universe and the fact that we can set your together as balls of energy and dark about the good that we can do in the world energy, thisewable is an amazing time and we should be proud of ourselves. [applause] >> so we are over here but i want to close with a couple of things. one is that i think for americans it is just a no. number one -- just say no. number one. number two i want to give numbe oft, it is he itsr needed for the consumption that we are right now. for the usa it is five and i have roots, for the u.k. it is three and a quarter, for fred's it is three, from germany it is to what i have, for russia it is to what i have, for brazil it is

due, for china it is almost one but that is going to james. change. not all this is sustainable -- none of this is sustainable. the radical position is that we can boycott and we do that against her know that was catching dolphions. reject a lot of practices because women said we are not buying it. i do not want to be responsible for killing dolphins, period. that we go, the more educated we are, women, vote with your dollars. thank you very much. [applause] up next on c-span, journalists discussing religion and the supreme court. a conversation on crime and guns from the group connecticut black republicans and conservatives.

and later, the renewable energy summit with discussions on climate change, water shortages, biodiversity, and large-scale farming. >> on the next "washington journal," kevin on year-end strategies to prepare for filing your 2014 taxes and tax provisions taking effect next year. deeperwill talk with woods of "usa today" on college sports and efforts to unionize of "usa berkowitz today" on college sports endeavors to unionize. up next on c-span, jordan was to cover the supreme court on how religion affects the high court decisions. this is an hour and a half. >> let's see if this is going. it is going. good. good evening, everyone.

welcome to the night conference center at the newseum. we are very pleased to see everyone out tonight. either you don't like football or you really are interested in this topic, one of the two. i am glad you are here. i only heard about this myself last-minute, that there is a football game. that is how far out of it i am, but there are probably some fans you want to have this discussion, so thank you for being here. if you are not on our invite list and happened in here some other way and did not get an invitation to our programs, let us know, because we would be happy to put you on that list for future programs. i am charles haynes, and i direct our religion studies here institute.eum and we are so happy to be partnering once again with "moment" magazine, which is a wonderful publication, as many

of you know, and has been a partner on many of our great programs here, and we are, together, sponsoring a discussion that is about a contentious, murky, but always fascinating topic, which is the u.s. supreme court and religion, and we have an outstanding panel. i would just note that on this panel, we have over 100 years of experience covering the u.s. supreme court, and that is just lyle denniston. [laughter] not quite, but you are going to get there pretty soon if you keep going. we are very, very fortunate to have this outstanding panel. i'm going to turn things over to amy schwartz, who is the opinion editor over at "moment" magazine, and i will turn it -- let her introduce the panel. [applause] >> good evening, everyone.

welcome to tonight's discussion , does religion impact -- how does religion impact supreme court decisions. my name is amy schwartz, and i am the opinion editor of "moment" magazine, and this is the premier independent magazine of jewish culture and religion. i also welcome you on behalf of editor in chief who is here but toiling away on a deadline, so making an appearance, and our wonderful partners, charles haynes and the freedom center of the newseum institute. we are looking forward to a wonderful evening. thank you also to the staff of both our magazine and the institute, who have done so much work to bring this evening together. our topic tonight is one that as recently as a couple of decades ago would have been widely considered taboo. our supreme court justices, are they influenced in their

decision-making by the religious opinions they bring to the bench? most casual observers and even most legal observers would argue back then that they should not be bringing religious conviction to the bench, if they had them, but as a supreme court justice, they would have said, and as john roberts contended at his confirmation hearing in 2005, he is like an umpire, and far from applying his own beliefs, he simply calls them as he see's them. but much has changed since that earlier consensus and even since that confirmation hearing almost 10 years ago. the traditional religious makeup of the court has changed dramatically, and we know more about the views then we knew before, because the times are more wired and interactive, or simply because these justices are more," a headline the two quote quote headline drama --

eight headline the, vocally devout. does it matter? do their religious beliefs have more of an impact than they once did, and if so, what impact? where will we see the difference? in church-state separation? gay rights? abortion? or things we cannot even envision? we have organized a panel. constitutional law, and in the middle we have marshall breger at the school of law at catholic university. from 1993 to 1995, he was a senior fellow at the heritage foundation, and during the george h.w. bush administration, he was chief lawyer of the labor department. from 1985 to 1991, he was chairman of the administrative conference of the united states, and from 1987 until 1989, he served as an alternate delegate of the u.s. to the u.n. in geneva. he has also been special assistant to president reagan

and his liaison to the jewish community. stephen wermiel practices constitutional law. he teaches constitutional law first amendment and a course on the supreme court. he is also a past chair of the american bar association on individual rights and responsibilities, and he writes a blog about explaining the supreme court to law students. he is a co-author of the definitive biography on william j brennan. who i am sure we will discuss. and many other books. it was also a reporter for "the boston globe." speaking of which, we also have three reporters who have covered record, long and deep, as charles said, and bob barr and has been a washington post reporter ever since 1987 and has covered the supreme court since november 2006, including the nominations of sonia sotomayor and elena kagan, and return to the court.

lyle denniston is the senior news reporter covering the supreme court, which he has been doing from 1958, mostly with newspapers, including "the washington star" and "the boston globe." for the past 10 years, he has been running for an online clearinghouse about the supreme court. he has received numerous awards, including for legal journalism, and he has taught at colleges and universities. tony mauro has covered the court for 34 years for usa today and more, and since 2004, the legal times, the livejournal, and the -- the national law journal, and the supreme court brief, a subscription newsletter. he is an author of a book published in 2005 by congressional quarterly press. he is a longtime member of the

steering committee of the reporters committee for the freedom of the press, and in 2010 was inducted into the freedom of information hall of fame. for recognition of his work for openness in courts and other institutions. so we are very grateful to all of these very knowledgeable supreme court followers for giving us their expertise, and i am going to ask each one to begin by speaking briefly on the general question of whether the changing makeup of the supreme court has had an effect on its jurisprudence. for the first time ever, there are no protestants on the board. -- court. rather, three jews and six catholics, of varying political flavors. does this matter, and if so, how does it matter?

how is it illustrated? we would just go from this side to that side. we will start with bob barnes. whose "washington post" story had a headline -- no reporters are not responsible for headlines, but the headline was high court with vocally devout justices set to hear religious objections to health care law. >> well, thank you for having me. it is a pleasure to be here. the reason i wrote that story is because i was talking to a former supreme court clerk, now a prominent law professor who pays a lot of attention to these issues, and he told me that when he was clerking at the supreme court, if anyone had asked him if any of the justices were religious, he would have said no, that none of them talk about it. he sought no real evidence of them being religious, and he thought that this court was very different. these justices have talked about their faith, much more, probably certainly justice scalia. he is the most outspoken about it. he said that intellectuals have

to be what he calls fools for christ, and to be able to say that some things are about faith, and when you think about the justices, they all have an interesting connection to religion, i think. justices sotomayor and thomas talk about how parochial schools really were what lifted them out of poverty and in situations, neighborhoods in which education was not terribly valued. sometimes, justice kagan, who probably would say she is not that religious nonetheless said she had religious instruction three times a week. she was the first girl to be bat mitzvahed at her synagogue.

and had to negotiate with that, and being justice kagan, she' said it was good, not great, being justice kagan, and all of the justices, i think, have this connection, and i do not know if any of us can say how that impacts the way they do cases, but i do think it has a big impact on the way to be advocates and those going to them for opinions act. i thought, for instance, that the obama administration and the recent hobby lobby case about whether there was or whether private business owners had a right to say that their religious objections keep them from offering certain kinds of contraception was a very very sort of respectful of religion deliberate from the government. all of those briefs talked over and over again about how it was

not at issue what these challengers to the law believed or how valued their believes -- beliefs should be, and so i think that the difference has come in the way people approach issues to the court, and maybe some of the cases that the court takes itself. we could talk about the town of greece case about prayers before a town council meeting. that is one that the court did not have to take but decided to take, and it really divided the court, so i think one thing to think about is how with the -- what the justices have said about religion affects the way people approach the court. >> tony? >> i think i would have mentioned some of the same things that bob just has about the justices, although i think there is one quote from the justice scalia article, that we

must be fools for christ's sake, and i wrote to him and said, are you sure there wasn't a comma in there, and he liked that. [laughter] agree that they are more outspoken about their religious faith in general. i think it could be partly because so many people -- whatever they say, anything, people are watching much more than they used to. i think it would not have been uncommon for justices to talk about their faith, but people weren't listening maybe 20 years ago. maybe it is also the case, and this may be stereotyping, that may be protestants did not speak as outwardly about their faith as some catholics and some jews. but anyway, what i would say in general is that i think it does

have an effect on how they look at cases and look at life in the same way, coming from harvard or being born in the south has an impact on their perspectives. it is just one of many cultural elements in their backgrounds, and even justice scalia has said we come to the court. we are who we are. we come to the court with our upbringing and the elements that our parents brought to us in raising us, and we cannot avoid that. but he has said, and they all have said that they keep that separate from our professional lives, so i think it is just something that is of interest,

and i think that they recognize , too, that this change is happening in the makeup with six catholics and three jews. justice sotomayor just saturday at law school was recalling that she was talking about the types of diversity that the supreme court ought to have. it ought to have more people from different areas, a civil rights attorney or two instead of a corporate lawyer, and then she said plus we all believe in god. and that was kind of striking to that, and to think that there is nobody on the court who is an atheist. i think you could argue -- we could talk about this later, but it would be interesting to think about whether a devout atheist could ever be confirmed to the supreme court.

