that has always been a myth and it has never been a good thing when the religious world has aligned itself to caesar, or it looks to caesar to be their protector. the orthodox christians understand what it is like to be a minority. our history in the middle east demonstrates this clearly. we understand subtle and overt intimidation. keep quiet, stay within your ghetto walls, keep your religion within your churches. we understand of the terms that have been applied to jews and christians, and god forbid it should be ever applied to any religious minority group in this country. we understand from our history the impact of communism when you look at where communism was strong, that is largely the orthodox world. we know what is like to survive

under a godless state. the number of christian martyrs in russia alone far surpasses the first millennia of martyrs in christian history. we understand the message and we are beginning to see the signals again -- know your place. we recognize that we can be useful at certain points. stalin found us useful to rally the russian people in the second world war. when our usefulness was over, back we went to being an underground church and the persecutions became more and more severe, peaking under the khrushchev era. many of us sitting here all praised and rejoiced at the way that john paul the great, ronald in reagan, and margaret thatcher helped to bring down communism. what we do not know is the role

and that the christian church played. in 1988, it was the millennial year. mikhail gorbachev and all those things were at play and decided in it would be a good thing to lift the lid off at least for one year. guess what -- it was not going back. this is not ancient history for us. this is very recent history. only since the early 1990's have a we christians been able to find our voice once again and become players. in what are often called the old countries among we also recognize that in america we are numerically small, but we are growing, moving in the right direction, and we are finding both the confidence to bea players in our society among, and a but also we are anxious to share in our story and to seek with all

of you the religious liberties that protect our right toare worship god as we please. we are anxious to protect religious liberties at it is expressed in the foundation of our country, and we will stand with you to make sure that it is not erased. we understand how easily it can disappear. we know from our history here in america that things can change and turn and go wrong very quickly. my guess is that probably one or two of you sitting in this room know this portion of american history i am about to share that demonstrates what orthodox christians are concerned about is the lack of religious liberty. in the second world war, american orthodox christians were not allowed to wear dogtags that identified themselves as and in himhristians.

and him and him and him and. often that when they would say they would be orthodox, they wanted to give them a jewish dogtag. it took the orthodox being willing to say we are going to elect members of our faith to congress that is going to help change our particular situation. there is more history. during the second world war, in that same time, in alaska, where orthodox christians have numerical strength, our people were rounded up from their villages and put in a concentration camp, the same as with japanese-americans. only our orthodox christians in alaska were u.s. citizens and were placed in one camp which was called thunder bay. it had one toilet, serving it was simplyeople. located over the dock. when they return to their

villages, what did they find? they found our government had used icons in the churches for target practice, that the churches had been destroyed. they sat quietly and passively about this for many years, until they found their voice, and during the reagan administration, reparation was made.-- restitution was made. during the recent health and human services unpleasantness, we again became sort of sensitive to the fact that things can change area quickly, and the clamp can come down often very hard on those who are simply passive and have lost their voice and are unwilling to participate in the process that america gives us. so our call is take action, find your voice, do not be intimidated, do not be silenced, and take this pledge from the orthodox christian people in this country. we will stand shoulder to shoulder with every single religious group represented here today to guarantee our religious liberties are protected. thank you.

[applause] >> finally i would like to welcome lance wickman. >> thank you very much. --can truly say it is an honor of the church of latter day saints. >> thank you very much. i can truly say it is an honor to be here, and i have found the remarks of my colleagues on this panel to be fascinating and telling. i am grateful to offer some remarks at the end. there are volumes that can be spoken about religious liberty, and we have seen it addressed across the spectrum of issues in the remarks we have had already.

