filter request for a bible course is the comco are the constitutional, are they not, the look of the guidelines that drafted the christian legal society, the evangelical society, people for the american way, groups that often litigate each other over this vital issue are signed on to the guidelines so that state board, the local board has some way of telling is this legit, is it not under the current law? so the bible guide has been very significant. and the more recent one that just a small number of organizations worked on but still important on how to deal with sexual orientation in public schools is more of the process guide, it's not prescriptive legal fight but it's how you get down to a conversation about this and maybe find some common ground. and i can tell you there's a number of school districts run the country that have used that process and that guide to find some common ground on that very difficult and volatile issue in their public school.

so those are some concrete ways in which this kind of agreement can actually change life in local communities in ways that bring people together rather than send them into court or into bitterly divided argument. >> let me try another couple of examples from the broader community. there is a rumor around that there is a petition that the fcc to the license -- delicense all religious broadcasters and that's unconstitutionally required. i think it's probably generated more letters to the fcc than anything else. the latest efforts to raise cable rates may change that. this statement for this bills that. of recent slight over health care has led the bishops to take a position on two things which ought to have been controversy. once the abortion issue and of course the other is the whole idea of there being some

communal responsibility to the care of the poor. but one of those was said to be a violation of church and state, the other gets passed over in utter silence, and you get a false debate about whether the church has any right to be heard on a public issue. these things than generate controversy that has no basis in law, leave aside public policy, no basis in law yet you routinely see claims the irs ought to be investigating this for the fcc shouldn't be doing that when it is all nonsense. and that is a waste of public energy. it creates disagreement and sometimes bordering on hatred that is unnecessary. it doesn't serve a useful function. there's a legitimate debate about the role of abortion and health care program and legitimate debate, not 1i have much sympathy with whether the government has any responsibility for health care, legitimate debate about how much religious broadcasts radio spectrum. all of those things are legitimate to date. what is not legitimate are the issues i've said are the ones

being debated and we hope this statement will clear the air. we can have real debates. that's important enough to do. >> yeah, i would add when we think that the jury statement on religious expression in public schools, i can't tell you how many times we do demand letters to various churches -- or various schools and school districts and usually that's the first place we direct them to, saying perhaps you should take a look at a joint statement and educate your general counsel as to what the law really is in this area and then we can avoid this whole dispute and not get involved down in the weeds on issues that have long since been resolved. so, you know, they do have a very practical day-to-day impact and usefulness, and that's obviously what you hope. now that's not to say that when marc is involved in a piece of litigation soon over some issue that's discussed in this trend statement that i'm going to be able to cite this same welcome marc, use it in the tristate

such and such because that's not what this otherwise is -- sprick there is a wonderful story i heard in law school. i was a fellow -- there was a fellow who wrote a book on securities law. he gets to argue a securities case represented a plaintiff for a corporation and one of the judges means donner and says the professor in this book loss on securities law the opposite conclusion is reached. and the professor looks and says that's because you are looking at the first edition. wait until the second edition comes out. [laughter] >> before we turn first to some of the other signers who may want to intervene and any other questions. i want to ask one other question. i was struck by questions eight through even where an answer to the question does the first amendment place restrictions on the politically activities of religious organizations, the answer is a flat no. and that's important. but then obviously we

immediately get into the irs restrictions on political activities of tax-exempt organizations. i've always said i expect to see a church called seat 501c3 somewhere. could you talk about that distinction because i think to the reader the first donato might answer all questions in fact it doesn't but that the , to see if i will 1c3 issue have to do with the first amendment and simply how much does it have to do with taxes law? >> to get into another complicated supreme court set of doctrines. the answer the courts are unrestrained and political activity rests on at least two supreme court cases where the court said that explicitly, and has been said by both conservatives chief justice burger and by liberals justice brennan. so there's no question about that constitutional question.

the question is when they become too successful and actually persuade the legislature then there's restrictions but released the churches are free to see whatever they want. there is a -- to competing doctrines. one is the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions. i can't give a government benefit and then say you can only get it if you get up on some other constitutional right. so, for instance, in 1957 the supreme court said if you give a tax credit or deduction to veterans, you can't take it away from veterans who happen to be on the left of the political spectrum and because that is an unconstitutional condition to a light. you can't make the excise of one flight condition on waving a constitutional right. that's one doctrine in the supreme court's annunciated. the supreme court's also enunciated another doctrine. it's like what is the newton second law? for every doctor there's a counter doctrine. the counter doctrine is the government doesn't have to slice speech it doesn't like. the most famous case of course

is russell versus sullivan. the supreme court said you don't have -- the government is entitled to fund, you know, contraception and not abortion, and it's not an unconstitutional condition to ask planned parenthood to say you can't perform abortions with our money. and that's the same doctrine that says we are not going to subsidize libraries and allow access to child pornography or it's the same doctrine that would allow a municipality which they felt an art grant to turn down a racist please. the student prince cannot be coherent the experts together, and that is when your question is a very good one. on the one hand, the government doesn't have to subsidize, which is how the court takes it all the wood is debatable as well, the government doesn't have to subsidize with a tax exemption for tax deductions beach that's directly political, partisan political activity. on the other hand, that sounds like a classic unconstitutional condition. the leading i can say to you is when the issue was presented to it directly to the supreme court and not in the context of 501-c3

in churches but 501-c3 also has a general ban on a not for profits, which state the exemption from engaging in partisan political activity, and a substantial amount of lobbying. there's an extension from the lobbying activities for veterans' groups. mog veterans groups challenge that as amongst other things as an on constitutional convention to the conviction. the supreme court said when it gives up its tax exemptions it is free to decide which speech it will subsidize and which it won't reduce we think all those people are challenging it i think is pretty clear the court said this falls on the subsidy side. but why it's not an unconstitutional condition remains an open question that there is no good answer for. ..

>> but having established those two sort of goals on either end e of the playing field, you get down to is something sort of a suggestion and therefore it is an endorsement and it violates the restriction. and the irs, i'm not kidding, melissa who had considerable expertise as well, they have the policy that says, you know, without actually endorsing or using any expressed advocacy on

behalf of the candidate, you can still utter coded words, which we will then innate wit to mean an actual endorsement. if you say life at all levels or don't forget a women's right to choose. the government might think what you are doing is you are endorsing the candidate who is pro life or the candidate who's pro choice. and now you've violated the prescription. it becomes an opaque kind of amaze that you have to work through against the two clericals. you can't endorse or advocate, but you can't do a lot of it. >> does somebody have mic? i want shh somebody to come in front to transition to the audience. >> really quick. it won't surprise you to know that there are people in the drafting committee that have problems with some of the irs

rules. other who feel the rules are reasonable and well stated. we again were stating what the irs says about it's rules and not necessarily agreement about whether that's the best way for it to articulate it's rolls. and just to give the quick answer, would be that these restrictions are from the tax exempt. some people think the first amendment sets down the rules. instead, it is the attempt to and to maintain tax exempt status. so let me before -- >> i just want to make one

comment. >> yes. >> the nasty secret is that these rules are largely self-enforcing or not self-enforcing. the irs, the last time i looked, a couple of years ago, i think took on 100 had cases a year of 501c3 violations for political activity. i can't remember the last lobbying campaign, probably planned parenthood in the '30s. most of the enforcement is self-enforcement. there has been an effort first by americans united and more lately by others to turn 501c3 into a political weapon. and as people catch the other side in a violation, and then report to the isr. which both because of secrecy and because everybody forgets after the election is over. nobody bothers to notice that the irs has properly done nothing about it. you need to keep this proportion as well.

>> i was thinking by the way, coded words. many preachers give sermons about hope and change. i wonder if those would have been coded words. >> only if somebody was listening to the service. >> can i just recognize that joshua dubois and michael have joined us. so glad you are here. >> you can speech and not be heard. >> this is just a wonderful document. one might think that current law speaks to itself. so the fact that we've been able to dig into these complex issues and find some common ground across various lines are tremendous. we will certainly be reading this closely. i will share with my colleagues. and from the office they are going to stick around. thank you, appreciate the great work that's been done.

