Minute. I am the interim director at Baylor University press. We are a small academic Publishing House attached to the largest Baptist University in the world in waco, texas. At baylor press, were very focused editorially. Almost all of the 40 books that we publish each year are focused on academic conversations surrounding religion. Melissas book is a natural fort for our list, and were proud to be the publisher of it. I suspect that for many of you Melissa Rogers needs no introduction at all. Shes served as special assistant to president barack obama and executive director of the White House Office of faithbased and neighborhood partnerships. She holds a law degree from the university of pennsylvania and a b. A. From Baylor University, and she now serves as visiting professor at Wake Forest University withs school of divinity and a nonresident senior fellow at the brookings institution. She has received an honorary doctorate both from Wake Forest University and the John Leland Center for theological studies. Eleven years ago Melissa Rogers coauthored her first book with Baylor University press, an am establishes volume called religious freedom and the Supreme Court which was designed to help farce the Supreme Court parse the Supreme Courts ruling on an issue. Now, with the publication of faith in American Public life, melissas providing collars, government scholars, government officials and religious leaders as well as general leaders with the most uptodate and readable volume we have ever had on a topic of religions role in the public scare square. Melissas book is not only meticulously researched, its a call for interreligious peace and for seeking Common Ground across our different faiths and beliefs. It is an honor today to be joined by such a distinguished group of speakers. Todays conversation will be moderated by mike mccurry who served as the White House Press secretary under president bill clinton, and i believe the only white house, former White House Press secretary who has gone on to teach at a seminary. [laughter] thats called, by the way, the doctrine of atonement. [laughter] mike currently serves as a distinguished professor of public theology at wesley theological seminary. We simply could not ask for a better moderator, and we are to glad that mike has joined us today. Mike will introduce the rest of our speakers. Again, thanks to all of you for joining us for this conversation. Please let me turn things over to mike. [applause] 34e8 saw, lets melissa, lets get the conversation started. Its hard to write a book, thats the reason ive never done it. [laughter] so what made you want to write this book . Why did you, after all your experiences, did you decide this was something that you wanted to do . Right. So really three reasons. One is that theres a lot of misunderstanding about [inaudible] in American Public life, and you hear people say sometimes, well, the Supreme Court has kicked religion out of the Public Square or president s cant talk about their personal faith or, you know, schools, Public Schools have to be religionfree zones, and none of those things are true. So one of my motivations was to try to clear up the area or make a contribution to greater clarity in this area. The second reason i wrote the book is a profound concern about rising hostility and hate crimes against certain people simply because of the way they practice their faith. And this is, frankly, a crisis in our country right now, im sorry to say. And i think that we need to be paying much more closer attention. We are, have seen attacks on houses of worship across the country, we have seen people attacked and, you know, greeted with hostility simply because they wear a yamaka or a turban or a head scarf. And this is wrong. And we have to move more americans from the sidelines to solidarity with people who are being targeted. So the call to action in that respect. And then also the third reason is that, you know, im very have a Great Respect for the churchstate rules that our country has observed at its best. I think we have, through our amazing system of religious freedom, we have a country that is incredibly diverse religiously, incredibly equal for the most part, incredibly cooperative across line of faith and belief. And yet we see some now interested in changing those longstanding churchstate rules that have made our country so proud and have served our country so well. So those are the three reasons i want to call attention to in this book, and i hope that the books are, all three of those [inaudible] well, start by unpack the book a little bit, because its like it reflects all of your own personal commitment, your experience and your legal background. And the interesting thing to me is how just meticulous it is in looking at all the different u. S. Supreme Court Decisions and other things that really have impacted this discussion. But walk us through a little bit of the book, and then youll have to buy it [laughter] but, you know, walk us through the book a little bit about, like, what are you trying to do and put out there . Because its the chapter particularly on religion at 1600 pennsylvania avenue is like a brilliant thing. I ripped it off, and im going to use it in a class im teaching [laughter] you have my permission. I did teach a course on religion and the american presidency yeah. But, you know, tell us more about the book. Yes. So the book starts out with just laying some foundations after the introduction to talk about how we got these religious liberty guarantees in our federal constitution and laying out some of the history there. And then it moves on to talk about some key concepts of, that the Supreme Court has read