in the interest of time, i would like to focus my remarks on three points, which in my judgment are of overarching importance. first, the current attack on religious liberty is an attack on human dignity by secular interests. we need to be very clear about that. in the 20th century we came to recognize and respect the importance of various elements of human identity, such as race, ethnicity, and national origin. additionally, we can to recognize the importance of gender to acknowledge the equal human dignity that both men and women, while at the same time, honoring the unique contributions of these sexes. we have understood that some people also form a powerful identities around sexual orientation. the rights movement is largely based on the fact that for some people sexual identity is a defining characteristic of who and what they view themselves to be. these various dimensions of human dignity are secular, nonreligious in nature. all of the secular aspects of

human identity are now widely seen, not only as something vitally important to individuals and their private lives, but as worthy of public acceptance and accommodation. we no longer demand that people remain in the closet or silent about important elements of their personal identity. while creating challenges in many ways, this openness and acceptance of human diversity can be very positive. but this accommodation of secular interests cannot be accomplished at the expense of religious interests of people of faith. to us, our faith is key to our human dignity. there need not be a conflict between deferring perceptions of human dignity. there must be no zero-sum contest between those advocates who want the perception of human dignity and advocates of another. unfortunately that is a contest that --

a significant portion of the population have ceased to believe in god, and religious faith has increasingly been portrayed by some in the secular world as akin to a hobby, much like membership in the bowling league or club or perhaps for participation in a cause, such as environmentalism. because faith typically has an element of choice, because people can sometimes change religions, religion is often portrayed as being less profound and less intrinsic of what we are than other aspects that are not deemed as personal choice. religious faith is increasingly portrayed by some as a mere lifestyle choice, not as an essential element of human identity. they argue religion is for less important to human dignity than sexual orientation. in this view, religious liberty may have some importance, but it cannot truly be our first freedom, because there are other

human dignity interests that are more important. some secular advocates assert any effect that as their human dignity interest increases, religion and religious must give way and decrease before it. this trend presents a danger to the religious liberty of all people. because religion is fundamental to our identities, it follows that the free exercise of religion must never be deemed a second-class or subordinate right. just as advocates for secular rights demand respect for their dignity, so must they in turn is acknowledged respect deserving people of faith. the second point is related to the first. once you recognize that religion can be fundamental to a person's entity, we must also recognize that the free exercise of religion necessarily entails more than just right to believe and worship in private spaces

like a chapel, synagogue, mosque, or home. faith communities and members require space to flourish -- legal, social, cultural space, in which to meaningfully live out their religious beliefs and pass on their traditions to the next generation. for faith communities with beliefs and practices are at odds with modern secular culture, that space is more vital than ever. traditional beliefs and how they are lived by people of faith are increasingly in deep tension with american culture, mass media, and so-called elite opinion. these tensions are rapidly spawning legal conflicts. nowhere is this conflict more evident than in areas touching sexuality. many religions have profound doctrines regarding marriage and the family, teachings that flow from the very voice of god recorded in their sacred texts.

in both communities, patterns of individual identities have been built around these. rather than respecting these vitally important components of faith and the lives they shape, secular thinkers and advocates seek to portray such beliefs as little more than ignorant bigotry that must be denounced. and banished from public settings. in other words, a new closet is being constructed for those with traditional religious values on sexuality and family. true religious liberty must include more than the right to hold a belief in one's head and to worship quietly in a purely private space. it would be utterly radical for the state regulate anyway the right to the free exercise of religion. it requires more than the absence of totalitarian expression, as organizations must be free and protected in order to order their affairs to

the dictates of their belief, including in the employment of those who carry out the religious purposes. people of faith must be reasonably free not only to believe, but to meaningfully exercise their religion in the spaces where they live the majority of their lives. those spaces include professional and personal settings, as others on the panel have noted today. third, and finally, it is imperative that america's diverse faith community band together or each will surely fall alone. --is is not a matter of ecumenism or homogenization of different belief systems. it is a recognition that is our right to have and hold whatever faith edition we cherish individually that unites us together in common cause. if a particular interest of the government abridging free exercise of religion does not implicate my interests, i must recognize that the freedom of one faith is the freedom of all,

including my own. every victory for religious liberty is a rebuke to the notion that the state has ultimate power over our faith communities, our religious lives, and the life of the soul. every loss for religious liberty emboldens the state and hastens its encroachment. we must be willing to defend religious practices of diverse religions and the needs of their members for freedom to manifest their faith in their daily lives. i close with an expression of my own commitment to religious liberty stated in the words of the mormon prophet joseph smith. it is been demonstrated that i'm willing to die fore a mormon, i am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a presbyterian, a baptist, or a good man of any other denomination. the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the latter day saints would trample

