Return to Transcripts main page

Live From...

New Recording Attributed to al-Zawahiri Calling on Pakistan to Rise Up Against Government

Aired March 25, 2004 - 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.


MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Up first this hour a voice from the underground. A new recording attributed to the No. 2 man in al Qaeda is calling on Pakistan to rise up against what the speaker calls its traitorous government. Ayman al-Zawahiri was, maybe still is, a possible target of a 2-week-old Pakistani offensive near the Afghan border.
We get the latest on all of this from CNN's Nic Robertson joining us live from Islamabad -- Nic.

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Miles, hello. We've talked with two Pakistani ministers this evening. Both of them have said they don't want to comment on this latest audiotape. They want to regroup and think about it overnight. They say they will have statements in the morning.

I have this evening, as well, talked with a tribal leader from the border region. He told me that while perhaps some elements of his message may resonate with people, particularly in the context of the crackdown that President Musharraf and the Pakistani army have been putting into the tribal regions to try and flush out al Qaeda members, particularly in the contacts of that crackdown, he said that it is possible that tribal members there will listen to this message and feel that it has something in it for them.

But he said that he really didn't think that this sort of message will find broad support. It's not a new message. I talked to the former military commander who still has two sons within the army. Part of this message from Ayman al-Zawahiri, if it does prove to be him, was calling upon Pakistan's military, the main support for President Musharraf.

He told me that he thought from his own military experience -- his two sons who are still in the army -- he said that he didn't think that the message would resonate within the army. He said the army was committed and behind President Musharraf at this time.

But there's no doubt, Miles, the Pakistan military here is experiencing problems in the tribal region, trying to conduct this coordinated search to flush out al Qaeda members there. One of whom just a week ago the Pakistani government said could be, privately they were saying could be Ayman al-Zawahiri -- Miles.

O'BRIEN: CNN's Nic Robertson in Islamabad. Thank you very much -- Kyra.

KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: Is this audio tape authentic? Joining me on the phone with his assessment, CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen. Your first reaction, Peter, do you think it's authentic?

PETER BERGEN, CNN TERRORISM ANALYST: Al Jazeera has got 100 percent track record in putting these tapes on the air and them turning out to be authentic, whether it's Osama bin Laden or Ayman al- Zawahiri. So I would be very surprised if it's not authenticated as Ayman al-Zawahiri.

PHILLIPS: Now the question comes, Peter, is it an old tape or a new tape?

BERGEN: That's a little harder. We're just reading the transcript now of the full tape. This could have been made -- you know, it's not really clear. It refers to the Pakistani operations in the northwest frontier. It calls for support from the Pashtun tribesmen and the Belugi (ph) along that frontier area between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

But those operations have been going on for as much as a year now. So it doesn't really have an effective time date stamp as it were that would tell you exactly when it was made. Clearly made sometime relatively recently but as it's been made since this last operation was first started? Not clear.

It does call for attacks against President Musharraf. The same kinds of calls that Ayman al-Zawahiri was making late last year. Following those calls last year, President Musharraf narrowly escaped two very serious assassination attempts.

So while this tape may not generate, you know, a huge amount of internal support in Pakistan, for Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda, it certainly will energize the al Qaeda base to kind of conduct more attacks. I think against Musharraf.

PHILLIPS: Peter Bergen, our terrorism analyst continuing to listen to that tape and transcribe it for us. We'll check in with you later.

Other news now, about two hours ago the U.S. Coast Guard sprang into action off the coast of Florida. Three Cuban migrants arrived aboard rafts made out of inner tubes. Coast Guard officials pulled two men from the pounding surf. A third person was rescued, still on an inner tube.

Lady Liberty will soon welcome visitors again. The statue has been closed since the September 11 terrorist attacks. Speaking before Congress today National Park officials did not give a specific date for reopening but they say it will happen soon.

A new development in the case against Kobe Bryant. The woman who accuses Bryant of rape asked the court today to set a trial date as soon as possible. The request comes on the second day of closed-door hearings into the woman's sexual past. Bryant says they had consensual sex.

O'BRIEN: Potential grand jurors who may hear the case against Michael Jackson scheduled to report to court today. CNN's Miguel Marquez is there. He joins us with the latest -- Miguel.

