recognized a very early on amongst catholics in this country. via statement of the usecb committee -- this is the homily that cardinal gibbons of baltimore gave. he asserted that a great progress, the the united states was due in no small degree we enjoy in our inland republic, that the church grows and expands under the free republic. he even said in a genial air of liberty, she blossoms like the rose. he says, this is to the fact our country has liberty without license, authority without the statism. my own experience, i sort of

back into this religious liberty debate by my involvement with siamese twin, the definition of marriage and the law. i got swept up in the, not exclusively, but in large degree because i was in line to by dr. george and other people of his kind as to the erosion of the rights of religious institutions to serve the broader community in accord with their moral principles precisely because of this issue. as well the rights of individuals to have their freedom of conscience respected. when i saw what was happening and my eyes were opened, it made me feel we could be starting to move in the direction of license and despotism. many examples were already cited earlier today. we have numerous catholic charity adoption services, not just in the archdiocese of boston, but also the archdiocese of san francisco and

washington, d.c. and the entire state of illinois. we have heard reference to how religious organizations can have their tax-exempt status revoked as happened with the ocean grove at this camp in new jersey for denying a lesbian couple to have their commitment ceremony celebration there, even though they would rent it out for other couples for their marriage ceremonies. we heard also about the wedding photographer in new mexico who was sued and then lost for refusing to photograph the same sex commitment ceremony. as someone once pointed out, as if you have a constitutional right of your picture taken by the photographer of your choice. [laughter] i want to express profound gratitude and how encourage i am by all of you who have stood by as catholics in the midst of

this health and human services mandate battle. it is a great moment for all of us. it is a great moment of encouragement for us, the leaders in the catholic church. we rightly recognize this is a question of the state in treating into affairs of the church, even to the point of defining for the church what constitutes the ministry. we all recognize that if they get away with this, if you want to put it that way, that it will not stop there. it will just keep getting worse. .e're all vulnerable we cannot get political in the sense of being partisan, not those of us your church leaders, at any rate. ultimately, it would compromise our role as the conscience of society, and as we heard earlier, between the government

and individual. this is really not a political struggle, but a struggle for first principles. principles we should all be able to agree upon. as faith communities compromise who we're called to be if we became tied to any political agenda or platform. i really believe this is a new moment in our nation. it is especially in the moment for faith communities. it is a new moment in which god is bringing his people together and what we're doing today, our presence here, is surely a sign of that. we're not doing what we're doing either out of our own self interest, but rather what we recognize as best for our nation. religious liberty benefits everyone. certainly, it benefits people of faith is they can bring the values they get from their in to faith the public square. it also benefits people in need

who are served so well by faith -based organizations. education, health care, and social service agencies. so often, faith-based organizations to a better job and accomplish more with less, precisely because we are motivated by a higher in and recognize the first principle of human dignity. it benefits our nation as a whole because this is who we are and what we stand for, as we've heard repeated today, religious liberty is the first right in the bill of rights not just chronologically, but logically. we are here today standing together because we love the united states of america and we want what is best for her. the united states of america has benefited, myself, and i'm sure all of you, from those people who emigrated to this land and found a great opportunity. we're here because we know that

if we do not stand to gather, our nation will fall apart. [applause] >> dr. george? >> thank you so much. it is a great honor to be here today with all of you in the distinguished panelists. i have lost two wonderful friends and mentors to me in the last several years. one, chuck colson. the other, his friend, and led to many of us here today, the late father's john neuhaus. and one of the last essays richard roe -- wrote, discuss what he called a new order of religious freedom. appealing to one of the distinctive traits of the american experiment, summarized and famous words that appear on our currency -- not in god we

trust, but a new order for the ages. at the heart of this was an instinctive respect for persons of fate -- all faiths. intentional policy of their access to the public square. free access not only for individuals, but also for religious associations, for communities of faith. as richard was want to do, he emphasized that the inspiration for religious freedom was itself religious. as he said in his own way, it is our belief that it is the will of god that we should not persecute one another and are disputes over the will of god. [laughter] well, i am a baptist, as robbie has divulged, in fact, i am a

southern baptist. that is the worst kind. [laughter] you have already heard from one southern baptist, so maybe two is the limit for one day. nonetheless, i want to go back to that statement the professor began with today when he referred to the religious wellsprings of our religious freedom, wellsprings that have become desiccated by the secularist landscape that we see there and increasingly here. i want to focus on the origins of the baptist argument for religious freedom. i wish you were all baptists, because baptists' need to hear this. we have tended to forget those religious wellsprings from which our own distinctive commitment to religious freedom has sprung. now, there's great debate about where baptists come from. there is a view called landmark ism is the history of baptist through an unbroken chain of

true baptist churches all the way back to jesus and the first baptist church of jerusalem. [laughter] i kid you not. never mind that trail goes through some pretty nefarious groups like -- it is there. however, real scholarly work on the history of baptists began in the 16th century and 17th century, particularly in the early 17th century england with a group that emerged out of the separatist movement which had come out of the church of england, led by people who at one time did in exile, sent into the netherlands to find a little respite from the persecution of king james i as the. of those came back to england. they became it was wrong for them to flee persecution. led by a person named thomas, he was not a clergy, not a

minister. he was a lawyer. he was trained in london. but deeply committed to this experiment in ecclesiology that gave birth to the baptist movement. thomas was in his group of baptist, broke with the radical the politicization of continental into a baptism and accepted caddo punishment, emphasize the duty to serve in the military, had no difficulty was so coercions which is army and legitimate weapons of coercion. in fact, they felt it necessary to protect religious freedom. but in the year 1612, 400 years ago this year, a little booklet was published on an underground press in london called "a short declaration of the mystery of

inequity." there are only two copies today of that homemade, underground, very sloppily put together a little pamphlet. one of them is the in the- library- and i have read it with my own eyes. when you open it, on the flyleaf there are these words written in thomas'own hands . it looks like john hancock signed the declaration of independence, so clear and distinct. ther, o, kin and despiteg, key --is a mortal man and not die. therefore, has no power over the immortal souls of his subjects. let them be heretics, turks,, or what jews soever. it pertains not to the earthly power to punish them.

to my knowledge, this is the first published appeal for universal religious freedom in the english language. and in that book and other literature that emerged from thomas and his friends, a cluster of arguments were set forth. it formed a kind of bedrock for later baptists and protestant, evangelical and even more widely, western political thinking about religious freedoms. i just want to mention these. they are very interesting, especially constellation they formed. one is an understanding of two kingdoms. thomas was not an absolute separate nation s. there was a place for civil authority and governments, but he clearly drew a line of distinction between the civil and spiritual realms, a distinction that is distinctive of western thinking in the

subject going back at least two not the gospel itself. the early baptists were quite happy to talk about the possibility of a christian magistrate. one could be a civil magistrate and be a christian and belong to the church. but they were very reluctant, indeed, opposed to talking about a christian majesty, the establishment of a religion. second, the inviolability of conscience, the sharp distinction they drew between -- it led them to advocate -- this was a negative argument in a sense for religious freedom, with the state should not do. there was a positive sign, however, in that every person created in the image of god stood in a unique and inviolable and immediate relation to god.

roger williams, who read this literature and in some ways is the offspring of this literature intellectually and spiritually, referred to the state that violated this integrity of conscience as a soul murder. he said it was counterproductive for the state to persecute the leaders. it is possible, >> datinit is pe to kill a man but to kill a man is not to defend the doctrine but to kill a man. thirdly, the non course of character of faith. you can only make by persecution -- you can make bad christians, the chicken not made genuine questions because faith implies the consent of the will.

the vandalism. they drew on a parable that jesus talked about the wheat in the weeds growing together in the same field. they thought this was a good thing in the emphasize the part of the parable, do not upset the weeds and wheat growing together. let 1000 wields -- weeds blo the inom of the debt. , there will be a final sorting of the weeds and the weeds. plucking at the weeds he may destroy some of the good wheat. let them grow together so that and their words, the gospel may be proclaimed to everyone and this will be a way of winning to the true faith those have not

been persecuted by the state. more aretwo have to do with political and economic concerns. this is the early 17th century. they looked around and saw, well, there are some states that allow a measure of religious toleration or freedom. of all the places they looked to site, it was the muslim empire, the ottoman empire, the turks, the muslims said even there, jews are allowed to live and christians are allowed to live with a kind of toleration that is not permitted in england. they held that up as an example. we may want to press them on how such a good example it turned out to be, but nonetheless, there were clear that there are benefits from allowing this kind of religious freedom.

finally, the economic benefits. they looked across the channel to the netherlands where they had lived for a while. that was one of the places in europe at the time that allowed a measure of religious toleration, again, largely because this is the age of the company's selling wares and commerce and trading. they felt the policy of religious toleration enhanced -- we might call early rising capitalism. so it is a good thing for the economy, a good thing for economics that people also have religious freedom to move, come and go and worship because it contributes to the betterment of society, the alleviation of poverty and social ills for the poor. there was also a part of their argument. my time is almost gone. what has happened from the baptist tradition from then until now? we have grown a lot, for one thing. we are the largest protestant denomination in north america today.

southern baptists, weakling 17 million members -- never mind you cannot find half of them anywhere on sunday morning. but there are a lot of us. where i live in alabama, there are more baptists than people. [laughter] in the baptist world alliance, which i am also affiliated with, there are over 100 million baptists around the world. we do not baptize infants, so only those who have been of the aged to be baptized. with this growth in number and in some was prestige and power and clout, socially and in some places politically, there is also a kind of amnesia about these roots of religious freedom. two things in particular have happened in the last 100 years. one, the reduction of baptist identity to rugged individualism. at the restriction of religious

freedom to simply what is good for me rather than the communitarian emphasis that was there, certainly in the 17th century, when baptists emphasized covenants, catechisms, and confessions. and along with this, a kind of john stuart mill social libertarianism has crept into the definition of what it means to be a baptist as indeed to be an american, for many people today. the second thing i would say is the whole issue of the separation of church and state. a phrase that came as we know from thomas to ever since letter to the danbury baptist january 1, 1802, has become the subject of a great deal, i think, of ms. control as to what it originally meant and what it might mean today. it has become for many the severance of religious from public life. we are caught again in this

misunderstanding of the most basic rudiments of our religious faith. robbie mention that we worked on the projects along with chad, and it quotes a letter from a famous baptist pastor martin luther king, who is that only a baptist, the son and grandson of baptist pastors. martin luther king said that we will have to respect in this generation not merely -- we have to have respect, not merely for those who stand for what is right, but we have to be on guard against those hateful words and actions of bad people, but we also must stand against the appalling silence of good people. that is something that is deeply rooted in his public understanding of religious freedom that is a part of the

baptist heritage and very much in jeopardy today. well, i have a lot more to say about this but as the ready a preacher says in alabama, my time has come and gone. [applause] thank you >>. father chad. >> in addressing the place of the judeo-christian tradition, please note i please tradition in the plural. i believe this tradition is so fractured in the west that it is now impossible to speak of this topic except with a broad, sweeping terminology. you have to ask the day, how has this happened? when did all of this began and can it be corrected? these are questions that we must address as we're doing today, if we are going to find the end of

the of religious traditions that will be necessary -- the unity of religious traditions. in the short time that i have today, i want to call attention to a new player in the arena of religion and public life and what is commonly called the west so-called eastern orthodox christianity can no longer be described or confined as a religion of the east. our world today is global and movement is at an ever increasing rapid pace. technology has broken down orders. access to information is contributed greatly to the discovery of a different christianity by those living in the west, and also those who have lost their faith and spiritual roots three decades of a godless communism and persecution and intimidation by life and the islamic rule.

as to contemplate the threat to our american religious liberty today, i must remind you that in the last century, orthodox christianity has produced more markers for the faith and in all the previous 2000 years of christian history combined. orthodoxy knows by experience the tierney of communism and life as a minority religion and region is dominated by islam. the religious liberty enjoyed by christians living in western countries has not been the experience of most orthodox christians in the world. the religious liberties that we enjoy today was absent for most orthodox christians living in the former soviet union, eastern europe, the middle east, and parts of africa. the orthodox recognized the signs of persecution, even those of a more subtle variety found in most western societies today.

the message seems not to be very clear in the west. the message is that christianity can be tolerated as long as it remains within the confines of the walls of our churches. so what comes next? i believe like canaries carried by minors that we orthodox christians through our unique history of living in parts of the world where religious liberty is not normative through our experience reliable markers that predicting something is wrong and maybe even life- threatening. judaeo-christian foundations that inspired christians to found hospitals, orphanages, universities, schools, and countless other centers for the good of society for believers and nonbelievers alike is now very weak in much of the west. theology, which was once the center piece of universities is

now, for the most part, an isolated discipline somewhere in the religion department full of professors, most with little conviction of any strife. one president of a major university i was recently told stated he would abolish the religion department of his university if he could, as he said he believes that god is simply for people with incurable and nostalgia for something that never was. we must ask why and how this has happened. why has this misguided interpretation of the doctrine with the separation of church and state been allowed to bar any talk of god, faith, and morals from the square in a country that supposedly values the doctrine of freedom of religion? countries that value free speech and a so-called liberal education.

could the fault lie with christians? has divided christianity in the basis for the judeo-christian as a building bought for the western world which once honored such ideals as the common good of man, the golden rule, the right to life, freedom and democracy. i asked, could our teaching of what i call locale theology and the let's all get along theology caused our witness become subtly -- simply anemic and irrelevant? i call it the fairness doctrine but where life is to be lived without values, moral guidance, or much else be on the present moment.

the threat is real. it comes with lessons. here's one from history that should inspire us to leave us here today, determined to raise our voices loudly in defense of our religious freedoms. i think that must of us present here today recognize with great enthusiasm the influence that ronald reagan, margaret thatcher, and pope john paul ii had on ending the cold war and bringing an end to communist rule in the former soviet union and eastern europe. but what is not so well known is the powerful influence of the millennial celebration of what is called the baptism of the roost, which took place in 988. merkel gorbachev in 1988 took the lid off, so to speak, and just simply would not go back on. the russian orthodox church was launched from the underground and there was no going back.

