>> i think we need to do everything in our power in coalition to contain and degrade isis. cut off their funding and support the regional effort to respond to this. it is a regional fight and we need to thwart the regional coalition. >> you think the united states will join in the fight with other nations? >> i do and i think we are already very much joined in the fight. not only in terms of air support but humanitarian support and these giant refugee camps. and boots on the ground could well be counterproductive.

>> hello again. anthony. >> i saw you in the back. where are you from? >> winston massachusetts originally new jersey. my mom came here in 1993. she came here to give me a better opportunity. so thank you for this. >> you are the american dream. >> i am trying. >> you want a picture? >> i really like what you said. >>karen.

oh karen? basic karen. i have never signed so many egg s. >> hello i am claire. i'm excited to be here. i thought it was great. lovely to hear. >> hardee's spell. >> the irish way. cassie claire. where my family is from. >> a long way from claire to hear. >> that is for sure. >> i was here what's and people kept saying mayor and mayor i thought they were talking to me

the whole place was filled with boston people. >> are you tom? thank you for your question. where are you from? >> i am from georgia. >> what part of the family. >> my people are in the mountains of galway not far from where maher walsh's people are from. >> have you been over there? >> once, when i was 11. >> my people are not far from there. my people are in the valley. maher walsh's people, our valley is that way is valley is that way. you might if i get a picture?

>> not at all. >> thank you for coming. >> tell me your name again. did we see each other before? >> we did. i had a question on foreign policy. i asked what do you think is the biggest threat foreign to america. >> the biggest threat is a nuclear iran and violent jihadist extremists. they're all connected. that is what i think is the biggest threat. threats always change but that is the biggest threat. >> what you think? i agree with you. i think nuclear iran is very dangerous and isis is very dangerous for the country.

think when he to make sure we can contain them and they don't come to america. >> well, we support the region in addressing its own problems. >> can we get a picture? thank you. >> thank you. >> how are you >> my maiden name was changed. it would have been irish. >> kathleen or kathy? >> anything you are comfortable with. my son just moved from california.

he and his wife are teachers. don't ask me where they are teaching. thank you for being here. >> thank you kathy. thank you for coming. >> hello. >> as a theologian i was impressed with your facility for common goods discourse. i wish you could come to my class. it seems like a nice deep well you are drawing from. >> it keeps me going. tell me your first name? >> nicole. so who is your favorite theologian? >> carl ron or. -- carl ronner. >> i was somewhere last weekend

and a woman said this is a get to know you think. you always have to worry about that. who is your favorite president who is your favorite theologian? i said carl rogers. >> a very complicated example to think about. but making choices as you know it's really disconcerting. you want to get us on your side. >> i have that book. one of my favorite teachers from high school give it to me. maybe i will go find a. >> good luck with everything and i hope you stick your hat in the ring. >> hello i am paul.

this is actually my second signature. the first one i got a couple days ago. >> collect the whole set. >> i will work on it. have a great day. >> hello david. oh, sorry i gave you a slippery a -- egg. i am actually from virginia. i was there when you spoke a few years ago. it is been a pleasure sharing a border with you for a while. are you here for the rest of the day? >> i'm here for the rest of the day then i'm headed to boston.

i am seeing friends here tomorrow night. i have that same tie. >> hay. >> are you a teacher? >> i was. >> hail columbia. >> i lived in baltimore when you work counselor. our member you played in city hall. i lived on able avenue. >> when we last in baltimore? >> probably four years. >> it is doing a lot better. to regenerate. >> i appreciate what you did. >> thank you for remembering. >> i live in durham, new

hampshire so we get to register to vote on a regular basis. we are ready for you to come visit. >> i will. >> excited to see you. >> thank you. thanks a lot. you have a strong egg-signing stance. >> tell me your first name again. >> matthew. >> thank you. >> i didn't have my egg last time. thank you. >> we met in the back. >> thank you for your statements on education. >> are you an educator? >> no but my sons are in my 20's -- in their 20's. >> we are all educators if we

have kids. >> there and college and it is like a mortgage. >> you told me to sign my egg but i didn't get a picture with you. this kind lady has been kind enough -- >> jasper, looking younger than average. >> thank you very much. >> thank you for coming down. i didn't get to hang out with you. >> he came up with charlie don't hold as against us. >> those were the days.

>> this is going to go viral. >> i was mayor for seven years. mayor murphy told me that people get sick of you after eight. >> they love you. >> they still love you? >> thank you. thank you for all your doing. >> governor, how are you? >> good, thank you for you guys. >> the new poll shows hillary clinton with a favorability rating and the e-mail scandal has not hurt her. how do you take her on if you run? governor: what i look at is the best interest of our nation and country.

so polls are snapshots in time and the bigger question is how do we make the economy work again for all of us. that is what i am focused on. history is full of examples where the front runner is inevitable up until they are no longer the front runner or inevitable. >> does it bother you? governor: it doesn't bother me. >> it seemed like a different tone from you when it came to your conversation about hillary clinton. are you being more aggressive now? governor: i am not against any person. i am for what ever is best for the country. i am for what will make the economy work. this is the way it is supposed to work.

