them through an open door between his office and if there's. >> you will also hear blunt talk. >> i want a report of the number of people that signed -- the day he died. if i cannot ever go to the bathroom i won't go. i promise you i won't go anywhere. i will stay right behind these black gates. >> funding onto the c-span and app or wherever you get your podcasts. host: for the next hour we will talk about the issue of religious liberty, particularly as it stems from cases heard by the supreme court. two guests running as for this conversation get daniel suhr is with the liberty justice center. he serves as their attorney. >> it is a nonprofit law firm. we are not a religious liberty law firm. but the two cases we are going to discuss today have important implications not just for people of faith, but all americans because they go to the heart of the first amendment. in one of the cases they go to the power of parents to make choices in education. in the other, i think it really affects the first amendment for everybody. host: rebecca markert is with the freedom from religion foundation. a little bit about your organization in the position you take on these things. >> the freedom from religion foundation is a national nonprofit organization based in madison, wisconsin. we have over 35,000 numbers -- members across the country, and we work to defend the constitutional principle of separation between state and church, and to represent the rights and views of nonbelievers. host: let's start with you. we heard several cases at the supreme court, religious freedom being the center of them. if you look at those cases collectively, how would you assess where the court is when it comes to issues of religious liberty? >> i think what we are seeing with this court in particular is that they are hell-bent on giving religious privilege to a certain denomination and not others. what we saw this last week was an enormous loss of religious liberty rights for individual taxpayers and young public schoolchildren who did not adhere to the majority faith. the court is really strengthening the free exercise clause to the detriment of the establishment clause. when those clauses actually work together to keep and protect religious freedom rights for all, those of religious faith, minority faiths, and of no faith. host: same question to you. >> i think this supreme court is the most protective of religious liberty we perhaps have ever seen. i actually would disagree with the characterization about minority faiths. in fact, the, because brief in the carson case talks about the number of non-christian schools that are available for children to choose if parents have choice in education. many times, the public school is forcing majoritarian values on students who might disagree or their families, and that school choice offers the opportunity for students of minority faiths or viewpoints to go to a school that actually shares their values, so school choice ends up empowering parents, including those in minority faiths, with greater choices that actually reflect their values. host: for those who were not following closely, encapsulate what that case was about. >> the state of maine has a program that allows rural school children access to public funds to attend schools because in some small rural communities, there are not enough students to sustain a public school. so the state of maine gives you a voucher that you can take to a private school, an independent school for your education. but maine limited it only to secular schools. if you were a religious school active in your religious faith, you could not qualify for the program. what the supreme court this week said is that the state of maine could not discriminate against, could not exclude actively religious schools from participating in this otherwise open program. host: what about that idea of limiting who can get these vouchers or who can't? >> in the narrative of that case, what has been lost is a right that was really at issue in the case was the right of the taxpayers to be free from government compelled tithing. what happened in that case was the supreme court is not obligating taxpayers of all faiths and of no faith to fund religious education for beliefs they may not adhere to or agree to, even if those schools indoctrinate their students into a particular radical form of christianity, and if they discriminate against lgbtq teachers and students, and that turns our constitutional principles on his head. we have never allowed to text -- taxpayers never forced , taxpayers to fund religious education or religious worship, and that is what the court decided last week. host: was it a limiting factor in the case of maine's voucher system, or where their implications in how it applies to other schools and how they apply vouchers? >> is a very broad ruling and it will have import in many of these schemes across the country. it is also going to incentivize states around the country to initiate these types of programs that are really going to divest public money from our public schools and diverge them into these religious education systems. >> i think three things are important to remember. first of all, we had a number of other programs where the government already funds private, nonprofit, including faith-based organizations. think of catholic services providing homeless shelters. the government already does this all the time. number two, all these up in court is saying is if maine offers this program, it cannot discriminate against faith-based institutions. maine does not have to educate its kids this way. it can choose to only have public schools. but if maine is going to offer this program, it cannot exclude religious schools. third and most importantly, the only way public funds reach a faith-based school is if a parent makes an independent choice that they believe that school is the best educational setting for their child. this is not about funneling public funds into private schools. this is about parents making this choice and the state not discriminating against people of faith. host: our two guests are going to be with us until 9:00 if you have questions. if you want to call us, you can do so on the lines. