from the dependency on oil. look for these titles in stores this coming week and watch for the authors in the near future on booktv. >> coming up next, david campbell examines the current state of religious observance and interfaith relationships in the u.s. and how it's changed over the past 50 years. the author specifically focuses on the reaction to a republican presidential candidate mitt romney's mormonism and presents his thoughts on what it says about religious tolerance today. mr. campbell speaks and takes audience questions for about an hour, 20 minutes. [applause] >> well, thank you very much for those words and for the introduction, i appreciate it. it's nice to be here at usc, and as a notre dame guy, that's really saying something for you to say that. [laughter] i had to admit, i had mixed feelings coming here. i know all about this place because for one saturday every

year, it's just usc all the time in south bend. but i was very pleased when i was in the bookstore today, i buy a t-shirt at every campus i visit, i was very pleased to see a table in the bookstore with a bunch of leprechauns for sale. i thought, that's a very classy move on usc's part. and then i walked up to it and realized it wasn't notre dame swag, it's just because it's st. patrick's day. nonetheless, there it was. [laughter] i thought that i might disclose some biographical information about myself that might be relevant for the discussion today. um, i, of course, teach at notre dame which, um, means that sometimes there can be a little confusion about my own biography. in that people often assume that i'm catholic. i teach and write on american politics which often means that people assume that i'm an american. it turns out that neither of those things are true.

i am neither a catholic, nor am i an american, yet i teach at a catholic university about american politics. in fact -- [laughter] a few years ago this all came to a head, those biographical facts about myself, when i was asked to participate on a round table at notre dame, the sorts of things campuses do all the time. this was a panel discussion on catholics in american politics. i said, sure, happy to do it. went to the event and introduced myself similarly the way i just did now saying, you know, two things you should know about me, i'm neither catholic, nor am i an american, but if you want to hear what a non-catholic nonamerican has to say, stick around. this is what passes for a joke in political science. [laughter] but the very next day the campus newspaper at notre dame, the observer, had as its front-page story an article about that round table. and the story began with the

following sentence: yesterday professor david campbell, neither a catholic, nor an american, said -- [laughter] so i always feel like i'm a fish out of water, and i never quite know where i fit. but there is one other biographical fact that you may have picked up in the introduction. certainly some in the room have their radar on and would have clued in on the important detail that came from my undergraduate education which is that i attended brigham young university. and if it isn't clear already, you should know now that i am not a catholic, but i am a mormon. and so i do speak from inside the culture as i'll talk a little bit about mormonism today. and it just felt like it was important for me to get that, um, out there. i want to just point here to my opening slide that, you know, there is, it is possible for the trojans and the irish to live together in harmony. [laughter] if there's anything else we can learn from this, it's a great

bridge-building opportunity. so i'm going to talk today -- there we go. i'm going to talk today about, um, mitt romney, john f. kennedy, but probably more importantly some broader themes, broader questions that come up given the comparisons between these two presidential candidates. um, but just before i get into that, i just want to make the point that we all know that i'm here today because a few years ago a mormon almost won the most important election in america by which, of course, i mean david around chew let that on "american idol." [laughter] again, that's what passes for a joke in my business. no, actually, i'm here to talk about this guy, mitt romney. not just about him, but he'll set the stage for our discussion of the role that religion plays in politics today. and this question of whether or not mitt romney's mormonism has

and will present the same sorts of obstacles that john f. kennedy's catholicism caused him to face in 1960. but before i actually get into the discussion and the comparison between romney and kennedy and what we can learn from these two examples, i actually want to set the stage for just sort of the overall state of religion in america. and more specifically, what we might think of as the state of religious tolerance in america. so i'm just going to talk for a few minutes if it's all right about some findings from the book that was mentioned in the very generous introduction that was given that i recently published with robert putnam at harvard entitled "american grace: how religion divides and unites us." this is the paperback version that is just out, you can buy it today. this book is not about mormons, it's not about catholics, it's about religion in general. and it covers a lot of different questions and themes about religion in american society. but it primarily answers the

following question: how can americans simultaneously be three things? how can we be a country that is, a, religiously devout and compared to other advanced industrialized democracies america is a very religious country, how can we be religiously diverse, we have a wide array of religions in america, and we're only getting more diverse as time goes on. how do we combine those two facts with the third characteristic of religion in american society, a high level of religious tolerance? now, it's that third claim that some audiences find to be a little skeptical of et. it. but let me show you a little bit of evidence to suggest that perhaps americans actually do get along with those of other faiths to a much greater extent than is appreciated by those who might only be watching cable news programs. american grace, the book that

i've mentioned, has as its backbone a major survey that bob putnam and i commissioned of over 3,000 americans randomly sampled from around the country. we canned them every imaginable thing you could come up with about their religion, about their civic involvement, their family life. you name it, we asked them. and among the many questions that we asked was the following question: do you believe that a good person not of your faith can go to heaven? what you're looking at is how americans from many different religious traditions answered that question. 98% of mormons, 96% of mainline protestants, 95% of jews, 92 percent of catholics and so on all say that a good person not of their faith can still go to heaven. and that includes 83% of evangelical protestants. the one group in america that you might think has some pretty

strong opinions on who gets in the door, but nonetheless, 83% of van -- evangelical people say, yeah, people out of my faith can still go to hen. even though i'm here at u usc, i know you're sitting there thinking, wait a second, doesn't this just mean that the methodists think the presbyterians can go to heaven or the episcopals think that the lutherans can go to heaven? that isn't quite the same thing as saying a catholic believes a jew can go to heaven or a jew thinks a muslim can go to heaven. well, that's all true. so we share your skepticism. and on our survey we asked a second, a follow-up question. after folks got this question, do you believe a good person not of your faith can go to heaven, we then asked of those who come from a christian background what if that person isn't a christian? these are the results. once again, 98% of mormons

agree. 83% of catholics, 79% of mainline protestants. and even 54% of evangelical protestants. now, it's lower here than that percentage we saw earlier, but it's still over half of evangelical protestants. the one group that you might think would have the strongest opinions on who gets to heaven. 54% of them still say that even a nonchristian can go to heaven. i've spoken to many different audiences about this finding, and i can assure you that among evangelical christians themselves or especially among evangelical christian clergy and theologians, this is a very troubling number. but there are the facts. most americans are perfectly willing to accept those of other religions to the extent that they're perfectly willing to say that those folks can even go to heaven. lest you think that that particular question is somehow quirky or idiosyncratic, here's a little more evidence for the idea that americans are very

