[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 39 (Tuesday, March 31, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H1838-H1845]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AMENDMENT
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jenkins). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to visit with
you and other Members of the House and talk this evening about not just
a piece of legislation but something that is affecting the way that we
live in this country, and what happens when a number of people who are
quite unfortunately intolerant of basic values in America got the court
systems to go along with them and to start silencing people who are
trying to exercise free speech and trying to exercise their right under
the First Amendment of freedom of religion. But unfortunately the First
Amendment has been twisted against it.
Let me share, Mr. Speaker, the story of a young man in Medford, New
Jersey. His name is Zachariah Hood. Now he is 8 years old, but things
began for him when he was in first grade. First grade, boy, that is a
joyful time. I have got five kids. They are in college and high school
now, but I recall the life and the energy and the vigor of a first
grader. And especially when they get a chance to do something on their
own in the class, to be in charge of the class, even for a few minutes.
Well, Zachariah Hood was in first grade in Medford, New Jersey, and
the class had a reading contest and whoever won the contest would get
to read
[[Page H1839]]
a story to the class. Not only that, they could pick the story they
wanted to read.
Little Zachariah was happy and he won the contest. Zachariah got the
right. He was going to read a story to his classmates and he proudly
brought his own book to school to read a brief story. Now, Mr. Speaker,
I want to share the story that he wanted to read, because, Mr. Speaker,
he was told he could not do it. When the teacher saw the book that he
brought in and the story that he wanted to read, the teacher told him,
``Oh, no, the Constitution does not let you read this at public
school.''
The book was called The Beginner's Bible. It was not the King James,
it was not the Revised Standard or any other edition. It was just a
book for kids telling some Bible stories, and this is the story that he
wanted to read and he was told was unconstitutional. Mr. Speaker, the
story is about Jacob and Esau and here I quote from it. I quote it in
its entirety:
Jacob traveled far away to his uncle's house. He worked for
his uncle taking care of sheep. While he was there, Jacob got
married. He had 12 sons. Jacob's big family lived on his
uncle's land for many years. But Jacob wanted to go back
home.
One day, Jacob packed up all of his animals and his family
and everything he had. They traveled all the way back to
where Esau lived. Now, Jacob was afraid that Esau might still
be angry at him, so he sent presents to Esau. He sent
servants who said, ``Please do not be angry anymore.'' But
Esau was not angry. He ran to Jacob. He hugged and kissed
him. He was happy to see his brother again.
Mr. Speaker, that is the story. I have finished quoting it, the story
about the reunion of Jacob and Esau. Esau, of course most of us know,
had previously sold Jacob his birthright for a bowl of pottage. And
Zachariah Hood just wanted to read a story to his classmates about
Jacob and Esau and the reunion of two brothers. He thought that was a
nice story, and I think it is too.
But the school system said, ``Oh, the First Amendment will not let
you do that.'' They told him, ``We have something called separation of
church and State.'' I will comment about that in a minute, Mr. Speaker,
about what that really means. But the school said, ``We have separation
of church and State and you cannot read in public school this story out
of your Beginner's Bible.''
Zachariah's parents were not real happy. They sued the school. Now
one would think over something like this the kid ought to win his case.
He ought to be able to read a nice simple story about two brothers
getting back together. But no, the United States District Court, basing
it on rulings that our Supreme Court has been making over the last 36
years, said ``Oh, the school is right. You cannot read that story at
public school.'' The story that I just read they held was
unconstitutional, that it violated the separation of church and State,
and it was prohibited by the very First Amendment which was enacted by
our Founding Fathers to protect us.
What kind of malarkey is this, Mr. Speaker, when the First Amendment
that is supposed to protect faith in America is being used as a weapon
against it?
Now, I have here, Mr. Speaker, a copy of the story that the
Associated Press ran on this from the newspaper in New Jersey, the Star
Ledger, which was printed January 29 of this year. I provided a copy to
the Clerk, Mr. Speaker, and I submit it for inclusion in the
Congressional Record:
Medford First-grader's Bible Story Stirs a Battle Over Religious Rights
(By Melanie Burney)
The case of a New Jersey boy barred from reading a Bible
story to his first-grade class is bound for a federal appeals
court as the battle continues over religious expression in
public schools.
The lawsuit centers on whether the Medford elementary
school teacher violated the 6-year-old boy's First Amendment
rights.
U.S. District Court Judge Joseph H. Rodriquez in Camden
ruled last month that the teacher was justified and school
officials acted appropriately.
But an attorney for the boy's family, backed by the
Virginia-based Rutherford Institute, filed an appeal Tuesday
with the 3rd U.S. Circuit of Appeals in Philadelphia
challenging the lower court ruling.
While prayer in school has been barred for decades, court
rulings have allowed some religious expression in schools.
U.S. Department of Education guidelines also permit students
to express their religious beliefs in some circumstances
through homework, artwork and other assignments.
``This case isn't an attempt to argue that Bible-reading
and prayer should be returned to school or anything of that
sort,'' said attorney F. Michael Daily of Merchantville, who
filed the appeal. . . . This case is really one of trying to
obtain some equilibrium in religious rights of students.
Some legal experts say the case could ultimately land
before the U.S. Supreme Court to define the boundaries for
religion in public schools.
