(00:00:06) Today's Studio guest is Matthew Stark executive director of the Minnesota civil liberties union. He has been associated with MCL you for the past 25 years serving as executive director for 10 years. His background is in education. He's a former dean of students at Morehead State University and did quite a bit of counseling some years ago at the University of Minnesota as well. His Doctorate is in educational Administration. Dr. Stark. Welcome pleasure to have you here fine. Thank you. The Supreme Court of the United States finished up its term not long ago and issue decisions affecting a couple of Minnesota cases one regarding the state's tax deduction law for private school tuition and other expenses and a case involving draft registration, perhaps some of you in the audience will have questions for Mass dark about those cases as the our proceeds, but I'd like to begin by asking you to talk a little bit about something we were Chatting about informally before we went on the air and that's the state of civil liberties in this country. Pretty good are pretty bad one would sort of get the feeling pretty bad based on comments that you have made over the years. (00:01:19) Well, when one is ask the question how our civil liberties today it's you have to immediately respond in comparison to what and when you think back not many years ago women weren't allowed to have the right to vote Amir 62 years ago women couldn't vote in this country about a hundred and (00:01:44) eighteen years ago black (00:01:46) people were still enslaved legally in this country more recently. We've had situations where blacks were not allowed to serve on juries in the South. There were systems preventing black people from getting registered to vote. There was Jeremy enduring of legislative districts. So they were not based on one person one vote. So that citizens in the largest cities throughout this country were effectively D enfranchised in regard to their state legislatures that the occurrences as a result of the war in Vietnam in regard to dissent and and parades demonstrations. And also the the civil rights movement of the dr. Martin Luther King opened up our society quite a bit so that on the one hand there are many many things that are wrong and bad in this country, but one should never lose perspective that we have made tremendous strides in this country over the years and we anticipated making more stripe better strides in the future in comparison with other countries of the world. Once you take care of the of the Scandinavian countries and Holland and Belgium and France and Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand Australia, you have to search far and wide to find a place where even this program would be legally allowed to be broadcast just radio show did this radio show and that the condition of civil liberties and the rights of individuals in most of the countries of the world are deplorable that we have things here. Wonderfully well in relation to government and in relation to the majority of the citizens that is minorities do people who were dissenters iconoclasts and that it's unfortunate that more energies are in spent two to liberating the rest of the world, but I think we want to never lose perspective of how good things are really in this country (00:04:01) five minutes past noon. Matthew Stark is with us. Creative director of the Minnesota civil liberties Union and if you have questions about civil liberties and would like to join our conversation by all means call us in the Minneapolis st. Paul area. The phone number is two two seven six thousand 2276 thousand in Minneapolis st. Paul in other parts of Minnesota. The toll-free number is 1-800-695-1418 hundred six hundred 529700. And if you are listening in one of the surrounding states or in Ontario, feel free to call us directly in the Twin Cities at area code 612 2276 thousand, I believe that we have a caller already on the line with the question for you. Go ahead. You're on the air (00:04:44) going from st. Louis Park wanted to ask. Mr. Stark if the civil liberties Union intends to take on the government providing more and more secrecy for the various government agencies. I see in the paper this morning the CIA. They want to pass a bill that the director Is full and total power to declare anything and everything that he wants closed on files and you have the nuclear regulatory agency reaching into the public domain and saying things that are unclassified and public area can now be reclassified Iranians me of an apocryphal story. I won't verify the truth, but the one time supposedly even the chaplains had their sermons classified. (00:05:33) Well, certainly the area of government secrecy has always been one of great concern to the American civil liberties Union and immediately after the Nixon presidency. There were laws passed to open up the government and to stop government officials from keeping from the citizens information that the citizens new needed to know in order to function intelligently as Citizens in this country most Gently under the administration of President Regan. There's been a decided change and other than a few members of the news media. Most other citizens have not been objecting to it. There's been a closing up of information from former CIA agents. There has been an effort by President Regan to get the various Departments of government to have greater Authority on determining by themselves. What information they can give out the the role of the FBI and the CIA in regard to infiltration of private organizations in the United States is increasing again again, going back to the Nixon era. The ACLU is currently lobbying on a bill before the US House of Representatives to try to ensure that the efforts of those who wish to have increased secrecy. From the citizens don't succeed. This is an area of great concern to us. (00:07:09) You have any feeling about the Minnesota Supreme Court ruling yesterday, which rather tightened up Minnesota's open meeting law saying that a majority of members of a public agency must meet before it's open not just (00:07:22) two. One of my problems