, would slash you meet face to face anywhere in the world. it just takes a click to collaborate. you can collaborate on documents in real time. you'll feel instantly connected even if you are thousands of miles apart. it is easy to use. what our listeners can try it for free for 30 days. do not wait. click on the try it free button. what a great promo code. use the promo gabfest.

tell us about our third topic. >> tyler clemente was a freshman at records in september 2010 when he stepped off the gw bridge. cops out in electronic dwell on tw-- trail on twitter with is roommate having a webcam operation. a male date came over. the room may turn on his webcam. he saw of them were making out, turned it off, but told other students about what he had seen. he planned another viewing, which was is titillating status and cancer, which he was using tyler to get attention in his

first weeks of college. because of this investigation, criminal charges were filed, and he was convicted. that meant a 10-year maximum sentence. on monday, the judge had to decide how to handle this. the clementes spoke very movingly. his father was furious in a way that was during although i thought i could understand his sense of powerlessness. the roommate chose not to speak, which was surprising because it was the moment to throw himself on the judge's mercy. i was waiting for a moment of catharsis that never happened. the judge was extremely merciful

and gave him this 30 day sentence was rigid with three years of probation. it was a jail -- with a three year -- with three years of probation. this death was tragic. we have no idea what the connection was between their roommates. we do not know what the connection was. yet, we can all feel spying on your roommates gay making out session was something to be discouraged. what is to make of this sentence, which was light? i wrote a piece on this to say this was light and fair. watching the hearing, i felt much more ambivalent. i felt it would not serve the

limit anything to go to prison. he had already suffered so much. because he seemed so unlikable and never showed he had grown from this experience, i felt very ill at ease with the outcome. my brain was the right thing, but my heart did not feel it all away. but it was a mandatory 10-year sentence. >> and i say mandatory? i mean to say maximum. what the judge did was remarkable, legally speaking. it was really surprising. >> why? >> since you asked, because he was offered a plea deal before trial of all community service, no time.

no plea to the bias charge. he would only have to plead to invasion of privacy charges. he was also not a citizen. there was a question of deportation. it was a great deal, and he turned it down. there is a big price for going to trial. that is how our system works. it is how prosecutors pushed people to plea-bargain. the prosecutors did a great job. the judge was very fair. this vertical hold of. there is a question about how much evidence was available. -- is a vertical hold of. this is a question about how much evidence was available. >> the judge is not in on -- >> it was a second degree bias charge. in new jersey, it says you have to go to prison in less that will be a serious injustice. the judge had to rule -- he had

to find that this was a really exceptional case. >> going to this case, and then the john edwards case, he may get sent to prison, too -- or jail. it seems to me that the fact that these men have have been punished in the press for the things that they did it should weigh in to it. >> by vicious, you mean approvingly. >> john m. were edwards' life is ruined. >> how do you set up a system

where you get all of the ruining that happens when you go through a legal process that may put you in jail. however it may never put you in jail. quote you cannot prosecute people in order to string them up -- cause reputation of damage. once prosecutors say we are doing this to set an example, that should make us extremely nervous. there should be a legal brief in - reason for conviction. a canny enough in sentences. sentencing is still up to the judge's discretion in most states. you can take into account the persons you for the fact that they had not had a prior record.

without explicitly talking about media coverage as a punishment -- you know it was actually -- in this hearing, both families talk with enormous emotion about being hounded by the media and with that was light. said clemente's father they were hounded by the media for weeks. someone came to his place of employment, and he had to call the police. you could see he was just as angry at the treatment by the parents dharun ravi's were. when you become the focus of a notorious new story, it does not matter whether you are the victim or the perpetrator. there is a cost for your loss of privacy. we do not have a way of taking that into account officially, but it showed a very vividly on both sides in this hearing. >> can the judge take that into

account? >> you can in your heart. it is not like an aggravating or mitigating factor in a lot. you almost think that maybe it should be. you should consider reputation of damage and the price of invasion of privacy. >> if it damages the reputation of one side of the case, it also increases the pain of the underlying crime for the other side because they get to be reminded every day that their sun just got a bridge. >> -- their son jumped off of a bridge. >> the clementes bill that way. they made that point. you are right. this is something i kind of object to with my lawyer self. they were talking about the tragedy of having to sit through the trial. that was a punishment.

dharun ravi was exercising his right to trial, but theiler's family felt this was damaging. you cannot argue with those emotions. >> let's leave our third topic there. let's go to cocktail chatter. we had some awesome cocktails before the show. can we stand up? >> no. you do not want to get out of the frame for the camera. >> next time. >> and david wanted to do an oprah walk. >> i was not into this idea. to look like a motivational speaker. [laughter] he will teach you how to make 15 minute brownies in 10 minutes.

i have two devices of pierre. one has run out of juice and the other cannot download what i need. >> you have no cocktail chatter. >> i have one. i used a pen to write it down. >> get to the chatter. >> it is commencement season, and everyone has their favorite list of commencement addresses. one is steve jobs' fair one. i saw one from david foster wallace. it is a little out of control when you referred to this. i am not a fan of his.

i think the writing is self indulgent. i also had an experience with him when he covered the mccain campaign. he rose an account of it, much of is fictional. it was the -- he wrote and accounts of it, and much of it was fictional perry it he says a -- . >>he gave a fantastic rambled through -- the constant focus and struggle and life to break yourself out of your default setting -- settings and your automatic day to day feelings about other people and about

your dream of life at times. you should be constantly fighting against that because it leads to a richer and more for filling life. it was a fantastic commencement address. i would recommend it to all of you. >> i would like to chatter this week about a story that will be in the new york times magazine on sunday written by a writer i like the name samantha shapiro. it is about the guru of the natural top berth movement. she has delivered babies outside of a hospital on a place called the farm, which used to be a commune in rural kentucky. she has delivered 3000 babies. she has lost very few of them. [laughter] that is an important part of the story. >> the way you put it is not a encouraging. >> that is not going on a

leaflet. be distributed at your local wholefoods. >> she is a self trained midwife who chooses her patients carefully. she believes -- >> many of them are pregnant. [laughter] >> this is turning out to be fodder for your jokes. she believes many of the things that go wrong in the hospital can be prevented if you have an excellent midwife who knows which she is doing. we have a notion where every time there is a home birth we see it as a terrible decision that parents may not to go to the hospital. she says, what about the deaths from hospital boards -- births? i was relieved at the end of the story.

samantha's shapiro decides to have her baby in the hospital. she has an unnecessary caesarean section. i was so torn by the story because i usually -- home births made me very nervous. my oldest sun was born in a hospital. i had a man the life for my second son's birth. you have to really dramatically go one way or the other. you have to have a doctor who will do a caesarean section or wherever it takes to have the baby born in a healthy way, or you have to have a midwife who is calling to help you through the process. the bad thing is to have a doctor who does not know how to help you like a midwife, but also does not take dramatic intervention actions. >> both of our kids were born with the most amazing midwife.

she was also amazing to me. >> was a in a hospital? >> yes. it turned out that was good. >> i needed someone to lie down. [laughter] the berthing tough was knife's -- nice. -- the berthing tub was nice. >> our midwives had to stop practicing. >> hospitals will not take them. they have made it so difficult. >> it depends on the state. >> this is washington d.c.. >> were your midwives in practices? >> for a while. it became very difficult. i am very unsympathetic to

medicalization of everything. it feels like this should be a reasonable option for people who want to take the risk. they should be allowed to go and have children and a taxi or field. >> that is a heck of a reality show. >> why? why is that -- this piece suggests there is a good argument in a research that it is not clear that home births are not necessarily unsafe by comparison. >> unless you can tell me it is a matter of medical physical certainty. very few people are going to choose that. i am not suggest everyone should boil some water, but i do think

-- >> remember on the sitcoms, they would always say boil water, and get the blankets. >> what was the water for? >> for disinfectant. you have a higher weight of -- rate of infection. >> i thought it was for a cup of tea for the husband. a nice, relaxing chamomile. >> i want to hang out with ida mae gaskins. >> i will pander to my father who is sitting in the front row. [applause] yes. >> do not think that is pandering. >> you are right. he is a scientist and physician who just retired after 45 years at the vih running a lab.

slate is about to do a series about science education next month. because he is an eloquent and humane scientist, i asked him to write a personal essay about why he became a scientist. he sent me a draft. there is a passage i found very moving. it recounts a different kind of childhood and the one that my children are having. he describes himself at about 11 years old. a couple of my friends were and becamens, doctors themselves. i discovered the ingredients of gun power. one of us found out about a place to -- who sold chemicals. we bought what we needed in

manhattan. in a basement lab, we did all sorts of things involving gunpowder. sometimes it was noisy or smelly or smoky. we did not know anything about lab coat, gloves, or goggles. the moment i have never forgotten was igniting something in a crucible and causing a great smell of -- and noise as well as smoke. the point of the story is that through all of this, my parents and my friend's parents, sensing that we were not silly, left us alone. they did not however as i did over my sons when they play with their chemistry sets. this may explain why they turned to words for a living. in addition to being curious, we were free and we were trusted. that seems to have been central

informative. i became a scientist. i thought that was a lovely account. [applause] >> we can stand up now. >> i thought it was a beautiful account of what a chocolate can do in shaping who a person is -- a childhood can do in shaping what a person is. do your children have gunpowder? >> they do not buy the power -- gunpowder. show therenish the before we get to our q and a. go to slate.com/gabfest. please subscribe to our podcast on itunes.

you can search in the intunes store. leave a common wall you are there. -- leave a comment while you are there. thank you to our host and sponsors. the t-shirts are for sale and of the back. >> please buy them because david keys hauling them around. >> they sit in my office like a ghost. >> he has to carry the shirts. >> please buy them. >> we will be back with you next week. thank you. [applause] >> do we have microphones on either side? we can do some questions. >> thank you for coming.

in your second discussion you touched briefly on the idea of the filibuster, which may be of a -- maybe more of a roadblock and you give credit to. to what extent do you think that is a huge roadblock? we would have the public auction of the keystone pipeline. >> i wonder about the public auction. there are a lot of people who are not so certain that democrats could have gotten the public option through. there were many democrats who won it -- wanted it.

in the final bill of this senate -- >> it would have been more constitutional. >> if it passed. >> yes. now that we know that the private enterprise solution turns out to be so questionable. >> i am talking about whether or not they got the votes. >> that is want to comment. >> you never can get a coalition together of enough people to give the votes to reformate. >> do you think it is a big problem? >> it has more power than it should. i am not smart enough to know whether it should disappear altogether. that is true for most topics. when you filibuster of the motion to proceed, the ability to talk about a bill, that is

what seems to be absolutely bon kers. it is in st. that you cannot talk -- it is in saying that you cannot talk. you cannot get it to be talked about. >> thank you for coming. the parties are sorted. the most liberal republican is further to the right then the most conservative democrat.

