[MUSIC].

GREETINGS EVERYONE I AM LATRICIA SCRIVEN I GET THE SERVE THE SENIOR PASTOR OF ST. PAUL'S UNITED METHODIST CHURCH HERE IN TALLAHASSEE ON BEHALF OF WFSU MEETING IN THE VILLAGE SQUARE WE ARE DELIGHTED THAT YOU ARE HERE JOINING US TODAY GOD SQUAD CHURCH V. STATE.

THIS PROGRAM IS PART OF GOD SQUAD SERIES IS OFFERED BY VILLAGE SQUARE FOR THE LAST 15 YEARS.

IN PARTNERSHIP WITH FAITH LEADERS FROM ALL OVER OUR COMMUNITY.

TONIGHT'S PROGRAM IS BEING STREAMED LIVE ON FACEBOOK VIA WFSU PUBLIC MEDIA AND THE VILLAGE SQUARE'S FACEBOOK PAGES.

BUT IF YOU MISS IT THIS ONE HOUR LONG GOD SQUAD CONVERSATION IS ALSO SCHEDULED TO AIR ON WFSU FM 88.9 FRIDAY FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 20 AT 7 PM EASTERN.

LET SOMEONE KNOW AND INVITE THEM ALL.

LET'S GET STARTED BY HAVING EACH OF OUR TODAY'S GOD SQUAD MEMBERS INTRODUCE THEMSELVES.

>> Pastor Josh Hall,First Baptist Church: >>.

[LISTING NAMES] >> Rabbi Paul Sidlofsky,Temple Israel: >> Tim Holeda,St.Thomas More: >> Stephanie Posner,Temple Israel: >> Moderator,Latricia Scriven: THANK YOU ALL LET'S JUMP RIGHT IN I WAS READING AN ARTICLE BY.

[LISTING NAMES] ON THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE ONE OF THE THINGS AS YOU CAN IMAGINE THAT WAS LIFTED WAS ANYTIME THE ROLE OF RELIGION IN POLITICS COMES UP TODAY WE CAN ALMOST COUNT ON THE FACT THAT SOMEONE IS GOING TO BRING UP "THERE IS A SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE".

PROPONENTS WILL SAVE THAT THE SEPARATION IS LAW AND IT MUST BE MAINTAINED AND PERHAPS OPPONENTS MIGHT SAY THAT THIS PHRASE NEVER APPEARS IN THE CONSTITUTION AND IT GOES TOO FAR WHEN TAKING RELIGION OUT OF PUBLIC LIFE AND DISCOURSE.

MY QUESTION IS THIS.

IN OR OUT TO RELIGION SHOULD IT BE IN OUR PUBLIC AND POLITICAL DISCOURSE OR OUT AND HOW FAR IS TOO FAR?

ANYONE CAN START.

>> Stephanie Posner,Temple Israel: THE WAY YOU PHRASE THE QUESTION TO BE IN AND OUT OF OUR POLITICAL DISCOURSE IT IS A PART OF OUR POLITICAL DISCOURSE.

I'M NOT SURE IF THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH BRINGING YOUR FAITH INTO THE PUBLIC SQUARE AND IN WAYS THAT ARE HEALTHY AND AND AMERICAN IF YOU ARE.

I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT IS THE DANGER.

>> Moderator,Latricia Scriven: IS FINE TO HAVE A COLLISION ENTERED THE DIALOGUE THE PROBLEM IS WHEN IT IS A RELIGION OR A GOVERNMENT TRYING TO PUT THEIR VIEWS ON EVERYBODY.

AS WAS DONE IN COUNTRIES PRIOR TO THE UNITED STATES FORMING AND STILL IS DONE IN SOME PLACES IN THE WORLD TODAY.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE VALUES NO COUNTRY.

SOME OF THEM, FROM RELIGION SOME OF THEM MAY NOT COME FROM RELIGION PEOPLE WERE NOT FOLLOWING COLLISION TO FIND THE VALLEYS SHOULD BE ABLE TO EXPRESS THEIR VALUES AS WELL.

I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THERE BE OPENNESS AND NOT ANY DOGMATIC IDEA OF HOW RELIGION SHOULD BE PRACTICE.

BUT THE FACT IT IS A PART OF OUR MAKEUP OF OUR COUNTRY IS VERY IMPORTANT >> I THINK I WOULD SAY IT'S IMPORTANT TO KIND OF NOTE THE HISTORICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF THIS IDEA SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

IT BEGAN WITH REALLY A FEAR THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WOULD ESTABLISH IN A PARTICULAR FAITH IN ALL THE COLONIES.

THE COLONIES EACH HAD RULES THAT DO NOT REFLECT WHAT WE HAVE IN OUR BILL OF RIGHTS.

SOME OF THEM HIM THEY ARE VERY ANTI-CATHOLIC.

THEY WOULD NOT ALLOW CATHOLICS TO SERVE IN OFFICE.

THEY WOULD NOT ALLOW THEM TO VOTE.

THE FEAR WAS BY IGNITING GRADING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THEY WOULD SOMEHOW ENFORCE A SPECIFIC VIEW OR SPECIFIC RELIGION.

HE LEFT THE QUESTION OPEN TO THE INDIVIDUAL COLONIES WITH MANY RESTRICTING IT HAS EVOLVED TO KNOW THE SUPREME COURT IS TAKEN AND EXPENDED THAT SO EVERYONE BASICALLY IN THAT UNIT STATES AS TO KIND OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT EVERYBODY FALLS UNDERNEATH THAT.

I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S A BAD THING I'M SAYING IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS.

I THINK WHEN PEOPLE TAKE IT TOO FAR AT THIS IDEA CONCEPT OF SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEANS WE HAVE TO REMOVE RELIGION OR ANY SEMBLANCE OF IT WERE AN EXPRESSION OF IT COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY FROM THE WORLD OR FROM SOCIETY.

I THINK THAT GOES A LITTLE TOO FAR.

I DON'T THINK THAT IS WHEN ANYBODY INTENDED I DON'T THINK THAT IS WHAT MOST PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO SEE.

>> Moderator,Latricia Scriven: THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE HISTORICAL UNDERPINNINGS WHAT IS IT THE CASE IS THAT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN ARGUING OVER WHERE THESE BOUNDARIES ARE.

FOR A VERY LONG TIME.

AND WE MIGHT SAY CURRENTLY, WE DON'T GENERALLY KNOW WHERE THE BOUNDARY MIGHT BE DRAWN OR HAVE SOME AGREEMENTS AND DISAGREEMENTS ABOUT THAT.

WHICH LEADS ME TO A THOUGHT AROUND MORAL AUTHORITY.

V. LEGAL AUTHORITY.

MY QUESTION IS IN WHAT WAY CAN RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS INFLUENCE PUBLIC POLICY WITHOUT OVER STEPPING THE BOUNDARIES OF CHURCH AND STATE THE BOUNDARIES OF COURSE THAT WE MAY NOT HAVE AGREED ON.

HOW CAN WE INFLUENCE WITHOUT OVERSTEPPING THOSE BOUNDARIES?

>> I THINK FROM THE TIME WE ARE TEACHING OUR CHILDREN TO THE TIME PEOPLE ARE IN THE CONGREGATION LISTENING TO THE CHURCH REALLY SPEAK ON WHATEVER THEY ARE SPEAKING ON THE WEEK SPEAK ON WE ARE EDUCATING OUR COMMUNITY ON OUR TRADITIONS BELIEF SYSTEM WHICH IN TURN WILL THEY WILL GO OUT AND BE GOOD CITIZENS AND FOLLOW THE MORAL PAINTINGS ARE OF OUR COMMUNITY.

I KNOW EACH ONE OF US WHATEVER OUR FAITH BACKGROUND AS WE EACH HAVE THEM.

THAT IS HOW WE CAN BE EFFECTIVE IN GETTING PEOPLE TO USE GOOD MORAL COMPASSES.

>> SOMETIMES WITH THIS CONVERSATION THOSE WHO HAVE RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS THE ASSUMPTION IS THERE MORALS OR IN A DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BECAUSE OF THE BASIS BUT EVERY ONE WHO ADVOCATES A PARTICULAR ETHNIC OR CRITICAL POLITICS AS A BASIS FOR THAT EVEN IF IT IS NOT RELIGIOUS.

TO PUT RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS IN A PARTICULAR CATEGORY GOAL WE HAVE THE PUT EXTRA GUARDRAILS AROUND THAT WE SHOULD BE EVALUATING THE CONTENT OF THE LAW NOT NECESSARILY DISCREDITING ANY OF IT BECAUSE WHERE IT COMES FROM OR THE SOURCE.

>> Moderator,Latricia Scriven: IT INTERESTING I LIKE TO TELL PEOPLE SOMETIME I'M A LOUISIANA GIRL LIVING IN THE FLORIDA WORLD.

I KNOW THERE HAVE BEEN CONVERSATIONS AROUND THE 10 COMMANDMENTS IN LOUISIANA .

SAY BEING POSTED IN A PUBLIC PLACES OR IN A FLORIDA STATES ALL OVER THESE CONCERNS ARE COMING UP MORE AND MORE BECAUSE AS WE THINK ABOUT OUR OWN RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS SOMETIMES THERE IS A TENDENCY TO WANT TO INFLUENCE EVERYONE ELSE TO THINK HOW WE THINK.

