joins us for a conversation about the supreme court. and later, talkshow host thom hartmann gives us his take on supreme court decisions. be sure to join the conversation with your calls, texts, and tweets. ♪ host: good morning. it is tuesday, june 28, 2022. the house and senate are set to hold sessions today amanda has january 6 committee will convene at 1:00 p.m. eastern for its sixth hearing this month. the latest on the hearing and a little bit, but we begin today at the supreme court, where a 6-3 majority yesterday ruled in favor of a former high school football coach with questions about the separation of church and state. this morning, we want to hear your thoughts on the role of religion in america today.

if you think religion has too much influence, (202) 748-8000. if you think it has not enough, (202) 748-8001. if you think the balance is about right, (202) 748-8002. you can also send us a text. that number, (202) 748-8003. if you do, please include your name and where you are from. otherwise, on social media, twitter, facebook and facebook.com/c-span. a good tuesday morning to you. you can start calling in now. we are talking in the first hour this morning about the case yesterday, kennedy versus the barberton school district kennedy versus the barberton school district. here is how one person put it yesterday. the supreme court ruled that the football coach was discriminated against. justice neil gorsuch wrote the

majority opinion saying that the haskell assistant coach's prayers are protected by the constitution's given to free speech and religious exercise. he said the school board discipline of kennedy was unwarranted, even under the concern of violating the separation of church and state. in that majority opinion, here are some of justice neil gorsuch's words from the case. respect for religious expression, he said, is indispensable. the life in a free and diverse republic where those exceptions take place weather in a cemetery or on a field and whether they manifest through the spoken word or a head. to punish an individual for engaging in a brief, private religious experience doubly protected by the free exercise and free exercise and free-speech causes of the first amendment. the government offered for its reprisals a mistaken view that it had a duty to ferret out

religious disturbances. the constitution he said neither mandates nor tolerates the kind of discrimination. that was the majority opinion yesterday. the response from coach kennedy and his lawyers from the first liberty institute to represent the case. that released a video after the decision was handed down yesterday. >> just got the big news from the u.s. supreme court that you one, man. you won. [laughter] >> yeah, i got nothing. >> i have known you for years. this is the first time i have ever seen you speechless. >> i wish i had something to say, but just like our football games come every time we scored or won a game, that was it. >> you said just a second ago that this is not really happening. i don't mean to pick on you, but you lost and you lost and you

lost and you lost and you lost, but then -- >> did you do five? >> i think i left one out. [laughter] >> but all that matters is the final scoring today. you won. congratulations. >> thank you. >> with us as an attorney that has been with you since the beginning, the night he got fired. tell us what you see in that opinion today, just headlines. >> well, it is an amazing decision to win on the clause, the free-speech caused, to get the court to say we don't have to go back down and do a bunch of fact-finding again or whatever. we have done all that. we just get some re-judgment entered. that is a big deal. the goal has been to get coach back on the field. it looks like a pretty good football season coming up. i think this is the ultimate thing we have to get accomplished for the rest of the

case, getting back on the field in september. >> to be clear so people understand, the only thing that we ever asked for was for you to be able to get back on that field, right? >> that was it. now it is like i have always done, just be able to enjoy the freedoms of america. now everyone else can. a cool thing. host: coach kennedy there in the wake of that ruling yesterday. here is one of the takes from the millennial focused new site mike.com. their headline in the wake of that decision, the supreme court has a clear agenda. christian theocracy across more than one ruling this term. the conservative justices have prioritized christian exception above all else. we are asking you this morning your thoughts on the role of religion in public life in america. if you think it is too much -- do you think it is too much, not enough, or about right? the phone lines for all of those answers, the numbers are on the screen. we have a call from rhode

island. carl things it is not enough. why? caller: hi. i am calling. it is not enough because if you take a look, i am over 70 years old, and how this country has evolved. when i was growing up, everything was easy, free, and kind. now we have two polar opposites that are extreme and there is virtually no possibility of compromise. what worries me is what the next step is going to be. i won't be around to see it. it is very possible, people believe it, that we are headed to a second civil war. host: do you think there is a place for compromise on the separation of church and state for those who feel like religion is having too much influence on public life and those who think it is not enough? caller: it has always been the

view. that is why prayer hasn't gone anywhere except for that breakthrough decision yesterday by those catholics on the united states supreme court. you know, it is funny. you look every time, a lot of people don't know that the jewish people support abortion. a lot of people don't know that, but they know it now. very sad. very, very sad. that is why those two justices, they vote for killing the unborn. very sad. host: stephen in lexington, kentucky, saying religion has too much influence on public life. where do you see it, stephen? caller: yes, good morning. yes. john, i am a big fan of you. love when you moderate.

yes. religion has way too much power in the united states, especially commercial christianity. the amount of churches out there that do not get taxed but put all of their oppression on the american public is outrageous. they dictate the way we live our lives. they dictate what we should do with ourselves, what we can do with ourselves. in general, way too much power. and it is ridiculous because a lot of us are not like that. there are actually a lot people that are not religious around this country and want to see it flourish, but religion is holding it down. and it has way too much power and influence in the way we live our lives. host: with the group, americans united of separation of church and state, have you heard of their worked? caller: no, but it sound like i

should find out what they do. what do they do? host: a group that has some of these very concerns you have talked about and have been closely watching this case. this is the statement that group and ever yesterday in the wake of the kennedy decision, saying this decision represents the greatest loss of religious freedom in our country in generations. the court focused only on the demands of far right christian extremists, robbing everyone else of their religious freedoms. it ignored the religious freedom of students and families as a network of religious extremists and their allies celebrate the victory. expanding this dangerous precedent. americans that value freedom and equality especially for public school students must rededicate themselves to reestablishing the separation of church and state across the united states. that is in the group americans united for the separation of church and state if you want to check them out.

that is the website on the screen. this is daniel out of washington, spokane. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. i believe that america is in decline and has been for quite some time, ever since we started to extract ourselves from the beliefs of the scriptures. in the scriptures, it says blessed is a nation whose lord is god, whose god is the lord. and cursed is the nation who rejects him. we are in a lot of trouble. the decline of this country is obvious to all of those who have a perceptive ability -- a

perceptive ability. so i am grateful for the supreme court in all of their decisions. and i am hopeful this nation will turn again back to the god who created us and who loves us and forgives us of our sins. host: daniel, do you think we will be seeing a lot more prayer in public schools in the wake of this decision? caller: i hope so. these schools are one of the biggest areas that have gone into decline. we are 37th in the world now. it is not sustainable for our economy and for our country to be that far down the list of achievement. it is ridiculous. if you teach your kids you are nothing more than an animal, well, don't be surprised if they start acting like animals. host: daniel out of washington this morning. "new york times" with a look back on how the supreme court

has treated the issue of prayer in schools in the past six decades. over the last 60 years, this up in court has rejected prayer in public schools at least when it was officially required or part of a formal ceremony, like a high school graduation. as recently as 2000, the court ruled that organized prayer is led by students at high school football games violated the first amendment's prohibition of establishment of religion. the delivery of a pregame prayer has the improper effect of coercing those present to participate in an active religious worship. that was justice john paul stevens writing for the majority back in 2000 in that case. more from the words of neil gorsuch, writing for the majority yesterday, saying respect for religious expression is indefensible. whether those expressions take place in this actuary or on a field, whether they manifest in the spoken word or about head.