i kind of doubt it. >> has there ever been a devout atheist on the supreme court? >> i sure don't think so, and there are not many devout atheists in congress either, for that matter. >> i think justice cardozo said he was agnostic, so that is part way there. [laughter] i suspect others, as well, but i will wait until it is my turn. >> go ahead. >> well, thank you. in some ways, i have to say i am kind of a dissenter, because i am not sure being a catholic or a jew or even a protestant -- that does not tell you much about how they're going to make decisions, probably because there are so many ways of being a catholic, so many ways of being a jew, so many ways of being a protestant. i do think that what you bring to the court, your experiences, your background tells you

something about how you're going to approach cases, and not to open up a controversy again, but justice sotomayor talked about a wise latina, brings some sense to that. that is what she was bringing. thurgood marshall brought in special experience to the court. even if he was outvoted, it was something the justices were sensitive to. we should not overdetermine the notion of the effect of religion. it is one of many things that are part of the influence on justices. having said that, i think the topic is very interesting, because there is no doubt that it has to do with the selection process. there is a sensitivity. i think it was eisenhower who talked about the qualified -- who said find me a qualified

catholic. it has to do with notions of representation. i mean, the notion that there be a woman on the court was very important for the notion of representation, and i guess protestants are upset that they do not have a protestant on the court, and it also raises a lot of interesting theoretical issues, because it goes directly to this question of can you unquote, to bete a professional, do you have to bleach out your personal distinctions, your personal characteristics, and i think that was a notion of what it was to be a professional in the 1940's and 1950's and before, so you had this view that you're supposed to remove your jewishness from being a lawyer. remove your catholicism from being a lawyer. and i think we have a different view of the world now, and that

raises some interesting problems and solve some other ones, but i think we should be aware that we are living in a world where it is not just justices, but all politicians are talking about their faith. i mean, probably, it george h.w. bush, one of my jobs was to sort of take him around the jewish community a bit. he could not stand wearing a yarmulke. he said, i am like a poser. it had nothing to do with any negativity, he just thought that his faith was private and he should not be making a show of it. whether or not politicians think that in their heart these days, they have gotten over this, because they talk a lot about it. i think there are a lot of interesting issues in these question, and i think one of

those really goes to a point, i am just an umpire. there is a terrific quote. i did not memorize it, by a law professor. and he says much harm is done by the myth that by merely putting on a black robe and taken the oath of office as a judge, a man ceases to be human and ceases of all predilections. and becomes a passion was thinking machine. -- passionless thinking machine. i think that was in his second circuit opinion, but the point is as much as justices say that is what they are doing, we have to have a question mark around that. >> when was that? roughly? >> in the 1940's, when he was in the second circuit. >> you want to talk partly about how things have changed. i know you're an expert. on justice brennan. >> ok. i apologize first for my boys. -- my voice.

this is the voice i was born with, and that is why i am not a broadcaster. [laughter] when i was in high school, i did sing in the choir, but every now and again, mrs. peterson would say, let's try it again without a while. which was the beginning -- lyle. which was the beginning of learning humility. thank you for having this event and charles for sponsoring it. this is a fascinating topic. i have recently been reading a book on the ratification process of the constitution, which is a fabulous work, and it is interesting how often in the ratifying conventions the question of a religious test for public office came up as an issue, and as you know, the constitution itself insists that there not be a religious test for holding office in the national government.

so to a degree for a traditionalist like me, or at least a traditional journalist, this topic makes me a little uncomfortable, because i tend to think that religion is a matter of private choice and private exercise and that we should not, in fact, audit our public officials in terms of how well they serve their faith. i must tell you that i am married to a baptist, who is a seminary graduate, who is about as rigid a separationist as you can find, and a lot of that has rubbed off on me, though i tend to be somewhat wary of this topic. however, there are a few areas where i do believe that the religious preferences of the justices or the religious identities, if you will, do have an impact, and i think the

steady movement towards expanding the sphere of religion in the public square is in considerable part a product of the comfort with which certain fates, particularly the roman catholic faith, has in, if you will, co-opting the government in order to advance the principles of that faith. and i think -- i think that is a very important influence in this -- andand steadily, steadily,-- in sometimes precipitously moving religion more to the center of public affairs, and it is very different now. i do also think that the abortion question is now driven in considerable part by the roman catholic perspective on abortion, and, of course, when

you talk about abortion, in this court, you have to talk about anthony kennedy, who probably holds a decisive vote on that subject. one cannot read his opinion in the gonzalez case, upholding the partial birth abortion act without seeing how he was, if you will, take it into camp by some pretty junky science about the way women react to questions of their reproductive health and -- they interminably suffer interminably a good deal of agony after they have undergone this particular procedure, so i think justice kennedy is acting out of his faith in that area. it is always difficult, to know where a kennedy is going to wind

up on any issue that involves liberty interest, because so much of his jurisprudence is driven by the sense that the whole constitution structure and history is devoted towards the service of liberty interests, but when it comes to women's liberty interests, i think justice kennedy is pretty close to tone deaf. in that area. having said nothing controversial -- [laughter] stephen, i apologize. i miss spoke. you are the author of a book about justice brennan. >> and i want to talk a little bit as lyle did. i want to talk a little bit, as lyle did, on how things have changed. justice brennan, i think, it is

to say the most ardent separationist in the modern history of the court, and i think he was that precisely he was catholic. that is where his catholicism took him. he believed deeply in religion, but he believed that it was private and personal and that having religion in the public square and in public life was divisive. for history's sake, justice brennan was on the court from 1956 until 1990. he participated in decisions prohibiting school prayer and was vilified by the catholic church for doing so. he felt strongly enough about his views in those cases to write a separate 50-page concurring opinion in the second school prayer decision in 1963, a case called abington school

district versus shemp, and i was looking over that again today, apropos of the question about whether or not we could ever have an atheist on the court. justice brennan in his opinion in 1963 talks about the establishment clause embodied the framers conclusion that -- framers's conclusion that government and religion have discrete interests, which are mutually best served when each too close a proximity to the other. it is not only the nonbeliever who fears the injection of sectarian doctrines and controversies into the civil polity, but in a high degree, it is a devout believer who fears the secularization of the creed, which becomes too deeply involved with and dependent upon the government. i think that was the essence of justice brennan's separation, rushed separationist view, not just the atheist but --

separationist do, not just the atheist but the believer, sort of having government involved in your religion demeans your religious beliefs. and i think that was his view, and i think that view is gone. i am not even sure there is anybody on the court that would share that view that degree. he espoused that view for virtually all at this time on the court, he paid personally for it. a few months after writing that opinion in 1963, he went to a mass in which the bishop was a visiting bishop from richmond, virginia, and railed against the court with justice brennan sitting in the front row, recognizable to the bishop. at the end of the mass, justice brennan's wife kissed the bishop's ring and then said to the bishop, you are not really fit to have us kiss your ring, and they did not go back to mass for three years after that. when they went back to mass,

they went to a church in virginia where they had a saturday night mass, where he thought nobody would recognize him, and nobody did for a little while, but i think things have just changed romantically. -- dramatically. >> well, that leads to the question of whether the same -- several people have mentioned the same religion or the same religious beliefs can lead to different outcomes in terms of one's -- the decisions that one is taken to. we have these different politics of different catholics on the court. i wanted to go back and ask people, how would you draw a distinction between what a couple of people have mentioned , someone being formed their religious beliefs against simply their life experiences. i think tony, you mentioned justice scalia and justice sotomayor have experiences in parochial school.

