patterns against isil in libya, if a libyan government is not formed that is able to deal with the problem itself, i do think those are helpful points of pressure on the two sides in the civil war to think very hard about whether it is in their collective best interest to try and resolve their differences and work together. >> okay. foreign secretary, can we turn to iran and the nuclear negotiations going on at the moment? quite clearly they're very sensitive point and you're not in a position to divulge anything, that's understandable. do you think the step by the u.s. congress is a dose of healthy skepticism or is it a spanner in the works? >> it could become a spanner in the works. i think as we come towards the endgame, over the next few

weeks, the congress actively moving forward with its proposed sanctions bill could have an unpredictable effect on leadership opinion public opinion, in tehran. just to set the scene then i'll ask simon gas who is leading our delegation in the direct talks with the iranians to say something, but just to set the scene, there has been some movement over the last few weeks. we have seen some movement. there is reason for cautious optimism, signals coming out of tehran there is a desire to try to find a deal. but there is still difficult issues in which there is no movement at all. and you have to make heroic assumptions to get to the point where it is all agreed in the next two or three weeks. but i think compared to where we were when we left vienna in

november, i think actually we have made quite significant progress over the last few weeks. but still very challenging. >> well, firstly on the intervention, i think it cuts in both directions. you may have seen a spirited reply to the letter which is worth looking at. one of the issues which is a reason, of course in congress, over the last couple of weeks including with the visit with netanyahu is that it probably has made it rather more -- in congress than it was previously. that also changes the dynamic as far as the united states is concerned. the foreign secretary said, we have made some progress in the negotiations, i think there is a willingness on both sides to try to reach a deal, but the obstacles are still formidable. these are about big decisions which are going to have to be reached primarily by iranian

colleagues, about the future of their nuclear industry, and the amount they have invested in it. those are difficult decisions. and as the foreign secretary said, there are still a number of them which are critical to success on which we do not have movement. so as he said, we go into the negotiations in the next round of negotiations with the degree of optimism, but we frankly will not know whether we have got an agreement until we have got one. >> would we be prepared to veto a bad deal? >> yes. bad deal is better than no deal. no deal is better than a bad deal. if we're going to agree a deal with iran, it has to provide assurance that iran will not be able to secure a nuclear weapon. it has to respect our minimum position, which has always been there must be complete transparency and open inspection

of what is going on in iran and there must be a structure that gives us a guarantee of at least 12 months to the point where iran would have enough fissile material for one weapon from the moment it went rogue from the moment it switched off the cameras and barred the monitors. that one year breakout time is our bottom line, nonnegotiable, not flexible. the iranians understand that and all the countries are clear that is bottom line, beyond which we cannot go. minimum six months pleased to hear that. can i put you to the question mike gates puts you in the ukraine context. the deadline is the 30th of march. and so it is quite possible that the details of this are going to come out after parliament has been dissolve edd. in a way the opinion of parliament is even more important here than it is on

reaction. there is more nuance to it. how are you going to gauge parliamentary reaction when there isn't a parliament? i mean, i haven't put that question very well, but i mean i think -- you get my drift that -- it can't be -- you consult the opposition when it comes to a nato article five intervention. how will you be consulting the broad sweep of the current parliamentary opinion when there isn't a parliament. >> on -- >> on iran. and nuclear deal when it comes in -- >> on the question -- i consider we have set out, and i've just done it again pretty clearly the parameters of a deal that we would fintdd acceptable. parliament can debate that tomorrow if it chooses to. i do not anticipate a situation where we are going to decide when parliament is dissolved, but we want to do a deal that is based on six months breakout. that's not going to happen.

we have set the red line. it is 12 months breakout. i think these are very technical issues in parliament would have to, as ministers do defer to the technical experts on what constitutes a 12-month breakout what kind of structure will give us a 12-month breakout guarantee, but so long as we are at 12 months breakout, i consider that we have a clear view that parliament would endorse such a settlement. i don't recall ever hearing colleagues saying 12-month breakout time is insufficient. i think the mood of parliament would certainly regard 12 months as being adequate. we're clear for our own reasons but also from the views of our partners in the e3 plus 3 that 12 months is the minimum we could agree to. >> wouldn't we be enshrined in

an international treaty which would require ratification by parliament? >> it would be on a motion to support the agreement? >> there would be a detailed agreement drawn up, which, i guess it would go to the united nations? >> yes, if i may. the first thing i would say is that there will not be an agreement by say, the end of march. at best there might be agreement on the key elements. it will then take several months of huge detail to make sure there are no loopholes, all the technical specifications have been nailed down. and you may recall that the extension of the interim joint plan of action agreed in vienna actually goes to the 30th of june. my guess is that until you've got to that point you will not actually have an agreement which you could say, yes, we now have an agreement. the agreement would almost certainly be put to the united nations security council for a

form of endorsement. >> do you agree that all the evidence points to whatever the length of the breakout period is the government is determined to maintain following a breakout the capability of exercising the option of having a nuclear weapon? >> the iranian government, of course, staunchly denies that proposition. they say that they want to maintain the capability to develop in time an industrial scale civil nuclear fuel program to provide indigenously manufactured fuel for an ambitious reactor building program. i think it is probably not helpful for us to speculate on the motives of the iranian side and i think it is probably the

case that there is not a home genius position. there are different facts within the iranian government as there are in many governments and probably iranian society i suspect, quite sharply divided on this issue. and i think the important point is that we are not assuming good intent intent. we are working from the assumption that there could be a desire to break out and go for a weapon. our job is to put in place a solution that there is a year's notice. that's how we're approaching the debate. we're not giving anybody the benefit of any doubt. we're assuming the worst and seeking to put in place regime that would protect the international community in the event that the worst happened. >> foreign secretary, that repeats our question, i don't know if there is any notes being

passed that you might want to refer to before i wrap things up. >> as it happens inspiration has come to me on the question of the arms embargo in russia. when the arms embargo was put in place, the fco reviewed all licenses for russia and ensured that all those for military items were revoked. there is around just over 100, we think, dual use licenses remaining in place. these are in respect of goods for nonmilitary uses. for example it security products mobile telecom products products which require licenses, but which are not for a military end use. if i may, i'll write to you, chairman, and just confirm the detail behind that statement. >> that would be appreciated. foreign secretary, this is the

last time this parliament that you will appear in front of us and we have enjoyed see you over the last year or so and william hague before hand. and so on behalf of the committee, i would like to thank you and the foreign ministers and thank you you and your fellow officials in the foreign office for the cooperation you have given us over the last five years. i actually -- our job is criticism of the foreign office but it has been constructive criticism done with the best of intentions and i would like to think the relationship between the committee and the foreign office has been a model as a number of other committees and government departments could follow. on behalf of the committee, i thank you all for the cooperation you have given us over the years and it has been very much appreciated. >> thank you, chairman. it may feel look a year, but it is just over seven months. >> our sympathy.

the road to the white house winds through new hampshire this week with several potential republican candidates taking part in a politics and eggs breakfast. tonight at 8:00, we'll feature a pair of appearances. first up, south carolina republican senator lindsey graham. and a bit after 9:00 former texas governor rick perry. he attended an event earlier today. here is a brief look at some of his comments. >> isis fills the void of a failed policy in iraq and syria. in american tanks, with american weapons, isis began taking cities that just a few years ago had been freed by the blood of american soldiers. in the highly orchestrated videos we are seeing broadcast to the world, beheadings, we're

seeing a young jordanian pilot burned alive these people have filled mass graves with muslims and christians alike. they have terrorized women. they have declared a caliphate over a area as large as the united kingdom in that part of the world. let's be clear about who isis is. they are a religious movement that seeks to take the world back to the seventh century. their aims are apocalyptic. to cleanse the world, not just of christians and jews, but of muslims who don't agree with their extreme ideology. and it is their stated vow to kill as many americans as they

can. and it is time that the american people heard the truth. the president declared in his state of the union address that the advance of isis had been stopped. that is simply not true. he says isis is not a religious movement. again, he simply is wrong. to deny the fundamental religious nature of the threat and downplay the seriousness of it is naive, it is dangerous and it is misguided. >> this week c-span's in new hampshire for road to the white house coverage of several potential republican presidential candidates. tonight at 8:00 on c-span, we'll be in manchester for a politics and eggs event with south carolina senator lindsey graham, who spent two days in the granite state this week. friday night beginning at 7:45, live on c-span we'll take you to house party in dover, new

