along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democry. >> coming up this morning on c-span's "washington journal," your calls and comments live. then regent university's mark david hall discusses his book, which argues american christian nationalism does not prove a threat to the united states or christian churches. and rob boston with the group americans united for separation of church and state talks about his organization's mission and the rise of christian nationalism in the u.s. "washington journal starts now -- "washington journal" starts now. ♪ host: good morning. it is sunday, april 7, 2024. we will begin on campaign 2024

and the role of independence and third-party candidates this cycle. this past week, the group new labels that it would not field a candidate after failing to attract a high standing bear to their cause. with 212 days to go until election day, we want to know if you are considering an independent or third-party candidate. if you are, (202) 748-8000 is the number to call this morning. if you are not, (202) 748-8001. 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, catch up with us on social media. at x, it's @cspanwj. on facebook, it is facebook.com/cspan. good sunday morning. you can start calling now. this is the headline friday from "the guardian" newspaper after the news from no label that they will not niybt -- mount a

third-party bid. they said they would not yield a unity ticket after reaching out to some 30 potential people and raising some $60 million. that was the biggest third-party news last week. this week begins with front page of the new york times sunday opinions featuring robert f. kennedy, jr., calling him the wildcard. the story is a column -- the inside of the sunday opinion page. it reads in part, many democratic and republican insiders of you robert f. kennedy, jr. as a danger to biden's reelection. -- is also the top donor to kennedy's super pac, american values 2024, suggesting he thinks kennedy will help trump.

the democratic national committee recently formed a unit, including the veteran democratic operatives, devoted to battling third-party candidates, and kennedy is getting most of its attention. on the ground, she writes, i have not met many kennedy curious voters for whom biden is a second choice. instead, kennedy attracts political eccentrics who have gravitated towards trump. michelle goldberg in her column today, asking who are rfk's supporters? it is a full page story in the new york times sunday opinion section. that is what we are talking about today, independent third-party candidates. we want to know if you are considering an independent or third-party candidate. if you are, (202) 748-8000 is the number to call. if you are not, (202) 748-8001. we will also look for your text messages as well.

it was recently that robert f. kennedy, jr. announced his new running mate, 38-year-old political donor nicole shanahan. his campaign out with a new ad since that announcement. robert f. kennedy, jr. talking to cameron about why he is running as an independent. [video clip] >> in the last five years, our country has become something unrecognizable. journalists have exposed a massive censorship complex. federal agencies like the fbi and even the secret service have been weaponized against political opponents. we are subject to constant surveillance. the government wraps itself in lies and secrets. corruption is pervasive in the revelatory agencies and the halls of power. there's only one thing that can turn this all around. if you thought i was going to say it was me, you are mistaken. that is not something i can do alone.

but if enough people want to reclaim our country, i can be your instrument. i will be the sledgehammer that the american people will wield to smash our corrupt merger of the state and corporate power. but i can only do that with your acts of support before and after i entered the white house. and right now, what you can do is to invest in my campaign. donate whatever you can, and i promise you i will redeem the trust you put in me, and together we will show that we, the people, can take back our power. host: rfk junior, his most recent ad, speaking to camera about his independent bid for president. we are asking you this morning if you are considering a third-party or independent candidate in 2024. (202) 748-8000 is the number if you say you are. if you are not, (202) 748-8001. jason is up first, calling from out in honolulu, hawaii.

very good early morning or late night to you. caller: yes, hi. how are you? thanks for taking my call. absolutely not. it is going to be between trump and biden. to see this pan out, this is part two, and i do not think many are going to change their minds. and if this question is supposed to be about robert kennedy junior -- if i thought -- i thought his comments were disparate -- distasteful. i thought his super bowl ad was distasteful. that all belongs to his two other great relatives. it is going to be between biden and trump, so, no, i am not considering anyone else. host: and it is not a question just about rfk junior. there are plenty of third-party independent candidates running in 2034. several of them appeared last

week on this program in various segments. one of them was the green party candidate, who ran in 2016. this is a little bit of that interview from this program earlier last week. [video clip] >> this is exactly what the ruling parties want you to think. they want you to think that everybody out there belongs to either the democratic or republican parties and the people do not want change or something different. in fact, polls show us exactly the opposite. the number of people now who no longer identify with democrat or republican is now 50%. the number food identify democrat is 25%. same for republicans -- the number who identify democrat is 25 percent. same for republicans. it is 63%, according to gallup polls, who want other choices. i would say it is very undemocratic -- this is the

propaganda of the ruling parties. they want us to be good it'll boys and girls and do what they say, which is just keep voting for the parties throwing us under the bus. but the american people have rejected that. yes, i find donald trump very worrisome, but i also find it joe biden worrisome. look at his policies driving us towards a very desperate war situations right now, that are spending half of our budget -- half of our tax dollars and now, in our budget, are being spent on these endless wars, like iraq, like afghanistan, like libya. these ores are not making us safer, they are not making the world a more secure place. they are actually doing the opposite in our impoverishing us at home, leading to millions, tens upon millions of people who do not have health care or housing, who are trapped in debt. we can fix these problems, but we need to start spending our

dollars for the american people, not for the military-industrial complex, not for the war contractors, who art making out like bandits, who are giving huge campaign contributions to people in congress and the presidential candidates from the mainstream parties. the military contractors are exerting enormous influence, and they are getting policies for them. we call them the parties of war and wall street. we need parties for the american people. that is what americans are clamoring for. host: jill stein last week, talking the polling numbers on those who would consider an independent or third-party candidate. this is a recent gallup survey, finding 63% of u.s. adults currently agree with the statement that republican and democratic parties to such a poor job of reppo seven the american people that a third

major party is needed. that represents a seven percentage point increase from a year ago, the highest since gallup first asked the question. you can see the numbers from that chart over the years. again, gallup with those findings in their survey from just the beginning of this election cycle in the fall of last year. back to your phone calls asking are you considering a third-party ended it -- candidate? if you are, it is (202) 748-8000 . if you are not, (202) 748-8001. donna, texas, good morning. caller: good morning. surprised i got through. i am definitely considering a third-party, if i vote at all. in texas, i know our governor's already backed trump, but they better have kennedy on the ballot. that is all i am going to say. because right now, i do not

trust either one, trump or biden . and i am an ex-trump supporter. i did vote for him twice. but after all the shenanigans and stuff he has been saying in all this -- no, i am not going to vote for him, and i do not like biden. it is either do we want russia taking over, or do you want china taking over? you vote for one of them 2, 1 of them will take over. host: what happens if robert f. kennedy, jr. somehow finds a way? caller: i will be happy. hopefully he will be able to unite the congress and all this bickering -- it is like there is a civil war going on in congress. house versus senate, democrats versus republicans. they are supposed to be working together. host: did you follow that group, no labels, that was looking for a high-profile independent

alternative for some sort of unity ticket? caller: not individually, but yes, i've heard a lot about what they said. i watch your show every day. and if i oversleep, i still get to watch it, because i tape it, every day. host: appreciate you doing that. caller: so i keep up with that kind of stuff through you. if someone calls in something that is not covered, then i look it up. host: what do you think of no labels? caller: excuse me? host: what did you think of no labels? caller: i cannot remember. it has been a while since they were on. i was kind of impressed. i was also surprised with the guy that changed his name, -- host: literally anybody else? caller: yes. i heard him that they. they had good messages, but at the same time, i have not really

studied up on them enough. i've heard kennedy went -- last time i called, i spoke with you, and i said, why do you not get other people on your show who are actually running so we have someone to compare to, and right after that, kennedy was on. i heard him on your show, and i liked what he said. i've been kind of following him. i just -- we got to get out of this rut. we got to stop the fighting. i can't believe trump would even find anybody to run with him after what he did to pence. i'd vote for pence. i like chris christie. and i like what's her name together domination -- host: appreciate the call. you mentioned that interview

with a gentleman who changed his name to literally anybody else. he is from texas, a veteran and schoolteacher here last week called into this program to talk about his presidential candidacy and the process of changing his name to literally anybody else, to run in election 2024. this is mark in new york. good morning, you are next. caller: good morning morning. thanks for all you do, c-span. host: appreciate that. what are your thoughts on third-party, independent candidates? caller: ok. i got to mention something real quick about the immigration bill that everybody came together and didn't pass. everybody is saying that it was donald trump that told mike johnson not to vote on it, and i am thinking mike johnson is his own man, he makes his own decisions. the problem was it was an ineffective bill -- host: so come to election 2024 for me. caller: ok.

i am an independent. been voting since 1980. every four years, i watch the campaigns. i would go to the parking lot to vote, get out of the car, and say, i cannot vote for either one of these guys. every four years, the same empty suit. john kerry, george bush, john mccain. finally, one time, someone says, drain the swamp, make america great. i said, there we go, that is what we need right there. and what happened? no one worked with him. so, you know, where would we be if everybody worked together to past nine years? this country would be so great. so my main message is, if everybody, whether in the workplace -- you got to work together. everybody needs to row in the same direction. host: you say you have been

voting dependent since the 1980's. were you a ross perot supporter in 1992? caller: absolutely. host: ross perot got something like 19% of the vote in 1992, the best and independent had done since theater roosevelt ran -- theodore roosevelt ran on a third-party. caller: he was just a new face. we were sick of the two parties back then. he would have won, except they got larry king and all gore, and they shot him down on the spot, and his campaign was over, thanks to larry king and al gore. but we all need to row in the same direction, everybody. the direction we need to row is make america great. the other direction is make america suck, and we do not need to go there. host: that is mark in albany.

that chart on presidential candidates in the last 150 years , a tweet from earlier this week on that, giving that historical data. this is charles in maryland. good morning, your next. caller: hey, how's it going. i have pretty much been a conservative republican voter since about 1980. what has been happening with both parties has really turned me off. the bickering, infighting. it seems everybody wants a piece of everybody, no matter who gets in there. i am really looking strongly at kennedy. i think that is probably who is going to get my vote. i like what he says. i am on board with a lot of what he is doing, like his thoughts. so i think i am going to go with kennedy this time. host: his thoughts on what topics? what you agree with that he is talking about? caller: you know, to be really honest with you, i don't really

know a whole lot about what he is saying, but some of the stuff he has said, it seems to be he brings more common sense and a lot of the kennedy's values that have been good in the past. he seems to want to get people to get together and get away from the bickering, infighting, and a lot of the mudslinging. i think that is where he is going. host: that is charles in maryland. it's (202) 748-8000 if you are considering an independent or third-party candidate this cycle. (202) 748-8001 if it is a no for you, that you will stick to either democrat or republican this cycle, and nothing will change your opinion. we want to hear from you, setting aside this first hour of "washington journal" to have this conversation this past week on this program, we had several independent candidates come and take calls from viewers, talk to the "washington journal" about

their campaigns come about their efforts to field candidates. angela mcardle, no relation, is chair of the libertarian national committee, talking about the libertarian line that they are working on getting on state alex around the country -- state ballots around the country. [video clip] >> we had different ideas and the party about what we are trying to accomplish paid some members really do want to win the presidency. my perspective, and the perspective of many of our other libertarian national committee members is the presidential race exists as a platform for our message. we want to get the word out there about libertarianism, about the party, grow the party at the local grassroots level, get people elected locally, help down ticket candidates, because allott access is essential as well, and use the libertarian presidential race as a platform to accomplish all those things. certainly, we want to be excellent messengers for the message of liberty and wake

people up to the liberties of large federal government. >> you mentioned getting on the ballot. you are at 37 now. you expect all 50 states? >> i believe you will get 48 to 50 states. illinois and new york are tricky, but we are actively working out plans to make it happen. new york requires 45,000 signatures in six weeks. unfortunately, the state of new york kicked us off the ballot after larry sharp, a past gubernatorial candidates, got us ballot access. it is definitely a challenge. it is a very expensive endeavor. it takes a lot of logistical networking, and it all has to happen very quickly. illinois also requires 35,000 signatures, although thankfully it is not in a shorter period of time. other than those two, i think we feel comfortable with where we are at in our ballot access race now. host: libertarian party chair

angela mcardle in an interview on this program earlier last week. back to your phone calls. this is mike. good morning. caller: good morning. i have no intentions of voting for a third-party candidate, and i would like to warn other people not to vote for them as well. we need to take a look about what is going on. jill stein played a bad role in one of our previous elections. robert kennedy is aligned with the billionaires and the other ones who have an agenda outside of our politics. this election is too important to split our votes with a third-party candidate, whether it be kennedy, a libertarian. i encourage everyone to vote down the line, whether voting republican or democrat. but for us to lose out our democracy in our country based on someone like a robert kennedy , really needs to be looked at.

