Tom Leatherbury on boycott laws and free speech

Tom Leatherbury is the Director of the First Amendment Clinic at Southern Methodist University and a partner at the law firm of Vinson & Elkins LLP. In this episode, he and George discuss the First Amendment and free speech implications of recent legislation in Texas and 32 other states.

Watch the video, here.

Welcome to Good God, Conversations that matter about faith and public life.  I'm George Mason, your host, and the subject today is boycotts. Boycots. Well,  those are things that we know have a long enrich history in the United States.  You can go back to the Boston Tea Party, of course, as a boycott against taxation  without representation. 

And it was in fact an economic boycott. You can think back to the civil rights  era in this country, for example, when the Montgomery Boycott took place and.  Blacks in the south, especially in Montgomery, were choosing to walk rather  than use public transportation as a boycott against segregation policies.  

Those were of course, overturned by the courts and that boycott was successful.  The same is true in various other economic boycotts that we have seen in this  country. Whether having to do with agriculture in California or in our foreign  policy where there was a boycott and investment movement of South Africa  during the apartheid era and the anti-apartheid forces that ultimately prevailed  in South Africa. 

Actually give credit to the United States and its decision to encourage that kind  of economic boycotting of the Be Apartheid state for the changing of that  culture into a more just political order in South Africa. Well, today what we  have is 33 states that have now introduced and passed an anti boycott  divestment and sanctions laws that would protect the state of Israel particularly. 

These states including Texas and Arkansas and Arizona among others, all have  copycat laws that make sure that companies that would do any business with the  state that particular state, Signed pledges and are clear in their business dealings  that they are not boycotting the state of Israel because of its policy toward the  Palestinians and its treatment of those who live in occupied territories by the  state of Israel. 

These laws that have been passed by these states come about. Under the notion  that they are protecting the Jewish people from the spirit of antisemitism, which  of course has a long and painful history in this country and around the world.  But they also actually. Go beyond the question of antisemitism by uniting it  with support for the state of Israel, the government's policies toward  Palestinians who claim that they are being persecuted and discriminated against  by the state of Israel.

So we have competing claims of discrimination and of seeking to support the  oppressed. And these laws are restricting the rights of people in their states and  corporations in, particular, of being able to use their voice and their money. To  protest against the treatment of Palestinians by the Israeli government. 

It is possible. And Faith Commons, the organization that I represent along with  my partner, Rabbi Nancy Caston, it is possible to support the existence of the  state of Israel, the, to support the Jewish people to condemn antisemitism. And  at the same time, support the rights of the Palestinians to live in freedom and  self-determination in the Holy Land. 

This is, these are not mutually exclusive options and we believe that To, to  support the, right of the state of Israel to exist does not mean that you give a free  pass to the government of the state of Israel in order to oppress and persecute  the major, the minority Palestinians, both Muslim and Christian by the way who  live on the West Bank and in Gaza. 

These laws are being contested. In, in all these states by those who see this as a  matter of free speech that is being denied to them on the basis of the First  Amendment. The other wrinkle about all of this is that many of the anti boycott  laws that support the state of Israel are being brought by evangelical Christians  and Catholic Christians with support from evangelical Christians who interpret  the Bible in a certain way. 

That sees that the support for the state of Israel, not just the Jewish people, but  the state of Israel must, be supported or else those who fail to do so will not be  blessed by God to support the state of Israel in their mind from a biblical  interpretation standpoint is imperative for their Christian. 

And it, it comes out of interpretation of their theology, their view of scripture  and their view of the end times. Many Evangelical Christians agree with this.  Some of us who are Christians do not agree with that interpretation, but our  voice is not respected or heard, Though this is a matter of dispute even among  Jews. 

And so it's, something that we continue to need to educate one another about  before making these laws and then seeing and understanding the nature of the  challenges of them, because it's not just a matter of free speech, it's also a matter  of the first amendment protecting against a majority view religiously prevail. 

Over minority views. In, in our country the matter of anti boycott of Israel has  spilled over now into similar laws that have been. Fueled throughout the, states 

all, most of these having been actually agreed upon and written by what's  known as an organization called ALEC, which is American Legislative  Exchange Council writes these laws they meet and and they, have responsible  for laws like the Stand Your Ground Law in in, Florida. 