WHAT WOULD YOU SAY ABOUT THAT EVEN SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS OR NOT SIMPLE AS THE 10 COMMANDMENTS BEING POSTED?

WHAT WAKE ME SAY?

SHE HAS IT ON OUR PHONE THE POINT OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS TO PREVENT GOVERNMENT FROM ESTABLISHING A SPECIFIC RELIGION.

AS FAR AS LOUISIANA GOES YOU MAY KNOW THAT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN POSTED YET.

IT IS STALLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 15 I THINK THERE'S BEEN SOME PUSHBACK.

NOW I'M GLAD I HAVE THE RABBI AND STEPHANIE HERE.

THE FIRST COMMANDMENT OF THE 10 COMMITMENTS IS CLEARLY RELIGIOUS.

WHAT DOES IT SAY?

RABBI THE VERY FIRST ONE.

>> Rabbi Paul Sidlofsky,Temple Israel: I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD >> I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD WILL HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME.

WHILE I HAVE A COPY OF THE 10 COMMITMENTS AND BEAUTIFULLY FRAMED BY GORGEOUSLY FRAMED IN CALLIGRAPHY AND HAVE IT IN A RED FRAME HANGING IN MY HOME INTO MY NEW HOUSE IN APALACHICOLA IN MY CLOSET BECAUSE I'M NOT HUNG A NEW PICTURE SHEPHERD AND EVALUATE THE 10 COMMITMENTS THE PUSHBACK IS NOW YOU ARE NO ESTABLISHING A SPECIFIC RELIGION MAYBE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN RELIGION IF YOU WILL.

THAT IS A PROBLEM.

>> Moderator,Latricia Scriven: ONE OF THE CONVERSATIONS THAT IS BEEN HAD RUN THAT HAS SAID IT IS NOT RELIGIOUS AT ALL.

THIS REPRESENTS SOME OF OUR HISTORICAL VALUES THE HISTORICAL VALUES UPON WHICH THE UNITED STATES RESTS THE PEOPLE HAVE BELIEVED OVER TIME EVEN IF IT IS SHIFTED.

IT IS LESS ABOUT RELIGION AND MORE ABOUT REMEMBERING HISTORY.

HOW MIGHT THAT IDEA COME INTO THE CONVERSATION MAYBE NOT EVEN SIMPLY WITH THE 10 COMMANDMENTS BUT IN OTHER SPACES WHERE WE SAY WE ARE SIMPLY HONORING HISTORY HERE.

>> IF WE WERE A COUNTRY THAT WAS DEVOID OF VALUE OR HISTORY THEN IT WOULD BE PRETTY EMPTY PLACE.

AS FAR AS THE SUBSTANCE OF IT.

WHEN WE SAY IS PART OF HISTORY I THINK THE FIRST QUESTION WOULD BE WHOSE HISTORY?

AS WE BECOME MORE AND MORE DIVERSE AS A COUNTRY YES WE ARE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN COUNTRY WE CLAIM TO BE AND SO ON IT IS REALLY NOT.

IT'S A COUNTRY THAT IS MUCH MORE DIVERSE.

PEOPLE COME FROM ALL DIFFERENT PLACES IN THE WORLD ALL DIFFERENT VILLAGES ALL DIFFERENT BELIEF SYSTEMS OR NO RELIGION AT ALL.

I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE THE DISCUSSION MORE ABOUT VALUES IT IS BEEN SAID BY SEVERAL PEOPLE ALREADY AND LESS ABOUT DOGMA OR DOCTRINE.

IF WE TALK ABOUT HAVING VALUES SOME OF WHICH ARE EXPRESSED IN THE 10 COMMITMENTS BUT DON'T HAVE TO BE EXPRESSED BY THE 10 COMMITMENTS SPECIFICALLY IN ORDER TO HAVE EVERYONE FOLLOW A SPECIFIC WAY OF SAYING IT.

I THINK THE VALUE IS MORE THAN THE DOGMA IS WHAT WE SHOULD BE FOCUSING NOT THE PROBLEM IS WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION AS USUALLY HAPPENS WE TEND TO GET POLARIZED AND GET EITHER ALL IN OR NOT AT ALL.

IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE IT COULD BE SOMEPLACE IN THE MIDDLE.

WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE IT BE THE 10 COMMITMENTS IN EVERY CLASSROOM BUT WE SHOULD HAVE VALUES IN EVERY CLASSROOM AND WHAT THOSE ARE SHOULD BE DISCUSSED AMONG ALL THE PEOPLE AND DETERMINED >> JUST FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT WHEN YOU SAY IF YOU LOOK AT THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND IT SAYS NO ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION AND NO PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NOW AS TIM HAS POINTED OUT THE SUPREME COURT HAS EXPENDED AFTER STATES CANNOT ESTABLISH AN OFFICIAL NATIONAL RELIGION OR AN OFFICIAL STATE RELIGION IF IT 10 COMMANDMENTS ARE HELD BY THE JEWISH FAITH IN THE CHRISTIAN FAITH AND THOSE TWO FAITHS WE WOULD SAY THEY ARE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO HOW CAN DISPLAYING THAT ESTABLISH BOTH CONFLICTING FAITH SIMULTANEOUSLY?

DO YOU GET WHAT I'M SAYING?

I GET THE CONCERN BUT AT THE SAME TIME IT CLEARLY DOES NOT PASS THE OBJECTION TO ME DOES NOT PASS THE ESTABLISHMENT CRITERIA.

WE CAN SAY FOR THE REASON WE MIGHT HAVE CONCERNS OR WHATEVER, WHEN SOMETIMES IT DEVOLVES INTO NO JURY ESTABLISHING RESIDENT WE TOOK BY THE 10 COMMANDMENTS WHICH ONE WE HAVE BOTH V. I THINK THERE IS MERIT WE CAN SAVE IT IN A BOGEYMAN TYPE OF WORK.

I THINK THERE IS MERIT IN ACKNOWLEDGING WHEN OUR FOUNDERS WERE FIRST COMPOSING THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE THE CONSTITUTION THEY WERE DRAWING FROM THIS TRADITION IN ACKNOWLEDGING THE ROLE THAT THAT PLAYED IN SHAPING OUR COUNTRY'S FOUNDING REQUIRED TO HAVE THAT IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO SETTING IN PERPETUITY VALUES AND MAKING LAW AS OPPOSED TO ACKNOWLEDGING.

LOOK AT THE BUILDING OF THE SUPREME COURT BUILDING, JUST LOOK AT THE ARCHITECTURE.

NOBODY IS GONE AND SANDBLASTED AWAY SOME OF THE IMAGES WE SEE INSIDE THE COURTROOM.

>> FOR THE SAKE OF THE AUDIENCE AND MEET I DON'T READ THE LAWS OF LOUISIANA BECAUSE I LIVE IN FLORIDA BUT IS THIS LIKE TO Moderator,Latricia Scriven: ONE OF THE THINGS LIZ AND ABOUT A LOT IN THOSE SOMETHINGS ARE CALLED ALLOWING THE DISPLAY OF THE 10 COMMANDMENTS IN PUBLIC SCHOOL CLASSROOMS WHICH SPARKS LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEBATES CRITICS ARGUE SUCH MEASURES VIOLATE THE ESTABLISH AN CLAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT THAT WAS JUST BEING TALKED ABOUT.

WHILE OTHERS HAVEN'T SAID IT IS SIMPLY A REFLECTION OF HISTORICAL VALUES EVEN LIKE PRINTING IN GOD WE TRUST ON MONEY.

>> I THINK THERE ISA BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ALLOWING AND MANDATING.

>>Stephanie Posner,Temple Israel: I THINK IT IS REQUIRED .

>> Moderator,Latricia Scriven: THIS CAME FROM ONE OF THE ARTICLES .

>> Stephanie Posner,Temple Israel: I THINK ALLOWING IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT I READ THEY ARE REQUIRING IT TO BE POSTED IN EVERY SINGLE CLASSROOM.

EVERY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CLASSROOM EVERY COLLEGE CLASSROOM >> IF THAT IS THE CASE JUST A QUESTION I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN WHAT THE INTENTIONS ARE OF THIS LAW WHAT IS BEHIND IT I WOULD BE CURIOUS ABOUT THAT.

I DOUBT IT IS LIKE WE NEED TO LEARN SOME HISTORY AS OPPOSED TO I HAVE A SUSPICION THAT IS NOT THE REAL MOTIVE.

I WOULD BE CURIOUS WHAT IT IS.

I THINK IF WE START MANAGING CERTAIN THINGS LIKE THAT BE PUBLISHED THAT ARE CLEARLY OR EXPLICITLY RELIGIOUS I THINK WE START TO FLIRT WITH THAT LINE.

THAT WE ARE TRYING TO AVOID.

AS OUR COUNTRY TRY TO AVOID ALL THESE YEARS >> WE HAVE DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF THE 10 COMMANDMENTS WE HAD THIS LAST TIME IT IS AN ABSOLUTE MORAL LAW OR NOT.

