there is a well-founded, you know it and i know it, mistrust between the african-american community and law enforcement officers. the statistics are clear. video clips are clear. we recognize the overwhelming majority of law enforce am who is put their lives on the line every day to protect the communities and most are doing it well, but unfortunately there some officer who is abuse the sacred responsibility to protect and to serve by using excessive and sometimes deadly force when a less severe response was warranted. they will seek action to reverse this trend. let me also be clear as a former judge. i want to put all of this in context to reinforce and reform the law enforcement system will not by itself reform the criminal justice system. the cbc will address and

continue to address outdated sentencing laws. unethical prosecutors. we will communicate the experience of criminal defendants. our sons and our daughters and our cousins and next door neighbors. the defendants in our communities that they have confident council. you will see the congressional black caucus fighting for targeted funding for persistent communities. they are at least 300 native counties in the united states where 20% or more of the population has been living below the poverty line not since the recession started but for the last 30 years. the congressional black caucus will be advocating what i will call the clyburn plan. some call it the 10 20, 30 plan that directs at least 10% of the

grands and digressionary budget be targeted to the communities. this is not a part stan issue. they represent more than the democratic members. that means we will call on the republican conference to join with the democratic caucus and lass legislation to address persistent 54 efforter in america. we will continue to fight againstests to reduce the deficit by dismannedling the safety net and& irresponsible

budgeting will be met with resistance. they understand that nothing is more important than an education system. the system that works for black children and encourages and demands influence. we will propose legislation to enhance educational opportunities for african-american students and strengthen our 105 historically black colleges and yesterdays who educated black children. they educated black children when other institutions were closed. we will continue to push for science and technology and engineering and math education for young african-americans and provide retraining for adults.

they suspended use of the voting rights act because of what it called an outdated formula. the absence is now allowing states to pass laws that is enfranchise voters and other groups. we will continue our fight to restore section five of the voting rights act. we will evaluate whether american corporations who depend on tax reverences and whether they are making a serious effort at diversity and the workforce.

you are getting quiet on me now. america's corporations the fortune 500 are investing and if they are failing, we will expose it and insist on change. the fight is not a black fight or democratic or republican fight, but a fight that all fair minded americans should promote. we need to use political means. you know we do. we need to move closer when every american legalizes the american dream. i issue a call for action for an all hands on deck strategy for the cvc working with the allies and congress and city and local government to push for good policies and wealth andadeication and health care and criminal justice.

we will work with national black organizations and the faith community. wooley gather data and educate the public and organize masses of our people to promote our gender. we will work with the legal community to pursue a legal sfrat gee to reverse the most egregious laws. we will push for full participation in presidential elections and state and local elections with the goal of electing people who chauffeur our values. as we begin our work, we will continue the struggle to make a difference for those for whom we represent. may god continue to bless our communes with talented leaders

and talented leaders as you see on the stage. my god continue to bless each of you. this is now our time to make a difference. thank you very much. >> the 114th congress for the swearing in of members and election for house speaker. watch as they happened tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. with the new congress you will have the best access the most extensive coverage anywhere. track the gop as it leads on capitol hill and have your say as events unfold on tv, radio and the web.

>> with live coverage of the house on c-span and the senate on c-span 2, here we compliment that coverage by showing you the most relevant hearings and public affairs events. on weekends c-span 3 is the home to american history tv and programs that tell our nation's story, including the unique serious, the civil war's 150th anniversary visiting battlefields and american artifacts and touring museums and sites to discover what they reveal about america's fans. history bookshelf. the presidency looking at the policies and legacies of the commanders in chief. lectures in history with the top professors delving into america's past. the new series real america featuring government and educational films from the 1930s through the 70s. c-span 3. created by the cable tv industry and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us and like us on facebook and follow us on twitter.

>> looking at religion and politics through american history and today. the center on religion and politics at washington university in st. louis partnered with southern methodist university's center for presidential history to explore topics including the rise in american religious affiliation. the apocalypse and evangelical politics. >> there is always been a string of conservative thought holding to beliefs about marriage, family abortion and they have fundamentalist counterparts. they have a big difference. they are locked into slavery and the fight for civil rights in america. many of these african-american conservatives voted democratic where they can vote in the last 40 to 50 year, giving the illusion they signed on to all of the policies in the post civil rights era. they voted against democrats

issued like same-sex marriage had driven their exodus from the party. considering the 2004 election where george bush received 11% of the vote in part because of same-sex marriage initiatives on the ballot. that was kind of an interesting anomaly. i could go into that but it's another story all together. keep that in mind. that leaves the question, how do black conservatives have them outside the racial beliefs and how do they rationalize holding their nose to vote for obama while chastising him about the policies they believe hurt black families. what prompts other black conservatives to alliances against the nation's first black president. to understand this division, i would like to look at a history of african-american involvement in same-sex marriage and abortion issues during the age of obama. black conservative fiscal and economic concerns and the religious concerns are rooted in

issues and they feel a new resurgence in black conservatism in order to find what they believe to be the future of black families. a little bit of history. a recent book entitled plaque conservative intellectuals. he states at the out set when one considers the ex-at the present time to which conservatism has been conditioned by notions of black inferiority, the existence of black spokes people is astounding. his book attempts to understand how black conservatism arises in spite of the bias in american conservatism. my contention is that you cannot understand these black conservatives without understanding about the respectability valued as a counter narrative to the denegration of african-americans and white conservatism. taking it seriously as well as

biblical beliefs is a different geneiology with shelby steel. in the 19th century. according to charles p henry, the professor of african-american studies and more organic conservatism that starts in the 19th century focused on morality with both institutions embracing a white standard was the key to success assimilation and respect. while the analysis of the geneiology is sound the shift from the focus within black christian churches to embrace prosperity and resurgence in the post civil rights era is part of the issue. in a piece that i wrote for the magazine titled the black church for prophesy, i argued that politics are lodged in emphasis of black churches switching for

prophetic action to prosperity. additionally, these churches shifting for racism to individual sins have become respectable and process terrous led to a diminishing of their voice in the public realm. this made the manner in which conservatives engaged president obama pushed them both to the forefront and put them in a quandary. how to put forth what they care about as either issues that everyone should care about or issues affecting the african-american community. what does the nation do to conservative black alliances. do they remain with the ideal of the black family and do they partner with other conservatives. i believe for black conservatives, alliances that remain true to specific issues allows them to fight for a black family while at the same time balcanizing them for both communities. white conservatives and

african-americans alike. african-american conservatism abortion. both nationalists in the community historically have used the term genocide to describe the abortion and other control methods. this reduction through abortion arises through the misappropriation in 1939. the negro project which was started by her in that same year was the science of bringing black women to the south. both the negro physician and minster should work together for the project to succeed and gain the trust of the black community. he wanted to debunk claims if they arose that the program was designed to exterminate the community. they would simply turn this phrase and say that sanger wanted to exterminate the black community and not save it and would do that through abortion. that's why people come against planned parenthooda a lot.

