Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Should Americans Pledge Allegiance?

Aired June 06, 2001 - 15:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GROUP: ... of the United States of America.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOBBIE BATTISTA, HOST: A symbol of national pride, yet words hot enough to ignite passions in Tennessee, where state Representative Henri Brooks says she won't bow to House tradition and recite it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This dishonor is usually held only for the most vial traitors.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GROUP: ... and to the republic...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... for which it stands.

GROUP: ... for which it stands.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. HENRI BROOKS (D), MEMPHIS: I can't pledge allegiance to a flag that represents the former colonies that enslaved our ancestors.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BATTISTA: And that's outraged some citizens and exposed her to public disdain.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you a patriot, Ms. Brooks?

GROUP: ... on nation, under God, indivisible...

(END VIDEO CLIP) BATTISTA: Some people say it with pride, some find it offensive. Others want to change it. What does the Pledge of Allegiance say to you?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: ... with liberty and justice for all.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BATTISTA: Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. We will get to the Pledge of Allegiance in just a few moments, but first, as you may know, Timothy McVeigh's execution is back on schedule for Monday. A judge says newly released government documents about the case do not change the fact that McVeigh is guilty. The decision came down about 90 minutes ago.

And joining us is CNN legal analyst and co-host of CNN's "Burden of Proof," Roger Cossack.

Roger, I think a lot of people are probably relieved but also surprised by the judge's decision today, among them you.

ROGER COSSACK, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I'm afraid so. You know, there's nothing better than absolutely coming to the wrong decision in front of the whole world, and that's what I did in this case. But I will back up the fact that I thought I based it on good reasoning. I thought that what would happen in this case was because of the FBI's negligence and because there were 4,000 pages, I believed that the defense would go before the judge and say, "Look, we're not prepared to tell you exactly what this evidence is going to show, but if you give us another 30 to 45 days, we'll have the opportunity to investigate. We'll have the opportunity to really go through this with a fine-tooth comb. And then we'll come back and make all of our legal arguments with you. Now whether or not we're going to be successful, we can't tell you, but you can give us at least 30 days to find out. It's not our fault that we are here."

What Judge Matsch did, I think, was in effect say, "You know, fellows from the defense, there is just so much evidence against your client, there is no doubt, not a shadow of a doubt that he is guilty and that he was the one that delivered that bomb, that whatever evidence you can come up, you're really never, ever going to be able to change the verdict in this case or change the jury's decision." So why, in a sense is he saying, "Why prolong the inevitable? There's really no reason to have anymore time. Nothing is going to change. Let's go ahead as we have scheduled."

I thought that perhaps just because of the fact that there was negligence of the FBI that Judge Matsch would say, "OK, we'll give you 30 days but you better come up with it -- better have something to convince me in 30 days."

BATTISTA: You know, the judge also said, Roger, whatever may in time emerge about others being involved possibly in this plot, that quote, "It will not change the fact that Timothy McVeigh was the instrument of death and destruction." But at the same time, if you believe that there were others involved, then wouldn't Timothy McVeigh alive be useful to you in trying to determine that and pursue that legally than he would be if he was dead?

COSSACK: Well, he would be if he was, in fact, willing to go ahead and talk about those things. But as it stands right now, he is apparently not willing to talk about those things. And in this country, we don't torture people to do those kinds of things. If he chooses to go to his death without revealing any further information, then that's his choice. So, you know, it's a nice thought to think that perhaps McVeigh would say, you know, "I want to at least try and do something to make it right. Let me tell you who else was involved," or "Let me tell you how this actually happened." But he apparently chooses not to.

If there was anyone else involved, then remember, there's two stories. There is at least the allegation by Stephen Jones, his original lawyer, who said that McVeigh, when he first met him, seemed to indicate, at least to Stephen Jones, that there were others involved, and they did not act alone in this matter. But then later on after he saw the discovery, that is government's case, he then changed his tune. Most recently then, with those two authors from Buffalo where he said, "No, I was the sole person that did this and no on else was involved." So there are two stories.