hampshire, with jeb bush. on saturday, just after noon, live on c-span, wisconsin governor scott walker at a republican party grassroots workshop in concord. and sunday night at 9:35, on c-span, senator ted cruz at the annual lincoln reagan dinner. road to the white house 2016 on c-span. >> here are some of our featured programs for this weekend on the c-span networks. saturday, starting at 1:00 p.m. eastern, c-span2's book tv is live from the university of arizona for the tucson festival of books featuring discussions on race and politics the civil war and by the nation magazine writers with call-ins throughout the day with authors. and sunday at 1:00 we continue our live coverage of the festival with panels on the obama administration, the future of politics and the issue of concussions in football. and saturday morning at 9:00 eastern, on american history tv on c-span3, we're live from

longwood university in farmville, virginia, for the 16th annual civil war seminar with historians and authors talking about the closing weeks of the civil war in 1865. and sunday morning at 9:00 we continue our live coverage of the seminar with remarks on the surrender of the confederacy and the immigration of confederates to brazil. find our complete television schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400. e-mail us at comments@c-span.org. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. now it is a look at religion and politics from the american revolution through modern times. the danforth center on religion and politics at washington university in st. louis partnered with southern methodist universities center for presidential history to explore topics including

religion and outsider candidates. the quote mormon moment, and energy politics. this is just over 90 minutes. well my name is brian franklin. and i am the associate director of the center for presidential history here at smu. i welcome you all to our conference as well, which promises to be a very fascinating and enlightening time for all of us. i have the privilege of introducing our first panel of guests for the day. focusing on the topic of faith and modern politics. first, we will hear from dr. kate carte engel, associate professor of religious studies here at smu. she is the author of "religion and profit, more ravians in early america" awarded an award for outstanding scholarship. she's been a fellow at the american council of learned societies, the american philosophical society and the center for study of religion at

princeton university. her current project the cause of true religion investigates the consequences of the american revolution for transatlantic protestant net works in north america, britain and europe. her presentation today is entitled the founding fathers in modern america. our spekd panelist is darren dochuk. dr. dochuk is associate professor at the department of history and associate professor it in humanities on religion and politics at washington university in st. louis. in 2011 professor dochuk published from bible belt to sun belt, plain folk religion, grassroots politics and the rise of evangelical conservatism a book which won a host of awards including the american historical association's john dunning book prize. dochuk is currently working on a book tentatively titled anointed with oil, god and black gold in

modern america. his presentation today, crude awakenings in the age of oil arises from this project. our third panelist is dr. spencer fluhman, associate professor of history at brigham young university. he sold fellowships and his work has appeared in the new york times, journal of religion and society, journal of mormon history and byu studies quarterly. his book a peculiar people anti-mormonism and the making of religion in the 19th century america was published in 2012 and won the 2013 mormon history association's best first book award. dr. fluhman's presentation today is entitled never-ending mormon moments. and our fourth and final presentation for this panel comes from dr. charles irons associate professor of history and chair of the department of history and geography at elon university, elon, north

carolina. his first book is entitled the origins of pro slavery christianity, white and black evangelicals and colonial and antebellum virginia. his work appeared in the journal of southern religion, the american baptist quarterly and more than a dozen other books and journals. his current research is on the xla civil war and his topic today is religion and the outsider candidates. allow me to offer a quick note here about our process for this session and our sessions today. each of our guests in turn will give their presentations one after the other without taking much of a break in between. and after these four presentations, the moderator in this case, me will open the floor to you, the audience, to be able to ask questions or make comments, which you can direct at a particular panelist or the group in general. we welcome these comments, we welcome these questions and encourage you to participate

with us. it is time for me to step aside and let others speak more intelligently about faith and modern politics. so let's welcome together our first guest, dr. kate carte engel. >> thank you for that introduction and joining us for this first session so early in the morning. it is such a pleasure to see so many distinguished scholars and friends here in the audience today and on the panel. welcome, all. so i'm going to talk about today as a conservative christian reading of the american revolution and how that influences modern politics. this is certainly a topic that has been in the press lately. in september and october of this year, both colorado and texas saw very public and very political struggles over the proper teaching of the nation's

history. the college board a private organization that administers the widely used advance placement tests used in high schools released new guidelines for apus history. explicit mentions of religion in the discussions about the apus history standards were mostly relegated to the fringes, creating the impression of a secular debate. but if we look into the complaints against the curriculum we can find strong resonances of what is i would like to suggest, a religious practice shared by many conservative christians. the active and repeated study of the nation's founding through a form of historical reasoning derived from reading scripture has produced a unique identifiable and exclusive narrative of u.s. history that

stripped of its religion connotations influences public life and public debate through discussions like that over the u.s. -- the ap u.s. history curriculum. before i get started i want to give a couple of caveats. the first is that conservative christians are in no way alone in their interest in the founding era. obviously through trends, recently called founders chic many americans have been very very interested in the process of the revolutionary war and especially in the lives of the founders who are seen as some of the greatest and obviously most influential americans. so when conservative christians have created their reading of the american revolution they're participating in a larger national conversation on the subject. second, i want to be careful about how i'm using the word christian. american christians are an extraordinarily diverse and broad group of americans knew merkley, politically, theologically. i'm focusing on a subset of that group. many christians who want to

pursue interests in the founding era can, through sites that are endorsed by various evangelical organizations or other christian organizations find their way to academic scholarship and certainly christian historians in particular have played a very active role in mediating between the academic community and christian interests in the subject. so i don't want to minimize those very important trends. but i would like to focus on is a vocal and distinctive reading of the american revolution that co-exists with other trends. now, many biblically minded protestants use the scripture to manage passages that would otherwise be difficult or contradictory. the concept that scripture interprets scripture suggests that in the words of rick warren, the bible is its own best commentary a point he lists as second among six principles for interpreting scripture.

it is repeated widely. it is linked to the protestant concept of by scripture alone. if the bible is the one sole source of truth, it must provide all the tools necessary for its own interpretation and the overall meanings of the entire text must harmonize. the idea that scripture interprets scripture is a method of historical analysis and textural reading. some moments events and passages of the bible are far more important than others to understand the principles of the whole. the ininterpreper uses a two-step process. the knowledgeable writer introduces the era with the clear sense of its guiding meaning. nen, with that meaning in mind the practice of reading the founding era can be undertaken. i would like to suggest today that the practice of interpret

interpreting the american founding of having consistent and identifiable principles transforms both the purpose of learning about history and the kinds of evidence used. and furthermore that by studying the past with the same practices they use to study the bible, conservative christians make reading the american revolution a religious act. these readings of the american revolution begin and end with principles. not just interpretation, but usually in structure. the american patriots bible published by thomas nelson press in 2 09 begins with the seven principles of the judeo-christian ethic which readers are told are the core beliefs of our nation's founding fathers. when those men gave us documents such as the declaration of independence, the constitution, the bill of rights and other, they had to lean upon a common understanding of law government, social order, and morality. end quote. it is not necessary for the importance of these principles that they be uniformly representative of the

revolutionary public opinion, or even the founders as the authors are quick to point out. the important element is that they're guiding principles. the authors of this text continue, whether each of the founding fathers was a christian is not the issue. their writings statements and votes, evidence that the majority of them embrace great principles as the basis for a civilized nation. as might be expected text forefront principles and equally stark ways. america's providenceial history in 1989 has its list of seven principles of liberty in the conclusion. the list is not original to mcdow but is taken from a widely cited work by rosary slater. if we try to sum up the principles that appear across all of these different texts, and distill them into a common core conservative christians generally agree that the principles, the true meanings,

lessons and motivators of the founding era were high level protestant devotion and strong protestant institutions, god's covenant with the american people the powerful flowering of an undefined liberty. and the faithfulness of the founding fathers. because they motivated the event of the american revolution they must be applicable to public life today. so how does the american revolution look when viewed through the principles. what is the history of the era. the dominant traits that must be noted first is that it is nonchronological. guided by a focus on principle, conservative christian historians are generally more comfortable writing in a thematic or topical vain than using a narrative or chronological approach. the massive biography of george washington, for example, discusses the early life of george washington but then moves

