we lost our confidence in optimism. jfk was a hugely optimistic man. he believed in american greatness and exceptionalism. he loved our history and national story. something went awry. we didn't believe them the way he believed them. >> with that, ladies and gentlemen, "the end of days: assassination of john f. kennedy." thank you. [applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations]

you're watching booktv non-fiction authors and books. every weekend on c-span2. up next on booktv. after wards with guest host "washington post" religion reporter. this week peter gottschalk and "american heartics ." while freedom of religion is constitutionally protected right. many religious groups have been purse cuted throughout the history. sometimes by the very government that supposed to protect them. this program is about an hour. >> hello, peter >> guest: how are you? >> host: good. thanksgiving is approaching and

it's a time when we like to celebrate our founding fathers and mothers search for religious tolerance. but your book, part of the way you introduce it is you're interesting in challenging the idea, you know, that america is a place of religious tolerance and actually that intolerance is very american thing. tell me, is our narrative wrong from your point of view? >> guest: well, most of the martive are -- there is a lot to celebrate in american history regarding tolerance from various groups that found refuge here. so that's a part of the narrative that has to be embraced. it's also important realize the narrative has been crafted as a m.a.er narrative in which the religious toleration is forefronted to a degree that as it could the more unfortunate part. i think thanks giving is an example of a good one. a lot think that the united states was founded as part of

the european settlement by the pure contains. actually, there were europeans that came here earlier that just spanish and also the english and jamestown. but that may flower narrative about freedom from persecution futures so prominently. because nices like to celebrate themselves. and down play some of the more negative things. and americans have really embraced the idea that the country should be a place of corp. lymph, freedom. >> host: tell me about how you came to write the book. why do you think it was important look that the narrative? >> guest: well, some of my research after 9/11 was focused on -- it was apparent to me after 9/11 as the nation was dealing with the grip ling crimes that had been inflicted on us, that there was likely to be a backlash against them based on what i had known about american history and earlier. and so a colleague and i cowrote

a book. and it addressed a real need that the nation has to deal with the issue. a term that didn't exist in common parlance in 2007 when we published the book. the other works were corming out and journalists were bringing out the issue after 2007 or so. so i there was clear evidence as you read the papers, or any news media that there is still anti-muslim sentiment in america nap damage the lives of muslims and nonmuslims. unfortunately on an unyule basis. i was thinking what can i do to contribute to the conversation to help americans understand this better? and i drew on my experiences talking to public in various places with and the questions that people had. the honest questions people had understand what the fuss was about. and so i thought that perhaps

writing a book that would include the history of the persecution of other religious groups would help nonmuslim americans empathize with what muslims are going through by realizing part of their own past with which they may or may not be familiar or associate with. >> host: you learn learned in your book about your background. was that something that and also your area religious -- that was kind a realization for you? was there any kind of personal kind of motivation or journey for you to say it's something that is important? >> guest: yes. absolutely. i was raised in the catholic family, and although i didn't experience a direct kind of persecution as a catholic, my interest in history demonstrated to me how there has been some antagonism toward catholics in america in various ways, and there's also a jewish part of my family as well. and so i'm sensitive to those issues as well.

particularly personally was a realization that i, most -- ideas myself. and really came home to me one day as i believed in the book. i was having a conversation with my friend steve, who was studying middle eastern studies, and has family linkage to the middle east himself. and i made some comment, i can't remember what the comment. he pulled me up and said peter, did you hear yourself. it's a stereo type about muslims. and he was right. i needed them to call me out on it in order for me to see it for kind of pull it out and put it in front of me so i can get past my prejudice. to me, i'm interested in ways people carry the bridges. i don't think that a lot of the racism, sex schism, antiseminism that people carry is always ink baited with the deliberate focus

on hatred. that people decide i want to hate somebody. i'm going choose this group and think these things. unfortunately we ash sort them from the culture from the broader society, and that we become common sense and we don't reflect on them because they are part of our background information about the world. the book is trying to bring not only the intolerance that people suffered. but also try gate little bit of the ways in which this -- without saying it was okay or justified. >> and what about the tight of the book is american. why did you pick that word? a little bit old fashioned and also seems like, kind of, loaded a little bit. why did you pick the word? >> well, a sub part of this book is by talking about nationalism. because in some ways nationalism is a american religion. in some ways, the fidelity that