BATTISTA: A couple of questions from the audience. Jeff, go ahead.

JEFF: Yes, I was just wondering what actual information is enclosed in the documents?

COSSACK: Well, as you know, the defense lawyers' filing was under seal. The prosecution's case was not. What the prosecution basically argued was a couple of different theories of law. One was a very complicated, if you will, theory of law that said that really Judge Matsch did not have the jurisdiction to even decide this case based on what the defense put forward as their reason for asking for their relief. I won't go into what the technicalities of that particularly in the final analysis where Judge Matsch said, "Apparently, I do have the authority to make the decision, and I decide against the defense."

And basically, the government's other argument was, "You know, judge, there's just overwhelming evidence here there's never going to be a time when Timothy McVeigh is going to find some evidence that would convince a jury or anyone that he really wasn't involved in this. Forget the fact he's already admitted it."

BATTISTA: And, Laura in the audience, go ahead.

LAURA: And that was kind of my point. I mean, we know that he's guilty. The trial has been and he's been deemed guilty of that fact. So let's go ahead and do what we were going to do with his guilt and address the other guilt later.

COSSACK: You know, I think that's pretty much what Judge Matsch made his decision based upon, what you just suggested. That what he was saying was, "Look, you know, I could give you forever, but forever isn't going to be enough time for you to ever come back here and bring back evidence that would indicate that your client played any less of a major role than we already know that he did, and that he has admitted that he's done."

I suppose one can argue, if you're in favor of Judge Matsch's decision, that he really cut to the chase and said, "You know, there are reasons why this scheduled execution date should be held, unless there is some kind of overwhelming evidence to indicate that things will change. I'm just not going to change it. And if an appellate court decides to change it, well, then let it be."

BATTISTA: Speaking of that, Roger, one more question before you go. What does happen next in this case legally?

COSSACK: Well, I would suspect that the defense lawyers will have filed before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals today their appeal on this matter. And if denied there, they could eventually go all the way to the United States Supreme Court.

But let me tell you, if they faced an uphill battle initially in this case with Judge Matsch, they face a double uphill battle now, because when you go up on appeal, the presumption is that, in fact, the judgment of the lower court stands. And so what they would have to prove to the 10th Circuit, or convince the 10th Circuit, is that Judge Matsch, what lawyers say abused his discretion or perhaps relied on the wrong law, both of which I think is going to be impossible to prove. But as you all know by now, my track record has been in this case. So you take what I have to say with grain of salt. But I think it will be very, very difficult to get reversal for McVeigh under these circumstances.

BATTISTA: OK, Roger Cossack, thanks very much for joining us. Appreciate you bringing us up to date.

COSSACK: OK.

BATTISTA: All right, now let's turn our attention to the Pledge of Allegiance. At one time, school children everywhere learned it, and with hand on heart, recited it. You probably did it. I certainly did. And it's still a tradition in many schools, at public meetings and at ceremonies across the country. But is it, as Tennessee state Representative Henri Brooks suggest, offensive?

Joining us today is Colonel Robert Maginnis, former Army officer and senior director for national security and foreign affairs at the Family Research Council. Also with us, Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the Tennessee chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. And we should add that we invited State Representative Brooks to join us, but she declined, citing some of the backlash from her decision not to recite the Pledge.

Hedy, the reason that Miss Brooks decided not to, as we mentioned earlier at the top of the show, is that she felt that pledging herself to this particular American flag meant that she was supporting a flag that waved over former slave owners at one point in time. What happened when she refused to stand up and recite the Pledge in the state House?

HEDY WEINBERG, TENNESSEE ACLU: My understanding is that representative Brooks chose not to stand, and she had done that for some time and then was asked by Speaker Naifeh, who came to her desk in the chamber, who asked her not to come into the chamber before the recitation of the Pledge were she not to stand. Representative Brooks was very disturbed by that and actually called the ACLU office to talk with us about that, and asked us to write the speaker a letter explaining why that was an inappropriate request. We read the letter that morning and hand delivered it to Speaker Naifeh's office.

