as edward curtis has noted when whites observed african-american muslim rituals they often did not understand what was taking place right in front of their eyes. nevertheless, sylvian dou has pressedth historians to realize that muslims were everywhere and islam was a diaspora religion. scholars know a great deal about a few specific individuals. in 1788, soldiers from another ethnic group captured arathaman ibrahaman. he lived as an enslaved man in new orleans for decades marrying a slave named isabella for writing a letter in arabic in 1886 asking for his freedom.

he toured united states, raising money to buy freedom for himself and his children. newspapers around the country chronicled his travels and his life story. colonization enthusiasts, white americans who wanted to emancipate black people and repatriate them to west africa, hoped that ibrahaman would aid them in establishing the medic ties before the death between the colonies of liberia and nearby kingdoms as well as helping to convert west africa to christianity. in 1829, he journeyed to liberia with his wife. though he was unable to fulfill the hopes of his captors and sponsors in the united states. he died shortly after his arrival there. we know about him in part because he was literate. and also was able to advocate for himself and his family using american ideas about islam and muslims to get what he wanted. most enslaved muslims were not so lucky.

similarly, yaro mamout, who was enslaved in 1762, one his freedom after being a slave to a maryland family. he moved to washington dc, where he owned property until his death in 1823. there is an archaeological investigation at the property in d.c. now. they had compelling biographies that often stand in for the stories of enslaved muslims. the fact remains that most enslaved muslims were either not literate or did not have the means to make their stories known. most enslaved muslims worked to keep their faith intact, even in the face of persecution, passing on their names rituals, and prayers to their descendents. retaining islam as a slave people in the new world was a form of self preservation. biographies of individuals

suggest how enslaved muslims live, but the devotion of most of these people went on remembered iv americans. -- by the americans. the number of enslaved muslims in the united states probably rose before the close of the atlantic slave trade. it caught many african muslims in its net who were enslaved and shipped to the united states, which had drastically increased importation of enslaved people in anticipation of the closing of the trade in 1808. sometimes, these enslaved muslims were apparent to otherwise blind white americans. presbytery krugman charles al qaeda jones noted that the mohammedian africans have been known to accommodate christianity. god, they say, is allah and

jesus christ as mohammed. different countries have different names for the religion. jones' observation signal discomfort with african-american spirituality. despite the visual hourly of african-american muslims, most enslaved muslims remained invisible to their captors. this, i think, was the beginning of an erasure. it remains largely hit -- opaque to historians. refusal to acknowledge this part of the african-american muslim past contributes to an ideology in which islam is foreign to the united states. if americans did not learn about islam from their enslaved property, they learned about it through other means. european christians and north african ottoman muslims came into extended contact with one another in the context of warfare, piracy, enslavement,

and travel. the english privateer and adventure francis drake carried slaves with him after his siege in 1586. turk was an all-purpose english descriptor of any person from north africa or the ottoman east. it is a broad descriptor and does not mean anyone from present day to occur -- turkey. one of these men converted to christianity before the english sent them back to constantinople, where they hoped he would facilitate conversions from islam to christianity. their hopes were unfounded. englishmen saw islam as a threat and competitor for one simple reason. english sailors, mercenaries, and travelers were under constant risk of being captured and converted to islam. an estimated one million europeans were enslaved between 1400 and 1800 in the ottoman empire. some of these people converted

to islam in order to gain their freedom. others hope that relatives would ransom them. they wrote to charitable organizations in england, often at the insistence of their owners, in hopes of redemption. north african piracy threatened american shores as well. in 1690, virginia resident daniel tyler was reported on happily taken by the turks and carried to algiers for at least seven years. this was an action to allow his widow to probate his estate. defamer -- the famous english mercenary john smith travel to eastern europe in the 17th century and was taken as a prisoner of war and enslaved in 1602. smith reported that his master ordered other slaves to strip him naked and shave his head and beard. a great string of iron was