That led to the exoneration of George Zimmerman when he shot Trayvon  Martin and killed him. And voter ID legislations. The these are all coming out  of one source of conservative legislators, but it's not only a conservative matter.  Many Democrats and Jews in New York and elsewhere support [00:41:00] anti bds. 

Boycotts they, support these laws because they think that it hurts the state of  Israel and they need to stand with the with, the state of Israel. So this is this is.  Actually not just a matter of left and right, it's about what we think is right or  wrong. In terms of the American ethos and our legal system we see the  implications now on fossil fuel industry. 

The firearms industry, book bands don't say gay in Florida. And also with  critical race theory. Being attacked in, in, in the public schools and in teaching  of race, American history with regard to our racial heritage. So the matter of  free speech and the matter of religion come together in these matters. 

And in this episode of Good God, we are [00:42:00] grateful to welcome.  Thomas Leatherbury a an appellate lawyer, a partner in Vincent and Elkins here  in Dallas, the law firm, and also the director. Of the First Amendment Clinic at  the Deadman School of Law. He also teaches at s SMU Law School here in  Dallas, and we are delighted to welcome him to the program as he has a  thorough understanding of all of these laws and the challenges to them. 

So stay tuned now for my conversation with Tom. 

[00:00:00] George: Welcome, Tom Leatherbury to Good God. Thank you for  being with us in this important conversation about free speech First  Amendment, and some of the implications of recent legislation and and protests  that are challenging us in our current time. We're glad you're with us. 

[00:00:25] Tom: Thanks very much. I'm happy to be here and this subject is a  special interest to me. 

[00:00:32] George: Well, Tom, let's outline this a little bit and ask you to tell us  some, in some detail what's at stake in the current legislation that's being  challenged across different states because what we know is that 33 states since 

2015 [00:01:00] have pretty much copycat laws that are what we might call  boycott laws that prevent people from taking a position against the state of  Israel. 

There. Details about that, that are back and forth in the courts as I understand it,  as to whether it's about individuals or whether it applies there, or whether it's  only corporations doing business with the state or whatnot. But could you  explain to us what these laws are and how they're being introduced and  challenged at this point? 

[00:01:40] Tom: Sure. I'm happy to. I guess I'd note at the outset that boycotts  have a rich tradition of being core political expression. There's a case Clayborn  NAACP versus Clayborne Hardware where there was an economic boycott that  was, held to be [00:02:00] protected activity. And all of these laws strike at free  speech. 

All of these laws compel government contractors to speak and say they won't  boycott Israel. The first law in Texas was passed in 2015 and it was challenged  and it was challenged successfully. A federal district court in Austin held that  many provisions of the anti boycott. Law were unconstitutional. 

Unconstitutional. They were vague, they were over broad, et cetera. Then the  case went up on appeal and the case was mooted. The court lost jurisdiction  over it when the Texas legislature exempted sole proprietorships. And small  contractors from the anti boycott law, all the plaintiffs in that first case were sole  proprietors. 

The second [00:03:00] challenge though, is pending to the anti boycott law, the  anti boycotting Israel law federal district court in Houston held again that the  law was unconstitutional. Because it compelled a government contractor with  the city of Houston to swear that he would not boycott Israel during the term of  the contract. 

And the court held the law was vague, again, over broad, unconstitutional, and  that case is on appeal. It's been fully briefed. Many, religious groups weighed in  with amicus briefs in that case. I don't know exactly when it will be argued, but  it should be in the next six months, if not sooner. 

[00:03:49] George: So you're speaking specifically of Texas. This is also  around the country as the film "boycott from just vision, which [00:04:00] we  will talk more about later. Outlines how different states, Arkansas, Texas,  Arizona, prominently in the film have created these laws. In support of the state 

of Israel guess one of the questions I have for you what jurisdiction do states  have to deal with this on which seems like a federal government matter of  foreign policy, yet states now are are creating their own foreign policy, in effect  through these laws. Is, that something that is legally permissible , does that run  into something of the separate powers question. 

[00:04:49] Tom: Right, Right. To Sovereigns, Federal and State. You know,  there haven't been any challenges that I'm aware of along those lines saying it's  [00:05:00] interfering with the president's duty to set foreign policy for the  country and Congress's duty set foreign policy for the country. The challenges  have really been along the lines of constitutional challenges and the. 

