Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Saturday Morning News

Interview With Ian Punnett, Martin Lewis

Aired June 29, 2002 - 09:11   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.
KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: The constitutional principle of church-state separation is dominating the headlines after two court rulings this week.

The Supreme Court has ruled that a publicly funded school voucher program doesn't violate the Constitution, as long as parents can choose among religious and secular schools for their children.

And the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because it includes the phrase "under God."

Let's talk to two guests about these rulings. Ian Punnett is a radio talk show host at KSTP in Minneapolis-St. Paul, and Martin Lewis is a political commentator and columnist.

Hello, gentlemen.

MARTIN LEWIS, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Good morning.

IAN PUNNETT, TALK SHOW HOST, KSTP RADIO: Good morning.

PHILLIPS: All right. Let's first start with the Pledge of Allegiance. First reaction, Martin, go ahead and start.

LEWIS: Well, you know, in the last 10 years when I've appeared on American television supporting a controversial position, I've had to brace myself, being English, for that invariable, What, if you don't like this, why don't you go back to your own country?

Well, for the first time, I can say, If you don't like this particular decision, why don't you go back to my country? Because Britain was a tyranny that mixed religion and politics, and America was a wonderful nation founded on people -- by people who decided to cause that separation.

And yet here we are with this words "under God," which were only introduced in the year 1954 in the middle of the Communist blacklist period, where there was such anxiety about how we had to prove that we were different than those atheistic Russkys.

And what did we do? We inserted the words "under God." But the actual difference between us and the totalitarian regimes, that we were an enlightened nation, we did not have to dictate to our citizens, whether there was or wasn't a God. And that was what made us superior.

So to have this, words inserted there was an anomaly, and it is absolutely right that we should rule that it is no longer appropriate.

PHILLIPS: All right, Ian, I know you got an opinion.

PUNNETT: Well, this sort of slippery "we" and "they" thing that he's going through is indicative of a larger problem, I think, with Martin's argument. First of all, I'd say he's certainly welcome to be here and have a dissenting view in America. I hope he enjoys it here always.

However, it should be said that his facts aren't quite up to speed, and it may be that it's appropriate for him to spend more time with American history. Although it was added in 1954, "under God" was being used as other aspects of the pledge had also been changing over the years as well. It wasn't just Congress took a vote. People had already been using it.

And this is what's so unique about the pledge of allegiance, or really, rather not so unique, is that it reflects even the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The original boom for this country against England was that people could be religious, but it didn't mean that they were not atheists. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the country had to be an atheistic government in order for it not to be a religious government.

So we've been walking this balance just fine. There is -- there was no call for this. Four out of five Americans thinks this is absolutely ridiculous. And it truly is, because if you say that we need to get rid of the Pledge of Allegiance, then we have to get rid of our national motto, we have to get rid of Thanksgiving, we have to get rid of a long list of things which have always flirted with the idea that we come from a religious background. We hold religious principles, but we don't make people be religious.

PHILLIPS: He's got an interesting point, Ian, and if you look sort of at, you know, the background of this man who filed this lawsuit, we had him on the air last week, and basically asking, Why are you doing this? Well, I'm an atheist and I'm doing it for my daughter, and hey, we can do it, so why not?

And, you know, it was hard to understand, OK, is there really depth to this argument, at least coming from this person?

LEWIS: I was waiting to hear the refutation of these American historical facts. I don't hear them. I mean, Britain is a nation that its own national anthem starts with the words "God save our gracious queen."

The beauty of what Thomas Jefferson did was that he said that if there was a God or if there isn't a God, whatever you believe, we, the government, we, the state, will not impose that upon you. And it was -- we got through two World Wars. That Pledge of Allegiance (UNINTELLIGIBLE) off the Nazis. We didn't need it until 1954 when there was fear that we wanted to show that we were better than the atheists, than the heathen mob.

But what defeated totalitarianism wasn't God, it was in money we trust. We outspent the Soviet Union on defense. That's what it was about, not God. And therefore, shouldn't we show that we have more confidence in ourselves, whether we believe in God or not, by saying we don't need to impose this when it wasn't there in the first place?

PUNNETT: Well, I know Martin likes to use words like "impose," and it certainly reflects what his position is on this. I don't think most people feel like saying "under God" is imposed upon them, or that it's in some way forced or indoctrination or all of these other words that people have been using in support of this absolutely ludicrous decision.

But let's be clear about this. The Declaration of Independence is germane to this. If you're going to mention Thomas Jefferson, then you have to talk about what the founding fathers thought of as the cause for these very same rights that allows you to be endlessly peevish about this, Martin, and that is, they were imbued by the Creator, they are inalienable because they were given to us by God.

If you're going to say that you can't have the Pledge of Allegiance in schools, then that means you can't teach the Declaration of Independence in schools.

LEWIS: We're not saying that you shouldn't have...

PUNNETT: And if you do that...

LEWIS: ... not saying that you shouldn't have the Pledge of Allegiance, but not the Pledge of Allegiance as amended in the middle of a McCarthyite anxiety about communism.

PUNNETT: Well, let's, let's (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...

PHILLIPS: Here's an e-mail, guys. Look at this e-mail coming from Colorado. Jerry Brenner says, "Could we -- not that I'm in favor of it -- change `under God' to `enlightened and inspired'?"

LEWIS: Perfect, perfect wording. Or they can just say, "God" -- for those 12-steppers out there, "God as I understand Him or Her."

PHILLIPS: Oh, very good, Martin.

PUNNETT: And, of course, and that's just how...

PHILLIPS: Politically correct.

PUNNETT: ... and that's how the politically correct movement will go for this week. And then next week that will be deemed too religious. And then the week after that, it'll be something else.