is that as the spokesperson for the Minnesota civil liberties Union. I always speak EX cathedra for the board of directors and I'm not allowed the opportunity of giving my opinion on this issue and that issue and so forth the question about the some modifications on the absoluteness of the open media law is what you're raising and the courts have said as long as the number of government officials who are talking is less than a quorum of that board. It doesn't have to be an open meeting and from my information I've gotten from people in elected office. The open meeting law has served to really discourage them from communicating with each other because it got to the point where even two or three of them are 13 member of board felt that they couldn't chitchat about a particular issue. Making no decision taking no vote just communicating with each other that that anything concerning the Robbinsdale School Board couldn't be talked about by two members of the Robbinsdale School Board just in a tan on meeting at a time when there is no meeting and it may very well be that the modification that the Supreme Court the state supreme court has requested or has said that the child be have a force of law may very well be kind of getting a middle ground allowing elected officials to talk with each other, but at the other hand insisting that their meetings where they are bona fide meetings be kept open to the public. We'll have to see how it works out. I guess (00:09:09) many more listeners are on the line with questions. So we'll take our next caller. Go ahead, please. (00:09:14) Hi. I'm calling from South Minneapolis. This Supreme Court decision that you can knock off your income tax money for tuition and books and things primarily apparently has something to do with the private schools. Well, if you are a Public School parent has I am would it then be allowed if we had a fund or something for extra field trips, which is transportation or extra books, which is textbooks and we can take that off the income tax. Even if we didn't have to pay it. (00:09:48) Well, what what the the caller was referring to was the case that which the Minnesota civil liberties Union took to the United States Supreme Court concerning a law passed by the Minnesota Legislature that there shall be available to minnesotans to deduct from their state income tax an amount not to exceed $500 for Elementary School tuition or or costs or $700 for High School tuition or costs. The there are about 80 or 90 public high school students who are paying whose parents paid tuition for them to go to another Public High School District in addition to that handful of youngsters. There are some very minor costs from time to time in public schools, which the parents have to pay gym shorts tennis shoes, occasionally some pencils and paper very minor Public School parents of kids going to public school May deduct those from their state income tax the vast bulk of the savings for the deductions go to parents of kids going to non-public schools parochial schools where they can where they have large tuitions and they can deduct up to $500 for elementary school. And up to $700 for High School tuition at these private schools. The civil liberties Union argued that this the law was unconstitutional. It's a violation of The Establishment Clause of the first amendment that it had the effect of getting taxpayers to subsidize parochial schools getting the power of the state to raise money and then to allow some of that money to be diverted to subsidize the tuition of youngsters going to church schools. Unfortunately, we lost in the Supreme Court so that law continues to stay in existence and we foresee other states throughout the country passing similar what we believe to be bad legislation. (00:12:07) Of course President Reagan favors a similar scheme on the national level arguing that the people who send their kids to private schools pay taxes for the public schools and don't use them. There are four why shouldn't these parents? A bit of a financial break just in the cost of educating their kids simply as a practical matter. (00:12:27) Well what jury these the Minnesota state law is a tax deduction, right? What Reagan is proposing is a tax credit a deduction of gives a person a saving of a percentage of their income tax a credit is an absolute amount that can be saved Regan's proposal which has already been ruled by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional and then we're years ago if it were to pass again into and this bad Supreme Court that is bad on church-state issues what to say that it were constitutional that tuition tax credit plan within three years would see a diversion of public funds to parochial schools larger than the federal government has ever given to Public Schools. We're not talking about a little bit of money. We're talking about massive amounts of money going from the public treasury by people of getting tax credits. To tuition in parochial schools now President Reagan's idea as we view it is a direct assault on the Integrity of the public school system parochial schools have a right to exist and they all have the philosophy of imbuing all aspects of their curriculum with the teachings of that church. So that a parochial Roman Catholic school has an assignment from the diocese to make sure that all aspects of the Roman Catholic High School or Elementary School is imbued with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church as they have every right to do civil Libertarians say, although they may do it. The government should not be forced to subsidize it now. Some people say well parents of kids going to parochial school pay taxes for kids going to Schools and they should get some break for their own to a private school tuition and the civil liberties Union responds the following 75% of the taxpayers in this country have no children in any kind of school and those 75 percent of the taxpayers in this country are supporting a public school system as well as the parents of kids of school age. It's an assault on religious liberty to think that citizens should be forced to pay taxes. So somebody