S5, Ep. 30: Season finale

Amanda and Holly talk about decisions to come and what we’ve heard from justices when they are out on the road.

May 23, 2024

As the weather heats up, so does the pace of Supreme Court decisions. On our season 5 finale of Respecting Religion, Amanda and Holly recap some recent decisions and discuss what we can expect in the next month. Religion is still at play in several cases, even if religious legal statutes aren’t the questions being considered. Plus, they look at some recent statements from Supreme Court justices during extracurricular activities and share what those reveal about the justices themselves and the work at the Court, including a rare – and surprising – statement one justice gave directly to the media. 

Segment 1 (starting at 00:51): Recent Supreme Court actions

Amanda and Holly discussed the two Supreme Court cases dealing with abortion rights in episode 28 of this season: Conscience protections in SCOTUS abortion cases

Click here to read the Washington Post article tracking big cases this Supreme Court term.

The case upholding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is called Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited. Amanda and Holly mentioned two articles about it:

The Louisiana voting map decision comes from the consolidated cases of Robinson v. Callais and Landry v. Callais


Segment 2 (starting at 09:07): Justices on the stump: Shocking statements and unlikely pairings

Amanda and Holly mentioned recent reporting on appearances by justices of the Supreme Court. The articles they  referred to are:

According to reports discussed in this show, Justice Kavanaugh mentioned that the school prayer cases are settled law. School District of Abington Township v. Schempp (1963) and Engel v. Vitale (1962) are commonly called the “school prayer cases,” with the decisions in those cases finding government-sponsored religious exercises unconstitutional in public schools, providing protection for the religious liberty rights of all students. Learn more in this 2013 piece by Holly Hollman. 

Amanda and Holly discussed this New York Times story by Jodi Kantor that the American flag outside of Justice Samuel Alito’s home was flown upside down in the days before the inauguration of President Joe Biden. After we recorded this episode, new reporting revealed Justice Alito’s summer house displayed the “Appeal to Heaven” flag in 2023. Read more in this New York Times story by Jodi Kantor, Aric Toler, and Julie Tate: Another Provocative Flag Was Flown at Another Alito Home

To watch the iCivics event featuring Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, visit this C-SPAN link.


Segment 3 (starting 26:58): A reading recommendation

Amanda’s book is called How to End Christian Nationalism, and it will be released October 22 from Broadleaf Books. Click here for links to pre-order the book.

Learn more about the work of the Christians Against Christian Nationalism campaign by visiting the website.

Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC’s generous donors. You can support these conversations with a gift to BJC.

Transcript: Season 5, Episode 30: Season finale (some parts of this transcript have been edited for clarity)       


AMANDA: “It was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito …”
HOLLY: That was the public statement he put out.
AMANDA: “It was my wife’s fault.”
HOLLY: Yeah. In a neighborhood beef!


Segment 1: Recent Supreme Court actions (starting at 00:23)

AMANDA: Welcome to Respecting Religion, a BJC podcast series where we look at religion, the law, and what’s at stake for faith freedom today. I’m Amanda Tyler, executive director of BJC.

HOLLY: And I’m general counsel Holly Hollman. This is our last show of season 5 of Respecting Religion, and today we’re going to talk about the Supreme Court and what we — and you — can look forward to in the coming months of decisions and seeing the Court members out on the stump.

We are heading into Memorial Day weekend, which is the unofficial kick-off to summer — hooray! — but unlike in most years, we are not on the edge of our seats waiting for decisions in major religious freedom cases that we’ve worked on or filed briefs in.

That doesn’t mean we’re not watching very closely. We are. This Court term remains very important to us, as the Court continues to make decisions in important cases that impact all of us on essential issues in our life.

AMANDA: That’s right, Holly. And the biggest decisions usually come out in June — in late June — and June is just around the corner. And as we’ve noted in recent episodes, including the episode where we talked about two cases involving abortion rights before the Court, religion is at play or on the margins in some of these cases, but the religion clauses of the First Amendment or other statutes protecting religious freedom themselves are not being considered this term.

We learn about the Court and individual justices from the oral arguments and from the decisions in a variety of contexts, and they do have an effect on how we see religion at play in law and policy.