[unintelligible] there is not a reason to make a deal with someone who you ideologically disagree with and have no party connection to. >> that is a good point. that seems like another job in the bucket. you have neither of those things in common. >> great. >> thank you. >> per the branding of your t- shirts -- let's say the federal government decides to end pandas at the national zoo, and the pandas it council and take their case between -- before the supreme court, how would the

justices weigh in on this case? what is the defense? let's say you are not the prosecution. >> what is their claim? what they have every right to be on display at the national zoo. it is a rather effective use of taxpayer dollars. >> went to republicans and democrats come out on this issue? -- where do republicans in the press come out on this issue? >> the pandas have standing. >> they do not. they would be like this -- [laughter] they have sitting. >> they have sitting there and they have lolling about. >> i cannot remember the rest. they can get into court, but i

do not think they have the right to their particular habitat. no one can tell the government had to spend its money. the government cannot change congress's power of the purse. >> since politicians on both parties are so good at pandering, i think they would go before -- [laughter] >> very good. that is good. >> my view is this is actually an issue for immigration services because they are -- [laughter] they are here illegally, and they are totally the portable. >> south -- south deportation for the pandas. >> this is an issue of black and white. [laughter] >> dickerson for the wind.

all that, sir. >> i will not try. who do you think will win the election? it has a really good windup. >> i wish the election did. >> a couple of weeks ago david said the republicans could have nominate carter -- carpet because the economy was so bad. the republicans have going for them that the economy is not as strong as it could or should be, and they will say the president's policy has made is worse -- it worse. that is their chief advantage. the obama campaign seems to have quite a few advantages. it has a strong electoral map.

they can afford to lose a lot of states they won in 2008 and still win. their demographics seem to be on their side. given that, what do you think wins out? as the economy always trump all? can the obama campaign overcome the weakness of the economy in november? >> it is weakened by an economy that is not recovering fast enough. but he has to convince a skeptical public that they should not turn him away when their inclination is to vote thumbs down and embrace a candidates to is not universally liked but they are liking every

day more. republicans are coming into the fold. there may be ceiling to the rise and the capability rating that has gone up. i do not know of the metaphor at the moment is. the president has all the things you described are quite right. it is better for him. romney has to win florida. he has to win ohio. obama can go off in the west. as he mentioned, at the minority population is giving him a larger share of voters.

he has super powerful legs but big ankle weights. it to be really close. the average is now 45.6. romney is up 45.5. it is tied in ohio. the president is up by seven in virginia. it is a tie in other places. it is super close. it is going to be all the way through. >> i think romney wind spiris. >> i think americans vote for individuals. they have to think -- >> people are fine with them on the question. they may not like him but they're not voting for the

person they like. >> i hear you. i do not think you have to win the personality contest but i do not think he can be anybody. >> you have to be a plus carpet, not an objectionable 1. >> you are going to miss. >> he would have made a good venture capitalist. >> you hear a lot about a bobble campaign poses a clear plan. you think maybe if capacity obama -- maybe it could push the obama campaign to the wind. what do we lose as society in human being as the insurance allies -- instruments allies

people so much? that would be with no child left behind. there are breaking things down this much. this person supports pro-choice. we will really target them as much. we think we know what they are going to do and how they're going to vote. >> this is the danger. we had this idea on the kinds of things they want. i think this is too varied. you end up expose with different ideas. e-mail want to hear that pitch.

no equation is going to take into account. that will always boiled ifoil i. >> thank you are bringing the belongs.st back where it >> i have a process question for you. i listen to this every week. there was the question of the moment. everything seems very 21st century until the strange interlude. you talk about the sponsors. first, and generally curious

about the thoughts about that. secondly, i understand you may not be able to do this. is this a good solution for the problem? you need funding and the need to make money. >> i am thrilled to do the ads. saw, my publisher -- my publisher called in so we're going back to the future. we are a money-making business. we do a lot of stuff. is this carefree? >> it is leaving it alone.

>> we are ambitious and creative about ways we can get this. we charge you for this. we're not making a ton of money. we make the pot past. we make everything we do available for free to our listeners. we need to get paid. we need salaries. a need to pay for our rent. everytime i get an e-mail from our publisher, my heart skips. it really helps. >> you may find it irritating. we may not like the interruptions.

it is really important to what we do. this cannot continue if we would not experience with these kind of add forms. it is a passion of mine. >> we really like the idea of the medium of pot cdcasting. the idea that advertisers believe. that is something that we really like. >> this is another question. it seems so many times people are having disagreements not about their opinions or their views but the [unintelligible] themselves. you cannot break that if they feel they are in a bubble that it cannot get to. do you think that is more of a

cause or an effect th? >> i think it has tremendous power. it is so hard to bridge that particular gap. one thing that strikes me when i go down the rabbit hole with people who e mail me, you almost have enough at your disposal to settle the argument. how many do things to be really no exact? even if we did with the person you're talking to, would they believe us? i feel like if i could have in front of me, i did show the other people the errors of their ways. >> i recognize that neither of

the right. i like the idea that your natural state is a delusion. there is and experimentation of an idea that warily you're susceptible to new information. -- of an idea. you are susceptible to a new information. makes itor head yea impossible to get facts. >> one last question.

[inaudible] why should this be any different? >> it has always been that way. i think the answer to this -- there were centers revealing themselves. it is in this moment.

the only time i think the country has been and it felt like about to boil on the same way is at the moment right? >> if this century construction. basically, you can find all examples before that. there is a lot of corruption and bribery. the civil rights state had a geographical components.

there are no more southern democrats. it is not just ideology. >> thank you so much. this was very fun. we will be back. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> coming up, secretary of state hillary clinton presents the state department's annual human rights report. they host a discussion on the

european economy and debt crisis. at the annual religious conference in washington, the legislators voiced their opposition to the health- insurance mandate requiring coverage of contraception. >> wisconsin voters will decide on june 50 whether to recall gov. scott walker two years after first being elected. tomorrow he debates his democratic opponent, tom barrett. become much live beginning at 9:00 p.m. eastern. it is also on c-span radio hands c-span.org. >> life is incredibly presag precious. these all of your talents to serve one another as that would be the to measure by which your life will be judged. crags what commencement speeches

on c-span, politicians, and as they share their thoughts with the classic 2012. -- >> what commencement speeches on c-span, politicians, at as they share their thoughts with the class of 2012. >> this examines these that is a human-rights around the world. the secretary of state hillary clinton spoke about recent developments in human rights in burma and the middle east as egyptians vote in the presidential election. this is a half hour. good morning. good morning, everyone. i'm very pleased to be joined here today by assistant secretary posner to release our 2011 country reports on human rights practices. these reports, which the united states government has published for nearly four decades, make

clear to governments around the world -- we are watching and we are holding you accountable. and they make clear to citizens and activists everywhere -- you are not alone. we are standing with you. mike and his team and the staff at our embassies and consulates around the world have worked tirelessly to produce these reports. and i want to thank each and every person who has contributed to them. now, as you know, this has been an especially tumultuous and momentous year for everyone involved in the cause of human rights. many of the events that have dominated recent headlines from the revolutions in the middle east to reforms in burma began with human rights, with the clear call of men and women demanding their universal rights.

today in egypt, we are seeing in real time that those demands are making a difference as egyptians are going to the polls to determine for the first time in their history who their leaders will be. whatever the outcome of the election, the egyptian people will keep striving to achieve their aspirations. and as they do, we will continue to support them. we will support people everywhere who seek the same. men and women who want to speak, worship, associate, love the way they choose we will defend their rights, not just on the day we issue these reports, but every day. as secretary, i have worked with my superb team on advancing human rights in a 21st century landscape, focusing on new frontiers even as we stand up against age-old abuses. where women have been and continue to be marginalized, we're helping them become full

partners in their governments and economies. where lgbt people are mistreated and discriminated against, we're working to bring them into full participation in their societies. we're expanding access to technology and defending internet freedom because people deserve the same rights online as off. and we know that in the 21st century human rights are not only a question of civil and political liberties, it's about the fundamental question of whether people everywhere have the chance to make the most of their god-given potential. so we are supporting efforts around the world to give people a voice in their societies, a

stake in their economies, and to support them as they determine for themselves the future of their own lives and the contributions they can make to the future of their countries. we think this is the way, together, we can make human rights a human reality. now as these reports document, there is a lot of work that remains to be done. in too many places, governments continue to stifle their own people's aspirations. and in some places like syria, it is not just an assault on freedom of expression or freedom of association, but an assault on the very lives of citizens. the assad regime's brutality against its own people must and will end, because syrians know they deserve a better future.

these reports are more than a report card, they are a tool for lawmakers and scholars, for civil society leaders and activists. we also think they are a tool for government leaders. it's always been bewildering to me that so many government leaders don't want to make the most of the human potential of their own people. and so i don't expect this to be reading material everywhere, but i do hope somewhere in the corner of my mind that maybe a leader will pick it up and say -- how do we compare with others, and what can we do today, tomorrow, and next year that will maximize the potential of more of our citizens? this year we've made the reports easier to read online, easier to track trends across a region, easier to follow the progress of a particular group, easier to find out which governments are or are not living up to their commitments. now, every year that we issue this, we take stock of ourselves. we say -- what more can we do? where have we succeeded or are

succeeding? where are we falling short? and we know we have to recommit to the work of advancing universal rights, building the partnerships that will move us forward, helping every man, woman, and child live up to their god-given potential. and we know we have to be able to speak out and speak up for those unable to use their own voices. but this is at the core of who we are. this is central to what we believe. and this is the work that will continue administration after administration, secretary after secretary, because of its

centrality to our foreign policy and national security. now i'd like to turn things over to assistant secretary for democracy, human right, and labor mike posner, who will speak further about some of the specific findings in this year's reports. thank you all very much. thanks, mike. >> thank you, madam secretary. i wanted to say a few words about the report reports and what's new this year. then i'll be happy to take your questions. as the secretary noted, 2011was a year of dramatic changes with historic change led by citizens across the middle east, north africa, burma and elsewhere. these reports document a number of situations where human rights continue to be violated, including in iran, north korea, turkmenistan, uzbekistan, eritrea, sudan, and syria.