MIGUEL MARQUEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That is happening today, 19 Santa Barbara residents will be chosen as grand jurors. The court system here telling us earlier today that they typically, some years don't convene any grand jury.

But typically when they do they convene it for a specific case. And CNN has learned on Monday those 19 grand jurors could begin hearing as early as Monday could begin hearing evidence in the Michael Jackson case for up to four weeks, from between two and four weeks.

Once the district attorney, Tom Sneddon, has presented his evidence in this case against Mr. Jackson, 12 of the 19 grand jurors will meet in secret and vote on every single charge that the district attorney wants to bring.

Presumably it will be very similar, if not the same charges that have already been charged against Mr. Jackson, those of child molestation, seven counts of child molestation and two counts of administering an intoxicating agent to a minor.

Essentially, what we are going into is two separate legal tracks, at least for the time being. We will be on the criminal legal track that began last year when Mr. Jackson's Neverland ranch was searched. He was arrested, and then he was arraigned in January. We all remember when he jumped up on the car.

And will also be in the grand jury track which will hear evidence. The prosecutor has to present both sides of the story to the grand jury and all the evidence that he can essentially present in open court. Mr. Jackson has been sent a letter. His lawyers have been sent a letter inviting him to testify. Most legal experts say it is unlikely that he would testify before the grand jury.

What does all this mean in the end? Well, if the grand jury does vote to indict, that indictment then would supersede the criminal indictment that we already have going under way. It would become the new indictment and Mr. Jackson would have to be arraigned so we could have that scene in Santa Maria all over again -- Miles.

O'BRIEN: Oh, that scene all over again, Miguel. I know you remember it well. Well, we'll just have to put that on the calendar. Miguel Marquez, Santa Barbara. Thank you very much.

PHILLIPS: Straight ahead, should the words "under God" be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance? We're going to look at that coming up next.

O'BRIEN: And later you better not taunt Richard Simmons about his exercise videos, even if he's dressed like that because he'll "blank" slap you. Know what I mean? It happened at the airport the other day. We'll tell you about it. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CROWD: 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.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIPS: So, is what you just heard a pledge or a public prayer? The Supreme Court is trying to decide if the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance is, in fact, constitutional.

Carrie Gordon-Earl is with Focus on the Family and is in favor of the pledge, Reverend Barry Lynn with Americans United for the Separation of Church and State has our opposing view. Good to see you both.

(CROSSTALK)

PHILLIPS: We received a number of e-mails. I want to get right to them and get both of you to respond. Let's start with this one out of Rockford, Illinois. Sandy says, "If the Supreme Court takes 'under God' out of the Pledge of Allegiance, they might as well remove all reference to God from everything. God won't mind, it was God that gave us the freedom of choice." Barry?

REV. BARRY LYNN, AMERICANS UNITED FOR THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE: I'll tell you, God did not file a brief on either side in this case. And I suspect that most people are going to recognize that even if "under God" is removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, it will not lead to any negative effects.

In fact, there will only be one positive good effect. And that is that the children of religious minorities, whether those are Hindus or Buddhists or non-believers, will no longer have to feel like a second-class citizens in their own classroom.

They'll be able to say the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States, an affirmation of patriotism, without having to take a position they may not agree with on the matter of God, which god, whose god, is in control.

PHILLIPS: Carrie, what do you think?

CARRIE GORDON-EARL, FOCUS ON THE FAMILY: Well, I think, Kyra, if this were in a vacuum, if the issue of just the Pledge of Allegiance and the words "under God" were the only issues on the table there might be an argument here. But the truth is we need to have a bigger picture on this.

We need to realize that this is part of a larger effort to try and remove religious references from our nation's history. And if opponents of this particular language are successful in removing it from the pledge we could very well see to the logical conclusion of that argument that the sandblasting of religious monuments to remove the reference to God and changes in our currency. No longer we'd have the words "in God we trust."

That's the logical conclusion of this argument. And I don't think anyone wants to go there.

(CROSSTALK)

PHILLIPS: Barry, this leads right into the next e-mail from Larry, "I believe that 'under God' does not belong in the pledge, nor does it belong on our currency."

So let's respond to that. Do we see a domino effect here? Will it be taken out of currency, military pledges? The president of the United States who stands before all Americans and says "God bless America" every time he makes a speech?

