they were just very, very different from the mainstream religion. however in the kind of diverse atmosphere that we are in today, the mainstream has been destroyed. there really is no mainstream left, and even among the larger religious groups, let's say those groups that have a million or more members. the whole spectrum is now here. it's not just a matter of there being christian groups and little bitty other groups. it's a matter of there being large numbers of buddhists, large numbers of hindus, large numbers of muslims, large numbers of jews and so we have a much different scenario. and simplifying things as church, sect, cult doesn't work anymore. the term cult in particular has been transformed into a pejorative term, just for - it really means a group we don't like. and there are all kinds of different reasons why we might not like it but in using it in this kind of pejorative way it truly lost all of its value for religious study as a descriptive term. and in like measure sect, has somewhat lost it's value. and now it's much more important

and worthy men of every religion. the freedom to remain loyal to one's faith while engaging americans of other faith is the essence of what this country and the constitution means to jews and it's this american idea that's being challenged by the administration. to theler guy on my panel it's my privilege to join arms with all you in the face of this troubling attempt to restrict the very freedom that the first amendment was crafted to protect. when the liberties of conscience afforded my fellow americans are threatened and when the definition of religion is being defined, i am proud to stand with you. thank you for having me. [ applause ] >> maybe you see why i'm so proud. well thank you to all of our panelists. it's wonderful to have this wide representation of traditions, five major traditions in the united states represented. of course, there are people from other traditions as well who are doing heroic work in the battle for religious freedom. we can expand the panel if we had more space and more time. we would.

is this going to affect the organization of religions or are we going to see religions further splitting according to who has wealth and who doesn't in our society? >> well, i think we've already seen some of that in some places. but, being in los angeles i am seeing a different kind of model where, and i think this is the value of living in a major urban centre-- where churches are and other religious groups are really seeing their mandate as closing that divide and bringing people together and building bridges across the class line that seems to be widening. again, some of my students have gone out to what would seem to be suburban type religious institutions, who could be sort of isolated, comfortable middle class people. and those people are developing strong bonds with what we might call inner city poor institutions, religious institutions and they are doing work together which i think always binds people well. work to improve the standing of people in the inner city. so, we are probably going in both those directions at the same time. the divide is widening but at least some church

>> no, not necessarily, but it means religion free, and secular being religion free he wasn't a religion free guy, he didn't exclude religion from what he did, i am going to compartmentalize religion and here is everything else. he let it get into everything. >> stewart: he didn't mean to say it exactly like that, but -- because i never viewed the word secular as religion free. i always viewed it as nonspecific, as far as religion, like you would say the nfl is secular. >> right. >> stewart: but they pray after every game. >> i am involved with too many court cases and when you get in court secular is religion free. >> stewart: is it possible that because you are involved in these court cases and you are on the front line of that that your perspective of this as a larger problem may be over blown because the majority of people -- because you are fighting those. >> it could be, but at the same time i speak at a ton of law schools and find the same thing, from particularly the professors and they go nuts when i say jefferson was not an anti-religious -- >> yes, he was so they have got -- >

for orthodox jews, religion and tradition govern their religion, religion informs our conduct in the manifestation of religious beliefs from feeding the hungry to assessing medical ethics to a million things in between. in refusing to extend religious liberty beyond the parameters of what the above decision chooses to dean religious conduct, the administration denies people of faith the ability to define their religious activity. not only is this a threat to the root -- peaked liberty of religion by requiring individuals and organizations to violate their religious tenets but also the administration and played -- impedes religious freedom. [applause] this, as it were, is an attempt to well up chupa, to force americans to relegate religious beliefs to the private domain. several months after attending the jewish wedding and mentioned earlier, benjamin rush participated in celebration of another union -- a parade in honor of the american constitution had had just been ratified by the state. he noted the parade featured a spectacle impossible in the europe of his death. "the clergy of t

