tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN March 24, 2014 11:00pm-1:01am EDT
are very clear. for example going back to the palestinian suicide bombers. "if you die in jihad, if you die in holy war, and you kill for the profit, you will reach the place inays in -- paradise." that verse has motivated people to kill. it has validated. some person is motivated the bowl. now, some are considered fraud, forgery. but the ones written 1000 years ago, he is considered one of the most credible authors of those who understand islam. >> do you think because of impoverished areas that it could be considered self culture in
some of these areas? it is still the culture of revenge. >> are there groups that are willing partners of terrorist? they know the sectors exist in they're going to do it they need to did. >> i mention the country of iran. they have definitely helped hezbollah. there's the question about that. do we let them do what they do? >> there are cases of terrorists moving in the country does not do anything about it.
>> do you think goes on in other countries? >> there's no question about it. >> we talk about the peaceful muslims in the radical muslims which we considered to be about 10%. when the radical muslims pressure the peaceful muslims, will they stand up for they claimove that they have that they get to enjoy in america under the liberty that we have and stand up and die instead of submitting to the oppression of the minority.
peaceful muslims in many countries on earth to stand up more. i fear some of them do not stand up. fearould americans have a of sharia law? i hear people tell me this all the time. sure realize coming. is it coming to the united states? >> it will not be here anytime soon but if we are too complacent, it may come here in a few centuries. sharia is not compatible with our constitution. > because of mercy killings? >> the main tenets of sharia, basically, it has freedom of speech restrictions which contradicts the first amendment. >> over here? >> i get the impression that our current administration should
negotiate with terrorists. is that a possibility? >> has barack obama said we should not fight terrorism? >> that's the impression that i get. he went to cairo and he said he wanted to make friends with the muslim brotherhood and other organizations how much i get the impression that he is not out for a physical fight but he gives the impression that he wants to negotiate to settle issues. >> inviting the muslim brotherhood over there was a hetake but i don't think refuses to fight terrorism. he does fight terrorism. as far as negotiating with terrorists, for me that would be a no-no. never negotiate with terrorists. >> how active is the muslim brotherhood in north america? >> it is very active in america, many countries.
it's very active in belgium where i come from. in the u.k..ria it is active in many many countries. that one billion muslims are directly or indirectly affected with the muslim brotherhood. >> i had a question from one of our listeners that wanted to sector ofhe asian this world deals with terrorism. do they handle terrorism, the japanese, chinese, do they handle it differently than western countries do? >> i don't think they handle it differently than we do. they do have a lot of terrorist groups. these are separatist terrorist groups. in asia, you have a lot of separatist groups, groups of people who want to be independent and that is why they commit terrorist attacks. >> way in the back, your question.
>> you mentioned freedom fighters earlier in your presentation. thehere good terrorism? american revolutionary fighters, the 1760-17her ring 90's when we were fighting the british, we were freedom fighters and terrorists but we just happen to win. are claimed to be terrorists but if you look at ho chi minh and vietnam, can there be a good form of terrorism? >> don't look at what they say, look at what they do. they use terrorist practices. during the revolution here, we used no terrorist practices. >> hold on one second. we want to hear you. >> we use unconventional methods for the time. war was meant on line facing
each other, the frontline shoots, they take a knee, third line shoots. >> there were different methods. marionou look at francis in south carolina, that was completely unconventional. is the revolutionary .oldiers one so it's ok why is that not consider terrorism? build andve a suicide they went next to a tourist bus killing a lot of civilians. did we do anything like this in the american revolution? we used rifles and techniques. i doubt george washington and ben franklin were terrorists. >> for the students in your class, what do you want them to do with what they have learned in these classes. how will they apply it in their
lives? >> a class on terrorism unlike a class on engineering, it is more of an awareness, more theoretical. it is not really applicable. i'm not telling them to buy a glock 17. that's not the case. it is more about information and how to understand the concept of terrorism better. generallyg students are aware of much of this? they just have to focus on it? or are they totally blown away by what you are teaching? was going to walk into that at some point. studied the carranza in its entirety? do you read arabic? do you understand arabic koran?e you studied the carran a
>> before i get that entirely it will take some time. [inaudible] a lot of muslims themselves do not speak arabic. a lot of jewish people don't speak hebrew. i have a lot of english .ranslations >> give her the microphone so she can be heard. >> you agree that you have not torryd it in its entire you are judging it. >> is it your assessment he cannot speak to the issue until he has studied all of that? judgment, you need to know the subject in its entirety.
actcannot just judge by the of a few terrorists. that is what i feel you are doing. you are judging a religion by the acts of a few terrorists. i am a muslim. and i can diee for america because this is my country. [applause] >> point, counterpoint. >> let him respond. >> because i don't speak arabic, i will never know the subject entirely. a lot of muslims don't speak arabic. >> you are right. i am from india. i have read and understood the quaran. arabic but it don't speak it. i am a muslim for the last 40 years. i'm still reading it and i'm not
done yet. ow can you judge a religion? >> you are making an assumption about me. why do 90% of the suicide bombings have in the middle east? >> it exist in all countries and all religions but some pick and choose. it's not right. you should not link terrorism to any religion because no religion on this earth teaches violence. every religion encourages peace. , to be ainformation believelim, you should in jesus christ. we should believe in moses to be a good muslim. it says in one of the verses that if you kill a human being that you are killing humanity.
>> let him address this. thank you. >> i will address you are ranting. qaran mentions the names of jesus, moses. he is not the son of god. so what you're doing is deception. >> let's go back to the audience and your question. hello, thank you for being with us. talk about to oppression of the palestinian people. >> i am a christian and you said that 90% of the bombings were suicides or whatever and was from the middle east. i'm a christian born to palestinian father. why can i not go back to my country? why have i never seen my country and i'm not allowed back there?