>> and justice thomas. >> and justice thomas, as well. how is that reflected, for instance, in their rulings on school voucher cases? is there any suggestion that they are more open to that sort of thing? >> me? maybe i have drunk the kool-aid at the court, but i do not think so. i think the justices really do make an effort to separate their own, their personal views on things like that from their decision-making. so i think if they have experience at parochial school, that does not necessarily mean they're going to be in favor of vouchers. unfortunately, i mean, that is my perception, but there is

another perception out there, which is the opposite, that the justices kind of fuel this one. for example, you know, the late term abortion case. the carhart case. this was when there were only five catholics on the court, and all five of them voted in favor of this law that prohibited late-term abortions, so that kind of feeds the stereotype that catholics might be monolithically to advance the church's agenda, but, again, that is very much like, i think, the decisions where all of the republican appointed justices vote one way, and all of the democrat-appointed justices vote the other way. i do not think it is materially different from other types of

influences in the justices' lives. >> from time to time, the question has been raised, i think the question of identity, and identity factor in selecting justices leads to questions that are asked, for instance, at the justices's confirmations about either their religious views or their willingness to separate their religious views from the court. i think, marshall, you brought up the question what can be asked. >> well, you have to be -- ought careful, because you have the law. so you cannot come right out and say, do you believe in this, so, presumably, you have to crawl your way around it. but, invariably, the justices say that i am an umpire, or my job is to apply the rules.

i am not sure if this was at a confirmation or afterwards. justice scalia was very explicit. theays he is a positivist, -- he just applies the constitution. now, in my private morals, you cannot take me out of my skin, and i am a catholic, and i listen to the catholic doctrine. he has a certain -- he can easily say that because he is an originalist. he interprets the text of the constitution as it was believed or understood at the founding. many of the moral values at that time were also conservative values, so they would be impregnated, you might say, into

the original understanding, if you believe in a living constitution, then, in a way, his morality views, they become more relevant, i think, so he can do it somewhat more easily than someone who believes in a living constitution or almost for the purposes of a constitution, where the moral views can more easily be embedded. now, whether one can actually live up to that is another story, but that, i think, is the general approach even with brennan, at his confirmation -- rather, his nomination hearings, and he had to say very clearly, i separate -- i made my peace. if it comes between the constitution and the church, in my public life i follow the constitution, and in my private life, i am a good catholic.

so people want to know. it is what it means you being a catholic. that is why i say there are so many ways of being a catholic, just as there are so many ways of being a jew that it is more the social identity that you have or that social background that you have that affects how you vote much more than just a label. >> well, i think it is important to note also that there is not a catholic seat on the board. it is not seen that there is a jewish seat on the board. justice ginsburg has said some of the justices that preceded us were jewish justices, and justice breyer and i are justices who happened to be jews, and, certainly, president george w. bush did not set out to put two catholics on the court. in fact, remember, he nominated

an evangelical protestant, harriet miers, who did not make it. and so i think it is much more that they look at the ideology of the person and their background then religion. >> but i think there is an irony in that. for brennan, his catholicism was the main issue at his confirmation hearing. as marshall described, they asked him about his -- if it comes to loyalty to the pope or loyalty to the constitution, what are you going to choose, and he basically said, senator, i take the same oath to uphold the constitution that you did, and that -- but there was a controversy over whether to ask him that. there was a controversy over what he might say, and then the brandon --n and --

brennen arguably voted less consistently with what one might consider to be catholic views. i mean, he voted in right in favor of abortion and contraception. he voted against school prayer. he voted against various forms of financial aid to religious schools. he is about as kind of anti-catholic in his voting as imaginable. now, we do not ask the question, and there is no controversy over it, and yet, we are here discussing asking whether or not their religious views influence them more than 50 years ago when we did ask the question and it was controversial. >> also, i think you have to be fair. people really do not think of justice ginsburg when she was nominated as a woman judge. that was more important to her identity, it was believed, and certainly with the jewish justices, brandeis was nominated

in spite of being jewish. cardozo was nominated in spite of being jewish, so it was not only until frankfurt or when they thought he is replacing a jewish justice that we got into this notion of jewish representation. and what you have when you have three. now there is no need for a jewish seat, you might say. >> you brought up a little bit about this question of whether talking about the religion of a justice or a perspective justice is really a proxy for talking about their politics. or how they are likely to vote. and could we talk about how that has actually played out in recent cases? four instance, how is the catholicism of the various, now that there is so many, how has it played out in terms of the gay marriage decision, or even the health care, upholding the health care laws, which you might have thought religion would play a part. did it? >> i would say in the hobby lobby case, which is the case

having to do with the right of a private business with the religious freedom restoration act to refuse to provide contraceptive health coverage for their female employees. i would say that justice alito's opinion in that case very much was influenced by his religious preferences, because to exact accept the notion that a corporation, which is an artificial entity, can have, some manner of a religious belief system transferred to it by its owners. aside from being pretty close to the ludicrous -- [applause] -- [laughter] it is highly debatable in terms of a social philosophy. i do think that justice alito probably went into that case believing that corporations,

because they are in some sense people -- even george romney believed that, because they are in some sense people, they probably are capable of absorbing the religious preferences and value system of their owners. i think that is probably a pretty good example of that. in gay marriage, one of the reasons that you have to read the gay marriage decisions differently, i think, is that the lead opinion was written by kennedy, but it was driven by his liberty perceptions rather than by his catholic value system, and so when you get into that with justice kennedy, it is harder to trace religious sources of his jurisprudence when he is talking about liberty interests. but i do think -- i wanted to

bring up another example of where i think a jewish justice's value system influenced his jurisprudence, and this has to do with justice breyer, but before he was a justice, when he was a law clerk to a jewish justice, justice goldberg, what they remember, if you read the papers at the library of congress, they had law clerks, stephen breyer. he wrote an opinion, a contrary opinion, for goldberg, in a case -- in the griswold case on the barring of access to birth control measures, and he wrote a separate opinion which articulated the concept of a liberty interest as a number of

bral emanation from the 14th amendment, which, i think, is where that concept began inserting itself into constitutional jurisprudence, and i do think that steve is probably driven by his kind of social justice instincts as a jew and believing that probably arthur shared those views, and that is why i think he was led to layout that kind of concept. and i do believe that it is not directly traceable to his religious faith, but i think it was certainly influenced by it. >> an interesting fact about justice breyer, just to show in modern times how these things can get sort of mixed up, he is a jew who was married in an anglican ceremony in which they omitted references to jesus, and he has a daughter who raises her

children as jews, and a daughter who is an episcopalian priest, so he really has everything covered. [laughter] >> i would also add in relation to breyer, i think one reason for the strength of his dissent in the school voucher case was a kind of historical sense that mixing religion and politics in the state, in the school arena will -- brings up all of the old battles of religion, and i think that is a view that the protestants would have strongly

related to the religious wars and the jews would have strong things. >> marshall, you said to me in a conversation before this that there were aspects to alito's hobby lobby decision about contraception that had to do with catholic doctrine on who is responsible. >> i do not know about catholic doctrine, but the different notions of what makes you complicit in an action, from what i understand there is a lot of catholic doctrine, if you take a wide view of what makes you -- what action or not action makes you complicit in an immoral act, and it may be -- i think it is, but it is wider than ordinary notions of complicity, which you could have indirect interventions that would make you not complicit, so without saying this in some

authoritative way, because i am not an expert in this, i suspect that some of these notions about what led to complicity may come from his knowledge of catholic doctrine. >> it is almost time to go to questions, but before that, i wanted to return at least briefly to this question up -- of appearances, and, tony, i think you are an expert on something called the red mass? can you talk about that a little? >> i would just mention it briefly. it is an extraordinary event that happens every year. it is put on by the catholic archdiocese of washington. it is a red mass. it occurs on the sunday before the first monday in october, which is when the supreme court term begins, and it has become such a regularized ritual that it is like the celebratory kickoff of the supreme court term. this goes to the point, to a degree, that lyle was making

earlier, that the catholic church may be more than other churches has made a project of trying to impose its doctrine on the judiciary and other parts of the government, and it is -- looking at it cynically, this is an opportunity for the roman catholic church to have a catholic audience that includes almost always six out of the nine justices for proselytizing or not proselytizing but sermonizing about issues that concern it, and it is really -- i cannot think of any other institution that has that type of access to the supreme court. and for many years -- i have been covering it as a news event for probably 25 years or so. and in the earlier years, like in the 1980's, the sermons were very politicized.

they would rail against abortion as a form of murder, that any law that advances abortion is immoral, but that kind of rubbed certain justices the wrong way. in fact, justice ginsburg -- that is the other thing, not only catholic justices attend, but jewish justices. a few weeks ago, justices kagan and breyer attended, along with, let's see, four of the catholic justices, but, anyway, justice ginsburg was so annoyed about one of the sermons, it was so anti-abortion, that she vowed

she would never go again, and she said that even the scoliosis -- scalias -- she is close friends with the scalia family, even they were embarrassed iv stridency of the sermon. since then, it has gotten much more toned down, although there is still quite a bit of talk in the sermons about the separation of church and state and how it is appropriate for people of faith to bring their faith to work with them. and i think to have that annual opportunity, to make that plight -- point, i think it is an interesting phenomenon, and it is special to the supreme court. whether the justices then go home and put into practice, i don't know.

it is an extraordinary phenomenon. >> i mean, to me, the very existence of this event, and i that it has been going on for a long time, suggest its own impropriety. i mean, regardless of what is said at the sermon, one of the core issues now in the town of greece, in the legislative prayer case 30 years ago, the argument that the prayer is not religious, it just has a solemnizing effect on that is -- on the start of the legislative day. that is what the catholic church is claiming it is doing here. it is putting his own solemnizing spin on the supreme court term. to go to the mass is to accept the validity of that argument. and i think that is totally inappropriate. >> i think that is a little unfair. first of all, the justices,

whatever they are, they are autonomous beings. they are not going to be proselytized or overwhelmed. by what goes on. but secondly, i don't know if the town of greece has anything to do with it. that is a case where there was an official state or government event that started with a prayer, a parochial prayer. this is a voluntary activity. actually, i -- called breyer the first year he went, i do not go because of my religious views. but he said, it is unifying. it is a good way to start. >> blessing the supreme court term. [laughter] is true. and we do not get upset when a police -- priest or rabbi blesses the yachting ring. >> i do not care about the yachting race.