i encourage everyone, vote your party or don't vote at all./ -- all. host: follow-up question. you think we would lose our democracy if we voted for someone like robert kennedy? i think we lost mike. eric in baltimore. good morning. caller: good morning. just to give context, i am 52. my birthday is election day, tuesday, november 5. i first voted for barack obama. i saw obama in ohio in 2008. the first time i ever voted, i saw a white guy in a pickup truck screaming, "obama, obama!" i was all in on barack obama. he broke every promise. the only thing barack obama got me is dental care. i am grateful for that, but he

broke every promise. did not close guantánamo, ran left of hillary, was a total charlatan and a fraud. i voted for hillary, 2016, gave her a shot, even though i do not like certain things. i was a bernie supporter originally but still voted for hillary and stuff. i was done after 2020, when i saw -- they did it even worse in 2020, because nobody ever thought that joe biden was presidential. nobody wanted him in 1988. nobody wanted him when he was on the stage with hillary clinton and barack obama. they propped him up, like weekend at bernie's, the dead guy. barack obama was on the right and somebody else was on the left, but -- they made all kind of backroom

deals to make this -- host: what happens in 2024? what do you do with your vote in 2024? caller: i am voting for dr. jill stein. she is the real deal. you look at jill stein, she is the same yesterday, today, tomorrow. her positions not change. barack obama was for civil unions, but the minute gay marriage went up to 51% in the polls, that he was for gay marriage. he is a charlatan. all the donors write the legislation, and they say, here, to the house and senate, this is what you must pass. jill stein, even though she does not have no allies, i hope she vetoes every city bill that they tried to put out there. i hope she vetoes bills and creates executive orders and stuff, because she is not going to have much to work with. these liberals are trying to scare us and shame us, talking trump bad. you think hakeem jeffries is

going to pass anything for trump? the only thing it will be is a circus. it is going to be trump tv all day on msnbc and cnn. you can finally get your ratings back up, because it is in the toilet. but nothing is going to get done. that is bad for me. i am not scared, but that is bad, because nothing gets done. [indiscernible] -- host: that's eric from baltimore. here are a few of your conversations. catherine writing in that this is not the time to consider an independent candidate. women's rights and docracy are on the line, saying vote blue. mike on facebook saying there is no independent candidate i would consider voting for, especially not an anti-vaxxer. this saying i am a libertarian, it is time for ahae. daven south carolina, thd-rty candidates, like it or not, are these boilers. our system has been controlled

by moneyed interests and it is not likely to ever be a true representation of the majority of the population. looking for your tweets and social media comments and especially your phone calls. (202) 748-8000 if you are considering an independent or third-party candidate this cycle. (202) 748-8001 if it is a no for you. selena in rochester, new york. good morning. caller: good morning to c-span listeners. i, under no circumstance, would i vote for third-party candidate. host: why? caller: the reason? because i am african-american. i am 80 years old. the current president has given african-american women and african-american people --

the other reason i would not vote for a third-party candidate, we have kamala harris. i'm too smart, too old -- i'm not dumb and ignorant enough to be fooled by people like jill stein and robert f. kennedy, jr.. if obama, this term, ran against biden, i would not vote for barack obama. i would vote for biden. and one final thing. during covid, under biden, i was not hungry or food insecure anytime in my life. host: we will stay in new york and head out to long island. this is bill. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i'm a registered green. i registered green in 1996, and

i voted green for every residential election except for 2008. i voted for obama for the first time. the way i look at it is green is my party, and just like the republicans and democrats, i am loyal to my party, and i am going to be voting for jill stein this election again. host: what would you say to stephen in michigan, who said i voted for jill stein in 2016, which gave us trump, so i will probably vote for joe biden? i think we lost the caller. this is kathy in california. good morning. caller: hi, good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i voted when i was 18 as a democrat. then i went independent. in 1993, i started studying

donald trump and i've been a trump earl since 1983. i will be 70 a week from today -- host: happy early birthday. caller: thank you. i do not want kennedy up there, especially not at all. all the other independents, jill stein -- that is like throwing a ralph nader in. biden has gotten us in every war you can imagine. he is trying to change the language of america. he is trying to make being a heterosexual grandmother to believe in all these genders and respect all this -- and i don't have to. when we have bad judges, when women are getting beaten up on the streets, the climate has risen -- every thing has risen under biden. can't afford food, gas -- americans are fed up. under donald trump, we didn't ha

ve this. we did not have it at all. i believe america needs to get on the post again. from what i've seen from all the rallies, joe biden can barely get 12 people. trump gets thousands upon thousands, because we know the only way to save america, right now, is to put trump back in office, because all the presidents and prime minister's across the globe need trump in office to stop the madness biden got us into. it's all about turning it into a new world order. this is the hardest country to break down, the united states of america. after talking to retired military, the united states is in a world of hurt. what i am seeing is, off the chain, it is horrible.

what our governor has done and what the politicians have done in california alone. if this continues, we will lose america. so everybody better think about it. i do not want a kennedy. i do not know anything jill stein has done. like i said, it is putting a ralph nader back up there. i have grandkids i have to consider. if they get their wish, we have lost america. host: that is kathy in california. back to the east coast, this is maine. jimmy, good morning. caller: hi, how are you doing? host: doing well. caller: i am going to be voting for jill stein. because she is really antiwar and anti-senate -- anti-war and anti-genocide and really pro-environment. we are lucky in maine to have

rank choice voting. i'll give cornell west the second choice of vote and president biden a third choice vote. it will count if it needs to count, but it will not need to count. host: jimmy in maine. you mentioned cornel west. he was on this program tuesday, talking about his independent presidential bid. [video clip] >> the democratic party is beyond redemption when it comes to feeding the poor working people both in america and when it comes to dealing with palestinians in gaza. what do i mean by that? it is either windowdressing as if acting as if they have some commitment to working people. yes, they have made some significant moves in the past few years, but overall, biden has been in the back pocket of wall street. he bailed wall street out with

obama and let maine street dangle. he has been in the back pocket of credit card companies. and when it comes to gaza, oh my god. you see crimes against humanity, war crimes every day. you see a crime of genocide, and matthew miller can set up there and say i do not see any violation of international law. quit lying, pentagon. state department, quit lying. we are seeing these crimes against humanity every day. and then respond only one arab and muslim voters begin to vote against the democratic party, so it becomes a matter of election, political strategy. no. we want somebody with moral act on. you do not respond to genocide solely because you have election strategy. when you have children being shot, famine escalating -- where

is the moral fiber? it is not there. biden talks about we will redeem the soul of the nation. that is the very slogan, the motto of martin luther king jr.'s organization. you do not use that slogan to enable genocide. shame on you, biden. you are a war criminal, in terms of enabling those kinds of actions. host: that was cornel west wednesday on this program. just after 7:30 on the east coast in this first hour of the "washington journal" today, asking you simply if you are considering a third-party or independent candidate for president in election 2024? if you are, (202) 748-8000. if you are not, (202) 748-8001. out to detroit, this is raymond. good morning. caller: hello? host: go ahead, sir. caller: it is funny you played

cornel west. i saw it tuesday. i was voting for cornel west prior to do it. i voted for biden last time. when it came to gaza, 13,000 women and children, you cannot, in good conscious -- this is credible. he went on to $200 billion of jets -- it just goes on and on. if the worst comes out and trump gets in -- hello? host: i am listening to you. his trump getting in you say the worst happens? caller: no pay because i voted for cornel west. if trump gets elected, to be honest with you, biden has no credibility with none of the arab states. at least trump got credibility with some of the arab states, and he will be able to facilitate some kind of solution

with what is going on with palestine and israel. if you listen, trump has already said to israel, you have got to wrap this war up. so people -- i am not a trump supporter. like i said, i am voting cornel west. but if that is the worst outcome , trump is better on gaza. host: you mentioned money to israel. on wednesday of this week, the first hour of the segment, we were talking about whether viewers believe the u.s. should continue to supply weapons to israel. that conversation has only intensified in the days since. it is about $3.8 billion a year that the u.s. sends in military and aid to israel so they can buy weapons and another $500 billion annually for missile defense. this is the story in the washington post today about it. what happens, do you think, in

the future when it comes to weapons sales to israel? caller: defense -- [indiscernible] hamas is terrorists. u.s. spec terrorists to act like terrorists. but you do not expect israel to act like terrorists. you expect them to act like a democratic country. host: that is raymond in detroit. visits -- this is dorothy. caller: hi, good morning. i am voting for biden because, simply, i do not want to see trump elected again in this country. i believe in freedom. i believe in the constitution. and i believe in order.

the order of the law, not the law of one man, who has stated, in fact, he wants to be a dictator. we do not need that in america. number two, i am voting for biden because biden understands how politics works. he understands about nato and why we need nato. and the third reason -- or not really a reason, but i just need to get it out there. i am getting so tired of hearing people say "biden has got us into wars." to my knowledge, all i can say is we are not in a war. we may be supporting countries that are in war, but we aren't

involved in a war. we are supporting, we are helping countries that believe in democracy and freedom -- host: dorothy -- caller: we need native. host: do you think -- caller: we need native. -- nato. host: do you think withdrawing troops from afghanistan was the right move by joe biden? caller: actually, joe biden was not the one who got us out of afghanistan. if we look back, that afghanistan agreement was done by trump, not by biden. so that should not even be a conversation. biden got us out of there because of an agreement trump signed. you know, i am 78-year-old. i was taught civics and government in school. i know how the government works. that is one of the big problems i see in this country today.