HOLLY: And while we’re taking a break from Respecting Religion, we will be following the Court and these forthcoming decisions. We’ve shared about them in earlier episodes this season, and particularly we posted — and we’ll repost again — that Washington Post article that reviewed and recapped all the big cases.

That article reminds us not only of the abortion cases this term that are significant and we are waiting for, but also how this term has involved cases involving former President Trump and his ability to return to the White House, also cases dealing with gun rights and state laws restricting social media, and the power of federal agencies and whether or not they are accountable to the government and how they’re accountable to the government.

AMANDA: And then, of course, the Supreme Court added a case this term later in the term that considers the question of presidential immunity and whether former President Trump will be immune from the criminal charges that come out of the January 6 insurrection that are pending in the D.C. District Court.

HOLLY: The Court has already issued some important decisions, because we are at that time of year. Last week a couple of notable decisions were released. They upheld the funding structure for the CFPB. That’s the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and that was a challenge because the funding of the CFPB is different from a lot of congressional appropriations.

But the Court upheld the funding, which was a relief for that agency and all those that rely on it. It was a 7-2 decision, with Justices Alito and Gorsuch dissenting. Justice Thomas wrote the opinion, and it’s notable, I think, for us, Amanda, as we watch this Court, because it was very heavy on text and history, which is, of course, a dominant theme for this Court.

For me, the nicest way to get a firm grip on what this case was about is to read Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog, so we’ll link to a story that she wrote on that opinion. Of course, we’re mentioning it just because we know that that agency is important to most Americans in their day-to-day lives.

The agency provides financial information and resources regarding things like credit cards, student loans, mortgages, lending practices. And I certainly appreciate that there’s a federal agency that is focused on that. As it describes itself, it makes sure that banks, lenders and other financial companies treat you fairly. So we’re glad to see that the Court did not upend that agency by saying that its funding was somehow unconstitutional.

AMANDA: Yeah. That case caught my attention also. I read a weekly newsletter from Professor Stephen Vladeck who is currently at the University of Texas School of Law but is moving to be at Georgetown University Law Center next year. But he writes a really informative newsletter called “One First” where he covers things that are happening at the U.S. Supreme Court.

And what caught my attention about this case is not only that Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion — Justice Thomas who, I think, from an ideological perspective, people were surprised that he was upholding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; they did not think that that was something that he would do — but also that there was a concurrence that was written by Justice Kagan and joined by Justice Sotomayor but also Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett that was, in Professor Vladeck’s words, “how to do originalism.”

So that’s kind of an unusual quartet of justices that are talking together about originalism as a doctrine.

HOLLY: I think we’re all struggling to understand how we do originalism.

AMANDA: Right. Well, at least in this case, that was a good thing for this important federal agency.

And then last week the Court also handed down a decision off of its emergency docket in a pair of cases involving redistricting in the state of Louisiana. Those cases are called Robinson v. Callais and Landry v. Callais. And in those cases, the Court basically cleared the way for the use of a newly drawn map in this year’s election.

And what drew attention to this case, again in Professor Vladeck’s newsletter, was kind of a surprising outcome to some, that the liberal justices on the Court — Justices Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor — all dissented from this opinion, even though this opinion results in an extra majority minority district, a district that would benefit Black voters in the state of Louisiana.

But, again, it may not be surprising when we think it’s not just outcome determinative, because this is really a short-term win, and I think that their dissenting opinions are drawing on maybe some of the longer-term consequences of the use of a particular doctrine in this case called the Purcell doctrine.

HOLLY: Yeah. And the Purcell doctrine or principle, as I learned in my reading about this case, is the idea that courts should not change election rules during the period just before an election. And that makes sense, because it would cause confusion, could affect if voters show up, and could cause problems for election officials.

AMANDA: That’s right. And in Justice Jackson’s dissent, she writes that she thinks it is simply too early in the election cycle to apply that Purcell doctrine. She noted that the Court had denied stays in other cases much closer to the election, and so she concluded, “Rather than wading in now, I would have let the district court’s remedial process run its course, before considering whether our emergency intervention was warranted.”

