washington journal is live at 7:00 eastern. you get to build a conversation on facebook and twitter. >> saturday a knchings with elena kagan at her alma mater, princeton university. here's a look. >> you know, there are rules about what you can ask at these kinds of sitdowns or at least there are rules about what i can say so they knew that they couldn't ask me very direct questions about what they thought of particular cases or issues. so they would come up with

these proxies and the proxies are on the line of, so do you hunt? [laughter] >> and i went through countless these interviews and my answers were so pathetic. no. do you know anybody who hunts? ot really. i was sitting down with one of the senators from idaho who has a ranch and who was a great hunter himself and he was telling me about his hunting and how important this was to many of his constituents and i totally understand why. why many senators would want to know these kinds of things. and so i was it was late in the day. it was my 93rd interview. i said you know, senator, if you would like to invite me hunting, i'd really be glad to come. and this look of abject horror

passed over his face, you know? and i realized, ok. i think i've gone too far. senator, i really didn't mean to invite myself to your ranch. but i -- i -- i will tell you that if i'm lucky enough to be confirmed i'll ask my colleague justice scalia to take me hunting. i grew up in new york. i didn't have this experience. but i understand why this matters to you. i'm committed to do that for you. and so when i got the court, i went over to justice scalia's chambers one day and i told him the story and he thought it was hilarious. i said to me, you know, this is the single promise i made in 82 office interviews. so he said, well, i guess i have to let you fulfill that promise. tonight, elena kagan on her

career, her approach to the law and stories from behind the scenes at the court. that's at 8:00 p.m. eastern ere on c-span. sunday on "q&a" glenn kesler on his biggest pinokeyose of 2014 awards given the politician groups made the biggest false claims this year. >> dem crates tend to get more upset at them because i think they have bought into the myth of the liberal media and they kind of think that the media is on their side where as republicans they firmly believe in the lift of the media. so they kind of expect that ey're going to be, you know, the washington post calling they're not going to be fair to me. i kind of think, i hope that over the last four years i've one enough back and fourth

treated both parties with equal fervor that people have now come to, you know, grudgingly say, ok, you're someone we can do business with. i know that the senate majority pack which is affiliated with harry reid, they stopped answering my questions midway through the campaign season because they felt they were not getting a fair shake from me. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a. up next a discussion on religion and social issues. scholars look at tissue of christianity and the history of muslims in america and how it influences the debate held at southern methodist university in dallas. this is about an 1:25.

>> i've already cut out the noble prizes and some other things they've done to make sure we get to their talks quickly. so here we go. edward j. bloom is professor of history at san diego state university. he'll be our first presenter. he is the co-author of the color of cries, the son of god and the race in america. and the author of "american prophet 2007." and reforging the white republic".

bloom has been awarded the gustav arl award by the council of humanities by the first book of a historian published between 2002 and 2009. the peter c. burg award for the best book in civil war studies in 2006. and the c. van woodard price. his books have been featured on the "new york times" and c-span. >> his presentation for this orning is entitled "in the bow ls of a free christian nation." she also has broad interests in the history of the atlantic world and in comparative colonialisms in america and in the caribbean.

she teaches courses on the graduate level on many aspects in early of american history. her first book "how christianity affected race" was published in 2007. >> her paper for today is barack hussein obama, our first muslim president. and our next speaker is arlene sanchez. latino pent coss tall identity, evangelical faith and society won the hispanics initiative book award in 2005. she's authored more than 25 articles an has served as a media experts for outlets such as the "new york times," the

"wall street journal" and on being with kristin tippett. she served as an expert for the pbs series "religion in america." sanchez-walshes current book is -- ent pen pent coss tall petacostal and divine borders. >> and kevin m. schultz u schulz is a pro-fessor of religious studies an associate chair of the department of history. a native of los angeles, kevin m. schultz teaches american history and has special nterest in religion, ethno racial history. "-- the academic

subsequent rise of the notion that the country was premised on something called jdeo christianity. his current work ca minutes the fascinating enter dwined lives of william f. buckley jr. and normal mailer as a way to better understand the pivotal decade of the 1960's. he also has had essays appear in several of the professions flagship journals including american quarterly, the journal of the american academy of history and labor history as well as other distinguished outlets both popular and academic. his book is entitled equal the blessings of american luralism." >> good day. is the united states a

christian country? was it one new the past? will it be in the future snl if we look high and low near and far, we can observe americans asking, answering and debating these questions. they're disputed online. plastered on billboards. mentioned during news programs and addressed by leading politicians. the questions and the answers rattle with disagreement and with tension. brakbrak for instance -- barack instance, answered them one way when he was elected and then quit different in 2008. he said we are no longer a christian nation. we are also a jewish nation, a muslim nation, a buddhist nation, a hindu nation and a

nation of nonbelievers. three years later now speaking as president obama and to a very different audience in turkey, obama explained we do not consider ourselves a christian nation or a jewish nation or a muslim nation. his both embrace of pluralism has been reconfigured into a repudiation of particulars. most political and christian conservatives share their disapprove of obama. but they are anything but united on this matter of religious nationalism. it's not hate speech cried radio and television host glenn beck to defend the united states as a christian nation in 2010. in the 2000 book faith and politics senator john dan forth

