Alan Keyes
June 13, 2002

ALAN KEYES, MSNBC ANCHOR: Welcome to making sense. I'm Alan Keyes. Up front tonight, the emotional first day of the U.S. conference of Catholic bishops. Victims of priest abuse got their way and one by one they spoke to the prelates, telling their story, as hard as it was, to a group trying to right the wrongs of the past.

MSNBC's Lester Holt has been following all these developments from his post at the bishops conference. He joins us now — Lester.

LESTER HOLT, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: Alan, good evening to you. Behind me right now is a candlelight vigil. Many folks who have messages they want to send to the bishops. Many of the bishops are meeting into the night, trying to draft the language.

Pardon me, I'm having a little feedback. I'm going to take this out for a moment.

They're trying to craft language right now that will be presented in the full bishops conference tomorrow. They will talk about it. The plan is to leave here with a vote in hand, a national policy, to deal with priest sexual abuse.

The session began an open session today. They did hear from victims. That was a late add, adding victims to be able to tell their stories in the open session. But it began with Bishop Wilton Gregory, the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, who looked at the bishops and said, collectively, we are also part of the problem.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BISHOP WILTON GREGORY, UCCB PRESIDENT: We are the ones — whether through ignorance or lack of vigilance, or God forbid, with knowledge — who allowed priest abusers to remain in the ministry, and reassigned them to communities where they continued to abuse.

We are the ones who chose not to report the criminal actions of priests to the authorities because the law did not require this. We are the ones who worried more about the possibility of scandal than bringing about the kind of openness that helps prevent abuse.

And we are the ones who at times responded to victims and their families as adversaries, and not as suffering members of the church.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOLT: They were strong words. They spoke to the issue of bishop accountable. But as we've been saying, that was never on the agenda, the issue of what happens when these guidelines go back to the various diocese, will they be accountable?

Will, as many of the victims' groups want, will they hold bishops accountable who did look the other way, or perhaps had knowledge of abusive priests and their diocese, but did not thing about it. Victims' groups have been pushing very hard for that. So far it doesn't look like they'll see that kind of language in the final guidelines.

The other thing, of course, the victims have been pushing for is absolute zero tolerance. They may get their way on that one. We've been speaking to members of this conference. They appear to be leaning in the direction of adopting, essentially, a one-strike-you're-out policy, that would apply not only to present cases of abuse, future cases, but also those in the past, including that single case of a priest who may have abused in the past and has since sought treatment. He, too, would be out, of the guidelines we suspect they may adopt here tomorrow.

Alan, the plan, initially, was for a show of hands, a hand vote. Now we understand that they will do a secret ballot tomorrow to adopt the guidelines.

KEYES: Lester Holt, thank you very much. Really appreciate that.

HOLT: All right.

KEYES: As the bishops try to clean things up, the scandal actually continues to grow. Today's “Washington Times” reports allegations that Dallas Bishop Joseph Galante protected two homosexual priests who frequented a pornographic Internet chat room.

Now, obviously, that raises an issue that has been hovering in the background, talked about somewhat, especially on some of the TV talk shows, but not really confronted directly by the bishops and others in responsible positions of authority.

The question of the contribution made to this whole scandal by tolerance for homosexuality, the culture of homosexuality within the church, and whether in point of fact that has made a major contribution to setting the stage for and contributing to the difficulties that we have seen coming out within the church over the course of the last months.

Obviously, a lot of the cases involving pedophilia and abuse did involve homosexual relationships. Nobody tries to pretend that's the only kind of sexual malfeasance possible, but it does seem to have been the one that was characteristically going on, and where folks were turning the other way, as serial abuse continued.

We have with us tonight the author of a book, “Goodbye, Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption into the Catholic Church.” Michael Rose is somebody who hasn't shrunk from looking at this aspect of the issue head-on, going into whether there is in fact a factual basis for this concern about tolerance for homosexuality within the priesthood and it's effects.

Michael Rose, welcome to MAKING SENSE.

MICHAEL ROSE, AUTHOR: Thank you so much, Alan. Thanks for having me on.