I think the most important thing is what Representative Brooks' reasoning is is her right to have that -- she has a choice to decide whether or not to stand. That's what the First Amendment stands for. And that's what we as Americans understand our right to freedom of expression is.

BATTISTA: So she -- I just want to get the facts straight first. He did -- the speaker of the House did not order her to stand or leave, did he?

WEINBERG: My understanding is that Speaker Naifeh spoke to her, asked her to stand, and that if she chose not to stand and participate, she should not enter the chamber before the recitation of the Pledge.

BATTISTA: Why would she -- why would she want to be in there anyway if she doesn't believe in the Pledge and doesn't want to support them? Why be in there during the reciting of the Pledge?

WEINBERG: Well, you know what happens during, you know, the legislative session. And a lot of business actually takes place on the floor of the chamber just before the session begins, during -- in fact, probably sometimes, you know, as everyone's sitting down, people are talking among themselves. Then there's a moment for the Pledge and the prayer that's given, and then business begins. As an elected official, a state representative, Representative Brooks certainly has the right to be at her desk before session, after session, during session, and should not be asked not to be present. That's her right as an American to make the choice whether or not she wants to stand and recite the Pledge.

BATTISTA: Boy, this really heated up some emotions, as we saw. I mean it was a little bit shocking that someone would burn her in effigy over something like this. But has it -- is she suffering similar backlash to that or further harassment?

WEINBERG: Well, I think there's a lot of harassment. And Representative Brooks and Speaker Naifeh are both, you know, wonderful members of the legislature. We have worked -- the ACLU has worked closely with both of them. Representative Brooks recently sponsored our racial profiling bill. Speaker Naifeh has an open-door policy and is easy to talk to, and we have great respect for. Unfortunately, it was not appropriate, we believe, for Speaker Naifeh to ask Representative Brooks to either stand or not enter the chamber.

There's lots of conversations. Some have said there were children present in the chamber, so it was inappropriate for Representative Brooks to sit. Well, in fact, that's a good lesson for school-aged children, that what the flag does in fact symbolize is the right to make a decision: whether or not to pledge. Representative Brooks chose not to pledge. She has her reasoning for that, and it should not have been questioned. But, in fact, it was a perfect teaching moment to say, "This is a right all Americans have."

BATTISTA: So what has been the speaker's response to your letter? Is this even close to resolution yet?

WEINBERG: I think, you know, now, really Speaker Naifeh and Representative Brooks, I would hope, would not only talk among themselves, but there would be some statement of support for the First Amendment. You know, I have hoped that this would become a teaching moment not only for the legislators and the school-aged children, but for the public at large to realize that you can't mandate or legislate patriotism. The flag stands for the right to make a decision as to whether or not and how you want to express yourself.

Representative Brooks has the right not to stand, and we supported her right by telling Speaker Naifeh that we thought the request not to be in chambers was inappropriate.

BATTISTA: Let me get the colonel in here quickly before we go to break.

Colonel, it is true isn't it, that she does have the right not to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance?

COL. ROBERT MAGINNIS, U.S. ARMY (RETIRED): You're right, Bobbie. She has that right. In a 1943 Supreme Court decision, Barnett, you know, gives her that right. Just like every child in America who by maybe reciting a Pledge of Allegiance is expressing their love for their country. What I find inconsistent here, though, Bobbie, is that, you know, she swore to uphold the Constitution of the U.S. and the state of Tennessee, and I find that inconsistent, because a pledge to the republic under which it stands really is about the beauty of our system -- the beauty of our system, a country, quite frankly.

