as a christian i am worried when the state, hhs agency wants to mandate that catholic institutions and catholics have to pay for abortions in the insurance program. and i'm worried when the supreme court starts taking up things like gay marriage. i'm worried about things i see at the universities. so i see more and more the state imposing a particular kind of agenda. and really a worldview. this is bigger than politics. it's bigger than republican and democratic it's a particular worldview and that's a worldview i'm investigating in in trenton. >> let's talk about that some. what does it mean, how liberalism became our state religion? >> guest: that in a way is a long argument that we will give a short account of it. if you go back 100 years or so, 150 years, you find what scholars call political religious. and normally they are referring to the advent of, say, for example, nationalism are going back further than that, the french revolution or later something like fascism where they are taking a secular state and that state is itself the object of veneration, even worship, and it's self-consciously that way. that is, the secular states were taking the normal, natural desire to worship god, that is, it was simulcast in a rejection of christianity, an affirmation of whatever the secular focus was. french revolution, liberty, fraternity, equality was a kind of religion of reason. nationalism of course, italy is a good example, germany is another one. and you fascism in italy, not system, communism. but also socialism. what i called soft socialism which forms the foundation of liberal democrat states in the west. europe more so obviously and then the united states itself i think more and more. and that itself as a religious foundation. that is, what i'm arguing in "worshipping the state," old in the sense that these colors are working on political religions for action since the mid 1920s. but new, and i'm asserting that liberalism itself as we understand the common level is itself one of those political religions and in the same historical line as they are. what you are seeing is the establishment of a particular well-defined worldview, every bit as expensive as christianity which is trying to displaced. go from metaphysics to what nature is, what reality is, what human nature is all the way down to morality, what is marriage, what is human sexuality. so it's every bit as extensive as religion, and i'm arguing we're seeing it imposed through the state. so it's functioning just like an established state religion. so that's that part of the title. so you have the two together. you have the political religion aspect where you really do have kind of a religious background historically, and then a particular worldview every bit as extensive as religion taking the place of christianity and deposing its own order, thereby pushing christianity out of the public square. >> host: so to really delve into the conversation how do you define secular liberalism as a religion? how do you see it challenging the christian world view of society? >> guest: can i do the second one first? one obvious way is, old issues, new issues. one issue is abortion. another issue would be gay marriage. there are other issues, euthanasia. so you have a host of political flash of all issues. and i think the best way to continue to weigh it's charging is to look at he large arc of history. my background is as a historic of ethics so that's what i can to look at things first. where did these ideas come from, what happened to take hold, however related to stroke the? if you stood back from history and look at the long park, 2000 your arc, that's why began the book this way, you see the roman pagan empire, you see pretty much the same kind of a society that we live in, living out in the car to some obvious issues. the romans had no problem with abortion. no problem with infanticide. no problem with slavery august. they had no problem with prostitution, there was even homosexual marriage. sexuality was completely on board from many religions. they didn't care. so you see a kind of moral worldview in ancient paganism and christianity was born into that. it introduces a radical -- radically different worldview than is supplied by the roman pagan thought. that was is well-defined and it took issue with these issues. abortion was never an issue until christianity gain hold and empire. wasn't an issue back in. nobody fought over. neither was infanticide. the roman law mandated infanticide, especially -- infants would be left out. so you see the moral transformation of the west in accordance to christianity. whether christian or not you can say i see this happening. be bad thate people wereeld to indifferent about, or thought were good. and then beginning, well actually i argued beginning the early 1600s, sorted by the 1900s of the 20 century, the art of christianity starts to descend as with increasing secularization of the west. that coincides with the rise of liberalism because they really are in many ways if not always the same thing. and you see the same moral issues -- you see a clash between the christian moral worldview and liberalism. liberalism generally takes the side of kind of thing that was affirmed in the roman empire. said just as a historic of ethics i can see the trajectory and i would ask them. you can be a hindu or buddhist or from another country, you still see the same transformation historically we could look like a great arc, christianity transforms the west and then it's secularization removes it, returns to his present position. so that's how i understand how it is that liberalism has become established as a worldview. it isn't just in the spring corporate it isn't just the education. it does occur to these things but there's a greater long-standing transformation taking hold here and it does result, i argued, in an affirmation through the state of what amounts to an anti-christian position. and again this is something we can see by just comparing the views that they