upon the rights of the roman catholics or of any other denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves. thank you. [applause] >> i would remind you we will have a spirited conversation here amongst ourselves, and then i would like to open it up to your questions. take a moment to write those out as we speak. t.j. will collect those. one of the things that kept popping up in so many of your statements that i want to pick up on, there is when you look at the polling, the surveys coming out of pew, you are dealing with 16% of the population that is unchurched, unaffiliated religiously, and among millennials that number increases. a moment ago, you mentioned the eight track tape player in the

ipod world. do you all consider this a major problem as far as religious liberty is concerned, when you have a decrease in belief or at least less expressed allegiance to one creator or another? how do you change that dynamic, and how will that impinge or increase religious liberty going forward? >> it is a challenge and an opportunity. there are some very basic indisputable facts here. you have a 20 to 40 demographic, and if you do male to female, the disparity gets greater in terms of the failure of religious institutions to transmit their vision and their ideas and their core beliefs to the future.

these are the future, and we have somewhere along the line failed as institutions to transmit some core values. i think it is an opportunity and i want to come back to this idea about fighting harder. there has got to be a --ndamental retooling in intellectually where the faith communities are in terms of how we engage, because on the one hand you have some forces in popular culture who are creative. they captivate the minds of this generation and we have nothing that is competitive. think about it from a business vantage point. in the marketing and merchandising of our vision, our worldview, our ideas, we have failed with breathtaking incompetence. there is an opportunity and we have got to think through new ways how we in the christian

coalition, how we develop a new ,- in the christian tradition how do we develop a new skin with a new lion to speak to a new -- >> when you look at the cultural landscape, pop culture, we have tyler perry and that is it.-- roma downey and tyler perry. everything else is sort of inculcating a different value. to pick up on something that you mentioned earlier, this notion of the tyranny of secularism. as we see that looking forward, weaving its way into the government, how do you combat that, how do you answer that without being labeled as your fellow adherents as being as being haters,

intolerant. >> well, i think that -- repeat that question again. >> you need more time, i know. you need to buy a vowel here. how do you make the statement and in the pop culture, in a hardening of a secular society, recently secular, how do you make the case for your faith, how do you try to change part about being labeled as you are-- change hearts without being labeled as you are and and many of your adherents as intolerant? >> if you think about it, the challenge to religious liberty seems to fall into two categories. one is the tyranny of the majority toward the unpopular minority. the latter-day saints have that in our history, and every faith

group represented along this panel has had that expression. some comments have been made movingly about that. the secular issue is a new one for us in the united states. i do not think i can think of another era in the history of this country where secularism itself has become something of a religion that is now challenging religious faith generally. other nations have seen that happen with tragic consequences. in our circles, among the latter day saints, we think that what there needs to be in our country across the faith community is an increase in emphasis on the faith and family, not just on religious freedom, but what we need to do, what we need to speak out more about, all of us, and make use of the ipad instead of the eight track tape, is the importance of faith and family.

this is a subject that needs to be heard out there, and people need to begin to hear that as something important, and thus faith and family and religious freedom become three legs to the stool. that is the only way in my view that we can really effectively combat the encroachments of what is a very aggressive secularism. >> anybody else want to add anything? >> i would add a short point that i am a little optimistic about the question, because i think that our society, especially our young, are starving and yearning for some meaning in their lives. and there is just so much secularism, just so much hollywood, so much fashion and

trends and things like that that they can take before they realize that this is all emptiness. eventually, i am optimistic about it because they will eventually come back, looking for their roots, looking for their basic faith. >> on the rabbi's point, i agree. one of the things i do with my daughter, who just graduated from college last year, and my wife and i talk about popular cultural stuff. there is this -- how many people on hbo, right?ls"? it is exhausting, it is disgusting. my wife says she refuses to watch it.i am not going to watch it. i watch it. i agree that this sewage -- that at some point the kids should

o.d. on sewage or age out of it, my concern is that we in the faith community have to take seriously the market -- and i am trying to use that -- this is a business-friendly audience -- because on the business of secularization and that cultural sewage, we now have to engage markets in the 20 to 40 crowd that has been raised a different way. your question, i would say sooner or later we are going to that may sound to move folks in this room as counterintuitive. globally, he is a cultural leader. an industry that no one saw coming 45 years ago, when these kids were in new york city, bouncing around with the ghetto boxes, is now a multibillion dollar industry, and it is not black culture. it is global youth culture. i was in a movie theater and