the founders clearly understood the importance of your right to practice or not practice religion in this country however in a predominantly christian nation the significance of atheism is growing popularity has been underscored in today's social dialogue atheism is one of the fastest growing social movements in the country yes it is a movement and it's also gaining substantial political ground earlier this year d.c. as reason rally brought in twenty thousand people in the pouring rain to stand for atheistic ideals so as atheism a force to be reckoned with and what will this mean to the dynamics of our country in the future to answer that i was joined earlier by david silverman president of american atheists here's his take on the role of atheism in america today. well it's been largely ignored or marginalized because really. jand wants it that way and religion does not want their parishioners or their flock talking to atheist because quite frankly we make a lot more sense than they do so they tell them they tell their parishioners that we're bad we're evil we're grumpy we have no mo

a religion. congress could establish a religion. congress couldn't say anything about establish religion. the point is although madison wanted a national statement about freedom of religion, what ended up coming out with the federal principle we left the states to decide what their religion and policy wise. he also tried to get a statement included in the constitution that states could not violate free exercise of religion, trial by jury or freedom of the price. this too was the end people in the congress were in favor was clarification of limits of federal authority, but not some new limit on the state's power in area. and why was that? well, they've just gotten through revolution against centralized authority. they had just won the revolution on behalf of local self-government through legislative elections and they weren't about to turn around and say here five, six years later we wanted newfangled model in which we new yorkers, were not going to have control over these questions. so madison ul

not because i hate religion but i like it. madison didn't think that the government should be secular because he was sir religious. we often make the mistake of thinking anybody who doesn't think the government should be enforcing a religious position must think religion is not important. but there is nothing in any of madison's writing to think that was his view. his view is it was -- his stated position was because it was the most important thing he didn't want politicians to be involved in it. here's something we don't think about. if you think about the world today you will see it is true. he thought having a general assessment would drive immigration. start enforcing religion people will leave virginia. they will go to pennsylvania. they will go to kentucky or somewhere else where you have freedom of religion. it happens in our world all the time. besides that he said the argument people are making in favor of a general assessment doesn't make sense. if there has been a breakdown of society during the work it is because w

the founders clearly understood the importance of your right to practice or not practice religion in this country however in a predominately christian nation the significance of atheism is growing poppy that popularity has underscored in today's social dialogue atheism is one of the fastest growing social movements in the country yes it is a movement and it's gaining substantial political ground earlier this year d.c. has reason rally and brought in twenty thousand people in the pouring rain to stand for it theistic ideals so as atheism a force to be reckoned with and what will this mean and then dynamics of our country to answer that i'm joined by c sorry but i see it monthly is not here and david silverman president of the american atheists. thank you for having me on the show abbi thank you so much so why do you think that you know atheism is growing faster than any other movement it seems why do you think it's a largely ignored or marginal. in the social dialogue well it's been largely ignored or marginalized because religion wants it that way and religion does not want their par

jesus-loving religion. more of an emphasis on jesus, less of an emphasis on god, the father. the way that move in evangelicalism which was the dominant form of christianity in the 21st century is what a friend we have in jesus, hymns like that, seeing jesus as walking and talking with you, holding your hand. >> the sweet jesus. >> that's right. >> did the sweet jesus further degeneral rate into the efundamental national jesus meaning more womanly than man, the hair, the look? >> it deposition on your perspective whether that's a degeneration or improvement but he was fundamental niced during the course of the 19th century. >> you regard jesus as anything but a distortion? >> i don't really know what jesus was like. >> well, that produced a reaction to that and then we had the manly jesus, did we not? >> yes. >> was that in the company, the era of teddy roosevelt and his lament over the overcivilized men in the famous speech he gave? >> right in the strenuous life. in that period, 19th century turning into t

>> i do think that parliament of world's religions was organized religion at its best. and i think that the increase of diversity, not just in our country, which is the one, of course, we're in a position to notice the most, but in every country, i think it's happening. and so if- anyone who isn't feeling at least a little bit uncomfortable probably is not in touch with what's going on. >> well, said, yeah. >> deep changes are happening all over the world that way, and i think both of these gentlemen are correct- it's going to have to be a very different kind of mind set for the world, and a global philosophy, a spirituality, in a sense of being able to go beyond just the desire to acquire more. >> it's been an uncomfortable time to be alive. i don't know how- i don't want to speak for everyone, but it's just generally not been comfortable. sure. >> but that energy- the moving toward wholeness, or the sense that the world religions want to try to move toward wholeness, as stated by their leadership, is the same kind of energy on the other side of the coin, that moves fo

