MSNBC show
Alan Keyes is Making Sense
Alan KeyesJune 26, 2002
ALAN KEYES, HOST: Welcome to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
Two intense topics tonight. Later in the show, we're going to tackle an outrageous decision by a federal court today ruling that the recitation of the pledge in schools is unconstitutional. Yes, you heard that right. Unbelievable. But we'll get to that.
First up tonight, though, we're going to take another look at some of the reaction around the world to President Bush's proposal for Mideast peace. The reaction, some of them mixed and negative coming from European sources, have been coming from all around the world.
And earlier today, I spoke with former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and I asked him what he thinks of the lukewarm or negative reaction the European community is giving the Bush Mideast plan.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, FMR. ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: Oh, I think that President Bush has lanced the boil. He's actually said that you have to basically get rid of Arafat, something that I think is long overdue. And he also said that the next leadership has to follow certain criteria of responsibility and restraint, including the novel idea of actually introducing democratization into an Arab country. I think these are two very important ideas and they, of course, jar with the conventional wisdom that some of the European foreign officers have been fostering for so long.
KEYES: Do you think that the Arab leaders are going to follow through in response to the president's call in particular to cut off all support in all forms for the terror organizations that some of them have been supporting?
NETANYAHU: Well, I doubt it, but I think it's very important that the president of the United States put this so squarely and so clearly. This follows through his statement, you're either with us, against terror, or you're against us. And I think that he has - he's put down criteria that at least, at the very least, tells the Arab countries that they will pay a price, political or otherwise, if they continue to play a double game, to speak friendship with America while helping or accommodating or sponsoring terror on the side. That's not going to work.
KEYES: Well, one of the key questions that still I think remains and that was implied in the speech in terms of the need to address this problem of terror and get a leadership that's going to deal with it.
But the truth is that that problem, I think, goes much deeper than just the leaders. We're talking about a Palestinian population that has been indoctrinated by television and schools and other ways and hatred and violence and various ways. Is it realistic to believe that one is going to be able to build a security force truly capable of dealing with these terrorists out of that kind of material? Aren't the Palestinians really going to need some outside help in dealing with this challenge?
NETANYAHU: Absolutely. I think there's going to be a detoxification period. This society is so toxic it's more poison than any society on earth. I mean, you've got Arafat allowing kindergarten camps for suicide, for three and four-year-old Palestinian children — the glorification of mass homicide and the glorification of killing and blood.
I think that has to - that will take some time to weed out. But I think the first stage is getting rid of the regime that is sponsoring all of this and poisoning these hearts and minds. And the second stage probably is some kind of an arrangement by which Israel will take care of security absent a local police force - a police force as opposed to an army on the part of the Palestinians.
And probably an American-led effort to rebuild that society, not only economically but also culturally in terms of their educational system and of course politically, hence the novel introduction of democracy — a great idea. Probably, ultimately the only - the only cure against these — this mad militancy is the ventilation of the Palestinian and other Arab societies with the winds of pluralism and democracy.
KEYES: As we move forward into the future, would you see any possible substitute for Israeli forces in the event that as one is trying to develop some kind of Palestinian security force that's really untainted by terrorism? This is going to take a little while because it seems to me that as Israel has to act in its own defense, that does naturally lead to incidents and episodes that probably raise passion. Is there anybody else who could play that role of trying to help with security on the West Bank?
NETANYAHU: I don't know of anyone who will volunteer to do that because you'll put American soldiers or British soldiers or French soldiers at risk. They'll be blown up. And you have to be prepared to, frankly, to die. And I don't think there's a willingness of anyone realistically to do that other than those soldiers actually defending Israel. And I wouldn't want to call on any soldiers to defend on my country, but I think there might be a different dynamic here.
Since I think the days of the Saddam Hussein regime are numbered and since I believe the days of Arafat's regime are numbered, I think this actually may produce a positive seismic shock in the Middle East. The defeat of a terrorist dictator always opens up new possibilities, whether in Germany or in Iraq or elsewhere. It just creates a new dynamic.
I think that the toughness that free societies show, especially in this case America and Israel that refuse to knuckle under, that are willing to fight back, are willing to overthrow these regimes, are willing to also overthrow the lies pretty much as President Bush did I think magnificently the other night and say it like it is.
I think that that registers mightily on these populations. I think they'll understand the jig is up. They're just not going to be allowed to continue in a world where you bomb babies and you bomb buses, you bomb people celebrating Passover. It's just not going to be tolerated. And I think there are enough elements in the Palestinian society, even today, who realize that they have to steer towards a different course. Their numbers will grow with the overthrow of Arafat.
They will grow even more if the United States comes in with a package. These are tiny communities. You come in with a package, not a very large economic package and you say look, we will give you new roads. We will allow you to build your infrastructure. We will allow - we will give industries and businesses incentives. We want you to go through a different path, a path of peace and hope. This was done in a society as poisoned as Japan after World War II, a society as poisoned as Germany.
I don't say that this is what you'll have in the Palestinian areas or in Iraq. But I think you can have something more akin to Turkey. Turkey is a great success in that sense...
KEYES: Now...
NETANYAHU: ... perhaps could be other societies like that.
KEYES: ... obviously the president in his speech also laid down another track and that had to do with Israel's responses, talked about a provisional Palestinian state, talked about a three-year timeframe in which to negotiate a final settlement package and he talked about the redeployment of Israel forces as and when security allows. What kind of a timeframe do you see for these developments, which the president has outlined in terms of Israeli actions?
NETANYAHU: Well, I think he would — the withdrawal of Israeli forces when security conditions allow is something I fully subscribe to. I'd like to see that happen today, but I don't think it's likely to happen so quickly. But I think as we go through an evolutionary phase, as we overthrow the regime of Arafat, the terrorist regime and allow a civil society to emerge in the Palestinian areas, it will become possible. As far as the vision of two states, well, that's the vision of a lion and a lamb.
Actually, the Bible talks about a wolf and a lamb. But the president very clearly stipulated that the wolf has to stop being a wolf to get a state. I think that's a huge - a huge improvement on the blanket condoning of Palestinian statehood when the Palestinians clearly intend to use their sovereignty to destroy the one and only Jewish state. So I think putting these conditions, these points on the road, so to speak, are very, very important, and has never been done before and I think it's important that the president did that. When we get to that road, when we get to that point I'd love to be able to pick up the question...
KEYES: Now, there are several...
NETANYAHU: ... but I think we have a long road to travel.
KEYES: There are several sort of outstanding questions on the context of the president's speech that I think folks would be very interested in hearing your thoughts on, starting with the barrier that has been talked about that is being erected.
Do you think that that is still a part of what will be necessary to help to deal with this situation and deal with the security threat, to create the conditions that are necessary to move forward?
NETANYAHU: Yes I do. I think it's, actually the way to stop terrorism in the short order, is to overthrow the regime, clean up the areas, clean it up from terrorists and terrorist weapons and build a defense barrier. That's actually exactly what you're doing in Afghanistan. First, you knocked out the regime, the Taliban regime. Then you cleared out all the remaining pockets of terrorism and of al Qaeda. And thirdly, you're building a barrier. Of course, it's not a fence around Afghanistan, but it's a fence around your airports and your entry points into the country and so on. You're beefing up security.
Well, Israel is very close to the Palestinian area so the defensive border obviously is a lot closer. That defensive wall, if you will, I think should not be on the 67th line. It should be closer to the populated - Palestinian populated areas otherwise you actually bring the terrorists right close to our cities and you make Israel about 10 kilometers, 12 kilometers wide. That's not a country you can defend.
But aside from the question of the precise placement of that wall, I think it's one of the three elements needed to stop terrorism. The longer view that we talked about before, Alan, is the detoxification of societies, which I think in the long run is no less important and requires the movement towards freer societies, freer markets, all of the things that give people opportunity, a stake and a hope in their lives and the Palestinians certainly deserve that just as other people deserves that.
KEYES: Now one of the neuralgic points and it's been there in terms of U.S. administrations. It's obviously been a point that has been used and abused by Palestinian spokesmen and propaganda. This has to do with the Jewish settlements and once again the president alluded in his speech to the need to curtail that. What do you think is going to be the right way from Israel's point of view to address the issue of settlements in the West Bank?
NETANYAHU: I think these are disputed areas. They're not Palestinian-occupied areas. Even the U.N., which is not exactly known, the U.N. Security Council, which has never been exactly a hot bed of Zionism, to put it mildly, has never said that these are occupied areas. It has said that these are areas that, as you know, Israel was attacked from in 1967, and it is said that what Israel can do is withdraw to — from some of the territories, not the territories, to secure and recognize boundaries.
Now where those boundaries are is something that will have to be negotiated politically with a new Palestinian and responsible Palestinian leadership that abandons terror and abandons the goal of destroying Israel. And I think the issue of the settlements will come as part and parcel of that negotiation. Remember, too, that in these disputed lands that both Israel claims and the Palestinians claim and from which Israel was attacked time and again, remember, too, that the Palestinians are also building settlements all over the place. They're building, just expanding their communities.
If you take aerial photos of these territories from 1967 when Israel first entered them in self-defense and you compare them today, you'll see that the — there has been just as much and if not more Arab increase in population and in building and construction as Jewish. So I think this is an issue that will have to be resolved in negotiations.
