Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Why do so Few Minorities Participate in the Winter Olympics? Is Ashcroft Couching U.S. Policy in His Own Religious Beliefs?

Aired February 20, 2002 - 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.
SUSAN CAMPOS, HOST: The U.S. strikes the mother lode and makes history in the process.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I feel really blessed to be the first male or female to win a gold medal as an African-American.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMPOS: Also, separating church and state.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Civilized individuals, Christians Jews and Muslims, all understand that the source of freedom and human dignity is the creator.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMPOS: Did the attorney general cross the line?

And would you order a restaurant entree called Viagra ceviche (ph) ? We will tell you why the company that makes Viagra wants it off the menu.

Hello, and welcome to TALKBACK LIVE: AMERICA SPEAKS OUT. I'm Susan Campos and I'll be your host for the rest of this week. The USA was golden yesterday, picking up two more medals in the winter Olympics, one for the first ever women's bobsled run, the other in men's speed skating.

For bobsledder Vonetta Flowers, it was a unique award, the first gold ever won by a black American athlete in the winter games. Gold medal speedskater, Derek Parra, is Mexican-American.

Of the 201 American athletes at the winter Olympics, all but 10 are white. Why isn't there more diversity? Let's ask Mike Moran, spokesman for the U.S. Olympic Committee.

Hello, Mike.

MICHAEL MORAN, U.S. OLYMPIC COMMITTEE: Hello, Susan. How are you?

CAMPOS: Why no diversity there?

MORAN: First of all, I think you shorted Vonetta because she is the first black male or female from any country ever to win a gold medal at the winter Olympic Games, not just an American.

The answer to diversity I think is far ranging. I don't have the answer. What I do know is we are going to take advantage of this. We have some programs opening up this spring under the leadership of our new CEO, Lloyd Ward -- by the way, the first African-American to head up the USOC -- who is going to reach out using Olympic athletes into the communities where minorities traditionally maybe only get exposure to the summer sports, or basketball, football, things like that and try to really take advantage of where we are going.

Some of our sports governing bodies are very active right now, and we are seeing some of the affects of it in recruiting minority youth into their programs. I think you have only seen the beginning of something that by 2006 is going to be very special.

CAMPOS: Mike, is it a financial matter as well? It is not financial. It is exposure, it's opportunity. We have a lot of money to be able to put now into the grassroots pipeline. And of course the USOC is made up of 75 member organizations that include CYOs the police athletic leagues, boys and girls clubs, Jewish Community Centers. We are going to work with them to take this to the grassroots level, and try to increase this.

Another thing too, in our brand-new, this year, performance agreements with each of our sport-governing bodies, some of their funding is depended upon a very effective and aggressive program of recruiting minorities both into administration and into the sports programs. So we are really optimistic about the future. But I gotta tell you last night with Vonetta and Derek, and of course Michelle Kwan, an Asian American, the other night Naomi Lang, a Native American athlete for the United States in figure skating, this will open the doors for so many girls and boys across the country who will want to know how to get into sports and we think we are going to have the answer.

CAMPOS: Mike, that is good news, and they are also very good role models. We have someone in our audience -- Chris has someone in our audience who wants to ask you a question, Mike.

MORAN: Great.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think one of the things that is stopping people -- black people being the Olympics is the fact that it is so cost prohibitive. You have private lessons for your kids, you have music that has to be choreographed. You have the coaching and all of the rest of that, plus the travel costs, so it's not really inviting to people who may not be on the higher of the economic scale.

I have a daughter who does competitive cheerleading and competitive dance, and I know how much those things cost, and it is just not easy.

MORAN: I agree with you 100 percent, but it is across the board. It's not race specific. It is very difficult for young kids in the sport of figure skating specifically to get into that sport at the grass roots level because of ice time, coaching time. It is very expensive. But in those other sports now, like bobsled, luge, skeleton, and all of that, there are opportunities, summer programs, cost-free opportunities that I think our sports governing bodies will unveil, where it won't cost the parents and their families money to get their kids involved at the grass roots level, then as they come up through the pipeline, if they are fortunate enough, to become an elite athlete at the age of 18 or beyond, our funding will be able to pick that up.

Olympic training center programs in Colorado Springs, Lake Placid and here in Salt Lake, after these games, funding, it's available. We have to reach out with a wider net to find these youngsters and get them interested. I think it is going to be spectacular for the future.

CAMPOS: Mike Moran, thank you so much, and we are looking forward to seeing all those changes. And there is so much controversy surrounding this winter event, and it seems Olympic skaters simply can't escape it. Even last night's delicious performance by Michelle Kwan is tinged with semi-sour grapes.