if you have the executive experience and you have a better framework for the country's future, you should offer it. then the people decide who they will give that sacred and awesome trust. that is the way it is supposed to work. we are a great country and we have a robust debate going on in one-party. i think the country would be very well served by truck asking the questions, what are the things we have done that have worked? and what have we failed to do that we need to change. that is what i will be about. >> this is your second visit back to new hampshire white or wendy you think you are making a decision on whether to run -- or when do you think you are making a decision on whether to run? >> you can expect to see me soon and i will make a decision this spring. ask have -- >> have voters

expressed concern and you think controversies are registering with voters and people are talking about it. >> i have not said whatever i am not going to say on the e-mail. i am more concerned and i think people are generally more concerned with how to get wages going up after 12 years of wages going in the wrong direction. >> you don't think it is concerning? >> i think openness and transparency are important issues. in my 15 years of executive service we took openness and transparency to a very high level. she is capable of answering those questions. for my part i will focus on how we can make the government work and how we can make the economy work. >> you spoke strongly against the indiana religious freedom law and some of the republicans have been supporting the law sinking -- saying they don't

think it is discriminatory, what is your response? >> there is a big difference today between the republican party and the democratic party in terms of economic theories they follow. if you listen to the republican candidates for president, they all follow that same exclusive trickle-down economic theory that says concentrate wealth at the top, keep wages low and remove regulation from wall street. beneath that siri -- theory is an exclusive way of addressing who we are as a society. in other words in our state we raise minority and women business participation goals, we passed marriage equality and the dream act we made it possible

for new american immigrants to get driver's licenses. we do this because we know our state is better, economy is better and society is better the more fully people participate. they do not subscribe to that. i think it is shameful that presidential candidates in this day and age would try to give cover to a law that is sweeping across a lot of republican governed states that attempts to give license to discrimination of gay and lesbian people. it is not who we are. >> a lot of your economic equality message sounds like what senator elizabeth warren talked about. are you a fan of her? issue someone you could get behind? >> i believe that senator warren is speaking with great clarity especially on the need to regulate wall street. to hold the ceo's of banks accountable.

to make sure we put people at the sec and places to deter what led to the crash of our economy and to create a three strikes and you are out sort of rule and breaking up the big banks, if there too big to fail without wrecking the economy than they are too damn big. >> you talked about wages in your speech. how do you in practice drive up wages? would you and the subsidy of wages by wal-mart? >> i think there is a host of things and you can see some of the things that we did at a state level, where we are not only talking about the things but i did them as governor. we passed the living wage and

extended prevailing wage to more public projects than ever before. we extended collective bargaining and made it easier to reform rather than harder. we also increased the minimum wage and increased our minority and women is this procurement goals in order to have more people included in our economy -- those are some of the things we did most directly. on wages and those are the thick -- directly on wages. and those are the things we do. >> looking at walmart and mcdonald's employees needing food stamps to get by. >> i think that is outrageous. you are starting to see more and more -- you're starting to see a few corporations realize, as henry ford realized, that you can build the best car or product that you like, but if nobody has the money to buy it

then you are not going to be profitable for long as a corporation. i don't think -- i think we should be pushing all of our corporate leaders to understand that they have a responsibility to the nation. the more workers earn, the better customers they make. >> is your consideration of running a vote of no-confidence against a possible hillary clinton campaign? >> i supported her eight years ago. i am considering running because i love my country. i know that we have big problems to solve. i know leadership is really important at solving. i have 15 years of executive experience as a big city mayor and governor through the toughest of times. we attack problems like declining wages. all through the eight years of the recession, made our state number one.

in terms of median income, a better rate of job creation than our neighbors. i have the executive experience that makes me feel compelled to take a very responsible look at making this offering. >> are you a bolder, more reliable, liberal progressive voter than hillary clinton? >> i don't know. [laughter] >> people, if you jump in the race, they will be looking for you to make in paris's and show how you would be different. right now -- to make comparisons and show how you would be different. right now she has support. >> wherever i go, what i hear now is new leadership and getting things done. that is what people want. they want to hear a clear voice of new leaders and they want to hear leaders who know how to get things done. i don't know where the secretary might stand on some of those

issues. i know where i stand and i offer that clarity. i believe that marriage is a human right and not a state right. i believe to protect our national interest we need to regulate wall street. i believe that when refugee kids arrive on our doorsteps, that we do not send them back to the death gangs, that we act like the compassionate, gibbering generous people we have always done. this is what i believe and this is what we believe as americans. i'm sure other candidates will offer their own framework and own formulations. i hope that however many people are in this race, i hope they do their best to reflect the goodness people are offering this earth. thanks a lot. >> next, a discussion on the role that religion plays in

politics. after that, the house minority whip holds a roundtable discussion with college students. today, the new america foundation hosts a discussion on u.s. hostage policy. panelists will discuss the policy of the release of you as americans taken abroad and whether the u.s. should negotiate or pay ransom. live at noon eastern. now, a look at religion and politics through american history and pate. the dance forth center at washington university and st. louis recently partnered with the university to explore topics including the rise in american religious disaffiliation, the

apocalypse and evangelical politics. this begins with butler talking about african american conservatism. this is one hour 15 minutes. >> there has always been a strain of conservative life intra-christianity following similar strains about marriage, and abortion and other conservative strains. there is one big difference. they're locked into a history of savor -- slavery and the fight for civil rights in america. what is different that they have voted primarily democratic when they could vote giving the illusion that they signed all the policies. while they have voted against democrats issues like same sex marriage have driven their exodus from the party. consider 2004 when george bush received 11% of the vote. that was kind of an interesting anomaly and i could go into that but that's

another story altogether. but that leaves the question. how do they align their beliefs? how do they ration lise voting while chastising him about the policies they believe hurt black families? what issues prompt them to make alliances against the nation's first black president? to understand this division i would like to briefly look at a history of involvement in same sex marriage and abortion issues during the age of obama. they have fiscal and economic concerns but religious concerns are rooted in historicle issue and see a new resurgeonance in order to fight for what they believe to be the history of black families. in a recent book entitled black

conservative individuals in modern america, the author states that the outset that when one considers the extent to which american conservatism has been conditioned by racist notions by black infire yorty -- inferiority the existence of powerful black spokespeople is astounding. in his book, attempts to understand in spite of the inherent racial bias, my contention is that you cannot understand these black conservatives without understanding how notions are valued as a counter narrative to the den gration of african -- denigration of african americans racially and in white conservatism. taking this seriously as well as beliefs gives different genealogy for black conservetives that does not begin in the 1970s but in the 19th century. according to the studies at berkeley, more organic conservatism which starts in the 19th century focused on

