poop, you had religious liberty rights and now you don't? exerciseexercise, the and formalism which is the kind of exercise that you give lawyers a bad name. >> last question, what will happen tomorrow? [laughter] an insight into what you think the reasoning will be? >> you are our guest. >> i will be there and listening to every word of the argument if it promises to be an interesting argument i'm a we will not know how justice thomas is thinking because it would not let us in on his views. will we hear a lot from some of the other justices. be in a by noon, i will better position to make a prediction than i am now. , i would sayuess

the court would not accept the corporate individual distinction. , i think hard to know they will accept the analysis that has been put forward by the private parties rather than the government. how they will find there is a compelling need, i just do not to know. >> i think the prospects are bright for hobby lobby and demo for the government and they tend not to make predictions but you asked me to. thatee totally with allen the argument with respect to hobby lobby and the five members lost their rights and filed articles with the corporations. it borders in my judgment on the frivolous. i do not see it. are humans do not view as before.have won

i would be surprised. the second thing is the religious freedom act is so powerful. let me give you one very quick example. congress that we are series of our religious freedoms so we will apply it to inmates in prison. essentially applied to institutions, state prisons for stop -- a state prisons. arguments were made by the state of ohio and michigan and state attorneys generals sat in is terrible. listeners to make frivolous prisoners we can -- make frivolous claims and we cannot allow this. that is what congress have called on us to do and we have to balance it. if you look at the case at kutcher versus rokerson, what

chief justice roberts so wisely said. bureaucrats have side, we cannot grant an exception. if we grant you an exemption then we have to grant every body or an exemption and therefore no exemptions. that is what congress -- when congress stepped in and says absolutely not. when you look at the record and you see ohio said, we cannot provide the appropriate kind of food for muslims. and then you are providing for jewish inmates. when you started trailing into it, government policy is not quite as coherent. >> can i end our state and anecdote? i was25 years ago representing a guy who was a union guy. i later learned he may have had

connections with unsavory groups. i do not generally represent people who are criminals. [laughter] but justice prevailed and he walks. and he was in a prison. one day he called me. i became a, alan, jew. i say you are a religious catholic. he said every friday i am a jew. he said they kicked me off friday night and it was in prison and a give me the soup balls and chicken. and today take me to this place and there is wine you can drink. and on sunday i become a catholic again. i said michael, what you are doing, you cannot do that. he said everybody understands that. int is how you have to live prison. he became a jew on friday and saturday.

prisoneligious claims in are abused. no question. beards tow along the hide weapons. the court said even in the face if we know there will be abuses, religious liberty is so much more important they use a prison authority have to figure out a way of getting to this cancers and figure out a way -- scamsters and figure out a way but not -- but do not interfere with the religious rights. [applause] onmore from the forum sebelius versus hobby lobby hobby lobby.

>> good afternoon. in the department of government and law school. i would first like to think tom and tim and the leadership team of religious freedom project for putting on yet another stellar event. and thank our partners of the religious freedom project at baylor university, president starr and byron johnson and the team who are excitedly going to be joining us for this inquiry adventure over the few years. greetings to you in the audience. our discussion here today as part of a wider conversation about important issues of health

care needs and costs and individual liberties, contested goods, and the way to balance these pursuits with cherished protection of equality under law and religious freedom. center has held previous discussions about the regulation implemented by the department of health and human services under the affordable care act and the claim is that they create violations of religious freedoms. questions about how religious communities and not-for-profit institutions such as universities and social service agency are impacted by the law. those events are on our website and rich with information. i submit that you would be well served to check them out. our focus is on the claims by some that for-profit corporations are impacted by the

aca's contraception a mandate that it violates the religious freedom of corporations and their owners. these are complex questions and with all respect due to president starr, this panel will dig into the boring legal questions he touched on very to pushly and wanted past. that is the charge to the committee assembled in front of you. i suspect there would not be consensus amongst the panel or the room about how the case should be decided but i submit it is a worthy goal unto itself and most crucial for our democratic order that we come to a better understanding of all of these issues and understanding of how each of us come to the vitallynding them to be important. i also think it is safe to

assume if you are here today, you're familiar with some of the debates. of thee a few >> -- few facts. an interim final rule as an application of the a say that indicated they would require most plans to cover preventative services for women including contraceptive services without any co-pay or coinsurance or deductible. the role of the rise the health resurfaces ministership to exempt certain religious employers and defined it narrowly. an debate are over who got exemption and who did not but got accommodation in who acted the end of the day did not get any accommodation. the debate while strenuous over was alsoof nonprofit strenuously debated over the

role of for-profit corporations and businesses. objections of was some for-profit employers like hobby lobby, the government did not implement any accommodation for religious objecting for-profit businesses. the respondents in the current are on appeal in the supreme court as scheduled for oral argument tomorrow claimed the preventative services will substantially burdens their exercise of religion under -- else was introduced and the previous -- and that was introduced in the previous panel. their claim is that aca requires them to offer their employees access to a medical insurance plan which must include coverage aborted, certain kind of contraception that claim to

terminate a pregnancy. in providing this coverage, the individual owners of the company claim are forced to provide among other things access to and use of abortion causing drugs and devices and this violates the religious beliefs by making them complicit in their employee's use. how do we assess this claim of burden? other questions we will address include if the government has through the legislative process deemed it essential to cover the kind of services that they determined our important? how does it matter if some citizens including operations claim the services would violate their conscience and religious identities should they have to participate in the provision?

how is the regulation like the hss mandate in violation of corporations as opposed to private individuals? how should the state respond to a substantial burden? does the current state of religious freedom law necessitates or merely allow for accommodations and if so, are they given only in the legislative process or is her judicial remedy? apply?ra -- does rfra if exemptions are granted, where do they ended? interestingpost a question. can gender and race and other options be the basis for tocrimination that are now be provided at exemptions of by for-profit distances? -- businesses? to divideestion is

some background. it is not primarily a constitutional case about our nation's first freedom. did go for a few of these points but it is in a nutshell in order. starting around 1963, the court started to implement protections under the free exercise clause where persons with sincere religious objections to government laws had a first amendment right to an exemption unless the government interest subjected to so-called strict scrutiny was found to be the least restrictive means and serving a compelling government interest. then came the infamous 1990 case employment division of oregon versus smith under justice scalia's opinion. if the law is mutual, not directly discriminatory against religious believers as such, and

generally applicable, it is andd and constitutionally objectors do not get an exemption. justice scalia pointed to the legislative process as the available avenues for religious objectors to gain redress. building exemptions at the start and they will be the stronger after result of the political process, not enacted through judicial fiat. condemnation of this decision was swift and came from all sides. it may be the last unanimous act of congress signed by a president in my memory which attempted to restore the statute the presumptive right to exemptions from applicable laws. rfra, government may substantially burden a hearse and's xers -- a person's exercise of religion if it is

the least restrictive means. as iturt overturned rfra applied in the 1997 case. very fascinating case which i at.mmend you take a look for federal matters, it is still applies. and the implementation of the affordable care act is subject to the provisions of the religious freedom restoration act. up until these cases, none have dealt with the question of how for-profit corporations might claim a substantial burden under rfra. our questions are clear. this a legal panel that will deal with these legal issues. i will introduce our panelists who will make more clarity available to us about these complex issues. first is helen, it refers of law at george mason university where

she researches and writes about family law and the intersection of family law and religion. --a practicing lawyer, she she drafted a speech in many leading supreme court cases on behalf of the general counsel for the u.s. conference of catholic bishops and later worked for the fcb's secretary for pro-life activities. she chaired a commission and the archdiocese and is an advisor to the 16th pontifical council and has served as a consultant. title duncan until recently -- workduncan, his included representing hobby lobby and the green family. he is now in private practice pursuing these sorts of cases.