Regulate, I mean, the states use the power of the purse to regulate people's  speech, both government contractors, and when we talk about the fossil fuels  bill, for example the state's massive wealth in or massive, or management of  massive wealth. In the Teacher's Retirement Fund and the General Land Office,  Permanent school fund and, those sorts of Vehicles. 

[00:05:51] George: So you've moved into another area. We began by talking  about the anti bds laws bds, standing for [00:06:00] boycott, divestment and  sanction which is a means of supporting the Palestinian cause by. Boycotting  

doing business with or divesting in your investment funds or sanctioning in  various. The state of Israel because of its treatment of Palestinians. 

But now beyond the question of Israel, and we'll come back to Israel in a  moment. What we see in Texas and in Louisiana and other states is that these  same anti boycott laws are in place to protect the fossil fuel industry. And to  protect the firearms industry. In fact, Louisiana just has case where they have  said that they will not do business with BlackRock investments because of its  concern about the [00:07:00] environment, about the, global climate. 

And so their decision as an investment firm to not support fossil fuels. This  undermines the economy. Louisiana says of Louisiana's, and therefore they're  not gonna do business with BlackRock. So we, we, have a growing movement  here. We're state officials are saying, we are going to make a decision about  what's in the best interest of our state according to. 

The majority that we have in the power that we have and regulate people's free  speech as, a result of that.  

[00:07:43] Tom: Right. Yeah. It's a very interesting development and both the  fossil fuels. Anti boycott of fossil fuel companies. Bill and the anti 

discrimination against Firearms company bill were [00:08:00] passed in the last  legislature. 

And again, these laws are being copycatted across the country. I think South  Dakota was the first one, would they? South Dakota or North Dakota was the  first anti fossil fuel boycott. Bill and Texas copied that. Again, these bills are  

just abominable under the First Amendment. You know, we say at our clinic at  SMU, Texas, so many First Amendment violations, so little time, and this is just  an example of an issue that's very important to the Republican legislators. 

They had complaints from. Oil and gas companies in the Permian Basin that  they were having access to capital restricted and they were having trouble  expanding their operations. And and this is the [00:09:00] reaction, the.  Criticisms the constitutional criticisms of these bills. The fossil fuel bill and the  firearms bill are very similar to the anti, those criticisms of the anti-bds  legislation. 

They use incredibly broad terms, vague terms. They compel speech on the part  of government contractors. They impose unconstitutional conditions. On doing  business with the government, right, because of the compelled speech. The  Louisiana case is the one that's farthest along that I know of, or the Louisiana  decision making process where they announced that divestment from Black  Rock. 

Texas is a little bit more extended process. It involves the preparation of a list.  Of companies that allegedly boycott fossil fuel companies by the comptroller's  office. [00:10:00] And then notice is given to the funds like the Teacher's  retirement Fund that are covered, the state agencies or vehicles that are covered  by the statute, by one part of the statute. 

And the state agencies or vehicles have just responded as I read last week. And  they are claiming some of the similarly vague exemptions under the law that  would allow them to keep, or some of them are that would allow them to keep  investing in BlackRock. Despite the fact it's a listed company in the  comptroller's eyes that boycotts fossil fuels companies. 

And we had the, ex example of the firearms bill that, that you and I have talked  about before, which is the city of Anna in Dallas County did not choose  Citigroup [00:11:00] to underwrite its municipal bonds. Even though city  groups fees were lower. They picked the second lowest bid because they  perceive accredited the NRAs designation of Citigroup as a company that  discriminates against firearms companies or firearms manufacturers.

[00:11:25] George: You know, in, in the case of the Muslim woman who Joined  with the council on American Islamic relations. Again, anti-BDS law in Texas.  Right. The federal district judge ruled in her favor saying that the relationship.  Between the state of Israel and the Palestinians is an ongoing [00:12:00] contested matter, one of continuing debate and that the state of Texas was using  coercion rather than persuasion to settle that matter at the state level. In, ruling  in that way. I, guess the, question I have for you is there, there has been  historically a conservative philosophy that says that contested matters are  cultural things that should be argued until there is cultural consensus rather than  settling them with law and stifling debate. Isn't that exactly what's happening  with these anti boycott laws?  

[00:12:52] Tom: Yes. I, really couldn't agree more with you on that. I think  [00:13:00] that's, where you get into some of the constitutional problems about  compelling contractors to swear that they won't boycott Israel or they won't  boycott firearms companies or fossil fuel companies. 