they were selling some fancy ipads, and it was all this music. we are going to have to take issue of the cultural struggle, kulturat seriously.-- kampf. i am optimistic if we fight smarter and develop a strategic approach for rebranding and updating a message which is internal, we have not learned how to communicate it effectively for reasons that are obvious.based on the polling data. >> i concur that secularism is becoming a competing religion, and aggressive, but our energies need not be directed towards converting secularists. i think the work begins within our own houses of worship. the cardinal was recently asked in new york where i live why the voters voted against what their church teaches, and his answer was because we have not talked incorrectly.-- we have not

taught them correctly. we have been timid. i would add one thing to my stores as we at the younger generation, we need to teach within our own household of faith in a way that is charitable and with a spirit of joy, because we seem to be so negative about everything these days, and that is just not attractive. >> i want to bring you in. i have a specific question just for you. feel free to comment on what we were talking about, but i want to broaden this a little bit. you and the rabbi mentioned something, i want to pick up on, and it was, how do we preserve our defenses as faith-- the differences as faith communities, yet have this unity of purpose? i want to offer that to everybody, but i want to start with you, and then i want to ask, what is the to do list leaving here?it is something we discussed on the phone the other day. it is nice for everybody to have

a coffee and say, oh, you are great. i love the turban.and i do love the turban. what do we do leaving here. i do believe -- i do love the turban. >> i matched it for you today. >> how do you work together and yet maintain integrity? >> i think the experience of a lot of us has been us coming together in times of crisis, and usually some of catastrophe has to happen for us to feel a sense of urgency. i need to reach out to the rabbi, to this pastor. it does not do anything, because when you reach out to people in a state of emergency, it is like trying to make friends while the fire alarms are going off. how deep of a relationship can you really establish?

so how do we preserve our religious identity, but at the same time we can come together in things that i think reach across all the divides, talking in a language that everybody can understand, for example, the language of art or beauty. beauty transcends all differences. bringing communities together, not just for something during ramadan or a shabbat dinner, no, bringing communities together, it does not have to be religious because it usually is religious, their defenses are off, and you're not interested.-- people defenses defenses are up and they are not interested. coming up with creative initiatives where we come -- not to discuss bad stuff or crises, and coming back to this issue of the ipad -- i had read an interesting poll that was conducted a couple of years ago by gallup. the amount of people, americans

retrieving religious information online is higher than the amount of americans that are either gambling or buying and selling stocks online. religion is not going anywhere. another thing -- i was reading we can come together as faith leaders is how to bring it up-to-date. these are things we can put her heads together and talk about. another thing -- i was reading this study by elena larson, saying that -- she is saying that people around the world are increasingly

retrieving or using the internet for religious purposes. interestingly, around the world, americans are the highest in number doing that, and for most americans, it is the women. this is something that faith leaders should take on because that door of opportunity for this market is not going to remain open too long. >> rabbi, you mentioned in your remarks about we have to work together, but also apart and alone. expand on that. what does that mean?how do you do that? circumstancest would you have to go it alone vis-à-vis religious leader -- liberty? >> in our community there are many issues where we have to thread the needle very narrowly. to take a few examples, when you spoke about the hhs issue there it does not directly affect my

community, we see it as a larger issue that does. on abortion, it is not so the orthodox jewish community is against abortion on demand but it is not so simple. there is jewish law where abortion is not only permitted, it is required as a matter of religious faith. we have to thread that needle. we are against abortion on demand, we are for limitations on abortion, and at the same time we need a certain level of leeway that perhaps other groups would not be in favor of in order for the legislation to be satisfactory to us. another example is public prayer. usually, you are either for public prayer or against the prayer. we have to thread the needle