LYNN: No. Most of that is not going to happen because of taking "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Remember in the money for example, no one has to say the words "in God we trust" when they hand somebody $2 to pay for a cup of coffee, if you can get one that cheaply. On the other hand, those purely ceremonial, honestly ceremonial and historical references like Moses in a freeze on the United States Supreme Court wall along with other law givers like famous Roman emperors, that is not going to have to be sand-blasted off of the wall.

In other words there really is not what Carrie suggests, this war against religion or a war against Christianity in this country.

And it really -- to put these kinds of issues in the context of some battle to somehow strip religious of America really might be what's going on in communist China, but it's certainly not what's going on in the United States of America.

We're in favor of pluralism, and not silencing Christians, of which I am one.

GORDON-EARL: Thank you, Mr. Lynn, for your comment. And I would disagree with you on that. Whether it's the Ten Commandments or allowing public school students to hand out pencils that say "God loves you," there is very much a culture war going on on this issue.

And right now, saying the pledge with the words "under God" or not is not compulsory. There's no one in this nation who has to say that. The U.S. Supreme Court settled that issue in 1943.

So students, public school students do not have to say the words. But we are at risk of removing references if we allow this reference to be removed.

PHILLIPS: Brian writes, "The Pledge of Allegiance isn't a prayer, it's not embodied in a law, it's just a tradition. But it shouldn't have been tampered with. I learned it without "under God" and was surprised as a teenager to hear younger children adding that phrase. You don't have to be an atheist to appreciate the fairness and god sense of the constitutional separation of religion and government."

So is it a patriotic expression, is it a prayer?

LYNN: It has become a kind of religious loyalty oath. When this was first written in 1892 by a Baptist minister he wrote it without reference to God because he wanted to bring people together for love of country, not divide them along religious lines.

In 1954, under pressure from the kind of the religious right of its day, these words were added to the Pledge of Allegiance, transforming something that brings us together as a country, a patriotic affirmation, into a religious ritual.

And I'll tell you as a practical matter and as a parent, if you've got a child who's six or eight years old, he or she is not going to just walk out of the classroom and not participate in this religious ritual every day and face the ridicule of their peers. That is simply not practical.

In the United States of America, I think it's un-American to suggest that young people should just leave the classroom or announce we're not going to participate. Let's do it right the first time.

Call me a conservative, but I agree with your e-mailer, let's go back to the original pledge that did not make reference to God that we can all say as a people.

PHILLIPS: Angie from Kansas says, "The portion of our pledge that says 'one nation, under God' needs to stay. I've never seen anyone forced to say the pledge and if there's a student who doesn't wish to participate they have the option."

Have you ever seen a child forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance, Carrie?

GORDON-EARL: Well, certainly not. I'm not aware of that at all.

And I think we need to go back to the point that the pledge is not a prayer. Many of us grew up post-1954, saying this pledge. And I assure you there are not families all over America right now watching this broadcast wringing their hands because their children perhaps said the words "under God" in a pledge this morning. This is not a national crisis.

It is important to point out that saying the word god does not constitute religion. See, I just said the word God, and I did not establish a religion. Because people use the word God in all...

(CROSSTALK)

GORDON-EARL: Excuse me, Mr. Lynn, I didn't interrupt you. People use the word God in all sorts of context in our culture, sometimes even derogatory and it never establishes a religion. This is the pledge of allegiance to our country. It is not a religious prayer.

LYNN: I'm sorry, whenever you invoke the name of god, I don't know what your religious background is, but mine is as a Christian. When I mention "under God" it does mean something. It's a very powerful idea, it does have a genuine significance.

This is a national pledge written by the United States Congress -- these two words added by Congress in 1954. It's an official act of government that takes a position that there's one God. We don't have a pledge that says "one nation, under God, gods or no god." That would at least reflect the diversity in our country.

We've made a decision as Congress that this -- or the Congress made the decision it's going to be "one nation, under God". That has deep religious significance. That's why it bothers people who want it in, and those who want to take it out. Precisely because religion is so important.

And I'm afraid, Carrie, that you and some of the folks on the other side of where I'm standing in a sense make God meaningless by simply saying, well, in a pledge, we say "under God" it's really not religious. Of course it is.