You know, Texas and the other states that have passed these laws rely very  heavily on a climate of antisemitism to try and justify these laws. And there's an  extensive discussion of them in the a and r engineering. Case in the second  challenge that's ongoing to the anti-BDS laws in Texas. 

They also say and this argument was persuasive in the Arkansas case different  from the Texas courts, the way Texas courts have ruled so far, that this is really  [00:14:00] regulating conduct and not speech. Economic conduct. Yes. Rather  

than speech, but you know, I fall on the speech side of it. I see speech  everywhere, I guess. 

George.  

[00:14:16] George: Well, I understand, but even if I'm not mistaken didn't  Citizens United establish money is an economic form of speech in, terms of  how one supports political? Candidates and movements. So there is a sense in  which whether the giving of money or the withholding of it is constitutionally  an act of free speech. 

And we have a tradition of saying that. 

[00:14:49] Tom: No, I agree. And, you don't really even need to look As  recently as Citizens United, you can go to the NAACP case that I mentioned at  the [00:15:00] outset because it was classic economic decisions not to buy from  that hardware store. Right. Because of their perceived policies.

And  

[00:15:10] George: that was what used public transportation in Montgomery,  those sorts of things. Right, right. You know when you go down this path what's  good for the goose is good for the gander, ultimately, right? So you, have a  situation where right now you have concerns of those who are conservative  legislators in Texas and Arkansas and Arizona and elsewhere about these  particular matters. 

But you could also conceivably see, This could go off the rails in in more liberal  and progressive states where, for example, in California and Texas, if you if you  don't [00:16:00] support Planned Parenthood or if you if you want to boycott  Planned Parenthood and, they have a different attitude toward reproductive  rights, for example then we, have we're, on the other. 

The shoe is on the other foot. Conceivably, even Texas, for instance, could say.  That because in 2019 the Republic of Ireland, a very Catholic country, decided  that it would provide for abortions through the first term and in cases of rape,  incest in the mother's life. Beyond that point, even we could conceivably say  that because our abortion policy in Texas virtually bans abortion, that we would  not do business. 

Ireland. Well, I mean, where does this end, Tom?  

[00:16:53] Tom: Yes. I, think that's a really good point because the Goose rule  does apply with full [00:17:00] Force here, and it's it, just goes to show that  difficulty in the problems with. Adopting a majoritarian view of the First  Amendment. Yes. You know, it I thought, I always thought Republicans and  conservatives would, you know, hated compelled speech. 

Right. They don't need to, you know, that runs against all the individualism  we're taught in, school and in at home. Right. But, Now it's just I'll compel you  to say anything as long as I agree with it. I'll compel you to play the star spangle  banner before every game. Right? And that's another horribly unconstitutional  law that probably will never be challenged because nobody wants to be against  the star span banner. 

But it's just, it's it's such a [00:18:00] majoritarian anti First Amendment. Anti  individualism and free thought concept. It's, you know, and not even touching  the ordinary business purpose, which is driving these funds to emphasize more  

environmental, social, and governance. Goals environmental friendly, goals  because they wanna maximize shareholder 

[00:18:27] George: return. 

Exactly. You know, the state has to be about the common good about the,  general welfare. And what we have is devolving only to economic matters in  some of these cases where fossil fuels and whatnot are concerned. But you  know, I think there's another matter here too. You mentioned that, you know, the  Bill of Rights First Amendment in particular is a minoritarian amendment. That  is [00:19:00] it's, meant to protect minority speech and minority expression of  religion, for example. And yet what we have actually is not just a matter of  speech being contested in these anti boycott laws, but what we will see in the  boycott film for those who come to see it. 

And what we see in, Arkansas in particular and what we see in Texas our  Governor Abbott they, are taking a religious position and they are arguing that  we must stand. With Israel because of a certain biblical interpretation of their  faith whether American conservative evangelical faith, or Catholic faith in the  case of our Texas governor. 

But nonetheless, the argument that [00:20:00] Israel has a special status before.  As a state they would say the Jewish people, but they're confusing the Jewish  people generally with the state of Israel repeatedly in these matters. And, in  Arkansas, the sponsor of the anti-BDS bill actually said this grew out of his  faith. 

And that the church is protected from the state, but the state is not protected  from the churches intrusion in and he argued specifically that. We are seeing at  our, at the Supreme Court level and at other levels. Now a shift in the way the  courts are viewing the first Amendment with regard to religion and the non establishment side is disappearing in favor of the free exercise side. 