>> first of all, you may go back to your country so you're making the assumption -- >> i am not allowed there? by thet allowed there invasion of the operation. >> are all people in your situation? >> my dad just lost his citizenship. >> why? >> because of the operation. there is an invasion and we are being wiped away and there's an invasion. we are being wiped away from our country. having a greater discussion on terrorism. that is a state department issue and we won't be able to answer your question. answer.et an i don't know what the details are on the situation so we cannot answer it. >> i suggest that you go visit the middle east because it's in
not what you say it is. we are not jealous of your way of life. it is so much like ours. look at the way i dress and speak. >> have you ever gone to any of these countries that you talk of? >> i have never been to gaza or the west bank. you are assuming that i made a generalization and i did not. >> ok over here, your question. towhy would you relate this noam? it is related to person or religion. say if it happened in the united states, why did you related to this person's religion but if a muslim does an attack you right away related to .is religion >> we cannot understand the
question. it's too convoluted. i will give you one more try at this. >> why would you relate an attack to a muslim when they was a terrorism attack in the united states or somewhere else and you don't related to that person's >> if you read my book, i talk about islamist terrorism, christian terrorism, all kinds of religions. >> what's an example of christian terrorism? >> the christian identity movement. it operates on the principle that the true christians are an elite group of people, the white area ends. they killed those who don't agree. houses.burn down their they target their belongings. >> would you define those who
act out against abortion clinics as terrorism? >> indefinitely. antiabortion terrorism like the army of god. understand that the number of antiabortion killings in the past 20 years has been minimal. >> in the audience now. >> you are mentioning some verses of the qaran. these are cherry picked by al qaeda to suit their own ideas. mentioned that it might cause terrorism but you say it is the call of the religion. due to this version of the context, by them not understanding the context, are they misinterpreting the religion? >> are they hijacking religion? if you read the communiqué by osama bin laden and the mission statements of a lot of these
groups, they say they are following the core of the religion so they would disagree with you. like peaceful, cultural muslims to stand up more against these things but out of fear, they will not do it. >> right over here and then we will come back. you mentioned afghanistan, pakistan, iraq. what is the relationship between ourism and israeli? >> one of the goals of many g hottest groups is to take israel, jerusalem. the noble holy place. tradition has it that it was the place where mohammed ascended to heaven. it is the third holiest place. number one is mecca and number three is in israel. if you read the mission
statement of hamas, hezbollah, g hottest groups, they want -- groups, they want to take israel. >> we have time for a couple more questions. >> am having trouble understanding the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist. isn't it in the eyes of the beholder? isn't afghanistan a wonderful study in freedom fighter's versus terrorism? >> freedom fighters and terrorists, all they -- are they the same? >> it's a matter of semantics. they call themselves martyrs, heroes. worldview, different a different understanding of the world, a different frame of reference. where the discrepancy is between what they refer to themselves comes from. >> yankee for being with us
tonight. >> one reason you cited for -- arism is a piece people's self-determination but another example would be the state of israel. you mentioned in your group abused to have achieve their political goal as a part of zion is him. you are a member of christians united for israel. do you think you have a bias as it is the christian ideology towards the religion of islam and it influences your work? myself ad not call zion asked. >> are you in that organization? >> i'm an advisor. they were looking for someone and i said yes. always been has not clean. are they a terrorist group? no. >> when we talked about freedom fighters in the difference
between freedom fighters and terrorists, someone mentioned the revolution. i see the difference as being whether they attack military targets or civilian targets. do you see that? am i correct? at what has blunted in october 1980 three. they went to the marine barracks in beirut and had two truck bombs. the targets were military but the incident would still be called a terrorist attack. >> i have time for one more question. did we get everybody? right up front. thank you for being with us tonight. >> i have some of your radio speeches and i'm surprised. i know you raise the question of qaran motivating terrorism and all of that. at the same time, you have been mentioning osama bin laden --
the >> we are having trouble hearing you. >> osama bin laden is an individual. he is not a prophet. he might be following the religion of this long but he has no authority to say anything about terrorism or motivating people. >> let me address your question. >> osama bin laden was considered and he considered successor the direct to the prophet mohammed. that's how he saw himself. [inaudible] >> we are running out of time and i apologize if we are having to stop. thank our friends at c-span who came to be with us
tonight for this event. tonight event will be broadcast wndp and we will let you know when c-span will carry this most likely within the next month. our next event coming up will be a town hall with congressman ron desantis right here at embry riddle laudatory am. am i to remind you that our guest will be selling some of his dvds in just a moment. if you could line up to that side do say hello and pick up a copy, we will be making those sales right here. ladies and gentlemen once again, matusitz.
thank you for being with us here tonight. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] writer for cq roll call joins us with details on legislation making its way through the house and senate with aid for ukraine. let's start with the senate holding its first procedural vote today. what was a result of the vote and what are some of the details of the senate measure? it needed 60 votes to advance. 73-18 although i think there was some discussion about whether he was 17 at one point. it was a bigger margin than you might have expected given the fact that is controversial with a number of republicans.
i think everyone knew that it would succeed but a much larger margin than i probably thought it was going to do. the bill does three main things that are at the forefront of what congress is trying to do right now. sanctions peace aiming and russian officials were passed ukrainian officials who we have decided have been responsible for some wrongdoing and there is territorial sovereignty, things like that. another piece is loan guarantees. president wants to give $1 billion in loan guarantees and congress needed to weigh in on that. the third piece is the real sticking point right now. that is the one that allows the restructuring that the international monetary fund wants to allow it to go forward. >> what is expected to happen at this point in the senate on this it's not clear yet
what's going to happen. there will be a push probably for some amendments. there are some senators who would like to see the united states send military aid the way of ukraine. they will make public amendments to that. there are others who would like to see us beat up the natural notflow so that ukraine is as dependent on russia for its energy supply. there might be some things related to cyber security or trying to strip the imf language out. there may not be in agreement on amendments at all in case we would need more procedural votes. >> let's talk about who voted against the measure and why. guest: the main people who voted of it would be to the right the republican party, the most conservative members for the most part. you saw members like senator rand paul who voted no.
some republicans voted yes in part because they just want to get the bill going forward. some still don't like the language. senator rubio came out in favor. reason to oppose the imf region -- language, the ones you have. it relates to them not being totally comfortable with the imf doing as good a job being an international lender as it ought to. there are also concerns about what this approval might do to the u.s. budget. at a traden attempt offer earlier this year when the president was pushing this language and republicans wanted to see some irs rules that governs of some of these tea party groups that have seen the rule suspended in exchange for going for the imf language. house side, two bills were passed to provide loans to ukraine and called on the u.s.
to impose sanctions on iran but the house foreign affairs committee is taking up those issues again in the markup of a new combined legislation. why are they doing this and who are some of the key supporters and proponents of the bill that we should watch for on the house side? guest: it went through the house side really easily and that is not a part that anyone disputes. there is no political radioactive quality to that because there is no cost to the u.s. in the loan guarantee. the piece on sanctions is also not very controversial. we are talking about increasing sanctions on russians and that's not a hard thing to get through. ass bill that they are doing a bit more in the sanctions peace fan the loan guarantees did. the imf language is out of the bill and that basically was the house saying to the senate, you are trying to move this imf reform language. we don't like it. we will keep moving this.
there's a standoff over this one piece and mostly breaks down party lines but not entirely. democrats want to pass the easy stuff and work on the imf later. let's help ukraine now. and you see some republicans saying the same thing for the opposite reasons. let's go ahead and vote of this imf reform language just to get something to ukraine and help them out. >> when can we see the house take up its version of the bill? foreign affairs committee will vote tomorrow and there could be something on the house floor as soon as the end of the week. it's possible they could work it out timing wise where there could be a vote on that second ukraine bill by the end of the week. >> where is the white house on all of these efforts in congress? guest: the white house is in favor of all of the pieces. they say they have some sanctions authority already. they want the loan guarantee
language. they made it a big part of the budget proposal the last two years and president obama has personally talked about wanting congress to keep the imf language in the senate bill to move it forward and bring it to his desk. you can follow him on twitter and you can find is reporting on roll call. >> this is the conference report. 1053 pages weighing 14 pounds. [laughter] this is a reconciliation bill. .ix months late it was 1186 ages long weighing 15 pounds and a long-term continuing resolution -- [laughter]
[applause] [applause] this was two months late. it is long and weighs 14 pounds. that was a total of 43 pounds of paper and ink. hours, yes three hours to consider each. it took 300 people from my office of management and budget just to read the bill so the government would not shut down. congress should not send another
one of these. [applause] >> and if you do, i will not sign it. [applause] find more highlights from 35 years of house coverage on our facebook page. c-span created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you today as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. live events to tell you about tomorrow. the house foreign affairs
committee looks at the bill supporting the ukraine. it sanctions those who are undermining ukrainian independence. subcommittee will hear from members of the federal communications commission and budgets for the next year. the supreme court hears oral arguments on thursday regarding health care loss. general the solicitor and alan dershowitz look at the lobby. this is hosted by georgetown university and baylor university. this is one hour and a half. >> good afternoon, ladies and john.