americans are expected to dpon strait toward their flag, their country, various institutions, almost raises to a religious level. in fact the people who died for their country is fascinating given that people who are willing to die for their -- popular american media. so i began to realize the theme that was running through each of the chapters i was writing. there are certain american norms that are just social norms like, well, normal people do this. normal people believe that. but also to be part of the nation requires, in the minds of many americans, adherence to certain type of beliefs and practices. if you butt up against those, you tend to be seen as antiamerican. which is a serious, serious claim one thinks about it.

what does it take to be against that? >> host: let's go back a little bit to our history the book organized around the history of several. the chapters are organized different face groups. and you start with the pure contains and the quakers. that's your first chapter. let talk briefly about the roots of the concept of religious freedom or pluralism. what did the founders mean by this? well, of course, the found verse really have two meanings. constitutional founders who think about the european settlers. like the puritans and the english settlers. and for many of the latter, puritans didn't come to the colonies in order to establish a praise of religious freedom for everyone. they came primarily to establish

a place of religious freedom for them. they were willing to tolerate a certain amount of difference, for instance, quakers had -- but if even begin to publicly proclaim their religion at various times that brought them in for serious punishment including death. so those founders, if you think of them as founding the european part of the settlement of america, we're not terribly tolerant. in some places. other places, for instance, in some of the southern colonies were more tolerant. vary colony to colony. the constitutional writers determined there was no way they were going to create a unified nation that was going to one religion as a state religion the

way the church of england was and is. the church of england. so they put a sense of pluralism in to the protective in to the constitution and jefferson himself, that's an important part of the formation with an idea it's more nuanced than we get in the public discourse. >> guest: and as i said the chapter were organized by different -- looking at the intolerance of

different groups. and they're organized by quakers, irish-catholics, jews, mormons, and muslims. tell me how you picked those groups. were there any consider you considered and didn't pick? how did you organize them? >> guest: right. as i say t not a complete history of religious tolerance in america. each one of those chapters only -- primarily looked at one moment of the intolerance toward that group by the majority. so each one of those chapters could be developed much more. there are other groups that i don't deal with at all. because, not meant to be comprehensive. for instance african-americans. just dealing with the reality of the slavery trade. just to start with is an overwhelming topic. given that the indigenous traditions that the enslaved africans came across the atlantic with were usually stripped from them. it's conditions of slavery

didn't allow them to pursue the life including islam of probably about a fifth of all enslaved africans were muslim. there's not much evidence of that. they worked hard to find evidence of the continuing beyond that first generation. so there are -- that was the biggest group that i did deal with. >> host: let's maybe go through some of the each of the chapters with drama and good character and action. let's go through them. a couple of them. so the first one about the quakers, one of the things that was interesting to me. you were trying to look at we can talk about the generallity here.

what it is that prompted intolerance toward them and the factors that prompted the intolerance toward the different group and the case of the quakers, you were talking about an emphasis on conformity. right. can you talk about why they were seen and that was the important issue. and does the, you know, through the chapters without going in to each of them in detail. does the reason for religious intolerance vary wildly or something you can sum up as evidence 0 change or something? >> guest: there's one way it worked in all of the cases across american history. however, i think there's some common theme. and one of the themes is a quest for maintaining certain type of order. because all of these rely on some sort of order in order to hold back chaos. for instance, in the united states we drive on the right side of the road, and, you know,

that not an order people can decide whenever they want. there are not enough police to stop them anywhere they want. they rely people to take in the order which is ingrained in them in order to preserve safety and property. well, the pure contains conformity to a certain type of religious norm of ethical norm was going create a moral order that is going to protect their community. because they have a strong sense that if they didn't do that as the body of the corporate body. they would come in for the devine disapproval. >> host: it was theological. >> guest: right. >> host: it wasn't necessarily an economic issue. it was more theological. >> guest: it was economic in the sense that the puritans world view didn't distinguish between thoughing gi and economic. they were living by god's grace