can hold and are now receiving. >> host: let's talk a little about country's founding. you write about that in the book. the separation of church and state has become a beloved american concept. and some argue that it's helped to religion to flourish in this country. here you have a more complex view. would you talk a little bit about that? >> guest: i did, and probably it will upset everybody, because there's a lot of confusion here. to begin with come a great point of suffocation, christianity actually invented the distance between church and state. that's obvious and the name. there are no churches anywhere else. it's seemed a christian term. it's not religious. but it had its origins in judaism and a formal distinction between the priest and the king. also the notion that the moral law god gives extensive of any particulaparticula r nation and judges it, including israel. that's important. morality is made by the law. you also have no -- of any human being allowed among the. that's key. why? because you go to any taken area, a federal, right, roman caesar, alexander the great increase, you have a divinization of the emperor or the king. they are also chief priests we have infusion of religion have political power. that's the normal situation of most of human history. infusion united in one man. caesar with both the chief priest and emperor but also considered to fund. christianity steps right in following judaism and makes it more intense, and one of the reasons it made more intense is jesus ups the moral anti, making the case for what i call radical monogamy. judaism do not allow polygamy. judaism allowed divorce and christianity, no. lifelong community a male and female, no divorce, except under very particular circumstances. so the church was the overseer of this new morality. and when jesus said my kingdom is not of this world, then he made the split complete. because that meant that the king and the temporal rule within to be kept distinct from the church and the kingdom of god. and that developed in the middle ages. you had really a first i think the clearest account of the necessary distinction between church and state by a pope at the end of the 400. saying for the sake of both the church and the state you have to keep distinct because they will get corrupted if you let one of yours in another. so this is christian great gift to the less. the distinction between church and state. what happens in modernity is very complex. as you know, and i thank you for noting that because people who are not aware of the complexity is that jafa can begin in the 1500s to put christian it back under the state to make it an estimate of the state. christianity then or the church than is not supposed to be distinct. machiavelli dislike that intensely. so you have a move to subordinate the church and the state and the state is a secular state. by the time you get to the french relations on that down today, that is transferred into the nation of such a state which is radically antithetical to or in opposition to christian the. the french revolution, that's why they're spewing so many monks and nuns and priests and so on. communist regimes as well that that is occurring. so you have then, that's imported into the united states in a particular situation in 1947 where you have imported into the first amendment the notion that the state is supposed to erect a wall of separation and be the guardian of the wall, actively secularized the public realm. that is not in the first amendment. it is brought in by justice hugo black. but the whole point of that is that we shift from having a real distinction between the church and the state has advocated by christianity to the states supporting the church and following to the state trying to can -- excluder that's the state we are in now. endless litigation. that wants to secularized the public from an exact same way it was done in the french revolution. and the french third republic and in communist russia. that church and state separation statements in their constitutions. and that's what they meant by that and i think that is the end all, i think that's what jefferson meant by it as well. so christian has its great gift, that distinction but now it's become active secularization. that is not in the first amendment. >> host: talk more about what you think jefferson meant. i imagine this is getting controversial. >> guest: you're getting in trouble. >> host: sort of challenging, and it's an important idea undergirding your book. >> guest: i think it is. i thank you for bringing it up. that's the wonders of being in the shows you can talk about the complexes of this thing. here's the argument in a nutshell. jefferson was ideas. it's important that we understand was the is him was at that time or was for some time to get to go back to the 1600s in britain to understand this fully and in the netherlands civil. that's another story. but it was actually a radical monotheistic attempt to displace christianity that is, the notion was this is that of the radical enlightenment in europe. that the christian he was a mistake, that all revealed reons ara mistak that jesus himself did not think he was defined to or if he did he was a lunatic, depending which radical enlightenment figure you're talking with. but the point is that deism was not friendly to christian to but it was trying to eliminate it and replace it with a so-called rational religion. i just don't think there's any doubt that's what jefferson believed. the reason i don't doubt that is because we have his private letters ways as i think that jesus was a mere mortal. and that the reason that we think he was defined is because of the ignorant unlettered man who took notes and wrote up the stories about him, a.k.a. the new testament, matthew, mark, luke and john. they're simply mistaken. that, jefferson didn't make that a. that was a few stirring around in europe can you can go back weight for the, certainly 1600s, 1700s. so that was jefferson's view and that meant for