welcome to washington dc. i am tom far. director of the religious freedom project at georgetown university's berkeley center for religion, peace and world affairs. if you would like to follow us our #is on topic. thank you for joining us for this conference. the conversation about religious freedom. i can promise you an illuminating few hours together. there will be a special on-topic conversation between the president and chancellor of baylor university, ken starr. and alan dershowitz. the subject will be the affordable care act and the
implications for american law and society. two panels will follow. the first will focus on the a case thats of will be heard tomorrow before the supreme court. i would like to acknowledge the green family. welcome. [applause] i would also like to acknowledge the presence of bill and christina, resident and executive director respectively of the becket fund for religious liberty, and their staff. becket is the nonprofit and educational institute representing hobby lobby before the supreme court. welcome to you all. [applause] the second panel today will build on the first.
it will look at the fascinating question of whether religious freedom is good for business and for the poor. i will introduce judge starr in just a minute, but before i do that, let me say a few words about this event. this conference celebrates a new partnership between two great state universities, georgetown, the oldest catholic university in the united states, and baylor, which is the largest protestant research university in the world. the cosponsors of this event are georgetown's religius freedom project, and baylor's institute for the use of religion, directed by professor byron johnson. the religious reagan project is freedom project is the only university-based center for the body of religious freedom in the world. our goal is to research and disseminate knowledge about religious freedom, what it is, why it is important, for every person, religious or not, for
every society, every state, and indeed, we believe religious freedom is important for international justice, stability, and peace. we define religious freedom in a broad and capacious way. it is the right of every person to believe and worship or not, and if one is a religious believer, to act on the basis of belief in the public life of one's nation, as an individual and member of a community. religious freedom, as we understand it, is not really a right to private worship. it entails the right to engage in civil society, business, and politics, on the basis of one's religious beliefs. religious liberty is not a mere
claim of privilege by religious people. rather, it is a pillar of stable democracy, economic development, and societal flourishing in general. unfortunately, notwithstanding its importance, religious freedom is in crisis throughout the globe. according to reports by the pew research center, 76% of the world population where there are severe actions of religious freedom, that is three out of four people on the planet. outside the west, those restrictions are often characterized by violent persecution of religious minorities.
inside the west, while violent persecution is not the norm, the pew report shows government restrictions of and social hostilities toward religion are on the rise, and that includes the united states of america. one of the questions looming behind this conference today is whether the hhs contraceptives mandate and cases like that of hobby lobby reflect good government policy, or are a sign of a declining respect for religious freedom in the united states. our goal at the religious freedom project is to raise the profile of this issue, both here and abroad. we want to increase the attention to religious freedom
among key groups that are not paying enough attention, in our judgment, that is government officials, the media, the academy, and the business world. we do our work to a team of international scholars, many of whom are here today, and two books and articles of the workshops and consultations with governments, public addresses, congressional testimony, media appearances, conferences like this one, and a vigorous web residents, including a new blog that we will formally launch later this month -- sorry, later this spring. all of these activities, we seek to engage not only religious groups but secular society in general, and in particular, the skeptics of religion. in a very real sense, ours is an attempt to attempt a conversation about religious freedom with everyone, especially those who do not share our premises or reviews.
in that respect, let me mention the new blog that we will formally launch there this spring, entitled cornerstone, a conversation on religious freedom and its social implications. astoundingly, notwithstanding the importance of the subject, there is not a single blog in the united states that focuses exclusively on religious freedom, its meaning, and its value. our goal with cornerstone is to
fill the gap. you will find a flyer on your table that gives you the url for the blog's temporary webpage, which we have put up this weekend. we invite you to go to the blog which is under construction, and give us your opinion on its content, layout. we've, to take your views into account as we formally launch cornerstone later this spring. now let's get to our on-topic discussion between judge starr and professor dershowitz. it is our practice to engage the audience in our conversation, so we provided each of your tables several notecards to pose questions to the two gentlemen, so if you have a question as you listen, write it down as a simply as you can and affiliation. at 1:20, we have a cadre of georgetown students here with us today who will go around and collect the cards. we will choose questions here to present to judge starr and professor dershowitz. i will introduce judge starr. then the two gentlemen will come to the stage and then the judge will introduce professor dershowitz. let me say come a professor dershowitz, on behalf of georgetown university, what a delight it is to have you with us today. ken starr is president, chancellor of baylor university. he also holds the louise m martenson chair of constitutional law at their law school.
during his career, he has served the country in many ways, including as law clerk to chief justice moore berger, u.s. circuit court judge for the district of columbia circuit, and as solicitor general of the united states under george h w which he read he has argued 36 cases before the supreme court including 25 while solicitor general. he has authored more than 25 publications, many of them on religious freedom. his first book was published in 2002. as someone who has had the privilege of getting to know judge starr over the last year, i can tell you, i have never met a man more suited to the task today that is to conduct a civil, intelligent, and vigorous opposition about one of the most important and controversial issues of our time, and that our country faces. and that issue is what is at stake in the contraceptive mandate of the health care law known as the affordable care act? ladies and gentlemen, please welcome to the stage, alan dershowitz and judge kenneth starr. [applause] >> good afternoon. [inaudible] thank you very much. let me join our wonderful friend tom farr, and say welcome to
this wonderful audience, those who are joining us by c-span. i have such joy in introducing my friend alan. do we agree on every issue? no. [laughter] do we agree on any issue? yes. [laughter] the discussion has already started. alan needs no introduction, but i will do it anyway. he taught for 55 years at the harvard law school, where he was a legendary teacher. he is a great professor who cares deeply about the students, and that is so important in academic life. in addition to his over 1000 articles, 30 books, count them, which is extraordinary. i have written one, and that was very hard. and not nearly as well read as alan's remarkable work. in addition to being this renowned chair professor at the harvard law school -- and by the way, does anyone remember cal ripken junior?
alan loves baseball, as do i. during those years, 50 years, he missed one class. alan, what was your excuse? >> i was stuck on a train here at eight hours out of new haven. [laughter] >> and there it is. a wonderful, caring, gracious human being. let me also add, a great friend of freedom, including those charged with crime. he tries to stay out of the limelight, as you know. [laughter] somehow behind the scenes he represented o.j. simpson, mike tyson, you get the idea. he is a defender of liberty. he is a great friend of the bastion of liberty in the middle east, israel, and feels passionately about it, and while power always needs to be checked, calling us, or the state of israel, calling on the state. it brings me to where i think we should begin, not with the affordable care act -- we will get to that -- but we should begin with a preamble to america's constitution. subject to the amendment process and purification of our constitutional order through the shedding of blood and civil war, post-civil war amendments, 13, 14, 15 amendments. what the preamble lays out is a moral vision, not just a statement of we the people, in order to form a more perfect union. i like that.