there, too. we are very uncomfortable with denominational prayer, very uncomfortable with it, but in the larger sense we are for prayer in public, we are for prayer in the public square, we believe that adults and children should wake up in the morning acknowledging and acknowledging that god is an integral part of our lives, an integral part of our values and who and what we are. there is prayer, in general, and --iquette gets tricky when we but then it gets tricky when it gets gets to the denominational level, because when it gets to the denominational level, it might lose some of its value for members of our community. i will have the last example.-- i will just give a last example. i will hesitate a bit to say

this, but let's say the issue was the right to proselytize. i am not saying that proselytization is not a right, that people do not have a right to do that and to defend their right in court. however, as a matter of practicality, proselytizing negatively affects the spiritual quality of our community, of the jewish community. i am not going to deny a person's right to defend such a right under the first amendment, but that is simply not an area and there might be a case where it might have implications for other things -- but it is simply not an area that we in good faith can get involved in. i would add one more thing, though, on the positive side, in terms of working together, i

recall that the experience we had with the religious freedom restoration act. he had a coalition of 75 groups, religious groups and civil rights troops, groups that did not sit down at the table ever, and yet for several years, we stuck together and we were able to get the freedom restoration act passed him, and it was that coalition, the strength of that coalition that made a tremendous impression. what was the key to that coalition? what was the key of that being able to work together? the key was everybody understood that the issue involved here was above personal interests. every religion that was sitting around that table could have used the religious freedom restoration act to carve out religious practices that they wanted to preserve, with

exceptions, warned to not allow -- or to not allow other religions to practice their religious practices similarly with a carve-out. the fundamental operating procedure in that coalition was that no religious group was going to do something for their own good at the detriment of others. and having that higher purpose i think made it possible for us in a very difficult situation, with a very wide, diverse group of religious and civil rights groups to come together and be >>ccessful. i want to bring in on this portion of this, and as you were listening to the others, during the introductory remarks there were references made here and there to hate crimes, hate crimes against various religious

communities. is there any concern by invoking and looking to hate crime legislation as a protection that that sword cuts both ways and the very things that so many of these various religious organizations could be construed -- the thingsme? they preach from the pulpit could be construed as a hate crime? walk us through that balancing act, if you will. >> i would say there is not much of a balancing act. the activities that we are advocating be recognized by society through the law as hate crimes are literally criminal, physical acts of violence, that violate the law, even if they were not attached to hate, but we would advocate for the law to recognize a hate

element. regarding the issue the things that are deemed as hate speech, i think again, this is my legal background speaking, but the law is quite clear with regard to speech that literally you have a very direct, unimpeachable, direct correlation between an incitement to violence through speech. then there will be a prosecution, but that is something that we have not seen, a criminal prosecution for somebody where their liberty may be taken away. this is something to say, that dishes -- this is all to say that the concern there will be prosecution of hate speech is not one where we are worried about. your larger point is that -- >> we have seen that in canada and england, used in that way

there.we have seen it enforced and used in that way there. >> it is a good point in that american law is unique --ldwide.i also start studied international human rights laws. it is part of my academic background. in europe, as you might know, hate speech is prosecutable and is a crime. we have a common-law tradition in the united states, but unlike in canada, that makes it elevate to that tradition of at least-- we maintain fidelity of at least allowing that type of speech to occur to the point where, for example, the ku klux klan or supporters of theirs came to a town i was in, hoboken, new jersey, a few years ago and wanted to do a demonstration in front of a jewish synagogue there. their right to do so was protected, because they have

that ability to speech. if there was an incitement to violence, that is different. the larger issue of calling an assertion of a religious belief hate speech, which is what reverend gene was talking about, it obviously is a concern, and it is a concern that cuts both ways. i appreciate the elder's remarks with regard to the discussion over the lgbt movement. being one of a community somehow, working to assert its fundamental human dignity in the way that it saw fit, like our struggle. i also believe is our way of articulating human dignity in a way we see fit. it is going to be imported without giving up core values to respectfully and forth our views

-- put forth our views on these issues, but in a way that is respectful. we ask not to be demeaned, dehumanize, and i will share a quick anecdote. yesterday i was in an uncomfortable position. i was in the cab, coming from union station, and the cab driver was listening to a radio station, and the radio station, the radio host asserted very strongly that -- he was discussing the issue of rape and the issue ofussing lesbian women. and the radio host said that pretty much all lesbian women have a history of abuse, a history of abuse. it was a broad stroke, this class of people, and so i was -- and the driver was vocally agreeing with this.