main tained, some people asked me whether america is a christian country. the answer must be called no. for to call that a christian country is that nonchristians are not full fledged citizens of one nation. these recent debates and disagreements are not knew. the problem of what it means to be or not to be a christian ation has been a touch stone of religion for more than two centuries. i want to turn our attention to a cast of forgotten founders, a group of men who harnessed the language of christian nationalism in poignant and meaningful ways. this small and over looked cohort of bostonians may offer some new ways for us today to consider what's at stake when we address -- when we speak the

vexed political problem of the nation's religion. the year was 1777. the month was january. a petition on behalf of a great number of blacks was presented to the newly formed massachusetts based state legislature. it was signed by eight men. and the petition declared we are detained in a state of free in the bowls of and christian nation. they have in common with all and men a natural alienable right to that freedom which the great parent of the universe has bestowed equally on all mankind. they and others like them have been unjustly dragged to the

land. they have been brought here to be sold like beast of burden. this all happened among a people professing the mild religion of jesus. what these men experienced they all worse than nonexistence. we could engage religion and politics in their petition from a variety of angles. their description of jesus as mild could lead us to consider the potent rise of methodism and its musical of meek and mild whoor it is to have a mild faith in a time of war. the petitioners invocation of natch ram and i alienable rights could lead us to wonder about the theological tensions between dayism and revealed christianity that animate sod much of the revolutionary period. for our time, i would like to ero in on two words, bow wells

-- bowlbowels and beast. they discussed religion not as abstractive issues of ideas or beliefs but also as concepts of flesh and bone. these were human activities that took place with -- within and through bodies. the restore cal emphasis on bodies encompassed the private and the public, the al gore cal and the literal, the biblical and the civil. so let's begin in the bowels. a hallmark destination of mid evil and enlightenment discourse. dante wrote "inferno" adds a journey that began in the mouth flow into the stomach and culminated in es cre mental ex-

pummings. martin luther described the pope repeatedly as a farting rear end. he didn't year the word "rear end." around the same time that johnlock was putting together his second treatus on government he was also pinning an entire chamenter on the importance of going to school -- chapter on the importance of going to school regularly. when slaves sitch waited thems in the bowels of the country they presented the nation as a body. they were both back drops for this kind otched mapping. in first corinthians the apostle paul said to the believers it is by one spirit hat we be baptized by one body whether we be bond or free. the body of hands and eyes and ears it's not one member but it's many. while bodies were made of many

parts the pieces were equally valued and valuable within the one body of the faith family. in the age of monarchy, the kings' body carried a variety of meanings. european kings were thought have two bodies. their physical bodies could decay but the body politic that they symbolized was toundcomb timeless and to be composite. the visual front for thomas hopkins leviathan presented the top half of the sovereign facing the viewer. but the top half of the sonch was actually hundreds of actually small individualized bodies. ile book viewers witnessed only the back sides of the smaller depicted bodies which we saw from the rear. members of society faced into

the sovereign. they are absorbed into the sonch and they are put into motion by the sovereign. it is a case of bodies within a body. now, the apostle paul he never mentioned the bowels in his list of body parts. hobbs did. when discussing the things, hobbs lashed out at the great number of corporations -- by this he meant pounds which are as many lesser common wealths in the bowels of a greater. they are like worms in the entrails of a natural man. bowels were a terrible place to be, no doubt. but they are also a danger to the rest of the body. in clean y'all, massachusetts and elsewhere, slaves were often feared for poisoning their mearses in ways that upset their bowels, crippling nd killing women and men

slowly through what was put into their mouths that then came out of other locations. what took place within and through bowels could upset the entire body. while the reference took us within body, the mention of being sold like beast of burden, that drive us to consider what is within bodies. dehumanization were crucial aspects of making a slave culture. physical activities render the enslaves if not equal with do mestcate animals. generation after generation of african-americans damned their treatment as analogous as that of animals oftentimes claim thrag the ultimate goal of enslavement was to transform humans into beasts. now beasts of burden were particular entities in british

law. english poor laws they differentiated those individual who is traveled with within beist of burden or more this as a way of constructing a heirarchy. sometimes they were able to do two things. they could carry loads on their backs an they could hall weighty cargo. >> the massachusetts petitioners they were not the only ones using this beast of burden relationships. scottish minister and his tore yanl williams robertson, he denounsd native american men for treating their wives as no better than a beast of burden. while the men loiter, the women are condemned to excessive coil. the king james bible was replete. e book of yen sys drined how

-- too heaven a bushed were asked on calt. then later in the book of dab yell there are four terrifying beasts. and by the room of revolution the best was a leading figure. and effective domestic policy. christianizing slaves will make better servants. it will render them afraid of speaking or dig anything that may justly displease you. he's writing to masters here. masters will have more work done for them and better done

than those inhumane masters. who have used their negros worse than their horses. so the question of whether negros have rational towels, now they're exploded. let that broadish insinuation be never whispered again. they are men and not beasts. beastlyness, inhumanity, brutishness. these were characteristics of slave howleders behinding badly not essences of the slaves themselves. so for the petitioners, it was both general and particular. they're not simply beasts but beasts of burden. they carried emotional and weight. it was a weight that the petitioners hoped they could

leverage with the legislature. seeing that i'm close out of time, i want to suggest that taking the insights of these petitioners into our present that it may provide some new bridges for us to cross the religious and political divides, that practice -- that frack tiss in the united states. what if we began where the petitioners did. in bodies connected to other bodies. and then move to our ideas about whether the nation is or is not christian or religious. from this advantage point starting with bodies. i would like to suggest that glenn beck, senator john dan forth and barack obama stand together. they respect lives. in favorite and politics senator dan forth expressed prow found frustration with the floor terry shivo, the