that line of the ruling getting quoted quite a bit in the wake of it being handed down yesterday. this is fran in wisconsin. good morning. caller: good morning. good morning, john. just one of the things i wanted to say you said in the statement, the separation of church and state. our founding fathers knew there was really reason for separation of church and state. and until the event helical's realized that the evangelicals realized political power, that is when things started getting bad. there is a place for religion. in your home and in your church. not in politics and not being shoved down everyone else's throat. we have freedom of religion in this country. people have a right to their own beliefs. what happened in the supreme court, what happened with the

republicans is one of the consequences of having religion shoved down people's throat in a democracy. host: having a coach neil after a game and pray silently on a 50 yard line, is that shoving religion down people's throats? this was kind of the heart of this case. it was a reading of the first amendment. caller: yes. yeah. like i said, john, there is a place for religion. there is a place for religion. it is not -- you can go to church. you can send your kids to church schools and stuff. that is ok. but don't be shoving it down people's throats. everybody has a right to their own beliefs. and what is happening in this country now is one of the consequences of having religion shoved down other people's throats. i just think it is disgusting that people cannot keep their religious beliefs to themselves. it is one of those personal individual choices and should

remain that way. host: the heart of this case surrounding whether this idea, this act of praying on a 50 yard line, whether it was establishing a religion or moving in that direction or exercising the free expression of religion. and it centered around that first -- those first three sections of the first amendment, which read congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the three exercise -- free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech. in this case, focusing on the justices deciding on the free exercise and freedom of speech although sections of the first amendment when they made the ruling yesterday. 6-3 ruling led by the conservative majority. asking you this morning in the wake of that ruling about the role of religion in public life. do you think it is too much? do you think it is not enough? do you think it is about right? joel in new york, what do you

think? caller: good morning. good morning. i think schools have found a pretty decent balance. you know, they do a moment of silence before the pledge of allegiance. that the more personal. i disagree with the supreme court decision just because you have the moment of silence before the pledge of allegiance but it is a lot different from a teacher leading a class in prayer, which i kind of think what the coach did. just to piggyback on some of the other callers, i agree religion is important. but with their opinion change if the coach rolled out a prayer rug and did a muslim type prayer? it seems like the christian conservatives, they just look at one side of prayer. it kind of set the precedent. where is this going to go from here? go ahead. i'm sorry. host: here is some background

for those on how this sort of developed into a supreme court case and one of the final five rulings of this very important term of the supreme court. this from "the wall street journal." students occasionally joined mr. kennedy after games. this is going back to the 20 teams, about tony 15. he never directed them to do some of the scope and support testified in cases leading up to this that a parent complained that his son felt compelled to purchase part. student, an atheist, took part in the ritual because he felt he would not get to play as much if he did not participate in those prayers. caller: yeah. i would have to agree with that. as i could playing sports, i would kind of feel obligated. if the coaches praying, you know. yeah. i don't know. i just inc. it is different as a teacher or coach or leader to do that. i know it is after the game, but

then again it is on the 50 yard line. the pictures, there are quite a few players around him. you could choose to go back in the locker room and do it. you could choose -- i don't know, it seems more orchestrated instead of just having a simple moment of silence or, you know, being by himself. he can do it in his office if you wanted to. i just think it would be different. if he was muslim, i just have a feeling the rule would be different but that is my gut feeling. abi could be wrong on that. host: more on the timeline here. the coach was placed on administered aleve 2015 from that job. it is a public school near seattle. the ninth circuit ruled he was acting as a public employee when he offered the prayers so his actions were not protected by

the first amendment. the high court yesterday though rejecting that argument. trish, seattle, good morning. you are next. have you heard about this case in seattle? caller: i'm sorry? host: had you heard about the case in washington? caller: oh yes. i get the seattle paper every day so i could not miss it. my sister actually lives in bremerton. we had a discussion about yesterday as a matter of fact. that was the first start of our day and we were both crushed. we both grew up going to catholic schools. we both know longer believe in that. i just winter, like the gentleman said before, if that wasn't islam -- was an islamic prayer out on the field or another religion, witchcraft, whatever, how would that stand? it wouldn't because we have six

justices that think that their way, they're white christian way -- their white christian way is the only way that can be done. i have no further faith in the supreme court. i will never again stand up for the pledge of allegiance. and i will never again stand up when they sing the national anthem because i think this country has gone back so, so far that it wants to be england or something and i don't know that is a great show these days either. so no, i am totally -- everything the supreme court has done and will try to do, and trust me they will, has just eroded all of the democracy that we have worked so hard all of these years. for those people that died for this country. host: do you have kids in public

schools? caller: note. but my nieces and nephews were in public schools. my other nephews were raised in catholic schools. and i would not -- i just think this is -- you want to pray, that is personal tribute you do that on your time, but don't make a bunch of kids do that. you don't know what they are feeling about god, how they were raised. i think it is a huge assumption for some coach, some two bit coach i am saying in bremerton, really. host: he argued and his lawyers argued he did not make any kids do this. caller: no. ok. so with that being said, how many people stand up for the national anthem but they don't feel like it because they don't believe what is going on in this country? and for the first time, i felt

like i did not want to stand up. many times, even when i was in high school back in the 1970's. i thought it was a bunch of phooey. i did not want to stand up, but you had to. it was coercion. i went to a mariners game, and for the first time ever, i felt i had the power. i had the power that i did not want to stand up. no, i am not believing in what this country is doing. it was liberating. so, no. this country is going down the hill. there is nothing. you want white religious people running the show? that is what you got to get it is a pretty sad story. host: that is trish in washington this morning. duncan in florida is next on the line for those that say religion does not have enough influence on this country these days. why?