[laughter] >> some communities depend on the fishing season, the priest blesses the boats. also i do not think it is so completely unique. if you have ever attended the national prayer breakfast, most of the congress and cabinet, including jewish congressman, all there and they are getting a religious message. we have also a kind of feature in american society which is less focused on the separating or denominational aspect of religion but more religion. just the way that evangelicals used to think catholics were the whore of babylon.

can i say that on tv? [laughter] malibu they say they have a secular opponent. -- know that you say they have a secular opponent. i think it is extreme to say it is proselytizing. >> there has never been a president inaugurated without a prayer. >> let me being extremist. they are two places in washington from which supreme court justices should stay away religiously. one is the state of the union. which, of course, is when it is not low comedy, it is high comedy. [laughter] it is a demeaning experience for a self-respecting judge to go and sit there. and pretend to be interested in what is going on. and pretend to be detached from it. the other place they should not be seen is the red mass.

the red mass is -- when i grew up in nebraska, we used to talk about the fox in the chicken coop. going to the red mass is putting yourself in the chicken coop. and when the priest gets up, he is the fox. he is very interested in consuming those who sit in the audience. [laughter] so just to be a little bit moderate about that, there are two places where justices should make up their minds that that is inappropriate to their job. >> maybe we should stop on that note. [laughter] i'm going to open this up to questions from the audience. there are two microphones. i believe we are asking you to go to one of them. and speak. and you can maybe identify yourself before you do so.

>> i was wondering about opus dei. -- we have to justices who are involved with opus dei. i was wondering if you thought that was appropriate? >> it is a religious view. unless you want to go back to the 19th century notion that catholic people in government follow whatever rome says, whatever the pope says, that is their religious view. they have the right to do that, as a jew -- >> there are no jews that are part of that movement who were on the supreme court. court.on the supreme >> unless you are saying that an orthodox jew could never be on the supreme court, that is a contingency. i mean, presumably it could happen. they could have their religious views. >> i'm not saying they should be on the court or not.

i'm wondering how that might impact someone on the court. >> we can ask if there are any types of activity that should rise to the level of disqualifying or recusing a justice from serving or serving on a case? i guess. would that be? >> justice scalia recused himself from a really important case over the phrase, under god, in the pledge of allegiance. because he had attended an event at which his son, a priest, appeared. and justice scalia undertook to that event to opine on the event toook at the opine on the issue. in 2004.

which i thought was entirely appropriate for him to do so. the inappropriate thing for him was for him to go out in public and take a position on something he knew was coming efore the court. this is another case that i have noticed. this crop of justices loves to sit on public forums and opine on what they are doing in their judicial business. if you want to know why the supreme court is not yet hearing the gay marriage cases, just follow ruth ginsburg around to various public forums. she will to you inside stories about what is going on at the court. if they are only granting and the settings of the five cases a year, it seems to me they could grant a few more if they would cut out some of their public appearances. >> anybody else on that? another question? >> i'm hoping the supreme court

will weigh in on releasing withheld records regarding the jfk assassination. it brings to point an interesting statement made by -- the cia stood for catholics and action. we are a bit -- very roman catholic culture. would like to draw a question to you from a very important book, entitled "rulers of evil.â it traces the influence in western history of the jesuit order, the military order of the roman church. it points out that the jesuits, n history, they are a military order. they report to a general. question?

roman catholics participate in confession. jesuit priests are among the confessors to the bus powerful new world, including supreme court justices. it can work as a two-way process. he reform church does not have confession. is the jesuit confessional process a factor in how roman catholicism and government officials who are roman catholic can be influenced from rome? >> i would say that is an exclusively a private matter. i have various people to whom i go and make confessions about my inadequacies. i'm not about to pray that before you tonight.

it seems to me to ask a justice to reveal how they practice their faith is to go way beyond the pale of proper public discourse. >> i am the legal director of the center for inquiry representing atheists and secular people that scalia dismissed. i believe it was, they will never be satisfied, we don't need to consider them. we were talking about complicity in hobby lobby. this new idea that the catholic majority has brought in. if you make it easier for somebody to commit a sin, that sin can be placed back on to you. the owners of hobby lobby were allowed to not provide contraception. how does that fit in with the concept of the judge as an mpire?

surely, if you have five ustices who believe, for example, a portion is a sin -- if they make a decision that says abortion can be legal, under that same. of complicity, they are getting a sin themselves. can they really be expected to make a decision as the umpire? if they are turning around and are on record as saying, that would be sinful? >> anybody? you spoke about that a little bit. >> i'm not an expert on catholic doctrine. i cannot answer that question. in general, one benefit you could say that the catholic church has. they believe in a general confidence between faith and

natural law, reason. from that perspective, they might come to a view that one might call a sin. but they will see it as an aspect of natural law, reason, which is a public discourse pen to everyone. >> anybody else? >> i would say, i don't think the court was necessarily advocating that as their own view about their own role in complicity. rather, whether they were accepting that view as advance and the parties of the case. >> to my mind, the theoretical problem with hobby lobby is the ourt possible inability to

separate the entity or the corporation, which is totally rtificial to read -- totally rtificial. it is set up for one purpose which is to make money. to reward stockholders. these were private corporations. they were nonetheless creatures of state law, created not for the purpose of propagating a religion. the families who own those two businesses argue they have run their business in a religious way says more about their faith then about the corporation's apacity to have a faith. how many times have you seen a corporation get down on its knees and pray? i have never observed that.

that was the theoretical problem. the court could not see the distinction between the owners and the corporation. the owners had undertaken to express their faith through the corporation. it was no more and less than a private is this entity -- business entity. >> the court was interpreting the religious freedom restoration act in that entity, which was an act passed by congress in reaction to a supreme court decision that did ot give with the congress that was proper protection to people's religious believes. the congress passed a law by both sides, liberals and conservatives. they came together to really

bestow great protection for people's believes -- religious believes. more than they thought was in the first amendment. i think it is important to realize that was what the court was looking at. >> the court was looking at a particular word in that tatute, which is person. the question is, is a corporation a person? capable of experiencing religious freedom? >> i know nothing about the vangelical doctrine. in jewish law, the owner of a private corporation is responsible for the sins of the corporation. the owner cannot profit from quote sinful acts.

it is not just like some sort of strange view they have. it is in other religions as well. >> that person has a religious view. >> i don't want to go overboard ere, but i think in jewish law, you cannot profit from the ale of un-kosher products. you cannot say, my corporation is doing that if it is a private corporation. it is not some set of weird view of the hobby lobby people. others would have that view. religions believe, the individual carries over to the

private corporation. not to a public corporation. crocs just to finish on that. that shows the huge problem we have at the moment of bending over backwards to accept any religious belief as being sincere. we had hobby lobby saying, providing insurance for contraception is a sin. on the other hand, we had them investing $72 million in the very company that makes those products. isn't that a problem, that we except those police? >> we have lots more questions. >> marilyn. i say, there are five men that remind me of what used to be a nine man supreme court.

i'm not up to speed on how many women are currently involved in covering the supreme court. with all due respect, the issue of decisions and decision-making by the supreme court, we have focused this evening on their opinions on specific cases. my question is, what role do you all believe that religion plays in their decision to your pecific cases? -- hear specific cases? oes, in your opinion, religion ome to play? and, perhaps has anyone ever considered the red mass being inappropriate case to

bring? >> let me parenthetically say, we are aware of many women who cover the supreme court. for a variety of reasons, none that we reach out to where available. this is no reflection on the wonderful panel. >> to have indeed been a terrific panel. i said it tongue-in-cheek. >> it is very hard for any of us to answer a question like that. it is such a secretive process in which the court decides which cases it will take. it only requires a vote of four justices to decide to take a case.

