But if you ask anybody "Where do you get your idea of right and wrong?" almost 80 percent or more of the American people will say the Ten Commandments. And these things are pretty much foundational: thou shall not kill, steal, bear false witness. All these things are embedded into the laws we enjoy in our nation.

It seems to me the battle now is "What kind of world do we want? Andwhat are the boundaries?"

I believe every nation must have some unifying belief system that they adhere to. In America it was Christianity and it was the Holy Bible.

Do you believe we're a Christian nation?

The Supreme Court in 1892 said just that---America is a Christian nation. That was the Trinity Trustee's case, which I cite in my book. So this was a pronouncement from the Supreme Court itself, that America is a Christian nation. Are we a Christian nation now? It's doubtful. But did we start out as one? Without question. I cite in my book countless examples of the foundational documents of the colonial period in America and the writings of the leaders, that this was intended to be a Christian nation.

But if we're a Christian nation, how do we then deal with religious minorities?

This nation has afforded freedom to more minorities than any nation in history. We've welcomed Jews from Eastern Europe, we've welcomed Muslims from the Middle East, we've welcomes Hindus from India, we've welcomed people from all over the world. And we've given them freedom. But there's no reason why we should abdicate our foundational principles because certain groups don't believe in them. You know, no majority should surrender its deeply held beliefs to those who don't believe in anything. And it's one thing to give people freedom and something else to deny the rights of Christians to assert their faith in order to keep Hindus from feeling upset.

I can see both sides of problem. I don't know that Christians are exactly being persecuted, but I think Americans are ignorant about how to handle Christianity in the public square.

In 1998, I founded the American Center for Law and Justice, probably the premier public interest law firm in America defending the rights of believers. We've had 102,000 requests for legal help from Christians who were being abused in the workplace or being abused at school, and just recently we've taken a case of a little child in kindergarten who was passing out candy canes at Christmas with a little sign that said "the red is for the blood of Jesus" and so forth. Those were confiscated and she was sent to the principal's office and told that this was not permitted. Well, I mean if a little child can't give her friend at Christmas time a little candy cane...

Why should we have to give up Easter and Christmas and Good Friday and all the events that we have celebrated in this nation since our founding? We had 340 years of clear religious practice in our public life, and suddenly there's one case in the Supreme Court--Everson vs. the Board of Education--that talks about a "wall of separation." This isn't in the Constitution, but somehow these teachers think that it's Constitutional Law that there has to be an absolute separation of state and God. But we have paid chaplains in the Senate and House.The Supreme Court opens its sessions every day with prayer. And the House of Representatives opens with prayer. The Senate opens with prayer. This is a religious country, and why should we give it up?

The argument certainly seems to prove that the culture war is real. Whichbrings me to questions about the Presidential election. What's going to happen? We've got a big brew of moral issues out there.

The biggest thing is the assault on marriage. The whole concept of marriage is a Christian institution, but it's not just Christian--it's also Islamic or Hindu, whatever. I don't think there is a developed civilization anywhere in the world that doesn't recognize that marriage is fundamental to society. And this assult on the family by homosexuals is a major, major cultural problem.

Of course it's going to come up in the election because the President's going to be pushing for a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. And I think that's the way it should be. We're looking at the preservation of the next generation, and the only way we're going to have procreation of the next generation is with a man and a woman. That's what sexual relations are about--having the birth of offspring and then a unifying group that can care for their nurture. That's why we put the defensearound marriage in our society.

Homosexuality has got nothing to do with that. If they want to do their thing, that's one thing. You can make it illegal or you could make legal, but you don't have to necessarily give them the same privileges because they're not doing the same thing that heterosexuals are.