the recurring motif in the mainstream protestant for a long time and no more secularized, putting into the catholics, especially to the grade school is a lot more to be set and for now i propose let's leave aside whether one is worse than the other because they're all different. this i think is unprecedented, but this way of viewing religious institutional ministries, the evaluation of them from the point of view i think is that work and i don't think i've ever seen it at any other time in american history. ..

>> i was attacked on a personal basis. so are the legislators. we did pass the bill. my question to you is, is there a network come and i am hoping that we can conformant today, that state legislators can call upon to help us and it back us up? i was attacked in the media, and it was pretty brutal. we did a pretty good job of defending it, but it sure would be great to have people like you that would back us up, that we could refer the media too.

>> one of the takeaways from this conference, we hope, is the beginning of the network and resources that you are describing. for that, see brian wallace for details. >> fantastic. >> thank you, i am ted harvey. i am a senator from colorado. first welcome i want to thank you for your efforts and for being here and your comments. it is a delight to be able to hear your thoughts on this important topic. my question is when all of you all were speaking about the case when the solicitor general came before the court and made the argument that the religious institution did not have the protections to be able to pick their own leadership. you said it was unprecedented. you said that they lost nine to one. i'm sorry, nine to zero.

why is it, do you think, that they took that case all the way to the supreme court? was it a political agenda or was it a legal agenda? oftentimes, we see legal activists take cases before the court to push decades or more down the road, their agenda. what is your answer to that? >> you know, it is hard to know what their calculation was. it was obviously misguided. i think that the miscalculation in taking such an aggressive position in their litigation strategy backfired. two obama appointees on the court agreed with the 90 opinion but that was extreme and remarkable. i'm not sure what push them into that position, although i would say that it is fairly consistent

with the position in the hhs mandate. when you look at how they do the test. the second line of attack was even if there is an exception, it should be limited only to those employees who perform exclusively religious conscience. welcome in the actual opinion, they came out from the court, on which all of the justices agreed. it actually said we can think of no such employees. they don't exist. and so you have written a test in religious assumptions, to determine what religious employees should be protected under this doctrine. he wrote it so narrowly that it is an empty sack. that strategy is reflected similarly in the hhs mandate. it covers some, but it covers such a narrow group of religious organizations that it

effectively denies religious liberty to a much larger group that has enjoyed that liberty previously. i think it is a fairly consistent, at least some points for consistency. it is a consistent strategy to put forward arguments that are so extreme that they are narrow and protecting anyone as a matter of substance. >> naked and richard will respond to this question as well. >> i have good news and bad news. the good news is that this particular case was brought and started under the federal equal opportunity employment commission. they are in an employment independent agency. the initial decisions were made in the country.

i am fairly confident without a grand strategy by somebody back in washington. i know that from my involvement in the case and discussions. there wasn't a grand strategy in that regard. consistent with what hannah said, once it got to the top, and once it got to the place where, okay, the oc is coming into the supreme court and when they are represented by the solicitor general in particular, the arguments made there, that's where we were commenting on before. the mindset of the administration, that's where it kicked in and the extreme position was put forward. from my point of view, it was repudiated by the court. >> i think it was not a grand strategy is much as it was revelatory of their mindset. this administration, you compare

this administration with the clinton administration. it is far more monolithic in its secularist mindset than the clinton administration was, for instance the previous democratic administration. to give you an example, one of mr. obama's appointments to the eeoc, is a georgetown university law professor who has written a law journal article saying, in effect, whenever the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people collide with religious liberty beliefs and rights, the rights of religious people must give way to the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people. i would say that is a mindset out of sync with what the general public is thinking. and it is one that is inherently hostile to religion.

i find the obama administration on this particular issue to be monolithic. >> next question from a gentleman on my left. >> i am mike from missouri. first welcome i would like to just say that the missouri state filed the first piece of legislation to block a lawsuit against president obama's health care bill. we are also on the primary ballot the next few months, we will be hearing legislation about public school. a couple of great things. my question is, my wife and i went to a graduation at harry s. truman high school in independence, missouri. it was held at the auditorium in independence. that is the church of latter-day saints. it is their world headquarters building. they started the commencement out with a moment of reflection. no prayer.

you think that has to do with the church and what they would allow them to do in that building? or do you think that would be leadership in that high school that had failed those children to not be able to pray before that? and they were going to end up at that same commitment untrimmed commencement that day, with a moment of reflection, not a moment of prayer, but they skipped a completely. >> that curious arrangement of activities reflects a perception of what the law permits. it may have been the desire of some people to have it prayer or a nondenominational prayer. the people thought it would be -- you could be right about that. but other than that, i don't know what would cause the local school authorities to do what they did. if i am not mistaken, missouri, they don't have a contraceptive mandate.

but they have wide senate exemptions, if i'm not mistaken. does that sound right? >> yes, we are trying to stick to that. hopefully we will stick to that in the next primary election. >> yes, sir? >> it strikes me that two features are running through all of these situations you have described. all of these threats you have described. two features that are unprecedented to religious institutions. the first is indicated. they are almost all sexual. a new kind of sexual radicalism, which we are seeing throughout the western world and throughout the world. which, i think, is maybe something we should be addressing. it is very aggressive. the second feature, which may be his not quite as obvious, many of these threats are occasioned by the increasing scope of

government over private rights. that is almost obviously in the case of the health health care mandate, but you could make the think it's about marriage and some other issues. government is expanding its scope over areas that have been left to private life previously. my question is, should we be expanding this discussion? to encompass these larger developments. rather than question religious freedom. >> well, let me focus on your second point very briefly. i think you are right. the question is how do we evaluate this expansion. let me give you a couple of examples. a couple of generations ago, indeed more recently than that,

spousal abuse was considered to be a private matter, not a matter of public law. we have changed our minds about that. in that respect, the government is more intrusive. it's not a bad thing. we can discuss that. similarly, until a generation ago, there was no governing federal legislation dealing with questions of child abuse and neglect. now there is. it is not perfect, but i would argue that we are better off as a society because it exists. this really just continues the theme of my opening remarks. it is not in so fact of a good thing if government expands or retracts its reach, we have to attend to the particular issues at stake. i think when we do that, we will

come out with a decidedly nuanced view of the expansion of government and demands of government to retreat. >> anyone else on this question? >> i think one of the most dangerous trends to our freedom is the withering of civil society. where government goes in, civil societies tend to receive. let's take the case of the mandate. i would take catholic hospitals and terrible organizations as part of civil society. i don't think it is helpful to the society for catholic charities to be forced out of state because they won't place children with same-sex couples,

which happened in massachusetts. there are some who believe the government wants to whether the civil societies by mediating institutions. for instance, under the stimulus package, all student loans are now run by the government. i think that is a bad idea. i would rather take my chances with the bank than the federal government. a little more regressive grievance. when it comes to sexual untrimmed sexual radicalism, there is no question that is a huge issue. when it comes to politics, it is almost uniquely dissonant. we need to appreciate and nurture mediating institutions and civil society. between individuals and the government. not whether them.

>> i agree with your second point. i think the increasing reach of government into the regulation of private action is probably what is going on here. i think in regards to something that bill said earlier, people can disagree on how much autonomy religious organizations should have, when they receive federal funding, and in regards to certain organizations, but i want to clarify and make clear, the federal hhs mandate has nothing to do with federal funding whatsoever. the hhs mandate applies to every employer, regardless of federal funding. even if you are a religious seville organization, and everyone of your dollars comes from private funding, this mandate applies to you. that federal funding argument in the context of the hhs mandate is so.

>> i included the funding argument for sake of scripted completeness without arguing that that was the appropriate frame to evaluate the hhs mandate. >> i was careful to do that. >> thank you, jaime, once again. all of the speakers. and especially the audience. one more question. >> can i ask my question? >> very quickly. >> my name is valerie and i appreciate the discussion this morning. if a woman had a bed and breakfast, and she did not want to rent to a gay couple or lesbian couple, if they were there for a weekend, and she refused to do that, and she was forced to do that for

discrimination laws, would that be a violation against her religious liberty? would she be free to do that or not? secondly, if it were the same woman and she didn't believe in premarital sax, and a heterosexual couple came and she really chose not to rent to them, where would the law stand on that? thirdly, if it were an interracial couple? the other one is what is it with the marriott corporation, and it was mr. marriott who didn't leave and homosexuals sharing the same bedroom. have you figured out? >> basically, it does depend on what the law is. just so far described, one, two, and three, the constitution, the basic law, would be pretty far in the background. the question of whether local or state laws, which makes prescriptions about public

accommodation, does it exclude mrs. murphy's boarding house, for example, and it probably would. the hhs mandate applies to basically all employers that you have employees. that is not something john itself from the constitution, but in the statue. that is the short answer, which is all i have time for now. it varies depending on exactly what the local calls of the law say. >> those were precisely the kinds of issues that made the coalition that i described when we were trying to replace the religious freedom restoration act with a subsequent statute. what was interesting, just to report it to you in that dynamic, is liberal organizations were in the coalition, who are on record -- were on record then and still today -- on women's issues and gay rights issues -- and so forth they all by and large wanted a broad statute, it

brought standards to be put in place. on the notion that, you know, you get your day in court, so to speak. from their perspective, it would likely be the case that antidiscrimination principles but would be determined to be a compelling state interest, and there is a limited amount of ways we can serve that interest. probably more often than not, the people who would be subject to that discrimination would actually win the day. religious liberty, so to speak, would have to give way in most cases. but it was still the case that it was the folks who were committed to those progressive civil rights values. they fought nonetheless, the higher standard for religious liberty should be put in the law, and we should take a case by case. unfortunately, from my point of view, it was the view of other proponents of those individual lives, if you will, to the

rights agendas, that felt like we don't even give religious liberty a day in court, and possibly lose every once in a while. we don't even want to have that conversation. that is unfortunately the catechism that now exists between the religious liberty advocates and other principal advocates in this arena. >> thank you a. >> you're probably wondering, lunch is available outside. you are invited to grab what you wish and come back in here to eat. we will resume the conversation at 12:30 p.m. or shortly thereafter as soon as we can. bon appétit. thank you to our speakers for a wonderful discussion. [applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> friday, nasa administrator charles baldwin speaks at the space development conference in washington. his remark comes on the same day as the scheduled docking of the first commercial space capsule at the international space station. see coverage live at 9:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span 2. friday, the brookings institution post a form focusing on america's role in the world and globalization and security threats abroad. it is part of their 2012 campaign project. see it live at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> welcome to wichita, kansas.

