Return to Transcripts main page

NEW DAY

Severe Weather Threat; Religious Freedom Measures Revamped; Obama Hails "Historic" Nuclear Deal with Iran. Aired 6:30-7a ET

Aired April 3, 2015 - 06:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


[06:30:00] ROBYN KRIEL, ENCANEWS: And they're attacking targets where a policeman may have only seven bullets or an unarmed security guards, places like malls, people that cannot shoot back. They're aiming for civilians and they don't care if they die in the process. This is an incredibly difficult -- this is incredibly difficult enemy for a military or intelligence service to fight.

Al Shabaab has been on the back foot. They've been chased all around Somalia. Key ports being seized, loss of revenue, loss of there are ways to getting foreign fighters, to get in their weapons, and things like that. But they're regrouping and, of course, still launching the cross-border attacks with precision whenever they feel like it.

MICHAELA PEREIRA, CNN ANCHOR: Robyn Kriel, excellent context and helping us understand what's going on in the region there. We appreciate your reporting. Thanks for joining us this morning.

Chris?

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: Mick, what a week we've had with these religious freedom laws. Indiana and Arkansas acknowledging that their laws could have been used to discriminate by quickly passing changes. But it did take an unprecedented backlash and the threat of boycotts by major businesses.

Now, we have for you why many say there is still a problem and you may not be aware of it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:35:05] CUOMO: President Obama is warning Congress, don't sabotage what could be an historic nuclear agreement with Iran. Negotiators have three months to finalize a deal. But during that time, a lot could happen, including Congress imposing more sanctions on its own.

Now, Iran says it would agree to a slew of reductions in output of dangerous materials and equipment and a lot of supervision in exchange for an easing of economic sanctions. Those at the table seem satisfied for now. But Prime Minister Netanyahu blasting the agreement, calling it a threat to the survival of Israel.

PEREIRA: New developments in the wake of the bloody university rampage in Kenya. Al Shabaab terrorists singling out and opening fire on Christians. The death toll now stands at a staggering 147, most of them students. This desperate search now continues for a key suspect. In fact, a reward of more than $200,000 being issued for information leading to Mohammed Mohammed's arrest.

CUOMO: U.S. Navy warship standing guard in the waters off Yemen. They're keeping an eye out for suspicious activity in the region. Including weapon shipments from Iran to the Houthi rebels, they're backing those guys in that region. This, as the militants storm the presidential palace in Aden Thursday, following heavy fighting. Yemen's president fled to Saudi Arabia last month, you'll remember, after rebel forces advanced on the city.

PEREIRA: Warmer temperatures finally. However, also the potential for severe storms today in the South and Central states, so much for rebirth and renewal.

Mr. Chad Myers on this Easter weekend. I wore flip flops today. What are you trying to tell me?

CUOMO: Me, too.

CHAD MYERS, AMS METEOROLOGIST: Really? Did you get -- did you get a pedicure, Chris?

PEREIRA: He did not, let me tell you that for the record.

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: No color.

MYERS: It's just too information.

PEREIRA: It's been a long winter, Chad.

MYERS: I understand that even down here.

We did have tornadoes on the ground yesterday, we'll have more today. But we also have flash flooding going on now in Louisville, back out toward Lexington, and Frankfurt. Some spots up to five inches of rain overnight. Louisville, you had three inches of rain in the past three hours, we saw the potential for severe weather. Southern Missouri, northern Arkansas. But right now things will cool down in the day. They will fire back up later on this afternoon.

We have severe weather possible all the way from Kentucky, all the way down to Jackson, Mississippi, some of those areas could see heavy rainfall as well.

Now, remember, already said, Louisville had three inches in three hours, Lexington, about three inches in six hours. There's more rain where that came from. There will be significant flooding here across Kentucky, West Virginia, even parts of southern Ohio for later on today and into tonight, especially tonight when it starts, when the water is over the roadways, you don't know how deep it is, be careful as you drive.

Please, turn around, don't drown. The best weather service advice that they can give you. Don't drive in flooded waters -- guys.

PEREIRA: Yes, you can't be sure of how deep it is. All right. Chad, thanks so much.

CUOMO: All right. A blessed Good Friday to you, my friend. We'll see you soon.