? duncan, you with us? caller: thank you. that coaches will protected by the first amendment. as a catholic, i know very well that religion has too many influence today, if anything at all. yes, the coach was very much protected by the first amendment. like the woman who was just on before me, most other people out there are too naive of the situation. host: duncan, you said you went to mass this morning. any mention? caller: that is all there is to it. host: was there any mention at mass this morning about this case or the other supreme court case we have been talking so much about, the robe -- the roe v. wade, overturning roe v. wade? caller: no, i have not gone to mass yet.

host: did you go sunday? did they mention the abortion case sunday? caller: oh. items to create against abortion. yes. i think of it as homicides. yes. host: this is david out of san francisco. good morning. you are next. caller: morning. i kind of appreciate that previous woman's call, although i would urge her not to abandon america. it seems to be just a clear case of merchants in the temple. it could be merchants in the church temple or it could be merchants in the temple of justice. but either way, that coach got an agent, and the agent decided to cash in. and part of the cashing in are the coke brothers, want to throw away america for the company store economy. i was going to call originally

on this theme that tax policy is being changed by these church phonies because because they want us to spend our taxes on unprovable budgets. i want my budget, you know, whether it is roads, bridges, fresh water, clean air, safety, hundreds and hundreds of different budget items are being threatened by some phonies who come across with a holier than thou attitude that it is ok to post in the rivers because god and the angels come and clean it up. i want tax dollars to be spent with provable budgets. looking at how much money got spent by that school district to pay for this coach and his agents' phony case. one last thing.

i am wondering if this case got filed under betsy devos' term. because if i remember right, she comes from amway. amway as a company was considered somewhat of a cult. if betsy devos' family made a vast fortune on amway creating a cult and now they want to rip apart our schools with bad law, that kind of smacks more to what the real threat is here. host: the coach fired in 2015. this going back to the early 20 teens as well. and making its way through the various court processes, several cases before of course reaching the supreme court and the decision coming down yesterday. i will look for a more exact timeline for you as we hear from connie in highland, california. good morning. you are next.

caller: good morning, john. that lady that said shoving this and that down our throats, no. that coach was not shoving it into his players to come and deal with me. he was not turning to the audience, come and kneel with me. all he did was he was happy and that was his freedom to kneel down and thank god. if i am out in public, i do the sign of the cross. that is my freedom to do it. is somebody going to come and say you are not supposed to do that in public? that is not right. no. to me, everybody should have the freedom to do what they want because that is their right. this is the united states of america. like i said, he was not telling his players to do that. he was just happy that they had won. to me, that is what counts. host: the timing on this, the

preliminary injunction in the original case here, september of 2016. that of course before the 2016 election. some more response within the past one to four hours of what this case does mean and doesn't mean. this is the wall street journal editorial board today, writing that the significance of this case is the supreme court is gradually restoring a proper constitutional understanding of the relationship between religion and the state. the religious liberty rulings do not -- but they do let americans a faint express their views as the founders intended. hillary here in washington, d.c., good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning. so i always love how people who are standing on these religious some boxes for religious freedoms carry the tune that they feel is viable and acceptable to practicing

religion and the idea of separation of church and state. to answer to the woman who called in before me, she was saying this man who was a leader of a group of minor children, these are kids. these are kids he has authority over in a public school setting. for this man to lead, they are going to follow. how would they have felt if he decided to leave them in muslim prayer or speak a prayer in your dish? i can see these are being placed strategically in the government to push these pro-religious, pro-christian, not any other religion, pro-christian conservative ideologies onto all of us. we are going to end up in gilead. that is executive is going to happen. these nontaxable religious groups are going to have control over the country. what contribution are they making to america?

they are not being taxed. they are making so much money. where is all that money going? and they are controlling so much. separation of church and state of church and state. everything goes in it or everything comes out of it. the fact that people are trying to take frankly disgusting, especially if you are in control of higher establishments. host: having this conversation about your view of the role of religion in public life, asking if you think it is too much, not enough, if you think it is about right. go ahead and keep calling in on that topic. we noted at the top, there is a january 6 committee hearing. we found out just yesterday that

the fit hearing will take place today, happening at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, on c-span.org and of course on c-span now. the hearing as reported this morning, there's a lot of speculation yesterday about who would be testifying at that hearing. it is going to be kassidy hutchinson, former aide to white house chief of staff mark meadows. confirmed by several others, the executive assistant, hutchison had unique and constant access to him and president donald trump in the inner circle of the white house during and after the january 6 insurrection. she was also a contact for dozens of members of congress. we can tell you that hutchison was in the middle of almost

everything that happened in the west wing. she was a hugely important witness, count on that. we all find out together at 1:00 p.m. eastern today when we hear more from kathy hutchison. a little bit more for her in video appearances, snippets of her deposition including her recollection of which members of congress had requested a pardon before former president trump left office. for today, 1:00 p.m. eastern time. back to your phone calls now on this issue of religion in public life in america. indiana, there is not enough, go ahead. caller: yes, sir. talking about the abortion, what would these people think -- you

see the spirit of god, the baby had to be board to protect us. and now people don't believe that christ was on the cross and died for us and all he asked you to do was love him. you've got to choose to believe in him or not believe in him, he gives you that choice. and these people, i hope i am there to see these people pay their price because these people want to kill babies. i worked my butt off to raise my seven children, one of them died two years ago and i thank god that he blessed me with the seven children. that is the way i feel about it.

caller: thanks for taking my call. my question would be if you could change the phone numbers, three phone numbers and say do you believe in god or not, or you don't know. you know? are you an atheist? agnostic? or do you believe in god? if you believe in god, there is a creator. a purpose why we are here, a higher power. if you don't believe, then we are just here randomly. host: do you think somebody can believe in god and feel like right now in this country there is still way too much influence of religion in public life? caller: i think there is way too much religion in public life,

but i believe it is the wrong kind of religion. if you believe in god, you have to think that there is a satan or a devil, opposing force. i think that is what we are looking at now. that is why i understand why there are so many people who don't understand how this force is working. i would summarize it with killing babies. how can anybody believe that it is ok to just kill babies? finally, regarding babies, has anybody ever heard of a school? where do you think you came from? what do you think you're doing when you die? does anybody understand what happens before you were born and after you die? your soul. i've never heard anybody mention

the word soul, but your soul is established when you are -- what is the word i want? conceived. host: some polling from a research organization on separation of church and state, issues about what we're are talking about here. here is sort of the summary wrap up. one in five americans say that the federal government should stop enforcing separation of church and state, 19%. 18% say the constitution was inspired by god. 50% in the federal government to declare the u.s. a christian nation. on the other hand they write the clear majority of americans don't accept those views. two thirds of u.s. adults say that the constitution was written by humans, reflects

their vision, not necessarily god's vision, and 90% say that the government should never declare any official religion . this is mark out of tulsa, oklahoma, good morning. caller: i like the way you run the show, i think you do a fantastic job i think he could be better, but it is not your fault. it is great to be back, americans. together, we can. the more we talk about religion, the better it gets. because religion is community. religion is community. i love all these opinions we have, and the more diversity,

the more community we become. any questions, john? host: no, i am here to hear from you. catherine, illinois, you're next. caller: good morning to you. i think there's too much religion and not enough faith. when you have faith, one gets up in the morning, they get on their knees and they spend time talking to god. the most important thing i say in the morning is i want to love god with all my heart, all my soul, and all my mind. and then i say i want to love my neighbor as myself. that is the golden rule, and i try hard to live by it. so doing an event where you step

onto the 50 yard line and you pray, that is not loving your neighbor as yourself. because the people who are in that stadium are looking at you, half of them are going oh my god, that is not loving your neighbor. a better way for this person would be to go back to their space where they pray to god in the morning and they say lord, i want you to know i want to pray for my neighbor and love them with my heart and with my soul and with everything i have. we don't have enough of the golden rule, and that is why wanted to say. we need more love, we need more civility. there was a time when i used to go to church, i would just walk down the middle and go to mass.