HOLLY: I appreciate that Professor Vladeck reminds us in his analysis of not only the complications or some of the subtleties in these opinions, you know, that they don’t always line up on purely ideological grounds. I think that that’s always been important to you and me, Amanda, because we’re not looking to just be cynical about the Court.

And at the same time, he notes that there may be more to the issues, you know, when you look longer term down the road. So that’s a good note, good thought, as many people just read the headlines and say, Oh, well, this is surprising that the justices went this way or that on any given case.



Segment 2: Justices on the stump: Shocking statements and unlikely pairings (starting at 09:07)

HOLLY: Beyond the news of the headlines and decisions being released and the various vote counts in those decisions, we, of course, learn about the Court and the justices as they are out and about on the speaking circuit, and that certainly increases in the summertime.

Just recently, we’ve noted that many of the justices have been speaking at various conferences or universities, and when they do, we appreciate the good reporting on those speaking events, because we continue to get a window on how they work and what they think about the health of the institution, the institution of the Supreme Court, which we know is kind of under fire with the low approval ratings.

So it’s interesting to see the justices talk about themselves and how they reflect on what the public is thinking about them. So we saw recently reporting on several justices. The first one I would note was Justice Kavanaugh, I saw, Amanda, visited your home state of Texas. He was in Austin at a judicial conference.

And Adam Liptak of The New York Times reported on that and said that he was there, just reflecting on broad topics, was really avoiding anything specific about cases before the Court, which, I think, of course, is important. But he did note that being a justice was really hard.

AMANDA: I don’t feel too bad for Justice Kavanaugh. I think we all — we all have hard jobs, and this is one that is one that’s very important.

HOLLY: One that he wanted really badly, too, as we recall. Well, but he did say that it is hard to be a justice, but not as hard as being president, quote, “in terms of stress, the difficulty, the pressure day to day, no matter who is president.”

And then the reporter noted that those comments were consistent with some that he made during oral arguments over whether Mr. Trump should be immune from prosecution on charges that he plotted to overthrow the 2020 election. So that was interesting. So he’s just talking in general, but, you know, a good Supreme Court reporter who’s also been following oral arguments could see some things there.

I don’t mind seeing Justice Kavanaugh or anyone else kind of let their hair down a little bit and talk about general ideas about the Court, what the effects of longer oral arguments are — which he said are good for the justices, but the public sometimes might get the wrong idea about lines of questioning. I can understand that.

AMANDA: I read in that article where he said, Don’t read too much into what we say at oral argument, people; you know, it’s just like the fourth inning of a baseball game.

HOLLY: (Laughing.)

AMANDA: And as a baseball fan myself, I’m struggling with that metaphor, because what happens in the fourth inning does tend to matter to the outcome. It’s just earlier in the eventual outcome. So I don’t know. I was a little concerned with — you know, it’s a reminder that justices are people, too.

HOLLY: They are.

AMANDA: Justices have resumes and Justice Kavanaugh obviously had some very formative experiences in the Bush White House, and they bring that experience to bear in important cases like the one that’s pending before them on former President Trump’s alleged immunity from criminal prosecution.

HOLLY: He said that a lot of decisions of the Court, at the time that they’re issued, are unpopular. And I think he was referring then, of course, to the Dobbs decision, which is at least one of the major things that is directly related to the low approval ratings of the Court.

But what’s interesting about his comments, it appears that he was noting that some decisions that are unpopular at the time then become very important. He actually apparently rattled off some different decisions like Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 school desegregation case, but also cases about redistricting, school prayer, the rights of Communists and criminal procedure, and other cases, some of which he noted were wildly unpopular.

But then he said, “I don’t think they had the kind of polling data back then that they do now.” But he suggested that the low approval ratings may have historical echoes. And then he said, “A lot of those decisions were unpopular,” he said of the Warren Court’s ruling. “And a lot of them are landmarks now that we accept as parts of the fabric of American constitutional law.”

AMANDA: That’s encouraging for those —

HOLLY: That’s encouraging.

AMANDA: — for those — especially the school prayer case. Right, Holly?

HOLLY: That’s right. Where a lot of people cast doubt and think this Court doesn’t care about them at all, we know that at the time they were new and noteworthy, but they have been a very important and consistent part of the fabric of American constitutional law.