for the sake of religion. unspeakable wrongs can be done by people sincerely trying to get right with god or gods or their conception of all to the reality. the presumption in favor of respecting liberty must, for the sake of human good and the dignity of human persons as free and rational creatures, the powerful in broad. it is not unlimited. even the great end up getting right with god cannot justify immorally bed means, even for the sincere believer. i do not the nel -- i do not doubt the sincerity of aztecs or those in the history of conditions of faith who have used coercion and torture in the cause of what they believed was religiously required. these things are deeply wrong. it they need not and should not be tolerated in the name of religious freedom. to speak otherwise is to get into the position of supposing that violations of religious freedom must be respected for the sake of religious freedom. obviously, that cannot be right. still, to overcome the powerful and brought presumptions that should be

religion being a species of bias. now, i submit to you, and i won't have a chance to prove it, therefore, i won't fend off all of your counterclaims by saying i didn't really get into that, but i think what's happening is that a body of people with certain moral views about controversial issues like abortion, same-sex marriage and contraception, are being called by outsiders, that's your religion, whether you know it or not, or whether you like to admit it or not, and your religion, your doctrine, they're not reasonable. now, you hold them, and in some limited sense they might be true, but they're beyond rational defense. they're rationally indefensible. they're like biases. they don't have any traction on the public sphere. so, religion is being squished into this space reserved for the beyond the rational. because that's one thing. perhaps naturally it follows that the view i'm describing, which is a view behind the mandate and a narrow exemption and other initiatives, about religious institutions, what's their valu

or religion. religion being a species of bias. i won't fend off all your counterclaims by saying i didn't really get into that, but i think what's happening to that is that a body of people with certain moral views about controversial issues like abortion, same-sex marriage and contraception are being told by outsiders that's your religion, whether you know it or not or like to admit it or not, and your religion, your doctrine, tenets of your religion, they're not reasonable. now you hold them and in some limited strange sense they might be true, but they are beyond rational defense. they are rationally indefensible. they are like biases. they don't have any traction on the public sphere. so religion and doctrine thereof is being squished into this space reserved for the beyond the rational. because that's one thing. perhaps naturally it follows from that that the view i'm describing, which is a view behind the mandate in an era exception and other initiatives about religious institutions. what's

a religion.ongress could establish a religion. congress couldn't say anything about establish religion. the point is although madison wanted a national statement about freedom of religion, what ended up coming out with the federal principle we left the states to decide what their religion and policy wise. he also tried to get a statement included in the constitution that states could not violate free exercise of religion, trial by jury or freedom of the price. this too was the end people in the congress were in favor was clarification of limits of federal authority, but not some new limit on the state's power in area. and why was that? well, they've just gotten through revolution against centralized authority. they had just won the revolution on behalf of local self-government through legislative elections and they weren't about to turn around and say here five, six years later we wanted newfangled model in which we new yorkers, were not going to have control over these questions. so madison ulti

. >> when a time and place for expression religion become hazy. we ask what are our rights and how can we protect them? we'll explore that issue right now on equal time. >> from san jose state university, you're watching equal time, exploring new issues each week. equal time to points of view. >> hello from the campus of san jose state university and welcome to this edition of equal time. i'm your host journalism school director bob rucker. in the united states people are allowed to practice religion without conflict. the right to expression religion is not as simple as it may seem. as we report, some say they're suffering discrimination in an un-american way. >> just like any other american college student, she's a mayor at san jose state university and enjoys spending time with friends and family as well as playing music. she's an average college student and has to deal with something others may not. islam phobia. >> i've been called a woman whose oppressed and gets beaten up beamier husband every night even though i'm not married. >> she says t

so religion, how to regard religion and the place that religion has in making us one people is all still contested to rain in 2012 and only gets more complicated with every year. >> charlayne, similarly you talked about the role of the media in the civil rights struggle in the '60s and how getting the media and getting those pictures. but also today the media seems to be a more complicated picture. is the media on the side of promoting civil rights today? can it still be used as effectively as it was in the '60s? >> i think the media are as confused as ray talked about the american people over religion. you know, we were talking just before we started about the multiplicity of media forums today. you know, you've got the internet. you've got your cell phone. you've got things that i probably don't even know about. some of these young people could probably help me out here a little bit, but there's so many different ways of communicating that it's hard to get any centrality of ideas put across, other than maybe on "the newshour," right? my former home, i have to say that. the other thing