through washington as he appeared in a series of roles and topical fashion, such as low church men, vestry men or soldier. his primary goal here is to focus on washington's character as it appeared in different situations. but the consequence is to take the man out of time. michael novak and his book on two wings uses a similar strategy when he frames and this is his heading for the substantial section of the book, ten questions about the founding. and david barton's highly influential's wall builder website avoids narrative in favor of narrow topical questions -- question and answers that move seamlessly between different time periods. despite this nonnarrative approach, the key moments in the christian reading of the revolution can be teased out. the story begins with the pilgrims and purtens. the founding of plymouth becomes the first act in the revolutionary war. the narrative then leapfrogs to the americans conflict with great britain but focuses on two

key points specifically, the importance of public prayer and the personal pailletty of particular leaders. the crisis endured by washington's forces at valley forge because it brings these two different trends together is the pivotal moment in the narrative. from that terrible winter in 1777 and '78 writers turned to the revolution's fulfillment in the constitution ten years later. or more frequently to topically organized analyses of the guiding principles. the prominence of the puritans to the american founding emerges from many sources. america's providencial history a textbook for home schoolers, has a chapter entitled, the pilgrims a model of christian character. and then the founding of all 13 colonies in many detail but concludes with the section entitled biblical reformation that clarifies the confusion of colonial origins. we can see a consistent

christian dominance in the settlement of every single colony, the authors claim. the puritans provide their best evidence. a joint statement made by all the northern colonies in the new england confederation of 1643 would just as well have been made by all 13 colonies, they claim. it stated we all came into these parts of america with one and the same end and aim namely to advance the kingdom of our lord jesus christ and enjoy the liberties of the gospel in purty and peace. civil government is a reflection of church government, the writers explained, imemploying by the assertion that this is the meaning of the entire colonial era. the revolutionary war functions as a climax rather than a primary narrative and peter marshall and david manuel's 1977 work the light and the glory as its authors use roughly half of their pages to describe the pilgrims and puritans. the story regularly shifts in time between the authors' search

for meaning in present and richly elaborated narrative including details like the color of the wake behind the may flower, the facial expressions of historical figures and fictionalized dialogue. the reader is invited to lose herself in the drama of the past, and yet remind that the purpose of the reading is to discern the meanings of monumentally important events. this continual telescoping between past and present, between knowable and unknowable details creates highly readable prose, but obscures the temporal allusion between the early 17th century and late 18th. describing the may flower compact, marshall and manuel provide a perfect example of how using the framing and texture of events. the authors write the pilgrims ss drafted a document pragmatic realistic and expedient and embodied the same principles of quality and government by consent of the governed which

would become the cornerstones of american democracy. this analysis is then immediately amended with a parenthetical reaching further back. before skating forward in time, to quote the declaration of independence as opening lines. in a space of one page the authors demonstrate the central ty of the pilgrims document to a history that stretches from biblical times then through the enduring influence of jefferson's words up to our present. interestingly, the document itself and the question of what specifically is meant by principles of equality amidst language that stresses submission obedience and the sovereignty of the king is not parsed. the point has already been made and i have to say reading this kind of text is really quite exhilarating as the author is invited to make comparisons between widely disparate moments in time and widely different -- documents that resonate quite

deeply. but your attention is forced to connecting the principles between these different moments rather than invited to engage in more plotting narrative of history, how is this particular document framed within its particular moment. we can see this process again if we look to where the narratives go next. from the puritans, we jump to the warriors of the revolution. and i should note this means we often jump over the declaration of independence. the declaration of independence, which is a sacred text is treated separately rather than situated in its immediate pragmatic context of grappling with complexities of making this step of separating from england. the warriors have two primary characteristics. first, a culture that valued public prayer and its clergy and second leaders who successfully struggled as men to live up to the great responsibilities god had given them.

michael novak and his own two wingz lists several events. liberty and humble faith. each is a demonstration of public observations of christianity that shows in novak's argument that faith was a primary motivator of the american revolution. for this analysis to work one must remember that what is being motivated not specific historical action. such as anger over the massachusetts port act, or frustration with an occupying army but the american founding and its greatest terms. values like principles become actors in history. in his declaration novak lists the declaration of independence as one of his events that show faith in the founding era and he argues that the declaration of independence is itself a prayer and he makes this argument by telescoping back to the may flower compact. so doing the exact same connecting that manuel and marshall had done in the other

direction starting with the may flower compact and jumping forward. the various elements of the canon are continually reinforced through the repeated appearance. the second characteristic of the warriors is the piety of the nation's leadership. george washington, the ultimate founder offers perfect material for this narrative because he was intentionally silent on most subjects of religion. the american patriots bible has a brief section discussing washington's character. but rather than offer examples of his own words, the author's focus on the dilemma of how a man of such greatness can even be known including glowing retellings from after his death. having constructed a devout and sober leader in washington valley forge interpreted as the great crisis becomes the central moment of the revolutionary era. it brings together the character lessons embedded in the teaching about washington the importance of prayer, the key role of faith through difficult times. marshall and manuel and

countless other retellers recount a story familiar to many americans of washington bowing his head in prayer at valley forge. though the great man sought privacy, he reportedly was seen by a neighboring quaker who then spread the word. the story of the general kneeling in the snow and valley forge is of a man who in the time of crisis pushed to his faith and his bible to act decisively. it led to some of the most widely reproduced artistic images of the revolutionary era, expressing the core meaning of the nation's defining moment for many americans both within the conservative christian community and then also beyond it as well. and that core meaning is that in this case a nation was united in a time of trial behind a christian liter who looked to god. by retelling the story christians assert the importance of the -- of the ideal to our own era and with the truths established the nation as

founded. after valley forge, after washington prays at valley forge, we have further narrative of what happens in the revolutionary era. at this point, the war ends and we jump to topical reframings of the constitution or the application of the principles that have been elaborated to the present. so what is left out. many of the complicated moments of the revolutionary era are left out, most obvious one is slavery. the substantial portion of the american population that was not on board with the patriot movement, also missing but there are other elements of the popular imagination of the american revolutionary era that are also left out of this retelling that make the christian narrative of the air particularly distinctive. the boston tea party washington crossing the delaware, all of the battles, these are missing from the telling because they don't fit within the guiding principles, within the way the authors want to promote. the constitutional convention and the ratification process, this last one i think is often when i hear amcademic historians

talk about it this is particularly surprising because the ratification process probably provides the best evidence of christian voices seeking to shape a christian nation. but that peace of the story is left out. these are missions are not a problem, however, because the meaning is clear transcendent and timeless. and indeed as all true scriptures must be. conservative christians have canonized the founding era and historians described it as a period replete with more meaning and divine inspiration. the result is a kind of historical reading that explicitly and strategically minimizes conflict but indeed subsequential historical process in favor of positive and useful meaning. the principles of the founding era and their obvious applicability to the present the importance of devout christian leaders, the prominent role for clergy in public life, a love of liberty and unified nation

favored by god, the current applicability of these principles provide the purpose for studying the era and until they are universally embraced, they also provide the need to repeatedly study and contemplate the era. the purpose is not to gain knowledge, but to bring about prayerful change. the ritual and repetitive circumstance later of this process is no more problematic than when it is applied to devotional reading of christian scripture. this is a history -- this is history as religious practice. as much as it is religion as a political act. and the allusion between the two provides an important intertwining of the religious and political in the early 21st century. thank you. [ applause ] >> good morning. good to see you. i'm going to take a few minutes and talk about pipelines and protestants, just a few of those

in these part ss. in early 2012, amid the unprecedented heat of one of the strangest springs in history, barack obama set out for oklahoma to jump start an energy tour. the politician had work to do when re-election and seemed unfazed by the blistering temperatures and torrential storms that made march feel like july. and so at a rally in cushing oklahoma, obama brushed over weather and talked energy instead. flanked by steel pipes, he laid out his plans for america's future. first came a tribute to folks who drilled the nation's crude then an appeal to their vote. over the last three year, i've directed my administration to open up millions of acres for gas and oil exploration across 23 different states. we're opening up more than 75% of our potential oil resources off shore. we have quadrupled the number of operating rigs to a record high, and we have added enough new pipeline to encircle the earth

and then some. obama's statement for as he called it an all of the above energy strategy came last. the plan was fourfold. more jobs for hard working americans, more oil development and infrastructure with government assist, more drive towards renewable energy and care of the environment, and more domestic production and less dependency on foreign oil. we have got to have a vision for the future he implored. that's how we have to think about energy. god bless you, god bless the united states of america. now, obama's faithful cheered his sweeping promises for more, who wouldn't yet as policy the speech clanged with a few incongruities. could americans truly get more of everything with little cost? how might an open ended energy policy benefit the earth? or reverse global warming whose effect obama's overheated listeners were sweating out.