else can exercise the right of sending their kids to a church school. I don't find it acceptable. And as a matter of fact there have been a number of referendums in States throughout this country asking precisely the following question. Do you wish the state constitution to be amended to allow public funds to be used to subsidize parochial schools and in 1966? The citizens of Nebraska said no in 1967. The citizens of New York said no in 1970. The citizens of Michigan said no, there was a second referendum in Nebraska in 1970 and they again said no in 1972 the citizens of Maryland, Oregon and Idaho said no in 1974 came up again in Maryland and they said no the citizens of the state of Washington in 1975 said no in 19 1976 in Missouri and Alaska. The citizen said no, they didn't want that in 1978 again in the state of Michigan the issue came up and they said no and in 1981 the citizens in Washington DC by a 90/10 vote 90% vote said no, they didn't want public funds diverted to parochial schools. I think president Regan is making a serious error concerning the interests of the people in this country. I think the Supreme Court made. Very bad decision. We see it as an attack on our public school system and furthermore. It's going to threaten the religious liberty of parochial schools. That is whenever government money goes to a private place. There will be government controls and as more and more States get tuition deductions or if the tuition tax credit bill would have passed the federal Congress. The the government's in various States would start to provide greater supervision over non-public schools. They would start to ask questions about the certification of the teachers. They would start to know what's in the curriculum. They would want to get into issues about what kind of science is being taught. Are they teaching darwinian evolution or are they teaching creation from The Book of Genesis? And I don't think religionists want the government supervising their religious. Their youngsters but that's precisely what's going to happen as public funds are diverted to parochial schools. (00:17:28) All right, it's 18 minutes past 12:00 o'clock. We'll move on to another listener with the question format Stark. Go ahead, please you're on the air. (00:17:34) Thank you. I'm calling from st. Paul. Dr. Stark. I make reference to the tuition rather. Excuse me to the student loan decision that reversed our federal judge here in Minnesota. Now as I understand it your brief argued that under the Fifth Amendment, which says that no person shall in any criminal case be compelled to be a witness against himself that that was used as an argument to attempt to have that certification requirement removed. I fail to see how there is any compelled self-incrimination in that case because nobody forces anyone to apply for a loan, would you explain to me how you came up with that? Out please (00:18:23) yes, there are many young men who are going to college or want to go to college but are impoverished and in order to be able to go to higher education institution. They need some kind of Federal loans or grants and as a condition of getting that Grant they are told by the government to reveal whether or not they have registered for the draft and if they have registered they may feel comfortable to say it. So if they haven't registered as a condition of getting money from the government, they would have to reveal whether or not they would have to reveal that. They didn't register and admit that they have violated the law on the other hand all sorts of citizens get money from the government. There are all sorts of federal home mortgages and the government doesn't ask those people whether or not they're ready. (00:19:22) Listed (00:19:22) for the draft or whether or not they have any unpaid parking tickets or whether or not they have violated any other laws. There are all sorts of agricultural loans given to young men and women and they are never asked whether or not they have registered for the draft. There are all sorts of medical doctors who get Medicaid funding for their patients and they are never asked. Did you fill out all aspects of your income tax honestly and to set up a separate set of conditions, which are unrelated to the purpose. That is the purpose of Federal Aid is to help impoverished youngsters. Go to higher education institutions. There is no relationship between that government purpose and the separate government purpose to find out how to get people to be registered for the draft. We think it's a misuse of the legislative function. We think it's a bill of attainder. The legislature is trying to determine guilt and As people without the benefit of the court system becoming involved and we have argued for and will continue to argue against I'll just call the Solomon Amendment which requires youngsters in higher education institutions that has met young men to reveal whether or not they're registered as a condition to get a Federal Loan. (00:20:40) Now as I recall refresh my memory on this that provision is now in effect until the Supreme Court hears it and makes a ruling on it. Is that right? (00:20:48) That's right. It has been in effect for about a month now several weeks the Minnesota public interest research group and the Minnesota civil liberties Union both contesting that the Solomon amendment is unconstitutional. We got some good Federal Court decisions on this. We got to stay of the imposition of by the US Department of Education and enforcing this and then the Supreme Court said we are going to allow the law to take effect. And sometime this fall that issue will be argued by the Minnesota civil liberties Union in the US Supreme Court that we are unhappy with what the Supreme Court did but that's not unusual wear it happy with a lot of things in this world. (00:21:39) All right, we'll move along to another listener who has a question for you. Go ahead. Please (00:21:44) seems to me the occult has a fairly large foothold in Minneapolis. I've been informed confidentially more or less that dr. Stark could be reluctant personally to use the MCL you to defend the religious