woman who stayed in a vegetative state for 15 years to make political hay. dan forth's concern was for the sanctionity of her body and the well-being of the bodies around family members, friends, doctor. >> he was not > with the body politic. glenn beck, he cherishing the founding fathers like -- he sees washington as a depender of jewish americans and they're right to the their religious freedom and that defending their religious is also about defending their bodies to ractice that rely juice. >> his father's absent body, the bodies of dead children of

aborgs protestors, the bodies of religious communities. they animate the audacity of hope. obama, dan forth and beck, they disagree profoundly. on the notion of whether the nation is religious or what does that even men. where could we begin? and what my make from the petitions in the 1970's. it's knot just that everybody has a body. to invote martin luder king jr. >> it's that everything is part of a they are connected to other bodies. >> an abstract ideology's first. we run the ricks of putting etween. tangibles b nine. that was a proob these

massachusetts petitioners, their families and their friends they knew all too well. it may be a struggle to see bodies before ballots. to see ballots. beliefs. ies before what these forgot hn founders of the 1770's. they called your struggle a glorious strulling. >> it was one that valued and needed everybody body. thank you for the time. 2-for your time listening to this body and it's any connections to lots of body here and elsewhere. thank you. [applause] >> good morning.

is that good? yes. until very recently i moved to houston texas. and this is my first prip back. so it's good to be back home. there are 3 million muslims in the united states, a somewhat confidencest controversial since the uths does not count the population by a religious operation. they foul a vary of soing traditions. r they follow home groun grown american islam. american muss williams of diverse. they are african-american. you can see and and i incressing number identify as latino or white. since september 1th, american

muslims escaping the. and thed a visit on the war on terror cat put led them into the public eye. the election of combrack barack furtser spurred interest. of american muslims. his kenyan fearp and his hildhood spent in the majority snation. fuel speculation that obama himself was a credit muslim. despite the enormous diversity and. both 91 have proved to be faux m points for often vicious critics of islam. it arrived on the north american contract at the same time. that is muslims and jews who

have been co serves. early in the 16 o.t. and an 're in -- estebanico was thlete from morocco. . as demon co's captures might not have thought of him as muslim. when he would have height it knew name. etween 1527 and 15-36. they have this expedition walk from present day texas from gallon ves tin. to the pacific coast of mexico. is remarkable linguistic across north carolina. n 1539 they denide it.

using his knowledge of native cultures. to help guy spanish conquistador. he was quills in 15400. >> it's a dwhea is impossible to answer but spanish officials ere sus pi shouse. technically the new world was off limb. yet, if this was a rule honored in the breach. the spanish continued to use ensaved african muss williams. contained many. and a late 16eth century. in other words they're enla slaved thefment long before our entitle man began in 160

19-60's. as enslaved people from west and but also occasionally from. and come up with a deposit graphic analysis. they thought that over the 12.5 brought to the americans. at least several hundred sow sand. many especial enslaved people would have been familiar with islam even if they did not identify as muslims themselves. michael gomez has noted that around 50% of enslafed people coming to mainland north america came from those areas in africa. significant minority. we flecting the religious slives who come baseline islam and tradillingsnal can practice. and ways the general problem is that enslaved muslims were a mrp invisitibilities minority.

and as edward cust curtis has noted when whites observe rituals they do not understand what was taking place right in front of their eyes. nevertheless they have pressd hi torians to recognize that enslaved muslims were everywhere. his mom was in deed. those the names have been remaining. scholars know a great deal. in 1788 soldiers from another ethnic group captured ibrahim and sold him to european. lived as an enslaved man in new orleans for decades. toured the united

states. newspapers around the country chronicled his travels and his story. that is white americans. e wanted to emancipate people. i hope that -- who is celebrated as a prince. >> between the infinite county of free people. and nearby you can african kings doms as well as converting them to christianity. he journeyed to lie bury. sb and in the united states. he died shortly after his arrival there. were know about him. he was it rat. he's able to advocate lims as his his family. most enslaved muslims were not

so lucky. similarly yaro mamut was enslaved in 1852 gained his freedom after ha 45 years of to mad. do you see where he owns property until his death happens in 1823. in d.c. now. they had compelling buy yog fis that stand in in the storys that don't -- but most of them were either not literal or did not otherwise have the needs to make their story. >> no. enters 9/11 the face of cushion. passing on their names. inclueses and prayers do their descendants. retaining it as a form of resistance but while the

roblems are more i would discussion that. but the devotion went unrecognized and unremembered by the american who is performed them. probably rose in the last decade before the close of the trade. the sudanese ji mad which swept across every ca caught many muslim whors were shaved to the united states which had dractically increased people and in the intention of the closing of the trade in 1808. sometimes these enslaved muslimmed were apparent to .ther blind white americans he note thead "nomed africans remaining of the old stock of immore tations" he had been jesus accommodate and

christ is muhammad. their religion is the same but different countries have different names. jones' observation signal i think some discomfort with african-american spirituality. . most enslaved muslims remain invisible to their cam tors. the presence of enslaveled and refusal main to recognize this contribute to it and which is foreign to the united states. if americans did not learn about islam from their property, they did learn about it through other knees. came into extended contract with within another and the

context of war far, vie lance and travel. the english pry vas tier carried some turks away with him after his teen that you got me. we should understand here. from north africa in the adam and east. it was a broad disscriptor. one of these men converted to christianity before the english sent him back. any numbers of conventions. and islam to christianity. >> their hopes were unfounded. englishmen saw and as a competitor. english sailors. her chants were under constant and converted to islam. one million one --