holy mother russia turned quickly into the godless state. where religion and religious liberties were under attack, large portions of the faithful simply remained silent. we cannot afford to not learn from this historical lesson that is only one of many that are almost identical. in his book, the author james mann notes the influence that susan massey had on the president. he wrote, religion has been an essential component of mesopause own interest in the soviet union. in russia, i say religion is alive. it figured, tormented, but alive. susan massey had written this after her first visit to the soviet union in 1967. in a state or great cathedrals had been turned into obscene

anti religious museums, where god has officially been declared dead, this was a sublime example of his enduring strength in the hearts of many. she had studied the history of the russian orthodox church for her book "land of the firebird." the church has always represented the aspiration of the russian people and provided them with the inspiration and strength in the darkest hours of their history. this passage both informed and inspired president reagan. we must ask ourselves today if there is not a lesson to be learned about just how quickly things can change in cultures where religious liberties are chipped away and eventually forgotten altogether. let us be attentive as we often repeat in orthodox liturgy is, orthodox christianity is now finding a home in places like western europe and north america and beyond. this is christianity tried and

tested by oppression of every corner in recent times. in many places in the west, she can still be found hiding in safe havens or ethnic ghettos, but this is changing quickly as the fear of being different dissolves. converts from every cultural background are bringing a new kind of zeal to orthodoxy. they're bringing with them what i would call a familiarity with the way americans do business. it peculiar eastern term, is what keeps orthodox christianity vibrant and daring. it has been said that to live an orthodox christian life is to be engaged in an endless series of risk-taking. the status quo can indeed be changed. our history testifies of this fact. not by forcing our beliefs upon the unwilling, but by living

individual christian lives that reflect the life of christ in a darkened world. this saying -- "find inner peace, and thousands around you will be saved." the orthodox are not only finding our interior way, but we are finding our external voice. orthodox hierarchy has issued many directors over the years, but i believe the following brief statement from the assembly of canonical orthodox bishops of north and central america is the first record of protest against infringement of religious liberty given in response to what i guess we could all called the recent unpleasantness with the department of health and human services. the orthodox bishops joined their voice with u.s. catholic conference of bishops and call upon all orthodox christians to contact their elected

representatives to voice their concerns in the face of this threat to the sanctity of the church's conscience. they go on to write, "in this ruling by health and human services, religious hospitals, educational institutions, and other organizations will be required to pay for the full cost of contraceptives, including some in abortion -- some abortion-inducing drugs, regardless of the religious convictions of the employers. the first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. this freedom is transgressed when a religious institution is required to pay for contraceptive services, including abortion-inducing drugs that directly violate religious convictions. providing such services should not be regarded as mandated medical care. we call upon hhs secretary

kathleen sebelius and the obama administration to rescind this unjust ruling and to respect the religious freedom guaranteed all americans by the first amendment." the orthodox have begun to be confident americans, and united voice of orthodoxy is being heard in a way that is, in the opinion of this speaker, long overdue. the alliance before today does much to give volume to our efforts to call attention to and to defend religious liberty for every american. the once unknown christian witness from the east is now sinking deep roots in new places, including this land of the free and home of the braves. we bring our history and experience from recent time and we know the up importance -- the importance of not being intimidated into silence when something as precious as

religious liberty is at stake. thank you. [applause] >> rabbi soloveichik. >> thank you. it is an honor to be with you, my teacher today, and to be a part of such a distinguished panel of clergy. i recently came upon an extraordinary letter that was written in 1787 by dr. benjamin rush, then the four most physician in america. he was a devout christian and an american founding father, a signatory of the declaration of independence. in his 1787 letter, he recounts to his wife, julia, his experience that he just attended a jewish wedding in philadelphia. the only firsthand account of a jewish wedding from this era of which i am aware of upon being invited to attend the wedding, "i accepted the invitation with great pleasure, for you know i

love to be in the way of adding to my stock and ideas upon all subjects." the ceremony began with "the erection of a beautiful canopy, composed of white and red silk in the middle of the floor." this is the structure under which jewish brides and grooms are traditionally married. rush then goes on to confirm that all jewish homes are the same everywhere by reported to his wife that when he went after the wedding to bid farewell to the mother of the bride, she "put a large piece of cake into my pocket for you." you cannot leave a jewish home without cake. [laughter] let me tell you something profound about the jewish life. it is the embodiment of the home of a jewish husband and wife as they build their life

together. no boundary between public and private, open on all four sides. it makes sense as an echo of abraham and sarah, who had open doors on all four sides. the open sides symbolize their commitments to bear the monotheistic message of the four corners of the earth. standing in the metaphorical shadow of abraham and sarah's tent, they commit themselves to the ibraham neck mission, carrying their duties and to the world around them. judaism is affirming, guiding, and obligating them wherever they may go or whatever they may do or see or become, whether in their own home or in the public square, unto the four corners of the earth. what is striking to me about his account is the fact that he, a

devout christian and american founding father, is the one describing it. the fact that he was there shows how welcome jews feltz in an era in which they would be unwelcome in most other parts of the world. only if they were willing to sacrifice their public jewishness to do so. one went so far to capitulate by saying, "i shall be a jew in the tent but a german in the st.." -- in the street. one cannot check one's heritage at the door. the message of fidelity was embraced by rush and his fellow patriots, who understood the

principle that true religious freedom means freedom to be loyal to your beliefs and customs even when they are unpopular with the neighbors, and more importantly, even when one is engaging with those neighbors. thus a jewish wedding with despite an american founder, and bodying the pluralistic promise of america. it communicates an inch physically american idea, that anyone of us assembled here today can understand. our faith is an essential part of ourselves and cannot be amputated from our identity upon opening our front doors. if we who are here today understand this, it is not clear that others do. this brings us to the hhs policy that 43 catholic institutions have challenged this week. only religious organizations that do not employ members of other faiths -- from this

exemption carved out by the administration, first by carving out an exemption, however narrow, the administration implicitly acknowledges forcing employers to purchase these policies may violate religious freedom. second, the administration implicitly assumes that those who employ or help others of a different religion, who have left their home, synagogue, or church to engage and serve members of other faiths, are no longer acting in a religious capacity and are not entitled to protection. for orthodox jews, religion is not just lighting candles in the home or studying the torah, religion informs our conduct in the last obvious manifestation of religious belief, from feeding the hungry to assessing medical ethics to 1,000,001

things in between. the administration denies people of faith in the ability to define religious activity. not only is this a threat to religious and liberty in a narrow sense, in requiring them to violate their religious tenets, but it unilaterally redefines what it means to be religious. this, as it were -- [applause] this and, as it were, is an attempt to wall up the tent, to relegate religious beliefs to the private domain. several months after attending the jewish wedding, benjamin rush participated in the celebration of another union, the parade in honor of the american constitution that had just been ratified by the state.

he noted that the parade featured a spectacle, in possible in the europe of his day, "the clergy of the different christian denominations was the rabbi of the jews walking arm in arm." the could not have been a more happy emblem to the new constitution, which opens itself to every religion. the freedom to remain loyal to one's own faith while engaging americans is the ethics -- the essence of what this country and constitution means to jews, and it is this quintessentially american idea being challenged by the administration. it is my privilege to join arms with all of you in the face of this troubling attempt to restrict the very freedom that the first amendment was crafted to protectorate when deliveries of conscious -- of conscience

are threatened, i am proud to stand with you. thank you for having me. [applause] >> maybe you see why i'm so proud. thank you to all of our panelists. it is wonderful to have this wide representation of major traditions in the united states represented. there are people from other traditions as well who are doing heroic work in the battle for religious freedom. we could expand the panel if we had more space and more time. one thinks of islamic figures some that -- some islamic figures that were mentioned this morning, in the center of the

fight in support of religious liberty. or people from the sikh tradition or the buddhist tradition. this cause unites us not only across the tradition -- across christian and judeo-christian lines, but even more broadly. let's have a discussion appear on the panel, and then i understand we will have the opportunity to send some questions up from the audience. if i could begin, i was struck by something that bishop cordileone said about the catholic experience. if i could begin with you -- catholics have to -- the catholic church has to work its way toward a truly robust understanding of religious liberty, and it embraces the broader principles of democratic republican government. my own sense of that, and i would be curious to know your perspective, part of it had to

do with what the phrase "religious liberty" met to a church whose hierarchy -- meant to a church's hierarchy for a long time was european. the spirit of the french revolution really shaped the idea that catholic -- that catholics had about religious liberty, meaning religious relativism or the idea that religious vows do not bind, that is immoral to take religious vows, and the complete comprehensive subservience of the church to the state. and it was only when the church got a sense of a different idea about religious liberty, what i think americans can claim some credit for, one strongly detached from the french idea, that would not relegate religion

to the private domain of life or attend to eradicate the to eradicate it altogether. that really could step forward with a full embrace of a truly robust conception of religious liberty. and i near the mark on this? >> well, you would know better than i. [laughter] the difference between the french and american revolution -- >> that is what i was wondering. >> the french concept, making the church subservient to the state and that religious in different -- religious indifferentism -- if the experiment was going to work, they knew it had to be based on a body of virtuous citizens.

the importance of religion and helping people develop those virtues necessary to make the society work. we know how they endorsed the importance of the american people having their religious sense without establishing a particular religious tradition or church as the state religion. >> timothy, you can help me on this. it looks to me as though although the catholic church took a while longer to get there, at least in its formal doctrinal pronouncements, when one reads the declaration on religious liberty of the second vatican council, if one were a baptist, which you of course are, one would not find a lot to disagree with. one might think the catholics have finally come around to the baptist point of view. >> i do not think anybody has a perfect record on religious freedom, including baptists.

but you're right, one of the documents that i have been recently involved with is the most recent document of evangelicals and catholics to gathered, entitled "in defense of religious freedom." we begin with economy of common based text -- we begin with a kind of common based text. there is a religious concern that draws from the scriptures and from the historical concept of god, really, in talking what religious freedom means in our world today. the only thing i would like to comment on, i think there is something that runs through all of our comments on the panel today. that is that we are each seeking, i think, deeply, out of are firmly held religious convictions. there is an argument for religious freedom that opposes the kind of religious conviction

and sees it as an impediment to religious freedom, that always things about religion as provoking religious wars and violence. what we're trying to say is that within our own religious convictions and tradition, there is a common core of commitment that allows us to respect one another, to enter into dialogue with one another, and to stand for one another when religious freedom is under assault. this is a far better way, what i would call ecumenism of conviction. that is the way forward. >> something you said about the jewish experience in europe as compared with the united states, and especially that bargain offer from enlightenment forces in europe. jews want full citizenship and

liberation, but at a cost. the cost is you have to keep your religion and private, but in your public life it cannot bear. a lot of people in europe on both sides of the divide believe that you had to opt for one of the two following things, either the domination of the religious majority, or secularization of the public square. the american experience shows there are alternatives, that you can have robust religion and robust freedom together. >> that is exactly right. if i can quote the great theologian of the 20th-century, yogi berra, when he was told that the mayor of dublin, ireland, was jewish, he said,

"he is jewish? only in america." [laughter] baseball was played in his spare time, but his vocation was theology, obviously. i think that is exactly right. i think it was the total who said that -- in europe it was assumed that the foundational -- he said something like, "in europe it was assumed that faith and reason, in america i found them in joint reign over the land." estimate the george mentioned before, the reason for that difference in america is that in

america, america believes that reason and faith were both essential components of society and of the very argument for freedom in general, religious freedom in particular. it felt that actually that the difficulty played a great role, not in this making the argument for freedom, as documented by nelson in his wonderful book "hebrew republic." the protestant case for liberte made in britain and how it impacted the american founding fathers -- for liberty in britain and how it impacted the american founding fathers. john adams famously recounts in a letter to his own wife about

how the first meeting of the continental congress in 1774, it was proposed they begin with a prayer. and john jay objected to this, that they were to religiously divided, that there were presbyterians and episcopalians. a couple of years ago i took place in a meeting with students in a divinity school, and i was the only orthodox jews there. one student said i feel like i'm sticking out as an episcopalian among so many other religions. at one point in europe they were killing each other, and they could not pray together. then sam adams got up and said he would be willing to pray with any person of piety and virtue

who was a patriot. they brought in a priest who read a psalm asking god to protect them from their enemies. it is on the one hand religion that they rooted their case for freedom, while at the same time it was biblical, in contrast to the european notion of social contract, the biblical content -- the biblical context. >> suffering a history of persecution in the united states were the face was founded, but nevertheless the lds community has flourished. brigham young university. but in recent years, the church

has come into severe criticism and worse than criticism, severe abuse, has been when the church has stepped out in the public square, where the faithful have been willing to stand up for beliefs that are shared between lds and orthodox and catholics and eastern orthodox christians and protestants and so forth. the church has been treated and abused i think more severely than have representatives with the same views in the public square of other larger faiths. it might be that as a small minority you are more vulnerable, but the church to my mind, to its enormous credit, has not permitted itself to be intimidated by those tactics and continues to refuse to treat face as merely a private matter

but to speak from the -- to treat faith as a merely private matter, but to speak in the public sphere. >> thank you for that observation. i think it is fair to say that the church is not a stranger to persecution. organized in new york within a few years, it had moved from new york to ohio, to missouri, to illinois, and in the famous 1,200 mile march from illinois to salt lake city, which grounded the church in a sense with respect to the need to be aware of what is happening around it, and to be aware of the fact that religious freedom comes sometimes at a very dear price. our own ancestors -- my own ancestors on my father's side made that hike from illinois to salt lake city. some of our group died along the way.

so the thought of paying the price to secure freedom is not a stranger to us. with respect to the recent efforts, i think you're probably referring to it the battle in the state of california. there were some church members treated very harshly, subjected to terrible things. >> there is a youtube video of a church literally being invaded by critics of the church's position. >> but we are not going to change our position with respect to matters that are essential to our doctrine. we will stick to those and other people are as well, as represented by their face today. we avoid partisan and platform matters, but when there is a matter of serious concern, we are compelled to do it. >> father chad, one of the complicated -- one of the complications of the history of religious freedom and the

struggle for religious freedom is that assaults on religious freedom can come from both religious sources and from secularist ideology. an additional complication is that sometimes the very same tradition of faith or people associated with it can beat persecuted and other times the persecutors. speaking from -- can be persecuted and other times the persecutors. there are catholics that has been persecuted by others and that have persecuted others. as timothy said, it is hard to find a tradition that has a perfectly clean record itself, but i do think it is important, especially in -- to acknowledge that the threats can come from both directions, from religious itself and from secularists.

