Timeless Wisdom - The ACLU: Dialogue and Debate

November is National Family Caregivers Month. 1 in 4 Americans is stepping up to help older loved ones with everything from meals to bills. Family caregivers spend thousands out of their own pockets each year, and too many have to quit their jobs to keep providing care. Working families can't afford to wait. It's time to care for America's caregivers. Learn more at aarp.org/careforcaregivers.

Paid for by AARP. Welcome to Timeless Wisdom with Dennis Prager. Hear thousands of hours of Dennis's lectures, courses, and classic radio programs. And to purchase Dennis Prager's Rational Bibles, go to DennisPrager.com. Well, thank you very much, Michael, and thank you all very much for the warm welcome. I'd like to second Michael's welcome to what's called the Prager Forum, named after a non-member of the ACLU. And I trust that today will be profoundly enlightening to you, whatever perspective you come to this afternoon from. I want to introduce our guest and then explain to you the way I'd like to run this afternoon. He is, as you well know, Ira Glasser, who's executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union. This is what I culled— when I raise my voice, I'm not heard. Is that right? Is that— I mean, is it better now? Okay. This is what I culled from Mr. Glasser backstage when I asked— why does that happen? Is that going on and off for you? Yes. Okay, gentlemen in the booth, we're having a little on and off problem.

All right.

This is what I pulled from Ira Glasser backstage. He was emphatic in having me know that he grew up in Brooklyn. And that was in order to establish at least one bond between us.

The last one, though.

Perhaps the last. That's right.

You left after all.

That's correct, I did. Actually, according to Mr. Glasser, he left as well. He really went to Queens and went to Queens College where he graduated Phi Beta Kappa and magna cum laude in, of all things, mathematics. And in fact, he taught mathematics at Queens College and then at Sarah Lawrence and then became associate editor of Current Magazine, a magazine which I was— I'm not familiar with, but It obviously was a great stepping stone for him because eventually he became the editor of Current Magazine in the mid-1960s, and then was asked to become associate director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, and shortly thereafter, actually, all about, I guess, within the same decade at any rate, became the executive director of the ACLU in 1978. And I would like you, whatever your opinion of the ACLU, to please welcome Mr. Ira Glasser. I'll just make some preliminary comments and then go straight into this dialogue/debate. First of all, Unless things become absolutely intense so that no break is even conceivable, I would like to be able to take a break two-thirds of the way through, let you take a break as well, and then come back after 15 minutes and take part 2 of this. That's just a logistical opening. The other is more germane, and that is I want to explain something to you. I do not I've never liked the gladiators of Rome, and I've never tried to emulate their particular form of making a living. So I do want you to know, many of you who've heard me on radio or read me know that to say that I have differences with the ACLU is to give understatement a new meaning. Nevertheless, if you did come for blood, this is not your place. That is not what this afternoon is about. As Michael Levine said, the hope is to raise the intellectual level here. And that if you do have deep disagreements or agreements with the ACLU, you will know why after this afternoon is completed. That's really the intent here, as well as my own. My dream in life, one of my dreams, is always to be able to confront the most eloquent advocates of positions I don't agree with. I'd like to give credit here to a rabbi, well-known American rabbi, Yitzchak, or Yitz Greenberg. And he once said to me about almost 20 years ago, said, you know, people in religions, when they speak about other religions, they have a temptation. The temptation is to speak of, to take the best of their own religion and compare it to the worst of everybody else's. And then, as you notice, your religion always comes out ahead. Whenever you do that. And the same thing here, it's, it's, it's as it were somewhat easier for me to attack ACLU positions on the radio. But somebody could say, well, why don't you bounce them off their most eloquent spokesman? So I thought that's a great idea. And that's how today has really come about. So let me begin here, and I, as I told Mr. Glasser, I was going to begin with a statement, and I want him to feel free to take his time in responding. I've divided this into, philosophically, because there's so much material here, into two forms. One, I'm going to talk about specific policies of the ACLU, and then I want to talk about, after that, getting the responses. I want to talk about the vision, and one final Preamble word. Another one of my beliefs, which any of you have heard as well me articulate on the radio, and I said this to Mr. Glasser when we spoke by phone, one of the keys that I have learned, and probably the single greatest lesson in 9 years of talk radio, is that the motives of those who disagree with me, I have come to realize, no matter how sharp our disagreement, I finally realized people don't walk around generally with bad motives. People whom I fully disagree with probably are as sincere and desirous of good things in their motivations as I am in mine. So this is not an ad hominem, "Gee, you're not a fine man," sort of afternoon. I don't think the values of the ACLU are fine, but I do believe that the motives of those who devote their lives to it are probably just as good and fine as anybody's here, including my own. And that's, that's another important introductory element to what I want to say. Let me begin by citing actually the head of the Texas chapter, or the Texas CLU, Texas Civil Liberties Union, Gara LaMarche, who wrote in the 1986 spring newsletter of the Texas Civil Liberties Union that, uh, uh, to, uh, is it a he or she? To get to his perception, the ACLU is, quote, the most hated organization in America. And then he went on to write, and this is in the, the CLU newsletter, what's most troubling is that when we do mass direct mailing, because he was referring to a lot of hate letters that they receive after sending out mailings to people. What's most troubling, he writes, is that when we do mass direct mailing to recruit new members, we don't rent the membership lists of the Moral Majority or the National Rifle Association. We try to use lists of sympathetic organizations or publications and still get back hate letters. And I would— if nothing else, Mr. Glasser, I'm gonna list certain things that are policies of the ACLU, taken directly from the policies in your own papers, that at least, if nothing else, will help explain why I think this phenomenon is true. When Mr. Dukakis, who admittedly was not the most— the toughest campaigner the Democrats could have chosen, nevertheless, when he proudly stated that he was a card-carrying member of the ACLU, That more or less ended the campaign from many of our perspectives. That's the point that I want to really underscore here. And let me give you one more general quote here. It's from New York Times former managing editor, whom I think is considered a liberal, or at least was until recently. He writes as follows. He was writing an article on drugs and fighting drug pushers in America. This is from the New York Times. The professional civil liberties people are no great help. They give the impression of caring only about getting drug hustlers back on the streets as quickly as possible. They have failed to convince the public that they are concerned about the victim as well as the pusher. Since the victim is society, they have managed to give civil liberties a bad name. If you can do that in a liberal city like New York, don't blame the hardhats, only yourself. That's A.M. Rosenthal on the civil liberties establishment. All right, I'm going to read a series of policies because otherwise we'd be here all day, and then I'd like to go over a few of them and get your reactions. But this cumulative policies of the ACLU might give an idea of how the rest of us west of the Hudson tend to feel about the ACLU. Policy number 4 says that child porn—it doesn't specify the word child, but that is the effect—may be distributed and sold. It would abolish all laws on the sale and distribution of hardcore pornography, including child porn. The Union says it opposes, quote, any restraint on the right to create publish or distribute materials to adults, or the right of adults to choose the materials they read or view on the basis of obscenity, pornography, or indecency. It then adds, laws which punish the distribution or exposure of such materials to minors, minors, violate the First Amendment. Now, while the ACLU, when asked on this, would you prosecute people who make child porn, They say yes, but once it's made, it can be bought. There's a policy. Policy number 18: the ACLU is opposed to any rating system, even not governmental, just by the movie industry, because it discourages freedom of expression. Here is the direct statement from the ACLU papers: rating systems create the potential for constraining the creative process. And inevitably have serious chilling effects on freedom of expression. For example, hotels, airlines, pay television frequently refuse to accept X-rated films. Ah, now, it just, it boggles my mind that the ACLU thinks it's a bad idea that airlines know what is an X-rated film. Do you want Debbie Does Dallas on your next United flight? It just, it's the sort of thing that I think gives civil liberties a bad name. Third position, policy number 76. ACLU opposes the more than 50 school districts nationwide that have banned electronic beepers from the classroom. They are now a key tool of the drug trade. The ACLU was consistent, it also tried unsuccessfully to protect students from searches of their lockers. But the beepers is another example of where, to hell with society, what really counts is the individual who can do whatever he or she wants. Number 4: Abolish all covert operations, policy number 117. Does that mean we couldn't attempt to rescue American prisoners of war in Iraq covertly? Would it mean that we couldn't have assassinated a Hitler or a Saddam? Only covert operations make that possible. Number 5, drug policy 214. Drug use is basically described as an illness. Not basically, it is. I quote from the ACLU position paper: There is today widespread recognition of the fact that narcotics addiction is at bottom an illness to be treated and not a crime to be punished. Most of America does not agree with that, that it's not an illness, that maybe alcoholism is an illness, but people opt to take drugs. It is an option that we want to criminalize. Okay, just to go through a few. Policy 260: You're against breathalyzer tests for people who are charged by the police with possible drunk driving. And even for tests for crews who are driving Amtrak trains and so on. I don't even understand the rationale behind that. Policy 270, I told you on the phone, I gave away what I think is the goofiest. And that is Policy 270, quote, current practice of searching the persons of all individuals simply because they wish to board an airplane is completely inconsistent with Fourth Amendment principles. I don't think that in this room, or in any room of 800 Americans, 20 of them would find that their rights are violated by searches at airports, because there is another right that seems to be absent from the ACLU, the right to live in peace. The right not to have a bomb on my airplane, the right not to be raped, the right not to be murdered, the right not to have my kids sold drugs in their schools. Those are rights that strike me as absent in the Weltanschauung, the worldview, of the ACLU. Okay, your turn.

