Religious Freedom: Why now? Discussion with Robert P George

Transcript Details

Event Name: Religious Freedom: Why now? Discussion with Robert P George
Transcription Date:Transcription Modified Date: 5/28/2019
Transcript Version: 1

Transcript Text

ot marginalized, if it's not, in the same way

that we would deal with a nuclear power,

because religion is like nuclear power,

it's incredibly clean, and it's,

it will illuminate houses, at much cheaper,

and less harmful effects, than

petroleum, and other energy sources.

But, it has toxic

that waste.

And if you don't have some way of dealing with that,

then you have meltdowns.

- I've never thought of that analogy.

We do want to have some time for Q&A;, but there are two,

I want to a little lightening round with you, first, Hamza.

I don't know if David Frost every talked about

lightening rounds.

There are two issues that I--

- What's the first thing you think, when I say?

- Yeah, right.

- The poor candidates, you know.

Like, how would you describe yourself?

- Or, do you prefer deep dish, or thin crust?

Here are the questions.

One has to do with

the impact of

Islam on America.

And the other, with America on Islam.

So let's start in reverse order.

- Okay.

- That document that I referred to so frequently today,

in my prepared remarks, Dignitatis Humanae

of the Second Vatican Council.

I believe was only made possible, because of

the American experience, of religious liberty.

And the work of American thinkers, above all,

the Jesuit thinker, John Courtney Murray,

who for all I know, might have been

at Georgetown, I'm not sure.

But anyway, he was a very distinguished Jesuit thinker,

who for awhile,

was required by the Church, not to publish his work.

He could continue doing it, but the Church wasn't quite sure

about his robust conception of religion liberty,

that he was advancing.

Not quite having yet disentangled their idea

of religious liberty, from French Revolutionary ideology,

which these European prolets associated it,

not quite gotten hold of the American idea.

But Murray, in the end, prevailed, and his prevailing

wasn't the achievement of one man, it was really

the transmitting of the experience of America,

with a non-French Revolutionary version

of religious liberty.

One that was pro-religion, that was friendly to religion,

that supported religion, that enabled the church

to move from a limited, and cramped idea

of religious liberty, to the robust idea.

Is something like that...

Will the work of American Muslims, and the experience

of Muslims in America, have that impact

on Islam internationally?

- I totally believe that.

I mean, one of the most interesting things about Muslim,

Muslims in America, is that for the first time,

a lot of these immigrants, have never had to like

build a mosque, because the state does all this stuff,

where they come from.

And so, suddenly it's the idea, you know, self-reliance.

The American virtue

becomes part and parcel of the Muslim immigrant experience

in this country.

Of having to have fundraisers, and do these things.

Because in Muslim countries, it's all controlled

by the state.

And so, the state builds the mosque,

the state runs the mosque.

I mean, there's still areas where that's not totally true,

and I was in a few of them.

But, generally, that is the case.

There's an immense amount of strength, that comes

with this separation.

And I mean, my own personal experience, I really believe

that the conflation of state and religion,

is the worst thing that can happen to religion.

Because it deracinates religion of it's spiritual sources.

It really, you know, sterilizes the,

the religion, it has a horrible affect on people.

Which is why you see so many people sleeping

in these Friday sermons,

throughout the Muslim world.

And then, the passivity it creates,

because people aren't forced to have to think about things.

- Well, it hasn't done much for England,

to have an established church, in recent years.

I mean, that's certainly--

- Yeah, England, I think it's such a unique, I mean,

I think, we underestimate the impact that having

a world war on their continent had on them.

We didn't have, we lost a lot of people, my Father

was a World War II Veteran.

And he came back, fortunately.

But we lost a lot of people on the continent.

All those cities were destroyed.

I mean, people really, you know,

their faith was shaken to the core,

with World War I, and then II.

They had a devastating impact on them.

- There's not doubt about that, but it seems

that the people who were most eager to disestablish

the Church of England, are not the secularists,

and people who are hostile to religion.

- The very-- - It's the Anglican people.

Exactly, when it-- There are religious people

who think that this is--

- It's gotta stop. - They say, what you say,

that it deracinates religion, that it makes if proforma,

and so forth.

But then, shifting now to the second.

The impact of Islam on the United States.

Catholics have had a major impact on the United States,

Jews have had a major impact.

Obviously, Protestants, the original European settlers, did.

Muslims, and not just extremists.

And not just Muslims abroad, although them too.