comfortable of people with other religions. on our survey we also asked do you think that religious diversity has been good for america? what you're looking at is the percentage of americans of varying degrees of their own personal religiousty or religious commitment, how they answered that question. and across the board you can see that overwhelming majorities of americans say that religious diversity has been a good thing for america. whether it's the very least religious people, 84% of them, all the way up to the most religious, 74%. so overwhelming majorities of americans say, yeah, diversity is a good thing. we also asked do you believe that there is, a, very little truth in any religion, do you believe that one religion is true and others are not -- which would presumably mean your own religion if you answer, yes -- or do you believe there are basic truths in many religions? an overwhelming percentage of americans fall into the middle

category, that there are basic truths in many religions. all of this is evidence that americans are very comfortable with people of other faiths. however, that is not to say that all religions are viewed with equal favorability. on the big survey that i mentioned earlier, we asked a series of questions designed to gauge how americans feel about those of a different faith. we did this using a rather hokey question on our big survey known as a feeling thermometer. now, when i use that term, i know that sounds like the sort of thing you might do in therapy. let's all get together and talk about our feelings. [laughter] all it means is on the survey if you were one of our respondents, you were asked to give your ratings, how you felt toward a series of religious groups. and actually social scientists use this for not just religions.

politicians, various companies, if you are interested in how the american public perceives your brand of toothpaste, you might ask a similar type of question. but we were interested in religions. so we asked these folks, how do you feel about, oh, jews or catholics, evangelicals, etc. between 0 and 100, 0 meaning you feel negatively or cold toward that group, 100 meaning you feel positive or warm towards that group, 50 meaning you're completely neutral. so i'm a boston red sox fan, you ask me about the red sox, i'd probably give them a score of 90, or at least i would have until their september collapse in which case it was about a 10. but that's another matter. so what you're looking at here is a picture that raised all of these different religious groups and how they are perceived by everyone else in the population. so this particular figure only tells you how other groups, other folks feel about a particular group.

it's how non-jews feel about jews, it's how non-catholics feel about catholics. it's a different story about how groups fee feel about themselves, but today i want to focus on how different groups are perceived by others. now, the first thing i want to point out is that the range here is fairly compact which means that most americans actually give most religions a pretty moderate rating. but there is some variation, as you can see. here at the top we have the most popular religious group in america. and the most popular religious group in america is, drum roll, please, the jews! but i assure you that no jew believes that. but there it is. facts are facts. [laughter] and you're going to think i'm just playing to the hometown crowd that i'm saying this because i'm from notre dame, but it's true that in second place and very, very close to the jews so it's essentially a tie are the catholics. we've got the mainline

protestants, and then we've got these other groups, and i'll get to those in a minute. i just want to note that it is a remarkable thing that jews and catholics are at the top of this i assure you that if we had 100, 50, maybe even 40 years ago jews and catholics would not have been at the top of that list. in fact, it is because catholics were not viewed favorably in 1960 and 1928 when al smith and then john f. kennedy ran for the presidency that they had to face voters' concerns about their religion. it was precisely because of that. but here they are. and why is that? that's kind of a puzzle, right? that we have that we discuss in american grace and that we might want to think about here. what happened to lead those groups to rise to the top? here we have the evangelicals and people who are not religious, i think there's some great symmetry here. it's almost as though there's some sort of sense of universal justice, that the evangelicals and people who are not religious

are viewed about the same. somehow that seems right. and down here we have the least popular, if you will, religions in america. we have the muslims, we have the buddhists, and then we have the group that is of our greatest interest today, the mormons. and so whatever explanation we might come up with for why some groups are at the top also have to account for why other groups are at the bottom. and on this graph the size of each circle represents the share that that group has within the population. i point that out because this cannot simply be explained by the size of the group and the population. because note that the most popular group are the jews. and one of the least popular groups are the mormons, and, yet -- and this comes as a surprise to many audiences -- there are as many mormon os in america as there are jews. there has to be something else. and the answer that bob putnam

and i put forward in our book, "american grace," as to why some groups are viewed more favorably than others and why in general americans are comfortable with people of other religions is, another drum roll, are you ready? you're going to want to write this down. your aunt susan. who is your aunt susan? your aunt susan is that person in your family, the loved one in your close circle, who is the kindest, sweetest person you know. she's the one who never forgets your birthday. she's the one who brings all the cat roles to the sick people. -- casseroles to the sick people. she's the one who's always ready with a small loan if you need it. and you know in your heart of hearts that aunt susan is going to heaven. if there's a heaven, aunt susan's going to be there. but you also know that on sundays you go and hear theology that says that your aunt susan

can't go to heaven because she plays for a different team. you're catholic, and she's jewish, she's mormon, and you are a protestant. and when faced with a choice between their aunt susan and their theology, almost all americans go with aunt susan. now, i tell you that story, and i give you that name as a way to remember the concept, and you're sitting there thinking, okay, professor campbell, very nice. let's all hold hands and sing "kumbaya." now show me the data. well, it turns out that there is an immense amount of data supporting the argument that we make that americans have figured out how to get along across religious lines because we have made connections, personal connections across religious lines that almost all of us have an aunt susan in our families. that's what this graph shows you. this shows you the percentage of americans who say that they have

either neighbors, close friends or extended family members who are of a different religion than they. 93% of us have neighbors of different religions. three-quarters of us have close friends, someone within our five closest friends, who is of another religion. and two-thirds of us have aunt susans, people in our own family who are of different religions. and in the "american grace" we detail how it is that this bridge-building across religions has led us as a people, as a nation to be very accepting of those of other religions. but here's the message to remember: whether or not your group is accepted is itself related to the degree of bridging that that group engages in. bridge-building to other religions. and so there are lots of

catholic aunt susans in america. catholics are a big group, so it makes sense that lots of americans would know and love a catholic. and it turns out, actually, there are a lot of jewish aunt susans. they're the group that's most likely to build bridges beyond their own faith. but the one religious group in america that is the least likely to build bridges are mormons. there are a variety of reasons for that. one is that, um, mormons are geographically concentrated. largely in the mountain west. but even when you look at mormons outside of the mountain west, they are less likely to have friends and family members beyond the bounds of their own religion. and that can whos against -- that works against them in ways that mitt romney has experienced and is continuing to experience, and should he manage to prevail here in the next few months in the coming primaries will continue to experience yet more. so that's the backdrop for what i want to talk about today which is this comparison between