sites rates of people that claim to follow such religions as witchcraft or Century or Voodoo. Would you care to comment on this? (00:22:05) I don't understand your question. Could you restate it? Please II just (00:22:09) don't know. Well, I was discussing with some people and they seem to think that you would be personally reluctant to use the MCL you to defend the rights of people that follow rather strange. This is true. (00:22:24) Well first I as the executive director of the Minnesota civil liberties Union make no important decisions in the organization every case is a must be approved by our board of directors as to whom and when we defend certain civil liberties issues, one of the factors in making that determination by our board of directors never relates to the content of a particular religion. That is that that's none of our business and we don't distinguish between Colts and non Colts whatever the difference maybe and we defend people's constitutional rights and private organizations constitutional rights whether or not we personally agree and a number of years ago in Skokie, Illinois, the Illinois civil liberties Union defended the constitutional rights of the American Nazi party. Probably the most hated group in this country the a the Minnesota civil liberties Union. Agreed with that position and if we're willing to defend the rights of American Nazis, I can't believe that anybody would think there isn't anyone's rights whom we wouldn't defend. (00:23:32) How do you decide which cases to take? I mean, you mentioned that the board has to decide but (00:23:37) we have a large intake program and people who have complaints can write us at 6:28 Central Avenue Minneapolis 55414 and tell us about their problem. We are volunteers reading the incoming mail. They work with one of our legal counsels of myself and all cases are investigated and then the staff makes a recommendation to the board of directors and our board of directors debates. It argues it out and reaches a decision and then the staff goes ahead and implements the the decision of the of the board of directors. If I may interrupt the gentleman raised the question to which I recently responded. I may not have given them a satisfactory answer. He may have more. Civic said he's talking about I'm not clear that my answer was satisfactory to him if he's still around. I don't know if he is. (00:24:30) Well, I think we probably should move on to another another caller at this point. And if he has further questions why he might very well be able to write to you at that address. All right, our next listeners waiting. Go ahead, (00:24:41) please. Yes. I was wondering is this Supreme Court decision on the alsop keep the Solomon amendment in the alsop case mean that the Supreme Court is reversing what judge Donald also ruled or is it just stay or what? (00:24:59) Well, you see it's a stay of the implementation of what all sub did but it has the effect of prohibiting federal judge all subs decision from being implemented and his decision was that it was unconstitutional and shouldn't be implemented so it whether you use the word a stay or overturn it has the same effect. However, the Supreme Court has not ruled on the constitutionality of the Solomon Amendment and it will do so this fall sometime. (00:25:32) Alright more listeners are waiting and we also have some open lines in the Twin Cities 2276 thousand is the phone number if you have a question for Matthew Stark in other parts of Minnesota. The number is 1-800-695-1418. And of course we invite calls from the surrounding states and Ontario as well at area code 6 12 and 2276 thousand. All right, your next go ahead. Please (00:25:57) be brief and to the point my questions in regard to education among male and female students graduating from our high schools within the state of Minnesota. Now, this is one of my question does the do you foresee in the near future that the military would be using the service or female your seniors graduating from high school instead of Mia students only and why is it not that the military does not require a female services for Hospital work take some of the female students put them in hospital working Clerk or work? Instead of leaving all the feeling of students within the states were we we do need a lot of our male students left you because we need electricians. We need heavy duty people to do heavy duty work, which a lot of the main female students cannot do this kind of work and I'm wondering why we left with such a large population of females in all of our young men. They they are left until they're 18 years old and I drifted off into the service. Well first it feels like we're state of nothing but female (00:27:03) well first in regard to the last there is no evidence that and that women are not as good electricians as men and their only one or two activities that that distinguish there can be distinguished on the basis of sex and that's in regard to conception and nursing of children. Other than that women and men are generally able to do similar kinds of Occupational work. In regard to what the plan of the military is. I'm really sorry. I can't respond to that. I just don't know the civil liberties Union believes that registration and the draft conscription is unconstitutional and should never be allowed in our country in war or in peacetime. Unfortunately, we do have a registration system for the draft and the American civil liberties Union argue that that registration system was sexually discriminatory because it only required the registration of young men furthermore. The ACLU is regularly involved in litigating and lobbying with the military because of the sexist policies of the military to determine that certain occupations are labeled combat occupations and therefore women in the military who have volunteered for the military cannot Hands them their military careers by participating in those combat classifications and we think that sexually discriminatory over the years. We've made some progress with the military but not as much as needs to be (00:28:48) made. I think if my recollection is right there while we