republican democratic naysayers question the president's speech and pondered whether all of the above would result in none of the above results. now, to be fair, obama's talk was boiler plate designed to rally troops, yet his speech also illustrates tentative thinking. when he won the democratic primaries in 2008 he predicted that in his administration the rise of the oceans will begin to slow and the planet begins to heal. yet in cushing, amid evidence of rising waters and wounded planet, he preferred to boast about pipeline encircling the earth. his broader record further reveals uncertainty, and the struggle over transcanada's keystone pipeline, for instance, which inspired his oklahoma visit, he has spoken for and against the enterprise, urged construction in some sections, delayed in others paused for environmental reassessment, and infuriated activists and canadians, tough to do with his

indecision. the president, one can say, has been trapped repeatedly in the conundrums of energy politics. it is too symptom highlight the disjointedness of the agenda for his conundrums are products of complex circumstances. define neat partisan categories irreducible to culture war, blue/red divides, energy politics are naughty, drawing into collision multiple ideals. no simple matter of opposed self-interest, in other words, energy politics are totalizing and existential. it has always been that way especially with oil, my focus for today. since the dawn of their oil age, americans have viewed the black stuff as more than a source of fuel. it has defined their diet and sent them to war, allowed regions to flourish, others to fall generated anxiety about america's place in this world, and its people's prospects in

the next. so considering oil's ultimate significance, it is no far reach to conclude that present day energy politics in which obama is embroiled carry religious weight. this is indeed what i would like to conclude, what i would like us to conclude today that our struggles over pipelines also represent a clash of competing carbon gospels stemming from particular ties of place, their renderings in sacred terms and the histories and visions of the future that frame their political possibilities. so in order to nudge us to this conclusion, i'm going to glance just very briefly, i think at four gospels, evidented in obama's speech the four points i just highlighted, all of which are pressing on obama's current struggles with the keystone debate. highlight briefly their awakening, the moment at which this new thinking new imagination about pipelines and oil emerged, and mention a few

profits who said these in motion and i'll pause at the end for some fuller appreciation of the president's dilemma. first, first crude awakening, that which kind of stimulated a protest against the petro machine in defense of possessive individualism. at the heart of obama's predicament is a quest to help petroleums under class. land holders, oil patch workers and average citizens in close proximity to drill sites and pipelines whose cries for access to the economic promises of oil and protection from overbearing oil companies reverberate with a familiar populous beat. and here again, if you look at recent struggles over the pipeline in the dakotas we see ranchers joining native americans to protest the way in which land is being taken from them, this is combined with anxiety over jobs, just how many

jobs will or will not be created by the pipeline. these entwined concerns bringing together kind of interesting and curious coalitions of activists have made oil patch locals of all political stripes, ranchers, native americans a hesitant majority convinced of only two things, that oil companies cannot be trusted to care for the land and labor pools they seek to tap, and that local people deserve the fruits of the resource development that is disrupting their soil. in this rhetoric they eco a disquiet that reverberated for over a century, which takes us back to the first crude awakening in the early 20th century, which raised the disquiet and created an intending gospel of protest against petro capitalism. it was in the early 1900s that americans came to terms with their energy revolution and its first victims and of course, as we know, those who have read history textbooks the first victims were those rank and file

producers and locals who struggled under the weight of john d. rockefeller's standard oil. now, a devout baptist he was evangelical in his view of oil, besides deeming his extraction of crude providencial he believed his corporate ventures were acts of redemption designed to rescue the oil business from chaos. this christian certainty gave him a courageous persistence and capacity to think in strategic terms, but also a messy self-righteousness and contempt for the shortsighted mortals who made the mistake of standing in his way. the mortals saw him differently clawed back with moral critique and their champion was a journalist whose name we all recognize from textbooks as the woman who described the standard trust, but what is less appreciated is the degree to which in this moment the actions grew out of her wrestling with

god and the ghosts of her youth, and i don't have time to walk us through his -- her history of fascinating biography. someone who was raised in western pennsylvania, in oil country, two methodist parents someone who took her methodist faith seriously, very much part of the movement which was located just an hour away, in new york. and it is through her experiences in western pennsylvania, her father was an oil man, whose spirit was crushed by the rockefeller machine, she started to look at journalism as a possibility to combine her faith, her familial history and work that into a stinging critique of standard oil. we know the rest of the story by 1904 she publishes the history of standard oil, which identifies rockefeller really as the man who symbolized all that is wrong in national life at that moment, and then the ultimate conclusion to this is the supreme court's ruling of

1911 which dismantled standard oil. pristine or possessive capitalism. when fighting rockefeller tarbell stressed the pure qualities of the local patch in which she grew up. her was not a condemnation but a petition to clean it up. life ran swift and joyous in these men she writes of men like her father. she looked forward with all the eagerness of the young who have just learned their powers. they would meet their own needs. there was nothing they did not hope and dare. tarbell's faith in oil's first generation mirrored her belief in the goodness of her church and human ability to better society through smart application of biblical principles. free competition was her eden.

life outside it could not help but be sinful. she thee ol jiezed oil'sen enland and labor. shaped by her views in children socialism, she would wrote god gave man the land, but man has to use his hand and brain in its cultivation before he can feed and clothe and shelter himself. it is the partnership of the two, land and labor, which produces wealth. because of rockefeller, she lamented, labor had remained dependent on capital by capital's theft of the land which god gave to all. though she couldn't imagine it, her countering ethic of individuals would endure among men and women like her parents for generations to come. this leads to a second and third crude awakening that i'll glance over briefly. a standard of course was not defeated.

ultimately totally by tarbell and the supreme court, fractured into 34 different companies and in fact benefitted from the diversification. in the 1930s and 1940s, it's in this moment of chaos in east texas where a new oil boom is bringing an overproduction to the awareness of the federal government that the new deal is deciding to work with major companies to create some sense of order in the fields. here the standards of new jersey, california, new york are going to team up with the secretary of the interior in the 1930s and '40s to bring order to the fields. he along with others at this moment like eddie and luce are going to frame a new vision, a civil religious of crude in the mid 20th century in which

government working with major oil companies could encourage expansion of both christendom and a gentler kind of democratic oil kingdom to the rest of the world. william eddie was one of the spokespersons of this vision. he writes in 1940 as he was trying to open up saudi arabia for a standard of california wrote we who believe in christendom need to cover ourselves with tolerance reverence and charity and then wherever we walk we shall find ourselves on holy ground. three years later as a consultant for california stand he was surveying arabia for crude, five years later brokering a deal based on a mutual trust. he had a firm belief that a big liberal religion wedded to major

oil could usher humanity into a new age. the religious the assumptions about washington's dominion over petrol reserves bringing the federal government into the regulatory positions that we see today, obama's gesture to petroleum's ben every lens i think we see the remnants of the second crude awaking today. a third wakening follows in the '50 and this is the rise of the wildcat oilmen we are familiar with here in texas of course. wildcat imperative was a response defensive to what harold ickeys and the american government was doing, partnering major oil companies with washington to open up foreign fields. it was defensive in the sense that independent oil producers

here in the southwest especially felt that their vision of america, their vision of their industry, was being challenged. a number of profits stepped up at this moment to champion the rule of capture of the wildcatter, a very evangelical ideology. one of them was robert kerr, a more helpful optimistic positive wildcatter as oklahoma's governor and senator in the 1940s and 50s, he labored to meet independent oil's need and carry the mantle for the dispose disposed to give smaller producers the protections they deserve. what's interesting is how kerr a very prominent southern baptist, was able to fold his politics and interest in the protection of independent oilmen with his faith in the ability of individuals to approach