and there continue to be a range of human rights challenges in places like russia, china, pakistan, and other nations where the u.s. has important policy interests. in too many countries, egregious human rights violations continue, including torture, arbitrary detention, denial of due process of law, disappearance, and extrajudicial killings, all of which we document in detail. these reports cover other disturbing trends in 2011. first, in a number of countries, we see flawed elections, restrictions on physical and internet freedom, media censorship, attempts to restrict the activities of civil society groups. such restrictions stymie the efforts of citizens to change their own societies peacefully from within, which the secretary

has spoken so eloquently about. we also report on continued, and in some cases, increasing persecution of many religious groups, including the ahmadis, the baha'i, tibetan buddhists, jews, and christians. the reports have a separate section documenting anti- semitic acts. we document discrimination against other groups, including racial and ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, women, and the lgbt community, which continue to face criminalization and violence in many countries. but there are also a number of encouraging developments in 2011 starting with the burmese leadership, which the secretary has mentioned. much more needs to be done, including releasing all remaining political prisoners, working to end violence against ethnic minorities, but we will continue to encourage that government to keep making progress on those issues in the coming year. we also saw positive developments around the world in 2011 in zambia, where they held

free elections that were credible and orderly, in tunisia, where they held free elections for a constituent assembly, a body that's now rewriting the constitution. in colombia, the government continues to strive to improve justice in human rights cases. progress towards human rights is neither linear nor guaranteed, but we're pleased to note these important landmarks. now, let me just say a couple of words about the report themselves. since the 1970s, this is has grown into a mammoth undertaking. this year we have 199 reports covering every country and a number of territories. they reflect the work of literally hundreds of people here and around the world who collect information and edit, review, and fact check to make sure that these reports are accurate and objective. i want to extend my heartfelt thanks to all the people who've worked so hard to make these reports the gold standard for

human rights reporting and fidelity to the truth. i want to especially thank stephen eisenbraun, who's our commander in chief and chief editor, and he's done an outstanding job over the last six years in putting these reports together. last year, the report was viewed by more than a million people. as the secretary noted, consistent with her leadership on 21st century statecraft, this year's we've taken a number of steps to make the reports more concise, more accessible to a broader spectrum of readers, and easier to search. this year's reports are more shorter and more focused, and each country section now has an executive summary. we've used the latest technology to make the reports fully

searchable as well as searchable across countries by topic. the public can share these reports on social media, and so they can have their own conversations about human rights. so i invite you to explore the reports online and to look at our website, a year old now, which is humanrights. gov. now, let me take any questions, please. >> let's start with arshad. >> two things. one, could you assess for us the respect for human rights, particularly in those countries in the middle east where authoritarian regimes were toppled last year? so specifically, i would include egypt, tunisia, and libya. could you also comment broadly on your assessment of bahrain's implementation of the bici report? and finally, i couldn't find it in the report, although i had little time to read through it,

and i may have missed it, but i didn't see a reference to how the libyan authorities handled the death of colonel qadhafi. and if i missed it, that's fine. but could you give us your assessment? i think at the time, toria described it as an opportunity for the libyan authorities to do a thorough investigation. how do you think the new libyan authorities handled his death, any subsequent investigation, holding anyone accountable for what some people might regard as an extrajudicial killing? >> you got three in there. >> yeah. okay.

let me take the first question, which really is a broad overview of changes in the arab awakening, in particular with regard to egypt tunisia, and libya. i think it's first thing to say is that we recognize that change in any society that's been stuck is going to be a process. it's not a linear process. and so in each of those countries, we see both fundamental change in terms of leadership, but also a range of challenges that remain. as the secretary noted in egypt, we now have today yesterday and today presidential elections, which seem to be going lots of people voting. the process seems open. but we remain to see what happens going forward. there's likely to be a next round and then a transition over the summer. there are a range of challenges that are still to be faced writing a constitution, figuring out the relationship with the parliament.

so we are we're in a journey here, and i think our recognition is there's lots to be done, but we stand with the egyptian government and people as they move forward in that journey. tunisia, i think there is certainly a sense, as i said in my opening comment, that there's been a good deal of progress certainly in building the infrastructure, including the moving forward with a constitutional process that will set the framework for what needs to be done going forward. and libya, huge agenda coming out of 42 years where essentially all institutions were destroyed, beginning to develop some stability, still a transitional government, hopefully in the coming months, an election, and the beginning of a process of regularizing the process of governing. on the your last question relating to the qadhafi killing, the government, i

think, has such a big agenda right now. i don't think it's reasonable to expect that they're going to be dealing with every aspect of that. they still have thousands of people in detention, many militias that still need to be brought into line. i actually plan to visit there shortly and will look into all of these issues. and in bahrain, finally, as we said several weeks ago, we have an important security relationship with bahrain. it's in our national security interest to continue and maintain that relationship. but we've been very clear, very explicit the secretary was in her meeting with the crown prince that there are a range of very serious human rights problems. there is an increased polarization in the society. we are eager for there to be a process that is a serious negotiation or dialogue that brings people together. but there are a range of issues on prisoners still in detention, accountability, police practices, so we continue to

push it. >> did the libyans ever really investigate qadhafi's killing, to your knowledge? >> i'm not going to i'll answer that better, i think, when i go there and have some of those conversations. >> elise. >> just kind of more broadly on bahrain and other countries, i mean, amnesty international coincidentally came out with a report its own annual human rights report and said that while you have been a leader in human rights, it's kind of you're not always that principled when it comes to economic and national security priorities. sometimes that is taking a front seat, particularly on bahrain. and also, on syria, where you haven't exercised the sufficient pressure on russia and china because of other issues in the relationship to go along with more robust action at the united nations security council. could you respond to that -- >> sure. >> -- and talk about a little

bit in general about the balance that you're trying to strike between economic and national security priorities and american values of human rights? >> sure. so in the broader sense, president obama has talked about, and secretary clinton, principled engagement. we engage in the world and we recognize that there are a range of interests. we have security interests, as you say, economic interests, political, diplomatic. but human rights is an essential part of what we do across the board. and so it is always going to be part of the discussion. secretary has been great, and i've been part of many discussions with her with strategic, economic allies where these issues are raised with a clear voice. we raised them in bahrain. to cite the two examples you've raised, we raised these issues in bahrain recognizing that that society is at a turning point. it's at a critical juncture where there's actually been a greater polarization and more street violence. we're concerned about that. we're concerned about it because we know that it's in bahrain's long-term interests and the interests of the bahraini people that there be a coming together and a serious addressing of the human rights issues there as part of a broader path to reconciliation. we're not shy about that, and we raised it consistently. and in syria, i would say we have been as focused and as

active as any government in trying to get more a more unified international response with the russians, with the chinese, with others at the security council. and we have a multifaceted response. we pushed for the monitors to be in place the annan plan. that's clearly not enough and it's frustrating. we've pushed at the g-8 for there to be a plan for transition. we're part of the friends of syria trying to build up and strengthen the opposition. we've been absolutely clear for months that assad must go. and we've pushed for sanctions and we've enacted sanctions and gotten others to do it. it is a very tough challenge, but it's not for lack of commitment or lack of clarity about what we're trying to accomplish or how we're going about it. >> michele kelemen. >> thank you. i'd like to ask about china and the case of chen guangcheng.

i wonder, first of all, how concerned are you about his network of friends who helped him escape? and then secondly, more broadly, i wonder, the way you resolve this case with the chinese, whether you see that as a defining moment and new approach to dealing with these issues with china? or are they so angry with you that they're never going to do this again and deal with you in that sort of way? >> well, let me say, first of all, about chen guangcheng's family and friends, we are closely monitoring what's happening with his immediate family his brother, his nephew, the lawyers who have undertaken to represent his nephew, others who assisted him. we have and will, as i'm doing today, raise these cases and our concerns with the chinese government, both publicly and privately. we'll continue to do that. we'll continue to have contact with mr. chen and get his input.

so there are these are things, as there are many human rights issues in china that we're paying attention to. as we've said previously, in the last several years, there's been a closing of space for human rights lawyers and activists in china. those are things of concern. we're concerned about other cases like gao zhisheng, liu xiaobo. those are cases we'll continue to raise. in terms of the relationship, we had, obviously, a dramatic few days you were there during the strategic and economic dialogue. what was striking to me is that we had a very successful meeting while a human rights issue was being played out.

i think the relationship is now so important to both countries that we have found a way, and we will find a way, to talk about our economic, political, strategic interests. and human rights is going to be very much a part of those discussions. >> can i -- >> here, please. >> -- follow up on china? >> here, please. >> my name is tara mckelvey and i write for newsweek and the daily beast, and i have a question about egypt. you talk about the elections as being open, and i'm wondering if you're concerned about the fact that there are going to be fewer monitors or it'll be harder to monitor those elections? >> well, let me say first of all that the election process is ongoing, and so at this stage we wait and watch, as egyptians are doing, to see the final outcome, how the votes are counted, what happens in what is likely to be a second round, and what happens in what we hope will be a successful transition to a new civilian government in july. we also recognize that this is an evolutionary process. there are some witnesses or observers there, not everywhere. but it is from the initial accounts, lots of people are voting.

