 The impact of the center is, I think, mostly been to make my work more casualistical, what I would call more casualistical, meaning more focused on concrete practical issues. So we started off with the Sex Marriage and Family and the Religious of the Book project, and that, in my particular work, focused me on abortion issues. And I ended up writing a chapter in a book for that conference. And, again, looking at very concrete moral issues, I had certainly touched on them before, but never written a lot on them. In turn, beyond that, one of my contributions was to edit a volume entitled The Morality of Adoption. So looking at the ethics of adoption was another sort of focused part. And, again, just getting to know people in various disciplines across Emory. You know, you work with them as colleagues in some contexts, but often you don't really see their work in detail and get a chance to discuss it. And they, in turn, often don't get a chance to discuss yours, except in this sort of center context often I found. Well, the 13 weeks of Sex Marriage and the family was amazing in that you would have each week somebody responsible for leading off around their own work. So, again, you would see just the disciplinarity of each of the faculty members and how they had command of a particular field. And, I mean, often there was a lot of edification going on, meaning I learned a lot from someone. I didn't always feel that I was giving them a lot because they were in their field the expert. But it was amazing over those weeks to see, again, your colleagues whose work you might not otherwise really know well come in and present and see how it might all hang together. And in a volume and in the conference that we ultimately did. And again, I had thought a lot about issues of sex and abortion and contraception and the like. But to see or hear Abdu Anayim talk about Islamic takes on marriage and conception and contraception was powerful and it certainly did impact my own writing. Well, I often feel like you can't fully grasp a tradition unless you have at least some sympathy for the practice of it and for the world of belief that it represents. I do think that having some sort of first order concern for the truth value of the claims is crucial. That it's not just an aesthetic exercise and not just an historical or sociological exercise. But one of the things I appreciate about the center is exactly that there are both scholars and practitioners of the faith there together talking about claims and not just aesthetically. That it does sort of matter whether you believe them true and what sort of practical implications they have. I at least find that very enlivening. And as you say, John Whitty is a good example, Hal Berman. Hal's own take on the role of divine love in the law in western civilization quite generally is very reminiscent of my own teacher, Paul Ramsey's take. And so I think Whitty and I share a kind of common sense that our mentors very much wedded scholarship with faith, very much took the question seriously and promoted. Even somewhat similar answers to the origin of faith and the relation again of love and law. The impact of the center beyond Emory, it certainly has brought together a range of scholars that wouldn't otherwise have congealed so to speak. Nick Waltersdorf from Yale, Jeff Stout from Princeton, Paul Weithman from Notre Dame. A lot of these figures have come together for more than one conference and the conferences that I've been involved in. So I think the significance of the center has become clear far and wide and the fact that people keep coming back repeatedly to multiple conferences. And I think it's made their work again more focused, more interdisciplinary. I've certainly enjoyed getting to know these people over the years and seeing their work and you do get actually some continuity of issues of conversation. So it's impacted my scholarship again and making it more casualistical, certainly in making me more productive. One of the great advantages of bringing in people from around the country, even around the world is it would often be a matter of bringing in a draft of your contribution for the project and talking about it. And then you go back home and you take the conversation you've had and try to integrate it into your revised draft. But I know, again, the range of people that I just mentioned, their work has been significantly expanded and broadened by the contact with the center. I think the first issue that comes to mind that the center should address in the next 25 years is the fairly obvious one of religious dialogue, religious tolerance, religious pluralism. To be sure, I think the issue of possible conflicts of civilization between Judeo-Christian West and a Muslim East is pressing. But one that occurs to me is globalization, especially the role of economic globalization in the next quarter century. How do we both appreciate the dynamics of capitalism and dynamics of the market? And I do believe the market in many cases can be a guarantor of political liberty, can be a sensitive pricing mechanism, but also a sort of protector of liberty. But how does one reign that in, especially in a global context where there aren't local national restraints on abuses of the market or excesses of the market? How do you keep the multinationals in line? And I would think, again, the center would be ideal to try to bring to bear sociological, political, legal, but also religious insight into that. And what are the limits of the market? And what are the means that it must be checked both politically and morally? What sort of ethos is required so that simply profit isn't the great God of us all? So globalization comes to mind. A third thing that continually interests me is issues around reproduction, both contraception and artificial reproduction. The more we're capable of, in a sense, seizing the reins of evolution and directing it intentionally with technology, I think the more pressing, very fundamental questions about the meaning of life, about, again, the limits of technological intervention, the religions have always had something to say about procreation, again, both its contraception and conception. Is it possible to generate anything like an emerging consensus across the traditions that might reign in technology? Again, I think we need to reign in the market appreciating its virtues, but also acknowledging its limits. But the same with technology, the same with scientific innovations that give us great power, but may lead us down paths that are, in fact, quite destructive. And the university has several initiatives underway now relating to both religion and health and religion and science. The power, the prestige of memory, medicine, memory, nursing, memory, public health, all of these are going to be gathered into these initiatives around religion and science. And again, bring faculty members into conversation, faculty who know of each other, but haven't really worked together and read each other's work carefully, and that's a great boon. Again, we'll see whether consensus emerges and whether there's anything like a genuinely synthetic answer or a proposal growing out of it, but at least we're getting the conversation going. The kind of irreplaceable value of conversation was made manifest to me in those sort of conversations. You don't get anywhere else than an interdisciplinary center. In particular, we were talking, all of the fellows invited guests about adoption, and it was very clear the primary focus was on the right of particular sorts of couples, particular sorts of would-be parents to adopt without intervention of the government and so on. But there was a sort of epiphany where having heard myself talk in this way, it suddenly became clear to me that the primary focus really ought to be on the right to be adopted. The language of the right to adopt as important as that is, and as insightful as comments were from the Round Table participants, that just being involved in the conversation, I think everybody finally realized there was a kind of central focus missing, that the focus needed to be on the right to be adopted. And then if you will, the need of children rather than the interest of adults became primary. And again, we can say even the language of rights finally is outstripped by the need to talk about love and the need to talk about charity for the needy. But again, that was something that was clear even at the time. I wouldn't have gotten any other way than through a center conversation. And again, it fundamentally changed the shape of that volume, that collected volume, and my own works subsequently.