Well, it's a good thing I've heard some of these before. Without notes, I couldn't keep up with all of those criticisms. No, it's all right, it's all right. I wouldn't want to read from something that was that inaccurate. Let me suggest a couple of things preliminarily. If the idea of this forum is to try to figure out what is it really that the ACLU is doing and what is our worldview and what are the ethical philosophy behind what we do and how, if at all, does it clash with what you think ethics ought to be, this is not a good beginning. There's two reasons why this is not a good beginning. One is because, as you said at the outset when you quoted that rabbi, it is too easy to take an organization that is 70 years old, has passed thousands of policy positions, handles 5,000 or 6,000 cases every year, lobbies on thousands of bills in Congress and state legislatures, issues an immense number of statements, appears in forums like this all over the country, and pull out half a dozen things which, let's concede for the moment, are loony, because I can pull out better ones than you found. There is no organization in America, including Congress, maybe especially including Congress, that has been around for as long as we've been around and does as many things as we do and has as many local chapters as we have, and, or fairly to be judged by the half dozen looniest things that have ever been said by anybody, whether in Texas or anybody else, or anyplace else. So to some extent, I want to start by saying that all of those examples that you chose, taken together, even if they were wholly accurate, which I don't think they are, are so marginal, so peripheral, in terms of what the ACLU's agenda and our real work is, as to make debate over those issues a serious distortion in terms of what the ACLU agenda is. The policy statements, which I understand are in, you know, great circulation these days, represent policies passed by the board of directors of the ACLU at some time in the history, in our 70-year history. This is the current. This is the current. No, no, no. The current policy guide contains a compendium of all the policies ever passed. Some of these policies are moribund. Some of them have never been implemented. Some of them were passed years ago in a very different context. Let me just start with one. I say this because I think that to— if it is your purpose to try to shed some intellectual light on what the ACLU is really about and to figure out whether this is a net good thing or a bad thing, these half a dozen policy positions is not a serious way to begin. I go through airport metal detectors all the time. It is not intrusive. I don't regard it as a search. But what we do oppose, and we oppose to this day, is the business of airport security guards picking people out because of the way they look. Joe Morgan, the Hall of Fame baseball player here in Los Angeles, was picked out on the basis of a profile because he was black and he was dressed too well. And he was detained and he was subjected to an intrusive search, including a body search. Same thing happened to a New York Times reporter in Detroit. When you find out why they're being stopped and pulled aside and searched, you find out that the reason is, is because of the way they look and somebody decided they're dressed too well and they're black and they've got to be a drug dealer. That's the kind of stuff that we spend our time opposing. And that, I submit to you, is not only ethical, it's what all of you would want. The last thing in the world you would want is to be subjected to being being pulled out by a cop and subjected to detention and an intrusive search, including sometimes body cavity searches, based not on anything you did, based on nothing that could have constituted evidence that could be suspicion, but based on how the cop thought you looked.

What if there were body searches on everybody? Would you still oppose it?

Well, you know, that's sort of like saying that when somebody doesn't— is denied the right to vote because they're black, that it can be cured by denying everybody the right to vote.

No, I don't think it's like that at all.

I do think it's like that, because if the violation— here is the American idea that was codified in the Bill of Rights in 1791, was that the government has a right to search people in order to investigate crime. That is a community interest, and it's a legitimate community interest. But the standard has to be that there has to be some reason to suspect the particular individual searched. I would not like to live in a society, and neither would you, if a cop could simply erect a barrier at a corner of Wilshire Boulevard and search everybody who walked by there for no reason. You've got to have a reason.

