religious violence. what we're 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. and it seems to me this is a far better way, what i call a conviction not of accommodation. that's the way forward. >> i was struck by something you said as well about the jewish experience in europe as compared to the jewish experience in the united states and especially that bargain on offer from enlightenment forces in europe that, yes, jews we're going to give you something you always wanted and never had in europe which is full citizenship and liberation. but at a cost, the cost is you have to keep your religion private, but in your public life

it can't, it can't bear. i think a lot of people in europe on both sides of the divide believed that you had to opt for one of the following two thing. either the domination of a 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's exactly right and if i can quote. i didn't want to quote it before because it was a very serious matter. if i can quote yogi berra who when he was told that mayor of dublin, ireland was jewish, he said the mayor of dublin, ireland is jewish? only in america. [ laughter ] >> bishop cordileone would want me to point out yogi berra is a

great catholic theologyian. >> no argument there. i think that's exactly right. i think it was toquesville who said in europe it was said -- i can't quote the text of american public life -- >> written by a frenchman. >> he said something like in europe it was assumed that faith and reason were -- whereas in america i found them in joint rein over the land. and that is, i think, as timothy george mentioned before the reason for that difference in america is that in america there's a document about michael novak and his wonderful book "on two wings" as well, america

believed that reason and faith were both essential components of society and of the very argument for freedom, freedom in general and religious freedom in particular, and it felt actually that the biblical vision played a very great role not just in making the argument for freedom as documented recently by eric nelson in his book "hebrew republic" how the bible impacted the american founding fathers, but also because they felt the biblical notion of covenant could unite religions despite their differences in the common project of creating a society together. john adams famously recounts in a letter to his own wife about how the first meeting of the continental congress in 1774, it was proposed that they begin

with a prayer, and john jay objected to this saying that they were too religiously divided, there were presbyterians and episcopalians. i took place in a meeting with a bunch of students at a protestant divinity school. i was the only orthodox jew there and someone else said, one of the other students said i feel i'm sticking out here being a presbyterian among so many episcopalians and i'm thinking yeah, i hate when that happens. but jay's point is in europe they were at least at one point they were killing each other and they couldn't pray together and then sam adams got up and said he would be willing to pray with any person of piety and virtue who was a patriot and then they

read a psalm asking god to protect them from their enemies. actually it's precisely in the founding fathers vision on one hand they rooted religion along with their reason the case for freedom but at the same time biblical, in controoft the european notion. it was the covenant which could make a religious case for unity despite genuine religious disagreements. >> with the lds community of which you are a distinguished representative and leader, has suffered a history of persecution in the united states where the faith was founded. the lds community has flouri flourished, the accomplishments of its members, the university, brigham young university but in recent years where the church has come in to severe criticism and worse than criticism,

genuine abuse has been when the church has stepped out and spoken in the public square where the lds faithful though a very small minority in the country have been willing to stand up for beliefs that are shared between lds and/or though docks jews and catholics and eastern orthodox christians and protestants and so forth the church has come under fire been treated and abused more severely than have representatives stating the same views in the public square of other larger faiths. now it might just be that as a small minority you're always more vulnerable. but the church to my mind, to its enormous credit, the lds church has not permitted it self to be intimidated by those tactics and treats faith not just as a private matter but to speak from the lds tradition for the public good in the public

sphere. >> well, thank you first for that observation, and i think it's fair to say that the church is not a stranger to persecu the ion. organized in new york within just a few years it pofd from new york to ohio to missouri to illinois and then a famous 1,200 mile march from illinois to salt lake city. which grounded the church in a sense with respect to the need to be aware of what's happening around it. and to be aware of the fact that religious freedom comes sometimes at a very dear price. now, my own ancestors on my father's side made that hike. from illinois to salt lake city, and some of our group, of course, died along the way. so, the thought of paying a price to secure freedom is not a stranger to us.

with respect to the recent efforts, i think you're probably referring over the battle of marriage in the state of california, there were some members of the church who were treated very, very harshly and subjected to terrible things. >> there's a youtube video of a church being invade, laurelly invade by critics of the church's position. >> but we're not going change position with respect to matters that are essential to our doctrine. we're going to stick with those as i think other people are, other faiths represented here today. we do avoid partisan matters. we avoid platform matters. but when there's a matter of serious kmoernl we'll stand our ground. we think we have to. we're compelled to do it. >> father chad, one of the complicated -- one of the complications of the history of religious freedom and the struggle for religious freedom is assaults on religious foreign

minister can come from religious sources and secularist ideologiys and additional complication is that sometimes the very same tradition of faith or people associated with it can be the persecu temp d and other times the persecutor. speak being from my own tradition times when catholics have been persecuting others, times when the catholics have been persecuted at points in our history here in the united states. it's hard to find a tradition that has a perfectly clean record itself but i think it's important especially in the contemporary situation that threats can come from both direction, from religion itself and from secularism. do you agree? are you on the same wave length? >> i fully agree with that. i've been asked this question since i've been here and might