AMANDA: Now, I would note that those cases that we talked about were all expanding rights, as opposed to the Dobbs decision which is contracting rights.

HOLLY: That’s right.

AMANDA: So I don’t think that that decision is going to stand the test of time like these others have, and it’s not standing the test of time. We see the cases that are coming before the Court in even this term. But I am pleased to at least hear Justice Kavanaugh acknowledge that the school prayer cases are part of the fabric of American constitutional law.

HOLLY: We hope they stay that way.

AMANDA: So meanwhile, while Justice Kavanaugh was in Austin, Justice Thomas was in Mobile Bay, Alabama, also at a judicial conference, this time for the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. And he made some public remarks as he was interviewed by a former clerk, and it was reported in a New York Times story which we will also link in show notes.

In the piece, the reporter says that Justice Thomas “expressed frustration with some of the current trends in the federal courts.” He criticized things like forum shopping and the increased use of emergency petitions. And, Holly, those are things that we’ve complained about as well, so —

HOLLY: They’re problems. They are problems.

AMANDA: Interesting that we have an ally in Justice Thomas again. He also complained about being the targets of nastiness and lies, in his words. That’s interesting, because a lot of what people are referring to are actually backed up with a number of different pieces of evidence, including text messages that his wife exchanged with the chief of staff, Mark Meadows, on the days leading up to the insurrection.

But in general, he was telling a number of his personal stories, how he came to the job, how he doesn’t like Washington and likes to get away from Washington. He called Washington “a hideous place.” And some things that he did not mention were the investigation that showed his financial dealings, but he did mention some attacks on his friends.

HOLLY: In that way it seemed a little bit like classic Justice Thomas, kind of enjoying time with kind of his people, people who are his former clerks, his inner circle, and, yes, that article talks about, you know, he’d rather be out on the RV trail with other people.

We also saw Justice Samuel Alito out, and there was reporting about him, and this time the headline said, “Alito Warns of Threats to Freedom of Speech and Religion.” And we know that perhaps Justice Alito is a little bit more specific in his concerns when he’s out on the stump.

You know, that headline tells us a lot, and we’ve heard him before be very concerned about what he perceives as threats to freedom of religion and freedom of speech. And, you know, he tends to come across pretty pessimistic.

We learned about Justice Alito’s speech in an article by Adam Liptak, and we can put that in the show notes as well. He was speaking at Franciscan University of Steubenville in Ohio, a Catholic institution, and he was given a standing ovation for being the author of the Dobbs opinion. So, I mean, that was a different environment, one where he felt very comfortable.

And as the reporter notes, his speech was laced with the justice’s characteristic pessimism. He said, “It’s rough out there,” he said. “And, in fact, I think it is rougher out there right now than it’s been for quite some time.” He said that, I think, just acknowledging the criticism that he’s getting specifically and that the Court is getting.

And then he tried to defend the Court and himself by noting the role of precedents, that precedents are important for the Court’s decisions, and it is rare that they should be overturned, but he’s noting that sometimes they should be, not lightly discarded.

AMANDA: Yeah. I think that’s pretty bold for Justice Alito to claim to be a defender of precedent, given what he’s done recently. But when I saw this article, Holly, I thought, Same song, different verse, as far as his concerns about freedom of religion.

In this commencement address, Justice Alito said, “Freedom of religion is also imperiled. When you venture out into the world, you may well find yourself in a job or a community or a social setting when you will be pressured to endorse ideas you don’t believe or to abandon core beliefs. It will be up to you to stand firm.”

I mean, to me, Holly, this is just classic Alito. He’s setting up an alarmist view of the world that’s hostile to certain religious beliefs, and he’s basically claiming a kind of Christian persecution. I just still think that this kind of rhetoric is misguided. It’s misleading, and it’s harmful.

I don’t disagree with him that people should feel empowered to stand up for their convictions. But I do disagree that these graduates will be entering a world that’s pressuring them to abandon their religious beliefs. It’s also not the kind of doom and gloom message that I think most graduates want to hear at their commencement address.

But far more encouraging were a couple of stories about a tour, of sorts, with two other justices. Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Amy Coney Barrett are on the road together. These justices have done a couple of these speaking engagements, talking together about their work on the Court.