But in airports, there is a reason. It is to deter people from coming on. But they don't search everybody in airports. You're right. So I'm asking you a very simple question. Would you then allow, since you're saying that any criteria that they use to choose people is unconstitutional, then there are only two other options: search nobody or search everybody. Would you be allowed for— would you allow for searching everybody?

No, I wouldn't allow this. Well, I don't understand.

What, what, what right does that violate? Because the right not to be searched at airports?

The right not to be searched, period.

Well, why is that a right? I— then I don't— shouldn't fly. I can go by Greyhound. The moment that I have opted to go to the airport, I am searched. That is what prevents— why is that exactly? Why is that? What is what exactly?

Why is it that you search when you go to the airport?

In order to deter people from bringing things on their body.

But they don't do that, do they? They don't do what?

Search. Sometimes they do. If you didn't pass the metal detector, if you beat the metal detector on your third try, even after you've denuded yourself of your keys, they do leave your body.

My father once went through a metal detector and practically was stripped there until somebody figured out that it was open-heart surgery and they had, you know, stitched together the sternum with wires, and that's why he was throwing it off. But if the metal detector continues to show that there's some metal on you, and you go through it 3 times, you give them your keys, you give them your change, and you give them your bracelets, then they can search you.

Yeah, all I do is check for that. 2 very quick things, because I don't want— as you don't— I don't want to spend the whole day on any given one policy. There are 2 things I'm so far gathering that You do not deny that these are things that the ACLU holds? You can't, obviously. And that you, too— The things that I read off. I read directly.

You didn't let me comment on that.

All right, so let's go on. Let's move to the movie system. Do you think— why is it— why do you oppose?

Well, there again, there again, let me— I got the question the first time. Okay. There again, we have never sued to challenge the movie rating system. All we have said in discussions with the Motion Picture Industry Association is that the kind of rating system you have is not a good idea for two reasons. One, it first of all denies— it's not just an advisory system. It's not just a rating system. It does more than just tell parents what's in the movie. I raised four kids in the middle of Manhattan. If I wanted to take a 12-year-old to a movie, I didn't want the person who owns the movie to tell me because somebody else rated it, uh, that I could not take him into the movie. That was my decision. It was not the movie owner's decision, it was not the theater owner's decision, and it was not the Motion Picture Industry Association's decision. Moreover, when I looked at movies to see whether or not I would like my kids to see those movies, those ratings didn't tell me anything. They were letters that meant nothing to me. I could have my kid go into a movie in which there was the most explicit sex and the worst violence, and it didn't have an R rating. But something else was supposed to be forbidden because somebody in some office thought it was forbidden, and then I couldn't take my kid to that movie even if I as a parent wanted him to. If I wanted to know what was in the movie, I saw the movie. You know, giving 4 letters out, imagine if you did this with books. Books were rated R, PG, what would it tell you? It tells you nothing. But what it does do, what it does do, is it's a commercial device which causes movie writers and movie directors and movie editors to edit their films in order to get a rating that they need in order to be a commercial success. And that has a censorious effect without having any effect at all in keeping kids away from pornography. It just doesn't work. And it's, you know, it's not the biggest thing in the world. As I said, you know, when I spend most of my time discussing this is on talk shows with people like you. You don't spend a lot of time on this issue. It's not the biggest issue in America.

It's just symptomatic of the way the ACLU perceives—

But it isn't. But it isn't.

Well, why do you— then why do you include it? Just as the ACLU was advising America on how to better see its films, No, because— How is this a civil liberties issue? How is my liberty in any way by having a film X-rated? It's a civil liberties issue for two reasons.

And as I said, the full extent of our activity in this area has been to engage in private discussions with the Motion Picture Industry Association to try to get them, if they're going to have a rating system, to have one which A, makes more sense, B, is more informative, and C, does not impair infringe on a parent's right to take their kids to a movie that they want. Now, to say that there's something vaguely anti-American, anti-family, anti-community, pro-pornography about engaging in those kinds of discussions with a rating system which is conceivably absurd, which provides no information, and which does have a mild censorious effect— and I say mild because I don't think it's the worst thing in the world— And to say that we shouldn't be talking about that, that it's wrong to oppose it, is to suggest that we spend, you know, a third of our treasure and half of our cases trying to challenge this in court, which we don't do. It's just a total distortion both of the position and of its importance in our agenda.

Well, you can't yell at me for taking your own policies, citing them back to you, and telling me I'm distorting. I read the exact words. You and I, you characterize some of them as loony, I characterize some of them as loony. If you think that I am just picking out little weirdos that really don't personify the ACLU, it gets to the larger issue. I want to get to larger issues, I just want to hear you on each of these, but I'll tell you one larger issue here. What I, what I think of the ACLU is an organization that, that is blind and deaf to the concept of the soul. It only knows the body, and perhaps the mind, but it is It is literally deaf to the concept that the human being and that society larger is composed of something called a soul. You're aware of air pollution and sea pollution, but you're not aware of this concept of what I call soul pollution. There is a sense among Americans, and I am not for censoring pornography, but there is a sense in America by the vast majority of people trying to raise their children that there is too much of this, that it is too easily available, and more importantly, America is not a better country. See, I have a sense that you think America is a better country when people are freer to see more and more X-rated films.

That, that, and, and you've got it. Hold on, you've got to know that that's a caricature.

Well, why? You just said if a parent wants to take a child to an X-rated— No, I did not say that.

Yes, you did.

No, I did not. I'd love to play back the tape. Well, you should be embarrassed if you do.

What I said was I never used the word X-rated.

No, you said no-rated. Exactly. You said you don't want to be prohibited. Oh, I heard you very clearly. Have you seen an X-rated movie? Yes, I have. And if— recently? No, I haven't recently. No, I haven't. Well, it's irrelevant. Now you haven't. No, no, I have. You added recently after I answered you. That was tricky. It was a long time ago, in your younger days.

No, no. Dennis Prager, I want to get back. The notion that ACLU people are sitting in boardrooms, clapping their hands, looking to take their kids to pornographic movies, and thinking that this would be a great country if only we could see more scuds, is a caricature.

It is a caricature, but it's not one that I offered. I am simply saying, do you deny that you would like Americans to have the right to take their children to what we now call X-rated films?

I don't like to take kids to X-rated films.

You didn't answer my question. Should we have the right to take children to X-rated films?

I don't think that the government ought to decide.

In other words, we should have the right. In other words, why don't you let me finish? That's a civil liberty. Okay. Go right ahead.

Since you said you weren't Morton Downey at the beginning, let's—

I didn't say that. You'll conclude it or you won't conclude it.