and then to achieve certain foundational goals. what is the first goal after the forming of the perfect union, to establish justice. if you do not have a just society, there will not be anything worth defending. so then to provide for the common defense, to ensure domestic tranquility, and to promote the general welfare, it builds to a crescendo, and in that one, beautiful paragraph, which schoolchildren should all commit to memory, and to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity. welcome, alan dershowitz, to a
conversation about the specific subject, the affordable care act, hobby lobby. we are honored to have a green family here. let me get alan's thoughts to start, but i guess i should set the stage to make sure we have common ground and alan will correct me. i frequently need correction. briefly stated, the case that will be argued tomorrow involving the affordable care act implementation of regulations with respect to contraceptives involves a family. a for-profit corporation, so you will read and hear a lot about does the first amendment really apply to corporations? maybe they apply to nonprofit corporation because churches and synagogues may incorporate as a nonprofit, but what about for-profit corporations?
hobby lobby, it is a great american story. a garage, david and barbara green, in the 1970's, have an idea of arts and crafts, a store. over time, hard work, they say by god's blessing, providence, hard work and energy, now over 500 stores, 600 stores. maybe more. and about 13,000 employees. the corporation is closely held, so there are no wall street types running around reviewing financial statements. they may try to, but the family owns it. david and barbara, the parents, mom and pop, now grandfather and grandmother thomas and then the three adult children. that is a closely held corporation. one of the issues that will be in the case is the affordable care act's requirement of companies providing employment benefit plans to provide certain forms, mainly 20, forms of contraceptives to including four that the green family, as a matter of conscience, objects
to. and they object to it based on pro-life grounds. those four methods, as they see it, involve the taking of innocent human life. so the question for the court tomorrow is whether a statute -- and i hope we have a chance to talk about the statute as the conversation unfolds. the religious freedom restoration act. what a great name. congress comes up with great names, don't they? not a great acronym. rfra. welcome to washington, d.c., we have an acronym for everything. the religious freedom restoration act provides, in effect, that if government is going to place substantial burden on the exercise of religion, then the federal government must come forward with a compelling justification. alan is the experience professor of constitutional law, so he
could describe that, but in short, it must be really important, not just legitimate. one of the cases talks about the governmental interest of the highest order. so suddenly, liberty is truly the baseline, the blessings of liberty, government and ask something through implementing regulations, drawn from the institute of medicine.
they did not just make it up. so here are these 20 methods. but now we have that requirement of the aca coming into what i am calling, alan, a conflict of visions. i do not mean that pejoratively. it is big government up against a family that has been very successful, that has built this business enterprise that is dedicated as the greens have said beautifully, essentially a christian mission work. they do not live lavish lives. i have even seen that personally. they live very good lives, caring about people, including their 13,000 employees. it is a conflict of visions. does rfra provide an exemption by congress's enactment, not edges alone, but does rfra provide an exemption by its terms that the green family, doing business at the hobby lobby -- a corporation -- really at issue here? >> first, that is a fair statement of the case. >> that is the first time he has said i am fair. [laughter] >> thank you for including me in this conversation. i am a great fan of ken and his university. a wonderful partnership between
two great institutions and religious traditions. i cannot imagine anything that is more suited to the american way of dealing with things, an american academic way of dealing with things. i am thrilled to be part of it. i have been thinking about this subject for 65 years. let me explain why. when i was 10 years old, my father had a tiny, little door on the lower east side in new york where he sold men's underwear and workloads. he was the middleman, never made much of a living, but was, and all of his life was, a very orthodox jew. therefore, he could not keep his little store open on saturday, which is the shabbat. in order to make a living, he had to open it on sunday. occasionally, i would help him on sunday. one day, when i was helping him,
the police came home and arrested him for violating the sunday closing law. they did not take him away, they just gave him a summons and said he had to be in court. my father asked me to come out of school to watch how the american legal system operates. [laughter] he was very lucky that day because the judge she drew -- he drew was a judge named hyman barchet. so my father came before the judge and he said, why are you open on sunday? he said because i have to be closed on saturday because i'm an orthodox jew. the judge said ok, what was the portion of the week that they read from the bible in the synagogue on the saturday before you were not able to close your store on sunday? in a jewish tradition you read from the bible every week and
every portion -- we do not do it by chapter -- but it has a name. one of the characters or the first word. my father in me renew the answer, the judge tore up the ticket and said, if you had not know the answer, i would have doubled your fine. >> [laughter] >> so much for separation of church and state, freedom of religion. [laughter] i have been thinking about the subject literally since that period of time. i am your perfect audience year, why? i am a skeptic. i am a skeptic about everything. i am a skeptic about religion. [inaudible] i am a skeptic about skepticism. i am not even sure that is such a good thing. [inaudible] my life is just skeptical. i will die a skeptic good i will not never know the answer to these questions.
>> clearly we are having technical issues with our signal from the program. we are recording it. the recorded version will be much better. that will be later in the schedule. >> i would've written the phrase differently. the idea being you never achieve or establish justice. it is a work in progress. it is always running away from you. you're always trying to catch it. and you never will. it is a verb, justice. not a noun. and i'm skeptical about our ability to achieve justice. i would, today, regard myself as a skeptic but tremendously respectful of religion. the book i was working on in the room prior to this is my next book good it is called abraham. the first but not last jewish
lawyer. [laughter] we tell five stories of abraham. god.rgues with job -- abraham who accept god's command. abraham who rescues his nephew. and abraham the real estate wheeler and dealer who buys his wife a beautiful cave. and from there i think about how lawyers have emerged, really lawyers in general. book with was -- which was my bible. i told my students if i were ever on a desert island and i could only bring one book with which to educate my students in philosophy, law, psychology, you the it, i would include bible. i would include the jewish gospel and the rebel. i would also include the crown. i think you can learn a lot rum religion and religious
traditions, even if one is a skeptic about some of the ultimate questions. not i have to say, i am suspect to the views expressed. i am not sympathetic to your views on birth control. my views are completely different. i believe the right to control one's procrit of abilities are very important for society. i am also a big admirer of president obama's affordable care act grid -- act. none of that is relevant. it is not i who decides whether you have religious right to do something that i disapprove of crude it is you who decides that, subject obviously, to the constitution and statutes. the case is not about whether you like affordable health care or not. it is about whether or not the statutes in the constitution
require a religious exemption in cases such as yours. i am waiting to be persuaded. i may end up persuaded that you're right, as a matter of statutory interpretation is a matter of constitutional overlay. i may regret that result from a policy point of view, anything that hurts affordable care. anything that says back a woman's right to choose. contraception, i know you are not suggesting you are posed to that. that was -- opposed to that. that was an interesting way you put that. you don't have a problem with people disagreeing with you. you just can't ask religious people who feel that this is in violation of the right to life, you cannot participate in those forms. and if it were six, it would be six. it is the principle that matters. i am completely supportive of you on principle.
i just want to say one word about jurisprudence. i had a great time reading the briefs. of being reminded me back in my jewish parochial school. on the one hand, on the other hand, there's this interpretation in this case. [laughter] story of the eastern european rabbi. he's sitting in divorce court. the wife comes in and says, my husband is a drunkard. he beats me. the rabbi says, my daughter your night -- right. the husband comes in and says, my wife is lazy. she doesn't anything. she doesn't take care the children. and they say, you're right. and the students is, they can't be right. and they say, my son, you're right. [laughter] that is the way fell. the discussion is socratic.