>> thank you so much. i'm going to thank you for being here. we appreciate very much. >> that really wasn't intended as a transition. i was inspired. go ahead. >> we want to bring into the conversation and the drafters into the conversation. i wonder if we can get a few questions, if you have a question, raise your hand. and we will encourage the drafters to answer the questions with us. so -- >> from the baptist press. >> i any that's permitted me content-based discrimination. i'm from the associated baptist press. two questions. number one, charles can probably best answer this. what was the most difficult of these affirmations to get con kenoses -- consensus on? number two, one of the benefits of the public school, clinton sent out to the guidance.

there is a proactive part of your plan to get the governments or various entities affected by this consensus statement. and the follow up, can you agree? >> probably not. in fact, i could go down the line and take nominations for what people thought was the most difficult. >> wouldn't you say workplace? >> yeah, one place we did struggle, here i have to point to my colleague. nathan was stall worth in keeping us going on the workplace issue. we did, as you can tell, arrive as a statement. i thank nathan and rich here. he's going to talk about these issues a little bit more in a moment. >> it was fair to say that one point, can i say outside the committee? we almost didn't put it in there. >> yeah, because we were having trouble. >> we couldn't find shared language on what actually the law said. and they said you can't produce this. i think it was really the

pushback. that you can't produce a document on these issues. people said where's the workplace? >> could somebody explain that? i think people are familiar with what the religious issues. >> i think it's time to turn to risk. he's going to talk about that part of the statement. >> okay. do you want me to? >> yes. >> and i forget the other questions. >> okay. thanks. this was actually the market at some point. so we've done it sort of spontaneously. >> yeah. >> let me -- since i've got this. i want to make an introductory mark. i think melissa has been modest in her role of bringing this out. i think the day may come from melissa, together with the commodities, a great person of

law. that's assuming the law stays as it is long enough for that. [laughter] >> i also want to note that as founded, as we founded earlier similar exercises on religion in public school, the equal access act, there's been far more common ground in the areas, including the role of leading in the workplace than we might have expected. it's important not only to understand the common no,nalties but also in the a multifaith nation. nevertheless, coming to the direct question that was asked, i think one the reasons why the religious in the workplace proved to be so difficult but notwithstanding if there is a said plait of said law, there are differing values on how we are supposed to deal with religion. and in the workplace, a lot of

this came to the forefront. i think two of those areas where there's some help is the disagreement that you don't get to impose your vision on others. you don't get to use the government as a way to proposing the religious inspection. and there are protections in place in the workplace to avoid the religious expression. and yet on the other hand. none of us is entitled to walk around in the bubble in the religious perspectives that are contrary to our own. those are broad values that i think we share. as one struggles with how that is realized in terms of the application in the workplace, i think that's where a lot of these differences as we could -- what is the right change to capture. in terms of value and law. so having said that, let me go into the part which i was charged which, which is to talk briefly about what's the group concluded are the

commonalities. so i put this in two brood categories. one is the discrimination versus accommodation. what are the distinctions between not discriminating against people and yet at the same time, how do we deal with the accommodations. the second is the distinctions between the government workplace and nongovernment workplace. i think those are the two brood themes that the disability. firstly, secular nongovernmental employees may not discriminate because of his or her faith or lack thereof. employees are responsible to assure that employees are not subject to harassment in the workplace placed on their religious affiliation and beliefs or lack thereof. and having said that, employees called soup -- supervisory in

the workplace have some power. they must understand that their religious or antireligious expression can be coercive, even if it's not intended to be. and that's government and nongovernment employers. so i would call that sort of the equal treatment prong of how we deal with these issues. but then you deal with the accommodation principal which by definition means that in some cases employees are going to be obligated to do things for religiously observant that they wouldn't otherwise have to do. it's the nondiscrimination sets the floor. but on the other hand, we have to deal with the reality of employees with their religious observances that are accommodated and will in practice mean they are being treated differently than other employees. because they are not able to function understand the general rules that would be applicable to employees. that is covert by title 7 which provides that you have to

provide a reasonable accommodation of a religious practice or belief unless there's an undue hardship for the employee. which has been come to be understood as including the undue hardship on religious workers fellow employees. what those terms mean is of course the subject of concern. some of us in this room have worked on an effort to strengthen existing laws that are more protective of religious practice or belief than the current law. but even existing law must be clear, it is not -- we find it -- even with some unfavorable supreme court opinion, there is an obligation to provide that. and there are cases that employees win when the employers fails to provide that accommodation. it does provide, if not enough protection a certain degree of protection that needs to be recognized. and the kinds of cases where this comes up are cases having to do typically with somebody

who needs an accommodation in terms of not working on certain days because of holy days and the sabbath because they are required groomed a certain way, wear a beard or certain clothing, and in some cases, but nevertheless, cases which somebody has a religious within the certain duties. so of again, that's the equal treatment pillar. and then as modified by the obligation to accommodate. and then very briefly, turning to the government to impact all of these principals on the government, the same rules typically apply. but of course the government operates as well under statutes and constitutional rules that create another layer of law to consider. the government with personal speech including religious or

antireligious which understand to be the responsibilities. so in that respect, it's actually the government is sort of -- it is in fact parallel to a private employer in their ability to regulate what goes on within the workplace. but there are also free speech, first amendment implications as well. which may to some extent limit the ability of the government to regulate speech and to certainly where there's speech takes place outside where the free speech protections would apply to an employee that might not otherwise be the case for the private employee. and the final area that i'm just going to touch upon, which is in terms of these constitutional protections and how they apply to employee is the expression of religious perspective in the workplace. here we go back to the equal treatment notion. which is of course modified by the constitutional protections

of free exercise of religious and as well as statutory protection. so that sometimes a -- the establishment clause may require the government to restriction the religious or antireligious speech. it does not appear that the government is endorsing the popular speech. it given in the document is prepared the toll booth. it can't be hanging out religious track or antireligious for people as come through and pay their toll. on the other hand, the speech takes place between the employees. you can't topic at least up to the point. the one says to the other, please stop talking about me for these matters. in which harassment in the workplace can come into play. there's also been some discussion about -- in looking at these issues whether or not the religious freedom restoration act plays out in providing additional layer of

protection to the employees in the workplace in the government workplace beside title seven. but there's some controversy as to whether or not religious freedom restoration act which was intended to provide statutory application of the free exercise of supreme court diminish those protections. there are some controversy as to whether that applies to government employees. i think the court is going to clarify or not clarify for us in the future. >> thank you so much. i think that answers the question as to why it was complicated. not complicated in the sense of why, but could i suggest military? >> there's a second question. >> okay. the second question is phase one is completion of the document. we have completed phase one, phase two is already underway. but certainly will be a substantial effort to disseminate to state the localities, to mayiers, city council members, and all kinds of government officials who have to deal with these questions

daily. we hope this document will be a real service to them. it will be an aggressive attempt to get it out. >> joshua dubois, we know we have to the white house. holly wood is supposed to come in also. >> yes. >> thank you. a couple of weeks ago when we the incident with the man who had the explosives on the airplane, "the new york times" put out an article on this university, i think in london. where they were saying the particular university, the islamic group is a hot bed of, whatever. i want wondering in the united states if we have any cases where public university that there's a group, religious group, where they're -- they're are attempts to close a group down because of speech that's going on at the group. and then what the legal issued involved? let's say that are not espousing

terrorist activities or anything like that. let's say the government is monitoring the people and finding the common connection. >> yes. going back to our youth, on the panel. it's a new question. and can he be changed? and the sbf in the '60s and '70s. he strikes down the sds chapters because students in the democratic society, some places were bombing something at the university having to do with the war in vietnam or just the establishment. that's a different establishment than we're talking about today. and some small university, public university in connecticut, banned the sds chapter. the supreme court said they couldn't do that. absent for showing direct disruption in the university. we have a separate set of rules that deal with assignment to violence.