were released in the ottoman empire. and some of these men converted to islam. they wrote leders to charitable and organization in england in hopes of redemption. daniel tyler said i'm happy to take by the turks and have not been has been heard of so that he was a deem death. and then you marry. the famous english mercenary john smith fought them in the battled century and shave his head and beard. a great ring of iron with long

stock. revisited around his neck. smith faye lousely wrote in the third person. >> he beat out his master's brains with a bat. smith has little to say specifically about islam or muslims. after his escape traveled as a free man. observing the wealth and the power of these states. and noting that the countries f fez and morocco are the best step. they eat well and have all good necessities for men. william streaky. know do you expect them as clerk. now, because they draw comparisons between native north americans. some of these were neutral. he. the insideness drink is as they

close the water. and the turk doss a carpet for them to sit upon -- he y you that she doesn't follow the chief followed a polygamous practice but did not keep all of his wives as the turks in one house. he theorized that these sensual helps weaken the indian's body politics. describing young boys' play. islam was merely another -- more than nearly another point of reference for him. both an idiom for copperheads in the strangeness and foreignness of native people as well as a way of expressing disdain for native customs that the english new primarily from muslim countries, such as polygamy. islam operated in english discourses about the new world generally as a point of negative comparison. between the 17th and 19th

centuries, the islamic world occupied a key place in anglo-american i guess political tyranny. seemingly senseless violence, slavery, and other questionable practices. timothy marr has called this rhetorical praxis -- practice as islamicism. the identification of political violence and tyranny was muslim practice and muslim peoples generally in particular is thus centuries-long tradition. o call it a political opponent turkish was to intimate oath tyranny and senseless violence -- both tyranny and senseless violence. american ideas about islam became important the emergence f the latter day saints, who for some decades allowed polygamist marriages. americans opposed to mormonism

likened the latter day saints church to islam and joseph smith to mohammed. these commenters link division of politically to radical islam to an emergent idea of islam but was also tyrannical in the home, especially to women. one commentator, quote, turkey is in our midst. modern mohammed inhabits mecca at salt lake, where the prophet speaks of his wives as cows. clearly they koran was joseph mith's bottle. there are many, many other commentators writing similar things linking the emerging religion of the latter day saints with what americans thought islam to be. the idea that islam and by extension mormonism devalued women reverberates even into contemporary discourses about the islamic world and the place f women in it. the conservative christian evangelist franklin graham and

bill mark have used american notions about the status of women in majority muslim countries to fuel islam a phobic rhetoric. i can talk more about this in the q&a. american islamist schism was a complicated interplay of human experiences of the muslim other accompanied by rumor, stereotypes, and the ever present threat of violence here and while americans had difficulty seeing enslaved muslims in their midst, they had and continue to have no such trouble understanding islam as inherently tyrannical and misogynistic. titling this talk barack hussein obama, america's first muslim resident, plays in a satirical way on the ways in which

mericans doubt the president's religious affiliation and use his supposed muslim-ness to demonstrate his on-americanness. barack obama became, however unwittingly, if focal point of islam a phobic commentary in the united states. this denies the complex histories of american muslims, but engages on extending islamicist discourses that originated in the 15th and 16th centuries. it has also had the effect of marginalizing and other ring american muslims. thank you. >> good morning. udging by the election a few

days ago, this is quite a good topic. how can an administration that began with such traumas with regard to the sheer amount of support it received from latinos and so badly. ow could one of the latinos' key issues promised as a first-term agenda item be tucked way until the second term? luckily, we do not have to weigh in on that question of political strategy. erhaps a more intriguing question is why would they

support president obama at all. deportations average 400,000 a year since 2000 eight. with the continued militarization of the border, and in 2011 more than $18 billion from border engines, drones -- why do latinos continue to vote for obama? why do representatives of key religious groups support obama's immigration efforts and at the same time not support him? there is a disjuncture between obama's actions and reliance on latinos as a significant part of his reelection coalition. the question here is to the extent that any religious organization can influence the way latinos vote, which is questionable. the three religious organizations i want to examine here, roman catholic church, latino protestants, and the latter day saints, all lobbied in one way or another for mmigration reform. he church did so on a regional level in utah.

he methodists and latino evangelicals lobbied on behalf of the repeal of the obama law h b-56. before examining these cases, just brief history. the problem with immigration reform -- one of them is when you try to move the debate away from the rule of law narrative, hich immigration reform almost ever wins. to focus on compassion and mercy, you might want to offer historical context. this is how latinos find themselves in this place. it is the intractable mythic narrative of immigration fused

together with another mythic narratives about the infallibility of the rule of law. that is what eventually wins out. latino catholics, protestants, evangelicals and latter day saints had vested interests in passing immigration reform. they were incapable of overcoming this narrative that is comprised the history of latino immigration for centuries. the rule of law and chives of civil religion over compassion to the stranger won out. his interpretations of latino immigration by stressing virtuous, hard-working narratives of immigrants past, the sanctity of the family, and how immigration itself acts as a onolith for how this country has been built all were nterweave to buy these activists into impassioned pleas to treat latino immigrants humanely and with dignity. these groups did not take into consideration, or did not fully reconcile the rate at which the dominant culture and its political surrogate has in