And, you know, these are two justices who are sometimes on the opposite sides, often on the opposites sides of cases that get a lot of attention.

But I think part of what they’re trying to do is shore up the credibility of the Court, for people to understand and think that it’s not just a political institution, because I think a lot of people, with good reason, are starting to doubt some of the judicial temperament and credibility of the Court and particularly with the abandonment of precedent.

Holly, in previous episodes, we’ve talked about how the Court itself has put its reputation at risk in recent terms by making what appear to be outcome-determinative decisions in these church-state cases, while they’ve been abandoning or ignoring long-term understandings of religious freedom and church-state separation.

And so these cases are often deeply divided by ideological and political lines that can have dire impacts on the lives of Americans. So in many ways I think that Justices Sotomayor and Barrett are on a mini PR tour for the Court. And so they’re saying in these public appearances, you know, really we agree most of the time, and when we disagree, we can still treat each other with respect.

I also learned something from these stories about just some of the inside life of what it is to be a Supreme Court justice. They regularly eat lunch together, and they have assigned seats at the table, which I thought was kind of funny.

HOLLY: That’s funny.

AMANDA: It’s kind of like being back in the elementary school cafeteria, where you have your assigned seat. And they sit across from each other at the lunch table, and they talk about all kinds of things that don’t have to do with their cases.

And I think it was Justice Barrett in one of these pieces also said, It’s kind of like being in an arranged marriage where you can’t get a divorce, you know, so that they all come to the Court at different times, and they’re just automatically part of the family. And so you learn to get along with people and to do your work together and to do it professionally and to treat each other with the respect that each person deserves.

HOLLY: We don’t mind that at all, do we, Amanda?

AMANDA: No. Respecting Religion. We think respect is a core value, and we also love to see women leaders out kind of showing the way. I mean, I think it’s fascinating that it’s two of the female justices on the Court who are out there doing this road show.

HOLLY: And I understand that some people speculated that this was particularly because some of the harsh disagreements on the Court and maybe even some that’s written more sharply than is typical. And I agree that even with those differences that are very important to the justices, even as they work so hard to get it right from their perspective, that they want to show that they are committed to working together.

And it shows that they need each other. They’re in this together, and it doesn’t do any good to take extra jabs at someone or to be insulting. It’s not only beneath what we would expect of the justices. It doesn’t help reach the compromises that they need to reach in many of the decisions.

So I agree it was good to see that and to learn that they were out, working with organizations like iCivics, an organization that was started by former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor that is dedicated to education and protecting democracy, by people making sure they understand the Constitution and how they can be involved as active citizens. We can put a link to that program in the show notes.

AMANDA: And then one final piece of a Supreme Court justice making news, not the kind of news that he wanted to be making, but a story broke last week, just last week in 2024, that back in January 2021, there was an upside-down flag that was hung outside Justice Alito’s home in the week before the Biden inauguration. Now, why is this making news now, more than three years later?

HOLLY: Right.

AMANDA: Well, because that upside-down flag was a symbol for the Stop the Steal campaign at the time, and that campaign was the one that perpetuated the big lie that the 2020 presidential election was fraudulent and was a core driver of the January 6 insurrection. And so this is pretty unusual and also very alarming.

You know, in all these other stories that we mentioned, the justices aren’t commenting to the press. The press is just reporting on public comments made at public events. But in this case, Justice Alito did send a statement to The New York Times, and he said, “I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag. It was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor’s use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs.”

HOLLY: That was the public statement he put out.

AMANDA: It was my wife’s fault.

HOLLY: Yeah. In a neighborhood beef.

AMANDA: Yeah. She was in some disagreement with the neighborhood about like dueling yard signs. Now, one could say, Okay, fine; what’s the big deal? Well, part of the issue is that there is a judicial code of ethics that requires that justices and Court staff not have any kind of political signs at all, you know, bumper stickers, signs, engage in any kind of partisan politics, events.

I remember this from when I worked for a federal judge, that the rules were very strict for justices. And so the fact that it was Mrs. Alito doing this, I think it’s still Justice Alito’s home. And this is not just any political statement. It’s a statement that’s in line with these false claims that the election was fraudulent.