The government ought not to have the power to tell a parent how to raise their children, what to expose them to, what kind of literature to expose them to, what kind of movies, what kind of religions, what kind of upbringing, unless what the parent is doing amounts to neglect or abuse, which is not so easy to define. But the last thing in the world that you or I, most people in this audience, or most people in the country as parents would want is for some government bureaucrat to decide what's good for our children and to start telling parents what to do. If it isn't abuse, it ain't none of the government's business. That's what I'm saying. Now, that— you cannot conclude and ought not to conclude from that that there is an affirmative desire to have parents taking their kids to X-rated movies. I didn't say that.

What you don't like is when I actually do isolate what you did say. What you did say is parents should have the right to take a child to an X-rated movie. Film. Is that correct or not? I did not say that.

Oh, well, what I said— now wait a second, now wait a second, now wait a second.

You said government cannot tell parents, then that means the parent is allowed to. You—

I don't understand. No, no, no, no, that, that's, that's, that's to say that the government— to say that the— yeah, but the reason why, the reason why that is not a fair analysis is that, is that it is like saying The government should not have the right to tell people what they can say. That we ought to have a right to free speech. The government ought not have the right, have the power to punish us for what we believe or what we say. And then you come along and say, "Oh, so you believe that people can say that all Jews should be fried in ovens." Now, the reason why that's not fair is that it begs the important question. The important question is, if one's position is that it's too dangerous to allow the government to decide these questions, then yes, you have to admit a certain number of people are going to make mistakes and do bad things and say bad things and think bad things, and things that you and I may not agree with. But the consequence of the alternative position is that you give the government the power to choose and decide. And I think that that will result in more things that you hate than you are prepared to believe.

I would say to you that nothing, no fascistic consequences have arisen from the government, from the government allowing Hollywood to give X, R, and other ratings to movies. Your fear of the fascistic overtones is not my fear. Now you're putting words in my mouth again.

All right, all right. I explicitly said— no, no, no, don't go on quite yet. I explicitly said it had a mild censorious effect, right?

Okay, don't, don't leap to conclusions that I'm calling everybody I disagree with a fascist. No, I never said that. I said that you are worried that if there are ratings and government tells us what is allowable to take children to, that I will be afraid of the consequences. That's what I use the term fascistic overtones, that you're afraid of an imposing—

I said that with respect to the general government power to tell you how to raise your children and tell you what to say and think. What about the rating system? Is a minor issue.

That's why I said it was marginal. We had two minor— we're making an issue of it. The third minor issue, beepers in schools. What's your policy?

Did I read it incorrectly, that you were opposed to, uh, the ACLU has no position on beepers in schools. You have read from a policy that was adopted by one of our local affiliates. I don't even know which one. Well, the ACLU has no policy on that.

Well, it's Policy 76 as I read it, but I will, uh— So you're opposed to that policy of your local affiliate, just for the record?

No, I'm not opposed to it. I don't even know what the policy is. I mean, I know what you're reading.

So how do you know it's a policy?

Well, you read it. I know it's not our policy.

Well, so how do you know it's an affiliate's policy? You got it from somewhere.

I'm just taking your word for it.

Well, that's very sweet of you.

Well, I believe your motives are good just like you believe mine are.

That's my man. All right. I don't think you can characterize as minor, given the number of Americans killed each year by drunk drivers. You're against sobriety checks, is that correct? We're against sobriety checkpoints. Yeah. Yeah. Because it violates my right to what?

Well, we're against sobriety checkpoints for two reasons. One— because it doesn't catch anybody, and two, because it doesn't. It doesn't. I know you say sure it does, but in the one case that went to the Supreme Court out of Michigan, the Michigan Sheriffs Association filed a brief in which they said they were against the use of those checkpoints. And the reason they were against it was not because they love the Constitution, The reason they were against it is they said it was a waste of their time. That over 99% of the people who were stopped, when you were stopping everybody, had no liquor in them. Let me finish. Had no liquor in them, that it was a waste of time, and if they concentrated on stopping the people against whom there was evidence of erratic driving, they could use the police much more efficiently and fine people much more efficiently. But to set up a roadblock and stop everybody who goes by that particular spot was to waste the police's time. It was a public relations hoax. They were against it. Meanwhile, what happened was everybody was stopped. And the law also says that if you stop somebody and the cop sees something that he shouldn't have seen in the first place, he can do a further search. So a lot of cars got searched, and the cars that got searched the most frequently were the young people and black people. I'm not talking just about shining the flashlight in their eyes. So what was going on was that the end that justified this means, that this was gonna be a serious effort to reduce drunk driving, in fact, according to the police themselves, didn't work, stopped mostly, almost wholly innocent people, and became an excuse for further searches of people based on illegitimate and improper reasons. That's why we were against it.

All right, there are two things that are wrong with that. First of all, what the ACLU— I, this is the first that I've heard— is very active in law enforcement, and it's only whether it's efficacious or not that the ACLU takes a position. I'm very happy to hear that they said he was more active in law enforcement than you think. You bet. Yeah, because I don't think— I think it actually, uh, as most Americans do think, it hinders law enforcement. Yeah, but most police chiefs don't think that. Well, then, then how do you cite— how do you react to In fact, I am aware of the answer that you gave, and it's a clever one, but it doesn't deal with the reason for checkpoints. The reason for checkpoints is not to catch the drunk, it is to prevent the drunk from driving.

Well, but there's no evidence that that works.

There is plenty of evidence that it works. No, there isn't. Well, let me ask you this. This is what I don't understand. If I brought you evidence that it did work, that fewer drunk drivers were driving when these were set up, the ACLU would then be for it?

I think we would have a harder argument then, yes. I think we would have a harder argument. I'm not saying—

look, let me— But I thought that you're for civil liberties. If you now tell me that you measure things on the basis of whether they work or not, we're in the same ballpark.

Well, you may be further surprised as this discussion goes on. First of all—

Well, but you may leave the ACLU by the time this is over.

I don't think that. That's what I'm hearing. The ACLU that I may leave is the ACLU of your imagination, which is not the ACLU that exists anyway. I know you keep pointing to papers there, but I don't know where you got those. I know, it's a very dirty organization.

Especially when they're invented. An old trick. They're not invented. You didn't deny either one as your position. I'm curious how on earth that affects civil liberties. Do I understand that it violates the liberties of a murderer to be executed? I'm really— I want to understand how the ACLU comes to spending such resources in propaganda and in money to oppose capital punishment when it's called the Civil Liberties Union. See, part of the problem that I have, to be very honest with you, is that under the rubric of civil liberties, you have things that have nothing to do with it. That's Alan Dershowitz's problem. It's really a leftist organization which goes under the rubric of civil liberties and gives civil liberties a bad name. Because you don't admit that you're political. The New York Times declares you as liberal, but you won't admit it. If you'd admit it, I wouldn't have even had this debate. What's problematic is that the word civil liberties, which I treasure— I treasure that value, I think it's been besmirched— it is not the civil liberty of a human being who murders to live forever. That is a profound distortion of the term.