previously, duncan served as louisiana solicitor general. he argued numerous appeals in state and federal courts including the u.s. of print court. he was an assistant professor at the diverse of mississippi school of law where he taught courts on constitutional law and free speech. he was assistant solicitor general and the texas attorney -- from 1992. of the eleanor davis professor of law emeritus at the george washington university's law school abrasions on the faculty since 1990. his research focus is on constitutional law with an emphasis on the religious clauses of the first amendment. with his colleague, robert toddle, he is the author of annual reports.

on the faith-based initiative of george w. bush and the author of many articles including the forthcoming book on secular government. schwartzman is a professor of law at university of virginia. research focuses on issues of law and religion. prior to join the faculty at courtia, he clerked for a of the united states of appeal for the fourth circuit. schwartzman went to virginia for his undergraduate and law degree and received a rhodes scholar. before i ask the first question, or would you please make sure that all of your cell phones and

other noisemaking devices are turned down so we do not disturb the flow of the conversation and others' attention? question, i think was perfectly teed up by judge starr. what is the substantial burden that is claimed? how do we codify that illegally? >> i will take it, michael. thank you for having me on this great panel. ,ou know, as michael indicated i had the privilege of representing green family. i see them here today and i thank them for coming. you said this case is very complicated and it is in many ways. it brings a number of different issues none the least of the whole issue of corporate exercise of religion. however, on the other hand, this

case is quite simple. you ask about substantial burden. as everybody knows, rfra, the civil rights statue, says that if government substantially burdens religious exercise, the government has to me to the highest standard to justify that burden. ist triggers rfra substantial burden. you asked what it gets. from our point of view, it is always been really easy. doyou for somebody to something contrary to their face as say if you do not do it, we finefind you or if we deny you, we will disrupt your business, by any definition known to constitutional law, that is a substantial burden. what we have already said it is very simple. the pressure the government puts on somebody to violated their faith. i have this brief care. i will read 10 or 12 pages from the brief.

[laughter] no, i do not think i will do that. what we say it is pressure. the sherbet case. from the 1960's is said if you tell as you are jehovah's witness you can have a benefit provided you agree to work on saturday which happens to be your sabbath a gun unemployment benefit. it craves a lot of pressure to say maybe i have misinterpreted my religion and i should go to work on saturday. that is substantial pressure. sherbet said if i tell you if you work on -- if and i worked on saturday, it is fine. substantial pressure. as with was that in our brief. this is what the government said in its brief. when i got it, i said, oh, good. this will be great. we can argue about it. a proper burden may be deemed not substantial in cases where the nature of regime

and expectations necessarily on when anr limits individual can insist on modification of or heightened justification for governmental programs that may offend his beliefs." i do not understand what that means and none of you do. justsure the supreme court do not understand. they threw out a bunch of principles and say it is not a becauseial burden here there is continuation between the owners and actual use of the contraceptive or if there are third parties involved. there is no test. view, a veryt of simple case. it is pressure. not a religious inquiry or ask about the theology of the green family or material cooperation, none of that. it is the pressure the government puts. it is very clear. do something to offend your belize or we find you or make -- orend you or we fine you

disrupt your business. >> you see the older folks here today will tell stories. alan and ken starr have stories about rfra i want to tell. is not nearlyfra so simple as the way in which it was told and it unfolded and remarks this morning. the law of the free exercise clause before the smith case in 1990 was not simple, straightforward, substantial burden, compelling interest was up -- interests. oversimplified narrative. as in the smith case blew it. the religious freedom restoration act just put it back. we stored it.

whatu paid attention to the supreme court had dated -- 19600's victorian, three, you will see a line of cases and we will talk about civilf the later about rights laws, social security, .emo wage, over and over again the religious liberty claims lost. you will not see any rigorous application of this substantial burden, compelling interest test. when the smith case made the move into made, it changed something important. we are not disputing that. what happened in congress was a legislative coalition of folks which excluded right to life folks at first. some the folks were really on the side of the green family were not on the side of rfra in the first two years.

but the folks who came together and said, a terrible thing has happened and we have to restore our religious freedom. we will put together a statute is a reason so simply and so isarly, rfra dusts that it just a few sentences. what it did, it in a restore religious liberty as it was, it restored religious liberty to what many lawyers would say was the high water bar in the decisions before 1990. the most vigorous active exist in the lobby for that. it did not disclose that to people and congress. the left and the right and they both agreed, it was all restoration. one of the reasons of the majority was so overwhelmingly in support of rfra because no member of congress wanted to be against religious freedom. it is easy to support. left and right said we are

upholding the law. -- restoring the law. or beingot commit you in favor of more religious freedom for prisoners. it does not commit you to anything except religious .reedom in some abstract way and we let the judges figure it out. so, the story was much more complex than it was told this morning. life people had to do the possibility that roe versus wade would get overruled. laws comes abortion back into play and some women may claim their religious by saying it is appropriate or etc.. the archbishops did not want to rebate rate abortion choosing rights. they opposed the act.

only when the supreme court in 1992 signaled it was not going to overrule roe versus wade, the coalition came together. that is just a story about how the law came to be. importanther very piece for people to understand before we get back into the particulars, the difference formula we statutory are taught about, substantial burden. very two dimensional. and the underlying religious liberty principles that the supreme court had developed over the course of a century which requited the opposite of flat which were 3-d and driven by particular narratives about business and prison and the military. a rich narrative in that law that just got flattened out. a lot of hobby lobby artiness are appropriate lawyer arguments

are based on that last argument of compelling interest. let me say look a bit more about the substantial burden piece. i have had more than my share and i will stop. there are two parts to the question about what is a substantial burden on religious exercise. there is a question of what is the secular or legal cost of complying with your face, faith -- faith. there is the other side, what is religious cost of complying with the law? if i comply with a lot, what is the religious significance of that? on the first one of those, kyl skimped past part of the story. the green family and others have had a choice. they could comply with the law and include the contraceptive

average or they can make $2000 per employee per year and to under their irs drop coverage. drop all coverage and all of their employees would be free to go and buy policies on the exchanges including getting subsidies and it would get the contraceptive coverage. if that pressure? -- is that pressure? is a complicated kind of pressure. will find you if you offer the wrong kind of assurance. and if there is a competitive andr market if you drop other businesses might be able to compete for employees. that stores a little richer. cost ofligious complying with the law, this is where i think a lot of people have a commonsense intuition that buying an insurance policy that covers thousands of goods,

only a few of which are objectionable which your employees may or may not ever choose to use. those put to the employer at the some considerable distance from the choice to use those guns. it is not like an ob/gyn doctor having to perform an abortion. of commonsense intuition, there is a question about what is the religious cost of buying that insurance policy when you are that the disconnected? law tends to be a hobby lobby's side. the supreme court has said you cannot second-guess believers. christians would disagree and some people do not get it, this way the greens read scriptures and how they understand and is not up to the course to second-guess on the meaning of religious questions. i think that is probably right.

i will stop. >> does it by want to address that particular? we hear the claim that -- [indiscernible] from the actual delivery of the services that it seems this is absurd that the greens and others would object to this delivery. what is the best argument back to that, if in fact somebody would make the grains complicit? >> you want me to pick up or you? the argument is pretty clear on this. we are talking about drugs and devices that kathleen sebelius afteried before congress an embryo has been formed. that is clear. it is also in the food and drug on thetration material instructions for the planned parenthood. it has a website about premises.