you can interpret it anyway you want. i'm reminded of another great story. then i will turn it over with the conversation. it is the story of two great rabbi its arguing about arcane cash arcane interpretation. he said something earlier that was completely contradictory. they were coming up with one brilliant interpretation after another. this is the most brilliant argument i've ever heard. he's here. hears both sides of the argument and he says it was just error and he did not mean to create irreconcilable differences. you feel that way when you read
.hese briefs the jurisprudence of how you reconcile the free exercise clause or the establishment governmental regulations is so obscure and so canicult that no one predict the outcome of this case with any certainty. i will predict that no intelligent, reasonable person will want to distinguish between a business owned by an individual in the building that as become an s corp. i thought the government's brief on that issue was trivial and silly. for me, the issue of whether you can do it through a corporation a religiousl is issue. if your religion tells you by creating a corporation won't allow you to circumvent your
general religious obligations you are bound by that fact. who was a verynd distinguished rabbi and i asked him the following question. what if i own a store and i want to open it on the sabbath? what if i become an s corp. and decide that it will open the store on the sabbath? he said, don't be ridiculous. you are the corporation and it is you. that's a religious principle. tryhe court were in any way to undercut that religious principle by citing state law, blackstone as to what a corporation is, they would be falling into the trap of the exercise of free religion cause. i have more difficulties after that. of applause a round for that? beautiful. extraordinary. [applause]
see if we can reduce the skepticism level. to leave here a believer in religious freedom restoration act. let me put that ball in play. freedomerican who loves should be applauding the statute that is it a shoot tomorrow in the hobby lobby case. the religious freedom referendum. correct me if i leave something out, but let me begin the story with a case that your father would really relate to. a war in court decision that brown fell abraham the could be held criminally liable as an orthodox jew for
keeping his store open on sunday. let the record show that they historically have a sunday closing law. pennsylvania had a pretty good record with respect to .especting religious liberty for whatever reason the commonwealth passes a sunday closing law and does not create an exception for orthodox jews, muslims, you just have to close. abraham brown felt who owned a store along with other orthodox our said it really imperils wherewithal. it's not just reducing they are openbut on saturday and we need to be able to do this.
this is up to the legislature. religioust a exception, do that but we're not going to interfere with the judgment of the legislature. years go by and in a subsequent case involving a seventh day adventist, she cannot work on her sabbath. she is told by her employer, a textile mill in south carolina, that you have to work on saturday or you are out of here. she said she was out of there and she sought unemployment compensation. the supreme court said that because she's essentially being penalized for the exercise of -- notigious practice , it ision but practice
being infringed by the state and aey must come forward with compelling, reasonable justification of the highest order in order to overcome the claim of religious liberty. we wonder if people will be a malingerer. whatever the arguments were considered to be a super in speaking to the voice of william brennan after brown felfeld v. brown. something happened up the someone knowsand because a very persuasive justice named william j brennan who had been in the sense in the case was writing the majority opinion for the
court. did everyone kind of follow that? andd not go to law school they are talking about the religious freedom restoration .ct reaching back in the time it sounds like a bunch of whatever. d's verses r's. congressman florida is here. .hank you for all that you do the house of representatives unanimously passed a referendum. the bill 97-3.ed president clinton signed it into law in his first year in office and his signing statement was so powerful, emotional. he referred to at that point a
recent book by a yale -- sorry to mention yale. >> i went there. >> bow wow yale. stephen carter and his culture of disbelief. how american culture, the elite culture is seeking to trivialize religion to keep it out of the public square. i see some people nodding. much just keep it out of the public square. martin luther king jr. should never talk about religion. keep it out of the public square. president clinton talked about it saying signing this law into talked eloquently about religious freedom is the first freedom. the religious freedom restoration act is meant to
protect us as individuals including escort -- s corporations. overturning it it does apply to the federal government to say, supreme court, we don't like your decision in a case use in theed the native american church of peyote because you did not uphold the government to the kind of the seventh-day adventist case stated or the supreme court in wisconsin versus yoder. we cannot allow our child to remain in public schools after eighth grade because they need to be reintegrated into the community. testimonyto hear the of the children in that case.
one child testified and said it was what they wanted to do. they want to be part of the community and the congress overwhelmingly rebuke to the supreme court of the united states and upheld the standard that the court had rejected in case.yote >> i worked on drafting some of the language of the religious freedom restoration act. one of the cases that led to it was also the case of a jewish psychologist who had testified and was told that he could not wear it. rehnquist reaffirmed that. many in christian communities got together and the beauty of some of the issues is that they do focus on celebrity -- they do focus on religion where they
sacrifice. the amish cases, these are not majority religions. nothing between the --r of establishment and the two nights from now i will be speaking to a group in new york, a very orthodox jewish group that puts the menorah up every year right outside of the plaza .otel every year they asked you to light a candle and i draw the same distinction. if this is a privately funded on private land or land that is equally available to all would like ai
candle. if the government builds the menorah and it's a government decision to promote this particular religious exercise i will respectfully decline from participating. we have to distinguish that of course martin luther king should never be prohibited from talking. nor should i and nor should you. that is the freedom of expression. forld congress pay unofficial chaplain which they select based on religious views? i would say the answer to that is clear and it should be no. we are not starting out with a tabula resa.a --
particularly be influenced and religious views by a chaplain saying a few words before congress. extrapolate that and put it to six and seven-year-old children in school who want to be like their friends. it was the best high school. she said freighters both in the public school in private school. she chose to go to a christian school and she balanced the excellence of the education against feeling a little isolated. that was a balance that would be healthy for her. they would see other views and gives.
i think these are very hard questions when it comes to the public square. when it comes to issues like whether or not an s corporation should be allowed to be exempted from providing a service that, perhaps, many of the employees would benefit from muchse, i think that's a more complicated and difficult question. i would look for middle ground. we would find a way to not ask the green family or any other to compromise their religious views but there are a few principles that need to be in operation. no one should ever profit financially from being accommodated. benefit or gain any financial benefit from that.
there has to be a way of making you pay but for your religious views but in a way consistent with your religious views. should you ever have to pay to exercise your religious views? that's a complicated question. are reading about others, of jesus or it's not easy to be religious. it's not easy to be a person of god. kosher food was 20% more expensive. we regard it as a kosher tax. wewas worth more because wanted to eat kosher. i would never dream for the government to subsidize that 20%. i don't believe that the government should be subsidizing nearly religious education.
there are hard questions. they should provide police protection, fire protection, perhaps secular textbooks. i think what we need to do is search for accommodation at every stage. try to figure out ways of not requiring you to compromise at all for your religious views but making sure it does not hurt those whose religious views are different from yours. i went to make sure your 13,000 wouldees are ones that take advantage of the four types of contraceptive devices and are not in any way disadvantaged by religious views. i'm confident this can be achieved and i think it would be useful to try and find a middle way. i don't want to find conflict between religion and governance. they are very dangerous historically.
