NOVAK: Have you ever thought of spending your time
watching basketball or
something like that? It's better than spending 4,000 hours on this ridiculous case.
NEWDOW: I think there probably are a lot of people in this nation who
spend 4,000 hours watching basketball. I'd rather uphold the Constitution.
The gauntlet is thrown!
BEGALA: Mr. Newdow, I'll read back to you a comment that was quoted to
The San Francisco Chronicle where you said "It may seem like a far stretch but if you
do this incrementally this is what causes people to get killed. A man flew a plane into a
very tall building in New York believing he was doing it for God."
You're not blaming religion for the mass murders of September 11th, are you, sir?
NEWDOW: Absolutely. Are you denying that's what it was about?
Yes, of COURSE religion brought those buildings down and murdered those
Where the hell is Begala's mind?
BEGALA: Yes - absolutely. The terrorists who blew up the Oklahoma City building were atheists.
I've never heard that before - is that right?
Have you ever heard of a "less government" conservative being an atheist?
BEGALA: Am I going to blame you, another atheist, for killing
168 innocent souls in Oklahoma City?
Koresh, I'm ashamed for Paul Begala.
Did he really say that?
Did that really happen?
This guy wants the law obeyed and Begala tries to push OKC on him?
On this topic, the overly-Catholic Paul Begala has no business speaking
He is ridiculing a man who simply asked that the Constitution by obeyed, and he was
lucky enough to find a half-courageous judge to temporarily do the right thing.
I can only assume Begala is just as insecure with his faith as most people.
NEWDOW: I don't know that they were atheists but they didn't do it in the
name of atheism.
This man did it in the name of Allah.
BEGALA: So you're not willing to take responsibility
- you're not willing to take responsibility for,
say, Oklahoma City or any crimes that atheists may commit but instead . . .
Begala has totally lost his mind - due to religion. I don't like attacking
Begala, but he's
dead wrong and, due to some kind of religio-panic, he's lost his ability to reason.
Why in the world should this guy accept responsibility for Oklahoma City?
Paul, come back to Earth and rejoin the Democratic Party.
NEWDOW: No - even if it happened in the name of atheism if, in fact, that's
what had occurred,
which it didn't - but if it had, that would be an indication to show that's why we don't want religion
involved in religion - in Atheism or any religion.
NOVAK: Mr. Newdow, I just wonder how far you plan to go if you've thought
We have on our currency "In God We Trust." We have that as the motto in the House of
Representatives. We have prayers in the House. In the Senate we have chaplains. We have
a military chaplain. The president takes an oath on a Bible. Many officers take an oath on a Bible.
The Supreme Court starts every session saying, "God save this honorable court."
NEWDOW: Pretty horrible for an atheist, don't you think?
This guy was HELL for being on TV for the very first time.
NOVAK: Are you going to bring suit against all of those practices?
NEWDOW: Absolutely. If I win here I'll keep going - yes. Can you
imagine if we had all
of those thing with Allah or David Koresh or someone else that you don't agree with?
The Reverend Sung Yung Moon?
You're comfortable with it because it's your religion. I'm uncomfortable
And I'm American and I'm supposed to be protected just like you.
That's how an American is supposed to talk!
NOVAK: But 84 percent of Americans believe there is a difference between David Koresh and God.
NEWDOW: That's right - that's the point.
NOVAK: Does that seem credible to you?
NEWDOW: No - but the point is that we don't do this based on majorities.
This is the Bill of Rights. This is how to uphold the minority right. That's why
we have the Bill of Rights.
BEGALA: I think you slide rather remarkably between uncomfortable and unconstitutional.
I don't doubt that it's uncomfortable for atheists to hear a passing reference to God.
NEWDOW: Why should it be? That's what the Bill of Rights . . .
BEGALA: The Bill of Rights does not protect you against being uncomfortable
or being exposed to ideas you don't like.
NEWDOW: So then we should silence people because 84 percent
doesn't want to hear from them?
This guy is tearing them both apart. Novak's argument is the majority should
If that's true, then no black man could ever hold office (in the Carolina example)
because 84 percent of Americans are white.
NOVAK: You're the one who's trying to silence them.
NEWDOW: I'm not silencing anybody. I'm silencing the government,
which is what the establishment clause says.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
NOVAK: There's no establishment of religion because to do anything . . .
NEWDOW: You just listed six different things where there's God all over
That's a religious establishment - that's theism. Just like the judge said in the opinion.
That's an establishment. Because it's not a specific one religion - that's not the issue.
The issue is - is any sort of religion being established?
Yes - theism.
This was a total slam-dunk of two of Washington's best debaters by a first-time rookie!
Of course, like I've always said, it's easy as hell to win a debate if you're on the right side.
This was truly Paul Begala's worst performance ever, and once again we
religion to blame. Teaming up with that idiot Novak to beat up a man who wants
his constituion to mean something is not the way a liberal is supposed to act.
Then, as is usually the case, this same Newdow fella was asked to stay
on for another segment
so Begala and Novak could ridicule him for some nutty idea he has about neutering the English
language so if you say "My teacher said..." we could know if the teacher was male or female.
For some reason, they (and CNN) felt it was terribly crucial to destroy
so his "nutty ideas" about upholding the Constitution are considered laughable.
Paul, this was truly the most pitiful performance I've ever seen you give.
But, I gotta ask, why couldn't you have PRETENDED to be a Democrat on this issue?
Isn't that the point of Crossfire, to give BOTH sides of the argument, instead of you
joining with Novak to screw over a guy who's on your side AND right on this issue?
Paul, you've done years of great work, so I'll consider this an
But please, remember you're a Democrat FIRST, and then a Catholic next time?