-- premises. clear about the disconnect. frankly, the consensus of whether we are taught about the case of emergency contraceptive. something that the scientific committee understood to destroy a . it is pretty clear -- d straight a new life.destroy -- it is pretty clear. they changed the rating on pregnancy. to be morethe meat convenient and it would upset people if we changed the definition. all that is to say it is clear the drugs and devices are after an embryo has formed. point of ao to the very renowned feminist who said it is not fair to tell women there's a difference between

these kind of shrugs and devices and others that acted before an embryo has been formed. it is a pretty big line. we also have the christian teaching, very classic, very well developed. the freedom act would have no problem finding this was a sincerely held religious conviction and held in the literature, high-end and scholarly literature. regarding what we call moral cooperation. the government used the language of continuation. is moralogical problem cooperation with specifically including the government through is specifically naming these particular things. it's not just one thing among many others. the government is pushing so hard back on hundreds of places and dozens of places that have

highlighted. along with this and making it even more clear. a gravealking about matter and what is called material cooperation. people who act in the corporation to tell of the this is for the religious institutions, i will not do what you do well for a family like the grains and others who are religious film running for-profit corporations, specifically making insurance decisions. question ofen a whether it is theological literature. this constitutes a cooperation. pretty clearhat is and the government really is not going to baby get past that. what can i add a couple of things?

i agree with all of that, helen. the idea that somebody looks at that and say it is about complicity and this is continue waited. -- continue waited -- continu ated. it is not the governments if the theology is a right. the courts have been very clear. >> it more attenuated than that. a certain kind of boundary that will be used in vietnam that may kill someone in the jehovah's witnesses claim. and a sense, that is two-week of a point. a point.ak of what i would like to ask of the government is, if this is problem,d or a moral why have you exempted all these religious employers?

why have you gone out of your way if you are a religious employer a you employ religious people agree, we will not make you do this? i expect the government saying we are being nice or politically -- i do not know. it seems right to us to do that. and closely recognizing a moral problem. why are they accommodating are pretending to accommodate? if they do not recognize there's a real moral problem here. the last thing i would say if you read the fine print which i admit is not summit i would yoummend, if you do that, see what the government says it is charging accomplish here. it's trying to pull specific drugs and policies. be used more to often and effectively. some those drugs or abortion, and does not use of the word abortion.

if the government wants those drugs to be used more often and more effectively and wants to make the people like the green family cooperators in advance. if he does not seem to be far-fetched for somebody to say, i do not agree with your policy. i cannot stop you from doing it. but do not make me a part. >> let's moved to the question about there are so many exemptions. it was question now, interesting to hear judge starr say what you said was this burden question is an interesting issue here. ways, we are referring to the claim there is a substantial burden. what rfra does say if there is a burden, the government edges may be overwhelming enough. >> it is not be made on this panel yet.

i do not think -- there are humans i would start out defending. someone should make the argument as devils advocate. i wouldot an argument want to stand the case on the bush somebody -- but somebody should air it. was the government is saying is being compelled to buy it is aptive coverage, lot like paying wages to employees. your employees get to make choices on how they used those benefits. health insurance is five parts of their general benefits package. to make a further claim, if you look at other aspects of religious clause, the first amendment, we have principles to guide us. if i for example as a taxpayer and i object to the way the government uses some of my money ,o fund religion in some way

promote religious speech or symbols, what the court says is you have the right to object. beingif your tax money is channeled through some third-party's decision and i have to pay for a voucher at some child or parent uses it for religious education and i object and conscious to the kind of education they receive, i object because i don't like the school they are going to or something. or maybe i think it is teaching horrible things. religious hatred even. i can say i object to the way my money is being used. with the core is saying you do not have a claim. that is because that decision is being made by the parent. you do not do to make a decision. i say i have to pay for something that is -- it might

cover what i do not like. somebody else fix the ultimate decision that we know somebody will make that judgment. the data does not matter. you are being asked to pay for something. if you take peppers will front the establishment -- if you take that position from the establishment clause contacts or under rfra, it since i the same idea should hold. i think that is the nature of the substantial burden argument. you are too far down the line and the decision is too far away. that is the way the army get worked on. h, you have written about this. can you explain about to be precedence backs this up? well, it is something you shoving more general conversation about. this case involves an amish employer who objected to paying

for social security taxes. what he set in the amish community, we take care of our own and we do not have to pay into social security because our community takes care and we never draw on social security and we should not have to pay into it. the supreme court said that claim for exemption is overridden by the government's theelling interest of social security system that you have to pay in to the social security system, no exceptions. congress did create an exemption from -- for the amish was up -- for the amish. here the court recognized that was a burden on the amish. that is interesting. lobby rightly makes a good point of this. there is case law.

i agree with chip and keio. i want to air the argument. was the government is trying to say. >> what do we make of the claim the government has compelling enough interest and affordable care act and the contraceptive provision as part of the preventative services which overall may decrease overall health spending and increase health care efficiency among other things? does i rise to the level of compelling interest? starvious panel, president seemed to say it does not. a professor may have gone the other direct and some would we set those arguments -- may have gone the other direction. -- where do we set those arguments? that thelaim government makes is very high level.

they are saying, gender equality and public health. to women.ct the problems are really -- a couple of things. to start off with if you look at thetime that quesadillas to supreme court, the government is actually arguing -- at the time the case gets to the supreme court, the government is actually arguing that children will not be born from unintended pregnancies the cuts will not have children with smaller pregnancy and roles and other things about children will be improved. it is curious for a couple of reasons. the mandate that congress gave it to hss was about preventative services for women not with respect to services for children. number two, the argument boils down to preventing children from being conceived or once they are

in embryonic stage having them destroyed. that is very unusual. number three, the art about children's health, i went line by line. every single, scientific source they cited they do not have the scientific argument. about the women's health and i'm confined my few remarks to what is at stake here and the cases being argued tomorrow. devices that act on an embryo. a couple of things with regard to public health for women, these are really contested medications and devices. it is not only all of the lawsuits that have run into the hundreds of millions of dollars on some these drugs and devices it because their negative impacts on women. most interesting is no steady of these devices, not evil one has

acknowledged by the leading research -- not even one has been a knowledge by the leading connectionowing a between more uses of them and less unintended pregnancies. not a single study. you have to show causation. there's a strong state interest because it will help bring about the results that the law and tents. the studies do not exist. and probably because of what janet yellen has identified the foam that the phenomenon -- the phenomenon of contraception and abortion and society meeting to a conversation if fact. more, not less unintended pregnancies and abortions. you can see the argument playing golf with other contraceptives but with emergency contraceptives, the data is really, really clear.