and then i go, wait a second, and i impressing god, making my neighbor feel bad? i don't even know anymore. it is humility. humble and loving your neighbor. host: catherine out of illinois. if you have your comments and social media, this is steve on twitter wondering about public life, please define. are you sure you didn't mean government life? i can do pretty much anything i want to do in public as long as i don't trample on the rights of others. other twitter viewers say maybe it is not too late. this from libby saying i have very little issue with religion and public life but i do have a strong issue when the party imposes their religious beliefs on their constituents. one more from twitter saying there is nothing private or personal about the coach's form

of worship, he was on the 50 yard line in the middle of a crowd, he wanted the attention and he got it. i don't think the supreme court would have to come to the same conclusion had he been a muslim. 15, 20 minutes left in the segment to continue the conversation. the role of religion in public life. too much, not enough, about right?dennis , silverdale, washington, good morning. caller: good morning, thanks for taking my call. host: go ahead with your comment. caller: i'm kind of aghast about this whole religion and government thing. i watch c-span every day and the house and the senate starts off with prayer. when the supreme court is in session, the first thing they say is god bless the court.

you can't make it go away. i guess i think it is just because nobody is making me believe one thing or another that is acknowledging that there is some superior being. the universe didn't just happen. host: dennis, when it comes to after a game publicly on the 50 yard line, is he expressing himself freely, or do you think that constitutes acting as an agent of the public school system, which is the local government? caller: i don't know, i'm torn, because if the coach can't do that on the 50 yard line, how can the senate and the house have chaplains who start every

day off with a prayer? host: dennis, thanks for the question and we will hear another prayer coming up in about an hour and 15 minutes for a brief pro forma session in the house. and we will go to bat and as always, the gambling income of the prayer, the pledge of allegiance, you will hear that as well. there may be some comments are makeable members if they are around, but is a specter to be brief. -- it is expected to be brief. then we will come back and finish on washington journal. we will watch that together, we will hear that prayer together, and we will come back and talk about it, we will be in open phones at that point. stick around for that. fort worth, texas, good morning. caller: >> good morning, full, good morning, c-span.

i don't know how to separate public and politics. if someone is a believer and they want to publicly talk about it, they have every right to do that. as far as politics go, there are 4400 and more practiced religions on the face of the earth today. when you go back and you look at jefferson and benjamin franklin, they were closer to being atheist and agnostic. so this was not about one particular religion. the thing that i have a problem with his politicians using religion that they don't practice to be out there gathering votes. i've got a real problem with people like joel osteen praising people on social security saying that if they don't give you money, they are going to go to hell. the truth is in the history of

the world, there has never been one verifiable source of evidence that anything supernatural exists from fairies and trolls and leprechauns and gods and demons, which god i like, take your pick. it is the sort of thing that has no place in political life. public life, that is your business. thank you. host: this case yesterday on kennedy v. the school district getting all the attention on the separation of church and state issue, but should note it is not the only case that falls into this realm. it was another case decided with the same lineup, a case that the supreme court ruled on last week that religious rules can't be excluded from a main program that pays private tuition for students in areas that lack public schools. these issues are part of that

case as well. there are four cases left to decide in the supreme court this term including about government regulation when it comes to the environmental protection agency and their powers. the next day for decisions to be handed down is wednesday. we will see if they hand down all four or if they add another decision tomorrow we will see what happens. the supreme court, the decision comes down just after 10:00 a.m. eastern time. ohio, you are next. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say that the way the constitution is set up, it is not supposed to discriminate against individuals who want to freely exercise their religion, and it seems like some people have the perception that if we push religion out of schools and out

of public life, people respect the fact that people don't believe in god. but people who do believe in god, they should be allowed to fully exercise their religion. that is what this coach is doing. whether teenagers follow him or not in their regard, that is up to them. some folks say that he has undue influence over these kids, that is not necessarily true. i just think that people have to respect people. that is what we are missing here. the founders intended for people to be able to freely exercise religion, period. host: the first two clauses of the first amendment here say congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

at what point would you be concerned about the establishment of religion side of that? caller: i think when we get to the point of, say, that these institutions are promoting jesus, for example, or promoting buddha or a specific god, a specific religion. i think there is a gray area. how they worship, it should be open. i think that is what happen with this coach. he was expressing his own personally-held beliefs. if people want to join that, that doesn't mean he is forcing religion down their throat, and that is ok, that is not pushing religion. host: thanks for the call. this is gary fletcher, north carolina, good morning. caller: good morning, good morning.

i think we are splitting hairs here. i think if the game is over, it is over, people are leaving, people are cheering. people, not to use a democrat tactic of being hypothetical and pushing things further, but people eat and pray at mcdonald's. obviously there is a difference between religion and politics, and the coach did his thing. collin cap renee, he had the right to express himself. host: is it a different line

when it comes to somebody with influence over minors, right? with a coach come with a teacher. these are kids in school, adults who are watching this leader on the field. caller: absolutely. everything we do influences children, so we can't pick that out. the way we speak about women or the way we talk about politics or guns, kids pick up everything. you can't say just keep religion out of their eyes were out of their ears. you've got to see how people are different in this world. some people pray, some people don't. your kids need to see that. you can't start teaching kids to separate people like that. i mean, adults are definitely

responsible for how they act in front of children because they if -- if they admire the coach, all kids want to please coach. i understand that part. i understand it. he thinks like everybody else, we just can't separate that. like that guy set about college cap in it before, i didn't really agree with that. i respected his freedom, and i wish people would feel the same way about religion, i think -- host: we got your point. new york, a viewer may be appropriately named pastor. go ahead. caller: good morning, john. if i may think everyone behind

the scenes, we get a good service from them and the guests. host: appreciate that a lot. thanks so much for watching. caller: i appreciate that -- i hope you can ask me a question or two if necessary and i will be synced, but it is pastor michael vincent crea. i began my human rights ministry in d.c. in 1990, it is called one, one world systems. no paycheck political party or political affiliation. i just try to work on basic necessities of life. and a peace corps veteran, a woman who died three weeks after