uplifting morality. rejecting both racial identification and racial institutions. embracing a white standard for black moral wars was the key to success, assimulation, and respect. while the analysis of the genealogy of black conservatism is sound, i believe a shift from focus within black christian churches to embrace prosperity and a resurgence is part of the issue. a piece i wrote entitled the black church from prophesy to prosperity i argued that polt -- politics in the post civil rights era are lodged in emphasis of black churches switches from action to prosperity. additionally, these churches shifting focus from

structural since of racism to individual sins of becoming respectable led to a diminishing to their voys in the public realm. it is this that engaged president obama that put them in a quandry. how to put forth the issues that they care about as either issues that everyone should care about or issues affecting the african american community. what does the election of the nation's first black president do? do they remain in the african american community to fight for the ideal of the black family or do they partner with white evangelicals. i believe that those that remain true to specific issues allows them to fight for black family while at the same time balkanizing them from both communities. african american conservatives and abortion. both conservatives and nationalists in the community historicically have used the term genocide to describe abortion. this reduction arises from a

misappropriation of a quote by margaret sanger founder of planned parenthood. the negro project which was started by her was designed to bring health care to black women in the south. both the negro physician and religious minister should work together in order for the project to succeed and gain the trust of the black community. she wanted a minister to debunk claims if they arose that the program was designed to exterminate the community. they would simply turn this phrase and say that she wanted to exterminate the black community not save it and would do that through abortion. slavery's another appeal to promote the idea that black people are being considered less than human by abortion rights

activists. using the dread scott decision pro life including african americans, claim that the declaration of african americans as three fifths of a person, rowe versus wade does the same thing. rod, a white mega church pastor began to preach a sies on how abortion was black genocide. in february of 2008, he would also go along to be a supporter of john mccain and then he had to get rid of him two months later in his own problems. other people would pick up the tempo using the term and linking obama to it. individuals would copt to do this throughout the 2008 campaign and put their -- they would put their dissent in front of major democratic events. for instance, when the convention was held in denver in

2008 they protested along with a whole lot of other pro life democratic activists. but this signal of how to renew tactics and when we think about what happened right after the inauguration there became an uptick in how people went after pro life issues and complaining about obama. so one of the things that happened during this time was the new movie that came out in june of 2009. this was called was martha 21. this depicted how abortion had targeted black communities. the word means tragedy or disaster and used a real conspiracy thesis for the origins of the movement. copies of the dvd were available

to churches and individuals and there was also a compelling on you tube. this was shone at colleges and universities and conservative leaders picked it up. the coordinator for georgia right to life began traveling to show the movie. coupling it with over 80 billboards around atlanta saying that black children are an endangered species, they were directed to a site and the director of the georgia right to life would tell the "new york times" that she was surprised they were spending less money and had more calls to the hot line as a result of this movie being shown in the atlanta and georgia area. similar bill boards would appear across the country including in chicago, in new york, and the founder of life always, on the south side of chicago the billboards had a picture of president obama with a caption

every 21 minutes our next possible leader is aborted. broden, a rather colorful person who ran for congress but lost, is touted on the coalition website with the following quote. the practice of abortion is a genocidal plot to decimate the democracy of our community and black leaders are silent. this is egregious and tant amount to approval. speakers like other black pro-lifers are not known to the black population but are known to the white circles and they have achieved the respectability that the 19 and 20 century

blacks conservatives have desired but they have not gained those who vote democratic to switch their voting patterns simply out of desire to see rowe versus wade repealed. we now want to shift to talking about same sex marriage. while black conservatives work hard to make african americans pay attention to their cause conservative support of the marriage between a man and a woman had much more attention. there was a 2% difference in the percentage of black protestants from 2003 to 2013, 64%, that changed their minds about same sex marriage on the grounds of religious belief. in other words, it was only a 2% difference. while that percentage has changed within the last year and i believe that's in part because of obama, despite the tendency to vote for other liberal causes their stance on same sex marriage is holding firm. part has to do with religious

belief but also the opposition to equating it to civil rights. leaders such as fred shullsworth made it clear that same sex marriage was not a cause to be equated with the civil rights movement. he said this in "ebony" magazine, "despite what many in this world may argue i cannot move from the position that same sex marriage were meant to be shared between a man and a woman. god created men to be husbands of wives and women to be wives to husbands." opposition to same sex marriage were presented a conundrum. on the one hand, they're likely more to vote for democratic candidates. the question is should they be considered to be true conservative voters? before 2008, obama himself had

articulated several positions on same sex marriage including yes as far as back as 1998 undecided, repeal of domea and supporting civil rights. his announcement of his support for same sex marriage actually took black conservative leaders by surprise. the naacp announcing that they supported the president's statement on same sex marriage was another blow that puts black conservative leaders on the defensive. two of those who oppose his position, who uses catchy phrases was on every news show on the days following the announcement expressing his dismay of the president's decision. i think this really captures the

essence of what was going on. "my response was shock and disappointment. and while many clergy are trying to discern is this decision made out of political expediencice or moral conviction? the timeliness does not make sense given what has happened in north carolina. so my question is he, obama, exchanging one minority for another? it has been speculated that the president is taking the black vote for granted so did he think he could do this without losses of black supporters? the president has not been able to find one black pastor to stand with him on this issue." other noted leaders after the announcement in may of 2012 joined with white conservatives to confront the president on the issue of same sex marriage. in an interview with christian broadcasting bishop announced i don't think it's the same to the civil rights fight at all.