securing their own mythic narrative. the gop today is essentially a party anchored by older whites. these religious leaders are viewed as elites and activists, out of touch with the common people. grassroots voters are the ones who vote. the struggle for the mythic immigrant narrative and the rule of law begins on the atlantic seaboard and the founding ocuments of this nation. t ignores the latin american oots of this nation which have been around longer than jamestown. this mythology, rooted firmly in christian nationalism, what some view as civil religion, is used rather effectively to preserve a sense of american difference and diminishes the historic role of latino immigrants to build this country. latinos have never been viewed as sufficiently american enough. narratives of illegality, criminality, contagion slowly lead to the erosion of the rule of law in this alternative narrative. it is this fear that the american way of life is being

abandoned. the rule of law trope is a ignifying order. it orders fairness and justice and leads to the idea that to be american means to be law-abiding. since many undocumented persons are technically breaking the law, it is questionable whether latinos can ever be good americans shared briefly, the history of mexican immigration to the united states after 1848 becomes much more complicated when crossing the border becomes

sually occurring when economic ressures dictated the precious resources of local, state, and federal governments. such deportation starts in the 1930's, when nearly half a million mexicans and mexican american citizens are sent back to mexico. the next deportation occurs in the 1950's, called operation -- not my word. these narratives, interwoven with the idea of contagion and criminality, have fueled the ugly specter of something that happened recently in marietta, california and elsewhere, where protesters have carried signs alleging that the women and children in those buses were carrying diseases and secretly harboring gang members. these narratives and others challenge the dominant culture's ability to determine the american mythic representation of an era somewhere in the

distant past that was free of criminal trespassers who trampled on the rule of law. sensing a loss of the trope of he rule of law, what tea party activists use to counter the lobbying efforts of catholic, protestant and lds leaders who for their own reasons decided it as time to push once again for immigration reform right in the middle of another seemingly endless cycle of xenophobia. atino mormons. probably no other internal debate demonstrates his clashes more clearly than the tensions that arose within the mormon

church over a specific tenant of the mormon faith called article 12. one article i found in the ironically named center for immigrant rights, a group with very little interest in immigrant rights as self identify -- an lds member, ronald mortensen, took to task the influence of the lds hierarchy in passing what he viewed as an amnesty of bill and 2011. lds members will be subject to quote, kings, rulers, magistrates in honoring and sustaining the law. with the lds emphasis on the rule of law, the lds tradition of that america is a divine nation. he laments the loss of this emphasis on law and in effect the loss of his imagined america. quote, they openly talk the founding fathers were guided by the hand of god and the u.s. constitution was divinely inspired and the u.s. was chosen land for the restoration of christ's true church. particularly problematic for mortensen and other lds members was that the appalling reality that the church was allowing illegal aliens to be baptized to

accept couple recommends and serve an important church positions. mortensen lays blame on the church, who refused to acknowledge they even had an immigration reform policy. mormons are left to try to discern what this change means for the gospel as they have known it, he laments. his case study, where the bill as recognized in utah, how the ds hierarchy work behind the scenes to secure the passage of that bill, mortensen goes on to identify how the lds' call for compassion for the undocumented has shifted his own church's narrative towards a social

justice agenda. he loss of the rule of law demonstrates how far the lds church has quote, moved from its american roots. the agenda now seems to be holy guided by trying to patronize the lds'large latino constituency. as the church found it more difficult to gain converts among american citizens, lds officials increasingly focused missionary ctivity on illegal immigrant community. latino protestants, both the ain line and evangelicals, tried to upend the hb-56 law. what happened with them is the ame thing that happened with

catholics. they simply failed to see this grand narrative taking place, both organizations, the united methodist, episcopal, and two groups that represent latino evangelicals. both organizations mission touched how much the tea party controls the republican -- misjudged how much the tea party controls the republican agenda. they failed to convince these labama pastors this was an issue that should bring them together in terms of lobbying efforts, writing letters, doing grassroots work. if he had done that, they might have known the desires for human treatment and compassion are admirable, but only when the narrative of desirable immigration supports this imagined narrative. i simply did not work. -- that simply did not work. what catholics and lds and latino protestants of all stripes understand is they can ount, and they can count how

many latinos are in the churches. they can count and understand of this trope of demography is destiny is coming to pass. that is part of the reason the roman catholic church has been supportive of immigration reform. try to make its presence known in a strong way in this debate. i took a quick perusal to the national catholic reporter to find catholics from grassroots parishioners to bishops were involved in immigration debates in one way or another for years. there were lots of stories about parishes in transition and how some of those went well. the loss of the old european immigrant now making a transition to latino parishes. there were a few stories where it was successful undated not limit the loss of their america. there were others then rather than had the parish over to the -- be shared, they just eft.

what seems to be this interesting "new york times" article, they suggested that people are getting worn down by the issue. they are tired of immigration reform and immigrants in particular and they resign themselves to the fact that immigrants are here and they are not leaving. you are going to see a bit more moving of that needle towards reform for drivers licenses, reform for insurance, work laws, xhibit nature. what these stories suggest that when working in a gastric -- grassroots level, catholics will work on their own to implement.