giving birth, and i was accused of teaching -- by my supervisor and abusing -- materials, and i won the case. what we see happening right now is almost like reaganomics 2.0. i must also say, i taught children 12-17 history of world religions, and the fact is religion is re-liga. it is like a ligament, it brings things back together. the things we are seeing from the court are dividing people, not respecting separation of state and freedom. let me point out three things. i have my masters of divinity from catholic university, but we

were taught as children that the only sacrament that priests do not perform, marriage. my last paper at catholic university which was received well and 24 years later the supreme court agreed with me, was same gender marriages. the sacrament is a sign of god's love, the couple is god's. the couple says the words. and the couple, no matter their gender, they are the ones to consummate the contract. whether it is an imam or a rabb i, we have adults now, we can have abortion, and they don't teach people double effect. double effect means you would

rather not do something but you do it because of the good that outweighs the bad that is going to happen. that is why we allow cops to have guns, that is why we send people to war to kill people. it is a double effect. the court was absolutely wrong in limiting women. the solutions that we have to have -- host: i'm running out of time, so just give me one. caller: we need human rights courts. if we can bring anyone in in 15 days and put you out of your house and 30 and i'm here in a motel with my service dog, then what we need is all haters, all bad cops, all people that are violating our rights as americans with a capacity to

uphold those self-serving tools. we need to have a new system established. host: i've got several other folks trying to get in and i am short on time. this is kathleen in michigan, good morning. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: yes, ma'am. caller: i am a person of faith. i've been a christian for 35 years. religion really isn't what is needed. what is needed is people of integrity. to speak the truth. religion has been used as a human system that can be corrupted. what we need are christians that reflect christ.

when justice is set under her own and politicians take the oath of office, we need to tell the truth. the means doesn't justify the ends. we want people of faith, people that reflect christ. people that listen to other people. people that don't judge others. host: is a people of any faith you want in this, or just people of christian faith that you want in these positions? caller: well, i think overall, if a person is a person of integrity and has these qualities coming forth and speaks the truth, don't abuse their power, we need to have a conversation. christ went to the people of different backgrounds, people that were rejected, the good

samaritan, the woman at the well. that religion was different. he went to them with his heart. he pinpointed the roots of the problem and as we look at all these women, believing their rights are taken away, it is a heart issue. as a christian, i can't enforce that. if we see people in leadership, honesty, trust, we disagree on air faith we have a heart of love for one another. host: this is john out of buffalo, new york, good morning. color: good morning. thank you john, thank you, c-span. c-span is a great american outlet. i wanted to speak to some of the callers who talked about one would have happened if the football coach in seattle were doing islamic prayer. i think he would have been

welcomed by christians all over the country. the catholic church says muslims can make it into heaven, so we can see by the united states intermarriage among catholics and muslims is on the rise, as his interracial marriage, this is something we should celebrate. i also want to say we should welcome refugees from the arab world and central and south america because they oppose abortion and they support our family values. we should celebrate muslims, we should welcome them. those who oppose abortion should also oppose the death penalty. if we want to be good christians, we should really look into what jesus said. jesus preached love, he preached to love refugees, he preached to stand up for good values, and i could go on and on about that, but it is pretty much about preaching positivity.

it is just doing what we can to stay in line with the values of jesus. preach positivity, preached love, and i host: that is all the time we have in this first segment of the washington journal, stick around there is plenty more to talk about this morning including up next, we will continue our conversation about the supreme court with edward whelan with the ethics & public policy center and later thom hartmann what the left can do after this ruling from the supreme court about roe v. wade. stick around, we will be right back. >> the january 6 committee returns earlier than expected after yesterday's announcement that they will hold a hearing

later today. listen today on c-span or any time today on c-span.org. you can also watch previous hearings on c-span.org/january 6. c-span your unfiltered view of government. >> live sunday on in-depth. carol anderson will be our guest to talk about race in america, voting rights and gun regulation . she is the author of several books including, "the second," in-depth, with carol anderson on book tv on c-span two.

c-span has unfiltered coverage on russia's invasion in ukraine. we also have international perspectives from the united nations and statements from foreign leaders all on the c-span networks, the c-span now mobile app and c-span.org/ukraine our web resource page where you can watch the latest videos on demand and follow tweets from journalists on the ground. go to c-span.org/ukraine. >> washington journal continues. host: back with us now is edward whelan and president of the ethics & public policy center. first explain your mission

there. host: how long were you president for? guest: we focus on the court and constitutional law and the rule of law through the courts. host: plenty to chew on from the supreme court. let's start on the kennedy case, the football coach case. what do you say to those viewers who see this ruling yesterday as an eroding of the separation of church and state in this country? guest: we see the vindication of individual liberty and the principles do not lose their religious liberty because they are on the job. they distinguish between what coach kennedy did in his capacity as a coach in the

things he was able to do in his personal capacity. just as teachers can say blessings before their meals, coach kennedy and his private time could say a private, quiet prayer. that is all the court indicated. host: separation of church and state is not in the constitution, where did that come from? guest: that came from single letter that thomas jefferson wrote, he spoke on the wall of separation. i think it is an unhelpful metaphor because we never had a wall. i think it is impossible for that metaphor to be meaningful. we recognize that religious beliefs and convictions have infused such things as the civil rights movement as someone

noticed in the last hour, proceedings in the supreme court and congress begin with a prayer. george washington warned that we should be wary of the proposition that this american experiment can't survive without citizens who are not religious believers. people have the leisure to ridicule it because we have benefited from the judeo-christian law and tradition. host: the conflict here is between the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. congress shall make no law making an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. guest: what happened in recent decades -- the establishment

clause on steroids. what the court did recently was made clear that the establishment clause should be interpreted with history and tradition. when it is so it understood, the tradition disappears. i think things will be much better going forward. we will not have the establishment clause attacking the exercise clause. allowing individuals of different faiths quietly kneel on a football field after a game , the framers would have been very puzzled by that notion. host: you will be with us until eight, republicans call in at (202) 748-8001, democrats at (202) 748-8000 and independents (202) 748-8002.

let's back up to friday in the dobbs decision. in the wake of this, what is the next frontier for the pro-life movement after roe v. wade being overturned? guest: dobbs overturned roe and it ignited a culture war in which people were fighting through the courts an issue that was in the process of being worked out democratically. the challenge for pro-lifers will be to make their case showing love and concern for pregnant women. make their case emphasizing the fundamental humanity of unborn human beings and make sure that we have legal protections for

them. host: what is it just policy consist of? there are complete bans, what is it just policy in your mind? guest: my own position is that an unborn human being has a right to life under law. are some cases like those in cases of rape or the protection of the mother. i believe very much in the basic protections from conception. i know a lot of people disagree with me. i hope to persuade them, but i will recognize that i have lost through democratic means. host: a lot of questions that arise from this patchwork, the

abortion pill is now the path for abortion. can states that ban abortion candidate delivered the ban of abortion pills through the mail in their states? guest: federal laws actually can the delivery of abortion pills through the males. these laws have been enforced while roe v. wade was in effect. host: what do you think this justice department will do when it comes to those laws after hearing from president biden on friday? guest: i hope the justice department will commit to impartial enforcement of these laws. the pro-abortion forces are dominant in this administration. we will have to make our

political case and criticize them for not doing their job. host: what have we learned from the roberts court this term? guest: we had the practice of calling the court by the chief justice. what we called the roberts court was the kennedy court. i am not sure we will have the roberts court now. i was disappointed with the chief roberts on dobbs. i think you failed in that opportunity. we will have a court going forward in which the chief justices will have to figure out is he going to lead? will he be in the center or do something in the middle? host: has roberts lost control of the supreme court?