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. text those questions if you wish to (202) 748-8003. let me ask you both about the larger impact of these cases before we go back into specifics, the establishment clause, and what these said about how the justices look at that clause and apply it in these decisions. what do you think these cases say about the establishment clause overall? >> in kennedy, the second case we will talk about, the court is returning us to the history and tradition of how we approached the first amendment's establishment clause. over the last 70 years, the court has sort of lost its way and gone down a number of rabbit holes that weren't rooted in the text, history and tradition of our country and the text of the calls. -- clause. finally we are seeing the court returning to asking that question what is the text of the first amendment, how the framers of the first amendment understood it, and how should the history and tradition of our country inform its application today. host: ms. markert, same question. >> this particular court is not a fan of the establishment clause. they are not a fan of the separation of church and state, and they really want to elevate religious liberty's interest of the few. in our office we like to say that the motto seems to be religious liberty for me and not for thee. the establishment clause exists to protect true religious freedoms. religious freedom rights are not absolute. the establishment clause exists to protect young schoolchildren like in the kennedy case who do not adhere to the christian faith and to protect them from abuse of power by adults who want to indoctrinate those children. the courts have always jealously guarded the students in these public school contexts because of the nature of the public school system. the children are required to be there. they are young and impressionable, and they are really at a position where they are ripe for abuse by these adults who want to impose their personal religious views on these children. those rights actually belong to the parents, like mr. suhr said. the parents have the right to decide what the religious upbringing of their children are, and we have always agreed that the state should not impose religion upon citizens. the establishment clause exists to protect us from that imposition. host: in the case of coach kennedy, which you brought up, you encapsulated it. was this more about coach kennedy going to the 50 yard line and praying, and your opinion, as far as the way the justices interpreted this opinion? >> i really think that the religious liberty rights of the public school children and their families were lost because the narrative around that case focused so much on the coach. coach kennedy accepted the job at a public school, and when he did that, he agreed to assume certain responsibilities, and one of those things was to protect those children from undue influences. as his job required, he was appropriately restricted from praying in front of students and compelling those students to join him, whether directly or indirectly. so really, what was really lost in this case was the religious liberty rights of the students. there were players on that team who came out and said i went along with it because i wanted to play. that is a real problem. there was at least one atheist player on that football team who said i prayed because i wanted to play. >> in coach kennedy's case, i think the court says correctly teachers are role models. we want teachers to be inspirations and role models for the students. but they are also people who have institutional constitutional rights. and in this case, coach kennedy was praying and some students voluntarily chose to join him. i think it is that voluntariness that separates this from previous cases where the entire gathering was incorporated into a prayer, for instance, praying over the public address system at the beginning of a football game. look at a different analogy. think about a teacher who might be picketing outside of a school because that teacher is participating in a union protest. a student might peel pressure to support that teacher to get a better grade, to get more playing time, and might feel pressure to go to a rally supporting the union in their protest, but that does not mean the teacher loses her first amendment right to participate in that union activity. teachers are going to be active in their community. they are going to go to church. students are going to see them in the community. that does not create undue pressure unless it loses that element of voluntariness which separates this case from the previous cases. host: daniel suhr and rebecca markert joining us. our first call is from woodstock, georgia, republican line. we will hear from susan. go ahead with your and or comment. caller: yes, i would like to speak to the lady that is on there. host: yes, they are both on, but go ahead. caller: i went to a catholic school for eight years. i am 70 years old. i was pummeled by the nuns, and i had really a bad taste in my mouth for that. i just want to know, is my taxpayer money funding catholic schools? is my taxpayer money going for those schools? >> according to the supreme court from the decision, it could eventually go to those public schools if your state is one that has a voucher program or one of these school choice programs. yes, if they are providing funding for these tuition assistance programs, the court decided last week that they must also provide that funding to institutions like you mentioned that may not only discriminate against lgbtq friends, but also abuse children. host: mr. suhr, care to comment? >> your funds already support low income scholarships called pell grants. we have a program nationwide that allows low income students access to public funds to go to independent and nonprofit colleges and universities, including religious colleges and universities, and we have accepted that as a country for decades. in fact, pell grants are one of the most widely appreciated and supported scholarship programs that the federal government offers, and yet we have never heard constitutional objections. the supreme court has never ruled on pell grant's, and there is no constitutional principle by which we would distinguish pell grants in higher education from scholarship programs that affect k-12. it is all the same principle, that whether it is a student or a parent on behalf of a student, because there is that independent choice about what school is best, that scholarship can go to an independent school, including a faith-based school, without violating the first amendment. host: in oregon, scott is next. caller: hi, thank you to c-span, first of all. i have experience as a teacher. i am 55. i'm an atheist. i'm disappointed with the recent supreme court ruling. my understanding is it started out innocent. i have no problem with people praying in schools before a test and all of that, if a kid wants to pray. i