slavery is what they use in tandem with the slander to promote the idea that black people are considered less than human. using the dred scott decision, pro-life activists claim that much like the dred scott decision that declared african-americans 3/5 of a person roe vs. wade does the same. during the campaign of 2008, the rise of this word genocide began to increase. a large african gongigation began to preach how it was black genocide. he would also go along to the supporter of john mccain and mccain had to get rid of him in his. other black conservative people would pick up the tempo using it to describe abortion in linking obama to it. the conservatives would continue

to do this and put their dissent in front of major democratic events. they had a lot of pro life democratic activists. when we think about what happened after the inauguration there became an uptick in how people went after pro live issues and complaining about obama. one of the things that happened during this time was the new movie that came out in june of 2009. it was the story of black genocide. produce and funded by white abortion activists, founder of life dynamics they depicted how abortion targeted black communities through planned

parenthood. the word in swaheeli means tragedy or disaster and uses the thesis for the abortion movements. copies of the dvd were available to churches and individuals for a nominal fee. there is also a compelling trailer on you tube. the movie was shown at historically black universities and black conservative rights picked it up for use. in atlanta, catherine davis for georgia right to life began traveling to colleges and churches to show the movie. coupling it with over 80 billboards that proclaimed black children are an endangered species, they were directed to a site, too many aborted.com. they held at the new york times that she was surprised they were spending less money and had more calls to the hotline. that was the result because of this movie being shown in atlanta and georgia area.

similar billboards would appeal including chicago and soho in new york. the pastor and african-american pastor and a bible fellowship here in dallas. a founder of life always. on the southside of chicago the antiabortion bill promoted a picture of president obama with the caption every 21 minutes, our next possible leader is. a colorful figure who ran for figure and touted on the national coalition win sight with the following quote. pratt is a genocidal plot and black leaders are silent. it's a greejient and can't amount to approval. speakers like this were not as well-known, yet they were well-known in other circles and often are extended to speak in major conservative events such

as the values voter summit. they achieved that respectability that their fellows desire but they are not switching their voting patterns out of the desire to see row vz wade repealed. i want to shift to talking about black conservatives. black conservatism in the pro life movement work hard to make african-americans pay attention to the cause. the supporters of marriage between a man and a woman had more support in the african-american community. the poll in 2013 show there was 2% difference and the percentage of black protestants in 2003, 66% to 2013 64%. that changed their minds about same-sex marriage from the grounds of religious belief. it was only a 2% reference. almost negligible in the amount of people who did not believe in same-sex marriage.

while that percentage has changed in the last year and that's in part because of obama's announcement can say that african-americans can say they are very conservative and despite the tendency to vote the stance on same-sex marriage is holding firm. part has to do with religious belief and equating same-sex marriage with civil rights. they made it clear to pass the same-sex marriage was not a cause to be equated with the black civil rights movement. he said this. despite what many in the world may argue, i cannot waiver from the god-established principal that union is meant to be shared between a man and a woman and god's work should not be changed or ignored. they were meant to be husbands and wives and wives with husbands. opposition by many

african-americans has a conundrum defineing a conservetivity sense of scripture concerning sexuality and marriage. they are likely to vote for government and benefits and democratic candidates. the question is should they be considered to be true conservative voters. before 2008 obama himself articulated several positions on same-sex marriage including yes, as far back as 1998. undecided and supportive of the repeal of doma and supporting civil unions. while obama had undergone a progression of thinking his announcement for support took black religious conservative leaders by surprise. the naacp announced they supported the president's statement on same-sex marriage was another blow that put black conservative leaders on the defensive. two of the most vocal pasters were jamaal brian and reverent william owens from the coalition of african-american pastors.

jamaal bryant who who uses the catchy servant in his congregation was on every new show following the announcement expressing dismay of the president's decision was a long quote. i think it captures the essence of what was going on with a lot of black pastors. my response was shock and disappointment. while many clergy are trying to discern is this decision made out of political expediency or more, the timeliness of this matter does not make sense given what happened in north carolina. my question is, is he exchanging one minority for another? is has been speculated that he is taking the black vote for granted. did he think he could do this without losses from black supporters? the president has not been able to find a credible black pastor of note to stand with him on this issue. that is saying something. other noted conservatives like bishop larry jackson and larry

palmer at the defense of marriage summit in may of 2012 joined with white conservatives to confront the president on the issue of same-sex marriage. in an interview with christian broadcasting, they said i don't think that same-sex marriage is a relevant to civil rights fight at all. it's a fight between right and wrong. this happens to be wrong. what was noticeable were the reiterations and black denoms are particular with the stances. the church of god and christ the largest denomination and largest pentecostal denomination reissued the statement on marriage from 2004 to the press and members of the denomination. linking the debate about same-sex marriage to the debate on civil rights they spoke of god's design for the family and marriage between a man and a woman. the ame church would reiterate and made the decision between the rights of the state and the

rights of the church. i should say here that a lot of black churches back in the 90s were really for civil unions and not for same-sex marriages. there was a big difference there. more importantly the statements are consistent with the congregational members and the issues become a nexus of our consideration. even jamaal bryant would succeed as 2012 grew closer registering voters at the empowerment in baltimore. he held fast to the opposition of same-sex marriage that was in light on the 2012 election roster to permit same-sex marriage known as referendum 6. that's between the black pastors and churches and passed on election night 2012 with president obama for a second term. the fight of voters from obama because of his support really

did not occur with obama receiving more than 90% of the african-american vote. with regard to a potential up in tick in black conservatives and des bite the ability during the presidency, the manner in which they raised this issue they were able to amp vie voices on issues. they benefitted to further their case. the case for major did not fare about with an increasing number increasing major and african-americans slowly becoming more accepting, but at a slower rate. are black conservatives merely

tools? perhaps they are. perhaps not. leaders who play the defense of marriage and right to life marches find like minded people of auth ethnicities. crossing over or becoming republican are placing moral issues over economic news may alienate them from black christian voters and moderate when it comes to issues of economic education and other liberal issues. factoring in barack obama is the first black period made it more difficult for some and made a name for those who decided to oppose the president on moral grants. thank you.

>> good afternoon, everyone. i'm from the university of virginia and i'm delighted to be here and thanks for sticking with us this afternoon. my remarks today stem from a question. what happened to judeo christian america. ask the scholar in a "washington post" essay in 2014. the question was not a lament, just a sincere inquiry with a far reaching observation. the question arose from the simple fact that the religious demographics from the united states and more the religious sensibilities of many americans have undergone profound shifts in the last two decades. modest increases and a marked

rise in religious disaffiliation,specially among the wrong are transforming realities of life and therefore american politics as well. they had one out of three of those under 30. the percentage has droped from 95% in 1960 to 75% today. this is the break down that kevin talked to us about earlier. i should add that these two phenomenon, the decline in christianity and the rise in the unaffiliated are two sides of the two demographic points. almost the entirety of the religiously unaffiliated are white and they won from the

views fully sdroibed from w the religion and politics is over. what did happen to america and what is taking place and what light can be shed? they had a good run. in the 1930s,ed leaders on the interfaith movements redeployed the term with catholics and news and protestants. it was meant to signal the opposition of fasism abroad as kevin schultz has written in his wonderful book. the pressures and realignments of the cold war soon to follow in his words brought almost all

americans into the full of civic judeo christianity. mow more. the associationinologist now famously wrote a restructuring or a shift to broad liberal and conservative coalitions. increasingly it seems we are witnessing yet another restructuring, a way from the judeo christian era to where they vie for dominance and towards a new paradigm in which the fault line runs between religion and spirituality. we should be clear that they are not eighth gists and it is holding fairly steady. there is a it's a recent essay

on exceptionalism made a case that the turn from religion is best understand in the liberal terms. feminism, gay rights, liberals began to identify christianity with conservative politics. the unaffiliated are liberal, pro gay marriage and critical of churches medaling in politics too much. i love his phrasing. they began voting against the gop by declining to attend church. to begin to analyze this phenomenon, i think we must recognize that the spiritual but not religious of today are

inheriters are a legacy rooted in the liberal protestantism of the 18th and 19th centuries. i am tempted to trace along through the revolt against through the theology and popularization. this would track the evolving distinction between what parker famously called the transient and the permanent christianity. they come and go and while the essence remains. i think it continues to allow the rejection of church without a rejection of god. i can hear this formulation in my studies today. rather than pursue this, i want to focus in a more historical

vain by which this thinking and the distinction acquired legitimacy. to talk about the quandary presented by religious others. since those days, it has been the spiritual cosmopolitans and the religiousness, a phenomenon from jews doing yoga to presbyterians with the dalai lama. they agreed with the propositions and these are the questions he asked. many religions are true.