when the debate, i would say the debate over religion and politics and religion in general and americad the west as a whole was dominated a new dining area, where you had conservative christians on the one hand and secular liberals are more militant like the new atheists on the other hand. we lived through a period where there is secular liberal panic over the looming specter of a theocracy that michael gerson was going to an onus on us in the bush white house. and at the same time, you had religious believers are themselves into the fray against christopher hitchens, richard dawkins and daniel done it and all the other voices as thin hair is in the voices of the new atheists. in spite of my exhaustion with a theocracy debate, the broader debate is there a god or not is usually can be hugely important when. but it struck me is that both solid and it dissipated in these debates, the kind of binary was missing a huge part of the story of religion in the united states and that the real story at an american at large is not a story of pope benedict the 16th luck in fact correct with christo

a second era where bad religion lacks some charitity. s religious people in government who come in for a beating. here i have some experience, this makes me completely biased. it also gives me some direct knowledge, particularly, whether it comes to motives. ross accuses president bush, for example, of a public piety. which i never saw him prabt is. he talks of frenzied rhetoric and the language of the holly war which we studiously avoided. he refers to the intervention in iraq is the result of mess nannic nationalism, this is in my view nonsense. the presidential calculation about a mass murder may have been mistaken but had nothing to do with hair see. these arguments fit the themes of the book. they are a rougherrer response reality. make it takes some time in government to realize how tough it is to govern. the third area where the book lacks clarity is the -- ross argue it is lacks, quote, an impressive literary school. the churches are tacky, the gar rich and nigh veef president culture products are second-rate. the talent deficit.

but at a cost, the cost is you have to keep your religion private, but in your public life it can't, it can't bear. i think a lot of people in europe on both sides of the divide believed that you had to opt for one of the following two thing. either the domination of a religious majority, or secularization of the public square. to me the american experience shows that those are false alternatives, that you can have robust religion and robust freedom together. >> that's exactly right and if i can quote. i didn't want to quote it before because it was a very serious matter. if i can quote yogi berra who when he was told that mayor of dublin, ireland was jewish, he said the mayor of dublin, ireland is jewish? only in america. [ laughter ] >> bishop cordileone would want me to point out yogi berra is a great catholic theologyian. >> no argument there. i think that's exactly right. i think it was toquesville who said in europe it was said -- i can't quote the text of american public life -- >> written by a frenchman. >> he said something like in europe it was assumed that faith and reason

and it is one that is inherently hostile to religion. i find the obama administration on this particular issue to be monolithic. >> next question from a gentleman on my left. >> i am mike from missouri. first welcome i would like to just say that the missouri state filed the first piece of legislation to block a lawsuit against president obama's health care bill. we are also on the primary ballot the next few months, we will be hearing legislation about public school. a couple of great things. my question is, my wife and i went to a graduation at harry s. truman high school in independence, missouri. it was held at the auditorium in independence. that is the church of latter-day saints. it is their world headquarters building. they started the commencement out with a moment of reflection. no prayer. you think that has to do with the church and what they would allow them to do in that building? or do you think that would be leadership in that high school that had failed those children to not be able to pray before that? and they were goin

let's move back to religion. i want to get back there. here is the thing about religion. on one hand it seems wrong and liberal to question anybody's religion. except, i'm agnostic and i don't like religion playing a role in our politics at all. any time we make a decision based on--what does for things, i know people get mad when i say that. but i don't believe what you believe. i believe we should make our laws based on logic and reason. what is going on in mormonism and will it effect mitt romney. >> i think it will effect mitt romney. i think it will probably suppress his base from coming out because they don't want to vote for a guy who is not really a christian. 1978 is when they caught up with the civil rights movement. they were ten years behind lbj. if they open up this can of windstorms it will hurt them. i would love for them to say see them do it. they have taken on mormonism heavily, but i would like to see people generally ridiculing mormonism. >> cenk: i don't want people to think that we're picking on mormon. as an agnostic, i find all religion the same. m