PHILLIPS: Carrie, ten seconds.

GORDON-EARL: I would have to say that a majority of Americans not only believe in God, nine out of ten, but they also support the pledge. So the other position to remove it really is extreme and out of touch with the majority of Americans.

LYNN: The Bill of Rights protects the minority and that's why it's there.

PHILLIPS: Reverend Barry Lynn, Carrie Gordon, I'm sure we'll be talking about this again. Thank you both very much.

LYNN: Thank you.

PHILLIPS: Number of e-mails on that.

Straight ahead, what appliance could you not live without? One of America's favorites turns 50 today. We're going to celebrate.

Plus the star of today's LIVE FROM... reality TV watch. Look who's getting her own show. Are you going to tune in?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(MARKET UPDATE)

PHILLIPS: How about Richard Simmons?

O'BRIEN: There's Mr. Credibility right there. A flamboyant fitness fanatic is flummoxed in Phoenix. Whoo! Will that leave Richard Simmons sweating in the hoosgow?

PHILLIPS: That's Lisa Clark for you. Great writing.

O'BRIEN: Misdemeanor assault charges filed against Simmons after he allegedly slapped a man. Make a fist, Richard. Who made fun of his workout videos as they stood in line to board a plane.

Police say Simmons cooperated fully with police at the scene but the offended party says he plans to press charges and stay close to the facts on that one.

And what's up with Whitney Houston you might ask? "The New York Daily News" says the every woman has already checked out of rehab, only five days after checking in. A source reported Whitney had to leave because she felt the walls were closing in on her. Whitney, that's the reason to stay.

Houston spokeswoman says it's really no big deal. The singer is in another location but is still taking part in the rehab program.

And meanwhile Bobby Brown -- well anyway. There you have it with that. Gavel that one.

And finally it was an offer that the A&E Network could not refuse. The daughter of the late mob boss John Gotti, the so-called "Dapper Don," is getting her own reality show. "Growing Up Gotti" will feature Victoria Gotti, seen there, and her three sons in a show described as "unpredictable, sometimes humorous and often startling."

PHILLIPS: I wouldn't make fun of the Gotti family.

O'BRIEN: Zip the lips.

PHILLIPS: That wraps it up.

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


Aired March 25, 2004 - 15:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Up first this hour a voice from the underground. A new recording attributed to the No. 2 man in al Qaeda is calling on Pakistan to rise up against what the speaker calls its traitorous government. Ayman al-Zawahiri was, maybe still is, a possible target of a 2-week-old Pakistani offensive near the Afghan border.
We get the latest on all of this from CNN's Nic Robertson joining us live from Islamabad -- Nic.

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Miles, hello. We've talked with two Pakistani ministers this evening. Both of them have said they don't want to comment on this latest audiotape. They want to regroup and think about it overnight. They say they will have statements in the morning.

I have this evening, as well, talked with a tribal leader from the border region. He told me that while perhaps some elements of his message may resonate with people, particularly in the context of the crackdown that President Musharraf and the Pakistani army have been putting into the tribal regions to try and flush out al Qaeda members, particularly in the contacts of that crackdown, he said that it is possible that tribal members there will listen to this message and feel that it has something in it for them.

But he said that he really didn't think that this sort of message will find broad support. It's not a new message. I talked to the former military commander who still has two sons within the army. Part of this message from Ayman al-Zawahiri, if it does prove to be him, was calling upon Pakistan's military, the main support for President Musharraf.

He told me that he thought from his own military experience -- his two sons who are still in the army -- he said that he didn't think that the message would resonate within the army. He said the army was committed and behind President Musharraf at this time.

But there's no doubt, Miles, the Pakistan military here is experiencing problems in the tribal region, trying to conduct this coordinated search to flush out al Qaeda members there. One of whom just a week ago the Pakistani government said could be, privately they were saying could be Ayman al-Zawahiri -- Miles.

O'BRIEN: CNN's Nic Robertson in Islamabad. Thank you very much -- Kyra.

KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: Is this audio tape authentic? Joining me on the phone with his assessment, CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen. Your first reaction, Peter, do you think it's authentic?

PETER BERGEN, CNN TERRORISM ANALYST: Al Jazeera has got 100 percent track record in putting these tapes on the air and them turning out to be authentic, whether it's Osama bin Laden or Ayman al- Zawahiri. So I would be very surprised if it's not authenticated as Ayman al-Zawahiri.