SHOULD WE NOT AS RELIGIOUS LEADERS THINK THE 10 COMMANDMENTS ARE ABSOLUTE.

WELL YES I ABSOLUTELY ARGUE THE 10 COMMANDMENTS ARE IMPORTANT I THINK THERE IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE ABOUT THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE OPEN TO INTERPRETATION.

WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT THE SABBATH.

AND KEEPING IT HOLY.

WHEN IS THE SABBATH?

FOR ME IN, IT IS NOT THE SAME Moderator,Latricia Scriven: LET ME JUMP IN AND ASK US WE CAN GO DOWN LOTS OF HOLES AROUND INTERPRETATION AND WE DO.

AS FAITH LEADERS EVEN SOMETIMES WHEN WE THINK WE BELIEVE THE SAME THINGS.

SHOULD RELIGIOUS EDUCATION HAVE A PLACE IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS?

>> Stephanie Posner,Temple Israel: I WILL START IF I CAN AS AN EDUCATOR NO, FOR SEVERAL DIFFERENT REASONS.

TYING INTO PUTTING THE 10 COMMANDMENTS IN THE CLASSROOM.

CURRENTLY YOU HAVE CHILDREN IN EVERY PUBLIC CLASSROOM THAT ARE NOT ALL CHRISTIAN PRISONWHERE THEY ARE JEWISH SUMMER MUSLIM SUMMER INTO SUMMER SEEK THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE 10 COMMITMENTS ARE BECAUSE IT IS NOT PART OF THEIR RELIGIOUS TRADITION.

ALSO , I KNOW I CAN SPEAK FOR MYSELF AS A JEWISH PERSON I'M SURE YOU ALL MIGHT FEEL THIS WAY.

I DON'T KNOW IF I'M COMFORTABLE WITH SOMEONE WHO IS NOT OF MY FAITH TEACHING MY TRADITION AND MOTIVATES MORALS TO OTHER PEOPLE WITHOUT MESSERLI KNOWING THAT I HAD EXPERIENCE WITH MY OWN CHILD WHERE SHE CAME HOME FROM SCHOOL AND SAID THAT WAS AN INTERESTING CONVERSATION WE HAD ABOUT HANUKKAH.

BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT FAMILIAR WITH HOLIDAY DOES NOT NECESSARILY HAVE A PLACE THERE.

IF YOU WANT TO TEACH YOUR CHILD YOURRELIGIOUS TRADITIONS , THEN THERE ARE SCHOOLS THAT ARE RELIGIOUS DAY SCHOOLS OR HOMESCHOOLING OR PART-TIME RELIGIOUS EDUCATION, THOSE OTHER PLACES FOR YOU TO HAVE YOUR CHILDREN LEARN THAT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR RELIGION.

NOT IN A PUBLIC SPACE WHERE IT CAN BE TAUGHT INCORRECTLY AND WITH BIAS.

>> CAN GO BACK TO SOMETHING TIM SAID WHAT IS LOUISIANA'S MOTIVATION.

AND JUST TOUCH ON THE DECISION BY THE SUPREME COURT KENNEDY V. BERMAN WHICH WAS SHIFTED 50 YEARS OF PRECEDENT.

IN HIS ALLOWING SOME OF THESE PRESSURES WHAT I THINK IS HAPPENING THERE IS A MOVEMENT AT THE STATE LEVEL TO TEST THE SUPREME COURT'S RULING.

AND TO SEE HOW FAR FOLKS CAN GO AND PUT RELIGION INTO SCHOOLS OR CHANGING SOME OF THE THINGS THAT ARE BEING CHANGED SOME OF THE CHALLENGES WE ARE FACING RIGHT NOW.

I WANT TO SAY IT'S IMPORTANT TO BE AWARE OF WHAT'S HAPPENING AT THE STATE LEVEL NOT JUST FOCUS ON WHAT HAPPENS IN WASHINGTON DC.

BUT THE THINGS THAT ARE CHANGING THAT ARE BEING TESTED AT THE STATE LEVEL.

RECENTLY, PUTTING CHAPLAINS IN FLORIDA SCHOOLS, VOLUNTEER CHAPLAINS.

THERE ARE SOME CHAPLAINS I WOULD NOT WANT COMING INTO MY HOSPITAL ROOM WHEN I'M SICK AND I NOTE THAT MULFORD WENT OUT WITH HIM IN THE SCHOOL?

PROBABLY NOT!

I JUST WANT TO GET BACK TO THAT >> I WOULD SAY WHEN WE TALK ABOUT RELIGIOUS EDUCATION IN PUBLIC SCHOOL.

I GREW UP WITH STEPHANIE CATHOLIC SCHOOLS WERE SYSTEM IN THE UNITED STATES AROSE FROM A HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT TOWARDS CATHOLICS.

TO PROTECT OUR FAITH AND SUBJECT CATHOLIC IMMIGRANTS WHO ARE GETTING TAUGHT DIFFERENT THINGS IN THEIR SCHOOLS AND SO ON .

I WOULD NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH IT JUST SOME PERSON IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHING THE CATHOLIC FAITH.

THAT'S WHY WE HAVE CHURCHES AND RELIGIOUS EDUCATION AND SO ON.

HOWEVER, I REMEMBER I HAVE A MEMORY WHEN IT WAS IN FIFTH GRADE I THINK I WAS IN FIFTH GRADE.

WE HAD A JEWISH TEACHER MY HOMEROOM TEACHER.

I REMEMBER HER WE DID HANUKKAH CANDLES SHE BROUGHT IN CHALLAH BREAD JUST REMEMBER AT SOME POINT WE DID IT SHOULD IT WAS NOT TAUGHT IN A WAY THAT WAS PROSELYTIZING IT WAS SHARING SOME OF HER TRADITIONS .

AND WITH THE BACKGROUND OF IT WAS.

IN SOME WAYS WE NEED TO RELAX.

PEOPLE NEED TO RELAX.

I THINK IT TEACHES SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND SOMETHING OF VALUE THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PROSELYTIZING AND SHARING SOMETHING ABOUT YOUR CULTURE OR YOUR BACKGROUND.

THE MEAT WOULD MAKE NO DIFFERENCE IF SOMEBODY FROM ANOTHER NATION WITH TEACHING THEIR CULTURE AND BACKGROUND AND MAYBE HAD A DISTANT RELATIONSHIP TO RELIGION .

WE WILL NOT BE A MORE OPEN SOCIETY IF WE CONSTANTLY ARE SUSPICIOUS OF ANY KIND OF MENTION OF RELIGION OR CULTURE OR BACKGROUND OR HAVE TO DRAW A LINE WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL ANYTHING RELIGIOUS WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

ARE WE SETTING RELIGION AS RELIGION?

I WOULD BE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THAT PERSONALLY ANYWAY.

I THINK WE NEED TO LIGHTEN UP A LITTLE BIT .

>> Moderator,Latricia Scriven: IT'S INTERESTING ONE, ARE WE STUDYING RELIGION?

THERE ARE WAYS THAT OUR RELIGION INFLUENCES PUBLIC SCHOOLS WITHOUT JUST STUDYING RELIGION .

BECAUSE THEY ARE PART OF WHO WE ARE WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE SUCH MAJOR BOOK BENDING HERE IN FLORIDA AND ALL OVER EVERYWHERE ELSE.

OFTEN THAT IS BECAUSE OF CERTAIN VALUES THAT INDIVIDUALS HOLD FROM A RELIGIOUS PERSPECTIVE AND WE FIND WAYS TO INFLUENCE OR TO BRING THAT INTO A PUBLIC SCHOOL EVEN BUT WE MIGHT SAY I'M NOT TEACHING RELIGION THIS IS ABOUT VALUES THIS IS ABOUT WHAT SHOULD BE THE CASE BASED ON WHAT I OR WE BELIEVE?

BOOK THAT YOU TAKE ISSUE WITH BECAUSE OF YOUR PERSONAL RELIGIOUS BELIEFS TO BENNETT FOR EVERYONE I DON'T THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE I THINK IS OKAY YOU TO SAY THIS BOOK IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR MY FAMILY.

WE WILL NOT ALLOW OUR CHILDREN TO READ IT.

I WOULD NOT ARGUE WITH THAT GO RIGHT AHEAD.

I MIGHT WANT MY CHILD TO READ IT BECAUSE IT IS A LESSON >> I DO THINK YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER BECAUSE BOOK BENDING HAS SUCH A PEJORATIVE CONNOTATION IF IT IS STILL ON AMAZON AND IT IS STILL PUBLISHED IN THE US LIKE MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS NOT WHAT WE HAVE IN OUR HEAD V. WHAT CAN THAT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LIBRARY CARRY AND IT IS ALSO WITHOUT PRINCIPLE OF SUBSIDIARY MAY BE THE IDEA THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT NEED TO DECIDE THAT BUT THAT LOCAL SCHOOL BOARD THAT IS ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE IF THEY PUSH TOO FAR OR NOT FAR ENOUGH AND THE PEOPLE HAVE RECOURSE TO SAY NO, WE DON'T LIKE THAT YOU BEEN A BOOK OR YOU SHALL BEND THIS OTHER BOOK THEY ARE NOT LEFT VOICES ON AN INDIVIDUAL LEVEL DOCUMENT IS A GROUP WITH WHERE THAT CAME OUT BUT THAT IS PART OF THAT PLURALISM IN THIS DEMOCRAT BIG EXPERIMENT I MIGHT WIN EVERY BOAT BUT THAT'S OKAY I CAN TRY TO PERSUADE IN THE MARKET PLACE OF IDEAS YOU WIN SOME AND YOU LOSE SOME.