free exercise of religion is far more robust and includes the right to share one's faith and to live out the limits of one faith in the social and economic spears. in other words, the freedom to exercise or act and the right not to be coerced. as cardinal dolan said in his 22nd letter, the obama administration has reduced the exercise to a privilege as a mere exemption from an all-encompassing extreme form of secularism. insdeed, i think i can make an argument that this extreme secular contest violates not only the first amendment's free exercise clause but the establishment clause as well. when the federal government asserts the right to universally mandate action, trample religious exemptions and then grant exemptions to whom it so chooses, the government is behaving perilously like a secular theocracy granting a theological indulgence to a chosen few. roger williams, the 17th century baptist minister and founder of what is now rhode island said man has no powers to make laws to bind conscious and went on to say that forcing a person's conscious was rape of the soul. thomas jeffers

a religion.ngress could establish a religion. congress couldn't say anything about establish religion. the point is although madison wanted a national statement about freedom of religion, what ended up coming out with the federal principle we left the states to decide what their religion and policy wise. he also tried to get a statement included in the constitution that states could not violate free exercise of religion, trial by jury or freedom of the price. this too was the end people in the congress were in favor was clarification of limits of federal authority, but not some new limit on the state's power in area. and why was that? well, they've just gotten through revolution against centralized authority. they had just won the revolution on behalf of local self-government through legislative elections and they weren't about to turn around and say here five, six years later we wanted newfangled model in which we new yorkers, were not going to have control over these questions. so madison ultim

an intolerance to religion. perhaps that is one of the greatest threats we are all facing, intolerance to religion, which can lead to the absence of religion in the public marketplace, which can lead to silencing our voices about religious issues, which can lead to prejudice and violence, etc. on february 3, 1943, the united states army transport ship with 902 soldiers and sailors aboard was traveling the icy atlantic waters over the newfoundland. less than 150 miles from their destination, a german boat hit them and it began to go down. through the pandemonium and chaos, four army chaplain's brought open comfort a misty darkness -- army chaplains brought open comfort amidst darkness and impending death. one private found himself surrounded by dead bodies and debris. he said, i could hear the chaplains preaching courage. it was the only thing that gave me hope and keeping -- kept me going. the lifeboats were gay -- were given to four horrified soldiers. it is one of the purest, hole is, and most ethical act any

a speech in which mitt romney had nothing good to say about your religion if your religion isn't christianbute to the gracious christian example of your founder. jerry deserves the tribute he would have treasured most as a cheerful confident champion for christ. he explained by pointing to me and then himself, he said christ died between two thieves. young christians were drawn to such a university in ever great numbers. here you are. christianity is not the faith of the complacent, the comfortable or the timid. it demands and creates heroic souls like wesley, will ber force and john paul ii and billy graham. each showed the relentless and powerful influence of the message of jesus christ. someone observed that the great drama of christianity is not a crowd shot following the movements of collectives or even nations. the drama is always personal, individual, unfolding for one own life. no greater good than christian conscious in action. >> there is no greater force for good in the nation. than jewish conscious in action. why didn't mitt romney say that at liberty university. why didn't mit

so what is this religion meant to do? it's meant to bolster christian spirit in the face of martyrdom. so an apocalyptic theodicy- a religious one- says, "yes, you're suffering. yes, it hurts. yes, change is a bummer. but on the cosmic level, this is wonderful, because what's happening in heaven is the beginning of the end time, and that shows that just around the corner, you will be saved, you'll be vanquished." so you can bear up under it, and that's what we see. now the branch davidians, this is a classic religious apocalyptic theodicy, running in the minds of david koresh and his followers, in which they're at the end - time, they're on- he literally transfers, as we see in this roll-in; actually, we'll see it here very shortly- the actual plain of armageddon- he transfers it to the plains of texas. and in the minds of his followers, when those atf agents are coming across that field there in february of '93, they're playing right into his religious apocalyptic theodicy. so i found myself out on mount megiddo in israe