and the current rule which is under enforced by the courts is that unless the insightment is direct and lickly to result immediately or relatively immediately and violent, it's protected. somebody in the case involved, somebody gets on tv with the gun, here's where the offices are. there are too many jews, they are too powerful. let's go get them. the supreme court said that's not direct and immediate enough to constitute an insight of violence. i have nothing against shutting down the adl. that's our competition. >> he's just joking. [laughter] >> and it definitely there are cases involving the threats to the president where the rules apply. however, that's the the supreme court level. if you look at the lower courts, there's been either an erosion or return to sanity depending on

your point of view. the most notable case in the last two decades involve nu remburg. i thought that was a easy case. it was not. they didn't actually call on somebody to be shot. you can find lots of cases like that with regard to the president. so that's the answer. our tradition generally is we are extraordinarily tolerant of hate label speech. nowhere else in the world do they have the degree of tolerance. >> the only thing that i would add is there's a whole cluster of issues about free speech on

campuses today. public and private universities. stuff that we don't need to get into. one the questions is are some of the speech codes being adopted on college campuses, both public and private. are they indeed the public university. they go too far in the speech. so i think it's fair to say within various universities and colleges, there's a debate going on about how to limit speech that others might find offensive. people don't want to hear it. some colleges actually have free speech loans being set up. and some of these have been instruct down already in the courts. >> the challenge. >> okay. how about texas is having more limits on the speech? >> it's entirely idiosyncratic. most of it comes from the other

section. when minorities are first coming on to campuses, there was coded speech that was taken to exclude those minorities and universities responded with the speech. there's also a lot of -- some sexual harassment. wherefore they have been challenged, they have been instruct. -- struck. one would be best off dealing with a particular situation as it arose, which almost will strike too broadly. if you are not targeting, you are encounting speech which we should tolerate. if somebody should show that somebody was engaged in activity, you could deal with that. i don't think the speech codes are productive. >> let's suggest before we turn, we go to one more audience yes. and then, i'm sorry, does

somebody want to add something before? >> i was just going to give you a fun case that the court had about two years ago. i can't remember the exact name. it's "bong hits for jesus." it was during the time as vietnam war. it was a decision known as tinker. student don't check their first amendment rights at the school house gate. as marc indicating and explaining pretty well, the preference is to have a pretty wide tolerance in this area. however, in "bong hits for jesus" at least at the high school level, the idea that you are perceived as advocates an illegal activity, that interfered with the purposes of the school. they have every right to go ahead and discipline, shall we say, for that kind of activity. to the extent that you might have a group that's advocating some form of criminal activity or violence in the like.

you may find that same kind of trend at least in the high school level may come into play there. >> by the way, for the young initiative, did you want to translate bong hits? >> the other things the supreme court couldn't get clear. >> yes. sorry. go ahead. did we have a question over here? i'm sorry. i'm sorry. i didn't see you at the mic. go ahead. >> hi, there. i'm with the legal center and cocounsel in nu dial versus roberts. i'd like to express some concern about this report in the sense that i don't see the nonbelief community represented in the -- not just the panel but in the drafters themselves. i think we should express great concern that the answers to the questions favor the belief

community over the nonbelief community. i'd also like to ask kobe a question in terms of his interpretations there and certainly i urge your boss. my understanding is that the case was about summum trying to put it's monument into the pioneer park in pleasant glove city. the court held the first part that the government can choose which monuments it wants. but it did not settle the issue with respect to the order of the ten commandments. it left that for a latter day.yr poison. you have either a free speech problem here or you have an establishment class problem. so i wish perhaps you could

address that issue. >> well, the answer is true. they haven't yet addressed. and whether or not it's properly comes before the court. because certainly that case there was not ringing of the reference. by reference to the unanimous decision is to make clear that governments are allowed to expect private and permanent monument for placement in public display. in this particular context, it was the ten commandments. it stands to this day in the utah. and i think that's actually the kind of right decision. because it goes to limit down at least in the public quorum area what it is government can do. can government get it's own as when it walk by courthouses and government buildings all over in so many places it's kind of out of mind. and in this city particularly, you have religious expression.

when the government does that, the government has the right to speech. whether or not that then crosses the line and comes an establishment, you're right, that'll be where my mother will say having to break lose. and we'll have all sorts of issues about that. but it's a pretty big plait to try to take on aha. government can never be in the position of having a monument which excludes the religious measure. >> the reason why the court didn't reach the issue is litigation. they had a establishment course claim. they virtually invited it to be litigated, and in the earl her round of litigation. for reasons that escape everybody, they chose not to raise it. i wrote the only amicus brief in that case. i thought that the boundary between public speech and nonpublic speech was much murkier than the court had it.

it's not clear that this is really the government speaking. and the case should have been sited in different ways. as to your larger point about the drafting committee. we did have several groups participate all throughout that distinguished separation. my own organization, america's united adl. it's not as if those points of view were not. in my rex, the americans united through large parts of the drafting process. >> well, yes, and the if you'll look at the list of the fires, you can see that there's the german gun that was formally with the aclu. judith shaker. >> when i said nonbelief, i think you might get the different result if you accepted nonbelief group like center for

inquiries and american for atheist. : ; holly hollman, a wonderful lawyer who works for the baptist joint committee for religious liberty.

she has filed amicus briefs in many of the cases we have discussed and will talk a little bit about the statements q&a on government expression or display is that include some kind of religious element, so holly, thank you for joining us. >> the questions lead to a nice transition you wanted to highlight. that may think others are thinking melissa for strong leadership but also being a good model for civil discourse. all of us appreciate that. it's an honor to have participated in this with my colleagues, co-workers and friends. actually this is such a great -- i have to say one thing, everyone has talked about the value of this project but we demonstrate the value of this. i had my nose because of glenn to cover 18 to 21, to clarify these cases addressed in the documents. when we go on record and off document there's a lot of disagreement about what these cases mean that when we discuss them as we had in the queue and

a year we came to clarity about the summum case in the free-speech realm where you decide who is talking, and a different analysis would be applied in the establishment clause arena where government cannot promote or in france religion. so looking quickly at questions 18321, these questions addressed religious expression on government property in the context such as grademark curse on government cemeteries. in religious preferences and scripture and monuments on government property talking about a little bit. during holiday displays and art galleries. as you all know controversies in these areas are very common and i would say many find the courts really difficult to understand. there are much more subject to ridicule as a pretty good jokes, but there are really difficult to explain but it is possible. i urge you all to look at this

at this section. the first question about individual gravestones, grave markers on the government on a cemetery. a great example of how the court looks at the overall context. what is the religious message and we are talking about references to religion on individual grave markers, the context shows that the use are references to the individual person's faith as opposed to the government making a statement about christianity or judea's some or whenever marker or symbol you might find there. and the government has to go to great lengths to show that all religions are represented so that there is a wide variety of the symbols so that's a good example of religious expression or the context shows that it is more led to the individual than the government. the next is a question about whether or not the government can erect temporary holiday displays. everyone would know that yes in some circumstances as we see so

many articles and controversies about that and in our answer their we talked about how the court looks at the context and tries to avoid any kinds of displays with the government actually endorses religion as opposed to the kinds of displays the court has upheld where there is a number of data and messages been promoted that represents a particular season on the calendar. in these cases they aren't easy but there are some useful guidelines in these cases. question 20 goes beyond a holiday context add temporary disputes we have to the permanent monument and while this is a difficult area for a line drawn there has to be lines to be drawn and our best evidence of what the courts as what the what is is found in two decisions or decided on the same day in 2005, one -- the teeten

commands cases in which the court decided that one displaying did violate the establishment clause, the county this place in kentucky but they upheld the monument in texas and one i can say about our agreement there's a lot of back-and-forth of what this area, what the law says here. and we do fight about what the law should be, would be the best advice for the court to put forward and i would say the baptist committee submitted a brief and we did not yet show our analysis in a court which would have the results. but the court to in these two cases, the issue of two distinct cases, 137 pages, they can have different opinions and yet are drafting committee got down to a page and have. in [laughter] so i think for all of you who haven't got around to reading the 137 pages and would really like to understand what is the

court look at and what is the law that i urge you to look at that because i think which will see is context is important, you have to look at the government's purpose and you have to look at the overall of fact and while the law may not be satisfying it is a little more clear than is often exaggerated and our debate. >> thank you, holly, i just have to say i was mayor when a court handed down as decisions on the same day of justice rehnquist was sitting and he ran all the names of all the opinions and as hawley said there are multiple opinions. after he read a long list from the plurality in a concurring and dissenting he said, i didn't know there were that many people on this court. [laughter] >> let me point out there are more opinions than actual justices. by the way i'm tempted to ask coli to tell us one of the religious liberty supreme court jokes before this is over. >> [inaudible] if the material

is a on the wall and easily remove taken down, if it is made of concrete and the ground too much trouble. [laughter] but that is not at all the line the corridor and there's much more helpful guidance. those couple pages. >> i just wanted you to be -- i wanted to use what she said as an opportunity to remind us that malkhoff is one thing. what is right is off another. and in this country one of the great struggles about religious freedom in my opinion is to live up to the principles and ideals in a way that is fair to everyone. really allows everyone in the conversation to go back to your point. for example the wiccan committee in this country is a growing committee, tried for years to get approval for their symbol to be on headstones were in