kennedy and romney. because where the mormons are now the catholics were back in 1960, arguably, certainly back in 1928 when al smith -- as was mention inside the introduction -- ran as the first catholic candidate for the presidency. all right. so let's set the stage for kennedy's run in 1960. the gallup poll has asked americans for many, many years the following question: if your party nominated a generally well-qualified person who happened to be, in this case, a catholic -- but they've asked the question about all sorts of religious groups and other demographic characteristics, happens to be a woman, an african-american, etc. -- would you vote for that person? in fact, it's interesting. they've asked this question, as you can see, going back to the 1930s when polling first began. and when they first asked it about women, the question was

actually worded: if your party nominated an otherwise well-qualified person who happened to be a woman -- i'm not kidding, that's how they worded it -- would you vote for that person? we've come a long way. anyway, these are the numbers for the percentage of americans who say that they would vote for a catholic candidate for the presidency. and it goes back to when this began in the late 1930s. and as you can see that all the way up through 1960 when kennedy was running, we had roughly 25-30% of the population who openly told pollsters that they would not vote for a catholic for the presidency. now, in those days interviews like this were done face to face. you had to sit in your living room and tell the person who has just asked you about all sorts of things that you would not vote for a catholic for the presidency. and we have every reason to think that that 30% was on the

low side of the estimate. because a lot of people in that social situation just wouldn't have been able to bring themselves to say i wouldn't vote for this guy because he's a catholic, but in the voting booth different altogether. could have been higher. that's what kennedy was up against in 1960. but also know what happened, he's elected, and we see this jump up. and then it stays high. it never comes back down. what i'd like to do now is play for you a clip from a speech that many of you have undoubtedly heard of. from 1960. john kennedy running for the presidency faces a group of protestant ministers in houston, texas. this is september 1960, the heat

of the presidential election. because of that 30 or so percent of americans who say they would not vote for a catholic for the presidency, kennedy figures i need to face my quote-unquote religion problem. he does so in this speech given truly in the lion's den where he meets a very hostile crowd. in this talk i don't have time to go through the whole speech, and i certainly don't have time to show you the question and answer period afterwards, but if you're interested in this, i would encourage you to go online, search for this speech and watch not just the speech, but the q&a afterwards where you can see the hostility directed toward kennedy by these protestant pastors. asking questions that i would suggest to you are not so far from the questions that are currently being asked of mitt romney as he runs for the presidency. that is, these questions were hostile towards catholicism. the questions that romney faces are often hostile toward mormonism. so i'm going to play the clip

and then talk a little bit about it. >> let me stress again that these are my views. but contrary to common newspaper usage, i am not the catholic candidate for president. i am the democratic party's candidate for president. who happens also to be a catholic. i do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me. whatever issue may come before me as president if i should be elected on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject, i will make my decision in accordance with these views; in accordance with what my conscious tells me to be in the national interest and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates. and no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise. but if the time should ever come and i do not conceive any

conflict to be remotely possible, when my office would require me to either violate my conscious or violate the national interest, then i would resign the office, and i hope any other conscientious public servant would do likewise. >> now, here's what i want to point out about kennedy's remarks there. note that he says in that speech, i do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me. and then he goes on to mention a serious of issue -- series of issues. birth control, once again. we're having a big debate over birth control in america. divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject, i will make my decision in accordance with my own views, with what my conscious tells me without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates. in other words, kennedy is standing for this audience of

protestant pastors, and really the entire nation to say i will not be beholden to my church hierarchy. in fact, it's interesting to know one of the historical ironies of the campaign is that if you look at the actual positions taken by john. if kennedy on the one hand and his opponent, richard nixon -- remember him? nixon, actually, was closer to the catholic church on whether to have an ambassador to the vatican. and on the question of public funding for catholic schools. today we call those school vouchers, but it was a slightly different debate in those days. but nixon was actually on the side of the catholic church, not kennedy. so we have kennedy standing and saying it's okay to vote for me as a catholic because i'm not going to do catholic stuff. i'm not going to listen to them. i just want you to keep that in mind, because it says something really significant about how religion and politics were intertwined in 1960.

all right. now, this -- the more things change, the more they stay the same because i want to draw a contrast now between the way catholics were perceived back when kennedy was running and other groups today. so gallup has asked the same question. they said lots of different groups, i haven't put all of them on the slide, but jews, mormons and catholics, the percentage of americans who say they would vote for a jew has risen over the last 40 years until it's now pretty well at a near-universal level. not quite, but it's well within that margin of error where we could say, basically, everybody in america would be comfortable with at least saying they'd vote for a jew. but compare that to the line for mormons. this is truly remarkable. gallup first asked a question about a mormon presidential candidate back in 1968 because there was a guy, maybe you've heard of him, by the name of george romney -- former governor

of michigan, former head of american motors and father to mitt romney -- who was, for a time, a leading candidate in the republican race for the presidency. and at that time roughly 25% of americans said openly that they would not vote for a mormon for the presidency. gallup didn't can the question again -- didn't ask the question again until 1999, and the line was pretty much flat. they've asked it genre peatedly, mainly because of romney's run for the presidency, and as you can see, that line hasn't moved much at all. it's a little lower there, that's well within this statistical margin that we have. basically, that line has stayed flat. so while americans have become more accepting of catholics and je well, s and other groups as well, they have not become more accepting over time of mormon presidential candidates. that's the obstacle that mitt romney faces today, it's the obstacle that jon huntsman jr.

would have faced had he stayed in the race and had a little more traction. it's the same issue that any mormon candidate presumably would face today. so there we have our parallel, right? between romney today and kennedy then. but, of course, they're not running in the same political environment. a lot has changed since. what's changed? well, this'll come as no surprise to anyone in the audience, but we live in a time today when religion matters a lot more and in different ways today in how people vote than it did in the past. certainly in 1960, but even throughout the 1970s and even up until the early 980 -- 1980s. what this graph shows you is the correlation between how frequently somebody attends religious services and whether or not they identify as a republican. going back to the 1950s all the way up to the present. and the way you interpret this is that the higher the point is

on the graph, the tighter the connection between how frequently you go to church and whether or not you identify as a republican. so if really high, it means there's a really strong connection. and if it's low and below zero especially, it means there's either no connection, or maybe those who go to church are more likely to be democrats than republicans. and, again, this is probably not a surprise to anyone in the audience, but we live in an era where there's a strong connection between how frequently you attend church and whether or not you identify as a republican. ..