have a draft registration law in the United States, we do not at this time have an actual draft in effect. That's correct. And I think our listener may have been a little confused about that. 12:30 is the time Matthew Stark is our guest and we have more questions. Go ahead please you're on the (00:29:07) air. Hello. I just tuned in to the radio now. So the questions I have to ask have already been answered. You can give me the the brief answer and bear with me. Okay. I have two questions first. Although this is the Minnesota Civil civil liberties Union. I was wondering what is their stand on the curfew in Detroit and to Minnesota recently passed legislation Liz's legislation allowing the media in the courtroom. What is their stand on that all? And why (00:29:34) the civil liberties Union believes that the what we call the status offenses are all unconstitutional establishing certain arbitrary standards and saying those over 18 may do them in those under 18 may not we believe are all unconstitutional. The curfew is certainly a classic law that we think of violates the rights of parents to adequately supervise and be and carry out their responsibilities for their children. It's a determination that because a few youngsters might misbehave that all youngsters shall be punished. It's a scar on our society to assume that young people can't be walking around at whatever hours they wish. It just shows the terrible condition in regard to Law and Order that we presently live in and that we The interested in having any of the listeners who believe that their children should be allowed to go out after 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock at night as they see fit to contact the civil liberties Union. We'd be delighted to represent them against similar Minnesota curfew laws (00:30:50) don't have any it does I know of though do we? (00:30:52) Oh, yes, we do. Oh, yeah Minneapolis and st. Paul and many other cities. (00:30:56) Yes part two of this listeners question had to do with cameras in the courtroom. (00:31:01) Yeah, the the Minnesota civil liberties Union has taken the position that this issue is a very complex one. I don't mean that we're avoiding the issue, but we believe people have a right to a fair trial and if the having news media in a courtroom in certain respects turns a trial into a circus and unduly influence has the jury and the witnesses. Then we would be opposed to it certainly having a reported take notes doesn't have that effect. Probably having a tape recorder by a radio station would also not have a have the effect of disrupting the the due process of the courts. The main issue comes with the television and and the lights that they use and I think the Minnesota judges are using the proper discretion of moving into this area very slowly and very carefully the citizens have a right to know but arrested persons also have a right to a fair trial (00:32:10) another listener is waiting with a question. We also have some telephone lines open at 2 to 7 6,000. If you have a question to to 76 thousand for Minneapolis st. Paul area listeners and the toll-free number for those of you outside. The Twin Cities is one 865 to 9700. All right. You're next to ahead, please. (00:32:31) Yeah. Kind of a philosophical question on the civil liberties Union view is the purpose of The Establishment Clause. So in reference to the recent Minnesota case, do you do you see the purpose of The Establishment Clause as set forth by the founding fathers as to prevent distinctions between distinctions among religions between different religions or distinction between religion and (00:32:55) non-religion. I guess all of them that establishment of religion takes place when the government does certain anyone of certain things gives preferential treatment to one religious organization gives preferential treatment to several religious organizations or gets preferential treatment to all religious organizations that we think we can best preserve religious liberty and we can best preserve the Integrity of the government if church and state are separate and we think The Establishment Clause is an important one that Congress should pass no laws concerning establishment of religion and as applied to the states that state government shouldn't either is a very important aspect of our basic fundamental civil liberties. (00:33:53) I'd like to follow up on a question that somebody asked a little while ago which has to do with your comment about not being able to separate people by ages. Then. Of course, there's proposals to raise the drinking age. Minnesota's drinking age is now 19 there have been proposals to raise it to 21 Congressman Sikorsky said yesterday you'd like to see a national drinking age of 21. So what you wind up with really are a couple of competing public interest on the one hand not preventing the young people from doing what they want to do and on the other saving the lives of those who might be affected by a drunken young person when you drag out the statistics to show that they're the ones who probably cause more of the (00:34:32) accidents. Yeah that there are consequences of living in a democracy. And that is that other people's behavior won't be as good as our own and if we believe that if citizenship and the age of maturity takes place at age of majority takes place at 18. Then there shouldn't be long as discriminating between 18 year olds and 25 year olds, and I'm sure that we could get back to the era of prohibition and just saying people who drink are the groups from which we get drunk and drivers. Therefore. We're going to stop all people from drinking. It may very well be that men in certain occupational categories and age between 40 and 45 doing fact caused more accidents and because of the influence of alcohol and There's a difference between saying that people may not drive under the influence of alcohol. And those laws are certainly constitutional on the other hand saying that 18 or 19 year olds or 20 year olds may not be allowed to buy and consume alcohol. We think that's unconstitutional (00:35:54) is the concept of age of majority defensible at all