if we can findr methods by which we can work out these accommodations and i would to you.throw it back what kind of accommodation would you think, short of the ultimate accommodation, to say to the green family and the corporation that you are exempt? what would you think would be onsistent with the policies? >> the government provides for a , statutoryxemptions exemptions, and the administration has granted , there aretime mechanisms that achieve this .alance whether it is a government fund or government provided access of -- masses.sses
flex as a deeply religious person who supports the right to life, wouldn't you at least be slightly offended if the to useent paid women abortion methods or methods that you believe are abortion methods? wouldn't you be uncomfortable? in your brief you say it is accommodation to have the government a for the services. does that not raise any level of discomfort? >> it is not your freedom of conscience -- conscience. >> whether it is the war in afghanistan or other kinds of is for the elected representatives to work through. what is beautiful about rfra is that congress has spoken with beautiful unanimity and saying
government, please respect these religious views. no matter how important the public policy is, it needs to be a policy of the very highest order. with respect to the cases, the government has a huge achilles' that is very weak. there are exemptions galore. there are grandfathered plants. so many are not protected in the way that you feel is very important. were your fourth amendment rights being violated here? [laughter] >> it's definitely a seizure. >> i'm consenting. because my first amendment rights would be compromised if you could not hear me. [laughter] >> i would never think of suggesting that he does not have
unfettered freedom of speech and certainly c-span shall not. i want to come back to your wonderful statement about accommodation. you want to find this middle thend and you are using words accommodation. once again, we are fellow co-believers. it on its face is it unconstitutional as respecting an establishment? there is one justice retired on the supreme court who concluded that rfra respected the establishment of religion. current members unless they change their mind would say absolutely not. it is in the finest traditions of america to accommodate.
if the accommodation reaches the -- and this is a judgment call, of burdening those who are not being accommodated. to interpret the act consistent with what the supreme court held in the cedar case. it needs to be defined very broadly to include any ailosophical view that holds place similar or comparable to what religion holds in the life of people who were traditionally religious. help but believe in the right to life. i do not call these liberties and rights religious views. a will have, at some point, discussion to define the religious view.
although we know that the establishment clause was not intended originally to say that you could not give any preference to religion in general over secular life, it has come to be interpreted that way. it was originally intended on the government not to establish a particular church at the time the bill of rights was enacted. churchess had enacted but it's changed over time. i worked on language of the religious restoration act in an effort to avoid establishment problems. .hat was my particular task we did not want to run into these problems because it is one of the hardest jurisprudential conflict. how do you exercise without
preferring religion over other views? >> we have among other very distinguished guests here, a wonderful commentator on culture including globally. he asks a question in one of his recent books, the global public square, how can we live together with our deep difference, our deepest differences? , yourulture of disbelief colleague for a few years, noah eagernesshere is this city,d, given our diverse how can we live together peacefully not your going with the litigation but resolve culturally our differences peacefully?
there is a growing sense that if you are a person of deep religious faith that you are in the crosshairs now. there are people here from different religious communities who feel genuinely embattled in terms of freedom of conscience. what i think the supreme court did in a great iconic case, west virginia board of education versus barnett is to say the government cannot interfere with your freedom of belief. star, itis any fixed is that no official, high or petty, can determine what is orthodox and manners of .ncluding politics and the like that is so bedrock in the culture. increasingly, people of faith are not saying they are not sure
that it is in the culture anymore. it is perhaps not in the politics anymore, at least to the extent that it was. extensive as it were. hat is your sense? has the culture shifted? who dissentedes in that particular case said it was essentially a warning of the march ofled secularism. american culture and american law can affect accommodationists. >> i'm going to point the finger at you and say it's your fault. you have not done a good enough job in the marketplace of ideas to persuade americans of your point of view. i agree with you. i think you are losing the battle among young people. going onok at what's in many colleges and universities, there is
for religion.dain i don't like it. i find america to be the best country in the world in terms of not having these divisions. for example, the two countries i know best are the united states and israel. israel is having a terrible problem. if you are not very religious and israel, your anti-religious. the reason for that, i believe, is because the state has played too great a role in promoting religion. separation of church and state is good for religion. williams said that. jefferson said that. i don't want to put myself in that category. i'm hoping ken starr will say that. >> i think you should applaud what he said. that's very important. can tell me what i can and cannot do. i love religion.
i love religions i'm not a part of. i read religious books. involved in religion in many ways. if i lived in a country where they told me what religion i had to practice and how, i would be religions worst enemy. i would be fighting tooth and nail and i want to keep it that way. don't ask for the help of the government. don't ask for help of the state. do a better job. religionere and make more relevant to the life of young people. don't create conflict between the rights of women and the rights of religion, the rights of gays and the rights of religion, the rights of other dissenters and the rights of religion. you're going to lose many of those battles unfortunately. you're going to have to figure out a way to make people love
what you are doing. we just had a conversation before this began with two wonderful people, evangelical ministers in jordan who had been arrested. i said jews sometimes have a it isime understanding different. christianity is an evangelical religion. your job is to convert me. as a jew, we have different religious perspectives on conversions and jews have to recognize that. it is part of your religious freedom to try and convert us. we should respect it, admire it, welcome it. you think so well of us that you really want us to become part of you. thank you. >> i think i will stick with it. [laughter] >> i take it as a compliment. there needs to be more of that kind of dialogue and understanding that the state
cannot pick up the slack. if there is an emerging culture of secularism it's not something they can get involved in. the legislature is sympathetic to religion. it turns on the legislative intent and they have no chance of prevailing. any rational person will know that they intended to be consistent with a broader scope of the religious restoration act. it,, the president signs you will always get accommodation from elected representatives. been, you might say, a secular rising influence. incentives.alistic i don't think it has had that much difference
france, england. dame -- you go to notre today and on a sunday morning, ierever i travel in the world go to church on sunday morning. not to pray but i love church theices and i love to see most beautiful buildings in the world in use. when i go to a church service at dame there are 15 jewish tourists, a couple of muslim two or three catholics praying in the front. the places are absolutely empty. need to come to baylor. >> that would be great. i would love to. though,s -- my point, is a more general one. and that is you have the of promoting your view of this society and you to help you. state i i think that is applause if may say so. commentsck up on your about as long as in terms of
issues. gay and lesbian rights. reproductive prefire dom. -- freedom. oft many view as the taking human life. is there in your view -- i don't middle ground, but is there cultural room for us? corridor that we can all say yes, we are comfortable even with ourr disagreements as long as we conscience?dom of let's use the example of orthodoxhospitals or jewish doctors declining to perform certain kinds of procedures. that interferes with freedom and youe tomorro feel strongly about that. what do we do with that terms of the role of the state? tould the state be able command the physician, he was a