have a time machine 40 or so years, 50 years, you would see the evangelicals endorsing a very strident catholic for the presidential nomination. so this is the world we live now to read it wasn't all that long ago there was essentially no connection between whether or not you were republican. so what changed? well, this file will make the point to tell a story this is the picture of the governor of new york at the 2,000 fully to attend presidential republican convention madison square garden. if you look carefully at this picture, you can see on the podium it looks like there might

be a cross there. maybe it's across, maybe it's not. during the republican convention in 2004, i was called by a reporter who was in madison square garden looking at this podium and asked me did i think it looked like a cross? the point i tried to make the reporters is that it doesn't matter whether or not the republicans did some sort of supplemental religious imagery and the podium. this is a party that in the 2004 convention stopped the entire proceedings to say a prayer on prime time television. that's not subtle. that is about as overt as it gets. so i made a statement that doesn't really matter whether it is a cross on the podium is about religious symbolism and using all this coming and the reporters and i just want to know is it a cross. because i am a social scientist and we don't like to be pinned down on anything i said to the

reporter and he will look this up and an associate at freeport i said i don't know whether it is a cross or not but it has crossed like properties. [laughter] okay. that's maybe not a fair example because it is a subliminal and on the podium. let me show you another example what's changing our politics. shoes and have maybe some of you have seen that rick perry ran recently toured islamic i'm not ashamed to admit i'm a christian but you don't need to be in the pew every sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate christmas and pray in school. s president i will end obama's war on religion and fight against a liberal attacks on our religious heritage. fayette made america strong and

we can make her strong again. i'm rick perry and i approve this message. islamic this is the politics today. this is the leading contender for the republican presidential nomination openly speaking about the current administration having declared war on religion. of course rick perry now to the historical dustbin at least for now but we have new gingrich who popped up for similar things and rick santorum pop up and say similar things. the theme and the importance of not a particular flavor of religion, but religion in general keeps coming up in our presidential politics. let me show you another couple of examples here. because again, you might say well, rick perry, maybe he's just a loser so therefore we ought to focus on the winners. how about george w. bush? he won two presidential elections using a lot of religious symbolism and imagery

same-sex marriage, one of the 14 held that year, 11 for help on the same day as the presidential election. the fly reminds us that republicans believe in america today we are told the on the only party that defends life and protect from partial birth abortion. we are reminded the with yolly party that can trust to defend traditional marriage, one man and one woman and there's a number of other things that are related to religion here but what i want to draw your attention to is the imagery of

the church. we don't felt kind of church this is that it's definitely a church this is branding on the part of the republican party. if you think that is an idiosyncratic example this was also sent to hundreds of thousands of households in the great state of ohio. here we are told that this election is for families. we are told that george w. bush is fighting for our values, strong families and the foundation of america. george w. bush is fighting to protect traditional marriage. again we have the image of a church and the most beautiful family can never imagine who would want to be part of that family. there such a beautiful family they don't even have to wear shoes. [laughter] the rules do not apply to them. not only is the politics of trade it with religious symbolism and imagery. a separate religious and secular americans. so it turns out that religious

people and less religious people actually see the world in the same way on many issues on the death penalty and immigration believe it or not what makes on cable tv most americans share similar opinions on those issues and religion doesn't divide them. religion does divide america is on the issue of abortion and same-sex marriage and when we fight elections over those issues, religious and secular voters fall apart from one another and vote differently over different issues we wouldn't expect the voters to look all that is friendly to be divided another way is. let me also make a point about the separation of religion in our politics and on the right in this survey that we have done we went back and interview them in 2011. that's important because we can tell you what changed and what state the same over a five-year pergola in america. in 2006 when we first did our

survey we haven't experienced the great recession. we hadn't elected barack obama as our president and the tea party had not yet emerged. so going back to the date in 2006 what predicts support for the two-party five years later in 2011 and it's interesting because next to being a republican, no surprise there, the next strongest predictor whether you're a supporter is the desire to see more religion mixed in with our politics. that is a stronger predictor of future not to be a tea party supporter than a desire for smaller government. which is the ostensible reason for existence of the tea party. i bring this up to pick on the tea party folks and not even the question they don't have the desire to shrink government. i think those things are true, but also that less government goes right along side the idea that we should have more religion in our government. okay.

so, we have this highly charged environment today where religion is something that we expect presidential candidates to address, and this is the challenge that mitt romney faces today. because he can't stand before an audience like kennedy did and say don't worry about my religion. because we expect our presidential candidates and especially the republican base expects their candidates to speak very openly about their religion to the religion of the states. as of this is a difficult space that mitt romney has to negotiate. and let me just sort of lay out why his mormonism is an issue for him. back in 2008 when he was first running along with some colleagues and of the brigham young university and the university of akron we did a number of experts mass of people and i know it sounds like we brought them in loud and put

them with needles and such but all we need is on a survey some people wanted of question and ask other people another type of question and compare the results depending on how we phrase the question in order to in this case determine how people react to learning that mitt romney is either a local leader in his church where we will show you in a few moments in local leader in the mormon church of you interpret this is if it is 00 it means what we told folks made them less likely to vote for romney did these things here and if they cross zero it means we actually have can't say that there was any effect whatsoever it measures the level of uncertainty, the margin of error. what does that mean? it turns out we of to tell americans in general is a local leader in his church. they are a little less likely to vote but probably not any significant way. the streets evangelicals and it's true for people of a high level of religious commitment

through the republican primary voters and those who knew his religion before we ask a question and those who say they are interested in politics etc.. so just singing his religious, that's fine. but if you point out to people you're not just religious, and he is a local leader in the mormon church all of a sudden it goes to all the dots to move below zero. with the return of the public as a whole, evangelicals, he let the higher level of religious commitment republican primary voters etc., etc. to all of those folks that actually now that i know that or i am reminded of that, i am less likely to vote for mitt romney. that is the challenge that he faces. why is this a problem? partly because as earlier there are many manteca -- very many mormons in the countries into many americans mormonism is a strange alien religion that they know nothing about and it also doesn't help that mormons, as i mentioned earlier, have a very - it of bonding.

