 Yeah, the separation of church and state in America, a subject that really needs to be discussed here on history is here to help. I'm Jay Fidel, this is Think Tech Hawaii. The handsome young man is Peter Hoffenberg, and he is going to introduce our guest, who is a UH professor at the School of American Studies, Cass Sands. Okay, Peter, go for it. Thank you, neither young nor handsome, but thanks. You're off to a good start talking about separation of church and states. Anyhow, we have a great opportunity today to discuss this large issue with one of our full professors from American Studies, Kathleen M. Sands, who is an expert on this and many complementary issues. Let me just briefly introduce her as holding advanced degrees from Harvard Divinity School and Boston College. I don't know if you're a colleague of Abbey's back there at BC in Chestnut Hill or not, our dear friend Abbey Soyfer. Fascinating in that Dr. Sands is trained in theology. And has moved beyond the specifics of theology to talk about religiosity and religion, sexuality, religion historically, law, public life, all that good stuff. I'm not exactly sure what critical religious studies is, but I understand that's also it. Maybe we can come back and talk about that. We've really asked her here, besides the fact that she's a superb scholar and teacher, because of her immediate interest in religion and public life in America and how we can think about that, both historically and contemporary terms. If you go to the library, please check America's Religious Wars, the embattled part of our public life from Yale, 2019, Mazel Tov, and then your current book project, What's Wrong with Religious Freedom? Question mark. So welcome, and we look forward to our chat and it usually ends up rescheduling a second chat. So please don't feel free to take everything in these 28 minutes. Welcome Aloha. Thank you for having me. So Cass, this is really an interesting subject, especially in our times, although we don't talk about it so much in the public conversation, the reality is that religion is there in the divisive condition of our country right now. So I guess this is a sweeping question, but how has it changed here in these United States? How has it changed here in these United States since the founders wrote the First Amendment and the Establishment Clause? It seems to me, looking over this history, that there are two fundamental ways that Americans have had of speaking of religion. One, I call separationist discourse in which religion is spoken of as very individual, very separate, it involves mainly beliefs. It's an area of diversity, not commonality, and it's purely voluntary. That separationist discourse. And I think that's really what you see in the religion clauses is a separationist notion of religion. But alongside it, there's always been a foundationalist notion of religion. And in the foundationalist notion of religion, religion is understood more generically, and it's understood as connected with civilization, with citizenship, with general norms. And it is not really voluntary. I mean, technically it's voluntary, but in practice it's not voluntary. For instance, if a person were to run for president and openly be an atheist, it'd be very hard for them to get anywhere. So I'm not saying that's how it should be, but I think that's how it is. So we've got these two discourses and today they have become polarized. One is either a foundationalist, which usually means a white Christian nationalist today, or one is a separationist. So the discourse is almost polarized to where one is either for religion or against it, which is, as we religious progressives know, that's a terrible sort of polarization to make. But it wasn't that way at the founding. In the founding, and the best example of this is Washington's farewell address, where he says that one of the essential conditions for a good polity is religion and morality. And he says that we basically share the same religion, manners, morals and habits. And of course, what are manners, morals and habits in captured in that broad phrase is a whole set of social conventions and hierarchies that he's assuming. And then what religious freedom means is that within that broad category that is very, very conventional, you get to choose which way you do it. So that was pretty much the case through the Civil War after the Civil War, those two discourses sort of came apart. And that's where we are now. Did they ever come apart? So we're on the second category you mentioned and it seems to be overcoming the first category. Absolutely, absolutely, yeah. You know, I was telling you before the show, my understanding, and I don't know if Peter has the same contact with this issue, is that at the outset, you know, the deal was, we will give you tax exemption. We won't tax you for your properties. We'll kind of leave you alone. And this doesn't, it's not limited to religion. It's all viable nonprofits, I guess, but religion was the first big nonprofit. You can think of. We'll leave you alone, just stay out of our government. Stay away from trying to force your religion on others and on public policy. And that's the deal. It's a compact we make in underlying the First Amendment. But we've given that up somewhere along the line. And I suspect it's relatively recent where we have dropped that. So still the churches get all these tax exemptions and special benefits. Government leaves them alone largely. That doesn't regulate them very much. And they in turn now, they have forgotten the compact and they're going actively and try to force public opinion. And I'm thinking of, you know, the Roe v. Wade, the Dobbs case where the church has been, you know, heavily involved. I'm thinking of, oh yeah. Of course, gay marriage, same