riveted around his neck, as smith wrote in the third person. eventually allowed to speak after he eat out his masters rains with a bat. smith had little to say specifically about islam or muslims. after his escape, he traveled extensively as a free man throughout the north african states, observing the wealth and power of the states and noting that the countries of fez and morocco are the best parts of barbary. they eat well and have all necessities for man's youth. williams streaky true on his experience in constantinople to draw comparisons between the ottoman muslims and native north americans. some of his observations were neutral. he noted that the indians drink is clearwater. and the indians spread a mat as

the turks do a carpet, for them to set upon. his comparisons also discussed marital habits. he wrote that the chief of tidewater virginia followed a polygamy practiced but did not keep all of his wives in one house. he also theorized that these central helps weakened the indian body politic. he used other comparisons as well, describing a game young boys played. but islam was in a point of reference for him. his experience of islam in the ottoman empire was an idiom for comprehending the strangeness of foreign people as well as expressing disdain for native customs that the english new primarily from muslim countries such as polygamy. islam operated in english discourses generally as a point

of negative comparison. between a 17th and 19th centuries, the islamic world occupied a king placed in anglo-american polemics against tyranny. seemingly senseless violence, slavery, and questionable practices. timothy marr has called this practice and orientalism that describes the tenants of islam while upholding anglo-american identity. the identification of political violence and tyranny within islamic practice is thus a centuries long rhetorical tradition. to call a political opponent turkish was to intimate tyranny and senseless violence. likewise in the late 18th and 19th centuries, american ideas about islam became important with the emergence of the latter day saints. who for some decades allowed polygamist marriage.

americans oppose to mormonism likened the church to islam and joseph smith to mohammed. they linked politically radical islam to an islam that was tyrannical in the home to women. wrote one commentator turkey is in our midst. modern mohammedism has its mecca at the salt lake. clearly, the koran was joseph smith's model. there are many other commentators writing similar things, linking the merging religion of the latter day saints with what americans thought islam to be. the idea that islam, and by extension, mormonism, devalues women, reverberates into contemporary discourse about the islamic world. both conservative christian

evangelist like franklin graham and bill marr have used american notions about the standards of women's in majority muslim countries to fuel islamaphobic rhetoric. american islamicism complex interplay of rumor, stereotypes, and the ever present threat of violence. while americans had difficulty seeing in slave muslims in their midst, they had no such trouble understanding islam as inherently tyrannical and misogynistic. titling this talk barack hussein obama plays in a satirical way on the ways in which americans doubt the president's religious affiliation and used his suppose it muslimness to demonstrate on

americanness. "of muslim commentary in the united states. this denies the complex history of american muslims. and engages long-standing islamist discourses that originated in the 15th and 16th centuries. this kind of rhetoric has a long history. and it has also had the effect of marginalizing and othering american muslims. thank you. [applause] >> good morning. well judging by the election a few days ago, this is quite a

good topic. how could an administration that began with such promise in regard to the sheer amount of support it received from latinos end so badly? how could one of their key issues promised on the first-term agenda item, be tucked away till the second term? and the fervent opposition of the tea parties since we be allowed to die? what made resident obama thing he could pass any legislation this time? luckily, we do not have to weigh in on that questionable political strategy that relegated immigration reform to the second term. perhaps a more intriguing question is why latinos support president obama at all. some wondered why after failed legislative battles over immigration and continued support for deportation that averaged 400,000 a year since 2000 eight, with the continued militarization of the border.