we rarely get any kind of idea as to what it was that caused them to take some case and not another. we witness that this term. -- witnessed that this term. nce in a while, a justice will write -- meaning, here is why e think we should have taken this case. sometimes it is a signal for the next person that we would be interested in it if we can make it fit this category. i think it is tough for anyone to say why the court has taken a case or not. >> i would say that it is a court that is increasingly comfortable with the presence

f religion in the town square, public square-- life. that is why they took the town of greece decision. is that because of their own religious views? nobody can say yes for sure. it is hard to think it is not. that their acceptance of religion in the town square is not a reflection of their religious views. is there a direct cause and effect? i don't to get anybody can say. >> another way to say this is, if the court had eight yes, they might not taken the case. -- atheists, they might not have taken the case. we have a court that is omfortable believes there is no problem in religion playing

a greater role in the public life. i think that has been a significant change in recent years. as far as the case of the red mass, i don't think that would make it to the supreme court. i don't the would make it past summary dismissal. it is not state action. attendance is not obligatory. they can hold the red mass anytime pleases. > i would say one thing. when you talk about being more ith religion in the public square, one thing that has struck me is there is a tendency to see what one might

the government as religion -- one might think of as religion, as general custom. take the menorah. they are approved -- it is like, how can you say the menorah is just a cultural thing. one of the ways in which there was more religion in the public square and the court is comfortable with it is by the secularizing of the religion. it now constitutes a generic religiosity. i don't want to go into -- that

may explain some of the what you might call relaxation. >> another question. >> in the context of -- my proposal, i like to hear comments on my proposal. having people who are swearing into this office of congress or the supreme court, the presidency, swear on the constitution institute of a religious document such as the bible -- instead of a religious document such as the bible. >> was quoted as saying you put your hand on the bible and swear to uphold the constitution, that the other ay around?

anybody want to talk about his? >> you don't need a bible, you can use it for ron. -- a koran or whatever your meaningful text is. you could use a secular humanist document. >> for somebody who is in absolute revelry, give me a anual of how you calculate the stars. i would swear to almost anything on that. i don't think justices should be in the vanguard of a cultural movement to bring a particular nonreligious or religious perspective into

public life. if there is anything that has been secularized, it is the use of the bible as a platform for ublic of taking. -- oath taking. it strikes me as being devoid of anything other than symbolism. it is hard to take it seriously as a religious indulgence. it just happened that away. the first president who refused to do that is likely to not be reelected. in a country, rightly or wrongly, still thinks of itself as a christian nation. >> your question reminds me of a small way in which religion

does make a difference on the supreme court. when you become a member of the supreme court bar, traditionally you would get a certificate that says you are sworn in on may 4. the year of our lord, 2014. justice ginsburg says it -- aid she had heard from the ocks jews that the year of the lord was not something they anted on their certificates. it was offensive to them. she said later on a another justice said, it was good enough for brandeis. he put up her hand and said, it is not good enough for ginsburg. the court changed their view.

it is now an option for members f the bar. not to have that phrase. >> mitchell. recovering and retired litigator. we have not talked about specifics. i want to give you an opportunity to talk about one. i have heard it said that justice scalia exhibits his catholicism in what is perceived as his greater deference to religious organizations then individuals. two large groups rather than small ones. the accusations is this is typical of catholic difference ather than protestant emphasis on individual conscience. i would like your response to this. what does it say about our society that the response of a great many people out there, especially among the younger

generation, to the idea of the court is a ho-hum? >> i guess i would say that is good thing. it is not seen as much of an issue. it is probably a healthy thing for everyone that there is not seen as, these seats should be distributed on some sort of religious basis. i think it is seen as an interesting fact that there is not a protestant on the court, for the first time ever. i'm not sure people think that is a big deal, or at least if it is it has not been communicated to me in a way

other issues about the court are. from readers and the people. >> i'm not sure what you mean n the first part of your question by respect for religious people or organizations. he chose that in his judicial ctivity -- >> that is an observation made by more people than just me. >> personal? >> his judicial opinions eflect that. >> i'm not sure that is true. on the last point you made, related to large organizations, it is true in this myth case, they said if there was a secular reason to restrict religion, it is ok if an individual's religious beliefs

are curtailed. congress can change that. t is true congress to change that for larger religions. that is called democracy. congress would be more likely to make rules -- >> does democracy require that personal freedoms be subject to majority vote? >> that is a bigger question -- >> we have more questions. we make it through them if the them get to elaborate? -- too elaborate. >> first. > all right. > you have a question?

>> i am wondering if you can address the issue whether judges in the supreme court or ocal court, whether they uphold the constitution. they are inconsistent. they don't really explain the reasoning, rather than say, it is just religious. the religious groups or churches influence the number of voters. all they have to ask is, if you do not support abortion -- >> the question is -- >> let me responded this way. if there is one accusation that cannot be made about the supreme court of the u.s. it is that it does not explain

itself. the supreme court explains itself much better than any other institution of the national government. it may be that people don't read the opinions in the close way they do read something that ted cruz has said. [laughter] or paul ryan. one of those wise members of the legislative body. the supreme court does explain tself. the materials with which it works are public materials, almost entirely. the last time i remember, the supreme court dealt with a case in secret was the pentagon papers case in 1971. the supreme court deals with business that comes in the front door and goes back out the front door. it is incorrect to say they do

ot explain themselves. >> i am jewish and a graduate of harvard law school. i guess that makes me a supreme ended 84 supreme court justice. >> -- a prime candidate to be a supreme court justice. i wrote an article entitled, "isn't it time for a jewish ustice?â it seems we have had an embarrassment of riches for jews and catholics. there are six graduates of harvard law school and three yale. this begins to raise the question of diversity in every sense of the word.

very few of the justices have been in private practice. they used to tell story of how justice marshall could relate his life and so on. the question is, what do you think about the urgency of trying to encourage more iversity in the court? >> i must correct you on one thing. we just had this mistake in the washington post. i have been hearing about it for the last two days. there are only five graduates of harvard. justice ginsburg's degree came from columbia after she spent two years in harvard. justice thomas, at an event in yield --yale, that is the one he picked out as a problem for

diversity. there are a lot of great law schools not represented on the court. i cannot explain to you why it is this way right now. except perhaps, you have very ambitious people who go to harvard and yale. people who are thinking this is a goal for them. think, when presidents pick nominees, it helps to say, this person went to one of those law schools. >> i don't think it matters much that they are from those schools. you do have a point in terms of different life experiences.

justice o'connor, put a great deal of her political experience in the court. that is true people in private practice. people from civil rights backgrounds. those are relevant questions. i'm not sure the fact they all went to a beat schools -- elite schools. one was a sharecropper's son. others were immigrant hildren. it is not just the elite backgrounds. >> you may remember that president nixon tried to put someone on the court. when the man was defeated because he was demonstrably unqualified to sit on any court, a senator from nebraska ommented, everybody is

entitled to representation on court, even mediocre eople. mediocre people don't get into arvard and yale. i think when politicians go looking for people to nominate, they have some stars in their eyes about the elite schools. they seldom get beyond that. >> i am wondering if you guys see any cases coming down the pipeline where there could be a conflict between religion and ecularism. >> i don't know. there has been one case so far which has been about religious

accommodation. the length of a present our's weird. whether arkansas has to accommodate a muslim prisoner who wants to grow a beard because his religion dictates that. it was an interesting case. partly because, unlike some of he ones we had last term, theo obama administration was on the same side as conservative groups supporting the prisoner. this one did not seem it was going to be as tough as other ases had been. >> later in the term, we are going to have the sequels to hobby lobby which do not involve private business corporations but involve nonprofits.

f hobby lobby was in some ways a test of sect carrion organization, we could see that recur in those cases -- were the organizations are more distinct the religious and character. >> another question? i think we will get everyone. >> i am a patent attorney. my question is about -- i was thinking about how he wrote an article 23 some years ago about having jews on the supreme court. i would love to see muslim justices sometime. muslim american justices that could help with national security issues. i wanted to get your insights

about how far out you see that happening. >> we could make a very bad joke and say if present obama became a supreme court justice -- [laughter] >> i was hoping to ask the panel that question myself. i'm glad it came up. >> let me put in my view. there is a tragic amount of igotry about people of the muslim faith. it all probably originated on september 11. it runs throughout public policy. the way we treat the people at guantanamo bay, cuba, is nothing less than espicable.

maintaining guantanamo is no different than what we did in world war ii in maintaining the concentration camps for apanese-americans. that is all driven by a suspicion of the muslim faith. when you see legislatures like those in texas passing laws that say, courts are forbidden to make any judgments based on sharia law, the chance that any muslim, however devout and peaceful in his or her view of public life, there is no way the senate of the u.s. as presently composed and composed anyway we can anticipate for the next generation, that a muslim would get appointed to the supreme court and confirmed.

>> let's start with the lower courts and try to work up. >> we have muslims in the house. that is an important breakthrough. there was a time, and perhaps i should not be saying this because i am a guy. there was a time when there were not many women in congress. increasingly, the country has discovered the virtue of the feminine perspective. we are getting more women appropriately and we now have three women on the supreme court, which is the high point for that sector of our society. i don't think in my lifetime, which is not that much longer, who will not see a muslim on the court -- we will not see a muslim on the court. > one last question.