But American Muslims do worry,

especially raising their children, about this issue

that you mentioned, of licentiousness.

- Okay.

- We don't hear a lot of...

From you we do, but we don't hear a lot from others,


these kinds of moral issues.

- Right.

- And I think that's probably because

as was the case with other minorities in the past,

especially recent arrivals, they are very concerned with

prejudice against them. - Right.

- With dealing with being in a new place.

With wanting to seem as though we're not outsiders,

we're not hostile, we're not dangerous.

But my hope is, and your own work

leads me to think this hope

is a reasonable one.

Is that, Muslims will join with Protestants, and Catholics,

and Jews, who are faithful,

in the moral renewal of our culture.

Is that a reasonable hope?

- First, you know, I want to just take a historical stab.

Who would say was the most influential

philosopher on the Founding Fathers?

- On the Founding Fathers? - Yeah.

- Well, it's interesting, like the standard answer

to that question, is Locke.

But when Jefferson wrote his famous letter to Henry Lee,

in 1823, near the end of his life,



that he drew the inspiration, the content

of the Declaration of Independence, not for any one thinker,

but from, Hadley can help me here,

the standard books of political right.

And then, he listed four or five names, and then said, etc.

And they were Aristotle, Cicero,

- Yeah, great. - Sidney, Locke, etc.

- This is what's wrong with asking an academic a question,

because he was just supposed to say John Locke.


- Well, this is a lightening round, so it's Locke!

- Yeah, okay, so John Locke.

A lot of people don't know that John Locke

actually wanted to do Islamic studies,

and that one of his main influences, was Edward Pococke.

And the Pococke Library is in Oxford today,

with 400 Arabic manuscripts, because Pococke was his teacher

at Oxford, and Pococke had studied in Syria

for several years, and actually became a scholar,

a notable Muslim scholar.

Not a Muslim scholar, but a very good scholar of Islam.

He was a Christian when he returned.

And one of the things that he promoted, was Unitarianism,

which is why Locke converts to Unitarianism,

and he also promoted toleration, because he thought

that the Muslims had really solved the problem

of religious plurality. - This is Pococke?

- Pococke, yes.

- Locke had a more limited tolerance.

- Absolutely.

But I think the impact that he had on Locke, is real.

And so, I think the Muslims that Islamic tradition

has had an impact already, and it's an area that needs

a lot of research, and investigation,

but I think that there's room for that.

In terms of modern, the modern situation,

one of the things that's so striking,

is wherever you go now, you will see Muslims

in some of the best universities in the United States.

And I know you've got several students yourself.

A lot of them are very committed to

a moral life.

They might not be, you know, as devotional

as a really committed Muslim would be.

But they're raised in environments with, usually,

a very strong family, solid families.

The divorce rate is much lower in immigrants,

than it is in the community at large.

I think they're gonna really begin to have major impacts,

because they've just got so many advantages,

over a lot of the...

In many ways, I think we mirror a lot of the Jewish

communities experience, in the United States.

So a lot of the...

I always tell the Muslims now, like first of all,

you don't know what persecution is, so don't say

you're persecuted in America.

I mean, we've got some troubles, and we need something,

but this idea that we're a persecuted minority,

is absolutely absurd.

I think there's been some egregious mistakes made,

in law enforcement, and things, undeniably.

But overall,

it's just, it's a fallacy to say that, because

they don't know the history of this country.

And that's one of the things I try to remind people,

that every minority community that has come here,

has been bitten,

and had a difficult time.

Which is why they tended to call

the source of those stings, wasps.

Because they really saw that, as kind of,

you know, you had to assert yourself.

The Irish Catholics had to do it.

They were not part of that Anglican

Protestant community.

The Italian Americans had to do it, you know,

and they're still dealing with the territ...

And we forget, you know, the Waps, Diegos, Kikes,

Niggers, Spics, Greasers.

My Irish Great-Grandfather changes his name.

My Greek Grandfather's name was Dimitrius Uri Appolos,

and he becomes James George, right?

And he was light skinned-- - See we were related,

I knew we were related.

- He was light skinned, and he had to tell people

that he was from France.

And this is like 30s, and 40s, in America, you know.

I think, people, we've come a long way.

And I think the Muslims, and the Hindus,

and the Buddhists, now, are the new kids on the block.

They aren't part of the European...

Because the Eastern European migration to this country

was a radical change, from the past.