as well make at it part of the public record. responding to what you just said. i cited recent ruetion orthodox history. i can cite it from multitude other parts of the world where orthodoxy is a predominant religion. i've been ask about this legislation and russian duma that prohibits religious activities from churches that are not orthodox and those of us that are american orthodox christians have been clear in responding to our russian brethren its a problem when you look to cesar to protect you. it's not a good alliance ever for christians. and my opinion, my personal opinion and that of many others is orthodoxy or any other religion has to stand on its own merits. if it looks for that protection elsewhere then i want creates that kind of scenario which you described and 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 this religious liberty which is at the heart of our conference today, the lesson is that sometimes government agencies can actually pit religions against each other and it breaks out into a fight and this one, this particular issue from health and human services has done just that because there are religious bodies that have embraced it wholeheartedly and been critical of other religions doing what we're doing here today is raise our voice and being a part of how we americans do business. >> yeah. panelists, i need to give you and opportunity to say anything else that you would like especially anything prompted by anything that one of your fellow panelists said. did anybody have any comments on what your colleagues on the panel said? you all agreed with it or didn't

listen? well, okay. >> oil add one thing. >> bishop cordileone. >> you know, coming from my background i've given talks on this. democratic elements have not been absent in our catholic tradition. of course we don't have a democratic form of church governance but, you know, for centuries even before this country was found the church had rules for canonical the elections, cathedral chapters of canons and so forth. but it was the -- it was that experience coming out of europe how those moments took that anti-clerical turn that kind of tainted the church, never opposed the principle of democracy as a form of political governance. but seen the direction it was moving and had this position of suspicion until as you pointed

without the american experience came around to affirming it in a document. >> thank you. okay. well, we are blessed to have an audience. almost distinguished as our panelists so let's go to the audience questions. they've been handed up here. i haven't had a chance to review them myself so i'll just start reading them. would the owner of the car with license plate -- [ laughter ] >> clergy question this is headed. would you agree -- i'm not sure whether in the lds tradition there's a distinction between clergy and nonclergy. you count as clergy? >> i don't know. >> okay, you don't know either. others are clergy, i know the others are ordained snichs lawyer minding my own business in new port beach, got a call and the next day -- >> okay. so clergy plus.

would you agree that faith communities have a responsibility to celebrate pluralism and diversity in america rather it appears many believe we seek the status quo or common denominator on religious issues. well, i mean it looks to me that we're celebrating at least religious diversity here. i don't think anybody is arguing against the celebration of pluralism and diversity, so i'm not exactly sure what the question is asking, but you want to have a crack at it? what do you make -- yes. >> that question, those two words are tremendous buzz words so i'm not sure what was meant from the question or perhaps clarification is in order.

diversity can be taken that's dehumanizing anti-religious. if that's what is meant by it then i think those are very suspect ideas. the fact that we're called to live together, to celebrate the fact that we have a plural society, we have the kind of commitments both religious and nonreligious that are represented in our society, i think all of us want to affirm that as a good thing. >> i certainly do. >> there has to be some commonly held values that are the foundation upon which the diversity can be celebrated and i think the battle in our country right now is what are those foundational values we should all hold in common. >> father chad. >> i think we've been very clear this whole conference is centered around the protection of religious liberty for all and that includes another very prominent religion in our society which is secularism. >> here's a question specifically for you.

how do you believe church members of all faiths might best double their educational efforts, in particular with regard to encouraging and protecting religious liberty. how specifically will your own church redouble its efforts in this regard. >> thank you. great question. the first thing that we'll do is try to teach our own members. we have various means of doing that through the printed word, through televised conferences across the pulpit and so on and i suspect that one of the, 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 of teaching our children about things that matter, that really matter. second, we'll encourage everyone where we can, starting with in caucuses across the country and starting with a combined effort, joint effort with other religious faiths and traditions

to find ways to keep in touch with and help, help with legislative action. to get to know legislators and to find people with common beliefs and to seek to form a coalition network so to speak of people with the same kind of beliefs. i think as we also look to, to individuals, families, homes across the country that as we begin to focus our efforts and establish the network that will reach beyond our own faiths but across the country, we'll find a way, maybe it will be with for instance with twitter or facebook or other new technological advances, to get the word to people and help them begin to get a feeling for what's going on in the country. i think this effort will require a variety of outreaches, and it's going be some work. i said earlier this is going to take some time and i meant by that work.

i don't think this yield, these kind of problems will yield without substantial effort. >> can i kick this one tougher as well. i would be interested in what you're fin you're finding in the orthodox jewish community. there's been 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. one thinks, off the top of my head, proposed legislation that so far has not been enacted but proposed but to ban circumcision. >> speak being for myself as an orthodox jew, what motivates me is two fold.