psychiatrist or psychologist, he was ob/gyn. should the government be able to say to him you must participate in a procedure that utterly offends your conscience? should the federal government? no except if is the person is an emergency ward intor and has somebody comes in an emergency and there is no realistic alternative. matter?fen >> there should be that kind of accommodation. what if a person as the cases pending in the west of the united states, what if a person says i'm so offended by the gay lifestyle that my religion precludes me from delivering gay wedding? or i had a case some years ago woman refused to, she refusedntal resident, to perform dentistry on a gay
man? fearful sheshe was would get aids. its stereo type that she had. he didn't have aids but she was of it. there you get a conflict between lawsar antidiscrimination and religious feelings. my gut tells me there is a big difference between making a doctor perform an abortion which proper under any circumstances except as i said in the emergency situation and touiring somebody not discriminate against a gay atheist orgainst an somebody else who offends them core. to their religious >> what about an orthodox jewish evangelical minister or pastor or a catholic priest who in conscience even under the law of the state where the in ministryrving cannot in fact perform in
conscience a same-sex marriage? >> i think clearly nobody should be required to perform a marriage. is ais -- marriage today phenomenon. i mean my own view, i don't know if you know my own view, i have this extensively. i would like to see the state get out of the marriage business. state is not in the baptism or circumcision business and shouldn't be in the marriage business. is a sacrament. >> i think we are hearing some aminutes. be able toy should get a civil union which obliges which do certain things you are responsible for and certain tax benefits and disadvantages. should be able to sign up for that and then the vast would go to the church and synagogue or mosque
religious part of it. no religious person should ever perform ad to marriage against their religious views. category goriccal. hand, a person shouldn't become a clerk in a cannotll if he knows he mary two men that are gay or a nonjawish man to a nonjewish woman. obviously a civil clerk can't refuse to do that. it isivil clerk says against my conscience, the answer is get another job. a clerk whosebe job it is to have to marry religion.ardless of of course, they will argue tomorrow get another job to you. to argue theg constitution doesn't give you the right to be a corporation. only gives you the right to
exercise your freedom of speech there is no religious right to be a corporation. you can easily have your rights just stop being a corporation. i hope that argument loses be a corporation gives you significant economic benefits which would be denied you if you were forebidden from i don't think that is an appropriate accommodation. ant is too great accommodation. on the other hand and i will finalize the point i was making before. any financial advantage from being able to opt out of the providing of these four different contraceptive or abortion devices you should have pay a tax, a general tax equivalent to the money you so that you don't end up profiting from the accommodation views. religious it seems to me that is a fair accommodation. iswell, the theme accommodation, and i hope that
everyone of goodwill is impressed by the liberality and spirit with which allen speaks. come back to oz for a second. oz in one of his books is expressing concern that globally the universal declaration of human rights would no longer be accepted. including but not limited to aticle 18 which is -- it is declaration but there are international lawyers that know it does have the force of law, it was a declaration like your declaration of independence. declaration of human rights couldn't be agreed to globally. but at least in america we i sayk overwhelmingly would we agree. >> i agree. >> with the sentiments of the universal. you agree with that? >> i agree with that.
declaration grew out of the second world war, holocaustt of the written by a jewish frenchman was an amazing accomplishment for which he got the nobel peace prize. to tryre efforts afoot to undo it and to try to undo freedom of speech, free done of religion. there are attempts to try to lawstially put blasphemy back into universal exceptions free speech and i think the united states government hasn't strong enough view ofinst that kind international encroachment on concept oflar con slept liberty. many people think it is too torican that we are trying impose our view on others. h is an area where we are right we shouldre wrong and simply not compromise on those views.
[applause] >> this is gris for the daily mill and one of the reasons that we had baylor university feel so drawn to come alongside and to what the bar it is clays center religious freedom under tom and their wonderful colleagues are doing conversationave a with public policy makers. individuals in captivity, been prison. imagine being imprisoned because of what you believe and because you are saying to someone? that you can then be imprisoned the 21st century. as tom said at the outset that trajectory according to pugh forum. it is one of the reasons the conversation with respect to doing that with congressman flores, the congress in 1993
said let's do something about, restoration. a that is a great word. a restoration of the culture of religious freedom. we open this up to the audience, let me remind us all by william o. douglas. been what shall i say? he was a secular person by reputation. not that you be not judged but a great friend of freedom with him oragreed not, he was a great friend of freedom and wrote in one of his the court just speak for hillself, speaking speaking off, america we are a religious people whose institutions being.ose a supreme when you return to the declaration, when you return to those founding principles and the founding what i think the founding generation was really lifting up for all of us were the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our pos tarity.
join me in saying thank you to alan dershowitz. [applause] and now we hear from the audience. >> that's right. thelet me just confirm for record that both of our guests have, in other words, said that the united states ought to have a firm international religious freedom policy. to have youelighted both on the record on that. i have written for some time not doing the kind of job that we should be doing have youm delighted to end your conversation or at ultimater pen discussion was about that. up.k you for bringing that i will read some questions here.
like a physicianlick a i'm surescriptions they were brilliant questions but i couldn't read them. we had a little bit of cross eyed conversation over there. we do have some that we can read to presentghted this. this first one for professor dershowitz. and, of course, judge we would like your response too. the government believes greater access to birth control will reduce births and hobby lobby already covers childbirth in its insurance plans which is far than birthive control. so, he says, isn't hobby lobby already offering to pay for being accommodated? is a very interesting perspective. in the other-- case they actually assert the
there is not relationship between providing contraception and the actual birth rate. that was for me very questionable. they proside some empirical data purport purports to support tht and say the burden is on the government. a much more profund question and that is does the government have a right to take policy position in any way on whether more or fewer births should be encouraged in a society? would be very uncomfortable with that. obviously that position has been taken in countries with backgrounds, there have been efforts to try to thece, you know, people by way praise margaret sanger. if you go back and look at is history, her goal in introducing reduce theol was to number of children born to undesirables in the country.
neutraleally not a method of reducing population size. i think the government has to that area. i think the government has to realty be very careful about families whether it is a good thing or a bad thing to have more children tore fewer children. and anything that gets into that business, even in terms of pullpiton, even a bully treads on too dangerous ground. would not say we want you to have more children, especially given the dysfunctionallity that attends so much of social and cultural life now. different view which is while respecting cancience, the government in fact be if it so chooses to be prolife. merrier.he more the >> could it also then be prochoice? course. of the government can be prochoice.
