religious liberty, bill galston is quite right. if unprecedented is heard to mean just the biggest or the largest of magnitude in some very flat-footed way, he is quite right. this is not the worst that's ever happened. i think it's bigger than some of his examples of possibly worse things because this is a federal mandate, unlike the oregon law that would have put catholic schools out of business in the 1920s or making jehovah's witnesses kids raise their hands and salute the flag. bad as they were, they weren't sweeping national norms and requirements. so this mandate being a national norm looks for competition elsewhere. i think that on some basic measure of magnitude, the mandate is not a competitor for the worst title with the lds church's travails with the federal government spalling almost 100-year-long campaign with native american indians. now i won't go into any of the details, but no doubt the government's campaigns vis-a-vis lds and american indians were larger and more pointed to actually extra patepate a relig. but th

will, the lawsuits presently on file will eventually be in the supreme court, and i agree with bill galston. i think this is what he was saying is that the mandate stands in peril of being invalidated by the courts under rifra. that's a very strong possibility. my own judgment is that be very difficult for the administration lawyers to convince a court that the mandates narrow exemption is the least restrictive means of achieving the administration's goal for the moment assuming that the goal is a compelling state interest. the goal being namely and i'll just read you the words of president obama on february 10th. this seems to me the heart or aim of the mandate. every woman should be in control of the decisions that affect her own health, period. now whatever you think of that goal, it seems to be the goal, and even assuming a court deems it compelling, it still seems to me in light of what's been said earlier by a couple of our speakers about the seeming casualness of the adoption of the mandate by secretary sebelius and her advisers. they seem to have no imperical studies about other mea

will, the lawsuit presently on file will eventually be in the supreme court, and i agree with bill galston. i think the mandate stands in peril of being invalidated by the law. i think that's a very strong possibility. my own judgment is the lawyers who convince the court that the mandate narrow exemption is the least restrictive means of achieving the administration's goal, assuming that the goal is a compelling state entrance, the goal being namely -- and i'll read the words of president obama of february 10. this seems to be the heart of the aim of the mandate. every woman should be in control of the decisions that affect her own health. now, whatever you think of goal, it seems to be the goal, and even assuming a court deems it compelling, it still seems to me in light of what was said earlier by a couple of speakers about the seeming casualness of the adoption of the mandate by secretary sebelius and her advisors. they seem to have no studies about comparative effectiveness of other means to achieving the goal, ensuring every woman is in charge of her health. my own judgment is they w

speaker, bill galston is a public intellectual and i mean that as a very high compliment. bill is a member of a diminishing breed of men and women who effectively combine advanced scholarly accomplishments of public engagement and even with the goal of effectiveness and influence who now holds a cherub workings, he is there a say card-carrying academic political theorist. his 1991 book called liberal purposes, goods, virtues and diversity in the liberal state is widely regarded as an important book invaluable contribution to american political theoretical discourse and a very important book. i still think it is underappreciated. not is largely regarded as the important work that it is. i think it is an invaluable contribution to the understanding of modern liberalism because it is one of the very few books. i can think of only one other, which in a full way takes up the project to what i would call liberal perfectionism or perfectionist liberalism. the other book i'm thinking a morality of freedom. i think the book is absolutely important. as a public intellectual, which me