``It's potentially precedent-setting,'' said Douglas
Laycock, a professor at the University of Texas Law School in
Austin. ``I think there's a need to clarify.''
The controversy began in February 1996 when Zachariah Hood
chose a story about Jacob and Esau from The Beginner's Bible
to read aloud to the class. Students in the class were
rewarded for good reading performances by being allowed to
read a story of their choice. Zachariah initially selected
Dr. Seuss' ``The Cat in the Hat,'' but decided it was too
long.
Teacher Grace Oliva instructed him to read the story to her
privately first, and decided it was inappropriate, said
attorney John Dyer, who represents the Medford Board of
Education.
``Should a child be able to espouse a belief at any time
that child wishes in a first-grade classroom?'' asked Dyer.
``The answer that most people would say is no because the
teacher must retain control over the classroom.''
``The problem is hard because the teacher tells the kids
you can choose anything you want and then it turns out there
are some things you can't choose,'' Laycock said. ``Once you
give kids a choice, discrimination against religion is a real
problem.
The boy's family filed suit in June 1996.
``I never expected it to become a lawsuit,'' the boy's
mother, Carol, said. ``We are not religious fanatics. We are
very normal. We are mainstream, religious people.''
The Rutherford Institute--the conservative organization
representing Paula Jones in her sexual harassment lawsuit
against President Clinton--is paying the family's legal
bills.
The institute is pressing this case as part of its strategy
to clarify the religious expression permitted in public
schools, said Kim Hazelwood, eastern regional coordinator.
``We're finding that there's a lot of confusion around the
country on what the boundaries are,'' Hazelwood said. ``This
case shows that there are still individual students whose
religious speech is being restricted.''
Zachariah left the school district shortly after the
incident; the family moved to nearby Lumberton, for reasons
related to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit, which names state and local school officials,
seeks unspecified compensatory damages from the school board.
It also calls for a new policy to ``protect students who
present religious views.''
Mr. Speaker, I think it is really important that people be able to
look at this and think upon it and ponder. What has the Supreme Court
done? Think about something as simple as the Ten Commandments. The
decisions the U.S. Supreme Court has made have not just been against
prayer in public schools, but they said that the Ten Commandments
cannot be posted on the walls of the public school.
Here in the House Chamber we have, and I am facing it right now, we
have the image of Moses where we can see it, and it reminds us of Moses
as the great lawgiver because he brought the Ten Commandments down from
Mount Sinai. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has a depiction of Moses
and the Ten Commandments on the wall in the chambers, the official
chambers of the U.S. Supreme Court.
We have right above your head, Mr. Speaker, ``In God We Trust,''
which we have on our coins and dollar bills and other places as a
national motto. But the U.S. Supreme Court said, ``No, you cannot have
the Ten Commandments either just posted on the wall of a public
school.'' They did that in the case in 1980 of Stone v. Graham, and
their reasoning they wrote in their opinion: Because if the Ten
Commandments were there, students might read them, might revere them,
and might obey them.
Just think of what they would be asked to obey, the values that are
fundamental to us, commandments such as, ``Thou shalt not kill.'' When
we hear, Mr. Speaker, about the terrible thing that happened in
Jonesboro, Arkansas just last week, would we not like to be free to
teach our kids in public school that it is wrong to kill? I mean they
do not get that message on television. Why, why are some intolerant
people trying to separate us from our values by stripping out prayer,
stripping out references to religion or the Ten Commandments, or
stripping out the reunion of two brothers from our public schools, as
happened to Zachariah Hood, a first grade student?
[[Page H1840]]
Mr. Speaker, trying to address this and similar decisions, sad
distortions of the First Amendment, is the very reason that over 150
Members of this body have come together as cosponsors of the religious
freedom amendment. It is a constitutional amendment, Mr. Speaker. We
revere the U.S. Constitution. I hold it as a sacred document. But the
U.S. Supreme Court has twisted it beyond recognition.
{time} 1900
The first amendment, the very first part of it says Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof. It does not say you have to strip away religious
references in our society. It does not say you cannot have prayer. It
does not say you cannot refer to the Ten Commandments. It just says we
will not have an official religion. We will not have a government-
designated religion in the USA, but we are going to have religious
freedom. But we are caught in a Catch 22, devised by the court. If you
try to exercise freedom of religion on public property, you are told,
no, we are saying that is the same as establishing a national church,
and we are going to stop you.
And you have this debate that goes on about taking away our heritage.
I want to share with you, Mr. Speaker, the religious freedom amendment.
The full text, it is pretty straightforward, we tried to track what the
first amendment really said and really intended and followed that as
our pattern, but at the same time reversed the distortions that the
U.S. Supreme Court has made of it.
The religious freedom amendment, House Joint Resolution 78, simply
states, to secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to
the dictates of conscience, neither the United States nor any State
shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray
and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage or traditions on
public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the
United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer
or other religious activity, proscribe school prayers, discriminate
against religion or deny equal access to a benefit on account of
religion.
That is it, Mr. Speaker. That is the positive statement of our rights
and the protection against government trying to create a national
church or trying to compel people to pray or tell them how to pray or
what to pray, but to secure our rights, which have been stripped away
systematically by these series of decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court,
rights that have not just affected me and my family, but Zachariah
Hood, the first grade student of New Jersey, and his family and people
all around the country.