And I understand that her objection is it represents slavery back in the colonial times. This country went to a Civil War, lost hundreds of thousands of lives. This country represents freedom across the world today. I used to wear an American patch on my uniform when I went abroad. And Americans as well as foreigners understand what that represents. It represents the positive virtues of this great republic which we're all proud to serve for. And yet, we also have the opportunity not to say it, and I find that somewhat distressing. She doesn't have to love her country. And the people of Tennessee can send someone that doesn't love her country to Nashville if they want. But that really troubles me.

BATTISTA: Well, I have to take a quick break here, but we'll talk about whether or not an action like that means that you don't love your country. But I got to take a break. And our question today is: Should school children be required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance? Take the TALKBACK LIVE online viewer vote at cnn.com/talkback. AOL keyword: CNN. While there, take a look at my daily note and e-mail us here your thoughts.

In a moment, we'll find out why our next guest refused to say the Pledge in school. And we'll go to the audience. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GROUP: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Representative Henri Brooks helped win approval in 1999 for a memorial to the slave trade outside the Tennessee capital building. She has also proposed legislation to study the possibility of paying reparations to African-Americans for slavery.

BATTISTA: E-mails coming in. Jill in South Carolina says, "Good and honorable men women have given their lives defending the flag so we may enjoy our American way of life. This is one small way to say thank you and honor our country. God bless America."

Mike in San Diego says, "You live in the U.S., recite the Pledge, end of story."

Stephen in the audience.

STEPHEN: Well, I'm a conservative Republican, and we start our monthly meetings with the Pledge of Allegiance. But it seems to me that the flag represents our values, and one of our values is the right to free speech and to dissent. My question for the colonel is, is he saying that we must all think and act the same way that he does?

MAGINNIS: By no means. I wouldn't advocate that position. I will tell you, though, if you go to the INS and you talk about people fleeing other countries, what do they have to say in their oath? They have to first disavow any allegiance to the country from which they come, and then they have to avow -- they have to give their allegiance to the U.S. Constitution and also be prepared, by the way, to, if necessary, answer the call to arms. So, you know, we're asking that of people coming in here to be citizens.

It's really about a voluntary love affair with your country. A lot of things in America we don't like, perhaps, but it's the best system in the world, and it's a system I think that's worth fighting for. That's why so many hundreds of thousands of young Americans have given up their lives not necessarily just in this country but abroad, for our ideals.

BATTISTA: Go ahead. Hedy, did you... WEINBERG: Oh, I'd like to say, you know, I agree with colonel that this is a wonderful land, and the flag symbolizes the freedoms and the right to freedom of expression, the right to ensure that government not intrude upon our privacy. And that's in part what makes this country so special. And I think, you know, we would all hope that people have a healthy respect, all Americans have a healthy respect for our country.

But that respect cannot be coerced, and when you in fact order someone or demand that someone say the Pledge, you are in fact contradicting the values upon which this country was founded. The Constitution, which we learn in school, surprisingly we don't speak to that each morning. Maybe we should rather than the Pledge of Allegiance. But the Constitution actually ensures the guarantees to freedom, and that's what we're celebrating. And in fact, that's what Representative Brooks is celebrating when she chooses, because of the First Amendment, not to stand and salute the flag. We might not agree with that, but what we have to support is her right not to salute the flag, and that the First Amendment ensures that right.

BATTISTA: Let me bring in another guest on the phone. With us from Seattle, Washington is Sheila King. She is now a sophomore at Eastern Washington University in Cheney, Washington. But she led a protest in her high school against the daily recital of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Why did you do that?

SHEILA KING, ANTI-PLEDGE STUDENT: Well, we were saying it actually daily in the middle of our second period classes. And I also feel that, you know, patriotism is shown in a lot of different ways and that the great thing about this country is we have the choice whether we choose to stand and say the Pledge or not. And actually, the students were having a very like adverse reaction to it. And when you say it repetitively every single day, again, it becomes a coercion, I think, and you really lose the meaning.