>> Moderator,Latricia Scriven: IN THIS DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY THAT IS VERY VERY DIVERSE AND WE KNOW THAT WE BRING ALL OF OURSELVES WITH US TO THE TABLE SHOULD PERSONAL RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS PLAY A ROLE IN THEIR DECISION MAKING PROCESS?

>> AGAIN, I WILL GO BACK TO VALUES.

I THINK POLITICIANS ARE HUMAN BEINGS.

WE STILL CLING TO THAT IDEA.

WE SHOULD RECOGNIZE THAT THEY DO COME WITH THEIR OWN SET OF VALUES.

HOWEVER THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL STATEMENT I WILL USE IT AS AN EXAMPLE.

THINK OF OUR CURRENT PRESIDENT PRESIDENT BIDEN WHO WAS ASKED A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO ABOUT HIS VIEWS AS A PRACTICING DEVOUT CATHOLIC ABOUT ABORTION.

NOW KENNY BE PRO-CHOICE WHEN HE IS A CATHOLIC.

I THOUGHT HIS ANSWER WAS EXCELLENT HE SAID MY PERSONAL BELIEF IS THIS.

IT'S WHAT AS A CATHOLIC I BELIEVE AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES I CANNOT IMPOSE THAT BURDEN ON EVERYBODY.

SO I BELIEVE IN ALLOWING PEOPLE TO CHOOSE.

WHATEVER PART OF THE SIDE HURON OR SOMEWHERE ALONG THE SPECTRUM AND RESPECT THAT ANSWER BECAUSE TO ME IT SPEAKS TO THIS TOPIC.

YOUR PERSONAL BELIEFS THE BOTTOM ANSWER THE BOTTOM LINE IS NO THE FACT THAT THE VALUES WILL ENTER INTO IT WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT IT ALLOWED THAT WHAT WE HAVE LOVE FOR IS MORE COMMUNICATION AND MORE DISCUSSION RATHER THAN THE OTHER PERSON OR DISMISSING THE OTHER PERSON BECAUSE THEY WERE DIFFERENT VIEW.

LET'S HEAR OTHER VALUES IN OTHER FAITH VIEWS OR LACK OF FAITH VIEWS AND BRING THEM INTO DISCUSSION AND COME TO A CONCLUSION FOR THE COUNTRY BASEDON WHAT SEEMS TO WORK.

IT IS A COMPROMISE IT IS NOT GOING TO BE .

>> Latricia Scriven,Moderator: CATHOLIC I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THAT DID NOT LIKE HIS ANSWER THE REASON I DID NOT LIKE HIS ANSWER I THINK IT IS RIDICULOUS AND I WILL TELL YOU WHY.

EVERY LAW IS A JUDGMENT OR A DECISION ON WHAT IS GOOD.

AND WHAT IS BAD.

WHAT IS RIGHT AND WHAT IS WRONG.

OUR LAWS AND GOVERNMENT DERIVE THIS JUDGMENT ON WHAT IS GOOD AND WHAT IS HELPFUL IN SOMEONE FOR SOCIETY.

IT ARRIVED THEM FROM SOMEWHERE.

FOR A POLITICIAN TO EVER SAY I DON'T WANT TO IMPOSE MY BELIEFS ON OTHERS IS FOOLISH.

THAT IS WHAT THEY DO ALL OF THEM DO IT.

IF HE MEANS AS A CATHOLIC HE HOLDS THIS BELIEF BUT HE DOESN'T FEEL LIKE HE'S ENTITLED TO THAT SHOULD NOT ENTER INTO HIS VALUE SYSTEM I THINK THAT IS STRANGE LATER IN THAT SAME I REMEMBER THAT PARTICULAR DEBATE WHERE HE SAID THAT HE LATER WENT ON TO TALK ABOUT HOW IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR HIM TO TAKE CARE OF THE POOR AND TO TAKE CARE OF PEOPLE WHO DO NOT HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE AND THINGS LIKE THAT WAS A VERY CATHOLIC MAINSPRING WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE WHERE OF THESE VALUES THAT EXIST THAT EVERYBODY AGREES WITH AND WE JUST TOLD SELF-EVIDENT?

WHAT ARE THESE VALUES AND WHY IS IT IF IT COMES FROM MY FAITH WHICH THEY BELIEF SYSTEM.

WHY IS THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN NOT ACCEPTABLE TO PUT INTO LAW OR ALLOW THAT TO INFLUENCE MY VALUES OR MY POLICY?

>> I WILL RESPOND TO THAT I WILL SAY WHERE IT DOESN'T COME INTO LAW OR DOES IT?

BECAUSE A HUGE PART OF THE COUNTRY DOES NOT ACCEPT THAT VIEW.

SO HAVE IT OPPOSED BECAUSE IT IS THE VIEW OF A PARTICULAR RELIGION HAVE IT OPPOSED ON THE ENTIRE COUNTRY IS NOT RIGHT.

I THINK THAT IS THE ESSENCE OF WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT.

IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE CALL THEMSELVES PRO-LIFE WILL TAKE BESIDE PERSPECTIVE ON PRESIDENT BIDEN STATEMENT AND PEOPLE WERE PRO-CHOICE WILL SEE FROM ANOTHER WAY TRYING TO BE AS OBJECTIVE AS POSSIBLE IT IS NOT RIGHT IN MY MIND TO IMPOSE THAT PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS VIEW BECAUSE I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO CONSIDER THEMSELVES RELIGIOUS WHO DO NOT SUPPORT THE ARGUMENT OF PURELY PRO-LIFE.

>> THE QUESTION REALLY COMES BACK TO WHAT I SAID WHAT IS THE SOURCE WHERE DOES THE GOVERNMENT WILL DRIVE ITS JUDGMENT ON WHAT IS RIGHT AND WRONG IF IT IS THE MAJORITY THAT'S A VERY DANGEROUS PLACE TO PUT OURSELVES BECAUSE WE SEEN THE MAJORITY IN THE 20TH CENTURY DOORWAY WITH ALL SORTS OF FREEDOMS AND OPPOSE ALL SORTS OF THINGS ON MINORITIES I THINK WE HAVE TO BE THIS I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR IT NECESSARILY I'M JUST THROWING THINK GETTING TO THE CRUX OF THE SITUATION.

WHAT IS RIGHT OR WRONG IS NOT AGREED UPON ACROSS THE BOARD.

HOWEVER THERE ARE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE THAT WILL SAY PART OF MY CONVICTION IS THAT THIS NEEDS TO BE A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY WITH CHRISTIAN COUNTRY BASED ON MY WAY OF INTERPRETING SCRIPTURES AND CHRISTIANITY.

AND IF THEY FEEL DEEPLY I KNOW THEM, PROBABLY I WAS IN THIS CAMP AT ONE POINT IN MY LIFE.

IT IS MY ROLE AS A CHRISTIAN IN THE PAST I BELIEVE THAT THIS, TO MAKE SURE THAT GETS ON THE TAPE IN THE PAST I BELIEVED IT WAS MY ROLE AND MY CALLING TO CONVERT YOU TO NOT ONLY CHRISTIANITY BUT TO MY WAY OF THINKING AND MY WAY OF UNDERSTANDING WHAT IT MEANS TO BE CHRISTIAN?

THAT IS WHAT IS GRIPPING AND IN SOME OF THESE TEST CASES AND SOME OF THE STATES.

IS THAT WORLDVIEW.

THAT ISFRIGHTENING TO ME IS BASICALLY WHAT WOULD YOU CALL THAT JOSH AND PEOPLE COME ACROSS THAT WAY .

>> Pastor Josh Hall,First Baptist Church: DON'T KNOW.

>> Stephanie Posner,Temple Israel: I DON'T KNOW >> TO YOURQUESTION MY ANSWER I WOULD SAY SHOULD A PERSON'S RELIGIOUS VALUES IF THEY HOLD A PUBLIC OFFICE INFLUENCE IT?

100% .

AGAIN BACK TO THE POINT I WAS MAKING EARLIER WE HAVE THIS LIKE MYTH THAT SECULAR GOALS NEUTRAL.

IF THEY HAVE SECULAR BELIEFS THAT IS NEUTRAL AND EVERYONE WOULD AGREE ON IT.

EVERY CANDIDATE EACH WILL TRY TO IMPOSE WHAT THEY BELIEVE ON THE COUNTRY REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT'S FROM A RELIGIOUS SOURCE OR NOT.

I WOULD MUCH RATHER SEE SOMEONE WEAPONS TO BE OF FAITH AND ELECTED LIVING OUT THOSE CONVICTIONS AND THOSE OF VALUES AND GUESS WHAT?

IF WE THE PEOPLE DISAGREE YOU SHOULD HAVE VOTED HIM IN OR YOU CAN PUT THEM OUT.

WE GIVE IT THE GOVERNMENT THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS DESERVE.