Mr. Speaker, it is really sad to see and hear about the things going
on, like in Ohio, there is a lawsuit now in Ohio, Mr. Speaker, that is
related to their State motto. We can say in God we trust as it does in
the House Chamber as our motto. In fact, the Star-Spangled Banner
states, in one of the verses, and this be our motto, in God is our
trust. Ohio, as its State motto, makes a similar reference. But
unfortunately it is being sued to take it away.
The motto is simply, with God all things are possible. That is it.
Pretty straightforward. Pretty simple. But the ACLU does not like that,
the same people who are bringing the lawsuits against school prayer,
against the Ten Commandments, against all sorts of simple,
nonthreatening references, to strip away, to censor them; they are
suing Ohio. They are suing West Virginia to stop prayers at football
games. They are suing to take things off of city seals and logos. They
will get around to our currency in God we trust at one time or another,
I am sure, but, Mr. Speaker, the standard ought to be pretty
straightforward and simple.
You do not compel anybody to participate, just like when we have the
pledge of allegiance at school, nobody is compelled to join in. The
U.S. Supreme Court has given them that right, and I agree with that
decision, but let us apply the same standard to school prayer to say
nobody can be compelled to participate, but that does not give you the
right to censor those that do want to participate. That is fair. It
protects minority and majority.
That is what the first amendment is supposed to do, to protect all of
us. I think it is fascinating that some people think the first
amendment is only meant to protect them, but no one else, and it is to
protect their right to be intolerant and not my might to express my
faith or the rights of children who want to start the day with a simple
prayer, not because they are compelled by the school, the school should
not compel them to do that. But if the students say we want to start
the day with a prayer, why not? If someone does not want to join in,
they do not have to join in, but why tread on the rights of those who
want to start the day at school the same way we start the day here in
the Congress of the United States, with a prayer; the same way that the
Oklahoma legislature and probably every legislature in this country
opens every day, with a prayer; the way that city councils begin their
meetings, with a prayer; the way that Rotary Clubs will start their
meetings, with a prayer, or Kiwanis clubs or Chambers of Commerce or
Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts or whoever it might be? It is common. It is
ordinary. It is good. It is positive. Yet we have intolerant people
saying, oh, it is horrible. It offends me to hear you pray.
Mr. Speaker, I think the problem is with the person that chooses to
take offense, not with the person that chooses to express hope.
Unfortunately, our courts have sided with those who want to suppress
simple expression of faith. The religious freedom amendment will be on
the floor of this House in the next few weeks. It has been approved by
the Subcommittee on the Constitution. It has been approved by the House
Committee on the Judiciary.
This is the first time that a school prayer amendment has been
approved by a committee of Congress, even though the decision against
voluntary prayer in public schools was rendered by the U.S. Supreme
Court back in 1962, 36 years ago. We have not had a vote in this House
on a proposal like that for 28 years. Even then it took some special
maneuvering to get it around the committee process.
I am appreciative of the Judiciary chairman, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde), who has helped to shepherd it through and get it
to where now we are about to have an historic vote.
Mr. Speaker, it is long overdue that we address the problem of court
discrimination against religion. Mr. Speaker, I think that as we do
this, we need to focus on the fact that we are doing this because the
American people have never accepted what the Supreme Court did. I have
a collection of 36 years of public opinion polls and consistently
three-fourths or more of the American people say, yes, we support a
constitutional amendment to make it possible to have prayers in public
schools again. If you ask them to, if you go to another question, you
say, well, what about songs around, dare I say it, around
Christmastime, because some schools do not even want to call them
Christmas pageants they have anymore. They are winter programs. And you
will find places where you can go that they will say, you can sing
Frosty the Snowman, you can sing Walking in a Winter Wonderland, you
can sing Here Comes Santa Claus, but you better leave out Silent Night
and O Come All Ye Faithful.
The religious freedom amendment says that is an expression of
religious heritage or tradition. That ought to be permitted, whether it
is a Christian song or it is a Jewish song or that of another faith,
let people understand that there is faith as a normal part of life. We
may have some differences among us, some people may pray different
ways. Let them hear each other pray different ways. Let them be aware
that beyond the differences and even more important than the
differences is a unity, a unity and a belief in God. The Declaration of
Independence states that belief.
The founding document of the United States of America says, we hold
these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that
among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that to
secure these rights governments are instituted among men.
Our Founding Fathers wrote the very reason for government is not to
create rights or to establish rights, but to protect, to secure the
rights which come
[[Page H1841]]
to us from our Creator, from God. Is that taught? It is in the
Declaration of Independence. Yet some people are telling us that that
is not a proper teaching these days.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. As I am sitting here
listening to your great explanation of the need for this amendment, it
occurs to me that there is not a single thing in this amendment that
was not thought to be commonplace, that was not thought to be absolute,
that was not thought to be definite for the 175 years after the Bill of
Rights became part of the Constitution.