I mean, ceremony is something that's supposed to be, you know, paying respect and honor to the flag for every single day. It was completely losing its effect. And I think we really forget what it is that we're pledging our allegiance to.

BATTISTA: And we might add that you are Army ROTC.

KING: Yes, I am. I am now contracted.

BATTISTA: OK. When you go into the Army, will you have to take an oath?

KING: Yes, actually, I already have. I am -- like have done my oath to the United States Army to uphold the Constitution and do my duty as an officer.

BATTISTA: And your point is that, you know, that what you are doing is followed by action, right, rather than just standing there and routinely saying something day after day that you know -- I mean really, honestly speaking, when all of you said the Pledge of Allegiance in grade school, does anybody really think they thought about what it meant or anything like that?

KING: Exactly. I agree. I think rather than just saying it, maybe we should analyze it and learn about it. I do agree it should be an issue in school but rather than just saying it, I mean, we should analyze and really understand what it is we're saying. I choose to show my patriotism in an active way by being in the military. And others I think should have the choice in which avenue they decide to show their patriotism.

BATTISTA: Colonel.

MAGINNIS: Yeah, every day in the future when she's in the Army, she'll probably stand on an installation somewhere in this world and salute the flag at 5:00 and 6:00 in the morning, and she'll remember perhaps occasionally why it is that we do this. We do this to remember the men and women who gave us our freedom, that paid the price so long ago. So I think that, yes, we can't compel people to do this. But for love of country, love of the freedom that we have to have this program today, Bobbie, we should celebrate the opportunity, the privilege, the honor of saying the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.

BATTISTA: I have to take a quick break here, but maybe instead of just saying it every day, children all over this country should know a little bit more about it, like where did the Pledge of Allegiance come from? Why are most of us encouraged to say it, and what does it really mean? So we'll ask historian Allan Lichtman when we come back from the break. Stay with us.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What is the Pledge of Allegiance?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. I don't know.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And to the republic for which it stands.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One nation under God, indivisible -- it's been awhile.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: One nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Indivisible forever and ever. Is that right? Amen.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Close enough.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Was that close enough for you?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCOTT KAMINSKI: Hi, my name is Scott Kaminski. I'm a senior at American University. Everyone, in my opinion, should stand up for the Pledge of Allegiance just to show your country what they have done for you, and to show the freedom and independence that we've been given for like 200 years now. The only people who I think should not stand should be those who have different religious beliefs.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BATTISTA: E-mails. William in Ohio says, "She's an elected official. What a poor example for our young people to follow."

John in Oklahoma says, "The actions of our ancestors should not bar us from pledging ourselves to creating a better future."

Well, why do we say the Pledge of Allegiance? Who wrote it? When did it become part of the fabric of our society?

Joining us now, Allan Lichtman, chairman of the history department at American University.

Allan, good to see you.

ALLAN LICHTMAN, PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Thank you.

BATTISTA: How exactly did this pledge originate? Who wrote it and why?

LICHTMAN: Well, like so many other things in this still very young country of ours, the Pledge is of relatively recent origin and comes from a rather unsuspected source, I think, to many people. It was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, the cousin of one of the greatest of all American reformers, Edward Bellamy, the author of "Looking Backward," who actually envisioned a planned society.

Francis Bellamy, himself was a Christian socialist, who actually broke with his church because of his socialist sermons. His idea was to commemorate, of course, the 400th anniversary of the landing of Columbus to promote a magazine with which he was associated, the "Youth's Companion," and to memorialize what he believed to be the ideas of the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Civil War. That's why you have "one nation, indivisible," to establish the notion that we fought a war to have a unitary nation, not a compact of states. And he put in the ideas of liberty and justice to establish the notion that America has both the freedom of the individual but at the same time justice, fairness to all.

He also thought about putting in the idea of equality derived from the French revolution, but he thought that was too controversial, at a time when women, for example, couldn't vote in most of the country; and in much of the country, African-Americans couldn't vote.