I don't think it's the crux of the problem because the Arabs attacked us when we didn't have a single settlement there and when Arafat was offered all these settlements effectively or nearly all of them by the Barak government just two years ago, he put it in his pocket and he said well that's not really what I'm interested in. What I'm interested is Tel Aviv. It's flooding all of Israel with millions of Palestinians. So the crux of the conflict is not the settlement.
It's the result, if you will, of the conflict. The crux is of the conflict, the core issue is the persistent refusal and certain Arab quarters and certain Palestinian quarters to accept the state of is and any boundary and any line and that has to change.
KEYES: Do you think that the Europeans who have reacted, I think in my opinion, kind of badly to the president's speech in a way that really doesn't understand the requirements of the situation, but do you think that there is a role to be played by the European countries in helping to get to this future? What do you think that role might be and how does one get them into a more realistic sense of what's required?
NETANYAHU: I think you have to do what you have to do. You have to do that in Iraq and we're going to have to do it with overthrowing Arafat's regime. You just do it — like the Nike commercial. But in the second phase, I think that rebuilding the societies, the Europeans could have a major contribution if they so desire. They have rebuilt their continent with American assistance.
They could rebuild these societies with American leadership. You know one thing where I would start is to rehabilitate the remaining Palestinian refugees, which are kept as refugees by some in the Arab world and the Palestinians themselves in order to try to feed the fantasy of overcoming Tel Aviv. So one thing the Europeans could do is start — embark on an international program to rehabilitate the refugees in their locations.
For God's sake, Israel absorbed an equal number of Jewish refugees and we were able to absorb them on a speck of sand, one-fifth of one percent of the size of the Arab countries without the vast oil. I'd like to see the Europeans start the rehabilitation process of the Palestinian refugees. They have the experience of doing it and they certainly have the means to do it.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KEYES: That was my interview earlier tonight with former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Now we're going to be talking tonight a little further about the president's speech. There's been a wide range of reactions to it including, of course, follow-up from his own secretary of state and I have to tell you some of it, from the secretary over the course of the time since this speech has led people to think that maybe there isn't a clear sense of how to follow up on what the president had to say or a clear plan as to what to do to follow up.
Now that obviously raises some difficulties. Good ideas, good speeches, good rhetoric don't amount necessarily to good policy and good actions. What's necessary is the follow-up, the implementation. And in the early going, it doesn't look as if a whole lot of serious thought was given to what was required immediately to follow up on the words that the president spoke.
After all, a presidential speech isn't just rhetoric. It ought to be an action of state and that action of state requires that people speak with one voice, express and understand again what's going to be needed to follow-up.
Are we going to get that from Colin Powell's State Department? Is his heart in it? We're going to get to the heart of that matter with Peter Beinart of “The New Republic” and Terry Jeffrey of “Human Events” here on America's news channel, MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
U.S. CONGRESS: ... 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.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Those members of Congress today reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which has been in its current form for 48 years. Today a federal court ruled that inclusion of the words “under God” in the pledge is unconstitutional. Yes. A little later, we'll debate whether the three-judge panel is out of its mind.
A reminder that the chat room is busier than WorldCom's lawyers tonight and you can join in right now at chat.msnbc.com. But first we're going to talk about a simple question. Can Colin Powell deliver, will he deliver on President Bush's proposals for the Middle East?
Obviously I think he's not necessarily a man who's had his heart in the key elements of that proposal including the need to replace Yasser Arafat. Is he going to be able to make that turnaround and follow through on the tough steps that the president has taken?
Joining us to get to the heart of the matter, Peter Beinart, the editor of “The New Republic” Magazine and Terry Jeffrey, editor of “Human Events” Magazine. Gentlemen welcome to MAKING SENSE.
TERRY JEFFREY, EDITOR, “HUMAN EVENTS”: Good to be here.
KEYES: Terry, as sort of our witness today for the defense, I'm going to start with you...
JEFFREY: OK.
KEYES: ... because the president gave a speech the other night. Now I have been pretty clear on the show here in my own sense, that it was a pretty strong speech that had actually had, I think, a clear vision and principle of what the administration is up to including the need for a change in Palestinian leadership, for an institutional reform on the Palestinian side that allows them to be a valid interlocuter for the Israelis in the pursuit of an ultimate settlement that has to come within a certain timeframe and that involves Israeli reciprocity on redeployment and so forth as and when security permits.
I think that those things actually constitute a pretty clear sense of what the overall principles and goals of American policy are. The question that I have, though, is whether or not Colin Powell, who has throughout, fought against the key elements of this proposal, and who has, to tell you the truth, not in my opinion appeared very effective in the aftermath of the president's speech, whether we're going to see the kind of effective implementation that's going to be needed to turn this vision into a reality. What do you think?
JEFFREY: Well, Alan, I do not think that Colin Powell is just a yes man. I don't think he would have been in the Rose Garden the other day standing next to the president, listening to the president of the United States specifically saying that Colin Powell is going to be his lead agent in carrying out this policy unless Powell agreed with it.
And why would Colin Powell have reasonably changed his mind in the last few months? Well, I think the president has changed his views in the last few months and I think the reason why is because they've been confronted with some facts. Primarily, they've been confronted with evidence that the Israelis gained when they went into Ramallah that directly tied Yasser Arafat to the al Aqsa Marty Brigades who are responsible for carrying out many of the homicide bombings in Israel in the last few months and specifically last week, they got additional information that Arafat had recently given $20,000 to the Al Aqsa Martyr Brigades to commit that bombing last week outside Jerusalem.
So I think yes, there's new evidence that Colin Powell has to deal with, but I am sure he is committed to the president's policy.
KEYES: Well, see, one other thing that raised a question for me, though, Terry, is that when a president gives a speech like this, it's not just words on paper. Neither is it just a few minutes spent in front a camera and before the country. It's an action and that action has to be reflected in the mobilization of his executive resources, particularly on the diplomatic front to follow through with some clear understanding that's conveyed to the press and the public, that's conveyed to other leaders around the world that put some flesh on the bones of the vision that he has articulated.
I think the President's speech had the right tone. I have been really pretty disappointed in the kind of inchoate follow-up that we've gotten from the secretary of state suggesting he hasn't thought through the question of whether what happens when Yasser Arafat gets reelected, whether they're really insisting on a change in the overall leadership that gets away from terror, what the follow up will be in terms of security and so forth and so on.
If you want to make a presidential speech into effective action, you've got to very quickly follow up with the sense that America knows what it's doing and knows what is required of the different parties and actors involved. I didn't get that sense from Colin Powell. Where is his homework?
JEFFREY: Well, listen, I believe the president's speech was in action. He threw a trump card down on the Palestinians. He basically made them a proposition. He said you can choose Arafat, which means you're choosing terrorism, which means you're choosing against a Palestinian state.
On the other hand, if you choose to reject Arafat and Palestinian leaders who have been associated with terrorism and choose to form a democratic form of government, the United States will put the full power and prestige of influence and this nation behind the creation of a Palestinian state. So really now the ball is in the Palestinian's court and there's really not much the United States can do in practical terms ...
KEYES: Terry...
JEFFREY: ... until the Palestinians make their move and their decision.
KEYES: Now, Terry, I have to tell you that if Colin Powell had given that response the other day when I think Tom Brokaw asked him this question that I had just put in front of you, I might have some greater sense that he thought this matter through in a way that's consistent with the president's vision.
Peter Beinart, I think that the president did articulate a pretty clear vision and that Colin Powell ought to have something clear to work with in terms of his presentation to other governments, about what the United States both stands for and is insisting on and expects. So what do you think?
PETER BEINART, EDITOR, “THE NEW REPUBLIC”: No, I disagree. I think the speech was utterly incoherent. You can't both call for Palestinian democracy and say that the Palestinians can't have Arafat and, in fact, they can't have anyone compromised by terror when anyone who knows anything about that policy (ph) knows that the vast majority of people likely to be elected do, in fact, have links to terror. The reason Colin Powell can't follow up in any meaningful way is that there's no way to follow up. It makes no sense.
KEYES: Well, see, I would disagree. What we are basically indicating to the Palestinians, if they really are interested in making progress, is that you can't expect under the gun, led by a bunch of bloody thugs who go around killing babies and blowing up marketplaces and killing people with vicious nail bombs and so forth. Don't expect us to be involved with that.
You make your choices and we'll make ours. But if you choose that kind of terroristic thuggery, we won't choose to help you make the progress you need to make. That's perfectly within our right, and the president was very clear. You're right, a choice is then left to the Palestinian people. Are you saying they can't make that choice?
BEINART: I'm saying they can't make it the right choice under these circumstances. We have a long history over recent years of groups with a terrorist background including groups like the ANC in South Africa moving towards nonviolence and democracy.
What we know from those situations is you need carrots and sticks. Absolutely penalize groups that support - that support - continue to support terrorism. The problem with Bush's speech is because he's willing to put no pressure - I mean Benjamin Netanyahu, to be frank, Alan, hoodwinked you because he opposes the Palestinian state.
You should have asked him that. His party has explicitly come out against a Palestinian state and Ariel Sharon has a government that will never support a real Palestinian state. So how on earth can that government give Palestinians a reasonable chance of believing that if they do what Bush wants, they're going to get a real state of their own.
