Is the Pledge of Allegiance Unconstitutional?; Is Cyberspace Open Space for Terrorists?
CAROL LIN, HOST: Hi everybody. We're going to talk some more about the Pledge of Allegiance and whether Michael Newdow had the point when he filed suit over the words "under God." I know you're going to weigh in on that. And also the Supreme Court OK'd school vouchers. Now teachers unions and public school officials are reeling. So should taxpayer dollars be used for private education? We're going to talk about what investigators also found inside al Qaeda computers. Is cyberspace a weak spot in America's defense against terror? I know you can't wait to talk about that, either. And we're going to be talking a lot about that on TALKBACK LIVE.</s>UNIDENTIFIED GROUP: I pledge allegiance to the flag...</s>UNIDENTIFIED GROUP: ... of the United States of America...</s>UNIDENTIFIED GROUP: ... and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God...</s>LIN (voice-over): Emotions erupt like the Fourth of July after the Pledge of Allegiance is ruled unconstitutional.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It seems like we've lost our freedom as a country to express our feelings about God.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I hope my grandma doesn't see this, but I don't think you should make kids talk about God in school.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It says "under God." It's religion that I don't agree with, and there's not suppose to be religion at all</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're a dead man walking, man. Somebody's going to kill you.</s>LIN: Also: school vouchers get a nod from the Supreme Court.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This was the Super Bowl for school choice, and the kids won.</s>LIN: And is al Qaeda poised to use the Internet as a tool of terror?</s>LIN: Well, the whole country is riled up over those powerful little words "under God." The entire Senate showed up for morning prayer today and nearly a full House recited the Pledge of Allegiance.</s>CONGRESSPERSONS: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.</s>LIN: Well consider this, even soldiers fighting in Afghanistan have weighed in on the decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to expel the Pledge of Allegiance from schools. And Michael Newdow, the man whose lawsuit fueled this firestorm, is getting death threats. Newdow makes this point.</s>MICHAEL NEWDOW: The issue was whether or not government should be putting this stuff in the middle of the school. If it were "one nation under Mohammed," would everyone say, oh, that's fine, just don't say it, to all their children? I doubt it.</s>LIN: Everyone is so ready to talk about this. Let's talk about our guests. We're going to be joined shortly by California Republican Congressman Chris Cox. He's getting wired up right now; and Reverend Barry Lynn, Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. He's an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ. Good afternoon Reverend Lynn. Thanks for joining us.</s>REV. BARRY LYNN, AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE: Nice to be here.</s>LIN: Lay out your opinion on this. What was your reaction to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals?</s>LYNN: Well, frankly I think it's a good decision. I think it's one that understands very clearly that the right that's perhaps most important in our Bill of Rights is the right of conscience. Whether one person is offended or 500,000, this country does not have an orthodoxy and official position on religion, and we shouldn't. Back in 1954 when the Congress added the words "under God" to the pledge, they turned what was a powerful political and patriotic message into an affirmation of religion. It was a great Pledge of Allegiance. I wish we'd go back to it the way it was written in 1892 before these words were added. They turned it from something that unified to something that divided us along religious grounds. Now the gentleman who brought this case happens to be an atheist, but there are other people who are deeply religious who simply don't believe we should mix government policy and religion, and that Congress shouldn't be writing proposals that suggest we should believe in one particular God. I think that, frankly, some people have overestimated what this does. It does not stop any school child or any American from saying those words. It simply stops the schoolteachers in eight states in the West from adding it, reciting it, expecting children to recite it as well.</s>LIN: Reverend, we've got Lisa (ph) from New York on the telephone. Lisa (ph), what do you think about what the Reverend is saying here?</s>CALLER: I agree completely with the Reverend. I think that adding in the name of God into government things is divisive. I'm a religious person. I have no problem with my own beliefs and doing it on my own time, but when it comes to our school systems and our government, I don't think there's a place. I know this is a very sensitive subject, but I think it's very divisive to have that in there. I think we should go back, as the Reverend said, to the prior Pledge of Allegiance. I'm extremely patriotic, but even after 9/11 when everything was "God Bless America," "God Bless America," it sounded that it wasn't about that. That's a whole war. The whole thing, everything that's happening is about God and religion and how much violence can come from that.