it's a fight between right and wrong. this happens to be wrong. what was noticeable was the reiterations of black denominations in particular on the answer of same sex marriage. the church of god and christ the largest black pentecostal denomination in the country, immediately reissued this statement on marriage from 2004 to the press and members of the denomination. linking the debate to civil rights, their statement focused on god and marriage between a man and a woman. the zion church reiterated their position but also made the distinction between the rights of the states and rights of the church. i should say here that a lot of black churches in the 1990's were for civil unions but not for same sex marriage. there's a big difference there. more importantly, the statement noted that positions of the

president are consistent with the interest of our congregational members and issues not the issue, become our conversation. even jamal bryant would cede registering voters at the church in baltimore. bryant held fast to his 07 position of -- known as referendum six in maryland. after a battle there between black pastors and churches for and against the referendum, it passed on election night 2012, along with president obama for a second term. the flight of african american voters for obama really did not occur, with obama receiving more than 90% of the african-american vote. let draw this to a close. what are we to make of these two issues abortion and same-sex marriage?

despite the visibility of black conservatives during obama's presidency, the manner in which these block of service raise these issues -- black conservatives working with white organizations were able to amplify the voices. white antiabortion issues benefited from black conservative faces to further their cause. the case for same-sex marriage however, did not fare as well -- with increasing number of states improving same-sex and african-americans slowly becoming more accepting of same-sex marriage. are black conservatives simply tools of the larger way conservative organizations? perhaps they are. perhaps not. but it is clear for the leadership and abortion and same-sex, charismatic leaders who play value voters, essential marriage, and white marches bond like-minded people of all ethnicities. for black conservatives

crossing over to vote republican or becoming republican are placing moral issues over economic it may alienate them from christians who are conservative in their personal moral believes but are moderate when it comes to issues of economic, education, and other liberal issues. factoring in barack obama as the first black president has certainly made it more difficult for some black conservatives and made a name for others who decided to oppose the president on moral grounds. thank you. [applause] matthew hedstrom: good

afternoon, everyone. i'm from the university of virginia, and i'm delighted to be here. thanks for sticking with us this afternoon. my remarks today stem from a question -- what happened to judeo-christian america? in an essay in january 2014, the question was not a lament. just a sincere inquiry based in a far-reaching observation. the question arose from the simple fact that the religious demographics of the united states, and the religious sensibilities of many americans, have undergone profound shift the last two decades. modest increases in religious diversity, and even more significantly a market rise in religious dis- affiliation, especially among the young, are transforming long-standing realities of american lives, and therefore, american politics, as well. roughly 20% of the population is

unaffiliated including one out of three those under 30. while the percentage of christians has dropped from 95% in 1960 to 75% today. so this is a 75% christian, 20% unaffiliated, 5% everyone else breakdown that kevin schultz talked to us about earlier. i should add it to this that these two phenomena -- the decline in christianity and the rise in the religiously unaffiliated -- are very much two sides of the same demographic coin. almost the entirety of the religiously unaffiliated are whites, protestants, catholics who have left their churches. the arena we call religion and politics, in other words, is offer. so what did happen to judeo-christian america and what is taking its place? what light can history shed on his development?

judeo christianity, it must be said, had a good run. the term itself dates from the late 19th century, and derived its meaning in the 20th century. in the 1930's, leaders of the interfaith movements redeployed the term to include catholics. it meant to signal the opposition to discrimination at home and fascism. as commercials has written in his book, the ideological pressure and rail alignment of the second world war and cold war soon to follow and brought almost all americans into the fold of civic judeo-christian. but no more. a quarter-century ago, a sociologist famously wrote a shift from dominantly slows and

to broad, liberal coalitions. increasingly, it seems that we are witnessing yet another restructuring away from the judeo-christian area, during which democrats and republicans vie for dominance. i use the term spirituality very self-consciously because we should be clear that most of those who are religiously disaffiliated are not atheists. that number is about 3%. so there's actually a certain kind of religious content to the religiously disaffiliated that we need to come to terms with. the journalist, peter barnard, in a recent essay has made a , convincing case, i think, that the turn from religion is best understood in political terms. in the mid-20th century, he writes, liberals were almost as likely as conservatives to attend church.

but starting in the 1970's -- one of the religious right but again advocating against feminism and abortions liberals , began to identify organized christianity with politics. religiously unaffiliated are disproportionately liberal. many young americans, he concludes, and i love his phrasing here, has begun voting against the gop on sunday morning by declining to attend church. to begin to analyze this phenomena historically, i think we must first recognize that the spiritual but not religious at today are inheritors of a legacy rooted in the protestantism of 18th and 19th century. here i'm tempted to trace lines from thomas jefferson to charles irons through transcendentalist

revolt against unitarianism, and onto the history of liberal theology and its popularization in the 20th century. this narrative will track the evolving distinction between the transient and the permanent in christianity. powder churchly forms come and go, parker contended, while the essence of religious truth remains. a formulation that allows then and i think continues to allow the rejection of church without the rejection of god. i can hear the exact formulation in my religious study classes today. rather than pursue this theological line, however, i want to focus in a more historical vein on the historical mechanisms by which this kind of thinking, this sort of distinction between the transient and permanent, acquired its legitimacy. the way i want to do that, for the purposes of this talk today,

is to talk about the theological and religious quandary presented by religious others. the hallmark of religious liberalism has been its spiritual cosmopolitanism. its religious interests and others. nearly ubiquitous from jews doing yoga and much more. a sociologist christian smith in his study of young adults published in 2009, finds that majorities agree with the propositions, the questions he is asked. many religions are true. it is ok to pick and choose religious beliefs without having to accept the teachings of it as a whole. and it is ok to practice religion besides one's own. the majority of adults agree with these phrases. a look back to one of the most consequential and challenging encounters of american