KEYES: See what I find interesting, Peter, though, is that you say he hoodwinked me when he starts to talk in terms that actually are open to the kinds of things that the Palestinians say they would like to see. I'm supposed to believe that's hoodwinking?
BEINART: No, because ...
KEYES: Let me finish please.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: I haven't finished my thought.
BEINART: Go ahead.
KEYES: I'm supposed to believe that's hoodwinking. And yet, when Yasser Arafat and his buddies are out there killing children and nail bombs and so forth and so on, and yet out of their mouths come words condemning terrorism and professing to be interested in peace, that's not hoodwinking the world?
Now let's get serious about this. It certainly is. And the question that's in front of us is whether any progress can be made if we expect the Israelis to sit down at the negotiating table while people are outside chopping up their children and their spouses and their sons and daughters in little itty bitty pieces. And yet, they're suppose to sit down and talk peace ...
JEFFREY: Alan ...
KEYES: ... with people who are professing ...
(CROSSTALK)
BEINART: Let me respond to that. We also can't expect - you also can't legitimately expect moderation to succeed amongst the Palestinians when people are locked in their homes. How are you going to call an...
JEFFREY: Peter ...
BEINART: ... when people can't even get outside their homes and move from one town to the next.
JEFFREY: Peter, you can expect ...
KEYES: Go ahead Terry. I'll respond to that in a minute.
JEFFREY: ... you can expect basic morality. Listen...
BEINART: On both sides.
JEFFREY: ... Arafat is personally responsible for teenagers going into Israel and blowing up innocent civilians. You cannot deal with someone like that. Basically the implication what you're saying is the United States ought to back giving a state to someone even if he's...
BEINART: No.
JEFFREY: ... a terrorist.
BEINART: No. That's exactly what I'm not saying. What I'm saying is if the United States wants, and I dislike Yasser Arafat as much as you do. If we want better leadership for the Palestinians...
JEFFREY: But you would give him a state.
BEINART: ... we have to show them that there's a real prospect for a state.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Wait a second, Peter.
JEFFREY: .. the president of the United States.
KEYES: Wait. Wait. Terry, wait a second.
JEFFREY: Sure.
KEYES: Peter, listen to me. I find this all very interesting, but it kind of forgets the history a little bit. Yasser Arafat in an interview in “Al-Haaretz” (ph) the other day actually reminded us of that history when he said that he's sorry that he didn't accept the proposals that were made at Camp David and then at Wye that in point of fact would have - would have established a Palestinian Authority sovereignty over most of the West Bank, would have had Israeli withdrawal and so forth.
He professed to believe that that would now be acceptable. He unleashed this reign of terror when in point of fact there was a ...
BEINART: But Alan, Alan...
KEYES: ... willingness to give him what he wanted. Now, Peter, you're saying to the world after that performance, let's do it all over again ...
BEINART: No ...
KEYES: ... with the same thug. Why?
BEINART: ... that's exactly what I'm not saying. Listen to me.
KEYES: On what grounds?
BEINART: I'm saying do it with a better Palestinian leadership. But, Alan, did you support Ehud Barak's offer? Did Benjamin Netanyahu? Did Ariel Sharon? Of course not. You can't — Arafat wasn't the only person who opposed...
KEYES: I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Peter.
BEINART: The people on your show opposed him as well.
KEYES: That begs the issue in terms of Arafat's behavior. He unleashed this bloody war...
BEINART: No, it is exactly the issue because the question is ...
KEYES: He unleashed this bloody war on terror...
BEINART: ... you have people on both sides who do not support that deal...
KEYES: ... when he had that offer on the table. Terry, very quickly, go ahead.
JEFFREY: Well, let me just flip this around. The president of the United States before the whole world yesterday said the United States would be committed to the creation of a Palestinian state. You have Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu, maybe the two toughest guys in Israel at least implicitly, if not explicitly accepting the...
BEINART: You're wrong ...
JEFFREY: ... president's ...
BEINART: Netanyahu opposes the Palestinians. He said so explicitly.
JEFFREY: He ...
BEINART: Get your facts straight.
KEYES: Peter...
JEFFREY: He did not say that.
(CROSSTALK)
BEINART: He went back to Israel to orchestrate a ...
KEYES: Peter, Peter...
BEINART: ... vote against the Palestinian state.
KEYES: Peter, you're willing to accept the notion that Yasser Arafat, who's out there killing people is actually seriously interested in ...
BEINART: No. Why do you keep saying that?
KEYES: ... peace, blowing him up with nails and stuff.
BEINART: I've explicitly said the opposite.
KEYES: And yet when the Israeli leadership starts to move in a changed direction because of the U.S. policy and the influence the U.S. has on, you don't want to accept that yes?
BEINART: Alan...
KEYES: I find it fascinating.
BEINART: ... do you support a Palestinian state?
KEYES: It doesn't make any sense.
BEINART: Do you support ...
JEFFREY: I do.
BEINART: ... a Palestinian state?
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: You're talking to the wrong guy. Long before Bush did it, it was a principle of my approach to the Middle East, that there had to be a Palestinian state.
I don't believe it's viable.
(CROSSTALK)
BEINART: Well, then let's be serious about it.
KEYES: Yes, there was. I said it for years.
JEFFREY: Well, Peter — Peter, are you honestly saying that President Bush should have back...
KEYES: I'm sorry, we're out of time. We're going to have to run. We must have you back.
Up next — the Pledge of Allegiance, and its words, “under God.” They're under the gun tonight, and all over the country, outraged reaction. We're going to debate the wisdom of what I believe is a dangerous court ruling.
You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED GROUP OF CHILDREN (in unison): ... under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
Obviously, all of us, many of us, anyway, have been saying the Pledge of Allegiance in all kinds of contexts in schools, at the openings of meetings, at the openings of dinners and other gatherings where we come together, for a long time.
It's been around in one form or the other since around 1892. It was adopted in a joint resolution of Congress, to kind of codify the words. In 1954, Congress added the words “under God.” And today, a three-judge panel, after all that history, all that experience, all those Americans who never saw it this way, a three-judge panel in San Francisco has ruled 2-to-1 that the words “under God,” incorporated by the legislators, are unconstitutional when spoken by schoolchildren led in the pledge by their teachers.
They said, “When teachers lead the pledge,” the court said, “it conveys a message of state endorsement of religious belief,” namely that there is one God. And the judges said it tells non-believes that they're outsiders.
Obviously this is going to raise, once again, the whole issue of the role the these courts have taken to upon themselves to interfere with the free exercise of religion and the states throughout the country. Their perverted misinterpretation of the first amendment that has foisted off on Americans for decades now a totally phony doctrine that is nowhere supported in the words of the constitution, and yet has been constructed, year after year after year, all the way up to the Supreme Court in order to fasten upon the American people precisely the regime that the amendment was intended to prevent. Precisely the control that many people fled from the Old World to find a new way of life in America, in order to escape.
Joining us now to debate this Robert Boston from Americans United for Separation of Church and State and Ken Connor, the president of the Family Research Council.
Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
KEN CONNOR, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: Thank you. Glad to be here.
ROBERT BOSTON, AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE: Thank you.
KEYES: Now, Ken, I'm going to turn to you to begin with, because obviously the judges have had their say and they want the words “under God” out of the Pledge of Allegiance, using the usual phony rubrics that have been invented by these judges for the last several decades.
There's a reaction that's outraged around the country. The Congress is standing up, but we've seen it in the past, that sometimes that just subsides and people start to swallow this nonsense.
Ken, what do you think of this decision? And do you think that this time, too, it's just going to be given a pass eventually?
CONNOR: Well, this is a case of nothing more that judicial poppycock. This is political correctness run amuck in the courtroom.
What you have here is judges who substitute their own particular policy preferences for our elected representatives. And if the people sit still for this, Alan, then I would suggest to you that our capacity to govern ourselves through our elected representatives is very much in doubt and we are well on the way to being governed by unselected, largely unaccountable judicial oligarchs who wear black robes.
KEYES: But, Ken, I have to be frank with you. I read through the decision. I got a copy of it, looked it over. And you want to know something? The reasoning that is been done by this judge, in light of the rulings that have been made on school prayer and so forth and so on, has a certain perverted consistency to it.
I think the problem here isn't just with this judge's decision. It's with the ability and willingness of the American people to swallow a lying fabrication that has been erected on words in the constitution that mean precisely the opposite of what these judges have said for decades they mean.
CONNOR: Well, indeed.
KEYES: And if we're not willing to look at that problem, I'm not sure we're going to be able to deal with this decision.
CONNOR: No. Indeed, for several decades, the Supreme Court has fostered a whole series of decisions which suggest that the concept of the separation of church and state means that we have to eradicate any vestige of God from the public square, from our public documents, from our public pronouncements.
Nothing could have been further from the intentions of the founding fathers. In the Declaration of Independence, we see four references to God. In the very first paragraph, the reference is made to the laws of nature and nature's God.
We are deemed in the second paragraph to have been endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights. The founders appealed to the Supreme Court — supreme judge of the world for the rectitude of their intentions, and they placed their reliance on divine providence.
For heaven's sakes, I think we can acknowledge God's existence and his involvement in the affairs of men and nations without being deemed to have established a religion in violation of the first amendment.