i felt uncomfortable, knowing how our community, the sikh community, is broadly stereotyped, which is a way to engage in violence, whether in school or hate crimes. i asked him to pull over. i obviously paid him for his services until that point, but i was not going to pay him any more -- i cannot pay him anymore, because i did not want to be -- i do not feel comfortable being in that cab. he said i will turn it off. you do not have to turn it off. you can listen to what you want to listen to, but i will exercise my right not to give you business. the person who was making this assertion on the radio was coming from a faith perspective. when i asked that our dignity we respected and we not be stereotyped, we got to do this as a community. >> this is an interesting

transition to one of the questions the audience submitted. if religious liberty must accommodate religious expression -- in public spaces how do we balance that with gender expression issues that the government is trying to force to tolerate in violation of their religious beliefs? who wants to take that? no takers. you are going to force me to -- >> i will take that.very quickly. i spoke so much. >> we will give you your own panel next time. >> i will do this very quick. again, i would very strongly assert that it is important that we not let our rights to the extent possible conflict with each other, and so what we have done with our religious liberty

cases in the workplace, the number one argument against invoking religious liberty in the workplace has to be the slippery slope argument. so what we have said is each case has to be decided on a case-by-case basis, if the person can show their religious expression does not interfere with their ability to do their jobs. a person who testified tomorrow said they went to iraq, i wear a turban, i resuscitated two people who were clinically dead and received a bronze medal. i can do my job, but i happen to have this faith tradition that i am proud to have while i am-- that i am practicing while i am serving. you look at each case on a case- by-case basis. you cannot decide his case on the idea that we accommodate the sick, then the rastafarian is going to want to be accommodated. this other community who might come to the table and wants to be accommodated.

you look at each case on a case- by-case basis. if a person has a gender identity at issue and can do the job, that is all that should count. >> on your cab driver experience, i would like to give you an alternate possible interpretation. what the guy said on the radio, and i am assuming you have said it in context, there is actually evidence for the argument that in certain cases young women in this case, we're talking about lesbians, have come to that orientation as a function of abuse. that is not to make it a blanket generalization for all. but there are cases in fact where that has happened. same thing with males. while i take your point, i think that the radio guy may have simply overstated the case and the burden of evidence does not

support the kind of broad stroke. but that statement is not completely out of bounds to the extent that there have been cases where that has been the case. and i say this because in poor black communities, in the work that i have done with young people, i have seen cases which are more frequent the case than is reported for political reasons. they allow young people who have been pulled into situations-- a lot of young people have been pulled into situation swhere there was abuse, sexual abuse of one sort of the other resulted in where they went. i simply say i take your point, we should not be making broad generalizations. in certain communities, where this condition is very extreme, there are instances like that. i want to go to your question about moving forward, because

you asked this -- >> gender expression that the government, in the words of this questioner, that the government is trying to force tolerance in violation of their beliefs and how that comports with accepting religious expression in the public space. >> some of these questions are complicated and there will not be a civil answer, and some of -- will not be a simple matter to them, and some of them have not been thought through. what comes to mind is the young male child that wants to come in with a dress -- and we say whoa, whoa, whoa. i've not thought it through, but my first impulse is not i am not sure if i want a guy in here walking in with dresses. it is complicated. rabbi, i would be interested in your view. >> i will come to the rabbi in a moment. so the rabbi can think through this.

>> notwithstanding what i have already said about this confrontation which is developing between secularism and religion in general i think it is useful for us to try to avoid thinking in an us-versus- them sort of a way. it might be useful for us -- i was interested in the preceding panel where we did have two representatives, state legislatures, and those who work with them. i think it is very useful to think in terms of government not as an institution that is forcing something, but instead to try and increase our influence within government so that government now is in the place where it should be, which is trying to balance interests. the point i was trying to make in my remarks is that there are some legitimate concerns in this area of human dignity, and a

person should not be denied a job or a place to live by virtue of some characteristic, whether it be their sexual orientation or something else. by the same token, it concerns of people of faith need to be i agreed against that. with reverend rivers. these are not easy balancing tasks to do it when you get to the practicalities. that is the task that has to be undertaken. i am very -- i would like to close my remarks here are, back to the theme of our conference, many faiths, one america. i was impressed by the rabbi's remarks, and that idea being strangers and neighbors is so historically us. different denominations and faith groups have tended to separate themselves from one another because of a focus on our differences.