the catholic media promoted this idea the church is a welcoming and open place for mmigrants. in this local setting, the catholic church looks compassionate, the stories of young women singing to these children, it gives a very personal level to the idea that you're helping the stranger, the alien, and it lends the religious instabilities can be most really felt on a personal level. catholic bishops and other concerned clerical organizations are nearly uniformly for immigrant reform and lobbying excessively for it, but it still fails. there may be one of many reasons why it fails. the most prominent catholic politicians in congress have done little to further the interests in immigration reofrm. -- reform. a journalist had a really good piece that autopsies the failure of immigration reform and why even conservative evangelicals support leaders like joe hunter, rick moran, are incapable of using the house gop to action. like the gop, white evangelicals

are largely walled off from mmigrants in a religious gerrymandering where white vangelicals find themselves in churches in the suburbs and not the neighborhoods populated by immigrants. like the gerrymandered districts of the gop, what image l adjusts to not see immigration reform -- white evangelic adjusts -- evangelists did not see immigration reform is important. an eye towards their eventual resettlement -- she repeats the claim these children are gang bangers and drug runners, they are crashing our borders. she continues, quote, this explains why the bureaucracy acts to smash the culture of a royal community by dropping blocks of primitive, hostile

aliens in their midst, all in the name of compassion. just not for americans. she asks for readers to look at a blog entitled refugee resettlement watch, who tracks refugees. under the auspices of dozens of religious organizations. she views a grand conspiracy to ring in jihadists and drug cartels and infiltrate the country. from this one can see despite their good intentions, religious groups were doomed from the start. the very contextualized approach that many did want but did not get is not selling to talk about in these churches. failing to see the historical trajectory of latino immigrants cast as a class of unassailable foreigners may have done well to lead the congregations into axioms like the catholic bishops who this past spring held mass

cross the border, symbolically offering communion to mexicans nd mexican-americans alike and crossing the border themselves to listen to their stories. thank you. >> first i would like to thank all my fellow panelists. i have light bulbs going off in my head, all these great ideas popping in. i want to redo my paper, but i'm not going to. i am lucky enough to teach at university of illinois in chicago. the title of my paper is "the blessings of american religious pluralism." on august 6, 2009 the u.s. senate voted to confirm sonia sotomayor's appointment. hardly anyone thought it was wild to mention her faith. eporters talked a great deal

bout the fact that she was the first latino ever nominated to the court. even those who oppose her nomination, for example 31 of the then-40 republicans in the senate, did not bother to mention her faith at all, instead choosing to criticize her for being an activist judge. hardly anyone pointed out that once she was sworn in two days ater, she would become the sixth catholic sitting on the

bench, not only giving catholics a super majority on the country's highest court, but also taking the spot of the last remaining protestant. what she was sworn in, all the non-catholics on the bench were jews. nothing was really said about this. of the super majority of catholics on the court, the bombastic and militantly watchful catholic conservative bill donohue said barely a peep as made. for the first time in american history, not a single protestant sat among the constituents of one of the three branches of the american government. hardly anyone seemed to notice at all. my theme today is this -- among the many transformations that happened in the age of obama, and despite the bombast and rhetoric coming from the religious right, surely one of the most vital themes as to be the almost casual way in which the country has come to accept religious pluralism. i'm arguing against anybody else who has spoken so far. evidence for this is everywhere. religious discrimination is down in the united states, even as it has risen sharply in other countries throughout the world. the u.s. equal employment

opportunity commission reported a sharp rise in claims of religious discrimination during the george w. bush years, right after 9/11, before noting a gentle decline starting in 2009. a large percentage of the claims were found to lack merit, which suggest there is more fear than there is bona fide abuse. perhaps the most compelling piece of evidence comes from the fact that the loudest claims of religious discrimination these days have come from some of the largest, most powerful religious groups in the country, including evangelical protestants and american catholics. what have they been complaining about? not that they themselves had been prevented from worshiping as they see fit, but in america's quest to honor its minority faiths, the country has

curtailed the rights of large groups from imposing its beliefs onto others. no catholic was ever forced to practice contraception under president obama's affordable care act, but some catholic employers were asked to contribute to the contraceptive efforts of employees who might. no protestant had been asked to denounce their own faith, just to honor the right of others to ractice there's. speaking to past eras of religious discrimination, including burning of churches, denying of employment, forcing certain people to live in certain neighborhoods depending on what their religious beliefs were, this is an era marked not by heavy brutalities based on discrimination, at least religious discrimination. perhaps surprisingly, this general acceptance of america's religious pluralism is more ideological than demographic.

in this case it is the ideas that matter and not the numbers. there hasn't been any significant uptick in the number of religious minorities in the united states. anyone who looks at the numbers, it is clear that the united states is still a profoundly christian nation. somewhere in the range of 76% to 78% of americans claim to be protestant or catholic. 50% of americans claim to be protestant, and 25% claim to be catholic more or less. among the nations of the world, the united states isn't that religiously diverse. a pew study from 2012 ranks the united states as the 68th most religiously diverse nation in the world, more diverse than iran or afghanistan but far less diverse than vietnam or nigeria r new zealand.

some might say celebration of our religious diversity, the vast diversity we have among the non-russians -- non-christians -- on the one hand, there is some truth to that. n the other hand, this acceptance must be viewed with great caution. consider the vast majority of america's non-christian population, 25%, the vast majority of those claim to have no religion at all, a group that is rapidly approaching 20% of all americans. we will hear about this later. all the other religious

minorities put together, jews, muslims, hindus, buddhists, jains -- when you put them all together, they totaled just 5.3% of the population. if almost every faith in the world can be found somewhere in the united states, america can still make little claim to being among the most religiously diverse nation in the world. indeed, it is 68th. what has changed during the first years of the 21st century is americans have become far more accepting of religious raditions that are not their own, including profoundly towards people who claim no religion at all.