he sought middle ground on roe v. wade but lost. if he is not leading the court who is? guest: that might appear to be justice kavanaugh. the court is somewhat fluid. the majority issue shift on different issues. you can see from case to case, someone may be in a different position. as a general rule, it is not the chief who was driving the direction of the court. host: as you look at where the middle ground is, where is the middle ground? guest: there will be a big racial preferences case, that is an issue where the chief has been a leader so we will see if he leads on that. host: we are taking your phone calls as well, republicans, democrats and independents, we

will put those numbers on the screen. we will talk to nicholas from pennsylvania, a democrat. caller: thank you for taking my call, love your program. i'm a little nervous, but anyway. my issue is with the christians. they claim that the abortion issue is not in the bible in there is. there is numbers 5:11 where a priest has the ability to give a woman abortion. since donald trump was the president of the united states who unfortunately had the ability to put three people on the supreme court unjustly because of mitch mcconnell and denied obama the right to put a

supreme court justice on and denied biden the ability to put one on. these justices are from the supreme court faith. this country was not founded on christianity, it was founded on freedom of religion. guest: it is rather odd that the folks who invoke religion most often are those who insist that the bible require lawful abortion. there are few, if any, who make religious arguments for the pro-life position. our argument is based on biology, basic science. the humanity of the unborn being and the moral principle you

should not unjustly kill someone. they do not involve invoking some verse in the bible as the caller just did. the caller also claims that three justices were appointed unjustly, that is a long matter to go into but it is strange to hear people attacked the legitimacy of the court. host: to of those justices, susan collins said she felt misled about their opinions. guest: if you look back at what was said, and indeed what susan collins said that they were not given any promises or assurances.

they may have felt it convenient to construe it in that way. it was akin to the testimony that every justice has given. justice ginsburg has said no previews, they have made clear that he or she will not give a p2 how they would rule. host: glenn from lancaster, california, a republican. caller: i would like to talk about the mcgirt ruling in the cherokee and creek nations. therefore, first and eighth amendment, almost every amendment has been unduly done. you invoked jefferson, we have

no doubt that it is to the court, the house of representatives with our treaty rights. jefferson lost a supreme court ruling and forcibly remove the native american people. we need to be a whole people in the united states. we need delegates to the congress which is in the constitution. they shall have delegates. we need to be seen as a whole people. we were forcibly removed from our lands. washington dc, the virgin islands, puerto rico has delegates, we need delegates as well. host: thank you for bringing it

up, is that something you have thought about? guest: he is talking about the mcgirt case that talks about jurisdiction over indian lands and oklahoma. neil gorsuch has proven to be the strongest asset of native american rights. he was with the liberal justices on that case. it is a controversial case, i can't really confidently discuss it at this point. host: frank out of new york, and independent. caller: i am about to officiate a relatives wedding soon, i am not a member of the clergy. i am not religious really. i do believe that jesus was the prince of peace and i practice

in my life his teachings of being loving and compassionate. when i do this officiating, my nephew and his fiancee are not religious. i don't intend on bringing religion into the conversation, but i do intend on bringing spirituality into my speech. he is having it on the beach so i will bring in the beauty and spirit of nature that surrounds us. host: it sounds like a lovely ceremony, bring me to the relationship to the topics we are talking about. caller: i am curious to what he thinks about that? my problem is, i am afraid that

i may offend religious people in the audience because i am omitting religion. i am wondering what he thinks about nonreligious people officiating a marriage? host: it brings up the question about how we speak about religion in society. guest: you have the religious liberty to do what you plan to do. it does not bother me at all. go right ahead. host: religious liberty and the court's definition of that in recent years and where it could go, what are your thoughts on that? guest: what we are seeing is a recognition is that it is a right for all. it is a curious to see that if this was a muslim coach it

would've been ruled differently. it is clear that these justices have a robust and broad understanding of religious liberty, something that extends to people of all religions and those that have no religion. i think we will see a continuation of the court's recognition that religious exercise, free exercise of religion is a fundamental right and as i mentioned before, the establishment clause should not be misconstrued to trample on this right. host: the justices get to pick their own cases, are there other cases in the pipeline that will continue to further this discussion about religious liberty? anything you are looking forward to? guest: there are some cases in the pipeline, some cases that would have that might clear

others out of the pipeline. host: there was a case that was decided that had a little less press on a main private school, the fact that religious schools could not be barred from receiving tuition. guest: the court ruled that it was not constitutional to exclude sectarian schools, not just religious schools but schools that were sectarian from a general program of tuition assistance with school districts that do not have their own high schools. maine has general programs and

you can't discriminate against religious entities and how you run them. host: what would the argument on the other side that would be concerned about state dollars going to religious schools? guest: there is a notion that this application of the establishment clause. even those these decisions turn on the individual choice of parents, that somehow it is illegitimate for parents to make decisions that would lead to funds their kids would go to. host: on the line next, we have lee, a democrat. caller: everyone keeps saying,

religious freedom. that is not what the constitution says. it is freedom from religious persecution. you can believe anything you want. or you don't have to believe in anything at all. it is this talking point that they keep putting out there. when you die, you die. even in the bible it says that no one is going anywhere until jesus comes back. if you want to believe in religion, that is fine. especially for children, to think that you are going somewhere. but when you turn 10, 12 you should be told the truth.