KEYES: Now, obviously you have thought about this very question, in terms of the contribution made by homosexuality to this crisis and the role that it played. What would you say is, in fact, the role of homosexuality? Is it a root cause here? Is it a symptom, in terms of the kind of problems that have emerged over the course of the last months and years?

ROSE: Well, I think the problem really is the gay subculture that has flourished in the seminaries over the last 35 years. And in my research, one of the obstacles to young men becoming priests in the Catholic Church has been the presence of that active gay subculture.

Often a young man will enter a Catholic seminary expecting to find wise, strong men, like Bing Crosby or Spencer Tracy. And what he finds instead sometimes are the Village People. At St. Mary's in Baltimore, for example, there were many students who recounted to me seeing fellow students and also faculty members actually gathering together to go cruise the gay bars on the weekend.

And if that wasn't bad enough, when the students complained about the gay subculture, oftentimes they were persecuted. They were sent to psychological counseling for being homophobic. They were labeled sexually disordered, and eventually expunged from the system.

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: Go ahead. I didn't mean to interrupt.

ROSE: Well, I was just going to add that what I found in my research, interviewing over 150 men who were in the seminaries, is that there's been sort of a reverse discrimination. There's been a systematic rooting out of the man who accepts the teachings of the Catholic Church, and especially the teachings on sexual morality. And I'm talking over the last three decades, or so.

KEYES: Let's stop there for a second, because to me it would seem kind of a shocking thought, not because of any prejudice about homosexuality, but because of the incompatibility between — let us face it, the sort of self-regarding understanding of human sexuality that is involved in homosexuality, and the understanding that is taught in Catholic doctrine, that sexuality must be seen in the context of God's plan for procreation of heterosexual relations, mother and father and child, building a family as God intended.

How on earth can these two things be reconciled? I don't understand.

ROSE: Well, certainly there's a disconnect. And what's happened over the last 30 years, especially in the late '60s, amid the moral confusion of the times, is that a liberal subculture, so to speak, has hijacked the Catholic priesthood in order to change the Catholic Church from within.

And the result of that is really an undermining of the moral authority of the church. The policies and actions of the last 30 years have their consequences. And I think we're seeing those consequences in 2002.

KEYES: Now, how can this come about — and I ask this question advisedly — one would think that you would have kind of pastoral guidance and discipline, particularly with respect to the seminaries, so that priests would be brought along in light of teachings that reflected Catholic doctrine and theology. Aren't the bishops playing their role, in terms of that kind of guidance and discipline?

ROSE: Well, historically speaking, in the last three decades, many bishops have not lived up to their responsibilities of making sure that their future priests are formed properly. I could use Archbishop Rembrandt Weakland as a good example.

He had — part of his education as a seminarian for 10 years was attending these homosexual workshops run by Father James Herman, who later went to jail for molesting a 15-year-old boy. And part of the problem is that ideological discrimination that I talked about.

But another aspect is the systematic malformation of conscience on matters of sexual issues, using explicit sex-ed textbooks that jettison Catholic teachings. These were routinely used, and advocated such things as not only homosexuality, but believe it or not, bestiality.

(CROSSTALK)

ROSE: I give several examples of that in my book.

KEYES: That would mean, though, that we're looking at this crisis, first of all — if we talk about homosexuality, it would seem to me then to be a symptom of a larger surrender of truth on the whole issue of sexuality. Is that what you're saying?

ROSE: Absolutely. And not only sexuality, but theologically speaking and philosophically speaking, too, there's always — the theology that was been taught in many of the seminaries over the last three decades has undermined Catholic teaching on a variety of issues, including sexuality.

KEYES: Quickly, Michael Rose, none of this is addressed in any way at the bishop's conference right now, right or wrong?

ROSE: You are absolutely right, there.

KEYES: So does that mean, in point of fact, what appears to be in a theological sense, the root of this problem, in terms of the abandonment of the church's teaching on human sexuality, is not even being looked at?