KEYES: Well, this is where I'm going to get into an argument, I'm sure, with Robert Boston, because, Robert, I expect I will hear from you the usual sort of stuff about how there isn't supposed to be establishment and forth.
What I'd like to ask you to start with is, precisely where in the constitution do the justices get all this stuff about establishment? What words are they talking about?
BOSTON: Well, I think it's PRETTY clear if you go back and look at the words of framers like James Madison, specifically, who authored the Bill of Rights and the first amendment...
KEYES: No, no, no. First, let's not even start with their words. I asked you a specific question. In the constitution, what words talk about establishment?
BOSTON: First amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
KEYES: Now, now. Stop, quickly. Stop right there, quickly, because that is what the first amendment says. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” right?
BOSTON: Right. That's correct.
KEYES: Now, what does the word respecting mean?
BOSTON: Well, you know, if you look at...
KEYES: No, no, no. Don't — can you answer the question? What does the word “respecting” mean?
BOSTON: You know, that's open to a lot of different interpretations.
The first amendment is the type of document...
KEYES: Yes, sure.
BOSTON: ... that probably couldn't get passed today because it is rather vague...
KEYES: What does the word — I'll tell you what the...
BOSTON: But James Madison, James Madison, who wrote it, says...
KEYES: I can tell you what it means.
BOSTON: ... it creates the total separation of the church from the state.
KEYES: It wouldn't matter what — you're using words now. I'm looking at the words here. The word “respecting” mans “with regard to, with respect to.”
That means concerning, and so...
BOSTON: Right. Congress shall not make laws concerning religion...
KEYES: No, Congress shall make...
BOSTON: ... touching religion...
KEYES: No. I'm sorry. See, you can't...
BOSTON: ...have anything to do with religion.
KEYES: You can't do it.
BOSTON: ... promoting religion, advocating religion.
KEYES: Put the words back. Excuse me. Put the words back up.
“Congress shall make no law respecting,” that is, with regard to or concerning, “an establishment of religion.” That means that the issue of this whole question, establishment of religion, that's not the Congress' business.
That's like, I used to tell people that if you read the words with even a slight notion of common sense, it's like those signs in New York that people used to put on parking spaces, “Don't even think of parking here.”
The founders told Congress, that is the federal government, don't even think about this issue. It's none of your business.
BOSTON: That's right.
KEYES: And do you know why they say that? Why did they say that, Robert?
BOSTON: Because they wanted to keep us from having a state-established church, or they wanted to keep the government...
KEYES: That's not true.
BOSTON: ... from promoting the religion as it had done in Europe for hundreds of years.
KEYES: You apparently don't know — wait. Hold it. No. You don't know your history.
BOSTON: I know my history quite well.
KEYES: Were there established religions in the states at the time that amendment was passed?
BOSTON: Yes, of course there were.
KEYES: Yes, there were. Now, now...
BOSTON: The last one withered away in 1833.
KEYES: Let's reason it through for the people out there. There were established religions in the states. And in the constitution, you put words that says to Congress, don't touch this issue.
That means that Congress can't do it at the national level, right?
BOSTON: Congress shall not make the same mistakes the states have made in establishing religions.
KEYES: But it also — can I finish? That would suggest that Congress can't touch it at the state level either. Congress is not to deal with this issue. It was left up to the states to have self-determination on this question of religious establishment.
Where then in the constitution do the courts get the right to interfere on an issue where the only words in the constitution were keep your hands off of it? Where does this come from?
BOSTON: Alan, you know as well as I do, your argument might have made some sense prior to the Civil War, but after the passage of the 14th amendment, the Bill of Rights was made applicable to the states as well as the federal government.
KEYES: No. You're not getting it.
BOSTON: The states can't establish a religion.
KEYES: You're not getting it.
BOSTON: Congress can't establish a religion.
KEYES: You're not getting it.
BOSTON: You can't make our kids pray in school...
KEYES: I'm sorry — you're not getting it.
BOSTON: They can't make us take religious oaths. They can't force religion down our throat.
KEYES: Because that's not — Robert...
BOSTON: They can give religion tax-payer money.
KEYES: Robert — yes, Robert. You do it all the time. This is what you liberals and the lying judges have done to us.
BOSTON: Yes, and that big liar James Madison.
KEYES: The constitution — excuse me. The constitution doesn't say that Congress can't establish a religion. That's not what the words say. The words say that Congress shall make no law that deals with that subject, at all, in any way.
(CROSSTALK)
BOSTON: Yes, and I would think putting “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance does deal with religion.
KEYES: What I would like to find out...
BOSTON: That might have something to do with religion.
KEYES: I would like to find out how somebody gets, in the courts the right, out of the constitution, arising from the constitution, the right to address an issue that in the constitution itself, the only words that deal with it tell the federal government to keep its hands off.
CONNOR: And Alan, for heaven's sake...
KEYES: In other words, the courts have taken the very words that were supposed to prevent federal interference and used them to destroy the freedoms of the states on this issue.
Go ahead, Ken.
CONNOR: And let's recognize, Alan — let's recognize another freedom protected by the first amendment, which is the freedom of speech. And one thing it certainly does not mean, which this court seems to imply that it does mean, is that freedom of speech means the freedom of people to be free from the influence of speech they don't agree with.
This is the most nonsensical ruling, that I agree with you, is an outgrowth of a whole train of logic that's come down for the last several years.
KEYES: Ken, I'm going to have to interrupt you for a moment because we've got to run quickly to a break.
We will come right back, and Robert's looking at me like he really wants to say something, and he will have the floor.
We'll be back right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: We're back. We're talking about the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance with Robert Boston and Ken Connor.
Robert, I know that what I had to say riled you up a little bit, so you can come back at me now.
BOSTON: Thank you.
The first amendment stands for a simple idea: government is not supposed to be in the business of promoting religion, and clearly it is a promotion of religion when Congress voted in 1954 to insert a religious phrase into the Pledge of Allegiance.
Now, I should point out one other thing — this decision today merely found that act of Congress unconstitutional. It did not say kids can't recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. They can recite the version that existed prior to 1954, the version that was originally written in 1892, which did not have “under God” in it.
CONNOR: And this is precisely what people like Rob want to infuse within the meaning of the constitution, and that is that it requires that we purge every expression of religion, every expression of faith, from public life. That's simply not true.
I couldn't agree more with Dick Armey when he said I hope the court is going to be willing to turn back all the tax-payer money they've received that bears the imprint “In God We Trust.”
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Ken, Ken — that's next, OK?
BOSTON: The court addressed that issue, and you're both wrong about it. The court said that this particular case dealt a lot with the public school system, because children there, being required or coerced or pressured or whatever, to take part in the Pledge of Allegiance, whereas money...
CONNOR: No, they're not.
BOSTON: ... is an entirely different situation.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Now, hold on.
Robert, Robert, I've got to stop you there, because you're saying things that aren't even true now. There was no coercion involved, and there hasn't been. That notion of coercion...
BOSTON: Well, the father of this — the father of this...
KEYES: Let me finish, please. That was, in fact...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: ... down in the past. And that wasn't even involved here.
But you also said something, again — I've got to keep bringing people back to this, because I am just sick to death of hearing people misinterpret those words in the constitution, as if they say something they definitely don't say, and that in the historical context of the times, they couldn't possibly have said.
This was not intended in any way to prevent all government action with respect to religion. Quite explicitly it was aimed at the Congress, and it intended to prevent the federal government from interfering with religious self-determination in the states.
It goes so deep that the original people who came to this country from Europe to found colonies did so so that their communities could have laws that reflected their faith. The notion...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: The other part that everybody forgets, you too, Robert — you forget that the other part of this says “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” And the free exercise of religion in that time and context and in every way clearly included the right to live in communities governed by laws that reflected your religious beliefs.
That's what the religious wars in Europe were in fact about. They were about sovereigns who prevented communities from living according to laws that reflected their religious beliefs.
And so this whole notion that the first amendment somehow drives all religion out of government at all levels, is simply a palpable historic lie, and the American people have accepted it for long enough now that it will be used to drive God and religion from every aspect of our public life.
(CROSSTALK)
BOSTON: If it's a lie, it's a lie invented by James Madison, because he was the one who advocated so forcefully for this idea, and he was the one who wrote the Bill of Rights in the first amendment, and if you read his writings, especially a document called “The Detached Memoranda,” you will see very clearly that he was a strong advocate for separation of church and state.
KEYES: Yes, and it was done...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: We have to go, Robert. Robert, we have to go.
But all of that took place in the context of debates at the state level, state level, where they were deciding on establishment, or dis-establishment. It wasn't the business of the Congress or the federal courts, and they explicitly forbid that.
Next, my reaction to this “Outrage of the Day.” I want to thank both of you gentlemen for being with us. Y'all stay with me.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: This ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance, obviously the “Outrage of the Day,” and I've got to tell you, I think it's dangerous in these times, when we're fighting terror, to try to take away from us that which represents our unity and the principle it's based on.
So when people are listening to these judges, here's what I think they ought to do in response to this decision, even if the Supreme Court makes it.
Wherever you are, in your school, in your home, in your business, put your hand over your heart, and say, “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.”
And keep saying it, no matter what the courts say, 'cause it's your right. That's the free exercise of religion and that's the patriotic spirit of this country.