so even as a small number and that small number doesn't have a tendency to build bridges and other states and so, mormons look-alike black protestants and catholics on what we call the religious homogeneity. this is how much bonding you have within the religion whether you are close friends and family members of the same faith and you can see the mormons look at the height of the bar a greater degree of bonding the look-alike like these other groups, black protestants in which you know catholics both of which are also racial groups or ethnic groups. there's a high level of tightknit within mormons. this compares them on one of those questions whether they share your religion within communities that are heavy verses those that live in communities where they are not heavily lds and you find a high degree of bonding and a greater degree in say utah or southern

idaho or places to find a heavy concentration. so my point is this is a challenge to mitt romney that not many people know. why does this matter? we ask people in our big study do you know a mormon and if so, how so we have a portion of the population if you don't know a more men of all we have another portion who says i know in more men but not well we have a co-worker and a neighbor and some people say i have a more man who's a close friend or family member to read and we tell them he's a local leader in the church we find those that do not know the mormon they are a little less likely to vote for romney. if you have a more men as a close friend or family member they are a little less likely but that part goes over zeros we can't say that there is an effect. but where we find the biggest effect and this is a message that should be sobering for any who might be in the audience today those who have the

acquaintance beano em orman the only in passing, they are the most likely to have a negative reaction. why is that? we hypothesize it is because these folks know there is something distinctive about mormons but they haven't developed that close personal relationship that enables them to forge the personal connection did discover the distinctiveness and enables them to recognize that maybe these folks are okay after all in the same way that we've done this as a people with catholics and jews and members of other religions. it's in that context i want to turn to view a clip from a speech that mitt romney gave in 2007. in many respects it was like kennedy's 1960. they're running in this case for the nomination of the party but like kennedy he went to the same

state. he went to texas to address questions related to his religion. >> almost 50 years ago another candidate from massachusetts explained that he was an american running for president, not a catholic running for president. like him, ariana and american running for president. i do not defined my candidacy by my religion. a person should not be elected because of his faith, nor should he be rejected because of his faith. let me assure you that no authorities in my church or any other church for that matter will lever excerpt influence on presidential decisions. their authority is there is within the province of church affairs, and it ends with the affairs of the nation began. as governor, i try to do the right as best i knew it, serving balk and answering to the

constitution. i did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the constitution, and of course i would not do so as president. i will put no doctrine of any church above the plane duties of the office and the sovereign authority of law. >> up to that point that sounds a lot like candy, doesn't it? he is pretty much singing the same thing. but remember, mitt romney is running in a very different political one firearm. she's running in an environment we expect now our presidential candidates to speak about religion openly said calculation he made is that it wasn't enough for him to do what kennedy did and simply say you know what, i have a religion but don't worry about it. it's not going to do what i do because that's not what we expect our candidates to do any more so he went on to say the following. >> lincoln described what he called america's political

religion. the commitment to defend the rule of law and the constitution i place my camel bible and takes the oath of office that both becomes my highest promised to god if i'm fortunate enough to become your president i will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause and no one interest. a president must serve only the common cause of the people of the united states. [applause] >> so again, that sounds like kennedy, doesn't it? [applause] >> there are some for whom these commitments are not enough. they would prefer it if i would simply distance myself from my religion comes a that it's more a tradition than my personal condition or disavow one or another as a preset. that i will not do.

i believe in my mormon faith and i endeavor to live by it. my faith is the faith of my father's. i will be true to them and to my beliefs. some believe such a convention of my faith will seek my candidacy. if they are right, soviet. but i think the interest of the american people. americans do not respect respecters -- excuse me, believers of convenience. americans tai year of those who are jettison their believes even to gain the world. there is one fundamental question which i am also elfgin asked. what do i believe about jesus christ? i believe that jesus christ is the son of god and the savior of mankind. my church's believes about christ may not be the same as those of other faiths. each religion has its own unique doctrines in history. these are not basis for criticism, but rather a test of our tolerance.

religious tolerance chollet shella principal indeed. if it were reserved only for faith with which we agree. now, that is a pretty remarkable state of front-running candidate for the republican presidential nominee says the falling. what do i believe about jesus christ? i believe that jesus christ is the son of god and the savior of mankind. that is a pretty plausible statement. -- personal statement. in 1960 nobody would have expected john f. kennedy to say anything like that. i would say even as late as 1980, maybe even 90 to we wouldn't expect a presidential candidate to say something like that. but here is mitt romney feeling like he needs to open about his religion. that is the dilemma that he faced and he continues to face. now, with that in mind, let me go back to the study that we've done and how people respond to

information about from the's religious background. one of the most loaded charges made about mormons as they are not christian peery i will tell you as someone from inside the culture that statement is hurtful to many in fact research center the survey of mormons in america and ask themselves the think mormons are christians? 97% said yes. who is a 3% work, they must have understood the question or something because through a more men of course we are christian. we put the name of jesus and the church's name. but of course, that charge the mormons are not christian to those who make it isn't about the name of the church or even proficient of believe in christ is the specific things that mormons believe about jesus. that is the point is the logical contention. i'm not going to get into that today. it's not relevant for the discussion. i just want to make the point the charge mormons are not christian to raise a lot of weight in america. so we gave people the information and we said and we

faced it very innocuous and said some people say mormons are not christian. in addition to this information about mitt romney's biography and other things about him, and we asked does that make you more or less likely to vote for mitt romney and hearing that they are not kristen as you can see knocks down support for mitt romney. so then we give people another group countervailing information. we set some people say mormons are not christians, but others say that your faith -- the fifth of a presidential candidate should be irrelevant. that is basically the kennedy argument. we want to see whether that could move people's opinion and it turns out a little bit. it made him a little less likely to say they wouldn't vote for romney but not all whole bunch and the line is still low zero, meaning even with a counter argument people are still saying i don't think i can vote for this guy. then we tried a different counter argument. what we call the mitt romney argument. as a, the faith is irrelevant. that is kennedy's.

this counter argument was well, some people say that we shouldn't worry about voting for a mormon because they have the same values as people of other religions like protestants and catholics, which is what romney was arguing in his speech. did that make a difference? well, it made people a little more likely to say they vote for him that that line is still below zero which suggests that there is still a potent argument to be made that mormons are not christian and we cannot completely undo when we give people information. those who didn't know a mormon and those who knew a mormon well and those who only knew then passing. you give them the countervailing argument and say they've the single u.s. people of other religions and support comes back up.