on the argument about women's health, although the citations that today attempted to make about the cost of contraception is that impaired women from getting it or was related to gender equality only trailed onto the sources they are citing. ,he medicaid, medicare report it turns out maternity is the biggest house caused the differential stop having the child, not contraception. .here is no data showing gender equality argument. i start a group that ended up ballooning into 41,000 women without trial who were angry that the government seem to be saying and they were during a political campaign that women are not equal unless they enter society with a child. i being childless is something that has to be -- the government

has to help women with it because they can enter society on the same level as men. the statements on that and the government's brief disturbed enough women that they got together to oppose them. not all women, but is deeply divisive statement on their part. a couple of things. first, it is true that the two cases argued tomorrow, it has been said many times involved objection by employers to a contraceptive devices or services, not the full range. keio knows this extremely well. -- kyle knows this extremely well. there are cases where employees are objected to all contraception. i cannot imagine and that you are going to say, those people

will lose. how the lobby should -- hobby lobby should win. wholeople object to the range of contraceptives, that is too much. >> ovation all -- they should all win. >> let us not to be fooled it is only about emergency contraceptive. being issue or not insured makes a difference. the other case is about not these 4. athink there are frequently misstating or confusion about how a compelling interest have to work in rfra and free exercise to the government does not have to show it has compelling interest in the policy taken as a whole. it has to show it has a compelling interest in not allowing opt outs. government may burden a person's

religious exercise. making this company do this using fragrance of compelling interest. in the least restrictive means. what are the interests at stake and opt outs? do we allow companies, some ,mall, but some quite a large if we allow them to opt out under rfra we are going to have how many thousand women employees and female dependence who's employees, insurance coverage when not services?e goods and they will be a to get them if they can't afford them. some people can afford them better than other. if it is hormonal iuds which is not recommended for everybody to if they are the safest and most effective for women and the most --s been said, it really is

most expensive, it is really hard for me to understand the argument these women are not being harmed by the losing insurance coverage for that particular service. opposingnment interest opt outs for religious freedoms is to make sure these women are not deprived of coverage. just as easy as, this case -- just as these goods, in this case. -- it sets up the honey, comb. there are so many exemptions and there are millions literally uncovered. why not allow a combination on religious grounds along with the other grounds? , you want to run that? >> you go ahead. >> the most significant and of those exemptions is the grandfathering of pre-existing policies.

you can keep the policy you have if you like it. we can all make fun of that. there's a policy and the aca that you can keep your pre-aca policy. they can keep their prior coverage which might exclude this kind of contraceptive. it will force for sometimes there will be women who are covered by the policies. i do not know how many. but, that is the number that is not protective. this is a transition a role to allow businesses to add just over time. anytime a visit was to go to the market at that one different deductibles -- a business goes to the market and once a different deductibles, their grandfathering is over. when it is over, these coverage kick in.ules it is hard to know the number of

women who are not covered by policies that include all pregnancy prevention services, the number will get smaller and smaller for some that the government's compelling interest operated over time. hobby lobby wins the case, that is not a transitional rule. >> i want to make -- >> ago -- go ahead. >> i was not expected to go first. one problem with his argument is when the government eclairs of it isnefit today, emergency contraceptive or all contraceptives and tomorrow it could be what everybody andrstands to be abortive an aging population for assisted suicide. if the legal are the goals once the government says this policy has to include the benefit, anyone who is not provided that is all of a sudden given the

level of depriving, taking away a right. i think that is a problematic cast. -- test. grandfathering it if you like your plan, you can keep it. the interesting thing, what where time but is preventative services, contraceptive, is it a compelling and surest stop it is something that is so important that the government must override religious objections to it? if you look at grandfathering, congress and made some prioritization when it did in the grandfathering. your plan still has to cover your dependence of two age 26 and cannot have lifetime limits and no pre-existing conditions. that is congress saying these things, these items. being allby your kids your plan to up to 26.

your kids are happy. ingres said it is extremely important and we will apply it to grandfather plans, so however long the transitional period las ts, there are millions of plans that will putting be grandfather this year and next. a sort of setake of priorities asset these are important to us. so, it seems we look at a regulatory agency and hss say these preventative services are important to us. ofobscene not as important what congress -- it is obviously not as important of what congress said. there is no doubt that people people think the contraceptive services mandate is important. no doubt about that. the question is compelling interest. the other thing i would say is

congress, the government has to prove it is compelling. the government bears that burden of proving it. if you look evidence in this case, all the government is putting the medicine report. if you look at the five pages that are devoted to discussing the contraceptive mandate, whether the government says if there are certain women in a neville age group and socioeconomic group who are a genuine risk of not having axis to contraception unless they have insurance. the women has not bothered to prove or offered one shred of proof that any employer did employee work for hobby lobby -- employee working for hobby lobby. people are generous the health benefits that cover 99% of all preventative services already. those people averaging when crisis of access. i think the government have to put in something that shows to

even get to the compelling interest test at all and the government has not done that. >> i think they're raising interesting question about how the litigation has gone so far. the argument is that will happen tomorrow is coming up in a very early posture. there's been no trial in any of these cases. there are no facts and any of them after discovering. we do not know any thing about the cost except for what the parts alleged in the brief. a background consideration of litigation which is the posture of all of these cases, the structure, is the same across all of the cases. it is a private employer versus government. there is a substantial it will be affected by the outcome not orbison anywhere in it. that's the management and employees of these corporations. no employee plaintiffs or intervenors.

thedy knows very much about kind of facts that would bring it to this litigation. in some ways, and the little early for the court to having taken up these cases from not here for all the parties. the government has represented the interests of some of these employees. that is by it does framing its compelling interest. partly and in the form of a health.out women's that is important. there is a larger consideration and that has to do with concerns and the establishment clause. something will not talk at all about so far. rfra was meant to restore a standard. there were two clauses in the first amendment. the second was the establishment clause, congress should make no law enforcing religion. limits oncertain

religious accommodations. one of those limits, accommodation should not impose significant burden on third parties. that is people who do not otherwise benefit from the accommodation. what did government is arguing here is that allowing hobby lobby an exemption under the affordable care act we shift the cost of paying for contraception from hobby lobby or other corporations to their employees effectively requiring their employees to subsidize the cost of hobby lobby and comply with his religious observance. for almost all employees in this country, safer for those who are employees of religious nonprofits, federal statutory right to receive these benefits as part of their employer-based health insurance. it would only be these employees subject to an exemption in cases like hobby lobby who would have to pay for this.

the first compelling images of the government articulated in the brief at this point. what hobby lobby is asking for to shift the cost from the employee to the employee. it raises a concern in the establishment clause and we are forng employees paying religious beliefs and practices. that argument at the bottom, women's health. about who concern exemption?ligious employees are not in this litigation and they cannot go to the government and say we did not choose to organize a health insurance the way government to did and we are stuck the way hobby lobby is. we have interest. it is unfortunate that their voices are not heard. >> a great. of remembering the time. about 20 mins before we open it up to questions.