Joining us now from Park City, Utah is CNNSI correspondent, John Gianone. Hello, John. What is going on there? I see it's snowing, but what else is going on in skating?

JOHN GIANONE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Snow makes for a picture perfect postcard setting here in Park City, but you know, it's been a growing controversy here at the winter games ever since the pairs figure skating competition last week, and that whole snafu about the Russians won the gold and the Canadians four days later were given the medal.

There is a growing belief among the Russians contingent that there is this quote "anti-Russian sentiment" at the Olympic games and the Russian federation filed a protest in aerial's competition yesterday, and sure there are some whispers now that perhaps Irina Slutskaya of Russia should be in first and Michelle Kwan should be second.

But truth be told, the top five skaters in the competition, Kwan, Slutskaya, Sasha Cohen from the U.S., Sarah Hughes from the U.S., even Maria Butraskaya from Russia, they all skated flawlessly in their short programs and that is almost unheard of. So the line between how those five skaters skated is so thin that I believe that Michelle Kwan being in first place, you can make just as much of a case for Irina Slutskaya, or even Sasha Cohen.

CAMPOS: And John, the Lithuanian skates of course have also filed a complaint.

GIANONE: Right. That came in the ice dance competition. The Lithuanians came in fifth place in that competition on Monday, but what happened was the Italians came in third, the Canadians came in fourth. Both the Italian team and the Canadian team fell, which is relatively rare in ice dancing.

Some people said the Lithuanians had the best performance of the night, but the Lithuanians stayed in fifth place, so that delegation filed a protest with the international skating union. It should be noted that nine judges formed that competition. Eight of the judges placed the Lithuanians either in fourth or fifth. The only judge that put the Lithuanians third was from Lithuania.

CAMPOS: And John, the craziest sport of all, the skeleton is back this year, after being banned for 50 years, tell us what that is?

GIANONE: Skeleton is basically sport where you slide down a very thin board with some blades on it at about 80 miles per hour face first. It is almost the opposite of luge. Instead of lying on your back with your head at the top of the sled, in skeleton you lie at the front of the sled face first, your chin about three inches of above the track, you go 80 miles an hour.

But you know, the United States is awfully glad that they got the sport back at the Olympics, because on the men's side, Jim Shea won the gold medal this afternoon, and on the women's side it was a 1-2 American finish. Tristan Gale (ph) won the gold, Leanne Parsly won the silver, so three more medals for the United States today, and they all came in skeleton.

CAMPOS: Go USA. And I guess skeleton, which looks so frightening, and everybody is clapping here because they are happy for the USA.

John Gianone, thank you for joining us today and get inside. It looks freezing out there.

GIANONE: I love it out here.

CAMPOS: You are studly.

All right, up next, extreme Olympians: real cool dudes or just hot dogs? Will the extreme go mainstream?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAMPOS: Welcome back. Who would have thought snowboarders and freestyle skiers would cause such excitement at the winter games? Flying, turning and flipping their way to a stream of medals -- unchained youth, adrenalin unleashed: could this be the future of the new Olympics?

Joining us is Andy Clurman, president and publisher of "Mountain Sports Media," and "Trans-World Media." They both cater to extreme sports. Also snowboarder J.J. Thomas, winner of a bronze medal and Scott Ferrell, a WNEW sports-radio talk show host.

Good to see all of you, thank you for being with us. What is that?

OK, J.J., we want to start with you. I heard that for many generation Xers the Olympics is kind of like selling out. Is that true?

J.J. THOMAS, E.S. SNOWBOARD BRONZE MEDALIST: No, I think that is more of a rumor. It is not really selling out at all. It's just new, so people aren't used to it, but it's not selling out.

CAMPOS: Andy what do you think of all these extreme ports?

I don't think Andy is hearing us right now, but Scott, what do you think about all the extreme sports?

SCOTT FERRALL, WNEW SPORTS RADIO HOST: Radical. For all of us snowboarders that like to rip and torque. First let me introduce my new line of clothing that I am going to get after I cop a medal. This is my Irish whiskey Jameson hat -- isn't it fresh? My new goggles are my Sunny Shade Rippers. I have a torque neck-grabber, and my new whiskey flask line that is coming out in the fall.

I've go my new Jack-the-Ripper gum, which is going to absolutely seal the deal. I met so many chicks and NHL stars out of this, I just want to be a thrasher. I got my '96 Olympic jacket and I am going to do a double axel torquer, indy grab, triple sow-cow finish with a double axel grinder, and to finish up...

CAMPOS: All right, Scott...

FERRALL: I love it. Radical! Get me a new...

CAMPOS: Scott, where do we go from here? Does that mean you like it or you don't like it?