sex marriage, big one with the church, heavily involved. And in the state of Hawaii, death with dignity, heavily involved. The church has, you know, opposed that in every which way for 30 years. It took 30 years to get the bill passed. And then it was like Swiss cheese anyway. So all the lobbying over the language. So what you have now is not the compact. It's different. And religion has taken a huge swath of public opinion, including heavy political issues as we see. Oh yeah. Oh yeah. I mean, since the 1980s, since the Reagan era, that has been the case. Wheeling back a little bit before that, you know, church state jurisprudence really only gets going in the mid 20th century, right? It's only in 1940 and 1947 that the religion clauses begin to be applied to the states. And after that, you have a period of, through about the late 80s, when that Noah Feldman calls, you know, the age of legal secularism, when there was a strong separation of church and state and what was new about it really, Protestants had always believed in the separation of church and state. It's just that they applied it to Catholics. To them it meant separation of Catholicism. What happened at that time that was so disruptive to white Christian America was that the establishment clause started to be applied against them. So you couldn't do their prayers and their hymns in the public schools. And their moral point of view was no longer to reign supreme. So that went on until the late 80s and then it fell apart with the rise of the religious right in the Reagan era. Yes. So something has definitely, definitely changed. You, can I just drill down a little on what you said that rise of religious rights in the Reagan era. The religious right. Yes. So how did that happen in this country? What were the forces and vectors and considerations that made that happen here? Yeah. The popular narrative about how that happened is it happened in response to Roe versus Wade in 1973. But historian named Randall Balmer has written, I think very convincingly that it's deeper roots are actually in desegregation. That when schools began to be desegregated, you started to see, especially in the South, the rise of what's many people call segregation academies. And they were Christian academies, right? And they were getting, they were not getting tax funding at that time because they were religious schools. And it's that that Ronald Reagan appealed to when he has in his famous meeting in 1980, when he speaks before the minister's association, he says, I can't, I can't, no, let's see. He says, you can't endorse me, but I can endorse you. He's really referring to those segregation academies wanting to get tax exemptions. That's what really started it. He doesn't mention abortion. And in fact, abortion doesn't come into it until later. So there's a strong strain of white supremacy right from the beginning, even though, by, I don't know, the late 80s or the 90s, they're starting to dis-identify with that. They're pushing that away, but I do think that is the real origins. I wanna come to your class. We'll do, we'll do, there's room. Come on in. So, okay, so now, you know, it's very interesting because in this phenomenon, or this combination of phenomena, you have very strange results where one religion wants to get on top and push down other religions, you know, the Jews will not replace us. Yes. Or this thing about, you know, in the case of Dobbs and Roe v. Wade, there are parts of the Jewish religion that say abortion is good. You need to do that. The rabbi will advise you to do that. An obligation to do that. You're required. If the woman's health is at risk, Jewish law says you are required. You're required, yes. To have the abortion. It's not even a choice. If the woman, her life is at risk, boom, then you do it. Yeah, and there's no rabbi, no orthodox rabbi. Yes. Pearson would not disagree with that. The other thing is this is, aside from being racial, maybe race is geographic. You know, if you look at the blue and the red and there's so many interesting overlays between, you know, the states, you find that, you know, religion is practiced differently in different places in the country. I know that's not a perfect statement, but you know, I think if you went into the red states in the South, religion would be seen differently. How did that happen? And what does that mean to us? Well, some of it is about, of course, the Civil War, you know, and the regional differences that come from that. I think in a broader sense, there are parts, it's not just that there's rural and urban, right? We know that's true, but there's also mobile and less mobile. So there's, you know, city folk, like I assume us more or less are that, are very mobile. We've lived in a lot of different places. In the Midwest and in the South, you much more commonly have folks who really identify with their place for generations. And so I think that race or ethnicity and place are more deeply connected for some people than for others. And I think that is a fundamentally sort of conservative impulse. It creates a fundamentally conservative impulse. I think it's a different religion. There are different religions also, look, they have different biologies. People practice them differently. And I think that's one of the issues that we have to deal with. Most Americans are religious among them, but they define religion different. And that's an important element. I think that Reagan was able to appeal particularly to the evangelical obsession with the martyrdom of Christ and a lot of the discourse. That's not, you don't have that ingenious. You don't have that in Islam or Buddhism. So I think in this discussion, I absolutely agree with everything you said, Cap. I think we also need though, to using Jay's