those differences exist and they need to be celebrated. at the same time, we need to recognize we are all neighbors and we have a common interest here. and i think as we can make our voice heard within government, government can cease to be a place where it is trying to compel one thing or another, but a place where it is trying to bring together and balance the very valid concerns about their own dignity and personal space that all americans are entitled to. >> i want to give everybody a shot at this. it is the thing that we started with.-- the theme we started with. why does religious liberty matter so much at this moment? what are the benefits of religious liberty, if you will? we have seen some comments --cently that where religious we have seen recent studies, international freedom, the pew

study, where religious liberty is wide and broad we have religious pluralism and a more peaceful society. what are the implications now for america, and how does your particular community work toward that greater religious liberty? >> first of all i appreciate the whole panel. everyone is tremendously thoughtful, and i am just really honored to be on this panel with such an esteemed group of leaders. i think we have answered that question come up first question, as to why it is important now in the course of this panel, and why, because there is hard data of a growing secularization of the country, and at times by some -- and i like how the elder said by some -- secularization

means hostility to religion in a way that is much more acute actually in europe, and i am thinking of france, where sikh and muslim children are not allowed to wear their coverings to school or have state id's --th their religious address. fress.eir religious where the state is trying to eliminate religion from the public sphere. religious address. the issue is relevant now for those reasons, for this growing secularization, and it is on the attack by some. the panel has provoked me to think, and i wanted to go back to this gender identity question, because i think i know what my answer is based on the theme of the conference and my thinking and just listening to the panel, and i have the soundbite. the soundbite is with regard to

gender identity expression, if we are going to respect, if we are going to ask able to respect our differences, we are going to have to respect other people's secular differences as well. and the challenge will be that we are going to have to make sure that those differences do not encroach on each other, and that is the real balancing act. and as a larger piece for our movement, it is going to be important, one of the things that we came up, that we think it positively, with the joy that -- frame it positively, with the joy that i hurt them because some much of our branding is stern and negative and angry. he have to do it in a way that frames it in the larger struggle of rights, american rights, civil rights, and that will take

us out of special interests into the area of broader human interests. that is my final thought. thanks. >> i would do this quick. religious liberty, an abstract philosophical point, which is essential, important to be emphasized, is essential for the future of human dignity and for the promotion of a rational society. so religious liberty is indispensable philosophically for the defense of human dignity against secularization and a certain form of reductionist scientism, t is a function of the secularization business. and so it is a defense of human dignity and reason. faith and religious freedom, when it is understood at its highest level, is the defense of

human dignity and reason itself. there i draw on benedict and some of the work that he is done, and this is extremely important. last point, and for the poor, religious liberty is absolutely essential because the only defense that the poor have against nihilism not holism and -- nihilism and decay and complete self- destruction is the robust promotion of faith and the expression of religious liberty as a defense against the madness they live in. thank you. >> i would like to just put it out there that historically, and even in current times, we have seen that in countries where religious freedom is curtailed

and freedom of expression is stifled, we have seen how these countries have become cauldrons of insurgency and human rights abuses. so us working towards the preservation of religious freedom in the united states is ultimately where we are going to be benefiting from. practically, what is it that i can do? going back to my community and i will continue myself, and the women of the foundation will continue inculcating a theology of compassion and mercy in the female members through education. ultimately, women are the spine of the household. so they are giving these values, they are transmitting these values into future generations to come into the united states of america. you educate a woman, you elevate a nation, and i would like to

remind us that we might be different faiths, but we certainly have one's fate, which is the fate of this country, and thank you, all. >> i guess i would just sum it up by saying that religious liberty promotes social harmony, and the lack of religious-- liberty or hostility toward religion or religious liberty eats upon itself -- feeds upon itself and causes a society to deteriorate more and more. i will tell you, i was going to say this in my original remarks, but i would like to say them now. there is a new regulation that for the first time in new york, regulating a specific aspect of virtual circumcision.-- ritual circumcision.

