since you mentioned charles taylor, give us the ways in which churros taylor -- charles taylor is a greatthinker, but he is my mind a frustrating way of using the first person and sources of this out years ago from my thinking about this. if you think this country and see if it has a disagreement that actually help us explain more about the political and cultural realities. whenever taylor says we, as could you name? i don't recognize myself. i started to pull on that thread. >> i'm struck by a comment you said that there hasn't been much change in the states influence from a confession state to a privatized version of religion that bestows those individual right. my question in terms of lucky not to send says society as a smartphone as a whole, the political and theological intertwine, what do you do with the fact that the structures and institutions that used to make a possible now formally sued for the individuated right to let's say religious freedom. partygoer fat? if you're asking specifically about the relationship of the cat church to the individual support of religious freedom in

actually it was the ways in which charles taylor and charles taylor is a great thinker but to my mind he is a frustrating way of using a first-person plural, we end it was his frustrating way of using that and the sources that planted the seeds for my thinking about this. i think alastair macintyre is much better at this and to the point. he sees the kinds of disagreements and heterogeneity that helps us explain more about the kinds of political and wider cultural realities that we inhabit the taylor does. when it's taylor is they who do you mean because lots of times when he says we are other writer say we i don't recognize myself. if i don't write as myself i start to hold the thread. >> i was struck by a comment you made sort of that there hasn't been much change in the states influence on religion from a confessional state to a privatized version of religion and this does those individual rights. my question in terms of looking at this with a sense of society as a small organic whole in the political and the theological and economic more intertwined, what you do with the fact that

the years -- three years ago charles taylor was here. he basically said, we are these people for whom faces a choice to be in a window was not true for people on the best. so you had said, we are catholic protestant, secularist, whatever. on the other hand, you are also arguing that we are all inheritors of the reformation in some way. toby out on the diversity of who we are today with is the fact that we all are somehow -- >> right question. i did think it is possible to answer that. we are all effected by the consequences, long-term consequences of the reformation era love -- whether we like and not regardless of what we individually might affirm or how we live with in a hyper pluralism in so far, for example, as we all live within western liberal political restitution. everyone who lives in a western country lives in this kind of structure with the variations, the belgian, the u.s. is the case may be, we also all live within capitalist market economies that are part of an interconnected global market network regardless, even the peopl

they swapped resources with people like charles taylor for guns.f business of war, self-perpetuating. you did not need a country to back you up anymore. you could just deal with arms dealers as is happening the war the democratic republic of congo, sierra leone, angola. because of its lightweight nature, the factory was cheap and ubiquitous, child soldiers were able to operate them without a logistics trail, very meek easy to maintain and so forth. >> let's go back to mikhail kalashnikov talking about his invention. >> the weapons and should only be in the hands of those people who defend their country, that is to defend, not attack. i designed a rifle now for international conflict, but to protect the borders of my homeland. >> that was mikhail kalashnikov. can you talk about the coalition a cough and its affect on the frequency and violence? >> i think it is an enabler of war. what happens is although the gun is in fighting the war itself, certainly the ability to kill so many people in such a short amount of time, 600 rounds per minute, had neve