that is a pretty good chunk of the population. here are the folks who say the heavy mormonism close friend or family member. these folks it doesn't matter what to tell them. you can tell them mormons are kristen or the case is irrelevant and it doesn't matter because they have their opinion me up. they've made a convention and they will be decided in most cases that they're more men and susan is okay. share is the trouble. those are the folks that know a mormon in passing three of support goes down. tell them faith should be irrelevant, it doesn't budge. tell them the of the same values as others and it's still it doesn't budge. what does that suggest? it suggests that for mitt romney he faces this obstacle whereby a sizable fraction of the american population are weary of mormons because they recognize the distinctiveness but have not yet

forged the personal connection with the mormons. now, if i left the speech there, things would probably some pretty depressing. not from the mitt romney candidacy but maybe for the state of religious tolerance in america overall because it would suggest there isn't much to do if that is predictable to imagine how the campaign, even if many millions of dollars could somehow convince mormons to go out and fight these personal connections with their friends and neighbors that would be a pretty tall task. but i will suggest this could another research be done, we found the next of personal connections, the other factor that matters to assuage people's concerns about those of a religious background is information. factor of information about religion. so if the candidacy leads americans to have a conversation about religion even though at times it will be painful those within the community because

they are going to hear a lot of things they hold sacred brought out and tried before the public, but in long run, we will be better off as a nation because we will move a little closer to having a greater understanding of those in the different religious backgrounds. so, let me if i could play just one last with only a few seconds of something john f. kennedy said in which i will conclude. >> while this year it may be a catholic against whom there are things of suspicion pointed. in other years that have been and may someday be again a jew or quaker or unitarian or baptist. astana or maybe a mormon. so let me conclude with one question i would like us to think about.

as the mormon moment of the attention focused on the religion mean that this is romney's year. will he be the mormon's john f. kennedy? lady he will in fact i would expect favorability to rise although maybe not as an extended for catholics after john f. kennedy was elected to the but of course the other scenario is that fahmy turns out to be the all smith where instant of prevailing on he goes down in flames and history remembers him as a candidate who suffered because of his religion in which way it will go it is to say that at least we know now what the roadblocks are ahead of him. thank you very much. [applause] >> so, we have a little bit of time for q&a. if anybody has any questions. remember if you have a question, we need to wait for the microphone to come. for the mormons in the audience this is like a testimonies we have our begin here who will bring to the microphone.

for those who are not i can explain that. >> the first they believed long mormons to have and i think that there's a first doctor in because of the say so there'll be required then and the mormons believe on the day they are baptized they enter heaven, so there is -- for the mormons to go to heaven as understand have been baptized [inaudible] so many steps under the you can go to heaven it depends what kind of a sudden you're talking about the debts of church

doctrine and if anybody says so [inaudible] >> well, let me begin by answering that question by saying the following: i am not a spokesperson for the lds church. i can speak about my lds beliefs but i'm not a spokesperson for the church and i am not an evangelist for missionary or anything like that for the church, nor am i an evangelist for the mitt romney campaign as a matter of fact. but let me answer your question. so, just to rephrase it. when i put that slide up early on and sit there is a high percentage of americans to believe those of other faiths can get to heaven and the highest group of all word mormons. some might say that's not really a fair question to ask mormons because in more many years that is a different question than an is to the other religions because the unique believe that those who have died and who were not baptized into the lds faith can have others baptized in their name. you might think of it is a

posthumous factor now that there's been controversy about that recently that the church has had to face victims of the holocaust and had their -- they've been baptized by proxy through the process practice. so maybe that is a different question. and it's even more complicated because the mormons of a complex view of heaven. it is not one heaven or hell there are multiple levels. maybe when you ask people if they believe the good person can go to have in there of thinking a lower level. we don't know what is inside of people's heads when they answer these questions. we don't know. it's interesting that mormons for a little higher than everyone else but maybe not so much distinctive on this. but taken as a matter of argument that you're right. for this question the mormon response is different than everyone else and they have a unique believe when they say as a matter of faith they can go to heaven, they can go to heaven if

they are baptized posthumously by a mormon. i would suggest to you that even if that is true and that is inside his head when they ask that question that selectively says something important about the way mormons the people of other faiths because it means that if mormons understand their own doctor and correctly that when they look at the world, they should be looking at people, not to or different than them but who actually are their brother and sister and are destined for the same place, they just have to work a little to get there. and the evidence for why i think it is actually a plausible interpretation of this is that we are -- i mentioned this the the how people perceive other religious groups called welcome i showed you how everybody else feels about mormons, you know, we down in the cellar how they feel about everybody else. they love everybody else. ..

>> you said that in the slide in, and people feel good in the various religion. use the word popular. >> i did. >> at the deli that is the way you phrase -- >> now, it's not the way we asked the question. >> people are asked to rate in

the various groups, some may be asked to popularity in air quotes. we don't use that phrase when we ask people. >> what about respect? >> we don't use popularity or respect, but i think it is fair to say that data suggests when they are favorable towards the religion they give another reading a it does play a high level of respect. so catholics respect them for example. >> if you ask me, i wouldn't necessarily say that mormons are popular or that they make me feel good. but i would say very much respect them. >> so would you give them a high score on the zero to 100 scale click >> akamai very high. >> do you know a mormon person? >> yes i do. >> there we go. thank you very much, folks. >> never to sit down and discuss

religion. i've been to salt lake city, but like you said, it is a strange world if you are not acquainted. i have read some of their pamphlet. it is fine. >> non-catholics have a hard time with catholicism. >> way, the point i'm trying to make his and 1960s there were a lot of americans who have never had any personal exposure to catholics. it was a very different world and catholics are two different schools, went to do for neighborhoods and protestants didn't know a catholic and not changed. now we have of these catholic seasons that we didn't have banned them what you describe is a similar story about your personal experience with mormons today. they don't have a mormon and season but maybe you have exposure. >> as a mormon, which you answer this question.