the process seems to be moving forward. but there's a big agenda beyond the elections, and as secretary clinton has said often, a sustainable democracy requires a vibrant civil society, a free press, strong legal institutions, et cetera. so we have there's a lot to be done, and this is going to be led by egyptians. this is what the egyptian people want. they want a stake in their own future, they want economic opportunity, and they want a stake in the political future of their country. >> here, please. >> is anything else more about colombia in this report positive aspects or negative aspects, for example? >> well, the santos government has undertaken a number of things that we regard as being in the right direction in terms of addressing some of the longstanding human rights cases. as you know, colombia has faced decades of political violence. trying to make the transition in a way that both addresses accountability issues in a reasonable way and also moves forward in reconciliation is a challenge. but i think the attorney general's office there and others have been very mindful of the need to strengthen the judicial system, to move forward in a way affirmatively to build institutions that will protect all colombian people.

and we are with them in trying to address those issues in an important strategic dialogue we have with them and in other ways that we can be helpful. >> we'll take indira and then two more. >> thanks. i wanted to ask you to highlight in iran what you feel is different in 2011 versus previous years, and particularly compared with the green movement's start in 2009. and i'd also like to ask you about eritrea. am i right in reading this as if eritrea is really the bottom of the barrel here? are they the 199th on this list who you've been reviewing? >> well, first -- >> well, who is if they're not? >> first of all in iran, sadly, 2011 was a continuation of many negative trends, intolerance of dissent, particularly a

crackdown on demonstrators in february, free speech restricted, internet freedom restricted, political participation severely circumscribed, unfair trials, amputations, floggings, lots of death penalty, including some this year, many held in secret. so it's a very grim picture. and i want to in particular single out the case of the seven baha'i leaders who were sentenced to 20 years in prison. the sentence was reinstated last year. they're now in may, they marked four years of a 20-year sentence for basically practicing their religion. it is a human rights situation that is very disturbing, and we'll continue to call it out. eritrea likewise is a situation where there are a range of very serious problems.

it's a government that restricts any kind of dissent or openness. i wouldn't we don't rank countries. unfortunately, there are a number of countries that have consistent gross human rights violations. they would certainly be on that list. >> catherine. >> i'm wondering about afghanistan. the report calls the situation of women, quote, "marginally improved," but it also calls the gains tenuous. i'm wondering, looking forward, are you concerned about 2014 and what happens when we transition? >> we are concerned, and afghan women and women's leaders are also greatly concerned. women are critical actors in the reconciliation and reintegration process. they need to be not marginal to the political process. they need to be fully engaged and their rights fully

respected. and we are very mindful, and having spent a lot of time with women's leaders there, i can tell you that there is a big a tall agenda in terms of integrating women into the political process and making sure that women and girls' rights are protected going forward. we are very mindful of the challenge. at the same time, there is a vital and vibrant civil society there. they're more engaged. and so i think it's in our interest to figure out how we can help them advance the agenda, amplify their voices, so that they can be more effective in the coming years. >> last one for goyal. he's been patient. >> thank you, ma'am. if i may go back to china, sir, this report, of course, we stand here and sit here every year. there are millions of people in china who are seeking freedom and democracy, especially those who are being persecuted in the name of religion, they cannot practice any kind of religion there.

and also monks and buddhist and finally, as far as tibetans are concerned, they are still crying. and when secretary said that you are not alone, we are with you, they are still asking the united states that when will you be with us? and finally, as far as pakistan is concerned, journalists and extrajudicial killings and women and girls are under attack in pakistan. >> on china, i would say this, there are a there's a long agenda, a big agenda on human rights. we deal with it in different ways. last month, harold koh, the legal advisor here, and i participated in a legal experts discussion where we discussed a range of issues, including the independence of the courts, independence of lawyers, detention issues, and the like. we were part of i was part of the strategic and economic dialogue, and this summer we

will have a human rights dialogue where we raise these issues. so these issues come up in many different contexts with me and with other u.s. government officials. we're very mindful of the situation of religious minorities the tibetans. we're very concerned about the self-immolations. we're concerned about the situation of the uighurs in xinjiang and elsewhere. we are going to raise these issues as well as the individual cases, some of which i have mentioned. we're going to continue to raise our concerns about labor issues and about a range of other things that matter to chinese people. these are issues that they are now increasingly debating within their own society. again, we're going to amplify their voices and we're going to try to be reinforcing of that. on pakistan, i would say you've mentioned the extrajudicial killings, which is certainly one of the things the report singles out. we're very concerned about the violence in baluchistan. we're concerned about the

effects of those who've challenged some of the laws like the blasphemy law. asia bibi's case continues to be a cause of great concern. we have a big agenda. it's a tough discussion, but we're going to keep having it. >> could i just have one on that -- >> i think we have to let assistant secretary posner go. if you have additional questions, we're going to take them and we'll answer them for you >> just one on mexico? >> please. >> one on mexico, and then we'll let you go. >> in the opening, her introduction, the secretary says that u.s. government is watching and holding accountable governments who don't perform in human rights lists. in your report on mexico, you said that security forces, especially the army and the mexican navy, are not fulfilling their performance of human rights.

and the merida initiative funds 50 percent. it's conditioned to the performance of human rights of the mexican military forces. i just wonder if what you said in your report is going to be applied on the policy on the merida initiative, because the mexican society is complaining a lot on the calderon administration. so far are being more than 50,000 people dead in five and a half years. so what is your response to this situation, especially on the merida initiative? >> well yeah, just two points on that, one, as you say, mexico is a country where there's been endemic violence, much of it related to the drug trade and the government's efforts to curtail that. an aspect obviously, that government has the, not only the right, but the obligation to try to protect its own citizens. there are a number of reports and we document them in this report of abuses by or violations by the mexican military. we've had discussions. i've been down there several times meeting with mexican

government, including mexican military leaders, about how to improve accountability for those violations. the longer term effort has to be to build a police structure and a criminal justice structure that deals with these cases outside of the military. president calderon understands that and so does everybody else. but we are very attentive to these issues. we're both working closely with the mexican government, but also consulting broadly with mexican human rights activists and others who are who share our concerns. >> and also just to remind you that assistant secretary posner is going to be available at the foreign press center at 12, 15 if you're not in the american media and you have still have questions. thank you very much. >> thank you.

>>. talk about the $2 billion in losses at jpmorgan chase and lawsuits fall in the facebook ipo. later a discussion on the self driven cars and now companies plan to use it. joseph white as our guest. then a book of the democratic profile of the nation's veterans. they examine policies and programs available to help veterans and their families. it is live every morning setting a 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> i want people to get a better understanding of who she was, what she was like.

there have been a lot of books written. most has been written by people who are talking to friends of friends of friends. they do not have the information themselves. i have to be there. >> former secret service agent clint hill served under protective detail to the first lady jacqueline kennedy. >> it was just what she was like. things isshe liked to do. how intelligent she was. how rambunctious she was. she tried to put me to the test many times. i did my best to meet that. >> more with clientele sunday night at 8:00 on c-span. >> welcome to the old town museum of wichita, kansas. >> we are here in the city of

which et al., waking up the city for 22 years. we think we have this. today we'll be talking of the problem we have in the city with taxicabs. hang on for that if you will. >> american history television explore the heritage and literary culture of wichita, kansas. >> what it contains is an alphabetical list of the members of the senate and house of representatives done in 1831. i believe this was issued only for the members immediate use phony. there were not supposed to loan this out. it would tell you exactly where everybody lived. he could go and punched them if you did not like them. >> at the brookings institution,

panelists discussed the european union's fiscal challenges and the effect of a newly elected president of france. also, debt. this is 1.5 hours. we have the european vision of the crisis. i have my work cut out for me. we have the news. get added the past few days.

right now the dinner is nearing its end. leaders are discussing the eurozone, a greece and vesicular. three degrees in particular. e in particular. it is under way. it underlines the piers. yesterday the oecd warned that

the 17 countries that use the euro are falling into a severe recession. more than 10 of them already are in a recession. they called for governments in the central banks to take action to avoid having a situation for the global economy. as you know, it is a creation of the euro bonds. it is supported by most governments and the imf. and it is underscoring the crucial nature of the talk tonight in brussels and the negotiations which will be under way not only on this new package but also the fundamental question of whether it would

lead the ecb and let them enter gain more decisively with the sovereign debt crisis. how to put a backstops of the markets would ease doubting of the europeans. we do not want to limit headlines.o today's we do not want to focus on economic issues if they are central to the current crisis. we want to start to try to take medium and long-term looks at how they interact and how they shape. to discuss the issues, we have a

dream team of journalists. i would introduce them in the order. and only provide very brief introductions. john will start. he started this as a civil servants. and he joined the economists and 1986 or he has held a number of positions either from london or brussels. that included the business editor before getting his current position. he is the editorial director of the french leading newspaper. she joins here after this.

she has positioned as a correspondent in various places including moscow, and the u.s., and south east asia. she also held executive positions including executive director of the newspaper in 2010 and 200011. -- 2011. she worked as a journalist for the corporation. this also a very good expert on germany and german law, in

particular having had various experiences for european studies. i will ask him to draw a tool of the crisis where we are at now. >> thank you very much. thank you for inviting me. it is nice to be back in. in his eyes to the back of brookings as well after many years away. i will try to compress everything into 10 minutes. i will make 10 points. the zero crisis is sweeping everything else aside -- the euro is slipping everything else aside. it is an ex essential crisis for the euro as a whole. almost everything else has been

pushed. i include foreign-policy which you and i have talked about in the past. enlargements, it is quite likely turkey would have turned their anyway. i think the impact the euro has made has not gone further. even things like for their work in transatlantic relations, everything has been pushed aside. it is a really important moment for the future of europe. it has also become critically important to the world economy. if anything could hit barack obama's hit, the euro crisis would have to be high on the list of those things.

i think the implications on this side of the atlantic are quite serious. this is really a big problem. the immediate focus today is greece. i would say the election on june the 70 is not a foregone conclusion. it is very unhelpful. i would put a lot of the blame on the new democracy leader. this is where we are. i do think in greece itself and in the rest of europe we are seeing a gradual shift toward the acknowledgement that an exit has become quite likely.

