discipline somewhere in a

religion department, full of professors mostly with little conviction of any stripe. one president of a major university i was recently told stated that he would abolish the religion department of his university if he could as he said he believes that god is simply worried for people with an incurrable nostalgia for something that never was. we must ask how and why this has happened. why has this misguided interpretation of the doctrine of the separation of church and state been allowed to barney talk of god, faith and morals from the public square in countries that supposedly value the doctrine of freedom of religion? countries that value doctrines of free speech and a so-called liberal education. could the fault actually lie with christians? has divided christianity been

the basis for isolating the judeo-christian foundations as a 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 ask could our teaching of what i call lo-cal theology and let's all get along theology to have us become anemic and irrelevant. is not the only present crisis linked to lack of values, moral guidance are much else beyond the present value. the concern for threat to our religious liberty is real. orthodox history comes with some valuable lessons. here's one from recent history

that should inspire us to leave here today determined to raise our voices loudly in defense of our religious freedoms. i think that most of us present here today recognize with great enthusiasm the influence that ronald reagan, margaret thatcher and pope john paul ii had on ending the cold war and bringing an end to communist rule in the former soviet union and eastern europe. what is not so well-known is the powerful influence of the millennium celebrations which is called the baptist of the roots which took place in 1998. mikail gorbachev lifted the lid off of religious freedom and would not go back on. the russian orthodox church was up from the underground and there was no going back. holy mother russia turned quickly into the godless

bolshevik state. the religion and religious liberties were under attack, large portions of the faithful simply remained silent. we can't afford to not learn from this historical lesson that is only one of many that are almost identical. in his book," the rebellion of ronald reagan," the author wrote religion has been a central component of interest in soviet union. in russia i say religion is alive. beleaguered, tormented but alive. he had written this after her first visit to the soviet union in 1967. in a state where great cathedrals have been turned into obscene anti-religious museums, where god has officially been

declared dead, this was a sublime example of his enduring strength in the hearts of men. she had studied the history of the russian orthodox church for her bird "land of the fire bird." the church has 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 informed and inspired president reagan. we must ask ourselves today if there's not a lesson to be learned about just how quickly things can change in cultures where religious liberties are chipped away and eventually forgotten all together. let us be attentive as we often repeat in our orthodox liturgies. orthodox christianity is finding a home in places like western europe, north america and beyond. this is the christianity tried and tested by oppression of every sort 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. converts from every cultural background are now bring agnew kind of zeal to orthodoxy. they are bringing with them what i would call a familiarity with the way that americans do business. this is what keeps orthodox christianity vibrant and daring. it has been said to live an or who docks christian life is to be engaged in an endless series of risk takes. the status quo can be changed. our history was the to this fact. not by forcing our beliefs upon the unwilling but living individual christian lives to reflect the light of christ in a

darkened world. saint seraphim has this saying. find inner peace and thousands around you will be saved. i can say to you today the orthodox are not only finding our interior way, but we are finding our external voice. orthod orthodox hierarchs have given doctrines in the past but this is the first record of the protest against the infringement of religious liberty given in response to what i guess we could all call the recent unpleasantness with the department of health and human services. the orthodox bishops joined their joys with the conference of catholic bishops and called upon orthodox christians to contact their representatives in the face of this threat to the

church's conscience. they go on to write in this ruling by health and human services, religious hospitals, education institutions and other organization will be required to pay for the full cost of contraceptives including some abortion inducing drugs and sterilizations for their employees regardless of their religious convictions of the employers. the first amendment of the u.s. constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. this freedom is transgressesed when a religious institution is required to pay for contraceptive services, include ago abortion inducing drugs and directly violate their religious convictions. providing such services should not be regarded as mandated medical care. we, the assembly of canonical orthodox bishops call on 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 this speaker to simply be long overdue. the alliance he 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 deep roots in new places, including this land of the free and home of the brave. we bring our history and experience from recent times and we know the importance of not being intimidated into silence when something as precious as religious liberty is at stake. thank you. [ applause ]

>> thank you, father chad. >> thank you, professor george. it's an honor to be here with you, my teacher today, and to be a part of such a distinguished panel of clergy. i recently came upon an extraordinary letter. it was written in 1787 by dr. benjamin rush, then the foremost physician in america. rush was a devout christian and an american founding father, cignaer cigsignatur signatory to the declaration of independence. he just attended a jewish wedding in philadelphia, the firsthand account from this era. rush tells his wife that upon being invited to attend this wedding at the home of a jewish associate, quote, i accepted the invitation with great pleasure for you know i love to be in the way of adding to my stock of ideas upon all subjects.

end quote. the ceremony wrote rush began with the erection of a beautiful canopy composed of red and while silk in the middle of the floor. this structure is under which jewish brides and grooms are traditionally married. rush then goes on to confirm that all jewish homes are the same every where. by reporting to his wife that when he went after the wedding to bid farewell to the mother of the bride she quotes put a large piece of cake into my pocket for you which i would present to you with her best compliments. can't leave without having cake. now, let me talk for a minute about it has it tells us something profound about jewish life. it's the embodiyment of the home that jewish husband and wife intend to build but it appears to be an odd sort of home to build. no boundaries between public and

private. it's open to the breezes on all four sides. yet it makes sense and proceed when it's an coke of abraham and sara had open doors on all four of its sides. the open sides symbolized their commitment to bear the message of the four corners of the earth. under the tent, then, standing in the metaphorical shadow of the tent, a jewish husband and wife likewise commit themselves to the message to carrying their judaism outside of their home. judaism obligates them wherever they may be or go or whatever they may do or see or become, whether in their own home or in the public square on to the four corners of the earth. what is striking to me about this account is the fact that he a devout christian and american founding father is the one describing. the fact that he was there shows