I THINK THEY SHOULD COMPLETELY LIMP THAT OPERANT THAT IS WHAT CREATES THAT DISCONNECT FORCES WHEN SOMEBODY SAYS THESE ARE MY CONVICTIONS BUT I DON'T WANT TO LIVE THOSE OUT BUT IT'S A PARTICULAR CONVICTION THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO PUSH BECAUSE WHEN IT'S OTHER THINGS THAT COME FROM A RELIGIOUS SOURCE THAT IS MORE ACCEPTABLE THEN IT'S OKAY FOR EVERYBODY TO NOT GO IT'S GOOD FOR YOU FOR LIVING BY CONVICTION I THINK AGAIN THERE IS NO ONE ELSE THAT WE SAY YOU SHOULD NOT LIVE OUT YOUR ATHEISM IF YOU ARE ELECTED AS AN ATHEIST WHAT OTHER SPIRIT OF LIFE DO WE SAY DON'T LIVE YOUR CONVICTIONS >> I DON'T THINK ANYBODY HERE ON THIS PLATFORM IS SAYING THAT.

WE ALL AGREE YOU WILL BRING YOUR VALUESSYSTEM AND YOUR FAITH WITH YOU .

I'M CONCERNED THAT NOT EVERYBODY IS BEING TRANSPARENT SOME OF OUR POLITICIANS ARE NOT BEING TRANSPARENT ABOUT REALLY WHAT THEY WANT.

>> I THINK THAT IS ACROSS THE BOARD.

RELIGIOUS AND NONRELIGIOUS.

>> I AGREE THAT'S THE BEAUTY OF HAVING THE ABILITY TO VOTE.

IN MY PULPIT WHEN I HAD A PUPPET WE WOULD NOT SAY WHO TO VOTE FOR WE WOULD SAY GO AND VOTE.

>> I THINK TWITTER THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THEIR SPHERES OF LIFE THIS WOULD HAPPEN I WOULD SAY MANY SPHERES OF LIFE AS A RABBI I'M NOT GOING TO EXPRESS MY POLITICAL VIEWS FROM THE PULPIT I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE I SAID MANY TIMES I DON'T WANT TO GIVE A SERMON OR HAVE THE CONGRESS CONGRESS I'M HERE TO HELP YOU UNITE AND HELP TO PRESENT IDEAS LIKE I SAID I STARTED THIS BY SAYING WE KNEW WHAT WAS COMING I DON'T MEAN TO MAKE A POLITICAL STATEMENT.

THEN WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENS.

I THINK THAT WE ARE CONFUSING AND BLURRING THE LINES BETWEEN A PERSON IS ELECTED TO THE OFFICE OF WHATEVER AND DOES NOT HAVE ANY VALUES THAT IS NOT THE CASE THE FIRST PART OF MY STATEMENT IS HE SAID THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE AS A PERSON AND WHAT I DO IN MY PERSONAL LIFE.

MY REASON I LIKE THE ANSWER IS BECAUSE HE'S NOT IMPOSING THAT.

HE DOES NOT MEAN HE'S LOSING OR LEAVING HIS VALUES OF THE DOOR AND DOES NOT CARE ABOUT PEOPLE THAT IS WHERE THE DIFFERENCE IS I THINK THIS IS WHY THE FOUNDING FATHERS WOULD ARGUE WOULD HAVE CREATED A COUNTRY WHERE NOBODY WOULD KNOW ONE PERSON COMES IN AND SAYS I'M THIS RELIGION AND THEREFORE EVERYBODY ELSE WILL BE THIS RELIGION .

>> Latricia Scriven,Moderator:I WILL HAVE STEPHANIE LOOKS LIKE A WITCH JUMP IN BEFORE I ASK A QUESTION.

>> Stephanie Posner,Temple Latricia Scriven,Moderator: I'M HEARING ON ONE HAND IT IS DIFFICULT IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE OR SOMETIMES IT DOES HAPPEN WHERE WE CAN SEPARATE OUR PERSONAL BELIEFS FROM THE DECISIONS THAT WE MAKE EVEN IN POLITICAL OFFICE.

I'M ALSO HEARING THAT THERE ARE TENSIONS THAT ARISE BECAUSE EVERYONE IS BRINGING THE FULLNESS OF HIMSELF TO THE TABLE.

MY QUESTION IS THIS BECAUSE IT WAS KIND OF BROUGHT UP A WAY TO PUSH A LITTLE BIT SEPARATE HOW DO WE NAVIGATE THE TENSION BETWEEN RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS ON THE SANCTITY OF LIFE, AND THAT THE COMPASSION REQUIRED FOR INDIVIDUALS FACING DIFFICULT CHOICES REGARDING ABORTION?

>> Stephanie Posner,Temple Israel: YOU GO FIRST.

>> Latricia Scriven,Moderator: NO.

[LAUGHTER] >> .

>> Tim Holeda,St.Thomas More: IT'S VERY SIMPLE PROCESS CATHOLICS DON'T THINK IT'S ANY SECRET WHAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SAYS ABOUT ABORTION WE'LL BELIEVE LIFE IS SACRED WE BELIEVE ONCE YOU HAVE CONCEPTION OF LIFE THAT A HUMAN LIFE THAT HAS A VALUE THAT IS ENORMOUS.

WORTH MORE THAN THE UNIVERSE ONE CAN SEPARATE EVERY HUMAN LIFE THE MATTER WHERE IT IS THAT IS VERY VALUABLE AND SACRED AND IS CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD.

THAT'S OUR BELIEF WITHIN INTENTIONALLY KILLING THAT THERE IS SOME NUANCES AND SOME EXCEPTIONS HERE AND THERE.

GENERALLY SPEAKING THE LIFE SHOULD BE TREATED AS SACRED AS SUCH THAT IS THE FIRST PRIORITY IS PROTECTING (THE CHILD HAS RIGHTS THAT UNBORN CHILD HAS RIGHTS IT IS JUST THAT SIMPLE.

THERE IS NO CONFUSION THERE.

I KNOW SOME PEOPLE DON'T AGREE THAT'S OKAY THEY ARE FREE TO.

I DON'T THINK FROM MY PERSPECTIVE AS A PRIEST I DON'T THINK THIS ISSUE OF ABORTION IS GOING TO BE RESOLVED WITH THE GOVERNMENT.

IN THE LAWS.

THAT IS NOT MY CONCERN.

I THINK IT IS SOMETHING AS A CHRISTIAN I WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR WE WERE TALKING EARLIER ABOUT THE PRESIDENT I WILL CRITICIZE ANY ALLEGATION THEY SAY ALL TYPES OF SILLY THINGS.

I DON'T THINK THIS IS AN ISSUE THERE WILL BE RESOLVED AT THE BALLOT BOX OR MANEUVERING CERTAIN PEOPLE INTO POWER OR AT SUPREME COURT JUSTICES.

THE WORD OF GOD JESUS DID NOT FORCE HIMSELF ON PEOPLE WORK COMMENCES.

I THINK THAT IS REALLY THE PATH IS TO TRY TO PERSUADE AND CONVINCE PEOPLE OF WHAT I JUST SAID.

THAT IS MY GOAL IS TO PERSUADE PEOPLE TO LIKE THE SACRED AND WE NEED TO TREATED AS SUCH.

I THINK THAT'S THE REAL ANSWER TO THE PROBLEM .

>> Latricia Scriven,Moderator: IT'S INTERESTING YOU SAID BECAUSE IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THAT.

I'M WONDERING IF IT REALLY IS THAT SIMPLE BECAUSE SOME WOULD SAY THAT WE RAISED THE QUESTION OF WHOSE LIFE IS SACRED?

ARE THEIR LIVES THAT ARE MORE TALKING ABOUT SANCTITY OF LIFE IN THOSE COUNTRIES THOSE ISSUES WHAT HAPPENS WITH MOM IS HER LIFE SACRED IN CHILDBEARING.

ON ONE LEVEL IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THAT ON THE OTHER LEVEL WE KNOW NOTHING SIMPLE.

WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS >> GOING BACK TO THE EDGES OF VALUES I THINK THIS WHOLE ABORTION ISSUE WHICH IS SO CENTRAL ONE OF THE HOT POINTS OF DEBATE IN THIS COUNTRY.

I THINK WE'VE DONE OURSELVES A DISSERVICE BY LABELING THE TWO CAMPS.

TWO OR MISLABELING THE TWO CAMPS TO CALL UPON PRO-LIFE IS NOT FAIR BECAUSE IT IMPLIES THE OTHER SIDE IS NOT PRO-LIFE AS YOU ARE SAYING.

THAT IS NOT TRUE.

THE OTHER SIDE I SPOKEN TO MANY PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE, I THINK EVERYONE IS PRO-LIFE.

BUT PRO-LIFE NOT IN THE WAY THAT IT IS CALLED IN THE DEBATE.

BUT PRO-LIFE IN TERMS OF WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT LATRICIA IS WE VALUE LIFE.

BUT AGAIN WHOSE LIFE?

NOW SPEAKING AS A RABBI JEWISH LAW IS DIFFERENT.

IN CHRISTIAN LAW WHEN IT COMES TO LIFE.