it is okay to pick and choose and it is okay to practice religions beside one's own. the majority agrees with the phrases. a look back to perhaps the most consequential and challenging encounters of american liberalism reveals that dynamics at play in these emerging sensibilityings. leaders in the churches worked to disentangle missionary work from racial imperialism that resulted in the landmark of 1932 report rethinking missions. significantly, colonial subjects themselves pressed the religious

and theological shifts as part of their own nationalist ambitions. while religious liberals in the u.s. subsequently adopted and adapted such anti-colonial critiques for the theological and colonial purposes. the biggest example for the remainder of my talk is that of gandhi and his impact on mesh spirituality. gappedy transformed the imagination of 20th century liberals through a process that can be described of canonization. the canonization of gandhi as a rib lal process stand challenged liberals to decouple christianity from the western identity to find once again the permanent essence amid the corruptions of history. gandhi more than any other figure were really more precisely the idea of gandhi and

the constructed idea of gandhi as a universal saint demanded of american religious liberals a radical rethinking of the relationship of christianity to the western, racial, and colonial order. a key figure is stanley jones. the author of the vessel and price of the indians from 1925. jones along with a handful of others such as holmes thurman and richard greg served as the most influential interpreter. he entered what was right for recalibration.

heave scheduled to meet on the day he was assassinated. he penned that as a tribute to a fallen hero. he had a bridge between east and west and noting and these are his words, through his methods and spirit they were in large measure reconciled or perhaps a mitt optimistic. >> liberal was in comparative religious study. jones presented gandhi and in the crist man movement, he was more christianized than most christians. gandhi draws together people of varying viewpoints and makes them feel they have a common center. they pay tribute to a hindu who was christianized and they pay to a man, christian spirit who

was a hindu. it is so thoroughly established it can be hard to remember. the degree of intellectual contortionism it required. we must not try to claim him when we repudiate the claim. he was a hindu. the roots of his life were not in christ. they were in the bog. he knew and loved gandhi. he was unable to let this be the last of his assassination. he made it into a man of spirit and the eternal rather than a man of time and place and history. he became, in other words, a liberal protestant saint. the brimmings he used are remarkable. he was a natural christian rather than orthodox one jones

wrote. the distinction between a gnarl christian and orthodox reveals the manner in which he embodies the essence. he transcended the practice and constraints about orthodoxy and reached the higher plain of natural faith. a faith that was pure spiritual, unbounded, universal. the man who fought christian civilization so-called furthered the real thing jones proclaimed. god uses many instruments and he used gandhi to help christianize unchristian christianity process stands had a prominent baptist priest circulated widely a patch mt describing his admiration of gandhi. this is what he believes was the scandalist title and aboard the additional tag line, if you believe the lord jesus christ is

the savior of the world and not gandhi, read this. jones was not to be deterred. he preprepared the circular called are we too proud to learn from a hindu. the critiques of the christian nations and based on his experiences in india jones regularly spoke in the u.s. about the need for a more equitable order and even more controversially condemned american jim to comparisons to the indian cast system. the new york unitarian minster holmes another of gandhi's most significant americans he was freer to do that as a unitarian and in some ways i think his unitarian sensibilities and framing of this issue are the ones that have carried the day, but in some ways what he had to

do as a methodist and in fact with sensibilities. more clearly reveals the theological tensions of the mid-century. i referred to holmes as a figure who is pointing forward in some ways to our own spiritual, but not religious. he was a radical politically and a socialist and a fas 50 and a founder of what he called the all world gandhi fellowship. holmes made the case for gandhi that as i said, i think most clearly resonates from the christianity we see today. i'm going to read an extended quote here from john haynes holmes in an unpublished man script that i think captures the sentences from 1944. the basic trouble lies in the fact that the greatest of all indians, the most intellectual among his country men and a

figure of exhausted stature is converted to the gospel. he certainly is a better christian in the ethical sense than the multitude of those who profess the faith. all this makes the more irritating the fact that gandhi has remained loyal to hinduism. the majority of his people. why should he adopt an alien faith when his native gath gives him comfort. it's a good and true religion. so is mohamed. he uses the scriptures and the hymns to supplement hinduism. and there his soul's experience. no religion christianity or other has any monopoly on truth. hinduism as well as christianity can save the soul and redeem the world. this is a flat repudiation of the claim to be a uniquely inspired faith and opens up the way to the dangerous concept of

religion not as a revelation, but as the experience of mankind. the very magnitude and beauty of gandhi's important as a hindu constitutes a reflection upon the indispensable nature. this is his unpardonable sin that they can't match the christian virtue. that's a fantastic paragraph as a document. as emmer and parker had done, the cult of gandhi in the 20th century and even more the movement towards an emerging cosmopolitan cosmopolitan. this laid the ground work for the shifts now under way. leaving organized religion is i viable religious option for young americans today because they affirm with their liberal predecessors predecessors, the truth is not to one faith and not to be found

in religions, creeds, or rituals. as the examples are in the 20th century cosmopolitans, the revolt against christian exclusivism and organized christianity itself is not described as secular situation. we are not sentencing the trans230er78ation. they do not typically abandon religion. the religious nones, the unaffiliated aim to give religion a wider berth to liberate it from the political and exclusivist shackles. the german sociology max webber argued that in the tlauls of

disenchantment. a despiritualization of culture and consciousness bought about by science and rationality. the rise of the nones as a revolt against the politicized signals nothing more clearly than a massive generational shift towards reenchantment. political christianity lost its spark. where the spark may be found is the great drama of american religious life. thanks. >> thank you all for sticking us out. the end is near and i'm not just referring to the day's proceedings. substantial numbers of americans believe that the universe is rabidly moving to the close.

they are sure that the world is coming to an end. many americans are waiting for the icecaps to melt and global pandemics to spread. preppers are stocking with guns and ammunitions and dehydrated food. no doubt that americans in recent decades have been consumed by nightmares. for some there is a religious dimension to this apocalypse in the making. 41% of all americans, well over 100 million people and 58% of whites believe that jesus is definitely or probably coming back by the year 2050. the conviction that the second coming is imminent provides them with a powerful world view in a framework to which to understand their place in history and the tra jekry of the nation and the world. it affects how they live and act. time is running out and it fosters among christians a morality and a passion to right the world's wrongs in a sense of

urgency. there is no time for compromise and negotiation. the judgment is coming and they will be done. they want to make sure they are on the right side of history. such beliefs impacted the modern world shaping the use of politics to national defense. today what i'm going to focus on is three different individuals. things we often don't think of. david koresh and billy gram. each of these individuals like the inspirations treated it as a guide for understanding the future. nevertheless the futures they saw is different from their own understanding from the they can play from the future to be. while most americans would want us to separate the proveses of david koresh and the urgency of the more mainstream.