and could either gain more or lose god's grace. they needed to work to create as moral a society as possible. away from that that was at various times it was too unacceptable to allow. and so again, over time over a couple of times there were different ways in which the pure contains governs the puritan -- >> host: if you book you talked about it was their nature of prayer. that they -- the way in which they kind of

waited for a spirit as opposed to being lead by then and women and men spoke in the services. >> that's right. >> host: there was something about maintaining the lit gi basically. the structure of people's lives. it can be seen as threatening. >> that's right. >> guest: it goes back to the issue of order. certain people have an authority to help maintain the order. you have people getting the devine messages and speaking out from them. it can undermine authority. when swrim an equal -- that seems refined as well nap women play an important role in the concern that the people in the majority society have about the ways in which a minority might challenge the order. >> host: right. i was going to raise this at the end since we're talking about, you know, the idea of god speaking and revelation. we are still basically having the same discussion. you know, is, you know, can --

is the word of god god already spoken or don't speak? and our time through other people? >> guest: right. >> host: so i don't know if we are any different today in term of willingness to hear claim to be profits and hear from god in a different way. >> guest: in some ways what might be different we have secular norm instead of theological norm that govern our acceptance or rejection of the ways in which a god or gods or god escaladed can speak to people and the impact of that. and allow thement to understand they are living in the end times in a way that most americans don't accept. well, that by itself doesn't

seem to be a problem. but when it leads to other elements, then that triggier about law enforcement concern as well as the popular prez is concerned. then suddenly this idea somebody listening to god and having the followers do thing that seem to be national norms that's dangerous. and that needs to be policed and controlled then the sense of fear really just kind of is amplified. and so that way i think that is a secular expectations that, okay, people have their religion and what they do in their home, morveg, temple, fine. it should not interfere with public life.

who makes a consult. and in the book they turned tout have antisocial behaviors and gun run and stuff like that. but i felt like in the chapter you were really -- and in the book but in the chapter you were directly sort of saying, you know, questioning the characterization of what makes a consult. or is there -- you said the label of -- so maybe we talk about it a little bit more. why you found and what i read is ambivalence is right word or complex view. again, we are thrill is a very alive cfghts. when you talk about secular. i was thinking about the way nonreligious people talk about hearing god through meditation

or whatever. and we're still, you know, we have a new language basically about that. i want to see if you can could maybe think about the way the way it relates to today. >> right. well, i think the language and the concern about consult demonstrates an enduring fear of religion playing too much a part in the agency allegation made about them they had been brainwashed by david. and why the people there is no such thing as brainwashing. doesn't actually occur. so how would people think that was going on? well, because the people are believing things and doing things and withdrawalling from main stream america society in a way that seems to be irrational. and the only way people could that is if they were under the control of somebody who wants a certain type of power.

so i think that demonstrates a particular fear of americans have that the loss of individual wall individuality. that's why we don't tend use the term cult. it says more about the people who are using it. what they expect proper religion to be. and prefer to talk about new religious movement that tend have the characteristic. they tend to be tight-knit. a charismatic leader. lead people to reject former part of their lives. so not be antisocial but to remove themselves from the main stream of society. one of the key part of individual lymph. bringing it to today you were asking a key part of american society is this the individual. they often come down to the individual and that we should be

as free as possible. there are those who are non seq. already, who believe their religious freedom are being -- if there's any kind of restriction on them at all. as well we have the right to do anything judgely we want. obviously we don't. we flif a society. and various rights have to be leveraged against other rights. i don't have a right for the citizens to yell fire in a crowded thertd. i don't have that right. there are limits to the right. my sense of moral order is being restricted from being brought in to the largest societyilet say i'm against abortion and not allowed to have a society in which abortion is forbidden.