The big question is, did they go far enough? We're talking about Arkansas and Indiana, the lawmakers there definitely revising these religious freedom laws after critics claim they sanctioned discrimination against gays and lesbians. So, what changed? Will critics be satisfied? And why the fight is far from over?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:42:21] CUOMO: Two new religious freedom laws are now in effect in Indiana and Arkansas. They're a lot closer now to what they were originally promised to be. The original measures showed potential to discriminate against gays. But it took an overwhelming backlash to move lawmakers to revamp them.

That said, the situation is far from over. And we have someone uniquely suited to tell us why. His name? Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.

I wish you a blessed Good Friday and thank you for joining us on the show.

RUSSELL MOORE, PRESIDENT, SOUTHERN BAPTIST ETHICS & RELIGIOUS LIBERTY COMMISSION: Well, happy Good Friday to you, Chris. Thanks for having me.

CUOMO: Do you understand why the consensus became that these laws needed to be fixed?

MOORE: Well, I can hardly hear the debate over the sound of Thomas Jefferson rolling in his grave, because the very fact that religious freedom would be this sort of divisive culture war issue this week I think is really troubling. It ought to be troubling for all Americans, not just for people like me, a conservative evangelical.

The laws as they were initially articulated in Indiana and in Arkansas, were not discriminatory. And the language that was being used against them was simply a false narrative.

Now, Arkansas, I think got it right. The Arkansas bill is good. And it protects religious exercise in a helpful way.

Indiana, on the other hand, is a train wreck. The Indiana bill is I think even worse than what the situation was without any RFRA protection.

CUOMO: How could that be? How could it be worse, when under federal law, as it is, and under state law as it is in just about every state -- actually I believe every state -- if you go after an exercise of someone's religion, you're going to lose in court. It is one of the most protected freedoms that we have.

MOORE: That's simply not true.

CUOMO: How so?

MOORE: People lose --

CUOMO: Give me an example.

MOORE: People lose in court over the exercise of their religion all the time. This happened for instance with a photographer in New Mexico who had conscientious objections to photographing a same-sex marriage. Lost in court.

CUOMO: Because it wasn't deemed a legitimate exercise of religion. It was deemed she doesn't like gays.

MOORE: Well, no, that's not what was happening. What was happening the court said that in balancing these things, they felt there was a compelling interest to compel her to do this.

CUOMO: Which was?

MOORE: All of that these religious freedom bill does is say we have to balance religious conviction over against government interests. And the government has to prove why they have a reason to pave over someone's conscience in the sake of the public good.

CUOMO: Right, but it's always been that way. It's always been put to strict scrutiny, whether or not you went into court --

MOORE: No, it's not. No, it's not.

[06:45:00] The reason why we have a Religious Freedom Restoration Act at the national level, is because the Supreme Court eviscerated that balancing test. That's why we needed it and that's why we had a broad consensus from the far left to the far right to say we need to respect religious conviction in this country.

CUOMO: No, the reason we have the federal law from 1993 is because of what we saw in Supreme Court precedent required by the court, for a law to be passed to protect discreet religious minority practices. Like the use of peyote ritually by Native Americans, even though it would be captured as a narcotic otherwise. That's not what these laws were motivated by or --

MOORE: Of course it is.

CUOMO: If it were, if you're right, then why did they change them? Then why were they changed?

MOORE: Of course, it is. The laws are motivated to say, the religious conviction isn't up for majority vote and that everybody ought to have a hearing and a day in court.

Religious freedom laws don't give anyone a card in order to win in court. It's simply says that the government has to have a certain standard.

CUOMO: But that is exactly the criticism that wound up changing the Indiana law. The proof is not in the pudding in this case, it's in the humble pie, because the Indiana lawmakers had to change the law. Why were did they change it?

MOORE: The criticism of the Indiana law was based upon a willful misrepresentation of the Indiana law --

CUOMO: By?

MOORE: -- in a way that's unprecedented in the American history. It ought to bother progressives as well as conservatives.

Several years ago when it was really popular for someone on the right to say that we ought to zone mosques out of existence or deport Muslims from this country, there were many of us who said, no. That is, we need to stand up and protect the religious consciences, even of Muslims with whom I would disagree, religiously. Now, we have the same thing --

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: That wasn't about religious conscience that may have been religious conscience to you in rejecting it. That was about a xenophobia, a fear that all Muslims are terrorists. It wasn't about keeping people from exercising their faith.