>> we are here in the city of wichita. waking up the city for 22 years. we think we have a heck of a start. today he is going to be talking about the problem we are having in the city with taxicabs. hang on at 9:20 a.m. for that. >> june 2 and 3rd, "book tv" and american history tv explore the heritage and literary culture of wichita, kansas. >> we have a modest looking paper wrapped binding. but what it contains is an alphabetical list of the members of the senate and house of representatives done in 1831. i believe this was issued only come as it says here, for the members of immediate use only. they didn't have xerox machines, but they didn't want to miss out. as you can see, it would tell you exactly where everybody lives. you could go and buttonhole them and punish them if you didn't like it.

>> watch for "book tv" and american history tv june 2 and 3rd, on c-span 2. >> this memorial day weekend, three days of american history tv on c-span 3. saturday morning, actors from band of brothers. >> they said you're jumping around, and i say yes, okay. what does that have to do with me? he said let me say something. how much do you weigh? and i said i won't tell you. 88 pounds. i said 5'4". i am 5'4" and a half.

he said we don't want to see you in spain? also this weekend, sunday night at 930, william roosevelt, president taft, and the legacy of the 1912 presidential election. monday night at 9:00 p.m., december 7, 1941, a date which will live in infamy. to her the pearl harbor visitors center at the valor in the pacific national monument. three days of american history tv this holiday weekend on c-span 3. >> more from the national religious freedom conference. the main topic at the conference will be the new help and services -- health and human services contraceptive mandate.

panelists from various religious backgrounds oppose the mandate and call upon the administration to rescind it. this is an hour and 45 minutes. >> i hope everyone has enjoyed their lunch. we are ready to start session three, which is united to protect robust freedom. i want to make a note up front. i did not mention this in the previous session. there are pencils and pads of no paper on your tables. if you have a question, if you raise it up, brooks who is here and others who will be in charge of collecting those, if you have any questions, that is how you can get to it. we will go through and try to address as many as we can.

we have a very distinguished panel. i am honored to have the leaders of multiple rape backgrounds and i am very pleased and grateful that robby george has agreed to moderate the session. my job is to give a very brief introduction to the professor. fortunately, he is a very distinguished person and a very humble man, and i think he will not hold it against me. robby george is the mccormick professor of jurisprudence, and the director of the james madison program at princeton university. he has served on the president's council on bioethics and is a presidential appointee to the united states commission on civil rights. he is a former judicial fellow at the unitednine states.

he is a very helpful and trusted friend and advisor. please join me in welcoming professor robert george. [applause] [applause] >> thank you very much. it brings me great pleasure to chair the panel. this panel brings together distinguished leaders, all of whom have been active and dedicated in the cost of fighting for religious liberty. of course, you can see, literally see with your eyes, the wonderful nature of this panel. we have representatives from several of the major traditions in the united states and the fact that people are working together across the lines of historic theological difference, i think it speaks very well for the ultimate success of this

battle for religious liberty. brian, i'm going to have to make my introductions of the panelists, each of whom deserves lengthy introductions. i have tried to introduce. we are here to hear from them and not me. let me begin. on my left and you're right, rabbi doctor meir y. soloveichik. it is a special privilege to introduce rabbi soloveichik. the rabbi is director of the zahava and moshael straus center for torah and western thought at yeshiva university. he is also a congregational rabbi in manhattan. next to rabbi soloveichik, his father chad hatfield.

father hatfield is an archpriest of the orthodox church, eastern orthodox church, and if that ceo of saint vladimir is in yonkers new york. he is also a scholar with distinguished publications to his name. to my right and you're left is doctor timothy george, who is the dean of the beeson divinity school at samford university. i always note the that we are truly spiritual brothers. he is from the baptist wing of the family, and i am from the catholic wing of the family we are spiritual brothers in deed. it is a great pleasure to work with timothy and chuck colson on the manhattan declaration, which is dedicated to the sanctity of human rights, the conjugal union

of husband and wife and religious liberty and the rights of conscience. next to doctor george would be bishop salvatore cordileone. he is a leading figure in the american catholic system. he has been dedicated, outspoken and effective in fighting for religious liberty. also on the end whitney clayton, elder whitney clayton, of the church of latter-day saints. he has served as a member of the presidency since 2000 and eight of the church, and has various jurisdictional responsibility. he is also a lawyer, although we will not hold that against him. and he is a leading figure

within the church. that has itself been a leading institution in the fight for religious liberty. what the lds church has done has been magnificent in the cause of religious liberty. for a small minority and one that has suffered persecution, that is an amazing thing. if you don't mind, i will begin with you, and then we will work back this way. elder whitney clayton. [applause] [applause] >> thank you very much, dr. george. and thank you, as others have said, to brian walsh and ed whelan, it bep pc. and i would also like to thank the becket fund. for all they are doing and the burden that they bear. we are grateful for their successes and wish them well in

their ongoing efforts. [applause] [applause] >> i am also grateful that we are for not long in the program that i've been able to excise most of what i was going to say it. [applause] [applause] >> so many wonderful thoughts and observations have been offered earlier, i am grateful that the stage has been set for us in a diminished need to prove some of the points that diverted and proved so ably. as a member of the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints, we are an institution honored to be included in this broadly based effort, organizations, and individuals, who deem religious freedom to be precious. there is great strength in our numbers as we meet together here today. we are united by our shared concern about and in reverence for religious freedom. freedom of religion has been observed already today is the first freedom. the first right in the bill of rights. one reason it is first is

because it sustains all other freedoms. all other freedoms fare well or poorly depending on how this freedom progresses. the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints leaves but the concern about protecting robust religious freedom is fully justified. losses suffered at the federal, state and local levels, as have been described earlier, are very real and threaten religious freedom of the nation as a whole. causes for these losses range from manipulation of language to overtly coercive regulations and imposition of penalties for the exercise of conscience. freedom of conscience is our most precious and personal rights. over time, the losses of the right to follow our conscience

will ultimately become a devastating personal loss to every american and the people across the world. we believe that we must wisely and appropriately resist the effort of a squeezing hand of government to control our consciences. we deeply appreciate and honor at the religious freedom that is protected by the first amendment. we consider religious freedom first, foremost and most fundamental of our rights. we also believe that religious freedom should be protected rather than assaulted by government. we believe that every religious freedom is a chairman is precious and irreplaceable good for society. thus, we gladly join with other churches, religions, faith groups and other organizations and individuals in entering into

the joint effort to protect religious freedom. in this effort, there is much more that unites us then there is that divides us, and there is great strength and are bringing a united effort to this cause. the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints is committed to protecting religious freedom for ourselves in our own church members, obviously. that said, we are just as concerned about the religious freedom rights of other faiths as we are about our own. as the 11th article of faith, we worship god according to the dictate of our own conscience, and allow all men the same religious. let them worship how, where or what they may. joseph smith said in the early 1840s, if it has been

demonstrated that i have been willing to die for a mormon, i ambled to declare before heaven that i am just as ready to diaper the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the latter-day saints, would trample on the rights of the roman catholics or any other denomination who may be unpopular or too weak. too weak to defend themselves. we recognize our own religious freedom is only as secure as is the religious freedom of those who surround us. we intend to be vigilant in guarding, protecting, and securing the religious freedom rights of others. the title for this session is uniting to preserve robust religious freedoms. we might ask ourselves what lies ahead? several things. first, within our own

institution, within the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints, we we'll redouble the efforts protecting religious freedom. we will support a united effort to educate legislators opinions, leaders, and citizens generally across the country about religious freedom and the fact that it is impaled today in this country. we will seek to secure their help along with others in the battle to protect religious freedom. we will seek in a joint effort with others to frustrate the efforts of those who seek to silence and marginalize religious freedom rides and two compel religious freedoms and rights. we deeply want to promote this united effort. success will depend on the time

and amount of time and work to be put into this effort. it will require some expenditure of money by multiple groups. it will require a broadly based unified effort that no single church can or should bear the burden alone. if there were ever a time in which we need a chorus and not a solo, this is it. this will require the blessings of god upon us all. i have one more observation, and that is in the strident times in which we live, and the world of rhetoric, which has become so sadly uncharitable, i think that we would also be wise to be constantly civil in the way we treat each other and the way we deal with each other on both sides of this issue.