the majority of people have no clue how the government works. they blame biden for inflation when biden is not the one who is creating inflation. inflation and the higher prices we are seeing her because of corporations -- we are seeing are because of corporations charging as much as they possibly can. just look at what they made since covid. host: one final question. we saw another very good jobs report friday. there have been several months of unexpectedly good jobs reports. are those unexpectedly good job reports, do they have nothing to do with joe biden? caller: oh, no, i am not saying they have nothing to do with joe biden. but joe biden is the president. the president does not control what the prices are or jobs. corporations are the ones hiring

people. joe biden may agree with economists going out to control inflation, but that is it. people have this crazy idea that a president can go and tell a corporation, in a free market society, which we already in, how much they can charge for a pound of butter. no, i'm sorry. a president does not control that. and joe biden has done amazing for this country. he has kept us out of the two wars that are going on right now. host: that is dorothy in warrenton, virginia. john in new jersey. caller: good morning. how are you? host: doing well. caller: so i still have no hope for a better future here. as many times as i hear someone talk about how they took civics

in high school or something like that 50 plus years ago, it seems that a large amount of callers don't understand the history of these conflicts and how they don't just happened under one administration. they don't just end as soon as one administration leaves and another administration begins. as far as voting for a third-party candidate, yes, i am going to vote for a third-party candidate. i am 34 years old. i am watching my generation unable to afford a home. i am being told we will never be freed of our student loan debt that we were told to get in order to get a better career. i am watching my generation break their backs well into their 40's, doing blue-collar jobs that are not paying the amount we were told they would pay. i'm not seeing the future, the promice, any of the things we were told when we were children and having rotc and recruiters

coming to our schools and having us sign up for wars that we barely understood why we were even in. and then all of these things continued to happen -- host: who are you voting for? caller: i do not even know. but if joe biden wasn't the democratic candidate, i probably would vote democratic, and you would be shocked at the amount of people that are within my age group that would likely say the same thing. replace joe biden with any other candidate in the democratic party, and we would probably vote democratic. i do not understand this unwillingness to acknowledge that we are adults, and this infantile is asian -- this infantilization of my entire generation. this culture war because we do

not hold the same values, because we do not have the same social economic future being delivered to us that was promised to us. the generation before us has broken that. we cannot afford homes. i do not make enough money, making more than my grandfather ever made -- host: what line of work are you in now? caller: i am somebody that helps people that are getting out of prison with substance abuse, because it has become an epidemic in this country. that has to be people willing to help those who have been cast out of society. it is not their fault. these are people coming from parts of this country that people say they love, people that they say they want to do better, but we take industry, company to save 2%, 3% on their bottom line, send to another country that we force unequal

trade deals with so they can make a profit while entire communities are killed. host: phil is next out of jupiter, florida. caller: good morning. i am glad you are having this discussion. i am not going to vote for a third-party candidate, but i want to explain why. i believe that the system is rigged. let's go back to 1992, when ross perot was part of the debates. and thank you for playing that piece from cornel west. that is an example of my point. most of us, that is the only time we are going to hear cornel west's message. we are not going to hear it on corporate tv, the debates. i hope you give the listeners some history on 1992, when ross perot got 20% of the vote, and he was in the debates with the

republican and the democrat as an independent. immediately after that, the republican party and the democrat party formed corporations and took over the debates and got rid of the league of women voters. we are not adding the choice. we are getting the uniparty, and we are stuck it. it was good to hear that young man just speak, good to hear him angry. i hope more of his generation will get angry and get active, get involved in this political process. also, in 2000, when ralph nader was running green, he was filling up stadiums all over america. i was there in boston in 2000. packed, 10,000 people. they were having the debate between junior bush and al gore. ralph went to the debate at the university of mass in boston,

and they would not even let him in the building, let alone debate. talk about democracy. watching these state troopers strong-arm a guy running for president, wouldn't even let him in the building. we have got to get back to why we are stuck in these non-choices. and also, the last thing was the uniparty. we have to look at the eight pack -- the aid pack, american-israeli committee, and the impact on both parties. they are not registered as a foreign lobbying group. i think the american people need to look at these things that are involved in what we are given for choices. not just argue about the choices -- go ahead. host: you mentioned ross perot. i wanted to point out that, in his column today in the washington post, a longtime

political analyst for the washington post, he gets into the ross perot campaign, noting this past week, no labels tried to form that unity ticket and decided not to field a candidate in 2024. here is a little bit from the column. he said, for decades, various politicians have sought to tap into and energize what they see as a moderate middle. for decades, those efforts have come to naught. the latest efforts came when no labels gave up its search to field a presidential candidate in 2024. he goes on to say the concept of a moderate middle of the electorate has long existed. some politicians called it a sensible center or a radical middle, as if it were some sort of sleeping giant just waiting to be awakened by a charismatic leader. he goes on to say ross perot

came to fit that bill when he ran in 1992. his quirky personality as a non-politician and an outsider with a focus on anti-free-trade agreements proved compelling to many voters. at one point, he led in the polls. in the end, he captured just 19% of the national vote and more than 25% in 8 states, but he did not capture a single state in the electoral college. later, he sought to turn that campaign into a more sustaining movement. he ran in 1996, but by then, his movement had fractured, the ideological cohesion never been that strong. he did not win more than 15% in any state. dan delving into the history of independent bids for president. "the take -- "the sunday take"

is the name of his column. this is pennsylvania. caller: good morning. how are you? host: doing well. caller: that is great. i have been a democrat for 35 years. i just recently changed to independent, because i realized what is going on in this country. first of all, we are run by a pedophile ring that is out of control. that is the backbone of america -- host: if we can set aside conspiracy theories. if you can focus on why you're supporting independents. caller: i think mainstream media has kept independents out of the ring, especially rfk junior. they are not giving him any airtime, and they want to keep the narrative between the republicans and democrats. if anybody wants to hear some

thing rfk junior has to say, all we have to do is look him up and hear what he has to say, because it is not a fair fight if the media is not giving anything to it. host: that is david in pennsylvania. rfk junior is the focus of the entire front page of the sunday opinion section in the new york times. they call him the wildcard. rfk junior is building a strange political movement out of strange bedfellows, and who will it benefit? michelle goldberg is the author of that piece, columnist at the new york times. it is a double truck opinion piece in the sunday section, if you want to read it. less than 10 minutes left in this first segment of the "washington journal." ryan in massachusetts. good morning. caller: hi. to answer your question, am i voting for a third-party, absolutely not. what happens is the rep. king: --

republican and democratic parties to sue in states so they cannot get votes. so rfk junior and jill stein, they get 20%, 30%, it will not matter, because they do not get electoral votes. i am independent. i voted for trump. he did a better job and fulfilled all his promises. since biden has gotten in, we have seen groceries, rent, energy costs from bad monetary policy, and people want to vote for this guy again? as far as i am concerned, going back to what the previous two callers said, the millennial. i will concede that kennedy is one of the only few candidates actually talking about that. that needs to be addressed. we are letting the housing market go astray, and the millennial generation and z generation are screwed when it comes to getting housing. we are spending more than 50% to 70% of our incomes, if not more, on housing -- host: are you a millennial?

are you gen z? how old are you? caller: i'm 37. host: what do you do? caller: i am in manufacturing right now. i have a law and a business degree. host: do you mind saying how much student debt leaves a 37-year-old -- caller: i am actually in a good place with that. i paid off my student debt. i've actually gone to banks, gotten loans, and told i do not make enough. and i am making close to $23, $24 an hour right now, and in being told i do not make enough, even though i have the money for a down payment. you want to figure that out about pricing an entire -- a generation entirely out of the market. no politician is talking about that other than kennedy. if anybody's going to have frank joseph voting, i would recommend trump first, kennedy second. host: ryan in the bay state of

massachusetts. to the peach state, roz. caller: good morning. i am definitely for a third-party independent party. the democrats and republicans have nothing better to offer than donald trump and joe biden. this country is nothing other than a ridiculous reality show these days, and i blame the media, the corporate media, on a lot of this. we do not get good, factual information about candidates. we only get their scandals. there is not a president that takes office with immediate movement in one party or the other to impeach them. it is a waste of time. host: have you supported independents in the past? caller: yes, i have. host: who was the first dependent you are member supporting and why? caller: i am in my 70's, so it was ross perot. i hear the voice of these young people calling in -- they would

get behind a good, strong independent, i believe. host: to bobby in baton rouge. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm here in baton rouge and listening to everybody calling in talking about a third party. i'm never voting for a third party. i would never vote for an independent. i will never vote for a republican. my deal is, right now, everyone calling in right now, i know you got to see the same thing i am seeing when i look at donald trump. that man is scared. he is fearful for his life. that man, he's got to ask god to forgive him. give him another chance for not

being president -- he got some issues he's got to take care of, personal or whatever. i think we are looking at donald trump's last days. if donald trump is going to run for november, i am not voting for him. i'm voting for joe biden and kamala harris for four more years. if donald trump is going to win, you got to pray for him. pray for the man. and pray for joe biden. people on the others -- i am talking about spirits. they are looking for him. they have business for him on the others, not here -- host: to the buckeye state. this is lina. good morning. go ahead with your comments. it is easier if you turn down your television. just talk to the phone. caller: you hear my television. ok.

i just have a few words. i do not say much, because of my broken english. my point is what do we got with biden? four years, we cannot even afford to buy food. trump is not good either. that is why i like a third-party. somebody good come up and do something for this country, because if you compare, this country, i'm 55 years in america, i've never seen the country like this. you cannot go to the store because you are afraid somebody will kill or rob you. you cannot get gasoline in ohio. gasoline is $3.35. $3.59, i'm sorry. how are we going to live? this is under biden. trump, the last four years, if

he did not do what he did january 6, he was a good president. i do not know now, he has a lot of problems. we need a third party. host: is there a candidate you are looking at as a third-party, or do you want somebody else? caller: it could be somebody else. it is ok. but we need a third party. that guy, as a family, kennedy is good. i do not to much politics, but what i see for eight years of trump and -- for yourself, years ago and for years now, we cannot shop here we cannot get gas. we cannot pay our electrical bill, gas bill. people have got to consider all of this. i am not going for trump either pure that is why i called. yes, we need a third party, somebody good. host: running short on time. a couple calls waiting. this is mark in california care thanks for waiting. caller: good morning, c-span. thanks for taking my call.

i will not be voting third party. although rfk is catching my attention as a possible backup candidate. but i will be absently, positively running for trump. it is a complete mystery to me how there is anybody left in this country who wants to vote for biden. millions of people are crossing the borders, $9 cheeseburgers, $^ gas, complete corruption with his son in china and all this stuff. why do people keep backing him is a mystery to me. trump had this country put back together, and i want to see him get another chance at it. rfk junior, i like his dad. he is probably the last democrat i like. i kind of like some of the messaging he is giving out, but it is definitely trump forming -- for me.

host: last caller in this first segment. stick around, plenty more to talk about this morning. we will discuss religion and christianity's place in politics. up first this morning, mark david hall, the author of the book, "who's afraid of christian nationalism?" later, we will talk with rob boston, senior advisor at americans united for separation of church and state. those discussions coming up this morning on "washington journal." ♪ >> this week on the c-span networks, the house and senate returned from the holiday break. tuesday, secretary of state lloyd austin, thenderscore tree of defense and the chaiof the joint chiefs of staff testify before tate armed services committee for the defense department fiscal year 2025 budget and future defense programs. on wednesday, house managers will deliver articles of

impeachment against homeland security secretary alejandra yoas to the senate and on that same day, the secretary will testify before house and senate appropriations subcommittees for his department's 2025 budget. on thursday, the japanese prime minister will address a joint meeting of congress. also fbi director christopher wray testifies before the house appropriations subcommittee his department's fiscal year 2025 budget. watch this week come alive on the c-span networks or on c-span now, our free mobile veo app. also head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or watch live on demand any time. >> tonight on q&a, david charter, u.s. editor for the times of london and author of royal audience discusses the special relationship the queen had the -- had with the united

states. >> d-day in 1994, eisenhower was in charge of the operation. it went brilliantly. sadly many lives were lost of course. the queen never forgot that sacrifice. and that remarkable achievement. through her whole life, as the first prime minister, winston churchill told her, we have a special relationship with america. we must keep the americans close. it was the mission of her whole life. eisenhower was one of the first presidents to make that easy to achieve. >> david charter on c-span's q&a . >> "washington journal" continues. host: professor mark david hall joins us now.