So how do you come to having that project? You've said a lot of things along the way, several of which have nothing to do with capital punishment, but were at least organizationally ad hominem in a way that I thought you were not going to do. No, no, no. Let me respond to them first. Let me respond to this first. Alan Dershowitz is a longtime continuing member of the ACLU. He was on our national board of directors. He does not think that the ACLU is a leftist political organization. He disagrees with us about a number of issues. Issues, but it will not surprise you to learn that we're not unanimous in the ACLU on issues. Most of our policies are decided after hours of debate by votes of 42 to 38 with 6 abstentions and 12 motions to reconsider. These are not easy issues.

Can I just quote Alan Dershowitz on you? I mean, Alan Dershowitz wrote February 26th, '85, New York Times, attacking the ACLU for not attacking the blacklist of the UN on South Africa. People who perform in South Africa. I doubt that we will hear much because the ACLU is timid in the face of civil liberties violations committed in the name of liberal causes. So I just— Yes, no, I know he says it.

He says it all the time. Well, you denied that you said that. No, I denied that he said we were a leftist organization. I point— I thought it was interesting. Timid in attacking liberal causes. Well, you may be interested to know, and I'll send you a copy of the letter I wrote to Alan when when he wrote that column, because in fact we had protested the very thing he said we hadn't, and he just didn't know about it.

He's made that mistake before. Anyway, back to civil liberties and capital punishment.

I thought you might want to do that.

We go on further, maybe we should take our break now.

Okay.

All right, this is what we'll do. We'll come back to civil liberties and capital punishment. We'll come back to gay rights. We will come back to and a whole host of other issues in 15 minutes. Thank you very, very much for following. Part 2, we are going to finish promptly at 4:15. And what we're going to do now is I'm going to try to have us be as concise as possible. And then the last 10 minutes will be reserved for a final statement by both of us, by Mr. Glasser and by myself. So let me start even as you're being seated so that we can take every minute, advantage of every minute. All right, I'm going to move away from policy positions which are either looming or minor and move to these larger issues that seem to sit better with you. So let's talk about what animates the ACLU and so on. I began with the question of of capital punishment. Now, I didn't quite understand how this fits into the civil liberties issue. Does a person, as you understand it, as the ACLU understands it, have a civil liberty to live until natural death if he has committed murder?

Is that your position? Our position is, is that the death penalty is a cruel punishment in the sense in which the Eighth Amendment refers to cruel punishments, and also an unusual punishment in the sense to which the Eighth Amendment refers to unusual punishments. With respect to its cruelty, you know, that I suppose is a moral as well as a constitutional issue. If the death penalty were uniformly and fairly applied, which it is not, and it were applied without mistake, which it is not, and if it were reversible if mistakes were made, which of course it is not, we would probably still be against it on issues of moral opposition and cruelty. You know, punishments are a strange thing. There used to be a time when it was common punishments to have people drawn and quartered, to have them hung by the neck and cut down while still alive, and have their noses slit and their arms and legs cut off and pulled in four directions by horses. I mean, this was— these were common punishments in 17th century England, and to some extent there were punishments like that in colonial America too. The issue of what is a cruel punishment that shouldn't be permitted. Should you boil people in oil? Should you cut off people's hands? Okay, we got these— you know, all that stuff. It varies. You don't, you don't like— well, no, it's not that.

It's that we've had a very long time to give us examples of cruel punishments, and we understand.

Well, then, we believe that the death penalty is such a punishment.

But life imprisonment is not cruel?

Life imprisonment has several features which death does not. One of which is that it's reversible when you find out you got the wrong—

No, I know, I appreciate that. What— but that's irrelevant to you.

No, no, no, wait a minute, wait a minute. It's not irrelevant.

It is, because if we had a video of someone committing a murder and it was irrefutable and 10,000 people saw it, you'd still oppose it. So don't give me it might be a mistake, because even when you know it's not a mistake, you oppose it.

It's a demagogic argument. But it's not a demagogic argument.

Of course it's demagogic, because you oppose it even when the person You know, didn't I say— don't tell me I might be mistaken, and that's why you were going to tell you that exactly.

And if you'll be fair and listen to what I said, but don't spend time on—

you won't get them a boiling oil, a quartering.

You want to answer? You want to answer my question? I can. Yeah, and it would be easier on you if you did. Um, I know you don't like these answers because they make you uncomfortable. Oh, not in the least. You want to answer? If you want to ask the question and answer it, go ahead and I'll just watch.

I want you to answer it.

All right, then let me answer. Then don't tell me about ancient torture.

Tell me about this.

I am going— No, no. Don't tell me what to tell you.

I am telling you. Well, then you go ahead and answer the question. We don't have all day. Alright?

Stop wasting time and let me answer the question. Alright? I said to you in the beginning that there were two reasons that we oppose the death penalty. You chose not to listen to the second one. The first one was that we thought it was cruel and immoral under any circumstances, even if it was done without mistake, and even if it was done was done fairly, which it is not. The second set of reasons are that, and these are the ones that operate in the way the system actually functions, and which I believe has to function that way, most homicides do not result in the death penalty and cannot result in a death penalty. That happens for a number of reasons. It happens because people get charged with different things. It happens homicide down to manslaughter, which doesn't have the death penalty. It happens because juries convict of one thing and not the other thing. It happens because judges don't always sentence that way. The fact of the matter is, is the death penalty is like a lottery. And that compounds the cruelty and the unfairness. And it also happens that the lottery is not even random. People who get the death penalty are people, almost universally, who who are poor and black people who kill whites. Black people who kill— if you want to— I'm talking now about facts. I'm not talking about your opinions.

Okay, but let me talk about facts.

Black people who kill white people are disproportionately—

That's untrue. I challenge your fact totally. Would you like to make a wager? I would make a wager in front of everyone here. Well, that's what I'm talking about. Okay, I'll wager. You're dead wrong. The issue is the victim and not the perpetrator. Blacks are not disproportionately proportionally executed. You're not listening. Are we all listening now? You want to withdraw from the wager? No, I want you to play the tape. We sure will play. We're going to be selling. I'm going to give it away.

No, I don't think you're going to give it away.

I think you're in this for money. Um, you're not going to give it away. That's cheap.