BOBBIE: Yes, and from what I read, his thoughts along those lines were that he thought we were thousands of years away from that kind of equality in 1892.

LICHTMAN: That's right. Only a great visionary could envision that kind of quality from that perspective. Of course, the Pledge has been changed a couple of times in American history, and it reflects changing rhythms of our country. In the 1920s, at a time when this country was sharply restricting immigration, particularly from countries of southern and eastern Europe, the original wording, which said "my" flag, was changed to "the" flag of the United States of America because some, particularly those in the daughters of the American Revolution, the American Legion, feared that maybe some recent immigrants might associate "my" flag with the flag of their country of origin, not their new country, the United States. And then...

(CROSSTALK)

BOBBIE: And when did they add "under God"? That was a fairly recent addition.

LICHTMAN: That was much more recent. That was in 1954 under President Eisenhower. With Eisenhower's support, the Congress of the United States added the words "under God." It wasn't until 1942, a little earlier, that the Congress actually officially recognized the Pledge as part of the flag code. And then a year later, in a landmark Supreme Court decision, the Supreme Court ruled that no person could be forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

And some of the most stirring words in American constitutional history were written by Justice Robert Jackson when he said "in this decision, if there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be or orthodox in politics, nationalism, or religion or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess, by any word or act, their faith therein."

You could recite the Pledge, of course, as a means of establishing ideals of this country, but as part of those ideals, no one could be forced to do so.

BOBBIE: I have this quick e-mail from Jeffrey (ph) in North Manchester, Indiana, who says: "Such allegiances to any power, entity or being other than God are forbidden. Who said patriotism is the last defense of the tyrant?"

LICHTMAN: I think that's right of blind patriotism. But remember, this was not written to express a blind patriotism. This is not "my country, right or wrong." Yes, this celebrates our country, but it celebrates the fundamental ideals and principles that make this such a great country. And from what I've heard of the discussion here this afternoon, all participates in the discussion certainly agree about the great value and historical significance of ideas like liberty and justice and an indivisible nation for America.

BOBBIE: Let me get a final statement here from Colonel Maginnis.

MAGINNIS: Well, he's the historian here. The issue for most Americans should be whether or not this is a freedom of speech issue, and it is. You know, you don't have to say the Pledge of Allegiance. Do you love your country -- certainly, I do, and a lot of Americans have given their life. That doesn't mean that you can't love your country and not say the Pledge of Allegiance.

But what do you do for the freedom that you have? You're free today because blood has been shed for you. And I would hope that Americans resonate on that, reflect on it and remember that legacy that we have today.

BOBBIE: Colonel Maginnis, thank you very much for joining us. Patty Weinberg, thank you as well for joining us. We'll be back in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BOBBIE: Welcome back. I have a couple of vets in the audience, and Raymond is a World War II vet? Korean War? Which one?

RAYMOND: No, Korean and Vietnam.

BATTISTA: OK.

RAYMOND: I'm not quite old enough to be in the two...

(LAUGHTER)

BATTISTA: Go ahead. Your thoughts on this.

RAYMOND: My comment was that I fought for my country to have the privilege to -- for the Pledge of Allegiance. If you don't want it, hey, at least respect it. I mean, you don't have to pledge it, but you have to respect it.

BATTISTA: And, Scott, you are a Gulf War vet.

SCOTT: I'd just like to say, I think to become a legislator, you have to say an oath. I mean, the oath that you took to become a legislator, if she didn't agree with that -- because obviously, that was an oath they used during slavery times -- how come she's a legislator? You take an oath as the president of the United States. If you take that oath as the president of the United States, and say "I don't agree with it," does that make you legally not the president of the United States?

BOBBIE: Yeah, we don't know the oath that she had to take when sworn in as a state representative.

Over here to -- Marie had a question for Sheila King on the phone, quickly. Marie.