scripture and christprice on their own terms. there was also a harder edge to this wildcat christianity that emerged in the '70s, connecting the fear of peek oil the fear that america was losing its ability to control its most valued resource losing that to the middle east, to saudi arabia. prophets like john wallerd kpienedkpien combined the fears of peek oil with end times thinking that america had lost its ability to prepare for the end times in the right manner because the federal government and major oil companies of course had stolen their authority and power. that brings us to the fourth crude awakening and this is the one that we are dealing with today. a carbon-free gospel, if you

will. despite his sweeping promises at curbing, obama failed to convince leaders of the current awakening whose gas pell is carbon free. it makes no sense at all speaking of obama's referencing of improving the environment and renewal of energy sources. drilling everywhere you can and then putting up a solar panel is like drinking six martinis and topping them off with vitamin water. you're still drunk. you just have your day's allotment of c and d. obama's nay sayers are his one time champions. the faith and reform was bolstered by obama's speech during the 2008 national convention. among them several voices stand out but no one is more eloquent than bill mckiben who is author

of some of the most popular jeremiahs against global warming. mckiben became an author activist an then just an activist in 2011 just as the keystone crises was emerging. since then of course as we know has led marches through washington, through new york city just a month ago. with each step forward as an activist, mckiben has been a more deliberate in reaching back to the repositories of reaching scripture. in a way his view of oil mirrors that of his predecessor with whom he shares his methodism that blends love of the bible with awe of nature's mysteries and a tran sen dent view of terrestrial things. through his writings he has managed to stir up a new constituency of activists, a very interesting young.

many of them are coming from the oil patch itself including from texas. oil patch pentecostal and baptist youth have journeyed to washington to stand with mckiben with nuns, mennonites, quakers and ranchers in opposition. they have traveled to nebraska and texas to chain themselves to bulldozers, pray on pipe and use faith to subvert oil's order. in all of this they see this as a great revival brewing of the kind witnessed in the 19th century led by charles finney. mckiben would disagree with the way young people are still looking for the next revival, in his estimation the fires of revival are already burning bright. barack obama you might say also senses the heat of these four revivals, these four awakenings. unlike mckiben's his charge is

man fold. his is a tough task that demands a careful sorting out which is why his all of the above energy policy has been a path of some convenience and why his energy dilemma could very well be his successor's too. that's a misleading conclusion as well because change is surely coming. keystone's final decisions are impending its destiny and the consequences for people in the plains to be decided soon. all the more it seems now that pipelines supporting republicans have taken control of the senate. according to several washington insiders and pundits the keystone was seen as the big winner an tuesday and one of the most heralded victories in g.o.p. circles. and of course republican leaders have promised to make the pipeline a priority with the goal of sending the president a bill to authorize its completion and daring him to veto it. whether lost or won, the keystone is the tip of mounting

warfare between parties all of which hold deep convictions about the proper place of oil. wildcatters may win the fight but the movement for reform is forcing many north americans to a place of reckoning where global emissions are concerned. it's already produced surprising results and more curious evidences of new directions. even as the koch brothers have raised the ire of american liberals, in alberta home to the oil sands, its green billionaires who seem threatening to the order. among the billionaires of whom the angry canadians speak are the rockefellers and the pughs whose foundations are leading a wider campaign and.

rockefeller's abandoning petroleum, pugh shunning the canadian oil sands the venture they created in the 1950s, such are the striking signs of revolution that would surprise tarbell and the likes of john walderd. we shouldn't be too surprised. change is what we write about. so too contingency. even a quick glance at these four turns in the life of 20th and 21st century oil should remind us of that. we're privy to a host of characters that don't necessarily line up with our conventions of religious and political history. the spiritual calamity of oil create flashes of insurgence that shatter familiar binaries and bound uncommon faith partners along with the nonreligion together behind shared ethics of place, capital labor and custodianship over

earth's most valuable treasure. what is striking is the way in which those locking arms over pipelines in protest kind of created a transcendent ambition and worry for many americans over the issue of oil. we short change our histories of modern america when we don't calculate the deep structures meaning those living in oil rich zones ascribe to their labor on and below the land and measure the length to which they will go to project their rights to these encounters. we fall short by not allowing for dense complexities in the relgship. big oil versus the people. oil has a way of eliciting divergent imaginations.

for thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you for being here. in the 2012 presidential election, both candidates avoided mention of mr. romney's religion, though banked and cooled by both campaigns, religion nevertheless spilled out hot everywhere. the obama campaign fumd when romney told sean hannity in february that mr. obama wanted to make america, quote, a less christian nation. asked about the statement

romney said he wasn't familiar with what he said, but, quote i stand by what i said whatever it was. tellingly, even with such nonstatements about faith in the air, neither could quite take mormonism head on. those official silences stood in tension with a wave of media obsession that conjured a mormon moment that filled periodicals and news programs with profiles of the church of jesus christ of latter day saints and its members. is there a relationship between those ubiquitous media discoveries of mormonism and the political silences surrounding it? this morning i contend that the specific form that american engagement with mormonism has long taken that of the expo say, encourages reflection within the study of religion and politics about the meanings of religious secrecy. what can we say about the

repeated keeping and disclosing of mormon secrets? or put more crassly what does it mean that americans have long demanded that mr. romney account for his underwear? journalists in 2012 were thrust into the basic paradox of this history. is mormonism an exotic creation with strange rituals or the quintessentially american religion its bland church extolling large families. it's seen as both christian and not quite christian. both as a religion and somehow more. or is it less than one? today i offer secrecy as a key fulcrum for that limitality. mormonism's secrets have helped constitute it as a class problem

for americans and for scholars alike, but at the same time mormon secrets have helped make a distinctive mormon people possible. seen in this light the affects of secrecy give us more than additional details to round out a religion's historical portrait. rather, they provide us the gritty mechanics of power itself, how it is constituted and contested. and since mormonism's stubborn concealment impulses run right into the teeth of our scholarly and democratic projects, they beg important questions of both american politics and those of us who study them. many religious traditions acknowledge some kind of hidden knowledge, just as sacred space can enclose secrets and mark membership in mecca, so it has been with the mormon temples spatial restrictions. but especially during periods of

social or political strain, religious secrets can signal danger. this was true of earliest christianity where they kept the faith's mysteries from nonbelievers. but in the american context, similar dangers were perceived in the 19th century mormons, with roman catholics, in the 20th century with black sects such as the nation of islam and with the church of scientology after world war 2 and with muslims after september 11 2001. mormonism may seem to be a secretive faith but it did not emerge that way. the historical almost accidental presence of secrecy in early mormonism blossomed as the tradition entered a jen ta tif second stage in the 1840s when church leaders put secrecy at the church's administrative

core. by 1850, mormonism teemed with secrets. through this robust but hidden substrat um, mormons redefined christianity family, sexuality time, and human bodies themselves. where mormon conceptions of space and time had earlier worked on the axis of a holy city, the 1840s innovations set the project on a new footing. the mormon temple had functioned as the axis mundi for the millennial city but now the saints' own bodies form the holy of holies within the sacred spaces. they donned ceremonial clothing for the rights and wore special underclothing there after. they could scarily jetson their

secret things without pulling the foundations out from under some substantial ritual and theological structures. it's not surprising then that ex-mormons have long known exactly how to leave or exactly where to strike. the secrets were just waiting to be exposed. secrecy is functioned as a lever for mormon identity marking passage ways both into and out of the religion's beating heart. mormons prize their pioneer era temples for the rough beauty and the will that have called them up from the desert floor. their similarities of form speak an all together different sermon. they are after all each castles. as citadels of the secrets, they call up defyiancedefiance, resistance

and entrenchment entrenchment. they're one of kohl onization and mark a line in the great basin sand. they have followed a basic recipe with stunning irregularity. what emerges from the cycle of secret keeping and ex suppose say is a culture script and american ritual that was continued to our time. time permits consideration of some of the most it ragss but only in brief. as the 1880s anti-polygamy crusade crusade reeked havoc the mormons put off the inevitable. with church property in other hands, they hoped for a workable way. only when back channel communications warned that the temples too would be subject to federal seizure did the great accomodation come. the u.s. secretary of interior