the work of these prophets have much more in common than i think most men and women realize. they ebbed and flowed since the early church and have come and gone in and why they make sense in a second. the fertile is the understanding. the book of rev lange talks about peace and prosperity. they believe that jesus is going to return before the millennium. they understand it as premillennialists. they believe that jesus will come at the end of this prosperity prosperity. this has to do with what will happen as we approach that millennium. most believe that the world will go through a period of tribulation before the return of

tryst that will happen before the establishment. for those who believe we will face that tripulation or be part of it or whether or not crist nans will not have to go through that. pre and post tripulation has divided christians throughout history. let's talk about what this means. first david koresh. he was raised in the 7th day adventist tradition. the strong millennium in the united states. he eventually left and joined the branch davidians. davidians taught that in the last days they had an earthly leader, a model to establish an earthquakely kingdom of god. before they established that

kingdom they caught that christians would face persecution and go through the intense tribulation and that would lead to the of jesus christ. what they believed and what they preached was that jesus' return was cleanse the earth of all impurities in a bloody, horrific apocalypse. for the branch day vid yans he was a charismatic leader and able to articulate ideas and powerful and profound ways. they would be the sole representatives of god on earth as they were moving towards the last days.

this was actually not that obscure of a belief. many conservative christians throughout the last couple hundred years believe that part of what's going to fuel the tribulation is a rise of a political leader called the anti-christ. the way the anti-christ is going to assume power is through government. it's one leader who would say in the last days the government is going to be the enemy of the true church, the enemy of christians. the atf raided the branch david davidens compound. there was a bloody confrontation. to the saints, to question his followers, this seemed to mark the begin ingning of the end. they had refused to take kresh's

views seriously. david kresh called the local sheriff, somebody had a a relationship with and tried to explain to him that this was fulfilling branch daviden prophesy. this is life and death. theology is life and death. we know after the fact that the fbi and atf didn't understand didn't take seriously kresh's perspectives. congress was clear on that. congress reprimanded the leaders for not taking theology seriously. the standoff ended with the death of 80 davidians including many children. what are we to make of this? they are made from a vibrant tradition. like millions of christian, he believed in the second coming of christ, yet his understanding of

a very small issue within this it theology, the tribulation is what distinguished him from most others. he saw in the bible evidence that the faithful would live through the tribulation. they would have to endure this it horrific suffering period. he believe god wanted them to endure this tribulation and god had chosen them to be a remnant of saints o to testify to god's power and ability and to physically battle the forces of the anti-christ. when the atf launched this raid against the compound this minor point of theology produced cataclysmic results. it played into the theology in tragic ways. theology was not just life but death. so while one group of christians anticipating the coming apocalypse died in aninferno, another faded into ob security. that takes us to harold camping. in 2011 thousands of christians expected to be raptured to

heaven. as they prepared to leave this world, the media was following this story closely. many watching on television, people were developing play lists about the end of the world. some of the most creative folks mocked them by inflating blowout dolls with helium and releasing them to the heavens. at the center was harold camping, an elderly preacher from oakland, california. camping had begun broadcasting on radio network called family radio, or developed this radio network in the late 1950s and continued to grow and develop through the second half of the 20th century so by the early 2000s family radio had 140 stations in the u.s. and translated his shows into many languages, which they broadcast internationally through short wave and also through the internet. now in 1992 camping told his radio audience and his followers that he had discovered after a

lifetime of studying the bible there were secret patterns embedded in it and through the patterns he could determine when jesus was going to return to the earth to rapture the saints to heaven. the math is complicated, but he argued and believed that the world was about 13000 years old and he could trace adam's creation back to a specific year. he believed if you move forward from that creation of adam 13,000 years then the second coming would happen shortly after that. it it would come 23 years after the 13,000 year period. you don't need fo to follow the math. it would happen in 1988, but his numbers might be off and could be in 2011 that jesus would return. he also knew what month and what year jesus would return it would happen between september 15th and september 27th, but he could knot tell us what hour or what day because jesus said no man would know the hour or the day of his second coming. you could know the month and the

year. not to plan for the rapture, not to give up the day jobs but to live live as if christ returned as 100 years away. he urged caution. his understanding of the tribulation differed. for camping the tribulation was not going to be marked by an armed conflict, but instead by great religious immorality. he believed it was already upon him and his followers. the signs were increasing numbers of divorce, women take leadership roles in churches, increasing same sex relations, and sexual promiscuity. this is different than the sense of tribulation that kresh had. the 1994 date proved wrong. camping essentially disappeared from national news but then reemerged again in 2010 on the basis of a book he'd written a few years earlier laying out his

logic, his numbers, this time predicting christ would return on may 21st, 2011 and judgment would o occur shortly after that. he did not urge despair or action just radical evangelism. family radio we make decisions as if the end could be quite far away. we're the first to understand we're not infallible in our con conclusions. his followers didn't quite hear his caveats. they took his ideas and ran wild with them. they put up billboards all over cities painted bus benches warning followers that jesus was coming back in 2011. i encountered them in a new york subway in 2010. i saw one of their billboards in 2011. these folks got around and many of you probably saw them as well. they were sure that jesus was going to return. of course, he did not, and unlike kresh and the branch davidians, they slowly faded

back into obscurity. which takes us to billy graham. he's been from the beginning of his career. his first major national revival, the one that put him on the map was in 1949 in los angeles. occurred two days after harry truman announced that the soviet union detonated an atomic bomb so the world recognized there was a global apocalypse in the making, and graham wanted to urge people to make decisions for christ and be serious about their commitments o christianity. this is a theme that he plaid over and over again throughout his entire career. most of his revivals he preached on the second coming of christ. he published a book called world of flame laying out his argument for a second coming. in 1983 he. published a book called the four horsemen of the apocalypse. in 1992 he publish eded a book called "storm warning", explaining that the earth was in its last days. he reissued updating it for the

modern context. in this book he said at 91 years old, i believe the storm clouds are darker than they have ever been. hands reached down from heaven to offer us the most hopeful warning, prepare it to meet your god. the signs of his eminent return have never been greater than they are now. for graham, he was creative at explaining the signs. in the '60s it was the counter culture, free speech movement. in the early 1990s, it was the aids crisis saddam hussein. in the post 9/11 context, he looks at the rise of what he calls muslim extremism, recession, influence of what he sees as godless pop culture. all signs we're living in the end times. so graham's work illustrates how they have linked the major issues of every generation to the coming apocalypse. what is it that sets graham

apart from camping? first, his view of the church. kresh believed that the church was corrupt so they called people out of the church. graham did the opposite. he wanted to strengthen mainstream churches. he wanted believers to work together and to build bridges between different churches which made him less threatening to other religious leaders. graham deferred with kresh. he believed there would be a battle, but jesus could do the fighting shs not jesus' followers, so there was no need to stockpile weapons. unlike camping, graham believed you could not know the date of jesus' seconds coming. it was always eminent. not right around this corner, it's around the next corner. it was the genius of his work was to keep expectations high. they had different perspectives on the date state. while they criticized the american government, gra. ham befriended politicians of both political parties. graham counselled and shared

with them the rhetoric that they both ended up adopting for their various policies. so in this way, graham might have been more dangerous depending on your own politics and theology than kresh in terms of his influence in the way in wish his doom saying influenced american history. so to conclude. the work of doom give life that indicates millions of americans believe the time is nigh. why americans are obsessed with the apocalypse is not entirely clear. . nevertheless, the u.s. has produced creative and innovative religious leaders who have drawn on the deep tradition to get their message out. sometimes like david kresh, their work threatens the nation. sometimes like harold camping, the work provides amusement. and sometimes like graham, work can shape international politics and penetrate the white house. regardless, the stories of all three reveal that apocalyptic history. [ applause ]