IT COMES DOWN TO INITIAL WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN?

LIFE BEGINS IN JEWISH LAW AT BIRTH.

IF THE BABY IS BORN STANDARD WAY IS WHEN THE HEAD AND SHOULDERS ARE OUT IF THE BABY IS BREACH BIRTH THERE IS LAWS ABOUT THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE BODY HAS TO BE OUT.

THAT IS WHEN LIFE BEGINS.

THAT IS NOT TO SAY THAT THERE IS NO FORM OF LIFE BEFORE AND WE DON'T CARE ABOUT THE FETUS OR ANY DEVELOPMENTS OR WE ARE PRO-ABORTION.

OR PEOPLE WHO ARE PRO-CHOICE ARE PRO-ABORTION.

BUT THESE LABELS ARE MAKING IT REALLY HARD TO STOP AND LOOK AT WHAT WE HAVE IN COMMON.

WHAT WE VALUE NOW WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION WE MAY NOT BE HAPPY WITH WHAT THE OTHER PERSON IS THINK WE MIGHT UNDERSTAND.

IF WE DID THAT WE WOULD BE IN A BETTER PLACE.

I AGREE WITH YOU WHICH NOT BE THE GOVERNMENT AND IT WOULD NOT BE THE GOVERNMENT WHO DETERMINES THAT BIRTH THAT IS BASICALLY WHY I SAID WHAT I SAID ABOUT LIKING BUT ARE PRESIDENT IS SAYING IN SAYING I WILL NOT LET MY VIEW IS A PRESIDENT OR GOVERNMENT DICTATE SHOULD BE ILLEGAL.

I THINK CHILDREN SHOULD HAVE) WHAT I'M SAYING I DON'T THINK THIS WHOL PROBLEM IT'S GOING TO BE SOLVED THROUGH THE BALLOT BOX .

>> Rabbi Paul Sidlofsky,Temple Israel: AGREE WITH THAT.

>> Tim Holeda,St.Thomas More: TO ME IN THAT THE IDEAL WORLD I THINK MOST PEOPLE PUT A GROUP EVEN THOSE WHO TOLERATE ABORTION OR HOW YOU WANT TO SAY IT I THINK MOST PEOPLE AGREE THE WORLD WOULD BE A BETTER PLACE IF WE NEVER HAD ONE.

I THINK DEEP DOWN IN OUR HEARTS THAT IS THE CASE >> CONNECT UP IN THERE TO ELABORATE ON WHAT THE RABBI WAS SAYING ABOUT JEWISH LAW JEWISH LAW DOES ACCOMMODATE TO PROTECT THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER.

SO THERE IS A DESIGNATION OF LIFE AT THAT POINT WHILE A WOMAN IS PREGNANT HOWEVER LET'S LOOK BACK TO THE CONSTITUTION AND SEPARATION OF THE WALL SO TO SPEAK IF WE ARE MAKING LAWS ABOUT MEDICAL PRACTICES THAT ARE IN ITS DIRECT RELATIONSHIP TO RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE THAT IS NOT THE SEPARATION.

PERSONALLY, THAT I THINK THE LAW ACCOUNTS FOR .

I DO BELIEVE EVERYBODY HAS THEIR OWN PERSONAL OPINION IN A PERFECT WORLD, WOULD ANYBODY BE IN THAT SITUATION WHERE THEY HAVE TO NOT.

BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS IT DOES HAPPEN AND FOR MANY MEDICAL REASONS IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT FOR A WOMAN TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A DNC GOVERNMENT, SHE REACHES THE POINT WHERE SHE HAS A MISCARRIAGE.

>> Tim Holeda,St.Thomas More: UNDERSTAND THOSE CASES BECOME UP OUR CATHOLIC THEOLOGY HAS EXCEPTIONS FOR SOME OF THOSE IN WAYS OF DEALING WITH THAT.

I DON'T THINK THAT IS THE MAJORITY THE BEST OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF ABORTIONS ARE DEFINITELY NOT THAT .

I THINK WE CAN AGREE THAT THERE WOULD BE SOMETHING WORTH TRYING TO LIMIT AND REGULATE.

I KNOW WE BRING UP THESE GIFTS WHERE A MOTHER'S LIFE IS IN DANGER WE HAVE THEOLOGY ABOUT THAT AS WELL THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THOSE NUANCED KIND OF EXCEPTIONS I WAS TAUGHT IN OPERATING SAID I THINK IT WOULD BE IDEAL.

I THINK THAT IS THE GOAL IS WOULD NEVER NEED THIS.

THEREFORE DO NOT NEED A LAW PERMITTING IT OR PROHIBITING IT IF WE WERE CHANGED ANYTHING THAT IS THE REAL MISSION.

NOT JUST VOTING AND ACTIVISM AND WHO IS ON THE COURT DETERMINE WHO WAS ON THE COURTS AND WEST TO BE POWERLESSNESS GIVEN MOMENT.

WE NEED TO CHANGE THE PEOPLE THAT IS MY JOB AS A PRIEST ANOTHER POLITICIAN.

>> THAT IS MY POINT IT SHOULD NOT MATTER WHO IS ON THE SUPREME COURT AND WHO IS NOT.

IT SHOULD NOT BE THERE RELIGIOUS PERSPECTIVE SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT I DON'T CARE EITHER WAY.

>> Pastor Josh Hall,First Baptist Church: TO PRESENT THAT FURTHER WE DON'T IF I WERE TO SAY THAT, WHY WOULD A DIME BE CAREFUL WHEN THEY SAY THIS, IF AN ELECTED OFFICIAL HAPPEN TO HAVE A JEWISH CONVICTION JEWISH FAITH, WHY DO THEY CARE FOR THE HOMELESS?

WHY DO THEY WANT TO CARE FOR THE SINGLE MOM?

I WOULD ASSUME PART OF THAT IS COMING FROM THERE RELIGIOUS CONVICTION ABOUT THIS PERSON BEING CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD.

I DON'T LOOK AT THAT AND GO NO NO, I DON'T WANT YOUR RELIGIOUS CONVICTION INTERFERING WITH PUBLIC POLICY .

YOU GET WHAT I'M SAYING >> I DO GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

>> Pastor Josh Hall,First Baptist Church: I THINK WE TAKE ABORTION BECAUSE IT IS SO DIVISIVE AND A CULTURE OF FLASHPOINT AND WE APPLY DIFFERENT CATEGORIES TO BACK BECAUSE I'M NOTAWARE OF ANY MAINSTREAM RELIGIOUS CONVICTION THAT SAYS WE SHOULD NOT CARE FOR .

WE FIND COMMON GROUND AND THEN THAT IS THE WATER WE ARE AND SO WE ARE LIKE WHAT IS WHAT ARE WE DON'T NOTICE THAT WE ALL AGREE BUT THAT IS ALL COMING FROM A RELIGIOUS CONVICTION.

THAT TO ME IS DANGEROUS TO GO YOU ARE ONLY ADVOCATING THAT BECAUSE OF YOUR RELIGIOUS CONVICTION THEREFORE YOU SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ADVOCATE THAT BECAUSE IT'S A RELIGIOUS CONVICTION WE DON'T DO THAT WITH OTHER POLICY ISSUES.

>> Stephanie Posner,Temple Israel: I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SAYING I WOULD COME BACK TO THAT WITH THESE OTHER CATEGORIES AS WELL ESPECIALLY WITH REGARD TO ABORTION AND TERMINATION HOWEVER YOU WANT TO REFER TO IT AS.

IF YOUR PERSPECTIVE IS THAT EVEN IF THE LAW SAYS YOU CAN HAVE A TERMINATION OF A PREGNANCY UP TO SIX WEEKS AND YOUR RELIGIOUS PERSPECTIVE IS THAT THAT IS WRONG IN YOUR THEOLOGY, THEN YOUR FAMILY AND YOU MAKE THAT CHOICE THAT THAT IS NOT FOR YOU.

NOW GRANTED THERE ARE SITUATIONS WHERE PEOPLE ARE IN A SITUATION WHERE THEY NEED A TERMINATION AND THEY ARE IN PERHAPS ARE FEELING THREATENED BY THEIR FAMILIES THEOLOGY.

I DON'T THINK IT REALLY SHOULD BE UP TO ONE DENOMINATION TO CHOOSE FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTRY WHAT IS APPROPRIATE MEDICALLY FOR AN INDIVIDUAL'S BODY.

IF LIFE IS IMPORTANT OUR VASECTOMIES ALSO COVERED UNDER CONVERSATION WE CAN HAVE ON THIS.

>> I HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY ABOUT THAT.

[LAUGHTER].

>> Latricia Scriven,Moderator: STEPHANIE THANK YOU FOR YOUR SO MANY CULTURE WARS THAT WE FIGHT BITTERLY AROUND RINGS BEING ROOTED IN OUR RELIGIOUS TRADITIONS AND PERSPECTIVES THAT GET FOUGHT IN PUBLIC POLITICAL SPACES BECAUSE IT IS ALL OF WHO WE ARE.

I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE COMMENT THAT WE WON'T SOLVE THIS AT THE BALLOT BOX.