>> i have been asked this question since i have been here. i might as well make it part of the public record because it responds to what you just said. i cited recent russian orthodox history and i can cite from a multiple -- for multiple parts of the world. i have been asked this question about legislation in russia that would prohibit religious activities from churches that are not orthodox, and i think those of us who are american orthodox christians have been pretty clear in responding to our russian brother ands -- brothers that it is -- there refers to caesar as protecting you. any other religion has to stand on its own merits. if it looks for that kind of protection elsewhere, it creates

the kind of scenario you just described. let's face it, lots of people has been done in the name of god. and the fact that you and i live in a country which has treasured this religious liberty, which is at the heart of our conference today, the lesson is that sometimes governments agencies can actually pick religions against each other, and it operates at -- can pit religion against each other, and it breaks out into a great fight. there are religious bodies that have embraced it wholeheartedly and have been highly critical of other religions that do what we are doing today, which is simply to raise our voice and be part of how we americans do business. >> panelists, i need to give you an opportunity to say anything else you would like, especially prompted by anything one of your fellow panelists have said. any comments on what a fellow

panelist has said? you all agreed with it or did not listen? >> i will add one thing about -- coming from mike cann -- coming from my canon law background -- for centuries, -- it was with that experience coming out of europe, the movements took the anti- clerical turn that has tainted the church -- never opposed the principle of democracy as a form of political governance. but seeing the direction it was

moving and having this position of the suspicion, as you pointed out with the american experience, came around to a firming it in a magisterial document. >> well, we are blessed to have an audience almost as distinguished as our panelists. let's go to the audience questions. they have been handed up here and i have not had a chance to review them myself. i will start reading them "will the owner of the car with license --" [laughter] clergy questions. "would you agree --" i'm not sure weather in the flds tradition there's a distinction between clergy -- in the lds tradition there is a distinction between clergy and non-clergy? >> i don't know.

i was a lawyer in newport beach, and i got a call, and the next day -- [laughter] >> would you agree that fate communities have the responsibility to celebrate pluralism and diversity in america? it appears that many believe we seek the status quo or common denominator on religious issues. well, it looks to me like we are celebrating at least religious diversity here. i don't think anybody is arguing against the celebration of pluralism and diversity, so i am not exactly sure what the question is asked in. want to have a crack at it? >> that question -- those two words are tremendous buzzwords. i am not sure what was meant by the question. the ideology of pluralism and

the ideology of adversity can often be taken in ways that are dehumanizing and anti- religious, that diminish religious conviction and religious communities. if that is what is meant by it, those are suspect ideas. but the fact we are called to live together, to celebrate the fact we have a plural society, we have the kinds of commitments, religious and non- religious, that are represented in our society, i think all of us want to affirm that as a good thing. i certainly do. >> mr. cordileone? >> there has to be some commonly held values upon which diversity can be celibate, and the battle in our country right now is what are those -- diversity can be celebrated, and the battle in our country right now is what are those core values? >> it includes another prominent religion in our culture, secularism.

>> here is a question specifically for you. father clayton, how do you believe the church members of all faiths might best double their educational efforts, in particular with regard to encouraging and protecting religious liberty? how specifically will your own church redouble its efforts in this regard? >> great question. the first thing it will do is teach our own members. we have at various means of doing that -- through the printed word, televised conferences, and so on. i suspect that one of the focuses that will come from this experience and similar ones is an effort within our own denomination to do a better job about teaching our children about things that really matter. second, we will encourage everyone where we can, starting in caucuses across the country

and a combined effort, and joint effort with other religious faiths and traditions, to find ways to keep in touch with and help with legislative action. to get to know legislators and find people with common beliefs and seek to form a coalition network, so to speak, of people with the same kinds of beliefs. as we also look to individuals, families, homes across the country, as we begin to focus our efforts and established a network that will reach beyond our own faiths, but across the country, we will find a way, maybe with, for instance, twitter or facebook or other new technological advances, to get the word to people and give them a feeling for what is going on in the country. i think this effort will require

a variety of our reaches -- outreaches, and it will take some work. i don't think these kinds of problems will yield without substantial effort. >> i would be interested in what you are finding in the orthodox jewish community. it has certainly been heartening to me to see the very positive reaction from the orthodox jews in the united states standing in solidarity with catholics and others in support of religious freedom. can you talk a little bit more about that? do orthodox jews see down the line some threats that could come to their own community? one of things, for example -- just off the top of my head, i think of proposed legislation that has not been enacted, but proposed to ban circumcisions without religious exemptions in san francisco.

>> speaking for myself as an orthodox jew, what motivates me is twofold. first, i believe that we certainly have our own doctrines, and on moral questions, orthodox jews may or may not always agree with others. on the other hand, we share many traditional moral values in common with those of other faiths. when we see certain values -- a certain liberties being challenged or restricted, we see that as a general threat to everybody, even if in the particular case or particular threat, we are not affected at that moment. but again, speaking just for myself, this is not just a self- interest aspect, but it is bound up with what jews have always believed is the blessing of america, and what we as jews have from the very beginning experienced as the blessing of

america. that is what has been motivating me. they just now announced that they will be publicizing the famous writer -- famous letter written by george washington which has been sitting in a file cabinet for, i think, decades. it was terrible, and the now famous letter, which echoed basically the letter he had received from our congregation describing america as a country which gives bigotry no sanction, concluding that the children at the feet of abraham dwell in peace in this land and each will stand in a victory and there shall be none at to make him afraid. that has always embodied the blessing of america, and if that is the blessing for us, it is our obligation to fight for that blessing for others. >> what i love about that letter

from washington is that the leaders of the jewish community mentioned in their letter that they " under the new government, the new constitution, the jews should be afforded tolerance. washington writes back and essentially says to them very gently and politely but very firmly, "you don't quite get it yet. you deserve much more than a tolerance. this is america. this is not europe, where you are tolerated as a minority. this captured the difference between the american political understanding and european 1. it's spelled out specifically for a small minority community. >> i don't know when this will be -- i think it will be featured in philadelphia at the museum of jewish history. it would be wonderful to do a gathering of heads -- faiths. >> anyone who is not read a

washington's letter to the jewish community of newport, rhode island, don't do it on your i found -- iphones now, but when you get back to your room, that is the first thing you should do, read that nine of the said letter. it not only tells you a great deal about washington, it tells you a great deal about america, and what our founders wanted america to be. they had their flaws as human beings, but it does tell you that they had a vision for america truly as a land of liberty. i have another question, and this one is a very good and serious one. if you can figure out who figured this one, please give them the door prize. this is all the panelists. i don't know the answer myself. the so-called blunt amendment, named for the author of the amendment in congress, that addresses the hhs mandate,

failed in essentially a partisan vote. does the partisanship of this vote concern your faith communities? are you willing to advocate, underscored, for specific legislative remedies to this problem? let me add one thing to the question before allowing you to approach it. just think back to a few years ago, after the supreme court's decision, one across the political and religious spectrums, people united in order to enact the religious freedom restoration act, which passed overwhelmingly in both houses of the congress. this united jerry falwell and people from the american way, the moral majority, across the board, for religious freedom, for a more robust understanding of religious freedom than would have existed if smith were left

unaddressed legislatively. that coalition seems to have completely broken down. that bipartisan unity has been lost. what do we have? we have a situation where on something as fundamental as the religious liberty implications of the hhs mandate, we get a partisan vote right down the middle. that cannot be healthy, it seems to me. that cannot be a good thing. the last thing we want is a party division between democrats and republicans over something as fundamental as religious freedom. i don't know what to make of this partisanship. it certainly worries me. father chad, to you want to begin? >> first, i thought that had at smith this morning couch it for us perfectly, how it has become a political football, it has

caused this partisanship, and it has completely lost the importance of what we are gathered here today about, religious liberty. as religious leaders, we have a moral obligation to speak to people not connected to partisanship, but to remind people that this is a basic religious right that is being infringed upon here. we simply cannot be silent, as i said in my paper. we have too many lessons to learn, so we have to speak. >> hannah smith is magnificent, isn't she? my student. [laughter] what do you make of it? >> i think, first of all, that that vote is a reflection of a deep divide across the country. it takes me back to the question of education, helping people see other sides of the same problem. for me, at least, it characterizes the balance, that we have an educational struggle ahead of us, and it will require

united efforts by all of us here today to overcome the obstacles that are in the way. without responding to that particular issue, i just think that the entire problem characterized by the question points out to meet the need to work together in a coordinated coalition, so to speak, to find ways to punch through these problems. >> i think it will be a horrible situation if democrats -- i will be playing here -- if democrats think that in order to be loyal and plane democrats, you have to stand with the administration on this hhs issue. that is a bad situation. i know there are many democrats who, in their heart of hearts, certainly are concerned about religious liberty, every bit as much as republicans are, and it

just worries me that this issue is becoming partisan. timothy, do you have any thoughts about it? >> i am an independent, i have no loyalty to either the democratic or republican parties. however, the question and the situation of the blunt amendment represents, you might say, a capitulation of one of the major parties on this particular issue. thank god for democrats who are willing to buck the trend and stand up. should we, or would we, as religious people support specific legislation? absolutely. we would have been derelict in the 1960's if we cannot support civil rights legislation. -- did not support civil-rights legislation. if there were away at roe v wade could be overturned by legislation, and there is, the constitution, we ought to support it. this is a moral issue, not a partisan issue. it does become partisanized -- i agree with you, robby, that is

at dire warning to our society and culture. but in fact, that is where we are today. >> this issue in litigation, the litigation that is spending, the 43 catholic organizations, there are protestant entities that are joining in the litigation. that is going to be litigated under the religious freedom restoration act. the basic a claim will be a statutory claim under the religious freedom restoration act. what happened to that bipartisanship and the unity that produced the religious freedom restoration act in the first place? do we have any hope getting it back? is there anything we who believe so strongly in defending religious liberty against these mandates can do to persuade those who were once so active and enthusiastic about religious freedom restoration act to come back to the cause?

is there anything we are doing wrong that is scaring people away who should be arm in arm with us in fighting for religious liberty? bishop, did you have something to say? >> i think it points to what i mentioned earlier about our struggle over whether the foundational values we are going to hold -- the foundation upon which to respect our diversity. i want to refer to what one of the questioners this morning when now -- did not delve into it too much when -- he mentioned it the two commonalities in the this legislation. they all have to do with sexual ethics, basically advocating sexual license. that, i think, is a common thread through these three foundational issues of life, marriage, and religious liberty. the division, i think, gets down

to what is the purpose of our sexual difference, and the purpose of the sacks, which is what is the purpose of marriage? >> the sexual revolution -- >> absolutely. that gets to the basic understanding of a human person. there are really deep philosophical an anthropological issues. we need to do a better job educating our people about what does it mean to be human and what is the purpose of our sexual difference and complementarity. >> thank you, thank all of you. [applause] >> we will convene again in

about 10 minutes. we will have a break in 10 minutes and we look forward to seeing you back here. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> the day of long discussion on

ethics and religious freedom will continue, as you heard, in about 10 minutes. we will later bring you some comments from earlier today from richard land, who heads the southern baptist convention, and spoke earlier at the discussion. he focused his remarks earlier on the rules that require health insurance plans to offer birth control coverage. here are his comments from earlier today. >> as a distinguished professor at harvard law school road in a "wall street journal" op-ed this week, "the main goal of the mandate is not, as hhs claims, to protect women's health. it is a move to conscripts

religious organizations into a political agenda at." let's make sure we are on the same page about what this mandate is, how it was constructed, how it will play out. it requires all group health plans, every employer who offers a group health plans, to provide contraception, abortion- inducing drugs, and sterilization to their employees, as well as counseling and education about all of those services as well. there is a religious employer exemption included in the regulation, and you have to satisfy all four prongs of that exemption. i am sure that many of you heard that one of the narrowest exemptions to date in federal or state law, and the four prongs are as follows. you have to be a nonprofit entity that is exempt not only from paying taxes but also from filing a tax return. you also have to be an entity that inculcates religious values as your primary purpose. you have to be an entity that primarily employs and primarily serves people of your own faith.