That's cheap. You're not in it for free, are you?

Very unhappy. Yes, I am. I'm sorry. You're going to give that away? No, not absolutely.

All right, that's what I thought. So that's why I said— no, no, I thought you said you were going to give it away. I don't think you're going to give it away. And I think you're saying a couple of things that you don't mean. And that's one— I mean, every— I said that black people who kill white people are 4 times more likely.

You said black murderers. No, no, no, white people.

You didn't let me finish the first time and you're not letting me finish this time, so of course you don't know what I said. Okay.

You want to let me finish now? You bet. Good.

We'll see if you can control yourself. Black people—

I just want to say I have not made— I bet you can't. No, I have not made it against you personally. Yes, you have.

You're very slick. That is not true. But you do not let people finish, and you mischaracterize positions, and you interrupt, and you interrupt and answer things that I didn't say. Take 60 seconds without interruption. Black people who kill who kill white people are 4 times more likely to get the death penalty than black people who kill black people. That is what the evidence shows. The evidence shows that there's a disproportionate use of the death penalty depending on whether the victim is white or black, and depending on whether people are poor, and depending on whether they have good lawyers or not. That is what determines who gets the death penalty. There is no moral question about the death penalty. Most people who commit homicide in this country have never gotten the death penalty, do not get the death penalty today, and won't get the death penalty tomorrow. And when you're talking— that may be true about all criminal sentences, but death is different. And when death is irreversible and you haven't had a good lawyer and you haven't, and you, and you haven't had a good investigation and there's been a lot of constitutional errors and you're being sentenced because of who you killed and not the fact that you killed It is a cruel and unusual lottery, and we are against it for that reason.

All right, the minute is up. I'll take a minute now to tell you that that totally obfuscates the real fact. The fact is you are opposed to capital punishment even if it were dealt out perfectly. The argument that it is only given arbitrarily or not absolutely across the board is a pointless argument because that is also true about prison and every other penalty. People in Porsches are more likely to get speeding tickets than people in Fords.

But death is different.

Death is different, but not on that argument. Not based on that argument. Why is it different based on the proportionality argument?

Because even if it were proportional, you'd still oppose it.

That's why I call it demagogic. Why don't you just say that no matter what a person does, including Adolf Eichmann, including mass murderers and torturers, I, the head of the ACLU and my organization, believe that these people have a right to live forever. Tell me that that is your position.

Forever is a long time, Dennis.

Till they would naturally die. Don't be fussy about little lines, alright? You know what I mean, and I know what you mean. I have a hard time knowing what you mean. Well, I'm very clear, my friend. You may not like what I say, but clarity is my forte. Not today. And if it wasn't clear now— Oh, yes it is, my friend. No sirree. You believe mass murderers deserve to live. That to us is a despicable use of the term civil liberty. Who's us? Me and most Americans. Yeah?

Well, you know, we're not in such bad company on that. The Synagogue Council of America is against the death penalty. The Roman Catholic Church is against the death penalty.

If you look at the total— The Roman Catholic Church is against abortion, so I don't understand what point that brings out.

And what about the Synagogue Council of America?

I think they're wrong on it.

Oh! Well, you think they're wrong. So who's us? Who has the moral high ground?

The vast majority of Americans. We may be wrong.

You may think that we're country bumpkins. No, no, I don't think you're country bumpkins.

But the vast majority of us believe that.

But the fact that the vast majority of people believe something does not make it ethical. You're absolutely right. The vast majority of people in this country once believed in racial segregation, once believed in slavery, right? And, you know, and our problem, the ACLU's problem, is that we didn't believe it at that time. And what happens, of course, is that our problem as an organization is that we're right a little bit before everybody else. Our problem is that we're premature.

Do you have a policy on humility as well? Is that one of your positions? No, I'm going to learn that from you. Okay, you will.

It's true. Now, the fact is that you asked me, "Why don't you say you're against the death penalty under all circumstances?" But I did say that. I said it first. What I want to ask you is, Given the way it actually operates, and assuming that you would not be against it under all circumstances, are you against it under these circumstances? No, I am not. Why? And why do you think that's moral?

Because a murderer who is poor deserves to be executed. The scandal of rich murderers getting away is a scandal. So I would think that those who don't like when punishments are given out unequally would work that they be given out equally, not that they wouldn't be given out to anybody. What about paying for their lawyers?

Happily. I will happily pay for poor people's lawyers. You will not so happily pay for poor people's lawyers.

I'd like to move on to another issue. You said that I should take cases that you've done rather than policies, okay? Let's take a case. Maryland chapter of the ACLU recently rose to the defense of students at Thomas S. Newton High School in Rockville, Maryland. They had taken the students to wearing t-shirts to school bearing such legends as "Big Pecker" and "I Want Your Sex." One of the t-shirts depicted a condom. Principal James Coles ordered them to cut it out. Said the ACLU's Maryland director, the school shouldn't be in the business of banning those messages. That's what the First Amendment is all about. A few comments. Is this loony? If it's loony, we'll just move on and grant it. No, I don't think it's loony. Okay, fine. So then you— all right, since you don't think it's loony, do you believe that those are messages? You really believe— I love that term— there's a message in Big Pecker?

What's the message?

I'm missing it. You guys have been in a lot of schoolyards like that. Well, alright, maybe not.

I mean, that message didn't begin with the t-shirt, you know. I mean, those kids talk that way all the time. I do know that.

I got kids too.

And they even talk about cunts.

I mean, you wrote one. That's right. I understand that.

But putting it on a t-shirt is not—

Is America— let me ask you this way.

I think this is— no, but I'll enlarge your words.

Is America a better place because they can wear those t-shirts? No.

No. No, so— But America is not— America— I would say that about most political speech too.

I would say that about most campaign speeches too. No, is America a better place for allowing high school kids to wear big pecker t-shirts?

Is America a better place— Don't answer me with a question.

It's a very Jewish habit, but answer me with an answer. I want an answer. Don't ask me.

I'm asking you. You're doing it again.

No, you were asking me a question.

You're doing it again. I try to answer you and you don't like the kind of answer. Now you don't like the tone of the answer. Now you don't like the form of the answer.

Give me your name.