>> it seems like we have a fear of people putting religion into the opinion. can we talk about religious -- what is the beauty of the religious diversity of the supreme court? >> positive aspects of this religious diversity? we have covered some of them. anybody want to add anything? >> diversey itself, however you efine it, is virtuous. there are different ways to apply and defying the law. we are a long way away from what used to be called mechanistic jurisprudence where you say the law is on most like a mathematical proposition. there are so many intellectual, cultural, social logical, even economic inputs in making a

ound legal judgment. the more input you have from a variety of experiences, a variety of backgrounds -- including a variety of religious faiths -- the better the law in substance is going to be. if any president has the option of enlarging the diversity of the court, as wilson did in remade you on the court, -- putting a jew on the court and reagan did by putting a woman on the court, i hope they take that opportunity. >> if no one else has anything -- [applause] nadine and i want to thank everybody.

>> thank you so much, everyone, for coming. for being on the wonderful panel. amy, it has been a fascinating conversation. please join us in the other room. thank you. >> saturday night on c-span supreme court justice elena kagan speak beingality her alma mater princeton university. one topic she discussed was heroical hunting trips with scalia. ntonin >> the hearings that you see on tv are tip of the iceberg. you have to wander around and talk to all the senators. i think i did 82 of of them. and what was striking was how many of them, both republicans and democrats, wanted to talk to me about the second amendment and about guns. but there's a kind of -- there are rules about what you can ask at these kinds of sitdowns. at least there are rules about what i could say. so that they knew that they couldn't ask me very direct

quegs. about what i thought of particular cases or issues. so they would come up with these proxies and the proxies were along the lines of so do you hunt? [laughter] and i went through just countless of these interviews and it was just -- my answers were so pathetic. no. do you know anybody who hunts? not really. [laughter] so i was sitting down with the senator, one of the senators from idaho who has a ranch and who is a great hunter himself. and he was telling me all about his hunting and how important this was to many of his constituents. and i totally understand why. and why many senators would want to know these kinds of things. and so i was feeling a little punchy and late in the day and my 93rd interview. and i said you know, senator, i said if you would like to

invite me hunting i would really be glad to come. and this look of abject horror. [laughter] passed over his face. and i realize ok, i think i've gone a little bit too far. senator, i really didn't mean to invite myself to your ravage. i said but did i i will tell you that if i'm lucky enough to be confirmed, i'll ask my colleagues, justice scalia, to take me hunting. because i didn't -- i grew up in new york and didn't have this experience. but i understand why this matters to you. and i would -- i'll commit to do that for you. and so when i got to the court, i went over to justice scalia's chambers one day. and i told him this story. and he thought it was hilarious. and i said to him, nino, this is the single promise i made in 82 office interviews.

so he said i guess i have to let you fulfill that promise. >> you can see this entire discussion with supreme justice elena kegan saturday night on -span at 8:00 eastern. >> the hearings that you see on tv, are the tip of the iceberg. that you have to wander around and talk to all the senators. i think i did 82 of them. and what was striking was how many of them -- >> the gripe connecticut black -- group connecticut black republicans. [no audio] >> over the next four hours on

c-span this year's american renewable energy summit. first we'll hear from lester brandt. [no audio] >> the group connecticut black republicans and conservatives recently co-hosted a discussion on crime, gun control and race. the event was co-hosted by the frederick tkouklass foundation and the national rifle association. his is an hour and 15 minutes. >> and you'll need to press that button and turn the mics on so a light turns green and you no that they're on. we're going to start right away. and we're going to get into and talk with or hear from professor ken blackwell. and he is a member of the board

of directors of the n.r.a. and i'm going to let you tell him a little bit more about himself and kind of explain to you where the n.r.a. is now and a little bit about their history and what they're doing. >> thank you, regina. it's my pleasure to be with you all today. and to be a member of such a distinguished panel. i've been a mayor of a major u.s. city. cincinnati, ohio. and under secretary at the u.s. department of housing and urban development under my -- the leadership of might have good friend, the late jack kemp. and three years i served as u.s. ambassador to the united nations in charge of the human rights portfolio. and the representative to the u.n. human rights commission. ut i'm -- i'm a son of a veteran. who defended the constitution

of the united states and brought his family up in appreciation of the constitution of the united states. and in full understanding of the history of black people and exercising their right to bear arms and to defend themselves. whether that was as an associate member of beacons of defense, because of his colleagues who came back from world war ii who started the deacons of defense in the south or as a concerned husband and father who wanted to make sure that he was always able to protect his family against harm. well, he's a common sense fellow and he basically raised us with an appreciation of the constitution and the declaration. but he was fond of the second paragraph of the declaration of independence.

as you remember, we hole these truths to be self-evident. he was fond of saying that is a very sophisticated way of saying any knucklehead should be able to get this. [laughter] we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal. what he said is that we're not all equal in height, weight and intelligence. we're not all equal in skin color. but we're all equal in human dignity and we're all accountable to god. we hole these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. which means that our basic most fundamental human rights are not grants from government. they're gifts from god. and that among these are life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. he was always quick to underscore that it was very difficult to pursue happiness

or to enjoy liberty if you're dead. and that the first obligation of an individual, a fundamental right was to -- the right of self-protection and to protect your family and property. and so this was one simple man's understanding, hard hospital working man and god-fearing man's understanding of natural law and natural right. that were encompassed in the declaration of independence, but also protected by the constitution of the united states. and as one who had gone to world war ii to defend that constitution and all the blessings that it bestows on those of us who were blessed to be raised and be citizens of this country, it gives me great pleasure to work with an organization that since 1871 has defended our constitutional

right to self-protection and the right to bear -- to bear arms. ladies and gentlemen, as a former mayor, i know that the first obligation of elected leaders of a city is to provide a safe environment. i also know from working with budgets that what we are now experiencing in city after city, county after county, are budgets that are so tight that it has actually reduced personnel on the street and reduced response time. and whether it's sheriff david clark in million mill county -- medical mill county or james craig in detroit, as police chief, they understand that when you have situations where police response time is 20, 30, 45 minutes, all harm can be done to you and your family. therefore, you have a fundamental right if you so

choose to protect yourself. to protect your property and to protect your family. and no government at any level has the right to abridge that natural right that we have. and so as the chairman of the grass root development committee of the n.r.a., one of america's first civil rights organizations, and one that has been on the frontlines in community after community, whether it is in washington, we or chicago, illinois, in fact have been on the frontline of defending that fundamental natural right and will continue to do so as champions of freedom. and we invite neighborhood after neighborhood, family after family, individual defenders of freedom, to join us in their fight where we understand that there's no division in terms of the

appreciation of that right on the basis of color or class or anything. that is your natural right. thank you. >> thank you, professor. [applause] so i want to introduce you to bishop garland hunt, former president of prison fellowship. and also a governor appointee to georgia state pardon and paroles. and bishop, i believe you're going to give us a perspective on the community and when you deal with the experiences of the transitions of people back into community with high crime. >> well, i came into this was -- my background was in law. i graduated from howard university, undergrad in law school. and being from atlanta, georgia, that was the hub of the civil rights movement and i lived through the end as a young boy watching what was taking place in terms of dr. king's death and my heart to see change.

but as i came into the -- my understanding of law and how things were coming about, concerned about justice, and as i came to closer to the things and my experiences of god, i started asking questions about what really is a good, fair approach to justice? so i went on later on and ran for office. and i didn't win that particular position but the governor appointed me to the parole board for the state of georgia. and what i didn't know about parole is that it is very interesting as you look at each individual case to determine what -- how long they stay in prison and it might be five years, it could be three but you have to make a decision based on what crime they committed and what the potential is for them to recommit. but when we looked at this, these determinations, a large part of it was -- was there a weapon involved in the crime? so it could be a simple drug case that may have been a situation where someone was

actually not actually involved in a violent offense. but they happened to have a weapon in the car. or during the process of a -- they had a concealed weapon with them. so therefore, immediately the crime itself escalated in terms of what the penalty would be. and so even in our determinations for a person for parole, we had to look at very clearly whether or not there was weapons. as a matter of fact, we -- because we have such a large prison population, we even had examiners that would look over the case and we made our decisions initially by file. and if there was a weapon, it was clearly -- there was a star, an asterisk, and a circle, that says that there was a weapon involved. so at that point, we determined that that was a question about how long they would stay in prison and usually they would stay in a little longer. the point i'm making when you start looking at this, and this is how i like to frame it, it brought me to the place that i realized that what -- we don't need gun control.