on civil liberties grounds (00:36:02) in the area for instance of voting. Let's take that issue my experience in the civil rights movement in the South working with dr. Martin Luther King. I met hundreds upon hundreds of 16 year old black youngsters in Alabama and Georgia and they knew quite well whom they wanted and didn't want as Governors and and of their states that I think it's arbitrary to say that only those who are 18 may vote. We all know too many people who are under the age of 18 who are have judgments that are excellent in terms of voting and similarly many people over the age of 18 who do things that I don't approve of that as vote for candidates whom I don't approve of and we would like to see the voting age lowered furthermore. There were age requirements for serving in in the Minnesota Legislature in the Minnesota in the state and federal House of Representatives the federal Senate and the presidency and those age limits restrict the right of citizens to elect whom they want and I think they're arbitrary and capricious and not related to the facts of the world and they inhibit the right of the voters to make those determinations. So we were one of the major groups lobbying to lower the voting age from 21. And at any time any group wishes, we would be delighted to start lobbying again to lower the voting age from In to 17. (00:37:36) All right more listeners are waiting with questions a lot of them. Go ahead please you're next. (00:37:40) Okay? Yeah. I was calling from Superior here in Wisconsin and I can understand Matthew start position as far as what the Constitution means today. But as far as The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, but when the first amendment was written The Establishment Clause of religion, then was speaking of piastic religions and when secular humanism was ruled a religion, I believe is 1961 along with some other religions that were considered non-theistic or having not a believe in not believing in God it changed the whole meaning of the First Amendment and also a point I'd like to make is that The Holy Bible was ruled not to be an authoritative document. And if you look in the 1828 edition of Webster's Dictionary, they use scriptural references in there as far as deciding what the meaning of our constitution is. So when the Supreme Court ruled that you can't use the Bible as an authoritative document it took the meaning away from the Constitution. So then you had to establish a new meaning. (00:39:03) Alright, thank you very much for calling and we'll see if Matt Stark has any further observations on this question (00:39:09) first when people talk about what the found out who the founding fathers were and what they meant and so forth. We want to always recognize that the constitution is a document in existence today, and we order make judgments about its value in the Society of the United States of America for 1983 a goodly share of the signers of the Of Independence and of the founding fathers and of the legislators that were adopting the the US Constitution was slave owners. And slavery was the law of the land furthermore women were not allowed to vote any place in this country at the time of the adoption of the constitution in Most states people who didn't own property also weren't allowed to vote and all of the founding fathers of this country are we're not perfect people. They were people who had some good ideas and people who had some pretty bad ideas and their whether or not they believed in God and what kind of gods they believed in is really a matter of their own concern. Certainly. I think we today have a responsibility for making use of the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution as we see fit without getting involved in this what I think is a really sophistries of trying to say that because the founding fathers were members of this religion or that religion this or that ought to be the interpretation of the Constitution Second. The young man who called in said that secular humanism has been ruled a religion. There was one sentence in a footnote in one of the opinions of one Supreme Court Judge mentioning secular humanism and that has become a kind of a like a shibboleth people anything. They don't like they just label as secular humanism and I think it doesn't help us to be unclear in our thinking now when this young man talked about the Holy Bible, I don't know what he was talking about. Was he talking about the Jewish Bible the Roman Catholic Bible or the Protestant Bible and why does he feel that? Those are more authoritative than the Koran or the writings of Mary Baker Eddy or the Mormons books or the books of the unification Church where the Harry krishna's or the Hindus and this there was this regular slippage that somehow or other. Holy Bible is different in regard to the United States of America than all other holy books and The Establishment Clause precisely says as far as our interpretation is that there are no differences between one holy book in another except as individual citizens wish to personally give them give a particular book a greater Credence (00:42:07) 17 minutes before one another listener is waiting. Go ahead please Matt Stark is (00:42:11) listening. Oh fine. Thank you for the last couple of years. I've asked friends of mine. Just just for matter of information if they knew how the civil liberties Union was funded. No one knows or at least no one that I've asked nose and I'm afraid Frank with you. I don't know. Will you please tell me how it is funded? (00:42:33) First of all, the way you raised. The question is though there is something bad about the fact that you don't know how a private organization is funded. We are a private organization. And you have no right to know how were funded. However having said that let me also say that you don't know any of the thousands upon thousands and thousands of people in Minnesota who are members of the civil liberties Union all of whom know how our organization is funded first. We need a solicit or accept government money. Secondly, we have something in the neighborhood of 4,000 members who give quite