the ability ought to be a hallmark on the way we deal with each other. that being said, i say again we are committed as a church to doing exactly everything we can to help with this battle to preserve religious freedom. thank you very much. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] >> mr. salvatore cordileone. >> thank you, dr. george. it is indeed an honor for me to be sitting among such esteemed panelists. i suppose one contribution i can make is to give a perspective as a catholic and an american. after all, the first large wave of immigration in this country at the previous turn-of-the-century were catholics coming from catholic parts of the world. when they arrived on our shores, catholics have their own rocky history of trying to find their

place and figure out how to fit in with american society like so many other immigrant groups to this country. but they found here in america something different from the world that they left behind. different from the european experience with those revolution movements to replace monarchies with democracies so often erupting in violence, we can think, of course, of the frenzy of executions in france during the time of the revolution there, including clerics and nuns of the movement to unify italy, which took an anti-clerical turn, as so many of these movements did, even to the point that the pope had to sneak out of rome it dressed in the garb of a parish priest. although my church is always recognized that we can operate and even drive in a variety of

political systems, there was a suspicion of modern democratizing movements because of this experience. the american experience, though, was different for catholics. yes, they were often viewed with suspicion and being un-american perhaps because of that suspicion of our own church leaders on these modern democratizing movements that to some degree were at times subjected to rejection and diversion on the version on property. but this certainly wasn't the whole story. what catholics found is that if they apply themselves and work hard, they could improve their lot in life as opposed to the roadblocks they experienced back home. even more important, they found that they could prosper not only materially, but also spiritually. the catholic church has thrived in this country precisely because of the freedoms we are guaranteed. the freedoms of keeping the government out of church

affairs. it was this american experience that had the greatest influence on the writing of the declaration on religious freedom at the second vatican council and catholic bishops throughout the world gathered there to deliberate the churches pastoral outreach to the world in the age in which we are living. this experience was recognized very early on among catholics in this country. the statement of the u.s. ad hoc committee of religious freedom quotes cardinal gibbons of baltimore, quotes him in the homily that he gave in rome when he went there to receive the symbol of his being named to the college of cardinals. he asserted that the great progress the catholic church experienced in the united states was due in no small degree to the civil liberty we enjoy in

our republic. the more that the church grows and expands under the free republic, and he even said in the genial air of liberty, she blossoms like the rose. and he says this is due to the fact that our country has liberty without license, authority without despotism. my own experience, a assorted back into this religious liberty debate by my involvement with the definition of marriage and the law. and i got swept up in that, not exclusively, but in large degree because i was enlightened by doctor george and other people of his kind, as to the erosion of the rights of religious institutions to serve the broader community in accord with their moral principles, precisely because of this issue. as well, the rights of individuals to have the freedom

of conscience respected. when i saw what was happening, my eyes were open, and it made me fear that we could be starting to move in the direction of license and despotism. many examples where are decided earlier today. we have numerous catholic charity adoption services, not just in the archdiocese of boston, but also the archdiocese of san francisco and the archdiocese here in washington dc and the entire state of illinois. we had heard reference to how religious organizations can have their tax exempt status revoked, as happened with the ocean grove methodist camp in new jersey for denying a lesbian couple to have their commitment ceremony celebration there, even though they would rent it out for other couples for their marriage their money. we heard also about the wedding photographer in new mexico who was sued and lost for refusing

to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony. as someone once pointed out, as if you have a constitutional right to have your picture taken by the photographer of your choice. [laughter] [laughter] >> i want to express profound gratitude and how encouraged i am by all of you who have stood by us catholics in the midst of this health and human services mandate battle. it is a great moment for all of us, and it is a great moment of encouragement for us leaders in the catholic church. we all rightly recognize that this is a question of the state intruding into the affairs of the church even to the point of defining to the church what constitutes their ministry. and we all recognize that if they get away with this, i will put it that way, but it will not stop there.

it will just keep getting worse. we are all vulnerable. we cannot get political in the sense of being partisan. not those of us who are church leaders, at any rate. ultimately it would compromise our rule is the conscience of society between the government and the individual. also, this is not really a political struggle. it is a struggle to first principles. principles that we should all be able to agree upon. his faith communities, we would compromise who we are called to be if we became tied to any political agenda or platform. i really believe this is a new moment in our nation. it is especially a new moment for faith communities. it is a new moment in which god is bringing his people together

and what we are doing today and our presence here is surely a sign of that we are not doing what we are doing either out of her own self interests, but rather what we recognize is best for our nation. religious liberty benefits everyone. certainly, it benefits people of faith because they can bring the values they get from their faith into the public square. it also benefits people in need, who are served so well by faith-based organizations and education, health care, and social service agencies. so often faith-based organizations do a better job and accomplish more with less, precisely because we are motivated by a higher end and recognize the first principle of human dignity. it benefits our nation as a whole, because this is who we are and what we stand for as we have heard repeated today.

religious liberty is the first right in the bill of rights, not just chronologically, but logically. we are here today, standing together because we love the united states of america and we want what is best for her. united states of america has benefited myself, and i'm sure all of you, from those people who immigrated to this land and found great opportunity. we are here because we know that if we don't stand together, our nation will fall apart. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] >> doctor george? >> thank you so much. it is a great honor to be here today with distinguished panelists and all of you. i have lost two wonderful friends and mentors to me in the last several years. one that robbie referred to, chuck colson. the other, his friend and loved to many of us here today, the

late father richard neuhaus. in one of the last essays richard wrote for the journal he founded, he discussed what he called a new order of religious freedom. appealing to one of the distinctive traits of the american experiment. summarize and famous words that appear on our currency, not in god we trust, but a new order for the ages. at the heart of this new order, lies an instinctive respect for persons of faith. all faith. and an intentional policy of their access to the public square. free access, not only for individuals, but also for religious associations. for communities of faith.

richard emphasized that the inspiration for religious freedom was itself religious. as he said in his own way, it is our belief that it is the will of god that we should not persecute one another in our disputes over the will of god. [laughter] [laughter] >> a wonderful new neuhaus-ism. nonetheless, i want to go back to that statement that the professor referred to today, when he referred to the religious wellspring of our religious freedom in europe. wellsprings that have become deprecated by that secularist landscape. i want to focus on the origins

of the baptist argument for religious freedom. i wish you were all baptist, because baptists need to hear this. we have tended to forget those religious wellsprings for which our own distinctive commitment to religious freedom has sprung. now, there is great debate about where that came from. there is a great view which is called landmark in some, which traces this all the way back to jesus and the first baptist church of jerusalem. i kid you not. nevermind that that trail goes through some pretty nefarious groups like the [inaudible name] come of it is there. however, real scholarly work on the history begins in the 16th and 17th century. particularly, in early 17th century england. with a group that emerged out of the separatist movement which

had come out of the church of england. led by people who let one time had been exiled and sent into the netherlands to find respite from the persecution of king james the first. but some of us came back to england. they became convinced that it had been wrong for them to flee persecution, and led by a person called thomas. he was not a clergy. he was not a minister. he was a lawyer. he was trained in london. but he was deeply committed to this experiment in ecclesiology, which gave birth to the baptist movement. thomas and his group of baptist, broke the radical politicizing and pacifism, they accepted capital punishment punishment come to emphasize the duty to serve in the military, they had no difficulty supporting civil

coercion, that is armies and legitimate weapons of coercion that the state would use. in fact, they felt this necessary to protect religious freedom. in the years 1612, that's 400 years ago this year, a little booklet was published on an underground press in london called a short declaration of the mystery of iniquity. there are only two copies today of that homey, underground, very sloppily put together little pamphlet. the mystery of iniquity. one of them is in the library. i handled it with my own hands and read it with my own eyes. when you open it, there are these words written in thomas' own hand. it looks like john hancock signed the declaration of independence, so clear and distinct. it says this.

here, oh, king, king, and despise not counsel of the poor. the king is a mortal man and not god. therefore, he has no power over the immortal souls of his subjects. let them be heretics, turks, jews, or whatsoever. it pertains not to the earthly power to punish them. to my knowledge, this is the first published appeal for universal religious freedom in the english language. and in that book and other literature that emerged from thomas and his friends, a cluster of arguments were set forth that formed a bedrock for later baptists and protestants, evangelical and western political thinking about religious freedoms. i just want to mention these, we don't have time to go into them.

they're interesting in the constellation that they form. one, is an understanding of two kingdoms. as you can tell it what i said already, thomas was not an absolute separationist. there was a place for civil authority and governance. but he clearly true a line of distinction between the civil and the spiritual realms. a distinction that is distinctive of western thinking in this, going back at least to saint augustine, if not to the gospel itself. thomas and the early baptist were quite happy to talk about the possibility of a christian magistrate. one could be a civil magistrate and be a christian and belong to the church. but they were very reluctant, indeed, opposed to talking about a christian magistrate, the establishment of a religion. second, the inviolability of

conscience. the sharp distinction they drew between the civilians. it led them to advocate that this was a negative argument, in a sense, for religious freedom -- what the state should not do. however, there was a positive sign of that. in that every person created in the image of god stood in a unique, inviolable, relation to god. roger williams, who read this literature, and is the offspring of this literature spiritually, referred to this state that violated the integrity of conscience as a sole martyr. roger williams said it is counterproductive for the faith to persecute believers. it is possible to kill a man,

but to kill a man is not to defend the doctrine that would kill a man. thirdly, the noncoercive character of faith. you can only make my persecution , you know, that christians, but you cannot make genuine christians because it implies the consent of the will. it draws their own arguments set by thomas aquinas and many in the tradition. fourth is evangelism. here they drew on the parable that jesus told about the wheat and weeds growing together in the same field. they thought this was a good thing, and they emphasize that part of the parable, don't bother -- donuts that these weeds and weeds growing together. growing in the same field. let a thousand weeds bloom. at the end of the day, the reaper will come. there will be a final sorting of

the wheat in the weeds. as the last judgment. but that is not to be done prematurely, lest by plucking up the weeds, you may also destroy some of the good wheat. let them grow together. so that, in their words, the gospel may be proclaimed to everyone, and this will be away of winning to the true faith, those who have not been persecuted by the state. to my arguments i want to mention have to do with political and economic concerns. this is the 17th century, the rise of radicalism, and they looked around and said that there are some states that allow a measure of religious toleration. and of all the places they looked to site, it was the muslim empire, the ottoman empire, the turks and muslims. even there, jews are allowed to

live, and christians are allowed to live with a kind of toleration is not permitted here in england. they held that up as an example. we might want to press on how good of an example it turned out to be, but nonetheless, they were very clear that there are political benefits, not simply religious and theological ones from allowing this kind of religious freedom. finally, economic benefits. they looked across the channel to the netherlands where they had lived for a while. that was one of the places in europe at the time that allowed a measure of religious toleration. largely because this is the age where they were finding commerce and trading and they found that the policy of religious toleration enhanced what we might call early rising capitalism. ..