>> so this is the final presentation the final panel after a long day of really fascinating papers. so i will do my best to keep you with me. it's a tricky thing, i think, to write about the recent past, as i am doing in this paper because time has a nasty way of not stopping. although apparently plenty of people believe it will stop at some point. and right now, there's much talk of course about the midterm elections and whether they were a wave or shellacking of just the typical six-year loss that presidents tend to receive. i want us to think back just six years ago as barack obama won

and took office when accounts of demise shared space with dreams of rebirth and the prospect of a post-christian right america was very much at the fore front of the hope surrounding 2008. in the long history of american evangelicalism, this development could be seen as the reversion to the mean in terms of the christian right being cast as an exceptional thing. by the curve of american politics within obama's adult lifetime, change seemed like a very appropriate word for what was going on in 2008 and thereabouts. this paper explores the significance of the obama. phenomenon, his rise to power, his tenure in office, for the place of evangelicalism since the 2008 campaign. in a notable shift from the previous 40 years of american political culture evangelical

politics stopped functioning as a proxy for religious politics in general. some evangelicals on the left learned to welcome this loss of status while many on the right were determined and are very much determined to reverse it. now evangelical politics was not about to leave the public stage, but the obama era i argued did signal it as a privileged political force. the political fortunes of barack obama rose alongside those of the evangelical left. at least around 2005-2006 presented an opportunity for each. evangelical decent from bush and highlighted the alternative. to be sure it was hardly cut from evangelical casting. yet as a fresh voice with little political baggage a at that time, obama. was in a position to say the

kind of things that progressive evangelicals very much wanted to hear. and signs of a newly prominent evangelical progressivism were everywhere in 2006 and 2005 before that. from the opinion pages in the best seller list of "the new york times," to protests against bush's address at the presumably friendly calvin college in michigan. jim wallace became something of a national celebrity. in the aftermath of bush's narrow victory in 2004, there were a number of very much nonevangelical democratic leaders like nancy pelosi. in some ways they echoed the moves that clinton had made a decade earlier. those overtures combined with bush's growing unpopularity gave a rare political leverage at that moment. in many ways obama had

anticipate anticipated the democratic party's new evangelical strategy. obama entered the national stage with a memorable keynote address at the 2004 democratic national convention and one of the most quoted lines from the speech a future to breathe, but unmistakable flourish of evangelicals. we worship an awesome god in the blue states and don't like federals poking around. he was trying to blur the culture. but many americans certainly recognize that phrase awesome god as an illusion to the swaying chorus line of the popular praise and worship song "our god is an awesome god." one of the few political advantages that obama's unorthodox religious background provided hims of the chance to fashion his own story really without much of a template. obama was not the typical democratic voice for faith in

public life. he was not a white southern moderate like bill clinton. he was not an african-american minister activist like jesse jackson. he was not an urban catholic like mario cuomo before him. in the world of presidential politics, there really were no precedents for a hawaiian whose background in many ways was more pacific than atlantic and merged the middle america with the post colonial and american racial binary. yet obama was able to craft an eloquent and appealing story about his spiritual and political coming of age. spiritually, his tale was one of a biracial product of a christian hardly observant upbringings on meaning within the confines of the african-american trinity church in chicago. politically was the story of how a secular community activist inspired by the witness of the civil rights movement came to

see how faith offered something vital to the project of transforming neighborhoods. so obama's political awakenings went hand in hand in terms of how he presented himself. for an ambitious public figure, obama was uncommonly candid about his lax of orthodoxy. 2004 interview he gave with the "chicago sun-times" journalist this interview on the political right just after obama took office, obama. was very much. the voice of the candidate as christian seeker. his multicultural upbringing gave him a suspicion of dogma and a taste for language that applies a monopoly on the truth or my faith is transferable to others. by this, obama was not only criticizing fundamentalism, but

departing from established christian doctrine. he said i find it hard to believe that my god would consign of the world to hell. the obama story aligned with the trajectory of evangelical politics. obama saw this convergence as critical to his presidential. ambitions. i think this is interesting because a bit of irony or something here in that obama, in my estimation at least, was the first successful presidential candidate since john kennedy, perhaps, whose background. gave him the option of operating outside of angel call framework. yet just as kennedy famously felt obligated to assuage the furs of white southern property tants, obama made a conscious decision to engage evangelicals. a key moment came when he spoke

at a 2006 gathering of called to renewal, an activist network that was spoeshtassociated with the evangelical left. obama framed his address as a strategic proposition to secular progressives and a challenge to evangelical progressives to step up their game. obama chouted liberals because if we don't reach out to christians and other religious americans and tell them what we stand for, then the pat robertsons will continue to hold sway. still obama's conventional liberalism was on display. he did not shy away from his pro choice position. just as boldly obama asked the faithful to adjust to a more pluralistic america. they translate concerns into

universal values. it requires that the proposals be. subject to argument and amenable to reason. jim wallace likened the speech to kennedy's olive branch to southern baptists in 1960. obama achieved much more though. it was used a few times and there's actually a book by that title. the story line of a new direction for politics was a critical part of the obama campaign narrative. more important argueably than the tally of evangelical votes that the candidate received. especially notable were those moderate evangelicals who came over to arguably the most left-leaning nominee in a generation. obama made a point of reaching out to prominent evangelicals who were not customarily associated with the christian

right. amid-an overwhelming sentiment at the times that george bush had damaged the brand, such gestures mattered. so a number of more evangelical leaders leaders or even houston methodist pastor was a confidant of president bush, they came to support obama. the candidate, but not the urban liberal wing of the democratic party from which obama held. a certain amount of opportunityism factored into those relationships. very few people who met obama in this time period did not think he was presidential material. but their support came with some serious risks. obama reached out to joel hunter after hunter had praised obama's a more perfect union speech which was delivered around past sermons by jeremiah wright.