You'd be much better at a dialogue with yourself. Then you can control all these things. Let me give you the answer. America would be a better place if high school principals didn't have the power to tell kids what they could wear and what they could say. Really? Yes. Okay. And I'll tell you why that is. And I'll tell you why that is. Because the minute you give, you know, you say we don't have a fear that that's going to happen. But in 1965, kids were suspended because their hair was too long. Again, it was, you know, it wasn't the style yet, and the principals didn't like it. Kids wore black armbands into high school to protest against the war. They were suspended because they didn't like that speech. Kids wore political buttons. They were suspended because they didn't like that speech. So issues arose. Why should the principal have the right, if the kid is not being disruptive in the classroom, to say how long their hair should be, what they're wearing, what they're saying, And the law was that they didn't have the power to do it unless it was causing disruption that made the educational enterprise impossible. Now, what happens is, is that in 95% of those cases, you have serious speech going on. So now, one of these things comes up, and you say, well, is that going to improve the world? Well, you know, I don't think most of George Bush's press conferences improved the world either, but I think he has a right to hold them. I don't think a lot of what you say improves the world, but I think you have a right to do it. I don't think a lot of what Jesse Jackson says improves the world, but I think he has a right to say it. And you cannot infer honestly that saying that people do not have the power to tell you what to say, to tell you what to say, somehow means that you approve what it is that they're saying. No, I don't even think it's important.

No, no, no, it's the right that we're talking about. I don't think that you think big pecker t-shirts are something that—

But the right is not— the question is not the big pecker t-shirt. The question is who decides? That's correct.

So we—

and it's not the government, and it's not the cops, and it's not the ACLU. It's you. You decide.

Since we tried to answer the opening— I tried, you may not have— the opening question that the Texas ACLU asked, why is it the most hated organization? I think if nothing else, and I mean this truly sincerely, okay? I mean this without any— without an agenda. If nothing else, as I would hope that we're all enlightened in some way from this, whatever direction, that you at least hear from us, that is the rest of America who does not like the ACLU, that we think you're extremists in this regard. We think that we, I would allow principals to make decisions on the dress of my kids, even if I thought they went overboard. If they go overboard, that is a danger. What you, what the ACLU doesn't seem to appreciate is that the dangers of of too much freedom under certain categories of instances, like high schools, are also great. You fear a right-wing authoritarian principle. I fear kids who grow up with no standards, where the lowest common denominator is—

where— where— And you think that happens in school, that they grow up with no standards? Or you think it happens in the home?

Oh, well, there is a good example.

Where do you think that happens? Do you think that giving principals the power to decide what shirts kids can wear is going to let kids go out and stand up to you.

In the same Maryland, the Black principal did enforce a dress code, was attacked by the ACLU for doing it, which is almost, almost superfluous. And racism disappeared overnight, right? No, I said a Black principal in a primarily Black school. No, I'll tell you what disappeared overnight. According to the New York Times, which reported this, what did seem to disappear was vandalism, What did seem to disappear was a lot of Fs and Ds. Grades improved dramatically. The esprit de corps of the school improved dramatically. And it happened in the same Maryland.

90%? 90%? And you are sitting there saying you're an intelligent person evaluating stuff on empirical evidence and suggesting to me that if you give principals the power to tell kids how to cut their hair and what kind of t-shirts to wear, reading scores are going to go up? That's right. You think that, huh? That's exactly what I'm telling you. You're naive. You are naive. ACLU is naive. 90% of the women— You live in the realm of ideas, theories, and policy positions.

In the real world, how people dress matters. You didn't come in a big pecker t-shirt today.

If you did, that's what you think. Okay, let's see it.

The reason you didn't is because you want to make a statement. I am a responsible citizen coming to look responsible. We try to inculcate adult standards in children.

This is alien to the ACLU. You may be surprised at this. I don't regard the fact that we're sitting here in suits and ties as the high point of Western civilization. Neither do I. Why are you characterizing it as such? I think a higher point of ethics and a higher point of Western civilization is the notion that people in government power do not have the authority to punish people for what they say, even if what they say is worthless and humiliating, and especially when you're talking about kids. You're talking about kids, for Christ's sakes. I mean, 95% of all the students involved in the student rights free speech cases in the '60s and '70s were straight-A students, were students who went on to college and had great achievement. We're not talking here— they were kids of highly educated, highly achieving kids. Those were the kids that the principal suspended. The linkage that you draw to an audience to get a your clause is demagogic and unsupported by evidence.

On the contrary, unsupported by evidence. Demagogic is you keep lapsing back into free speech and I quote dress codes. You're the demagogue, not I. I didn't say speech.

You said that it had an effect on discipline and learning.

Yes, I did. Show me the evidence.

I gave it to you. You just said it.

All right, fine. You want to wager on that too? We've got a lot of witnesses. How about it? $200 now, $1,000 now. That what? That there is a school in Maryland that—

I know there's a school in Maryland. So what? I thought you didn't like anecdotal evidence.

No, no, no. What is— if this is not empirical, anecdotal is when you— anecdotal is one case. Anecdotal is one case. What if I brought 5 cases? Now, listen, what if we brought 5? Anyway, it doesn't matter at this point. It doesn't matter. What has been established is that you don't believe that the dress of students has any effect on character or grades, and we do. That's part of the reason you are alienated from the rest of the country.

Let me tell you, that's all I want to establish. That's what I'm telling you about.

You don't believe it, we do.

Let me tell you about the rest of it. You have an arrogant way of using the word "we," as if you think you represent more people than you do.

Well, I think I represent far more Americans than you.

Well, I know you think you do. You don't think I do. No, I don't think you do. Oh, really? Yes.

And who was elected president the last few times? Not you.

What does that have to do with anything?

I mean, that is so ludicrous.

Well, what does the question have to do with anything?

It's a person who represents values that I am committed to.

Do you think that who was elected president has something to do with the debate we're having about justice? Oh, it has everything to do with it. Oh, wow. Everything to do with it.

And that is why the Day Duke caucus said he's a member of the ACLU, it wouldn't have mattered if he walked on water, he would have lost.

I got news for you.

It was the kiss of death. I got news for you. You're living in your own fantasies.

Oh, really? Yes. We keep electing on our fantasies.

That's right. No problem.

But, but they did it. I'll show you a public opinion survey.

Yeah, that shows that. Public opinion survey that shows— That's right. By most Americans. 50-something percent. Really?

Yes. Who conducted that? An independent— And I'll tell you something, I thought you were not going to be ad hominem.

You're right, that was ad hominem. Let's take that back.

When you get yourself excited, you know, anything can happen. True stuff comes out. All right, well, all right. Now the thing is, you said that you run an opinion. Two-thirds, two-thirds of the people never heard of the business. Two-thirds of the people who voted in that election never heard of the fact that he was a card-carrying member, and the rest of them said Most of them said that that isn't why they voted.