I mean, at the turn of the 20th Century, all of...

And a lot of the anarchists that came over,

and I mean, it's a very interesting period.

So the Muslims are, they're here,

and they're here in larger numbers.

We just had a report that was released, they did a study.

I mean, the growth in mosques in the last 20 years, is 79%.

There's now, almost 3,000 mosques.

There's more mosques here, than there are in Jordan,

if that quote today was accurate.

We now represent one of the largest minority communities

of Muslims in the world.

There are several Muslim countries,

that have smaller numbers, Mauritania is an example.

And yet, we don't have representation on the Hajj.

All of the Muslim countries have Hajj representation.

We now send more people to Hajj,

than most of the Muslim countries.

We send 17,000 people a year, to Hajj.

There's still no quotas, on Muslims to Hajj from America,

like they said, because all the the other countries

have quotas, because they can only take

about three and a half million people maximum,

and they get so many requests.

So, the Muslims, Keith Ellison is actually trying to get

some kind of representation from this community,

so that they can meet with the King, and petition, right,

the right to petition,

for the necessities of the American Hajjis.

So I personally think, there are many areas

where Muslims are going to increasingly impact the country.

I mean, for instance, what we're trying to do

in California, with the Zaytuna College,

and I'm really trying to, to get back to a kind of,

it's almost like an 18th Century, early 19th Century ideal

of a Liberal Arts college, in the United States.

Swarthmore is a good example, what you might do.

I mean, I think that you should have, just like you have

Pre-Med, you should have Pre-Law,

in a Liberal Arts college, instead of churning out these

lawyers, that have no philosophical understanding

of the real issues about law, like positivism,

and natural law theory, and really thinking deeply,

about these issues.

They end up becoming specialists, that know a little bit

about a subject, that needs to have

a generalist understanding,

if you're gonna specialize in law.

If you don't have a generalist understanding

of the philosophical underpinnings of law.

And these are ancient problems.

I mean, religious freedom, we're talking about Antigone,

is where we can argue about religious freedom

in a Liberal Arts college, if you read Antigone,

the same issues are there, when the state impinges

on the right for people to practice their religion.

As moderns, we're so arrogant in the assumption

that these are new problems, you know.

- At Cornell, West and I, in our seminars,

always begin, we have lots of different readings,

we change it in different ways, but we always begin

with The Agtigone. - Great.

- Well, okay, let's open the floor.

Yes, Professor Bradley?

- [Jerry] I'm Jerry Bradley,

from the University of Notre Dame.

That's a school in the Midwest, that was formerly

a football powerhouse.

My question has to do with Robby's favorite text,

which is Dignitatis Humanae.

And it may seem paradoxical,

after all that's been said today, and including this evening

to say that the writer, with this liberty

that's affirmed there, by the Council of Fathers,

based as Robby said, I think quite rightly,

in light of the American experience,

with freedom of religion.

Not so much specifically, I think Murray's theological

writings and arguments, but the American experience,

I think, had a lot to do with Dignitatis humanae.

But it's actually, though, a basic human right,

and a big deal, and the reason why we're here today.

Freedom of religion is actually derivative,

it's not foundational, it comes from something else.

When you look at the first part of Dignitatis humanae,

it's easy to see that the something else

is a moral duty. - Right.

- It's the moral duty to the truth,

each one is required,

to seek out the truth about matters religious,

and to adhere to that truth, which he or she finds.

And my question is to you, Shaykh Hamza, is there a

counterpart notion, parallel notion,

or something like that, in the Islamic tradition,

where you have this...

Now these are my own terms, to describe this phenomenon

and to touch, right?

You have this foundational commitment

to the truth, whatever that happens to be.

And Catholicism comes in a little bit later.

Is this overriding moral duty of each one, to what's true,

part of the tradition in Islam?

Because if it is, then you have the sort of the resources,

to develop a critical theology.

And you really have the opening, to move philosophy,

and reason, Benedict would say, into a kind of,

consortium, with the Islamic theological tradition.

- Yeah, and that's what, it's been there, I mean,

our theologians were very committed to that idea,

that faith had to be based on reason.

They were very troubled by circular reasoning,

they call it (foreign language), I mean,

we studied these things in our theological training,

that you can't argue...

The Quran has to be proven,

to be true rationally.

So there's all these books written,

making rational proofs, of why it's revelation.

There's all these, because they needed to ground it in that.