if america is not terribly diverse, it is increasingly accepting of the idea of religious pluralism. as historians, we all care about where these ideas come from and the idea of america's religious pluralism has a history. there were some iterations of it in the early instances of american history, all the way back to the maryland toleration act of 1649 to james madison's memorial against religious assessments of 1785 to the first amendment of the u.s. constitution. throughout the 19th century, the united states was largely controlled by what historian has called a moral establishment that made protestantism legally regulated region of the land. eople could be cited for blasphemy even if the state had

no blasphemy laws. the moral codes of protestantism were non-litigious excepted as common law. even though there were constitutional protections against establishing religion as the law of the land, he argues that the protestant majority could effect its will through the courts and through the culture. the first instances of this idea of america's religious pluralism take lice in the first decades of the 20th century, -- place in the first decades of the 20th century, when the massive industrialization going on at the time created scads of urban plight. protestants fashioned what came to be called the social gospel movement, and much to their surprise, they found on those main urban streets catholic and jewish groups doing much of the same work. the first instances of working together take place in the fields, filling sandbags during floods or feeding hungry in times of economic recession. these initial interfaith activities bled into some of the first conversations of religious oodwill.

many began to ponder write down these thoughts -- ponder, write down the thoughts, but maybe america cannot not just consider itself a protestant nation any longer. it was in reaction to the rise of open nativism that happened throughout the united states in the immediate post-world war i years, when anti-catholic and racist, anti-semitic ideas continued to take hold in american life. this is when the ku klux klan

has its most dramatic revival, when woodrow wilson is busy segregating washington, d.c. he ultimate achievement of the nativists in this 1920's era was the spearheading of the drive to and widespread immigration, which culminates in a landmark immigration restriction act of 1924 and even worse ones of 1929. several movements rise up to push back. the most successful of these movements is called the goodwill movement for religious tolerance in america, led by liberal protestants working together with catholics and jews. the most successful was the national conference of christians and jews. their whole goal is to reimagine what the united states was, to pull it away from a vision of america centered on white, protestant nativism and focus more on a general acceptance of the idea of pluralism and especially religious pluralism. america could honor this time-tested ideal of equality and liberty, no matter which faith you got there by. these organizations did crazy, foolish things that are fun for us to find in the archives. they sent a rabbi, priest and

miniter into small towns where they had never seen a rabbi or priest and they would do that on stage shtick to dispel the myths about these minority faiths. they went on to found the religious news service, which is still active today. their biggest victory comes during world war ii, with an enemy like hitler, the national conference of christians and jews is not have to result to saccharine to make its point. in making these arguments that e no longer can be seen as a protestant nation because that is what hitler looks like, the goodwill organizations were wildly successful during the second world war. it was one of two non-military groups admitted onto every military base in the country and in the world, the other being the red cross. they actively aided the chaplaincy corpse, they provided

literature to soldiers, and they provided business card sized prayer cards they would give to each soldier in case your comrade happened to be dying and he was of a different faith. on one side was a protestant and on the back were catholic and jewish prayers. after the war, catholics and jews, having a taste of equal place at the table, they did not want to let go. in fraternities and colleges and nearly all aspects of american life, throughout the 1950's groups of protestants, catholics and jews articulated and fought for acceptance of religious pluralism. fraternities had to change their charters. we should either get rid of the crash or invite all faiths to celebrate on city hall. in the early 1960's, the court responded to this vision of america with two banner corporation is that outlawed forced fair and bible readings

in the public schools -- prayer and bible readings in the public schools. the overriding story is the court's declaration that the united states government should not prioritize one faith over any other and should allow them free reign to practice as they see fit. girl is and had arrived -- pluralism had arrived. his happens before 1965 and is incredibly important. in 1965 lbj ushered in immigration reform, which to nearly everyone's apprise who voted for the bill actually allowed large numbers of people from africa, asia, and latin america to come to the united states, bringing with them their faith.

in came sikhs, large numbers of muslims, hindus, and more, and hardly any of them when they came were persecuted for their faith. this is celebrated by a book called "the new religious america to get a country she argues had gone from a protestant nation to a tri-faith nation to a wildly diverse nation at the end of the 20th century. the book is mostly a celebration. american diversity had come. the numbers just don't hold up to this argument. less than 6% of all americans are of a faith that is not protestant, catholic, or nothing. what has won is this idea of america's religious pluralism. although he operated in a subordinate role to greater

social trends, president obama has played a role in this almost casual acceptance of america's religious pluralism. in his inaugural address of 2009, obama becomes the first resident to acknowledge a wide swath of faiths, including the nuns -- nons, people with no faith, as importing constituents in the american project. we are a nation of christians and muslims, jews and hindus and non-believers, he said. we are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this earth and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the ld hatreds shall someday pass, that as the world grows smaller,

our common humanity shall reveal itself. in addition to this stirring rhetoric, once you start quoting him it's very hard to know how to stop -- in addition to the rhetoric, obama almost immediately, within a week of becoming president, re-crafted president george w. bush's office of faith-based initiatives which bush had designed to funnel money to religious organizations providing social services to the hungry or the poor but which quickly came under attack for a way for president bush to funnel money to his friends in the religious right. when obama comes into office in 2009, 1 of his first acts was to broaden the number of recipients as well as establish an expensive advisory council to ensure there is no favoritism at play. in come muslim groups trade income -- groups. nowhere has this understanding

of american pullers -- pluralism shaped obama's presidency more than in its dealings with predominantly muslim countries. obama sought to reconcile relations with certain middle eastern countries, especially urkey. at a joint press conference with the president of turkey, obama reflected on the similarities between the two nations, specifically citing a common, if contested, tradition of religious pluralism. you have heard this before -- although he said, we have a very large christian population, we do not consider ourselves a christian nation or a jewish nation or muslim nation. what the professor left out was the last line, this affirmation of america's religious pluralism. we consider ourselves a nation of citizens bound by ideals and a set of values.