MOORE: Of course it is. Of course it is, and that's exactly what I'm saying is the state should not come in and use its power to zone mosques out of existence. Nor should the state come in and say, we're not going to take into consideration your religious convictions at all when we force you and compel you into commerce, in some way or other.

CUOMO: Mr. Moore, my question to you is this -- why hide from the obvious motivations that were behind this law. Is it a coincidence, that I'm talking to you, a Christian conservative? Is it a coincidence that the supporters of these bills, that the signing and thereafter were Christian conservatives who have well-known agendas to try to stop and frustrate the LGBT movement?

Why do you ignore that aspect of this, and say, well it's about hijabs and it's about Muslims and it's about protecting nuns from buying insurance?

MOORE: Because it is. Look at all the cases we've been dealing with. It is about nuns being forced to buy insurance. It is about people who are being forced not to wear hijabs in their workplaces. It's about 1,000 situations of unpopular religious minorities and it is about the rights of Christians and Jews and Muslims and others, and it's saying that the government shouldn't force religious conviction out of the way at the point of a sword. That's what this is all about.

Now, the reason why you have conservatives standing here without progressives, is because progressives who used to be part of this coalition have suddenly disappeared and have become frightened away for standing up for religious freedom because they believe in, they believe in things that they think matter more.

CUOMO: Like equal protection of people under the Constitution.

MOORE: Untrammeled sexual freedom that trumps every other --

CUOMO: Untrammeled sexual freedom?

MOORE: Yes.

CUOMO: This isn't about a how. This is about a what. People who are LBGT, that's who they are, this is not about sexual freedom. This is an identity.

MOORE: And people who have religious convictions that could say, I don't want to be forced to participate in something that would violate my conscience, that's who we are, too.

CUOMO: You can have your religion but you can't make it will rule for everybody else. That's where you get --

MOORE: My Muslim friend may not want, may not want to provide pork barbeque for my church potluck as a caterer. I shouldn't have the power of the government to force him to do that.

CUOMO: You wouldn't have it in that case, and you know it. It's about whether or not you want to recognize a gay marriage. You think it's a sin. You don't want to do it.

MOORE: That's exactly right.

CUOMO: But if it's the law of the land, you have to.

MOORE: That's a decision that he and I ought to make, not a decision by the government.

CUOMO: It's not a pork sandwich when you're trying to deny the fairness under law to an entire class of people. It's not about a pork sandwich.

MOORE: Nobody is trying to deny fairness under the law.

CUOMO: We've heard from several sources on this who want to be honest, which is rare commodity these days, that when and if Indiana passes this state law, that allows for same-sex marriage, this law would be a way to give you a defense against participating in what certain Christians see as a sin, that this law would have allowed them to do that.

First of all, that's just true legally. If you don't think that's what this law would have allowed people to do, you don't understand the law.

[06:50:03] MOORE: Well, then you don't understand the law, Chris.

CUOMO: How so?

MOORE: We've had -- we've had a religious freedom restoration act in this country for over 20 years.

CUOMO: It was drafted, intended and materially different than what was in Indiana's law.

MOORE: It is not materially different from Indiana.

CUOMO: It said people and you extend it to businesses.

MOORE: The differences in Indiana were substantively exactly the same.

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: It's a state action, you moved it to private actions.

(CROSSTALK)

MOORE: It is exactly the same.

CUOMO: Then why would they change it?

MOORE: And so is federal RFRA as interpreted by the court. That's why we've had the Hobby Lobby decision.

CUOMO: Hobby Lobby was different, it's a real decision and it's something that should be taken into consideration going forward. Nobody says otherwise. However, if you look at the federal law in this one, it is materially different.

MOORE: It is not materially different.

CUOMO: Then you tell me why this isn't materially different? The federal law is about discrete religious minorities. This is empowering a religious majority. That is about people, this is about businesses.

MOORE: The federal law is not singling out particular religious minorities. If the federal law did that, it would be a violation of the First Amendment.

CUOMO: I didn't say it did. I said any discrete religious minority.