he is the author of the just released book, "who's afraid of christian nationalism?" why christian nationalism is not a threat to america or the church. mr. hall, good morning. how do you define the term christian nationalism? guest: i think the important thing to begin with is how it has been defined since 2006. physically starting in 2006, a steady stream of books tarted coming out explaining there is a group of christians, theocrat to want to take america for christ. this is in the political literature. they make these claims. in 2019, scholars came along and brought more sense to the debate. they defined christian nationalism as a toxic stew of

racism, sexism, nationalism, people who want to bring christ and country together and oppress everyone but white christian males. they argued that 51.9% of americans fully or partially embrace this. it is a very scary phenomenon if you listen to all of the critics. one of the things i do in my book is i say there is no good reason to believe more than a tiny handful of americans embrace this sort of toxic stew. i redefine christian nationalism. what i mean by it are those americans who believe america was founded as a christian nation and who believe christianity should be favored above other religions. for instance, christian prayer should be returned to public schools. i contend this is far less of a toxic phenomenon and toxic ideology and does not necessarily involve sexism, racism and yet it is still problematic. i offer prudential constitutional, biblical and theological regions for denying even this benign form of

christian nationalism. host: how long has it, as you defined it, been around in relation to what you say is this relatively new phenomenon and how critics have defined christian nationalism? guest: i would say it is accurate to trace my definition of christian nationalism to the founding and the earliest colonial settlements. we had things like established churches. in virginia, the general assembly told the church how to govern itself and christianity has certainly been favored above other religions throughout almost all of american history until the mid-20th century. it's been around for a long time, it has always been problematic and i'm glad we have moved away from it in significant ways. about 20% of americans want to move back to it, they want congress to declare america a christian nation.

it is still around but a far cry from the handmaid's tale described by some critics. host: your book is "who's afraid of christian nationalism? why christian nationalism is not a threat to america or the church." mark david hall with us on this segment of "washington journal." if you want to join us, phone lines as usual. democrats, (202)-748-8000. republicans, (202)-748-8001. independents, (202)-748-8002. andrew seidel is another author that you know well. you debated in the past his book, the founding myth, why christian nationalism is an american. he spoke about christian nationalism last fall. it was an event sponsored by the spec -- sponsored by the secular student union. this is a little of what he had to say. [video clip] >> christian nationalism is a political religion, built on the claim that america was founded as a christian nation, that we

were based on judeo-christian suppose, and that we have strayed from that foundation, and this is the language of returning, getting back to our godly roots, to justify all of the hateful and even evil public policy. think back to june 1, 2020. this is when then president donald trump had peaceful protesters gassed, beaten and brutalized with rubber bullets so he could walk to a church and pose for a photograph with a bible. the point of that stroll was to show that we are a bible believing bible beating church nation, that we are a christian nation and the anyone who disagrees should be beaten and gassed. the goal of christian nationalism is to redefine or

rewrite the constitution so that it creates two classes of people. the right kind of conservative christian, and everyone else. host: mark david hall, on andrew seidel's comments and the goals of christian nationalism today. guest: one of the things i appreciate about andrew is he is crystal clear that he is not an academic. in his first book he writes that it is not an academic study. what he says, there is some truth that there are people out there who believe america was founded as a christian nation and there is a sense of wanting to return. the question is what to they want to return to? my guess is they want to return to the america of the 1950's without the segregation, and i want to be clear about that. in america we don't have drag queen story hours, we have teachers leading children input -- in prayer. usually written by state

committees. any monotheist could say that prayer and most americans were monotheist. there is this sense of wanting to return to something of a golden age. i argue in my book that this is ill-conceived and that they are our reasons for getting the government out of the business of running churches, having teachers lead prayer, this sort of thing. andrew goes on in his next book to make the bombastic crazy arguments, for instance he talks about how the u.s. up in court has been taken over by white christian nationalists. as evidence he points to a number of cases where the court finds a 25 foot cross on public land is constitutional. he says there it is, christian nationalism, christian symbols being favored above others. what he fails to mention is you have two jewish justices in the majority and clarence thomas,

african-american. the court says it is not unconstitutional to have a cross on public land. i grow through a list of cases, -- i go through a list of cases wherein all of them, you have judges agreeing christian programs are constitutional, that philadelphia can't discriminate against christian organizations and he ignores all of the counter evidence as he does with the court cases that find in favor of muslim plaintiffs. we need to understand, he is coming from a particular perspective, these guys believe in a wall of separation between church and state, a wall that would somehow require in 1925 cross on public land memorializing the debt from world war i to be torn down or removed. andrew seidel's organization

objected when ohio wanted to include a star of david in a holocaust memorial. if you think about a holocaust memorial close to you in washington, d.c., there are all sorts of biblical images and passages throughout that memorial. andrew seidel and bob austen believe this almost go. strict separation. they think that is fine come -- i think that is fine, they have every right to say that but just because someone things a world war i era cross doesn't need to be torn down, they are a christian nationalist who wants to engage in hate and evil? andrew seidel used those words. it is three steps too far. host: human -- you mentioned bob boston who will be joining us later. we will let you chat with some viewers. plenty calling into talk with you. the book again, "who's afraid of christian nationalism?" it just published earlier this

month. peter is in florida, democrat. caller: yes. who is afraid of christian nationalism? i would say members of other religions and they certainly deserve to be afraid of christian nationalists. andrew seidel's book is excellent and goes into great detail, entitled the founding myth, it goes into great detail about how and why the founders were strongly opposed to america being considered a christian nation or a nation of any other religion, keeping a wall of separation between church and state. it goes into great detail. god is never mentioned in the constitution. the declaration of independence goes against the king of england and the christian religion, it states in the bible that kings are to be obeyed and so forth

and so on. that is the opposite of what the declaration is doing. it was going strongly against the king of england and putting america on its own path. jefferson stated in the treaty of tripoli in 1805 and i quote, the government of the united states is not in any sense founded on the christian religion. it could not be any more plain and obvious than that. thank you. host: mark david hall? guest: thank you. jefferson had nothing to do with the treaty of tripoli. andrew seidel's book is full of inaccuracies and falsehoods. you began your statement with a claim that all sorts of americans are afraid of christian nationalism. this is somewhat of an empirical question. recent pew studies in 2022, 2024, the studies find 54% of

americans have never heard of the phrase christian nationalism and those who have, 25% have a negative view of it and only 5% have a positive view of it. there seem to be precious few christian nationalists, so many few self identified christian nationalists out there. host: this is bill in pennsylvania, republican. caller: thank you for taking my call. that fellow said that our country wasn't founded -- to these folks ever go to the state capital buildings and see the 10 commitments and bible verses that were put on them hundreds of years ago? as far as reading a book, i think the problems started when our country stopped reading the book. christianity isn't just for certain countries. as you read the word of god, god

extended mercy and grace and salvation to any nation that comes under him and according to this book, we know the end of this book and that is what we are getting scared of. like it or not, god is god and if he isn't the god of all, he isn't the god at all. god says that christ is going to come and we know where he is going to come to, the hotspot of the world over in jerusalem. read your bible. if you read the word of god, it all makes sense. you will see it coming. host: mark david hall, did you want to jump in? guest: let me affirm that affirmation that one should read the bible. i think it is an excellent idea. in my previous book, i make an excellent argument that america's founders were influenced by christian ideas or ideas developed within the christian tradition of political reflection in many important ways. it led them to go for the

separation of powers and federalism. it led them to embrace a note -- a robust understanding of religious liberty that protected all americans. that is why they banned religious tests from political office. one of my favorite documents is george washington's letter to the hebrew congregation where he makes it clear that this tiny little religious minority, maybe 2500 use in north america at the time at most and he makes it crystal clear that they have the same rights to worship god according to their conscience and act upon their religious convictions whenever possible. by the time we get to the founding era, america's founders were influenced by christianity but they did not create a christian nation. that language is way too -- way too exclusive. that was never their intent. host: this is mark in new york, independent. caller: how's it going?

i want to clarify that the god from israel is not the true god. christianity and judaism claim that yawe is the true god and is not. -- came to america in 1889 and he spoke at the parliament of religions and you can look this up. he spoke for two hours. host: 2024 and this debate today on christian nationalism. caller: jesus wasn't even the son of god. the son of god was a concept. if you stepped on the spiritual path, you were considered the son of god. that is not the real story because god goes to infinity as the white light. host: we've got your point. mark, i want to come back to the founders and their views on

religion and politics. thomas jefferson's letter to the dan barry baptists from 1802, in which he states in that letter, his views on the separation of church and state, saying he wants to establish a quote, wall of separation between church and state. what is your reading of that famous letter? guest: jefferson has every right to his own views of course. he played no role in establishing the first amendment. the wall of separation, it is a horrible metaphor to reflect the language of the first amendment establishment clause. congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. but is a one-way barrier. it is a restriction on congress. it cannot be viewed as a restriction on religious americans or on the church.

the church has every right to speak into politics. the civil rights movement was led by reverend dr. martin luther king jr. absolutely appropriate and not a violation of the establishment clause. i believe jefferson finished his draft of that letter on saturday. on sunday, thomas jefferson, then president of the united states, went to church services in the u.s. capitol building where he heard john leland, himself an opponent of it -- of religious establishments preached and they regularly well -- regularly held warship services -- worship services in the capitol building. whenever jefferson desired in his heart of hearts, he did not act as if there was a wall of separation, neither did any of the founders. the letter is ripped out of context when it first appeared in a court opinion.

unfortunately it was used in a horrible historical perspective of history, a supreme court opinion where the court basically said the establishment clause requires a wall of separation between church and state, even though the majority as they were claiming that permitted new jersey to fund or subsidize children using buses to get to -- schools. this is one of reason -- one of the reasons the jurisprudence has been such a mess. the court has backed away from everson and lemon and has a very sensible approach to what the establishment clause actually prohibits. host: why does the house and senate open their business every day in prayer? guest: this goes back to the continental congress and the confederation congress. it is considered what we do. as you go to 1788, the confederation of congress going out of business, james madison

is on record voting to pay the chaplain. the first battle congress comes around. james madison is on the committee that decides what sort of legislation, what sort of what estate of chaplains they will have. one of congress's first acts is to select a chaplain for the house and the senate we've had chaplains ever since. it is just considered part of what we do in america and if the establishment clause required a wall of separation between church and state, that would clearly be inappropriate but what the first amendment does is it prohibits an establishment of religion. in no reasonable universe is selecting a chaplain who leads a voluntary prayer and establishment of religion which is why congress unanimously decreed to have a chaplain and senate and we have done so ever since, to this day. other than a few americans, in places like the freedom from religion foundation and americans united for the

separation of church of state does anyone really worry about this. host: do you think it is a good thing? guest: ethic it is a fairly benign thing. it wouldn't have bothered me if congress decided not to do this anymore but i don't think it hurts most anyone. we presume these chaplains provide aid and comfort to members of the legislature who are far from home and if it is the case, i say more power to them. host: stephen in illinois, democrat. you are on with professor mark david hall. caller: thank you. the last time we talked religion, i was kicked off the air for saying that i thought religion at best was belief in magic and ghosts and at worst, an excuse to use god to commit genocide. i was forced to go to church long after i quit believing in god, but religion is the daughter of hope and fear, explaining the unnamed -- people

saying that they know god is real and jesus is real, they scare me because they are acting on a fear instead of logic. host: mr. hall? guest: there are people who hate religion. i'm sorry that this man was scarred as a young man. this does reflect well, many of the clinical literature. many authors of this literature were at one time believers, they were somehow hurt by the faith and they have this view of christianity, or religion more generally as this horrible oppressive force. if you read only one book,, andrew seidel's hatred for religion is palpable and he engages in mockery of judaism, christianity and i'm sorry for him that he got hurt, but it does show where i think many of these critics are coming from. host: how long have you been

researching and writing about christian nationalism and what got you into this topic? guest: i was flying home from a speaking engagement in 2021, and on layover i got a note from a reporter, and email saying can you comment on the religious images among the writers at the capitol hill? i said yes i would be happy to do that. -- the rioters at capitol hill? i said yes i would be happy to do that. it took about 20 images to send the footage and it took a while to go through all of it and what i saw was a sea of american flags and trump flags and maga hats and no christian images. she eventually sent me some slides and images that showed a woman who had a sign that said god, freedom and liberty. she was at the washington monument, one point five miles from the u.s. capitol. she was not among the rioters.