and in 2011, more than $18 billion for more order agents, drones, and stations, why do latinos continue to vote for obama? and why did representatives of key religious groups support his immigration efforts? at the same time, not support him? clearly, there is a disjuncture between obama's actions and his reliance on latinos as part of his reelection coalition. the question here is the extent to which any religious organization can influence the way latinos vote. the religious organizations that want to examine here, the roman catholic church, latino protestants, and the latter day saints, all lobbied in one way or another for immigration reform. the lds church did so on a reasonable level in utah. the methodists and latino evangelicals lobbied on behalf of the appeal of the obama law, hb 56. and latino evangelicals focused

on the local and national level to try and get white brethren to support immigration reform. before examining these cases brief history. the problem with immigration reform is, when you try to move the debate away from the rule of law narrative, which is the case that immigration reform never wins. you may want to offer historical context. that is what i want to do. this is how latinos find themselves in this place. what i'm going to argue is that it is the intractable, mythic narrative of immigration used together with another mythic narrative about the infallibility of the will of law. despite religious organizations' best efforts. latino evangelicals had a vested interest in passing immigration reform but were simply incapable of overcoming the narrative is comprised the history of

immigration for century. tropes about the rule of law over compassionate christian witness to the stranger one out. these religious activists attempted to create alternative mythic representation of latino immigration by structuring -- stressing the hard-working narrative of immigrants passed, the sanctity of the family, and how immigration itself acts as a stand-alone monolith for how this country has been built. all were interleaved by these activists and impassioned pleas to treat latino activists humanely and with the midi. what these groups did not take into consideration is the need that the dominant culture and its political surrogate in the republican party has in securing their own mythic narrative. the gop is essentially a party anchored by older whites catholics, mormons, and others.

grassroots voters, not their leaders, in terms of the religious groups. these religious leaders are viewed as elites and activists out of touch with the common people. grassroot voters are the ones who vote. the struggle for the mythic immigrant narrative and the rule of law begins in the colonies of the atlantic seaport. in the founding documents of this nation. it ignores the latin american roots of this nation, which have been around longer than jamestown. this mythology, rooted firmly in what eric mcdaniel calls christian nationalism, what others view as civil religion is used rather effectively to preserve american difference and diminishes the history of latino immigrants in building this country. latinos have never been viewed as significant a american enough. to fill that vacuum, narratives of criminality and contagion all slowly lead to the erosion of the rule of law in this alternative immigration narrative.

it is this fear that the american way of life is being abandoned. the rule of law trope is a signifying order. it orders fairness and justice. and it leads to the idea that, to be american means to be law-abiding. since many undocumented persons are technically breaking the law, it is questionable whether latinos can ever be good americans. briefly. the history of mexican immigration to the united states after 1848 becomes complicated when crossing the border becomes an illegal act in 1929. or most of the 20th century, the history is one of mass deportation and detention. mostly mexican americans to mexico. usually occurring when economic pressures dictated the precious resources of local states and governments should only be used to support americans. the first such deportation starts in the 1930's, when nearly half a million mexican

and mexican-american citizens are sent back to mexico. the next occurs in the 1950's, called operation wetback. not my word. over 100 million people sent back to mexico. like the 30's and like the 50's, they began in earnest with economic downturns. so, these narratives, interwoven with the idea of contagion and criminality, have an ugly spec ter of something happened recently in myriad california, where immigrant protesters had carried signs alleging that women and children in buses were carrying diseases and were secretly harboring gang members. these narratives challenge the dominant culture's ability to determine the mythic representation of an era that

was free of criminal trespassers who traveled on the rule of law. sensing a loss of a much cherished and misused trope of the rule of law, what tea party efforts used to counter the efforts of lds leaders. who, with their own reasons, decided it was time to push for immigration reform once again right in the middle of another seemingly endless cycle of xenophobia. latino mormons. probably no other internal debate demonstrates these clashes more clearly than the tension with the mormon church. over a specific tenant called article 12. one article i found which is interesting, in the ironically named senate -- center for immigrant rights, a group with very little interest in immigrant rights. an lds member and former service officer ronald mortenson took to

influence the influence of the lds hierarchy of passing an amnesty bill in utah. mortensen quotes article 12 which alleges that lds members will be subject to kings and magistrates in obeying the law. with the lds emphasis on the rule of law, and as mortensen notes, the lds tradition, old american -- america is a divine nation. they openly taught that the founding fathers were guided by the hand of god and the constitution was divinely inspired and the u.s. was chosen land for restoration of christ's true church. particularly problematic for the lds was the appalling reality that the church was allowing illegal aliens to be baptized, to accept temple recommends, and accept important positions.