sent word in august of 1890 that he would not abide the earlier gentleman's agreement sparing the lds temples and the church president's famed manifesto ending the practice came just days, not weeks later. even polygamy which mormons had sworn could not be given up without wrecking everything turned out to be expendable when compared with the maintenance of the sacred places. 1904, some leaders sustained a program of secret polygamy in the decade and a half following official disavow. some 300 secret marriages at least. an expectation of christ's vindicating return or a more congenial supreme court. but quiet resistance went hand in hand with public integration strategies at the same time, including utah's election of a church apostle reed smoot to the u.s. senate. the hearings over his election offered the concealment expose

drama on a grand stage. then came a disillusioned former professor to rehearse the temple's notorious vengeance oath for the gathered senators to judge. had senator smoot compromised his national loyalty because of his mormon temple vows. church president joseph f. smith took the stand to answer the church. one senator pressed quote, suppose you should receive a divine revelation demanding your people to do something forbidden by the law of the land, which would it be their duty to obey. the church president fired back, they would be at liberty to obey just which they pleased. there is absolutely no compulsion. both sides learned the script and knew their lines. 1919 the national reform association had helped lead the anti-polygamy crusade though its

main goal as stated by the association was a constitutional amendment declaring the nation a christian one. even after the polygamy concession, nra leaders charged that mormonism still threatened the nation. for several years nra crossed swords with the mormons bright young thing apostle james e. tall maj. he had earned an academic reputation as a geologyeologistgeologist. in 1912 he had published the house of the lord which offered the most complete descriptions of mormon temple worship to date but the book had been prompted by a scandal. antagonists threatened to publish photos of the temple unless paid a hefty ransom. he suggested preemptive publication and was tasked with

writing the accompanying text. if you live in a place where a new mormon temple is built, there are tours for nonmormons to go through a direct result of this sense of -- kind of a proactive public affairs sensitivity about temples. the resulting back and forth from his text though came to a head in 1919 when he audaciously showed up at the world conference in pittsburgh. he was eventually allowed to speak to the association for five minutes amidst a hail of hiss. but the speaker following suggested he be stripped to reveal his temple undergarments bearing the marks of his, quote, treasonous clothes. the crowd hemmed him in for an hour before he was able to slip away. since world war ii mormon numbers had swelled.

with the 1974 dedication of its temple just north of the nation's capital, situated rather conspicuously, the temple mimicked the salt lake temple with an update that many saw as an unmistakable assertion of power and presence. surging lds political conservatives did mormonism no favors though with protestants. energetic ex-mormons produced a book and movie combo in this particular moment, the god makers, which became a touch stone for evangelical opposition. the film complete with spooky music and wonky animated segments was condemned by the anti-defamation league and the national council of christians and jews, but its affects were substantial.

the film builds predictably to re-enactments of the temple rights. a voice introduces viewers to the secrets. you are seeing a re-enactment of the secret mormon temple ceremony. 2009 basking in the flow of the so-called mormon olympics in 2002 some latter day saints took on the american faith. the church's involvement in california's 2008 marriage equality initiative cured that. several outlets agreed that the big love episodes had something to do with the political activist. the episode provided some nuance for the right with jean triplehorn's character voicing the comfort that many mormons associate with temple worship, but the particular selections

from the ceremony formed a conspicuous poke in the eye for mormons as they ran through the ritual nerves. 2012 during this mormon moment, the political ritual played out in new media and on platforms grander than ever but remained a recognizable performance still. in one of the more memorable enactments of the routine, a reporter after showing clips of ex-mormons re-enacting the by then discontinued penalty oaths, asked for on explanation from an lds apostle. the interviewer pressed. wouldn't mr. romney have taken these vows in the past before the changes to the ritual? quote, that sounds masonic. not long after just days before

the election progressive blogger andrew sullivan posted footage of the entire lds temple ceremony secretly filmed by an ex-mormon. the film's subtitle brings us full circle to that worst kept secret of the 1840s, quote never before seen videos of secret mormon temple ritual. in conclusion, secrets, sacred ritual, expose, i offer these words as a story line for minority faith in america. a generation ago narratives of u.s. religion were crafted as tails of plurism a rowdy but loveable marketplace of individuals making spiritual choices. the history recounted here adds to a generational course of dissent from those depictions. this is a story of the americanization of mormonism, of the ways modern political and social worlds have chipped away at its secrets. on the other hand, it's a

reminder that the keeping and telling of secrets pushes scholars onto unstable ground. how should one study or narrate, what partisans either want to keep hidden as an article of faith or exposed as an act of democratic righteousness. scholars of religion, journalists and political commentators might seek that space between taboo and fetish with regard to the secrets. idealy we steer clear of the secret keeping and wanting to expose. we must better explain what is at stake across time and in the present. thank you.

>> good morning. i want to continue with the theme of outsider religious candidates religion candidates from outside the white protestant mainstream and merge that with another term. for the last several decades scholars have had a definitional crises. just over the last few years it's occurred to scholars if religion is a slippery category and the definition of religion seems to look different in the united states than it does in india or turkey, what about those categories that are defined in relation to religion? what about secularism? is that also not culturally conditioned, not also variable by time and place. so i'm taking these two story lines, one about minority

religious candidates and one about variations in secularism and want to talk about protestant secularism. i was empowered by janet jacobson to question the idea that the secularism had developed through european and christian origins was universal and fully separate from christianity. i accept as my starting point today the idea that what appears universal in the united states context is actually constitutes a specifically protestant form of secularism. i'll refer to that as protestant secularism. many scholars have referred to this. within protestant secularism as

scholars have noted, polliticians and others have tended to distinguish between good and bad religion by how effectively the practicetioners honor the boundaries. john kerry did this in a 2007 interview, lumping a varied set of practices together and emphasizing the distinction tif work of religion happened within the walls of a psyche. it can be a philosophy, a way of life. there are many different ways in which people choose to have a guiding set of values within their life. for many it is organized religion. for many it is not. but i will suggest this to you respectfully. no matter what religion or philosophy people adopt, they almost all have a golden rule. if you're legitimately practicing almost any of them and practicing them well you will tend to be a pretty good

citizen and a pretty good person. that's kerry's words. adherence to good tradition may have dogmas but they translate them into reasonable argument or universal values. adherence of bad religious in contrast do not register a key change as a switch between these external and internal domains. good religion is good in the measure that it tends towards unob true sieveness. so the irony here and it's not that dramatic is that outsider candidates in the united states history have enthusiastically supported what is essentially a protestant system. what a hope to do today is basically take some of the

lessons and apply them to the most foundational central actors in or national life, presidential candidates. these other books and scholars tend to write about either -- deep careful readings of literary texts or tend to work through hugely abstract analyses of new machinery and new print culture. i'm saying that the story that they're telling about secularism is clear and revealed in the most highly studied actors in our nation's history, presidential candidates. all i'm doing is taking the narrative and applying it to other contexts. it begins with thomas jefferson. from thomas jefferson to the mark remarkable cluster of candidates, presidential hopefuls have done a disproportional amount to

reinforce secularism. they have fought against any form of religious coercion, have encouraged the faithful to use only reason in public debate, have announced a quality of opportunity of people of all faiths and maintained that good religion belongs in individual conscience. he actually shared more in common with his fellow evangelical citizens. jefferson is already again the towering figure in nearly every account of church state relations in the united states since he did pen some of the most important documents. it's not simply semantics to say that jefferson was also a principle architect of

secularism. the sage of monticello mocked specific christian dogmas in his public and private writings and was hostile leading many scholars to characterize jefferson as more secular or modern than his peers. jefferson was an early adherent to the philosophy. this is particularly meaningful against the work in the 18th century. jefferson did trace a very similar root to modern evangelical secularism without the additional stim you lie of new machines. he accepted the idea of moral sense through which any

individual could discern fundamental moral truths, similarly on matters of religion distinguished by claims of natural flossof philosophy. jefferson's confidence in his fellow citizen's ability to use reason to unseat all false gods and this is key i think to enshrine true religion had implications with the religious and the secular. as evangelicals would do later, he advocated what we can see as secularism. i'm thinking of baird and the voluntary principle, not to destroy christianity but protect the liberty of the individual to exercise his or her reason to discover nature's god in an el gent and insightful side step around the debate of the meaning of jefferson's wall of separation metaphor they offered a interpretation of the letter between protecting free