over round the world and remember we don't baptize infants so we are not including impotent so only those who had been in the age to be baptized. with this growth in number and

in some ways prestige and power and clout socially and maybe some places politically, there also has come a diminution and the a kind of amnesia about these roots of religious freedom into things in particular that of happen in the last 100 years that i think has increasingly made this an issue. one is the reduction of identity to rugged individualism and the restriction of religious freedom to simply what is good for me, rather than the communitarian emphasis that was there certainly in the seventies when baptists emphasize covenants, catechism and confession. and along with this the kind of social libertarianism is crept into the definition of what it means to be a baptists, and what it means to be an american. the second thing i would say is the whole issue of the separation of church and state.

hear a phrase that came as we know from thomas jefferson's letter to the danbury baptists in january 1, 1802 has become the subject of a great deal i think of misconstrue all as to what it arrests imad and what it might mean today. it has become in fact a mean for many baptists and others the severance of religion from public life and now we are taught again in this misunderstanding of the both basic rudiments of our religious state. ravi mentioned that he and i worked on the manhattan declaration which bothered chad also was present to help launch in 2009. bit boats of letter from a famous pastor, martin luther king who is not only baptist pastor but the son and grandson of baptists pastors. martin luther king said that we will have to respect in this generation not merely, we have

to have respect not merely for those who stand for what is right. we have to be on guard against those hateful words and actions of bad people but we also must stand against the appalling silence of good people. you see that is something that is deeply rooted in the understanding of religious freedom and is a part of the baftas euridice and it is very much in jeopardy today -- in jeopardy today. my time has come and gone. [applause] >> father chad. >> when addressing the place of the judeo-christian tradition in the west, and please note that i placed tradition in the plural. i believe that this has become

fractured in the west and it is now improbable to speak of this topic with a broad sweeping terminology. you have to ask today, how does that happen? wended all of this begin and began and can it be corrected? these are questions that we must address as we are doing today if we are to find the unity of religious position that will be necessary if we are to preserve robust freedoms and religious liberties. in the short time that i have today i want to call attention to a new player in the arena of religion in public life and what is commonly called the west, so-called eastern orthodox christianity can no longer be described or confined as a religion of the east. our world today is global and movement is at an ever-increasing rapid pace.

acknowledge incorporated the broque and down borders, access to information of course has contributed greatly to the discovery of a different christianity by those living in the west and also those who have lost their faith, spiritual roots through decades of godless communism or persecution and intimidation by life under the islamic. as we contemplate the threats to our american religious liberty today, i must remind you that in the last century orthodox christianity has produced more martyrs for the faith than in all the previous 2000 years of christian history combined. orthodoxy knows by experience, the tyranny of communism, life is a minority of region and dominated by islam. the religious liberty enjoyed by christians living in western countries has not been -- most

orthodox christians in the world. the religious liberties being enjoy today were absent from most orthodox christians living in the former soviet union, eastern europe, the middle east and parts of africa. the orthodox recognize the signs of persecution, even though the more subtle variety found in most western societies today. the message seems now to be very clear in the west and the messages that christianity can be color rated as long as it remains within the confines of the walls of our church. so what comes next? i believe that like the canary, the orthodox christians through our unique history of living in parts of the world for religious liberty is not normative, our experience, reliable room markers that predicted something

is wrong and maybe even life-threatening. judeo-christian foundations that inspire christians to found hospitals, orphanages, universities, schools and countless other ventures for the good of society were believers and nonbelievers alike is now very weak in much of the west. theology which was once the centerpiece of universities is now for the most part simply an isolated discipline somewhere in a religious department full of professors, mostly with little conviction. one president of the university i was recently told said that he would violate the root of its department of his university if he could as he said he believes that god is simply for people with an incurable nostalgia for something that never was. we must ask why and how, why has

this misguided interpretation, the doctrine of separation of church and state, allow to bar any talk of god, faith and morals from the public square and countries that supposedly value the doctrine of freedom of religion? countries that value free speech and a so-called liberal education. could the fall to fault actually lie with christians? at has divided christianity been the basis for isolating the judeo-christian foundation of the building block for the western world which once honored such ideals as the common good of man, the golden rule, the right to life, freedom and democracy. i asked, could our teaching of what i call locale theology and the less i'll get along theology cause there will witness to

become anemic and irrelevant? it's not the present crisis trace to our own practices again of what i called the fairness doctrine. where life is to be lived without value, moral guidance or much else beyond the present. the concern for the threat to our american religious liberty is real. orthodox history comes with some valuable lessons. here is one from recent history that should inspire us to leave here today nervous to raise our voices loudly in defense of our religious freedoms. i think most of us present here today recognize with great enthusiasm the influence the ronald reagan, margaret thatcher and pope john paul ii have on and in the cold war and bringing it into congress rule in this former soviet union in eastern europe. but what is not so well-known is

the powerful influence of the millennial celebration of what is called the baptism of the roots which to place in 988. mikhail gorbachev in 1988 took the religious liberty lid off, so to speak, and just simply would not go back on. the russian orthodox church was up from the underground and there was no going back. russia turned quickly into the god list all should escape. the religion and religious liberties were under attack and large portions of the faithful simply remain silent. we can't afford to not learn this historical lesson that is only one of many that are almost identical. in his book, the author james mann notes the influence that susan massey had on the

president. he wrote, religion has been an essential component of massey's own interest in the soviet union. in russia i say religion is alive. the leaders, tormented by the light. massey had written this after her first visit to the soviet union in 1967. in a state where great cathedrals have been turned into a sea of antireligious museums where god has officially been declared dead, this was a sublime example of his enduring strength. she had studied the history of the russian orthodox church for oil, land of the firebirds. of the church as ours represented the aspirations of the russian people and provided them with the inspiration and strength in the darkest hours of their history. this passage both in warm -- informed and inspired president

reagan. we must ask ourselves today if there is not a lesson to be learned about just how quick we things can change and cultures for religious liberties are chip away and eventually forgotten altogether. let us be attentive as we often repeat in our orthodox literature. orthodox christianity is now finding a home in places like western europe and north america and beyond. christianity tried and tested by oppression in very recent times. in many places in the west, she can still be found hiding in safe havens or ethnic ghettos, but this is changing quickly as the fear of being different dissolves. from every cultural background or bring a new kind of zeal to orthodoxy and they are bringing with them what i would call the familiarity as a way that americans do business.

has sikhism, peculiar eastern term, is what keeps orthodox christianity vibrant and daring. it has been said that to live and orthodox christian life is to be engaged in an endless series of risk-taking. the status quo can indeed be changed. our history testifies of this fact. not by forcing our beliefs upon the unwilling but by living individual christian lives that reflect the light of christ in a darkened world. the orthodox path of witness with this saying, buying inner peace and thousands around you can be saved. i could say to you today the orthodox are not only fighting are in -- what we are finding we are finding our external voice. orthodox hierarchs have -- over the years but i believe that the following statement from the

assembly of orthodox bishops of north and central america is the first record a protest against the infringement of religious liberty given in response to what i guess we could all call the recent unpleasantness in in the department of health and human services. the orthodox bishops joined their voice with u.s. catholic conference of bishops and call the pound all orthodox orthodox christians to contact their elected representatives to voice their concerns in the face of the threat of the legacies church conscience. they go on to write, in his ruling by health and human services, religious hospitals, educational institutions and other organizations will be required to pay for the full cost of contraceptives, including some abortion inducing drugs and sterilization for their employees, regardless of their religious convictions of the employer. the first amendment of the u.s. constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion.

this freedom is transgressed when a religious institutions required to pay for contraceptive services. including abortion inducing drugs that directly violates their religious convictions. providing such services should not be regarded as mandated medical care. the assembly of the orthodox christians called upon hhs secretary sebelius and the obama administration to rescind this unjust ruling and to respect the religious freedom guaranteed all americans by the first amendment. the orthodox have begun to be confident americans and the united voice of orthodoxy is being heard in a way that is in the opinion of the speaker, simply long overdue. the alliance we form today does much to give volume to our efforts to call attention to and defend religious liberty for every american.