when it has been interpreting our religious liberty guarantees in our constitution and otherwise. And then it looks topically at various areas starting with faith in 1600 pennsylvania avenue, as you said. One of the things i was really struck by when i worked at the white house was how much faith has played a role in the white house, you know . Theres i tell the story, that chapter begins with a store about john adams letter to his wife abigail with a prayer for the white house saying that may none but honest men, you know, live and work here. Engraved now engraved in the mantelpiece over the, that sits over the fireplace in the state dining room. And, actually, when i was having a trying day, i would walk over there and reflect and stand there, you know, because i was so inspired by that. So we have, in the white house we see that, you know, president s are practicing their faith while theyre serving often, and so we have that going on. Then also, as Michelle Obama the first lady so eloquently said that the white house is the peoples house. So we celebrate holidays there of all sorts including secular and religious holidays. And then we also have work that we do that intersects with the religious liberty guarantees of constitution and other legal guarantees of religious freedom. So, you know, thats how it starts, it looks at religious policy in politics, then moves on to look at religious expression if that happens on Government Property and, actually, the photo the big photo on the cover is one example of religious expression on Government Property right outside the department of homeland security. This was a protest by Women Leaders of faith the family separation policy. And it shows this idea of equal access, use by religious groups as well as secular groups of public parks, other public property thats open to private, nongovernmental groups for their use. And i think thats part of the genius of the american system, that we can actually bring our faith onto Government Property and express it as people of faith and religious institutions and communities. It goes on to talk about a surprisingly governmental partnerships with faithbased organizations which is the job, one of the jobs that i held at the white house where the Government Works with Faithbased Community and neighborhood organizations to serve people in need. Whether its seeing so many people in the room with whom i worked on these very important projects, whether its, you know, working to turn back the ebola or zika viruses, and that includes not only treating people who were suffering, but dealing with misinformation. When people were very fearful about these viruses, we were able to work with religious leaders among others to put out facts instead of to foment fear about these diseases. And i cant tell you how critical that was in getting the right information to americans. So talks about that and goes on to talk about faith and federal funds, because thats a hot topic we may get into a little bit today. Religious exemptions and accommodations, religion in the workplace and also, you know, dealing with hate crimes and discrimination thats religionbased. So thats a little bit of a hop, skip and jump through the book. A fundamental question that you get asked if you dabble in this area as i do, and you certainly have done, is well, you know, we believe in separation of church and state, so why should we be talking about religion yeah. If were talking about what the role of government is. They should be totally separate. Right. You know . Like, why are they connected . Right. So, you know, im certainly a supporter of separation of church and state, and i dont believe its properly understood. Thats a misunderstanding, churchstate separation. The way i hike to describe churchstate separation is the idea that the religious and governmental sectors have to have meaningful independence if one another. They have to control their own spheres in a way so that we can have that freedom forged. So that is often a misunderstanding that we have to counter right out of the box so that people understand that, yes, religion and government can cooperate when they decide to do so on shared concerns, and that does not violate the separation of church and state. At the same time, we always want to be careful, for example, that government isnt itself promoting religion, that the government isnt allowing grant funds to be used to buy sacred texts or to pay for religious activities. Thats inappropriate. And you know what . Its not only not good for all americans and their consciences, its actually bad, i believe, for religion when the government gets involved in promoting it and funding religious activities directly. Because what we see happen then is that the government begins to control religious expression and moderate or suppress elements of an authentic religious witness in a way that distorts the religious witness and actually waters down its power to call the state to account. When the government funds, if it funds, you know, through a grant, for example, religious activities, its going to regulate religious activities. Thats not good for religion either. So we need to respect churchstate separation and understand it doesnt mean that religion and government cant have any contact or cooperation. All right. Not dont get too wonky on us okay. [laughter] but you do a great job of kind of explaining the establishment clause, the free exercise clause and then the incorporation doctrine. Yes. So walk through a little bit of that. Those are constitutional principles that i think are very, very important in this discussion and understanding them and really respecting them is pretty important. Right. So