arlington and other -- they were stonewalled in it we can say all we want about the law requires that they should have been treated like all the others as a whole list of groups that had approved symbols. but that it just didn't happen for years and years so a lot of what goes on in the country in terms of treating people unfairly in violation of the religious freedom, the law doesn't address the address and how we respond to people who are in minority groups or people who haven't had a voice and that's why the challenge, this statement is kind of the floor. but i think the real challenge for religious liberty is to live up to it to the principles that listen to people but also native american and folks if they were sitting up here would say when does this apply to us? you say here's what the law says in this area and this area, but

there is a long string of defeats for the americans in the courts when they raised their religious freedom issues. to protect almost everybody else on all of the same similar kinds of issues. so in these examples i think we're talking about an important agreement on what the law says that we need to think about what's the right thing to do as americans to live up to the first amendment and as another challenge. >> i'm glad there are agreements on the religious liberty improvement stonewalled better than being stuck on appear if. >> you are from my days. being stone wasn't the thing. [laughter] bois never mind. whew who wants to come in what and save us please? >> i know that some of you on the panel are deeply involved in litigation and say you hope this

will reduce litigation so of all the questions in here which area do hope you really see less cases and the courts now? >> excellent question. are you all working against your own self interest? [laughter] >> i would like to see religious civil litigation go away. one there are now reasonably clear rules that lawyers can applaud eighth and taking into account charles notion that correct notion which is legal is not necessarily what's right, what these are very bitter debates about very little. and i can think of cases where blacks stood on the course of courthouses for 75 years and then somebody township.

yes, to understand why some people might be offended, but nobody was 75 years. on the other hand, you have states now enacting legislation putting up a rather trivial 10 commandments monuments disguise with other documents of american government's most of which are eminently forgettable for the simple purpose of sticking it in other people's lives. these generate intense litigation. lots of controversy in the nothing at any substance at all. with regard to the place of religion in american life in any serious way. so if that whole area of the law disappeared because we simply were more measured in a report of symbols and then more measured in our response to would ever pass through that filter, i think we would all be well ahead of the game. >> anyone else have a favorite area they would want less litigation? >> i would say generally we hope that all this -- we hope we're out of business.

>> you're not old enough to retire yet. >> we do since it appears to engage in conflict over monition, sometimes the law seems to be outside observer. this sort of ending up there. i have heard judge janice rogers brought hisses in the d.c. circuit say that's the distinction between the kentucky 10 commandments and the texas 10 commandments is that in texas it places the whether and his reign on, but in kentucky it was inside a building and that this was the analysis and she was willing to provide to it. so it's order reduces at that level to be -- can that be something that the law makes these decisions on? and sometimes it seems that way so ultimately the reason that you spend a considerable amount of time and as amended in took four and half were five years to finally get to the place where we have a before view, so the

hope is that we can begin to develop further consensus and the out of business so i can do trust the states and life will be beautiful. >> most of the lawsuits in my opinion about religion in public schools is the area i'm most interested in here are a frivolous and ridiculous. and i think if they would read the sections here as brief as they are and look more deeply at the earlier agreements, i think many people might not file lawsuits so i'm hoping this is another run at reducing some of as we stillights disagree on a fastidious speaking before cafta audience and constitutionality and so forth saw not saying in is an important for people to go to court when they need to appear in but many of the other kinds of cases involving issues including religious music in holiday program and so forth, i

think could be, can go away if school districts not only knew the law but would actually write and adopt a policy in their own districts that reply to for a lot. and then went on to let their teachers and administrators know what the law says. seven teachers and administrators and parents for that matter might stop fighting week over what is already settled so i am hopeful that this statement will be another opportunity for public education to get this right. >> could i ask a question inspired guerrilla by the gentleman -- which is has litigation the fact that there are many more open atheists and nonbelievers in the country, people who say outright more organized, does this have an effect on either litigation or the nature of the law? and a follow-up question to that and this goes to some work for

my friend the political scientist john green has done but in some ways to have had more polarization in this area because you have had simultaneously very active in including intellectually and in the lot evangelical community and the rise of a larger community of nonbelievers, what effect does that have on what we are looking at here at the future of this? >> i think we are in my lifetime we are now before the second major revolution in the relation between religion and society. the first epitomized by a speaker to catholic protestant do with the notion that this was a -- without saying so the more rays were protestant and everybody else sort of but in some out in that larger rubric. that disappears beginning in the thirties and that continued to the '60s.

i think now, of course, there is someone say the resurgence of the evangelicalism in the public's fear in the '60s, but clearly now will we face a major realignment in is an important discussion, is going to lead to very bitter litigation and already has. like every group that comes in and there is a learning curve so some of the early litigation by the secular groups has not necessarily raised the most serious of issues. but at heart the claim of secular is the whole society and the government are so permeated with religious influence that we started at a disadvantage. not a level playing field so the phrase you used before. and we come today results and some in that community have expressed themselves of the view very popular in europe taken for

granted in europe that religion is a purely private matter, confine and once you into the public's fear we all enter on a secular even basis. i think that's going to be the great pride of the next 20 years. i think how much of it will end up in litigation is hard to say because this court also has gutted the free exercise clause as a legal principle and because is at least currently configured not terribly active in looking to refereed these larger social some disputes with doctrine like standing in pleading and so on. but i think in legislation and public debates that is going to be the great subject for the next 20 years. you can see it in my view most clearly in the debate over same-sex marriage. we're on the one hand, you have people saying this is the traditional way, we understand

religion and that you are banishing us as a word from the public sphere. we can say our understanding of their stature in. on the other side you have claims that are dominating discussion on the internet that the ban on same-sex marriages from the establishment of religion and that's not a technical argument, that's a profound argument about what the nature of society is and how much role religion can play in the ordering infamous always of society. i think that's the next 20 years went to be a huge and very hard to manage debate. >> thank you very much and i want to call on shabbir mansuri, the founding torture of the institute on religion and civic values because i might have added to my list we also have a will herberg if you read his book now it would be a protestant, catholic, hindu, and the title would be longer than the book. and so if you could.

>> this nt on a personal level of an honor him because this jury has been a very long journey. especially a jury that on my personal level that began and i don't want to embarrass my daughter sitting in the audience here, who read her social studies textbooks when she was in the sixth grade in 1989 when i began to address the issue of it teaching about religion in our public school textbooks. an established organization of islamic education which now has changed its name to the institute on religion and civic ballet is but i wanted to make a brief comment as to those of us who are in the trenches, how the first amendment's centers documents have actually helped us. for a 15 years i want you to know what you have given us allow us to interact with the publishers and we review the text book based on teaching

about principle that he had published, working with it, teachers to develop the teachers workshop. again the basis for that. and creating documents. the publications that have become out in model in europe for example as to how do we teach about what religion is in public schools so it is really been an incredible experience on a personal level and a journey, indeed, that emphasis to be a part of. now i just wanted to thank you for giving asp this incredible important framework in which we can function and i do now as a practicing muslim the shura, the consensus based on consultation we have institutionalized back process. so showing as the roll out there especially muslims in a majority of countries as to how do we as a nation using this process of consultation and then creating a

consensus based agreed upon principle that we live by, and thank you for that. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> we just have a couple minutes and i want to first ask if any of the other signers want to say anything before we close. i also realize that i'm not sure we formally introduced holly who is a general counsel for the baptist joint committee. so i would just like to give everyone on the panel a chance to make one last comment before we close. any of the 30 odd questions here on the larger -- richard, you want to say something. >> i want to pick up on all last point we were discussing which is about where we're going and i think the history of this country is a group discriminated against and victims of intolerance coming forward and demanding that they be treated

on an equal basis with other parts of society which is right and fitting. the danger is looking forward thinking of the themes we heard that those who have been victims of discrimination and intolerance maybe there is a phenomenon that can explain us that they themselves then demand not to be put on parity but that they want to seek to go into public schools to impose values in a way that was not imposed upon them in the past and i think the talent to all of us, i'm not singling anyone out in this hall, but that is up on on on and the challenge is to find the road map that builds on the principles of the press amendment which tries to balance so that, in fact, we have a public square in which we cannot be present and participate one and those who have particular religious beliefs can be full actors as well as those who do not. that is i think the great house for all of us on a going forward

basis to create that welcoming public square. >> thank you, that's a wonderful comment. anyone else? charles. >> and want to follow on what richard said and i don't know if we introduced richard foltin formally of the jewish committee spoke earlier and worked with us on a lot of great projects. i want to underscore that it seems to me the great talents to the 24 century in the united states and one of the great challenges that i rank very high is how we're going to live with our deepest differences particularly religious differences. as we grow more there's religiously houri going to do that. it can't be, of course, by some how imposing someone's religious or a philosophical perspective on everyone else, the ground rules for living with differences have got to be embedded in and drawn from the constitution of united states particularly the first amendment. that's our civic from work for a living with one another. and in the law, current law is part of that framework.