the once unknown christian witness from the east is now sinking in new places including the land of the free and the home of the brave. we bring our history and experience from recent times and we know the importance of not being intimidated into silence, something as precious as religious liberty. thank you. >> thank you professor george. i'm honored to be here with you, my teacher today and to be part of such a distinguished panel. i recently came upon an extraordinary letter that was written in 1787 by dr. benjamin rush and he was a devout christian and american founding

father. in his 1787 letter he recounts to his wife julia is experience that he just attended a jewish wedding in philadelphia. the only first-hand account of a jewish wedding from this era which i'm aware. rush told his wife that upon being invited to attend this wedding, quote i accepted the invitation with great pleasure for you know i'd love to be -- my stock of ideas upon all subjects. the ceremony began with quote the of a beautiful canopy composed of white and red silk in the middle of the floor. the structure of courses the hoopla under which jewish group brides and grooms are traditionally married. he then goes on to confirm that all jewish homes are the same everywhere and according to his wife, when he went after the wedding to bid farewell to the

modern fare of the she quote put a large piece of cake into my pocket for you which she presents with her best complements end quote. can't leave a jewish home without having cake. [laughter] now let me talk for a minute about jewish life. it is the embodiment of the homes of jewish husband and wife to build lovingly together in the future and yet it appears to be an odd sort of home to bill. no boundaries between public and private, open to the breezes on all four sides yet it makes sense to proceed as an echo of abraham and sarah who said that according to tradition and open doors on all four sides. the open sides symbolize their commitment to bear the message of the four corners of the earth. standing in the metaphorical shadow of abraham and sarah a jewish husband and wife likewise commit themselves to the abraham

mission carrying their judaism outside their home and into the world around them. judaism to a new couple is affirming. it guides and obligates them wherever they may be. or whatever they may do or see or become whether they are in their own home or in the public square onto the four corners of the earth. what is striking to me about the account is the fact that he, devout christian and american founding father is the one describing it. the fact that he was there showed how welcome felt and how open about their faith they were in an area which is then unwelcome in most of the parts of the world. in the enlightenment were -- into german or french society but only if they were willing to sacrifice their public jewishness to do so. when european jewish intellectual went so far as to say that we capitulate these demands by saying i shall be a in they tend but by the german

ministry. the abraham tent open to the public embodies a traditional jews believe that one cannot become a fundamentally different person upon crossing a threshold. one cannot check one's heritage at the door. the message of fidelity that was embraced by him who understood and enshrined the first amendment principle the true religious freedom means freedom to be loyal to your beliefs and customs even when they are unpopular with a neighbor and more importantly, even when one is engaging with them. thus, a jewish wedding witnessed by a devoutly christian american founder embodies i think the pluralistic traumas of america. while it is uniquely jewish symbol it communicates an intrinsically american idea that anyone of us assembled here today can understand. our faith is an essential part of ourselves and cannot be amputated from our identity upon opening our front door.

but if we who are here today understand this, it's not clear that others do and this brings us to the hhs policy that catholic institutions have challenged in court. the current policy -- only religious organizations are members of other faiths and as i noted in my testimony before congress, when this exception is called up by the congress to corralejo lease -- forcing employers to purchase these policies may violate reviews freedom. second administration implicitly assumes that those of a different religion those who have left their homes, synagogues and churches in order to engage with and serve members of other faiths are no longer acting in a religious capacity and as such are not entitled to first amendment protection. this for trace the complete

misunderstanding of the nature of religion. for orthodox jews come religion and tradition governed not only shabbat candles in the home are starting the koran and the torah or the trappings of religious observance, religion informs her conduct and manifestation of religious beliefs from feeding the hungry two assessing medical ethics, and refusing to extend religious liberty beyond the parameters of a big administration assumes it to be in religious contexts. the administration denies people of faith ability to define their religious activity. there for not only is it requiring individuals organizations to violate their religious tenants but also the administration page religious liberty by unilaterally redefining what it means to be a religion. this as it were -- [applause]

this as it were is an attempt to wall up and force americans to amputate from identity and relegate religious beliefs in many respects of the private doing. several months after attending the jewish wedding i've mentioned earlier benjamin ross at parade in the american constitution that it just been ratified by the state. he noted that the parade featured a spectacle impossible in the europe of his day. quote the clergy of the different christian denominations was the rabbi of the jews walking arm in arm. rush reflected this one quote. there could not he wrote have been a more hafle emblem of the section of the new constitution which opens its towers and offices alike not only to every christian that were the men of every religion end quote. the freedoms remained loyal to one's own sake while engaging

americans and other faiths. the essence of what this country and constitution mean to the jews and quintessentially an american ideas now being challenged by the administration. the clergy on my panel say it is my privilege to join all of you in the face of this troubling attempt to restrict the very freedom of the first amendment that was crafted to protect. in the liberties of conscious or threaten the definition of the religion itself is being redefined by bureaucratic -- i'm proud to stand with you. thank you for having me. [applause] >> maybe you see why i'm so proud. thank you to all of our panelists. it's wonderful to have this wide representation of five major traditions in the annie represented. of course there are people from

other traditions as well who are doing heroic work in the battle for religious freedom. we can expand the panel as we have more and more time. when one thinks of islamic figures such as yousef or hakmati dean who works for religious liberty who are in the center of the fight. people from the sikh tradition as well from the buddhist tradition. this is a cause that unites us not only across christian and judeo-christian lines but all -- might even more broadly. now with that, let's have a little discussion appear on the panel and then i understand that you will have the opportunity to send questions up from the audience. if i could began, i was struck by something that bishop corleone he said about the

catholic experience so i would like to begin with you bishop corleone he. catholics -- the catholic church had to work its way toward a truly robust understanding of religious liberty and embrace the broader principles of democratic, republican government. my own sense of that, and i'm curious to know your perspective on this, is that part of it had to do with what the phrase religious liberty meant to a church whose hierarchy for a long time really was european. the experience of the french revolution it seems to me really shaped the idea that catholic had about what religious freedom in and men and that meant things like religious relativism and the idea that religious vows to not wind in attempting to bind

your own conscience against mutual reflection in the complete comprehensive subservience of the church to the state, and it was only when the church.a. sense of a different idea about religious liberty. i think americans can claim credit for. one that would not relegate religion to the private domain of life or attempt to eradicate it altogether. that, the leadership of the church in the second vatican council willie could step forward with a full embrace of religious liberty. in my near the mark on this? >> you would know better than i. [laughter] >> but i don't have one of those chains. [laughter] the difference between the french revolution and the american revolution. >> that is what i was wondering. >> the french concept which was

make the church subservient to the state and that religious indifference where is the concept of the founders of our nation but different understanding the importance of the role of religion in public life. they call this an experiment in to mock her seat. the going to work and they knew it had to be based on a body of virtuous citizens. the importance of religion and in helping people develop those virtues necessary to make society work. we know how they forced the importance of the american people having that religious sums without establishing a particular religious tradition or church as the faith religion. >> you can help me on this. it looks to me as though although the catholic church took a while longer to get there, at least in its formal doctrinal pronouncements, when

one reads the declaration on religion of the second vatican council, if one were a baptist, which of course are, one would not find a lot to disagree with their you might infect the catholics have finally come around to the baptist point of your. >> is a matter fact i don't think anybody has a perfect record in religious freedom and quitting baptist. sometimes in our practice we have not lived up to what we processed -- is but one of the documents i've been recently involved with is the most recent document of evangelicals and catholics together which is entitled in defense of religious freedom. and we begin with with the common base text with a evangelical statements and others that you are right there is a coalescence of religious concern that draws from the scriptures and from the historic christian doctrine of god really as well as the christian tradition and talking about what religious freedom means in our world today.

the only other thing i maybe would like to comment on is i think there is something that runs through all of our comments here on the panel today are going that is that we are each speaking i think deeply and conviction only out of our own firmly held religious convictions. there is a kind of argument for religious freedom that opposes that kind of religious conviction and sees it as an impediment to religious freedom that always thinks about religion as provoking religious wars, religious violence. i think what we are trying to say is that within our own religious conviction and tradition, there is a common core of commitment that allows us to respect one another, to enter into dialogue with one another and to stand for one another when religious freedom is under assault. this is a far better way and what i call an acumen some of conviction not an acute animism

of -- division. >> i was struck by something you said of the jewish experience in europe and especially that offer from enlightenment forces in europe. yes we are going to give you something you always wanted and never had in europe which is full citizenship and liberation but at a cost and the cost is you have to keep your religion private and in your public life it can't bear. i think a lot of people in europe on both sides of the divide believes that you had to opt for one of the following two things. either the domination of the religious majority or secularization of the public square. to me, the american experience shows that those are false alternatives, that you can have

robust religion and robust freedom together. >> that is exactly right and i did not want to quote this before because it was a very serious matter but i quote yogi berra who when he was told that the mayor was jewish, he said the mayor of dublin is jewish? only in america. [laughter] >> bishop cordileone would like me to point out that yogi bear is a great catholic theologian. [laughter] >> we will just leave it there. his vocation was challenging. [laughter] i think that is exactly right. i think it was de tocqueville who said that in europe it was a quote foundational american public life in front of my

teacher. but he said something like, in europe it was assumed that faith and reason whereas in america in joint reign over the land. and that is i think as timothy george mentioned before the reason for that difference in america is that america and this wonderful book on two wings as well, america believed that they were both essential components of society and of the very argument for freedom in general and religious freedom. it felt actually that division played a very great role not just in making the argument for freedom as documented recently by the wonderful book hebrew

republic on how the bible actually impacted the protestant case made in britain and how that impacted the american founding fathers but also because they felt that the debacle notion of the covenant could unite religion in the common project of creating society together. john adams famously recounts in a letter to his own wife about how the first meeting of the continental congress in 1784 it was proposed that they begin with a prayer and john jay objected to them saying that they were too religiously divided. they were episcopalian and today the notion -- i recently, a couple of years was in a meeting of students and agonizingly aware of the fact that i was the only orthodox there.