FERRALL: I just think that we are going to forget all about these kids. First it's the X-games, then it's the triple X-games, then it's the cash-flow games. Everybody is doing a drastic -- look at the dinner roll, and I want to do a McNugget, I got to do a axle- grabber! And I am going to listen to Metallica, and get an endorsement...

CAMPOS: Andy, what do you...

FERRALL: Radical, Dude!

CAMPOS: I don't know. Andy what do you think of this?

FERRALL: X-games, Dude! Come on, bro, Metallica, c'mon, dude, Metallica...

CAMPOS: Andy, what do you think?

ANDY CLURMAN, MOUNTAIN SPORTS MEDIA: I think it -- you know, there is a lot of the athletes who are -- I think if you just look at the kind of the experience they had being here, and the snowboarders and the kids on the halfpipe, and I think it's been the fist time that the what we are calling extreme athletes have joined the mainstream and it seems like they are getting the recognition and the rewards that they have been working for just like the other athletes. So, it's hard to say this could be bad for extreme sports in any way.

CAMPOS: Is it also maybe a ratings ploy to get young viewers in and it is actually working because the ratings are up for NBC?

CLURMAN: I do not think so. I think it is really a reflection of what is going on in the world and in sports today. You go to any mountain during the season, you will have 25, 30 percent of the kids out there snowboarding versus skiing. So this is truly the organic growth of the sports and it is time they kind of got their due in the Olympic.

CAMPOS: All right, and I know that a lot of our audience members love all of this. Chris, you have somebody right now?

CHRIS: This is Don, from Norfolk, Virginia.

DON: I really think that there is danger involved, and people are really thrilled to watch this. And it's just like watching skydiving. They really enjoy it and see the thrill that is involved.

CAMPOS: What do you think about that J.J.? What do people tell you?

THOMAS: Basically what that guy said: it is new to them, and they love to see it. And everyone is kind of not used to it, it is new to them and it's exciting, so everybody seems to like it.

CAMPOS: Scott, I am almost afraid to go to Scott, but Scott would you actually like to actually see more of the old Olympics?

FERRALL: Yes, I think that the need for speed, I love the hockey, the competition. Tonight you have the U.S. against the Germans. You have Wayne Gretsky complaining for a week. It will be interesting to see what happens. If it wasn't for us the Germans would be speaking French and tonight they are going to beat them 7-1 like everybody else has been beating them. And it is wide open, it's great. I like the figure skating, I live Michelle Kwan, I love the downhill. I am just glad that Picaboo is Susie Chapstick now. She is going to make a bunch of money. I hear she's coming out with an album in the fall.

CAMPOS: All right, well we actually do -- I don't know where you ever go from here, but we actually do have Nic in the audience now. Nic, what do you think about extreme sports?

NIC: I think it is perfect to get the younger viewers to watch it, because how many people, like I was saying before, is watching figure skating, besides looking at the women, I'm not a sexist or nothing but hey, and also it is a good marketing tool to get them to watch it, to get us into it, to get them, like, go U.S. Because who else watch some regular old boring sports that can't nobody really get hurt, but like a little broken shin, or twisted ankle. I am truing to see some broken arms and legs where they have to go home like this.

CAMPOS: You want to see people get hurt?

NIC: I am saying...I just want to see some action. Let me say that, to be safe. Hands down, whatever, to everybody...

FERRALL: The are going to 90 miles an hour in the down hill.

NIC: That's what I'm saying, right! That's what I am trying to see. Headfirst. How can you get hurt with your legs going first? I'm trying to go head first.

FERRALL: What are they going to do, bring in the snowmobiles next and have bodies flying off snow mobiles and kids hitting trees and dying? Snow skiing in the trees, with -- what are they going to have next? Making out in the trees up on the mountain? That will be great, come here we baby, we might win a gold, and then we will have Wayne Gretsky complain, and maybe we'll get gold, just like the Russians -- Radical Dude! Radical!

CAMPOS: Just one minute, we have Tammy the phone from New York, go ahead.

CALLER: Hi, I figure these kids and adults have been doing extreme sports for years, skateboarding, and whatever and they love doing it. Why not represent their country in doing what they love? They have their own sports show on ESPN, and ESPN 2, why can't they represent their country on national TV?

CAMPOS: Well, there you go, and I think that Andy, quickly you would agree with that, right?

CLURMAN: You just look at the evolution of sport and you have a whole category of new sports that are coming up, and really reflecting what kids are out there doing today, whether it's on snow, whether it's on bikes or on skateboards in skate parks. This is not a marketing ploy. This is what is happening in America.