then my group is being oppressed. that's on a different order than what my chapters are trying to demonstrate. a group being persecuted or presumed practices and believes. the bait in the public sphere about what kind of moral order do we want? what are the limits? i think it's pretty easy to entangled you laid out. >> very simple issue. going through some of the chapter. that's where a lot of action in the book is. one of the chapters is about the mormon community. and you talked about how a lot of americans at the time -- not all americans but a lot of american were comfortable criticizing mormonism. i think you said not so much catholic and jews as protestants

were. why do you think mormonism was so dangerous. about marriage? property? why was it so alarming? >> guest: that's fascinating history. as opposed to the other groups this is not an even-grain group. there are not the issues. the same issues of an outside threat coming in on the way so you, like irish catholic or muslims today. they were entirely home grown. and over -- this is periods over just a couple of centuries we find that the by different idea. one of the ideas the time -- beginning of mormonism was a strong sense of republicanism that -- the united states so you have now a religious group that talks about establishing zion. it seems to be moving in a

separatist direction. and that keyed to various concerns about national order. then the turn of the century when the first more nonsenator was elected. wasn't allowed to take a seat for the three years. the senate was investigating whether it was acceptable for him to have a seat in congress. there was a different concern. that the time americans were dealing with issues of monopoly and the power of corporations. and the mormon church was seen to be a monopoly. was alleged to be under the control of the small of people who could tell everybody in their organization what to do. how to vote and the like. and then if we think about romney's campaign we have a different concern of mormonism on conservative christians whether it's christianity. and several use the word cult in order to define the mormon.

that's a common theefm and a common suspicious but at the same time the roots differ because historically different elements feed so the suspicions. they continue to be people of -- [inaudible] people were suspicious because we know they been under suspicious before. there must be something to that. it's part of what helps them maintain this prejudice. >> what did you think about how mormonism was discussed and seen in the last five years or so with the romney campaigns and other things of twilight series or popular culture. >> guest: it's fascinating because those are the two levels. the level in which it's very prominent. romney has two presidential bids. clearly more onism is coming out. and americans are trying to figure out what does it mean? what does the religion -- should i be concerned?

the conservative christian voters thinking about really do we want him as a candidate? he's mormon. and when he becomes the best contender seat and lead to go against candidate barack obama in the most recent election. the concern is, okay, better than obama. so we'll embrace him. the ideas smicht then the other level, like the twilight series mormon increasingly influencing the public of mormon theologies in the -- >> host: not a fan.

in particular? >> guest: well, we -- one of the things they go to is named after a place that features in to mormon theologies. and the idea of it and the variety of elements figure in. it's hard to how people are motivated how they see somebody's religion. ic people are simultaneously talking more in the public sphere but more he about it about how we talk. >> guest: right. >> host: i think it was complicated. charity in the irish catholic chapter. i thought it was interesting you

focus in irish catholic in particular. you talked about -- i didn't know if there was some reason why you tried to keep it specific to irish catholic and didn't really talk so much about contemporary catholics. i think you ended the chapter saying people still have immafnlg catholics of ritualistic and stubborn to change. do you think that catholics still experience any kind of skepticism today? >> guest: right. look at them in the detail and understand the dynamics going on. for me looking at the irish catholic discrimination before the introduction of irish catholic because of the famine is helpful burned to the ground in outside of boston.

because of fears about what irish catholics are bringing and the fear of the catholic hierarchy. and years later you actually have parts of phil bsh philadelphia burned with riots and nay tiffists and irish catholics. so you have the moments of great violence i think are tell tail of some deeper issues. and the irish catholic, in many ways face a type of prejudice that german catholics and other catholics did not face. at least at that time. increasing motion of racism come to head to the united states and sipble in many ways. irish catholicses were portrayed as being ape like and being of a different race in many ways. and so that is not something

that german catholics struggle with, to my knowledge. or italian catholics. i think it's important in the book that many are not just about religion. race, gender, they figure to the episodes. >> host: just take to a little bit to today. you know, we have a group of americans i think you can say fairly largely religious conservative who feel their place is being squeezed in our society. obviously, you know, some people are familiar with the term calling it a war on religion and there's a challenge, you know, to religion placed in the more diverse more secular society. what do you think about the sentiment.

whether it's gay marriage or health care reform man dates coverage of things that some people find religiously feel opposed to. what go you think about the sentiment? >> i think it demonstrates nicely the notion of norms. at those who fit within the norm don't recognize the northerns. they just take it for granted. i'm normal i don't think about that. and not thinking about my position as being what goes in to it. where does come from? it's just normal. for a long time, christianity, main stream has been normative in the society. that doesn't get challenged until for instance you have a catholic prosecute. and then adjust candidate for president. what john f. kennedy had and he needed to public state his church was not going to interfere with his role asen elected public official.