I WANT TO SAY YET THE BALLOT BOX DOES INFLUENCE SO MANY DO'S AND DON'TS THINGS THAT WE ARE ABLE TO IN WAYS WE ARE ABLE TO LIVE.

WHILE IT MAY NOT FIND A SOLUTION THE BALLOT BOX SEEMS TO ACTUALLY MATTER ABOUT A LOT OF THINGS.

NOT JUST ABORTION I AM JUST TALKING IN GENERAL BUT SINCE YOU BROUGHT UP ABORTION AND SINCE YOU BROUGHT UP BALLOT BOX TOGETHER I'M OLD ENOUGH ALONG WITH SOME OF THE OTHERS IN THE ROOM TO REMEMBER WHEN THE MORAL MAJORITY CAME FORWARD AND CREATIVE ISSUE OF ABORTION AS A POLITICAL ISSUE.

IT WAS AT THAT POINT THEY WERE LOOKING YOU LOOK AT THE RESEARCH .

[LISTING NAMES] WAS VERY MUCH A PART OF IT SOME OF THE PEOPLE I REALLY RESPECTED AT THE TIME WERE PART OF IT.

THEY WERE LOOKING FOR AN ISSUE THAT WOULD GATHER EVANGELICALS AROUND THE ABILITY TO MOVE THEM EMOTIONALLY TO THE BALLOT BOX.

EVEN THOUGH NOW IF I TALK TO YOUNG EVANGELICALS ABOUT THEIR VIEW ON ABORTION THEY MAY NOT KNOW WHERE THAT CAMEFROM .

IT WAS NOT A TOPIC OF DISCUSSION AND IN CONGREGATIONS IN THE 70S BUT LATE 70S EARLY 80S IT BECAME SOMETHING.

THAT IS NOW BECOME A FLASHPOINT FOR OUR CULTURE WARS.

ALL I HAVE TO SAY IS WAS IT REALLY FROM RELIGIOUS CONVICTION A RELIGIOUS CONVICTION THAT CAME ON THE SCENE?

IN THE 70S?

THE EARLY 80S?

THE STATE STUFF THERE IS PRESSURE TO MOVE PEOPLE IN A SPECIFIC DIRECTION I BELIEVE RELIGIOUS POLITICIANS ON EITHER SIDE OR USING RELIGION AS A WAY TO DIVIDE US.

THAT IS WHY THIS PANEL IS SO IMPORTANT THAT WE AT LEAST SIT HERE AND GO WE MIGHT NOT DISAGREE BUT AT LEAST WE ARE SEEING VARYING PERSPECTIVE FOR ITS TRUE WHEN YOU UNPACK OUR VALUES WITH SIMILAR VALUES.

IN A PERFECT WORLD THERE WOULD BE NO CHILD RAPED BY HER STEPFATHER AND BEING REQUIRED TO CARRY A BABY TO LIFE WHEN THERE ARE EIGHT, NINE, 10 YEARS OLD THIS IS SADLY MORE COMMON THAN YOU KNOW.

I AM SITTING HERE ON THIS PANEL THAT USED TO BE THE DIRECTOR OF THE.

[LISTING NAMES] WHICH IS A PRO-LIFE PREGNANCY CENTER.

VALUE DISSENTERS SO MUCH I VALUE THE WORK THEY DO IT IS BECAUSE I WORKED THERE WITH SO MANY YOUNG PREGNANT WOMEN OR OLD PREGNANT WOMEN THAT I SHIFTED I REMEMBER LAST TIME TIM UNI BURNER PANEL WAS ABOUT ABORTION I SAID TO TIM AFTERWARDS I SAID I'M SO GRATEFUL FOR THE CATHOLIC STAND.

BECAUSE WE NEED YOUR VOICE.

BUT I NO LONGER BELIEVE ABORTION SHOULD BE OUTLAWED.

BECAUSE I'VE SEEN TOO MANY WOMEN THAT NEED TO HEALTHCARE THAT IS BROUGHT TO THEM THROUGH THEIR DOCTORS WITH THIS KIND OF PERMISSION .

IT SCARES ME WHERE WE ARE HEADED.

>> I THINK THIS GETS BACK TO THE CRUX OF THIS ISSUE.

YOU ARE SAYING PEOPLE COME TO THE BALLOT BOX YES PEOPLE BRING THEIR VALUES TO THE BALLOT BOX PEOPLE BRING THEIR THOUGHTS THAT'S WHAT WE HOPE FOR REAL PEOPLE ARE NOT VOTING WITH EMPTY MINDS OR HEARTS.

AND IT JUST VOTING FOR WHATEVER NAME THEY RECOGNIZE OR WHOEVER WAS CRITICIZED AT THE LEAST OR WHATEVER IT IS.

WE HELPED THEIR VOTING BASED ON WHO THEY THINK WILL REPRESENT THEIR VALUES BEST.

THAT IS EVERYONE'S RIGHT TO DO THAT.

WE LIVE IN A COUNTRY WHERE IF THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE HOLD THESE VALUES THEN BACK GETS VOTED IN.

BUT WHEN IT COMES TO ABORTION OR THINGS LIKE THAT WE CANNOT, THIS IS THE BASIC QUESTION, THE CONSTITUTION I THINK HOW IT WAS FORMED WAS NOT TO ALLOW ONE PERSON TO COME IN AND SAY THIS IS MY BELIEF AND I'M IMPOSING IT.

I DON'T THINK WE ARE SAYING NO YOU CAN'T.

COME IN WITH ANY BELIEVES LEAVE YOUR BELIEFS AT THE DOOR WHEN YOU'RE THE PRESIDENT.

I WOULD NOT WANT A PERSON LIKE THEM STANDS FOR NOTHING.

THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY CAN DICTATE WHAT THEY THINK IT SHOULD BEAT EVERYONE.

BECAUSE IT IS A DEMOCRACY WE ARE REPRESENTING THE WHOLE HUGE SPECTRUM OF VIEWS.

>>Latricia Scriven,Moderator: WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE BALLOT BOX .

[LAUGHTER] AND VOTING AND OUR VIEWS AND GOVERNMENT AND ALL OF THE THINGS.

THERE ARE SOME WHO SAY THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE WHO HAVE TRADITIONALLY FELT LIKE WE NEED LESS GOVERNMENTS.

INSTEAD OF MORE GOVERNMENT.

WHO MAKE DECISIONS "FOR US".

THERE ARE THOSE WHO SAY FORGET SOME OF THE SAME PEOPLE SEEM TO BE USING RELIGION AND RELIGIOUS IDEOLOGY AS A TOOL TO ENFORCE THEIR CULTURE OR BELIEFS ON OTHER PEOPLE.

WHAT MIGHT YOU SAY TO THEM?

ON ONE HAND, WE ARE SAYING NO I DON'T WANT AS MUCH GOVERNMENT CONTROL I WANT (THEN I'M ALSO SAYING HOWEVER I WILL USE THIS PERSPECTIVE MY RELIGION IS SOMEWHAT OF A TOOL TO ENFORCE DIVERSE COUNTRY.RYONE.

>> FROM WHAT I OBSERVED CONSISTENTLY WITH THE SORT OF THINGS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE WE HAVE TO BE HONEST ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE IS SIMPLY A TENSION BETWEEN FREEDOM AND THE GOOD AS I SAID BEFORE ABOUT LAWS THERE WERE DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT IS GOOD AND WHAT IS RIGHT.

LAWS THERE TO CONSTRICT US.

AND TO SURVIVE YOUR FREEDOM DOES NOT APPEAR WITH MY FREEDOM BEING TOTALLY ABSOLUTE I CAN TAKE AWAY YOUR FREEDOM SO THAT THERE ARE LAWS TO RESTRICT THAT.

THAT IS THE BASIC >> WERE NOT NOW WE HAVE OPEN CARRY LAWS.

THERE ARE A LOT OF LOSSES DO NOT RESTRICT.

>> WE DON'T HAVE THAT IN THE STATE YOU DON'T NEED A CONCEALED PERMIT I DON'T BELIEVE I KNOW THE LAWS OF FLORIDA.

LAWS I WOULD WANT MORE RESTRICTIONS IN SOME AREAS.

AND LESS.

>> Tim Holeda,St.Thomas More: THAT IS THE THING YOU HAVE ON THE ONE HAND THE GOVERNMENT I'M TRYING TO BE AS A PLURALIST PERSON WE HAVE A PARTICULAR PERSON THAT SAYS WE WILL USE COVID AS AN EXAMPLE.

THAT WAS A GREAT AWESOME TIME AND WE MISS I'M SURE.

[LAUGHTER] WE MISS ALL THE PEOPLE WHY DO WE HAVE TO WEAR MASKS AND OTHER PEOPLE WEARING MASKS WAS A GOOD TEMPERED WE ALL LOVED THAT.

DURING THAT TIME WILL USE OUR STATE AS AN EXAMPLE THAT IS WHERE WE LIVE.

THE GOVERNOR WANTED EXCLUSIVE OR SCHOOLS TO OPEN HE DID NOT WANT KIDS WEARING MASKS BRING PEOPLE DISAGREED WITH THAT PREY ON THE ONE HAND LOCAL SCHOOL BOARDS WERE SAYING NO WE WANT TO DO OUR OWN THING WE WANT TO RULE ON OUR OWN.