questions we still have not addressed it yet. some people say is not even an issue. it is sucking up a lot of the oxygen and that is the question about the particular for-profit >> gather individuals around a common cause? that makes for-profit businesses were susceptible to government oftrol then other kinds institutions? startling amount of

time has been wasted on this question. , the question should be what is it that the corporation wants and what are the consequences. theree his concern that is an establishment clause problem about shifting the costs of employers religious convictions to its employees. but we can imagine, there are so many ways to think about this. all, half the people in the room have investments in some sort of social investing fund were you care about the corporate moral conscience, like whole foods and free range chickens. all kinds of emperor -- enterprises that have corporate identities. most of you would not blink at the thought that a corporation could have moral commitments and a moral identity. we could go back to some things we talked about this morning. if it were an orthodox jewish

merchant closing on saturday and the business was in the corporate forum. say too bad?ly you are stuck with the law? that doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. what makes sense is to look at exactly what the corporation wants to do and ask whether this is something we're going to recognize its right to do, that is what we have been talking about up until now. >> i couldn't agree more with what he just said. i was in whole foods yesterday. tradeed by the fair coffee stand and resisted the temptation to pay more for coffee. whole foods is talking about my

i heard this rumor when we brought this lawsuit that corporations can't exercise religion. i went and looked at the case law. that saidns of cases that nonprofit corporations exercise religion all the time. i found cases it said individuals can exercise religion even in a commercial pursuit. sometimes they will lose. doubt thats no they're exercising religion and that commerce does not collide with religion and dissolve like acid. there is no precedence for that whatsoever. that anwith chip astonishing amount of time has been wasted. >> let me waste a little more time. [laughter] >> i want to stand on this argument, either. case turns on those kinds of questions. at the end of the day i would

not make decisions on this basis, but these arguments have and aced appellate courts lot of other people are convinced that corporations don't have rights of religious liberty. i think we ought to understand what the argument was. there is also law no precedent on the other side. there's no precedent that says a large for-profit corporation has rights of religious conscience. involving full proprietorship like the amish employer in lee and there are cases involving nonprofit religious organizations, churches, who everyone acknowledges has free exercise right. the question is, why do they have free exercise right. they have free exercise rights because churches are understood as voluntary associations going all the way back to our framers

and beyond that to john locke. churches are voluntary associations in which people come together to share religious values. the church represents their values and interests. individuals have freedom of conscience. and churches represent their freedom of conscience sometimes in litigation. no one disputes that. on one polar side of the spectrum. on the other side is walmart. a large, publicly traded corporation with millions of potential shareholders. can a corporation of that kind assert religious interest of its constituency echo not only of its owners, but made of its management and its employees and so on? how are we to think about claims for religious liberty of corporations of this kind?

in some ways, hobby lobby is an easy case because it has a small number of owners who -- what happens when the owners disagree about the nature of their religious beliefs? what happens when we have proxy battles over whether corporations ought to engage in religious practices or not? should we attribute religious liberty to them? these are complex questions. if the court finds that religious corporations have free exercise rights, we are going to have to think about those lot more detail and a lot more complexity than we have so far. it is a serious challenge. i would beg to differ with fs or dershowitz and judge starr that no rational person can take the other side of this. a lot of rational people have taken the other side. a lot of federal judges have taken the other side. i wouldn't be surprise if some of them do tomorrow as well. description,

particularly when you get into the question of large corporations and shareholders and large bodies of management, it crosses over into the question about the [indiscernible] that follows. it moved to point that allowing corporations have a conscience is more problematic than it is good. kyle puts out that it is good. and we like it. and we like to do business with that angle, briefly. ,ut the idea that in the future if for-profit corporations were allowed to exercise religion, you would still have to find that they were exercising religion, that was religion and not something else very it was sincere. then the government can still come back with its compelling state interest.

it doesn't play out. it is indeed a complex question depending on the nature of the corporation. the statement about what they're doing, is a religion? may be the easier part. -- yous the only way only thing holding back that parade of horrible's, in other words your argument might not be grounds for claimed exemption >> you have the fact that you are to have a variety of the civil rights laws, americans with disabilities act, etc., it turns out these companies want to do business with us. you're not looking to

discriminate against people there doing business with or people that they wish to hire who are qualified. you don't have the parade of horrible's in the past. what they have, however, brought -- second, you do have a very robust argument historically on all of these varieties of nondiscrimination not in the way that contraception are competitive. >> or, the alternative is to look at history as being further down the chain. the electorate has preceded past you on race and gender. want to sell these products to women because you don't think women should be in commerce. could be about a single

pregnant woman or a signal -- or a single pregnant woman -- are a single mother. past that to employment discrimination. i don't know what hobby lobby's attitude would be about spousal benefits for same-sex spouse, but around the corner, name or state by court order or -- there will be litigation about hiring, firing, choosing to hire and refusing to pay spousal benefits in the case based onex spouse is religious objections to that form of marriage. >> so as a way of wrapping up our discussion, i want to pose not on how the court should rule, what is the future of religious exemption in your mind given how the court might rule?

if the court rules one-way or another, where are going to be the critical issues, the places we will see the flashpoints? theust saw this in some of state antidiscrimination laws -- the state level ref o refera. where it you see the problems emerging, depending on how the court rules? we would just go down the row. beauties and the 20ilish qualities of refera years ago is that everyone agreed on a lot of things down the road. other going to be about drugs or gay rights, let's just all hold hands and jump off the cliff together, because we think there is something at the bottom of that. the courts will knock out the bad ones and save the good ones.

that is so general. different from a practice specific accommodation. everyone has to cover employees, but churches don't. we can see that is rebounded and confined in particular. this kind of general law that thes up, this will be on court's mind, very much on the court's mind tomorrow in the way they decide this case. .t may influence them it will influence them on the point that mike and i have impressed about the rights of employees. we don't want to empower corporations to have all this leverage over employee benefits, minimum wage, maximum hours, nondiscrimination, as a matter of religious freedom. nobody knows 30 years from now what we're going to be fighting about on these kinds of issues. on theuld disagree historical point about religious freedom because the attempt to have civil rights -- they knewtion

they're going to face them in the future. they decided to allow the analysis to play out. they were going to wait and see how that played out. they knew the challenges were coming. i completely agree with your point about same-sex marriage. not so about people of various sexual orientations, the objection is not about people, it is about an event and institution. five minutes ago in historical terms, every single case they had ever covered on state management as additions, i'm sure it was related to kids. the whole question as to whether that is a civil right, nondiscrimination claim, it is very recent, same-sex marriage phenomenon. i'll be really interested if they do and that -- if there is more protection for acknowledged for-profit entities, religious

freedom has a hair profile. if you're going to see some better empirical data from the government than i have seen so far, i think they're getting away with an evangelization on emergency contraception with arguments that play to politics or ideology. they really haven't made much of an argument. i am going to need to see that they're going to step it up on compelling state interest they might be compelled to if religious freedom is more protected. >> if for-profit corporations can make claims for religious exemption, we can see two growth areas in terms of litigation. what counts as a significant burden on people who don't benefit from exemptions? justify a compelling interest in the form that corporations shifting costs onto its employees in a way that would cause courts to restrict those exemptions? over certainption

drugs would not so burden employees as to create this kind of concern. lots of other claims for exemption might well do that. if hobby lobby wins his case you will see more cases testing the boundaries of that principle. if hobby lobby is successful, the other question that is raised is, what about people's , if they're not strongly motivated by religion, what about the line about caffeinated and your conscience. under don't know if whole foods is religious. at professor dershowitz made point about this earlier. were you going to do about people who make point of conscience where it their conscience is not found in traditional religion? if you're even vaguely religious

or your claim sounds in conscience of the kind that we be familiar to someone who is traditionally religious, are those people going to be protected? are they going to be protected when they own for-profit corporations? those are questions that are coming eventually. >> i can agree with everything i've heard here. one point that i would make is that we can't forget that the crisis that caused the hobby lobby case to come about in all the other cases, including the nonprofit cases, is not employers deciding to withhold benefits from their employees because they are mean, it is because the government is forcing them to do it through a very large national health insurance law. the idea is that if the government is increasing in this way and becoming more intrusive in a way we order our lives then i would think people who are interested in