that flap threatened to do deep damage to obama's religious image. he made a point of not kwaundering the good will of his beckers. a member of the left gust that obama understands better than any democrat since jimmy carter. the boldness of obama's strategy, especially his attempt to drive a wedge through the evangelical center or rather to drive a wedge through the center and right attempted contemporaries to exaggerate both the depth of obama's politics. obama's gains came elsewhere, especially among. latino voters who were the main reason he won a majority of the

total catholic vote. yet the reaction of the christian rights old and new guards. to obama suggested that they were on the defensive. so for every rick warren, there was at least one persons like franklin graham who o wants obama's popularity dipped a bit in office and wasted little time in going public with his doubts. numerous comments pointed to a paradox concerning the evolving public response to obama's face story u. it was very widely publicized, the chapter transparency of obama's faith as i call it, only made it the subject of wilder and wilder speculation. so it was not taking anything

resembling face value by quite a few americans. so in spite of obama's triumph in 2008 shs the beltway conventional wisdom still held that the most authentic grass roots, political trends came from the right, not the left. and it seemed to prove this assumption true. strangely so, the christian right was tattered. this is a diagnosis that to many the 2012 election then confirmed. less noted in the 2012 and beyond was the left's return to a kind of marginal status. the midterm election cycle, the first one of 2010, saw a momentary return to the thesis as a political nemesis for democrats. to be sure the tea party promised something new on the

right, but ased a david camp bell convincingly have shown the overlap between the tea party and the christian right was always significant. in spite of all the talk about the tea parties more libertarian proclivities. restoring on the capital mall. it suggests what a christian right politics might look like. he was a convert to mormonism and an intentionally interfaced and multicultural mismatch of religion updated for the post civil rights movement. look west, look to the heavens and make your choice. it's all over the place in a lot of ways. the rallying cry of religious liberty, which we're getting more attention in the 2012 also was a kind of ecumenical glue,

but in some ways because the tea party was cast at such a novel and libertarian leaning phenomenon, the assumption it was declining was largely unchallenged. the best 2010 can be seen as a half way rebirth for the christian right. the status of the evangelical left, which had been so important for at least how obama presented himself in 2008 was even less certain. echoing the history of its counter part on the right, the left's profile had peaked with an election in 2008. the left was not a construct. like other progressive activists, evangelical left pushed obama on economic matters, criticizing the president's willingness to compromise with the gop on tax cuts, for example, with the exception ofn of abortion and i think that's an exception. though there were signs of a convergence between progressive

evangelicalism and mainstream liberalism. this trend surfaced in a surprising area that of marriage. after obama came out for gay marriage in 2012, several progressive evangelical bellewetters followed suit. that same year brian mcclarn who is a pioneering figure in the church scene he further riled, as many critics over a commitment ceremony over his recently married son. meanwhile jim wallace drew national attention for reversing his position on same-sex marriage. the same-sex marriage debate increasingly showed signs of resembling past arguments about segregation, more than ongoing conflicts about abortion. the historian randall balmer

offered past debates about divorce as a possible analogy too too. at the very least discussions of sexual orientation entered new territory. after the 2012 election, the obama inaugural committee tapped a minister with opposition to gay rights to pray at the ceremony. the first was rick warren. this time whom obama praised for his work on human trafficking quickly withdrew from the program. 2012 election offered a new explanation for the decline of the christian right and that was demographic transitions. it was declining numbers rather than threats from the evangelical left that were what truly hindered conservatives. there were several reports funded by the trust that highlighted the implausibility of the lingering assumption that

evangelicals was a majority or otherwise. and definitely the narrative of the rise of the nuns was the factor there. still it's interesting to me that in 2012 the gop nominee mitt romney embraced a version of george w. bush's successful 2004 strategy regarding evangelicals. the assumption was that the evangelical electorate was very much a slummering giant. they did turn out many great numbers for romney, but obama still won fairly comfortably. now as usual, the political wins were easier to detect than actual policy changes were to affect. in this presentation i'm definitely slighting the policy side. i touch on this a bit in the larger paper and suggest that obama has proved to be a consistent social liberal who operates within the faith based framework that he inherits from the bush administration. for example, he kept bush. 's faith-based office, it has been noted, and started a

similar initiative in the state department. in conclusion, nearly four decades after 1976, the year when george gallop pronounced the year of the evangelical and when jimmy carter won office, the relevance of evangelicalism no longer was taken for granted. among the chattering classes, it all pointed to decline. markers ranged from the sale of the cathedral, mega church in southern california to the increasing number of americans who considered themselves spiritual but not religious. on the political side u decleared one official quote, the understanding that the evangelical vote is a king-making vote is now dead. few then dared naz o 2008 to imagine that the evangelical left would ever become the democratic's version of the christian right.

the obama presidency promised a new twist on the old story of american faith in politics. obama spoke of a nation of christians and muslims, jews and hin hindus and nonbelievers. so it had a special place in american world views but not an exclusive place. yes many of the issues that powered the rise and galvanizes discontent on the left have not run their course. the issue of abortion will stay salient. it might even become more so if roe v. wade does not survive. many voters on the left and in the center still view christian conservative activism as a threat to american democracy. these postures are entering their second generation and fairly easy to spot. obama offered to change the

subject. he was better equipped than any better before him to grasp pluralism in his fullness. but if obama's story is america's story, though, its next turn is no more certain than the latest election cycle or the next supreme court decision. thank you. more on religion and public policy through american history including teaching religion in public school, the church and the social safety net and how the president's faith affects his foreign policy agenda. >> i'm delighted to see so many of you here is and you have all come in after lunch and delighted to have you. i'm going to chair this session on religion in policy. i have just stepped down so i can be authoritarian and i'm going to try to keep these speakers on time so there's lots

of time r for all the questions i'm sure that you have about the fascinating issues they are going to raise today. this session is on religion and policy and we move a bit more from the theoretical to the practical as we look at the way the role of religion influences and has been influenced by policy decisions that range from teaching about religion in public schools to implementing american foreign policy. it's a great pleasure to introduce thes first speaker, who is my friend and colleague. professor of religious studies at smu. and even though i have known mark for a long time, the chance to serve as moderator gave me a welcome tount figure out what he's been doing all these years. professor chancy is a biblical study scholar and the most significant contributions to the field have changed the way we

have understood galilee at the time of jesus christ and shortly thereafter. his first book "the myth of gentile galilee" published by cambridge university press in 2002 asserted that the overwhelming majority of galilee's populations were jews and to do this study he looked at the gospels, the writings of the jewish historian and published excavation reports. he used the same sources in his second book published by cambridge university press in 2005, which challenged the conventional understanding of the culture of galilee at the time. and he argued that the crucial change in galilee's culture became roman several centuries after the time that we had generally understood it to be the case and only after the arrival of a large roman in the

second century. his paper today grows out of his more recent and very public involvement in the constitutional political and academic issues of religion in public school teaching. he's been on the frontlines of critiquesing the texas essential knowledge and skills of social studies. he's also focused on the biblical studies curricula as they have been taught in the past in dallas public schools and as school systems are trying to implement them currently, most notably the hobby lobby curriculum that's been proposed for the public schools. today his topic teaching all about religion in red state america is something he has a lot of firsthand knowledge of. our other three panelists are visitors to smu, and i'm delighted to be able to welcome them here. i'm pleased to introduce our second speaker, professor allison green.