many religious organizations, including schools, hospitals, charitable social service organizations, are not going to meet this definition, and therefore are not going to be exempt from this regulation. i would remind all of us in the audience that exemptions are not new. they are part of prudent lawmaking. explicitly religious exemptions are present in many laws. our country has a long history of exempting religious believers from actions that violate our conscience. some of those include exemptions for quakers who could not fight in the military, those who cannot work on certain days of the week, those who cannot pledge allegiance to the flag, corrections workers who cannot be involved in capital punishment, and health care personnel who cannot be involved in abortion. we have this long tradition and history of recognizing that religious conscience is something sacred, and we need to provide exemption from laws to protect it. we heard the administration attempt to justify this narrow

exemption by saying that it is only what most states already do. i want to break that down a little bit and talk about why that is false. there are about 28 states have passed contraception mandates, but as compared to the state mandate, the federal mandate is unquestionably broader in scope and an hour in its exemption than all of those 28 states' comparable laws. 19 of them have an exemption, and of those 19 state with an exemption only -- only three of them, california, new york, an oregon, defined their exemption as narrowly as the federal one. even in those three states with the very narrow exemption, there is the opportunity for religious organizations to opt out through self-insuring or for not covering prescription drug benefits. even in the states where there are very narrow exemptions like the federal one, there is an option for religious organizations to opt out. even in states where there is a contraception mandate, where

there is no exemption, there is a similar opportunity to opt out through self-insurance or not covering prescription drugs in the plan. the federal mandate permits none of these opt-out options, and that is a white it is or less protective of religious freedom than any of the comparable state laws. this assertion we heard repeatedly in the news that the federal mandate does what state mandates have already done is simply false. what is the penalty for not complying? if a religious organization does not comply, they will be forced to stop providing health insurance and will be issued a penalty of roughly $2,000 per employee for the first year, with penalties increasing in subsequent years. these crippling fines are designed with a course of intent -- coercive intent. much has been talked about about this compromise, but was it really a compromise? in january, there was an

announcement made by the department of health and human services that there would be no change at all to the exemption, but rather, they would give religious organizations with an objection an additional year to comply with the mandate. this set off a firestorm of opposition that resulted in a february press conference with the president himself, and although the press conference sounded very much like a compromise that had already been struck, all the administration really did was finalized the rule without change in the federal register and finalize the exemption, again without change in the federal register, and it left intact all of the provisions and made no change to the exemption at all. what was announced during the february press conference was two promises. the first was that enforcement of the mandate would be delayed by a year, presumably so that the government could promulgate its next promise. the second promise is that in a rule yet to be developed, insurance companies, not religious organizations, would be forced to pay for abortion- inducing drugs, sterilization,

and contraception instead of the religious organization. the problem with this compromise are many dead first, for anyone who understands economics, they know that insurance companies are not going to offer this for free. religious employers will still a ultimately be paying for these against the conscience with the cost spread, through higher insurance premiums, through their employees brought some have argued in the press that insurance companies would cover this for free because it helps their bottom line, but if that was the case, why haven't they already been doing it? is providing abo -- if it providing contraception and these sterilizing drugs saves costs as intended, economic pressures would have solved the problem. second is that hundreds, if not thousands of religious organizations, have a self- insured plans, meaning that they are the insurance company. the new compromise offers than nothing. ironically, many of these organizations became self- insured to deal with the state contraception mandates, because

under the state regime, if you are self insured, you are exempted from the state contraception mandate. third, there is no real evidence that under the new proposal, non-exempt religious organizations, like a for-profit organizations, or nondenominational organizations, will have their religious liberty protected at all. we did see an advanced notice of proposed rulemakings issued by the administration to promulgate this so-called insurance rule, and it lays out several ideas for the practice of public brainstorming, if you will, to find it the insurance mandate. all of these have been analyzed by people in the insurance industry and other experts in the field, and they at serious practical and moral flaws. i might add that a major insurance company has already called the proposed insurance mandate on workable -- un workable and inadvisable.

the compromise is really a hollow promise. we expect to begin a lawsuit challenging this mandate last fall when we launch a lawsuit in dc on behalf of someone at a college. we have added three since then, and as of early this week, there are total of 23 lawsuits throughout the state including the dust of columbia representing plaintiffs challenging the losses -- challenging the law in federal courts. we want to be sure you understand that this is not simply a catholic issue. this affects people all faiths. a couple of final observations about the mandate, and then i will move on quickly from my last two threads. the notion that there is a religious war on women flies in the face of recent polling. if you look at the "new york times"/cbs poll from march, the

statistics for women in that poll, women actually sided with the argument that there should be exemptions for employers that have conscientious objections to the mandate. the statistic was that for any employer, religious or not, they should get an exemption -- 46% of women favored, 45% opposed. that could be awash, but if you look at the next one, religiously affiliated employers, should they get it exemption? 56% favored, -- 53% favored, 38% opposed. if you look at the statistics for men and women combined, at they are even more compelling. for any employer, religious or not, at they should get an exemption -- 51% of americans favor. for religiously affiliated employers, it was even higher.

combined men and women, 57% favored, 36% oppose. the notion that the government has considered all of the interests in all construct an appropriate balance is also very difficult to believe, because secretary sebelius herself under oath at two different congressional hearings has acknowledged, admitted, that she did not consult constitutional president and she asked for no legal advice from the justice department while making her decision on the mandate. this is just really shocking for an admission like this that there was no legal memo prepared by the justice department about the constitutional implications of this mandate for religious freedom. this despite the fact that a to just received thousands of comments from religious groups warning of the illegality of the mandate before it was finalized. secretary sebelius said, "i am not a lawyer and i do not claim

to understand constitutional nuances." i think that michael gerson, a former bush speechwriter who now writes op-eds for "the washington post" said best, "the only thing worse is casual indifference to religious liberty." the religious liberty of churches in choosing their own leaders -- here i am referring to the case decided in unanimous fashion earlier this year, in january. we, along with a professor from uva, represented the lutheran church and school in this case. here we saw an unprecedented attack on this right of autonomy for churches to be able to choose their own leaders. notwithstanding the fact that for 40 years, the federal court of appeals have recognized the minister will exception to the federal anti-discrimination laws

that allows them to choose their leaders as they saw fit, the solicitor general came before the supreme court and said that for the first time there should be no ministerial exception at all. this was a head-on challenge against the very existence of religious autonomy in the hiring and firing of ministerial employees. it became clear in oral argument that the majority of the justices rejected this extreme position. their second line of attack was even more interesting, because they said even if there is a ministerial exception, it should be limited only to those employees who perform explicitly religious functions. it was quite funny to those of us in the audience during the oral arguments, the chief justice's response to that -- " that cannot possibly be the test. the pope is a head of state carrying out secular

functions. he is not a minister?" the court rejected both of these extreme arguments, calling them extreme, remarkable, and un tenable. the third threat i would like to discuss briefly is the requirements imposed on students and health-care workers and other professionals were formed -- to perform acts that violate their conscience. there are many examples of this trip i will name a few religious pharmacists who are required by state law to provide abortion- inducing drugs even against their conscience, religious wedding photographers who declined to photograph a homosexual wedding ceremony, forced to assist performing abortions or risk losing their jobs, and

religious government clerks who are forced out of a job because they cannot in good conscience sign marriage licenses on behalf of homosexual couples. i would like to talk briefly about a case we prevail in earlier this year in washington state. many of you may be familiar with this case. and of religious objections to dispensing abortion-inducing drug. we represented two pharmacists, religious pharmacists, and at four-generation family-owned arm see that in not want to have to choose between their profession and their faith. in that case, the washington state board of pharmacy supported a role protecting the conscience of a promise he workers, which permitted them to refer to clients to other nearby pharmacies if they were not inclined to dispense the drug themselves. under pressure from the governor of the state, the board of pharmacy reversed course, and even though they admitted they found no evidence whatsoever that anyone in the state had been able to find the drug

they needed, notwithstanding that lack of evidence, they issued a regulation that required these pharmacists to stop these medications even if it violated their conscience. even though there were exemptions from this role for other secular reasons and other commercial reasons, they did not want to stop the drug because it -- a short self life shelf life, that was fine, but if it was a religious reason, that was not acceptable. one of the promises have already lost her job, the other one was threatened with losing her job as well. fortunately, this district court judge in tacoma, washington held that the regulations violated the first amendment. we continue to represent these pharmacists before the ninth circuit on appeal. i want to veto by saying that there are many other threats out there to religious -- i want to end by saying there are many

other threats out there to religious freedom, many of them documented in the materials distributed to you today. some of those include restrictions on the use of private property by churches, synagogues, and mosques. others include attempts to scrub out all references to religion in the public square. others also include redefinition of anti-discrimination laws that lacked robust protections for religious freedom but i hope you see that the threats are growing in intensity and severity, but we're confident that the rule of law will continue to stave off a tax to our precious religious freedom. thank you very much. [applause] >> back now live here in washington. you saw some of the remarks from earlier today. another panel is about to get

under way. they will talk about legislative action to one of the speakers will be a former ohio secretary of state, now a senior fellow at the family research council, ken blackwell. it is is expected to get underway shortly. we will have live coverage -- in fact, live coverage of the rest of the event through the afternoon and evening, here on c-span.

it looks like it may be amended or two before they get under way with the next discussion print one of the earlier participants was richard land, who heads the southern baptist convention's ethics and religious liberty commission. he spoke about one of the topics that has come up today, the rules were acquiring health insurance plans to offer birth control coverage we will show you what we can until the discussion gets under way. we will show you those comments later. you can see them in our video library. live coverage continues here on c-span. seats and endour

conversations and get started with our next panel. just remind you of a few housekeeping matters. first is that questions for this session, if you would write them down on provided at your tables -- on the pieces of paper provided at your tables, and then passed them, hopefully there will be some encircling and we will have some of those questions at the end of the last speaker. and excellent panel that we are excited about, focusing on the states,, "legislative action to constrain overreaching officials." with a very distinguished panel, and i'm grateful that in addition to having these panelists today, we have a number of state legislators representing about 15 different states, legislators and policy experts. we have about two dozen. we are grateful they could join us today, because that is a key focus of the work that the american religious freedom program is doing. that last panel, to me, was

extremely inspiring, because any time religious leaders work together and decide they are going to take a stand for a core american values and decide that a bank o-- that they are willing to make sacrifices, suffered humiliation, public ridicule, what ever else they have to stand up to, that is the core american value. at the very root of what it means to be an american is the idea that we have a very tunnel differences of belief, and yet we respect one another and are willing to work with one another and are willing to figure out how to work out those differences in a way that allows those differences to remain and that grants great respect to the person. the movement that has been made today, the expressions of commitment you effort, is a sign that there is a willingness on the part of the civil religious faith communities and many religious leaders.

represented in this room, policy experts and others to work together to make sure that our great treasure that is american religious freedom is not lost. this is a freedom that was bequeathed to us from previous generations. it allows us to maintain the great peace full religious pluralism we have in this nation that is a beacon to many people throughout the world who suffered the depredations of religious intolerance and persecution. america still stands as a beacon of hope to those people. we found that about 93% of them still believe that one of the reasons america is a beacon of hope to the world is because it has that commitment to robust religious freedoms and making sure that everyone has the right and freedom to engage in their own religious beliefs the way they desire. with that, i want to tell you one thing that we think is the focal point of how we can be

engaged and how the american religious freedom program will be engaged in making sure that we can work together and work together in a more visible way and are working together in the state legislatures. we have already begun an initiative -- tim schultz is our legislative policy director. under the oversight of tim and in conjunction with a wide array of allies and multiple faith communities -- catholic, latter- day saints, we have orthodox christians, sikhs, muslims, and others -- we have begun working together to build caucuses in 50 state legislatures. so far, we have about a dozen states that we are operating in, and those states are represented

here today. there is not a caucus that has been formed yet, but they will be formed in those states, and the announcement will be very soon in each of those states. those states are arizona, colorado, pennsylvania, florida, missouri, virginia, kentucky, delaware, idaho, kansas, tennessee, oklahoma, and utah. in those states -- one of the reasons we picked those states is because there is so much pent-up interest in religious freedom and working out religious freedom. there is great motivation. there was a limitation in the previous panel to the extent of how there is a partisan divide among capitol hill on the issue of religious freedom. the good news is that the american people still believe in religious freedom, deep down in their court. although there may be divides when we come to the partisan venue of congress, the reality is that americans still believe that this core american value,

it belongs to everyone, it is still to be defended. for that reason, it is no surprise that tim and others have found that there is interest on the part of legislators to form religious freedom caucuses in those states to focus on religious freedom issues. the caucuses are not an end in themselves. they are a means to an end. they are an opportunity for a focal point for those who are working on religious freedom in the states to direct and generate their efforts, to make sure they are connected with different organizations, whatever organization they may feel most comfortable with, whether a it is a fayed organization led by religious leaders, or a public policy organization. throughout the states, those caucuses are in the process of being formed, and we expect that by the finish it -- by the end of this year, there will be 25 caucuses focused expressly on

a religious freedom, and by next year, we will have a religious freedom caucus in almost every state. the focus of those caucuses will be to make sure that we have a location, a locus for religious freedom expertise, and that will take the form of many different things. one is model legislation to make sure that the best practices of good legislation are being shared between and among the states. they will be a focal point for lessons learned, i understand how the political battles have played out in one state or another, for good or for ill, and what we can learn from that. there will be an opportunity for training and equipping state legislators who are new to the issue so that they can be more informed, more educated on the issues, and how to message on them in a very sophisticated and winsome manner. we believe that the interest we've seen will very easily -- vary easil -- able to be

parlayed into the 25 caucuses this year. we are making sure that all faiths are represented in that. this is a bipartisan issue. i think this is an american issue. we would be remiss to delegate those to -- relegate this to those who would like to make this a partisan issue. we used to have a say in america, i may not agree with what you say, but i will defend to the death your right to say it that says something about america, that there is a great respect for the sovereignty that each person has over his or her own beliefs. that is something we will not yield. it is something we heard in the previous panel that will not be yielded by the faith leaders. it is are ginning for me to hear the faith -- heartening to hear the faith leaders from diverse traditions say that they are committed to religious freedom. you can expect more of that, you

can expect from the american religious freedom program that we will be messaging heavily on the desperate there are those who would like to make religious freedom seem like an extreme issue, but we are not the ones on the side of the extreme line. it's they who are on the side of the extreme and, i think the american people understand that in their bones, what religious freedom is and what it means to our general freedoms. there are opportunities to talk to the panelists, the governor leavitt, after this. beep afford to working with everybody in this room. -- we look forward to working with everybody in this room. we are heartened by the generosity of spirit. that is the same spirit and demeanor in which we intend to comport ourselves. this is not about us, any particular organization. this is about making sure we are protecting the great treasure which is american religious

freedom that has been bequeathed to us, to make sure it is still available to americans for generations to come. thank you. with that, i will introduce gov. michael leavitt and turn over to him at the podium. gov. michael leavitt has been not only the governor of utah three times, but in addition to that, he was the secretary of the u.s. department of health and human services. he served during the bush administration, and in addition, he was the administrator of the environmental protection agency. he has been a champion of religious freedom. he is a close adviser of our program. he is a trusted friend. we are very delighted that he not only is willing to join us here today, but also to moderate this distinguished panel. please join with me in welcoming gov. michael leavitt. [applause] >> thank you. like all of you, i've been impressed by the degree of a

