so, thanks ronit, for bringing us all together. my current research project examines the fbi and its relationship to religion during the directorship of longtime director j edgar hoover from 1924 to 1972. the focus on religion in the project eliminates under studied yet vital aspects of the bureau's internal culture and practices, and how that ethos shaped the public perceptions of the fbi's political work, and in particular, the fbi's understanding and american understandings more broadly of the relationship between religion and national security. existing studies of the fbi have strongly dismissed the role of religion in the making at the shaping of the bureau, the role of religion has been more prominent in political histories of post war america, displaying how the cold war shaped americas religious thank you landscape. yet these studies of religion and the cold war tended to downplay the role of the nation's top domestic security force and the cold war watchdog that was the fbi. in fact, and not so often in this the starters,

will herbert was prodescriptive, not descriptive and to a large extent i think ronit's work sfeeks this more effectively by the time he wrote protestant catholic you in 1955 the structures itself is almost collapsed. it's almost a decade later that "time" magazine can ask on its cover is god dead, right, which in some ways points to how problematic it is that we sort of accept this idea of judeo-christian tradition, man, that's, you know, now really popular these days to invoke that, but as an historian i'm saying i'm not even sure what that means and i think also by the mid-1950s there's a range of other safe traditions that are banging at the door of the state in particular for resources and acknowledgement, right, so buddhist and hindus and atheists and evangelicals most importantly are sort of critiquing that structure, but even so historians, particularly those who don't do religion when they try to do religion they try to reference herbert and move on and i think that that might be part of why historians may be talking about it. it's connected to me which is it's really hard to te

i'm [inaudible] and i'm cheering i'm ronit stahl and sharing this roundtable today and i give you a brief

to a large extent i would argue, and i think maybe ronit's work speaks more to this directly, by the time herberg writes profit tent in 1955 it's all of most a decade later that time magazine can ask on its cover is god dead? which i think in some ways points to how problematic it is that we sort of accept this idea of sort of, you know, judeo christian tradition. man, that's, you know, now really popular these days to invoke that, although as a historian i said, i'm not even sure what that means. so i think that -- and also by the mid 1950s there are a range of other faith traditions that are banging at the door of the state in particular for resources and acknowledgments, right? so buddhists and hindus and atheists and evangelicals are critiquing that structure. but even so, historians, you know, particularly those who don't do religion, when i try to do religion they sort of reference herberg and move on. i think that might be part of why historians are ignoring it. the last thing i would say is it seems intimately connected to me also to teaching, which is that it's really hard t