one of the other students that i really feel like i'm sticking out as a presbyterian among so many episcopalians. i was thinking, yeah, i hate it when that happens. but jay's point is in europe at least at one point they were killing each other. they could not pray together. he said he would be willing to pray with any person in piety and then they brought in a couple of priests who read a psalm asking god to protect them from the eni me. actually precisely in the founding fathers as i understand it, based on the one hand they alluded their case for freedom while at the same time it was a conscious european notion of social contract. it was a biblical covenant which could make a religious case for unity despite religious --

>> will be all all the of community of which your distinguished represented and later has half -- suffered a history of persecution and the united states where the faith was founded but nevertheless the lds community as slurs, absolutely flourish. its institutions and the competence of its members and you have a great university, brigham young university. but in recent years, where the church has come into severe criticism and worse and criticism, genuine abuse has been when the church has stepped out and spoken in the public square where the lds faithful drop a small members of the committee where they been able to stand up for beliefs that are shared between lbs and orthodox jews and catholics and christians and protestants and so forth. the church has really come under fire and treated and abused more severely i think, even more

severely than half representatives stating the same views in the public square of other larger faith. it might be just a small minority you are always more vulnerable but the church to my mind has not permitted itself to be intimidated by those ticks and continues to refuse to speak as a private matter but as an lds tradition for the common good in the public sphere. >> thank you first for that observation and i think it's fair to say that the church is not a stranger to persecution. organized in new york within a few years it has moved from new york to ohio to missouri to illinois and i think it was 12,000 marched from illinois to salt lake city.

which grounded the church in a sense with respect to the need to be aware of what is happening around you and to be aware of the fact that religious freedom comes sometimes at a very dear price. my own ancestors on my fathers side made that hike from al and i to salt lake city and some of our group of course died along the way. so the thought of paying the price of freedom is not a stranger to us. with respect to the recent effort and probably referring to the battle in california, there were some members of the church who were treated very harshly and subjected to terrible things. >> there's a youtube video of a church being invaded, literally invaded by critics of the church's position. >> we are not going to change her position with respect to matters that are essential to our doctrine. i think other people are as

well. we do avoid partisan matters. we avoid platform matters but when there is a matter of serious moral concern, we are compelled to do it or goes the father chad, one of the confiscated, one of the competitions of the history of religious freedom in the struggle for religious freedom is that of salt from our religious freedom can come from both religious sources and secularists take ideologies. an additional complication is that sometimes the very same tradition of faith and people associated with it can be the persecuted and other times the persecutors so there have been, speaking from my own tradition, times when catholics have been persecuting others, violating religious freedoms and times when catholics have been

persecuted including here in the kent at points in our history. as timothy said, it's hard to find a tradition that has a perfectly clean record itself but i do think it's important especially in a temporary position to knowledge that threats can come from both directions, from religious itself -- religion itself and secularists in. do you a great? >> i would fully agree with that and i've been asked this question since i have been here and might as well make it part of the public record. responding to what you just said, i cited recent russian orthodox history and i could have cited it in multiple other parts of the world. orthodoxy is a prominent religion but i've been now since i have been here this question about legislation in the russian duma that prohibits religious activities from churches that are not orthodox and i think those of us who are american orthodox christians have been

pretty clear in responding to our russian reverend that it is always a problem when you look to caesar to protect you. that is not a good alliance ever for christians. and my personal opinion and that of many others is that orthodoxy or any other religion has to stand on its own merits and it creates the scenario which you just described. let's face it, lots of evil has been done in the name of god. and the fact that you and i live in a country which has treasured religious liberty which is at the heart of our conference today, the lesson is that sometimes government can pick religions against each other and it breaks out into a fight. this particular issue has done just that, because there are religious bodies that have embraced it wholeheartedly and

have been highly critical of other religions that are doing what we are doing today which is to raise their voice and be part of, as i said my paper, how we as americans -- >> panelists i need to give an opportunity to say anything else you would like especially if you are prompted by anything that one of your fellow panelist said. does anybody have any comments on what your colleagues on the panel said? do you all agree with it or didn't listen? [laughter] well, okay. >> coming from my canon law background i have given talks on this, democratic elements have not been absent in our catholic tradition and of course you don't have a democratic form of church governance but for centuries before the country was founded the church is known for her religious orders, cathedral

chapters of canon and so forth. but it was, it was that experience coming out of europe and how those movements took that anticlerical sermon and tainted the church. it never oppose the principle of democracy as a form of clinical governance but seeing the direction it was moving it has its position of suspicion and as you point out with the american experience, affirming it in a magisterial document. >> okay, we are blessed to have an audience, almost as distinguished as her panelist so let's go to the audience questions. they have been handed up here and i haven't had a chance to review them myself so i will just start reading them. with the owner of the car with license -- [laughter]

a clergy question. would you agree -- i am not sure whether in the lds tradition there is a distinction between clergy and non-clergy. >> i don't know. [laughter] >> we don't know either. >> i know the others are ordained. >> i was a lawyer minded my own business in newport each and got it. [laughter] >> did you agree that faith communities have a responsibility to celebrate pluralism and diversity in america? rather it appears that many believe was that we seek the status quo for common denominator's on religious issues. well, i mean it looks to me like we are celebrating at least religious diversity here. i don't think anybody is arguing

against the celebration of pluralism and diversity so i am not exact sure what the question is asking. does anyone want to have a crack at it? >> that question, and those two words are tremendous buzz words so i'm not sure what was meant from the questioner and perhaps clarification is in order but the etiology of pluralism and the ideology of diversity can often be taken in ways that are in fact dehumanizing and anti-religious that diminish religious conviction and religious community. i think those are very suspect ideas. plus the fact that we are called to live together to celebrate the fact that we have a plural society and we have the commitment, both religious and nonreligious, rep or is it in our society. i think all of us want to affirm that is a good thing. i certainly do.

>> mr. cordileone? >> there have to be some commonly held values on the foundation in which you can be celebrated and the battle in our country right now is what are those foundational values we should all overcome? >> i think we have been very clear is centered around the protection of liver -- religious liberties for all and that includes another prominent religion in our culture which is secularism. >> a question specifically for you. how do you believe church members of all faiths might best double their educational efforts and in particular with regard to encouraging and protecting religious liberty? how specifically will your own church redouble its efforts in this regard? >> thank you for the great question. the first thing we will do is try to teacher on members. we have various means of doing that through the printed word, through televised conferences and so one.

and i suspect that one of the focuses that will come from this experience and other similar ones is an effort within our own denomination to do a better job about teaching our children about something that really matters. second, we will encourage everyone where we can starting across the country, starting with a combined effort, joint effort with other religious states and traditions to find ways to keep in touch with and help with legislative action, to get to know legislators and to find people with common belief and to form a coalition network with the same kind of beliefs. i think as we also look to individuals, families and homes across the country, as we begin to focus our efforts and establish a network that will

reach beyond our own faith but across the country, we will find a way for instance with twitterer facebook or other news technological advances to get the word to people and help them begin to get a feeling for what is going on in the country. i think this effort will require a variety of outreach and it's going to be some work. i said earlier it will take time and i met by the network are going on think the kinds of problems will yield without substantial effort. >> can i kick this one over to you? i would be interested in what you are finding in the orthodox jewish community? certainly it's been very heartening to me to see the positive reaction from orthodox jews in the united states standing in solidarity with catholics and others in support of religious freedom. can you talk a little more about

that? do orthodox jews see down the line some threats that could come to their own community? for example one example off the top of my head i can think of the proposed legislation that so far has not been enacted but had been proposed to ban circumcision in san francisco. are there things like that are causing orthodox jews to say you know this is really a serious issue? >> speaking for myself what motivates me is -- i do believe we certainly have our own doctrines and a moral question. orthodox jews may or may not always agree with others. on the other hand we share many traditional moral values in common with those of other faiths. when we see certain values, certain liberties being challenged or restricted, we see that as a general threat to

everybody. even if in the particular case of a particular threat, we are not effective at that moment. again speaking just for myself, this is not just a self-interest aspect but it is bound up with what jews have always believed is the blessing of america and what we as jews from the very beginning experience as a blessing from america. that is really what it's been motivating me. they just now announced that they will be publicizing for everyone to come see the famous letter written by george washington. >> to the jewish community in rhode island? >> the jewish community and what of them which has been sitting in some file cabinet for i think decades and which was terrible and now the famous letter in which he echoed basically the letter he received from the congregation describing america is up and which gives bigotry no sanction, forced to all

liberties of conscious and concluding with the children of the seed of abraham and the stock of abraham dwell in the bin piece in this land and hl said under the bind of the fig tree and there should be nothing that make them afraid. that is the blessing of american that has been the blessing of america for us and it's our obligation that it's the obligation for others. >> at one point the leaders of the jewish community must have mentioned in their letter that they hoped under the new government, the new constitution that the jews would be afforded tolerance and washington writes back and essentially says very gently and politely but very firmly, you don't quite get it yet. you deserve much more than tolerance. this is america. this is not europe where you are tolerated as a minority. you are a full citizen. there is no longer toleration. that captures the difference between the american political understanding and the european