him all christians that believe jesus was divine were based on an error. that is, their doctrines were essentially irrational tickets is if they were irrational, that's why there were also conflict. they're fighting because you're the fundamental error and you need, we need to get this problem out of history. and i think that what he wanted to do is substitute, i know we want to do was -- i'm pretty sure i know we wanted to, with substitute deism for christianity. he didn't have a problem with civil religion. before him in order to be civil it couldn't be christianity. he publicly affirmed jesus as a moral figure. that is, he was gosh, likes of a politician. politicians never do this can thing. they speak publicly in one way, they believe something privately and we have his private letters so we know what he believed your so he can say things that are very glowing about the bible and about jesus, and actually mean them. but what he means is he was a great moral teacher. he was not divine and he's not up to snuff with enlightenment it took rational religion and morality further. so jeffersons you about the separation of church and state is imported from a letter, a letter he wrote in the early 1800s, justice hugo black imports put into that decision and says this is what the first amendment means. william rehnquist, chief justice row, i think like 1988, i think 85 in a dissent said this is historically not credible. this is not what they meant when they passed the first amendment. he went through right down the line what they meant and the first was simply that the congress shall not establish a national church. that's all they meant. they did that mean that we had an actually secularized state. and, unfortunately, that has the law. that is him that's the way we think of things that the able think of jefferson's words before they even know what is in the first amendment. and i'm arguing for the radical, well, i'm arguing for the radical position, but that's william rehnquist position. of course, everson was bad law. it should be thrown out. just chock. they're confused. they are too confused. the court itself can't figure out how to balance the establishment cause of freedom of religion, free exercise clause. they get continually entangled on their own feet. so that's the more complex account of where things got derailed, and really what will be nested to get them back but it would be a big public debate to do that. >> host: let's talk about religion's place in the public square, especially christian. according to a polling from pew, 78% of americans identify themselves as christians. in washington would have public displays for christmas, a national christmas tree, and that sort of thing. but you see challenges in the public square for the christian faith. >> guest: and -- is a still called a christmas tree? okay. i did know. and many other places that's not the case. in other words, you have the active attempt to simply remove any kind of christian displays from, any public place. like in schools, for example, you, i just heard about this one. this is amazing. the easter bunny is a no-no. thinking, what could be more harmless than easte the easter ? apparently just by saying the word easter it's bad. you can't say merry christmas. it filters out in how we treat each other publicly and help corporations will say, we don't want to get litigated. so you see christianity on the run from the public square. and that's been happening for some time. the whole war on christmas thing, you know, comes out every few. just depends on where you are. but everything -- religious symbols, as i point out in trenton this is exactly what happened in revolutionary france. and in the french the republic of the end of the 1800s. both very psyched rising the state take on all this stuff, and of public education has to be secularized. so it isn't just that a person might be upset about, there's no crash anymore, what are we doing? it's that public education must be secularized. and what i'm arguing is it's not a neutral view your teaching because we christianity gets a bad end of the stick because liberal secularism is actually historically defined against christianity. so it's got that inborn -- that's why it matters how history is going to be taught, and so on in public schools. sauce not it's a metaphor that want to crashed somewhere on the. it's how are we going to teach children, what are they allowed to know? house of representatives so if christian is moving out of the public square, what do you see moving in? >> guest: well, i think what's happening is part of a long-term trend. if you wanted to see what's moving income you just have to go to europe. you would take a look in france, take a look in britain, in the netherlands and so on. and you would find that hold. ha i mean something very specific. this is the 500 year old worldview that has taken over more and more of western culture that's something a firms this world is the highest good. and from within it everything that secular who liberalism may prefer the good sense. that is if i believe this where were the only welcome if i believe i didn't have an immortal soul, if i believe that god didn't exist, i would do the exact same thing. because reality is this way, human nature is this what. so i should act this way. so that's what we are seeing, people are -- part of liberalism. and their acting accordingly. so we will become more materialistic. by that i mean that we're shopping more, that's certainly part of it. but that we are absorbed and the pleasures and pains of the body as our highest concerns but that's what we want the state to take care. that's the focus of our entire understanding of what it means for human salvation, human good. so what you're going to see is, i think, something like ancient rome, ultimately, but you don't have to be that exotic and say, just go to your. the more secularized you get, what you get? what you have is in, say, the netherlands. >> host: what are some of the specific