AND PEOPLE WERE FRUSTRATED THAT THE GOVERNOR ENFORCED THIS IS A STATEWIDE ROLE.

CONSERVATORS WOULD HAVE AN ARGUMENT FOR WHY HE DID THAT WHY HE WAS ALLOWED TO DO THAT.

I THINK THE SAME CONSERVATIVES IF THE SHOE WAS ON THE OTHER FOOT IF WE ARE DIFFERENT GOVERNOR WAS SAYING EVERYBODY IS TO WEAR A MASK OR HAVING A DIFFERENT THING THAN THE LOCAL SCHOOL BOARDS WERE MORE CONSERVATIVE ALIGNED AND IT'S SILLY THAT THIS WAS A POLITICAL THING WITH THIS PANDEMIC.

IF IT WASN'T THE OTHER WAY AROUND I'M SURE THEY WOULD NOT BE COMPLAINING LIKE THE GOVERNMENT IS OVERREACHING.

I DON'T SEE A LOT OF CONSISTENCY I THINK BOTH PARTIES BOTH PERSPECTIVES SEEM TO BE OKAY WITH LIMITING FREEDOM IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.

BUT THEN AT SAME TIME TALK ABOUT FREEDOM.

I THINK WE NEED TO BE HONEST AND REALIZE THERE IS THIS TENSION BETWEEN THE GOOD AND FREEDOM.

HOW DO WE RESOLVE THAT IS WHAT WE DO IN THE POLITICAL SPHERE WE DEBATE THAT DISCUSS IT.

TRYING TO TAKE A MORAL HIGH GROUND IS MORE FOR FREEDOM THAN THIS OTHER PERSON I'M SURE YOU INVESTIGATE EVERY SINGLE PERSON HERE YOU WILL FIND HERE IS WHERE THEY ARE RESTRICTING FREEDOM INHERENT IS WHERE THIS PERSON IS IMPORTANT.

>> Latricia Scriven,Moderator: THERE IS A QUOTE FROM THE SAME ARTICLE THAT I BEGAN WITH AND LIFTED UP SOME THINGS WHICH SAYS THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE, SEPARATES CHURCH FROM THE STATE BUT NOT RELIGION FROM POLITICS OR PUBLIC LIFE.

PEOPLE ARE FREE TO BRING THEIR RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS INTO THE PUBLIC SQUARE PRECISELY BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT MUST TREAT ALL FAITHS EQUALLY.

PART OF WHAT I AM HEARING FROM YOU ALL IN CONVERSATION IS IN MANY WAYS BECAUSE OUR RELIGION BECAUSE OUR FAITH BECAUSE OUR VALUES ARE INTRINSICALLY AND DEEPLY A PART OF OUR IDENTITY IT IS DIFFICULT TO HAVE A TRUE SEPARATION OF THE CHURCH V. STATE EVEN THOUGH THAT IS THE DICHOTOMY THAT WE TRY TO MAKE.

ARE THERE ANY FINAL SPOTS BECAUSE WE ARE CLOSER TO WRAPPING UP THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO GIVE CHURCH V. STATE WHAT DO YOU WANT THE PEOPLE TO HEAR FROM YOU?

>> I THINK RELIGIOUS VIEWS SHOULD BE BROUGHT INTO THE DISCUSSION BUT THEY SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED SINGULARLY IN THE DISCUSSION.

I THINK THERE SHOULD BE A DEBATE THERE SHOULD BE MANY VIEWS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.

THAT'S HOW WE'VE GROWN AS A COUNTRY AND HELP ME THRIVE AS A COUNTRY TO BE A DEMOCRACY THAT SURVIVED ALMOST 150 YEARS BECAUSE WITH DIFFERENT VIEWS AND FRANKLY AS MUCH AS IT IS FRUSTRATING TO HEAR VIEWS THAT DON'T ALIGN WITH MINE I'M GLAD THAT WE HAVE THEM BECAUSE IF WE DID NOT IT WOULD GO WAY TOO FAR OFF THE OTHER WAY.

WE NEED A BALANCE OF ALL VIEWS THEN SOMEHOW MANAGED WITH ALL THE CRAZINESS AND CAST TO COME TO THE RIGHT PLACE AT THE END AND MOVE FORWARD AS A COUNTRY SOMETIMES NOT IN A STRAIGHT LINE BUT WITH A LOT OF BUMPS ALONG THE WAY BUT WE MOVE FORWARD BUT ONLY THROUGH CURING MANY VOICES OTHERWISE WE ARE BASICALLY ROBOTS OR PUPPETS AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY VOICE IN OUR COUNTRY >> WE ARE STILL A DEMOCRACY NOT A THEOCRACY.

ECTOMY IS CRITICAL I THINK THAT IS WHAT THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE WAS ABOUT.

WE ARE NOT TO ESTABLISH A SPECIFIC CHURCH OR EVEN VIEW OF GOD THEOCRACY.

KEEP TALKING >> IWOULD JUST SAY WE ALLUDED A LITTLE BIT HERE TO EVEN IN OUR OWN CONGREGATIONS NOT EVERYBODY AGREES ON EVERYTHING.

OUR CONGREGATIONS ARE CLEARLY AN EXAMPLE OF SOCIETY .

THE.

[LISTING NAMES] WHICH IS JEWISH SACRED TEXT IS NOT A MODEL FOR THIS IS EXACTLY HOW EVERYTHING IS TO BE IT'S A MODEL OF CURACAO YOU CAN ADAPT AND LIVE AND CREATE SOCIETY AND THAT CHANGE WITH THE TIMES SO FOR MY PERSPECTIVE THAT IS THE ONLY RELIGIOUS DOCUMENT THAT I THINK MATTERS.

[LAUGHTER] >> I WANT TO BE CLEAR I THINK WHAT'S IMPORTANT WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE THE CHURCH SHOULD NOT IT SHOULD BE OUTSIDE IT SHOULD BE SOMETHING OUTSIDE OF GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT TAKE THE PLACE OF THE STATE.

IT SHOULD NOT BE IN THE STATE BUDGET NOT HAVING THE RULES OF THE STATE IT SHOULD HAVE A TOTALLY SEPARATE SPHERE.

AT THE SAME TIME I THINK THE STATEMENT OF FUNDS OWN MORALS ON ITS OWN.

NEED SOMETHING FROM THE OUTSIDE IT TO INFORM IT OF WHAT IS RIGHT AND WRONG.

I SEE THE CHURCH AS BEING A POTENTIAL SOURCE OF THAT.

THAT'S WHERE I THINK OUR DUTY COMES IN AS LEADERS AND IF A LEADER IS TO TRY TO HELP DO MY BEST TO PERSUADE OR CONVINCE AND I MAY FAIL AND THAT IS OKAY OR WHATEVER.

THAT IS OUR JOB THAT IS OUR GOAL.

I THINK ANY POLITICAL POWER IS DANGEROUS.

>> Latricia Scriven,Moderator: 30 SECONDS JOSH.

>> Pastor Josh Hall,First Baptist Church: OHNO.

[LAUGHTER] ONE THING THAT WE DID NOT TOUCH ON AS MUCH BUT WAS IN THIS CONVERSATION WE ARE SO CONCERNED ABOUT PROTECTING STATE FROM THE CHURCH BUT WE DID NOT TALK ABOUT THE WHOLE POINT OF IT WAS TO PROTECT THE CHURCH FROM THE STATE.

WE MADE THE CHURCH RELIGION THE BAD GUY AND INSTEAD THE FRAMERS WERE CONCERNED THAT GOVERNMENT IS THE ONE WHO WILL OVERREACH NOT RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION.

MAYBE WE NEED TO PUT OUR THUMB ON THE SCALE ON THE OTHER SIDE GIVE A LITTLE MORELENIENCY TO RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION.

>> Latricia Scriven,Moderator: SOUNDS LIKE THAT CAN BE A GREAT FOLLOW-UP , GOD SQUAD.

CAN WE AGREE ON THAT?

I WOULD LIKE TO SAY JUST BECAUSE WE ARE IN THIS POLITICAL SEASON IF YOU WILL AND HAVING THIS CHURCH V. STATE CONVERSATION WHAT I'M HEARING IS IT DOES MATTER.

THE BALLOT BOX MATTERS GO VOTE YOU ALL.

WITH THAT.

[LAUGHTER] I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH FOR PARTICIPATING IN THE GOD SQUAD FOR BEING HERE HOPEFULLY IT GIVES US AN IDEA OF CONVERSATIONS THAT CAN COME AND THE WAYS THAT WE CAN MAKE LIFE BETTER AND HELP OTHER PEOPLE HAVE THESE CONVERSATIONS AS WELL.

THAT'S IT FOR OUR TIME TODAY EVERYONE THANK YOU, AGAIN TO THE GOD SQUAD MEMBERS THANK YOU FOR THOSE JOINING US AND IT TO EVERYONE ONLINE AND IN THE LIVE STUDIO FOR BEING HERE TODAY ON BEHALF OF MYSELF THE GOD SQUAD WFSU MEDIA VILLAGE SQUARE WE HOPE YOU HAVE A PHENOMENAL DAY.

GO AND BE GREAT.

[APPLAUSE].