Okay, if you believe that, that's fine. No problem. I had to survey the commission because I know everybody believes it because you keep saying it. You're right. Okay, let me go to another one that I just moved very quickly. Here's a statement. Here's a letter, uh, and I can show it to you because it's from the ACLU stationery, so you can't say that this isn't accurate. Let me just read it, if I may. Oh yes, I know what I'm But they don't, so let me read it to you. ACLU, American Civil Liberties Union, California Legislative Office, to the members of the Assembly Education Committee. This is early 1989. Dear members, this is with regard to Bill SB 2394. The ACLU regrets to inform you of our opposition to SB 2394 concerning sex education in public schools. It is our position that teaching that monogamous heterosexual intercourse within marriage is a traditional American value, is an unconstitutional establishment of a religious doctrine in public schools. There are various religions which hold contrary beliefs with respect to marriage and monogamy. We believe SB 2394 violates the First Amendment. If you or your staff wish to discuss this matter further, please contact our office. Well, I'm contacting your office. I would like to discuss it further.

What's the date on that letter?

The date I have, April 19th, 1989, is when it arrived at my office.

No, no, no, what's the date on the letter?

No, I don't see a date on the letter. Well, you contacted us too late.

That's an outrageous letter. I, as soon as we found out about it at the national office, I rebuked the local office for doing it, and they withdrew it. What can I say? Okay, fine.

All right. Nevertheless, okay, not nevertheless. Fair enough, I'm happy to hear that. The ACLU, I take it, supports the ruling of the Supreme Court in 1980 that posting the Ten Commandments in public schools schools is unconstitutional. Is that correct? Yes. Okay, here is where— and this may have to be just the final thing before our both summary statements— here is where the forest comes in and not the trees. The sum total of the ACLU's America, to many of us, okay, my family, some of my family— how's that, all right? Can I speak on their behalf? The sum total—

I don't know, I haven't talked to your kids. Fair enough. All right, you know, they might be like some of Chuck, they might not agree with you.

The sum total is that in public, in the schools where the ACLU's values hold reign, you are not permitted, not permitted, to post the Ten Commandments, but you are permitted to wear Big Pecor t-shirts. That is the America that we, many of us, feel is evolving thanks to the ACLU philosophy.

That's a cute way of putting it. But the issue— but the issue—

no, no, no. Why is it cute?

I'm about to tell you. You've got to have a little patience. Okay. In both cases, in both those cases, the issue is not what t-shirt you wear or whether you believe or can circulate the Ten Commandments. The issue is what can the government do? We are not opposed to students speaking. Circulating the Ten Commandments, and we are not opposed to wearing it on a t-shirt. Our position is, is that there's two things that the government cannot do, and the public school principal is the government. The one thing it cannot do is tell people what to say, what to believe, and how to speak and how to express themselves. And once you make that position, once you think it's dangerous to let the government decide that question, then you've got to let in a whole lot of stuff that is scuzzy and that you don't like. And we think that the danger to allowing the government to decide who should speak is too great to permit the government to decide that. But that's not a matter of speculation, it's a matter of history, it's a matter of fact. All you have to do is read the history of the last 200 years in this country, much less in other countries. It's not speculation. The second thing is that the only way that religious freedom is maintained is to keep the government out of it. That means the government neither endorses nor disapproves, neither punishes nor benefits religious freedom. That was not something that the ACLU invented. It was something that the original Americans invented. It was something that the original Americans demanded. It is perhaps the most traditional American value there is. It is the reason why this country is not Northern Ireland. Religious liberty and religious freedom in this country has depended upon the government not posting the Ten Commandments, not endorsing prayer, not favoring religion, not favoring particular religions. That was written by Madison, by Jefferson, and it was demanded by the majority of people at the time. Now, the fact of the matter is, is that people who say that the separation of church and state is somehow anti-religious are either dishonest or are uninformed. It is the principal way we have protected religious liberty in this country, and we have more religious liberty in this country than anywhere else in the world, and that's why. And that was not a doctrine that was invented by the ACLU. There is no more traditional American value that we support than the separation of church and state. We take it whole right from the beginning the way it was given to us. And I cannot imagine the notion With the possible exception of the crime issue, there is not— the notion that the ACLU is against religion because it supports separation of church and state as a means of protecting religious freedom is the most dishonest and the most incorrect view of the ACLU that there is. Okay, let me—

let that be— I'll just take 2 minutes to sum up then, and just I'll really, I guess, address that issue. And then we'll just have to thank you and say goodbye to everybody. I think the ACLU is opposed to religion because I don't judge people by their speech. I judge people by their actions. That you are motivated by a love of the Constitution, I began by saying motivations may be thoroughly pure. The totality of the ACLU is to remove religion wherever possible from any public sphere in American life. While at the same time the ACLU widens the sphere of government intervention. Government should insist on affirmative action, for example. There's a classic area where you want the government to intervene far more in our lives. So it is certainly not true that the ACLU is for restricted government. It's for widened government where the ACLU agenda is lived by. With regard to religion, I would say that the only term here is fanatic. I passionately want separation of church and state for the sake of church and for the sake of state. But there is a point where you become an extremist, where you just take a beautiful idea and it makes it silly, if not ugly. That there should not be chaplains in our armed forces, which is an ACLU position because of separation of church and state, strikes me as an ugly position. It strikes me as an ugly position with regard to the Ten Commandments in school schools, putting up "Thou shalt not murder," "Thou shalt not steal," doesn't strike me as that's what Jefferson and Madison had in mind. To oppose all of these expressions, that there should be a benediction at a school by a rabbi, a priest, a Muslim imam, a Buddhist leader, who says that, "You know what, we're not just here for graduation, we're here to assert that there is a higher being in the universe." Will the atheists feel uncomfortable? My agenda is not that everybody in America be comfortable at every given moment. My agenda is to make a better America. America that makes no reference to the concept that there is a deity to whom I'm morally responsible will not be a better country, in my opinion. That's what I fear, and it's not a fear you share— a fear that you share. That your fear is that it will be abused and that somehow any intrusion of religion will lead to God knows what. Northern Ireland was the example you gave. We're animated by from fear. It's a theme that I return to frequently. That's true. And your fear animates you, it is of an America that becomes a Northern Ireland. Mine is an America that becomes a series of autonomous individuals with no bonds to any other American, with no sense of moral affinity with a god or a religion or a tradition, of people just doing their own thing with massive amounts of rights and not a single obligation. Those are our different fears. Thank you all very much. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate it. Thank you.

This has been Timeless Wisdom with Dennis Prager.

Visit DennisPrager.com for thousands of hours of Dennis's lectures, courses, and classic radio programs, and to purchase Dennis Prager's Rational Bibles.