term drill down a little bit and see what in this congregation, how do they understand religion? Therefore, how do they understand religion and somebody else? So for example, if you looked at Shrubb Bush's congregation, it's multi-ethnic multiracial in Texas. Some of the most multiracial institutions are evangelical churches. So we have to begin to think about what does that social environment need to those people and how they perceive religion? What do you think, what are your thoughts about that, Peter? Well, my thoughts are very much partially along your lines of where people have lived. I think it's one of the reasons, religion is very important point. Spirituality is very important point. And it has a lot to do with Christ. Actually both reasons, both reasons. I know living here a long time, but also people moving and feeling alien. And there it serves a very social, I don't want to be reductionist functionals, but it serves a particular purpose. Also it enables you to connect with co-religiousness elsewhere, like we've seen in the white Christian nationalism. Why should a subwoman in Idaho care about hunger? Right, which is what we're seeing. Okay, so that's part of it. And I think in a way it gets back to Jay's initial question, and what you said originally, that for some religion is a separate sphere. And they practice their religion that much. And they don't have any particular connection. Look, it's the old beer, the Pope and Roman Catholics, right? Kennedy even had to deal with that. So the part of it is your identity as a religious person, meaning what does religion mean for you? All right, so are you Orthodox? Whatever the Orthodox is. In the book, the direct reading of the book. Okay, but having said that, you could be Orthodox too, and not really care about the rest of the book. Right, the Orthodox Jews don't, I mean, Jay and I are infidels as reformed. Okay, so part of it is an intellectual exercise, relationship, look, okay. And I think going back to Jay's original question, the difficulty is the founding parents left us right in the middle. I mean, the French Revolution was clear. You need to have a secular society. And France has always been this way. And part of the backlash against Muslims is the Republic is secular. Well, the founding parents didn't quite go in that direction. They didn't envision. Would you say more about your thoughts? I think some of them would have, but they get for a whole variety of reasons. The fact that most white Americans in the colonies were very religious, they came here, right? They came here for it because they were persecuted in Europe. You know, some were persecuted. Some didn't get what they wanted, they wanted it. But this is an equal persecution. I mean, yes, it was persecution in France, certainly and in Britain, but not everybody here was put in jail for it. Not at all. They did have though, it's the way that most Americans have always thought it was a tabula rasa. So Native American people, most Americans have always thought it was a tabula rasa. So Native Americans had no religion. This was a blank slate. But what the founding parents had then, and Jay, we talked about with this, with the Articles of Confederation, there's kind of a state's rights to religion, right? I mean, Catholics were in Maryland. There were not a lot of Catholics outside of Maryland. All right? You're not a lot of Quakers. Right. So I think we're still dealing with the fact that from the get-go, as Kat said, religion was centered, in that case, it was on a colony. And from the get-go, there was no real way to legislate that separation. So I'm gonna be the pain in the tushy and say religion and politics have always been integrated. Yeah. You would not have the abolitionist movement without Christians in the North. Yeah. So in a way what we're dealing with is, do I have the right to deny you an alleged right? But the abolitionist quite clearly said that's not a kosher right to enslave somebody, enslave somebody. But the debate about thought was right is who gets to call what is the primary right according to religious terms. So we talked about this last time. We have to get out this way in which it's kind of a zero-sum game. Yeah. If it's only... I think there's three things to consider to connect the dots on this. And make it sort of get a comprehensive on it. Number one is, where did it start? Number two, we've covered that to some extent. I think we could spend a lot more time covering that. We're sharing it. And the second is, where are we now? We're talking about that now. And we have yet to talk about some of the religious religion cases coming out of the Supreme Court. But the third is, and to me, this is we really need to spend at least a little time on this. That is, where is it going? It's one thing to make your religion superior to the next guys and have your religion affect public policy more than the next guys. But then inherent in that, in the dynamic is bigotry itself. We get back to pogroms and harassment and beating people up and having violence over religious arguments. It's also just the role of the die. It's the role of the die at six to three. In 35 years, it could be six to... I mean, that's part of the problem with the decision. It's not only the court though. Not only the court. You know, one of the points we've discussed on this show, I think, is the inquisition, back in the 13th, 14th century, 15th century. The inquisition did not come from the royalty. It came from the people on the street who were bigots because they were envious maybe of other people. And the royalty realized that this was a political instrument they could use, this was a leverage point they could use to enhance their own power. So you get bigotry on the streets and then all of a sudden