MARIE: Yes, I had a question. Have you decided to stop completely saying the Pledge, or do you still say it?

BOBBIE: Sheila? KING: Make a point, as far as -- that patriotism is not in just a repetitious saying, that it is in fact in your actions. And now when I stand up and say the Pledge of Allegiance, I mean it and I think about the significance of it. And that's what I was trying to bring back to it.

BOBBIE: Let me bring in two other guests now. Linda Watkins is with us. She is president-general of the Daughters of the American Revolution. And Roger Pilon will be with us -- there he is -- vice president for legal affairs at the Cato Institute.

Roger, can you hear us OK now?

ROGER PILON, CATO INSTITUTE: I can just barely hear you if you speak up.

BOBBIE: OK. Let me start with you, Roger, assuming that you can hear me. Should people be compelled to say the Pledge of Allegiance, do you think?

PILON: Let me say first, that I subscribe fully to the principles that are implicit in the Pledge of Allegiance. But among those principles is the idea that each of us is free to live his own life, to pursue his own values, and not to be forced by others to pledge to principles that he may not subscribe to. Therefore, when it comes to a public setting such as public school, I do not think that people should be forced to say the Pledge.

With respect to private organizations, the Boy Scouts, for example, which is a private organization, there, you can be, quote, "forced to," because you're not forced to become a member of the Boy Scouts. And so you have to draw a fairly sharp distinction between private organizations and public organizations.

BATTISTA: Linda, how do you feel about that?

LINDA WATKINS, DAUGHTERS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION: Well, to me, the situation is really not about the flag, per se. It's what the flag means to you. The flag represents the love of country. It really represents the country. And we tend to profess what we believe. And if you really believe in your country, then I don't think you would have a problem with professing that belief in your country.

The flag is a symbol for our nationality, and basically that's really what it is, and that's what it's been for hundreds of years for many, many countries. It represents the principles and the fundamentals of the American government.

BATTISTA: But if you -- if you love your country wrong or right, I mean, is that what you're saying? I mean, if you believe that there is something fundamentally wrong with what is going in your country, whether it be in the past or the present or something heading into the future, does that mean you don't love your country if you try to do something about that? WATKINS: No, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is you look to what you think is the very best expression of freedom and what country fits that expression of freedom, and you choose to live in the United States of America. And because you have chosen this, you know that you work within the framework of the principles that we have: the laws, the government, everything.

To change the social issues -- actually, this is not a social issue. Equality certainly is important to us. But it is through the idea of equality that we work through these social issues, and I really feel that as a people we are being able to do that.

BATTISTA: Usually, Allan, all the change that has taken place in the history of this country, though, does happen under the flag, doesn't it? I mean, we started out that way.

LICHTMAN: That's right. There certainly is that tradition. But let's not forget another great tradition that I think Roger alluded to, and that is what the great philosopher John Paul Sartre said: the absolute right to say no, which is what really distinguishes is as humans.

We are a very pluralistic society, and that is one of the hallmarks of this society, is that we are able to bring such diverse people together and live together in harmony. And while certainly the ideals of this country is something we should all learn about and ponder, one of those ideals is the right to say no and the right not to profess something even if a great majority of people think it represents something noble and ideal. Each individual, particularly in a public setting, as Roger points out, does have that sacred right to say no.

And that's what Justice Jackson so eloquently pointed out in that 1943 decision, how fundamental it is that there's no described creed in this country. That's one of the things that makes us great.

BATTISTA: Let me go to the audience quickly, and Chuck.

CHUCK: I certainly respect her position in not saying the Pledge, but I wonder if she let that be known to her constituents when she was running to represent them, if they knew that she was not of that persuasion, that she did not want to stand up and pledge.

BATTISTA: Yeah, I mean, we don't know whether that may or not have affected their votes for her. We've got to take another quick break.

Professor Lichtman, thank you so much for joining us today. Appreciate it.

Up next, do you say the Pledge?