liberalism with religious others reveals that the dynamics at play in these emerging cosmopolitan sensibilities. the early decades of 20th century are where i want to turn. these were pivotal moments in cosmopolitan liberalism. while intellectuals embrace new anthropological and philosophical understandings of race, stemming from the scholarship of france boaz leaders in the church's work to disentangle missionary work from western culture and racial imperialism. a project that resulted in the landmark 1932 report rethinking missions. colonial subjects pressed these shifts as part of their own nationalist ambitions. while religious liberals in the u.s. subsequently adopted and adapted such anticolonial critics for their own theological and political

purposes. the most compelling example of this, i think, and what i want to dwell on for the remainder of my talk is that of mohammed k -- mahomes gandhi and his impact on american spirituality. in short, gotti transformed the -- gandhi transformed the imagination of 20th century liberals to process that can best be described as canonization. the canonization of gandhi, as a liberal protestant saint challenge american liberals to decouple their christianity from its hegemonic question identity. to find, once again, it's permanent essence against the corruption of history. gandhi, more than any other figure in the 20th century really more precisely, the idea of gandhi -- be constructed idea of gandhi -- as a universal saint demanded of american religious liberals a radical rethinking of the relationship of christianity to the west and racial order. a key figure here is stanley jones. methodist missionary and author

of the best-selling book -- "christ of the indian road." jones, along with a handful of others, served as the most influential interpreter of gandhi for the north american protestant audience. as the most famous missionary, and one of the most admired man in the united states, jones' framing of gandhi carried significant weight, and entered a political climate ripe for recalibration. he was an acquaintance and in mire of gandhi for decades, and was, in fact, scheduled to meet with gandhi on the day he was assassinated. jones penned him in 1938 as a tribute to fallen hero. in this work, he portrayed gandhi as a hero -- through his methods and spirit, they were in large measure reconciled. perhaps a bit optimistic there. since the 19th century, as i've

said, liberal protestantism -- had fought to frame in universal terms. jones presented gandhi and similar terms. despite his constant protests against the christian faith, jones wrote -- he was more christianized then most christians. in this way, according to jones, gandhi drew together people of various viewpoints and makes them feel as though they have a common center. in some ways, the veneration of gandhi is so thoroughly established that it can be hard to remember how radical this universal lysing project was. and the degree of intellectual and the logical conclusion is required. we must not try to claim him when he, himself, try to

repudiate the claims, jones conceded. he was fundamentally a hindu. the roots of his life was not in christ. but jones, who knew gandhi and loved it gandhi, was unable to let this be the last word especially in the wake of his assassination. so, he made him into a man of spirit and the eternal, rather than a man of time and place in history. he became, in other words, a liberal protestant saint. the phrases jones used to bridge this gap are remarkable. he was a natural quick -- christian rather than orthodox one, jones wrote. the distinction between a natural christian and an orthodox one reveals the manner in which he as defined by jones, define the essence. he reached the higher plain of

natural faith -- unbounded universal. the men who fought christian simulations so-called furthered , the real thing, jones proclaimed. god uses many instruments and he has used mahatma gandhi to help christianize unchristianed christianity. conservative mainline evangelical -- jones for embracing hindu is a religious freedom. a prominent baptist teacher circa lysed a pamphlet describing jones's admiration of gandhi -- this is what stanley jones believes was the pamphlets title, and for the additional tagline -- if you believe the lord jesus christ is the savior of the world, and not mahatma gandhi, read this. jones was not to be deterred. he prepared his own circular called -- are we too proud to learn from a hindu?

gandhi's political critiques of the so-called christian nation. based on his experiences in india, jones regularly spoke in the u.s. about the need for a more viable economic order, and condemned american jim crow. the new york unitarian minister, john haynes holmes -- another of gandhi's most significant american interlocutors -- stated the case more boldly. in some ways, i think it's unitarian sensibilities and framing of this issue are the ones and they carried today, but in some ways, what jones had to do as a methodist more clearly reveals the theological tensions of midcentury. so i refer to holmes here as a figure who is pointing forward in some ways, to our own

spiritual but not religious. he was a radical politically. he was a socialist, a path of -- a fascist a leader of the , aclu and the naacp. and a founder what he called the all world gandhi fellowship. holmes made the case for gandhi that, as i said, most clearly resonates with the spiritual flight from organized christianity that we see today. i'm going to read an extended quote here from john holmes. this is from 1944. "the basic trouble lies in the fact that the greatest of all indians, the most influential among his countrymen, and a figure of exalted spiritual stature declines to become converted to the christian gospel. he certainly is a better christian in the ethical sense of the word, then the overwhelming multitude of those who profess the christian faith. but all this only makes it more irritating that gandhi

directives career has remained loyal to hinduism. and why should he adopt an alien faith? christianity is, in essence, a good and true religion. gandhi gladly use of the scriptures, prayers of these religions to supplement hinduism and enrich his soul's experience. but no religions, christianity or other, has a monopoly on faith. has any monopoly on truth. hinduism, as well as christianity, can save the soul and redeem the world. but this is a flat repudiation of christianity to be a uniquely inspired faith. it opens up the way to a whole dangerous concept of the religion not as exclusive a but as the universal expense of mankind. the very magnitude in beauty of gandhi's personality, as a hindu, constitutes a serious reflection upon the indispensable nature of the christian gospel. this is his unpardonable sin

that a non-christian can match a christian in virtue. i think that is just a fantastic paragraph. as a document. as emerson and parker has done in the 19th century, the call to gandhi in the 20th century, and even more, of course, the broad movement towards an emerging -- cosmopolitanism i'm using to represent. this lay the groundwork for the religious and political shifts now underway. leaving organized religion is a viable option for young americans today because they affirm with their predecessors that the truth is not exclusive to one faith and certainly not to be found increase or rituals.the examples of century cosmopolitanism make clear, the revolt against christianity is not best describe the secularization. we are not

witnessing the transformation of the united states into a north american sweden. not only large numbers of americans remain affiliated with traditional christianity for the future the future, those who abandon christianity do not typically abandon religion. broadly understood. if anything, the religious nones aim to give religion and even wider berth, to liberate it. the german sociologist max weber argued that western religion was in the throes of disenchantment, a -- singles nothing more clearly than a massive generational shift towards reinterment. political christianity lost its bark. where now that spark may be

found is a great drama of american religious life in a 21st-century. thanks. >> thank you all for sticking this out. my name is matt sutton from washington state university. i'm not just referring to the day's proceedings -- substantial numbers of americans believe that the universe is rapidly moving towards its close.