ROSE: Well, it doesn't seem to be looked at at all. And I think the crisis that the bishops face this week can't be solved in a couple of days, in 48 hours, deliberating over a bureaucratic policy. They need to start there, probably, but they need to go look deeper. They need to look into the seminaries, make sure that those who are in positions of authority in the church actually embrace the teachings of the church, and promote the Catholic morality. That's where they've got to begin.

KEYES: I would have to say in response to that, Michael, that that is also going to mean that we'll have to have bishops and leaders who actually embrace that teaching in the American hierarchy. We will see. I want to thank you for coming on tonight, and for the work that you have done.

Next, we're going to discuss the latest scandal and ask whether homosexuality is indeed corrupting the priesthood, and whether it reflects, as Michael has suggested, a deeper abandonment of the Catholic doctrine on human sexuality, here on America's news channel, MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: Let's get back to our discussion of the latest scandal rocking the Catholic Church, that a Dallas bishop allegedly protected two priests who frequented a pornographic Web site. This obviously points out in a dramatic way the role that homosexuality has played in the various incidents and episodes of this crisis that has beset the Catholic Church.

Joining us now to talk about this issue, Richard Sipe, the author of “Priests and Power, the Anatomy of a Crisis.” He's also a former Catholic priest. Also with us, William Donahue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. And Monsignor Tom McSweeney, religious analyst for MSNBC.

Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.

I'd like to start tonight with you, Monsignor Tom, because in talking to Michael Rose, he's kind of laying on the table head-on the notion that two things are true. One has to do with the promotion of a culture of homosexuality within the priesthood.

But the second, which I think gets to the heart of it, is a theological abandonment of the church's view of human sexuality, which is in the context of God's plan of procreation, not in the self-regarding context of pleasure. Is he right in this analysis or not?

MSGR. TOM MCSWEENEY, MSNBC RELIGION ANALYST: I think Michael Rose's book, even though the conclusions are absolutely devastating, it all rings very true. I was in the seminary myself in the late '60s and the early '70s.

And his account of what has happened since that time up to now, about a sort of subculture, a gay culture, having dominance over the minds and hearts of people, including, I might say, directors and the priest counselors, is very true. There is no disputing that a number of very, very good men have left the seminary because of the dominance of the gay culture there.

But what's really startling, though, is that the bishops weren't there looking at what was going on. There was no monitoring of what was going on. And we saw, of course, with the Vatican weighing in now in our current crisis, that there has to be a complete review of the formation process, and to have an examination of this.

And to get to your other point there, Alan, this is a crisis about fidelity. It's fidelity of the bishops and the priests to the teachings of the church and their solemn vows.

KEYES: Richard, I think we're seeing a portrait here of a crisis that is rooted in a certain understanding of human sexuality that is incompatible, in fact, with the teachings that the Catholic Church has represented across the centuries. Do you think that is a true analysis? Is this a bad thing? Is it in fact what is leading to this crisis?

A.W. RICHARD SIPE, AUTHOR, “PRIESTS AND POWER”: Well, of course, my study doesn't go as far as the analysis of the theological implications. My study is the study of behavior. My study is the study of a culture.

And in 25 years, I found that homosexually-oriented priests keep their celibacy equally as do heterosexually-oriented priests. The whole question of heterosexual behavior throughout the church with priests in the United States, and bishops — and around the world — has not yet been touched.

I haven't entered into this good guy/bad guy, “liberals are homosexual bad guys” and “rightists are orthodox good guys and heterosexual.” In my study it doesn't break down that way.

But it is a crisis. There's no question about it. Homosexuality is one of the elements in the crisis. It goes very high in the church. We know that it comes from the cardinals on down.

KEYES: But, Richard, my problem is that in terms of the things we teach our young people, for instance, as the Catholic understanding of human sexuality, there seems to be no compatibility between that understanding of sexuality, in the context of procreation, in terms of Christ's injunction about men and women cleaving to one another, that is that for the sake of which this aspect of our humanity exists.

How can this be made in any way compatible, with an understanding that even accepts the idea of a homosexual orientation, because that doesn't seem to be encompassed in the scriptural understanding of human sexuality?