Right? And, so this is a case of religious intrusion. [00:21:00] Into the public  square. In, in, in my view of, reading this. What's your take on where the courts  are moving in permitting this very clear statement of a religious motivation for  these laws in in, the anti VOCO movement?  

[00:21:22] Tom: Yes it was. 

All over the legislative history that I've looked at. I haven't looked at all of it,  but the motives were very, expressed and spelled out. And it relates to the state  trying to justify the law because of antisemitism. As you said it's, Israel not, the  Jewish people. I, you know it's, I completely agree with you that the [00:22:00] establishment clause is an inch high and the free exercise clause is a foot high.

In the cases that we've seen, particularly the last term, the praying coach case  and that you wrote about, and the school voucher. Case up in Maine. And, you  know, we will probably see inroads made further inroads made in anti discrimination laws in the name of religion. Yes. In the website designer case  that is the sequel to the Masterpiece Cake Shop case that the court heard several  years ago. 

So I don't I, you know, I have a very good friend who runs the Law and  Religion Clinic at University of Texas Law School, and I feel like calling him  every day and saying, Gosh, I wish, you know, you're in the cap seat. [00:23:00] You know you're gonna, you're gonna win most of your cases. And poor First  Amendment lawyers, Other First Amendment lawyers might, lose more of their  cases, but cuz of the trends. 

But I think it's, hard to predict where this will. It really  

[00:23:17] George: is. Well, you know we've talked specifically so far about the  anti boycott of Israel or the anti-BDS laws. We've talked a little bit about the  anti fossil fuel and anti firearms. Laws as well. But this comes down to other  things as well. 

The trend toward book banning towards censorship of speech informally you  know what we are, seeing is from the left and right, both a a complaint  happening culturally about cancel culture. That right, that [00:24:00] if, we are.  If we are in an environment where someone disagrees with us, then we don't  feel safe in that environment and in an academic environment in particular. 

We're supposed to be able to explore ideas freely and and, there's a certain  resilience that's called for with, intellectual pursuits, right? Everything can't be  an existential struggle. I mean, but what we just saw yesterday as a matter of  fact, is that another judge has federal. 

Judge has decided to join a movement of conservative judges in saying that they  will not hire Yale Law School student interns because they believe Yale Law  School is promoting a kind of cancel culture, and that is unfavorable to  conservative views. I, [00:25:00] know you're close to the folks up there and I'm  curious what you've heard and how, does this, how do. 

Adjudicate this Tom, because this could go on and on to the point where we're  so balkanized that we, nobody can talk to anybody anymore. 

[00:25:18] Tom: Right. And certainly they can't talk civilly. Yeah. Which is how  you need to have these discussions about critical issues, of public importance,  issues of faith and issues of belief. 

You know, co a couple of things to respond to the. The Yale Law School point  that you made, I think it was actually 12 judges who joined the same statement  that said they would not hire graduates from Yale Law School because of a  perceived cancel culture of conservative voices at, Yale Law School, which I,  don't really I, know there have [00:26:00] been some incidents where speakers  were not allowed to finish or. 

Rudely treated. And I think those violated the the, guidelines that Dean Kin,  who I have immense respect for and immense belief in has, established for free  speech events on a campus. I think I think that was an aberration and yet, And  whatever else these judges point to led to their decision. 

So I saw it heartney. I read yesterday that Judge Jerry Smith and the Fifth  Circuit said I look forward to getting more applications from Yale because some  of my colleagues are not accepting applications from men and women law  students at, Yale. So that was interesting and I'm kind. 

I read some snarky legal publications and Vivia Chan of [00:27:00] Bloomberg  is one of my favorites, and her first line was Yale Law students are quaking in  their boots. Gimme a break. Yeah. You know, I don't think there'll be any  adjudication. I think they could have done the same thing and not announced it,  but obviously they wanted to make a point and wanted to stand out. 

Right. To your point about safe spaces and the academic environment and book  banning and I mean that, that is true in, you know, a hundred fold at the law  school and I, you know, I think the First Amendment clinic in our class is. Safe  space for anybody sometimes because of the, facts of the cases that we read and  the facts of the cases that we work on, right? 