CAMPOS: All right. Andy, thank you very much. That is all the time we have for this segment. Andy Clurman, Scott Ferrall -- wow -- J.J. Thomas, thank you. Up next, God and the attorney general.

Coming up on TALKBACK LIVE: Speaking of God.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ASHCROFT: It is impossible not to see the stark difference between the way of God and the way of the terrorist.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMPOS: The attorney general takes a lashing for invoking God in the war on terrorism. Is he violating someone's civil liberties?

Find out who has a gripe, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAMPOS: Attorney General John Ashcroft was speaking to a meeting of religious broadcasters yesterday, so it may not be surprising that he would bring up God and religion into an address about the war on terrorism.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ASHCROFT: It is a conflict between good and evil, and as President Bush has eloquently reminded us, we know that God is not neutral in the battle between good and evil.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMPOS: It is exactly that willingness to express himself in religious terms that worries his critics. Here to talk about it is Wendy Wright, senior policy director with Concerned Women for America, and Hussein Ibish, communications director for the American Arab Anti- Discrimination Committee.

We want to welcome you both.

It's a pleasure. Thanks.

CAMPOS: And we want to start with you, Mr. Ibish. I know that you have a problem with what he said. Tell me exactly, what do you have a problem with?

HUSSEIN IBISH, AMER-ARAB ANTI DISCRIMINATION CMTE.: Well, I think there are two problems really, with the attorney general's comments. Fist of all, they have to be seen in the context of his other recent comments on religion, which include really unfair and inaccurate condemnations of Islam reported by Cal Thomas, which he has not adequately explained or in any way really repudiated.

So this additional sort of religious outbursts, which casts the war on terrorism in religious terms is very problematic in that regard. Secondly, by saying that all civilized people agree with him and share his religious values, he seems to be foreclosing the debate. It's a lot like when he sat in the Senate and told the senators that if they questioned his policies and his national security approach, they would be giving aide and comfort to terrorism.

He seems to be using every opportunity to foreclose the debate and say, look, we can't talk about the war on terrorism because this is the will of God, and we can't talk about my policies, because that is aiding terrorists. This is not right.

CAMPOS: Is it basically that he is saying believers verses nonbelievers?

IBISH: Well, I don't think it is exactly that. I think what he is basically saying is, you can't argue with my policies, you can't question what we are about to do in the war on terrorism without opposing God, essentially.

For example, the administration is talking a lot about the need to attack Iraq to remove the government of Saddam Hussein and all of these things. You know casting this in religious terms as the will of God, when there are a lot of Americans who are going to have serious questions about that, who have raised real objections and almost every other country in the world, including all of our allies who have objected to this already, is really, I think, frankly, framing things in a very hostile and aggressive manner and trying to wrap yourself in a religious mantle where what we are talking about actually is politics and diplomacy, and not theology. This is not theology -- theocracy, rather.

CAMPOS: Wendy, let me see, what do you think?

WENDY WRIGHT, CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA: Ibish has completely mischaracterized what John Ashcroft said yesterday. In fact, to point this out, we actually put his speech on our Web site, encouraged people to read it for themselves. Do not listen to what pundits are mischaracterizing it as saying. And what he is said is that this is not a war between Christians and Muslims, or Muslims and Jews, but rather it is a conflict between peace and destruction.

He very clearly outlined what this the war on terrorism is about, and in fact, pointed out the common elements that Christians, Jews and Muslims hold, that we find that our rights for freedom, and human dignity come from our creator. That is a quote from the Declaration of Independence. So if there any disagreement with John Ashcroft's statements, the disagreements are not with him, but rather with the founding fathers of our country.

IBISH: Well, I completely disagree with that. We do not live in a theocracy. We live in a secular republic where our policies are created by human choices, where we essentially do not proceed by wrapping ourselves in a mantel of God, and saying, if you do not agree with me, if you don't agree with my policies, then you are anti- Christian, anti-Muslim, anti-Jewish, and all civilized...

WRIGHT: John Ashcroft never said that.

IBISH: He did. He characterized civilized people as Muslims Christians, and Jews, people who believe that human dignity comes from the creator. There are many other ways of looking at things and many Americans take a very different view, and actually many of the founding fathers of this country took a very different view.

WRIGHT: In fact, George Washington said that we cannot have political prosperity unless we find it in religion and morality. We had similar statements from Thomas Jefferson, from John Adams, from Benjamin Rush, so our founding fathers clearly saw, as John Ashcroft said, that virtue is the arena for liberty. If you do not have virtue, you cannot have liberty.

(CROSSTALK)

CAMPOS: Wendy, Hussein, we will talk about this more. First we have to take a break. When we come back, Mike is on the phone and he has something to say as well. We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I would say that it is against my religion to impose my religion. For, if God made us free, who would I be to supersede his judgment?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMPOS: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE: "America Speaks Out." I am Susan Campos.