Certainly, when you look back at the Founding Fathers, the men, and
they happened to be men at that time, we would have women if we had a
constitutional convention today there, but those people who were in
Philadelphia, as you look at their debates, as you look at their
discussions, it is so clear that they understood, Mr. Istook, the
difference in separation of church and State and removing God from
country. In fact, in comment after comment that Washington and Franklin
and others make, it is so clearly an interwoven part of what they
thought was absolutely essential that we not eliminate God from
country, that in the furthest reaches of their imagination, the
interpretation of the documents they worked on that has happened in the
last 5 years by the courts would not have been thought to be even
remotely possible.
When you look at Washington's comments that religion and morality are
the key cornerstones for a democracy, when you look at John Adams'
comments when he, I think he was the minister, the Ambassador to Great
Britain, he saw the Constitution for the first time, and as he wrote
back his observations about the Constitution, he said, surely this is a
document for a godly people because it will serve no other. It was not
the kind of document that could work in a society that did not have a
basis and belief, and faith and belief in God. But they did not want to
really determine what faith or what God that was.
From the heritage that they were coming out of, where many of the
colonies had had a State-supported church, it was clear what they
wanted the first amendment to do. It was clear what that immediate
addition to the Constitution was all about. Not to eliminate God from
country, not to eliminate religion from society, but in fact to say, we
are not going to have a State-sponsored church. We are not going to use
tax money to support one religion over another. We are going to be sure
that all religions can freely be expressed, can freely be established
in this country.
And then if you look at right away what happens, as the government is
founded, you see that religion is part of that, that God is part of
that. Washington, as he established the tradition when he wanted to put
his hand on the Bible to be sworn in as the President of the United
States, he wanted the document, the book that he based his faith on to
be the basis for the beginning of that administration. And that has
become obviously part of our tradition, that we swear not only before
God as people become President of our country, but we swear with a
binding commitment to what they have based their faith on as we use the
Bible.
As you have pointed out already, not only the first Congress, but
every day of every Congress since then, as far as I know, and certainly
every day of the Congress since I have been here, we start with
ceremonies that would be a violation of high school graduation. We
start every day with ceremonies that then we turn, by ignoring this
problem, we turn to people all over America and say, we are certainly
not going to start a day of the Congress without time to pause, time to
meditate, time to ask the Chaplain or a guest Chaplain to come in and
pray, but we are not really going to stand up and make it clear that
you should be able to do that, too.
I think that the Capitol, most Americans would sense that we were in
a very public building, that we were definitely in a tax-supported and,
most people would probably say, tax-supported in excess institution, as
we are here in the Congress and in the Capitol. And we start each day
with that prayer.
As I think you also pointed out, the Speaker looks directly in front
of him and sees Moses, the lawgiver. The Supreme Court sets under the
carving of the lawgiver, of Moses, the giver of the Ten Commandments
and decides we cannot put those same commandments on a schoolhouse wall
if the school board wants to. How contradictory could you be? How can
the court do that without asking that somebody come in and sandblast
the lawgiver, that very reference to the Ten Commandments, sandblast
that off their wall.
{time} 1915
If they are going to say that some school can't hang that on the wall
for fear that the students who walk by it every day might begin to
emulate those commandments, might begin to think, well, you know, maybe
stealing and killing and lying is wrong.
Our society, our laws are based on those very premises. And, really,
all the amendment that I was pleased to cosponsor with my colleague,
along with many others in this Congress, all this does is get us back
to where Americans from 1787 until the 1960s thought without question
we could and should in our Nation be. This is just going back and
clarifying something that nobody had a problem with for 175 years.
But somehow, in our sophistication, somehow in our higher view of
things, we figured out what the people that drafted these documents
apparently did not understand. Because if they understood them, they
were immediately and constantly and consistently in violation of them.
And then in the 1960s and the 1970s and 1980s and 1990s, we further and
further move away from those principles that are so basic and were so
easily understood for so long in America.
Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, there is something that the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Blunt) was making comment about; and I certainly
appreciated his going from the beginning of this country, which was
founded on Judeo-Christian principles, to the time that we are here
tonight and talking about the good things that those of us who believe
strongly in the right to practice our religion freely, which this
Constitution guarantees us.
But one thing that my colleague was saying that really rang up there
with me is that it is so tragic in this Nation today where I believe
the Justice Department reports that 100,000 young people bring guns to
school every day. I want to repeat that. 100,000 students bring guns to
school every day. Yet those same students, and please correct me if I
am incorrect, those same students cannot bring a Bible to the school
but yet they can carry guns.
Mr. ISTOOK. Reclaiming my time, I would say to my colleague that,
fortunately, few schools try to actually ban the Bible, although there
have been cases of it. At this point, the courts have not gone so far
to say the student cannot bring a Bible to school.
But the test, of course, is not how many rights do we have left. The
test is how many rights have already been taken away from us. Because
if that student, with or without a Bible, says we want to have a prayer
at graduation or a football game or school assembly or to start the day
in class, they are told, oh, no, someone might not want to hear it.
Mr. JONES. If the gentleman would further yield for just a moment,
and I want him to correct me if I am wrong. Is it not true that in
Texas, and I forgot the town, somewhere around Galveston I believe, a
couple, 3 years ago, that a Federal judge actually told the principal
of a school that if during the graduation that the person giving the
prayer would use the name Jesus that if that was going to be done that
the judge would order that U.S. marshals be stationed at the school and
the person that used the word Jesus in a prayer would be removed? Am I
correct or incorrect in that?