closer to home -- this is my concluding point -- obama endorsed religious pluralism in 2010 when he supported the right of new york's muslim community to build an islamic community center two blocks from the site of the recently destroyed world trade center. as a citizen and president, i believe muslims have the same right to practice their religion is anyone else in the country, he said, affirming american religious pluralism. this is america, and our ommitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. diverse or not, american pluralism has triumphed in the age of obama. as with so much else, president obama has grabbed onto that history not as a leader, but in an effort to continue its success. despite all the clamoring from he religious right, a movement

designed to bring america back to a fabled time when christians were the sole arbiter of american life, american religious pluralism is now the de facto mode of american elf-awareness. that in small part explains the animosity and anger coming from conservative christians today. thank you very much. thank you very much. >> i think we have a few time -- time for a few questions. i'm looking at jeff, asking that. ok. >> one of the things that struck me going through the papers this morning is this juncture between myth and rhetoric versus reality came out strongly in this last paper, for instance, but i would like to address my question to professor sanchez in particular. you mentioned diane west as someone who wrote about conspiracy theories and she referred to the office of refugee settlement.

that is interesting to me, because in all of this reticle - rhetoric about the rule of law dealing with child migrants, no one seemed to recognize that there is a law about refugees. people talk all about laws that, you know, we should be protecting the border more, and that is the rule of law, and so forth, but they seem to ignore the fact that refugee policy, which would apply to some of these child migrants, is also part of the rule of law. i am wondering how does this cognitive dissonance keep americans acting in this way to mark how was it that we continue to believe this is a very religiously diverse country when in fact it is not? or are we continually deluding ourselves about these things when the facts seem to show otherwise? i would be interested in your comment.

>> ok. the debate was the unaccompanied minors whether they should be alled refugees at all. part of the dehumanizing of this rhetoric is saying that they are covers for gun runners and particularly the children are carriers of disease. that is not new. that has been used several times before, predominately at the beginning of the 20th century to enforce mass fumigation of mexican migrants over the border, where they were stationed along the border here, to fumigate mexican workers going back and forth to work, mostly on railroads and other jobs on the border. so we do not talk about worker rights, we do not talk about health.

if you spin that to say it is a matter of public health, then you essentially have a right to fumigate mexican workers when you never fumigated white people, white missionaries in particular, going back and forth. with unaccompanied minors, it is the same thing. they are not refugees there are a whole set of problems that tea party activists would rather not talk about. they benefit greatly from their fax essentially, that these are people of questionable means, they are criminals, and they are -- what she said is very clear. these are on assimilable -- unassimilable people who have come to trace the nature of this country. it is alarmist. it is rhetoric. why does it work? don't know.

i don't live in texas. i live in california. so, we do things differently there. i don't know. what is it work? it works because it feeds into a centuries old trope of latin american people as being un-american and being viewed as existential threats to an imagined america that never existed. as my colleague here will mention about pluralism -- it is maintaining a protective order, and i think that is why it works, has worked for centuries. > thank you. >> ironically my question or interest is also in refugee settlement.

i founded a communication in dallas many years ago and it fostered volunteerism for the many resettlement and a silent -- asylum for service providing agencies. i am interested in what you said about the current political climate, and i have noticed that here, too. although people are welcoming, there are often protesters from various camps to save the refugees that are coming are changing the face of the united states, you know, the usual arguments. the other fact, i was interested in what your observations might be -- since most of the resettlement agencies are faith-based and all

of the major abraham and faiths are represented here -- abrahamic faiths are represented here, sometimes christian missions interweave services with subtle and not-so-subtle nudging toward accepting christianity along with the refugee resettlement process. i'm just interested in any observation you might have about refugee resettlement and religion these days. >> while i do not recommend it purely as a form of information, you should all look at refugee resettlement watch. i would not accept a kickback from them. i would not take it. it is an intriguing site in terms of -- they don't like anybody. so, essentially, catholics, united methodist, jews. all are dupes in this grand conspiracy to undermine the

fabric of the country. and what is concerning to these people is the demographic fabric. this refugee resettlement, this event latest wave is a moneymaking scheme for resettlement officers who are apparently making scads of money on the side doing this work and the point is not really to provide evidence. it is simply to link to all of these other sites of where the buses are coming, who is coming, what laws are being passed underneath people's noses to ensure that we get massive -- the latest one see the unaccompanied minors as not an issue anymore. the latest issues are refugees or immigrants from africa and the attempts to scare up via bolus scare. -- scare up via bolus scare. saying that, too, is part of the plot. it is interesting logic, to say the least.

i do not even call them the extreme right. i think it is basically the right. take a look at it. >> i'm afraid we have to wrap up. let's thank our panelists one more time for this excellent resentation. >>doming up we'll show you the lighting national christmas tree and the lighting of the capitol christmas tree and the future of chartable organizations. >> on the next wornle terry jeffrey talks about what he'd like to see accomplished from the 114th congress. and then the book culture warrior, race, politics and social change. "washington journal" is live every morning at 7:00 eastern