And other people who have had these same views violently stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to overthrow the lawful results of that election. And hundreds of those people have been convicted of crimes associated with that attack on the Capitol, and one of those defendants has appealed his case to the U.S. Supreme Court and is awaiting the decision now.

Of course, former President Trump has likewise been criminally indicted for his alleged role in the January 6 insurrection, and he has a case that’s pending before the High Court, including before Justice Alito. And so I think this is again just emerging as a story, but as we’re closing out our season, this is certainly a new development that we’ll be watching closely as the Court winds up its term.



Segment 3: A reading recommendation (starting at 26:58)

HOLLY: Well, before we release for the summer, Amanda, I know that we’re looking forward to vacation time, time with our family, just a little bit slower pace before the fall heats up again. And, of course, we look forward to having some time to read, to catch up both on work reading but also to have some fun reading, which reminds me of a very important book coming out.

Your book, How to End Christian Nationalism from Broadleaf Books, is scheduled to come out in October of this year. So I know that our listeners want to hear a little bit about that, and we want to encourage them to get ready to read it, go ahead and preorder it now, because it is available.

AMANDA: Yes. Thank you, Holly. This has been a major project, not just for me but for BJC. It has been something that is core to the work that we do of explaining faith freedom for all and how Christian nationalism is an urgent threat to religious freedom, to American democracy, and to an authentic Christian witness.

And there are a lot of books out there about Christian nationalism right now, and I’m very pleased by that. I think there’s so many different resources for people to learn more about this poisonous ideology, so if listeners are asking, Why one more book, well, I think that this book, the book that I’ve written, How to End Christian Nationalism, does something different.

It both diagnoses the problem, but more importantly, it helps answer the question that I get all the time out on the road, which is: What can we do about it? And so this book tries to address that question, and the chapters are called “steps.”

And so there are steps that people can take to both learn more about Christian nationalism, learn more and deepen their understanding of theology and how Christian nationalism is a gross distortion of the teachings of Jesus, and then to work in community, in their churches, with their family members, in larger coalitions that are multi-faith, multi-ethnic, multi-racial, and to engage in public advocacy, to have faith-based advocacy and take their views into the public square to stand against Christian nationalism, and importantly to stand for the beloved community that we are trying to create.

This has been very much a labor of love for me, and I’m very excited that it will be coming out into the world on October 22, is the release date. We’ll have more information in the fall as well about a book tour where I may be coming to a community near you to talk about the book and sign books.

But you can preorder now, and we’ll put the link in show notes, but the URL is just endchristiannationalism.com. So if you go to that URL, it should take you to a page to preorder the book, wherever you buy your books. There are links to buy from the publisher, from Amazon, and from Bookshop.org that supports independent booksellers.

HOLLY: I know I’ve already ordered mine, Amanda, and —

AMANDA: Oh, thank you, Holly.

HOLLY: Of course. I just want to thank you for spending your time doing that. We’ve been working as BJC and Christians Against Christian Nationalism on this problem, but I think it’s really important to have your voice out there, as you’ve been out talking about Christian nationalism and being in communities, seeing what people are doing about it, as well as relating to, as you mentioned, these other folks that are addressing the problem from different angles.

So I’m so glad that we’ll have this resource, and I know it will have an important impact.

That brings us to the close of this episode and this season of Respecting Religion. Thank you for joining us. For more information on what we discussed, visit our website at RespectingReligion.org for show notes and a transcript of this program.

AMANDA: Respecting Religion is produced by Cherilyn Guy with editorial assistance from Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons.

HOLLY: Learn more about our work at BJC, defending faith freedom for all, by visiting our website at BJConline.org.

AMANDA: We’d love to hear from you. As always, you can send both of us an email by writing to [email protected]. We’re also on social media @BJContheHill, and you can follow me on X, which used to be called Twitter, @AmandaTylerBJC.

HOLLY: And if you enjoyed the show, share it with others. The summertime is a great time to catch up on episodes you’ve missed or to share them with friends. Leave us a review or a five-star rating to help other people find this program.

AMANDA: We also want to thank you for supporting this podcast. You can donate to these conversations by visiting the link in our show notes.

HOLLY: Thanks for joining us this season for these conversations Respecting Religion.