you should not make it something real. that's not right. guest: he has his right to hold his own views on the matter. he misstates what the constitution says on this. host: a caller in the last segment said that when the house gavels in the first thing that happens is a prayer from the house chaplain. is anyone concerned that is a violation of the establishment clause? guest: marge versus chambers, in nebraska, the reason we have these prayers is that for a long time legislators recognize that

they had a solemn duty to act in accordance with what they discern to be god's will for the common good and they took that obligation seriously. they took in oath of office and a promise to god, so this is a core reflection of our show dao christian heritage. some people are ready to walk away from that. i think we ought to be attentive to what of the consequences should be if we walk away from that. host: what would be a violation of the establishment clause? guest: a preference for one religion over another. host: can you give an example? guest: leading prayer circles on the field in which he made

religious references, that was deemed -- the school district deemed it improper. there are all sorts of things. to take an extreme case, you can't establish a national religion. you can't do anything that favors one religion over another. even though muslims are free to practice their religion, we declare this to be a christian nation. that is not permissible. we look to history and tradition and it would be helpful to have some specifics. host: what about putting up a cross in a public space? guest: there are crosses in the artwork in the u.s. supreme court. there is a picture of the 10 commandments. host: is that favoring

christianity? guest: i don't think so. it reflects the traditions of the time. i'm sure that muslims and jews review in the 10 commandments as well. the question still stands, there is nothing coercive about that. host: to roy out of tucson, arizona. a republican. caller: i had a quick comment. as republicans, we need to be careful for the roe v. wade being overturned because what is going to happen is these democrats will try to lower the voting age to 10 so they can get these kids who were not aborted to vote democrat and that is

something we need to watch out for. i think that is what's going to happen. host: your thoughts on the politics in a post dobbs world. does it becomes this uniting force and driving of a movement for decades to come? guest: roe v. wade removed the question of abortion and made it a question of pro-lifers to fight year after year to improve the supreme court. in the coming battle, the pro-abortion forces can win and lose legislative battles. it will be of volatile issue, we

have had 50 years in which neither side has tried to persuade the middle of the merits of its position and that will be the challenge in the coming months and years. host: do you think that after achieving overturning roe v. wade that the pro-life movement loses this uniting force, there may be less passion behind the issue? they have achieved this decades long goal? guest: i think this is just the first step in a long process of working to build a culture of life. a culture that shows love and concern for women who find themselves and an unwanted pregnancy. it shows love and respect for unborn human beings. it will not be easy, we have had

50 years where roe has corrupted our political culture. democrats abandon pro-lifers, they moved to the republican party. we see a lot more pro-life sentiment among hispanics and african-americans then we see among the fun risers in the democratic party. caller: cheryl out of california. the father in heaven is not a republican, or a democrat. the coach that was praying, in

matthew 6:6 it says to pray privately. he will reward you openly if you follow his precepts and examples. another thing i want to say about this abortion thing. i am against abortion but i am for the women to do what they want to. when they wanted to stone that woman, not one man came out. they only brought the woman forward, and he said he who is without sin cast the first stone. all these so-called evangelicals

that want to throw these stones, i am against that because you either do it or you don't. guest: jesus said go and sin no more. this is not a matter to be decided by citing bible verses. this is to be decided by moral principles decided by all. cheryl invoked the bible verse about not praying in public. he is allowed to decide on when and how to pray. it is not constrained by one particular bible verse. lots of folks of other phase would find no meaning at all and that bible verse.

i understand it is perfect improper to draw from her own understanding of her religious faith, matters of public policy and how we ought to address them. lots of other folks can decide based on their own faiths and based on reason that is acceptable to others. host: the question with coach kennedy's case and the justices made clear is of a situation like this, this picture from the wall street journal today, of coach kennedy being surrounded by his players after they prayed after a 2015 game. whether that situation is part of a public school. it took place on a f ootball field.

was this part of the program of that day? guest: i believe that is a photo with players from the opposing teams. not a single player from his team was with him at this field during the prayer. there were some episodes where there were players from his team that surrounded him when he was advised that should not happen, he complied with that. the extent of the ruling relates to a coach praying silently to himself at the side of a game. for which the district disciplined coach kennedy that there was anyone coerced to join him. host: natasha, an independent.

caller: i don't know how many of today's christians know this, we are in the last days. the original christ is black and all of the disciples are black. the christ image was modeled after the illegitimate son of a pope. if you research the black madonnas of europe, this is when the church had a split between russia and rome. as far as abortion, that was brought to fruition by margaret's anger who wanted to bring the birthrate of blacks by

a minimum. we might want to uncover these things. host: any thoughts? guest: there has been a strong eugenic component to the abortion movement from the very beginning. a very ugly component and one that has led to the deaths of unborn black babies. host: pat in keyport, new jersey. a republican. caller: i have a question on the dobbs decision and how it will impact mississippi.

does the trigger law and validate the law that was declared constitutional? guest: there is a trigger law in mississippi that is already operating from conception. the 15 week ban is rendered irrelevant. host: other constitutional options you are watching in the wake of dobbs? guest: the racial preferences cases on the docket for next term. i don't know if you're speaking specifically of abortion? you will see an effort to get state supreme court's to rule that there is a constitutional right under state constitution.

they have already ruled that way relying on the same sort of flimsy commie shoddy reasoning that they used in roe. it is much easier to overturn supreme court rulings than is possible in the federal system. the big legal fights in the years ahead on state constitutional grounds. host: to laporte, indiana, ron. caller: in the first place, did you hear about abortion in the bible, koran or talmud. jesus christ when he directed his moral proclamations to the human heart, only when people's hearts are changed, only when the core

of their being is transformed can we possibly live in a loving relationship with each other and nature. we are talking about transformation where jesus gave up everything he had so people could know god. as long as you have a court that is blind, one-sided, you will not have any justice there anyway. you have a good day. thank you. host: the court has returned to democratic processes.

it was roe v. wade that was wildly one-sided. on the thoughts on the bible, he is entitled to his interpretation of those, i don't care to argue with him on religious grounds. i will note there is a verse in the bible, thou shall not kill. host: one question from jeff on twitter saying if the great state of washington can decide that abortion legalities on its own, why not separation of church and state? guest: the answer to that is religion clauses in the constitution, we don't have an abortion clause. the great question that constitutional law poses are which matters are taken away from the states. it is quite clear that there is

a right to free exercise, there is no right to abortion in the constitution, there never has been. roe rested on a set of concoction. host: this is carl out of pennsylvania, republican. caller: a lot of questions point to a problem i see, there are people that want to air their positions but they are not talking about the constitution. i am very anti-gun as a republican which is an odd thing. but i realize we have a second amendment, the constitution is different than a moral position you want to air out. with this gun case that we just saw, what comes next with second

amendment cases and rights? where do we go from here? guest: i don't claim to be a second amendment expert. the court's ruling held that new york system of conferring discretion on bureaucrats to decide whether someone should get a concealed carry permit violated the constitution. i noted that there are five or six other jurisdictions that have similar provisions, there are some other jurisdictions that don't and they are fine. i am not sure what questions will come next but i doubt very much that this ruling will be dramatic and its impact. host: edward whelan is the

former director of the ethics & public policy center. we do always appreciate your time. guest: thank you john. host: coming up, we will be joined by thom hartmann. we will talk about these supreme court decisions as well. until then, it will be open for him. the phone lines, republicans, democrats, independents your phone lines are on the screen. go ahead and call now and we will get your phone calls after the break. >> c-span brings you an unfiltered view of government. from the halls of congress to daily press briefings to remarks from the president. scan the qr code to sign up for this email and stay up-to-date on everything happening in washington each day.