SIPE: Well, the whole sexual agenda of the church has to be discussed again. The sexual teaching of the church has to be re-examined. It isn't that we have answers, but we do have too many questions. And we have questions about people's experience — both in and out of marriage, in development, and after divorce, after widowhood — that has to be addressed.

And the church has to discuss these things openly. Just as what is beginning in Dallas has to expand. Now, what's beginning in Dallas is only touching the symptom of the problem.

KEYES: Bill Donahue, I think we're sensing a very different understanding of these problems. Are we dealing with a situation where we need to essentially reconfirm the church's understanding of human sexuality in the context of God's will? Or, as Richard Sipe suggests, are we in need of re-examining in it in light of — quote — “human experience” in order to make some changes? What are we heading for?

WILLIAM DONAHUE, PRES., CATHOLIC LEAGUE: Well, I hope we don't need to re-examine, because I know what that is. That's code for changing. What we need to do is to reinforce the church's teachings on sexuality.

Let me tell you something. We're not going to re-examine the church's teachings on slavery, genocide, anti-Semitism and racism — why? Because we know that they're wrong. And my feeling is this...

SIPE: All of which the church approved at one time.

DONAHUE: Yes, well, thanks for the history lesson, fellow. Let me tell you something. If there's a Catholic teacher on a college campus right now — I don't care if it's a priest or a layperson — who doesn't accept the Catholic Church's teachings on human sexuality, on abortion and homosexuality, they have no business being there teaching, anymore than you would have a racist or anti-semitic priest or teacher.

The fact of the matter is, we are far more tolerant of people who teach the wonders of homosexuality and abortion on college campuses and indeed in the seminaries, than we do for those who are anti-Semitic and racist. If we start treating the people who think that freedom is genital liberation, the same way we do the bigots, we'll make some progress.

SIPE: You're talking about teaching and I'm talking about practice. What about the priests who impregnate women and then insist they have abortions?

DONAHUE: They're wrong. That's easy.

SIPE: What about the bishops who father children? What about the bishops and the priests who have mistresses?

DONAHUE: That doesn't contradict anything I just said. I said...

(CROSSTALK)

DONAHUE: We need to reinforce the church's teachings.

SIPE: We're not talking about teaching. We're talking about behavior.

(CROSSTALK)

DONAHUE: There are Catholics who steal, all right? You want to change the theology on stealing?

SIPE: We're not talking theology. We're talking behavior.

KEYES: Monsignor Tom, as I hear this discussion, I'm hearing one side saying that we reform practice in light of teaching, in light of the understanding of God's will. The other saying we reform practice in light of experience. Which can the church in fact do?

MCSWEENEY: I have been a great believer in the lives of the saints. I have read one individual after another who has gone through great difficulty, even with their own sexuality, and found a way to holiness through abstinence.

The issue has never really been about the nature of the temptations, whether it's a homosexual orientation or a heterosexual orientation. It has always been about the fidelity of one's resistance to those temptations.

It comes back again to the issue of fidelity to the sacred vow. And if we had fidelity, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

KEYES: Let me follow up on that. It seems to me, sometimes we talk about this too much in terms of what's being resisted, and not enough in terms of that to which one is surrendering.

I mean, isn't there, in point of fact, a positive element in all this, where one is deepening one's understanding of their relationship with God? And the joys, as opposed to the pleasures, that come from that relationship? Isn't that in fact the key to making progress here?

MCSWEENEY: Absolutely, and I'm sure the other guys would join in here. Once we resurrect the language of sin and grace, and we have tough love on disciplining our sexuality, each one of us has the opportunity to move towards holiness.

SIPE: I've written three books on celibacy, how to keep celibacy, how to practice celibacy. And what we're dealing with in Dallas is not doctrine. We're dealing with practice — how this practice of sexually abusing children escaped. How it was approved, how it was fostered. We're talking practice.

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: Hold on one second.

(CROSSTALK)

SIPE: Nobody in Dallas is talking about the value, the theological value of abusing kids.