the implications of that have been worked out. there is a recognition that a great exit as quite high. i think it is much more likely now than it was a month or two ago. obviously, when you start talking about a greek exit from the euro. the rest of the euro zone starts to worry. it will for ever cast a shadow over the euro, even if it lasts another 100 years without losing anybody else. the fact that a country might have been able to fall off of it

will cause a serious problem for the currency and for some of the particular countries that are on the edge. i include in that group, especially portugal. portugal is very much in the firing line if greece pull sout. i also include spain and italy and that group. i happen to think that ireland has just about escaped from being another potential victim of the euro crisis. it's a referendum at the end of may is something worth watching. if they decide to vote, the implications could be serious because it is possible that orland will need another bailout. if they vote no, then getting another bailout will be hard for them. the irish economy looks in much better state than those and portugal, spain, greece and italy. but i would put a lot of focus on portugal because the economy

has spent sick of for a very long time. it has to do a lot more to escape being bracketed with greece. the government of portugal is a much stronger government but the country remains fragile. continuing from my points on portugal is to focus more on spain and italy. neither of them has yet applied for a bailout from the bailout fund for the euro zone, but it is increasingly clear that spanish banks will need some help. some of them have been as tossed around may have been exaggerated. spain had an almighty property bust. those in spain who tell people like me that spaniard traditionally go on paying their mortgages, they are going to be tested over the next couple of

months. spanish unemployment as you will note is that 24%. among young spaniards it is a 50%. that is terrific. those numbers are pretty bad. the risk that some of the spanish banks will need more support than spain is definitely going. and the worry about spain and italy is that the euro zone bailout fund might be able to meet the needs of spain but its own, but it is quite clear that any bailout fund could not meet the needs of spain and italy together. so if those two countries get into deeper trouble, the risk that the euro could start to fall apart and the rest of the euro zone cannot support them becomes greater. italy is not in as bad shape as spain because contrary to notlar views, it a laaly did

have the property bubble. but the italian economy has been in trouble for a long time. gdp in italy is more or less back to where it was 10 years ago. that is an astonishing failure of modern westernized country. it indicates that italy needs to make serious changes if it is going to prosper and grow and the future. imagine, allou can of us think mario monti is the most marvelous man in the world but he is not an elected prime minister. he is probably going to go before next april. there are signs that mario monti's popularity is beginning to fade as he starts to push through measures that are increasingly unpopular. so watch the bond yields in spain and italy over the next week or so. how are we going to get out of

the euro crisis? obviously we do need in europe a bigger growth agenda. it has been quite clear that they are putting too much of this is of austerity and fiscal tightening alone is aggravating the euro zone's economic problems carac. but i think also, now we half --it has become important to isolate and greece one way or the other. we need more europe to solve this problem. and that means that germany does have to get some point accept more measures that will include some system that if euro wise are dealing with the bank recapitalization, deposit insurance, it does imply an acceptance of implicit transfer

from more successful parts of euro than the poorer parts. it does mean some partial neutralization of debt. without moves in those directions, i do not think the euro is going to survive. that is my diagnosis. how do we get that done? the answer to that is the policy for doing that are exceptionally difficult, and they are most difficult in germany. i will not dwell on germany. markell say more about germany. but getting consent from the chairman people. it is not just angela merkel. is the chairman people who need to have -- the german people who things.assent to it is growing successfully. exports continue. they are even seeing the beginnings of wage rises and living standards are rising.

german public opinion does not see why germany should help pay for what they see as the sins of the other countries. they tend to say we in germany made painful reforms. you did not. now it is your turn. and this mentality in germany in deep in the psyche. we have seen it many times over history. creditor countries believe that when there is a problem is the debtor countries that adjust. they need to adjust. the transfer germany, and this is where angela merkel needs to do more to explain things, the breakup of the euro would be a complete catastrophe. it is worse paying any co price to stop that happening.

that is the dynamic we are in right now. of course, the change in france is also going to make a difference. the new president of france whom we consider to be a rather dangerous man clearly has arrived in office determined not just to press the case of things like euro bonds and a europe wide bank resolution system, but also to get rid of austerity and to supplement it with a growth agenda. very commendable. and this is why we consider him dangerous. sylvie will correct me. he is fiercely against the liberalization of structure reform agenda that we and others believe to be essential for the future health of europe. i have heard him say twice that those who preach liberalization

and structural reforms are preaching the things that got us into the mess, not that things that will get this out of the mess. i happen to think he is completely wrong. but the position of france is not going to be helpful to pursuing the reform agenda. i will finish with three points about the implications of where we go from here. the first is i do think that one way or another the euro ozone will implement structural change because i think it has to. if it does not do those things, it will condemn its citizens and its currency to a very bad future. in a sense, i see that as the essential logic of a single currency from the beginning. my argument in 199 was that the potential benefits of a single currency which i thought was a risky venture, were that it would force structural reform

across europe. unfortunately, it did not do that. in fact, it worked the other way round. many countries took a lower interest rates. i think bill logical single currency requires structural reform. it is still fair and i expected to have been over the years to come. the second implication it, i mentioned some of the things i think need to have been including some kind of euro bond and a tighter fiscal union. i think getting the voters to accept this deeper level of integration that i see as an essential part of resolving the crisis will be quite difficult. in a way, i see the economics of solving the euro crisis hard as they are easier than the politics of solving the crisis. already, you are beginning to see across europe, what is the legitimacy of the european commission? why should they tell us what to

do? even the belgians and the dutch were asking this question recently. i think europe does need to do more to lend of legitimacy to its tight union that will be a necessary part solving the crisi. we are talking about do we need more powers for the european parliament? do we need a system for electing the european commission president? without doing something to increase the legitimacy of the european union, the risk of a backlash is very great. finally, i cannot stop without mentioning one country, which is my country. my country is in rather an interesting and difficult position. it is not the only european during country not to be in the euro. there are 10 countries. as we are affected by the crisis, very much in the interests that they should be solved, and the british

government has been clear about that, but as the euro zone develops tighter rules of its own, the implications for the u.k. are going to be very painful. when i raise the subject in brussels i am told, we can solve the problems if you join the euro. britain is not going to join the euro. i do not think sweden will join either. they are going to be sitting alongside a club which considers the euro to be the central part of what they are doing. and the rest to be somehow more peripheral. developing this into a two tier europe where the out countries feel they are left out could be painful. for the u.k., if it went badly wrong, it is conceivable it could lead to the u.k. leaving the european union altogether. thank you. >> that was all the stops as we

say. i'd like to turn to sylvie and ask her to continue and enlighten us on what she thinks, who she thinks hollande is. is he a dangerous man or do you think he is not dangerous. and where the franco-german engine is heading is it still exits. >> thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to be back here. it is very, very nice to be backed in d..c. at the brookings. i must congratulate you for timing this talk just as the european leaders are meeting in brussels. now, we have -- the media have presented this meeting in brussels as a very dramatic, and

that is the way we have to put it, but it is not that dramatic. not for the reasons we usually say. it's not that dramatic inthe i do notse think anything is going to happen. there are 27 people around the table. i do not know if you have had conversations between 27 people but it is rather difficult. i think it's more an opportunity for hollande to meet his new partners. as he said, put everything on the table. so that is what the meeting could do. then there will be along cycle until the end of june. it is a problem because the cycle is long and there is urgency, so as john has

described the situation in greece and the euro zone is dramatic. so it's going to be a really two very difficult and weeks ahead. elections everywhere. we have parliament elections in france on june 10 and june 17. june 17, election since greece. may 31 the referendum in ireland. i probably forget a few, but it is going to be a very busy june month. so, what is important now regarding this meeting in brussels and the next meetings and next round of negotiations is at least the terms of the debate now are very clear. and it is a good thing. i must say it's probably to be

put to the credit of hollande. i'm not his spokesperson. i don't want to sound like a supporter, but he has been very good, i must say, that staying on message since his election. he's been surprisingly firm, i think. his message, of course is growth. and i think he has been doing a very good job of taking advantage of this extraordinary coincidence that between the two rounds of the french elections, and of april and early may, we had this situation in spain and italy, a political crisis in the netherlands, which showed that countries which had been doing things by the book are starting to implement reforms and a painful way, people taking seriously like

mario monti or rajoy or the dutch leader, came to the realization that it was not working. those austerity measures had to be done but just by themselves they were not producing the results that were expected. so hollande understood that. and i think he seized the moment and it turned a campaign, an electoral campaign which up until the first round had been a campaign hostile to europe, where people, the left front were very vocally against europe and the discourse was against europe. then hollande managed to turn

this into a positive agenda towards growth in europe. of course, it is politics. it is easy. he had to be extremely ambiguous on a lot of things. and then after the election, the parliamentary election depending on what majority he gets, he will have to face the truth and face the music. you said that you think he's totally hostile to those reforms. i do not think he is. i think he had to say a few things or hide a few things during the campaign, but there is no way he is going to be able to avoid some reforms and some very important reforms, and that will be his job to sell it to the voters and to the french people. so one thing we learned during the campaign is that hollande looks unassuming but he should

not be underestimated. he can be also firm. whatever you call it. for instance, from that day where he braved the elements and the rain and the thunder to go and meet angela merkel in berlin, as soon as he landed in berlin, he mentioned the euro bond. he knew, he knows this is a word she does not like and the people do not like but he said that from the very beginning. he has been on message in america. again he raised the issue of the euro bond here.

i'm sure he's raising it again tonight. he said he would do it. so when i said that the terms of the debate are clear, this is it. he's also been shrewd at rallying support behind him. of course, david cameron, monit. ti. so now he has these conservative leaders to agree with the growth agenda or always this -- about what growth means. we can talk about this later. but for voters, it is a kind of magic word. then they will have to all agree on what it means among european leaders. so what are they going -- i don't think there's going to be a real showdown, as the media

has presented. it is not growth versus austerity. it has to be, and this is a movement which has been done the last few days, it has to be both together. there have been signs of flexibility coming from the germans on higher wages, on low level of inflation. maybe martin will tell us more about this. but i do not think the situation is so impossible to solve at the moment. the foreign minister said yesterday there was no fundamental disagreement. there are differences but that they can be reduced. so this is, there is room for compromise. this is what they will have to do it in the coming week. maybe the terms of a compromise will be the name of the euro

bond, this term which is awkward. maybe we can do some kind of euro bonds that are not called euro bonds. macro bonds. we are starting with the project bonds. maybe we can move toward something else. i think there is an array of tools. the german foreign minister had an open peace in "le monde," where he offered a growth pact which wouldn't imiplply more debt. he gives six examples of measures that can be -- i will spare you the details -- but go to the website and you will find it. there's movement again, i think. i personally, even though i agree this is an existential

crisis, a serious crisis and pushing everything aside, there is a lot of sense of urgency. but maybe because of this i am optimistic, because we have already covered a lot of ground for the past two years. we have gone to lengths that we would not have thought immeasurable some years ago. i think we can find the tools. now i agree with john. the problem is political. how are these leaders going to sell those measures to their public opinion? that's where we have a big problem, not only of political representation. it is true that most european citizens do not think they are properly representated. we have a problem of legitimacy. the young people feel they do not have the voice in the process. understand it,ly

because they have not been through all the process as we have. they were born european so they do not really understand why it is so important to the european. so politically, i think we all, not only the political leaders but also the media, we all have to do a lot of big efforts on this. now, we -- i spoke about urgency. and there is also urgency on the political field. every single election shows the right of extremism, of populism. we have this in greece. 18% national front in france. we have all of these movements. it is really a problem which will get worse if we do not confront it or face it squarely.