one and it spelled out specifically for a small minority community. >> that's right and i don't know when this will be. i think it will be featured in philadelphia and american jewish history but it will be wonderful to do a gathering of all faiths to celebrate. >> this might be unnecessary but for anyone who is not read washington's letter to the jewish community of newport rhode island, don't do it on your iphone now but when you get back to your rooms and to get on line, that's the first thing you should do. look up that magnificent letter from washington to the jewish committee. tells you not only a great deal about washington but tells you a great deal about america and what our founders wanted america to be. they had their flaws in their faults obviously but it does tell you they had a vision for america truly is a land of liberty. i have got another question in and this one is a very good and a very serious one and brine if

you figure out who asked this one please give given the door price. this is really to all the panelists. i don't know the answer myself. to all. the so-called blonde amendment named for the author of the amendment in congress, that address the hhs mandate failed 48-51 on march 1 at this year and essentially a partisan vote. does the partisanship of this vote concern your faith communities? are you willing to advocate underscore, for specific underscored, legislative remedies to this problem? now let me just add one thing to the question before letting you approach it. just think back to a few years ago, after the supreme court decision in in the employment division against smith. went across the political and religious spectrum people united

in order to enact the religious freedom restoration act which passed overwhelmingly in both houses of congress. ball where -- falwell and barry and the more way in and the moral majority across the board for religious freedom, for a more robust understanding of religious freedom then would have existed if smith were left unaddressed legislatively. now that coalition seems to have completely broken down. that bipartisan unanimity has been lost and what do we have? we have a situation where on something as fundamental as religious liberty implications of the hhs mandate we get a partisan vote right down the middle. that can't be healthy. that cannot be a good bang. the last thing we want is a party division between democrats and republicans over something as fundamental as religious

freedom. so i don't know what to make of this partisanship. it certainly worries me. father chad, what do you make of this? and are your communities willing to advocate special -- specific religious remedies? >> first i will say that i thought hannah smith houses perfectly and how does become a political football that is cause this partisanship and is completely lost the importance of what we are gathering here today about which is religious liberty. so i think as religious leaders we have a moral obligation to speak to our people not to connect it to the partisanship but simply to remind their people this is an issue that is not connected to any political party that it's a basic religious right that is being infringed upon here. we simply cannot be silent. as this in my paper we have too many lessons to learn. >> hannah smith is magnificent, isn't she? yes, my student.

[laughter] what do you make of it? there seems to be a real problem. >> he i think first of all that is a reflection of the deep divide across the country. takes me back to the question of education and helping people see other sides of the same problem and i think for me it characterizes the battle. we have an educational struggle ahead of us and it will require a united effort by all of us here today to overcome the obstacles that are in the way without responding to that issue. i think the entire problem is characterized by the question and it points out to me the need to work together in a coordinated coalition so to speak, to find ways to get through these problems. >> i think it will be horrible situation and i'm going to be

very plain here. democrats think in order to beat loyal and good democrats you have to stand with the frustration on this hhs issue and you cannot reach out and defend your religious liberties for whom this is a substantial burden. that is a bad situation. i know there are many democrats who in their heart of hearts certainly are concerned about religious liberty every bit as much as republicans are and it just worries me that the issue is becoming partisan. timothy do you have any thoughts about his? >> as you know i'm independent and i have no loyalty to the democratic or republican parties, however think the question and the situation of the blonde amendment reflects a, you might say, a capitulation of one of the major parties on this particular issue. thank god for democrats who are willing to sort of like the trend and stand up. should we are what we as religious people support specific legislation?

absolutely. i think we would have been derelict in the 60's if we didn't support civil rights legislation. i think if there were a way, we ought to support it and so i see this as a moral issue, not a partisan issue. when it does become partisan eyes, i agree with you that is a very dire warning to our entire society and culture but in fact i think that is exactly where we are today. >> this issue in litigation, the litigation that is pending, the 43 catholic organizations. there also protestant entities like -- and that will be litigated under the restoration act. it will be a stature reclaim under the religious restoration act and i have to ask myself what happened to that bipartisanship in the unity that

produce the religious freedom restoration act in the first place and do we have any hope of getting it at? back? is there anything we, who believe so strongly in defending religious liberty against these mandates, can do to persuade those who were once so active and enthusiastic about the religious freedom restoration act to come back to the cause? is there anything we are doing wrong that is scaring people away, who should be arm in arm with us in fighting religious liberty as they were when it was enacted. bishop do you have something to say? >> yeah, i think it points to what i mentioned earlier about this trouble over whether the foundational common values are going to hold to the foundation upon which to respect our diversity. i want to refer to what one of the questioners this morning pointed out and didn't delve

into it too much when he mentioned that the two commonalities and all of this legislation, the first one that he mentioned was they all have to do with the question of -- and that is basically advocating sexual license. that i think is the common thread in all of these three foundational issues of life, marriage and religious liberty. ..

[inaudible conversations]

>> if people do have the information to cope or from dhs. the thought this type of behavior is condoned or authorized this absurd in my opinion. i have been an agent 29 years. work in detroit, white house detail. i never had a supervisor tellme this behavior is

condoned. >> officials with secret service testified about agent interaction with columbia impostor to its. watch on mine.

>> nobody can even see us laugh laugh good morning governor. let me shake your hand. on behalf of universal bluford charter school and the wonderful students alike to take the opportunity to welcome governor romney to

the great city of philadelphia. today is a special day because of your presence. we pray your stay is pleasant and we can discuss the most important thing that we believe that universal which is education. the experience of african-americans when the time when it was against the law for people of african descent to read or write it is more important today to discuss education for the african-american committee

because of the conditions as it relates to prisons. i am glad you are here. to find out your thoughts as a relates to the destiny and the future of america upper it is a major portion that is the number one concern. how do read develop that educational system to look up the people with their past before slavery. thank you for being here. >> i appreciate the chance to be with you and i come to learn from those who have experiences are unique and instructive. not just to me but to the

nation. man experience with education with people in massachusetts. i'm realize the rivalry between boston and philadelphia could strain the discussion. [laughter] but we could talk about our young people. as a new governor there were features that concerned me as the educational system. there is a gap with the achievement scores of minorities compared to the caucasian students. second bowman some schools were succeeding and some were not. not necessarily urban versus

suburban but there was some correlation. there were some reports of some charter schools being successful and others less barbosa vote i wanted to improve the education system. briefly my limited experience what i learned to but i would like to get yours. and in congratulate you your personal and financial investment to establish save pathway for thousands of people to have it changed life. i cannot make a bid the the more rewarding. i said would to redo to improve our schools? the number of old said smaller classrooms.

i gathered and ration. let's compare the average classroom size with the performance. there was not relationship. the school district with the smallest classrooms had students in the bottom 10%. we begin to measure the progress of students and to graduate price high-school you had to pass the graduation exam. the speaker and the senate president, bipartisan came together that adams

scholarship if you took it to and scored in the top one quarter of your high-school the new were entitled to the scholarship which is tuition freed in massachusetts. these are much higher than tuition but it helped and showed we were interested in excellence. we rose to the number one in the nation for fourth graders and eighth graders english and math. we have a lot of good catholic schools. there is said good deal of school choice not only helping those but to elevate the public schools around them to make them more competitive.

i believe the boston school district has focused on hiring teachers. i believe that makes a difference. i see the achievement gap was cut by almost half from the time that i leave as governor. but the focus on school choice with more charter schools, testing our kids to hire capable teachers. then when i stepped back there were three gains that had the biggest impact of quality of the education. great teachers. the best and brightest put

them on a career path not just to become the administrator but as a teacher. have been the two-parent family to invest in the child's education and one was more involved with who work with two parents and the home. and the number three sound leadership. people who could guide the school to focus on the primary mission and best didn't achievement they seem to be highly correlated. and member of carter's schools to get those rate great teachers who pay into

involve family is missing goal families to involve them and leaders i am told about the successes of these institutions in this one in particular in the above to get your perspective on what makes it work and what we could do better. my proposed title one money follows the student. if they want to go to a charter school the federal

money goes with the student. we allow more choice for parents. every parent should have a choice every child should have a chance to grade the schools to see they succeed or fail to see if they do not prevent digital learning and technology is improving every day. 10 years from now it will play a bigger role to tailor our education. and then with quality of teaching, the number is dozens of teacher quality

programs at the federal government rubble a look like to take the money to send it back to the states to improve the quality of teachers. with at as an introduction and. [laughter] >> that was long. >> i am known to do that. >> my premise is simple for all poor performing schools that we talk about, of my job and fundamental belief behalf to correct the situation. what i would add we talk

about poor performing schools and what we do from the top down there is never support. but at the end of the day there are thousands of children trapped. so whatever policies if the school is punished it should be coupled with support. i hear that constantly. we will identify the bad schools but at the end of the day they are forcing the transition to of poor performing school to become a good school could be seven or eight years.

how many students to reduce during that time? at the end of the day talking about the african-american community, we have lost too many children like that. now they are having children. we have a structural deficit. we have to rebuild the system that is structurally messed up. we will never get to the second part of parent support. maybe teachers and leadership but cannot get parent thing or communities support because it is upside down. >> i did not mention that. the wisdom of the people

that preceded me when the school was deemed to be failing, they had a provision the state would take over the school to bring it in the highly experienced leaders to help turn the school around. not that it is a disaster. too bad. that is a critical point*. >> governor, remember how the whole concept of education has failed. even if boston trying to integrate schools with young black children going to white neighborhoods and throwing a exact them and

spitting on them. that concept never work to. that might said never worked. is a structural component within the thinking of america. basically my job is to look after the african-american community in philadelphia and what can i contribute during my lifetime? i try to correct all of this thinking as it relates to people who has contributed so much to this country and has gotten so little back. we don't want to think the concepts and for you to know basically that to this old

government concept needs and new mind. you have to be able to look at america. where is it going the next 100 years? >> we will not be there. >> people remember you buy what you build the park on vacation to different cities the liberty bell, the knicks that were built by the founding fathers. greece, rome, because the foundation has a lot of

default and to my major concern is the destiny once the problem is solved all of america will benefit. >> has been overlooked for many years. i just want to two keep that on the burner. >> we are not far apart. >> we are in the same boat [laughter] you look at life different. those persons can step up to the plate.