Thanks. “THE NEWS WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS” is up next. See you tomorrow.
Two intense topics tonight. Later in the show, we're going to tackle an outrageous decision by a federal court today ruling that the recitation of the pledge in schools is unconstitutional. Yes, you heard that right. Unbelievable. But we'll get to that.
First up tonight, though, we're going to take another look at some of the reaction around the world to President Bush's proposal for Mideast peace. The reaction, some of them mixed and negative coming from European sources, have been coming from all around the world.
And earlier today, I spoke with former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and I asked him what he thinks of the lukewarm or negative reaction the European community is giving the Bush Mideast plan.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, FMR. ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: Oh, I think that President Bush has lanced the boil. He's actually said that you have to basically get rid of Arafat, something that I think is long overdue. And he also said that the next leadership has to follow certain criteria of responsibility and restraint, including the novel idea of actually introducing democratization into an Arab country. I think these are two very important ideas and they, of course, jar with the conventional wisdom that some of the European foreign officers have been fostering for so long.
KEYES: Do you think that the Arab leaders are going to follow through in response to the president's call in particular to cut off all support in all forms for the terror organizations that some of them have been supporting?
NETANYAHU: Well, I doubt it, but I think it's very important that the president of the United States put this so squarely and so clearly. This follows through his statement, you're either with us, against terror, or you're against us. And I think that he has - he's put down criteria that at least, at the very least, tells the Arab countries that they will pay a price, political or otherwise, if they continue to play a double game, to speak friendship with America while helping or accommodating or sponsoring terror on the side. That's not going to work.
KEYES: Well, one of the key questions that still I think remains and that was implied in the speech in terms of the need to address this problem of terror and get a leadership that's going to deal with it.
But the truth is that that problem, I think, goes much deeper than just the leaders. We're talking about a Palestinian population that has been indoctrinated by television and schools and other ways and hatred and violence and various ways. Is it realistic to believe that one is going to be able to build a security force truly capable of dealing with these terrorists out of that kind of material? Aren't the Palestinians really going to need some outside help in dealing with this challenge?
NETANYAHU: Absolutely. I think there's going to be a detoxification period. This society is so toxic it's more poison than any society on earth. I mean, you've got Arafat allowing kindergarten camps for suicide, for three and four-year-old Palestinian children — the glorification of mass homicide and the glorification of killing and blood.
I think that has to - that will take some time to weed out. But I think the first stage is getting rid of the regime that is sponsoring all of this and poisoning these hearts and minds. And the second stage probably is some kind of an arrangement by which Israel will take care of security absent a local police force - a police force as opposed to an army on the part of the Palestinians.
And probably an American-led effort to rebuild that society, not only economically but also culturally in terms of their educational system and of course politically, hence the novel introduction of democracy — a great idea. Probably, ultimately the only - the only cure against these — this mad militancy is the ventilation of the Palestinian and other Arab societies with the winds of pluralism and democracy.
KEYES: As we move forward into the future, would you see any possible substitute for Israeli forces in the event that as one is trying to develop some kind of Palestinian security force that's really untainted by terrorism? This is going to take a little while because it seems to me that as Israel has to act in its own defense, that does naturally lead to incidents and episodes that probably raise passion. Is there anybody else who could play that role of trying to help with security on the West Bank?
NETANYAHU: I don't know of anyone who will volunteer to do that because you'll put American soldiers or British soldiers or French soldiers at risk. They'll be blown up. And you have to be prepared to, frankly, to die. And I don't think there's a willingness of anyone realistically to do that other than those soldiers actually defending Israel. And I wouldn't want to call on any soldiers to defend on my country, but I think there might be a different dynamic here.
Since I think the days of the Saddam Hussein regime are numbered and since I believe the days of Arafat's regime are numbered, I think this actually may produce a positive seismic shock in the Middle East. The defeat of a terrorist dictator always opens up new possibilities, whether in Germany or in Iraq or elsewhere. It just creates a new dynamic.
I think that the toughness that free societies show, especially in this case America and Israel that refuse to knuckle under, that are willing to fight back, are willing to overthrow these regimes, are willing to also overthrow the lies pretty much as President Bush did I think magnificently the other night and say it like it is.
I think that that registers mightily on these populations. I think they'll understand the jig is up. They're just not going to be allowed to continue in a world where you bomb babies and you bomb buses, you bomb people celebrating Passover. It's just not going to be tolerated. And I think there are enough elements in the Palestinian society, even today, who realize that they have to steer towards a different course. Their numbers will grow with the overthrow of Arafat.
They will grow even more if the United States comes in with a package. These are tiny communities. You come in with a package, not a very large economic package and you say look, we will give you new roads. We will allow you to build your infrastructure. We will allow - we will give industries and businesses incentives. We want you to go through a different path, a path of peace and hope. This was done in a society as poisoned as Japan after World War II, a society as poisoned as Germany.
I don't say that this is what you'll have in the Palestinian areas or in Iraq. But I think you can have something more akin to Turkey. Turkey is a great success in that sense...
KEYES: Now...
NETANYAHU: ... perhaps could be other societies like that.
KEYES: ... obviously the president in his speech also laid down another track and that had to do with Israel's responses, talked about a provisional Palestinian state, talked about a three-year timeframe in which to negotiate a final settlement package and he talked about the redeployment of Israel forces as and when security allows. What kind of a timeframe do you see for these developments, which the president has outlined in terms of Israeli actions?
NETANYAHU: Well, I think he would — the withdrawal of Israeli forces when security conditions allow is something I fully subscribe to. I'd like to see that happen today, but I don't think it's likely to happen so quickly. But I think as we go through an evolutionary phase, as we overthrow the regime of Arafat, the terrorist regime and allow a civil society to emerge in the Palestinian areas, it will become possible. As far as the vision of two states, well, that's the vision of a lion and a lamb.
Actually, the Bible talks about a wolf and a lamb. But the president very clearly stipulated that the wolf has to stop being a wolf to get a state. I think that's a huge - a huge improvement on the blanket condoning of Palestinian statehood when the Palestinians clearly intend to use their sovereignty to destroy the one and only Jewish state. So I think putting these conditions, these points on the road, so to speak, are very, very important, and has never been done before and I think it's important that the president did that. When we get to that road, when we get to that point I'd love to be able to pick up the question...
KEYES: Now, there are several...
NETANYAHU: ... but I think we have a long road to travel.
KEYES: There are several sort of outstanding questions on the context of the president's speech that I think folks would be very interested in hearing your thoughts on, starting with the barrier that has been talked about that is being erected.
Do you think that that is still a part of what will be necessary to help to deal with this situation and deal with the security threat, to create the conditions that are necessary to move forward?
NETANYAHU: Yes I do. I think it's, actually the way to stop terrorism in the short order, is to overthrow the regime, clean up the areas, clean it up from terrorists and terrorist weapons and build a defense barrier. That's actually exactly what you're doing in Afghanistan. First, you knocked out the regime, the Taliban regime. Then you cleared out all the remaining pockets of terrorism and of al Qaeda. And thirdly, you're building a barrier. Of course, it's not a fence around Afghanistan, but it's a fence around your airports and your entry points into the country and so on. You're beefing up security.
Well, Israel is very close to the Palestinian area so the defensive border obviously is a lot closer. That defensive wall, if you will, I think should not be on the 67th line. It should be closer to the populated - Palestinian populated areas otherwise you actually bring the terrorists right close to our cities and you make Israel about 10 kilometers, 12 kilometers wide. That's not a country you can defend.
But aside from the question of the precise placement of that wall, I think it's one of the three elements needed to stop terrorism. The longer view that we talked about before, Alan, is the detoxification of societies, which I think in the long run is no less important and requires the movement towards freer societies, freer markets, all of the things that give people opportunity, a stake and a hope in their lives and the Palestinians certainly deserve that just as other people deserves that.
KEYES: Now one of the neuralgic points and it's been there in terms of U.S. administrations. It's obviously been a point that has been used and abused by Palestinian spokesmen and propaganda. This has to do with the Jewish settlements and once again the president alluded in his speech to the need to curtail that. What do you think is going to be the right way from Israel's point of view to address the issue of settlements in the West Bank?
NETANYAHU: I think these are disputed areas. They're not Palestinian-occupied areas. Even the U.N., which is not exactly known, the U.N. Security Council, which has never been exactly a hot bed of Zionism, to put it mildly, has never said that these are occupied areas. It has said that these are areas that, as you know, Israel was attacked from in 1967, and it is said that what Israel can do is withdraw to — from some of the territories, not the territories, to secure and recognize boundaries.
Now where those boundaries are is something that will have to be negotiated politically with a new Palestinian and responsible Palestinian leadership that abandons terror and abandons the goal of destroying Israel. And I think the issue of the settlements will come as part and parcel of that negotiation. Remember, too, that in these disputed lands that both Israel claims and the Palestinians claim and from which Israel was attacked time and again, remember, too, that the Palestinians are also building settlements all over the place. They're building, just expanding their communities.
If you take aerial photos of these territories from 1967 when Israel first entered them in self-defense and you compare them today, you'll see that the — there has been just as much and if not more Arab increase in population and in building and construction as Jewish. So I think this is an issue that will have to be resolved in negotiations.