(CROSSTALK)

MOORE: It's talking about religious conscience generally and that the government has to show a reason, a compelling reason, and a least-restrictive means for how they're achieving their objective over and against genuine religious convictions.

CUOMO: Those legal standards would have been in place otherwise. Why won't you own something that's not wrong?

(CROSSTALK)

MOORE: There's not on the basis of the Supreme Court decision.

CUOMO: This is nothing wrong -- first of all, all the Supreme Court did was, it said that the federal RFRA doesn't apply to the states, they said it in 2007. They said you need your own laws. This law in Indiana was not a dupe of the federal law. If you don't want to accept that, I'm not here to convince you. But there's very little disagreement on that. That's why they changed the law.

Why not own the intellectual honesty of saying, look, I don't believe in gay marriage and I think the state should be able to tell me that I have to participate in it, because I'm against it, and I want a law like this to protect me from it, and I have every right to lobby for it and I think it should still stand as a law, why not just say that?

MOORE: I don't think the state ought to force me to participate.

CUOMO: That's what it's about. It's not about hijabs and pork sandwiches.

MOORE: Nor do I think the government ought to coerce anyone to participate in something against their conscience. Unless the government can show a compelling interest to do so.

All that these laws do is to say that the government has a burden to prove that and to show that. And we've had RFRA at the federal level for 20 years, it has never gotten anyone out of any discrimination case.

CUOMO: Because it wouldn't apply to what you want it to apply to. That's why Indiana drafted the law differently. That's why Arkansas drafted it differently. That's why there was this huge backlash.

What do you think, everybody just has it wrong? All of these businesses, that usually want to not get involved with this, a lot of businesses that have conservative sympathies, they want to get into this? Sports organizations that have enough problems of their own? They want to get into this? You think this is what they wanted?

MOORE: I think what we have is a situation in American culture, where the very idea of religious liberty is toxic.

CUOMO: Who says that?

MOORE: And there is a total misunderstanding of what it takes to be motivated by a religious conscience.

CUOMO: Please tell me where this comes from, Mr. Moore, especially you, because your distinguish yourself and your environment and one, I think very important way -- many Christian conservatives believe that not only is gay is a choice, but it's like a virus. And you can be degay-fied or whatever you call it through therapy.

You took a big stand and you said, I don't believe in these therapy programs. We shouldn't do this. We misunderstand what homosexuality is about. That was very progressive for you, it was dangerous for you in certain circles.

Why don't you see the same through-logic in this situation?

MOORE: Because what we're saying here is that we have legitimate disagreements in American society about sexual morality. Those disagreements should not be decided at the point of a government mandate.

CUOMO: Yes. The disagreement shouldn't be decided. Of course not. This is about debate, robust, always alive in America.

MOORE: So, what you're saying is we can believe secretly in our heart what we believe. But we have to be forced to participate in things that we believe are violations of our conscience.

CUOMO: When you talk about potential risk. The idea that anybody would want you to participate in their marriage when they know that you hate them for wanting to get married that way, I think is fairly remote. We'll see how the cases develop.

MOORE: It happens all the time.

CUOMO: But you believe it openly. It doesn't happen all the time.

(CROSSTALK)

MOORE: We have -- we have people now who are losing their businesses.

CUOMO: That's just not true.

MOORE: Because they're saying we don't want to participate in gay marriage.

CUOMO: It's a discrete concern at this point, as we see more evolution of the law at the state level. As we see what happens with the Supreme Court in June on this issue, then we may see it develop. This was a preemptive action to give a back-stop of legal protection in case that happens.

I think it's as clear as day to people, it's as clear to the lawmakers as it is to me, because they changed the laws in exactly the way that comports with our understanding of it. That I'm presenting to you right now.

[06:55:02] And no one says you have to believe it just in your heart. Be loud, be outspoken, be compelling. Say why you think it's wrong.

MOORE: As long as the government forces me to participate in things that I believe are immoral.

CUOMO: The government says it is equal protection for same-sex people to have marriages, same-sex marriage, then that's it.

This is America. It's always worked like that. These same arguments were used against blacks in the '50s.

MOORE: That is ridiculous, Chris.

CUOMO: What's ridiculous?

MOORE: These arguments were not used against blacks.

CUOMO: Of course it was. People believed as a matter of conscious.