we need self-control. because the question centers around people do with the guns. and so i'm looking across the table when a person is on parole, and i find out that we did give them an opportunity to get freedom. and then of course they go out and then they still get themselves involved in some type of melee or something they break conditions of their parole. but then of course they have a weapon. well, you're sure you're going to go right back to prison. in this particular case here we have another dichotomy. because a parolee or probation -- is even in the vicinity of a gun. you're going back. here you have a different perspective for it. and in a case where we have the families in totally disarray, where you have -- in this particular case only one in three black children have a father or two-parent home. where over 70% of those that are born in a black community are born out of wedlock. now we're talking about a problem, of dysfunctionlet

within the community, about what even life and human life. so with that being the situation, then it's hard nor you to have self-respect of your own life. and very difficult to respect the life of other people. and so as a -- as a point of pride and as a point of sometimes turf protection, whatever it might be, bearing a weapon becomes a part of the hip-hop culture. it became a part of the drug culture. it became a part of violent culture. and even in some cases nonviolent culture. but to have that weapon was not used for a sport or protection. it was used to force their will on somebody else. thales the issue. that we have to face or in this particular talk, we're going to talk a little bit more about this but when you start looking at the inner cities and urban areas, how do we get the weapons -- and in many cases, illegal weapons, out of the hands of those that are not mature enough to handle it and don't respect life enough to handle it? and then make sure the ones

that do have the maturity and are the ones that want to, have the right perspective about the right to bear arms. so that they can do so and they also have the proper education. so those are some of the questions that we raise and one last thing i'll say. one thing that's most important to realize and quork with prison fellowship i was not sitting behind a desk. i went before numbers and numbers of inmates to talk with them. and let me tell you something. they look like me and you. they had something in their live, it may have been a lifestyle. but what i realize is that the prison is not just punitive. but it's also -- should be some rehabilitation. and i'm telling you it's not there. so therefore there has to be some measure of intervention for those guys not to come out and just reoffend. because the best thing they know is when i come out, how can i get a hold of something that's going to help me out? and usually they want to be connected to the same group. them out of o keep

what forced them into the same crime that put them back in prison. so in that regard we could talk further about that. >> i'm going to introduce reverend dean nelson. and there are two mics at the table. reverend dean nelson, he is one of the co-founders of the frederick douglass foundation. and so reverend nelson, i'm going to ask you to speak to the faith community. and when we talk about how we want to have a conversation about crime and guns, is there a push and a pull within the faith community as to whether it should be second amendment rights enforced or should it be something that we are trying to get as many guns as pea possibly can off the streets? >> thank you, regina. and again, i'm here. particularly as a chairman for the frederick douglass foundation which i would like to affirm is an organization that believes in righteousness ndus fist, liberty and virtue.

and i'm a licensed minister so talking about this is important. i would appreciate it so much from professor johnson when he talked a little bit about even the civil rights movement and particularly the nonviolent approach that the -- that characterized the civil rights struggle. while you had leaders like dr. king, fred shellsworth and ralph abernathy and men who understand practicing nonviolence in their public demonstration, you would be hard pressed to find any of them, particularly most of them being from the south, that had an understanding that guns or weapons somehow did not play an important part of the equation for protection of property and protection of family. i grew up in a small town about 60 miles west of washington,

d.c. my dad who was former military did not have guns in our home growing up. however, my grandfather had enough guns for the whole family and neighbors as well. it wasn't until i was in my 20's, late 20's, that i began to understand a little bit better why my grandfather actually had all of the guns. he wasn't particularly a known hunter in the community. but as a black man, in rural virginia, who purchased 70 acres of property in the late 1940's, there was no guarantee that the "law" was going to be on his side. by the time -- in our county, that there was an incident that had occurred, number one, you couldn't be guaranteed that if in a incident occurred on your property, that the person who was the sheriff or part of the law enforcement might not have een the one perpetrating the

crime:secondly, even if it wasn't, there was no guarantee in this rural area that the authorities would be there in any time close to helping to protect you. so there was a clear understanding that you needed to protect yourself. that you needed to protect your family. and you needed to protect those 70 acres that he spent a lot of money, time paying for. i do want to address part of this from -- even from a theological standpoint. because when we typically think about the church, and i'll interrupt myself by saying this i grew up in the washington, d.c. area and i can say just in d.c. and just outside of d.c. i have ministry friends who will be on a sunday morning in their booth will have a pistol. they'll have a gun on sunday morning. and if you are pastoring in southeast d.c., you might

understand why somebody might need that. but at the same time i have well meaning, committed pastors who are in the same area, just outside of baltimore, who are vigorously involved in gun buyback programs. because they feel like that they somehow want to do something within their s to make a difference.ference. from a biblical standpoint we understand that government is instituted by god. we're not anarcists and we do believe that. that's a biblical principle. however, we understand even from a new testament context that even jesus the prince of peace was one who encouraged and charged his disciples to purchase weapons to protect him and themselves before the crucifixion of jesus christ

before his trial. 1:22 you see that. we have perceptioned that may not be grounded in biblical theology and it's my pleasure to be a part of this wonderful panel today to help move this discussion along as it related to guns, crime and race in the community. regina, may i ask professor johnson to talk about it. i know he's gone deeper than i have and his understanding of the decons of defense will help folks appreciate our history. >> one of the parts of the book that i move through and as you were mentioning your father as emblematic of the members of the decons. so the decons unfold in the

south in a couple of towns in louisiana. they grow up almost organically. so there were a variety of branches that were sort of loosely affiliated with the original groups in other places in louisiana. but it's interesting to talk about -- we tell the story of the inception of one of the chapters and in particularly as you're mentioning the difficult of relaying on the states. bob and jackie hicks, i forget the name of the town were hosting civil rights workers from the north, a group of kids from the university of wisconsin. and these were all sort of pacifists idealists. when they arrive in town some of he local terrorist organizations basically were just good old folks however you

want to think about it were unhappy that these young white kids were staying at the home of the hicks. they were fire bombing. they were doing a variety of things, the hicks and the kids insistence called the police. and the police officers up and says i'm not sure if i can protect you. you ought to leave town as well. the response of the community was, the kids were disappointed in the local police establishment. but bob and jackie hicks were not. and bob and jackie hicks and their neighbors after getting this statement said we better get busy. we better send the kids away. anticipating violence that night. they had local kids from the community. they were staged all around the house. when the fire bombers came later than night they were suprise not just by jackie and bob hicks firing back at them.

but they were also surprised by seven or eight men from the surrounding community who had positioned themselves around the house and also fired back at the fire bombers and there's more detail and i can't be as colorful about it describing it here. there's a wonderful book by nce hill, a professor at l.s.u. cron coming the -- chronicling the defense. bob and jackie hicks said we ought to get a little bit more organized. so it went from this organic response neighbors coming to help neighbors to a more organized and continuous effort and by the end of the run of the decon, there were claims of undreds of chapters many -- in

the south. maybe you remember forest whitaker starred in the movie that's not a bad depiction of this story. the thing they want to emphasize is that the decons were one slice of a very, very, very large and dynamic kind of phenomenon. so people who were not organized under any banner were engaged in these basic acts of self-defense over and over and over again. it's a history that we owe some attention to. lots of these people were authentic american heroes and we barely know their names. >> and the reason that i really wanted pro-fezor johnson to underscore that point is what most people don't appreciate is that the first gun control laws were embedded in the black codes that actually kept guns out of the hands of free slaves. and i would just say to my

friends who still want to take ns away from and who want to penal hies folks like jeaneen allen who we saw in the video is that one of the things that social sciences have understood far long time and that is what fredrick douglas once said so you can appreciate, rencheds. fredrick douglas said he who is whupped easiest is whupped most often. those who would like to do evil look to -- love the darkness but they also look for weakness. and one of things we learned whether it's in chicago or is lower homes in cincinnati when you stripped and make defenseless, people in those housing projects they became the

most targeted victims of those communities. once they were allowed and when they are allowed to arm themselves to protect themselves and as law abiding citizens what they realize is their victimhood vanished. and that's where i hope people begin to understand that this is not anecdotal. this is now found in statistics of the f.b.i. you know, contrary to, you know, the mainstream media's advocacy and depiction what has happened in this country where we've had conceal carry is that crime has ropped and bishop and i were just talking about something that he had read just recently that validated that. we don't have to fight on conjecture or with conjecture or

anecdotal stories. the f.b.i. will tell you now that that is the case. i -- of the things that i'm sticking with is that, you know, we are going to have to do something in urban areas to help these young people that don't carry the understanding of what you do with a weapon. and if, in fact, they are already having problems and many cases they also oversaw the juvenile justice system for georgia for about a year. and then the process here we have people bouncing around from one facility to another facility and eventually were graduates of the system so in that regard that weapons were a part of that. so this is -- this was again most of these were illegal weapons. so no one taught them the right way to use it. they don't even understand the

right way of even dealing with one another. so if you don't know how to deal with one another and respect one another respect the life and respect the property then you're certainly not going to know how to utilize the gun appropriately. you may have heard what chicago was doing. there were like 82 shootings in chicago. 16 people killed. and so of course that brought national attention to gun violence which of course of course, chicago is one of the largest cities. the time of this writing in july, there were about 440 murders at that time. but look at this dichotomy. in the area, chicago's crime rates dropped with concealed weapon carrying and within a

year chicago arrest records declined by 20% and relate to robbery because of others having conceal weapons. let me get to the bottom line with that, they were not as quick to hold you up if they thought you were carrying a eapon. so if you're going to break into somebody's home, of course, that does make a difference. u make this side, that approach. but for us those of us who can't intervene we can't be so conservative that we're conservative about the needs, people that don't have weapons on both sides and both of them don't care and both of them neither one of them have any care for life in that regard. one of the most popular tattoos in prison were the tear drop