PHILLIPS: Now the question comes, Peter, is it an old tape or a new tape?

BERGEN: That's a little harder. We're just reading the transcript now of the full tape. This could have been made -- you know, it's not really clear. It refers to the Pakistani operations in the northwest frontier. It calls for support from the Pashtun tribesmen and the Belugi (ph) along that frontier area between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

But those operations have been going on for as much as a year now. So it doesn't really have an effective time date stamp as it were that would tell you exactly when it was made. Clearly made sometime relatively recently but as it's been made since this last operation was first started? Not clear.

It does call for attacks against President Musharraf. The same kinds of calls that Ayman al-Zawahiri was making late last year. Following those calls last year, President Musharraf narrowly escaped two very serious assassination attempts.

So while this tape may not generate, you know, a huge amount of internal support in Pakistan, for Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda, it certainly will energize the al Qaeda base to kind of conduct more attacks. I think against Musharraf.

PHILLIPS: Peter Bergen, our terrorism analyst continuing to listen to that tape and transcribe it for us. We'll check in with you later.

Other news now, about two hours ago the U.S. Coast Guard sprang into action off the coast of Florida. Three Cuban migrants arrived aboard rafts made out of inner tubes. Coast Guard officials pulled two men from the pounding surf. A third person was rescued, still on an inner tube.

Lady Liberty will soon welcome visitors again. The statue has been closed since the September 11 terrorist attacks. Speaking before Congress today National Park officials did not give a specific date for reopening but they say it will happen soon.

A new development in the case against Kobe Bryant. The woman who accuses Bryant of rape asked the court today to set a trial date as soon as possible. The request comes on the second day of closed-door hearings into the woman's sexual past. Bryant says they had consensual sex.

O'BRIEN: Potential grand jurors who may hear the case against Michael Jackson scheduled to report to court today. CNN's Miguel Marquez is there. He joins us with the latest -- Miguel.

MIGUEL MARQUEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That is happening today, 19 Santa Barbara residents will be chosen as grand jurors. The court system here telling us earlier today that they typically, some years don't convene any grand jury.

But typically when they do they convene it for a specific case. And CNN has learned on Monday those 19 grand jurors could begin hearing as early as Monday could begin hearing evidence in the Michael Jackson case for up to four weeks, from between two and four weeks.

Once the district attorney, Tom Sneddon, has presented his evidence in this case against Mr. Jackson, 12 of the 19 grand jurors will meet in secret and vote on every single charge that the district attorney wants to bring.

Presumably it will be very similar, if not the same charges that have already been charged against Mr. Jackson, those of child molestation, seven counts of child molestation and two counts of administering an intoxicating agent to a minor.

Essentially, what we are going into is two separate legal tracks, at least for the time being. We will be on the criminal legal track that began last year when Mr. Jackson's Neverland ranch was searched. He was arrested, and then he was arraigned in January. We all remember when he jumped up on the car.

And will also be in the grand jury track which will hear evidence. The prosecutor has to present both sides of the story to the grand jury and all the evidence that he can essentially present in open court. Mr. Jackson has been sent a letter. His lawyers have been sent a letter inviting him to testify. Most legal experts say it is unlikely that he would testify before the grand jury.

What does all this mean in the end? Well, if the grand jury does vote to indict, that indictment then would supersede the criminal indictment that we already have going under way. It would become the new indictment and Mr. Jackson would have to be arraigned so we could have that scene in Santa Maria all over again -- Miles.

O'BRIEN: Oh, that scene all over again, Miguel. I know you remember it well. Well, we'll just have to put that on the calendar. Miguel Marquez, Santa Barbara. Thank you very much.

PHILLIPS: Straight ahead, should the words "under God" be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance? We're going to look at that coming up next.

O'BRIEN: And later you better not taunt Richard Simmons about his exercise videos, even if he's dressed like that because he'll "blank" slap you. Know what I mean? It happened at the airport the other day. We'll tell you about it. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CROWD: 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.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIPS: So, is what you just heard a pledge or a public prayer? The Supreme Court is trying to decide if the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance is, in fact, constitutional.

