big question that that's that's the underlying issue. it is a great moral document, but you can't exclusively have one religions, articles of faith mandate in every classroom. i don't want to put you on the hook for all young people, because that's not fair to you, obviously, but i do wonder as your in your reporting. as you're talking to people. how important is a public discussion of faith? so i think that it's really important that young people have the ability to talk about whatever they want to talk about, and that's something that when i'm talking with young people who are current students, they don't want to be told what they cannot say. they also don't want to be told what they should say or what they should be taught or seen. i mean, just if you look at this at a national level today in florida, where the government has made it very clear what they want out of the classroom, there were students led you slide walkouts at over 300 high school and college. emphasis um, it was called the walkout to learn, and this is just one example of young people pushing back against the florida republicans going in and saying,
when it comes to medford, kristen, right, we've talked so much about it. what's important to note, too, is that it is used in miscarriages because when a woman miss carries her body cannot always finish what needs to happen. and so this medication actually makes it easier for a woman. sure the realities of what it means and why a woman and perhaps along with her partner, and or perhaps even her, you know her if she's a person of faith than than her faith leader, why they make these decisions has that conversation changed. well i think what strikes me the most about this ruling from the court is really what it does to put the fda in complete control in my mind over the approval and the dissemination of these drugs at any level, because at the end of the day, the court really did mean that they did not want to be involved in the abortion business. and by this ruling, in my mind, the fda is a political entity. and so the volatility of this issue is not going to change. it's going to keep going back and forth. at extreme
like this out there. and that's not politics that wins national elections by any sense of the word. it's also one of the things that struck me is that it's the 10 commandments, right? it's not the 10 commandments and what is it? the five principles of buddhism. i'm probably getting that wrong, but it's not . it's not saying because there is something really wonderful about teaching kids about all these different faith that exist in the world, and that that's not happening. this is specifically judeo christian, right old testament and some of the stuff, even one of the lawmakers argued there's a baptist leader who said i was opposed to the bill by saying, telling the washington post i should have had the right to introduce my daughter to the concepts of adultery and covered when one spouse it shouldn't be one of the first things she learns to read. in her kindergarten classroom. i'm always trying to introduce my daughter to the concept of adultery. i think this is an important thing for any father. national tv is facially unconstitutional, according to
is supposed to be a country of freedoms right? there are a number of people who are not just independents and moderates, right? but a number of people who would say freedom of religion also means you have freedom from religion. that's why it was founded. so the government couldn't say to you. this is what you have to believe . are they right there? absolutely right. to the extent that the founders were very clear on the fact that there was no point to be no state sanctioned faith. right this wasn't just james madison talked about the separation of church and state. this is something that george washington believe very deeply. but that didn't mean you wanted to run faith entirely out of the public square, right? i mean faith was a fundamental financial building block in terms of creating moral people in the democratic republic. but this so obviously is matt points out crosses the line mandating it in public schools, every public school classroom. it's obviously a play to the base move. it's a bit of a dare. but the fact that you can't say for sure that the supreme court wouldn't find a way to rationalize it. it's a
>> it's a continuation of president trump's usurious view of alliances which is that, it's soft of like a mafia protection racket. if you don't get paid, you don't get protected. that's actually not the nature of the nato alliance. i am, however, grateful that the president is much better behaved than he has been at previous nato summits where he outright questioned nato on article 5. i think so far the big news is how well behaved president trump has been, that he actually criticized president macron for macron's critical comments about nato. so, as usual, president trump is undisciplined and all over the place and doing damage by calls things into question that are articles of faith and that have been major contributions to american security for 70 years.
>> martha: situations when there are these statements thrown out there. articles of faith that we drill down and do take a look what is actually going on in the country? is it something to be concerned about? is it epidemic? what have you found when it comes to hate crimes? >> absolutely. if you look at the data the federal government specifically the fbi compiles relating to hate crimes you find that yes while it would appear slight increase from 2016 to 2017 actually many more police agencies submitted data in the latter years. so what looks like a rise could just be the fact that now we have more municipalities being counted. i went all the way back to 1996 and found actually the number of hate crimes total overall was higher than even what they counted today with all the additional police offices submitting data. if you look like in the long term, you see kind of fluctuations year to year, but they don't really connect to anything it happens to do with who is submitting data and how good
us by god. >> yes, yeah. >> do women have similar articles of faith. >> yes, women wear the same articles of faith pl unfortunately for americans there is only one way of thinking about what an american looks like. and especially when you've got a beard and a turban you don't fit that stereotype of an american, right. these are the kind of things we are trying to dismantle through education and things like that. >> i read about this idea that like it's hard to just say we aren't muslims, judge us by who we are, we also happen not to be the thing that you think we are. >> no, i think very early on right after 9/11, we made a decision as a community that we are not going to say we are not muslim. because that really means, you know, don't attack us -- so
relationship that others have living next to other. there was a vision for peace through a new faith devoted to ekanakar one god sevenless service and unconditional love for one another. he became the first guru. nine gurus followed and grew the religion to 27 million worldwide making it the fifth largest religion in the world. and for the record, guru actually mean as spiritual leader, not just people who are really good at things like computers or life x. in my house i'm the smoothy guru. >> can you talk to me about the meaning of the turban and the expression of religion. >> yeah, we call kakar, the articles of faith. the first it's a bracelet made of steel. without a beginning without end. so represents that god doesn't have beginning or end. that there is a comb we wear in the hair reminding us to have clean and tidy hair. and then there are under shorts that we we are sikhism requiring month ogmy in a marital