MOORE: The civil rights movement triumphed because it was a moral cause that said that the United States government is not living up to its founding documents and the civil rights movement was right. What's happening right now with a government that is not recognizing genuine pluralism is a government that is moving away from Mr. Jefferson's America, not towards it.

CUOMO: You know, this word "pluralism" is getting used a lot. I think it's important that you bring it up. Pluralism means that everybody has a seat at the table, OK?

MOORE: That's right.

CUOMO: It doesn't mean that when the consensus at the table is, that some of the seats don't get what they want, they get to bow out. And that is not pluralism, OK? That is majoritarianism. And that's what you're asking for.

MOORE: What you're asking for is majoritarianism, Chris.

CUOMO: No, I'm asking for fairness under law, under the Constitution of the United States and the 14th Amendment of equal protection. If the Supreme Court finds that same-sex marriage is equally protected --

MOORE: Bullying states against protecting religious liberty in order to say that the majority view wins.

CUOMO: Your religion cannot be the rule for everyone in America.

MOORE: And the dissenters ought to be protected.

I'm a Christian, I believe to rendering unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar, but Caesar does not own our consciences.

CUOMO: That was about taxes. Jesus was talking about taxes when he said that not respecting humanity.

Yesterday was Maundy Thursday --

MOORE: You think that Jesus is not talking about what it means to be created in the image of God and the conscience that is answerable to God?

CUOMO: Here's what I think, look, you're the theologian, but here's yesterday, Maundy Thursday, the Maundy means command, love one another like I have loved you.

He did not qualify it. He did not provide an exception to that. He's going to today be commemorated for sacrificing himself on a cross for the forgiveness of all sins of all people. Certainly at this time in the religious calendar, for you not to be as a preacher embracing everyone and sending that message, is very, very unusual to even my simple Christian mind. And I don't understand how you separate the two messages. I really don't.

MOORE: The idea that what Jesus meant is that we ought to have a government that forces Mennonite pacifists to participate in military celebrations is very far from anyone's understanding of what's happening on Maundy Thursday or Good Friday.

CUOMO: Mr. Moore, I appreciate your perspective.

MOORE: Thanks so much, Chris.

CUOMO: It's good to have robust debate on this and I appreciate you being here. There will be more need for this going forward. I look forward to having you back on the show and a good Easter to you, sir.

MOORE: Happy Easter to you, Chris, thanks.

CUOMO: We're engaging in this issue because it matters to the cultural development in this country. So, you see the sides laying out in this debate. Mr. Moore's position, I tested it?

What do you think? Tweet us @NEWDAY, or go to Facebook.com/NewDay.

This is a big story in America right now. There's a lot of news, so let's get to it.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CUOMO: Framework for a history-making nuclear pact with Iran now in place.

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If Iran cheats, the world will know it.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm very concerned about what is not in this agreement.

JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: Some of our senators and congressmen need to step back, take a deep breath.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They're regrouping and, of course, they're still launching the cross-border attacks.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I take this opportunity to urge Kenyans to stay calm, as we resolve this matter.

PEREIRA: Two women in New York charged with planning an ISIS- inspired bomb plot.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She's a very friendly woman. They're very lovely people.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Rescued after 66 days stranded at sea in a disabled boat.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Crying and sad that dead, and I wasn't dead.

ANNOUNCER: This is NEW DAY with Chris Cuomo, Alisyn Camerota and Michaela Pereira.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PEREIRA: Good morning, and welcome back to your NEW DAY. Alisyn Camerota has the day off. But Chris and I are here handling the news for you today on this Good Friday.

The framework for a landmark nuclear deal with Iranians is now in place. President Obama hailing it as historic, but it is only a blueprint. Three more months of challenging negotiations lie ahead to finalize it.

CUOMO: Now comes the big sell, right? The president says this is a good deal. There's safeguards in place to catch the Iranians if they cheat. He's warning members of Congress not to mess with it.

But there are other ideas afoot in this discussion. So, we're going to cover this story from every angle.

We're going to start with CNN global affairs correspondent Elise Labott live in Switzerland.

Elise, it's a little bit of a surprise, the detail presented in this framework. A lot of us didn't see it coming.

ELISE LABOTT, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Chris, we've been talking all week we thought it was going to be a general statement, a broad political framework.