And so, I think that's foundational, to the understanding,

that you had to have faith and reason,

and that component was so important.

And also, there are many, there's no verses in the Quran

where any coercion is mentioned.

The Quran states clearly, in Chapter 18,

(foreign language)

who ever wants to believe, let him believe.

It literally says (foreign language), let him believe.

And whoever wants to disbelieve, (foreign language),

let him disbelieve.

And then, the Prophet Muhammad, it was said to him

in the Quran, can you compel people to be believers,

in the second chapter of (foreign language),

it says that, there can be no coercion in the religion,

that reason

is clear, from unreasonal error.

The reason it's clear, this is clear,

so you can't force people, let them think about this.

Even in the chapter where they say, about killing people

in (foreign language), which is the ninth chapter.

And this is always quoted by people,

saying that Islam is violent.

It says, to kill the polytheists wherever they are.

And that verse, which is in that chapter,

that verse was a time specific verse,

because the polytheists had broken the treaty

with the Muslims.

They had a treaty, and they had broken it,

by killing Muslims.

And then they,

they went to Mecca, which was a sanctuary at that time, and

they had captives, and it was permission

to fight in the sanctuary.

That was not a universal

theme to, I mean, isn't what you were taught.

You know, this is what we were taught.

And then, it says immediately after that,

but if one of the wants to hear the word of God,

let him hear the word of God.

And then it says, and if he decides not to believe,

then take him to a safe place, and leave him alone.


This is this de-contextualization,

and the idiotic people, quoting...

I mean, I had one of my teachers, somebody got up

in a lecture, and quoted this verse in the Quran,

that says, whoever doesn't judge by God,

he is a disbeliever.

And he said to him, "Which chapter is that in?".

He said, "I don't know".

And he said, "What was the verse before it,

"so I can know the context".

He said, "I don't know".

He said, "What was the verse after it?".

He said, "I don't know". He said, "What do you do?".

He said, "I'm a mechanic".

He said, "Fix cars".

I mean, we...

Like I said, these books are dangerous books,

and you have to have a scholastic tradition,

that is able to navigate these meanings.

The Prophet said, I said never, nobody,

during his lifetime, was killed for apostacy, nobody.

And there are apostacy laws, just like in Catholicism,

you can find in church canon law,

you can find apostacy laws.

There are apostacy laws, there's one Hadith

that they base these on.

But there are other Hadiths,

and they weren't in agreement upon this.

One of the greatest scholars of Islam, Oppa,

did not believe that there should be any

capital offense, and apostacy.

Now, the idea, and you know, in our Supreme Court,

in 1955, there was an argument, and you know

much better than I do, I think it was about polygamy.

Which, that-- - The polygamy case

was back in the 19th Century, the Mormon Polygamy case,

called Reynolds--

- Which was the one, where it was sent the freedom to,

that religious freedom, is the freedom to believe,

but not necessary, the freedom to act.

(mumbled words from audience)

- What was that?

- [Male in Audience] Well, the Jehovah Witnesses case,

from 1940, says that.

- It might have been-- - Gobitis and (mumbled word)?

- Yeah. - Yeah.

- Okay.

That, obviously, there's a lot of room for interpretation,

on what that means, right?

- Sure, sure.

- But, traditionally, many people did not believe in Islam,

and I guarantee you, there are many people

in the Muslim world, that do not believe in Islam.

But they don't go out, into the society,

and declare these things, not necessarily because

they can't do it, but because they understand,

that this will really affect the social fabric.

That, you know, first of all, people end up losing

the whole marriage, all these things,

because in Islamic law, if you're,

a Muslim woman cannot marry a un-Muslim man, by law.

And a Muslim man, although he can marry a Jew,

or a Christian woman, is not encouraged to do so.

But he has that dispensation.

The other thing that's very problematic,

in Islamic tradition, and I have to say this,

you know, full disclosure.

The Islamic tradition is not amenable, to the same degree

that other traditions are, to reformation.

The reason for that, is the Islamic tradition

actually sees itself as a reformation, of the Jewish

and Christian sectarianism.

Throughout the Quran, there are verses that say,

do not turn into sects, like the Jews

and the Christians did before you, right?

And you know, I mean, the Middle East was filled

with Jacobites, and historians,

and Syrian Orthodox, and Catholics, and Coptic.

I mean, all these sects, right, were there.

And there are many verses saying, don't change your religion

after it's been given to you.