Everything from animal activists who want to protest with very graphic videos  of [00:28:00] mistreatment of agricultural livestock to a matter looking at the  obscenity statute in Texas and reading. Awful details of cases that have been  decided under that, statute. So we, talk about that and it's also a time honored  First Amendment tradition and one that is very near and dear to the Stanton  Foundation, who generously gives us money to do what we do. 

That you should defend speech you hate. Yes. That's the point of the First  Amendment. And. That's the point of the system. People get lawyers and they 

get good lawyers if they can and, my obligation is to represent them zealously  once I take 'em on. And I think it would be a really dull existence if you agreed  with every [00:29:00] client about everything and didn't have disagreements  about what they say or what they believe and how they express it. 

I, just think, I think there's a lot to say there. I'm sure I've botched it, but it's,  there is a lot to say about that. I think the book banning is just another example  of your transplantation of a cultural and a religious exemption or, belief system  on, top of the public sphere or in the public sphere injecting it in the public  sphere. 

So I. I think it's part of this larger trend that you're talking about.  

[00:29:45] George: Well, there are a lot more permutations of this that we could  tease out together. And I, think this just wets our appetite, actually . And for,  those who can, I'm going to give more details and a few moments about  [00:30:00] the Event that we're co-sponsoring the First Amendment, Clinic, and  Faith Commons the viewing of the film Boycott and the panel that follows of  which you will be part. 

And Tom I'm grateful for your time. I have one last question for you. So yes, sir.  I'm curious because we are faith commons after all and, part of our calling is to  invite people to bring their faith into the commons, so to speak for the sake of  the common good. Can you say a word about your own faith tradition and what  you are drawing upon these days in this current climate to help promote the  common good? 

[00:30:45] Tom: Sure, happy to. So my father was an Episcopal minister in Fort  Worth and he was at the same church from 1948 to 1980 in Fort Worth when he  retired. [00:31:00] So it's, hard to find another church when your father has been  

your priest, . And I can't say that I go to church very much. My father was all  about, and my family was all about public service and service to people, and I  think for a lot of people, including myself, there's some basis in faith for that. 

I mean, he was the. Fort Worth Police department's, chaplain. He was the  chaplain at the primarily Roman Catholic Hospital, St. Joseph's he was on the  Fort Worth School Board during the gnarly years of desegregation. And you  know, I just don't remember an evening when he wasn't, and, you know, serving  others. 

And you know, Can't say. I do that every evening and I can, but [00:32:00] but  it's front of my mind when I get involved in something and it's certainly front of 

mind at the First Amendment Clinic. I think these days you have to draw on that  deep belief in the arc of history and, in public service. 

And if you listen to the, podcast, strict scrutiny, Run by three brilliant women  law professors. You realize the value of celebrating the victories you have and  when you can. And also self-care .  

[00:32:35] George: Well, I didn't know your dad but I suspect knowing you that  he'd be awfully proud of you. Well, I hope that my children could draw some  similar inspiration from me and in public services. 

Well, so Tom, thank you so much for being with us on Good God. And we're  looking forward to the panel and the filming the film boycott on October 20.  [00:33:00] Absolutely. Thank you for having me. 

Well, I hope you enjoyed our conversation. Tom Leatherberry is quite an  interesting fellow and we're delighted that he and Faith Commons are finding  ways to partner up together. Tom, as I mentioned, leads the First Amendment  Clinic at the [00:43:00] Deadman School of Law here at SMU in Dallas and the  First Amendment Clinic. 

And Faith Commons are co-sponsoring the viewing of the film Boycott that has  won many awards as a documentary addressing these matters that we have just  discussed. It Is a template for us as we begin to have larger conversations about  our culture, about what is in the interest of the common good and about how we  

can do something to create a more just and more civil society with more civil  conversation with one another is a matter of fact. 

And so we'll be showing this film. At the Deadman Law School on Sunday  afternoon, October 23rd at 4:00 PM there'll be a panel that will be discussing  the film and the implications of [00:44:00] the First Amendment and of many of  the legal challenges to it and where the courts are going on this matter. 

And I hope that you'll consider joining us. It's $15. And it is going to be a  stimulating time. It'll be four o'clock to about six or six 30 and you can get more  details about that and sign up to come by. Going to our website, faith  commons.org. That's faith commons.org and finding the event and there's an  event Bright that you can click there and make a reservation and we look  forward for you to be with us to view that film and to be part of the  conversation.

Thanks for joining us as always on. Good God.