generously to our organization. Additionally, we get money from private foundations from labor unions from churches from businesses and were out constantly asking people to give us money. And in fact if I may this might be a nice opportunity to remind any of the listeners that the Minnesota civil liberties Union is located at 6:00 to 8:00 Central Avenue Minneapolis 55414 and if they wish to join or get more information or send us private money, we would be delighted to accept it. (00:43:46) Alright, another listener is waiting with a question. Go ahead please you're on the air. (00:43:55) Is not willing to recognize a historical fact that our country was founded as a Christian Country. And this is one of the things that has made it such an attractive place for everyone to come because we do treat them as though they had rights equal with our own and you start putting some of these other things including his a religious philosophy as The Guiding Light of this country and you must do not have the place that everyone wishes to come and I would also like to call his (00:44:24) attention not can I respond to that first? And then let you raise the second question. This country was not founded as a Christian (00:44:32) country. I think we can't really talk because well (00:44:37) certainly the Native Americans were in Christians and the Jews who lived in this country were in Christians and many of the English people and other Europeans who came here and settled this country were in Christians. That to say that this is a Christian country. I believe is factually wrong. Now, it's quite different. If you want to say that the majority of the people in this country believe in Christianity that's happens to be a fact but then to turn around and say that this is a Christian country. How does a country become a Christian country is the law of the land the same as the teachings of Jesus and the answer is clearly that isn't the case that all religions are equal under the law in this country and that there is no preferred religion in this country that the unification church has as much legal right in this country as the Hindu religion as the Jewish religion and as the Christian religion and I think it's myopic to say that this is a Christian country. If you are talking about more than the beliefs of a majority of the citizens and rather talking about the legal and political structure of this country. What is your second (00:45:54) question? I'm a Christian belief that this is one reason make it so attractive to all of you including you who are treated as equals with the with everybody else in other countries. You could not speak out this way. And also what Anna much super point. I'm (00:46:09) white. No, I agree with you on that. That's absolutely true. But there are Christian countries where many of the people also can't speak out freely and under Franco's regime in Spain Christianity was the state religion and very few people. Other than those whom of whom Franco approved were able to speak (00:46:29) freely. That's what I think is so ridiculous. Yeah. Well what you're seeing there. I hope you (00:47:00) know what you're saying is that particular woman wasn't strong enough to carry the package, but I may not have been strong enough to carry the package either. You see I may not have been strong enough to carry a package and I happen to be a man and I know there are many women who can carry Farlow heavier weights than I can carry and what you're saying is people who work for United Parcel Service Postal Service or to be strong enough, whether they're male or female to carry the packages and obviously some women are not very strong. But some men are not very strong either (00:47:32) 12 minutes before one o'clock. We'll move along to another listener with a question for master. Go ahead please you're on the air. (00:47:38) Yes. What I'm concerned about is the civil liberties position. on public schools with the voucher system How would that affect the public schools? (00:47:50) The voucher system is a proposal to give every parent of a youngster x amount of dollars in a voucher in his in a skin script to take with the parent wherever the parent wishes to pay for the education of his or her youngsters. And that system is not in existence anywhere in this country. The civil liberties Union is an opposition to the voucher system because that money would be used in some percentage to fund parochial schools. And that would be as far as we're concerned establishment of religion. We are opposed to taxing people to pay for Religious Education of youngsters. (00:48:41) All right, we'll move along to another listener with the question format start. Go ahead, please you're on the air. (00:48:46) Yes. You mr. Stark says that deductions for parochial schools are against the establishment of religion. How does he what? How does he square that with a deduction directly from a church. That is I can I can (00:49:07) deduct we don't we don't distinguish. We think when people deduct contributions to their churches from their income tax, they are putting an additional burden on other citizens to subsidize the state and that in effect becomes establishment of religion, and we are in opposition to that. We may very well be wrong in that person's mind. But at least were (00:49:32) consistent. All right, nine minutes before one another listener has a question. Go (00:49:37) ahead. I was calling about Matthew start made a statement about this was not a Christian Nation was not founded upon Christian Nation or something like that and I just like to make about a 20 second quote here from the New England Confederation. It says whereas we all came into these parts of America with one in the same end and aim namely to advance the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ and to enjoy the Liberties of the Gospel impurity with peace and that's the New England Confederation. That was the first Constitution that our nation was governed under I like to hear a comment from Matthew start as far as what he meant by our nation wasn't founded on Christian. Principles or (00:50:28) whatever your statement is