so i think what the challenge for us going forward from this agreement is to help americans understand the ground rules, the civic ground rules for bringing people into the conversation for working for common ground, for debating our differences but with civility and with respect. and i think we need to work much much harder on the civility front and that's why i think this is so important that is because of a substance, because it models the civic ground rules work if we use them. if we try. and one last point, forest montgomery who was general counsel of the national association of evangelicals for many years and was a key voice in those early agreements, forest montgomery when we got to an agreement years ago on religious liberty in public schools and so forth would add to the end of the agreement and he insisted that we add some

language like this -- this is what he said we should have on even when we have differences de paul part is a gauge of public dispute to treat one another with civility and respect but he said, you know, we have to have been here that being a part of this conversation finding common ground was not meeting that to compromise your deepest convictions. our civic commitments are important agreements but our deepest commitments and convictions and ways, our religious and nonreligious philosophical positions, and the first amendment and these ground rules protect us to bring us into the conversation, and gauge whether and where possible to find common ground. >> crucibles are interested in finance and what they require is a considerable amount of pt and

energy in order to figure out what it is we are put in here. and such is used to me is the nature of the diverse pluralistic society that is what our founders -- running brothers gave us talking in terms of the world of being an ordered liberty. there are certain things that require enormous personal and constructive society to go forward. among those are a way in which you can then to reviews in your desires for the aspirations of the country and do it in a matter that ultimately ends in some and a consensus. you put it down and eventually get consensus. in that process lots of times you won't ultimately be fully satisfied, but it's a lot better than the alternative if you will in the alternative many times is driven man to do the things i think all of us in this room

would agree on a particularly constructive. so our hope is we are part of the crucible process which is continually define and otherwise giving contour to what it means to be an american, when it means to have a civil society that allows us to have ordered liberty, in a civil society that allows us to be able to bequeath to our children the same kind of opportunities and guess we were given and if we're really fortunate more than what we were given. so every time we are given opportunities to participate in this kind of thing it doesn't always ended with the kind of consensus or a joint statement that this one does. nevertheless the process and its south i submit to all of us is a very important. i would encourage all of you to do the same and the it's a joy s want to say running the risk of not offending anybody but god bless you because that means something to maine.

thank you very much. >> thank you and i wanted to say to thank rich for his eloquent words and we could have ask him to talk about any subject in this book but i'm grateful for his leadership on workplace issues and explain those and all the leadership is provided on church-state issues. he has led a common ground process of social services in the american jewish committee as has been a real leader in another area where we sought consensus and was difficult and hard that the committee with us to a happy ending result. i wanted to point out this web version of the statement posted on the front page of the center for religion and public appearance and you can see that web address on the back of your book went so we hope -- >> it is given a the. c-span:

i guess we need to work out a little bit, but i hope that you will be visiting back and share with your friends and neighbors and help us be a part of this dissemination work in this ongoing conversation which i sincerely mean is an ongoing project that is wealth the man -- welcome to this would want to be a part of it and i want to conclude especially by thinking ej for participating in this and leading insult awfully. and to thank each member who has contributed to this whether as a drafter war in the worser. it's not easy to do this work. it is hard. it is difficult and time-consuming. it draws you away from many other things and frankly sometimes i'm surprised that we show up again for the next five just like it's me again, here i am. i am deeply, deeply inspired by

the fact that all of us who come to the table and that all of the return again and again to this table for conversation, for sharing views, and for the hope that we can find consensus together and that we can respect each other where consensusso leu for inspiring me and were returning for that very important task as fellow americans. ..

[applause] [applause] [applause]

[applause] >> thanks very much. mr. speaker, members of the assembly, fellow rangers, good evening. this once a year we gather as a family might to take stock of our states and to assess the performance of our public duties. the sense of privilege one feels on this podium never diminishes. nor the sense of duty to report honestly and accurately on our family situation and health of public institutions. it's a way in this state to

speak plainly and face reality squarely. the plain truth is life is difficult to fight for far too many hoosiers, an economy booming at full employment in year-and-a-half ago has taken several kuwait, several steps back. one in 11 workers is unemployed. one in six people are on medicaid. the average hoosier income fell by 1%. we are distressed, disappointed and dissatisfied at all of this. i know we are united in this chamber in seeking to what government can to work through and out of the recession in which we are enmeshed. [applause] but hoosiers are also known for the resilience, for avoiding self pity and keeping a sense of perspective. we know that we've battled through tougher times before.

we know that the possessions, the technology, even the shrunken and comes in our homes today are still vastly greater than anything hoosiers knew just one generation ago. we know that our jobless rate, though intolerable, is below the national average and well below that of neighboring states. we also know that this is not the only such meeting taking place this month. across america, 49 other addresses are being given, almost all under conditions far more grim than those we confront. the one national study available says that our budget problem is one of the smallest in the nation. today's most celebrated business age says you don't know who has been swimming naked until the tide goes out. [laughter] welcome the tide is out and now we know. compared to its budget, illinois fiscal problem is four times larger than ours.

arizonan's, five times. california's, six times. how their the governor recently exclaimed in desperation how can we lessen the like that happen. so far at least no one in this room has to ask that question. a young seaman sought a mariners at fisa asking what do why do when i find myself in a gale force wind with a dangerous reef to lee word to which the captain replied what you do is you don't get yourself in that position. through the discipline of legislators on this floor and the superb businesslike management of my colleagues and and those balcony's, indiana stands in a position very different from virtually all of our sister states. they crashed on the reef many months ago. they've seen their credit ratings downgraded and borrowing costs soared.

indiana has a aaa credit rating for the first time ever, saving millions in interest cost for our cities, schools and universities. we will be using our carefully built reserves to get us through this next year and a half. any reserves most other states had long since have disappeared the have slashed, sometimes virtually halted the construction and repair of state roads. in michigan they are grinding asphalt roads back into gravel as though to regress by a century. but here we are building for indianans future at a rate twice the previous all-time record. all over indiana the dreams of decades are becoming real. the hoosier heartland corridor, the fork to highway, u.s. 31 from south bend, 69 and hundreds of others all at full speed, under budget ahead of schedule, taking shape before our very eyes. [applause]

after growing education spending five years in a row by a total of 12%, we were recently reluctantly forced to trim debt by some 3 cents on the dollar. but all across the country, education spending has been reduced by a vastly more. by twice as much in places like washington, nebraska and connecticut. by three times as much of virginia, mississippi and utah. four times as much in minnesota and south carolina. six times as much in alabama. a round of our nation, states have closed parks, stiffed vendors, throwing people off medicaid, stopped plowing snow and released thousands of dangerous criminals from prison early. overnight last night, the

citizens of iowa were protected by seven state troopers tool. we have donner none of those things and don't intend to. the saddest of all, our sister states at least 40 of them are doing the worst thing possible in times like these. they are raising taxes. adding to the burden on families already in distressed and making their economic climate even less attractive to new jobs than they were before. michigan, wisconsin, new jersey, at least 11 more of raised income taxes. ohio, oregon, minnesota and 30 more have raised gas taxes. many states have raised multiple taxes at the same time. i hope you will join me in saying to night to the people for whom we all work we will make the hard choices. we will stretch the available dollars. we will do whatever is necessary. but we will not take the easy way out and we will not make this recession worse by adding 1

cent to the tax burden of our fellow citizens. [applause] for us, economy and government did not begin with this recession. together, we brought the state from bankruptcy to solvency over a five-year period of careful budgets come stewardship and reform. per-capita state government spending in india is now sixth lowest in the nation and eighth place an improvement from a few years ago. state government has two-thirds fewer airplanes, thousands fewer vehicles, we have the fewest stayed employees since 1982. we have heeded the mariners instruction. what we did was we didn't get ourselves in the position of

other states. and yet, the gale of shrunken revenues is still blowing. the reef of huge service cuts or higher taxes is still close a lead. solvency like freedom requires eternal vigilance. we could be michigan in a minute of weakness. a lovely in an instant of irresolution. the budget he passed just six months ago and have seemed reasonably frugal at the time, but almost immediately we could all tell that it's spent beyond our declining means. if we had done nothing, it's spending levels would have obliterated elbridge tire state reserve by six or seven months from now. so we have acted, and we will act again as necessary. alladi thank this assembly and fellow citizens for understand the very unwelcome decisions we've made to date. we will need your continued understanding for more hard are probably coming.