Mr. ISTOOK. I wish I could tell my colleague that he is incorrect;
but, unfortunately, he is correct. The high school, I believe, was Ball
High School in Galveston, Texas.
I read the transcript of the judge's remarks because of an appellate
decision, which is still subject to the Supreme Court's changing. But
at that
[[Page H1842]]
time, because of an appellate decision, he felt that he had to honor
their request to let them have a prayer at graduation, but he started
putting limitations on it saying, if anyone mentions Jesus, I will have
the U.S. marshal there to arrest them.
So he was telling them, you know, I am going to tell you how to pray.
And, unfortunately, most of the court decisions, including the U.S.
Supreme Court decision in 1992, said we should not have prayers at
graduation. That was the Lever v. Weisman case, which came out of Rhode
Island.
So the gentleman is correct that they are saying we should not have
prayers at graduation. They are suing West Virginia now over prayers at
football games. There are other lawsuits going on. There are still some
schools which, frankly, have students practicing civil disobedience,
that they are having prayers during school instructional hours,
basically because the ACLU has not gotten around to suing them yet.
I will make some more comments on this, but I would like to hear more
from the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
Mr. JONES. Just one more question while my colleagues are standing
here to talk about this issue.
Is it not true that a constitutional amendment, as my colleague said
in his earlier remarks, certainly the Constitution is like the Bible.
It is sacred. It guarantees our right to practice our freedom, which,
again, religion to be practiced freely. If the Constitution is to be
amended, if it passes the House, and I want my colleague to touch on
this, and the Senate, then it goes back to the States. Would the
gentleman briefly explain that process for those that might be watching
around this country so they know that they will actually have the final
say through their legislative process?
Mr. ISTOOK. Certainly.
The Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, understood there could be some
problems that would require somebody who misinterpreted the
Constitution, as the Supreme Court has done. So they created within the
Constitution a mechanism which is a constitutional amendment, which has
been used a couple dozen times in this country; and it is a very
straightforward mechanism. There is an alternate one with conventions.
But basically it says, two-thirds of the House and two-thirds of the
Senate approve a constitutional amendment. Then it goes to the States
for ratification. Three-fourths of the States must ratify that
amendment. Now, they do not need a two-thirds vote in each of those
States. They only need a simple majority. But it is done through the
legislatures.
We notice there is no official role of the President or of the
governors of the State. It is done by the House and the Senate of the
Congress, and then it goes to the State legislature for the Houses and
Senates and Assemblies, as they are called, in the various States.
That is the process. That is the process we are following with the
religious freedom amendment. I would like to point out that that is the
process that has been followed several times when the U.S. Supreme
Court had a distortion that Congress thought was necessary to correct.
The 11th amendment to the Constitution was to overturn a U.S. Supreme
Court decision about whether States could be sued in Federal courts by
citizens of other States. And the 14th amendment, the first portion of
it, was intended to overturn the Dred Scott decision, which had held
that African Americans, whether slave or free, could not become
citizens of the United States. So the 14th amendment was a
constitutional correction of a U.S. Supreme Court decision. The income
tax amendment involved changing a U.S. Supreme Court amendment. That
was the 16th amendment.
So this is the process that has been followed in other cases. Also,
the 26th amendment, to make 18 the voting age. They are all responses
to decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. So, too, the religious freedom
amendment is in response to a number of decisions of the U.S. Supreme
Court.
We may want to detail some of those in a minute and how this affects
some of those decisions. But it is responding to the anti-prayer, anti-
Ten Commandments, anti-nativity scenes, and anti-graduation prayer and
similar decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court. We are following the
process set up by the Founding Fathers.
Mr. JONES. I want to thank the gentleman very much for his leadership
and to tell him that many people in the Third District of North
Carolina are very pleased that he, along with many of his colleagues,
some here tonight, have fought on this issue. We hope and we pray that
we do have a debate this year on this floor dealing with trying to
clarify our constitutional rights to practice our religion.
Mr. ISTOOK. I very much appreciate the comments of the gentleman from
North Carolina.
Before recognizing another colleague, I would like to elaborate a bit
on something the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) brought up, which
was the Founding Fathers' intent.
He talked about George Washington. A lot of people do not know that
the day after the first amendment was approved by the Congress,
Washington asked Congress to declare a national day of prayer and
fasting. Obviously, he did not think that was inconsistent with what
Congress had just done, because they turned around and they approved a
day of prayer and fasting.
In fact, when we talk about the intent of the Founding Fathers, I
know different people say, well, Thomas Jefferson said this and that.
Of course, he did not draft the first amendment. He was not there. But
if we want to go to an authoritative source for what the first
amendment really intended to do and to look for some guidance on this
catch phrase that is used often without thinking, this catch phrase
that says, ``separation of church and State,'' what does it mean, why
do we not choose for our authority the Chief Justice of the United
States Supreme Court, William Rehnquist?
I am not talking about the Chief Justice 200 years ago. I am talking
about the one today that, as part of his work, has gone through and
studied it. And in one of the official decisions, and he was a
dissenter in this decision, but he talked about this; and that was the
5-4 decision that came down in 1985 in the case of Wallace v. Jaffrey,
where the U.S. Supreme Court said that for a State to permit a moment
of silence, for a State to permit a moment of silence in public schools
was unconstitutional because it could be used by students to say a
silent prayer.