as long as freedom of conscience. i mean to me that is the democratic conversation. >> why should the government on that?position why shouldn't that just be left to individual conscience and the government remain agnostic on of choice, of life. issuesthose the kinds of the government best stays out of it. perfectly reasonable view. government can if it so chooses the better society and the good society is a society with large families. better. that is >> then it can say the opposite. then it can say -- but i don't thek it is a good thing for government to be saying we think you should limit your children to one. ratio -- of one. >> absolutely, no. bad thing.ld be a >> how can you accept one and not the other? >> easy. me.ot too easy for >> it is, first of all, it is the degree of interference and
that is a judgment call. i'm also talking about the coercive powers of the state say any kind of coercion would be really wrong. fact encourage larger families in terms of saying we cut you off ino terms of the child deduction two. child number one or in other own way we recognize and some economists would say are incentivizing large families. rather theory ethical than real because you are not going to recover the costs. can government have the right to deduction after the third child and my own view is i think that would raise profound issues. agree with you. i don't think it would be good for the government to announce a policy in favor either of larger or smaller families. happenedch worry what in france. in france after the war, the
i'mrnment took position told that we should reduce the number of children. and if you want to be a good should have no more than two and preferrabley one child. governmentt want my to get into the bedroom with me. >> and i agree. i don't want the government to do that. i think you were saying right of the government to do it. views ong my democratic theories if that is the view of the government that is why we have elections then to government has the right articulate that and then we have an election. i think it is better for the do that which the government does not do. it doesn't go out and say please of your families or whatever. i think the government would do well and i think presidents do this by example, by word and by deed saying fathers, why don't you care about your children? fathers, why are you leaving the home? >> i agree with that. in russia thisat great democratic leader putin and seen thatund russian population has gone down
dramatically in the last several decades. they have a relatively small population. i think one of the lowest populations per size of the country of any country in the world. and they -- not quite as low as trying tout they are increase their population. and it makes me a little nervous i hear about government doing too many things in that area. i just follow on before i read another one. you both say that you believe government should encourage fathers not leave their families. rid ofou support getting the no-fault divorce laws? >> that is very interesting. alan take it away. >> i have a view. >> i will go first. isi don't think the problem divorce. i think the problem is not getting married in the first place. problem of fathers, of sperm donors who are not providersho are just of an essential component of
a child havehaving to take par greater responsibility for their children. as a man who went through a myorce and had custody of two children, i didn't see any between having a divorce and being a very, very hands-on father. i think a good divorce is better often.bad marriage wellt can be consistent as with a good parental care. so i wouldn't again get the the business of opting for bad -- the want totion, i don't see the congress pass the preservation of bad marriage act. [laughter] >> abolishing divorce. view that no-fault divorce are laws that are designed to destroy good marriages. divorce -- the permittingdivorce is
you to remarry. that is the purpose of divorce theh is why i helped draft antiget law in new york. law avery orthodox jewish man can hold his wife who he is divorcing hostage and not let giveemarry by refusing to her religious divorce. idrafted a statue in which made one of the major functions permitrce is to per remarriage and if there are any effective barriers to remarriage to court has the right inquire into those as a condition of granting the man his divorce. complicate and i admit i haven't thought the whole thing through. to haveing is not the -- instinct is not to have the state put its heavy thumb on couples together whose strong belief is not to live together. to no's question went fault and that is a very modern
the 1960's and 1970's. science does show that children as a rule do better in a family. >> yes. >> as well as one of the consequences of at least the guy leaving the marriage is that it spouse. impoverish the >> we should do something about all of that. >> typically has the children. should do all of that, but i think in most divorces no one is at fault. divorce is sim yum affusion of a mistake that was made or growing apart. the adeof having to point a finger at a spouse and accuse them. we had fault divorces in new york, people would make up adultery acknowledge when it didn't occur. going back to fault divorces his take. serious >> i'm sorry i asked.
[laughter] a mores move to controversial issue. >> you know what they say about a lawyer. a question unless you know the answer. [laughter] >> sorry. would like to now this question was not signed which is a no-no but i will ask it anyway. it has to do with racial discrimination. case thatnce is to a i'm not familiar with but i'm sure you will be. case.art of atlanta motel if the defense for the racial based onation was religious grounds with the hobby support the hotel discrimination or with rfra racial discrimination on grounds? >> even there there would be a question, does the government have a compelling interest to override and we are going to assume it is a sincere religious belief, all right. that may be an exit ramp right
there. have a sincere religious objection to sebing youle of all races, if establish that and courts tend to be very generous with respect accepting claims of sincerity. becomes does the government have a compelling in stepping in and saying you can't do that? of course, it does. we had a civil war. we had the 13th and 14th and 15th amendments to the united constitution that shows the role of discrimination when it comes to race. it toured the cup -- it tore the country apart. and government clearly in my interesta compelling in eradicating discrimination. >> let mow throw a hard question at you. >> i like it when he answers the question. >> i belong to a wonderful calledue in new york park east. i love the rabbi. congregationodox
and the women sit separately from the men and my wife who was brought up in a reformed congregation in charleston, south carolina, doesn't like it. she says she is being discriminated against and their response is no, no, no, separate but equal. was what theat whole civil rights movement was opposed to. separate but equal. i can't imagine any court compelling a synagogue to require women and men to sit together. aspect ofcore orthodox judaism they would to bey allow that maintained. >> and the court has been clear toing we really want understand the context. the context is critical. and so there what you are about is this deeply held religious belief of a community that is voluntarily come together. >> of course. the hypothetical
the heart of atlanta motel what owner or keeper was trying to say is we do not want to african americans. we want to be in the freedom of american commerce, but we do not and that includes interstate commerce obviously, not that we just want local people here. a bed and breakfast designed just for these people, a slightly tougher case, but not really. when you look at the nature of our economy, it is quite i think defensible for congress to step in and to regulate using its under article i of the constitution section 8 to agulate commerce and do so in sweeping way by the way, that was one of the issues in the act and you saw how deeply divided the court was. the court said congress exceeded its powers under the commerce clause. talking about is the constitutionality of the great about the talking great 196 this civil rights act
employmenti in relationships and then the public accommodations provisions the 1964 civil rights act. unanimouslyly, in upheld. >> let's assume that the green doily loses and they something that they would never do. hypothetical say we have to not provide this care so we employees, thel 13,000 people who work for us to using themselves to not these four methods of birth control and we will not hire not prepared to commit themselves. eliminate anyy we religious problem of do you think the court would uphold that? so. think i need to think that one through. okay because of again the baseline is liberty.
employment so is there any kind of discrimination. has ground that congress seen fit to forbid. >> religious discrimination. wouldn'tbe religious, it? >> i'm not sure. you are saying that this is a foundational part of our policy informed by religious belief. >> but what if you had potential employees who work for them who say it is our religious ourgation we think to limit family and to use this kind of birth control then you would of conflict. >> well, they have i think said they wouldn't do that. any onust want to put on them. i don't think the case is going to come out that way. is a harder question if they lose. but the other thing i think that because youft up are talking beyond this particular case. remember that so many businesses america so many a totally
point, some businesses in america are small businesses but a small business may have that will50 employees be covered by the a.c.a., the act.dable care one of the issues for the congress of the united states is this is that important the affordable care act is that to exemptwe want millions of employees from this wonderful coverage that is being provided? 50, not five, my dear friends. but 50. have 50 employees that is a fairly significant business. doesn't congress solve this problem? >> i'm sorry, congressman flores. >> simply say today when you get back to work this afternoon, passess could probably unanimously a resolution saying forrporations are people purposes of the religious restoration act. problem solved. >> that someone of the odd that in -- that is one of
the odd things. >> if you win. hobby lobby loses it is a hugely obviously i think so for religious liberty. but it is really the lawyers whatf act because this is is in they are right. what is the nature of my partnership. a limited liability partnership and the like. it would be a great day for the corporate lawyers. but you can in fact manage around it. i'm not saying it is easy to a corporation of the size of hobby lobby and say we are the articles of the dissolution and the like but it can be done. >> excuse me, corporations can dissolve. it is partly audit of the entire -- oddity of the entire government on the part of the avernment that because it is for-profit corporation. think of this. if they had remain as five family they have full protection. what moment did the magic
occur? poop, you had religious liberty rights and now you don't? exerciseexercise, the and formalism which is the kind of exercise that you give lawyers a bad name. >> last question, what will happen tomorrow? [laughter] an insight into what you think the reasoning will be? >> you are our guest. >> i will be there and listening to every word of the argument if it promises to be an interesting argument i'm a we will not know how justice thomas is thinking because it would not let us in on his views. will we hear a lot from some of the other justices. be in a by noon, i will better position to make a prediction thaam