mortensen lays blame on the church, who refused to acknowledge they had a immigration reform policy. mormons are left to discern what this change means from the gospel they have noted. mortensen's case study was where the bill was recognized for undocumented people in utah, mostly drivers license issues. and how the lds hierarchy worked behind the scenes to secure passage of that bill. mortensen then goes on to identify how the lds has called for compassion for the undocumented and has shifted his own churches narrative to a social services agenda. the loss of the rule of law demonstrates how far the lds church as "moved from its american roots." as a church found it more

difficult to gain converts among american citizens, lds officials increasingly focused the church missionary activity on illegal immigrant communities. latino protestants, both mainline and evangelicals, tried to up and the alabama hb 56 law. what happened with them is the same thing that happened with catholics, they simply failed to see this grand narrative taking place. both organizations, the united methodist episcopal, and two groups that represent the latino evangelical, both badly misjudged the extent to which the tea party controls the agenda of the republican party. they did not contextualize their cause. it is stated in their literature they failed to convince the alabama pastors. so they went to convince them

that this was an issue that should bring them together in terms of lobbying efforts, writing letters, doing that kind of grassroots work. they failed miserably to contextualize what immigration actually means. if they had done that, they might have known that the desires for the main treatment are admirable but only when the narratives of desirable immigration supports this imagined america. latinos historically and today cannot fill that narrative. it calls to the goodness of people -- the calls the goodness of people's better nature have not secured more human rights. it simply do not work. moving on to the catholics. what catholics and lds and latino protestants of all stripes understand is that they can count. they can count how many latinos

are in the churches. they can understand this trope of demography as destiny is coming to power. that is why the roman church has been traditionally supportive of immigration reform. trying to make its presence known in a strong way in this debate. i took a quick perusal through the national catholic reporter over the last few years. catholic churches with grassroots parishioners were involved in both four years. there were lots of stories about parishes in tradition -- transition. there was a few of those stories where it was successful. it did not lament the loss of their america. there were others where, rather than hand of the parish over they just left. what can you say?

what seems to be this really interesting new york times article made mention of the fact that this is happening through the midwest and highway 35. they suggest that people are getting worn down by the issue. they are just tired of immigration reform and of immigrants in particular. they resign themselves to the fact that immigrants are here and they are not leaving. because you are going to see a bit more moving of that needle towards reform for driver's licenses and insurance, for work laws, things of that nature. what these stories suggest is that when working at a graph -- grassroots level, catholics will work to implement their teaching. it will not happen every time, and certainly there are failures, but the catholic media promoted this idea that the church is a welcoming place for immigrants. so in this local setting, the catholic church looks compassionate, the stories of women singing to young children.

the crisis that happened over the summer. it gives a very personal level to the idea that you are helping the stranger, the alien. it lends that religious instabilities can be felt on a personal level. the catholic bishops and other clerical organizations are nearly uniformly for immigrant reform and have lobbied extensively for it. but it still failed. there may be one of many reasons why it failed. the most dominant catholic politicians in congress, speaker boehner and paul ryan, have done little to further the interest in immigration reform. journalist jacob love for had a really good piece that autopsies the failure of immigration reform. and why supporters like rick worn were incapable of moving the house gop direction. like the gop, white evangelicals are largely walled off in a kind