I don't think it's the crux of the problem because the Arabs attacked us when we didn't have a single settlement there and when Arafat was offered all these settlements effectively or nearly all of them by the Barak government just two years ago, he put it in his pocket and he said well that's not really what I'm interested in. What I'm interested is Tel Aviv. It's flooding all of Israel with millions of Palestinians. So the crux of the conflict is not the settlement.
It's the result, if you will, of the conflict. The crux is of the conflict, the core issue is the persistent refusal and certain Arab quarters and certain Palestinian quarters to accept the state of is and any boundary and any line and that has to change.
KEYES: Do you think that the Europeans who have reacted, I think in my opinion, kind of badly to the president's speech in a way that really doesn't understand the requirements of the situation, but do you think that there is a role to be played by the European countries in helping to get to this future? What do you think that role might be and how does one get them into a more realistic sense of what's required?
NETANYAHU: I think you have to do what you have to do. You have to do that in Iraq and we're going to have to do it with overthrowing Arafat's regime. You just do it — like the Nike commercial. But in the second phase, I think that rebuilding the societies, the Europeans could have a major contribution if they so desire. They have rebuilt their continent with American assistance.
They could rebuild these societies with American leadership. You know one thing where I would start is to rehabilitate the remaining Palestinian refugees, which are kept as refugees by some in the Arab world and the Palestinians themselves in order to try to feed the fantasy of overcoming Tel Aviv. So one thing the Europeans could do is start — embark on an international program to rehabilitate the refugees in their locations.
For God's sake, Israel absorbed an equal number of Jewish refugees and we were able to absorb them on a speck of sand, one-fifth of one percent of the size of the Arab countries without the vast oil. I'd like to see the Europeans start the rehabilitation process of the Palestinian refugees. They have the experience of doing it and they certainly have the means to do it.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KEYES: That was my interview earlier tonight with former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Now we're going to be talking tonight a little further about the president's speech. There's been a wide range of reactions to it including, of course, follow-up from his own secretary of state and I have to tell you some of it, from the secretary over the course of the time since this speech has led people to think that maybe there isn't a clear sense of how to follow up on what the president had to say or a clear plan as to what to do to follow up.
Now that obviously raises some difficulties. Good ideas, good speeches, good rhetoric don't amount necessarily to good policy and good actions. What's necessary is the follow-up, the implementation. And in the early going, it doesn't look as if a whole lot of serious thought was given to what was required immediately to follow up on the words that the president spoke.
After all, a presidential speech isn't just rhetoric. It ought to be an action of state and that action of state requires that people speak with one voice, express and understand again what's going to be needed to follow-up.
Are we going to get that from Colin Powell's State Department? Is his heart in it? We're going to get to the heart of that matter with Peter Beinart of “The New Republic” and Terry Jeffrey of “Human Events” here on America's news channel, MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
U.S. CONGRESS: ... 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.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Those members of Congress today reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which has been in its current form for 48 years. Today a federal court ruled that inclusion of the words “under God” in the pledge is unconstitutional. Yes. A little later, we'll debate whether the three-judge panel is out of its mind.
A reminder that the chat room is busier than WorldCom's lawyers tonight and you can join in right now at chat.msnbc.com. But first we're going to talk about a simple question. Can Colin Powell deliver, will he deliver on President Bush's proposals for the Middle East?
Obviously I think he's not necessarily a man who's had his heart in the key elements of that proposal including the need to replace Yasser Arafat. Is he going to be able to make that turnaround and follow through on the tough steps that the president has taken?
Joining us to get to the heart of the matter, Peter Beinart, the editor of “The New Republic” Magazine and Terry Jeffrey, editor of “Human Events” Magazine. Gentlemen welcome to MAKING SENSE.
TERRY JEFFREY, EDITOR, “HUMAN EVENTS”: Good to be here.
KEYES: Terry, as sort of our witness today for the defense, I'm going to start with you...
JEFFREY: OK.
KEYES: ... because the president gave a speech the other night. Now I have been pretty clear on the show here in my own sense, that it was a pretty strong speech that had actually had, I think, a clear vision and principle of what the administration is up to including the need for a change in Palestinian leadership, for an institutional reform on the Palestinian side that allows them to be a valid interlocuter for the Israelis in the pursuit of an ultimate settlement that has to come within a certain timeframe and that involves Israeli reciprocity on redeployment and so forth as and when security permits.
I think that those things actually constitute a pretty clear sense of what the overall principles and goals of American policy are. The question that I have, though, is whether or not Colin Powell, who has throughout, fought against the key elements of this proposal, and who has, to tell you the truth, not in my opinion appeared very effective in the aftermath of the president's speech, whether we're going to see the kind of effective implementation that's going to be needed to turn this vision into a reality. What do you think?
JEFFREY: Well, Alan, I do not think that Colin Powell is just a yes man. I don't think he would have been in the Rose Garden the other day standing next to the president, listening to the president of the United States specifically saying that Colin Powell is going to be his lead agent in carrying out this policy unless Powell agreed with it.
And why would Colin Powell have reasonably changed his mind in the last few months? Well, I think the president has changed his views in the last few months and I think the reason why is because they've been confronted with some facts. Primarily, they've been confronted with evidence that the Israelis gained when they went into Ramallah that directly tied Yasser Arafat to the al Aqsa Marty Brigades who are responsible for carrying out many of the homicide bombings in Israel in the last few months and specifically last week, they got additional information that Arafat had recently given $20,000 to the Al Aqsa Martyr Brigades to commit that bombing last week outside Jerusalem.
So I think yes, there's new evidence that Colin Powell has to deal with, but I am sure he is committed to the president's policy.
KEYES: Well, see, one other thing that raised a question for me, though, Terry, is that when a president gives a speech like this, it's not just words on paper. Neither is it just a few minutes spent in front a camera and before the country. It's an action and that action has to be reflected in the mobilization of his executive resources, particularly on the diplomatic front to follow through with some clear understanding that's conveyed to the press and the public, that's conveyed to other leaders around the world that put some flesh on the bones of the vision that he has articulated.
I think the President's speech had the right tone. I have been really pretty disappointed in the kind of inchoate follow-up that we've gotten from the secretary of state suggesting he hasn't thought through the question of whether what happens when Yasser Arafat gets reelected, whether they're really insisting on a change in the overall leadership that gets away from terror, what the follow up will be in terms of security and so forth and so on.
If you want to make a presidential speech into effective action, you've got to very quickly follow up with the sense that America knows what it's doing and knows what is required of the different parties and actors involved. I didn't get that sense from Colin Powell. Where is his homework?
JEFFREY: Well, listen, I believe the president's speech was in action. He threw a trump card down on the Palestinians. He basically made them a proposition. He said you can choose Arafat, which means you're choosing terrorism, which means you're choosing against a Palestinian state.
On the other hand, if you choose to reject Arafat and Palestinian leaders who have been associated with terrorism and choose to form a democratic form of government, the United States will put the full power and prestige of influence and this nation behind the creation of a Palestinian state. So really now the ball is in the Palestinian's court and there's really not much the United States can do in practical terms ...
KEYES: Terry...
JEFFREY: ... until the Palestinians make their move and their decision.
KEYES: Now, Terry, I have to tell you that if Colin Powell had given that response the other day when I think Tom Brokaw asked him this question that I had just put in front of you, I might have some greater sense that he thought this matter through in a way that's consistent with the president's vision.
Peter Beinart, I think that the president did articulate a pretty clear vision and that Colin Powell ought to have something clear to work with in terms of his presentation to other governments, about what the United States both stands for and is insisting on and expects. So what do you think?
PETER BEINART, EDITOR, “THE NEW REPUBLIC”: No, I disagree. I think the speech was utterly incoherent. You can't both call for Palestinian democracy and say that the Palestinians can't have Arafat and, in fact, they can't have anyone compromised by terror when anyone who knows anything about that policy (ph) knows that the vast majority of people likely to be elected do, in fact, have links to terror. The reason Colin Powell can't follow up in any meaningful way is that there's no way to follow up. It makes no sense.
KEYES: Well, see, I would disagree. What we are basically indicating to the Palestinians, if they really are interested in making progress, is that you can't expect under the gun, led by a bunch of bloody thugs who go around killing babies and blowing up marketplaces and killing people with vicious nail bombs and so forth. Don't expect us to be involved with that.
You make your choices and we'll make ours. But if you choose that kind of terroristic thuggery, we won't choose to help you make the progress you need to make. That's perfectly within our right, and the president was very clear. You're right, a choice is then left to the Palestinian people. Are you saying they can't make that choice?
BEINART: I'm saying they can't make it the right choice under these circumstances. We have a long history over recent years of groups with a terrorist background including groups like the ANC in South Africa moving towards nonviolence and democracy.
What we know from those situations is you need carrots and sticks. Absolutely penalize groups that support - that support - continue to support terrorism. The problem with Bush's speech is because he's willing to put no pressure - I mean Benjamin Netanyahu, to be frank, Alan, hoodwinked you because he opposes the Palestinian state.
You should have asked him that. His party has explicitly come out against a Palestinian state and Ariel Sharon has a government that will never support a real Palestinian state. So how on earth can that government give Palestinians a reasonable chance of believing that if they do what Bush wants, they're going to get a real state of their own.