to a style you associate yourself how do you get it done? this past the a major player in. you will drive yourself into a whole. that is the most important resource. >> thank you. >> i started brick and mortar school. dual language the premise is start with the student.

latino, african-american and , you care most about your kids. but then to the charter schools fettered driven by local politics. we are fighting each other who can serve that kid. some of your at 300 students you can only serve 300 students so now there is cyber applications. it is not cyber online learning and other students move quickly but it gives the other options. if they are trapped but it is a concept of the blended

learning model. you don't give away the bricks and mortar but takes the cyber stuff that allows you to stay above the politics and focus what to the kids want. >> you are combining. >> we are focused on another ditch population most kids say i get leggett. it is good and private schools? ) cannot afford that. another way to think about it but the policy local state and federal so that

dollar falling the students is great but how did the states take the money. pennsylvania has 3,000 districts is a challenge. >> how much is cyber learning being received. >> at the state level. >> 30,000 students it is not the cyber education they necessarily want so they did not perform as well so to the blended learning model. it is not all on line but they are starting to adapt the still give them the best of technology but yet to face to face. that model the parents are

poor receptive. >> i am thinking more of the blood did setting charter schools or public school digital learning is part of the curriculum and able to enhance the nature to which experience is tailored. >> first of all, i said bell lot of employees up to massachusetts. one the has gone to university massachusetts, to all campuses this year. >> i'm sending our best point* guard in this city up

to boston. he broke wilt chamberlain's record. boston university. he will be playing. [laughter] ours is the all boy high-school. four years of latin but what struck me is trying to integrate the schools when they talk about providing education for the low income they want to send them to the school somewhere else. that is what you see. of good education, accessible by people who paid no care about them. everybody wants to be here. the kids want to be here the parents want to be here the

board loves it. everybody wants to be here and the power of choice bring some great achievements and opportunities the best you can do as president to create as many options as possible to give us much opportunity to access credit education in their community that is why we can send the boy is from virginia and maryland because they got a good education in their community. that allowed them to have the ability to step out and feel confident and capable. >> quite a story.

i am glad you sent the point* guard to boston. [laughter] >> i would like to bring up to concerns. think about as a teacher in the classroom is class size and testing. i heard your position today with the platform which is the topic right now open pro i cannot think of any teacher i have been teaching to say more students would benefit. i cannot think of apparent who says i want my a kids in

the room with only one teacher. where does the research come from? look at the test scores. big class sizes does not affect the test for? i think they are being over tested. i say this because listening to the seven habits of highly effective people. he said there really good teacher or leader does not give their people to answer the questions put to ask the question. i think education is directed to answering questions but not asking the correct ones. you'd be surprised and the

books there is no questions. where are the hands going up? history, art, a culture, don't you want to know? i feel they will be tested but in terms for me, lifelong learning learning, lifelong leadership and wanting to learn but they could survive for pro. >> are you at this school? >> yes. i believe in assessment but they don't get money if they don't hit 98.

there are so many things we aren't dealing with that involve with character involvement. how do they want to be educated? this is what i am seeing. they do. i know they do. where are the questions? the testing concerns me. it concerns me with the class sizes. mr. bennett would you want more kids in your classroom? >> is too large. >> it to various but anywhere between 23 and 28.

you can give more personalized attention with the smaller class size. i do have to agree. i teach technology. >> what is your view? >> if you had a class of five terrific. 50 is impossible. mckinsey consulting firm, the institute is a think tank organization and look to at schools in singapore, of finland come later this state's and said in the schools of the highest performing class assizes are about the same as the united states. it is not the classroom size striping the success. what is?

parents very involved excellent teachers drawing from the best and the brightest and the administrators to guide the school with the policies of this -- disciplined and they tended to drive the most successful nations. >> if there reza definitive study of class size. they said first through third grade of the class size is under 18 they stay ahead of everybody all the way through school including classis 25 with a coat teachers. they lose those gains after a couple years.

that is what makes the difference. first through third grade. you learn to read then that you read to learn. you'll never catch up. it really is the most critical. they houston have students with 50 kids because everybody was there for the same reason and. that is where choice comes. if you could make that a priority, they can read and do basic computation to move forward. >> we could spend all day talking about class

size but that is one aspect of many systems. you talk about your background in business. there is the education side but also the business side. those factors have to work properly. the charter movement from it is a new phenomenon. you need to build the capacity and the infrastructure. greet are competing but then i might have to provide the additional support. also putting the

conversation on this type of the table. [laughter] these people have tremendous experience and education and in philadelphia. >> is great conversation and discussion and thinking for coming. my name is patricia coulter i am with the urban league. we are based out of new york. one of the things we do spend time on policies side. with the history of where we

are as a nation where are african-americans as a people? the report we just released said african-americans are only 71% as well off as the white said. we do economics education and health social justice and the civic and hmn. look at it independently, the two that stand out of economics and education. it is hard to talk about one without the other. jobs are the basis for so much. talking about the 3.of class sizes leadership teachers and parents, for those

students where the parents are struggling just to keep food on the table or shuffling from a shoulder to a relative and back and vivid child is upset each time. how do view that perspective? i think our property rate is close at 20%. a lot of children are in the position to not have the support to help them make good choices. what do you see as an element you can propose for

this quality gap? we also started to measure the latino gap still falling around that 70%. maybe it is a structural peace maybe we throw the amount and start over but we lose so many people. i don't think america can afford that. >> i agree. education and the gap of the educational opportunity is a civil rights issue of our time. the failure to provide kids with the skills they need is a crisis.

rehab america and the education crisis. we have to be bold. for a single mall living in a shelter with a couple of kids, they are at a disadvantage rather wear a hat mom and dad can be helpful for dinner. i remember 1/5 vantage just to have dinner together. and to have the two kids make my parents one could help the other zero were one parent could save my child is not leading period well.

to parents in the home makes the enormous difference. trying to help move people to understand getting married and having families has a big impact. that is critical down the road. if they are already in this setting, having good jobs but with some many people out of work with the minority communities this is hurting their kids but now costing the economics and the employment opportunities borne by the next generation of. why mine is so urgent to get the economy going to put people to work so they are

in the apartment or home. not a shelter. not 10 or 12 or 15%. jobs. impact family is. and the education experience. with the achievement gap it was cut in half by the kinds of things but that adams scholarship if you do well, you can have the the college tuition. also of to get the good teachers.

is schools were failing the state could take over. a provision that said the school consistent fails and the state takes over they can remove any provision of the union contract that they think is interfering with the education of the children. they had great freedom and flexibility to focus on the child. we know the answers. we don't know what it takes recall all of these four since her third day bid tax about within the community. now they needn't have.

>> building on that point*. i don't think there has never been a president who was not pro education and zero were with thing is going on and come education is every other big issue. on behalf of everybody here in the building we need a president who except determined to to have a message. we have schools that are as schools that are not.

you talked about great teaching, but what is really suffering is the focus of the building to make sure the chain happens every day. the schools who did not get it done, and not because they don't care but edo interest headed to been to but for those who debate the pros and cons public purse is private and put half of that energy to get the job done for the kids we would be the number one country in the world. we're losing focus.

most education spending is done locally. but money needs to follow the kid. of about higher education. >> and secure a. >> thank you. >> in conclusion they give for coming and to give your comments. i'd like to make one request that you come back to was later when and if you are in the position. [laughter] it is one thing to come down. if the spirit guides to that point* if you are president of the united states, i want

to to see if you come back. you need us. the country needs this type of view at -- judy to deal with the reality of america. not the jokes are the fictitious thing. they have the business has been a cash cow. it has turned out to the worst product you could imagine. levying a s been a cash cow. it has turned out to the worst product you could imagine. levying a prison business but the mayor can people do not see. the danger of that is a

country who is in balance. >> thank you. i appreciated. [applause] i would love to see you. >> why does it have been? how to make that happen? you are doing it here.

[inaudible conversations]

>> what she was like during the four year period. most is written by those who are friends of friends and. >> surveying of the protective detail. >> barings is no gossiped but 1/2 and.

>> in nexrad day of booktv on c-span2. maybe remembered for his 20 with hamilton. but after words the former director for asian affairs on the possible state of north korea. >> but the response to you will be you, you have problems to.

that is not a parable. sputnik those who would apply to the suhler current on their payment. this is just over $1.

>> i would like to think our witnesses today. the to me the head sixth or. >> the responsible homeowner was into spy senators mendez and boxer. he made changes. the congress and administration and continued to not hear from goods to torrance and more could be

done and to give homeowners.

>> good gse's have not applied and a consistent manner which creates unnecessary complications for lenders and homeowners. >> vice said no. the economy as whole profile afford to hear your thoughts but to encourage competition

moon. improving to say what will lead to a follow that reform? they were the will turn them over but to talk about expanding and put it could refinance mortgages with idiocy loans. well this is important to explore, it should only be one aspect but with that i'd

think he pm not have a sustainable recovery that is statutes and rules are becoming problematic. >> i missed judge the risk to which the taxpayer has been