of religious gerrymandering. where white evangelicals find themselves in churches in the suburbs and not in neighborhoods populated by immigrants. weight evangelicals do not view immigration reform as important as any one of a number of other cultural issues. what are people listening to? they are listening to people like tea party writer and activist diana west, who is laying the groundwork for conspiracy involving the department of homeland security, which according to her, plan for the reception of unaccompanied minors, 65,000 of them, with an eye towards eventual resettlement. she repeats the claim that these children are gang bangers and drug runners and crashing our borders. she says this explains why the bureaucracy acts to smash the culture of rural communities by

dropping blocks of on assimilable, primitive, hostile aliens in their midst, all in the name of compassion, just not for americans. she asked readers to look at a blog entitled refugee resettlement watch, which tracks the resettlement of refugees, such as the unaccompanied minors done by dozens of religious organizations. she views it as this grand conspiracy to bring in jihadists and drug cartels and infiltrate the country. despite their good intentions, religious groups were doomed from the start. the very contextualized approach that many did want but did not get is not something that is talked about in these churches. failing to see the historical trajectory of latino immigrants cast as a perpetual class of on assimilable foreigners, they may have done well to lead congregations into actions like

the catholic bishops who help masses across the border symbolically offering communion to mexicans and mexican or -- mexican-americans alike. thank you. [applause] >> first, i would like to thank my fellow panelists. all these great ideas pumping in. i want to redo my paper. my name is kevin schultz, i teach at the university of illinois at chicago. the title of my paper is the blessings. on august 6, 2009, the u.s. senate voted to confirm soanya sotomayor to fill a seat in the supreme court, hardly anyone thought it worthwhile to mention her fate. -- faith.

journalist talked about the fact that she was the only latino nominated to the court or that she was the living embodiment of the american dream, having raised herself up from a relatively impoverished childhood in the bronx to rack up and unbelievably distinguished career in law. even though who opposed her nomination they did not bother to mention her faith, criticizing her instead for being an activist judge. that hardly anyone pointed out that when she was sworn in two days later, she would become this asked cap -- catholic on the bench, thus giving catholics a super majority on the nation's highest court. but what i also find most striking, taking the spot of the last remaining protestant. when she was sworn in, all the non-catholics on the bench were jews. nothing was really said about this.

it was not a big deal, evidently. of the super majority of catholics on the court, the bombastic and militarily watchful bill donohue said, not if he was made. not a single protestant sat among the constituent's of one of the american government. hardly anyone seemed to notice at all. my theme today is this. among the many transformations that happened in the age of obama and despite the bombast and rhetoric from the religious right, surely one of the most vital themes has to be the almost casual way in which the country has come to accept religious pluralism. blessings, i am arguing against everyone else who has spoken so far. it is combat time. evidence for this is everywhere. religious discrimination is down in the united states, even know

it has risen sharply in other countries. the equal employment coalition noted a sharp rise in determination claims right after 9/11 before noting a gentle decline in 2009. in addition, a large percentage of the eeoc claims were found to lack merit which suggest there is more fear than bona fide abuse. perhaps the most compelling piece of evidence for the lack of inter-faith strife comes that the loudest claims of religious discrimination have come from some of the largest, most powerful religious groups in the country, including evangelical protestants and american catholics. what have they been complaining about? not that they themselves have been present that prevented from worshiping as they see fit or persecuted for believing what they believe, but rather, in

america's quest to honor minority faith's, it has curtailed the rights of large groups of imposing its beliefs onto others. lake was ever forced to practice contraception under president obama's affordable care act, but some catholic employers were asked to contribute to the contraceptive efforts of employees who might. no protestant has been asked to denounce their own faith, just to honor the rights of others to practice there's. -- te -- theirs. compared to past eras, this is an era marked not by heavy brutality and discrimination. now, perhaps surprisingly, at least i was surprised, this general acceptance of religious pluralism is more ideological