something that main stream didn't have to do. i think today what we're facing is that christian norm is increasingly being challenged bit fact that more expressions of secularism are coming. more people are aware of the ways in which a question christian norm unherntly make unwelcome nonchristian. so a lot of christians feel like the crisis being taken out of christmas by for instance some stores saying happy holiday's instead of merry christmas. what the stores or individuals if they happy holidays are trying to do is be more welcoming and saying to jews and muslims and hindu and atheists. you are welcome here too.

the feel the social order predicated on christianity. america is profoundly and essentially a christian nation. is being challenged. and so what does that say about the whole social underpinning of the nation? so i think that we're going through a period of adjustment where christians who took the norm for granted are happy to recognize that to be welcoming. we need to file down some of that language. without inhibiting their own practice. nobody is told they can't say merry christmas. >> host: you're not -- your area isn't exactly the law. i wanted to ask if you think. obviously you're framing it in this way. there are specific, you know, practices being curtailed that are being changed beyond just saying merry christmas.

whether it has to do with you know what you're required to cover under a health care plan, you know, whatever number of businesses don't wish to engage in same-sex weddings. there are specific things beyond saying merry christmas. so, i mean, that is a reality. so i think the dominant culture is losing -- is in a period of losing some stature and possibly some rights. i wanted to see. i know, you're not a legal scholar. i was wondering for you had any thoughts about how that is going go forward. if we're going to be a more port listic country. things are changing bhap is the norm? how are we going to balance all of these things? >> yeah. i said it before. rights never exist by themselves. and unfortunately i think in american discourse, we talk about rights as though they do. i have a right do this.

well, you do but only to a certain point. and i think that the shift you're mapping out is an important shift to take note of. and it's one in which the society is trying to deal with the notion of pluralism and recognize what role the law has to play in protecting other poem's religious practices and beliefs and norms and moral as opposed to those who might represent the majority. >> right. i mean, when you look at the numbers of it, i mean, you know, the vast majority of people in the country, you know, believe in god in some way. and yet, you know, we have the conversations about, you know, should you have to talk about god when you swear at court whatever. can you kind of see the desire to be accommodating to everybody and also say, is the majority

sort of losing a piece of its culture even if you talk about religion in a general way without saying which god you're speaking of and so part is, you know, when you talked about nationalism, you know, often people kind of describe that we're going toward a civil religion. we have some kind of general religious culture, and '00 religions are all similar but, you know, they are distinct in ways. how do you i know it's not exactly your area. i wondered if you saw in the cases, how we maintain the things that makes different. are we holding on to that or moving to make all religions sound like they believe in the same thing when they are so different. >> i think that's a struggle for maintaining the notion of national exceptionalism. american exceptionalism. for so long trying to predicate

on the notion of america being a place of religious freedom and being normatively process assistant christian. those two things don't hold together. and perhaps cone more to protect their religious minority than the united does. that's not an uncomfortable truth. can you tell us a little bit about whether there's something you anemic about obviously 9/11 which was a unique incident in our history. is there something particular as people comfort with islam. is it different from, you know, for the people for americans who are uncomfortable with it?

i think it's an important moment in this discussion because the fact that it is not just because of 9/11. we have hope phobia and -- it's not because the iranian revolution and the taking of american -- from the embassy. and islam. and they also brought antijewish sent element as well. that's a reason we have had so many centuries of antijewish sentiment in this country nap history has been embraced much better. the scholars have paid more attention to the history. and the ways in which that

change has become antisemitism. constantly think about as a new thing. we talk about not about talk about christians understanding, you know, the view about anti-semitism come from. you could say i'm not an expert on this. just that, you know, to the degree that christianity was building on and in and sense rejecting or adding judaism and islam makes a similar claim and mormonism makes a similar claim. you say it's really not about middle eastern politics. is 2 theological. >> guest: i say the or begin of it were primarily theological. for the same reason dan they put

-- second to last circle of hell is a theological idea. with the prejudices they take different forms in different periods of time. they are like an underground stream that erupts at times according to the conditions of the particular are in. historical terrain they're in. so clearly today part might be theological. part is also the fact that what is carried over for the time is muslim governments are inherently. muslim men are barbaric and angry to nonmuslim. muslim women are prepressed by their husband. those things that carried on for quite awhile in the united and may have originated in a purely theological context. they increasingly change. when the women's rights movement

occur. we can see a difference between the ways in which muslim women had been previously object of fascination by many american audiences like i dream of jean any which is the tail end of that. he don't find quite the same objectification of arab women suddenly they are seen to be the object of -- in just in a time when a lot of american women are realizing that i are hitting the glass ceiling and have the restriction because pate ark i can. they change over time.