a great organization went to court suing on behalf of many jewish organizations him a suing the city, and it said some interesting things. in their brief come it makes the following comments -- targeted government measures against orthodox jews are becoming depressingly regular features within the city and surrounding minorities.-- municipalities. this may stem from antagonism on the part of the secular leadership of the city toward public manifestation of religion in general, but orthodox judaism is a religion that suffers the most. on and it talks about how orthodox juice are referred to by many in society ,- our tribal, bloodsucking self-centered leeches who create jonestown-like colts where they

drink spiked kool-aid, kosher, of course. when "the atlantic" magazine asked the mayor about why did he go ahead and insist on this regulation, i think -- he says "i think it is fair to say that nobody else would take that on." i mean, who wants to have 10,000 guys in black hats outside your office cleaning?" well, the hostility that is evident in these remarks cause bad regulation, unfair regulation. ann intern, that regulation will cause even greater hostility toward orthodox juice. and we see this in other areas as well. regards to in zoning. there are many communities who

do not want bloodsucking leeches to move into their community. so, they use zoning laws to keep synagogues out. orthodox jews, we have to live close to our synagogues because we do not drive on the sabbath. they can use zoning laws as a way to keep orthodox jews out. we start with a hostility, we start with the bloodsucking leeches, and we use that to create regulations, bad regulations that keep them out. itturn, like i said -- teaches society who and what orthodox jews are. finally, i would say in regards to the workplace issues as well, we have been -- there is protection on the books for religious freedom in the workplace, but we know that it never lived up to its promise. deepa knows very well,

we have been working over 20 years to strengthen that provision. and we just can't seem to do it. just can't get past first base. so, you have people will look different and you might not want to have in your workplace, so ,ou don't want to change laws you don't want to make the law more favorable for religions. that, in itself, sends a message. so, in the same way that hostility breeds bad law and regulation and bad law and regulation breeds even more hostility, greater religious liberty, more sensitive religious liberty enhances social harmony. i think the question, why now, can be summed up very simply, i think. it is a constitutional issue, amongst others.

the first amendment is now widely interpreted, freedom from religion rather than freedom of religion. would be 9/11ple memorial in new york where i live. religion is not allowed, no religious expression. that is certainly not what the founding fathers of this country intended. setif we don't begin to that interpretation right, it will in fact become culturally accepted that the first amendment guarantees freedom from religion, all expressions. i guess my response to the question, final comment,, is religion is important because it is. our very presence here today, i would dare to say, virtually everyone here today is here because -- for each of us, him or her, our relationship to god, to a supreme being is the most important of all of our

relationships among very important ones. rabbi'so quote the remarks -- america, unique among nations because it was founded on an idea. the idea was liberty. that it was ok to be a separatist, ok for the pilgrim fathers to come here. the pilgrim fathers not because of a particular sect, but because of an idea. that is what we are here defending. why now? because defending religious liberty is timely at any and all times. but now it seems to be under a different time -- kind of assault, and that is why it is necessary for us to come together, not as strangers, but his neighbors. >> i thank you all. just to sum up, the person who "the the great book --

right to be wronged" which i think all of us, no matter our perspective, have to defend the others right to be wrong, otherwise our right to be wrong will be undermined. i think is can we flex in so many ways the title of this conference -- many faith, and one america. i thank you all for being a part of it and for your kind attention. thank you all. [applause] and then live at 7:00 a.m., your calls and comments on "washington journal" and at 11:00 a.m., a discussion about the 2013 social security trustees report with the chief actuary of the social security administration. today, president obama takes part in a white house conference designed to increase understanding and awareness of mental health issues. then, mental health advocates, educators, health care providers

and state and local officials will join health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius in a panel discussion live coverage begins at 940 -- 2.40 a.m. eastern on c-span this week on "q&a," shola lynch producer and director of the newly released documentary "free angela and all political prisoners." youhola lynch, when did first want to know more about angela davis? >> the truth? at shirley chisholm's funeral. i had been thinking about what my next would be next subject would be. previously i had made a film