And I am talking with Wendy Wright and Hussein Ibish about John Ashcroft's latest comments on religion.

And we have somebody on the line right now. We have Mike from Oregon.

Mike, what do you have to say?

CALLER: Good afternoon.

I think that Mr. Rumsfeld has all the right in the world to speak religious beliefs, just like we all do, just like we all should. I would just like to ask the male panelist there if he would like to just maybe create a politics in this country where none of us speak any religious beliefs, because it does not fit his criteria?

IBISH: No, no, of course, not, caller. And that is not what I am saying at all.

What I am saying is that, first of all, as attorney general, he is representing the policy of the government. He is not talking about his own personal beliefs only. He is couching our national policy, our foreign policy, our domestic policy, the whole war on terrorism as a religious crusade, as a crusade of good vs. evil, as the work of God.

The problem with that is that it shuts down the debate, or it is an attempt to shut down the debate, where you can't take issue with specific elements of that policy without being, then, open to the charge that you are opposing the will of God, or what have you.

What I am arguing for is a kind of secular politics, which is basically what we have had in this country for a long time, where we view the political realm as the result of a set of human choices. If we have a problem, it is because we got ourselves into it with choices. We can get ourselves out of it. We don't blame things on God. And we don't ask God to get us out of our problems. We take care of things for ourselves.

WRIGHT: And, in fact, John Ashcroft did talk about how we do have the freedom to make choices. But choices have consequences. And some of those consequences are either good or evil. So we can't just divorce the question of choice away from the idea of consequences.

And, again, I encourage people, read John Ashcroft's speech for yourself, because Ibish has completely mischaracterized what he said.

CAMPOS: All right.

And we have Bob in our audience right now.

And you have a question or you have a statement?

BOB: Well, I don't have any problem with the speech itself. I just hope that when we do this, we do it right, not like the last time.

CAMPOS: What do you mean by that?

BOB: Go in and finish the job.

(APPLAUSE)

CAMPOS: We have another member of the audience.

Chris?

STAFF: This is Emily.

Emily, go ahead. She wants to talk to Hussein.

EMILY: I have never seen the truth twisted quite as much as what I have heard here today. The man made a very simple comment. And I did not hear the speech. I just heard what I heard on camera. But the man spoke the truth. And unless we as a country realize that God is real, and God is very alive, and he may mean other things. He may have different names in every culture, but unless we realize that, until we come together, and our hearts get right, that I hope we do have a God who is in charge of everything.

(APPLAUSE)

IBISH: I would like to say, I have a lot of respect for that. I have a lot of respect for that, but there has to be space in our policy, in our party, in our government's policies, for people who are agnostics, for people who are Hindus and Buddhists, and people who fit the very narrow definition that John Ashcroft did in fact gave in his speech.

And our policies should reflect the interests of all Americans and not people of certain religious beliefs. That is my point. And I think that is very reasonable.

WRIGHT: In fact, what John Ashcroft did, is he showed the difference between a fireman and a suicide bomber: those who choose to in fact lay down their own life to save the innocent as opposed to someone who will lay down other people's lives.

CAMPOS: Wendy, we are quickly going to take a call from Bill in California.

CALLER: OK. Ashcroft is an avowed Christian fundamentalist. The two principles of Christian fundamentalism: You have to believe in God as they define God. And you have to convert everybody who does not believe what they believe, OK?

So, if you asked John Ashcroft who is his allegiance to, God or the United States, I will give you six to an even he would say God, not the United States. He is the attorney general.

CAMPOS: All right, Chris, another member of our audience.

STAFF: From Nevada.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thanks.

I had an issue with what Emily said. And we have to involve everyone. There are people who do not believe there is a God, a creator, a supreme being. There are people who believe that we are on this planet. We live. We die. And that is it. And whether you agree with their belief or not, to exclude them from the conversation and exclude them from this fight against terrorism is wrong.

(APPLAUSE)

WRIGHT: And, in fact, what I am hearing is an effort to exclude Christians from the conversation, exclude Christians. In fact, the founding fathers said that there should be no religion test as to whether someone can hold office.

But what I am hearing from some people who disagree with John Ashcroft is that, because he is a Christian, he should not be allowed to be in office.

IBISH: No, that's not what we're saying.

WRIGHT: In fact, Muslims, Arab-Americans, Hispanics, blacks, Jews are all much infinitely safer in the United States with John Ashcroft at the helm of the Department of Justice than Christians are in Sudan, Pakistan, Iran.