KEYES: See what I find interesting, Peter, though, is that you say he hoodwinked me when he starts to talk in terms that actually are open to the kinds of things that the Palestinians say they would like to see. I'm supposed to believe that's hoodwinking?
BEINART: No, because ...
KEYES: Let me finish please.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: I haven't finished my thought.
BEINART: Go ahead.
KEYES: I'm supposed to believe that's hoodwinking. And yet, when Yasser Arafat and his buddies are out there killing children and nail bombs and so forth and so on, and yet out of their mouths come words condemning terrorism and professing to be interested in peace, that's not hoodwinking the world?
Now let's get serious about this. It certainly is. And the question that's in front of us is whether any progress can be made if we expect the Israelis to sit down at the negotiating table while people are outside chopping up their children and their spouses and their sons and daughters in little itty bitty pieces. And yet, they're suppose to sit down and talk peace ...
JEFFREY: Alan ...
KEYES: ... with people who are professing ...
(CROSSTALK)
BEINART: Let me respond to that. We also can't expect - you also can't legitimately expect moderation to succeed amongst the Palestinians when people are locked in their homes. How are you going to call an...
JEFFREY: Peter ...
BEINART: ... when people can't even get outside their homes and move from one town to the next.
JEFFREY: Peter, you can expect ...
KEYES: Go ahead Terry. I'll respond to that in a minute.
JEFFREY: ... you can expect basic morality. Listen...
BEINART: On both sides.
JEFFREY: ... Arafat is personally responsible for teenagers going into Israel and blowing up innocent civilians. You cannot deal with someone like that. Basically the implication what you're saying is the United States ought to back giving a state to someone even if he's...
BEINART: No.
JEFFREY: ... a terrorist.
BEINART: No. That's exactly what I'm not saying. What I'm saying is if the United States wants, and I dislike Yasser Arafat as much as you do. If we want better leadership for the Palestinians...
JEFFREY: But you would give him a state.
BEINART: ... we have to show them that there's a real prospect for a state.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Wait a second, Peter.
JEFFREY: .. the president of the United States.
KEYES: Wait. Wait. Terry, wait a second.
JEFFREY: Sure.
KEYES: Peter, listen to me. I find this all very interesting, but it kind of forgets the history a little bit. Yasser Arafat in an interview in “Al-Haaretz” (ph) the other day actually reminded us of that history when he said that he's sorry that he didn't accept the proposals that were made at Camp David and then at Wye that in point of fact would have - would have established a Palestinian Authority sovereignty over most of the West Bank, would have had Israeli withdrawal and so forth.
He professed to believe that that would now be acceptable. He unleashed this reign of terror when in point of fact there was a ...
BEINART: But Alan, Alan...
KEYES: ... willingness to give him what he wanted. Now, Peter, you're saying to the world after that performance, let's do it all over again ...
BEINART: No ...
KEYES: ... with the same thug. Why?
BEINART: ... that's exactly what I'm not saying. Listen to me.
KEYES: On what grounds?
BEINART: I'm saying do it with a better Palestinian leadership. But, Alan, did you support Ehud Barak's offer? Did Benjamin Netanyahu? Did Ariel Sharon? Of course not. You can't — Arafat wasn't the only person who opposed...
KEYES: I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Peter.
BEINART: The people on your show opposed him as well.
KEYES: That begs the issue in terms of Arafat's behavior. He unleashed this bloody war...
BEINART: No, it is exactly the issue because the question is ...
KEYES: He unleashed this bloody war on terror...
BEINART: ... you have people on both sides who do not support that deal...
KEYES: ... when he had that offer on the table. Terry, very quickly, go ahead.
JEFFREY: Well, let me just flip this around. The president of the United States before the whole world yesterday said the United States would be committed to the creation of a Palestinian state. You have Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu, maybe the two toughest guys in Israel at least implicitly, if not explicitly accepting the...
BEINART: You're wrong ...
JEFFREY: ... president's ...
BEINART: Netanyahu opposes the Palestinians. He said so explicitly.
JEFFREY: He ...
BEINART: Get your facts straight.
KEYES: Peter...
JEFFREY: He did not say that.
(CROSSTALK)
BEINART: He went back to Israel to orchestrate a ...
KEYES: Peter, Peter...
BEINART: ... vote against the Palestinian state.
KEYES: Peter, you're willing to accept the notion that Yasser Arafat, who's out there killing people is actually seriously interested in ...
BEINART: No. Why do you keep saying that?
KEYES: ... peace, blowing him up with nails and stuff.
BEINART: I've explicitly said the opposite.
KEYES: And yet when the Israeli leadership starts to move in a changed direction because of the U.S. policy and the influence the U.S. has on, you don't want to accept that yes?
BEINART: Alan...
KEYES: I find it fascinating.
BEINART: ... do you support a Palestinian state?
KEYES: It doesn't make any sense.
BEINART: Do you support ...
JEFFREY: I do.
BEINART: ... a Palestinian state?
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: You're talking to the wrong guy. Long before Bush did it, it was a principle of my approach to the Middle East, that there had to be a Palestinian state.
I don't believe it's viable.
(CROSSTALK)
BEINART: Well, then let's be serious about it.
KEYES: Yes, there was. I said it for years.
JEFFREY: Well, Peter — Peter, are you honestly saying that President Bush should have back...
KEYES: I'm sorry, we're out of time. We're going to have to run. We must have you back.
Up next — the Pledge of Allegiance, and its words, “under God.” They're under the gun tonight, and all over the country, outraged reaction. We're going to debate the wisdom of what I believe is a dangerous court ruling.
You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED GROUP OF CHILDREN (in unison): ... under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
Obviously, all of us, many of us, anyway, have been saying the Pledge of Allegiance in all kinds of contexts in schools, at the openings of meetings, at the openings of dinners and other gatherings where we come together, for a long time.
It's been around in one form or the other since around 1892. It was adopted in a joint resolution of Congress, to kind of codify the words. In 1954, Congress added the words “under God.” And today, a three-judge panel, after all that history, all that experience, all those Americans who never saw it this way, a three-judge panel in San Francisco has ruled 2-to-1 that the words “under God,” incorporated by the legislators, are unconstitutional when spoken by schoolchildren led in the pledge by their teachers.
They said, “When teachers lead the pledge,” the court said, “it conveys a message of state endorsement of religious belief,” namely that there is one God. And the judges said it tells non-believes that they're outsiders.
Obviously this is going to raise, once again, the whole issue of the role the these courts have taken to upon themselves to interfere with the free exercise of religion and the states throughout the country. Their perverted misinterpretation of the first amendment that has foisted off on Americans for decades now a totally phony doctrine that is nowhere supported in the words of the constitution, and yet has been constructed, year after year after year, all the way up to the Supreme Court in order to fasten upon the American people precisely the regime that the amendment was intended to prevent. Precisely the control that many people fled from the Old World to find a new way of life in America, in order to escape.
Joining us now to debate this Robert Boston from Americans United for Separation of Church and State and Ken Connor, the president of the Family Research Council.
Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
KEN CONNOR, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: Thank you. Glad to be here.
ROBERT BOSTON, AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE: Thank you.
KEYES: Now, Ken, I'm going to turn to you to begin with, because obviously the judges have had their say and they want the words “under God” out of the Pledge of Allegiance, using the usual phony rubrics that have been invented by these judges for the last several decades.
There's a reaction that's outraged around the country. The Congress is standing up, but we've seen it in the past, that sometimes that just subsides and people start to swallow this nonsense.
Ken, what do you think of this decision? And do you think that this time, too, it's just going to be given a pass eventually?
CONNOR: Well, this is a case of nothing more that judicial poppycock. This is political correctness run amuck in the courtroom.
What you have here is judges who substitute their own particular policy preferences for our elected representatives. And if the people sit still for this, Alan, then I would suggest to you that our capacity to govern ourselves through our elected representatives is very much in doubt and we are well on the way to being governed by unselected, largely unaccountable judicial oligarchs who wear black robes.
KEYES: But, Ken, I have to be frank with you. I read through the decision. I got a copy of it, looked it over. And you want to know something? The reasoning that is been done by this judge, in light of the rulings that have been made on school prayer and so forth and so on, has a certain perverted consistency to it.
I think the problem here isn't just with this judge's decision. It's with the ability and willingness of the American people to swallow a lying fabrication that has been erected on words in the constitution that mean precisely the opposite of what these judges have said for decades they mean.
CONNOR: Well, indeed.
KEYES: And if we're not willing to look at that problem, I'm not sure we're going to be able to deal with this decision.
CONNOR: No. Indeed, for several decades, the Supreme Court has fostered a whole series of decisions which suggest that the concept of the separation of church and state means that we have to eradicate any vestige of God from the public square, from our public documents, from our public pronouncements.
Nothing could have been further from the intentions of the founding fathers. In the Declaration of Independence, we see four references to God. In the very first paragraph, the reference is made to the laws of nature and nature's God.
We are deemed in the second paragraph to have been endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights. The founders appealed to the Supreme Court — supreme judge of the world for the rectitude of their intentions, and they placed their reliance on divine providence.
For heaven's sakes, I think we can acknowledge God's existence and his involvement in the affairs of men and nations without being deemed to have established a religion in violation of the first amendment.