many americans are waiting for the icecaps to melt. global epidemics like ebola to spread. there is no doubt that americans, in recent decades have been consumed by popular nightmares. for some americans there's a particularly religious dimension to this, as well. a recent poll revealed that 41% of all americans, that is well over 100 million people, and 58% of white evangelicals believe that jesus is definitely or probably coming back by the year 2050. their conviction that the second coming is imminent provides these christians with a powerful worldview, and an exclusive framework. it also affects how they live and act. this fosters among some christians in absolute morality, the pressure to write the worlds wrongs. they know there is no time for compromise, mediation -- they want to make sure they are on the right side of history. such police have impacted the modern world -- shifting everything from politics to popular

culture and defense. today, what i'm going to focus on it are three individuals. david crash, -- , and billy graham. each of these individuals, like many otheramericans, drew their inspiration from the bible. nevertheless, the features that each of themselves were very different, as well as their own understanding that they could play in bringing that future to be. while most americans would very much want to separate the violent processes of david cresh, and the mainstream evangelicalism of billy graham they have much more in common than i think most men and women realize. it has been edging forward since the early church coming on a different moment of history. but there are two particular theological issues.

there are two issues that are particularly important for understanding these three individuals. the first is the understanding or the view of the millennium. the book of revelation talks about 1000 year millennium. all three of these individuals believe that jesus is going to return before the millennium. so they identify as premillennialists. the second issue has to do with what is going to happen as we approach that millennium. that is that most premillennialists believe the world is going to go through a period of tribulation. now, for those who believe that we are going to face tribulation or the end of time, there's also a debate as to whether or not christians will endure the tribulation, or whether christians will be ruptured out of the world, taken to heaven, and not have

to go through the tribulation that is going to happen everybody else was left behind. now, these issues have divided christians throughout history. so that is some of the theological background. first, david cresh. he was raised on the seventh atavistic tradition. he eventually left the seventh day baptist and joined -- they talked about in the last days, god would raise up a leader. but before they establish that kingdom of god, they taught that christians would face horrific persecution. and that would ultimately lead to the pre-millennial post tribulation will return of jesus christ. what their

beliefs, and what the priest was that jesus's return would cleanse the earth in a bloody, horrific apocalypse. he was a compelling leader who is very charismatic and able to articulate their ideas. and what he taught was that they would be the sole representatives of god on earth. as they are moving towards the last days, they would face off against the forces of evil during the tribulation.. so prepare for this, they began stockpiling guns in the texas compound. cresh also warned that they would face off against the forces of evil, and his forces of evil would often take form to the government -- through the government. many conservative christians, throughout the last couple hundred years, believe that in the andes, part of what is going to fuel the tribulation is the rise of an antichrist.

so, cresh is just one of many many leaders who would say that the government is going to be the enemy of the true church. as you all know, the atf raid of the compound. there was a bloodyconfrontation, and a 50 three-day standoff. this seemed to mark the beginning of the end. this was the start of the tribulation. this is exactly what cresh had warned was going to happen. he was actually fulfilling the prophecy. the atf and the fbi had, from the beginning, refused to take his view seriously. shortly after the immediate confrontation, cresh call the local sheriffs and try to explain to them that this was fulfilling the prophecy. that he could explain to the sheriff what was happening in hoping the sheriff would intervene to protect them from the federal government. the sheriff refused to listen.

cresh responded by saying - this is life-and-death. theology is life-and-death. we know, after the fact, that the atf and fbi did not understand do not take seriously his theological perspectives. the standoff ended with the deaths of more than 80 individuals, including women and children. so what do we make of this? his apocalyptic ideas emerge from traditions. his understandings of a very small issue within theology -- tribulation -- was what distinguished him from most others. he saw in the bible evidence -- that they would have to endure this horrific suffering. and he believes that god wanted them to endure this tribulation, and

got had chosen them to be a small ruminants of saints to physically battle the forces of antichrist. so in the atf wants their raid, this minor point in theology produce truly cataclysmic results. the u.s. government, naively and inadvertently, played into this theology and very tragic ways. so, while one group of christians -- anticipating the coming apocalypse -- died, another faded into obscurity. and that takes us to herald. on may 21, 2011, thousands of christians expected to be rapture to have an. as they prepare to leave this world, the media cover the story very carefully. there were stories in newspapers and on the internet. some of the most creative folks marked them by inflating blowup dolls with helium and releasing

those dolls to the heavens. camping have been broadcasting on the family radio network. by the early 2000's, family radio had 140 stations in the u.s. and translated camping's radio shows into many different languages. in 1992, camping told his audience and followers that he had discovered after a lifetime of study the secret patterns embedded in the bible and he could determine when jesus would return to the are. the math is complicated but he essentially believed the world was 13,000 years old and you

could trace adam's creation to a very specific year. so then the second coming what happened shortly after the 1300 year period. he argued it would probably happen in 1988 but that his numbers might be off and it could be 2011. he knew what happened between september 15 and december 27 but could not tell us the hour or the day. you could know the month and the year. despite his confidence, he instructed followers not to plan for the rapture or give up their day jobs because they should live as though the return was 100 years away. his understanding of the tribulation district and many