than demographic. in this case, it is the ideas that matter and not the numbers. what i mean by that is there has not been any significant uptake -- uptick in religious minorities in the united states. it is clear that the united states, demographically speaking is a profoundly christian nation. somewhere in the range of 76% to 78% of americans claim to be protestant or catholic. that is about 50% of americans claiming to be protestant and 25% claiming to be catholic more or less. among the nations of the world the united states is not that religiously diverse. a pew study from 2012 ranked the united states as the 68th most religiously diverse nation in the world, more diverse than iran or afghanistan, but far less diverse and vietnam

nigeria, or new zealand. some might say that the preponderance of american religious diversity lies not in how we rank in majority versus minority numbers. but instead in the vast diverse city that we have among the non-christians. on the one hand, there is some truth to that. in our country, you can find almost any type of faith if you go looking for it. on the other hand, this acceptance must be viewed with great caution. consider, for example, that the vast majority of america's non-christian population the vast majority of those claim to have no religion at all. a group that is rapidly approaching 20% of all americans . we are going to hear about this later. while the other religious minorities put together, jews, muslims, hindus and on, when you

put them all together, they totaled just 5.3% of the population. a lost everything in the world can be found somewhere in the united states. america can still make little claim to be among the most religiously diverse nations in the world. it is 68th. what has changed in the 21st century is that americans have become far more accepting of religious tradition that are not their own, including, and i find profoundly, towards those who claim no religious affiliation at all. america is increasingly accepting of the idea of religious pluralism. as historians, we care about where these ideas come from. and this idea has a long history. but there were some iterations of it in the early american history, all the way back to the toleration act of 49, to thomas

jefferson statute of religious freedom in 1777. the religious assessments of 1785. throughout the 19th century, the united states was largely controlled by what historian david jahat has called a moral establishment. people could be cited for blasphemy even if the state had no blasphemy laws. the moral codes of protestantism were somewhat non-litigious lee accepted as common-law. even though there were protections against establishing any religion as the law of the land, david argues that the protestant majority could it affect will through the courts and culture.

the first instances of religious pluralism take place in the first decades of the 20th century, when large waves of european immigration take a distinctly european catholic and jewish cast. it created scads of urban pl ight. protestants fashioned a movement called the social gospel to meet the needs of the people of the time. they found that on the mean urban streets, catholic and jewish groups were doing much of the same work through so they decided it made sense to work together. the first instances of working together take place in the fields of civic welfare, filling sandbags during floods and feeding the hungry in times of recession. there is no need to overlap. let's work together. they made these initial interfaith activities moving to some of the first conversations

about religious goodwill. many began to ponder and write down these thoughts, the idea that maybe america could not just consider itself a protestant nation any longer. after world war ii, these conversations picked up. i would like to say this because everybody had a feel-good moment, but it was instead in reaction of the rise of open nativism that happened throughout the united states in the immediate post-world war i years, when anti-somatic and racist ideas really continued to take hold. this is when the ku klux klan has its most romantic revival, when woodrow wilson is busy segregating washington, d.c. and the ultimate achievement of the nativists was spearheading the drive to and -- end widespread in negation -- immigration.

in response to this nativism several movements rise up to push back. among the most successful is what is called the goodwill movement for religious tolerance in america. led by liberal protestants catholics, and jews, a number of organizations start popping up. the most successful was the national conference of christians and jews. their whole whole -- goal was to reimagine what the united states was, to pull it away on a vision that centered around white protestant nativism and focused on a general acceptance of the idea of liberalism -- pl urqalism. they argued america could honor the time-tested traditions of liberty, regardless of which avenue you got there by. they did some really crazy things that are fun for us to

find in the archives. they sent a rabbi, a priest, and a minister to small towns across the country where they had never seen a rabbi or priest. they would do an onstage schtick to dispel rumors about minority faiths. they even went on to fund the religious news service, which is still active today. their biggest victory comes during world war ii. with an enemy like hitler, the national conference of christians and jews does not have to report to the saccharine to make its point. the ncch -- nccj were wildly successful during the second world war. they were one of two nonmilitary groups admitted on every military base in the world the