That is how outrageous the decisions have gotten. It was a 5-4
decision of the Supreme Court. And Justice Rehnquist, in commenting
about what the other Justices were doing, wrote about this term
``separation of church and State.''
I want to tell my colleagues what Chief Justice Rehnquist said. He
said, the term ``separation of church and State'' has caused a
``mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the
drafters of the Bill of Rights. The wall of separation between church
and State is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has
proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and
explicitly abandoned.''
Those are the words of the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court,
who wrote them just right across the street from this building as part
of an official opinion. Why? Because he studied it. And, as he said,
``The evil to be aimed at, so far as its drafters were concerned,
appears to have been the establishment of a national church and perhaps
the preference of one religious sect over another. But it was
definitely not concerned about whether the government might aid all
religions evenhandedly.''
So I take no less authority than the Chief Justice of the U.S.
Supreme Court to say that that term has been used to twist and distort
the real meaning and the real intention of the first amendment. The
religious freedom amendment follows what Justice Rehnquist said was the
actual intention and should still be the actual intention of the first
amendment had it not been corrected.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to my friend for yielding. I
had a few remarks in response to the gentleman's points, but I wish to
begin by commending him for the thoughtful research that he has put
into this resolution and into this draft.
[[Page H1843]]
First, though, let me just observe, as the gentleman from Oklahoma
observes quite accurately and also the gentleman from Missouri
observes, the Supreme Court sits in a building with the symbols of
Moses and the Ten Commandments.
I had the very great honor to serve as a law clerk to Mr. Justice
White on the United States Supreme Court. And every day when we opened
argument, the Supreme Court began in the following manner: ``Oyez,
oyez, oyez. All persons having business before the honorable, the
Supreme Court of the United States are admonished to draw near and give
their attention, for the Court is now sitting. God save the United
States and this honorable court.''
Now, if those exact same words were said by a high school
valedictorian in her commencement address, I take it that at least some
Federal judge would say, ``Impermissible because you have asked God's
blessing on government's property.''
{time} 1930
It must be remarkably ironic for the Supreme Court to deal with this
issue, knowing that the very day they began the argument they invoked
God's blessing on their proceedings.
The second point I wanted to share, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Istook) has been quite scholarly in his research of the Constitution
and the fact that we have amended it many times in response to Supreme
Court opinions, that one must be thoughtful one does not do this
lightly. But the process is such that it cannot be done lightly,
requiring, as it does, the two-thirds approval of the Senate, excuse
me, of the other body, of the House of Representatives, and then three-
quarters approval of the various States.
Then, in addition to the amendments that the gentleman raised which
were in response to the Supreme Court opinions, I do not know if you
mentioned, but the 16th belongs there as well, when the Supreme Court
had said the Congress could not constitutionally impose a tax on
incomes. There are some of us who might have wished that that decision
of the Supreme Court stood forever, but it was reversed by an amendment
to the Constitution to permit the income tax as well as all of the
other examples that the gentleman raised.
Thirdly, there is a most remarkable difficulty in consistency with
the Supreme Court's teaching on free speech. Tinker v. Des Moines is a
case that speaks to conduct in schools. I am sure that the gentleman
remembers, I certainly do, during the Vietnam war a number of students
in the Des Moines school district were interested in expressing their
opposition to the Vietnam war by wearing black arm bands. The Supreme
Court not only held that the wearing a black arm band was a form of
speech, but that it could not be prohibited by the local school board,
that the individual student had the right to express himself in this
case by wearing a black arm band.
I can only speculate, but suppose the student wanted to wear a cross
or wanted to wear a yarmulke or wanted to wear another symbol of his or
her particular faith, if engaged in this conduct on government
property, would the Court say that this is impermissible, when the
Court said that the school district could not prevent the individual
from expressing his point of view about the Vietnam war?
If that is so, then we have created not a protection against the
establishment of religion, but we have created a discrimination against
religion. Then the expression of religion is in a lower status than the
expression of a political point of view.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would engage in a dialogue
on this, because you are exactly right, you are right on target, I
believe, with your analysis, because religion has been relegated to a
category of speech which must be controlled and limited, because
supposedly it carries some danger or some threat.
You are familiar, as an attorney, with a number of cases where the
U.S. Supreme Court has said, even though the First Amendment states an
absolute right of free speech, that does not give you the right to
incite a crowd to rebel against the government or to engage in libelous
and slanderous comment or to yell ``fire'' in a crowded theater and so
forth.
So, too, we have some limits on free speech, but we also have freedom
of religion. They have placed expression of religion, prayer and
similar things in a category that does not have the same protection as
you mentioned of wearing a black arm band.
There may be some other students in class who say, ``I am offended by
your wearing of a black arm band,'' but that does not give them the
right to censor the other student. But if the student says, ``I am
offended because they offer the prayer,'' then the Supreme Court says,
oh, well, in that case, we are going to say you cannot do it.
The U.S. Supreme Court has passed decisions protecting the Nazi
swastika. They have passed decisions protecting the burning of a cross.
