>> The separation of church and state is quote, the biggest lie that's been told in America since our founding.

That is what the chair President Trump's Religious Liberty Commission said when the group was formed.

Now that commission has issued a 224 page report calling for what amounts to at least blurring the line between religious expression and public life composed almost entirely of conservative Christians and a single Orthodox rabbi.

The commission signals the direction the Trump White House may be trying to shift the country.

Here's committee chair Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick.

>> Again, the separation of church and state is not in the Constitution.

from this day forward, if anyone says that to you and there in public office, serving agency in any official capacity.

They have to point out exactly.

Where you have violates the Constitution because you have not.

from this day forward.

Phrase should have no power over people all faiths ever again, America.

>> So joining us, our Josh Wiener, chief advocacy officer at the North American North American Values Institute, a nonprofit which says it's focused on combating extremism and Anti-Semitism in K through 12 schools.

Reverend Quincy Worthington, pastor at the Highland Park Presbyterian Church.

Hassan Ali and Islamic Scholar and founder of the Key on Institute, a nonprofit that promotes Islamic values through education and rabbi emeritus, Michael Siegel of the Arch and that synagogue in Lakeview.

Thanks to all of you for joining us.

We appreciate it.

So first, I want to get all of your reactions to what we just heard from Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, that the separation of church and state is not in the Constitution.

Josh Winder.

Let's start with you, please.

>> Well, I think he's technically correct that that phrasing is not in the app in the Constitution, by the Constitution out lays out lies and the establishment clause a two-way street on this and it is true that Thomas Jefferson did have a speech in the early 18, 100's about building a wall between church and state.

But the interesting coffee at around that is the history is that at that point, states actually were allowed to have religions, not the federal government.

And that wall was actually referring to in Massachusetts are in Connecticut.

They were worried that the federal government would infringe on their ability to have a state religion.

And Thomas Jefferson was talking about that long.

That context being to prevent that now in, you know, 1947, there is a Supreme Court case that did away with that.

And I think that's personally from from my point of view for the better.

But I think it's disingenuous to say that the separation of church and state is an a important legal argument that we have and that we should be very considerate to how they the Constitution is interpreted relative to Reverend Worthington.

Yeah, I mean, I echo pretty much exactly your sentiments on It was based off of the Virginia Amendment and Constitution.

And it just it's funny to me how >> these people original intense when it comes to supporting things that they're in support of in the Constitution.

But the minute minute original intent doesn't suit their needs, it just goes right out the window.

It was on.

>> I look at and I think it's easy claim that so many things that were practicing in this country, exist and in the Constitution.

so I believe that the genius of the and then it can cause it to show system is that it allows avian each citizen who lives in this country to practice own religion with the freedom and dignity.

But at the same time put evinced states too okay.

that won the division and fail to win the division over another religions and this is video of the U.S.

everyday life we do in America.

The deadline.

>> Whether or not the separation of church and state is in the Constitution or not.

The fact is we've been living in this country with that separation and with the great benefits of that is that United States of America is the most religious country amongst industrialized countries in the world.

And that's because we have allowed in this country, religion to flourish.

Privately.

Not through state, not to us established religion.

And I'm very conscious when we start using terms like Bridges.

While we are involved in what I think really important conversation to be having as our country celebrates its 200 50th anniversary.

This is very powerful issue.

In 17.

76, Maryland transition from a colony to state.

And it created another constitution that was ratified.

And in that constitution, there was a Christian oath.

That was required.

That meant that any non Christian would not be allowed because of to take public to hold public office.

Because of that oath, they could not become a lawyer because of that oath.

They couldn't join the militia.

They have is another anniversary.

We should be aware of hand.

50 years later.

That was recent.

So 200 years ago that constitutional peace was rescinded.

So this is an important issue will it?

So I want to get into some of a little a little bit more about what the report says it well, because it says as well, because it argues that the principle of separating church and state has at times.

>> Been used to suppress religious expression in public institutions from schools and hospitals to the military revving Worthington.

Where should that line be drawn?

How can institutions remain secular while also honoring and protecting individuals, freedom to express their own religious beliefs.

>> I think we're going to be careful about this mean we already see the Department Defense.

Taking 200 different known religion's now get them in saying we're only going except 30.

Right?

So I think what we have to do is open up space for people to.

Freely express in practice a religion without inhibiting it.

But then we also have to be careful that not doing me like in this case.

It's a it's a matter of students.

Being able to freely express or religion.

But then when you bring in teachers and people in power, you run the risk of them trying to enforce or promote a religion on to them.