religious freedom would welcome challenges under a religious friedman -- freedom act, whether a national or state reference, to test the boundaries of what the government can make us do and what they can make us not do. i'm sure when the government says you're going to give this to your employee or provide this service to these people, if there is a resistance to that claim on religious grounds, sure, somebody's not going to get the service or the benefit. somebody is going to be able to say they are a loser in the process and someone is a winner. we're talking about religious freedom. at least in 1993 it seemed like we had a very robust commitment to the principle, maybe it is just right that we didn't foresee all the different rubiks permutations of the principal. i don't think we will ever be able to see all of that. my question is do we have a commitment to religious freedom

and how are we going to work that out? are going to work it out in the court system with a thumb on the scales very strongly in favor of the sincere religious believer? or are we going to have some other system? that wenly hope continue along the path of .eligious freedom i certainly hope we win. whatever the outcome, i hope that everyone takes away from this case at religious freedom is a robust, real commitment that we all should make to each other. minutes forbout 15 questions. i ask that you introduced , be exceptionally brief so we can do stupid questions around the room, and with as a microphone

fine young georgetown student bringing it around. these wait for the microphone. >> i am the ceo and cofounder of a company which, like hobby lobby is a family owned business. most in the room i understand the gut wrenching choices that involved in staking your business and your fortune on doing the right thing. one has to admire the greens. -- sting to the panel, [applause] companies arehat moral agents and therefore this kind of question has significant implications for business people, particularly family business people. i am struck by what seems to be missing. it is a lot of talk about it

there let it -- but a theoretical relationship the train the company and its employees. we have a relationship of choice with our employees. they choose us and we choose them. it is not a theoretical relationship, it is a real relationship. the notion that we should simply drop them to the tender mercies of the health exchange and just suffered a $2000 penalty is a highly charged, it is a moral decision for us to do that third can we say lots of money? we certainly could. are we willing to throw them to the mercies of the system? i'm a simple businessman who has to worry about making his way in the free market and making payrolls on friday. but seems to be missing to me from this discussion is the notion that that relationship between us as employers and our employees.

choose to be with us. if he failed to provide a benefit, certainly they will vote with their feet and leave. i do not believe they are silent. i believe they're represented in the free market of employment. these educate me as to why that issue of employee/employer relationship has not come into the discussion on the dais today. i missed the beginning of the mark, so are you a businessman, the beginning? >> yes, cofounder of a business. >> i don't know how many employees you have or what your relationships are. you are someone who cares deeply about your well-being -- about their well-being. we would take that on good faith. if the affordable care act had left it to you and your employees to negotiate the contents of the health insurance or if your employees

unionized, what kind of bargaining power they have. would you not want to cover certain high-end expenses? would you not want to cover plastic surgery because you had some concerns about her principles against it? we will except that you care about the people who work for you and they care about you and they care about themselves. so we have some choices. either we let it go to bargaining and maybe it will come out whoever comes out, or the government specifies minimum coverages because they think of is what everyone should get. there are plenty of people who think that the affordable care act would be better if it was medicare for everyone and single-payer. that is not the way it runs. but the hobby lobby case focuses on particular goods and so suggested in a cafeteria idea where someone is picking and choosing their coverage. i am not convinced that is a good general policy.

religious freedom side. >> anyone care to add? >>hi, i am charles therrien. i'm also a former georgetown student. my first job i was the hillel rabbi. my question is, if hobby lobby prevails, would a logical corollary be a successful claim ownedehovah's witnesses company not to provide coverage for blood transfusions or indeed a company owned by christian scientists not to provide medical coverage at all? you know, we here at this -- if theyorrible's

win then this will happen in this will happen. there are lots of responses to this. where are these claims? i have never heard of one. i tend to think these are truly hypothetical claims. if such a claim was made and the government had a blood transfusion insurance mandate or , one wouldike that think the government would have powerful evidence that that is a compelling interest that it must have that mandate. have a grandfather exemption, for instance. wouldn't say if you haven't made certain changes to your plan you can avoid the blood transfusion mandate. i cannot imagine that state of affairs. wouldk the simple answer be, maybe it is too simple, because i've not seen a claim yet and i don't know what evidence would be involved, if such a claim ever arose, which i

think is highly doubtful, the government would probably win. me make one small point. either do with kyle that the government would win. think there is some theology going on here about which states -- and this is a theological choice. i'm not objecting to it i'm just noting it. let transfusions or we will give our children blood transfusions that we don't object to others having them. we will fund the policy that allows or employee to have them because it is there matter of choice about health and faith. these cases, the contraceptive cases involve choices about what others are going to do, not just what employers want to do as a matter of religious conviction in their own health care. that is a big difference to train the two categories of cases.

-- between the two categories of cases. wondering what the -- what the hobby lobby people pay now currently per employee for health insurance coverage, which they do have, i'm sure, as compared to the fine, the $2000 fine? i was wondering if that was relevant area of what portion of covers the birth control? is her somewhere that could be accommodated? question,o evade the but we don't want to talk about confidential information. we will answer this way. the idea of simply just dropping

and that is what the $2000 penalty goes toward. if you drop insurance and employer goes on some kind of exchange, then you have to pay $2000 per employee penalty. insuranced is their versus the aca. the >> that is the issue of someone throwing them on the tender mercies of the health insurance exchange. the other issue has always been very clear and the government has never contested the idea that that would be catastrophically disruptive to the business and to its relationship with its own employees. after all, we have an employer .ealth system in this country it is underwritten by the tax code and there are reasons why we have an employer health insurance system. is a reason why we depend on it. the government is saying we are not good to create an alternative system for contraceptive benefits or other health care benefits, we're

going to glom onto the health insurance system and make you part of that, because it is a convenient way to do it. i would answer it that way. let's does quite a bit of talk about the alleged cost shifting in employee -- and employee burden. is not the case that the affordable care act created a regulatory burden on the employer and so there is an exemption on that burden, does not bring us back to where we were before? -- toa was put into a where we were before the ac a was put -- before the aca was put into effect? >> the question of cost shifting . thatirst thing is to say

is commonly cited that about 90% of employee policies cover this. really, what the aca has done is shift the cost onto employers. the first cost shifting happened there. the other point to bring up here is the cutter versus wilkinson point. the supreme court that set the application and says wow, it is an accomplice -- it is an accommodation. if the government has created a burden and then they decide to accommodated, so long as they do so in a nondenominational a obvious way. you are fighting over baselines on the to what burden fisheries is. i'm suggesting that not only because of the data that is outdone what it is doing to people and all the government , even on women's health

if you set that aside and just asked the question, what is the limit to the government declaring a benefit and then saying your refusal to give it is shifting the problem onto non-beneficiaries. that to me is one of the most interesting questions here. >> i agree it is interesting, but the baseline is the statutory right that is provided by the affordable care act. like in united states against lee, the employers says well, you shifted the baseline when you created the social security system. no court will buy that argument that there is a baseline shift because of statute creation. we have all kinds of statutes attached to employer relationships. this is one. the fact that it is new does not change anything. it is just like all of these other kinds of statutory entitlements at the government has created.