The case I am thinking of, the swastika, it was where the American
Nazis were wanting to march through Skokie, Illinois, a Jewish
community with a number of Holocaust survivors. The U.S. Supreme Court
said no, free speech, no matter how insulting or horrible you may see
it to be, they still have their right of free speech. But when it comes
to religious expression, they have said, oh, it is okay, you can
suppress it.
In your State of California, the Internal Revenue Service, one of its
big district offices is Laguna Niguel. I have got a copy of the memo
that was circulated to the employees of the IRS saying you cannot have
in your desk or your personal work space a Bible, a picture of Christ,
a cross, a Star of David, or other religious symbols.
I wrote the IRS. I said what is this about, telling people that in
their own desk that they cannot have these? This is part of their
personal effects out there. The IRS wrote back and they said items
which are considered intrusive, such as, and I am quoting by the way,
``items which are considered intrusive, such as religious emblems or
sexually suggestive cartoons or calendars'' had to be controlled and
restricted. They have placed religious speech in the same category as
pornography, requiring not only restriction but prior restraint by the
government. That is the danger. I wanted to share that with you.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding
additional time to me to comment.
Mr. ISTOOK. Certainly.
Mr. CAMPBELL. The examples you give are most disturbing. I would add
to them a case with which the gentleman is familiar. It never went to
the Supreme Court, but a teacher assigns his class a moment, several
minutes to read an assignment, during which he reaches into his valise,
produces a Bible, reads from the Bible; when the time is up, closes the
Bible and puts it back into his valise. Had he been reading the Wall
Street Journal, it would not have been an issue. Had he been reading
Das Kapital, it would not be an issue. But because he was reading a
Bible, it became an issue of disciplining that teacher for having done
so on school property.
I would like to, if the gentleman would allow me, to draw particular
attention to the phraseology of the amendment that he has drafted. A
number of people of goodwill are concerned that the gentleman is
amending the First Amendment, and they hold the First Amendment in high
esteem and veneration; one might almost say almost as a religious
matter.
The care with which this amendment is drafted, however, surely should
reassure them that we are not undermining in the slightest the
protections against the government establishing religion. All the
gentleman's amendment does is to say that conduct which would otherwise
not violate the First Amendment, establishment of religion, shall not
be deemed to violate the First Amendment because it happens to occur on
government property.
So if the school says, this is the prayer we will say violates the
First Amendment, and the Istook amendment would not change that, if the
school says there shall be only Christian prayer, it violates the First
Amendment. But if a student in the lunch hour says we would like to
have a group of Christian students who wish to read the Bible at this
corner of the lunchroom, it would not be struck down simply because it
happened on government property. That is a very essential but a very
narrow change.
I suspect, without knowing, that the gentleman probably took some
grief from his friends, from our friends, on
[[Page H1844]]
this debate for not going far enough. Let me commend him for being very
careful and guiding his direction in this amendment just to the
situation where the location of speech that would otherwise not violate
the First Amendment becomes the issue.
So it must be action of the individual, not the government, as it was
in the case of that student giving her valedictorian speech. It must be
action that would not establish religion or choose between religions.
But the mere fact that it occurs on government property would not make
it impermissible any more than it is against government, it should be
against the First Amendment for me tonight to invoke the Lord's name on
behalf of the cause that we both defend.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield a moment, and
let us look at this specific example of prayer in public schools. It
should not be the role of a principal or a teacher to say we are going
to have prayer at school or prayer to start the school day or football
game or whatever. But if the students are saying, and it could be
individually, it could be collectively, are saying we want to have
that, then the government is in the position of accommodating that.
So we have here the language that says the people have a right to
pray. The government does not prescribe it. It does not prescribe it.
It does not say you must have the school prayer. It does not say what
the content has got to be. So the government does not prescribe it. But
if the people exercising their right say we want to be able to have a
prayer, we are required by law to be here at school all day, why should
we be isolated from what is normal just because we are required by law
to be at school.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart wrote about that in some of
these cases. He stated in a society that so structures a child's life
where attendance at public school is compulsory, if the child is
required to be isolated from normal everyday religious influences, then
religion has been placed in an artificial and State-created
disadvantage. I think Justice Stewart had it right.
I would yield further to Mr. Campbell.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I only have one final remark, although I
am more than happy to continue if the gentleman would like. You have
been very gracious in yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I was struck by the eloquence of the gentleman from
Oklahoma by adding the references to God in the Declaration of
Independence. The gentleman from Oklahoma spoke to the opening phrases
of the Declaration of Independence. I wanted to conclude with the
ending phrase of the Declaration of Independence.
As the heroes drew together in Philadelphia to create our country and
knew they were risking their lives, they concluded by saying,
And for the support of this declaration, with a firm
Reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually
pledge to each other our lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred
Honor.
Just as they began the declaration with an invocation to God, they
concluded it with an expression of firm reliance on the protection of
Divine Providence. Surely it would confound every one of them to think
that the Lord's name could not be expressed by individual citizens on
government property.
I do believe that if the Supreme Court interpreted the Independence
Hall to be government property in Philadelphia in 1776, they would have
been hard-pressed to strike down this invocation to the Deity. I
applaud the gentleman's effort.