we will make the laws for which we already have the authority but there are savings measures for which we need changes only this assembly can make. and so my first request is for legislation to enable the saving of some $70 million through a host of new economies. the largest of these would permit us to manage our to pension funds, perth and turf under one administration. absolutely nothing would change in the benefits of the amount of funding or totally separate independent status of the systems also would change is the amount paid out an investment fees when we did the job as one large bundle. if someone's wall street bonuses a little smaller next year will receive indiana taxpayers 40 or $50 million i feel we can all live with that. [applause] we need the savings this bill

would make possible. the equivalent flexible to 1% of que 12 peaden 45% of tire it spending or 10% of combined law enforcement budgets. far better to reduce nice to expenditures in state government the and to be even tougher the must do tasks of educating our young people in protecting the public safety. i make a second request in the name of some of the bravest and most deserving of all those hoosiers struggling this evening, the single parents of our state. there is no one more contemptible to me than a person who brings a child into this world and then fails to live up to the duties of parenthood. and for those who compound their absence by refusing their court ordered to be to pay child support i have even less respect. after five years of hard effort we have raised the percentage of child support collected from about 50 to 50%. this of course is unacceptably low. the best states are upwards of

70 per cent. we need new tools to make further headway. for instance, allow us to see that the delinquent father who wins money in one of our casinos shares some of the take with his children. every percent of child support improvement since $7 million directly into the pockets of some of our needy households. representative colin the loss and and senator richard bray joint to help us. please give your bipartisan support to the bill and let's provide millions of dollars to some of the homes which need them the veryt. [applause] all of us tonight are rightly preoccupied with the recession and problems it presents to our public services. but in times these hardships will pass. what must not pass is an

opportunity to continue in the and as steady progress in reforming our public institutions. in 2005, you approved the top to bottom overhaul of the ethics rules for the executive branch. we tightened the gift rules, protected a whistle-blower's, stopped the revolving door between government and lobbying and stiffen penalties for any violations. we created an inspector general and a battalion of fraud fighters to police this year of higher standards. the dog that doesn't bark rarely gets noticed but let's notice tonight that armed with the tools you made possible, indiana has seen five years of scandal free government and we are determined to keep it that way. [applause] [applause]

and so, all hoosiers should welcome the excellent initiative of your leadership to bring similar reform to this, the senior branch of our government. mr. speaker, mr. president pro tem, all i applaud your proposals to raise the standards to which legislators will now be held. it will enhance the quality of your decisions and the confidence of our citizens in those decisions. thank you for stepping forward so boldly. i look forward to signing this important new wall. while you are at it, please respond to the plea of mayors of both parties and all parts of our state and into the egregious conflict of interest that occurred when public employees sit on city and county councils floating on their own salaries and overriding the decisions of their own management. have we ever permitted this to occur in india as one of those mysteries of history but now is an ideal time to strike another

blow for good government and and this abuse for ever. [applause] in another area reform has been well begun and is ready for a second chapter, from this platform a year ago i think to governor joe kennon and randy shepard and commission colleagues for a superb set of proposals to modernize indianans piatt your system of local government. a state committed to protecting taxpayers and limiting government to the role of the people serving has no business maintaining or elected politicians than states twice our size. it's wasteful, antiquated and produces were decisions and obscures' public's ability to assign either credit for success or blame for failure. this assembly has taken the first steps toward cleaning up this anachronism. you build with five of the

commission's 27 recommendations most notably elimination of township assessors. you reduce the number of cooks in the assessment kitchen by about 1,000. having as many as 22 different assessor's sitting property values in a single county was a formula for on fairness, waste and all too often corruption. moving passes into a single accountable county official was a matter of simple common sense. the exact same principle applies to poor relief and fire protection still handled as they were in 1848. i hope i've seen for the last time new half million dollar fire trucks bought and fire stations a couple blocks apart because to totally separate township boards were involved. just as you already did for libraries we can maintain local distribution of poor relief, local identity and leadership and fire departments while moving resources and taxing decisions to the county level where they can be made rational

and for the maximum benefit of all citizens and the process we can save millions and delete 3,000 more political offices for which there is rarely any competition any way. and we can put an end to the widespread nepotism which even when good people are involved simply doesn't pass the test of good government. [applause] and as we reduce the number of politicians let's reduce the number of elections we hold. the commission's suggestion to shift municipal school board elections to the fall of the even numbered years would not only boost turnout for these important offices it would save tens of millions of dollars for our hard-pressed local governments. this may be as we say a short session but we can still take a long stride toward modernization

of top-heavy and expense of local government. in no area is reform more urgent or critical to indianans future than in education. and hear the news is excellent and the momentum is even stronger. 2,009 was a breakthrough year in improving the way we prepare our young people for the lives and work ahead. first this assembly heeded the call of president obama and others and lifted india as backward looking limits on charter schools and on considering student achievement a and evaluating teachers. then our professional standards board led by superb new superintendent tony dennett acted to strengthen standards for new teachers and to open both classroom and leadership positions. to those whose heart called them to teaching from other walks of life. next, we must address the single greatest cause of students feel

year, the inability of so many of our children to read proficiently fiscal accomplish as nothing else in a child's decisive first years it simply must enable him or her to read and comprehend the english language. yet too often failure is masked by the practice known as social promotion. sending in a letter a child on to higher grades is unfair to the next teacher, damaging to the state's future but cruelest of all disastrous to the the young life being blighted by that failure. if after 40 years the system has failed in this most fundamental duty that will simply have to try again until we get it right. i ask you to pass our bill to stop social promotion and say to the world indiana never gives up on its children, not one single kid. [applause]

to more actions can stand 2010 as a historic, for better government in our state. first, let's set the stage for the fairest and most reasonable and non-partisan redistricting ever seen in indiana. to many times in american history legislative boundaries have been drawn to favor halves over have-nots, and over out and incumbents over newcomers. the worst examples of gerrymandering and politician protection can be found in other states but a planted in the most current line shows there nothing to be proud of. we praise to my to the bipartisan expressions of intention that indiana's next redistricting be its fairest ever. members of both parties have offered constructive ideas for lines that make our geographic

demographic and plain common sense than today. let's commit the kind of principles that assure the hoosiers that in our state voters will pick their officeholders and not vice versa. [applause] last, some heartfelt congratulations. just eight days into the session this assembly has already made history by completing and safeguarding some excellent work you began to years ago. in 2008, you passed the largest tax cutting in state history and reduced indiana's property-tax is to some of the lowest in the nation at a time every penny counts and home foreclosures are in national epidemic, you will word the cost annually of owning the average hoosier held by more than $500.

the american dream of homeownership is more affordable in indiana tonight than virtually any other place in country. but you did more. to provide the hoosiers unique protection and certainty through caps that secure lower taxes from ever searching out of control again. as we all know those caps will always be vulnerable to either legislative or judicial repeal unless protected by the constitution. those who favor more government, more spending and higher property taxes have every right to present their arguments before the caps become permanent. but they must have the courage to make the case before the final arbiters of the constitution all the people of the state voting in a referendum next fall. at 2:31 p.m. this afternoon the people's branch of government lived up to its demand. you give the people the chance to decide as i believe they will at lower property taxes are here to stay.

thank you for this latest bold move to show the world that in indiana we trust our fellow citizens and truly put the interest of taxpayers first. [applause] [applause] that we gather tonight in difficulty but not crisis, stress but not a disaster is small consolation. no one here will breathe easy or sleep well until we return to the full employment indianan in just a year-and-a-half ago. but we must recognize the way we do our duty today is about more than just muddling through the

short-term better than the next guy. it is about linking our competitive economic image. every time another state raises the tax, can't pay its bills on time or sends out ious instead of tax refunds it slips another notch behind indiana as an attractive place for the next new job, the next new dollar of investment. the better we handle the people's business today the more business we will have for our people and the more opportunity for our children tomorrow. even in this hardest year and so signs of strength everywhere. forced by the downturn to the choice between indiana and some other place at least 50 companies closed shops elsewhere and relocated jobs to our state. jobs came from michigan to marianne, pennsylvania to decatur, wisconsin to auburn, mexico to sell -- elkhart.