We've seen this over and over and over again. Remember, Newdow's original point was, he wanted to get rid of "In God We Trust," but that was too hard, so he went for what he thought was the soft chink in the armor. His intention, and the intention of those like Martin, is to rid our culture of any type of reference to God from a governmental standpoint, when yet God was part of the blueprint of the government from the very beginning.

PHILLIPS: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) look at our money...

LEWIS: Not rid of, not rid our culture, not rid our culture, just honor what Thomas Jefferson so wisely wanted, a wall of separation.

PUNNETT: You get the impression that if you think Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he'd go, I was so stupid, what was I thinking in the Declaration of Independence? Martin, I think you're wrong.

PHILLIPS: All right, guys, you want to get into school vouchers here?

PUNNETT: Sure.

PHILLIPS: OK, here we go. (UNINTELLIGIBLE), because I know you guys are going to need time to go off on this too.

All right, let's talk about, is it unconstitutional or not to send tax dollars to religious schools?

PUNNETT: Well, I don't think it is, if that, as the Supreme Court ruled, as long as the parents have the choice to send their kids toward any private education, if the public schools are failing. And in this Cleveland model, that was the key part.

The -- what we needed to keep in mind was, we needed to keep -- get these kids educated. If the public schools couldn't do it, then they go to a private model, and in that case, the parents had choice between a private or a parochial school. And if they went parochial, because that was their choice, then that was ultimately their choice.

But the key thing was, the kids got educated, and that was the most important thing.

PHILLIPS: Is this about religion and worship, or just good old solid education and resources? Martin?

LEWIS: Well, you know, I respect President Bush because he's a man of integrity, and he keeps his word. And he has got an enormous economic payback to the people he bought his election, the corporate people who invested in him. Therefore, there's a very finite budget available for minor things such as public education.

So of course we have to drain public education, which is in desperate need of funds, by making it available to people who believe in religion. Listen, if you believe in religion and you want to send your children to a private school, you should be able to do so. I actually endorse that, because without people putting money into religion, we wouldn't have the edifying spectacle of Jimmy Swaggart and Jim and Tammy Fay Bakker.

So if you want to do it privately, fine. But please, do not drain public resources, which are so severely stretched, when they need to go to public schools. That's why the public school system is difficulty, because we keep taking money away from it for private issues. That's not right.

PHILLIPS: All right, hold on. Real -- Ian, let me get this -- Ian, you can start. I got one quick e-mail, because we got so many people writing in about this.

Jerry Warsing in Virginia, he mentions he lives on the south side, "The voucher system has been devised, among other things, as another method of the ultrarich to sop up unprotected tax money. Vouchers will be used to resegregate education and to enrich church schools at the detriment of public education."

Ian?

PUNNETT: I, I, I, I think if the voucher program goes that far, I would disagree with it too. So let's be clear about it. The ultimate goal has to be in school systems that are failing, where kids are not being educated. For me -- and this may make me unique...

PHILLIPS: And they're out there, I've seen them...

PUNNETT: ... in America, I don't know.

PHILLIPS: ... I've been in those schools, and they have termites are eating books.

PUNNETT: They are, they are failing in Detroit, in Atlanta, in so many school systems where even teachers are trying, and they have the resources, if the parents aren't getting the education for their kids that they want, and they don't have any other option, this is a great way to get kids educated. This is not about religious indoctrination and turning our kids into Jimmy Swaggarts.

LEWIS: Oh, so you're in favor of it as long as -- in favor of just go along a little way along the slippery slope, and you trust that it won't go further. But again, I invoke Thomas Jefferson and say that he wanted the separation. Now, Chief Justice Rehnquist, whose principal occupation before he became chief justice was a small- town lawyer who was a propagandist for segregation, he has the temerity to stand up there and change that that Jefferson said, there should not be money going into private or religious functions like this.

This is a very, very dangerous slippery slope, and I would rather trust Thomas Jefferson than Chief Justice Rehnquist.

PHILLIPS: But there's a reality...

PUNNETT: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- it only...

PHILLIPS: ... Martin, Martin, there's a reality here, though. You've seen -- I mean, have you seen some of these public schools? I mean, they are horrendous, and they're not -- they're not getting better. Schools...

(CROSSTALK)

PHILLIPS: ... air conditioning and no resources.

LEWIS: ... I agree.

PHILLIPS: There's got to be options.

LEWIS: I agree. But the reason that -- when we say they're horrendous, a lot of them are horrendous, and money is not the only thing that makes things better. But it is the lack, the starvation of funds that has contributed to them being in such a poor way.

If you don't start off by at least -- it's irrigation. You bring money -- the money, you bring the water flow, to nourish the things that need it. And public education...

PUNNETT: OK...

LEWIS: ... seriously needs help. Then let's look at it, if we've given it a chance. But it hasn't been given a chance (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

PUNNETT: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...

PHILLIPS: All right, Ian, real quickly, because we got to wrap.

PUNNETT: If Martin were right, then all of these years that more money were being poured in the systems, they would be getting better. Really, the history of this, Martin, in this country is, the more money you pour into it, it does not necessarily make it better, and frequently more money inevitably somehow makes it worse.

PHILLIPS: Unless...

(CROSSTALK)

LEWIS: ... this is in fact how we got George Bush.

PHILLIPS: ... unless you live in Beverly Hills, guys. I've often seen the schools in Beverly Hills.

LEWIS: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- that's -- more money, that's how we got George Bush. Yes, I know, you're quite right.

PHILLIPS: All right, Martin, Martin Lewis, Ian Punnett, we got to, we got to have you guys on again. You guys were great. I think everybody's awake now.

Gentlemen, thanks so much.

PUNNETT: Thank you, Kyra.

PHILLIPS: Great insight, gentlemen.

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