scholarship that has been represented by the conversation today. for my part, in introducing our panel, i would simply like to make two principal points, and i would like to introduce each of them with an experience. the first one -- it was mentioned that i was head of the environmental protection agency for a time. i discovered upon my arrival that one of my duties would be to oversee the regulation of wetlands throughout the united states. now, i will confess to you that i under appreciated the importance of wetlands and that role. i suspect that it was a reflection of some of my experiences. when i was a 14-year-old boy, i

spent a lot of my time irrigating in the field with rubber boots and a shovel. i learned very early that if you let the water run too long in one place, you get wet lands. as governor, i had a major highway project that and held up for a couple -- that had been held up for couple of years under the cost of several hundred million dollars because of a couple of acres of wetlands. i expect that my personal experience may not have given me a full appreciation of the importance of that task. may i say this -- i am ve -- some very capable scientists patiently began to teach me about the importance of wetlands, and their natural value. they taught me that wetlands are important in storm control, that, in fact, it was wetlands

when a category 4 hurricane comes across the gulf of mexico that will slow down to level 3 or level two and make it survivable. i came to understand that even if you or a fisherman or care about wildlife, at the heart of the capacity to sustain those things are wetlands. i came to understand that the water that we drink, and its purity, were very much affected by wetlands. things i had not fully valued in terms of their natural importance. i spent a lot of time looking at wetlands and understanding their ecology. i went to the gulf of mexico, where i literally saw miles upon miles of beautiful, pristina wetlands -- pristine wetlands, only to be surprised

that there had been giant swath that had been cut through these wetlands in order to accommodate oil pipelines and transportation corridors. i spent time moving up and down the mississippi river that feeds that area with the water all the way from the dakotas and brings its natural silt to fill the wetlands. i began to learn that by having levees built upon the mississippi river, and by the damming activities that had been done to control the river and made very important other team and demands, we had begun to destroy the ecology, and that -- begun to disturb the ecology, and that the wetlands had begun to erode. it was not in giant pieces. it was literally one particle at a time. in fact, to this day, as we sit

here, a piece of wetlands the size of a football field will erode. the point i want to make with that is that none of those individual acts of a pipeline being cut through the middle of the wetlands or a dam or levee, none of them on their own was significant enough to irreversibly affected the system. but it was their accumulated outcome that began to threaten and diminish the capacity for sustainability b. i thought the point that was made about proportionality was a very important point. all of the individual events that we've discussed with respect to religious freedom today on their own have limits to their proportional importance.

but this is my first point -- while individual events each diminish religious freedom, at they by themselves may not constitute a burning platform. but let there be no mistake -- religious freedom is clearly on an eroding platform. burning platforms tend to attract attention paid to put the fire out and move on. -- we put the fire out and move on. eroding platforms require a sustained leadership and sustained action by everyone involved. the second story. it was mentioned that i was, for a time, secretary of health and human services.

i became aware that a professional society that government through their certification -- that governments for their certification processes, this society of ob/gyn, had created a set of standards that could easily be interpreted to suggest that if a physician was unwilling to provide abortion and other reproductive services , and they were not competent to be certified, board-certified. such an event would have a huge ramification on a physician or medical practitioner seeking to practice in a major hospital or clinic or with patients, generally in some way affecting their capacity to be licensed. as secretary, i wrote to them and suggested that was both a violation of federal law, but it was also unconscionable to deny

a person practicing medicine the ability to play out religious freedom, personal conscience, in the way they deliver those services. that controversy has been alluded to today, and it went on for a time. i actually promulgated rules reminding people that they could not without penalty it violate federal law. those rules have been reversed, that controversy goes on, t second point -- goes on. my point is, the second point, is the erosion is not simply the federal government. it happens in courts, federal societies, institutions of higher education, it happens in nonprofits. in fact, today, i would like to suggest that the battleground of the future in maintaining sustainable religious freedom will be in the state's.

it is and thei -- it is there that we are beginning to see enormous activity. today we are going to talk about activity in the states with a distinguished panel. brian just announced that, in fact, we will begin to see religious freedom caucuses that will be developed in every state. these are intended to be a sustainable response to an eroding platform. today on our panel we will have -- first of all, we will hear from the hon. kenneth blackwell, known to most of you -- ambassador blackwell is the best-selling author. he is a senior fellow at the family research council, a fellow at the american civil rights union but he was the mayor of cincinnati, and

secretary of state of the state of ohio, under secretary of the united states department of housing and urban development, ambassador to the united states human rights commission. this is a man who knows his way around the public sector. following the ambassador's comments, we would like to hear from lance kinzer. lance is a lawyer, a former soldier, a member of the kansas house of representatives, where he chairs the judiciary committee. he is a stalwart in the fight for religious freedom. then i would like to hear from another lawyer, from virginia, director and founder of the virginia catholic conference. an organization, obviously, of

one there is in almost all areas of the country, looking at the public interests of the commonwealth to catholic diocese. following him, we will have the president of the center for arizona policy, a nonprofit research and education organization interested in these issues. she is an award went public policy leader. an arizona newspaper recognized her as one of the 10 most influential leaders in the last decade. high praise. also a lawyer, and then another. and then we will hear from tim schultz, the head of the ethics and public policy center american religious freedom program. he is the director of state relations, and also a georgetown lawyer. ambassador, maybe turn attention to you. -- may we turn attention to you.

>> thank you, governor. direction,ife's committed my presentation to paper, because my wife knows that generally speaking, former mayors are generally speaking. [laughter] we focus on issues of religious freedom that rise to the national level. those that go to the supreme court command giants of the mainstream media. one of the most unprecedented assault on religious liberty is the proposed health and human services contraception mandate. as i have written, there has been nothing comparable to this in 225 years in this country. there is truly no precedent for

the threat embodied in the hhs mandate. if the government can force not only caplet its decisions, but those of other communities and small businesses and firms to provide drugs that can cause abortions or chemical contraceptives that violate their beliefs, then the first amendment of the constitution has effectively been repealed. late in the 19th century, germany's chancellor bismarck waged an assault against catholic. the prime minister intended to close down schools and hospitals throughout the country. let's be clear. we're not there yet, but we must be vigilant. approximately one in 10 hospitals in our committees across this country is care --

patients are cared for in catholic hospitals. they employed more than 550,000 full-time workers. one of depth needs to be emphasized here is that many of those employees and millions of patients seen in those hospitals shoes catholic care because it is grounded in a set of moral convictions. this is true even and perhaps especially for non-catholics who seek care and work in these institutions. my family research council colleague bob morrison as twin granddaughters who were delivered at a catholic hospital last december. when the newborns came down with a lifethreatening virus over christmas, bob was relieved

twins were cared for in a catholic institution. there he could trust that the caregivers and the administrators shared his family's pro-life convictions, and these convictions would be reflected in the care of his grandchildren. even when it is specifically catholic -- when a catholic institution is being threatened, the religious liberties of all americans are in jeopardy. if catholic hospitals are forced to choose between god and caesar, bureaucrats will eventually compel other organizations and ministries to make identical choice. an ironic situation is that even though all "obamacare" is designed to help the uninsured, it is those who will suffer most if these institutions in this --

suspended assurance. the present danger notwithstanding, our experience suggests most threats to religious freedom, as it a state press at the state and local levels. when of the most blatant examples was the case of oregon in the 1920's. they're a popular referendum backed by the kkk out of private education. only when the court ruled this unconstitutional in 1925 was this threat block. it was in this case that the supreme court stated clearly that the child is not the mere creature of the state. then there was the blame at men met -- blaine amendment, a

powerful republican who sought to ban any public funds competing even in directly what were then called sectarian institutions. although the amendment was a vestige of the movement of the 1980 -- of the 1880's was never pass at the federal level, similar legislation was enacted and even today still on the books in many state constitutions. they were put in state constitutions to stop families from educating their children in catholic schools instead of public schools. now they have become a wall between private faith and a public square. the blaine amendments constitute a serious barrier to education reform and parental choice. funds for religious liberty, a nonprofit that protect the free expression of all faiths, is

litigating a case in oklahoma. they're a family seeks to use a state scholarship to send their artistic son to a religious school for special needs children. in indiana state teachers unit predictably is leading the charge to prevent parents from using vouchers at religious schools. the union claims that the parents are violating the indiana blaine amendment. in florida, voters will have the chance this november to repeal that state possible blaine a minute. local councils, state and national public interest law firms and citizen activists have worked tirelessly to bring this policy change to the ballot. the government not only threatens religious liberty in our education. it also threatens through

proposed -- or supposed discrimination laws. we have a case in michigan, a michigan university grad student, because of her religious convictions, she was asked if she could run for a homosexual plant to another counselor. she was ordered to go through remediation. she refused and was expelled. a host of religious liberty defenders like the alliance defense fund are standing with her. we have seen catholic charities forced out of adoption in massachusetts and illinois because they will not place the children in the same-sex or unmarried households. in washington, d.c., the so- called nondiscrimination policy was used by the city council to achieve the ends of anti- catholicism. they were told they might be

forcing catholic charities out of adoptions in the nation's capital, one council member said, good, have been trying to get you out of this forever. and because we have been -- and besides we have been paying you to do its, so get out protections are needed. governor sam brownback of kansas signed a strong one there. across the country, there are weak laws place that would protect citizens who are acting on conscience. it is amazing how quickly this storm has arisen. in 2008, at the end of the bush administration, our colleague issued conscience regulations on

the behalf of the department of hhs. ousse were good, conscie regs. immediately upon coming into office, the obama administration revoked these regulations. with the mandate, the gloves have come off. the carved-out for religious institutions is so narrow, even cloistered nuns would not qualify for religious exemptions. the knights of columbus grand knight questions whether jesus' own ministry would qualify for an exemption from the hhs mandate. lly his worked whool religious, or was he engaged in

a food industry with those loaves and fishes? in "a man for all seasons," sir thomas more is facing execution in a time of at -- agitation. he tells his prosecutors, i do not harm, i stay not harmed, i think not harm, and if this be not enough to keep a man alive in good faith, i long not to live. thank god we have not gotten to that point. but our task is to make sure we never get to that point. we cannot allow the tactics, the divide and conquer strategy to see. if the hhs can, we will subsidize abortion-causing drugs now, where would it stop?

if they can get us to subsidize abortions, it will not stop at just abortion. so we are being not alarmist when we take alarm. james madison knew something of liberty. the people are right, madison said. to take a long as the first advance on their liberties. battle is raging in washington, but a likely battle front of this fight is in our respective states. and your local hospital or adoption agency. the question is, are we up for the challenge? will we take the stand? [applause]

>> like many of the panelists, it is an honor to be here today and bring greetings from kansas. when i am out about in crowds, one of the questions i am most often asked when i say i am in kansas is coming out in the world could kathleen sebelius be elected in a state like kansas? that is a question the requires delving into issues of entered- party fighting within the republican party and kansas political history and things we do not have to get into here this afternoon, although i would be happy to share that with anybody who lives there in a less formal setting. the governor and i have a reciprocal relationship while she was governor. i would draft legislation and shepherd it through that process, and she would veto it,

and then we would repeat. we did that for a series of years, and obviously we have a different situation now with governor brown back, and it has been best it has made a tremendous difference in kansas. because of the link between governor sibelius and the mandate issue and how much does government that has received, is interesting to note that the tension between her and the issue of religious liberty does not begin at the national level, but found its beginnings in a variety of issues that occurred at the state level in kansas, one of which terminated last year and a decision by the kansas court of appeals. there was a woman, a jehovah's witness, who wished to receive a liver transplant using a procedure that they perform at a

hospital in nebraska that is not performed at any hospitals in kansas, that allowed her to receive that procedure without the need of a blood transfusion. and the sebelius administration took a strong stance in denying the ability to use state funds for that procedure, and there was a lawsuit that was brought under our state constitution. can this institution at the state level -- the kansas constitution at the state level as strong conscience protections. this is not too uncommon, especially in the midwest. our constitution begins by saying we the people of kansas, cradle to almighty god for our privileges, so this idea of there are specific religious

privileges finds its expression in the first 15 words of the kansas constitution. a decision consistent with prior precedent in kansas overturned the ruling of the administration on that issue. the brownback administration decided not to appeal, which was not surprising, and in some ways we saw a victory for religious liberty based upon the proper application of our own state constitutional standard, which is much more in line with a compelling state interest standard. that interest along with other issues happening at the local level in kansas led led to the discussion about the possibility of some legislative action to further heighten the protection of people of faith in a variety of contexts. this led myself along with others to draft a couple pieces of legislation, and the primary

point i wanted to make here is in regard to those pieces of legislation. one was a conference -- conscience protection provision for health care providers. that particular piece of legislation made it through the entire legislative process. the other bill was a statutory provision which made it through the house, but then ultimately did not receive a vote on the senate side because there was concern about whether we could get it to the process. it struck me in reflecting upon reflectingtwo different pieces of new legislation, but concern with the issue of religious liberty, one that was successful in the process and one that was not successful, and there were a whole host of reasons that could be pointed to as to why things

played out the way they did in the particular context of the kansas ledger -- kansas legislature. when of the things that struck me, one of the issues was clearly viewed by members of the legislature and members of the public in general as having a very strong specific pro-life overton stick it. with respect to that bill, there was a very mature, well- organized, and fairly sophisticated institutional presence within the state of kansas of organizations and entities that are used to rallying behind that type of legislation, providing it with support so you have a plurality of voices speaking to the media about the importance of this legislation. you have a conservative

presbyterian church in kansas city. there is a methodology that conservative folks of fate in their churches are used to seeing operate to spread the word with respect to those types of bills, to say contact your legislator, let them know what you think about this. that bill passed. the other bill that was more narrowly viewed as a religious liberty bell, which bumped up against different types of opposition, did not enjoy the same type of institutional support, not because many of the people who were supportive of the other bill were not also supportive of it, but because institutionally, structural it, they were organized to advance an important cause, the cause of defending innocent human life. they have not fought so carefully organized themselves in a way to think about,

discuss, and advocate for legislation that is more narrowly focused on the issues of religious liberty. one of the reasons i am excited about this conference, excited to hear about the possibility of caucuses beginning to form, is what i think is a very strong need for people of faith and those who are sympathetic, even if they are not people of faith, to the importance of religious vividly -- liberty to develop a framework within to pursue the to the policy goals. what the reality is, all of that philosophical underpinnings for the importance of religious liberty that we have heard about today are absolutely crucial. but there is a practical reality of the ability to move the political process with those ideas, so i agree ideas have

consequences, but those ideas require an institutional framework in order to have the kind of impact that we need to have even in a small pool like the state legislature of the state of kansas. i would conclude by saying my hope is that today begins with this conference and with the work and some others the beginning of not just thinking about what the theoretical underpinnings are for advancing the cause of religious freedom, but also thinking about what institutional structures need to be developed in order to be able to advance that ideal in a fashion that is politically successful. and so thank you very much for having me here today, and i look forward to the discussions we continue on this afternoon. [applause] about here to talk

legislation that was enacted in virginia earlier this year, providing conscience protections for child placing agencies. we're talking about adoption and foster care services. there are a lot of organizations involved in the passage of the legislation. i want to note the central involvement of the family foundation and also our bill patrons in the house, senate. bill had the support of the mcdonnell administration and was signed by governor mcdonnell after it passed. the bill, as far as what it does, two things -- it's as basically that adoption and foster care agencies are not required to participate in place since that would violate their moral or religious convictions, and secondly, that they would

not be punished for refusing to participate in those types of placements, so they could not be a license, they cannot be denied state funding for an opportunity to participate in state contracts, and they cannot be sued for refusing to participate in placements that violate their beliefs. the genesis for the bill being introduced in 2012 was actually back in 2011, when our state board of social services was debating new regulations that would apply to private child placing agencies. within that debate, there were some that wanted to say that agencies, private, including faith-based agencies, which have to provide services without regard to sexual orientation or family status.