thought for its own sake and the sake of facilitateing the spread of true and good religion. he believed he could protect free inquiry and aid the process by which a purified christianity housed in reason rather than faith would become america's civil religion. the op pra tif science follows the famous wall image that jefferson said quote, adhering to the supreme will of the nation, i shall see with severe satisfaction the sendtiments which stores to man his social duties. he verbalized the tenant of american verbal secularism, free minds will discover only free sentiments which will render them more useful as citizens. as a political candidate, jefferson left plenty of evidence of his obsession with

crafting response to christianity that both conformed to reason and got citizenship. his opponents in 1800 seized upon jefferson's published remarks in the notes on the state of virginia to argue that the candidate was indifferent to the maintenance of christianity as a national religion. in fact, jefferson had used rather strong language to make his point that the legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others almost taunting others that, quote it does me nothing to my neighbor to say that there are gods or no gods. this is not only the context for the danbury letter but it's also the context in which he set about for himself in private to answer how far reason could take him towards a christianity that was taught them. so he works out this syllabus of

the merits of the doctrines of jesus which he mails in 1803 confessing in the cover letter, to be a christian in the only sense jesus wished anyone to be, attached to his doctrines and preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence and believing he never claimed any other. over the following years he cut and pasted the gospel to make the philosophy of jesus a little known predecessor to the bible. while there is more to say about jefferson, the insight is that he personally endorsed and lent his pen to support a version that was anything but neutral. he endeavored to make normal particular kinds of protestant religion activity including voluntary association and communities of the faithful. jefferson stroef to make reasonableness a gauge of good

or permissible religion and struck out any attempts to constrain another's conscience. jefferson laid out his proposition pledging to use all of his power to fight against attempts to introduce religion establishment. he said it better of course he said i swore upon the alter of god against any form of tyranny. when subsequent candidates found themselves in jefferson's shoes in an overwhelmingly protestant country, it entrenches interest in secularism. john kerry and barack obama operating outside of white traditions have affirmed using a bully pulpit or at least their relatively privileged spots on the campaign trial in a 24-hour media cycle to define good

religion in jefferson terms as that which involves only voluntary association, is consistent with reason, and is presumed to enforce any distinctive moral code. under fire or suspicions from white protestant voters, kerry, romney and obama have delivered at least one landmark religious speech in which they have ascribed using rather precise terms religion as a private exchange which translates to politics. they have offered nearly identity definitions of good and bad religions. kerry addressed -- we'll definitely do kerry and depending on time we'll do romney. no obama today. kerry addressed this at a time when he and george w. bush were dead locked in the poles. he chose to give his speech in

bourd county, florida on the site of immense symbolic significance and on a sunday. he walked a delicate tight rope quoting scripture but saying his religious experience was internal and more profound impulses towards common good were the only marker of his faith. he said he prayed and wrestled with ka tholism during the vietnam war. kerry quoted from the book of james saying it's not enough to say you have faith when there is no deeds. kerry used this verse as the great pivot from private experience to public action. he said that means having and holding onto a vision of the society of common good where individual rights and freedoms are connected to our responsibility for others and understanding that the role of leadership is to advance the liberty of each of us and the

good that can come to us when we work together. kerry felt compelled to revisit the issue. roman catholics were obliged to live moral lives but not enact on others the policy positions advocated by their church leaders, reminding his auditors of the controversy that had committed so much ink over the summer when bishops debated whether they should bar kerry and ultimately it was decided no but several local bishops decided they would bar kerry until he repented. he said, quote, i know there are some bishops that have suggested as a public official i must cast votes or take positions on issues such as a woman's right to choose or stem cell issues. but then trying to adhere to these bountries of good religion by refusing to constrain

another's conscience he said i love my church and the bishops but respectfully disagree. he said my task is not to write every doctrine into law. that's not right nor possible in our society. kerry reinforced the protestant seculars since jefferson. republicans nominated a candidate from outside the traditional protestant fold when they put mitt romney up for the highest office. he would revisit it several times during his campaign. he was not completely silent but had made a signature statement earlier during the republican primary four years previous. facing a primarily field that included mike huckabee, romney attempted to later rest his membership in the latter day of saints. he said you're right. he refused to address what he called his church's distinctive doctrines. but he firmly placed the latter

day saints in the category of good religions. he echoed all the lines of the broward county speech. he assured the american people that he would never allow religious authorities to dictate policy positions. no listener must be homage to kennedy's 1960s. no authorities of my church or any other church for that matter will ever exert presidential decisions. it's theirs and ends where the nation began. he vowed he would guard against legislation. i will put no doctrine above any church. he continued, every religion has its own unique doctrines in history. these are not basis for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. he returned verbatim to kerry's script, almost verbatim. it's kind of startling

proclaiming the primary purpose of faith was the common good and welcoming all religious. i believe that every faith i have encountered draws closer to god he declared. it is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in america we share a common creed of moral convictions he assured listeners. it's usually a sound rule to focus on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. this conversation today is not to theorize new ways of understanding but nearly to observe how faithfully presidential candidates at the very center in our life have inscribed and reinscribed to the boundaries of protestant

secularism and to note the ironry of those outside those traditions have defended those boundaries just as energetically. >> at this time i would like to open up the floor for a couple people to ask questions. i also just want to remind you that all of our speakers will be here for the entirety of the day and i'm volunteering them but i'm certain that they are willing to talk with you during the breaks before and after that you have questions that you don't get to ask. also a quick note if you would like to ask a question we have a couple of guys here who have microphones. please allow the microphone to come to you and ask your question into the microphone so that we can all hear you and so that the recording can also pick you up. would anyone like to start with a question? over here?

>> hello. this is a question for kate which i thought was a fascinating paper. you touched on some of the things that the people you looked at left out of their view of history. unless i missed it in the talk they left out the first amendment in the religious freedom clauses which makes sense because it's a tricky thing to deal with. but they also left out the great awakening which would seem to fit with their version of history quite naeteatly. then a followup, these thinkers today or people who are looking at the founding area, do they grapple with the problem of thee okaysy which is something that the people in the colonial area thought about? it's something that's prevalent in the political thought from the reformation through the 17th and 18th centuries?

>> those are great questions. for the first great awakening that just got left on the cutting room floor. absolutely it's a central moment for these thinkers, especially george whitfield. if the goal is to find men in this process, he can play that role. there's been recent public conversation where some conservative pundits have argued -- so george whitfield is america's spiritual founding father to use the title of a recent book and he should be elevated to a particularly high level and attributing to george whitfield the concept of the new birth which obviously far predates george whitfield. some historians have pushed back on that a little bit. but yes the great awakening and whitfield are seen as essential events. in terms of the question of thee okaysy in the first amendment no those are questions that are not discussed with any

significant depth and i think it's because of the focus on principle. so if liberty is the principle of the founding era, it is embodied in the first amendment, it's right and then we apply it to subsequent moments. so the complexities that might come out of what the first amendment, the process of creating the first amendment, different readings those are addressed within a culture wars context and that's usually a little bit off to the side of this discussion because it's so admittedly political. so no, it's not central. >> hi. i have two questions. one more kate and one more spencer. my first question to kate is, the i'm very interested in this link between moses or the ancient

israelites and the may flower compact. i'd like you to speak on how they linked them, how exactly they justified that link a little more specifically. and then for responsespencer, you talked about the kohl onization of more moms and it makes sense given their history of oppression. i'm curious has that dialogue changed as they're attempting to become the american religion and how they talk about the oppression in the past and somehow becoming more of this all american sort of part of the mainstream and trying to be included in that protestant mainstream. can you speak to that a little bit? >> on the issue of moses and the

may flower compact the immediate political context of this is that the texas state board of education standards for 2010 which are now leading to textbooks which we'll be talking about later this afternoon require the connecting of moses as an original thinker for the creation of the united states. this is something that texas teachers are grappling with right now of how to put moses into a process that by any reading he was at least very distant from. so the connecting happens in part through the may flower compact and it happens in two ways. one is that if moses is seen as a law giver and the may flower compact is seen as an original law that creates a union, law then goes to foundational constitution and then is connected to our constitution. so the process is through that and not actually through any of the specific content of any of

those documents. the may flower compact doesn't hold up to that kind of scrutiny if you look at its actual text. it has to be a description of the document rather than an examination of the document. the other way this happens i think is through the internally refer shall nature of this conversation in that the same documents appear over and over. many of these books are very well foot noted and they refer back to each other consistently and never to an outside academic scholarly discussion because they're avoiding any of the reading that would look at that more ploding narrative. for people steeped in this reading of the american founding and it's reiterated regularly in sermons and any number of contexts, there's a self-evident connection between moses, the may flower compact, the declarations of independence and