in your heart, your values, how you attack commie you wouldn't rent to the bishop and ask you. i agree with that if you're in a political office. however, what you really believe and, let us say it's about orson or same-sex marriage or that sort of stuff, he wouldn't give it up to the popular he don't think. >> i see what you are saying and i think that is a fair comment to make that we hope collectively as a society wouldn't expect our politicians are not enough to have to disembowel any of their religious beliefs because they are in the public light. although it is interesting to note in the case of mormonism there actually are far fewer specific statement ever made by church leaders that could really be construed as direction to any

politician in office. the lds church does make a policy is seen under politics. lots of evidence that that does work out on the ground. if you never hear politics discussed, it's a very rare thing. when it does happen and you will live in the state appellate when you say you saw this in the church to get involved on the proposition 80 campaign. so when it does, it can really ignite enthusiasm on the part of individual mormons because there's a lot they can draw on to mobilize politically. that is a very rare event. let's go over here. okay lets to him. i actually meant to women in the row ahead. go ahead. you have the mic. >> i just want to ask about the survey. you asked a lot of very personal questions, really sensitive

questions. and just like you say, you don't know what's in the hearts of people. so my general question to you is, how seriously are you taking this? for example, the very first thing about all good people go to heaven. well, you had something about the jews and whatever it is, to 80%, whatever it was. while jews don't believe in having. so if you asked the question, the right answer would be -- you see what i'm saying? so you're asking staff -- like if you ask me about my case -- >> which i'm not going to do, by the way. >> if i was going to answer, chances are you wouldn't answer truthfully. >> let me respond. so giving a talk. ethical shortcuts. i didn't give you the freezing. in the case of who goes to heaven, we actually added the

attain salvation. if you you work a stitch your typical jewish responded didn't feel that question applied to them, they could've said pass. but it turns out very few are basically none of them did. i should mention my co-author was jewish and he was fine at the question. i take that to mean that this is a question that even though it might not map into this jewish beliefs come to they give over asking and that is true for a lot of questions. it's difficult to ask because you have to come up with language that translates across. now, your concern with what the survey together that no one will tell us the truth about prevention or people won't even want to talk about religion. we are worried our response might be low. especially her co-authors in cambridge, massachusetts but there's like three people who go to church. but it turns out that wasn't the case at all. when we met with the company that did the survey is for a can

be explained or pony did this survey on religion only mention them were great turned about the risk on three, whether people would agree to be in a they said don't worry. it's not going to be a problem. we do 90 minute service and mutual funds. that's a problem. the response rate we had in her survey was actually very high by the standards of water polling and the reason is most americans come in this, as a shock most americans are very comfortable talking about religion. we listen to interviews and you can listen in as the questions are asked and it's very clear that most people we spoke to because they themselves are religious but that's what america is, were very comfortable talking about this question on it to be a natural thing. soldiers are to put of put that out there as my counter to a tape these results seriously.

i once take everything with a grain of salt. i don't necessarily believe ever in says they go to church every week is actually in church every week, they want us to think they're in church every week. another question here. >> political theology or interplay between religion and politics. i'm sure you could give us a cliff's notes version of any of these campaign obviously religion was not as big of an issue in politics, but we've been eating and increased involvement of religion and politics at a specific campaign issue for creating device -- division within political parties and within our congressional bodies. do you see any chance of that reaching a breaking point because of the ineffectiveness at this point of people to work together across party lines because religious associations with ideologies, political

ideology? >> you don't realize this may be. i mumble being cute plan at this question to the audience that this is right over the plate. it's actually in the book. remember i showed you that starting in the late 1980s early 1990s we begin to see this dramatic increase in the question of how frequently we attend church in how you identify as republican. if they are interesting things started at exactly the same time. the grass looks almost identical. it was said exactly that point in time that we begin to see a rapid acceleration in the percentage of americans who asked, what is your religion? answer, none. we called them than nouns. abbey careful. we went for me. for first ica data, going back decades, ripley fights% to 7%

said they had no relation and beginning in the late 1980s he began to see the acceleration until now it's 18%. it's almost one in five americans today when i said no religion. among young people come under millennial, it is more like 30% say they have no religion. that is a stunning change. why is that? the next generation is less religious than their parents because generational change doesn't happen quickly. it happened slowly. instead, something had to change in the world to lead to that spike. what was the change? i won't go into details here, but the data make it clear that the growth in the non-is a correct response to and conservative politics because those are almost all liberals or moderates, certainly not to reduce. someone may have what is your

religion? defendant, religion equals because of it is an partisan politics and that is not their politics, so they don't want to say they have a religion because the two go together. it was the person asking them to think of them any differently than than they really are. for that reaction has led to this growth. how does that respond to your questions? we've seen evidence of last five years. the biggest change we have seen in the last five years and this is a bit and noticed a drop-off in politicking over the pulpit. i want to be clear. most americans and they go to church or synagogue or whatever don't hear much politics over the pulpit. it's not as common as some have suggested that the they are and to the extent it. strap a pretty dramatically in the last five years. why is that? but we don't other reason, but i

am willing to bet the religious leaders on the ground, the ones closest to the flocks have realized is intermingling of religion and politics at god for religion. and frankly it's been bad for politics. why is that? and not for a second going to advocate religious people to sit a nice pickup for the public square. they had to pick them in the past when it's happened it has not been wrapped up in a partisan. but martin luther king gave his steering cry to us all to recognize the evil of racial segregation, he did so using religious language but it was a up in a partisan message and that is the intruder earlier point in american as well but religion has transcended partisanship to call us pathetically to greater moral vision of the country. that is the role religion should play. they should not be wrapped up in one or the other. >> that if all the time we have

for q&a and it's the perfect way to end. so please give me a hand in thinking david campbell. [applause] >> here are some of the top-selling nonfiction titles according to publishers weekly. this reflects sales as of march 29.

>> someone has asked from little rock. he talked about the verse national disasters in american history. some figures for the flooding of

the ohio river caused over 400, ran over a million people away from their homes and caused more than half a billion dollars in damage. little rock, arkansas commending for permission of the banks of the arkansas river has a rich literary political and cultural hits three. go to the exploit that area as part of the city service the local bar cable partner, comcast central or a. ♪ washy and water, caring distraction to the peaceful valley of the ohio were yesterday floated red slide unheeding man-made obstacles, the swan river throws his mighty can man and his works. >> it actually started in northeastern songwriter around years. a lot of heavy rain in the north of owing rivers to go in to the

mississippi. as a sharecropper country we are talking about here, where people are living on less than $200 a year where with a cheery lucky bones in your pockets. and we read final next to their skin to work on affirmative them. so these are people getting off first. they run in early january 10 all-terrain over the next couple weeks is going to track where the ohio river all the way to pittsburgh. i about the 24th of january, the ohio river is insane. and all the water will come back and hit northeast arkansas again and so will be completely offhand. so the flood really turned into an absolute crisis about the 24th or so. they call it black sunday. it is when we though was evacuated, paducah was evacuated, cities all across the ohio river were evacuated on blacks on a calm after four