our viewpoint against that sort of provision eventually prevailed, and there was overwhelming -- there was an overwhelming 7-2 vote in favor of provisions that we found acceptable. but nevertheless, after having gone through that process, even though in the end it was favorable, we did not want to wait for that conflict to continue to of rise, say, with a future administration and having to go to that conflict over and over again. by the way, the provision that ended up being adopted by the state board of social services was that virginia follows the federal law, and agencies cannot discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, and those are the federal standards, and that is what the state board of

social services adopted, and again, with our strong support. we did not want to have to go through that regulatory debate over and over again, so we sought legislation to try to codify a explicit conscience protections for private trout- placing agencies, including others that are faced pressed eighth base. we learn some positive lessons from north dakota. north dakota was the first state to pass this law, and virginia is the second. north dakota provided a good model for us. some of the key arguments that we used and seemed to be effected are as follows -- one was that we were not breaking any new ground. all we were doing was cut find the status quo, and we were really making explicit what was already implicit. our agencies were already allowed to not have to

participate in placements that violated their beliefs, and we wanted assurance from the legislature that that could continue permanently. secondly, we were helped by being able to demonstrate that the threat is very real. we were not overreaching, we were not imagining that there was some sort of a threat. we knew from the debate that was raised during the state department of social services that the threat was very real, and we had opponents that were trying to force agencies to have to participate in placements that violate their beliefs. secondly, our opponents, during the general assembly session, actually introduced a bill that said that if our agencies were to be able to take into consideration things like sexual orientation and family status, then they should be denied state

funding. we were able to point to that bill and say here is an example of why the threat is real. on the state funding issue, we were able to turn the tables and use the fact that that bill was introduced to our advantage. our primary argument was that our agencies were falling all the federal and state and local laws. if that is indeed the case, it seems to beg the question, how are we discriminating if we are following all the state and local and federal laws? our opponents' assertions that we were engaging in discrimination by taking sexual orientation and family status into consideration is nothing more than a bald assertion, and we were able to turn that around and say where is the

discrimination? we are following all of loss. if indeed we're following all the laws, what our pundits were doing, they were the ones that were promoting discrimination. if there bill would have pass, it would have imposed the governmental scheme of viewpoint discrimination on faith-based agencies. we used the introduction of a that opposing bill to our advantage. i think also it was important that we raised the fact that this impacts not just institutions, but also individuals. there is a growing trend or strand of thought that if we have the rights of institutions pitted against what is perceived to be the rights of individuals, the then there is a growing tendency in the debate to say that the rights of

institutions have to yield. i think to counter that, we were able to say this does involve individuals. there are birth mom's and prospective adoptive parents that want to be able to work with agencies that share their values. that was an important point to be able to raise. the arguments i have listed were part of the success of the bill. it was also important that we were able to bring that heads of various agencies that provide these services directly to the hearings, and they were speaking directly to elected officials. we were able to see these community providers were being directly affected. also, within that same vein, providing statistics that showed the dow you that catholic charities and many other adoption of foster care agencies, providers of services,

the value of them to the state, which were able to aggregate numbers of how many children and families they served and the good work they do. i will just end up with some challenges that we face, and that may surface in other states as well. some insist that the bill would be a trump card that would allow us to circumvent existing laws. nothing could be further from the trip. it is a narrowly tailored bill that say we do not have to participate in placements that violate our beliefs and cannot be punished for that. it does not say that when we do participate in placements we can ignore state laws. that was how it was portrayed by some of our opponents. the other challenges was no matter how thoughtfully we

explained the bill, a common storyline was still that what happened was that the general assembly allow agencies to discriminate. as i explained the four, the very opposite was true. they would impose separate roles on us even though we follow the law. would have been the ones that were victims of discrimination. who were victims of discrimination. those with the challenges that we faced. i would end with there are two states now that have this statutory law. i think it would be worth many other states considering this bill. we know the threats are at a national level and there is a national movement to try to force private and faith-based adoption agencies to provide services against their beliefs. i think it is well worth considering trying to block

these protections into place when there is an opportunity to do so -- lock these protections into place when there is an opportunity to do so. [applause] >> good afternoon. it is an honor to be on this panel. our mission is to basically protect and defend foundational principles on issues that we address. religious liberty is the one that we have seen the greatest threat to what is going on in our country today. in arizona, churches rely on us to see if it is going to impede what their missions are. we work closely with a number of different types of religious groups and lds groups as well. in arizona, we have real-world issues. what i see over and over again is this increasing trend that if

you hold certain religious beliefs involving a whole host of issues, you should not enter certain professions. if you cannot forgo your religious beliefs, you should forgo those professions. in my view, it can be far more expedient to pass a state law than to wait on the federal government. in arizona, similar to kansas, we no longer have janet napolitano as our governor. that has been a big change in the state of arizona. we have had seven different state laws passed related to religious liberty. i will give you a quick rundown of what you may be able to do in your state. if you want to know who is in your state, go to citizenlink.com and you can find

out who might be there to help you with some of these issues. in 2009, a young girl in middle school at a picture of jesus on her notebook. she was sent to the principal's office. remember when kids would get sent to the printable for chewing gum in class? it was because she had a picture of jesus on her notebook which led to passing an act that took a lot of the case law concepts and codify them into state law. here is what the law is of what you can and cannot do in public school. in 2010, we were able to pass a land use at that came because we had a church and the city denied a permit. the city wanted to use the area for an entertainment district. the lawsuit was filed by our

organization. we lost in court but one in the ninth circuit -- won in the ninth circuit. at least two churches so far have been able to locate their places of worship and industrial use land zone areas. so, making a real difference. in 2011, university and religious liberty and freedom of speech. arizona state university had some issues whether they would be recognized as a student organization because of their religious beliefs. the lawsuit was settled out of court. our universities cannot discriminate against students on the basis of their religious viewpoints, they can not evaluate a student's course work on religion, or

discriminate on the basis of their religious viewpoints. some broad based religious liberty for students. in arizona, we have been able to take care of student protecting their civil liberties on our public campuses. in 2011, we had a fairly simple bill passed that basically said when a church speaks out on a ballot measure, they can now be required to register as a political committee. that was another one that was issued in montana and a few years back when a church was asked to register as a political committee. this year, we have had two bills get through. our senator is with us today and has been a sponsor of licensed professionals.

this bill has several parts to it. if you are a professional that has to be licensed or certified by the state cannot the government cannot deny or revoke that license because you declined to provide any service that violates your religious beliefs. if you are a counselor or an attorney, if you say i do not serve that type of clientele because of your religious beliefs, you have the right to decline debt service. it also predicts organizations in contractual matters. i encourage you to look at this bill. i am a licensed attorney with the state of arizona. two different times, our state bar has tried to enact provisions that would prohibit me for discrimination against sexual orientation or gender. obviously, that type of provision would violate my religious beliefs.

obviously, we need a state law to say you cannot go forward in that type of area. and individual was appointed or recommended or applied for a state commission and during a public hearing, one of the commissioners said i think this person is to religious, the organization he is involved with is too religious. there is not a religious test for serving on a commission. remember, you cannot do this. that is a key test. to go beyond the health care industry, this is what we are trying to do with this legislation. that has not gone beyond the health care field in many ways. that is the intent of this legislation, to move into a number of different professional

areas. we had the issue of the hhs mandate. one led the charge in arizona to change our laws. arizona for 10 years had the law that said if a business provided health insurance, you had to include family planning. you are only exempted if you hire people of the same faith which we all know how many faith-based institutions serve people of the same faith. our prior governor would not agree to it. it is our opportunity this year to change it. what it now says if you are religiously affiliated, you are exempted from this mandate to have to provide medication that violates your religious beliefs. how we define religiously affiliated employers is the articles of incorporation state that you are a religiously

motivated organization and is essential to the operating principles. so, we had all the -- ours was a stance on religious freedom. and number of us do not have religious beliefs. saying over and over again that the government cannot compel anyone to act against their religious beliefs. it was quite the debate. you probably saw their representative on national news at times on this bill in arizona. another bill that failed in our legislature this year was to protect professors from religious liberty to say that a university professor cannot be denied tenure or not hired because of their religious or political beliefs which has significant bipartisan support in our state legislature. some of the lessons from arizona

or what we have seen is that in arizona, we work very closely with outside organizations and legislators and strategy as together to see what the issues are and the need to. especially in the area of religious liberty, i do not think any of the bills we have worked on have not been introduced without input from the alliance. if you want to see what is going on with religious liberty, look at the list of cases they had. sometimes we are looking at what is going on with their litigation efforts. what can we do in our state to prevent this situation from happening or address it because we have a situation in our state? make sure you have the legal input on the national level to know what needs to happen on the statutory level. our staff was trained by ads. when you are going through the legislative process, personal

testimonies always work the best. that is your ticket to get something through as you all well know. the aclu will never be your ally during these times. of course, we have worked closely with our governor's staff so we do not get is a prize ring -- get a surprise. once these laws are passed, we have a job to make sure they are followed properly. you cannot lose sight once they are passed and signed into law. [applause] >> thank you. so, in looking around at the activism that is already existing with respect to religious freedom, i noticed something that has been said today by two different legislators.

if you are going to make an all- star team of legislators, representative kinzer would be on the first team. they both said something that was pretty interesting. the representatives said "i need help." institutionally, one of my bills passed and the other did not. the difference might have been the infrastructure to get the second across the finish line. earlier today, even though she was very successful, she said i need help. these are the all stars. these are the best of the best state legislators on this issue, and they are still saying i need some help. that is acknowledging the fact that there are a lot of great groups out there doing work. we mentioned them from the podium.

there is a lot of great work being done but we think we need to do more particularly in the states with respect to legislation. theory is a great and a necessary condition for success, but it is not even close to a sufficient condition for success. we are going to have to have an architecture that allows us to succeed. that is what they're want to talk about, our strategy that brian and the governor alluded to earlier. what are thinking is that created this idea. the first thing is surveying the national landscape, there has only been in this 2012 legislative session work being done on religious freedom and about eight states add any significant degree. only about eight states have

done anything significant in the 2012 legislature calendar. we have seen pockets of excellence. many of you are here today with us. thank you. in general, excellence on this issue -- this issue is kind of at the infancy at the national level. because of some of the things that have happened. states are lagging in terms of knowing what to do. as i have travelled to about nine states in the last few months and state capitals and talking to legislators, there is a real interest in working on religious freedom issues but a real candor that in general people do not know what they are doing right now for the most part. if they do not feel very sure footed stepping forward with some exceptions, they are simply not going to end those bills are

not going to go anywhere. we do not have a lance kinzer or debbie lesko in every legislature. the technology for cloning is not fully here yet. so we have to do something else. we have also seen the success of very decisive national organizations that bring legislators together, sometimes encumbrances or in other ways, and accomplish what they are trying to accomplish by information sharing across state legislators. they pick it up and they passed it based upon the recommendation of one of the legislators in their sister states. currently nothing like that really exists for religious freedom. that is what we are trying to build. the idea of state caucuses is hardly in itself a novel idea. probably all of you have a

formal or informal state caucus in your legislature of some kind. we want to build state caucuses that have to do with religious freedom, and we want to connect with what we saw in our earlier panels and their interest in these issues. i also want to say that i think the argument for direct engagement on legislation is as high on religious freedom as is for any other public policy issue. i think one of the tasks for us in this room is going to be to seek to get the faith community activated in not just speaking but doing, and in some cases in direct lobbying. i think the argument for direct engagement on this legislatively

is as strong as any other public policy issue is in existence. we havare planning to work together with the existing resources that already exist in many states. recently, this has been an issue of high priority for catholic conference's. they are doing excellent work. family councils like kathy's, they are doing excellent work. lots of other organizations. lds public services committee, doing some great work of there. we are going to join the fight with personnel and other resources. i guess i want to close and then we will move to the comments. i think representative kinzer had it right. in the end, a lot of theory is really important, but this is also going to be a political

fight. there is going to be resistant. it is something that we are going to have to protect. as the governor said, it is something that we have to do it in a sustained way over many years painting one of the things that i have appreciated from the catholic bishops is it is obvious they understand the need to create a social movement surrounding religious freedom, that this cannot just be the issue of the week. it has to be something that is sustained and thoughtful action on. we believe these state caucuses will be a repository of that movement and will allow us to win and protect religious freedom and keep what we think we always had. [applause]