[applause] there is that long a german word always mispronounce that means enjoyment obtained from the troubles of others. watching the agony of other states we take no delight at their misfortune. hoosiers never do. our first reaction to a neighbor in trouble is to look for a way to help. but if we take no enjoyment, we will take the jobs from companies who know a state built for growth, a state with its act together when they see one -- [applause] when the dust settles on this recession we will have a higher share of america's auto, rv and steel jobs than we did before in

a 2009 when the national business investment failed i almost one-fourth. the number of new jobs committed to india naturally grew over the new record year of 2008. 2009 was the year several young companies who may leave the electric vehicle industry chose indianan for their plans. many of their suppliers are following them. our goal is to be the capitol. over the last two years and yet has been the fastest-growing state in wind power, and now business is seeking to build equipment for this new industry coming to muncie, to new albany and clinton. within weeks you will see us explode onto the solar power landscape. perhaps most telling, 2008 brought a welcome word that more people are moving into indiana than are moving out. the numbers want huge but the market's big reversal from an era in which most years salles net exit as sometimes including many of our most promising young

people. one recent ranking identified central indiana as the best place in america for new college graduates. a teabags strength is revealed in hot water. so far we have stood up to this recession with a strength reflecting the sturdy character of hoosiers. the odds are the year ahead will be much easier. everyone in the public employee has a chance to help and the duty to do so remembering where jobs come from and who it is that pays for our salary and every penny we dispense. two years ago tonight, ausley recalled the toughest question i was asking my first months in governor when an east coast ceo asked what makes your state distinctive, what makes you stand out? no need to ask anymore. look at any map of states still in the black. states preferred for new jobs. states adding to their public

infrastructures, states where taxes have gone down and not up. a simple bold batch of color below like michigan like a peony in a parking lot is the common feature all such maps. let's conduct ourselves so that a year from tonight america sees in its fullness what it now sees a in part that there is a special place in our land where hard times are met with resolve, government is the people's servant, not a privileged class, where dollars are not passed, decisions are not docked and scarce dollars are allocated as adults do, to first things first. by then america will see the same place leading the nation out of its decline, its traditional industries rebounding and a host of new businesses blossom in to be a place applying the highest standards of conduct and accountability in its public arena, a special place called

indiana to which the right to enterprising, the young and cr 6' 8, 8 1/2, can do it all. i mean when i say do it all and do it gracefully. i mean with the greatest of ease. >> benji will, so his game and personality were -- wilson, his game and personality were electric, a future star in the nba until one morning when everything changed. get an inside glimpse at the man the nfl mayors have chosen to lead them in -- players have chosen to lead them in the fighnewtive rgaient. 'll uce emar ith. >> t our stin >> and a truy th abou inws tvie'

hello and welcome to this edition of net impact. we've seen nfl commissioner roger goodell and nfl players association executive director demaris smith exchanging pleasantries through the media and have even been in front of congress as the two sides attempt a collective bargaining agreement and as they do so the atmosphere will get more tense. we know goodell he's within on the job three years now but who is this man that the players have chosen to be their voice in this turbulent time? here's comcast sportsnet's mid- atlantic's jill sorenson. >> for our last practice we could play head coach. >> yea! >> we do head coach. >> reporter: this is fun for

demaris smith the executive director of the nfl players association by day and a coach for his 10-year-old son allen and his baseball team in silver vince, maryland, by night. >> tag -- in silver springs, maryland, by night. >> tag him! >> reporter: the intensity and passion you see here is smith's day job as union smith named the successor to the late and edge legendary gene upshaw in march, the man everyone calls dean has not slowed down. >> i've been on the job six months. i've probably been on the road three and a half, four months solid. >> reporter: he was seen as an outsider to get the job with former players as the front runners. his background as a trial lawyer was far from the experience of an nfl player. >> i definitely think that's a positive that he was an outsider, you know, guy coming in, he doesn't have all the connections or, you know, any preconceived notions of what

was happening before and, you know, can he come in and kind of look at things clearly. >> i'm very confident. i'm confident, that you know, he can get things done, whatever that may be. he's presented himself in such a way and i think he's broken it down to the players in such a way that we can understand it. >> reporter: as much as he's an outsider d. is a d.c. insider having grown up a stone's throw from fedex field. >> you come out of the room in d.c. and get smacked and then you're injected with burgundy and gold. >> reporter: on his resume counsel to then deputy attorney general eric holder and he also served on president obama's transition team. >> business worldwide in some way, shape or form always touches washington. it's one heck of a sports town. so yeah, those are things that are inextricably tied to who i am. does it affect what i do? probably. but hopefully affects it for the better. >> reporter: with the possible lockout on the horizon demorris smith has made it a priority to

visit each team to help them understand the process. >> this was in one of the file drawers in our office and it slowly but surely i'm going through every drawer, every cabinet. >> reporter: why? >> a great deal of our history on what we have done internally to be a stronger union is there. the one thing i'm blessed about is gene was an incredible note taker. here on the back he'd clearly written out in longhand a speech that i don't know whether he gave or was going to give, but the most interesting part at the bottom is you see it in quotes, the nfl has always been willing to take a short loss for a long term gain. >> reporter: in the midst of negotiations or perhaps because of them d. and the union have made national headlines on a regular basis. >> as executive director, my no. 1 priority is to protect those who play and have played this game. to me it is probably a little bit of a combination of half

negotiation, half trial lawyer. i mean both of those things are things that are in my dna for some way, shape or form. i think about my grandfather in the pulpit. there's probably a little bit of that, too. as a result, i'm really not afraid of my question. i want guys to be actively involved. truth be told, i probably lean on them in a very hard way, but this is their union. it's not my union. it's their union. >> reporter: always in the line of fire demorris smith is used to the heat. >> i thought that was a -- 17-year-old ben benji wilson was a rising star, a young basketball phenom with a definite nba future. in fact, in 1984 wilson was the no. 1 ranked high school basketball player in the nation. he'd been described as a magic johnson with a jump shot and kevin garnett with a better handle of the ball and a better

perimeter game. luke stuckmeyer of comcast sportsnet chicago shows us wilson's wizardry on the court. >> reporter: chicago may be a football town and baseball crazy in summertime, but at its core in the city basketball is a way of life. we're not just talking about the m.j. glory days. we're talking about the kids who built their games here like isiah thomas on the west side and more recently dwayne wade and derrick rose on the south side, but 25 years ago somebody else owned these courts in chicago, a skinny silky kid with a smile named benji. >> and center for the wolverines a junior, 6' 7, no. 25 ben wilson. >> if you haven't seen him, you're in for a treat, 20 a game. >> i would go and i want to be successful and i do what it takes to be successful and that is when i go home i study and

do my work and go to class. >> kind of corny stuff. >> well, it works. >> reporter: everything seemed to work for benjamin wilson, but especially basketball. >> wilson two. >> reporter: born and raised on the city's south side, he was the middle of five brothers and it wasn't long before that orange rock was the fiber of his life. >> looked like bruce lee with two basketballs. he approached the basketball hoops. just unbelievable what he could do with that ball three fingers pawning the ball like this. >> reporter: and with ben and his ball around the wilson's neighbors were always up early. >> the neighbors used to be furious about being woke up in the morning because he was always dribbling the basketball and one of the next-door neighbors mr. robertson said benji was the alarm clock to get him up and go to work in

the morning. >> reporter: by 16 wilson could still play like a point guard but now he soared like an eagle with his new 7' 3 wingspan. >> bankston drops it down to wilson for a turnaround. >> we used to imitate ben when he shoots his jump shot. it was like he'll shoot it and then put his wrist back like this and run down the court but everybody used to emulate him in high school. that's how big he was in high school. >> reporter: and everybody wanted to be around him. benji's game and personality drew in friends and admirers from all over including the nba. >> ben wilson steps in, scores. >> 6' 8, 8 1/2, can do it all. i mean when i say do it all and do it gracefully. i mean with the greatest of ease. i mean and it looks so pretty when he was doing it.