subscribe today using the qr code or visit c-span.com. now available to c-span shop, c-span is 2022 directory. order a copy of the congressional directory, your guide to the federal government with contact information for every member of congress. also contact information for state governors and the's cabinet. order your copy at c-span shop.org. every purchase helps support c-span's nonprofit organization. there are a lot of places to get political information, but only on c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from, or where you stand on the issues. c-span is america's network.

unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here, or here, or here, or anywhere that matters. america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. >> washington journal continues. host: it is time for our open forum and any issue you want to talk about. this is where we turned the conversation over to you and let you lead the discussion here. (202) 748-8001 republicans, democrats (202) 748-8000 and independents (202) 748-8002. coming up and 9:00 a.m. there will be a brief pro forma session of the house and with our commitment to cover the house on c-span we will go there and let you see it in its

entirety. it will not last more than five minutes, so stick with us afterwards. we will come back and have more phones and calls from you and after that, we will be joined by progressive talk radio host thom hartmann. later today, the house january 6 committee holding its sixth congressional hearing this month on the attack on the u.s. capital back on january 6 2021. we found out yesterday that this hearing would be taking place today and we will be airing it live gavel-to-gavel here on c-span, c-span.org and the free c-span now video app. there was speculation about who would be appearing at that hearing and who the witness would be, it was punch bowl news with the first reporting about cassie hutchinson, aid to mark

meadows. their reporting has been confirmed by several others. cassie hutchinson from her snippets of testimony that was played at the last hearing which which she names some of the house republican lawmakers -- more on that today, that begins at 1:00 p.m. eastern time. we have michael out of san diego, you are up first. caller: good morning john, you asked me a question last month. it is a lot cheaper to apply diesel into gasoline -- diesel

and gasoline rather than going for more gas. no private citizen needs to own and ar-15. if you cannot hit your target in 10 rounds, you don't deserve to own a gun, period. the representative you had on last friday, a republican who packs a pistol. she said the kid in uvalde could have done just as much damage with the pistol. first of all, an 18-year-old cannot walk into a store and get a pistol. the ammunition is a lot different. he would not have done as much damage with pistol ammunition as

he could have done with ar-15 ammunition. the cops in the hallway, if they would have heard pistol shots instead of ar-15 shots, they might have been more inclined to engage the guy. host: what kind of weapons do you own and what do use them for? caller: i use them for target shooting, sks carbine, shotguns and stuff. the judge in california said a few months ago that the ar-15 is perfect for home defense. it isn't, you want a shotgun with buckshot. alex baldwin is wrong about the pistol. he was supposed to check and visualize there were no rounds and it. host: this is jeff out of

indianapolis, indiana. caller: thank you for taking my call. it is ironic that the republican party always railed against the activist court and they sought for years to put people on the court that would do the same thing that they were railing against. this court is much more activist than the courts they railed against in the past. they want to trust the states to regulate what a woman can do with her body, but they don't want to trust the states to regulate what i feel is much more dangerous, and that is all of these guns out here everywhere. this is why democrats cannot afford to sit at home on their

behind's in november because you cannot let these radicals take over congress. thank you and have a nice day. host: charles from virginia, and independent. caller: i had a couple of comments, one was about the supreme court. how can we have a legal and ethical supreme court when clarence thomas was the only one -- hello? host: i'm listening. caller: clarence was the only one to vote for trump to keep his second rights in this january 6 investigation. he was trying to keep his wife from getting in trouble. you can't think the supreme

court is honest with clarence thomas on there. host: do you think that the supreme court is legitimate? do you think this is a legitimate court? caller: i do not. i think it is a court that decides what they want to decide. whether the law is the law or not. host: this is anthony out of illinois, republican. caller: good morning, john. i have a comment on the american politicians not fully taking the southern border issues seriously. destroying the fabric of our country, our beautiful united states of america. these politicians don't belong in office and that is my comment, thank you. host: and, new york, a democrat.

caller: thank you for having an open forum of women only. make no mistake, the republicans agenda is to outlaw it across the country. as an unintended consequences. you are allowed to be an atheist . what if you are a middle-class couple, you have limited resources, you want to have a family and you find out through prenatal testing that you are expecting a child with the genetic deformity and you are not religious, you do not believe this is god's plan. you are then forced to bear a child that you believe could be

a burden to society, especially if you believe in a red state when you see the social resources may be lacking for those children. host: wayne from pennsylvania, and independent. caller: i have a bone to pick with c-span. i watch every morning, please don't take this personally because you are my favorite host. this is a call i have been dying to make for months now. there is too much religious talk on your channel. i watch this channel because it is an open former for people to talk about political issues without any bias from either party. i enjoy getting a lot of

education and open sided debates. but this religious talk, every caller is talking about their god, jesus and christianity. it makes it difficult to watch this program. when you call they have a screening, i wish they would tell collars not to bring up religious beliefs. this is a political show and we want to stick to politics. a lot of your guests are clergymen and people of faith. i want you to have a person who just wants to talk about politics. talk to your producers, there's just too much religious talk.

thank you for giving us the scope of politics without bias. host: do you think we will see more religious talk in public spaces in the wake of what happened yesterday and the lead headline and washington post, the supreme court siding with the football coach who prayed at midfield? caller: i absolutely agree with that and it is funny you bring it up, this is what i've been feeling for months because with everything going on with abortion. the religious talk is getting out of hand on c-span. that is what prompted me to call today. it is going to get more pertinent. i'm not saying we can't discuss religion. i am a devout atheist. i would fight for this coach to

pray whenever he wants. i am not trying to take religion away from anyone. i just don't believe in their beliefs. i will fight for his right to believe in a god. i don't believe in the politics. every day when your show ends at 10:00 a.m.. and it goes to the senate it always starts with the prayer. my fight is to keep it out of politics, not out of people's personal lives. to answer your question, i believe people like me, it is getting worse because it is not fair to us. we want to talk about politics, not religion. i ask your producers, please, can we stick to politics. host: i would recommend if you have not seen it, americans

united of the separation of church and state and they had plenty to say in the wake of that ruling. he has been on this network 47 times, you might be interested in going back and watching some of those conversations with him. there have been others from americans for separation of church and state. if you have not caught them on this program, you can see him on c-span.org. caller: i'll take you up on that. and yes, if i missed it. maybe i am biased, maybe i only see the things that bother me. to be honest with you, if i want to see atheist all go to an

atheist meeting. i just have noticed a lot of religious talk. if that is the way it is going to be, i think we should have a little more equal time. i don't watch c-span for atheist views, i watch it for political views. and what i ask for the other callers, please just stick to politics. with everything going on, i'm sure we will have to talk about it. in all sincerity, you are my favorite host and thank you for the job you do. host: you are about to see a prayer on the house floor, because this pro forma session is about to come in. we we take you now to live coverage , gavel-to-gavel, of the house.