how welcomed jews felt and how relatively open about their faith they were in an era in which that would have been unwelcomed in most other parts of the world. in the europe of the enlightenment jews were tan all theized by the full integration into german or french society but only if they were able to sacrifice their public jewishness to do so. one intellectual went so far to capitulat toempb these demands. i'll be a jew the intent but a german in the street. the abrahamic tent opened to the public embodies the jewish belief that one cannot become a different person upon crossing a threshold. one cannot check one's heritage at the door. the message is fidelity to faith was embraced by rush and his compatriots who enshrined that

you remain faithful to your beliefs when it's unpopular with your neighbors. thus, a jewish wedding witnessed by a devoutly christian american founder embodies the pluralistic promise of america. while the tent is a uniquely jewish symbol it has an american ideal. anyone of us here can understand. our faith is an essential part of ourselves and can't be amputated from our identity upon opening our front doors. 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 43 catholic institutions have challenged this week in court. the current policy exempt from the new insurance obligations only religious organizations that do not employ or serve members of other faiths and as i noticed in my testimony before congress, from this exemption carved out by the administration two important corollaries

follow. the administration acknowledges forcing employers to follow these policies violates the first amendment. it assumes that those who employ or help others of a different religions, those who left their homes, synagogues and churches in order to engage with and serve members of other faith are no longer acting in an religious tent. orthodox jew, religion and tradition govern not only lighting candles in the home or study the torah or wrapping one self in observance. religion and forms are conduct in the less obvious manifestation of religious belief. from feeding the hungry to a million and one things. in refusing to extend religious liberty beyond the parameters,

the administration denies people of faith the ability to define their religious activity. therefore not only is this a threat to religious liberty in the narrow sense in requiring organization to violate their religious tenets but also the administration impedes religious liberty by unilaterally redefining what it means to be religious. this as it were -- [ applause ] -- this as it were is an attempt to wall up the tent, to force americans to amputate faith from identity, to relegate religious beliefs in many respects to the private domain. several months after attending the jewish wedding i mentioned earlier, benjamin rush participated in the celebration of another union a parade in the honor of the american constitution that had just been ratified by states. rush noted that the parade featured a spectacle, impossible in the europe of his day, quote,

the clergy of the different christian denomination with the rabbi of the jews, walking arm in arm. rush reflected this was a most delightful sight. there count have been a more happy emblem contrived of that section of the constitution which opens its powers over tory sect of religion and worthy men of every religion. the freedom to remain loyal to one's faith while engaging americans of other faith is the essence of what this country and the constitution means to jews and it's this american idea that's being challenged by the administration. to theler guy on my panel it's my privilege to join arms with all you in the face of this troubling attempt to restrict the very freedom that the first amendment was crafted to protect. when the liberties of conscience afforded my fellow americans are threatened and when the definition of religion is being defined, i am proud to stand

with you. thank you for having me. [ applause ] >> maybe you see why i'm so proud. well thank you to all of our panelists. it's wonderful to have this wide representation of traditions, five major traditions in the united states 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 if we had more space and more time. we would. one thinks of islamic figures. muslims who are in the middle, the center of the fight in support of religious liberty. 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 even more broadly. now, with that let's have a little discussion up here on the panel and then i understand that you're going to have the opportunity to send some questions up from the audience, but if i could begin, i was struck by something that bishop cordileone said about the catholic experience so if i could begin with you, bishop cordileone. catholics had to -- the catholic church had to work its way towards a truly robust understanding of religious liberty and embraces the broader principles of democratic and republican government and my own sense of that and i would be 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 relics had what the experience meant. that meant religious differentism, the idea that religious obvious don't bind or immoral to take religious obvious. and the complete comprehensive subservient of the church to the state. it was only when the church got a sense, leadership of the catholic church got an idea about religious liberty one that i think americans can claim some credit for. one very strongly detached from the french idea, one that would not relegate religion to the private domain of life or attempt to eradicate it all

together, that the leadership of the church at the second vatican council could step forward with a full embrace of a truly robust conception of religious liberty. am i near the mark on this? >> you would know better than i. [ laughter ] >> i don't have one of those chains. >> yes. it's the difference between the french revolution and the american revolution, isn't it. >> that's what i was wondering. >> yes. the french concept which makes the church subservient to the state and that religious indifferentism whereas the concept of the founders of our nation it was so different, understanding the importance of the role of religion in public life that they called this an experiment in democracy. so if the experiment was going to work they knew hit to be based on a body of virtuous citizens. the importance of religion and helping people develop those virtues necessary to make society work and we know how

they endorsed the importance of the american people having that religious sense without establishing a particular religious tradition or church as the state religion. >> timothy, can you 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, one reads the second vatican council, if one were a baptist which you, of course, are, one would not find a lot to disagree with there. you would think the catholics finally have come around to the baptist point of view. >> as a matter of fact i don't think anybody has a perfect record on religious freedom including baptists although we've been champions of that but sometimes in our own practice we haven't lived up to what we profess. you're right. one of the documents i've

recently been involved with is the most recent document of evangelicals and catholics together. we have a common base text, went on to cite evangelical statements and others. there's a coalescens of religious concerns and the doctrine of god really as well as the christian doctrine in talking about what religious freedom means in our world today. the only other thing that maybe i would like to comment on, i think there's something that runs through all of our comments here on the panel today. and that is that we are each speaking, i think, deeply and convictionally out of our own firmly held religious conviction. there is a kind of an argument for religious freedom that opposes that kind of religious conviction and sees it as an impediment to religious freedom. it always thinks about religion as provoking