House bill passed 1776 passed this month in the Texas legislature. The bill would require 3rd through 12th graders to recite a passage from the Declaration of Independence every day for one week. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: In 1943, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled no American could be forced to rise for or to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Justice Robert Jackson wrote: "To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds."

A couple of e-mails. Here it is, D-Day. This e-mail from Lorraine in California says: "I wish you all could have been with me at the World War II 100th bomb group reunion. Men stood, some with difficulty and with tears running down their cheeks, to pledge the flag. Now, that is what America is about."

Darryl in Oregon says: "Forcing someone to recite the Pledge of Allegiance is far more un-American than refusing to say it."

Jody on the phone with us from New Jersey.

JODY: Hello.

BATTISTA: Hi. Go ahead.

JODY: Hi. I want to say I think it's disturbing that people are assuming that because people don't want to say the Pledge that they're unpatriotic and they don't love their country. I for one am an atheist, and I don't think that I should have to say a pledge (UNINTELLIGIBLE) to a god that I don't believe in to prove my loyalty or my love for my country.

BATTISTA: So do you -- would you -- you object to the Pledge simply because it has the term "under God" in it.

JODY: There's other reasons...

BATTISTA: Otherwise you have no problems with it.

JODY: I don't think that people should be forced to say anything to anybody else to prove their loyalty. It's not necessary. But my main issue is with the "under God." There are about 27 million atheists, and we shouldn't have to -- we shouldn't be forced to acknowledge a god that we don't believe in just to prove to other people that we love our country.

BATTISTA: Linda and Roger, do you think that that call and other thoughts like it sort of indicate that patriotism may be out of step or dead in this country today?

PILON: If I may respond to that, Bobbie, I don't think patriotism is dead at all. In fact, one of your respondents did say that one of the great marks of patriotism is to be able to tolerate those who have different views than you have.

This country stands for a multiplicity of views. It was founded by people of different persuasions, religious and otherwise. And one of the things that we do is refrain from forcing people to subscribe to views that they may not hold. We may disagree with those views, but we will respect their right to disagree.

And forcing people in a public setting such as a public school to recite the Pledge of Allegiance is not only unconstitutional -- as one of your callers said, it is un-American.

BATTISTA: Linda.

WATKINS: Well, I would have to disagree with that, because I believe that in memory and the spirit of the fighting men that have fought to save this country -- from the patriots of the American Revolution up through the current recent wars -- we have to realize that these men believed in their country and they were willing to die for it. All men. That includes African-Americans. And I can't imagine that there would not be some personal experience in this woman's life to make her understand that she has probably relatives and dear friends who have died for their country...

(CROSSTALK)

BATTISTA: But we have a vet in the audience who just said a few moments ago that he, you know, fought for those, our rights and the Constitution, under which includes freedom of speech and the right to dissent.

WATKINS: Absolutely, and freedom of speech is part of it. But we don't need to forget that the main thing we are a diverse people, yes, but we are united. And the way we are united is that we all reverence the flag as one country, indivisible.

BATTISTA: I have to take another break. We'll check on the online viewer vote right after this. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: A quick look at our poll today. The question was "Should school children be required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance?" Sixty-six percent of you are saying yes and 34 percent of you are saying no.

Just enough time to do a couple of more e-mails here. R.J. in Wichita says: "The Pledge is an oath. I do not believe children should be required to swear an oath."

And Louis Jackson in Ontario says: "My own country did away with the Pledge of Allegiance after World War II. What we have evolved into is a multicultural patchwork with everyone marching to different cultural agendas. It will eventually tear the country asunder. Don't do away with your Pledge of Allegiance."

We are out of time. I'd like to thank all of our guests. Sheila King, thank you very much, on the phone with us. Appreciate you joining us. Also with us, Linda, we appreciate your time also. And Roger, appreciate you joining us as well, too.

We'll see you again tomorrow at 3:00 for more TALKBACK LIVE.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com