>> we've got right here, dan philpot. >> i'm dan philpot from the university of notre dame thank you for an excellent panel. one of the things i appreciated about it how much each analyst takes seriously the kind of sincere and genuine role of of religion in world affairs. but it wasn't always so. in his book the eagle and lion, james birecounts the story of analyst ernie olney saying religion is important in iran, we have trouble on the horizon all the colleagues ridiculed him, mullah ernie was the name he earned. my question is how much in u.s. foreign policy as we saw in the attitude toward mubarak, hanging on too long and so forth, how much is u.s. foreign policy shaped by kind of widely shared secularism in the u.s. foreign policy establishment? a secularism that says religion is rational or relevant. how much that is true? >>> we'll try to make our answers a little briefer. there is -- elliott eluded to this -- there is a question of what is secularism. i once had a question with condee rice. i said do you consider yourself a secularist? she said, no, i'm a religious person. so