we have the First Amendment, of course, that says Congress Hall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. And so that first. [cheers and applause] is the no establishment clause or establishment. [cheers and applause] , depending on how you like to say it clause. To put it simply, the government cannot promote or denigrate religion, it cant prefer one faith over another. And the free exercise clause, its a complicated matter these days, but it definitely keeps the government from targeting religious exercise, from regulating religiously motivated conduct in a way that it wouldnt do the same with secularly motivated conduct. And then, of course, we have the no religious text clause in the body of the constitution as well that says the government cant place a religious test on public office. So we cant say that you have to believe certain religious things or disbelieve certain religious things in order to serve our country because we want everybody to have a fair shot, whatever they believe, whatever faith they have or beliefs that they have, we want them to be able to serve our country. Thats how we task the real strengths of our whole citizenry. Tell the story since im from month montgomery county, tell the story of the guy that really originated okay, yeah. There was a Supreme Court case of a man who wanted to serve as a notary public. And in order to hold that job, he had to, you know, pass certain tests which made sense for that area. But then at the end of the statement that he had to make was a statement about, that i believe in god. [laughter] other religious statements, which sounds very odd when youre trying to just fulfill that particular office. But its, of course, it shouldnt be true for any office. And so he objected. He said im not going to violation my con item science by consign by saying conscience by saying i believe things that i dont believe, and indeed, i shouldnt have to do this in order to hold this Public Service, do this Public Service for my country. And, you know, he struggled through the courts but then, ultimately, got to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court agreed with him. Now, they didnt rule particularly on the no religious test clause, but they said the First Amendment says that no one should have to affirm or say they do not believe certain religious ideas and precepts in order to serve our country, and i think thats exactly the right ruling. The reason i asked that is can you get elected president of the United States if you are not a religious person and dont profess a belief in god . Well, you know, there can be no formal official test for our president [laughter] that doesnt mean that there respect unofficial tests arent unofficial tests that are applied by people, but that is a related but different matter. I think the spirit of the constitution speaks to. And i think we should always bear in mind that some of our greatest president s wouldnt be characterized as, you know, orthodox believers of one sort or another. We think about thomas jefferson, Abraham Lincoln. You know, they had, you know, religious beliefs of some sort, but they, you know, they didnt fit a cookie cutter picture. And so i think we should always make clear that we are going to look at the people and their qualifications and not put our own informal religious test that would disqualify people simply because they dont hold our own religious beliefs or because they dont hold religious beliefs at all. Yeah. The course that im teaching now in religion and the american presidency as wesley seminary is its remarkable looking at all of our early president s and Going Forward about how skeptical many of them were about organized religion and how they expressed their faith in very interesting, sometimes strange ways. If any of you ever go to the smithsonian, you can buy the jefferson bible which is, you know, cuts out everything that has to do with miracles and divinity [laughter] [inaudible] but reaffirms a strong belief in kind of the essential gospel message of taking care of people who are in need. And, you know, its striking how much the president presidency has not wanted to introduce these matters of faith and religion into our public discussions. I know that youve worked on that, and i want you to talk a little bit about your time at the white house under president obama. But, you know, what is the real role that religion should play in the public life of the country . And how you define public and how you define faith and, you know, thats something i think youve put some real care to in the book. Yeah. Thanks for asking that, because i know those terms are litigated, if you will, what is public life, what is the Public Square. And when i use it in the book, as i explain in the introduction, i mean not just government which is, you know, often referred to as our public sec tour sector, but also any place thats publicly accessible or visible. Whether its a synagogues front lawn or some other area in town, anything thats not behind the closed doors of houses of worship or homes, basically. Im defining it very broadly. So religion does have a troll may on Government Property a role to play on Government Property and affairs defined, of course as always, by our liberty guarantees. But we shouldnt also forget that we have our front lawns of our houses of worships, and people can post the Ten Commandments there if they want or some other religious sign or scripture. And thats another use of religion in the Public Square. I think as far as how we should approach these matters, i think we should constant with the no religious test clause and the spirit of that, we shouldnt ever ask americans o