things? are you talking a policies? >> guest: let's look at something we haven't looked at. increasingly, you will be pushing the boundaries in regard to euthanasia and in regard to infanticide but because they are already done more over there. we begin with a firming abortion, but abortion is on a continuum that runs into infanticide in ancient rome abortion and infanticide were on the same spectrum. so infanticide will become increasingly common for increasingly trivial, just as abortion the. and it will be protected by the state, and it will be imposed by the state. that is, you can imagine another mandate coming through the hhs that says all christian institutions will pay for, and i don't know what they will call the procedure, what it will amount to infanticide. i know this because i think in washington state the reason had a decision are trying to pass a law, i will have to check again, would be mandated all institutions an in the state hae to pay for abortion. not just -- but actual, any abortion. what does that mean? all lit up to late-term abortions and beyond? a british doctor reads the argued that we should have infanticide for any reason. i mean, doesn't matter what you -- that's nothing new. that's ancient rome. and the countries that further progress along this review sums it all the things pushed further. i don't think gay marriage will end the debate about homosexuality, although it will continue in turn and other things. >> host: you brought up gay marriage and the supreme court just last week heard two cases, you know, what role our current events playing or in your thinking in the urgency of your writing of this book? >> guest: certainly that, and i knew that was on the borders when i was writing the book. and actually it was right there when the book came out, supreme court was hearing these two cases. here's the thing that people don't get about the whole gay marriage thing. first of all, heterosexuals have pretty much destroyed marriage by this time. there's not much left of it. so there's kind of an internal self-destruction going on. and because of that there isn't that much left of heterosexual marriage anyway. it's moved so far away from what i would call radical monogamy that in that sense i would say homosexuals are saying, why are we part of this? it doesn't make any sense. and oddly enough at the very same time that more and more, this is more true in europe but will be here reading an article on this, that heterosexuals aren't even bearing. no, talk about marriage and homosexuals putting forth as we watch bridges but in this lifelong union and bonn and we want to be considered just as sacred come and heterosexuals have pretty much given it up. so you're saying you are creating an institution that is on its way out, but it has to be seen that way. it's not something that just came out of nowhere. but again i think we need to see a big arc and whatever's thought of gay marriage before. well, welcome to rome. nero got married to both two men and a boy. with other reports, i put them in the book, of gay marriage in ancient rome. they are old things, you really only find some kind of animosity towards where you got some connection to the state of christian tradition. that's how you know that one is giving way to another one. so i think it's best to sit in the big shift. a big cultural historical ethical shift. that's where it's situated. and i have no reason to believe it will stop with that. i honestly don't know, i don't know what will become of gay marriage itself because right now they're hankering after a more elevated view of marriage and heterosexuals have. so things are really disjointed so to speak in that sense. >> host: so you see over all the idea of christian marriage being weakened the society apart from the movement for gay marriage? >> guest: yeah, christians have done the work on themselves. you know, that's a good thing about the doctrine of sin. you can always think why we must think that's about it but christians have done a bad job of it. what they have left of marriage, and the society itself. been under attack, marriage has been under attack and the family has been under attack explicitly from certain aspects of running back to hobbes and come thomas hobbes and john locke. there is profound reasons why the and had to be undermined for liberalism. that's a long story. but certainly christians can be blamed for not, for continuing weakening marriage to the point where there wasn't much left of it to defend. so that's, i want to see part of the larger trajectory and not talk about as we have a truly super healthy thing that is being attacked by people from the outside. we really, really blew it, and these people are saying, why not come why do we have a part of this? so it's much more mixed up that we were allowing in the public to be. >> host: i think it's break time. .. obviously that an all-too-familiar but i'm here. people have said that for some time to have it there but it didn't. the thing has a generally misdiagnosed were the problem took hold. we think that they keep 60s was the bigger radical break. the research is really the 1860s and the situation i'm about describes how liberalism came to dominate the culture intellectually. said to be educated not to take on the liberal view and not to take on the liberal view must mean you are not educated. what occurred a series special circumstance. in europe you've got the development of the universities along the radical i might not find the time you get to the 1900s. so although they does enlightenment.had restructured universities. they were considered the top universities in the world. they have really taken hold of the radical unlike vent, which is again it noted regular liberalism. in america, we didn't have any graduate schools. we had a sickly religious b-schools and protestant b-schools. our people wanted to go get his phd's. we didn't have any graduate schools. you go sailing across the ocean to the german universities. so there they