the government is using that as a political instrument. Anyway, so inherent in our discussion, I think should be where is this going? It's not just the courts, it's everybody. I agree. Go ahead. I was just gonna wheel back for just briefly real quick to what Peter was discussing interestingly about origins and stuff. It seems to me, in Europe, the arrangement at the time that the American colony started was not disestablishment of religion, but regional establishments, right? So if you were in Germany, you were Lutheran. If you were in Spain, you were Catholic and so forth. If you were in Great Britain, you were Anglican or else you were like marginalized. And what those who migrated and settled to the US did essentially was set up regional establishments also. So religion was regionally established. In most cases, New York was sort of an exception, but either in a smallish way that you had to say you believed in God or in a very big way that you had to belong to a church. So it's Roger Williams, right? In the 17th century who comes up with the metaphor of separation of church and state, the wall and the garden. And that was a very, you know, there had to be a wall of separation to protect the garden, the church, from the wilderness. That was a very controversial statement. I mean, Williams gets kicked out of Massachusetts for that. But, and Williams' idea gets picked up, of course, by Thomas Jefferson who famously repeats that metaphor. I mean, then later by the Supreme Court, picks up that metaphor. The only thing I really want to say about that right now is that when you speak of religion as separate from government, you are deciding in how you use the word religion, you're deciding what government should and should not do. Right, you're deciding who gets to be a citizen. It was a citizen and on the flip side of it, what is the role and what are the limits of government? What I want to say, though, is that the word religion, it's not a natural category at all. It's really a regulatory category, posing as a descriptive category. Religion isn't naturally defined with certain boundaries so that some things are religious and some things are secular. We are making that boundary over time and in history for certain purposes, some of which are wonderful for people to claim their freedom and dignity, some of which are not so great like for people to claim special privileges, but the term is really best understood as a regulatory term and the secular is just like the fraternal twin of the religious. They are both, neither of them is a natural term. You have to come back to talk about that because that's the $64,000 question. Why do I get to claim my 501C is religion? That's right, there you go. And that gets back to your point about atheists, why atheism isn't a problem. That's a great topic, we've got to come back and talk about that. And that's linked for us to citizenship. I think that you state to give the founding parents some credit, right? We got to remember, as you said, most of all of them came from, except for Holland, they came from societies and policies in which there was an established church which did keep you out of politics, often kept you out of land, et cetera. So that way, Jay, you're right, they came here because very often, as we say about the Quakers, they came to do good and they did very well, thank you, because they didn't have economic opportunities. Yeah, and that's where I didn't get the notion of establishment clause. Before we talk about coming back, let's talk about these cases that have been handed down. So we have three to talk about. We have jobs reversing Roe v. Wade. We have the main case involving support to schools, religious schools, and we have the Bremerton, Washington case involving the prayer on the football field. And I also wanna talk about Cass' book and how that relates to all this. And this is all in a, of connecting the dots to see where we are going, okay? Kat, the floor is yours. So the cases are, as you've already said, we have them up there, yes, okay. Carson versus Macon or Macon, which is about religious schools receiving public funding in Maine. Kennedy versus Bremerton, which is about a football coach who used a religious freedom argument successfully to be permitted to kneel on the 50-yard line in front of a crowd and say his prayers. And then the third case that we've mentioned that's so important, Dobbs versus Jackson. Did I get that backwards, Peter? That's right. Dobbs versus Jackson. Dobbs versus Jackson. Dobbs versus Jackson. That reversed Roe versus Wade, which is, of course, in the eyes of the Court, actually, is not a religion case. It's very important to them that it not be a religion case because if it were religion, it could implicate the establishment clause. So to them, it's absolutely not about religion. And that's the clever, our station of the anti-abortionists to use science. And that's where we fill off And so when we decided, you know, viability or not as a scientific matter, then the court can feel comfortable. That's exactly right. Now here you see religion functioning as a regulatory term. What gets called religion, what gets called secular are really functioning to move power around. But let me comment on the ones that are specifically about religion. So Carson versus Macon, of course, is as you guys said, Maine has a limit on how, because the population is low, there's a lot of places that don't have public schools. So they have these schools that are called, that can be approved to receive public funds, private schools that can be approved to receive public funds. The argument became, I'm sorry, except if you were quote, sectarian. Sectarian is a loaded term, sectarian non-sectarian. Again, regulative terms that were used throughout