IBISH: Look, the point is that the attorney general yesterday made a clear definition of who civilized people are. And they are people who share his religious beliefs. That is what he said all civilized people were.

WRIGHT: And he included Christians, Jews and Muslims.

IBISH: Yes, yes, but there are also Buddhists and Hindus and atheists and agnostics, all kinds of people who need to be represented by our attorney general. He can't be just the attorney general of the religious people. He has to be the attorney general of the United States.

WRIGHT: And, in fact, he is.

CAMPOS: Hussein, do you think he is acting more like a religious leader rather than an attorney general?

IBISH: Yes, I am afraid so. Some of the language that he used really does reflect an excessive degree of insertion of his own personal, political beliefs into his office. If he said, "Now, I am speaking personally here," that would be one thing. But he did not. He framed the entire war on terrorism and the definition that we use for civilization and for inclusion in the political process in religious terms.

I agree he was expansive and he gave space to Christians, Muslims and Jews, but there are a lot of other people out there. And I just think it was highly inappropriate, especially when you combine it with his earlier very insulting and inaccurate anti-Muslim comments.

WRIGHT: And, again, I want to point out, Ibish is not telling the truth. He is not...

IBISH: I certainly am.

WRIGHT: He is not framing what John Ashcroft said in the light of truth.

IBISH: I certainly am.

WRIGHT: And I would encourage people to read his speech for yourself. Go to our Web site. It's CWFA.org. Read the speech for yourself.

IBISH: I would encourage that, too. And you will see that I am absolutely accurate.

WRIGHT: And, again, our founding fathers very clearly stated that you cannot have political prosperity without religion and morality. So, to sanitize our public arena from any mention of religion or morality will in fact harm the United States.

IBISH: Of course, no one wants that.

WRIGHT: Well, that is exactly what we are hearing.

IBISH: Of course not. There is a huge leap from doing that to creating a very narrow, exclusionist, exclusivist zone for people who believe in exactly the same kind of religion that John Ashcroft does.

WRIGHT: And John Ashcroft never did what you're saying he India.

IBISH: I would say that he certainly did. And I agree with you, people should read his speech.

WRIGHT: He has been in office for a year now. In fact, he was attorney general twice of the state of Missouri. He was governor of Missouri. He was a senator. He has a long track record of being a great advocate for all people.

IBISH: Well, he needs to clarify his anti-Muslim comments immediately, which he has not done. CAMPOS: Hussein, Wendy, we have another caller. I'm so sorry to interrupt. We have another caller from Canada.

Go ahead.

CALLER: Yes. I would like to give you my comments, which are, John Ashcroft has gone way over the line. Religion, belief, supreme being, it is all a very personal thing. And it is not the attorney general who should be telling us how we should believe. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

WRIGHT: And the Declaration of Independence says that our rights come from our creator. So, if we were to sanitize any mention of our creator, of God, then we would have to get rid of all our founding documents of the United States.

IBISH: Well, that is not true at all. The Constitution is the principal founding document of the United States and it is not a religious document.

(CROSSTALK)

WRIGHT: Which was addendum to the Declaration of the Independence.

IBISH: No, it is not an addendum to the Declaration. That it is preposterous.

WRIGHT: It was added to it.

(CROSSTALK)

WRIGHT: It was based on the Declaration of Independence.

IBISH: That is really, completely false. It is not a addendum to anything. It is a stand-alone, founding document to this country. That is the fact.

WRIGHT: Well, you would have to sanitize all the comments from our founding fathers from history as well.

CAMPOS: Hussein Ibish, Wendy Wright, I'm so sorry. We're out of time. Thank you so much for the lively discussion. And thank you again for joining us today.

IBISH: Thank you so much. Always a pleasure.

WRIGHT: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

CAMPOS: And let's take a break. Still ahead: stiff penalties for a sexy supper.

Still ahead, food for lovers: a dinner entree named for the drug Viagra arouses the wrath of Pfizer. The restaurant could face stiff penalties. Find out why right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAMPOS: All right. This is a good one.

A New York restaurant is serving up a lovers' delight that is ticking off drug giant Pfizer. Originally called the mattress breaker, the dish has even taken on an even more promising tone after being renamed Viagra ceviche. But the maker of Viagra wants to cool the sizzle. Pfizer claims: "This is a simple issue of infringement of a Pfizer trademark. Legally, we must defend our trademarks in order to maintain them. Otherwise, we lose control and they become valueless."

OK. Meet John Soler -- he is general manager of Sabor, the restaurant serving that yummy dish -- and Tom Holt, an intellectual property attorney with the Boston firm of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart.

Thank you both for being with us.

All right, so, John, tell me, how did this all start?