>> host: that was your final chapter of faith groups. have lead up to the present day. who are the they today. you feel that way about the muslim community. yes i don't know if you feel that way. what to co you think the future are? >> they are an interesting crowd because -- for a long time. and demonstrated that seems to be really just unacceptable. especially in term of national office. a poffle done that showed that around 2000 or so very few americans could imagine atheist

for president. > host: i think the number is declining. >> guest: exactly. the most recent of that poll steadily -- really shot off in the number. and there's a much greater -- >> host: you mean in comfort level? >> guest: yes. i'm not sure that 50% of americans are willing to elect an atheist as president. it's far more than existed decade before. so their role is beginning to wayne in some ways. terrorist periods when reasoning

use groups, you know, want to adopt the feeling of the victor, you know, it just appears a historical time. but it seems like we're in a moment where every group is defined by the appearance of persecution. is that part of religion? maybe you know more than i do? >> guest: well, that's a question. i certainly don't have an overview. i wouldn't be to be answer that. in terms of today you can imagine the ways in which a notion of maintaining that history of persecution can be helpful in part because so many communities are living in -- that have to deal with it. and living in w nation that need to that's a key element of the

national pitch the nation comes first. so we have that in this country where if there's a war, just somebody can't say i don't want to go to war. because it's against my religious belief. so you to demonstrate that's really quite a detailed process. you're part of religious tradition that has issued all violence entirely. no matter what war it is. because the nation has to assure that it has citizen that will ultimately support it. i think that might one reason for this kind of emphasis on prosecution. also, there's nothing that help define insiders better than outsiders. and so just as the united states have this own history which war front particular episode like the revolution in which there's a rejection of the british even as there's an acceptance that so much of the early culture came from britain.

so many religious communities undoubtly have emphasized certain narratives of persecution in order to help demonstrate to its members what is it to be part of the religion. what defines it from being different from other. and demonstrates model of those who resisted persecution. >> host: and i think you said in the beginning. in our opening comments that -- if you compare the united states with many places in the world, it's actually a place where come for religious freedom. you mentioned there's other places in the world adds well. i just mean you obviously wanted in the book you make a dhais people need to be aware of this. on the other hand. it's really. what we're talking about religious persecution peals in comparison today with people being killed, you know, right

now. so in a sense you could say emphasizing. i guess it gets back to where you were interested in writing the book. if you think we're going down a bad road or something. it could get -- look what we have done in the past basically. we're not above killing each other other religion in this country. >> guest: right. >> host: you could say you are giving the united a raw deal. it's basically consider oppression is nothing compared to what people experience elsewhere. >> guest: right. >> host: i don't know maybe you were trying to warn us? something by looking at our past? >> guest: yeah. that kind of response is not an uncommon one. airing this kind of dirty laundry. overall things have been so good and things in other nations are so bad and some other nations. i think that is really besides the point. is this an injustice, then we should deal with the injustice. what is happening elsewhere shouldn't be the primary way in which we decide what is happening here.

i think americans we have been successful in term of religious toleration. i think we have in many ways. we established a certain bar and tried to at least meet that bar. what the book is attempt dog is demonstrate the ways which there are great values but also the norms that have lead people to be intolerant either implicitly or directly to certain religious groups at certain times. and we need to embrace that. not only because the persecution that are happening today like against muslim americans, but also because of the possible persecution in the future. >> and there's a whole section in the book that is sort an analysis of the psychology of intoll ran. tell me a little bit about what kind of research you had do for that. it looked like you were trying to describe almost make it like it was sort of a scholg condition to be intolerant and have anxiety about other