KEYES: Hold on one second. That's not the practice. The point is, though, that the practice that falls away from the practice that corresponds to the church's teaching. I think what is being suggested, by Michael Rose and Bill Donahue, is that that falling away reflects a falling away from the positive, right understanding of human sexuality, that in fact supports the ability to put into practice the teachings of the church.

I mean, if you teach a secular sex education course that corresponds to the world's understanding today, that sex is about physical drives and — that it's about fulfilling oneself in some gratification, that responsibility means making sure you do it with a condom, and so forth and so on — you have abandoned the church's understanding of the God-centered nature of human sexuality.

Isn't that in fact the root of the corrupt practice, though?

SIPE: No, no.

DONAHUE: Yes, it is.

SIPE: No, the root is — what we're talking about is what St. Paul talked about. The good, which I approve and want. That, I do not do. And the evil which I do not approve, that, I do. We're talking about practice.

The practice of non-celibacy within a system that has claimed it is sexually free and perfect. That's what we're talking about.

(CROSSTALK)

DONAHUE: You know what he wants to do? Look, Sipe wants to lower the bar and I want to raise the bar. That's really what we're talking about here.

SIPE: Oh, Donahue, you're silly.

DONAHUE: You had enough time.

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: Let Bill talk now.

DONAHUE: Most gay priests are not molesters. But most molesters are gay. Now, do you agree with that, Sipe, or not?

SIPE: That's not what my...

DONAHUE: You didn't study that, I know. So you can't answer it.

(CROSSTALK)

SIPE: I spent 25 years at this. That's not what Fred Berlin's research shows.

DONAHUE: What do I care? I'm asking you a question. All you have to do is go in the “Dallas Morning News” and look at all the names of the priests who have molested. Everybody knows, as was said in “The Weekly Standard,” we're talking about the elephant in the sacristy.

The fact of the matter is, theological dissidence enables behavioral deviance. And we do have a gay subculture and we better root it out. And anybody who wants to have a gag order on this, who says you're homophobic for mentioning the obvious, is somebody who I think wants to shut down debate, like you do.

SIPE: If you're accusing me of wanting to shut down debate, I have written for 12 years.

DONAHUE: Oh, in your study.

SIPE: ... begging for debate. And it's people like you who have dismissed it.

KEYES: I would like to direct a question to Father Tom. Because as I listen to them go back and forth, Father, it seems to me that the key question with respect to homosexuality, different even than heterosexual sin — because heterosexual sin is a kind of misguided surrender in the wrong time under the wrong circumstances — to something that, in and of itself, is part of God's plan. And that pursued properly, in the right time and place and manner, is perfectly consistent with God's will.

But I don't see how homosexuality, in which one is essentially dealing with a self-regarding approach to sexuality, in which the whole sense of its being related to something that transcends oneself in the direction of God and his procreative purpose and intention — how can this in any way be theologically compatible with the church's understanding of sexuality?

In effect, we shouldn't even use the term. From a Catholic point of view, that is not sexuality. It's eroticism. And that kind of eroticism is, by definition, not part of what can be acceptable. Is that true or not?

MCSWEENEY: As healthy as you want to make heterosexuality in contradistinction to homosexuality, heterosexuality still gets people into trouble, Alan. It's, again, about resurrecting and renewing our vocation to fidelity, independent of one's sexual orientation.

This is what Cardinal McCarrick has said and there are many others who would argue right now that the issues that we're dealing with in the last 10 years, particularly, is really the fault — this is Gregory standing up today and saying it's the fault of us bishops. We're not attentive. We're not being vigilant. We don't have the moral courage to carve it out, as you wish us to carve it out.

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: We've run out of time.

MCSWEENEY: ... we have to turn to the bishops and say you have to do your job.

KEYES: Well, we've run out of time. But I think I have to tell you, last word, that I think that the problem here is that on the one hand, yes, heterosexuals have problems and don't do it in the right way, the right place, the right time, according to God's understanding. But in and of tself, there is a proper way to pursue that inclination.

To be quite frank about it, in terms of homoeroticism, there is no proper way to do it. There is no proper way to do it. And that means, insofar as one is even entertaining the concept, one is turning away from the theological and proper understanding of human behavior in this area.