JOHN SOLER, GENERAL MANAGER, SABOR: Well, it all started on Valentine's Day when we got a letter that was stating that we had to stop using the Viagra name for our ceviche. And the reason is that our ceviche uses only aphrodisiacs like clams, mussels, oysters. So we decided, well, let's name it Viagra for fun. Food is supposed to be fun. And that is how it was started.

CAMPOS: And is it a big hit?

SOLER: Well, people keep on coming back for it, so I guess it is doing something for them.

(LAUGHTER)

CAMPOS: Are a lot of people pregnant and having babies, the whole thing?

SOLER: Yes. And they keep on bringing their babies to the restaurant. So I guess they...

(LAUGHTER)

CAMPOS: All right, Tom, what do you say about it?

TOM HOLT, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ATTORNEY: Well, I think, obviously, it is a certain source of amusement, I think, up to a point.

But I think that Pfizer's point is well taken. From a trademark standpoint, the word or term Viagra is probably going to be accorded the highest level of protection that we will give a trademark, because it is really almost inherently distinctive.

And I think that it also has become so famous, not just certainly in the New York area and in the United States, but globally among, really, the widest segment of the population. And it is associated with a particular purpose. It is very famous. And, as a consequence, in addition to simple trademark protection and infringement action, Pfizer would be well within their rights also to file a lawsuit under the so-called federal anti-dilution statute because of the very fame that has become associated with the word or term Viagra.

So, I think it is certainly, in many of these cases, the public, or certainly nonlawyers, or nonowners of a very valuable and valid trademark such as Viagra, to say, what's the big deal? But it is really important from a legal standpoint for Pfizer to take prompt action if it intends to protect its rights.

CAMPOS: Tom, because it is so in the pop culture, as you are saying, isn't it kind of like it's OK to do it, because everybody talks about it?

HOLT: Well, the mere fact that everyone talks about it in a general way -- but when you start using it for commercial purposes to advance the sale of a particular dish -- and I am sure that that ceviche is a superb dish -- but when you start doing that, that is when you cross the line beyond something that would be appropriately the subject of conversation or discussion. That is where you sort of run afoul of the law.

If I could just use a couple of examples, it might help explain this. For many years, the Xerox Corporation very appropriately guarded the term Xerox, because I know that, in many office settings and elsewhere, the term Xerox, in the minds of many, became was synonymous with copies. And it was important for the Xerox Corporation to jealously guard a fanciful mark, a name that had been developed over time associated with a product line.

CAMPOS: They had to protect that name.

HOLT: A Kleenex would fill the same bill. That's exactly right.

CAMPOS: Kleenex.

John, did you know that were you getting into all of this?

SOLER: Not really. Actually, if I knew, I would not have used the name.

I just want to make one thing clear. We at Sabor restaurant, which is 462 Amsterdam Avenue...

CAMPOS: Oh, John, you are shameless.

(LAUGHTER)

SOLER: Yes, I am.

CAMPOS: But you were already in page six today. Isn't that enough for you? You were in "The New York Post." SOLER: I'm not doing it for the P.R. I'm doing it because food is supposed to be fun. And why not put a name like -- I mean, the condition is very serious that Viagra treats. But it is supposed to be fun. And if it is necessary for us to retract the name, we will. It's not a problem.

CAMPOS: So you will do it if you have to.

SOLER: Oh, absolutely.

CAMPOS: Oh, you will?

OK, we have Pete on the phone from Florida.

Go ahead, Pete.

CALLER: Yes, Hi, Susan.

CAMPOS: Hi.

CALLER: The thing is, that cannot use a registered trademark for your commercial purposes as a matter of trademark law.

CAMPOS: Well, the other thing that I am wondering about with that -- that's a very good point -- the other thing I am wondering is that, is it possible, because they kind of selected Bob Dole to do that commercial -- and that was a big coup -- do you think, Tom, that maybe what they were trying to do is say, when we use the name Viagra, we only want to use it in a certain way?

HOLT: Well, as the owner of the trademark, they are fully entitled to use it as they see fit. And it is certainly in association with that product which has been developed at considerable expense to Pfizer.

To the extent they have selected or had selected Bob Dole as a spokesperson, that certainly is their call. Pete has correctly pointed out that there is really a violation of trademark or infringement here. There is no question that this is a valid mark. And when you begin using that identical mark for your commercial purposes, that is when you hit the trip wire, the legal trip wire.

But I think that, certainly, Pfizer is entitled to select their spokespersons in the marketplace.

CAMPOS: All right, and we have somebody in our audience right now who has something to say about that.

STAFF: Yes, this is Bob, who is from New York.