Carrie Gordon-Earl is with Focus on the Family and is in favor of the pledge, Reverend Barry Lynn with Americans United for the Separation of Church and State has our opposing view. Good to see you both.

(CROSSTALK)

PHILLIPS: We received a number of e-mails. I want to get right to them and get both of you to respond. Let's start with this one out of Rockford, Illinois. Sandy says, "If the Supreme Court takes 'under God' out of the Pledge of Allegiance, they might as well remove all reference to God from everything. God won't mind, it was God that gave us the freedom of choice." Barry?

REV. BARRY LYNN, AMERICANS UNITED FOR THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE: I'll tell you, God did not file a brief on either side in this case. And I suspect that most people are going to recognize that even if "under God" is removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, it will not lead to any negative effects.

In fact, there will only be one positive good effect. And that is that the children of religious minorities, whether those are Hindus or Buddhists or non-believers, will no longer have to feel like a second-class citizens in their own classroom.

They'll be able to say the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States, an affirmation of patriotism, without having to take a position they may not agree with on the matter of God, which god, whose god, is in control.

PHILLIPS: Carrie, what do you think?

CARRIE GORDON-EARL, FOCUS ON THE FAMILY: Well, I think, Kyra, if this were in a vacuum, if the issue of just the Pledge of Allegiance and the words "under God" were the only issues on the table there might be an argument here. But the truth is we need to have a bigger picture on this.

We need to realize that this is part of a larger effort to try and remove religious references from our nation's history. And if opponents of this particular language are successful in removing it from the pledge we could very well see to the logical conclusion of that argument that the sandblasting of religious monuments to remove the reference to God and changes in our currency. No longer we'd have the words "in God we trust."

That's the logical conclusion of this argument. And I don't think anyone wants to go there.

(CROSSTALK)

PHILLIPS: Barry, this leads right into the next e-mail from Larry, "I believe that 'under God' does not belong in the pledge, nor does it belong on our currency."

So let's respond to that. Do we see a domino effect here? Will it be taken out of currency, military pledges? The president of the United States who stands before all Americans and says "God bless America" every time he makes a speech?

LYNN: No. Most of that is not going to happen because of taking "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Remember in the money for example, no one has to say the words "in God we trust" when they hand somebody $2 to pay for a cup of coffee, if you can get one that cheaply. On the other hand, those purely ceremonial, honestly ceremonial and historical references like Moses in a freeze on the United States Supreme Court wall along with other law givers like famous Roman emperors, that is not going to have to be sand-blasted off of the wall.

In other words there really is not what Carrie suggests, this war against religion or a war against Christianity in this country.

And it really -- to put these kinds of issues in the context of some battle to somehow strip religious of America really might be what's going on in communist China, but it's certainly not what's going on in the United States of America.

We're in favor of pluralism, and not silencing Christians, of which I am one.

GORDON-EARL: Thank you, Mr. Lynn, for your comment. And I would disagree with you on that. Whether it's the Ten Commandments or allowing public school students to hand out pencils that say "God loves you," there is very much a culture war going on on this issue.

And right now, saying the pledge with the words "under God" or not is not compulsory. There's no one in this nation who has to say that. The U.S. Supreme Court settled that issue in 1943.

So students, public school students do not have to say the words. But we are at risk of removing references if we allow this reference to be removed.

PHILLIPS: Brian writes, "The Pledge of Allegiance isn't a prayer, it's not embodied in a law, it's just a tradition. But it shouldn't have been tampered with. I learned it without "under God" and was surprised as a teenager to hear younger children adding that phrase. You don't have to be an atheist to appreciate the fairness and god sense of the constitutional separation of religion and government."

So is it a patriotic expression, is it a prayer?

LYNN: It has become a kind of religious loyalty oath. When this was first written in 1892 by a Baptist minister he wrote it without reference to God because he wanted to bring people together for love of country, not divide them along religious lines.

In 1954, under pressure from the kind of the religious right of its day, these words were added to the Pledge of Allegiance, transforming something that brings us together as a country, a patriotic affirmation, into a religious ritual.

And I'll tell you as a practical matter and as a parent, if you've got a child who's six or eight years old, he or she is not going to just walk out of the classroom and not participate in this religious ritual every day and face the ridicule of their peers. That is simply not practical.