most of the images had nothing to do with the riot at all, and those near the riot were ambiguous. i said be careful with this narrative you seem to be crafting. i don't see much of christian images. she completely ignored me and came out with a story the next day, christian nationalists have attacked the u.s. capitol building. this was a narrative you saw throughout all of america. expressly saying things like this is christian nationalists. it piqued my interest and i started reading everything i could find about christian nationalism will stop most of my work is from the american founding, throughout all american history and i was shocked at this literature, most of it is just written by journalists who clearly had access -- axes to grind.

it was profoundly flawed in serious ways and what i do in my recent book as i spend two chapters debunking this literature. of course some christians after all of this, 16 years of attacking christian nationalism, in 2022, they come out and embrace christian nationalism. now they want to redefine it as it is not sexist and racist and that sort of thing i think -- i take them at their word but was t-rex me is this horrific idea and this leads to critics who say here is evidence that christian nationalism exists. so the book hopefully debunks all of that and gives a reasonable definition of christian nationalism. i want to emphasize, i critique even the most benign form of christian nationalism. i think it is a very bad idea to attempt to return teacher led prayer to public schools, whether christian or generic. make the mistake about it, i am no fan of christian nationalism

in any of its manifestations. host: donald trump selling god bless the usa bibles got a lot of attention. what did you think about that and all of the attention he got in the news? guest: i found it disgusting. i think he is a huckster and has always been a huckster. he is always on the prowl to make a buck and keeps coming up with schemes. i think he has no business doing that. i believe the bible he used for that is the king -- king -- king james version, it is public domain and you can get a printed version for $3.99 on amazon and i would encourage people to do that. you don't need a bible with song lyrics or the constitution or pictures of america and it. read the word of god and stop there. host: david in texas, independent. caller: i hope you can hear me. i had a question.

i totally agree with the idea of reading a bible. i think it is an awesome book. i also wanted to get your opinion on the j edgar hoover institution as a proponent or defender of white christian nationalism. your book says we don't have to be afraid of it, white christian nationalism but when you look at this institution and how it has aided in the rise of white christian nationalism across the country, i just went to know if you had an opinion on how this organization has conducted itself in support of quote, unquote, patriotism and white christian nationalism. guest: thank you. i had a chance to read the gospel of jaeger hoover a month ago after this book had gone to press or i'd sent it out to the printers and it is fascinating and there are certainly ways in which during the cold war

especially, american corporations and government entities understood it was an existential battle, the united states of america, facing godless communism. this did include some folks who might not have had christianity's best interest at heart, to emphasize the extent to which we are americans and part of what it means to be americans is to be christian and you had corporations pushing this, hoover pushed it. he had retreats where fbi agents would be bused off to hear from religious leaders and this sort of thing. in the 1950's we had the words under god in the pledge of allegiance and we added in god we trust to the money. it is understandable from the historic context. i don't think any of it is viable from a christian perspective and i think most of it was harmful. to this day we include the words under god in the pledge. we have in god we trust on our

money. who was harmed by that? i know some people are annoyed and some people have brought lawsuits saying this violates the establishment clause that i want to contend the establishment clause does not build a wall of separation between church and state. if it did, maybe in god we trust should come off the money. but the establishment clause says is we are not going to have a national church just like england has a national church and we are not going to have state churches so it would be inappropriate with the state of texas to say the baptist church is the official state church for texas and we will tax everyone to support the church. that would absolutely be inappropriate. but to have symbolic things like in god we trust on our money is not constitutionally problematic and i don't think it is hurting anyone. host: the gospel of jaeger hoover -- of j edgar hoover came

out yesterday. mark david hall's book, "who's afraid of christian nationalism? " came out earlier this month. he is taking your calls for the next 15 minutes on "washington journal>' this is john -- "washington journal." this is john. caller: i appreciate the first intelligent conversation we seem to be having about this made up crisis. i was watching joe scarborough this morning and they had someone on basically comparing -- people comparing trump to jesus and this hysteria is beyond the pale. what this is really about is and you mentioned earlier, the government, there are two sources of power. we believe in god to give unalienable rights, or the government. what the democrats and liberals are trying to do is remove any form of other religion besides

government in the system. if you go to china or any commie nations, you see pictures of their leaders. in the united states, we have crosses on the highways. the only way to control the power is for the government to remove and discredit, get rid of god in our public lives so that they can be the only power. our rights come from our creator and not the government. that is what this is really about. great conversation, thanks. host: mr. hall? guest: there is a lot there. rights come from god. we hold these truths that all men are greeted equal. they are endowed by their creator with certain un-8 -- by certain unalienable rights. jefferson is no orthodox christian, but this was just commonplace in the late 18th

century. rights come from god and that is why they are inalienable. a very important idea and it a few weeks ago you had a journalist mocking people who believe that rights come from god, saying this is evidence of christian nationalism and then she goes on to associate all sorts of evils. believe me, if i believed that a movement existed that wanted to oppress every american except white christian men, even though i am a white christian man, i would be terrified. that would be horrific but there is no good evidence and i appreciate your listener's comment that this is the first sensible conversation. there have been others of course but almost all the critics use this language. christian nationalism is an existential threat to american democracy and the christian church. christian nationalism is a threat to the government by the people, for the people and of the people. white christian nationalism is

the greatest threat to american democracy and the church in america. on and on, people go, some critics have compared american christian nationalism, people they think are christian nationalists to nazis and fascists. this is not helpful for our public discourse will stub part of the reason i wrote my book is to say let's tap things down. maybe we can get away from labeling people and just have a discussion about the important issues of our day, about the sanctity of human life, about religious liberty, about the border, about homelessness. let's talk about these issues without labeling people and try to come together and discuss a positive and that pluses and minuses and hammer out some sort of reasonable consensus solutions. that would be so much more useful than simply labeling people christian nationalists. people on the right engage in

this activity too, labeling people as woke. these labels are not helpful. host: you talked about how many people consider themselves christian nationalists and different opinions of what that is and you talked about labeling, but can you give us some numbers here or some percentage of americans to try and help us understand? guest: if you go bisulfite edification, people who say christian nationalism is a good thing, that is 5% of americans and even that figure is problematic for two reasons. some americans when they see -- when they hear those words put together, maybe thinking well, i am a christian and i'm a patriot so i guess i am a christian nationalist and they might not have seen any of this toxic stew, racism, sexism, homophobia. on the other hand, it is possible to be something you don't identify. close to zero americans would

say they are a racist. probably a tiny fraction would. and yet there probably are more than a tiny fraction of americans who are accurately described as racist. what social scientists do is they come up with various attempts to measure a phenomenon that they didn't define -- that they then define. the come up with a definition of christian nationalism that really is a toxic stew. americans who conflate god and country, who are racist, sexist, homophobic and militaristic. they find that 51% of americans partially or fully embrace this toxics to but then they say everyone who identifies as a christian nationalist is that sort of people person and it really is pre-much an evil person. one of the findings in their study is 85% of african-americans identify or are labeled accurately as christian nationalist according to whitehead and perry.

social science has gotten better. a great article by smith and adler has suggested whitehead and perry's figures are grossly inflated and by coming up with far more reasonable measures, we can go into the measures if you would like, i'm happy to talk about the details but by looking at more reasonable measures, maybe we have 10% of americans who are christian nationalist adherents. a very serious study -- neighborly faith came to a civil or conclusion and we find that among these folks, there are people who have views that are problematic. of course all americans have views that are problematic, not literally all them but many do. for instance, 10% of americans who are labeled as christian nationals, 9% think juice and

america have too much power. it kind of smacks of anti-semitism but unfortunately about 9% of americans over all think juice have too much power. this shows there is anti-semitism in america and the christian nationalist adherents share in that anti-semitism. when you go to the next question, or the next possibility, do you have a favorable view of jews in america, christian nationalist adherents are more likely to have a more favorable view than the average population. when we dig down into this, there is precious little evidence. there are racists in america, there are people who gathered in charlottesville in 2017, about 300 people. it disgusts me, it horrifies me and i pray for these people. folks who believe the white race is superior and should be on top, these people exist.

no one claimed those folks were christian nationalists. the true area nation types don't like christianity because of christianity's teaching that all are created in the image of god and must be treated with respect and dignity. your true racist nationalists oftentimes don't like the christian faith or other religions. precious few who embrace this truly toxic stew, more reasonable measures of christian nationalism come in between 10% and 30% depending on how you can slice it by my measures and i am happy to discuss how i got there. i estimate about 21% of americans embrace this view that christianity should be favored above -- above other faiths. it is a view i reject but it is not a view to return to the era of jim crow or women not being able to vote. the toxic stew described by many critics exists among a tiny fraction of americans.

host: just a little over five minutes left with mark david hall this morning, professor at regent university, author of the book, "who's afraid of christian nationalism?" loretta has been waiting in ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. this is a real good conversation this morning. but if we are going all the way back to the founding of the country, we can't skip over slavery, and when we look at the number of people who are enjoying the fruits from that free labor, any country that had 400 years of free labor should be will -- should be number one in everything. then we bring it up to today,

we've got all those religions, every day you get a priest or rabbi or someone going to jail for abusing kids. then they want to come in and try to regulate policy over people's lives. they don't want to pay taxes. joel o'steen raking in millions of dollars every week, every week. it don't make any sense. host: mark david hall? guest: my last book, i have a couple of chapters on the founders and slavery and the abolitionists. many founders were turning against slavery voluntarily and freeing their slaves and ending slavery with northern states banning slavery. there was a recognition that

slavery was a horrible evil institution that needed to be ending and we were moving in that direction. unfortunately, eli whitney invented the cotton gin and made the production of cotton profitable in the american interior south, and this led to a new lease on life or slavery which was not ended until the 13th, 14th and 15th amendment but then we had the horrible jim crow legislation after it. racism wasn't readily problematic threat american history and thank for those founders who came to oppose slavery, usually from their christian conviction. goodness for the apple vision is -- the abolitionist movement in the civil rights movement. i think christianity has been very positive for the flourishing of all humans, throughout all of american history but we live in a sinful world and there continues to be elements of racism that needs to be combated, there continues to

be religious hucksterism that needs to be regular to. we live in a fallen world and i'm sorry we do but i think christianity provides the best answers to the world in which we live and historically it has done a lot of good in the united states of america. host: final two minutes here. can i come back to the founders, the declaration of independence, what,, you quoted from the declaration we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights and that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, is that a complete list of what we are endowed by our creator with or is that a sampling of the liberties? guest: i would say it is a sampling. it is telling that -- jefferson

used it in his draft, the idea is that we have a variety of rights that americans are endowed with, that all people are endowed with, and the certainly included in the most basic level, a right not to be treated adversely because of the color of our skin, the right to be free, the right to worship god according to our conscience. i am open to the developing of human rights and we have seen this in discourse as we get into the 20th century. the right to go well beyond what are mostly negative rights as they are conceived of in the american founding and perhaps they should include positive rights as well. a right to an education for example. the government might have some obligation to make sure that we are able to obtain that right. we don't just interleave people free to say ok, get an education if you want or not but the government may in fact have a firm response ability to ensure people are educated. host: mark david hall is the author of the book, "who's afraid of christian nationalism? "

it came out at the beginning of april. we appreciate your time this morning on the washington journal. guest: thank you very much. host: coming up next this morning, we will say on the topic of religion and politics and government. we will talk with rob boston. he is with the americans united for separation of church and state, a senior advisor. that conversation with you, our viewers, right after the break. ♪ >> c-span has been delivering unfiltered congressional coverage for 45 years. here is a highlight from a key moment. >> the chair would like to ask our distinct republican colleague if he would take the chair. >> i am happy to yield. >> will the gentlemen please take the chair?