KEYES: Well, this is where I'm going to get into an argument, I'm sure, with Robert Boston, because, Robert, I expect I will hear from you the usual sort of stuff about how there isn't supposed to be establishment and forth.
What I'd like to ask you to start with is, precisely where in the constitution do the justices get all this stuff about establishment? What words are they talking about?
BOSTON: Well, I think it's PRETTY clear if you go back and look at the words of framers like James Madison, specifically, who authored the Bill of Rights and the first amendment...
KEYES: No, no, no. First, let's not even start with their words. I asked you a specific question. In the constitution, what words talk about establishment?
BOSTON: First amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
KEYES: Now, now. Stop, quickly. Stop right there, quickly, because that is what the first amendment says. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” right?
BOSTON: Right. That's correct.
KEYES: Now, what does the word respecting mean?
BOSTON: Well, you know, if you look at...
KEYES: No, no, no. Don't — can you answer the question? What does the word “respecting” mean?
BOSTON: You know, that's open to a lot of different interpretations.
The first amendment is the type of document...
KEYES: Yes, sure.
BOSTON: ... that probably couldn't get passed today because it is rather vague...
KEYES: What does the word — I'll tell you what the...
BOSTON: But James Madison, James Madison, who wrote it, says...
KEYES: I can tell you what it means.
BOSTON: ... it creates the total separation of the church from the state.
KEYES: It wouldn't matter what — you're using words now. I'm looking at the words here. The word “respecting” mans “with regard to, with respect to.”
That means concerning, and so...
BOSTON: Right. Congress shall not make laws concerning religion...
KEYES: No, Congress shall make...
BOSTON: ... touching religion...
KEYES: No. I'm sorry. See, you can't...
BOSTON: ...have anything to do with religion.
KEYES: You can't do it.
BOSTON: ... promoting religion, advocating religion.
KEYES: Put the words back. Excuse me. Put the words back up.
“Congress shall make no law respecting,” that is, with regard to or concerning, “an establishment of religion.” That means that the issue of this whole question, establishment of religion, that's not the Congress' business.
That's like, I used to tell people that if you read the words with even a slight notion of common sense, it's like those signs in New York that people used to put on parking spaces, “Don't even think of parking here.”
The founders told Congress, that is the federal government, don't even think about this issue. It's none of your business.
BOSTON: That's right.
KEYES: And do you know why they say that? Why did they say that, Robert?
BOSTON: Because they wanted to keep us from having a state-established church, or they wanted to keep the government...
KEYES: That's not true.
BOSTON: ... from promoting the religion as it had done in Europe for hundreds of years.
KEYES: You apparently don't know — wait. Hold it. No. You don't know your history.
BOSTON: I know my history quite well.
KEYES: Were there established religions in the states at the time that amendment was passed?
BOSTON: Yes, of course there were.
KEYES: Yes, there were. Now, now...
BOSTON: The last one withered away in 1833.
KEYES: Let's reason it through for the people out there. There were established religions in the states. And in the constitution, you put words that says to Congress, don't touch this issue.
That means that Congress can't do it at the national level, right?
BOSTON: Congress shall not make the same mistakes the states have made in establishing religions.
KEYES: But it also — can I finish? That would suggest that Congress can't touch it at the state level either. Congress is not to deal with this issue. It was left up to the states to have self-determination on this question of religious establishment.
Where then in the constitution do the courts get the right to interfere on an issue where the only words in the constitution were keep your hands off of it? Where does this come from?
BOSTON: Alan, you know as well as I do, your argument might have made some sense prior to the Civil War, but after the passage of the 14th amendment, the Bill of Rights was made applicable to the states as well as the federal government.
KEYES: No. You're not getting it.
BOSTON: The states can't establish a religion.
KEYES: You're not getting it.
BOSTON: Congress can't establish a religion.
KEYES: You're not getting it.
BOSTON: You can't make our kids pray in school...
KEYES: I'm sorry — you're not getting it.
BOSTON: They can't make us take religious oaths. They can't force religion down our throat.
KEYES: Because that's not — Robert...
BOSTON: They can give religion tax-payer money.
KEYES: Robert — yes, Robert. You do it all the time. This is what you liberals and the lying judges have done to us.
BOSTON: Yes, and that big liar James Madison.
KEYES: The constitution — excuse me. The constitution doesn't say that Congress can't establish a religion. That's not what the words say. The words say that Congress shall make no law that deals with that subject, at all, in any way.
(CROSSTALK)
BOSTON: Yes, and I would think putting “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance does deal with religion.
KEYES: What I would like to find out...
BOSTON: That might have something to do with religion.
KEYES: I would like to find out how somebody gets, in the courts the right, out of the constitution, arising from the constitution, the right to address an issue that in the constitution itself, the only words that deal with it tell the federal government to keep its hands off.
CONNOR: And Alan, for heaven's sake...
KEYES: In other words, the courts have taken the very words that were supposed to prevent federal interference and used them to destroy the freedoms of the states on this issue.
Go ahead, Ken.
CONNOR: And let's recognize, Alan — let's recognize another freedom protected by the first amendment, which is the freedom of speech. And one thing it certainly does not mean, which this court seems to imply that it does mean, is that freedom of speech means the freedom of people to be free from the influence of speech they don't agree with.
This is the most nonsensical ruling, that I agree with you, is an outgrowth of a whole train of logic that's come down for the last several years.
KEYES: Ken, I'm going to have to interrupt you for a moment because we've got to run quickly to a break.
We will come right back, and Robert's looking at me like he really wants to say something, and he will have the floor.
We'll be back right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: We're back. We're talking about the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance with Robert Boston and Ken Connor.
Robert, I know that what I had to say riled you up a little bit, so you can come back at me now.
BOSTON: Thank you.
The first amendment stands for a simple idea: government is not supposed to be in the business of promoting religion, and clearly it is a promotion of religion when Congress voted in 1954 to insert a religious phrase into the Pledge of Allegiance.
Now, I should point out one other thing — this decision today merely found that act of Congress unconstitutional. It did not say kids can't recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. They can recite the version that existed prior to 1954, the version that was originally written in 1892, which did not have “under God” in it.
CONNOR: And this is precisely what people like Rob want to infuse within the meaning of the constitution, and that is that it requires that we purge every expression of religion, every expression of faith, from public life. That's simply not true.
I couldn't agree more with Dick Armey when he said I hope the court is going to be willing to turn back all the tax-payer money they've received that bears the imprint “In God We Trust.”
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Ken, Ken — that's next, OK?
BOSTON: The court addressed that issue, and you're both wrong about it. The court said that this particular case dealt a lot with the public school system, because children there, being required or coerced or pressured or whatever, to take part in the Pledge of Allegiance, whereas money...
CONNOR: No, they're not.
BOSTON: ... is an entirely different situation.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Now, hold on.
Robert, Robert, I've got to stop you there, because you're saying things that aren't even true now. There was no coercion involved, and there hasn't been. That notion of coercion...
BOSTON: Well, the father of this — the father of this...
KEYES: Let me finish, please. That was, in fact...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: ... down in the past. And that wasn't even involved here.
But you also said something, again — I've got to keep bringing people back to this, because I am just sick to death of hearing people misinterpret those words in the constitution, as if they say something they definitely don't say, and that in the historical context of the times, they couldn't possibly have said.
This was not intended in any way to prevent all government action with respect to religion. Quite explicitly it was aimed at the Congress, and it intended to prevent the federal government from interfering with religious self-determination in the states.
It goes so deep that the original people who came to this country from Europe to found colonies did so so that their communities could have laws that reflected their faith. The notion...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: The other part that everybody forgets, you too, Robert — you forget that the other part of this says “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” And the free exercise of religion in that time and context and in every way clearly included the right to live in communities governed by laws that reflected your religious beliefs.
That's what the religious wars in Europe were in fact about. They were about sovereigns who prevented communities from living according to laws that reflected their religious beliefs.
And so this whole notion that the first amendment somehow drives all religion out of government at all levels, is simply a palpable historic lie, and the American people have accepted it for long enough now that it will be used to drive God and religion from every aspect of our public life.
(CROSSTALK)
BOSTON: If it's a lie, it's a lie invented by James Madison, because he was the one who advocated so forcefully for this idea, and he was the one who wrote the Bill of Rights in the first amendment, and if you read his writings, especially a document called “The Detached Memoranda,” you will see very clearly that he was a strong advocate for separation of church and state.
KEYES: Yes, and it was done...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: We have to go, Robert. Robert, we have to go.
But all of that took place in the context of debates at the state level, state level, where they were deciding on establishment, or dis-establishment. It wasn't the business of the Congress or the federal courts, and they explicitly forbid that.
Next, my reaction to this “Outrage of the Day.” I want to thank both of you gentlemen for being with us. Y'all stay with me.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: This ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance, obviously the “Outrage of the Day,” and I've got to tell you, I think it's dangerous in these times, when we're fighting terror, to try to take away from us that which represents our unity and the principle it's based on.
So when people are listening to these judges, here's what I think they ought to do in response to this decision, even if the Supreme Court makes it.
Wherever you are, in your school, in your home, in your business, put your hand over your heart, and say, “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.”
And keep saying it, no matter what the courts say, 'cause it's your right. That's the free exercise of religion and that's the patriotic spirit of this country.
Thanks. “THE NEWS WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS” is up next. See you tomorrow.