bring back the most radical thought that comes from europe. that becomes the foundation of higher education in america. and the 1850s and 60s, enlightenment biblical criticism have been fairly well firmed up in american universities at the undergraduate level. by the end of the 1800s, you had the liberal intelligentsia firmly embedded into frantic graduate school allowed for a top-down revolution, intellectuals being associated in a liberal because of this movement. that was across all the academic areas or biblical studies the new science of sociology to how we understood hard sciences to history on all the way down the line. so academics who simply identified with the radical unlike the secular liberalism that they tend to get the 1960s, you have been not anything new, but a mass movement now. because enormous federal funding was founded to education. so sort of the flower power down with the that occurred in the embrace of marxism that someone was old hat and was the third generation of this in american universities, that it had become a mass movement precisely because the infusion of federal dollars. that is a purposeful part of the federal government of progressive liberalism goal was to have the top down revolution. and to transfer them a culture being liberal with educated. they have not been a good job in presenting intellectual, deeply grounded intellectual, distinctive account of things. they simply are one other form of liberalism or they're just react. there could have much deeper intellectual revolution conservative has deep intellectual treachery that it can draw from, but it hasn't done so. gentler passes for conservatives conservatism as i say or do another kind of liberalism call classical liberalism. it's a family feud and it's part of that tradition. >> host: based on your personal experience, you are a professor years. what do you think some of the solutions are not area in establishing more conservative thought on college campuses? >> it's got to get beyond the contemporary debate between what are usually conservatives who are classical liberals and get it to somebody going more deeply, my background is the great books. that means you meet all the greatest things that i've ever been written. the go beyond contemporary debate. christians are especially in need of digging more deeply into the intellectual that run rather than being merely a reaction of what going on now. that would allow a true debate, a deep debate between liberalism and its critics fear the critics would be much better in setting forth the arguments and understanding them is outside of that tradition of liberalism. i think he macintyre been very hopeful for this. i studied under alice mcintyre. somebody takes us out of these debates, lets us look at big picture so we can stop spinning the same whale of would jumpstart academia i hope. >> so let's talk a little bit between the tie between religion and political thought. is the political liberalism i think gross with christianity equates >> some liberals wouldn't he. another is to have to say i'm talking about a large-scale historical movement. back when people mix and match stats. xm to be coherent. a lot of times they drag things and from left to right. the large-scale movement cnn compatibility people but to the sources. once you go back to somebody like machiavelli, hobbes, you go back to somebody election of a and the late 1600s or most obviously rousseau said christianity was a mistake. get it out of here. you see what it means to be at the bottom fundamentally antagonistic to christianity and thoroughly antagonistic. they understand what is at stake here in rejecting christianity full force. so that it be the kind of thing needed intellectually to say, where did the actual modes of thought conflicts? how a secular liberalism self defined come self-consciously defined against christianity? whatever particular liberals may happen to believe because they tend to mix-and-match. i go over some of that in the 19th century, so they hand out with thoughts from hearing here and here, but in order to separate those, we need to go back to the beginning. that's why she's machiavelli because it is crystal clear and run down -- i do love the great books. that's why wanted to do it. i think you see in these original thinkers what is that state, the essence of liberalism. that is the explicit rejection in the affirmation of the material world is the sole reality a missile location of our entire policy can never have. >> host: udc problems of mainline christian churches or liberal christian churches in undermining the church's authority to persuade people as you say impossible for anything supernatural to erupt in the world and disturb the secular order. talk about that and what you see is splintering of christianity. >> host: this'll come as a surprise that liberal christianity was invented earlier on by non-christians. that is seen most clearly in benediction of most in the 1670s, 80s. his appeal to the past, probably an atheist. he wants to redefine christianity so it is harmless. by that he means it doesn't disrupt the secular order as he wants to can be the purity doesn't want himself to be persecuted, so he wants to take the teeth out of christianity and the cause as well. so he argues any particular persuasively that.it doesn't matter. all that honors the nice. so be nice is than the sum total of christianity that jesus is a great moral teacher as long as you take out the edgy stuff that he says can focus on loves msm passion about that defines tolerance. in other words, the greatest commandment is let it be allowed. and be nice. so he breaks down christianity by removing the doctrine. he's also the father of modern christian scholarship and cuts out a deviously dts the bible so what's left is at best a kind of a moral maxim book if you understand it properly. he does it for a very particular reason because our head and i've been as blunt as he is, most people are stupid. most people will be unwashed will never