>> i want to thank our panel members. i am going to invite them to remain here during the break or after. to keep ourselves on track, we will thank them very much and we look forward to a panel on religious freedom and the military. >> we will have our meeting with across the hall. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> coverage to read the day here on c-span of the 2012 national religious freedom conference. it is sponsored by the ethics and public policy center. there is a short 10-minute or so break and we will continue our coverage when they come back at

a panel discussion looking at religious freedom and the military. richard land heads the religious commission and was part of the discussion earlier today. here are some of his taut requiring health insurance plans offer contraceptive coverage. about's talk a little bit the government mandate, obamacare, and the hhs mandate. this shows either a hostility to religious freedom or a complete ignorance of the first amendment. this debate is not about contraception. it is about coercion. it is not about catholics. it is about conscience. it is about religious freedom, not reproductive freedom. this is about printable.

not politics. make no mistake about it. this is only incidentally about reproductive freedom. it is about the freedom of religious organizations to practice their faith. we believe as americans that every human being is a god-given right of freedom of faith and conscience due to our forefathers persecutions and insistence. the free exercise of religion goes well beyond the freedom of worship concepts by secularists today in our culture. for them, freedom of worship is restricted to church at home and maybe not even there because we have cases all the time of

zoning commissions trying to restrict how many people a couple can have in their home for a bible study because it causes traffic congestion. free exercise of religion is far more robust and includes the right to share one's faith and to live out the implications of one's faith in the social and economic spheres. the freedom to exercise or act and the right not to be coerced. we must not stand by and allow our god-given rights to religious freedom guaranteed by the bill of rights to be atrophied, neutered, and confined are restricted to freedom of worship. as a cardinal said in his letter to his fellow catholic bishops, the obama administration has attempted to reduce this free exercise to a privilege, to a privilege, arbitrarily granted as a mere exemption from an all

encompassing the extreme form of secularism. i think i can make an argument that this extreme mindset embodied in the hhs mandate violates not only the first amendment free exercise clause by the establishment clause as well. win the federal government asserts the right to mandate actions, trample religious convictions, and grant exemptions to those it so chooses, the government is behaving like a secular theocracy. our forefathers knew how unreliable and intolerable such government toleration could be. the founder of rhode island said man had no power to --

forcing a person's conscious was rap of the soul. thomas jefferson and our nation's third president argued in 1779 during the campaign for the virginia act for establishing political freedom that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions is sinful and tyrannical. when our country was in it greatest peril ever in 1775, when a fleet of 200 ships and 35,000 troops left england to reconquer these colonies, and every man was needed, the continental congress granted a right of objection to those who

believed for religious convictions that violence was always wrong. from our beginning, even before our declaration, before our constitution, this has been the north star of american exceptionalism, the belief that no one has the right to interfere with another person's relationship with his or her god. and to try to do so is soul rape. >> richard land from earlier today. we have been covering much of the conference throughout the day. another discussion coming up will focus on the military and religious freedom. we will have that for you when it starts. the senate is in this week and they just passed the fda bill passing by a vote of 96-1.

they are voting on a couple of versions of the student loan bill now. you can follow senate debate on c-span 2. the house comes back on wednesday of next week. it is likely to be a couple of minutes before the next discussion gets underway, so until then, more from the earlier discussions with an official from the church of latter-day saints, and how the mormon church used religious freedom. >> freedom of religion has been observed already today, the first right in the bill of rights. it sustains all other freedoms.

all other freedoms fair either well or poorly depending on how this first freedom progresses. the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints believes the concern of protecting religious freedom is fully justified. lots have suffered at the federal, state, and local levels as has been described earlier. they threatened to religious freedom of the nation as a whole. causes for these losses range from manipulation of language to overtly coarser regulations and imposition of penalties for the exercise of conscience. freedom of conscience is our most precious and personal right. over time, the losses of the right to follow our conscience will ultimately become a devastating personal loss to

every american and the people across the world. we believe we must wisely and appropriately resist the efforts of a squeeze in hand of government to control our consciences. >> they have resumed at the religious freedom conference. we will take you back there live for a look at the military and religious liberty. >> we have a great session. we have some very distinguished members of the chaplain. we have a religious freedom expert and litigator and a wonderful moderator, a good friend of ours from the witherspoon institute, matthew franck. i am going to give him a quick introduction and then turn everything over to him. matthew is the director of the william e. and carol g. simon center on religion and the constitution at the witherspoon institute, a professor of

political science at radford university until 2010. matt has been a professor, a visiting fellow at princeton university, and a salvatore fellow at the heritage foundation. blogs on faith for "the washington post," and elsewhere, and recently he has appeared on fox news and other he is a champion of religious freedom. please join me in welcoming -- in welcoming matthew frank. >> i want to thank the american

religious freedom program for this wonderful program today. i am not sure all of you realize it, but if you dialed the calendar back exactly one year, the american religious freedom project program did not yet exist. the president at eppc had not yet hired brian. look at what he has done in less than a year. it is a wonderful story. [applause] i am going to introduce the speakers on this final panel of the day in just a second. i am not quite sure i was asked to share this panel since i have no military experience. i am grandson, the son, the

nephew, and the brother of soldiers and airmen. i have been around people in uniform enough to pick up the highly technical but cadbury some of them use. if you want to affirm what someone, especially a superior, has said, there is a technical experience the would-expression that goes, hoo-ha. i have some opening remarks of my own that i will make in just a second. let me introduce our speakers first. we will go in alphabetical order. from your left, my right, beginning with kaplan doug carper -- chaplain duck carver -- doug carver.

he served in the military for 38 years. he began his career as an artillery officer. you can see a complete biography in your program. in the interest of time, i will keep these introductions brief. we are honored to have him with us. he has recently joined the conscience protection task force, where i work. following doug, we will hear from chaplain and retired colonel duggan -- doug cruz.

he brings to our table a tremendous record of leadership on religious liberty issues in the military. we are looking forward to hearing from him. he is a late addition to the programming. you will find his biography in a separate sheet that was put into your folders. next, we will hear from chaplain jacob goldstein. he is a colonel in the army reserve. he is commissioner of housing in the state of new york. i guess that is his day job. he is still under orders as a colonel in the kaplan -- chaplain corp. let's see if i can get the correct current position. >> located in fort buchanan,

puerto rico. >> next we will hear from kelly shackleford, a brilliant litigator. he is the recipient of awards and accolades for his success as a lawyer and an advocate for religious freedom. his institute took a particular interest in religious issues in the military on behalf of veterans. he will be wrapping up the panel, speaking last. let me set the scene for just a moment. notwithstanding occasional jeffersonian blandishments about a wall of separation between church and state, there

is one area where the wall banishes, or becomes transparent. that -- that wall vanishes and becomes transparent. let stand a week after the declaration of independence, general george washington issued a general order that read, the honorable continental congress, having been pleased to allow a chaplain for each regiment, the colonels or commanding officers are directed to procure a personss accordingly, of good character and exemplary lives. all soldiers will pay them a suitable respect and attend carefully upon religious exercises. the protection of heaven are at all times necessary, especially

so in times of public distress and danger. seven years later, our independence largely won on the battlefield, washington wrote another general order from his headquarters in new york. undertaking a special list institute for veterans who had made previous sacrifices, he wrote, the chaplains will constantly attend the hospitals and visit the sick. that is received from the beginning of our military service history and recognition by our nation that for those who risked all for their country and lose their lives or their health, we will provide them with the means for spiritual sustenance. they seek to live according to their conscience and the dictates of their fate and the

chaplains will accompany them in their lowest moments. we see the union, not the separation, of church and state. the army model is, for god and country. like the centurion in the gospel of luke, they can say, i am a man set on a party with soldiers under it. the chaplains stand in a place where religious freedom is important and where we must agree, is easily threatened. there are strong claims on us of the jury necessity, good order, and discipline. there are signs that this tension is becoming more acute as the congress and the president has repealed the don't ask, don't tell policy and as the obama administration reverses is -- its field on the

protection of mary and as the president -- marriage and as the president announces his evolution on same-sex marriage. there was a bill that would protect conscience in the don't ask, don't tell military. what are we to make of that? for service members and veterans, what actual or potential threats may arise from secularism? to discuss these questions, we have the panel of acres to follow me -- the panel of speakers who follow me. we will hear first from doug

carver. >> i am extremely humbled to address you on behalf of the protection of religious freedom. i am honored because i have had the privilege of repast 30 years of serving as a practitioner as a united states army chaplain, following in the tradition of the uniformed clergy, who remain the greatest champions of religious freedom. i am humbled to be here today because many women who have worn oth haveon's sacred cl stood in harm's way, suffered and died, so did you can enjoy religious liberty and the joy to convene today's conference without threats or coercive

measures from an oppressive government. i speak today from a rich legacy of the chaplains who have gone before us. like the roman catholic priest from the diocese of wichita, kansas who died on this date 61 years ago after spending seven months at a prisoner of war camp in korea. for seven months, he spent himself in heroic and selfless service taking care of his fellow prisoners without regard for their race, color, or creed. denied medical care for his own personal wounds, he nursed the sick and the wounded until his own death. he demonstrated the important role chaplain's play --

chaplains play taking care of those struggling to live caring for the wounded and honoring the dead. to set the stage for our panel discussion i would like to share a few thoughts on the military chaplaincy in general. i would like to suggest the number of potential threats that are on the horizon. i will give those to you in the form of questions because i do not have the answers. but we need to consider them in light of the cultural changes we are going through at the present time in the culture of defense and in our society. the first two clauses of the first amendment, intentional attention created 225 years ago by the framers of the constitution. in a recent book, the authors

said this, the evangelicals wanted this is dallas and so that they could preach the gospel. the rationales what did this establish it because they thought the government should not punish people because of their religious views. these two agenda is transferred -- transformed america making it intentionally privileges and religion-free. america has continued to successfully navigate through the tension of the free exercise of religion versus the three is that respect of religion. the nation's current religious climate is, according to harvard university, the most diverse country in the world. our military chaplains have provided military support, and lies military leadership and

freely exercise their own personal religious beliefs and remained passionate advocates of religious diversity and freedom, balancing the tension of freedom of religion since 7075. this is done in the way chaplains are recruited for military service. religious organizations and faith groups credential and certified professional religious leaders they deem qualified for military service. they maintain their own faith group teachings and practices. it is important to remember that our nation's standing military is comprised of an all volunteer force. soldiers, sailors, airmen,

marines, chaplains and volunteered to serve our country within the context of this unique social environment. military chaplains are endorsed by agencies who have the power to remove their endorsement at any time and direct them to return back to their eighth group or to find another state group. chaplains live in the constant tension of serving the needs of the military. as commissioned officers, they are accountable to military standards, code of conduct, uniform code of military justice. they must also remain faithful and submits his -- and submissive to their sponsoring faith group. the primary mission of a military chaplain is to perform or provide military services to all of the troops under their charge. they assist commanders in the discharge of their commanders

-- of their responsibilities under the constitution. the military places the highest value on the rights of its troops to observe the sacraments and practices of their individual religious faith. the department of defense takes extraordinary measures to approve requests for the accommodation of religious practices unless the accommodation would have an adverse affect on readiness, morale, discipline, safety, or health. there is a kitchen here as well. first, military commanders and leaders are responsible for the village's activities within

their organizations to ensure the three -- for the religious activities within their organizations and to ensure the free exercise of religion. they might properly advise military leadership on these critical freedoms, issues, and needs. that is why it was said that the second continental congress said that the military chaplains be assigned at every level. service members of all ranks are guaranteed free exercise of religion.

they cannot use their authority to coerce on to influence. all members of the armed services deserve the same dignity, honor, and respect regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs or practices. to be quite honest, there is a growing concern within the department of defense and our society at large regarding the potential religious threat of conscience and religious freedoms as evidenced by the

legislation of the military religious freedom protection act. the first legitimate question we should ask is, how does the repeal of don't ask, don't tell affected the contents of chaplains and all service members? 1810 -- a tension exists in this area. homosexuality is not a moral issue. it is an amoral issue. the number of our chaplains and troops believe homosexuality is a moral issue. we have a growing concern among our troops that they might

maintain a clear conscience between the authority and the biblical authority. there is tension between troops and biblical practices. there is confusion over religious protocol. what is a sectarian prayer? when should it be offered. what can you talk about in regard to spirituality and religion outside of a chapel? there is a growing concern over political correctness, how it may prohibit the exercise of -- the freedom of religious expression. there appears to be a growing intolerance to even discussing religion at all. an intolerance to religion. perhaps that is one of the greatest threats we are all

facing, intolerance to religion, which can lead to the absence of religion in the public marketplace, which can lead to silencing our voices about religious issues, which can lead to prejudice and violence, etc. on february 3, 1943, the united states army transport ship with 902 soldiers and sailors aboard was traveling the icy atlantic waters over the newfoundland. less than 150 miles from their destination, a german boat hit them and it began to go down. through the pandemonium and chaos, four army chaplain's brought open comfort a misty darkness -- army chaplains brought open comfort amidst

darkness and impending death. one private found himself surrounded by dead bodies and debris. he said, i could hear the chaplains preaching courage. it was the only thing that gave me hope and keeping -- kept me going. the lifeboats were gay -- were given to four horrified soldiers. it is one of the purest, hole is, and most ethical act any of us can -- holiest and most ethical acts any of us can perform. father washington did not look for a catholic boy. they simply gave their life

jackets to the next man in line. 672 souls went into eternity that day. the four chaplains are an enduring example of what i believe is the strength of religious diversity that has endured deep threats to religion over the past 237 years. their legacy remains strong today. in spite of the threat to liberty on the horizon, a military chaplains remained faithful to their call. they pray that our nation maintains a uniformed clergy. their voices are often the only source within military ranks to give hope to our troops and keep them going. [applause] >> thank you for the opportunity

to speak with you today. i want to start with a proposition, and one that i trust we can all agree on. that is that no american constitutionally protected rights should be violated or undermined, especially those who are dying to protect those rights. accordingly, all uniformed members of the armed services, regardless of their fate background, are entitled to religious liberty and freedom of conscience. with that foundation laid, how do we treat our men and women in uniform? this question is even more vital with the events of the past few years. in 2010, after the president announced his intention to

repeal the don't ask, don't tell policy, the pentagon set out general and black officers to brief the troops on what the repeal might look like -- and flag officers to brief the troops on what the repeal might look like. mike mullen presented a briefing to about 200 special forces soldiers. at the end of the briefing during the question and answer time, a young chaplin, a captain by rank, asked admiral mullen, if this policy is repealed, will those of us who hold biblical views that homosexuality is a san still be protected to express those views? according to the witnesses at that briefing, admiral mullen pointed a finger at that chaplin and said, if you cannot get in line with this policy, reassign your commission.