there is a problem of confidence. i think this is crucial at all levels -- financially, economic, and political levels. we have to manage to build confidence. it is a problem of vision, a problem of what is -- expressing what is the euro for. what are we heading to? and it is a problem of leadership. very briefly because i think my time is up, yes, angela merkel is against the europe of transfers. from a moraltand a ball fro point of view, but i agree with john. i think she has to make the case to her own people that what -- about what does europe bring

to the german people. what are the benefit? the number of young graduates from spain, from portugal, for greece who are flocking to germany to fill up jobs and are extremely useful for the economy. this is a story which has to be told to the german people. the same goes for the benefits of trade, of the economic -- including the benefit of transfers, if they are properly implemented. the same goes for friends. i was struck -- the same goes for france. i was struck by president sarkozy. i hope hollande will change this a little bit. sarkozy used to go to brussels

and say this is what france is going to say. then he would come back and what france had offered, every country had its position. then we had a european decision. he would never come back saying, this is what europe has decided. this is a very simple, but in the political discourse, i think leaders have to do a big effort and becoming european politically also. and this is a huge issue. i do not think we are going to solve it today. but europe does exist. in everyday life. it is amazing the number of things we have in common, and the internal migration, education. the number of things which have changed over the last decades and that are inextricably wound in europe and a part of our life.

i will finish by quickly -- the police later -- the polish leader lech walesa. he said when the country was exiting communism, he said i know how to to make the fish from the aquarium. but i do not know how to make an aquarium out of a fish. it is a little bit the same with europe. there is no way we can undo europe. maybe greece will leave tghe euro. i do not know about this. the consequences will be terrible if it happens. we have to be much more positive about why does europe exits. >> thanks. i'm turning to you, martin. explain to us to the thinking of angela merkel period question that comes to mind is, is there --

>> there is. >> i'll come to that. thank you for giving me the opportunity, even though i am not a spokesperson of the german government, maybe to explain a little bit to you the philosophy behind it. let me first say talking to americans and to my fellow brits about the european union and euro and trying to convince them the value of both is sometimes like someone who tries to convince the salvation army of drinking a glass of red win. e. i think the european union will survive, and euro the will survive. and maybe at the end of the day, when we have gone through all of the hardship and we will -- it will be stronger and even more

prosperous and maybe an example for some other states in the united states about what reforms can do at the end of the day. i alwyaays meet people here telling me people are flocking to germany. that is good for germany and bad for others. wasn't the united states based on this idea? . . .

.

>> it involves some combination and forming our massive expenditures and domestic

programs with a portion from defense because you have to do that for fairness across the budget. that's the debate we're going to have here. very, very different from the european debate which is levels of debt that can't be sustained with the euro, countries individually that can't sustain their debts, and what happens with them inside the euro zone, and no growth. no real growth going on in europe. you can't see with the declining overall population with the declining economic performance how you are going to mass enough debt to change the balance. that's a very different conversation that we'll have to have here. >> pulling back, this is really how democracies, western democracies are going to deal with deleveraging and paying and changing social compact between the government and the people. and europe is now fundamentally

making that change at horrific cost and social price. as kurt said, we haven't yet begun to do that. if we think about entitlement reform, we will be doing that. whether we will be raising the retirement ages, like you are seeing in europe, whether we are reducing benefits, whether we are going to make some future investments in r&d and education, this is about how we all and japan and others. how we're going to do this. i think we're seeing politically -- this is looking at recent french elections and the ongoing re-elections is what we're seeing is the center -- the establishment is unable to hold in this position. whether it's the center left or

right. it's the moderates. but the center position they are unable to convince others we have to do this, it's painful. the narratives that people are looking for this is what shocked me, 1/3 of the french electorate in the first round voted for the extreme left or extreme right party. 1/3. that came out of the center. center left and center right. we're seeing the exact in greece. it's the establishment, the center and where is that going to? the protest vote. it's going to the extremes. that's going to change demographic and democratic patterns. everyone has the own political, historical, cultural adaptation to that. that is what with have to understand. we have to understand that in

europe that's going to emerge and the united states that's going to emerge and how the societies feel that. when governor romney of the primary talks about about european socialism and europe is going what are you talking about? what we're talking about, translation in my view, is the role of government in society. should it be a big role? directive role? limited role? this is a debate we've had in our country for 200 years, the size of government. that conversation is happening in europe. i've seen more references to alexander hamilton. we're going back to the fundamental principles because that's what we're having to look towards. but the growth and austerity debate with the need for information and analyzing the

moment. we're not going back and saying what is europe going to look like in 15, 20, 25 years. how are my children going to adapt to society? that's the bigger picture that we are losing in all of this noise and confusion. >> most recently we had it in 2010. the middle has been sacrificed. the worse thing you can be is in the middle of the road. >> that's called road kill; right? >> i could see my colleagues getting left and right because they were standing for things that were in the middle. we already have -- we've had the debate about what we should do. i think for all of these debates that say one or the other, it or

it, take the or out and put and in. it's not growth or austerity, it's growth and austerity. they are not polar opposites. they are not. they have to be blended in this a centralist way in a moderate way i would say that you already have a name for it. we've had the debate, we just haven't decided to pull the trigger. we've got to get it back around to it. i would say that, you know, in the 2010 elections when democrats lost the house in '83, '85, two people were elected. i would say where do you think we're going to go for confidence. that's what it is about for washington. except that it's been turned on its head over 30, 35, 40 years by what i believe what is

asserted to make people that come to washington to serve their country, to serve their constituents, the representative to make them work crazy. how do you get a congress that's at 10%? these people don't volunteer. they get sent. how do they send them? when the airplane ride. >> that's everyone else's congressman. >> it is. including your own. that is completely unsustainable for a representative democracy.

we've got a number of channels. we're going to have to -- i think we're going to have a political crisis in the country where the american people decide they are going to have to put people that are going to represent them hopefully in a modern way that are going to be willing to compromise and get things done and not live their lives in washington. >> we have just under 10 minutes left. i'm going to collect the last several questions and give each of the panelist a chance. since we only have nine minutes left, please keep your questions short. i apologize in advance. please, sir. >> i have the good fortune of working for ambassador volker. i hesitate to ask because of the tauscher's last comments. you would think that everyone

wants to prevent the lehman event which was a worldwide financial crisis. is there no hope of contributing to a european firewall that couldn't be explained in the american public that we wanted to prevent a worldwide event? no? >> steven hill. it's been a fascinating discussion. thank you. in terms of the issue of debt, i think that a couple of times very quickly -- most countries in europe and member states are actually not in that much debt. it's really a handful. many of the economic fundamentals are some of the problems that europe has. part of the problem is balancing.

you have member and deficit. they don't have a transfer. like in california, we've been bailing out mississippi and alabama. that's how the transfer union works. there's no correlation between the debt and the economy in trouble. look at japan as one of the highest debts in the world. uk has actually a higher debt than france has and is borrowing at lower rates. united states is borrowing at historically low rates even though we have a big debt. i mean we're getting kind of lose in how we talk about these things. the economist, frankly, don't really know how it works. they say you shouldn't have more than 90% gdp to debt ratio. but there's no real theory that those numbers are founded on. they are kind of fulling them

from historic research, other things. i just think that, you know, any comments that you have. but i think that we -- things are not as simple as the narrative is making it out to be. >> final question in the back. >> thank you. karen johnson. i very much share some of your concerns. you mention the problem with the public's level of interest on the foreign policy issues. i think there's a missing link here. that slink -- link is the role of media providing accurate information about some of the foreign policy issues that are of great concern to you and some of the other fortune policy experts and people in government. seems from your perspective, not just you but others what can be done to strengthen the link.

there are obviously problems in the business of news. the problems of differentiating between news and opinion. the fact that people now in this media landscape self-select the kind of news sources that they have which does affect their opinions and views on foreign policy issues. what can be done? because once the american public is given informed information about issues they can give informed decision and be part of the foreign policy debate. this has been done with james fishkin's research, and even the policy on providing information about the defense budget and how americans see the defense budget. so what can we do? >> thank you. i'm going to just give panelist one minute to respond each. and we'll start on my left with

heather. >> on the debt issue, i think we should be engaged. i think it's interesting to note that the t.a.r.p. program, 40 out of the 87 banks that received t.a.r.p. funds were european banks. in some ways, we are already doing this. i think support is required. but i appreciate the political suicide in washington. on the question of simplicity that we talk about this, you are absolutely right. and in some respects, i think what we are seeing is a balance sheet for recession. this is why some of the differences in approach that europe has had the austerity-driven efforts has actually made things worse. my concern is the economic where you have germany pulling away. how do you sustain a more balanced economic union when you

have one member that -- if you took germany out of the statistics, the trade balance number would not be so good. we've been skewing because it's such a difficult place economically. that's something that we need to watch very carefully. it's not so simple. the role of the media, my own window into this because think tanks are called upon to talk, talk, talk about what you see. what's the sound bite that you are trying to analyze the second? it's hard to get long thoughtful, big picture. i was telling you the pullback of what's important about the story, the 24/7, insatiable media. i always help the story. i try to provide context. they are looking for the sound bite. sometimes you give 20 minutes, they pull three sentences out. i didn't say it like that. even think tanks, it's really difficult. in the administration, it's even more challenging than we out here in the think tank. great question.