factually not correct that New England Confederation was not ever a document under which the colonies of this country or the state's functioned that to say that this is a Christian Nation would mean for instance that the sixth commandment Thou shalt not kill would be the law of the land and we would not be able to have a military because according to some Christian teachings killing is not allowable that Christian teachings are not automatically the law of the land some Christian religions religious groups are disapproval say that people are not allowed to get divorced but divorce is legal in this country and basic concepts from The Sermon on the Mount about Healing The Sick and feeding the poor on not automatic in this country great work and effort has to be done to get legislation. Relation past to assist the impoverished that there's a there's a clear misunderstanding of what is meant when people say that this is a Christian country and that's as I say again that's quite different from saying a majority of the citizens of this country are Christian which happens to be true. But this is not a Christian country anymore than it's a Hindu country or an atheist country or a Muslim (00:51:53) country. It certainly does strike a deep responsive emotional chord among a lot of people though. Doesn't it? You know, another listener is waiting with a question. Go ahead you're on the (00:52:02) air two quick comments and then a very quick question. First of all, I certainly admire Matthew Starks consistent views on these questions of religion. I'm not a Christian and I am an American and I appreciate the way the civil liberties Union has consistently fought for the rights of everyone the question. I have to get us away from religion. Certain editorial in today's Minneapolis newspaper where it's sort of half defends the cia's right to secretly work throughout the world. Could you comment on whether the civil liberties Union is what's its position with regard to the cia's right to prevent citizens from finding out what documents pertain to them and what activities the CIA is engaged in. (00:52:57) All areas of government ought to be under the control of the citizens of this country, and there should not be a secret police forces, and that is what the CIA is that the CIA should never be allowed to infiltrate private organizations in this country or anywhere else that the record of the CIA in Chile and in Cuba, and in other countries throughout the world is fraught with violations of basic fundamental American civil liberties and the ACLU and and our lobbyists in Washington are regularly involved in trying to get the federal Congress to pass laws to ensure that the standards of conduct of the CIA are in keeping with the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. (00:53:51) It's five minutes before one. We have a few minutes for another question or two and we'll take you next go ahead, (00:53:56) please. I'd like to ask question about some things you were talking about earlier in regards to the age type things drinking age and voting age and curfew until such that. I must say that I respect her idealism on those issues. The way I hear you talking is that if you say that a person is an adult and is of legal voting age of 18, then they should be accountable for themselves and everything. I'm wondering though. If perhaps our way of choosing different ages for different things isn't the way of saying well, it's people come mature not all at once. It's rather arbitrary to say an 18 someone is able to vote or at 19 someone is able to handle booze and the day before that they are not isn't that a way of kind of easing or young people into adulthood? (00:54:56) Yeah, that's that's certainly is a way but what you run into is I'm not for instance. I'm not willing to say that all 40 year olds are mature enough to be able to handle alcohol because I know some 40 year olds who are can't make mature judgments about drinking and we have problems in determining how all members of a group should be treated when certain members of that group will function in ways that we don't like and that's where the problem comes in there are many youngsters at 17 and 18 who are as mature or more mature than people who are 45 and 50 years old and we have terrible problems about this and I guess the it will be a constant issue in our society. (00:55:46) You said earlier you would support legislation to reduce the voting age to 17. Is there an age limit below which you would not support voting and how would you (00:55:55) justify that? Well, the one of the definitions of a democracy is that all of the citizens have an equal vote in determining the the government that determining how who shall be in the government and it is a positive civil liberties. As far as I'm concerned to analog age the definition or the area included as people being included as Citizens. I would constantly be interested in lowering the voting age that there is no test that whether or not a person who is 79 may vote. But the next year the person may start getting a little senile that we have bright people at all age ages and and dumb people at all ages. We have people with good judgment who are young and people with older people who have good? Inviting and people who are bad judgments at all ages. It's very very difficult to draw the line and we're always interested in moving in the direction of including more and more people in the category of first-class citizens of this country. (00:57:13) Unfortunately, the one thing that does draw the line in a radio broadcast is the clock and that is the that is the limit we are up against here Mass dark before you leave tell people the address they can write to once again if they have questions or problems. (00:57:27) Yeah. It's the Minnesota civil liberties Union 628 Central Avenue Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55414. We'd be delighted to receive your letters. If you want to join we'd be glad to send you a membership information (00:57:42) and thank you so much for coming and visiting with us today Matthew Stark executive director of the Minnesota civil liberties Union.