the exemption reduces the freedom of religion to freedom of worship. but more importantly, the purpose of the litigation is to block government coercion, to act against conscious. those deemed not to be religious employers will be forced by the government to violate their own teaching within their very own institution. this is not only an injustice in itself, but it also undermines the effective proclamation of those teachings to the faithful and to the world. i emphasize the fact of government coercion because it is one of the key differences between a mere dispute over reproductive health policy and a dispute over religious freedom. nose who would try to conceal the religious freedom aspect have done all in their power to conceal the key facts that the church is being forced by the government to violate its own belief. in a bizarre turn, those same advocates accuse the church of somehow forcing its beliefs on others. when the exact opposite is true. to be sure, the mandate entails a breach in the separation of church and state, but it is an incursion

and then minority religions. we walked in to meet this fellow and it was the end of our trip, and we were not aware of what a prestigious person this was, what a major world religious leader this was. and so we stumble into his office, we're nice enough, he's very polite, he allows us to set up, and we're just getting ready for the interview, and this man, this religious leader, this author of hundreds of books, suddenly breaks down into tears- he starts crying right there. and we're going, you know, "what? what's going on?" well, it turns out he'd just received a phone call, and a muslim who had converted to christianity- and as many of you may know, that can call, in some instances, for a death sentence- a muslim who was trying to leave the country, one of his follows had just been picked up at the cairo airport and the police had him. and the man, this powerful religious leader is crying- no power again, you know, to go back to it. so let's hear a couple of words from reverend noor, a protestant christian in c

well, politics and religion are place where's we find out certainty. in religion you have your faith. you know your faith is the correct one. in politics -- you do. in politics you pick your side and you fight it out until election day, and then you fight it out forever after that. why should we not be divided in this way? >> well, what the book is about is where moralts comes from and what it does to us. it's kind of amazing we can cooperate with people who aren't our kin and the way we do it is we form these teams, these tribes, these hives and circle around sacred objects and lose sieft truth. we're totally focused on being part of the team and fighting the other side. >> stephen: you say we make snap judgments about the other side. okay, that's called. called... intuition. it's called the gut. i make gut judgments about people and later i figure out a mental justification. ( laughter ). #-r for that judgment. you say that people do that all the time. so what are we saying about each other left and right? >> well, we use our reasoning just to basica

religion being a species of violent. submit to you and i want to have a to prove it, therefore false and off all your counterclaims by saying i didn't get into that, but i think what is happening is a body of people with certain moral views about contra issues like abortion, same-sex marriage are being told by outsiders, that's a religion whether you know it or not or whether you like to admit it or not. in your religion, your dog dream, they are not reasonable. i do hold them in some limited strange sense they may be true. they are beyond rational defense. the rationally defensible. they don't have any traction on the public sphere. so religion and doctrine they are at the speeds wished into the space reserved for beyond the rational because it is one thing. perhaps naturally follows the fact that the one describing, behind the mandate and other initiatives about religious institution. what is their value from the point of view of the public or from the point of view of the political common good? religious institutions

religion talks about life and death religion talks about the soul. of the truth self control the meaning of life and so on. once you start thinking about these things one way or another you will come in touch with a religion because that is specifically with christianity because we have been living in christian civilization for the past two thousand years but the so all my films how this eternal issues present in them but in different ways. i like what. i have said that you know this was when the nats the war about to take over france they had taken over germany and they were about to take over france said these days and agonizing atheist schools or to god then it complacent christian. thing to do. so i prefer an agonizing atheist over a complacent believe or. you know some people are very complacent it's as if they give their money and their. hard to the church and now they don't worry about anything at all. the films on the car budget crisis they're about shameful repentance and crisis screwed with the russian people say the living conditions is pa

in the opinion, the court threw out the notion of free exercise and religion, that free religion advocates fought prevailed for many, many years. before then, in order for a government law that was generally neutral, not targeted at religion, but a neutral law -- in order for it to burden the free exercise of religion and not be struck down, it had to be -- the government had to show it was showing a compelling state interest and the means were the least restrictive on religious liberty. the issue at hand was whether native americans could be using peyote as a part of their religious services. could the government restricts that -- restrict that in outlawing hallucinogenic drug use? what happened in that case was that the compelling state interest was thrown out. and the standard was reduced for the protection of free exercise. if you had a general law not designed to discriminate against religious freedom, the government had a rational basis. that would be sufficient. what was the reaction? a broad coalition stretching from the far left to the far right gathered together, worked with bipa