first i do believe that while we certainly have our own doctrines and moral questions, 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, and 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, particular threat, we are not affected at that moment. but, 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 have from the very beginning experienced as a blessing of america and that's really what's been motivating me. they just now announced that they will be publicizing putting

up for everybody come see the famous letter written by george washington -- >> to the jewish community in new port, rhode island. >> which has been file cabinet decades. and which was terrible and now the famous, the famous letter in which he echoed basically the letter which he had received from the congregation describing america as a land which gives bigotry no sanction, affords to all liberties of conscience, concluding what the children of the seat of abraham dwell in peace in in land and each shall sit under his vine of the figure tree and none to make him afraid. that's always embodied the blessing of america. if that's the blessing of america for us, then it's our obligation to fight for others. >> what i love about that letter of washington's is 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 jews would be afforded tolerance and washington writes back and essentially says to them very gently and politely but very firmly, well, you don't quite get it yet. you deserve much more than tolerance. this is america. this is not europe where you're tolerated as a minority. >> says there's no longer to ration. >> it's no longer to ration. that captured the difference between the american political understanding and the european one. and it spelled it out specifically for a small minority community. >> that's right. i don't know -- that's exactly right. i don't know when this is, when this will be -- i think it will be featured in philadelphia in the museum of jewish american history but it will be wonderful to do a gathering of all faiths to sfwlat historic letter. >> for anyone who has not read washington's letter to the jewish community of newport, rhode island, when you get back to your rooms and you get

online, that's the first thing you should do, look up that magnificent letter from washington to the jewish community. it tells you not only a great deal about washington, it tells you a great deal about america and and what our founders wanted america to -- they had their flaws and faults obviously, human beings, but boy it does tell you that they had a vision for america truly as linda of liberty i've got another question, and this one is a very good and a very serious one. and brian, if you can figure out who asked this one, please give them the door prize. and this is really to all the panelists. and i don't know the answer myself. to all, the brount amendmelount that addressed the hhs mandate failed 48-51 on march 1st of this year in essentially a partisan vote. does the partisanship of this

vote concern your faith communities? are you willing to advocate underscored 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's decision in employment division against smith, when across the political and religious spectrums people united in order to enact a religious freedom restoration act which passed overwhelmingly in both houses of the congress. this united jerry falwell and barry lynn, people for the american way and the moral majority across the board. for religious freedom, for a more robust understanding of religious freedom than would have existed if smith were left unideased 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 the religious liberty implications of the hhs mandate, we get a partisan vote right down the middle. that can't be healthy it seems to me. that cannot be a good thing. 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, do you want to begin? what do you make of this? we have a question. are you communities willing to advocate specific legislative remedies? >> well, first, i say that i thought that hannah smith this morning couched this for us perfectly how it's become a political football that's caused this partisanship and it's completely lost the importance of what we're gathered here today about, which is religious liberty.

and so, i think that as religious leaders, we have a moral obligation to speak to our people not to connect it to the partisanship but to remind our people this is an issue not connected to any political party, that it's a basic religious right that is being infringed upon here. and we simply cannot be silent as i said in my paper. we've got too many lessons to learn. so we have to speak up. >> hannah smith is magnificent, isn't she? >> indeed. >> my student. what do you make of it? this seems to me a real problem. >> well, i think first of all, that that vote is a reflection of deep divide across the country. it takes me back to the question of education, of helping people see other sides to the same problem. and i think that for me at least characterizes the battle we have an educational struggle ahead of us. and it will require united efforts by all of us here today to overcome the obstacles that

are in the way. without responding to that particular issue, i just think the entire problem is characterized by the question. and it's -- it points up to me the need to work together in a coordinated coalition, so to speak, to find ways to punch through these problems. >> i mean, i think it will just be a horrible situation if democrats -- i'm going to be very plain here, if democrats think that in order to be loyal and good democrats, you have to stand with the administration on this hhs issue and you cannot reach out and defend the religious liberty of those for whom this is a very substantial burden. i mean, that is a bad situation. i mean, 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 this issue is becoming partisan. timothy, do you have any

thoughts about it. >> as you know, i am an independent and no loyalty to either the democratic or republican parties. however, i think the question and the situation of the blount 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 buck the trend and stand up. should we or would we as religious people support specific legislation? absolutely. i think we would have been derelict in the '60s if we didn't support civil rights legislation. i think if there were a way, rv. wade could be joern turned by legislation, we ought to support it. and so i see this as a moral issue, not a partisan issue. when it does become partisanized, i think, i agree with you, robbie. that is a very dire warning to our entire society and culture, but in fact, i think, that is

exactly where we are today. >> well, i think this issue in litigation, the litigation that's pending, rabbi soloveichik mentioned the 43 catholic organizations and protestant entities like colorado christian college joining in the litigation. that's going to be litigated. the basic claim is going to be a statutory claim under the religious freedom restoration act. i have to ask myself, what happened to that by partship and the unity that produced the religious freedom restoration act in the first place and do we have any hope of getting it 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're doing wrong that's scaring people away who should be arm in arm in

fighting for religious liberty as they were when it was enaced? bishop, did you have something to say? >> yeah, i think it points to what i mentioned earlier about the -- our struggle over what are the foundational common values we're going to hold to -- it's a foundation upon which to respect our diversity. i want to refer to what one of the questioners this morning pointed out. it didn't really -- didn't delve into it too much when he mentioned the two the commonalities in all of this legislation. the first one that he mentioned was they all have to do with the question of sexual ethics and basically advocating sexual license. and that's i think is a common thread in all of these three foundational issues of life, marriage, and religious liberty. so really, the division i think gets down to what is the purpose of our sexual difference and t