i don't think that can be the principal that statutory rights don't change baselines. i don't think that can be an intelligible principle for determining when employees are burdened by exemptions. >> i would disagree with that reading of lee, however. i don't think it was about shifting costs to employees, but the employer getting exempted from what they referred to as a large, uniform, actuarial complex tax system. private tothink is a private transaction, a company to health insurance company. the question of the employee will have to pay more for contraception versus less, that is a very different question than lee. the close ofawn to this panel. i expect everyone will be looking forward to the oral arguments tomorrow and learning that we know nothing about how the court will rule. we will have a number of other months to wait for the outcome.

i wish you to join me in thanking our panel. [applause] >> that was href it panel and i don't agree with shakespeare who said let's kill all the lawyers. [laughter] i absolutely don't agree with him. ladies and gentlemen, you have heard a lot of law, you have heard a lot of cases. stick around for our next panel starting at 4:00. is religious freedom good for business and for the poor? we're going to take a short break. please join us back in here at 4:00. >> on the next washington journal, we discussed the supreme court case of sibelius of the hobby lobby. we'll continue our look at that

case regarding contraceptive coverage under the affordable an andct with ed whel dra. >>th y jura -- wy groups that lobby for the russian government and russian companies that responded to events in ukraine. washington journal is live on c-span every day at 7 a.m. eastern. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. >> a couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow. a house foreign affairs committee looks at the bill supporting ukraine and sanctioning those who are under crane -- were undermining ukraine's independence. that is 10:00 a.m. eastern. at 2:00 p.m., a house appropriations subcommittee hears from members of the federal communications

commission about their agency's budget for next year. >> this is the conference report of 1053 pages weighing 14 pounds. this is a reconciliation bill. six months late. that was 1100 86 pages long weighing 15 pounds and a long-term continuing resolution. [laughter] [applause]

this one is two months late and it weighs 14 pounds. [laughter] oft was a total of 43 pounds aper and inc.. you had three hours to consider people, my took 300 office of management and budget just to read the bill so the government would not shut down. congress should not send another one of these. [applause]

no, and if you do i will not sign it. [applause] >> a discussion of terrorism as communication by professor jonathan matuszak from the university of central florida. though a muslim civil liberties group asked the university to cancel the event. this is an hour and a half.

>> good evening -- from the campus of embry riddle aeronautical university, welcome to the president's speaker series. on behalf of the president, i am marc bernier, the moderator for tonight's event. tonight, the 15 reasons for terrorism. we will talk to an expert on this subject and the author of the new book, and then we will talk to the audience about the 15 points he brings up. it is my pleasure to introduce our speaker, the author on the same topic, ladies and gentlemen, dr. jonathan matusitz. >> thank you, thank you. >> a little bit of background

for those who perhaps have not heard you or seen you before. what led you to write and speak about this subject? >> most books on terrorism are in criminal justice. very few are in communication. there was no big book mixing both fields. i took the opportunity to write a book and sage, the social sciences publishers said yes, we will publish it. >> we will go through the 15 points. i am asking him to outline where and why this happens. we just came off the olympics. what was the number one worry for the participants and the visitors -- with their bridge terrorism there? >> sochi is located where caspian's used to live.

they were in ethnic minority group and in 1864, february of 1864 -- if you do the math, exactly 150 years before the olympics. they were discriminated and many were killed by the russians. the fact that the russians were holding the olympics there were a good way for them to wreak revenge. the main concern was terrorism as a form of retaliation. >> there were no major incidences -- there was a war happening just outside the perimeter. were you surprised there were no acts of terrorism? >> the russian secret police was very good at foiling these attacks. >> your ground is you are from belgium? >> that is correct. i was born and raised in belgium. >> how many languages do you speak? >> three. french, dutch, and english. >> what brought you here?

>> the land of opportunity. i wanted to come to america. i got here in 2000. i have been living here for 14 years. from belgium to hear? >> no. uc of hired me and the summer of 2006. i have lived here for seven and a half years. >> he reminded me it was about two years ago -- he was in the audience and came up and gave me his card and i started watching the classes you were teaching in the events you were doing and then when we were putting the series together, the topic of homeland security here at embry riddle, we thought we should do this.

that is how we came to do this tonight. >> it is good to see a lot of adults and a lot of young people. i give a lot of talks like this. here there are a lot of young people. thank you for being here. >> let's talk about the 15 points. let's go through them one at a time to read where in the world are these reasons for being employed? i'm going to do religion at the end, i will just tell you. it is huge and opens up for >> other things. but you list a question. give us an example please. >> the best example from the 1990's to today, oppression leads to revenge. a lot of the chechen terrorists say the russian army oppresses them. and a lot of chechen men get killed by the russians. a lot of the wives, the widows to come suicide bombers. we call them the black widows, like the spider. it's a colorful metaphor. the chechen black widows feel

oppressed and seek revenge against the russians. most of the suicide bombers in chechnya are actually female. >> historical grievances. this is interesting. it can take on all kinds of life. >> pfister urkel grievances --his door urkel grievances historical grievances refers to a wrong that needs to be repaired, needs to be restored. it is a group of people that need to get even with the enemy, even though the wrong was committed 1000 years ago. for example, the basque terrorist group eta. they want to regain their territory and they want to have their own independent state, and they say france and spain stole their territory. we have the palestinians as an example of historical grievances.

we have the ira. they want to get back six counties from northern ireland. their main slogan is "brits out." >> a few years ago we would hear about terrorism in ireland. we do not hear that so much now. >> the ira is very active today. in fact some of them have become members of the british are limited. they were bigger in the 1960's and 1970's. >> i was reading >> weeks ago, -- several weeks ago in american history. there were terrorist acts from mexico into the united states. there was resentment, i guess, of the territorial status and i think it was black back -- blackjack pershing. >> absolutely. the mexican drug lords are joining forces with groups like

hezbollah. >> stay with that. don't they know how dangerous these folks can be? >> they operate on the principle of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. and the common enemy for hezbollah and mexican drug lords is america. they will have a common denominator. in this case, it is america. >> moving right along -- the 15 reasons -- violations of international laws. >> that is the perception that countries did not fulfill the promises. for example great britain promised palestinians that the palestinians would have a lot of rights and the palestinian people feel that britain

betrayed them. that is an example thomas the one that you mentioned. during the treaty versailles, they made promises to arab countries and those thomas's were not fulfilled. >> the bosnian conflicts, does that fall under the international war -- >> historical grievances. the bosniak's are bosnian muslims. bosnian muslims and bosnian serbs have never gotten along. the bosnian serbs killed a lot of bosniak's and raped a lot of women. a war that killed 100,000 people. >> wow. relative deprivation. >> relative deprivation is code for poverty.