And I think that is a major difference. Because if there's a correct way to do something, you can teach the correct way. If there isn't, then the very entertainment of the concept becomes a temptation to turn away from God, not just to turn away from this or that form of behavior.

And that's where I think the problem is. I don't think there's a full appreciation of the extent to which homosexuality represents a rejection of the theology of the Catholic church, not just as a behavior that is prescribed by Catholic doctrine. Just a thought.

Gentlemen, thank you very much for a very lively discussion.

Next, when it comes to religious advocacy, is the truth a good defense? We'll hear from the Rev. Jerry Falwell on why he doesn't apologize for the controversial comments about Islam that came out at the Southern Baptist Convention.

You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE.

Earlier this week at the Southern Baptist Convention in St. Louis, past president, the Rev. Jerry Vines expressed his blunt views on Islam. Here is what he said:

“Pluralists would have us to believe that Islam is just as good as Christianity, but I'm here to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that Islam is not just as good as Christianity. Islam was founded by Mohammed, a demon-possessed pedophile who had 12 wives, and his last one was a 9-year-old girl. And I will tell you, Allah is not Jehovah either. Jehovah's not going to turn you into a terrorist and try to bomb people and take the lives of thousands and thousands of people.”

Church leaders have backed the pastor. This from outgoing president, James Merritt:

“Christians and Muslims have fundamental differences,” he said. “The God they worship is a God of works and a God of fear. The God we worship is a God of hope and grace and love and mercy.”

Now Islamic groups have fired back, saying Vines's statements were bigoted and hate-filled.

Joining us now to discuss this controversy, the Rev. Jerry Falwell, chancellor of Liberty University in Virginia. Also with us, Ibrahim Cooper, the national communications director for the Council on American Islamic Relations, known as CAIR.

Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.

IBRAHIM COOPER, CAIR: Thanks for having me.

REV. JERRY FALWELL, LIBERTY UNIV.: Hello.

KEYES: Now, Reverend Jerry, I think a lot of folks would look at this statement and on the face of it think that that must be pretty offensive. How dare anybody say that, and so forth and so on.

How can you step up to defend what might fall on many ears as a pretty extreme formulation?

FALWELL: Well, I was at the Southern Baptist Convention in St. Louis I heard Dr. Vines make the statement, as did thousands of others, to a closed, by invitation, by membership only meeting of Baptists pastors and leaders nationwide.

He made a statement which he believed historically was a correct one, and as a matter — the idea of the word pedophile, I think, is very easily substantiated by all the Muslim historians — agree that Aisha (ph) was a 9-year-old girl...

COOPER: That's not true.

FALWELL: When he was 54 and married.

Well, go to Falwell.com and read the Web site.

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: Ibrahim, hold on. You will have your opportunity.

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: Let the reverend finish, please.

FALWELL: And so I was simply saying that while I have no idea whether the man was demon-possessed or not — that's for somebody else to decide — I did hear Dr. Vines, who is a man of God, a great pastor, state some historical facts which he believes to be so, in a closed, private session of pastors.

I don't believe for a moment that there have not been hundreds and thousands of Muslim meetings where a Muslim cleric would say very strong things against Jews and Christians in their private setting, and that is allowed to them in a free society.

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: Ibrahim, hold on. Hold on, please. Hold on, I said. I mean it. Hold on. You just stop for a second.

I will ask the next question and give you the floor. Just stop.

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: There does seem to me to be one question I want to put to you before you start. This was, in fact, a closed session. Don't folks have the right freely to exchange views that reflect their faith in the context of closed meetings with their co-religionists?

COOPER: So the argument is that if bigotry is expressed in secret, it's OK, and that if other people express bigotry, that's OK?

I would ask Reverend Falwell, how did he feel when the artist did the crucifix in urine and put elephant dung on an image of Mary, and “The Last Temptation of Christ”?

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: Jerry, let him finish, please.