the constitution and it really isn't even relevant. it's just through repetition i think is the only way. >> on mine it could be a long response but a kind of brief one is that it's a tension-filled modern identity for mormons given their history. in part this history, this sense of kind of persecution is tightly woven into modern mormon identity such that they kind of expect to be misrespected or misunderstood in public. something like the book of mormon musical to them is just on eye roll of here we go again. snappier tunes but the same old lyrics. they expect mockery so that fits with a kind of representation of the past. it might be in a kind of rise mattic way in more modern political conservatism this memory of -- it becomes kind of

western in a way too though, distant federal power heavy handed for us here. that's kind of there but they have to be careful with that because too long into that story and it's about polygamy and that doesn't work very well. it ends up sounding a bit like a defense of polygamy which mainstream has no interest in. they've within running from polygamy for over 100 years. it's complicated. >> i want to keep us on time for the rest of the day, so again, i encourage you, as a take a short break between panels find our panelists, ask a question if you have one. but in this short break here, feel free to get a little more to eat or drink or find the restrooms that are out the door and to the left and we'll convene in a few minutes for our second panel. thank you. [ applause ]

the road to the white house winds through new hampshire this week with several potential republican candidates taking part in a politics and eggs breakfast. tonight at 8:00 we'll fear temperature first up, south carolina republican senator lindsey graham. here's a bit of what he had to say. >> i grew up in the back of the liquor store in one room. my parents went to work every day whether they felt good or not because if you don't, you don't get paid. it was a wonderful life. it was the neighborhood bar, and people would come in as the

shifts change, full of cotton and lint, and a lot of people had missing fingers. i'll never forget that as long as i live. you get to know each other pretty well. i had a lot of aunts and uncles that were my customers. and you learn diplomacy. i can remember fred. fred has since passed but his wife called one night when i was about 8 years old. i answered the phone in the back where we lived and his wife asked, is fred there? so i ran up and i said fred your wife wants to know if you're here. and he said tell her i'm not here. so i went back and i said he said he wasn't here. so i learned diplomacy at an early age. you don't have to repeat everything you're told. a bit after 9:00, more 2016 presidential politics with former texas governor rick perry. he attended an event earlier today. watch his remarks at 9:10 p.m.

on our companion network, c-span. here are some of our featured program for this weekend on the c-span networks. saturday eastern, c-span2's book live is live from the university of arizona from the tucson festival of books featuring discussions on race and politics the civil war and by the nation magazine writers with call-ins throughout the day with authors. and sunday at 1:00 we continue our live coverage of the festival with panels on the obama administration, the future of politics and the issue of concussions in football and saturday morning at 9:00 eastern on american history tv on c-span3 we are live from longwood university in farmville, virginia, for the 16th annual civil war seminar with historians and authors talking about the closing weeks of the civil war in 1865 and sunday morning at 9:00 we continue our live coverage of the seminar with remarks on the surrender of confederacy and the immigration of confederates to

brazil. find our complete television schedule on c-span.org and let us know about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400 e or email us at comments@c-span.org or c-span #comments. >> follow us on twitter. with live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span and the senate on c-span2 here on c-span3 we compliment that coverage by showing you the most relevant congressional hearings and public affairs events and on weekends c-span3 is the home for american history tv with programs that tell our nation's stories. the civil war's 150th anniversary, visiting battlefields and key events american artifacts, touring museums and historic sites to discover what it reveals about america's past. history bookshelf with the best known american history writers and looking at the policies and

legacies of the commanders in chief. top college professors delving into america's past and our new series, real america featuring archival government and educational films from the 1930s through the '707s. c-span3. watch us on hd like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. next it's a look at emerging world markets. you'll hear from mexican investor and entrepreneur carlos slim who "forbes" magazine ranked as the richest person in the world from 2010 to 2013. joining him are an afghan media person and the editor of reuters americas, from rand corporation's set politics aside conference in santa monica, this is an hour.

good afternoon i'm krishna kumar, i'm the director of labor and population, a research unit within rand. our mission is to aid policy making through research and analysis to improve the socioeconomic well-being of people around the world. i hope that doesn't sound too narrow a mission statement to you. the rapid growth of emerging economies in the last couple of decades has lifted literally hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and rand is happy to contribute to understanding this unfolding story and policy making to aid it through our work in several emerging economies. it's my pleasure today to

introduce our panel this afternoon, carlos slim eleu is an person and businessman involved in a varied group of companies. he's honorary life chairman of grupo carco. he served as vice chairman of the mexican stock exchange and as a fill onth roppist he's contributed to latin america, and he's an alumni of rand. saud moseini, mobi group is a leading media and entertainment company focusing on emerging markets. they work in south and central asia, the middle east and beyond. he's been considered as one of the most influential thinkers in the world by both "time" magazine and "foreign policy" magazine. welcome, mr. moseini. >> our conductor today is the

regional editor of americas and reuters and leads a team of more than 500 journalists in bureau from toronto to buenos aires. in previous roles at reuters, he built the first financial news service for the middle east during the early years of the oil boom. welcome mr. cannedkandarpar and thank you for this panel and we look forward for a stimulating discussion. thank you very much. thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, and to our panelists. i wanted to start talking about changes in emerging markets, but it is discovered in the course of our pre-panel discussions that we actually have a fundamental disagreement about what the title of this panel should be. to carlos, to start with, why do you disagree with the term emerging markets? >> i think it is not important, but i was telling him that it is more important to tell emerging countries than emerging markets.

that's the difference, no? emerging countries and there are markets that are already big ones that are developed but the countries are not developed. that they grow without development or other circumstances. that was just the commentary that i made to you. >> right. and more broadly speaking, the conversation around emerging markets has changed quite a bit in the last couple of years and we've had ten years of steady growth and seemingly immense opportunities for portfolio and direct investors. saud i would like to come to you, if i may. what's the big shift that's happened in the last couple of years in terms of your view of the world's emerging markets? >> well we're on the frontier markets because we've invested in very different countries and in new york and london and elsewhere would totally ignore people like us five, six years

ago in looking at us and approaching us because i think they see limitations in the previous emerging markets and the frontier markets provide another opportunity and some of the markets we're in are growing 20% to 30% per annum which is the media sector. so i think there's a lot more interest and a lot more money and of course, there's the appetite for risk nowadays. >> and the kind of risk that you have to take on has also changed. as a person who is a direct investor in these market what's your perception of how that risk has changed in latin america? >> i think more than talk about risk, we need to talk about change. we are living in a new civilization, the civilization of services and it is as strong the change or maybe more, this new technology and knowledge that has changed everything and

we are in the service society and a tertiary society and the agricultural society. in the agricultural society, people live, 80% of the people live in rural areas and in the industrial society and mainly in the 20th century that begin with the modernity of the society with the electricity and the engine, there were a lot of experiments about how to manage the society with the different models like fascist capitalist, and pa, pa pa, pa and they were very costly because they were moving without the direction and with a lot of dictatorship, et cetera, with the exception of u.s. born with three of them democracy, but at the end of the day including u.s. need to have the civil war between the industrial north and the

agricultural south. one sustaining the slavery and another with it so the industrial society used to have the exploitation of people and today we still have many societies in the agricultural age at least in some part like china. china maybe has 600 or 700 million people in the agricultural society, in rural areas in auto consumption and they need to have a different political model that is already a modern industrial country or a technology. they're having a difference because we are getting in a new society and it is interesting because all of our countries including u.s. and the developed countries because it was in the 19th century when they move from rural and agricultural society to industrial and urban societies and everyone grows,

and u.s. 170 years ago and 70% of the people were working in rural areas and today it's 2% of the population is working on that way. that phenomenon is now doing by many countries and that's why millions of people every year, many millions are getting out of poverty because they are getting in the new societies and moving to urban societies, et cetera. mexico grow from 33 to 82, 6.2% every year because we moved from a rural and auto consumption and agricultural society to an urban and industrial society. that's what they do in china. china is growing because of that. they are moving from rural areas and agricultural production, auto consumption to new societies and each society has different paradigms. this society has very different paradigms and the whole thing that this new society is