thank you. >> we have time for two more sound bites. >> steven, i couldn't agree more. definitely speaking for myself, this isn't a question of who gets eliminated, it's a question of who gets added. welcome to turkey. this is a growth problem. this is a growth problem, not a debt problem, you are absolutely right. it's about growth. if you added turkey or poland, then the rest of the problems would solve themselves very quickly. and to my friends at the american university, let me say unless we can package foreign policy national security around dance with star, or swimming at potomac. i have volunteers for that one. the american people aren't interested. they are tired, scared, they want to be entertained, they

want to have something to divert them. they all look like problems to them and somebody else higher should solve. they are not going to pay attention. there's charlie rose, so many things to watch. they don't watch them. >> we need to jump at the foreign policy. >> exactly. >> we've had the discussion. >> just two thoughts. one of them is a slightly different point than alex. the reason that french rates are higher than british ones is because france is in the euro zone. that imposes a risk on france what the uk with coherence of control over the own economy and currency doesn't phase. the confidence of japan and in the u.s. they don't have confidence. and in europe, it is some states, not all, many of them are doing well. some states that are unsustainable situations. this is something that could

have been nipped in the bud and dealt with a couple of years ago. and the problem has grown and grown and grown as a result. and it can still be dealt with, but it would require some choices that thus far europe does not want to make. one of those choices is to equalize the euros, and then the debt. that would be a huge transformation. is that going to happen? i don't think so. >> we did that in the '70s with new york city. >> yes. >> it's 1, 2, 3. you had a big proceed yum on to the interest rate and you create a junk bond. by the way, you have a lot of people that want to buy it. at this time, i think we all buy. 8, 9, 10%. finally the close on the controversial note. i actually think that voters,

and i think in particular also about students that i've seen a lot in the last few years are better and more engaged internationally than when i was a student 20 some years ago. people have access to all sorts of information more easily through online media, social media, television, through travel, there's a lot more travel going on. there's just people are a lot better informed than they have been in the past. now the quality of information and the quality of judgment, people are going to make up their minds. but ultimately i guess my gut feeling that people know their own interest. they know something, they have a feeling about it, they can speak their mind, they can vote in the categories that helen's

described very amusingly. i think we're not in the state that we often seem. the issue comes down really to one of leadership. because it's going to require every level, whether it's a city, state, federal, congress, president, whomever, the willingness to make the best judgment. you are going to be more comfortable the next time around. that's what it needs people to stand up for and go into public office. slightly different take than looking at the information that the people have. it's really what the leaders come back with and say this is the best that we're going to be able to do. for these reasons, i support this, i'm going to do this, and face the consequences. which is hard. that's what's missing in the equation. people basically do -- they do more than they are used to. they are angry about it. they need people to stand up and

give them something to believe in. >> perhaps that's what second terms are for; right? >> it's funny. because if you think back on every second term presidency for the last however many years, they have all been better than the first. >> on that note, i would like to thank the panel for coming and thank you all for staying. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> life is incredibly precious. and it passes by far too quickly. so during your time here, use all of your unique god-guinn --

god-given talent to serve one another. because that will be the measure by which your life will be judged. follow the golden rule. >> watch commencement speeches saturday through tuesday at noon and 10 p.m. eastern. >> i guess number one, if people have information, i want them to come forward with that information either to the office of professional responsibility or dhs. but the thought of the notion that this type of behavior is condoned or authorized is just absurd. i've been an agent for 29 years. i began my career for seven years in detroit. i've worked on the white house detail twice. i've worked for a lot of men and

women in the organization. i never one time had any supervisor or other agent tell me this type of behavior is condoned. i know i've never told any of our employees that it's condoned. i feel as strongly now as i did as i did before i read that article. >> this week officials can the secret service and homeland security testified about agent interaction with columbian prostitutes. hear the program online at c-span video library. >> at yesterday's religious conference they discuss the federal government's birth control mandate. the panel with a variety of denominations called on the administration to rescind the proposal. this is an hour and a half.

>> i hope everyone has enjoyed their lunch. we are ready to start session three which is uniting to protect robust freedoms. i want to make one note up front about questions. that i did not mention in the previous session so we didn't implement it. there are pads and pencils on your table. and so if you want to ask a question, if you'd please write it down we'll have people going around. if you raise it up, brooke who is right here, and others will be in charge of collecting those. if you have any questions, that's how you can get them to us. we'll go through and try to address as many as we can. we have a very distinguished panel. i'm honored to have the leaders of multiple faith and background

and very pleased and grateful that professor robby george has agreed to moderate. there's no way i could do justice in a few minutes to his long distinguished career and accomplishments. he's a very edition of being distinguished, he's a humble man, i think he will not hold it against me. robby george is the current professor of jurisprudence on princeton university. he's served on the united states, and former judicial fellow, and he's currently a commission on the u.s. commission of international religious freedom. and he also is a very good friend of our programs and a

trusted and very helpful advisor. help me in welcomeing professor robert george. >> well, thank you very much. it's my great pleasure to be chairing this panel which brings together some of our nation's most distinguished religious leaders, all of whom have been very active and dedicated in the cause of fighting for religious liberty. and, of course, you can see literally see with your eyes the wonderful interfaith nature of this panel. we have representatives from several of the major traditions in the united states and the fact that people are working together across the lines of the theological difference i think speaks very well for the ultimate success of this battle for religious liberty. i'm going to have to make introductions of our distinguished panelist, each of

whom deserves a lengthy introduction even shorter than your introduction of me because i have five of them to introduce. we are here to hear them, not me. let me begin. on my left, your right, rabbi dr. soloveichik, he earned his degree at princeton with me at the philosophy of law. he's director, and also a congressional rabbi in manhattan . next to rabbi, is father chad hatfield. he's a priest of the orthodox

theological seminary in yonkers, new york. he's a scholar with distinguished publications to his name. immediately to my right and your left is dr. timothy george who is the dean of the school of theology at sanford university. he is is dear friend. we are not related by blood, although i would be honored, but i would note we are truly spiritual brothers. he's from the baptist wing, i'm from the catholic wing, but we are spiritual brothers. my greatest pleasure was working with timothy and the late chuck coleman on the manhattan declaration which is dedicated to the sanctity of human life and the marriage for man and

wife, and the consigns. next to him we have bishop cordileone. he has been very effective in fighting for religious liberty. and on the end we have whitney clayton of the lds church, the church of jesus christ of latter day saints. he's a member of the first quorum of the 70, he's served as a member of the presidency of the 70s since 2008 and has very jurisdictional responsibilities. he's also a lawyer. although we will not hold that against you, and a leading figure within a church that is in itself a leading institution in the fight for religious

liberty, pulling i must say far beyond it's weight when it comes to what the lds church has done in the cause of religious liberty and for a small minority and one that has suffered religious persecution. that's an amazing thing. i'm going to begin with you and work this way, back to whitney clayton. [applause] >> thank you very much, dr. george. thank you as others have said to brian walsh and ed weylandt, and also i'd like to add another word of thanks to the beckett fund. we are grateful for their successes and i wish them well in their ongoing efforts. [applause] >> i'm also grateful that we're far enough along in the program that i've been able to excise

most of what i was going to say. so many wonderful thoughts and observations have been offered earlier. i'm grateful for the stage that's been set for us and feel a diminished need to prove some of the points that have been proved so ably. as a member of the church of jesus christ of latter day saints, i'll say we are an institution honored to be included in the broadly-based effort concerns with churches, organizations, and individuals who deem religious freedom to be precious. there's great strength in our numbers as we meet together on the dias. freedom is the first right in the bill of rights. one is because it undergirds and sustained all other freedoms.

all other freedoms fair well or early depending upon how the first freedom progresses. the church of jesus christ of latter day saints believes that the concern about protecting robust religious freedom is fully justified. losses suffers at the federal, state, and local levels as have been described earlier are very real and threaten the religious freedom of the nation as a hole. the losses range from subtle manipulation of language to overtly coercionive regulations and penalties for the exercise of conscious. freedom of conscious is our most precious and personal. over time the losses of the right or the loss of the right to follow our conscious will ultimately become a devastating personal cost to every american and people across the world.

we believe that we must wisely and appropriately resist the effort of a squeezing hand of government to control our conscious. we also believe that religious freedom should be protected rather than assaulted by government. we believe that every -- that religious freedom is a tremendous, precious, and irreplaceable good for society. thus we gladly join with other churches, religions, faith groups, organizations, and individuals in entering into the joint effort to protect religious freedom. in this effort, there are much more that unites as religion and

churches than there is that divides us, and there's great strength in bringing a united effort to this cause. the church of jesus christ of latter day saints is committed to protecting religious freedom for ourselves and for our own church members obviously. that said we are just as concerned about the religious freedom rights of other faiths as we are about our own rights. our 11th article of faith states we claim the privilege of worshiping an almighty god according to our own conscience. and let them worship how they may. if it had been demonstrated that i've been willing to die for a mormon, i'm bold to declare

before heaven i'm just as ready in defending a presbyterian, baptist, or any other denomination for the the same principle would trample on the church of latter day saints would trample on catholics or any other denomination that is too weak to defend themselves. we recognize our religious freedom as only as secure as is the religious freedom of those who surround us. we intend to be vigilant in guarding, protecting, and securing the rights of others. the title for this session is uniting to preserve robust religious freedoms. we might ask ourselves what lies ahead? several things. first, within our own institution we'll redouble our efforts to educate our own

church members concerning protecting religious freedom. we will support a united effort led by the eppc and the arfp to educate legislators, opinion leaders, and citizens generally across the country about religious freedom and the fact that it is in peril today in this country. we'll seek to secure their help along with others in the battle to protect religious freedom. we'll seek in a joint effort with others to frustrate the efforts of those for religious rights and help citizens in matter of conscience. we deeply value and desire to promote the united effort. our success will depend on time, and the -- by that, i mean the amount of time and work that we put into the effort. it will require some treasure.

