Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
-- new legal questions today after -- national atheist group filed a lawsuit against the -- of Pennsylvania for declaring -- when he twelve the year of the Bible.
The group is called freedom from religion foundation it claims that the resolution amounts to state sponsored religion.
And is therefore unconstitutional.
But that's not all the group adds that the Bible contains quote.
Violent sexist and racist models of behavior.
That the members of this group find personally repugnant -- a sponsor the resolution a local lawmaker disagrees saying quote.
It recognizes the significant impact the Bible has had on our country it in no way inhibits anyone from believing in any -- or no -- Who's right here with the case slightly -- at the Fox News legal analyst and former former federal prosecutor.
-- TC is a former prosecutor and criminal defense attorney welcome to you both so -- this script says.
-- this state is endorsing a religion it violates the constitution is that true.
-- I think they've got a case I mean as wonderful as the revolution sounds -- but nine uplifting all of that it does have the mark of legislating.
It religion and you know of that that arguably runs afoul.
Of the definition of separation between church and state the whole establishment clause let me look at how courts have interpreted you can't even have the ten commandments in a courtroom Jana so how is this gonna fly I think they've got a case I don't like the way that they're pursuing it but I do think they have a case.
Let's talk a little bit about the perceived -- because is not just about the separation of church and state.
They simply do not like the content of the Bible as well they say that the content -- could encourage people.
Two to rely on the continent the Bible and therefore act in a manner harmful to them and two others is that.
Did that change their argument of the validity of it.
Well well well it it it doesn't change their argument I think there likeness basically illegals off the street and and I think they're real problem is with the Bible which they have said in their words contain violent sexist and racist overtones.
And is not a model.
For citizens United States.
But -- I think it.
There are now I think it's really undermined by -- think first ball you know under the US constitution which is this the standard by which just -- like that.
In 1983 Ronald Reagan into -- house the congress passed -- virtually the exact same.
Type of resolution this is a resolution is not a law and secondly and more importantly if you look at the Pennsylvania constitution the Pennsylvania constitution actually.
Refers to the almighty in give thanks for civil and religious freedoms.
This doesn't endorse any particular leave religion out little -- plays a big part Lisa Knight both put our hands on -- Bible and swore it would be thoughtful and won't be became federal prosecute that.
-- the -- -- fat that's actually true but he.
Here's -- problem is that if you're not if you're if if you don't -- -- put your hand on the Bible if you don't endorse the Bible that you are excluded and you're excluded by a legislative branch and that's the problem again I do not like the way they're going about it I don't agree with what they're saying about the Bible one iota.
But that legally they do have a case because other entities aren't suited what are we have a -- -- well I don't think it's it's unexpected one point that you made fret about Ronald Reagan is you you brought this at this proclamation was made in 1983.
President Reagan came out is that in 1983 declaring it the year of the Bible that was challenged least inviting ACLU but it was at held by.
At that don't just address the -- airlifted difference there was but the law has changed since 1983 yet even of that being up -- I don't think it would be upheld anymore -- at this point when you do have the ten commandments when you do have a separation in the churches when we do have this every.
-- it in the schools we have the Honecker in them Christmas issues every single Christmas and Chanukah time.
And that the law has evolved since 1983 so.
-- not I don't think this is a good example where you want to put without knowing how do you actually not honor the history Fred because we do know the founders didn't want a separation of church and state but we also know.
That they were spiritual people to -- so how do you -- that anymore.
They wire they were -- I don't think this crosses the line it doesn't endorse any particular religion that's the -- -- -- -- look.
The Bible -- -- the old testament and the new testament which runs across just christianity so I'm not sure and endorses any particular religion and it's a proclamation.
No one's excluded from anything the problem is it doesn't endorse the Koran it doesn't -- -- it doesn't -- -- it really is not all inclusive if you really want to figure in the finally did you got grandma and I -- -- -- -- -- -- sample of the -- -- -- the crime did not have a party in in US history matches that's married him pretty well thanks for Atlantic I mean.
I gotta tell you if they passed a proclamation and this is all this is it's a population or resolution that said we knew we recognize him or or we.
Will we we recognize and not -- but -- you know but at that level.
This that you just didn't -- artists they can't stay -- -- I thought that at one point there did little head like I say that Kentucky is a word indoors -- -- a lot of equity.
That you can't clean -- -- can you.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Making that proclamation and calling it the year of the Bible.
Hey that's an endorsement if it is using when they bring -- -- -- -- at a later time whether or not what Reagan did in 93 would be -- right now guys not that long -- soon be interesting to take a closer look at that.
Fred -- -- thank you as always that it had to catch remic.
Filter by section