</s>LIN: Let's take a poll here in the room. How many people here agree with Lisa (ph) and with the Reverend right now, by your applause.</s>LIN: Yes, half-hearted, a little tepid. Let me bring in Representative Chris Cox, who's wired up now. Congressman Cox, what is your reaction to this? I would take it that you disagree.</s>REP. CHRIS COX (R), CALIFORNIA: Well, I was just very much surprised. For 10 years before I joined the United States Congress, I practiced law, and I thought I knew something about the law. And this decision came as a surprise. The Supreme Court has been asked before to consider questions such as this, and they specifically have mentioned both the Pledge of Allegiance and our motto, our nation's motto, "In God We Trust," and the Supreme Court has said that they don't think that this is an establishment clause problem. And so for this case to show up as it did rather surprisingly, I think it just caught everyone off guard. In the House of Representatives, of course, the Speaker of the House stands beneath that motto and, in fact, we start each day with a prayer. Legislative prayer has gone all the way to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court has ruled that it does not violate the establishment cause. So the question's really not so much whether it's a good idea. I think a lot of your participants in this discussion are reacting to whether they think it's a good idea or not to have this motto or to have God in the pledge, but rather the question is what's the law in this country, and can it be changed really</s>LIN: Well, can they? Because the Justice Department is reviewing this decision, and pressure is going to be on to make sure that if this does go to the Supreme Court, that the government's position is loud and clear on this, or at least the Bush administration.</s>COX: Well, that's right. And of course the first-named defendant in this case was the United States Congress, and so I'm a defendant in the case. And I expect that the United States Congress will join with the United States Department of Justice in petitioning for a rehearing of this case. I think it's extremely likely that the case will be reheard by a bigger panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.</s>LYNN: No...</s>LIN: Go ahead Reverend Lynn.</s>LYNN: One of the things the Pledge of Allegiance was said by members of Congress, some members of Congress yesterday, but not everybody showed up and in fact it's very rare for members of Congress to show up for the pledge or for the prayer that's given by the chaplain of the House that we pay, I think, $150,000. So it strikes me just a little bit without commenting personally -- I don't know the congressman terribly well about what's in his heart, but I did find it odd that yesterday virtually nobody showed up for the prayer or the pledge and now today when they know it's going to be on television all day, they all show up. It just suggests to me and I hope I'm not being too cynical here, that a lot of members of Congress I regret to say are playing politics once again with religion, just as they did two years ago when they were passing all these proclamations to post the 10 Commandments in every government building. I think their constituents probably would prefer that they obey the 10 Commandments, that they believe in their own conscience and not just show up and pray when they know they're going to be on television or when it suits some political purpose. That's how we got those words "under God" into the pledge. It was in the height of the McCarthy Era. Some people wanting to be politically correct in the time said you know, it's not enough to affirm that we're patriots. We have to say that in order to be a patriotic American, you really have to believe in God, and I resist that idea, and I think the tens of thousands of Americans who have served in peace and war in this country who didn't have a religious viewpoint are just as patriotic, should be able to say a pledge to their country...</s>LIN: But Reverend Lynn...</s>LYNN: ... without taking a position on religion.</s>LIN: ... what is so threatening about these two words, which frankly over time now, have been taken for granted as a matter of tradition. God is not necessarily a figure of religion, but really more a symbol of a greater -- a greater good that you may believe in. You know it could be your...</s>LYNN: Sure.</s>LIN: ... sports car in California for all I know.</s>LYNN: Well if I believed that, I would agree with you, but I think that every time we invoke the name of God we are saying something of importance that God never loses his true meaning. God never becomes just some kind of a word we use, a symbol. It is an important word. That's precisely why when we say "God is the leader of this country, overarches this country," that is something that is a religious comment. That's why Congress should never have got involved in this. It's not up to Congress to figure out what God we should worship, how many, whether there should be any. That is not the province...</s>LIN: All right...</s>LYNN: ... of the United States Congress.</s>LIN: ... Reverend Lynn, hold that thought. Congressman Cox, we're going to get you into the dialogue here. We're also going to be taking questions from our audience, but it's a quick time for a break. There are so many people waiting to be heard on this. We're going to take the polls of the people in Miami right after this.