thank that is great, and more power to them. but i am opposed to a teacher organizing a prayer kind of thing because it is indoctrination. it is making these kids believe in whatever they are preaching. the guy on the football field, i think it started out innocent. he just did his thing. i'm cool with that. but if it gets to a point where students feel obligated to join in, that is too much. so it is a fine line. host: thanks for the call. mr. suhr, you start. >> thank you for calling in. i think the supreme court has drawn that line for us, and it is the point of voluntary participation. the court has two cases from the last few years dealing with similar but different situations. the first was a high school graduation where the high intended -- high school intended to have a rabbi offer a relatively generic invocation before the graduation. because everybody at that graduation ceremony was going to be incorporated into that prayer and because students would feel pressure to stand respectfully and participate in that prayer, the court said it was unacceptable. a few years later the court considered a case similarly where there was a prayer before a high school football game that was broadcast over the public address system, and again the courts had because it incorporates everybody in the prayer using the pa system, that is unconstitutional. but there is a difference in this case, the court said, because coach kennedy is doing it on his own in his private time in his private prayer, and if students voluntarily choose to join him, that is the court respecting coach kennedy's free exercise right and the choice of students to participate. host: rebecca markert. >> that last line that this was a private and personal prayer is a false narrative that has been spun in this case since the beginning. it is a lie. the prayers were not private and personal. they were at the 50 yard line after the game. he invited not only the students to join him, the opposing team to join him. he also invited the media to come and see the spectacle that he was putting on at the 50 yard line. he also invited the state legislators. the other fact that is missing from this narrative is that prior to this litigation, he had also been having locker room prayer, which he did dismiss. the voluntariness aspect of this case is not truly voluntariness. as courts have said, in these situations when you're dealing with a secondary public high school, there is immense pressure to go along with what is going on, especially if it is by your teacher, your coach, or your high school principal or superintendent. there is immense pressure to go along to play along. now, you are never going to find out how truly voluntary their participation was because of the context of being on that public school football team. coach kennedy decides when they play, how they play, and is going to be the one helping them cultivate their skills so that they can be eligible for scholarships. they have an immense coercive amount of pressure on these students and authority over these students, so of course students said they felt what -- like they needed to go along. host: again, our guests are with us until 9:00 on these topics. jim in florida, boca raton, your next up. caller: yes, this question is to ms. markert. i find it very disingenuous of her to assert that all public education should be free of religious connotations. first of all, i live in florida. our governor, who is just an incredible leader and is going to be reelected and probably be our next president as well, has intervened to stop the secular humanists from indoctrinating children in the secular humanist pro-homosexual agenda. that is a religion. she has no objection to that whatsoever. it seems to me rather disingenuous for her to assert that a prayer offered by a high school coach is somehow threatening her freedoms or the freedoms of the students. host: thank you. go ahead. >> well, i do not know of any of these institutions that are teaching secular humanism. there are no atheist public schools or anything like that. a school that is neutral towards religion does not automatically equal being a school that is promoting atheism or secular humanism. schools that provide secular education are doing just that. host: from the majority opinion, you probably read it for yourself, but in part, justice gorsuch wrote "excursion of religion is essential, whether they take place on a field or manifest in a spoken word or bowed head. government entities sought to punish an individual from exercising religious expression." it goes on from there. the way that the justice wrote to this and the implications, what are you getting from that? >> really, they are turning all of our constitutional principles on their heads. again, coach kennedy is a public school employee. when he is acting in that capacity as a public school employee, he is not allowed traditionally under our laws to impose his personal religious preferences upon the students. he was at the 50 yard line at the end of the game when his duties had not yet ended. this was not a time for private and personal prayer. he still had obligations to the students, to the players. his job was not done. he certainly has that ability if he is truly on his own time, but he wasn't in this instance. again, i go back to the fact that what was really lost here is the religious liberty interests of the students, the young children who we have always protected from these types of religious indoctrinations. >> jim, you are absolute right. teachers should not be imposing religious views, but should also not be imposing a political agenda. i think that brings us back to carson and why it is so important that we empower parents with choices in education. for some parents who feel at their local public school is pushing a political agenda on their children, they should have another option. they should be able to go to a school that provides an excellent education or that reflects their values. in many states that is not possible unless you are wealthy. if you are wealthy you can afford to send your child to a nonpublic school, but if you are on the lower end of the income spectrum, you are stuck with your local public school, and it is only through school choice that parents have options, especially low income parents, have the opportunity to find a school that is going to serve their students well, reflect their values, whether those values are faith-based or political or cultural or whatever it is. host: here's part of justice sotomayor's dissent. "the court leads us to a place where the separa