understand them. we have to control with religion cannot therefore be redefine the religion in such a way that it scares the purposes of secularism and so it doesn't challenge them. liberal christianity is the result of that in a sign of is stop and start batter. so what does it mean to be a bible christian? doctor does not matter. i moral remained generally nice. and with heavy on tolerance, not supernatural and a stress on being good in this world in a practical way. of course there's a lot of overlap with real christianity. if he did not clothe the, help the poor can't help the oppressed, you'll be with the goats. they don't get a good treatment like the sheep. if you do not treat below this world come you have to pay for it. christianity has a very strong evangelical aspect that is helping people in this world, but never reduces its methods to that. liberal christianity says that's all that matters. but then you have a transformation that what it means to be charitable simply means what it means for secular liberalism. there isn't a distinction, so you don't see difference between simply what a secular liberal who doesn't believe in god at all believe should be done. when you have that, it's simply indistinguishable if it gains control. it's not doctrinally related to anything because that's what it's born out of. >> cdc does necessarily having to be in conflict with the state are challenging the state? where does that idea fit and? >> from the earliest days of christianity, it was in conflict with the state because caesar said he will worship you. you'll burn your scriptures. you will curse the name of christ are real characters scanning feature to an animal. so yeah, we are in conflict with the state. they won't be disallowed because they make everyone battled the state. christians are going to avoid conflict unless they simply give up all their doctrines. just shut up and seeing. become a private "glee" club. if you hold the moral doctrines camille be pounded if you're going to hold them make the connection between moral and theological doctrines come you in for a pounding from the secular state we are already feeling now. >> host: so, i just saw come across the news the north carolina republican lawmakers have introduced a bill that would allow the state to declare an official religion. do you support that kind of love? >> guest: nope, sorry. >> host: why not? lawmakers say they are if they nullify the federal land of christian pair of federal schools. >> guest: that's the wrong way to go about it. first of all that's lazy. established state church among the nations. evangelize. it's a way to make a statement to the work in the same way evangelization was same reason romans gave up abortion. so you have to change peoples minds and and hearts. that's much harder that month. christianity again with the church and political power so you don't want to fuse them again. they don't have to be antagonistic. the attempt to do that and the free exercise club would argue show liberalism is the healthy religion of functions and is a religion and seek to get it disestablished using the establishment clause. that you can do. but don't try to establish -- don't go against the history of christianity. that's why put that in the book. read up front of his christianity invented. secularism is trying to undo it. so don't make the same mistake. >> host: let's start talking about solutions and how do you disestablished secular liberalism? >> guest: was not establishing christianity. you come in to first that christians in the public square. you can't manage the public square with us and let'stalk. deeply, not yell back and forth, the lake were doing, so blessedly wonderful to be a lot of talk with people and try to get points across in a deep way takes a lot of learning, a lot of study and a lot of patience. it's the only out of it. we're trying to disestablished liberalism and make it so they have to make arguments for their positions. that means soft knowledge has to be a part of these, how opposed are really and how could we get somewhere make some headway. there is no such thing as a world view. there'll be a real serious public debate about how to settle thing. it's not just about that policy. it's what does it mean to be a human being? we can't have it, and policy in anything. if i think of a human being is a mere animal, and make sense for me to argue for euthanasia because that's what they do when they get old. he taken to that. it's coherent as a policy. human beings have a moral sultanate and a sting. the other side is saying no. you've got a real fundamental problem, but we know what i meant to conflict and where it is and that's the issue that has to be settled before we settle any arguments about euthanasia. >> host: are there places where this is happening? >> guest: i hope so. to stop yelling at folkeste stanback. don't just do something. stand there. inc. about this. go deeply into history and understand where ideas came from. what's really at stake. it does happen at some universities, but precious few. it doesn't happen as much as it should. no-shows aren't like this. they look worldwide federation wrestling. we don't need that. we need to build a talk rationally, patiently and charitably. that's the only way to get anywhere. we are too caught up in the moment to stand back and do the intellectual moral work that needs to be done. >> host: so as to get ready to close the conversation, let's talk about how you see rec to find a situation for the church. what are the areas you think there needs to be movement? >> guest: said that that would be very good. the modem has to do with understanding where christianity came from. there's a lot of ignorance about what are the real foundations of what it meant to be christian. that's why tried to give a history to understand these things. the church i think now is forced into a defensive posture. they must litigate on the basis of freedom of religion, the free exercise clause. it can litigate disestablishment