she received her ph.d. in history from yale university in 2010. she's currently an assistant professor at mississippi state university, and she's also been selected as a fellow in the young scholars in american religion cohort for 2013 to '15 by center for religion in american culture at purdue university. professor green has already identified several significant topics relating to religion in policy as the focus of her research on religion in the 20th century. her first book "no depression in heaven": economic crisis in america's empire" is to be published by oxford university press. she uses the experiences of men and women in the delta and arkansas as a specific focus to examine broader questions of how

religious institutions responded to the depression. her study allows her to trace the changing appraisal of social and religious institutions by both lay people and clergy as well as the shift from church-based charity to state-provided social services. her second project takes on another historical topic with equally profound contemporary relevance. it's tentatively entitled "god's green earth: religion, race and the environment since the guilded age" which i'm sure you can understand will be extremely controversial. today she's going to address the interaction of church in state in the establishment of welfare in both the new deal and the present. it's also a great pleasure to welcome professor jennifer who is in religious studies at the university of texas. her work focuses primarily on

the intersections of religion and violence, particularly in american prisons and in relation with native americans. her first book "the furnace of aapplication: prisons in religion in america" published by the university of north carolina press in 2011 explored the intersection of church and state during the founding of the nation's first prisons. she looked at evangelical protestants efforts to emerging practices and philosophies about prison disciplines from 1790 through the 1850s. initially the idea of these evangelicals about inmates suffering in redemption were accepted, but later over time officials became less receptive and as you might imagine prisoners might opposed them. there were broader ramifications

for issues of church-state separation and the professor is able to show how nay failed to convert large numbers of inmates or to make prisons reflect their values. instead they adapted or adopted these secular ideas about american morals and virtues and citizens so they no longer saw inmates afflictions as a necessary prelude to grace, but rather the required punishment for breaking the nation's laws. the professor has another project underway that focuses on religious transformations in indian communities in the area that is now southwest oklahoma. today's paper returns to a particular application of religion and violence in drone war to indian war, protecting and liberating innocent women and children. it's a change of title, an

elaboration of title from your program. it's also a great. pleasure to welcome the final speaker of this panel professor andrew preston, who has perhaps traveled the furthest to be with us today. he teaches at cambridge university where he's a fellow of claire college. he's an expert on american diplomatic history. he has numerous publications in that area including "the war counsel" published by harvard university press in 2006, "nixon in the world", which he edited published by oxford university press in 2008, as well as "america in the world", published by princeton in 2014 which he edited with both mark atwood lawrence and jeffrey

angle. he's focused on religion and american foreign affairs most notably in his book "sort of the spirit: shield of faith," published in 2012. it tells the story of how the role in the world has been shaped by their u belief that god had a special place for the university. professor preston explored a wide variety of strains of religious fur ver and isolationist looking at american international. issues from the colonial wars to the 21st century. the style and substance of this important work were recognized when professor preston received the charles taylor prize in 2013 for the best canadian work of literary nonfiction. i think all of us academic writers are really jealous of that particular award.

today professor preston addresses america's mission in the age of obama. so look forward to all of that, thank you. >> now that kathleen has offered such a gracious introduction to the session, i'll begin with a quotation from kathleen wellman. appear inging before the board of education about six weeks ago, professor wellman warned of flaws in the social studies textbook that the state board was reviewing. these books make moses the original founding father and credit him for virtually every distinctive feature of american government. she observed. some texts were so skewed she lamented that students might even end up quote believing that moses was the first

american. an aroanhouse conclusion in wellman's estimation. if moses is startling me, prominent in these textbooks, it's because the textbooks were written to cover social studies standards created by the board of education in 2009 and 2010. these standards depict moses as someone, quote, whose principles informed the founding documents. they portray as a precursor to the declaration of independence and the constitution. they identify biblical law and the christian legal tradition as the starting points for american law and government. this is what texas wants its students to know about moses and the ten commandments. social studies traditionally has

a civic function. its purpose is to cultivate the knowledge, skills, and virtues necessary for citizenship. thus what social studies standards say about religion functionally represents the minimal knowledge about religion that the state wants its citizen to have. and what the standards say about religion is determined through a political process. now texas is one of the few states to have a board of education elected through partisan elections. so what the standards say is determined by a partisan process. democrats and republicans vie against each other to shape their content and factions within each party vie against each other such as tea party republicans and moderate

republicans. the board is dominated by republicans, the standards reformed by a republican dominated board and to some observers the current standards reflect an attempt to teach students to look at religion through a lens colored with particular red state sensibilities. to illustrate what i mean by this i'll first summarize how the current standards formulated in 2010 treat religion. especially religion in america and the so-called world religions. i'll then put the current standards into his tortorical perspective by investigating what previous state educational guidelines have said about religion in social studies. because of the shear size of texas's textbook market, publishers have been eager to develop products that appeal to and has made their way into

editions used elsewhere. the texas state board of education affects what students learn across the country. the texas curricular standards are known as teks for texas essential knowledge and skills. the current teks are a revision of the 1998 teks, which themselves often refer to religion. but most of the 1998 references to religion were general in nature whereas many of those in the current texas eks have very specific agendas behind them. the most obvious example of this with the current teks is their portrayal of the bible as the wellspring of american political thought. this is a signature belief of an ideology that i call christian americanism. they believe that america's

founders intended it to be a christian nation that america has drifted from its christian heritage and that it is a patriotic and religious duty to return the country to its true christian identity. here i refer you back to the paper this morning on the founders. when the 15-member board created the kurnlt teks in 2009 and 2010, 7 of the members including the board chair worked very very hard to work this ideology into. the social studies standards. and they were usually able to pick up the extra vote they needed to get an eight-person majority. they could get if from the other three republicans or occasionally from one of the democrats. this seven-member bloc devoted to this ideology regularly presented arguments as indisputable historical facts. they did it in the board

meetings, in public speeches in their writings, in it their comments to journalists, they appointed amateur historians famous for these views as the board's experts to tell the board what students should learn about american history. i prefer it refer to the paper this morning amateur historians who were the board's appointed experts. the transparency of the christian americanist agenda is illustrated by board member cynthia dunbar's prayer at the may 21st 2010, board meeting. i believe she prayed, no one can read the history of our country without realizing that the good. book and the spirit of the savior have from the beginning been our guiding geniuses. whether we looked at the first charter of virginia or the charter of new england or the

charter of massachusetts bay or the fundamental orders of connecticut, the same objective is present. a christian land governed by christian principles. i believe the entire bill of rights came into being because of the knowledge our forefathers had of the bible and their belief in it. i like to believe we are living today in the spirit of the christian religion. now in the context of board politics, this was a very provocative prayer u. what is ironic about it is that it was not her own composition. in fact, she was quoting a prayer by none other than chief justice earl warren, the supreme court justice who presided over the warren court who issued the

decisions of bible reading and prayer in public schools. even this hero of church-state separatism believes that @ united states was a christian nation. i would note that justice warren offered the prayer not at a governmental function, but at a private prayer breakfast in contrast to dunbar who offered at a state board of education meeting. i tell this anecdote because it illustrates how transparent and obvious this political and religious agenda was, even at the time. and the bloc with this agenda was very successful in raising christianity's profile in american history and government teks. they added references to the standards of religious revivals to the moral majority billy graham, they put in a new standard in the meaning and historical significance of the motto in god we trust.