their life on earth, as you can imagine is miserable. because they live in abject misery, they will join suicide commandos in martyrdom operations. which is code for suicide operations. when you join the suicide commandos, your family is from -- is being promised up to $2000 and tuition for your children. the hijackers came from saudi arabia and the main leader was 33. he came from egypt. there is not always a correlation between poverty and terrorism. there is some correlation. >> when you discuss these points

in your classrooms, what is the reaction from your students? i saw channel nine report about your class, and they came out and they were all very supportive, but do they understand the information you are giving them? >> this is a tough subject. i teach to mutation. they take culture, interpersonal communication. this class is about terrorism. that is a heck of a switch. some of them get taken back. wow. we talk about beheadings and war rapes. some of them are not offended by what i say. >> i should have asked you this upfront. how do you define terrorism? >> before i define terrorism, let me tell you where the word comes from. the word is 220 years old. at the end of the french revolution in 1793-17 94, the guillotine was being used on anyone who did not agree with the government. what was the government called? the government of terror. the leaders of the government of terror were called terrorists. the word was used the first time

by the people themselves -- we are the terrorists. the first and sense of the use the first and sense of the use in english was 1798. the end of the 18th century. it has different meanings. for some of the chinese, the monks from tibet are terrorists. they call themselves freedom fighters. we call them suicide bombers. they call themselves martyrs, heroes. to young muslims -- two young muslims from holland looked at all the definitions. they said they would look at the commonalities. based on that, in 83.5% of all definitions, the word violence appeared and and 65% of all definitions the words political goals appeared and and 51% of

all of these definitions causing fear and terror appeared. finally 25 years ago, we a definition that was comprehensive, and that most governments would agree on and that division -- that definition was that terrorism is the use of fear and terror in order to reach political goals. >> were americans in our history ever accused of terrorism against each other? i think of acts against native americans, the klan? what are examples of terrorism within our own country? >> definitely the kkk. the lynchings. they have the special knife called the bowie knife. they would slash people's throats. you have the aryan nation, and the aryan nation is a neo-nazi group. very racist against blacks and jews. the oklahoma bombing -- it was only 26 years old when he committed that horrifying act.

i got my doctorate close to the oklahoma city bombing. in 2002, i went to the site and it's really in the boondocks. timothy mcveigh chose a building -- he chose a building in the boondocks because he knew he would receive the attention from anybody. when i lived in belgium, i did not know what oklahoma was. is that a new band? finally oklahoma was on the map. it took a sad terrorist act to put oklahoma on the map. >> is there something happening in this country that is making people act out more in terrorist fashion? >> i would say the law enforcement in the u.s. have gotten better at foiling terrorist attacks. they have decreased sharply. there is an inverted

relationship between the number of terror attempts and the number of successful terrorist attacks. >> do the people who are the terrorists somehow think, maybe i will not be the one who was caught? >> in some cases the terrorist does not think about that. i am going to fulfill my mission. that is how they operate. they want to reach their goals. >> something you wrote called "hatred toward global hegemony --" >> hegemony is the scientific term for power. it is an anti-western sentiment, and anti-american, imperialism sentiment. it is a hatred of the west, a word used by the grand ayatollah khomeini. so, it is a terrorist sentiment against the world trade organization, against mcdonald's, a lot of the kfc

restaurants have been blown up in pakistan. they do not like the idea of barbie dolls in some countries. a see it as cultural invasion and they are against it. >> you outline one of the reasons is the financial reward. how often does that happen? >> that does not happen very often. most terrorist do not get paid for what they do. i gave you the example of the suicide bombers. they do not get a financial gain. they know their families, most of whom live in poverty, get some financial rewards. in south america there is a group in columbia -- colombia, and they are notorious for abducting people for ransom. farc will adopt political figures. >> stopping for a moment. all terrorism is not acts of violence. sometimes it's internet terrorism, banking terrorism,

other things to put fear and suppression to people. is this going to become a new wave of terrorism that is much more common, striking through the internet and financial communities? >> cyberterrorism happens on an hourly basis. the pentagon gets hacked 5000 times a year by a chinese group, but of course, our side of things is really good at foiling any cyber terrorist attacks. if they succeed delving into computer networks, they can cause millions of dollars of damage. that does not happen very often. >> can you talk about an emt as -- an emp as a method of terrorism? >> it stands for electromagnetic pulse. it is launched like this, and as it flows up in the air, what it does is, it shuts down anything under its umbrella.

anything that works on electricity, on waves, like your pacemaker, your cell phone. it stops. if an emp is launched on top of kansas and the radius is 2000 miles, you can cause a lot of damage. it looks great on paper. if they launch an emp, we can launch one above it and it would shut down their emp. >> oh, really? we have a method to shut one down? >> let's hope it does not happen. it is cheap to make. it can be launched from cuba or venezuela. it looks good on paper. i doubt it will happen tomorrow. we know they want to do it. >> we know they want to do it,

but there is the worry some developing countries that do not have the armament we do will launch one. >> they will accuse us of using nuclear weapons on them, even though it is not a nuclear weapon. that would be against the geneva conventions. under the geneva conventions, you should use tanks and rifles, nothing like emp's and nuclear weapons. >> i'm going through this material kind of quickly to give those of you a symbol tier two after questions of jonathan. another of the 15 reasons terrorists exist is racism. i saw a video on youtube of the texas aryan brotherhood? >> yes, the texas aryan brotherhood is a neo-nazi group that formed in american prisons. there are neo-nazi groups that form.

when they get out of prison, they have those cells that coalesce and lead to that group. it has been on the fbi list of terrorist's for the past 20 to 30 years. >> guilt by association? >> guilt by association is when you strike a target that has nothing to do with your enemy directly. i give you an example. madrid, so spain had its own 9/11. al qaeda killed 200 people by bombing for trains at the madrid train station. why? why kill spanish people? spanish tourists? because spain had troops in a -- in iraq. and people like osama bin laden were upset the west was in iraq. they saw the spanish people as helping george bush in iraq. that would be guilt by association. it could also be an example whereby a leader in africa is considered --

the leader does not help his people, so the local people think the leader is on the same side as america, as great britain. that would be guilt by association. so you have rebellions against about leader. you see them in rwanda, in the congo, various african countries today. >> supports of sympathizers. >> that is when you kill people to expand your support base. until osama bin laden killed 3000 people on 9/11, very few people knew him, even in the muslim world. of course he became a household name after that event and his support increased. >> his support increased? >> oh, yeah. >> where were you on 9/11? >> i was in alaska. someone opened my door. "america is under attack." it was probably 5:00 in the

afternoon. i was shocked like everybody. >> did you stay in alaska? >> i went to get my doctorate. >> during that time, did you feel that you needed to leave alaska? >> i was terrorized -- i was terrified, but i was not enough to leave the country. i was sad. >> mortality of failures. >> this is not a concept we confront every day. it asks the question, how should i die? i imagine a lot of people would want to die as old as 150. in some cultures, people want to be recognized for who they are, be recognized as a martyr. in the palestinian territories, in the gaza strip, when a suicide bomber accomplishes his or her mission successfully, their face is shown on the street. his or her face is shown on the main street for weeks. for them it is like social status.

>> but they are dead. they do this to be famous? >> do you think they care? they don't care. they want to please their god. they want to please their culture. >> they sacrifice themselves? >> absolutely. some of these people in gaza do not think the same way. to us it is unconscionable, unimaginable. if you watch documentaries on palestinian suicide bombers, this is what they are going to say. we love death the way you love life. >> wow. narcissism? >> there are people who have a big ego, a larger-than-life ego. they need to make themselves known.

they lead a terrorist group. >> can you give me an example of that? >> an example of that would be bader-meinhof, the red army faction -- badder meinhoff. these were successful students. they had a bright future. i don't know, they were bored with life. they decided to create a terrorist movement, and anti-capitalist movement, anti-vietnam. now everybody knows who they were. that is a good example of narcissism. >> sensation seeking. >> sensation seeking follows the same train of thought. you have bungee jumping, skydiving. it is like the movie "goodfellas." you teach someone to be a mafia guy. i guess it is fun. >> this is more like gangs that real