tattoos and that respected lives that were taken. he added a tear drop based on the lives that were taken. it doesn't mean i want to go back to this point. gun control is what we're dealing with. there has to be godly mentors. there has to be some kind of male interaction in their life. it could respect authority for them. take them out of the environment and help them see life outside of there. but somebody has the care. so it's not just based on a law or the actions of a law. it's based on a compassion for people's lives long before they get into the prison system, long before they shoot somebody. [applause] so our heart goes time-out them. that would be my heart for all of us that probably are called conservative in that regard. what can we do to make a

difference in the lives of these people? >> thank you, bishop. thank you. we want to go back to professor johnson because i want him to talk about political violence and the self-defense. but reverend nelson, do you want to add anything before we go to professor johnson and where is the faith commune fi on this? we hear bishop talk about begun control, changes of heart. but second amendment rights, public safety there are so many versions of how we implement that in the community. >> well, one thing -- five years ago i did -- i was privileged to do a study about 200 mostly african-american pastors in urban communities. there were eight areas that we hold them on on what were the most important, the social things that were impacting your community. and it should not be a surprise

that this issue with gangs or gun violence actually was in the top three. so it's something that many of them are very much concerned about with partnership, with organizations like prison fellowship and in different states there are state initiatives that pastors have partnered with. the church is still way underutilized in the urban community because there are so many challenges that they face. with the incidence of, you know, ferguson and also in sanford, it should bring to all of our attention the value of black life because in the same communities, you know, with regard to life, you also have, you know, high rates of abortion. and that's a subject in one sense. but the value of life is something that has been eroded and i think that the church has

a key responsibility in speaking to the value of a life -- well, before one comes into this world while one is here and at the end of life and so i would just encourage my work over the last 10 years has been involved with engaging pastors particularly in urban communities to value life regardless whether we're speaking about it from the context of crime and guns or whether we're speaking of it from the context of protect innocent human life in the womb. >> thank you. professor johnson if you'll explain that dichotomy. >> a couple of things. one thing that ken said, i was just waiting, hoping because i haven't had a chance to say that because i didn't want to settle before we got a chance to emphasize it. so as ken was talking about the

source of the right to arms, one of the things that he described the right to arms as a preexiting right. when the framers in the 1780's were establishing the bill of rights they were recognizing rights that already existed. they didn't think they had rights before the intuition existed. i blog about this and one of the things that had me bothered a couple of weeks ago john paul stevens actually used the word fraud" in his criticism of the arguments of the nature of characters. i said we could have a fight about what was happening in the 1780's but once you get to the 1860's, one of the things that is abundantly clear is that one

of the guarantees that was established by the 14th amendment particularly for protecting newly freed slaves was that the 14th amendment was designed and here i'm going to quote senator jacob howard who introduced the teement the senate by explaining "that the great object of the amendment was to restrain the power of the states and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees cured by the first amendment in the constitution including the right to bear arms." >> there are a lot of skeptics about the right to arms. and many of them are people who have a very deep knowledge about the conversation that's going on during the early later parts of the 18th century. they were focus on the militia claws of the second amendment and i respond by saying yes we have preexisting rights and you

have to go beyond just the conversation. you have to go through the english bill of rights in the 1680's. and then, i push people to think about what was happening after the civil war. and the thing that was happening after the civil war is quite clearly an aforementioned of the individual nature of the 14th amendment. it was about reek nicing that -- recognizing that the slaves under black code under state laws tried to reimplement slafery aren't another name. you couldn't essentially and this was important in many of the black coats you could not own fire arms or weapons. the idea was that they could not be controlled if they were armed r at least it made that effort

more difficult. all recognize this that any violent encounter there is a window of eminent threat where the 19 th century didn't want to respond. today we're lucky to say that state and local governments are not threats generally but there is still that window of minutes, maybe long minutes where at least even well intentioned police cannot respond. that concern was a concern that drove the 14th amendment of the right to bear arms and respect for that tradition is something that i find lack and it worries me when i see people in the modern debate cast kating the right to arms in the way that i mentioned earlier.

last time i wanted to emphasize when you have these conversations people say well, now what? do you really care to see what happened? >> i always tell people to look at it. look at what jeffery is doing in new york with regard to the -- nder the harlem children's program. it's an intervention that is urging a change in the culture and the results coming out of that enterprise i think will phenomenal. as the other part is not something i do but if the other part of the conversation is really important to acknowledge that yes, we've got to care . out this cohort of young men some of them are many pretty far gone. you deserve lots of what they get in the criminal justice system but i think most are in a spot where the interventions

that you're talking about are an important part of the conversation. and i think you got to acknowledge it and happy to have somebody here who's doing that work. >> professor blackwell, you want to talk a little bit about the work that's being done. some organizations that are moving on reform and helping communities kind of understand criminal justice but also second amendment. let me start by saying we live in a time where there's a real between the fundamental and historic understanding of the constitution and our national philosophy that was founded on the promise of the individual and the supremacy of god. there are forces that are trying to move us toward a national

philosophy and found it on the collective good and the supremacy of the state. d that's a real live contest if we want our individual freedom we have to move in that direction. the nra is made up of 5 million members. and we are a single issue organization. million that five member base there are many conservatives that understand what bishop is talking about in terms of our response to the challenges of our local communities before a group called right on crime and i on urage you to take that google right on crime.

and look at what we're responding to. i've tried to encourage folks to fight this, the fight to preserve our liberty and the national philosophy that it has made us an exceptional nation. we are not a perfect nation but we are a perfectible nation. and we expect citizens to engage. ut they're baisley fronts. actually out organizing, mobilizing to get electric. o that the rec action arena. the forefront of the courts are so important. i think we are one justice away

from our -- from our freedoms being a tremendous risk by a ore activists court. we have to br engaged in the transformational process of turning people apart. some of them have been put into the system. like this young lady looks like she might be if that prosecutor. here's a mother wanting to defend herself and her family but because she made an honest mistake they are now talking about putting her into a situation where she does serious time and she's a felon and she's ost her job.

we can get in and we must reform ur system. we are looking to how we reduce recidivism. how is it that we do mentoring programs and provide the sort of intervention and so -- i think that there are those of us who are full spectrum conservatives who understand that we can fight in all of those arenas and we are engaged in all of those arenas and that's what i encourage all of you to consider is -- some can do better fighting in one arena than another. i'm going to leave the rap -- hip-hop community to sonny and but my wife and aretha

franklin can go old school on you. but we must engage in all of those arenas if we're going to have a lasting impact. >> and bishop, if you have questions, if you'd write them out on the index card and i have two individual who is will be walking along the side pass them out to the aisles. if you have a question now for panel, if you need an index card wave your hand and i'll get one to you. but sense them down the aisle and i'll start taking questions from the audience in a moment. but go ahead, by shop. >> this is why it's so very important to live our lives based by certain values and principles and that these principles and foundations that you live by that it goes across the board and not allow ourselfs to be paint into ooh particular corner. here are people who will say

you are gun toting, truck riding ith a shotgun through the car. so they end up painting it into a certain corner. , you know, are you pro-life or pro-choice. you people who are pro-life you don't care about the mother being supported. but see on the other side you have pregnancies that can't take care of them. it would be ridiculous to think that we don't have that. but. it doesn't mean we are concern and the misuse. we have to diverse fy themselves and not allow ourselves just to

respect our own little culture and area that we're used to. and you see the whole picture. >> you know, what is the big problem here? someone the value of life, the blacks are upset because they feel the white police officers did not value this man's life. but it was more to it than just that. >> they are angry. they're upset. >> the facts don't really matter . but someone needs to be a bridge there that. i've never owned a weapon. i didn't grow up in a household. would i care, we were the only one organization that could make defense on his executive do man si. who will have a death nenlt the

state. --? >> so they asked us do you want too have a weapon? >> i said i've never owned a glock but i can shoot one. question needed to. the time all of them were throwing by name around by radio. so i was happy to have a gun. [laughter] let's be real clear about that. at the same time i'm concerned of all these people that have guns and i'm using them the wrong way. it was a breakdown of our little life. they probably would have him disrupt them on purpose. and you mentioned that

even when a prisoner gets out, even being in the same room with the gun. it was violation of his backing and he can go to jal. -- jail. you should have the right -- and force your -- you need to have one. and yet you come in contact with, ok, so grandma has one. and now i'm a -- i can't be mirrored. i like i can't go to her house. there's this die cat. so some communities it serves as a wedge. it serves to separate me from my family. and how do we go back to the

community and say lisa. . and if it's something then where we need to change the probation laws. . how do we not prevent people om being disfamiliar lip and their community at the same time. and help for public safety. >> let me just say that -- i need your opinion. also a knee george bush retch. -- with sex offenders. somebody may have engaged in a relationship with a girl only two years younger. she's a sex offender but for the rest of his life he can't live within 1,000 feet of a