the 19th century. And in the study of religion, those terms don't fly very well anymore at all. So the school said, well, why can't we, why can't we get public funds to send our kids to religious schools? And they used the religious freedom argument. What's interesting here is that the religion classes have become so unbalanced now. It used to be that establishment would place a curve on religious freedom and vice versa. Here, the very fact that Maine was not willing to fund religious schools because of its desire to comply with the establishment clause, their very concern with that was taken as an assault on religious freedom. So the schools, the religious schools win. In Kennedy versus Bremerton, again, the issue is religion on both sides. Kennedy, who wants to prey on the 50 yard line is making that argument specifically because it's religion. And the school is telling him he can't do it specifically because it's religion. And again, the change in the way the doctrine works is that 40 years ago, the school's concern with complying with the religion clause would be taken very, very seriously. Now the very fact that Bremerton was trying to apply the establishment clause, the very fact that they're trying to separate church and state is taken as evidence of discrimination against religion. And so again, he wins. I would say that the problem is the category of religion. I mean, that's where I go with this. Yeah, and I would have a less intellectual response that each of these are steps to dismantle what these people think is the great society. Yes, I agree. To remove the brick from the great society. I don't even think that McConnell cares about abortion. I mean, I think he cares about, you know, liberal, quote unquote, regulations and creation, et cetera. And I think he's gonna rue the day that he put justices on the court who made abortion such a big issue. You can even see him, he's backpedaling already on the midterms, as he knows. But I think a matter, and we can have a wonderful discussion about the great society. But you ask our students to give 10 criteria of the great society, eight or nine are attacked. Now, I think that are being attacked. And I think that connects the dots. Establishment as, you know, strict secularism, quote unquote. Boom, when that's right. You know, public health, boom. I mean, these are all assumed and voting. Let's look at voting. I mean, one of the most important elements is being impacted. So that, I can say Jay and Kat, that would be my wider view. Sure. Sometimes we need to, it's very important to build down, as Jay said, but sometimes I gotta step back a little bit. Yeah, these are completely right. You see this large pattern. And interestingly enough, of course, the large pattern is a minority view. Because people who support the great society or have benefit from the great society are overwhelmingly a numerical majority in our country. Well, yeah. And we have a very important and profound change happening, that's what we have. And, you know, it's really on the way. If you look for a trend here, you find the trend is the establishment clause, as we used to know it, is going away. I agree. And it's a question not only of law, but social policy and social sensibility is to whether it will ever come back. And, you know, usually these long-term trends, this is a long-term trend, are hard to reverse. So these cases, you know, may not go away for a long time. Even if the Supreme Court changes becomes more liberal, we still have a body politic. Can you talk about your book and how these things are covered in your book, Geth? Well, in America's religious wars, it's sort of an episodic history of religion in American public life. And it starts with, literally, it starts with Columbus, you know, meeting the Tino and saying, you know, oh, they have no religion, they'd be so easy to convert. And then there's a chapter on the founders, particularly Washington and Jefferson. And then I look at the 19th century between conflict between Protestant nativists and Mormons on the one hand and Catholics on the other. And then at conflicts over sacred land using the story of Theodore Roosevelt and Nicholas Black Elk as I twine their two stories together to discuss that. And then the next to last chapter is on creationism. This is a conflict that oddly in the United States is now a century old and doesn't go away. And there too, I argue that some of the underlying questions are really about race. And then the last chapter is about, you know, race, religion and science in conflicts over same-sex marriage. So it really covers a lot of stuff, but the thread is that there are these two discourses of separationist and foundationalist that work together in the first part of the republic. I don't mean they were, it was just or fair or coherent just that they did go together and then they come together, come apart after the civil war. In terms of church stature's prudence, my argument is that it is, I mean, this isn't happy news, but I think they are hopelessly incoherent the religion clauses. The problem with the free exercise clause is that the very thing that the religious adherent most needs is the thing that government can least afford to give, which is exemptions from laws that limit their practice of religion. So that's a paradox. And then the paradox with the establishment clause is that you can't disestablish religion, you can't separate church and state unless you know what religion is. But any definition of religion tends to establish whatever it defines. It's good to have an academic. So, I feel at home today, thank you. Oh, I'm so glad. So I mean, the upshot for me very simply is that these, the things we are talking about right now are very big questions of social ethics. And it's not