BOB: First of all, I just want to say that every time this happens, it seems that it is always in New York. And I am getting a little tired of it, traveling around the country.

But, seriously, both of these gentlemen, John and Tom, must have their tongues firmly implanted in their cheeks. You guys have to get serious. As you know, we had a book called "Prozac Revisited." There are drug names in a number of things that we do in this country.

John, get over it. Change it to another name. They will leave you alone. You will have people coming to your restaurant. You know, let's just minimize this thing. It is just silly. Why are we talking about it?

(APPLAUSE)

CAMPOS: Well, actually, somebody else has another solution.

Philip in Texas is on the line. Philip, what is your solution?

CALLER: Hello?

CAMPOS: Hello. What is your solution, Philip?

CALLER: Well, I think this lawsuit business is pretty silly. I think the guy ought to just spell Viagra with two G's and go on down the road.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

SOLER: That was great.

HOLT: Very good.

CAMPOS: Is he off the hook now, Tom?

HOLT: I don't think he would be. Again, the confusion issue does creep in there.

And just to respond to, I think, to Bob's comment. It is silly in the sense, if someone does not have an interest in it. But to the Pfizer Corporation, it is not silly. I think it can be a source, again, as I said at the top of the segment, of amusement. But, again, I think, unless you as a company take these rights pretty seriously, you can lose that. But I think that the willingness to stop using this goes a long way towards resolving the problem.

Again, I don't have a dog in the fight here. I am not representing any party in this thing. I am just sharing my views as a trademark lawyer and a trial lawyer here. But I think the Pfizer is -- they're well within their rights. And I think the restaurant owners are probably going to come to that view shortly.

CAMPOS: All right, Tom, thanks very much.

We actually have an e-mail that we are going to put up on the screen.

Here is what Don in Ontario says: "Tell Pfizer to cut a check to Jay Leno and David Letterman for expanding name awareness for Viagra. And, by the way, didn't Viagra rip off Niagara?"

OK, you go, Don.

(APPLAUSE)

CAMPOS: And we have somebody in our audience, Chris, who has a comment about this as well.

STAFF: This is Bob from Michigan -- Bob.

BOB: Hi.

I think it is just nothing more than an advertising ploy. The restaurant wants to sell their dish. Viagra wants to sell their pill. If this gets to court, the court ought to use a little common sense. Just throw it out. The issue will go away.

CAMPOS: All right, and we have Nick on the phone.

Go ahead, Nick.

CALLER: Hi.

I would just like to say that, as far as the restauranteur, what I am hearing sounds a little bit like what we were going through with Napster a while back. It's kind of all in pop culture. You have a word the everyone is talking about and everyone is doing it and using it, so what is the problem? It is fun for everyone.

And I think that, like it or not, the copyright laws are the copyright laws, and should we respect them. But, at the same time, maybe it's time that we as citizens reassess copyright laws with pop culture the way it is and everything being out there, and making things a little bit easier for people to just say things without the fear of being sued.

CAMPOS: Go ahead. Do you want to respond to that, John?

SOLER: Yes, I absolutely agree with him. It is well said.

It is a name. If they are so cautious about their name, we are willing to let it go. But that does not mean that people are going to stop talking about Viagra and making jokes or whatever. It is part of the American culture. And it's a great, great part of it.

CAMPOS: When would you actually let it go? Right now, are you going to continue it? Tonight will it be on the menu?

SOLER: Well, come on over and find out.

CAMPOS: And, by the way, my address is blah blah blah blah. OK.

SOLER: Good.

(LAUGHTER)

CAMPOS: He's like, yes, give it one more time.

Quickly, we are going to take an audience response.

STAFF: Go ahead.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. I think what everyone has to remember is that the Pfizer company spent quite a bit of money to develop the name Viagra. It did not just pop out of someone's head one day.

What happened was, they paid a company a lot of money to help develop that image. That is part of why the name has so easily become part of pop culture. And they need to recoup that investment.

CAMPOS: Tom, we have 15 seconds. Do you want to respond?

HOLT: I think that is well said. I think that is exactly what will be part of Pfizer's position on this.

I also think it is important to remember that, when you do have trademarks, they do serve a purpose of protecting the public to make sure that, whenever that word or term is used, it is being used appropriately in conjunction with a product that has been tested, particularly in the pharmaceutical area.

CAMPOS: All right, Tom, John, thank you so much. It was fun.

We are out of time.

SOLER: Thank you, Susan.

HOLT: Thank you very much.

CAMPOS: Thanks. Thank you.

And thanks to our guests and to you at home watching. We will be back again tomorrow at 3:00 p.m. Eastern. I'm Susan Campos. And I will be your guest host for the rest of the week.

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