COOPER: This is the same way Muslims feel, and by the way Muslims are outraged when this happens to Jesus, because we believe that Jesus is a prophet of God, and we're outraged when anybody attacks a prophet of God, Jesus, Moses, Abraham or Mohammed.

And this kind of gutter debate is unworthy of men of God. It creates divisions between people, and I should tell Rev. Falwell, we're getting many, many messages from Baptist ministers, saying they're outraged that these statements were made.

The ADL today issued a statement, saying — condemning these remarks. It's not just Muslims who are condemning it, and all people of faith should condemn things that hand a victory to those who would divide religions and harm United States interests around the world.

KEYES: Well, see, one of the things, if I may now interject, that I think is important here, there are two different versions of pluralism that I think are at work.

One says that you don't get to say anything that might offend anybody else, even if it is in accordance with the views of your religions. And the other says you have to keep silent about anything that might hurt somebody else's feelings.

And I think quite frankly that the first version of pluralism is the correct one. It's supposed to be a robust, sort of noisy forum.

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: No one says you can't have religious debates.

KEYES: Let me finish. I didn't interrupt you all. Now let me finish what I have to say, OK?

The point is, that in the forum you stand and you state your truths.

Now, one of the main points that the reverend was making was a point that he believes that Christianity is superior to Islam and that it is not, therefore, a true religion.

In the Bible, chapter 14 verse 6, we have the following:

“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

Now, a Baptist is somebody who is enjoined to read that in a clear and literal sense, and that means that whatever else Mohammed might be, he doesn't offer the road to God or salvation, and even if that is offensive to Muslim ears, a Christian is required by the words of Christ to believe that Mohammed is a false prophet, because he doesn't stand for Christ as a way to God.

Now, Ibrahim are you saying...

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: Are you saying that you can't do that? You don't have a problem with that?

COOPER: I have no problem with that at all. I don't mind if a Christian comes to me — I was a Christian — if a Christian comes to me and says I'm a Christian. I want you to become a Christian, and here's why I think you should. Muslims love these kinds of religious debates. We probably love them more than anybody, but...

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: Jerry, stop a second. Stop.

COOPER: ... gutter attacks against the prophet of 1/5 of the world's population, some debate is beyond the pale, and this is it.

As Rev. Falwell...

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: I ask him, does he think it's freedom of speech to put a crucifix in urine.

KEYES: Ibrahim, wait. Now, Ibrahim, hold on a second.

I frankly will answer for him. Yes, it is.

But Jerry, let me ask you a question, because I think it's particularly offensive to Muslims, would be the phrase demon-possessed.

Now, in a way, when you were talking about that...

FALWELL: I understand...

KEYES: No, let me — I want to cross-examination you for a second here, because there are passages in the scripture where Christ says pretty basically, I'm doing some supernatural things here, I am either doing them by God or by the devil. You don't have it in betwixt and in between. And since I am not doing them by the devil, it must be from God, et cetera.

Now, if that is true, if that's the way you have to discern it, Mohammed comes along — from a Christian point of view, he is falsely saying he offers a road to salvation, and he supports it with supernatural acts.

What, according to Baptist theology, must be the origin of that supernatural power? Is it God? I'm directing it to Jerry Falwell.

FALWELL: As a Christian, of course, the answer would be, that we would think that that's satanically inspired.

KEYES: Now, that means that instead of backing away, what Rev. Vines was stating, therefore, was, from the point of view of Christian theology, a necessary and accurate conclusion about the source of Mohammed's supernatural power. Yes or no?

FALWELL: Yes. To a closed meeting of fellow pastors, thousands of them, that you attended only by membership and by invitation.

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: We're out of time in this segment. We're going to come back, and Ibrahim, I will come right back to you when we get back, but we've got to take a brief break here.

And later we will have my “outrage of the day.” A lady who was told not to report the shoe bomber? Think about that.

You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: We're back with more from the Rev. Jerry Falwell and Ibrahim Cooper.

I want to go right back to you, Ibrahim, because what I walked through with Jerry Falwell was meant to demonstrate that the description of Mohammed as a demon-possessed individual was not just a pejorative. It was actually a consequence of Christian theology and understanding the source of supernatural power for someone who, according to Christian theology, does not respect true prophecy, and therefore is not getting their supernatural power from God.