weeks of rain. our weather bureau was not able to predict the weather very well. actually they could get about 24 hours in dance, but we did have satellite knowledge event. we didn't have too many weather stations. i didn't have as many weather gauges and so they are almost going on instinct. they had very little in education. they change every day of our many times like watching a staircase that gets higher and higher and higher and their sizes. it completely off guard and had your workers live in the river gauges further and further, before they got completely covered by the water. it was harju told us coming. there was a lot of complacent in many cities in louisville,

paducah and elsewhere because they thought they'd are facing a record flood, that the flood of 1913 or 1884 was his highest river could ever get them at the end of 1987 on average one about nine feet higher than exist records. so we weren't as good at predicting flood then as we are now. and a place like cincinnati, for example, the response was pretty good once they figured out there's going to to be a flood. the wealthier prices cincinnati are flood stage. on the riverfront you have a lot of poor and working-class people. at first it was a lot of concern about the flood. but once it got crazy in cincinnati, then the government did quite a good job of evacuated areas that needed to be evacuated, getting control of the town town area, rationing

utilities, electricity, drinking water, for examples. so cincinnati is a best case scenario. in other places, the government basically not that away. in paducah the government essentially reinforced by and you had a few neighborhoods up on high ground that basically cover themselves for a couple we. some places the relationship between the red cross and local government was good in some places you had incompetent chapters on the government in what very well but then there's a lot of friction there. so you have to take it on a case-by-case scenario in terms of the local response. the federal government did an outstanding job with the flood. it is fortunate in a way that the flood happened during the depression because there was a ready source of label available. the civilian conservation corps, the works progress administration franklin roosevelt is very clear.

he doesn't want the tape, bureaucracy, doesn't care about regulations. if a community needs how come he will send the wpa's and they're absolutely crucial rescuing people getting out of their homes they are the resettlement they did an extraordinary job of relief in letting the red cross to us were and running refugee camps in caring for refugees. roosevelt was active in helping the red cross raised money for the crisis. so during the flood of self, is an exceptional response. the interesting thing if you think about comparing to disasters today, no one was

saying why hasn't franklin roosevelt from bcs is not the patient of the federal visit how much trouble church rush garments were just flying over the areas that have actually been on the ground. unexpected roosevelt to come see the flood the dems. but omaha, washington, washington did an extraordinary job. it's really hard to determine total damage is immense and to convert it into today's dollars. it would run into the billions by 1937 standards. there are times that were completely wiped out they never came back. rural areas were devastated. drinking water supplies were poised and. utility companies were put under water. so it is hard to add all of that and try to put a dollar sign on

it. how you put a dollar sign on all the days of work they were last wrote the rebuilding and private industry? they would've run into the millions, even in 1937. >> what about loss of life? >> about 400 or so. very few from drowning. there were only a handful of drowning deaths. most of them came from pneumonia or influenza. a lot of these people who ran from the flood were rural sharecroppers, farmers. in many cases they had to trek through miles of open country to get to safety, to get to the refugee camp. many arrived without shoes, without hats. they were wrapped with a shirt or something around there had. so they came into the credit card duration centers, hacking and wheezing so most of the deaths are caused by pneumonia, influenza rather. in missouri where there's a

barge was let the workers went under and sank in about 25 people drowned from that incident. other than that come you don't see a lot of drownings. but about 400 deaths on the whole. after 1937 was the next is from the downtown areas that people move to the suburbs. they move to high ground. one of the things that happened because of the 1937 flood, there were some good control acts passed by providing federal money for floodwalls. once the flood walls were built, often they are not the region until the fifth user 60s aretha's 70s, then you start to see a riverfront revival of people moving back downtown, revitalizing downtown areas. paducah is a great example of that. also you see communities because of 1937 realizing not only do we have to protect ourselves with the floodwalls, they're some

ground grounded just blocks to the river. so a lot of the riverfront areas were cleared of housing and have become parks. it's a beautiful park called waterfront park for obvious reasons. and so, the impact of the flooded recovery of the flood could take decades. our terms of coming home from refugee camps, that was often a period of several months. it is often not until may or june of 1937 that people went home workout to see whether they had a home anymore. there is a federal program that is created to provide some rebuilding money, the most of it is coming from the red cross. and they are quite generous actually. i should see americans are generous and giving to the red cross and the red cross does a good job of giving the money to people, not just for rebuilding their houses, the cases were

people last artificial limbs and the red cross paid for a new artificial band and so it's really the red cross that is the hero here in terms to hoping to get people back on their feet and rebuilt their properties. there's really no comparison to previous flood. there have been bad floods along the ohio river and have always been since there has been an ohio river. this is the first time that the flood hit a real industrialized ohio valley. in the 1880s you don't have this big industrial cities and places, so the damage is much greater just because of that fact. the country and the water is much higher. and so in that sense, there is really no comparison. in 1927 you had a tremendous flood along the lower mississippi but devastated parts of eastern arkansas and western mississippi down to louisiana.

it was a very different experience from 1937 not just because they hate different parts of the country, but because we become a different country since then. in 1927 there was. that'll federal involvement. rescue and relief was left largely to the red cross and other private industries is that of the laissez-faire government we had the activist government to franklin roosevelt and so you have that kind of army of federal workers who can go in play and save lives, save property. so the difference comes from the fact we learned from 27, but also a very different philosophy of government in place. think about 2011 we had flood levels on the ohio river that were in some places comparable to 1937, but we did have mass evacuations we didn't have the kind of damage we had in 37. that is because of the floodwalls put in place after

1937. it is also because there is now a serious of reservoirs upstream, where the higher begin and its tributaries begin the candidates on the flood holdback water can retain water and keep you from adding to the flood. and so, the modern ohio valley of the project 1937. tom says the river as it is some of the flood protection as it is all comes from this depression era incident. >> the arkansas literary festival will be held in little rock, april 12 through 15. the yearly festival going on since 2004 features not fiction and fiction writers turn this state and around the country. for more information visit arkansas literary festival.org. >> while serving in iraq from 23

until 2009 u.s. navy seal sniper chris kyodo ak-chin village were officially confirmed kills in any other sniper in u.s. military history. in his new best-selling autobiography, american sniper, mr. kyl writes about his early career as a professional review writer and the challenges he overcame to become a seal and his experiences in iraq. mr. padron's booktv for one hour conversation about a spoken saturday, april 7 beginning at the eastern time. during the conversation by calling in during the program for sending in questions or comments via e-mail to both tv at sea: span -- c-span booktv. >> from the booktv archives in 2001 william davis reported the leaders of the confederacy knew that if he puts a minute. long before lee sur