the the washington times reported a similar episode described by be debbie chief of staff of personnel. he was briefing several troops in germany. he said, unfortunately, we have a minority of servicemen who are still racist and bigoted. you will never be able to get rid of all of them. these people opposing this new policy will need to get with the program. they cannot, they need to get out. i am not an attorney and i did not play one on tv. i believe there is a legal term i have heard called a chilling effect. these words by admiral mullen and by the general are a chilling effect.

later, the chaplain who asked that question was asked if he would be able to speed about what had happened to him because the news began to get out and a member of the press wanted to speak to him. the chaplain was cold, even if he was to speak anonymously, his commander said, you will not talk to the press, nor will other soldiers. i find it interesting in that military personnel in favor of the bp will have been given permission to speak to the press -- in its favor of the meet -- the repeal have been given permission to speak to the press.

but those who hold you lose -- the is opposed to the real appeal -- repeal are not allowed to speak to the press. the administration and the pentagon assured congress and others that the defense of marriage that would guide all policy changes in the military. general carver, i am sure you remember that briefing from a two star general who told us several times that chaplains will see no change, very little change if any. he told us the pentagon was guided by the defense of marriage act on all policies concerning marriage and benefits for same-sex couples. after congress made that vote,

within weeks of that vote, the president announced he would no longer defend the defense of marriage at in court because he saw the law as unconstitutional and that chaplains would perform same sacks -- same-sex ceremonies. the navy said that policy was under review. within a few months, the senior officer at the pentagon issued two statements that said, military chapel's as well as all -- chapels as well as all d.o.d. facilities would be used use basis.

the 2013 defense authorization act passed by congress includes two amendments that remind the department of defense of the intent of the congress concerning the use of facilities for same-sex marriage ceremonies or any events that look like a marriage ceremony. congress put in protections for chaplains that they would not be required to do anything that would violate their conscience, their faith group, or their policies concerning same-sex couples. it is true to an extent that chaplains are protected in that they serve at the pleasure of their if they violate the endorsement, the endorsement can be revoked. they will no longer be able to serve as a chaplain for presenting that the group. but this law that was passed by congress helps clarify is that

when a chaplain said no to doing something that would violate his or her conscience, then the commander is not to discriminate or take any adverse personnel action against the shop plan, including denial of promotion, schooling, training, or assignment on the base because of the refusal of the chaplain to comply with the order or requirement provided by or paragraphs a. now is that paragraph a fraud the minority leader said after that bill was passed last thursday? let me tell you about a couple of chaplains and their story. during the time of the process of being repealed and the repeal had not been voted on by

congress debt, a particular chaplin had been selected for a very prestigious position. a very nice position. he had received his initial set of requests will orders and he would be making this assignment move. but then all of a sudden he got a call that orders for the move had been rescinded. he was going to go on another assignment because it is clear that you need to be closely supervised. what was his infraction? his infraction was that he had boarded an e-mail that he had received from another chaplain that was critical of the don't ask, don't tell policy. because he had boarded the e- mail that he received from a chaplain and for it to another shop plan, and you know how e-

mails can go, he was told, he was threatened that he should retire and then told that he was no longer eligible for that particular assignment that he had been previously selected for because it was clear that he had to be more closely supervised. two, there is a senior protestant chaplain who will remain unnamed. he had stated as he talked among chaplains in his command, the one chapel that he was a senior pastor of would not be used for same-sex ceremonies because that installation happened to be in a state that recognized same-sex ceremonies. but he said that other chapels would be made available if

requested. he identified that chapel as a sacred space. as the senior pastor for that chapel, he said that he is chapel would not be used for same-sex marriage. but after legal review, the installation commander revoked the shop when's policy and said that all chapel's on this installation would be sexual orientation neutral. there can be no space set aside. the issue of religious liberty, rights of conscience for our chaplains and those they serve is real. chaplains have served our military with distinction since

july 1775. they will continue to serve what great compassion and also come to the ministry. but as they serve, we must not allow political correctness or political agenda to put restrictions on their conscience. again, i say no american should be denied their religious conviction as they serve to protect your religious freedom. thank you. [applause] >> good afternoon. thank you for inviting me to this panel. the 200 year position of religious diversity and freedom for u.s. military and veterans'.

first, i would like to say thank for putting me in the presence of my former boss. and a dear friend of mine, and together we served in a military forces as a chaplain's at the same time. and of course, kelly. there are other people in this room that i know, but i will say one person and a former colleague and boss, doug lee. he is here as well. the military is out today flying their flag. i thank everyone for being here. before i began, i would like to say something personally that has always been important to me.

if you read my biography, you read that i was born after world war ii. my parents were survivors of the concentration camps. the families were murdered. as i grew up, i had no ogles, cousins, the grandparents, and nothing -- uncles, no cousins, no grandparents, nothing. perhaps refusing to speak up -- when i put on the uniform for the first time in our country, i came to see my mother. i came to the door and she looked at me and she began to cry. she said to me the following,

"on television, it always looks good. no one gets hurt. but remember, in work, good people gets hurt. it is not tv. it is real." those words have always stuck in my mind. if war is to come, we are to protect our liberties and defend our nation and do it in the right way. the subject matter of defending the 200 year tradition it is most highly viewed. when the president last same-sex marriage, i knew then that we were in trouble. the moral fiber of our country was beginning to seriously be torn. let me illustrate how conflicting guidance in that

outthrow of dropping don't ask, don't tell has cost as we go down the past to my view of moral decay. there is a conflict between doma and same-sex marriage, which in some states is permitted according to state law. new york state, where i come from, and i was not there when the vote was taken, permitted same-sex marriage last year. there are two large military installations in new york state. one is a west point and one is upstate new york. i was at a jewish conference a few weeks ago and i was talking to some of the jewish chaplains. one was assigned to west point and the other unsigned to the

one in upstate new york. almost all of the army and chaplains ex-of two are an orthodox. the jewish chaplain said that the fort does not permit same- sex marriages in their troubles. that is their guidance. west point, however, will permit it. the guidance is that the state law rules over doma. apparently, was. is following the lead of our commander in chief and a guidance and the fort is following the law of the land, which is doma. last week opposed the amendment that we talked about -- last

week's announcement that we talked about -- in section 537 -- excuse -- a military installation or other property under jurisdiction may not be used to officiates, sodomize, or perform a marriage involving anything other than the union of one man and one woman. that is the law. the white house said that they have a problem with this because it would obligate them to deny it service members and retirees access to facilitate a religious ceremony on the basis of sexual orientation. it is a troublesome and

potentially unconstitutional limitation on religious liberties. that is the objection of everyone else. yom kippur is our coleholiest day in the jewish calendar. we pray and we repent for our sins. this is our holy day. god reminded his people that they shall not commit this from wherethe land you came, which is egypt. many of you know that section in

the bible. god said, it shall not commit anything that is deviant, which is sexes, animals, anything else. i am paraphrasing. i am trying to summarize it in short. because if you do that, the board chastises us. he says that the earth will spit you out like the nation's before june. in other words, remain a moral nation. as a jurist shopping, i read from the -- as a jewish shop i read from the toran. some people, to me and tell me, i do not like what you said.

my job is to bring people to repent and be immoral. i disagree with some people. some people say that they will go to officials because i went against the new regulation. they say, you cannot do that. you are discriminating against me. am i to be fearful of this that? will i get hung out to dry by an i.g. that is not chaplain friendly? they do not like what i say. there is an old saying that figures do not lie and liars figure. there for, you can do whatever you want with the statement. am i afraid of what can happen?

let me share a start with you that happen to me. when i deployed to iraq and i began my moving north in 2003, i was in a camp and we had service members come and participate. at night, there is more food than i ever thought i would see. food came from different volunteer agencies. it was a beautiful meal. i asked the people there, how did you like the service? they said that it was nice and they enjoyed it. we involved everyone. a young female captain turned to me and said, i did not like your service. i said, why not? she said, you were not

inclusive. i knew what she meant. she said, you did not involve females in your service. i told her, yes, i did. i turned to the females and ask, were you involved? they said, yes. i hastened to explain to her that i am an orthodox rabbi. i conduct my shop bulls as i conduct my services -- chapels as i conduct my services. i thought everyone was ok with that. obviously i wasn't. she said, you know what? i will report you. i looked at her. i said, do me a favor.

[inaudible] [applause] he called me and asked me, what is the jewish tradition of prayer and a troubling times? at that time, the army was suffering from suicide and other issues during the height of the war in afghanistan and iraq. we had a talk about your life. what do you feel? how you feel? and so on. he asked me, what is the jewish tradition on fasting? i told him the following -- in ancient times, that was common. as we say our prayers, in one particular prayer, the second

paragraph of that prior talks about fearing god and listening to all of his words and then god will bless you with rain, he will grow crops, life will be good. however, if you do not, no rain, the ground will shrivel, no crops, you will starve, things will not be good. their fur, going back to a thousand years when things were bad and the rain did not fall -- therefore, going back two thousand years when things are bad and the rain did not fall, they cost fasting to happen in the kennedys. repent your sins. -- happen in the communities. bottom line, all hell broke loose.

i would like to read a proclamation so that you understand. chaplains were called on numerous occasions and it goes on and on. therefore i call the shop plans to the day of prayer and fasting to keep with tradition. the united cry of our court should be heard and the preservation and peace for our soldiers. we request you bring your pray in chatelainplains and your faith. when this came out, all hell broke loose. they wanted that chaplain's head. literally. they want him fired. how dare he declare a day of fasting. who is he? furthermore, i brought some of

the exurbs of what this chaplain did and why did he should be fired. i will not read them because time is short. [laughter] but something very important happen. i received a phone call because i wrote a letter that ended up in a half a dozen newspapers, defending the position of the lains.of chatelaip this fasting follows in our tradition. the fact that the shopping is a christian makes no difference. -- chaplain is a christian makes no difference. i got a phone call from someone associated with this group. they were very angry. why? he was angry that i gave

chaplain carver cover. i said, if you read the bible, you would not be making this phone call. that made him a year and he hung up the phone. the point being is, general carver did what was right by asking for a prayer. the last thing i want to talk about is that we have a phenomenal program in the army called the strong bonds. strong bonds is the best program .y far t did it cannot steal our money. it is a really good program. it has been all over the place.

a group of people have said and have claimed to have written letters and gone after the program claiming it is religious in nature and it is christian- based and therefore it should not be allowed. one of our best proponents of the program is another orthodox jew is chaplain. do you think it would be a christian-nature under his leadership? i do not think so. but this is a great program. it is for soldiers and families deployed. but there is a crime out there that they are trying to take this program away. yes, we have prayer at the beginning of the program and at the end. no one has to stay there for prayer. they are not pressured. no one wears their uniforms. you do nine know who is what rent.

-- do not know who is what rank. i would like to say that we need to keep our eyes open and stand our ground strongly. there are challenges ahead as we chaplains and other people of faith and must and vigilant in the assaults of our faith. together, we can overcome those challenges, no matter how difficult. and the unity, there is strength. thank you. [applause] >> as a litigator, i cannot sit down and give a talk. [laughter] i want to start because of this week and is rolling into memorial day. i think we ought to do something that we have not done yet. if there is anyone here who is a

better man or in active service, can you stand? we ought to honor those who serve our country. [applause] these men are very braces. -- gracious. it makes you angry to see some of these things that are happening. these are people that are putting everything on the line for us. the idea that their religious freedom would be ripped away from them in the process of risking their very lives for our freedom, i think it is intolerable. this is something that i think -- and i think most americans feel that way -- we have many cases. when we are out there, this is

something that many people are united behind. the great thing about this issue is that these chatelains and these veterans and soldiers and airmen, and they have tremendous support. a lot of it is our willingness to stand up and not accept things that they're being forced and taking away their freedom. i have been doing freedom and litigation cases for a while. one of the premises and that has been discussed has been the word "unprecedented." about a year-and-a-half ago, i have seen what is going on. i have been in this field for a long time. i would have to say that the

line is going the wrong direction. we're going in the wrong direction in this area. we have been for 23 years. ithe speed at which we are falling is no quicker than i have ever seen. the numbers of cases, i have friends from other groups that do these kinds of cases. there are many cases. people are being turned away. there is something different going on. we see that. you can spend a whole they talking about all of the different cases and attacks that are happening with our veterans and in the military. there has been a litany of this over the past few years. i want to lay that out first. liberty institute, the group that i am with has the largest legal organization. we do that free of charge. for some reason, we have a lot of these cases in the military.

we represent all of the major veterans' groups. i want to talk about a couple of these cases in the limited time that i have. one is over and one that is about to happen. it might be the liberty case of next year that we can begin to look into. what i wanted to start with is -- we have a video on this. forgive me. it is only two minutes long. i will introduce you to this case. this is something that we sent our own people and our own support network. it is a little self-promoting. ignore that. just look at the rest of it. thank you.

[video clip] ♪

♪ ♪