other being the red cross. they provided literature to soldiers and business cards- sized prayer cards to each soldier in case your comrade happened to be dying and he was of a different faith. after the war, catholics and jews now having eight and equal place at the table, they did not want to let go. in schools and city holes and social fraternities at college and nearly all aspects of american life, throughout the 1950's, groups of catholics and jews fought for acceptance of religious pluralism. fraternities had to change their charters. fresh is could no longer appear at city hall at christmas time. in the early 1960's, the court

responded to this pluralistic vision of america with two and her court cases that outlawed bible readings in public schools. the overriding stories of these cases is the declaration that the united states government should not prioritize one faith over any other and should allow them free reign to practice as they see fit. there is open contest of those words, but early as him had arrived. -- pluralism had arrived. the factor that happened before 1965 is important, because that is when president johnson ushered in immigration reform. which actually allowed large numbers of people from africa asia, and latin america to come to the united states, bringing with them their faith.

in came sikhs, jains, hindus and more. and hardly any of them were persecuted for their faith. this is celebrated in a 2001 book called the new religious america. which argues that the country had gone from a protestant nation to a wildly diverse nation by the end of the 20th century. although it warns of potential confrontations the book is mostly a celebration of american diversity. except of course, we had them. the numbers do not hold up to this argument. less than 6% of all americans are of a faith that is not protestant, catholic, or nothing. what has won is this idea of religious clerk -- pluralism.

, president obama has played a role in this almost casual acceptance of religious pl uralism. minutes into his tenure as president, he becomes the first president to knowledge a wide swath of faith, including the no nes, as important constituents. we are a nation of jews, christians, and nonbelievers before going on to honor our idea of religious pluralism. because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and immigration, we cannot help but believe the old hatreds shall someday pass.

that the lines will soon dissolve. as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself. in addition to this stirring rhetoric, he has what i call the martin luther king problem which is once you start quoting him, it is hard to know where to stop. but in addition to the soaring rhetoric obama within a week of becoming president re-crafts president george w bush is -- bush's religious initiative, which quickly came under attack as a way for president bush to funnel money into his friends in the religious right. when obama comes into office in 2009, 1 of his first acts was to broaden his counsel to ensure there is no favoritism at play even from muslims and hindus and

siksh -- sikhs to serve on his counsel. a few months after he was inaugurated, obama soft to reconcile relations with turkey, which was applying for membership in the european union. at a joint press conference. you heard this from professor bluhm. he said we have a large christian population, but we do not consider ourselves a christian nation or jewish nation or muslim nation. what professor blum left lab -- out was this last line, we consider ourselves a nation of citizens bound by ideals and a set of values.

closer to home, and my concluding point obama endorsed religious pluralism when he supported the right of new york's muslim community to build a house of worship to block from the world trade center. i believe that muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in the country, he said. this is america. and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. diverse or not, american pluralism has triumphed in the age of obama. president obama has grasped onto that history not as a leader in an effort to continue success. despite all the clamoring's from the low ridges -- religious right. american religious pluralism has

-- is now the de facto mode of american self-awareness. that in small part explains the animosity and anger coming from certain sources today. thank you very much. [applause] >> one of the things that struck me going through almost all the papers before this morning is that this juncture between myth and rhetoric versus reality came out strongly in the last paper. what i would like to address my question to professor sanchez. you mentioned diane west as someone who wrote about conspiracy theories.