ways from that of qureshi and many -- koresh and many others. it was not marked by an armed conflict but i apostasy. camping believed the tribulation was already upon us, the signs were increasing numbers of divorce, women taking leadership roles and increasing same-sex relations and a sexual promiscuity. this is different than the sense of tribulation that david koresh had. obviously after the rapture never occurred he disappeared from national news but a merchant thousand 10 after a book he wrote that announced his numbers announcing christ return on may 21 2011. once again, he did not urge despair or aggressive action just radical evangelism. he claimed, we make incisions

to believe the end might be far away, we are not infallible. his followers did not share his caveats. they took his ideas and ran wild and began putting up till boards around the country and bus benches and bought rvs and painted them. i encounter them in a new york subway in 2010 and i saw one of their billboards and rural northern idaho in 2011. you probably saw them as well. they were sure that jesus would return, of course he did not and unlike david koresh they slowly faded back into obscurity. graham has been a strident apocalypsesist from the beginning of his career. two days after kerry truman noted the soviet union had admitted and atomic bomb. the world recognized there was

a global apocalypse in the making and graham wanted to make the most of that to urge people to make decisions for christ and to be serious about their commitment. this is the team he played over and over again rub his career. and most of his revivals he preached a message on the second coming of christ, he published a book called "world of flame," and in 1983 he of wrote -- published a book called "approaching hoofbeats." in 1992 a book called "storm warning." in 2010 he re-issued the book, updating for the modern context. at 91 years old he said, i believe the storm clouds are darker than they have ever been. prepare to meet your god, the signs of his imminent return have never been greater. for graham, he is

creative and explaining the side. in the 60's it was the counterculture and the free speech movement. in the early 90's it was the aids crisis, gulf war and saddam hussein, post 9/11 he says it is the rise of muslim extremism, the global recession and the influence of what he sees as godless popular culture. all of these are signs we are living in the end time. so graham's work as linked the major issues of every generation to the coming apocalypse. what is it that sends graham -- sets graham apart from christians? first his view of the church. camping and david koresh culpable out of the church and graham did the opposite, he wanted believers to work together to build bridges which made him less offensive or

threatening. he differed with koresh on the battle of armageddon. and unlike camping he believed you could not know the date of the second coming so it is always imminent am a not right around this corner but the next corner. that was the genius to keep expectations high. camping criticize the american government and graham befriended politicians. while david koresh -- so graham might've been more dangerous in terms of this influence about how he is influenced american history. the work of these three

prophets of doom give life to the idea that millions believe the time is nigh. the u.s. has produced creative innovative leaders. sometimes like david koresh their work threatens the nation, like harold camping they provide amusement and like billy graham the work can shape international politics and penetrate the white house. stories of all three reveal apocalypseism has been essential for understanding human and american history. >> this is the final presentation and the final panel after a long day of

fascinating papers. i will do my best to keep you with me. about the recent past as i'm doing because time has a nasty way of not stopping. right now there is much talk about the midterm elections whether they were a wave or a shellacking or the typical six-year loss the presidents receive. so six years ago as barack obama one and took office, when the council devised a shared space. hope was at the forefront in 2008. the long history of

evangelicalism, this development could be seen as a reversion to the mean in terms of the christian right. but gauged on a curve of american politics within obama's adult lifetime, change seemed like an appropriate word. this paper explores the significance of the obama phenomenon. his rise to power and tenure in office. in a notable shift in the previous 40 years of american political culture, evangelical politics stopped functioning as a proxy for religious politics. some evangelicals on the left learns to welcome this loss of status while many on the right are and were determined to reverse it. evangelical politics was not

about to leave the public stage. the obama era signaled the decline of the privileged political force. the political fortunes of barack obama wrote alongside the resurgent evangelical left. the unpopular presidency of george w. bush presented an opportunity for each, it harvard evangelical dissent and highlighted obama as an alternative. he was a fresh voice with little lyrical baggage at the time and obama was in a position to say the things that aggressive evangelicals wanted to hear. signs of a newly prominent progressivism were everywhere in 2006 and 2005 before that.

from the opinion pages in the new york times to protests against bush to the presumably friendly calvin college in michigan. meanwhile jim wallis and sojourners became a national celebrity. after bush's narrow victory in 2004 there were a number of non-evangelical leaders like howard dean and nancy pelosi who reached out to progressives and moderates and in some ways they echo the moves that bill clinton had made a decade earlier. combined with bushes growing unpopularity gave progressive evangelicals leverage. in many ways obama had anticipated the democratic party's new strategy. obama entered the national stage of the memorable keynote address at the daschle -- democratic national convention. obama said that we worship an

awesome god. he was trying to blur the colors of the culture wars but many americans certainly recognize that raise awesome god as an allusion to the swaying chorus line of the popular worship song. one of the few political advantages that obama's unorthodox background provided him was the chance to fashion his own story. obama was not the typical democrat voice in public life. he was not a white southern moderate like bill clinton or an african-american minister like jesse jackson or an urban catholic like mario cuomo. the presidential politics there were no precedents for a

hawaiian, the middle america -- obama was able to craft an appealing story about the spiritual coming-of-age, spiritually his tail was a high racial product of conservative upbringings among the largely african-american church in chicago. politically it was a story of how an instinctively secular activists inspired by the civil rights movement came to see how faith offered something vital to the prospect of transforming neighborhoods. his spiritual and political awakenings went hand-in-hand. for an ambitious lyrical figure obama was uncommonly candid

about his lack of orthodoxy and i think here of a 2000 or interview he gave with a journalist named catherine. the interview was a more tension on the political right and obama was very much the voice of the candidate as christian seeker. his multicultural upbringing if him a suspicion of dogma with language that implies a monopoly on the truth. by this obama was not only criticizing fundamentalism but he was departing from some established christian doctrines. he said, i find it hard to believe my god would send 4/5 of the world to hell. the obama story then momentarily aligned with