it's going to require an expenditure of money by multiple groups. it will require a broadly-based unified effort. no single church can or should bear the burden alone. if there were ever a time in which we need a chorus, not a solo, this is it. this will require the blessings of god upon us all. in the times in which we live and in the world of rhetoric which has become so sadly uncharitable, i think that it would also be wise to be civil in the way that we treat and deal with each other on both sides of the issue. civility ought to be a hallmark in the way that we deal with each other. that being said, i just say

again that we are committed as a church to doing everything that we can to help with the battle to preserve religious freedom. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. it is an honor for me to be sitting among such esteemed panelist. one is to give a perspective as a catholic and as an american. afterall, the first large wave of immigration at the previous turns very many were catholics coming from catholic parts of the world. when they arrived at our shores, catholics had their own rocky history of trying to find their place and figure out how to fit in with american society like so many other groups.

what they found here in america is something different from the world that they left behind. different from the european experience with those revolution movements to replace monarchies with democracy, so often erupting in violence with the frenzy of executions of france during the time of the revolution there, including clarence nunns, the movement to join italy, they had to sneak out of rome in the middle of the night for a simple priest. so although my church has always recognized that we can operate and even thrive in a variety of different political systems, nonetheless, there was some suspicious of modern democratizing movements because of in experience.

the american experience though was different for catholics. yes, they were often viewed with suspicious and being un-american, perhaps because of the suspicious of our own church leaders on the modern democratizing movements to some degree. we were at times subjected to rejection and impacts on personal property. but this certainly wasn't the whole story. what catholics found is that if they applies themselves and worked hard, they would improve their life as opposed to the roadblocks they experienced back home. even more important they found that they could prosper not only materially, but also spiritually. the catholic church has thrived in the country precisely because of the freedoms that we are guaranteed. the afro-americans -- freedoms of keeping the government out of church affairs. there was the american experience that had the greatest

influence on the writing of the declaration under the religious freedom when they gathered to eliminate the pastoral outreach in the age in which we are living. this experience was recognized very early on among catholics in the this country. the statement of the usccb on religious liberty quotes cardinal gibbons of baltimore that he gave in rome when he went there to receive the red hat. he asserted that the great progress, the catholic church experienced in the united states was due in his words in no small degree to the civil liberty that we enjoy to republic. the more that the church grows and expands under the republic

and even said in thegonia era, this is due to the fact that our country has liberty without license. authority without desperatism. i got into the debate by the definition of marriage and the law. i got swept up in that with the broader community precisely because of this issue. as well as the rights of individuals to have the freedom of conscious. when i saw what was happening, it made me fear that we could be starting to move in the direction of license. and many examples were already cited earlier today.

we are numerous catholic charity adoption services, not just in the archdiocese of boston, but of san francisco and here in washington, d.c. and the entire state of illinois. we had heard reference to how religious organizations can have their tax exempt status revoked. as has happened with the ocean grove methodist camp in new jersey for denying a lesbian couple to have their commitment ceremony celebration, even though they would rent it out for other couples for their marriage ceremonies. we heard also about the wedding photographer in new mexico that was sued and lost for refusing to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony. as someone once pointed out, as if i have a constitutional right to have your picture taken by the photographer of your

choice. [laughter] >> i want to express profound gratitude and how encouraged i am by all of you who have stood by us catholics in the midst of this health and human services mandate battle. it's a great moment for all of us. and it's a great moment of encouragement for us leaders in the catholic church. we recognize this is a question of the state intruding into the affairs of church, even to the point of defining what constitutes their ministry. we all recognize that if they get away with it -- put it that way, that it will not stop there. it'll just keep getting worse. we're all vulnerable. we cannot get political in the sense of being partisan. not those of us who are church leaders.

ultimately, it would compromise our role as the conscience of society and the buffer we heard about earlier between the government and the individual. also this is not really a politically struggle. it's a struggle for first principles. principles that we should all be able to engage on. we would as faith communities, compromise who we are 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's especially a new moment for faith communities. that's 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 is best for our nation.

religious liberty benefits everybody. certainly it benefits people of faith because they can bring their -- the values they get from their faith into the public square. but also it benefits people in need who are served so well by faith-based organizations in education, health care, and social service agencies. faith-based organizations do a better job and accomplish more with less, precisely because we are motivated by a higher end 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 say 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. the united states of america has benefited myself and i'm sure all of you and those people that immigrated to the land and found great opportunity. we are here because we know that if we don't stand together, our nation will fall apart. [applause] >> thank you so much. it's a great honor to be here today with distinguished panelist and all of you. i have lost two wonderful friends and mentors to me in the last several years. one robby refers to, chuck coleson, the other his friend and beloved to many of us here today mr. newhouse. in one of the last essays that richard wrote for "first things" the magazine he founded, he discussed a new order of

religious freedom. appealing to one the distinctive traits of the american experiment summarized in famous words in the currency, not in god we trust, but [inaudible] a new order for the ages. at the heart of this new order was an instinctive respect for persons of faith. all faith. and an intentional policy of access to the public square. free access not only for individuals, but also for religious associations. for communities of faith. and as the richard was wanting to do, he emphasized that the inspiration for religious freedom was itself 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 in our disputes over the will of god.

wonderful newhousism. well, i am a baptist as robby has also said. i'm a southern baptist. that's the worst kind. maybe two is about the limit for the day. nonetheless, i want to go back to the statement that professor farr began with today when he referred to the religious springs of our religious wellsprings that has become desiccated by the landscape that we see there and i want to focus on the origins of the baptist argument for the religious freedom. i wish you were all baptists. because baptists need to hear this. we have to forget those religious wellsprings from which our own distinctive commitment to religious freedom has

sprung. now there's great debate about where baptist come from. there is a view called landmarkism which traces the history of baptist through an unbroken chair of true baptist churches all the way back to jesus and the first baptist church of jerusalem. i kid you not. never mind the trail goes through groups like the cathary, but it's there. however, real scholarly work begins on the 16th and 17th century. and particularly in 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 had been sent into the netherlands. but some of those came back to

england. they became convinced it was from for them to flee and led by a person named thomas. he was not a clergy. he was not a minister. he was a lawyer. trained, and deeply committed to the experiment in faith that gave birth to the movement of baptism, to serve in the military, they had no difficulty supporting the necessity of civil coercion, that is armies and legitimate weapons of coercion that the state would use, in fact. they felt this necessary to protect religious freedom. the year 1612, that's 400 years

ago this year, a little booklet was published on an underground press in london called a short declaration of the mystery of antiquity. one of them is in the library. i've handled it with my own hands and read it with my own eyes. when you open it, there are these words written in thomas' own hand, looks like john hancock signing the declaration of independence. so clear and distinct, it says this, here, oh, king and despise not the counsel of the poor. the king is a mortal man and not god. therefore, hath no power over the immortal souls of his

subjects. heretics, turks, jews, or whatsoever, it pertains not to the earthly power to punish them. to my name, -- to my knowledge, this is the first appear for the english language. in my book and others that emerged, a cluster of arguments that were set forth that formed a kind of bedrock for later baptist and western political thinking. in the con -- constellation that they form. hell was not absolute. this was a place for civil

governance, but he clearly drew a line between the spiritual realms that is distinctive of western thinking going back at least to saint augusta and the bible itself. they were 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, to talking about a christian magistrate of the religion. second, the conscience. the sharp distinction that they drew lead them to advocate -- this was a necessary argument in a sense for religious freedom. what the state should not do.

however, there was a positive side of that. in that every person created to the image of god stood in a unique 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 sole murder. roger williams said it's counterproductive for the state to persecute believers. it's possible quoting castellio, it's possible to kill a man. but to kill a man is not to defend the doctrine but to kill a man. thirdly, the noncoercive character of faith. you can only make by

persecution, heretics. you cannot make genuine christians, because faith implies a consent of the will. drawing there on arguments set forth by thomas alline and many others. this is more baptism than evangelical. they drew about the wheats growing together in the same field. they thought it is a good thing. they emphasized. they bother and upset the weeds and wheat growing together in the same field. let 1,000 weeds bloom, they would say. because at the end of the day the reaper will come and there will be a final sorting of the wheat and the weeds. that's the last judgment. but that's not to be done prematurely by plucking up the weeds, you may also destroy some of the good wheat.

let them grow together so that in their words the gospel maybe proclaimed to everyone and this will be a way of winning to the true faith those who have not been persecuted by the state. now two more arguments i want to mention have to do with political and economic concerns. this is the early 17th century, the rise of mercantilism. there are some states that allow a measure of religious toleration or freedom. of all of the places they look to cite, it was the muslim empire, the ottoman empire, the turks, the muslims. and even there jews are allowed to live and christians are allowed to live with a kind of toleration that is not permitted here in england. and so they held that up as an example. we might want to press them how

good of an example, but nonetheless, they were clear there are benefits, not simply religious and theological ones from allowing this kind of religious freedom. and then finally economic benefits. they looked across the channel to the netherlands where they had lived for a while. and 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 that were telling wears and commerce and trading, and they felt that the policy of religious toleration enhanced that we might call early rising capitalism. and so it's a good thing for the economy. it's a good think for economics that people also have religious freedom to move, to go, to worship. because it contributes to the betterment of society, the alleviation of poverty and social ills for the poor. that was also a part of their argument. now my time is almost gone.

what's happened to the baptist tradition? we've grown a lot. we are no longer a small sectarian group. we're the largest protestant denomination. i'm a southern baptist, we claim 17 million members. nevermind you can't find half of them on sunday morning anywhere. there are a lot of us. in alabama, there are more baptist than people. [laughter] >> and in the baptist world alliance, which i'm affiliated with, there are over 100 million baptists. we don't baptize infants. only those who have been the age to be baptized. with this growth in number and in some ways prestigious and power socially and maybe some places politically, there has come a kind of amnesia, about the roots.

two things in particular have happened. i think it increasingly made this an issue. one is the reduction of baptist identity, rugged individualism, and the restriction of religious freedom to simply what's good for me, rather than the communetarian emphasis that was there certainly in the 17th century when it emphasized confessions. along with this, a kind of 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. second thing i would say is the whole issue of the separation of church and state. and here a phrase that came as we know from thomas' letter to the danbury baptist january 1, 1802, has become the subject of a great deal