Muslim, it's much more difficult for us, to deal with it,

and that's why we have to find the sources

from our tradition, and they're there.

That's that beauty of the tradition.

Those sources are there,

those dissenting opinions are there.

And those dissenting opinions need to be

brought to the forefront, because right now

they're in the background.

And that's something, you know...

We're sitting under these Babylonian bricks,

worrying about them falling on our heads.

But we tend to just forget about things in the background,

when we're so focused on the foreground.

But very often, in religious thinking, and tradition,

we have to look at the richness of the tradition,

and bring things that in the past

have been in the background,

and bring them into the foreground.

And this give is a much stronger

basis, for convincing Muslims around the world.

And this is what I try to do.

You know, find those sort of...

I have Muslims all the time say, "I can't believe that".

Isaiah's right there.

You know, here's the Hadith, you know, look,

the Prophet said that.

And the Prophet said once, he said, none of you...

And this is a sound Hadith, (foreign language)

this is very important amongst Muslims,

wheter the Hadith is sound or weak.

This is a sound Hadith, so it has authority.

But, you know, it says, that none of you truly believes,

until you have mutual mercy.

And one of the companions said, all of us are merciful.

He said, no, it's not the mercy a man shows to his friend,

it's (foreign language) universal mercy,

mercy for all of creation.

And it's not just, it includes animals.

The Prophet was, he was very concerned

about harming animals.

I mean, how can you have a religious tradition

that can blow up people, on buses, and little children,

and things like that, and you're not allowed to kill frogs?

I mean, it's just so weird, you know, this modern madness.

- We have time for one more question,

and it's Professor Arkes.

- [Hadley] I get it?

Is this on?

- Yes. - Yup.

- [Hadley] Yup, well, in that case, we'd say

we could the raise the money,

but it would be wrong, for sure.


Now I wish I could take

Hamza back to Amherst with me,

but I've given up Amherst for Lent.



Tom reminded me, Tom made a remark today about,

that the understanding of religion is distinctly human.

Reminded me of (mumbled word) line, that

animals have no religious sense.

When was the last time you heard a cow

give up grass on Fridays, you know.

I want to go take us back, to something that could be,

must be embedded in what we're arguing today.

I was taken by that passage in the new book,

about religion being our, working out a relation to the

harmony of the universe.

And I thought, what beast would make a contrast

with Madison's understanding, reflected in Stephen Field,

what do we mean by religion?

Our relations to the creator of the Universe,

and the duties that we owe him.

Now, of course,

some of the things that advertise themselves as religion,

seek to get a liberation from duties.

Duties is a distinctly moral term.

You know, years ago with Father Newhouse, we used to,

Robby was there, we used to have

seminars with people, litigating on these questions,

Mike McConnell, Doug Lakehawk, and they were offended

when we raised the question, "Well what is,

"how do you understand a legitimate religion?".

You have these prostitutes in San Francisco,

forming COYOTE, Call Off Your Old Tired Ethics.

If they claim to be a religious sect, do you have any

grounds for resisting them.

Robby referred to

The Strata, Astra Tata, and the concern by seeking the truth

accepting the truth in relig...

Oh, of course, you imply now, that we have access

to standards of reason, by which we could gauge

the difference between claims that are true, or false,

plausible, or implausible.

There's a concern for an upright life,

I presume we reject satanism.

The point I'm trying to make, is that we are,

we are folding into our understanding of religion,

standards of reason.

And Robby was citing

Abraham negotiating with God, over Sodom and Gomorrah,

"Shall the God of the Universe not himself be just?".

Remember we had this conversation with David Novak,

he said, "It's all revelation!".

Oh, what was Abraham saying to God?

"You don't understand your own revelation?".

He said, "We've gotta be reasonable", David said.

Ah, yes, we have to be reasonable.

Right, we're appealing to standards of reason.

We've seen sects in Upstate New York,

the Universal Congregation of seeking to simply affirming,

as a doctrine of belief,

their exemption from the taxes that are imposed

on real estate, so they can be on the same plane

with other religious,

claimed by other religious institutions, in the area.

We might see the aftermath of the Hosanna-Tabor case,

a new sect claiming that they too,

the main doctrine, is that they wish to be exempted

from the regulations that apply from the EEOC,

to matters of hiring, hiring and firing.


And they want to call everybody a Minister,

who works for them.

And at some point, we need something to say to them.