Now, you can disagree with that, you can dislike that, but is it right to characterize that as hate-filled and bigoted when in fact it's just an accurate reflection of theological view?

COOPER: No. As I said, we have no problem with theological debates. And we would agree, there are theological differences between Islam and Christianity and Judaism and Hinduism, but let's keep it at a respectful, dignified level. Let's not engage in this gutter kind of dialogue that incites people to violence.

Today we issued a news release about a mosque that was vandalized in California, where the derogatory remarks similar to the ones by Mr. Rev. Vines were put on the walls.

KEYES: I understand. Ibrahim, but what I think I have just demonstrated, and this is what I'm asking you about, is that the description from a Baptist point of view of Mohammed as a demon-possessed individual is not intended as some bigoted hateful pejorative.

The belief in the devil, in Satan, in demons, in those who represent Satanic powers, is not a pejorative belief, it is a reflection of the factual, scriptural world view of people who are reading the scripture.

And as I just showed with Rev. Jerry, when one walks through the necessary consequences of that theology, one must conclude that Mohammed's source of supernatural power was not God but instead was sourced with Satan and demons.

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: But it is not based in hate. It is based in theology, and you just said that theological disputes can be conducted.

COOPER: The hate mongers out there, the ones who are predisposed to violence, that small minority of the population, they don't make these hair-splitting subtle distinctions. They hear demon-possessed. They hear pedophile. They hear Allah making people kill thousands, and they do what a man did in Tallahassee, Florida — put propane tanks in his pickup and drive it into a mosque.

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: Yes, reverend, go ahead, reverend.

FALWELL: I want you to assure you that Dr. Vines is no hate monger. He is a loving man of God who pastors a huge church in Jacksonville, Florida with black, white, Orientals — the largest church in the south. And he has a long, long history of preaching the love of Christ for all men.

They reach out to Muslims there. They've led many Muslims to Christ in that area. I assure you, he is not a hate monger.

Now I do understand how you...

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: He should stick to preaching love and not hate.

FALWELL: I do understand, Ibrahim, how those words, as you just said, can be taken by persons who are less literate in theological matters and can build upon them.

But that is not what Dr. Vines had in mind, and he felt he was speaking to a closed conclave of his own movement, of which he has been the president twice. And I know that he has never said that at his pulpit at Jacksonville First Baptist.

KEYES: Now, Jerry, in that context, however, speaking to the pastors, wouldn't he then assume that his words would be taken in the theological context and in a responsible way?

FALWELL: Totally and entirely. The seminary leaders were there, the teachers were there, the pastors were there — the leaders of a 16 million movement in America, 47,000 churches, were there. And I can assure you that he assumed that — you have not — there is no record of him ever saying what he said there at First Baptist Jacksonville or at any other public service.

COOPER: I find this argument unbelievable...

KEYES: Gentlemen, we are at the end of our time.

I have to thank you both for coming. I made an attempt here, by the way, to make sure we had a discussion, not just talking over each other, because I also wanted to illustrate for my audience that there is in fact a rational approach of trying to understand here, and I think that we could reach a better understanding if one understands the real purpose and context of Rev. Vines remarks, which I hope I helped to do here.

Next, my “Outrage of the Day” — an airline worker told not to report her suspicions about the shoe bomber? Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: Now, time for my “Outrage of the Day.”

The American Airlines dispatcher who helped guide the flight carrying the suspected shoe bomber to a safe landing in December, alleged in a whistleblower complaint Wednesday that airline supervisors interfered with her during the incident and threatened her afterward.

Julie Robichaux, a 12-year American employee, said she was subject to intimidation, threats and disciplinary action after criticizing the airline's handling of flight 63 in December.

Now, the president has said we've got to be vigilant and involved in the business of our own security. This is somebody who tried to do so and gets smacked down. That's outrageous. That's my sense of it. Thanks.

“THE NEWS WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS” is next. I'll see you Monday.