that we shouldn't talk about religion, people's religious feelings and histories are very much a part of it, but they're deep questions of social ethics and that we have tried to manage through the manipulation of the word religion. And it doesn't do the job. It doesn't carry the burden of democracy adequately for us. So I think they need to be addressed as social ethics. Thinking historically, when do you find the modern use of the term religion? What period or race do you think that stands? Well, the modern use of the word religion as a generic category. So as a genus of which there are species, really the first thing in the West is the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. So ending or trying to end the religious wars, the leaders of Europe say, okay, so religion, there's more than one. There's Catholicism, there's Lutheranism, there's Calvinism, there's Anglicanism. There's four of them, you know? And Islam's right next door to them. Well, they're info, so they don't matter and Jews are heretics, so we don't have to. But the idea that there's a generic category of religion displaces the medieval idea of one true holy Catholic religion. So you see, Westphalia then is more a claim about religion than about nation-state? Well, I know it's both, it's both, right? And so what we see is that religion and nation-state right from the beginning. His ideas and ethnicity and race and all these are growing up together. Yeah, I'm connected, but like it or not. But Peter, can you tell us, how does this play in history is here to help? Now that we understand, or at least in part, we understand some of these things, what does it tell us? Okay, I want you to come back and talk about your new book, but we are running out of time, so okay. Jane, you just asked me to just quickly summarize nothing brilliant, but just sort of the takeaway. Okay. I think one takeaway from Kath is the need to sharpen our definitions and understand the history of those definitions. So rather than tossing around the word religion, we need to be more self-conscious about what we need, particularly when this seems to be a catch-all. And it's a catch-all in competition with secular. So I think it's a very important takeaway. And that's true here anyway. I mean, it's certainly true in Modi's India. I mean, what does Hinduism mean as a religion? So that'd be one important takeaway. I think secondly, that as Jay, you said at the beginning, things have changed. They are not the same way. And Kath has said, at least since the Civil War, that they've changed. And certainly from a reference to segregation, I would remind us of LBJ's famous comment when he signed the Voting Rights Act. He gave the pen to Martin Luther King Jr. and said, I just signed away the South. That's right. And I think that we're dealing with the legacy of Nixon and the white policy as well. We want to add though, the connections between ethnicity and religion in the North, right? And Irish Catholic, not to, no, exactly. And Chris Kirsten, president of our school, and it's not to, they're Jews who are saying, say gations as well, but the notion in the North as well that they're going to go together. And certainly, I think probably with not much optimism towards where we're headed. And not just, as you reminded us, Jay, not just 6-3 in court, but people's views in the streets. I see this as one more social civil war. As the abolitionist movement was, as the civil rights movement was, probably more so than Vietnam, because the anti-Vietnam sentiment was pretty reserved. OK, but certainly the civil rights era, and you can't find a bigger one. I'm a child in many ways in the 30s. That was the tremendous civil strife. But that's where I look. I look at the streets. The streets can be a problem. I mean, a woman's health clinic is going to be surrounded by people who support it. And people are shouting epithets at it. And the government is going to say, well, people shouting epithets have a right to be there. And the day is coming where the women don't have a right. That helps. This is very important. It's not particularly optimistic. But it is more important, perhaps, than the ordinary public discourse about the division in the country. I think so as well, because the one thing that Kat hasn't said, much of religious extremism is not just driven by racism, also by misogyny, also by attacks on it. I mean, we're not talking about men not getting by aggregate. So I think part of it. And I don't mean that in a simplistic way, but when you start peeling back, a lot of the attacks are on women, or women should just play a traditional role. But again, that's the new society, right? The new society is women in public office. The new society is women taking the pill. The new society is women having a choice. So that does worry me. The one point of optimism is a strange one for me, is states' rights. There are still a significant number of states which will do what they can to support the great society. So we may just be split again. We're literally split. Yeah, I don't feel we're in a time of enlightenment right now. Sorry. But I want to clarify one thing before we go. We're out of time, you guys. I want to clarify one thing that was said here before we go. I am personally not an infidel. I am a fidel. I'm a fidel. Very funny. Thank you very much. Cash change, Peter Offenberg. Get high on tech or not. There's no thinking allowed on think tech. OK. Thank you very much. We'll have you pass. Thank you. Really fun. Thank you so much for watching Think Tech Hawaii. If you like what we do, please like us and click the subscribe button on YouTube and the follow button on Vimeo. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and LinkedIn, and donate to us at thinktechhawaii.com. Mahalo.