So what I want to suggest to you, is this,

does this not all get back to us,

to the God of the logos,

the God of reason.

The God mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

The author of the laws of nature,

and nature's reason about moral things.

So I put this to,

Shaykh Hamza,

what would you say, in response to this question,

when somebody says, don't we have

here a stance, an understanding that does not

make us vulnerable, to any group, animated by passion,

that comes forth, to declare itself to be a religion,

and gives us grounds of judgment.

What would your own advice on that be?

- You know, I mean, you know very well, that we're down the,

we're Alice, fallen into the hole, and it's,

we're in Wonderland.

I mean, everything's been...

I mean, I felt so sorry for Robby today.

He doesn't feel sorry for himself,

because he deals it all the time.

The woman who asked about the,

the marriage, and this idea of trying to reason

from natural law, not a religious argument,

but a natural law argument, that uses reason.

And a lot of these people, will simply say,

but I'm not rational.

That I don't believe in rationality.

These are Dionysian people, they're not Apollonian,

and they want the Dionysian world,

to be the dominant world.

This is our argument, you know, we need to, that...

I recently read a book, it's a beautiful book,

All Things Shining, I don't know if anybody read it in here.

One of the things that they're arguing,

is trying to find meaning in a secular age, right?

They talk about this kind of just,

like how Helen was honored by the Gods,

and that the Gods were the ones that seduced here away,

and that it wasn't like a betrayal of the marriage bed,

it was her recognizing the moment,

and Paris sweeping her off.

And there was this kind of celebration

of the Dionysian spirit, in this book,

that really intrigued me.

But I think we're dealing with this today,

in the United States,

that people don't understand where we're headed.

Toynbee studied 21 civilizations,

and showed very clearly, how they fell.

And they fell, the way we're falling right now.

You know, it's quite troubling.

I mean, this country has a lot of strength, and power,

and I think there are possibilities for renewal.

But we're entering into a post-Abrahamic

period, in the West, that's deeply troubling.

And I think the Founding Fathers, they certainly

got some things wrong, but they got a lot of things right.

And they understood,

things from the perspective that you're arguing from,

that is no longer the perspective.

I mean, we've got moral relativism

is the dominant force in our schools and universities today.

And even though, the sad thing about it is,

is that a lot of these professors are not absolute skeptics,

and they're not total moral relativists,

but they teach in a way that hints at that,

and these students, that's what these young,

impressionable minds go away with.

And so, you know, I told this class there, that

if anybody says to you, there are no absolutes,

you have to see the paradox of the statement.

That they are articulating an absolute,

and I think it's one of God's jokes on us,

that we can't deny absolutes, without

using an absolute.

I don't know, I really don't have an answer to that.

I wish I did, you know, but I'm,

I'm troubled about the way all these things are going.

And like you said, we've got new religions cropping up,

there's magazines that say how to start your own religion.

I mean, that was in a reader, had a cover story,

how to start your own religion.

And a lot of young people say, I'm spiritual,

but I'm not religious.

They don't want this idea, of any organized religion.

I always tell 'em to join the Islam religion,

we're the most unorganized religion out there.

- I'll confess, that when I heard a few years ago,

as we all did, Woody Allen's response, when he was exposed

as having taken up in a relationship with his wife,

or girlfriend's daughter, Soon Yi, as I recall her name.

I remember when he responded to that,

not with any defense, not with any apology,

not with any resolve to do better, but simply by saying,

"The heart wants, what the heart wants".

I'll confess, that my reaction to that, was to think,

we're doomed! - Yeah.

- In a cheerier moment,

I think that while everything you say is certainly true,

and this is how the great civilizations fell,

I think there's still hope.

- There is, I honestly-- - For this great experiment.

- We have children, I mean, we can't give up.

- We have to hope. - We have to hope.

- And our hope, it seems to me, and I'll conclude with this,

and it's why, Hamza, I have such esteem for you

and what you're doing. - Thank you.

- Our hope is in

people of good will,

believers in the great truths of the Declaration,

joining together, across the lines

of historic theological divisions.

- I agree.

- And standing as brothers.

- Yeah, we need an alliance of faith.

- Yeah, that's right.

Faith in God, and faith in reason.

- Yes.

- Because, you notice they're both,

- Because reason, no, absolutely.

- They're both being undercut. - They're both being undercut.

Completely, totally.

- Tom, thank you, so much.

Hamza, thank you. - Ladies and Gentlemen,

thank our guest.