In the United States of America, I think it's un-American to suggest that young people should just leave the classroom or announce we're not going to participate. Let's do it right the first time.

Call me a conservative, but I agree with your e-mailer, let's go back to the original pledge that did not make reference to God that we can all say as a people.

PHILLIPS: Angie from Kansas says, "The portion of our pledge that says 'one nation, under God' needs to stay. I've never seen anyone forced to say the pledge and if there's a student who doesn't wish to participate they have the option."

Have you ever seen a child forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance, Carrie?

GORDON-EARL: Well, certainly not. I'm not aware of that at all.

And I think we need to go back to the point that the pledge is not a prayer. Many of us grew up post-1954, saying this pledge. And I assure you there are not families all over America right now watching this broadcast wringing their hands because their children perhaps said the words "under God" in a pledge this morning. This is not a national crisis.

It is important to point out that saying the word god does not constitute religion. See, I just said the word God, and I did not establish a religion. Because people use the word God in all...

(CROSSTALK)

GORDON-EARL: Excuse me, Mr. Lynn, I didn't interrupt you. People use the word God in all sorts of context in our culture, sometimes even derogatory and it never establishes a religion. This is the pledge of allegiance to our country. It is not a religious prayer.

LYNN: I'm sorry, whenever you invoke the name of god, I don't know what your religious background is, but mine is as a Christian. When I mention "under God" it does mean something. It's a very powerful idea, it does have a genuine significance.

This is a national pledge written by the United States Congress -- these two words added by Congress in 1954. It's an official act of government that takes a position that there's one God. We don't have a pledge that says "one nation, under God, gods or no god." That would at least reflect the diversity in our country.

We've made a decision as Congress that this -- or the Congress made the decision it's going to be "one nation, under God". That has deep religious significance. That's why it bothers people who want it in, and those who want to take it out. Precisely because religion is so important.

And I'm afraid, Carrie, that you and some of the folks on the other side of where I'm standing in a sense make God meaningless by simply saying, well, in a pledge, we say "under God" it's really not religious. Of course it is.

PHILLIPS: Carrie, ten seconds.

GORDON-EARL: I would have to say that a majority of Americans not only believe in God, nine out of ten, but they also support the pledge. So the other position to remove it really is extreme and out of touch with the majority of Americans.

LYNN: The Bill of Rights protects the minority and that's why it's there.

PHILLIPS: Reverend Barry Lynn, Carrie Gordon, I'm sure we'll be talking about this again. Thank you both very much.

LYNN: Thank you.

PHILLIPS: Number of e-mails on that.

Straight ahead, what appliance could you not live without? One of America's favorites turns 50 today. We're going to celebrate.

Plus the star of today's LIVE FROM... reality TV watch. Look who's getting her own show. Are you going to tune in?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(MARKET UPDATE)

PHILLIPS: How about Richard Simmons?

O'BRIEN: There's Mr. Credibility right there. A flamboyant fitness fanatic is flummoxed in Phoenix. Whoo! Will that leave Richard Simmons sweating in the hoosgow?

PHILLIPS: That's Lisa Clark for you. Great writing.

O'BRIEN: Misdemeanor assault charges filed against Simmons after he allegedly slapped a man. Make a fist, Richard. Who made fun of his workout videos as they stood in line to board a plane.

Police say Simmons cooperated fully with police at the scene but the offended party says he plans to press charges and stay close to the facts on that one.

And what's up with Whitney Houston you might ask? "The New York Daily News" says the every woman has already checked out of rehab, only five days after checking in. A source reported Whitney had to leave because she felt the walls were closing in on her. Whitney, that's the reason to stay.

Houston spokeswoman says it's really no big deal. The singer is in another location but is still taking part in the rehab program.

And meanwhile Bobby Brown -- well anyway. There you have it with that. Gavel that one.

And finally it was an offer that the A&E Network could not refuse. The daughter of the late mob boss John Gotti, the so-called "Dapper Don," is getting her own reality show. "Growing Up Gotti" will feature Victoria Gotti, seen there, and her three sons in a show described as "unpredictable, sometimes humorous and often startling."

PHILLIPS: I wouldn't make fun of the Gotti family.

O'BRIEN: Zip the lips.

PHILLIPS: That wraps it up.

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