i mean it was smooth. it was silky. it was just you had to -- he had that camera that captured that moment. i mean he was that type of player. >> wilson slide down the lane. >> reporter: as a junior he was a starter on a lineup full of seniors. benji was third team all state and the wolverines went 30-1 for the 2a state title. that put simeon on the map. >> i think he helped push simeon into a more global nationwide type school, basketball power. i remember our senior year, you know, we thought we were world beaters, we could go anywhere and play anybody any time. >> reporter: after winning the state championship in the spring of 1984 ben kept improving stunning scouts at the nike all american camp.

he left as the first kid from illinois to ever be ranked as a no. 1 player in the entire country. >> he was clearly, clearly benjamin wilson was the no. 1 player in the country. no one came close. >> reporter: ahead how benji wilson's life changed in less than a second. >> ben's thumb was rising and then at midday. >> reporter: a horrific crime on these streets in chicago is remembered 25 years later. the images from haiti are heart-breaking-- homes, hospitals, and schools destroyed; families searching for loved ones; parents trying to feed their children. but we can all do something. we can help the american red cross as it delivers the food, water, and medicine that can save lives. donate $10 by texting "haiti" to 9-0-9-9-9.

visit redcross.org or call 1-800-red-cross. thanks for your help. benji wilson's future seemed secure. just a few years in college before fame and wealth would schuler follow in the nba -- would surely follow in the nba, but it wasn't meant to be. instead there was a tragic turn of events and now 25 years

later benji wilson has never been forgotten. let's get back to his story. >> reporter: ben wilson had it all, sizzling basketball skills and an electric personality, but on november 20th, 1984, it was a gray cold fall day a on the like this one and on vinsenz avenue right in front of simeon high school the day was about to get even darker. >> the old guys, they've served their times and lived their lives, when the sun is eclipsed or the sun is rising it's so different. ben's sun was rising moving towards midday and then it became midnight at midday. >> reporter: at 12:37 on november 20th ben wilson was walking with his girl friend and mother of his 10-week-old son brandon. they were a block from the

school. he liked to gather at a small store around lunchtime but benji bumped into two freshmen from calumet high school on the sidewalk. they pulled out a .22 caliber handgun and shot him twice, one bullet piercing his aorta and the other tearing a hole in his liver. >> to this day i still don't know the story. i've never tried to seek out the story because the only person that could tell is and while the chaos continued at simeon benji's brothers were miles away with a sibling connection that still haunts them. >> i was in library class and i heard somebody say i got shot. i got shot.

i was in library class and i was like i'm going crazy, but then i thought about cain and abel when cain slew his brother and the most high said where's your brother? i heard his blood cry from the earth. right there something let me know that he got shot. >> and as a matter of fact, i had a dream two nights in a row before he died, somebody or something tried to tell me, had a dream that night benji was dead. next day i had a dream benji was dead. at that moment i heard my brother's voice say i got shoot just like i said to you there, came to me like. so this was something there and i was like what the hell's going on here? my mama always say you want the most high to talk to you, you got to be in a quiet place and i was in the library class at

the time my brother was shot and i heard him. when i found out, i went be serk. >> for ery as a

we seen ben on the floor by himself. that's what brothers do. >> they weren't supposed to. i don't like to talk about that but they had to see him. >> they was telling us that he's in stable condition and kenny allen pulled the sheet back and we saw him. we had to see him and we knew he was gone. >> reporter: early the next morning the day his senior season was supposed to start ben wilson was pronounced dead at the age of just 17. even president ronald reagan called the family to offer h

is dead. >> involved in extraordinary young man. >> he was gunned down. >> it's not how long you live. but how well you live. >> then i seen my brother in that casket. oh, tried to wake him up like man, you ain't dead. get up, man. get up. get up. you ain't dead. get up. then seeing those two guys who did it. >> did you know ben wilson? did you know him? >> reporter: after the shooting cousins billy moore and omar dixon were taken into custody charged with murder and attempted robbery. moore was later sentenced to 40 years for pulling the trigger

and dixon 30 years as his accomplice. on the day that benji died his simeon teammates decided to play their first game of the season without no. 25. earlier in the day students sobbed at simeon simply overwhelmed with grief, but benji's mother stood tall in the gymnasium. >> so today i speak in love of all of you who keep benji's memory and dignity and be strength v and strength and love alive -- strength and love alive. >> reporter: the wake was held on the gymnasium floor and 8,000 people came to see benji lying in his no. 25 jersey. the line stretched blocks

outside of the school, mourners waited seven hours. >> i still have dreams about him like, you know, he came back and he was able to play again, but just dreams. >> sometimes i sit down and, you know, when i'm going through things, you know, i speak, you know, just like i would to my grandparents, you know. hey, benji, how you doing, that type of thing. i just can't forget about him.

this is very emotional. >> reporter: still an emotional story 25 years later. there are some updates to this story. at the time of his murder benji wilson left behind a 10-week- old son named brandon. well, brandon would go on to become a talented high school prep basketball player himself. even played some college basketball at the university of maryland eastern shore but he would leave after his sophomore season according to a school official and as for the two young men convicted of this horrific crime, william moore is still in federal prison for wilson's murder and omar dixon would tack on additional charms when he was arrested for aggravate -- charges when he was arrested for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon in a separate attempted murder case. let's move on. next summer south africa will play host to the 2010fifa world cup but it was back in 1995

when they hosted another world cup that changed the country, a game of rugby that united 42 million south africans. now clint eastwood's new movie in vic us brings this amazing true -- invictus brings this amazing true story to life and sat down with matt damon is yuntr rep on ma ond sporth r tochan wor >> l s ouiny. rep onat inciple that the movie invictus was born. obviously you're a big sports fan yourself. what did sports do you think has the ability to unite people like the way we saw in this movie? >> weah, spare iqued ted o ite and ela was

actually quoted as saying that. i guess there's something about getting, you know, 60,000 people in a space together g fotly sa thou kople ss tcoun caion peooss the . s cawas thiste >> b me paect faces the daunting task of a vide h afogetin the wake of apartheid. what struck you about this story that made you so interested in wanting to do it? >> that it was true. i couldn't believe it when i read it and i called clint and i said i can't believe this stor ther

fog. as hand th wad thint make no e. leas pre, it kes teso me repomandout th of e taint rugby team. francois is a pretty big guy. how did you get ady ay >>gr world obly t th beey so >> sou i am

i am gs d, spiroem. epor lm'stitle us rto aem t mandela used as a sou inspn anngthg near i because the country didn't fall into civil waby l e tionhould have and it's a decision that every single person in that country made. still to come he's a big and bad offensive lineman in the nfl but what are his keys to success off the field?

íí

take a look at san francisco 49er eric heitmann and you'd never know that off the field he's a pianoman. here's comcast sportsnet's bay area's brody brazil to show us. >> reporter: this is the side of eric heitmann people know, an offensive lineman for the 49ers since 2002. and this is the side most would never expect, at 6' 3 315 pounds he's got the frame of a football behemoth with the hands of a beethoven. >> my mom made me take lessons about 10, 11 years growing up as a kid. right around when i started playing football, football became more of a focus for me

and piano you put on the back burner a little bit. it was always secondary for me, always a hobby but something that i always kept up. >> reporter: inside his home today heitmann employs both a piano and keyboard setup inner it connected with the apple program garage band. it is here where the stanford graduate composes his best work in the form of cinematic sound scapes. >> my style is more of a movie classical theme sounding stuff i guess i would characterize it. >> so dramatic it plays well essentially. it's dynamic. >> yeah. i'd like to think that. you guys can be the judge. >> reporter: while football is the profession and composition is the passion, it's the music that gives eric an escape from life when he needs it. >> i'll be home sunday night or after a big game and maybe there's something you need to crank out on the piano to kind of relieve some emotions or something. i use it as an escape. it's a good way to kind of release frustration or whatever

emotions you're feeling at the time. it's something i've done for so long, you know, i've played for so long i don't ever really want to let it go at this point. i enjoy playing and i'm going to keep doing it as long as i can. >> reporter: it's only natural to expect eric's musical endeavors will outlast his football career, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's planning for a future behind the keyboard. >> you never know. we'll see at some point maybe if there's something you can put out there. i'd love to get in a recording studio at some point, maybe not for profit, just something i could show my kids at some point. i'll continue to do this for as long as i can. >> reporter: brody brazil, comcast sportsnet. >> he's pretty good. his team's not doing bad either. that's going to do it for this edition of net impact. i'm your host and for all of us thanks for watching, see you again next month.

welome,