And I think that's where the danger comes from.

Is is allowing people to express their religion without having religion shoved down their forced upon them.

And so that's that's a very nuanced conversation.

>> So with the commission, it's made up, as we entirely of Christian commentators, activists, some public officials except for one Orthodox Jewish rabbi and many of the examples of the religious discrimination that are detailed in the report are against specifically Christians and Jews.

do you think this administration and this Commissioner Diaz concerned about discrimination against Muslims and Muslim American mother think concerned about discrimination about Muslims or even other diligence.

We?

>> You know, I mean, we're not not the division who has no to present presentation in this committee.

>> We have a lot other divisions in America, minorities, people who practice that on the divisions, the have temperance, the have places of worship to have children who go to school is in the public schools.

And I think order have even a discussion about something that is special like this, something that it's from them into our community and society has faith communities.

We have to have a presentation.

A presentation from old the May know that he's an old of the groups, including Muslims, Sikhs Hindus and and other people and even also to include the people who have no face because live in this country.

And to have that, I too, you know, have own input making such a policy.

>> I'm Josh critics say that the Trump administration has done everything short of an explicit endorsement of Christianity.

How do you see it?

>> I think that they were pretty careful and to a certain respect of really saying that they should allow Bible study in school.

I think we're in institutions.

I think that they they straddle the line.

That's I may be allowing something put it this way we have and I use education because this is where, you know, I do my work.

We have state education standards known oil around, culturally responsive education.

Our organization is concerned that one of the pillars of cultural, responsive education, critical consciousness is being used to bring a political agenda into classrooms.

So when I see that allowance of bringing the Bible in the classrooms.

I see that potentially is a mechanism by which teachers could bring their own political or religious views in the classrooms.

And I think a place that I'm concerned about.

in particular, in taxes, we see that they've adopted standards that actually list bible stories and versus Texas schools.

And I worry that certain teachers will take it upon themselves to go beyond teaching Bible as history relative to American history and start teaching Bible as scripture in the classroom.

So that's a concern, especially as a Jewish person to May.

>> Rabbi Segal said the administration have included other folks from other religions in this commission without question.

The fact that we're using.

The King James Bible as as the gold standard.

Creates a problem for Catholics.

It creates problems for Jews.

And so.

What happens?

When the Bible is made into the established book in the state of Texas for Religion.

It's the danger.

And here I would add one other thing.

Children are free to get up in classrooms.

If they do not want to be part of that conversation, that's part of this as well.

The mansion, what would be like for a Hindu or Sikh or a or a Muslim child to stand up look at the teacher and say I'm not comfortable with this conversation.

This religious coercion in a way that should make all of us feel uncomfortable I am not anti Bible, not for a long shot.

I believe in the Bible.

And I also believe in its lessons for us, it's how he is administered.

Why are the conversation can take place where we can express respect for different religious traditions and passages from other holy books.

So you just mention something, Josh, you know, because these developments are happening at a time when Texas is implementing that new law requiring Bible verses to be read in public schools.

>> On the state has already passed a law requiring the 10 Commandments to be displayed in every classroom.

Reverend Worthington, you know, do these laws reflect religious liberty or inserting religion where where was not already?

>> Well, I guess my main concern is what we see here is a promotion of specifically White Christian nationalism very narrow definition of what Christianity is, which is one that I tend to find to be the greatest idolatry and heresy of our time and probably the biggest threat religion.

And so I think we need to be very careful and speak out very plainly and clearly on that.

And it seems to me that if the government wants to help.

People practice their faith.

They should help us feed the hungry.

They should help us honor the immigrant us a precious child of God that they are.

They should help us visit those who are imprisoned.

They should practice of justice.

And I think that would be the better place to start them or they're starting with this.

>> I mean, you know, we talk the 10 Commandments being displayed in the classroom, for example, have the courts not already settled this issue?

With regard to exactly has signed.

We've got about it.

But go ahead.

You are.

we've got a minute left.

I think.

>> Having the 10 Commandments in a classroom could amount to the implying that the school actually endorses the 10 Commandments.

I do think, though, it's important that we have a real conversation about this country's founding and how woven religion is into that founding.

The Declaration of Independence talks about endowed by our creator Right for Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

These are things that do come from have break double taxed.

And I think teaching that history is important, but we certainly need to be careful about straying into indoctrinating students with the belief that this is what you should believe or need to believe because the schools telling yourself.

All right.

Well, we're out of time.

That's where we'll have to leave My