they inserted into a standard formerly devoted to the enlightenment references and john calvin. one of their most contested editions of the creation of a new high school standard requiring students to quote, examine the reasons the founding fathers protected religious freedom in america and guaranteed its free exercise by saying congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof and compare and contrast this to the phrase separation of church and state. the standard sponsors very very clearly intend their u standard to suggest that the founders never envisioned separation of church and state. conservative members also highlighted the religious motives of the earliest english

colonists and they inserted into the teks the names of individuals from the founding era who were pair gones of piety. there are tons of names in the standards who might be worthy of study for any number of reasons. the reason that they are there is because they once said something nice about jesus. they are still not as much as christianity. the current standards is the only religious tradition that the teks explicitly acknowledge as diverse. so students learn about protestants, catholics and eastern orthodox christians, but they do not necessarily learn about differences within any other tradition. in general in the teks religions

originating in asia receive very little consideration. there were two earlier standards on so-called world religions. they are still there that require study of bud hism, christianity they also include the successful lobby. ing of the sikh community. one new standard focuses on relations in south asia. another on jewish, christian and muz. limb contact in europe asia and north africa. judaism is highlighted in references to the holocaust, jewish holidays, and references to america's purported bib lilical roots. islam is the suggest of new teks. some of which are contemporary u

in focus. in general the contemporary teks about islam associate it with terrorism. the most explicit link radical islamic fundamentalism to pal still yan terrorism, the growth of al qaeda and 9/11. one standard attributes responsibility for quote ongoing conflict with israel solely to arab rejection of israel. that standard does not tech technically refer to islam but has obvious conceptual kinship to those that do. the overall impression the teks give is the feature of islam is its association with terrorism, conflict and his tillty to israel. i would note that the board rejected a motion by two democrats to add a standard to the teks on quote, other acts

of terrorism prior to september 11th 2001 not related to islam including the cavalry, the texas rangers against mexican-americans and by the kkk and other white supremacist groups here in our own country. for some reason that did not end in the state standards. how does the place of religion in these present teks compare to religion in previous social studies guidelines. to find out i worked through 99 years worth of state educational documents. i went back as early as i could go. they were of different jen generas. but they contained enough information to allow some general comparison. it was very interesting. what did i discover? you sometimes hear the idea that

religion was once prevalent in the social studies curriculum and that somehow it has been taken out. and i would suggest this is really not the case. historically in texas what has happened is religion has been addressed almost exclusively in world history classes, which have generally been western religious classes. christian encounters with the religions, judism to christianity, islam as a competitor to christianity from the medieval period onwards and that's it. asian religions typically have barely appeared, except in discussions of british colonialism. the only real exception to this is a 1957 cold war era guide for social studies that very much emphasizes that it's at the heart of american identity.

promoted religion for social studies are remembering the years of the cold war. it's the only time it ever showed up in texas standards. in 1998 reformulated standards included references to religion to discover the contributions of ethnic groups to american identity. these general references, we had none of the specific references that we find today to america's christian roots and particularly nondemonizing islam as the other. the 21st century in a time of changing religious and nick demographics in america, a the a time of uncertainty regarding conflict around the world, when islam is interpreted as the only, the stakes seem high indeed, for those determining what public schools will teach about religion and what sense of american identity social studies classes will convey thank you.

[ applause ] >> i'm allison green. i teach at mississippi state university. my so when barack obama took office in 2009 supporters celebrated his inaugural addresses, ek quos of jefferson, lincoln and roosevelt and hoped he would emulate the latter of those. franklin roosevelt ousted a republican opponent in the midst of economic crisis, the bleakest one of the 20th century and in the the face of worldwide instability. yet in 1933 americans clambered for the federal government to inter. veen in the suffering they faced. from the left to the right, religious leaders celebrated the hand yaufr of social welfare from the church to the state and

heralded the new deal as the realization of their efforts. 76 years later when obama took office religious organizations instead operated as private administrators of public welfare administrators of private welfare funds. after bill clinton signed off on the provision, religious organizations claimed an even more direct role in public welfare welfare. christian organizations simultaneously controlled and denounced federal support for those in need. kates on the one hand stress the pre-new deal power of charitable institutions to care for the needy. in 2012 franklin graham, head

of samaritan's purse an agency that has drawn heavily on federal funds voiced a popular expression of this position. 100 years ago the social safety net was provided by the church, but the government took that and took it away from the church. so by graham's narrative, the churches didn't just lose a public role but they lost the moral authority to cultivate good citizens by tying aids to prescribed behaviors. scholars who defend the welfare state tell a very different story in which the churches play very little part. scholars stress the much longer history of public aid. yet the public agencies built on private charities' work and gendered notions that some poor

deserved help and some poor did not. the new deal whoaed those into a safety net that disproportionately benefitted white men as it forced women and minorities to submit to means test when it covered them at all. the appropriate -- point to necessary and long-standing role of state and public agencies in individual welfare. >> with both focus on the urban forth and west where private and public agencies proved most powerful. both focus on the very best historical version of their preferred models. so what i want to ask today is

what about the places where people relied on a very limited scope of voluntary largely church based aid all the way up to 1933? what kind of help did those agencies offer? who did they offer it to and under what conditions? how did they fund that work? how did they navigate the greatest economic crisis since the civil war and how did their work change in response to the new deal and its aftermath? i'm going to use as my example today memphis, tennessee and the surrounding delta regions of mississippi and arkansas in park because that is where i focus my work and it's a region that provides an interesting set of answers to these questions. by the 19 -- the delta most parts of the delta were majority

black. it does provide insight into the distinct forks of aid available to the jim crow order. private charities accounted for 76% of relief expenditures in memphis in 1930 whites but they served only those they deemed deserving and appropriately deferent. concerned that their members not be deemed a burden on the larger community, catholic and jewish charities served members of their own communities and sometimes reached people beyond those communities.

a record setting drought in 1930 parched the cotton in the fields as the prices for what little remained plummeted to a third of the previous year's rates. food crops shrivelled before the cotton. a wave of bank failures swept the region and people who had managed to put back a little money saw their savings disappear. and soon reporters traveled to the region and they talk about women walking miles for food. they feet rapped in sacks

begging for medical aid. and there are stories that emerge from the region of children lying under trees and dying before aid can come to them. when people tell you that the depression didn't hurt in rural places or no one was starving in america, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. private aid organizations faced three kreecrises at once. the defense that many of the poor deserved their lot fell apart in the face of widespread crisis. do nation to churches and charities plummeted while any savings that they had vanished in the same failures that crushed farmers in the middle class. churches and charities tried to help. memphis's salvation army, the largest charity in the city served 1700 meals. in 1930 that number ballooned to 6500 meals. by april of 1930 the salvation

army served more than 10,000 meals which is ten times more than one year previous. it was also a shelter for men exit drained its swimming pool to make room for men to sleep on the pool floor. many suspended their work or disbanded all together. many struggled just to keep their doors open. national income dropped by more than 50%. now until 1933, church giving actually held steady as a proportion of national income but we're still talking about a 50% loss which proved crippling at the very moment that demands on resources escalated.

>> when the money ran out, the churches turned their spending inward, not outward. as they faced the suffering before them in their own inability to alleviate, conservative religious leaders joined to call for the federal government to step in. the barrage of legislation that franklin roosevelt signed in 1933 included a program that drew a clear line between federal and private relief. headed by a harry hopkins to put federal funds not only towards an employment relief.

it was the program that most directly endangered by the work. in gene of 1933. only public agencies could administer funds. many private agencies including all catholic charities in chicago gained public certification. the public had one job, the private another. as significant of that boundary was the fastly larger pool of resources. again, i will use femme memphis as an example. they raised a total of 88 cents per person in aide dollars. 75 cents or 85% of that was private. the new deal was in full swing.

they received $7.21 per capita in aid there is data that was more pronounced. because it was the only new deal agency especially important to religious leaders. now those people began to turn to the state rather than to local reledgeous groups for material aid and personal guidance.