Mr. ISTOOK. I thank the gentleman from California. Mr. Speaker, I
would note, too, that it is not only the Founding Fathers of the
country as a whole that were so desirous of making sure that we
expressed our reliance upon God for our rights and for our values that
we teach to our children and want to pass on from one generation to
another, it was not just those who founded the United States, but also
those who have served as Founding Fathers of our different States have
seen fit to incorporate language into our State constitutions that
acknowledges our reliance upon Divine Providence.
For example, the different State constitutions, each and every one of
them, all 50 States include an express reference to God within their
State constitutions. I mention that to some who say, why should we
mention God in the U.S. Constitution? Why have all 50 States seen fit
to mention Him in theirs?
For example, the State constitution in Alaska states that its
citizens are, ``grateful to God and to those who founded our Nation in
order to secure and transmit to succeeding generations our heritage of
political, civil, and religious liberty.''
In Colorado, their constitution includes the phrase, ``with profound
reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the universe.'' The constitutions of
Idaho, California, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin all use this
exact phrase, ``grateful to Almighty God for our freedom.''
It goes on. I have got a list of all 50 State constitutions and the
different references to them. It is about time that we understand that
we have had Founding Fathers, and some of them may have been female as
well as male, but in all 50 States that have seen this necessity to
reflect a pillar principle upon which this Nation was founded.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I would just
like to point out this is not just something that State constitutions
recognize. An overwhelming majority of Americans in every single poll
express belief in God, 96 percent, 97 percent, 98 percent.
Then we go about our public business as if the 2 percent or the 3
percent that have questions about the existence of God should determine
the way the rest of us approach these topics. Those constitutions
reflect that every time Americans are polled. That is clear.
Americans believe that there is a Creator. Certainly, if we approach
our public business as if there is a Creator, we are going to approach
public business differently than if we believe that all this is some
bizarre accident, that these are not creatures of God indeed, but these
are some accidental collision of protoplasm that have resulted in
somebody who has become a person on the street.
{time} 1945
Americans believe in God. This amendment allows that to be expressed
in whatever way they want to express it, and I would just also like to
point out that the work that you have done on this has been so well
received that the groups, among many other groups that support, those
groups would include the American Conference of Jews and Blacks, the
Catholic Alliance, the Concerned Women of America, the International
Pentecostal Church of Christ, the Jewish Union, the Salvation Army, the
Southern Baptist Convention, the Traditional Values Coalition, the U.S.
Family Network, a broad base of groups that find many topics frankly
that they do not agree on, agree that this amendment gets us back to
what the Constitution was intended to say and allows, as our friend
from California has so well pointed out, allows what is otherwise
protecting the Constitution to also be part of public functions and
public ceremonies, and I am grateful to you for your leadership on this
and grateful to you for yielding me some time to join you tonight and
in every other effort you make in this regard.
Mr. ISTOOK. I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Missouri
and his very excellent insights that he has expressed. I want also to
express, Mr. Speaker, and I will not go through the whole laundry list
of other organizations that are supporting the religious freedom
amendment, but I would like to observe that one of them is, for
example, the National Association of Evangelicals which represents some
48 different denominations.
This is long overdue, Mr. Speaker, that we recognize that all the
problems in America are not solved by doing things with taxes or
highways or national defense, that this Nation was founded by people
who believed in God and believed that our rights came from God as they
stated in the Declaration of Independence, and if we try to sever our
freedom and our rights from He who gave our rights to us, and if we say
that we have to isolate children while they are required to be at
school, they have to be isolated from these references just because
there may be some among them or among their parents
[[Page H1845]]
who are so intolerant that they want to silence other people.
Mr. Speaker, if my freedom of speech exists only when everybody
around agrees with me, I do not have free speech. If my freedom of
religion exists only when I am around people who believe the same
things that I do, then I do not have freedom of religion. If I can not
express my religious beliefs even when people may disagree with them or
express my political beliefs or social beliefs or just flat my opinion,
then I do not have freedom any more. The essence of freedom is that we
tolerate our differences rather than trying to suppress them, and for
the courts to take the First Amendment and twist and distort it, and
say this is now a tool for stopping people from expressing their
religious belief because they happen to be on public property?
My kids are required to be on public property to be at school. Does
that mean they are required to leave behind the teachings that we try
to give them at home and at church?
I hear some people say, oh, my goodness, you ought to be happy, you
can pray at home and you can pray at school. Well fine. But I happen to
believe in a faith that says pray without ceasing, and it does not say
that you have to stop praying when you enter onto government property
or when somebody else is around that says, ``Well, I do not like what
you are doing.'' I say to them, ``I appreciate that. I am sure that
there are some things that you may do which I may not like either, but
I respect and would fight for your right to say and do things with
which I may disagree, and I would hope that you would have the same
understanding, the same belief in our Constitution and our principles,
and that you would say whether I agree with your prayer or your
religious thoughts or not, I believe you have a right to express
them.''
The problem is not with people who want to express the hope and faith
of prayers. The problem is with people who are intolerant and do not
want to hear it.
Mr. Speaker, the religious freedom amendment protects these freedoms
and these rights, whether it be first grader Zachariah Hood who was
told he could not read the story of the brothers Jacob and Esau
reuniting, or whether it be my children or anyone else's or those of us
in this Congress or any place on public property.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that people will support the religious freedom
amendment and that more Members will proclaim its necessity.
____________________