she referred to the office of refugee settlement. that is interesting to me because, in all this rhetoric about the rule of law, when we are dealing with mass migration of child migrants recently, no one seemed to recognize that there is a law about refugees. so people talk about laws that we should be protecting the border more. that is the rule of law. but they seem to ignore the fact that refugee policy which would apply to some of these child migrants is also part of the rule of law. i am wondering how this cognitive dissonance keeps americans acting in this way. how is it that we continue to believe this is a religiously diverse country, when in fact it is not? are we continually deluding

ourselves when the facts show otherwise? i am interested in your comment. >> the debate was with the on accompanied minors, if they should be called refugees at all. part of the process of de-humanizing and the stabilizing this narrative is to suggest that they are essentially covers for gang members, drug runners and particularly with children, that they carry disease. that is not a neutral. that has been used several times before, predominantly in the beginning of the 20th century, two in wars -- enfoce a mass migration of mexican workers over the border. so you do not talk about worker

rights. you do not talk about health laws. it was a public health issue. if you spin that to say it is a matter of public health, then you essentially, in the 1920's and 1930's, had a right to fumigate mexican-american workers. that you never fumigated white people, missionaries, going back and forth with mission work. with unaccompanied minors, they are not refugees, because that creates a whole other set of eagle problems that tea party activists would rather not talk about. they benefit greatly from maintaining their facts that these are people of questionable means that are criminals. and they -- what she said is clear. these are on a similar double people -- unassimilate-able

people. it is alarmist. it is rhetoric. why does it still work? i do not know. i do not live in texas. i live in california. we do things differently there. i do not know. but why does it work? it works because it feeds into a centuries old trope of latin american people as being un-american. being viewed as x essential -- exdistential threats to an america that never existed. it is maintaining a particular order. i think that is why it works successfully. for centuries. >> thank you. >> well, ironically, my interest

is also in refugee resettlement. i started an association here years ago. it fosters asylum and other service providing agencies. i was interested in what you said about the rising anti-muslim sentiment in the current political climate. i have noticed that here too. most people are welcoming. there are often protesters from various camps that claimed the refugees are changing the face of the united states, taking jobs. the usual arguments. but another facet that i was interested in what your observations might be would be that the -- since most of the resettlement organizations are faith-based, and all that major abrahamic phase are represented

those are evangelical christian in their mission, do sometimes interweave provision of social services with subtle or not-so-subtle nudging towards accepting christianity along with the refugee resettlement process. i am just interested in any observations you might have on refugee resettlement and religion these days. >> though i do not recommend it as purely a form of information you should look at refugee resettlement watch. i certainly would not even if i accepted kickbacks from them, i would not take it. but it is an intriguing site in terms of -- they do not like anybody. catholics, methodists, jewish groups, all our -- are dupes in

a grand conspiracy to undermine the fabric of the country. the demographic fabric. that this refugee resettlement, this latest wave is essentially a moneymaking scheme for resettlement officers, who are fairly making money on the side doing this work. and the point is not really to provide evidence. it essentially to link to other sites of where the buses are coming. who is coming. what laws are being passed under people's noses to ensure that we get -- the latest ones, the on a company minors are not an issue anymore, the latest are refugees from africa. and the attempts to scare up the ebola scare. that is part of the plot. so it is unusual logic, to say the least.

if you are interested in how your work is or trade -- po rtrayed in the right, take a look at it. >> i am afraid we have to wrap up, but let's thank our panelists one more time. [applause] >> cake love owner warren brown. inventor dean kaman. the brooklyn historical society holds a conversation on race. from the explorers club, walt cunningham on the first manned spaceflight. new year's day on c-span2 author hector tobar on the men

buried in a chilean mine. and, the net -- life of nelson rockefeller. cheryl atkinson on her experiences reporting on the obama administration. new year's day on american history tv on c-span three, one eat a -- juanita abernathy then prerevolutionary new york city alcohol and politics. and, presidential caricatures and discussions of the presidents' most memorable qualities. for our complete schedule, go to www.c-span.org. >> tonight q&a with glenn kessler.

and, address -- issues from the british parliament. then, the ongoing conflict between russia and the ukraine. >> this week on q&a, our guest is glenn kessler. he talks about his year-and "biggest pinocchios" the people who made the biggest false claims over the past year. >> glenn kessler, what was 2014 like for the fact checker? >> it was midterm election year. that meant i had to look at many campaign ads