[applause] >> the house will be in order. >> c-span, powered by cable. >> weekends bring you book tv, featuring leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. journalist john o'connor looks

at -- with his book, the secret history of bigfoot. then on afterwords, the book nuclear war: the chronicles of sequence events thatould follow the launch of a nuclear missile. she is interviewed by author and national security analyst josie renzi only. watch book tv every weekend on c-span2 or watch online anytime at book tv.org. -- booktv.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we continue now on the topic of religion in government and politics. a conversation with rob boston, senior advisor for americans united for separation of church and state. rob boston, a history lesson first. where in american history does this idea of separation of church and state come from? guest: a lot of people tend to

associate that metaphor, the wall of separation with thomas jefferson who did coin the phrase but the roots go back beyond that. jefferson was expressing an idea that got started during the colonial era where we did have a lot of established religions. a lot of colonies had an official church. in virginia it was the anglican church. an understanding came about that simply was not working. that type of government, mixing with religion did not allow for human freedom to flourish. founders like jefferson and james madison joined legislators like john leland and others to do something revolutionary and create, as far as the research i have done says, the first nation to divide religion and government. host: in terms of how it is woven today in government, you mentioned the letter that thomas jefferson wrote, that wall of separation letter.

speaker johnson spoke about that letter and that phrase, that wall of separation. this is how he interpreted it in an interview with nbc. he said people misunderstand, of course comes from a place that was in the letter that jefferson wrote. it is not in the constitution. what he was explaining in the tters that they did not with the vernment to encroach upon the church, not that they didn't want principles of faith to have influence on our public life. it is exactly the opposite, is what the speaker said. guest: i agree with speaker johnson on that. if you know the history of the letter, it was because they had an established church in connecticut that was not the baptist church,, baptists were living under this underhand -- heavy-handed theocracy. they wanted to get out from under that. they knew jefferson was the champion of religious freedom. he knew virginia had drafted statutes for religious freedom. he wrote to them when he was president saying that they agreed with him and the

interesting thing is jefferson is replying. he knew his answer was going to become public because that is how things got out back then. they were picked up by newspapers. newspapers where the mass media of the day. he consulted with several members of his cabinet and got their opinion. he knew was going to be a major pronouncement of his views on separation of church and state. host: january of 1802, his letter to the dan barry baptist. you can find it in many places including the library of congress website. you can read the letter in full. what do you think is the biggest threat today to this idea of separation of church and state? guest: we've always had a segment of the population that rejects the concept. they've had different names over the years. when i started this work in 1987, we called them the religious right, pat robertson and falwell. today we think about this movement by the term christian nationalism. i think this really is the

biggest threat to separation of church and state. we have seen examples of this play out in states like texas and florida where there is a lot of book banning, where lgbtq rights are being attacked, reproductive rights are being assailed. it is being hit on a lot of fronts. there are various reasons for that, but it is a movement that is empowered politically right now and his family the strongest it's been in the 36 years i've been doing this work. host: we are chatting with rob boston this morning with the americans united for separation of church and state, continuing this conversation about religion and politics and government. (202)-748-8000 for democrats to call in. (202)-748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202)-748-8002. remind viewers who barry lynn is. guest: burial and is a christian minister who ran americans united for 25 years. the roots of our organization are in religious communities.

we were founded in 1947 by a coalition of clergy. today it is very broad. you'll find our membership, christians, jews, muslims, the whole diversity of the american experience. our president and ceo now is not an ordained member of the clergy and is the first non-christian to run americans united. we represent the diversity of this great nation. host: we were talking about this issue of separation of church and state. are you religious in your personal life? guest: i am not but some of our strongest support comes from religious communities and individuals. we have a clergy network we work with, a lot of members of clergy . host:host: why do you think that is? guest: a lot of religious leaders realize that separation of church and state is good for religion in america. think about this country, a nation starting as an outpost of

great britain. those traditions, that european tradition of church and state being closely aligned. now this incredible diversity. hundreds if not thousands of different religions flourishing in america. could we have done that if we hadn't kept a distance between the church and state? i don't think so. religious leaders realize and respect that. host: what do you think of christian nationalism? guest: i'm not a fan. i'm very concerned about the rise of christian nationalism. host: how do you define it? guest: i believe it is the -- i defined it as the erroneous belief that the united states was founded to be a christian nation and that christians should have some sort of elevated or preferential treatment. i want to be clear about this. when i say christian in the context of christian nationalism , it is an expression in a type of christian unity that would exclude the majority of christians in america. it is only the most extremely conservative fundamentalist christians who would benefit

from this establishment of christian nationalism or the growth of it as a political movement in america. host: what did you think of donald trump selling make america great again bibles? guest: we are nonpartisan so we cannot comment on candidates but i will say that, that bible is a particular -- a patel your thing because it includes the text of the constitution and the declaration of independence, clearly trying to create some sort of relationship between those documents and the bible. the bible does not contain any examples of republican government, and i mean small r. the bible talks about kings, the rule of one man, because that is what was going on back in the ancient world when the bible was put together. this idea that somehow, the bible and the united states have this special relationship, that is promoted by christian

nationalists, it is simply erroneous. host: and i should correct myself, they are god bless the usa bibles. we are speaking with rob boston of americans united for separation of church and state. elise is up first come out of oregon on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: love your program. i recently moved from florida to oregon, because of the politics. i strongly believe in separation of church and state. i moved from the bible belt because not all people believe in a single faith or religion, and i respect the opinion of atheists although i am not one. we are a country that was founded on religious freedom, not religious dominance. thank you. host: mr. boston? guest: i think that is a good

point and i can understand why some folks get frustrated, especially in the state of florida where there has been a wave of book banning. they have a new ban on abortion. a relentless attack on members of the lgbtq community, especially transgender folks. it is an example under governor desantis of christian nationalism in action. host: to gail in wisconsin, independent. caller: hi. i believe churches have become political groups, because they are putting their belief on everyone else. i'm wondering why they aren't taxed. guest: the question is tax exemption. i should point out that i am not an attorney but i have looked into this issue. nothing in the constitution requires that churches be tax-exempt.

that is a tradition that came down from western culture, very common throughout the history and through the middle ages. tax exemption is extended to lots of different organizations in america. churches, charities, nonprofits. there is an understanding that if you are tax-exempt, you don't intervene in partisan politics. my organization is tax-exempt. we cannot tell you how to vote. churches fall under that same role and i think most of them do. every election year, we see a few churches that unfortunately decide to blatantly break that rule and endorse candidates. it happens on both sides. host: and what happens? guest: unfortunately nothing. the irs is empowered to revoke tax exemptions in serious cases. there has been one case in history going back to the year 2000, when a church lost tax

exemption for partisan politicking. others have been fined or warned by the irs is not very aggressive. host: what did that church do? guest: it was in new york, it stemmed back to a 1992 election. the church ran a full-page ad in several newspapers urging people not to vote for bill clinton, using bible verses. they lost their tax-exempt status, and that was upheld by the courts. there hasn't been a lot of follow-up from the irs since then. host: have you read mark david hall's book, our previous guest? did you hear some of the interview? guest: i did. host: what do you think of his thoughts on christian nationalism? guest: it is easy for conservative white christian men to tell us not to be afraid of christian nationalism. i don't advocate so much being afraid of christian nationalism as i do being aware of it and being armed to fight it. i would say the people who need

to be concerned about it are folks who want reproductive rights, members of the lgbtq community or folks who know those folks or love them or have them and their families, anyone who cares about the freedom to read and learn, people who care about the truth. it was christian nationalists spreading this line that donald trump really won the election in 2020. people who care about voting rights. a lot of christian nationalist groups are involved in voter disenfranchisement laws. people who care about what this country was founded to do should be aware of christian nationalism and fighting it actively. host: how old is this idea of christian nationalism as you define it and how many americans today do you think adhere to or would call themselves christian nationalists? guest: the idea has long roots in america and goes back to the founding and has for names. there were people who very strongly opposed the bill of rights and the first amendment and argued we should be a

christian nation. they wanted that language. we know they didn't carry the day but they argued for it and there was a powerful resurgence of christian nationalism in the post-civil war era. a lot of laws being passed that banned obscenity and books and magazines and stage plays and restricted what people could get their hands on. anti-birth control laws, as devices were available back them. very powerful movements. in the late 19th century, there was an effort by a group called the national reform association to rewrite the preamble to the u.s. constitution to include specific references to the christian faith,references. remember, our constitution is secular. it does not say anything about jesus christ or god. obviously, they did not succeed, but they had that amendment a

few times. host: kate, you are on. talking about the separation of church and state. caller: are you familiar with what happened in allen county? the washington post has been covering it, but the voters are pretty much asleep. 30% showed up and voted. the first meeting that they had in the county, they fire the person in charge of the county who had a stunning record. they were so fiscally responsible. they got rid of the dia apartment and tried to fire the health department manager because they were mad about wearing masks in the christian schools, and they are emptying the treasury because of the lawsuit and they have basically relayed this idealistic beach

county. thank you. guest: we have seen examples of things like that happening in other parts of the country. maybe you are familiar with the group moms for liberty. running amok in different parts of the country. they got -- people quickly learned what their agenda was all about. in the last -- the last election cycle, people have to be aware that these candidates exist. sometimes they run for office without being fully honest about what they intend to do. they have a social agenda in the background. people need to be paying attention. host: great conversation. religious symbols do not bother

me. freedom of worship should be in place and don restrict did, says one commenter. guest: as long as everybody has the same right to use that land, have no problem with that. the difficulty is, whenever this happens, it might be a little bit controversial. a satanic example. a religion recognized by the irs , and when christians bring nativity scenes and jewish groups -- they will ask the display, symbols of a pagan deity that they use. so some people have problems with that but it is a free country and we have to be mature enough to recognize all religious organizations, even some that you might find confusing or distasteful. caller: hello.

thank you for taking my call. i just had a question. i can understand people being a little concerned. but it seems extremists have taken over both groups. people that have an anti-church bias are more or less extremely liberal and they want to downplay the importance of faith. having said that, i think that there is a legitimate fear, a lot of people, that christian nationalists do not want to impose their beliefs but have legitimate concerns about what is happening to their children. i think they are fine with the fact that lgbtq and transgender

people should have their voice in our society, but there is a real concern, especially if the people are faith-based, that they do not want their children exposed to that. i do not know what the solution will be, but if you send your child to school and if you have fears that you do not want drag queens beating them stories -- you just do not want that. you want control over the lives of your children. what happens is that you are getting these progressives and liberal activists. they are forcing their opinion on people that do not share their beliefs. i do not know what the solution will be. guest: thank you for that. i think we are going through some challenging growing pains in this country. about 96% of americans identified as christian. now it is somewhere between 65%

to 60%. the number of people who say they are no religion has skyrocketed. embers of the lgbtq have emerged and they are out and proud. and they are asking for their place in society. there are some people who are worried about that. and i think what we need to do is understand. everyone deserves to be recognized. everyone deserves to be welcomed and embraced. that means having books there about these communities. there will be discussions about these communities. i hope we can all be mature enough to understand that what people are asking for is their place in american society.

host: i think we both wrote down the exact phrase that the color used. do you have an antichurch bias? guest: i do not think i do and i do not think we do. we have worked with a lot of groups. i think it is important that we have those beliefs out there. you have the right to embrace the faith or no faith, to blend traditions, to change your mind. thomas jefferson was once asked to explain his religious beliefs. he said something like this. i am a sect onto myself, as far as i know. he had unusual religious views. you have come to the point where we can embrace all of that. we just have to find a way to live together. these are deeply held beliefs.