evangelical politics, clearly obama saw this conversion is critical to his ambitions and i think this is interesting because a bit of irony or something here in that obama in my estimation was in many ways first -- the first successful candidate whose background gave him the option of operating holy outside and evangelical framework. kennedy famously fell obligated to assuage the fears of white southern protestants and obama made a conscious skin is in to engage evangelicals. a key moment came when he spoke at the 2006 gathering of the renewal, and activist network associated with the evangelical left. obama frames it is both a strategic proposition to

secular progressives and a challenge to step up their game. obama chided liberals including himself because, if we don't reach out to evangelical christians and other american to tell them what we stand or then the jerry falwell's and the alan keyes will continue to hold sway. obama had defeated alan keyes in the senate election. still obama's confessional liberalism was on display, he did not shy away from referring to his position. just as boldly obama asked the faithful to adjust to a more pluralistic america, he said democracy demands the religiously motivated translate the concerns into universal rather than religiously specific values. jim wallis likened the speech to the kennedy all of branch to the southern baptists. obama had achieved much more

the phenomena was born. the storyline of a new direction for politics was a critical part of the obama campaign narrative. more important arguably than the actual tally of evangelical vote. especially notable from the modern evangelicals who came over. obama made a point of reaching out to robin it evangelicals who were not customarily associated with the christian right, overwhelming sentiment at the time that george w. bush had damaged the evangelical brand and so such gestures matters. a number of other leaders like richard's isaac or the mega-church pastor joel hunter

or the houston methodist pastor who is a confidant of president bush came to support obama the candidate but not the urban liberal wing of the democratic arty from which he hailed. a certain amount of opportunism factored into those relationships but very few people who met him in this time. did not think he was residential material. obama reached out to the orlando mega-church pastor after he praised obama and the more perfect union speech delivered in response to the controversy surrounding jeremiah wright. that threaten to do the damage to the religious image see he a point of not squandering the goodwill of his evangelical backers. ron sider and iconic member of the evangelical left said obama

understands evangelicals better than any democrat since president carter. the boldness of his strategy was an unabashedly attempt to drive a wedge through the evangelical center in the evangelical right tempted contemporaries to exaggerate both the brett and depth of his politics. while obama made inroads, the god gap endured among evangelical voters as a whole. his substantive gains came elsewhere especially among latino voters who were the main reason why he won the majority of the total catholic vote. the reaction of the old and new guards to obama suggested they were on the defensive. except for maybe rick warren who was at obama's first inaugural and there were at

least one persons like franklin graham who once obama popularity didn't waste of the all-time and going public with doubts about his piety. i think franklin graham's numerous comments force a paradox concerning the obama faith story, it was widely publicized. the chapter of france aaron c made the subject of wilder and wilder speculation. so it simply does not take anything at ace value by quite a few americans. in spite of obama's trial in 2008 the beltway conventional wisdom still held the most authentic political trends came from the right not the left.

the rise of the tea party phenomena seemed true but strangely from my reading the rise of the tea arty did not fully alter the perception that the christian right hatter or not it's old self or in this is a diagnosis that the 2012 election confirmed. less noted was the evangelical left return to a marginal status. the midterm election cycle saw momentary return to the thesis of evangelicalism as a political nemesis for democrats. the tea party promised something new on the right but as scarlet david campbell and robert put them convincingly show them, it was always significant in spite of all the talk about the more libertarian proclivities.

a case in point was glenn beck restoring the rally on the capitol mall. it was a revival gathering that suggested what ecumenical christian right politics might look like. that itself was a counter to mormonism intentionally the interfaith mishmash of civil religion updated or conservatism. look forward, look west and look to the heavens and make your choice back told the crowd. the rallying cry of religious liberty was getting more attention in 2012 was a kind of ecumenical glue but in some ways because the tea party was cast as a novel and libertarian leaning phenomenon, the presumption of the sick -- christian right declining was largely unchallenged. the status of the evangelical

left which had been so and orton for how obama presented himself was even less certain echoing the history of his counterpart on the evangelical right evens out the left profile and headpiece with the election in 2008. still it was not a mere media construct, like other regressive activist, evangelical leftist pushed obama on economic matters and criticized his willingness to compromise with the gop on tax cuts. with the conspicuous exception of abortion there were signs of a genuine convergence between evangelism and liberalism in the place of marriage. after obama came out for gay marriage several progressive evangelical bellwethers followed suit. a pioneering figure within the

emerging church scene seen as a reaction against the omega church gop paradigm, mclaren said many evangelical critics involving his recently married son mentioned in the new york times. meanwhile, jim wallis drew national attention for reversing his position on same-sex marriage. the debate increasingly showed signs of resembling pass arguments about segregation and ongoing conflicts about abortion. randall ballmer has offered past debates about divorce. at the very least, discussions of sexual orientation had entered new territory, after the 2012 election, the obama inaugural committee once again

a minister with a history of opposition to gay rights to pray at the ceremony, this time the man whom obama had praised or his work on human trafficking quickly withdrew. the 2012 election offered a new explanation for the decline of the christian right. it was declining numbers rather than threats from the evangelical left that truly hindered evangelical conservatism. there were several reports that highlighted the implausibly of the lingering assumption that evangelicalism was a majority. still, it is interesting to me that in 2012 the gop nominee mitt romney embraced a version of the george w. bush successful strategy.

the assumption was that the evangelical electorate was still very much a slumbering giant and white evangelicals did turn out in great numbers for romney but obama still one fairly comfortably. as usual the political winds were easier to detect than actual policy changes were to affect. in this presentation i am definitely slighting the policy side suggested obama had proven to be a consistent social liberal who operates within the faith-based framework he inherited from the bush administration, for example he kept the faith-based office and started a similar initiative in the state department. in conclusion, nearly four decades after letting 76, the year when george gallup junior announced the year of the evangelical and when jimmy carter won office the potential