of liberalism as well. the christians have to turn to their own education systems both in public schools and sam not sure we can salvage the public schools because of how deeply embedded things are against it very. and the university as well. there has to be, and maybe even the beginning of universities, the cert a well thought out recounting of universities. they would not be in a universities today to work for the christian church in the middle ages. why that occurred if we understand not will be part of the re-founding of the christian understanding of what were doing even in the public realm. >> you also read the christian charity play an important role. >> not screaming at people, not eating with them -- that what things. glad to give a quick advertisement for the pope had not a paid advertisement either. leading by doing things really essential to christianity. pope iglesias in the fifth century argued the church can't be worldly because if it is, it will become corrupt. it should avoid all the riches and should really serve the poor. so instead of getting all kinds of political arguments come in the church needs to lead in doing but it was meant to do. that will cause a large part of the transformation. in regard to everything from that to how to deal with differences about homosexuality. john cardinal o'connor, i think i'm talking about the right person, had a brain tumor and died. at night to take off bishop estimates and go when his father john in aid if it comes because he wanted them to see the love of christ before they died. that's what he wanted to see. that's really what has to have been. if you leave a trail charity, there's a transformation. if you're one more person, so is everyone else. vitamin e to become a church for that. is that what we are going to die for? we are going to be martyred for that. suits to recover christianity first. christians expect to see to do what we are supposed to do. >> what role role specifically d.c. for the church and christians in the political space clicks >> notion that political space can be isolated from a church teachings are can't occur because for many reasons, once you have a moral talk or type two theological doctrine, you're going to deal with legal issues. if you have a moral doctrine, theologically based doctrine and the state is doing something about a rich come you to defend yourself. there's no mutual territory. so you've got -- the church will have to do things in a public square. it is best if it does then by charity and persuasion rather than getting the state to do things. since the state is trained to do thanks to the church come you have those conflicts to involve real legal battles. so it's going to be spread all over the map. there is that going to be any way to avoid in a space they were going to sing in the catacombs again. >> host: so what do you see as the next step for this conversation. where would you like to go? >> guest: of course i want people to read my book, but i want them to talk about these things and complexities. for example, plus he talked about thomas jefferson so they can get her complexity then you get amongst most conservatives. we talk about the complexity of the simply yelling things. that's what i want to see. let's talk through these things deeply. it's a public conversation going. let's try to write an ink mark e ansformationywhere weo of media. if the media defines the message, this is a different message to much you get when two people screaming to go to commercial for two minutes because you can't gauge that way. i hope this book is going to contribute to that. people read this and see if you don't agree, at least you know why. you have a deeper understanding of why you don't agree with me and what is at stake. so i wanted for both sides and i hope it can draw people to that deeper conversation. >> thank you so much for sharing your book with us. >> guest: thank you so much for being so kind. the mac >> here's a look at the latest headlines from publishing industry this past week: >> there are two infamous prisons in the western u.s. when his dns territorial prison and the other one is alcatraz. there's something in our culture, and our consciousness of what would it have been like to be in a prison like this. da gama territorial prison and is considered to be a model inhumane institution in its day. and a major fraction talking back to a car, not giving their respect to the authorities. they couldn't deal with you. the dark cell could deal with you. of all the treatment, this was the place you didn't want to calm because he didn't have a the train. you got bread and water once a day. occasionally would do more than one person in here and one great big prison breakout. there were 12 people in here. we have no proof of this that bad aiming card you would feel something coming down the air shaft and it could've been a scorpion or a snake. now that is just not that that is not documented. >> next, booktv interview the university of pennsylvania has, richard gelles about his book, "the third lie." in the book, professor gelles argues that social programs don't work and suggest a different approach. this is about 10 minutes. >> well, booktv is on the road. we are in philadelphia at the university of pennsylvania interviewing some professors who also happen to be authors. they want to introduce you to the dean of the university of pennsylvania school of social policy and practice. this is richard gelles on your screen. one of his books, his most recent is called "the third lie: why government programs don't work- and a blueprint for

Related Keywords

United States , Germany , Rome , Lazio , Italy , Netherlands , Israel , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , Russia , Washington , District Of Columbia , France , Bonn , Nordrhein Westfalen , United Kingdom , Britain , Americans , America , French , British , German , American , Thomas Hobbes , John Locke , Roman Caesar , William Rehnquist , Alice Mcintyre , Thomas Jefferson ,