sunday morning, saturday morning, whenever you want to go worship, let them have at a. what concerns me is when people come in and say, i believe very strongly that my belief -- my religious beliefs are true and you are not following them. that is completely at odds of the separation of church and they and we will fight back. what is the most recent battle that you fought and won on that front? there have been cases that came out with the overturning of roe v. wade. on the grounds of the missouri constitution, it has very separation of church and state which is much more detailed than in the first amendment. we had preliminary rulings that allowed the arguments he made and that lawsuit was filed on behalf of the just leaders.

rob is with us for the next 20 minutes on the washington journal, taking your phone calls. juanita in the palmetto state. good morning and thank you for taking my call. i am a longtime christian who believes in the separation of church and state. what happens when the state or when religion tries to inflict its view on the state? look how many people have left the church or left organized religion because they did not see donald trump as the candidate that the christian evangelists pretrade him to be. christian evangelism does not usually influence positive --

politics positively. politics damages the reputation. i may offer probably a misquote, because you have silenced a man does not mean you have converted him. because you have coerced a man does not mean that you want him around either. i think that religion should be a very personal thing. i think that we need more of it in our country, but i do not think that we need to have religion enforced on us. i think it is still and has always been a matter between god and the person's choice. thank you for taking my call. guest: the color -- caller raises an interesting point.

we also recently with the coronation of the new king and the pageantry of the church playing their role. if you look at the demographics and the number of people attending services, it is very low. i think that is because the church has become -- it does with the state says. nomination of church and state can go one of two ways. it can become a nightmarish theocracy or it can become this experience where the church becomes the pet of the state. host: carrie, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i am a pro-life democrat. i am with the organization

democrats for life. i am also a biblical christian. where i see this going is down, down, deeper into the abyss where there is number reality anymore. anything that is considered immorality is considered moral, and there is no stopping it. i do not believe the founding fathers would have approved of any of this, abortion at will, where black women in particular -- i am one, but they use birth control -- they use abortion as birth control. and they are at the top of killing unborn babies. it is a bloodbath. it is just trivial. it is being trivialized.

it is being trivialized, even -- that is why people are out there shooting people in mass murders. because what is life? i believe having a moral and a christian perspective would help our nation, our children. we do not want -- our public schools now have trained the teachers to push this immoral agenda, which there is no -- guest: one [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024] of the challenges when people say [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024] one of the challenges with people say we want a christian perspective. the christian perspective in government is that christ said

repeatedly again take care of the least among you. take care of the poor and those in need. that is the central message. then there are christians who will say, no, it is about attacking abortion, being against lgbtq right. now, we cannot have the government get into a contest or situation where it will decide we will advocate one christian view over another. the answer is neutrality. the government should be neutral in these matters and let the people decide for them selves what, if anything they want to do about faith. host: did you have faith growing up? guest: yes. i was raised in a catholic family. [speaking foreign language] pres. biden: [speaking foreign language] and [speaking foreign language] [speaking foreign language] we had --

i had eight years of catholic school. we were monitored very closely. to me, being forced to pray on command, i found that very offputting. i would have preferred a system that i experience in public education right he prayed right you saw fit. the second thing that brought me to this work was my reading of history. my major was journalism in college. it is clear to me from the reading that any combination, whether it is christianity, buddhism, whatever it might be, that is always a human freedom. host: did your siblings find it as offputting as you did? guest: i sometimes think of my

family as encapsulating the human -- the american experience because now as adults, we are in different places religiously. it is fascinating. some of them approve of my work and some of them denied. host: republican, good morning. you are next. >> i wanted -- caller: i wanted to comment on banning books. what is happening is there is graphic pornography that is being pushed in elementary schools. this is totally not appropriate for that age group. that is what moms for liberty is trying to do is to not allow these books that have graphic pornography and a lot of times gay pornography in these schools. parents go to the school board

meetings and made from these books, and they shut down the meeting because they said it was inappropriate language. you cannot read that in public. if you cannot read it in public, how should children be reading it in their public school library? nobody is banning books. anybody can buy a book many of these books. any parent can read them. they are more than welcome. it is not banning it. it is not age-appropriate. if we have an r-rated movie and you cannot see it because it is not appropriate for your age, do we say that movie is bandy? of course not. host: do you think that book should be available in a public library for anybody to check out? caller: a public library? sure. not for elementary aged children. guest: children in public

elementary schools are not reading graphic pornography. that is not happening. what may be happening is that in parts of the country, there are books available for children that talk about lgbtq communities. there are a number of children's books that have come along in recent years that deal with those types of teams, but the fact that they encourage tolerance of lgbtq+ community does not make it pornographic. one of the concerns i have right now that americans are being misled about what has happened and claimed that there is pornography in schools. that is not happening. host: new orleans, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. with the rise in the conversation regarding the u.s. being declared a christian nation, how is that going to lead to the declaration that

sunday become the official day of worship in the u.s.? there are other christian denominations that do not worship on sunday. there are other religions that do not worship on sunday. so what is the concern or is there a concern about sunday being declared the official day of worship? guest: sunday -- i have done research on that. there was a supreme court ruling from the early 1960's in the state of maryland that upheld the idea of sunday. it used to be a lot of things were shut down. culture has evolved to the point where you find that a lot of shops are open on a sunday, but in the 19's and 1960's, things were closed or you could have certain shops open and not others. it was a bizarre patchwork of

things. i do understand that there are people who are concerned about that who come from faith and do not recognize the sunday as a sabbath. but the supreme court has never taken this seriously one way or another. now we have gotten to the point where the idea that sunday would be officially proclaimed a day of worship is remote. host: do you think that chick-fil-a should the open on sundays? guest: i think they should decide what is best for them. host: donald in ohio. caller: when i went to school, we had lunch prayer and then we said the pledge of allegiance. the kids, because of the way they taught us, even though they did not push anybody else into religion, nobody was bringing their guns to school because they were being taught better.

the other thing, the religion and stuff in the bible, they built coliseum's with people getting eaten by lions and then they came up with the guillotine to cut their heads off. as far as the bible is concerned , our country was founded on that and has been running good. to get rid of all the religion and it will go bad, from what i said was happening before that. it is already starting because of the way it is going with the kids. guest: we are not trying to get rid of the religion. we are trying to prevent the government from advocating one version of faith over another. one thing the caller talked about. 1962 and 1963 when the supreme court handed down the ruling

that stops state governments from advocating prayer. it did not stop voluntary prayer. i stopped the state from enforcing it. some people did not have an issue with it. i talked to a lot of people who are on the underside. they were ostracized and sometimes subject to violence because they did not take part. host: what do you think about prayer in congress? guest: we have taxpayer-funded chaplains. i think that is a clear violation. unfortunately, the supreme court has not seen fit to take the issue seriously. there have been challenges over the years. they have not gone far. chaplains are appropriate in certain situations like in the military, far from home. in the hospital, you are are there and cannot get out. prisons and situations where people cannot go to their own church. congress?

there are a lot of houses in word -- of worship in d.c. that would be happy to serve their needs. host: kids in school, being ostracized to do not want to participate in prayer, is that the argument you're making for congress? guest: no. they are adults. they can deal with that. the concern is that taxpayer money is funding the chaplains. it creates this idea that there is a generalized religious experience that we have in this nation. a lot of people say that is a harmless artifact of what people call religion. you have dollar bills in your wallet that have, in god we trust on them. under god, the pledge of allegiance, back -- going back to the 1950's. so you have these things. they say they are harmless forms of endorsed religion by the state.

i do not see it that way. i think in a perfect world, the government would be absolutely neutral, even to the existence of god. that may shock some people, but it does not impact anybody's ability to worship and get involved with religion. you can still do what you want. host: republican, good morning. caller: good morning. great program. i just made a comment and i was saying that we as a nation are founded are religious principles and we need to be careful with putting church and state together. the history of people fleeing europe. we need to be very careful as a nation that we do not repeat that. this is the free world and we have to fight to maintain that for everyone.

there is a text that says render to caesar the things that are caesar's. a clear delineation between church and state. host: remember to turn down your tv when you're waiting on the phones. i have heard -- guest: i have heard that passage in the bible many times, but we should not have the separation of church and state because it is in the bible but because it is in the constitution. one thing i will say, she talked about founding principles and so on. they only established it for themselves. it was a heavy set of laws that required them to believe certain

ways about religion. it became apparent that it would not work for us as a nation. we have had our experiences with theocracy. host: any thoughts -- here it is again. we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. among these is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. guest: the original draft did not have as many -- think about that language. the creator. the deistic language grades in our years today. they believe in a god that set the universe in motion and then stepped back from it.

when we hear founders use phrases like creator or supreme architect and other phrases, but not christian. they are theistic. it has fallen out of favor today. host: just a couple minutes left in new hampshire. caller: good morning. i want to ask him about the pronunciation of non. if one way, it is associated with the catholic religion and the other is no organized religion. i do not think it means that they do not have a religious belief. it just is not part of an organized religion. can you pronounce non?

it is just my english background. guest: we are talking about nones. this does not mean that they are for atheism or away from religion, they have just stepped away from religion, for whatever reason. host: the line for democrats. good morning. caller: thank you. i will make this quick. there are a lot of things i would like to say, but i will repeat a story. host: sounds like he had a story for us. i will give you one more try, dennis. we can see if we can get that call back. still a minute or so left before we go.

dairyland was the previous head of the organization. if they ask what he is doing. guest: he has moved to massachusetts to be closer to grandchildren that he has, and i hear from him frequently. he led us for 25 years and was a strong leader. host: we appreciated him coming onto c-span and taking the calls. i think we might be trying to get dennis back on this -- on the phone to hear his story, and we have time to do it. as we are waiting, you talked about one of your case is you are involved in. what is another one? guest: we were looking at religiously associated institutions. it may seem like a no-brainer, but sometimes universities

receive a significant amount of support. there is a lot of that going on that may not be something that people are aware of but they are conditioned to say to see if we can extend those to religious institutions as well. host: we did get dennis back. go ahead. let's make it happen this time. caller: can you hear me this time? i'm going to tell you a story from a county judge who was republican. this was his favorite story about religion, and prayers in school. when he was going to school in the jersey shore school district, he was catholic. he had to say protestant prayer every morning. there was a jewish student in the class and that kid took

every time it was his turn to say a prayer. when you have religion in school and it is forced down people's throats, that is what happens. guest: that is a good point. the first people to protest sponsored prayers in two. there were not atheists or non-christians. they were roman catholic. in the school systems, they were heavily protestant and were forced to pray. host: you can find them online, on twitter. appreciate your time. coming up next and in our final 25 minutes or so this morning, it is our open forum. in the political issue. if you want to continue this

discussion, you can. the phone numbers are on your screen. we will get to your call right after the break. >> is celebrating the 20th anniversary of our studentcam documentary contest. c-span asked students across the country to look forward while considering the past. given the option to look into the future or 20 years into the past. in response we received this inspiring documentary from students. the top prize goes to nate coleman and --, their compelling documentary navigating past and future conflicts with iran. >> the last must make more policy that places heavy

restriction on all americans traveling to iran. not only -- the u.s. will no longer have to participate in considerable negotiations with iran. >> make sure to watch the top winning documentaries every day this month or anytime online at studentcam.org. >> this week is the opening of the ieachment trial of alejandra mae arcus. only the second member to be important -- impeached by the house. mark green delivers two articles of impeachment to the senate, refusing to comply with immigration laws. the senate will be sworn in as jurors. mcconnell says the chamber is expected to vote on whether to dismiss or kill the charges.

live coverage on wednesday on c-span two, on c-span now our free app and online at c-span.org. >> hosting a state dinner to honor the japanese prime minister. watch guest arrivals beginning at 5:30 eastern. or c-span now, our free mobile video app and later, we will feature highlights from the evening, including the white house arrival and toast given at the dinner. watch wednesday on the c-span network. >> washington journal continues. host: our program will end at 10:00 a.m. eastern.

you can lead the conversation this morning. democrats can call (202) 748-8000. republicans can call (202) 748-8001. independents can call (202) 748-8002. this is thomas, democrat. caller: good morning. my name is tom. i am calling because i am in favor of more medicaid funding for the clubhouse program, not only in minnesota, but the rest of the states that do not have clubhouse funding. host: what is the clubhouse program? caller: it is a model of reaching out to people with mental illness. it is a work sponsored or work ordered day comes you are not just dropping into a drop in center. it is where you connect yourself with jobs and with staff that

help you develop skills for jobs. host: how did you come to know this program? caller: i am a member in minneapolis and we are opening a new one in st. paul. host: this would be part of clubhouse international or that program? caller: it is accredited through the fountain house, which is the first clubhouse. we have a morning meeting at 9:00 and then we divided into three groups like culinary, wellness and track, and we work on different things like reaching out to the members that we have not seen in a while or deciding what we are going to do as far as capital, helping the policy manager talk to our

representatives and senators. host: one of the phrases i saw online on your website, employment programs prevent isolation. explain that. caller: if you are at home, you are at home, you are looking at four walls most of the day, if you're not working. this gets you out into the community. it gets you productive lives. it gets your feet on the ground so that you can start working part-time. some people are working full-time. it is a wonderful program. host: luis is next out of colorado. republican. caller: good morning. number one issue has to be the hostages. hostages first. number two, washington, dc is the problem. we elect these people and they

do not fulfill their campaign promises. and i have to tell you that c-span is unfortunately -- you have been corrupted by the same swamp as everybody else. election issues, the border -- it is a disaster. joe biden has not improved anybody's life, that i can. one of the run-of-the-mill sixpack is suffering and everything boils down to energy, really. if we can get the price of energy down, congress will open up, food prices will come down. host: you talked about c-span specifically. how can we do our job better to provide america a front row seat on what is happening in

government? how can we do our job better in providing this forum to let people talk about the issues of the day? what would you suggest? caller: i think you do a lot of things well and i do not watch all day long, so i watch from 5:00 to 8:00 or 5:00 to 7:00 in the morning. this morning, i appreciated the two guests that you had on. i wish you had them on at the same time. the give and take of opposing opinions, i would like to see more of that, more shared time, equal time at the same time type shows. i really appreciated -- i appreciated the free to choose series. host: american history tv on

saturdays played all 10 episodes of free to choose, that milton friedman series. we certainly try to book guests to talk together. the tricky thing as a host is to still bring in the viewer calls and if you are voices. sometimes they get so caught up talking to each other and wanting to jump back and on each other that it is hard to get your call in. sometimes it is easier to have each individual talk to the viewers and allow the viewers to debate with them as they will, but we certainly do try to get congress members to come on together. i appreciate that. anymore suggestions? caller: that is a fair point. they do filibuster each other. and the colors do not get an opportunity. host: for us, the colors are the most important thing caller:.

i appreciate you taking my call and giving me the opportunity to express my opinion. host: this is bob out of chesterfield virginia. good morning. caller: i do not understand. some of these people, there is hard right and hard left. i am an independent and i was hoping that there will be a decent conservative choice on the election, but it does not seem like it. in trump, him and jimmy netanyahu made a tact -- made a pact. they want to level gaza and rebuild it for the rich. he ignored the attack that happened. host: where did you find that information? caller: you look on the web and you will find it. benjamin netanyahu was warned

about a pending attack and he ignored it. because he wanted to do the political thing and run the war. host: all right. that is bob. richard is in south carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. i listened to the conversation yesterday about the student loan program. the only two comments i really have is that i do not think public policy of the u.s. is addressing education. coming from a direction where it says, if this country is interested in a well-educated population, they ought to make public institutions, community colleges and state colleges free. they used to do that in call of -- california. i think they used to do it in new york city. i think in canada, students go

to their four-year institutions for free. i might be wrong, but i think i am right. it seems to me that if public policy says if we want a highly educated population, they should make it free. host: are we talking to years of community college? are we talking about going to law school? caller: the four years, i think. as far as didn't loan program goes, i think the real winners of that of lending institutions and the colleges. they are benefiting tremendously by raising tuition and they know people will go there because they are getting student aid and i think lending institutions and

the college institutions are -- host: did you go to college? caller: host: i did. host:what year did you go to college? caller: 1972. i benefited from the g.i. program. basically, my four years were paid for free. the tuition was only -- in new york, i think was only about 500 to $700 tuition per semester. i could be wrong. host: where did you go? caller: university of binghamton. host: thank you. republican, good morning. caller: good morning. what i want to say is that man who was there, i am really offended.

these books, nasty books are not being read in schools? they absolutely are. host: what is an example of a book that is being read in school? caller: pardon me? host: what is an example of a book that is being read in school? caller: one of them is gender queer. there are several of them that i have seen on programs where the parents are up there trying to read the books and the school lord will not let them read them out loud. they cannot say that this is not happening. they cannot say that because it absolutely is, or it would not be on the news, saying it. host: new york, independent.

good morning. caller: good morning. i am referring to the boston segment. it was $600 a semester. host: when you classmates with the previous caller? caller: i do not know. in regard, whenever there is a country that does not allow freedom of religion or enforces religion, it is always -- the country is harmful to its citizens like iran. the way that they enforce their laws and the islamic states.

in china they do not allow certain religions. and then in russia, we try to do some sort of religion. and also in israel, they call that a jewish state. i think if they had less religion in government, they would have less problems in their country. host: how do you think we are doing in this country? caller: we have freedom of religion here and it is great. as mr. boston was saying, it is not a wise thing to do.

i like the distinction. he said that his deist. it does not have anything to do with any particular religion. i like the distinction made their. caller: good morning. i have several things i would like to talk about really quick. i do not know why they do not turn around and sue donald trump for everything he has. he is slamming him and he has the freedom to speech just like anybody else has. trump ruined that boy's career and cost thousands of dollars probably. one other thing, over in europe,

they figured out they did not have enough bullets to kill everyone, so they decided to starve the people to death. now, this thing over there is just like the massacre. they are just killing everyone they get their hands on. i will get off. thank you. host: this is bill in wichita, kansas. good morning. caller: back to the religion thing, i personally keep most of my pretty tight around me and my family. there is obviously something going wrong. here is what i'm thinking. what we have to lose when a 10-year-old child shows up to school and shoots his teacher in the face with a handgun? there is something morally wrong

with that child and the home that he came from. i'm not trying to say we need to indoctrinate freedom of alert -- religion of somebody, but what would be wrong to have a nice german when you take a family like that and teach them the christian way of life? host: what you mean when you say you keep your religion tight between you and your family? caller: i do not allow and publicly display my religion or go to events, whether they are in a city building, private or whatever. i think my religion is my belief. i tried to keep it myself. i'm just a normal, midwestern christian guy that is 69 years old. despite what these kids and the morals that we see -- it has to

stop. we have to do something. what we have been doing the last 60 years with the kids in the violence that we are seeing nowadays, there are 8, 9, 10 year-old kids. people need to wake up. host: we spent about 45 minutes earlier today talking about christian nationalism. what do you think of the term christian nationalism? caller: i watched him and i like him. i do not agree with everything that he says, but i do not have a problem with that at all. not really. host: anything else that you want to add? caller: pardon me? host: go ahead and finish your comment. caller: they are not bothering me, just like i am not bothering them. let's focus on the kids.

host: this is crag in brunswick, ohio. independent. go ahead. caller: how are you doing, sir? host: doing well. caller: i do not vote for either party. our government is crooked. they all like to blaine trump. and he has done nothing wrong. all of their little lies that they like, the propaganda -- it is a lie. host: are you going to vote for donald trump in 2024? caller: i am not voting for anybody. i'm voting for keeping america america? host: how does what -- host: how does one do that?

caller: i have not celebrated my birthday on 9/11 since 9/11? that happened, we were downtown, telling cars away from the building, in case they blew up. the police officer told me on if a car blows up, it was nice knowing you. i was that, would you have it any other way? i watch all these political shows. this is the most i have been into politics. they are so corrupt. any political show that you watch, trump, trump, trump. he is a double and a dictator. why is nothing done about biden? host: coming back to your opening statement. who are you going to vote for in 2024? caller: i do not vote. because that means you have to then do jury duty.

i have never voted. last time i voted was for crooked clinton. he said he was going to make marijuana legal. host: have you ever done jury duty? caller: no. host: but you know that you do not like it? caller: i am not wasting my time. i have two -- to work. host: you know you cannot lose your job when you are on a jury. caller: you say that, but my job was on a turnpike, and you cannot take off work when you are a tow truck driver on the turnpike. it does not work that way. host: you still drive the tow truck? caller: i did for 40 years until i got hit by an illegal migrant. lost my life and everything i owned. now i live in a suburb of

cleveland. they raised the rent my apartment, $900 a month. when trump was president, rent was cheap and gas was cheap. but everybody's like, trump is a devil and a dictator. it does not make any sense. host: crag in ohio. this is randy in oklahoma. caller: great show. i listen to you every morning. the guy earlier, you asked what you guys could do to improve the show. i would say balance would be one thing. january 6, your morning show effort -- the trump impeachment -- they were covered thoroughly. you could not hear it on c-span. now, joe biden has an impeachment trial going on and

it is never talked about. host: we have done segments on the impeachment vote. i guarantee you, you will be able to see it on c-span. caller: i know. i'm not trying to be disrespectful, but that is what you guys always do. you spend 100 hours covering trump and then you spend 15 minutes or 30 minutes covering biden. and the people that come onto cover biden are covering for biden. air sympathetic to joe biden. i get it. i am a trump guy. i am the jetted -- i love my country and i went to make america great again. and when it was great, well, i would say it was great that we freed the slaves.

and i think it was great when black people finally started getting treated more equally. and i find it disgusting when they are not. whenever -- i do not know. it sounds terrible. it gets so twisted these days, but i find a sense of pride when i see them successful, that they have overcome. i want everybody to succeed. host: alright. that is randy. this is karen. caller: side. i have a really bad cold. but i know all about the situation.

here, we just had a recent school board election, but we had a gentleman who was for books with this graphic sex and it, and it was there. and there were a lot of books. he put the page on them and everything. and they are terrible books. and he wants to send that she wants to set up something where elementary school aged -- if they get a book like that, books that they check out have to be recorded and somehow, the parents are notified and the parents get permission on whether they can check out that book or not. i want to give a shout out to because he is a great person. host: last call is aaron from maryland, independent. go ahead. i would like to push back on the

premise that the foundation of america is christianity -- caller: i would like to push back on the premise that the foundation of america is christianity. it is blood, bullets, bombs and guns. if you want to build the foundation on that bedrock, you have to agree that there are two forms of christianity. not just these terms. one national anthem is onward christian soldiers, marching as to war, with the cross of jesus, going on before. on the other side of the break and, their national anthems are either amazing grace or we shall overcome. i guess i have to ask you, which jesus was your choir singing in? one final point, i think there

should be legislation making no children under the age of 18. it grooves them for bestiality. host: we will be vacuous tomorrow at 7:00 eastern. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

starts now -- "washington journal" starts now. ♪ host: good morning. it